Originally posted by BackFire
Yes. They’re a dishonest organization. No reason to assume they are telling the truth in this particular case without valid third party evidence.
Agreed.
But that also puts the following media and press sources in the same category:
CNN
FoxNews
Snopes
MediaBiasCheck
NYTimes
Times
NBC
ABC
MSNBC
Washington Post
HuffPost
Etc. You get the idea.
Originally posted by BackFire
Yes. They’re a dishonest organization. No reason to assume they are telling the truth in this particular case without valid third party evidence.
A person who signs an nda to a supermarket, then reveals that they mix in dated potatoes salad to the press, is unethical for ignoring the nda.
But I'm all for ignoring integrity if it picks up dirt valuble to the general public.
In the same way, I'm fine with lieing, cheating, and stealing if it reveals a politician is a liar, cheat, or thief, because it often takes underhanded tactics to catch people in a compromising position. Like my wife who had no idea about a hidden camera when I caught her sleeping with her ex.
I'm of course lying, but that should explain my position and personal morality.
Originally posted by cdtm
A person who signs an nda to a supermarket, then reveals that they mix in dated potatoes salad to the press, is unethical for ignoring the nda.But I'm all for ignoring integrity if it picks up dirt valuble to the general public.
In the same way, I'm fine with lieing, cheating, and stealing if it reveals a politician is a liar, cheat, or thief, because it often takes underhanded tactics to catch people in a compromising position. Like my wife who had no idea about a hidden camera when I caught her sleeping with her ex.
I'm of course lying, but that should explain my position and personal morality.
I can't tell if you're serious. Is your story about the ex-wife and her ex true? If so, that sucks. Sorry that happened.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEmakes sense. They will fail this time people are polarised.
Inside the Project Veritas Plan to Steal the Election
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Inside the Project Veritas Plan to Steal the Election
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-republic/
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Originally posted by Silent Master
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-republic/
I'm not sure how trying to get Trump reelected means they are trying to "steal" the election. Is The Lincoln Project(funded mostly by democrats) trying to steal the election by trying to get Biden elected?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Inside the Project Veritas Plan to Steal the Election
Odd did you think it was wrong when the FBI/ Clinton/McCain/DNC had plans to steal the election from Trump and an insurance policy in case he won?
Originally posted by Silent Master
You may be right, Seeing as he just agreed with the New Republic which has a worse rating than the Blaze. a site he constantly makes fun of.
And he's never even been able to point to an article the blaze fabricated.
His reasoning for hating it is literally just "Cuz Surtur".
I posted about a black teen that had been murdered and his first reaction was along the lines of "lol blaze right?"
In an interview this week with federal agents, a Pennsylvania postal worker walked back his allegation that a supervisor had tampered with mailed ballots.
A two-hour recording shows that Richard Hopkins recanted claims he had made in a sworn affidavit that top Republicans cited over the weekend as potential evidence of widespread election irregularities and fraud.
Hopkins told federal investigators on Monday that the allegations in his affidavit were written by Project Veritas. He repeatedly expressed regret for signing the initial affidavit because he was not fully aware of its contents.
Hopkins, a self-described libertarian who said he voted for President Trump, was offered $25,000 by Project Veritas to bolster unproven allegations of widespread voter fraud by stating he witnessed election improprieties in Pennsylvania.
When an agent from the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General asked Hopkins if he stood by his sworn statement that a supervisor "was backdating ballots" mailed after Election Day, Hopkins answered, "No."
Hopkins told investigators that he had no direct knowledge of any directive to backdate ballots, nor did he witness anyone manipulate a ballot. He agreed to sign a revised statement that undercut his earlier affidavit, and a document stating that his revised statement was not coerced.
Hopkins was suspended without pay, pending the completion of the investigation. He insisted that he made the allegations in good faith, because he believed a federal investigation into voter fraud was warranted.
"A two-hour recording shows that Richard Hopkins recanted claims he had made in a sworn affidavit that top Republicans cited over the weekend as potential evidence of widespread election irregularities and fraud."
Hopkins told federal investigators on Monday that the allegations in his affidavit were written by Project Veritas. He repeatedly expressed regret for signing the initial affidavit because he was not fully aware of its contents. -snip
Oh lordy, don't these Republicans look like complete imbeciles. Good job torpedoing your own claims by not doing a shred of validation. Too good.