US Election November 5th

[ey_tony]

It's conspiracy theory at work. K Harris is totally legitimate and the procedure was quite clear (scroll down here) but people like @danst96 are attracted to the conspiracy idea, for reasons best known to themselves.
I guess it's just laziness, or fear? They don't understand what's going on or can't be bothered to check the facts, they just don't like them anyway; they upset their un-woke world view.
Funny how they are so often scathing about Wikipedia!
It's described at length here, but conspiracy theorists seem to see Wikipedia itself as just one more big woke conspiracy.
They just don't know which way to turn, the poor things!

Surely you aren't still using Wikipedia as your primary source of reference for your arguments?
Having said that then it would explain some of your posts!

I pointed it out maybe a year or two years back to you that Wikipedia is the last place to look if you don't want information bias on subjects which are open to question or debate.
The content of Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE so it will depend upon the bias and/or prejudice of the writer/editor as to what information one can glean from Wikipedia but no self respecting debater would quote Wikipedia without first ascertaining that the content is factual with the support of other sources of information.

Whenever anyone quotes Wikipedia as their reference source I simply file it under unsubstantiated nonsense.
The reason why knowledgeable people are scathing about Wikipedia is because they understand it's just too open to information corruption to be treated as a valid and respected source of information.
Much of the information contained within it should be taken with a large pinch of the proverbial!

 

[BC'er]

... people like @danst96 are attracted to the conspiracy idea, for reasons best known to themselves.
I guess it's just laziness, or fear? They don't understand what's going on or can't be bothered to check the facts, they just don't like them anyway; they upset their un-woke world view.
....

Poor thing, you think waving your little red woke book is some sort of badge of honour? Here's a quote for you:

In 2019, in an interview for the Obama Foundation on youth activism, President Obama expressed strong concerns about wokism and the call out/cancel culture that is emerging. “This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically ‘woke’ and all that stuff,” Obama said. “You should get over that quickly." He went on to explain, “The world is messy; there are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting may love their kids, and share certain things with you.”

Virtue-signallers are surely some of the most shallow, fake, boring, hypocritical nincompoops up with whom we have to put. The same segment of the population with the same mental habits and defects of character as the snooping, gossiping, judgmental prigs of previous eras. Nothing has changed except what they natter and posture about.

And now they have the Internet to posture from instead of the local knitting or bowls club.

And worst of all, the vast majority of them never do a damn thing personally in regard to all the issues they rabbit on about.

Here's one getting tuned up on the latest issues.

 

[Chris152]

Surely you aren't still using Wikipedia as your primary source of reference for your arguments?
Having said that then it would explain some of your posts!

I pointed it out maybe a year or two years back to you that Wikipedia is the last place to look if you don't want information bias on subjects which are open to question or debate. [etc]

The reason published articles and books don't generally cite Wiki is that the articles there don't follow standard peer review practices. However, it's evident that in fact, long standing entries on widely referenced issues (etc) are quite accurate as a result of the site's policies and its editing practices. I find the whole thing really fascinating. Maybe take a look at this article:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2008/10/20/218162/wikipedia-and-the-meaning-of-truth/

'Many people, especially academic experts, have argued that Wikipedia’s articles can’t be trusted, because they are written and edited by volunteers who have never been vetted. Nevertheless, studies have found that the articles are remarkably accurate. The reason is that Wikipedia’s community of more than seven million registered users has organically evolved a set of policies and procedures for removing untruths.'

On key issues, I'd say Wikipedia is a reasonable source for vague, meandering arguments such as this thread. Much better than 'I did this, I did that and that's how society should be.'

 

[John Brown]

Churchill already answered your question: "Christianity says all that is mine is yours; socialism says all that is yours is mine."

Do tell us about Islam sometime won't you?

And what does capitalism say?

Why not do your own thinking? Anyone can find a quote to support their point of view.

 

[ey_tony]

The reason published articles and books don't generally cite Wiki is that the articles there don't follow standard peer review practices. However, it's evident that in fact, long standing entries on widely referenced issues (etc) are quite accurate as a result of the site's policies and its editing practices. I find the whole thing really fascinating. Maybe take a look at this article:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2008/10/20/218162/wikipedia-and-the-meaning-of-truth/

'Many people, especially academic experts, have argued that Wikipedia’s articles can’t be trusted, because they are written and edited by volunteers who have never been vetted. Nevertheless, studies have found that the articles are remarkably accurate. The reason is that Wikipedia’s community of more than seven million registered users has organically evolved a set of policies and procedures for removing untruths.'

On key issues, I'd say Wikipedia is a reasonable source for vague, meandering arguments such as this thread. Much better than 'I did this, I did that and that's how society should be.'

As a source of non-questionable/non-arguable information such as the Earth being an oblate spheroid and it's explanation, the distance to the moon or the effect the moon has on the tides then yes Wikipedia could be trusted as a source of scientific information.

However once emotive subjects which can draw polarised debate enter the discussion forum such as politics, global warming, religion, migration, EU membership etc, etc then NO, it can't be trusted as it's too accessible to those with a specific agenda to corrupt the information in favour of their argument so one has to be circumspect where choice of information source is important.

The same applies to news sources. I tend not to swallow the garbage put out by the left wing press such as the Guardian/Independent et al and the same applies to news from that of the right or news put out by both the BBC and ITV as from my past experience of them reporting events I'd have to say they're both biased and not to be trusted.
Instead I try to ascertain as many facts from news sources/information from beyond these shores through news sources which have no link either through prejudice or bias toward the UK's incumbent governments, that way I can draw safer conclusions than information from the British media or such as Wikipedia.

One only has to look at the announcements by governments of any rosette colour to recognise that they will quote and manipulate facts and figures which support their agenda rather than give a true picture of what is really happening so for that reason I prefer to do my own research and make up my mind as to the information accuracy.

The same applies to polarised posts on forums such as this. Most posts are just opinions with facts and in many cases adversarial which again is understandable so I will as far as I can look at the post content and see if there are valid points or if it contains information that could be verified through research.
As they say, you should never believe what you read in the papers' which is true, the same applies to forums and news media outlets alike...never trust any of them unless what they say can be backed up or verified by independent sources.

 

[Agent_zed]

I never knew much about or took much interest in USA politics until the Trump election and then I realised what a bunch of (fill in your own expletive here) the Democrats truly are after their disgusting behaviour post the 2016 election.

I would hate to live in America under their governance and anyone on this forum who thinks the Democrats are better than the Republicans needs to have their brains examined...I've never seen such a disgusting and corrupt political party that in my view, wouldn't be out of place in a corrupt third world country.

From day one of Trumps premiership the Democrats and biased media did anything and everything in their power to undermine him and bring him down, not unlike the left of this country and we all see where that has got us.
I can actually see why Trump's followers are referred to as 'patriots'. They are the people who care about their country and have largely been ignored and denigrated for decades and Trump is probably the first 'politician' to have given them a voice so it's little wonder they adore him.

I spend a fair amount of time online gaming where most of the members if they're only just retired are considered young and as one American member said to another yesterday..." yep only X-number of days to the election and then the civil war begins!"....quite poignant really and sums up the division in American politics rather well!

This for me is the problem. I can list a whole page of things that Trump has said verbatim that is extremely worrying, along with a list of laws that he has clearly broken, and these form my basis for an extreme dislike of who Donald Trump is and what Donald Trump stands for.

Your post just says Democrats are bad because they did bad things and don't want Trump to regain power. You claim they are corrupt and cite nothing. You claim the people have been ignored yet the Democrats have spent more on infrastructure and lowering medical care than the Republicans ever have.

Yes Trump has a plan for reforming medicare, it's only 2 weeks away. I believe that was in 2019 and we still haven't seen anything.

The republican plan for childcare costs.... get your grandparents to pull their weight (JD Vance).

Trump has a plan for tariffs on imports which the majority of economists say will drastically increase costs for US consumers.

You talk about corruption and fail to mention that most of Donald Trumps family was appointed various positions in the Government, without any qualifications. Trump appointed people to the Supreme court to ensure he could never be held accountable. I assume you agree with Trump not being able to be prosecuted for anything he did whilst in office. Because that's not the dodgiest thing any president has ever done!

Trump is the only president in recent times to not release his financial or medical records. But that is not dodgy at all

Jared Kushner had a $2 billion investment from the Saudi's and that is perfectly fine I assume in your eyes? https://www.forbes.com/sites/zachar...hat-to-know-after-republicans-delay-subpoena/

You talk of a 'biased media'. Yeah because Fox News is totally biased against Trump?? Because Musk has made Twitter biased against Trump??

I'm glad you put your trust in the person asking Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find 11,780 votes". Because that's not disgusting behaviour!?

I just can't get my head around this weird notion that believe that a billionaire supported by other billionaires is fighting the 'Elite'. He is the elite and he is doing everything to ensure it stays that way!!!!

I'm happy to be educated with all the terrible things the democrats have done now - over to you

 

[John Brown]

As a source of non-questionable/non-arguable information such as the Earth being an oblate spheroid and it's explanation, the distance to the moon or the effect the moon has on the tides then yes Wikipedia could be trusted as a source of scientific information.

However once emotive subjects which can draw polarised debate enter the discussion forum such as politics, global warming, religion, migration, EU membership etc, etc then NO, it can't be trusted as it's too accessible to those with a specific agenda to corrupt the information in favour of their argument so one has to be circumspect where choice of information source is important.

The same applies to news sources. I tend not to swallow the garbage put out by the left wing press such as the Guardian/Independent et al and the same applies to news from that of the right or news put out by both the BBC and ITV as from my past experience of them reporting events I'd have to say they're both biased and not to be trusted.
Instead I try to ascertain as many facts from news sources/information from beyond these shores through news sources which have no link either through prejudice or bias toward the UK's incumbent governments, that way I can draw safer conclusions than information from the British media or such as Wikipedia.

One only has to look at the announcements by governments of any rosette colour to recognise that they will quote and manipulate facts and figures which support their agenda rather than give a true picture of what is really happening so for that reason I prefer to do my own research and make up my mind as to the information accuracy.

The same applies to polarised posts on forums such as this. Most posts are just opinions with facts and in many cases adversarial which again is understandable so I will as far as I can look at the post content and see if there are valid points or if it contains information that could be verified through research.
As they say, you should never believe what you read in the papers' which is true, the same applies to forums and news media outlets alike...never trust any of them unless what they say can be backed up or verified by independent sources.

As far as Wikipedia goes, I, for once, agree with ey_tony. If you want to understand quadrature amplitude modulation, Wikipedia will have clear and accurate information that can be trusted. Politics, not so much. Of course newspapers are biased, but, in my opinion, they are less likely to carry outright lies, as they do risk being sued. Social media is probably the least reliable source of information. Examining tea leaves or the entrails of animals will likely be more useful. IMO.

 

[Chris152]

As a source of non-questionable/non-arguable information such as the Earth being an oblate spheroid and it's explanation, the distance to the moon or the effect the moon has on the tides then yes Wikipedia could be trusted as a source of scientific information.

However once emotive subjects which can draw polarised debate enter the discussion forum such as politics, global warming, religion, migration, EU membership etc, etc then NO, it can't be trusted as it's too accessible to those with a specific agenda to corrupt the information in favour of their argument so one has to be circumspect where choice of information source is important.

The same applies to news sources. I tend not to swallow the garbage put out by the left wing press such as the Guardian/Independent et al and the same applies to news from that of the right or news put out by both the BBC and ITV as from my past experience of them reporting events I'd have to say they're both biased and not to be trusted.
Instead I try to ascertain as many facts from news sources/information from beyond these shores through news sources which have no link either through prejudice or bias toward the UK's incumbent governments, that way I can draw safer conclusions than information from the British media or such as Wikipedia.

One only has to look at the announcements by governments of any rosette colour to recognise that they will quote and manipulate facts and figures which support their agenda rather than give a true picture of what is really happening so for that reason I prefer to do my own research and make up my mind as to the information accuracy.

The same applies to polarised posts on forums such as this. Most posts are just opinions with facts and in many cases adversarial which again is understandable so I will as far as I can look at the post content and see if there are valid points or if it contains information that could be verified through research.
As they say, you should never believe what you read in the papers' which is true, the same applies to forums and news media outlets alike...never trust any of them unless what they say can be backed up or verified by independent sources.

Sounds like a full-time job to me. Can you give us some examples of where you go to find 'unbiased' information relating to current affairs?* BC'er was asked the same a few pages back but got all cryptic about it.

* In my opinion, it doesn't exist, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Jacob]

The reason published articles and books don't generally cite Wiki is that the articles there don't follow standard peer review practices. However, it's evident that in fact, long standing entries on widely referenced issues (etc) are quite accurate as a result of the site's policies and its editing practices. I find the whole thing really fascinating. Maybe take a look at this article:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2008/10/20/218162/wikipedia-and-the-meaning-of-truth/

'Many people, especially academic experts, have argued that Wikipedia’s articles can’t be trusted, because they are written and edited by volunteers who have never been vetted. Nevertheless, studies have found that the articles are remarkably accurate. The reason is that Wikipedia’s community of more than seven million registered users has organically evolved a set of policies and procedures for removing untruths.'

On key issues, I'd say Wikipedia is a reasonable source for vague, meandering arguments such as this thread. Much better than 'I did this, I did that and that's how society should be.'

Wiki articles are subject to continuous review and on controversial topics can be changed overnight.
I noticed this myself some months ago when quoting/linking to something about Israel. Following day it had been edited beyond recognition. Israelis are noted for that sort of thing, termed "Hasbara" , a.k.a. "propaganda".
They are not the only ones of course.
Whereas a print publication is fixed in time and space, lying or not, though any quotations taken and used on-line could of course be edited at any time.
Maybe keep tabs on these two!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
https://www.britannica.com/topic/conspiracy-theory

 

[Jake]

How do you know a republican said that? I assume that is what you're inferring. Go back and read it again, you may then get the actual point. If not read it again, you obviously need some thinking time.

Well, mostly because it is the right wing and their militias who are planning and advocating a civil war.

 

[Jacob]

As far as Wikipedia goes, I, for once, agree with ey_tony. If you want to understand quadrature amplitude modulation, Wikipedia will have clear and accurate information that can be trusted. Politics, not so much. Of course newspapers are biased, but, in my opinion, they are less likely to carry outright lies, as they do risk being sued.

Really? I see MSM as the main source of misinformation, including lies and propaganda, at all levels, including The Guardian.
You will only get sued for some very specific things, mainly slander. Other than that it's just a telling off from IPSO.

Social media is probably the least reliable source of information.

It's excellent on information about what people think, and why. As is this thread!

 

[Jacob]

Poor thing, you think waving your little red woke book is some sort of badge of honour? Here's a quote for you:


Virtue-signallers are surely some of the most shallow, fake, boring, hypocritical nincompoops up with whom we have to put. The same segment of the population with the same mental habits and defects of character as the snooping, gossiping, judgmental prigs of previous eras. Nothing has changed except what they natter and posture about.

And now they have the Internet to posture from instead of the local knitting or bowls club.

And worst of all, the vast majority of them never do a damn thing personally in regard to all the issues they rabbit on about.

Here's one getting tuned up on the latest issues.

@BC'er doing his Basil Fawlty impressions! Could have his own comedy show?

 

[sploo]

This for me is the problem. I can list a whole page of things that Trump has said verbatim that is extremely worrying, along with a list of laws that he has clearly broken, and these form my basis for an extreme dislike of who Donald Trump is and what Donald Trump stands for.

Your post just says Democrats are bad because they did bad things and don't want Trump to regain power. You claim they are corrupt and cite nothing. You claim the people have been ignored yet the Democrats have spent more on infrastructure and lowering medical care than the Republicans ever have.

Yes Trump has a plan for reforming medicare, it's only 2 weeks away. I believe that was in 2019 and we still haven't seen anything.

The republican plan for childcare costs.... get your grandparents to pull their weight (JD Vance).

Trump has a plan for tariffs on imports which the majority of economists say will drastically increase costs for US consumers.

You talk about corruption and fail to mention that most of Donald Trumps family was appointed various positions in the Government, without any qualifications. Trump appointed people to the Supreme court to ensure he could never be held accountable. I assume you agree with Trump not being able to be prosecuted for anything he did whilst in office. Because that's not the dodgiest thing any president has ever done!

Trump is the only president in recent times to not release his financial or medical records. But that is not dodgy at all

Jared Kushner had a $2 billion investment from the Saudi's and that is perfectly fine I assume in your eyes? https://www.forbes.com/sites/zachar...hat-to-know-after-republicans-delay-subpoena/

You talk of a 'biased media'. Yeah because Fox News is totally biased against Trump?? Because Musk has made Twitter biased against Trump??

I'm glad you put your trust in the person asking Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find 11,780 votes". Because that's not disgusting behaviour!?

I just can't get my head around this weird notion that believe that a billionaire supported by other billionaires is fighting the 'Elite'. He is the elite and he is doing everything to ensure it stays that way!!!!

I'm happy to be educated with all the terrible things the democrats have done now - over to you

I'm just firing up some popcorn so I can sit back and watch certain members of this thread now ignore all the factually recorded points you've made, before going on another evidence-free rant about virtue signallers, woke, lefties, socialists, Starmer, Democrats etc.

PS The Trump and import tariffs thing is really funny - whenever he talks about it he clearly seems to think that the importing (foreign) company pays the tariffs.

 

[mudman]

Well, mostly because it is the right wing and their militias who are planning and advocating a civil war.

So you equated an anecdote that was being used to highlight the extreme divisions and polarisations that are perceived to exist within US politics with your belief that the right wing are planning civil uprisings if they don't get their way to derive an indirect slur on the right of the political spectrum.

Let's try another response:

as one American member said to another yesterday..." yep only X-number of days to the election and then the civil war begins!"....quite poignant really and sums up the division in American politics rather well!

"From that interaction, it can be seen that the divisions within US politics have become so extreme that there is a perception that there could be an armed insurrection initiated by the losing side and this would be a regrettable and dangerous situation should that transpire".

 

[MikeJhn]

He was a very naughty boy!

Not a reference to JC (not John Cleese) but Bwian.

 

[Jacob]

So you equated an anecdote that was being used to highlight the extreme divisions and polarisations that are perceived to exist within US politics with your belief that the right wing are planning civil uprisings if they don't get their way to derive an indirect slur on the right of the political spectrum.

Isn't that exactly what Trump did in 2021? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
Do you think he wouldn't do it again?

Let's try another response:

"From that interaction, it can be seen that the divisions within US politics have become so extreme that there is a perception that there could be an armed insurrection initiated by the losing side and this would be a regrettable and dangerous situation should that transpire".

They had one in 2021. Maybe you didn't know this? Or could Wikipedia be lying again?
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...EAHR91CP4Q0pQJegQIERAB&biw=1258&bih=654&dpr=2

 

[ey_tony]

Not a reference to JC (not John Cleese) but Bwian.

Not forgetting Biggus Dickus!

 

[Blackswanwood]

So you equated an anecdote that was being used to highlight the extreme divisions and polarisations that are perceived to exist within US politics with your belief that the right wing are planning civil uprisings if they don't get their way to derive an indirect slur on the right of the political spectrum.

Let's try another response:

"From that interaction, it can be seen that the divisions within US politics have become so extreme that there is a perception that there could be an armed insurrection initiated by the losing side and this would be a regrettable and dangerous situation should that transpire".

I'm struggling to see that it does when read in the context of the overall post it was responding to. I'd also question whether an interaction with members of an online gambling site is a reliable means of measuring the mood in the US.

Are there instances of the Democrats threatening civil unrest and the like if they don't win?

 

[NickDReed]

Re the using Wiki as a reliable reference issue -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/the-reporters-63622746

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_...opment of the,by various people and companies.

The above details a prank post that went on for 10 years and was picked up by news outlets as fact, thus commencing a cycle where the more the prank was written about in external sources the more Wikipedia used those sources to validate the Wiki post.

Hilarious and terrifying in equal measure and goes to support the case that 'truth', where ever you find it is probably not as binary as we all would like it to be.

 

[Spectric]

Is everyone letting there woodworking tools gather dust just because of some election in the USA, why not buy some more tools because after our budget they will be a better investment asset than sitting on cash or savings and you will be supporting the retailers who support us.