ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,569 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
Anyone supporting the dissolution of the United States is a traitor and should be treated as such.
We may have our disagreements but the moment you start seeing your fellow Americans as the enemy is the moment you’ve betrayed the values this country was founded upon.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, B-Man said:
The White House notified the Kremlin of President Joe Biden’s intention to visit Kyiv hours before he departed for Ukraine, as the details began to emerge of how the US president pulled off his high-profile diplomatic coup…
“We did notify the Russians that President Biden will be traveling to Kyiv,” Sullivan said. “We did so some hours before his departure for deconfliction purposes, and because of the sensitive nature of those communications I won’t get into how they responded or what the precise nature of our message was, but I can confirm that we provided that notice.”
.
Glad they did that. Correct call.-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, BillStime said:
The pro-Putin guy who requested a pardon for his role in the January 6 insurrection is whining again.
ETTD
My favorite Paul Gosar fact is that he’s such a stupid lunatic that his siblings got together and cut an ad to support his opponent in the election.-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, T master said:
Nothing at all like CNN though we have all the trust in the world in the likes of Don Lemon, Rachel Meadow & Wolf all true reporters of nothing but the truth so help their pay check ...
Absolutely love that absolutely nobody on the MAGA side here will engage in the actual topic of the thread. Just straight whataboutism to deflect from the fact that they love being lied to because it makes them feel good.-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Gene Frenkle said:
What does Hunter Biden's laptop have to do with the intentional likes about election fraud being perpetuated by Fox News?
Nothing, but whataboutism is just about all they’ve got. -
3 hours ago, JDHillFan said:
Not surprised that you would type that much only to again miss my point entirely. I have not implied all the news outlets were out to get Trump. I stated outright that most media entities loathed him and that may have played into the shutting down of a story that might be harmful to their preferred candidate. This is common sense. ( I know you see yourself as an authority in the field).
I also have no theory. You are painting that picture yourself.
I have an issue with censorship. You are fine with it. Twitter, while now in downfall, was the leading platform by which information was shared at the time. They shut down cold the account of the 6th largest newspaper in the country. Despite what you want to call it, that’s censorship. Pure common sense (I know you see yourself as an authority in the field).
Twitter determined that the NY Post violated its TOS and took action. It later updated its policy and reinstated the account.
Im not going to defend Twitter’s dumb policies but I fail to see how suspending an account that it found had violated those policies is some big deal.
Twitter is dumb and did a dumb thing that it ended up undoing.
-
36 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
Unsurprisingly not remotely correct. My issue is with censorship. You deny it was in play and I see Twitter suspending the account of the 6th largest newspaper in America over reporting that passed muster. I see NPR declaring the matter of no interest and not worthy of considering. I see the hard hitting investigative journalists at 60 minutes declare nothing to see here. Rather than debate and report more, you and your side approve of stifling discussion. I find that disgusting. You find it to be “capitalism”.
What you’re seeing (aside from the twitter part which I’ll get to later), is actually what is called journalistic standards.
Let’s look at the Steele Dossier, a document full of rumors and raw intelligence, none of which have been proven and much of which has been debunked.
BuzzFeed wasn’t the only outlet to get it. At the time they made it public, other outlets had had it for weeks or longer. But they didn’t publish it. I don’t think they even ran stories from it.
That would be weird if, as you imply, all of the news outlets were out to get Trump. What a gift the dossier would be! Pee tapes! Secret meetings in Prague. If your theory is correct, they would have published it immediately.
But they didn’t. Because they were trying to determine what in the document was actually true before making it public.
There was no secret cabal of media outlets sitting on a story because it would make Trump look bad. It was each outlet applying their standards to an unverified story. Turns out that one outlet, BuzzFeed, had much looser standards than the others and released the story unvetted because it was “newsworthy”. They’ve been rightly criticized for this.
Similar here, while other outlets (including Fox News) did not run with the laptop story because it didn’t meet their standards, the Post felt it was newsworthy and ran it before vetting the details.
Now, you can really fall into two camps here:
1. BuzzFeed and the NY Post were correct to run the unverified Steele Dossier and Hunter laptop stories because they were newsworthy.
2. BuzzFeed and the NY Post were wrong to run the stories without vetting the details for accuracyI am squarely in the second camp but you seem to be in the first. That’s fine, difference of opinion.
As to Twitter, after all of the misinfo ops that it allowed on its site in the lead up to 2016, it put into place a truly stupid policy of blocking the link to anything that might be misinfo until Twitter can verify it.
This then lead to the Streisand Effect of giving the NY Post story more views than it had been getting because Twitter had unwittingly created a controversy that predictably did the opposite of what it intended.
Not everything has to be a grand conspiracy. Sometimes it’s just people doing what they think is best, even if it turns out to be dumb.
-
2 hours ago, JDHillFan said:
Irresponsible crack-addled loser leaves laptop behind with compromising information. That’s some disinfo op. Was it the Russians pulling the strings on that one? Meanwhile the hard hitting investigative journalists at 60 Minutes were running with this as part of their “vetting” of the story:
It’s a very important issue to find out whether a man’s corrupt who’s running for president, who’s accepted money from China, and Ukraine, and from Russia,” Trump responds. “Take a look at what’s going on, Leslie, and you say that shouldn’t be discussed?…I think it’s one of the biggest scandals I’ve ever seen, and you don’t cover it.”
“Well because it can’t be verified,” Stahl says. “I’m telling you—”
“Of course it can be verified,” Trump interjects. “Excuse me, Leslie, they found a laptop—”
“It can’t be verified,” Stahl repeats.
At least NPR was on the job with their “vetting”:
There was no censorship (maybe Twitter suspending the account of the NY Post would qualify as censorship but lets not quibble over the 6th largest newspaper in America) and I’m sure all the non-censorship had absolutely nothing to do with loathing of Donald Trump. All we have to do to make it so is redefine the word censorship and make it mean capitalism. Right?
The fact that the laptop was Hunter’s was verified. What hasn’t been verified is that everything on the laptop was his. In fact, analysis found that people other than Biden had accessed and created files on the laptop after it was in the possession of the repair guy.
If you’re a journalist and care about the truth, then at the time of the Post story, you could honestly say that there was a laptop that appeared to be Hunter Biden’s but beyond that most of the facts were in dispute or not verified.
You’re basically complaining that every outlet didn’t do what BuzzFeed did with the Steele Dossier: publicize a story before they could vet it.
-
52 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
censorship
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
You should consider freshening up on your understanding of censorship.
The “questionable” story was actually quite true and very newsworthy. It was suppressed due to it being politically unacceptable to the vast majority of media (traditional and social) and those they make no secret of supporting. If you view that as capitalism rather than censorship you will certainly be breaking new ground in the use of the language.
We’re talking about a laptop held by some random guy who gave it to Rudy Giuliani, a known fabulist, who wouldn’t provide it to the outlets that wanted to vet its veracity.
It absolutely stinks to high heaven as a disinfo op and it’s not surprising that outlets would be hesitant to run with the story until they could get their hands on the actual data.
This whole idea that all of the media outlets, all of social media, and all of the government were in cahoots to bury the Hunter laptop story is ridiculous. Shady ass liars were promoting yet another shady ass story that looked everything like all of the other lies they were pushing. There’s plenty of reasons that even the most fair and balanced news outlets would hesitate to run with it until they fully vetted it.
Turns out, this was the one time the crazies actually may have had something but when you’re the boy who cries wolf, don’t be surprised when people are reluctant to believe you when there’s actually a wolf.
-
8 minutes ago, aristocrat said:
Did you know that tucker Carlson had hunter Biden help get his son into some Ivy League school? That’s the other thing they’re all in bed with each other
Yeah, saw that. The goal isn’t to inform, it’s to keep eyeballs on the tv for the ad breaks. If you want to know what’s really going on in the world, turn off the TV -
1 minute ago, aristocrat said:
in the msnbc video I showed you it literally shows her lying about desantis. Either she is incredibly dumb or she is knowingly lying with that question. I don’t think she’s that dumb and based on the amount of press it’s gotten I’d make an educated guess that there is communication between her and a producer acknowledging that the question was a lie.
I dunno, a lot of the talking heads are actually really dumb. -
2 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
“anti war” protest full of pro-Russia idiots what a surprise
Wouldn’t be surprised if Jill Stein was there.-
1
-
1
-
-
55 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
Twitter and Facebook made it such that the Post story could not be shared. Twitter locked the Post account unless they deleted their tweets regarding the very true laptop story. Virtually every other major media outlet joined the pack with glee. Do you truly have a hard time understanding how that is censorship?
The problem is that you seem the believe that independent institutions enacting their own policies in regards to a questionable story is actually a coordinated effort at suppression. That’s not censorship, that’s capitalism.30 minutes ago, aristocrat said:
here’s my issue. You act as though fox is the only one who does it. The left ran headline after headline of trump being illegitimate and owned by Russians for four years. Then after he’s out of office and most or all debunked they pretend like it never happened. They claimed the Russians stole the election which they knew was bs. Now play high and mighty like they never made these claims. Total bull. I don’t watch fox either but don’t pretend both sides are guilty of it
I’m not pretending that Fox is the only bad news outlet. I think all TV news is bad and the country would be much better off if these outlets didn’t exist.
I think, however, there’s a difference when the media outlet’s leadership and hosts are on the record acknowledging that they are lying to their audiences.
-
1 hour ago, aristocrat said:
lol msnbc blatantly lying to gaslight left wingers
Whether or not MSNBC is a good outlet is irrelevant to the discussion of Fox News treating its audience like rubes.
As to MSNBC, I don’t watch it so I’m not going to defend it.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:
He still thinks Russia collusion and the steele dossier are real and the Hunter laptop brute censorship was just a mistake, made in unison by 90% of the media, that they will straighten out going forward.
That lack of self awareness and hypocrisy should be staggering, but it's just par for the course for the @ChiGoose and @redtail hawk of the day.
Man, you really do live in a fantasy world, don’t you? Must be scary to believe that the whole world is conspiring against you.
1. The Trump campaign sought and accepted help from Russia. This is not a disputed fact and if you don’t believe it, you’re just exposing your ignorance.
2. The Steele dossier was a raw intelligence document. It was a collection of unvetted rumors and as such should not have been made public until the rumors could be investigated and their truth or falsity determined.
3. I really have a hard time understanding how something can be censorship if people weren’t forced to censor it. Anybody could run the Hunter laptop story if they wanted to. We know this because the Post ran the story. Other outlets were concerned about its veracity so they held off until they could further verify it. It’s not some big government conspiracy.
4. The media sucks. But one media outlet sucking isn’t an excuse for another to suck. The fact that Fox News thinks their viewers are morons and will buy any lie their told isn’t justified by other media outlets sucking.
-
1
-
1
-
-
If someone was telling me one thing to my face and the opposite behind my back, I would simply stop listening to that person.
But the feelings over facts crowd will stick with Fox News because even though they know it’s all a lie, it’s a lie that feels good.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
Kinda fun to see the usual crowd just defaulting to whataboutism here because they can’t admit that they know they’re being lied to but like it because it makes them feel validated.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Nobody dislikes Republican voters as much as the Republican elites. From the members of Congress, to party officials, to Fox News, they all think that their audience is comprised of rubes and marks who will eat up whatever garbage their told so long as it makes them mad at the right people.
-
1
-
2
-
4
-
1
-
-
Just now, dpberr said:
While this isn't part of the "plan", the Democrats have every intention of replacing him in the Senate with his wife within the first year. With a Democrat governor in PA, it's easily done as easily said.
Man, I need to get my hands on whatever you’re smoking.-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:
Amazing that these mass shootings weren't a thing until we had a few decades of societal decay brought to you courtesy of the left. These dunces blame the GOP when an idiot shoots innocents with a handgun in a “ gun free zone” . Their stupidity knows no bounds. The gun isn’t the problem , Billsy. The scumbag is the problem. More incarceration is needed, not less.
GOP constantly works to ensure that anybody with a pulse can get a gun while people are constantly being killed by gunsGalaxy brain geniuses: this is the fault of the libs!
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said:
Criminals will always find a way to commit crimes so having more laws does nothing but hurt law abiding citizens.
So why have any laws at all?-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ArdmoreRyno said:
Ultimately the issue is with gang/drug violence in intercity. This is where most of the gun violence takes place. This is where most illegal gun use takes place. Until city LEO/mayors/governors take a strong stance on crime (hello? Chicago?) things will never change.
The city of Chicago cannot solve the violence on its own. Even partnering with the state government wouldn't be enough. Most of the guns used in crimes in Chicago are shipped in from out of state. Just one store in Indiana was responsible for over 850 guns used in crimes in Chicago in just a seven year period.
The city has been partnering with the FBI to combat violence in the city, but so long as someone can walk into a store in Gary, Indiana and drive down the street to hand it off to gang members in Chicago, they'll never stop gun violence in the city
Some people respond to all of this with "criminals are going to break the laws anyway" (which really seems like an argument for getting rid of all laws...) whereas I'd rather look at it and say "what can we do to fix this?"
Simply better enforcing the laws on the books will help, but clearly the laws themselves are not effective. I'd rather have a discussion on how to make them more effective at stopping things like straw purchases, especially interstate ones.
Also, Chicago barely cracks the top 10 US cities in homicide rates. St. Louis has a homicide rate almost 3x that of Chicago while cities like New Orleans, Kansas City, Memphis and Newark also have higher homicide rates than Chicago. Yet it seems like all anyone wants to talk about is Chicago...
-
1 hour ago, ArdmoreRyno said:
What would you like to see done that would have prevented last night?
We (pro-2A people) keep asking these questions but the left's only replies?
1. Universal backgrounds (which is impossible and moronic)
2. Ban semi-automatic rifles (which are only used in a FRACTION of shootings)
Then you're not exactly looking very hard. People from all across the political spectrum, including the left, have proposed a myriad of ways to reduce gun deaths beyond the two you cited.
But if you're only looking at gun control through the lens of a mass shooting, then you're falling into the same trap that many liberals do. Mass shootings are a small fraction of the overall number of gun deaths in this country. If we're only tailoring our laws to prevent them, then we're stopping ourselves from preventing hundreds or even thousands of deaths each year.
A good starting point is this article, which lays out why we should look at firearm laws in a similar manner to automobile laws (not banning them but regulating them to make them safer and limit access to them).
Here are some of the specific policies that would reduce the number of gun deaths per year without preventing law abiding citizens from owning guns:
- Background checks: 22% of guns are obtained without one
- Protection orders & red flag laws: prevent people who are subject to domestic violence protection orders from having guns and improve red flag laws
- Ban under-21s: Prevent kids from buying guns
- Safe storage: trigger locks, storing ammo separately from guns, etc.
- Straw Purchases: Improved enforcement on straw purchases and limits to how many guns an individual can purchase in a month
- Ammunition Checks: Require background checks for people buying ammo
- End Immunity: End the immunity the firearms industry that subsidizes it and dis-incentivizes safer gun research
- Research Smart Guns: There are different technologies that could prevent a gun from being used by people other than the owner. Those should be invested in and explored
- Empower research on guns and gun violence
- Improved firearms training: audits of firearm trainings show that trainers are spending more time on encouraging gun ownership than actual gun safety (which is quite different from the firearms training I took only 20 years ago)
Most gun deaths are suicides*, followed by homicides. Only about 1% of gun deaths are mass shootings (and fewer than 2% are self-defense, despite what the "good guy with a gun" crowd believes). Focusing on one specific type of gun death risks missing the bigger picture. What we should be working towards is an environment where good people can still buy guns but it's much harder for bad actors to get them and more difficult for children or those in an acute mental crises to get their hands on a gun.
In exchange for mildly inconveniencing gun owners, policies like these have the potential to save thousands of lives every year. Or we could just tell ourselves that these changes won't prevent 100% of deaths, so why do anything at all? Let the kids die.
*By the way, people who survive suicide attempts rarely end up dying of suicide. It's an acute moment of danger in which most methods (cutting, drugs, etc) are far more like to fail than succeed with one exception: firearms. If someone going through that crises does not have access to a firearm, they will likely survive the attempt and not end up dying of suicide later.
-
1
-
33 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Reminder from above:
He was a convicted felon. He was already completely prohibited from possessing a firearm.
What would you do to have stopped this from happening ?
The Left's response: we should disarm the law abiding citizen and make it even harder for people to defend themselves.
.
The Right’s response: let’s do absolutely nothing because who cares about dead kids when there is money to be made?-
1
-
2
-
1
-
Democracy’s Fiery Ordeal: The War in Ukraine 🇺🇦
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
No, I’m pretty sure that if we stopped supplying Ukraine and made them give Putin what he wants, then Putin will totally stop and world peace will ensue with rainbows and puppies for all.