The Full picture of Trump's attempted coup

[F3SS]

13 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

The reason threads like this are not flagged as misinformation is because the thread title is a exact quote from the articles title. The threads that get flagged are those where the member who started the thread either makes up the title or intentionally twists it for a political advantage, Another reason reason a thread like this is allowed to be presented in a forum other than the Alternate History / Conspiracy Theory forum is because of the source used to start the thread in the OP. 

If the sourced article comes from a source identified during factcheck as being a source that is responsible for non-Factual reporting, spreading conspiracies, for propaganda, and other unethical practices the thread will be placed in the Conspiracy section where it belongs. You see whether a source is left leaning or right leaning is not a factor as long as the reporting in a factcheck is listed as factual. This is why the election fraud threads are not allowed, unfortunately the sources used to report that information are tainted and listed as non-factual and that's because none of those theories have been proven to be accurate. 

So maybe some say that may change and proof will be given, then I am certain that even the MSM will carry and report that information.

JIMO

Who are the fact checkers and who fact checks the fact checkers? Many fact checking links are just links to op-eds. Just because a headline is copied and pasted doesn't mean it's anything more factual or less opinionated than any other source. I think you buy into official narratives too much. 

[Michelle]

10 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Who are the fact checkers and who fact checks the fact checkers?

Wuhan lab leak was considered a conspiracy theory and deleted by many organizations until recently. Now they won't even admit they may have been wrong.

[Grim Reaper 6]

7 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Who are the fact checkers and who fact checks the fact checkers? Many fact checking links are just links to op-eds. Just because a headline is copied and pasted doesn't mean it's anything more factual or less opinionated than any other source. I think you buy into official narratives too much. 

There are many fact checkers you can use, for instance just type in factcheck media bias gateway Pundit. I certainly dont buy into official narratives to much, but I certainly dont buy into the BS far to many people except as truth. Now, I believe your a reasonable person or I would not have responded to your comments. I dont support either party, I no longer have a Party Affiliation because i dont believe its possible and still maintain freedom of thought. Far to many people have given up thinking for themselves, now they just repeat / regurgitate the information that their chosen political party offers them as the truth.

Honestly, and you can check this out, I will never use a source whether it is right or left that is reported by the any fact checking organization the way the Gateway Pundit is. In most cases I use more then a single factchecking source to verify any source I am using. To me it doesnt matter how far Left or Right any source is reported as being. The only thing I care about is that the source is reported to report factual information and that they are listed as having high credibility. But I will say that if I have the opportunity to use a source that is center, I would use that over any other source of information. 

You believe that what I am saying is BS, and that's fine with me. But, it does matter to me that sources I use are listed as reporting accurate information and I believe that in that respect you also care.

 

• Overall, we rate The Gateway Pundit Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracies, and numerous instances of publishing false (fake) news.

---

Detailed Report

Questionable Reasoning: Propaganda, Conspiracy, Nationalism, Some Fake News, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: EXTREME RIGHT
Factual Reporting: VERY LOW
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

History

The Gateway Pundit publishes extremely right-biased news and commentary that promotes conspiracy theories and the routine publication of falsehoods (see analysis). The website was founded by Jim Hoft in 2004 to “speak the truth” and to “expose the wickedness of the left.”

According to their about page, “The Gateway Pundit is one of the top political websites. It is consistently ranked as one of the top political blogs in the nation. TGP has been cited by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, The Drudge Report, The Blaze, Mark Levin, FOX Nation, and several international news organizations.”

On 6/6/2021, The Gateway Pundit was moved to Very-Low factual reporting based on failed facts on a near-daily basis.

The Gateway Pundit - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com)

 

[el midgetron]

Quote

Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) is an American website founded in 2015 by editor Dave Van Zandt.[1] The website has been described as an amateur effort to rate news media sources based on factual accuracy and political bias.[2]

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst".[2] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

From the disclaimer on MediaBiasFactCheck

Quote

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only and is the opinion of individual reviewers for Media Bias/Fact Check. The opinions expressed on Media Bias/Fact Check are protected under “Fair Comment.” The information is provided by Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC News) and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness or accuracy of opinions/information on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/disclaimer/

[Likely Guy]

I'd go with Politico.

Gateway Pundit is so full of .... it's not worth recording.

9/11 conspiracy theories? False flags at school shootings?

Get bent, GP!

Edited August 8, 2021 by Likely Guy

[Grim Reaper 6]

2 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

I'd go with Politico.

Gateway Pundit is so full of .... it's not worth recording. 9/11 conspiracy theories? False flags at school shootings?

Get bent, GP!

You bare certainly right, and for future reference there are a number of media sources owned by the same company. If you ever see the following ________ Pundit attached to any title it is fake just like the GateWay is!

[Likely Guy]

6 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

You bare certainly right

Mmm, no.

If you call me a socialist, even a 'progressive', I'm certainly happy with that.

Maybe on age I do hold some conservative traits. But I don't see that as a bad thing either.

[Grim Reaper 6]

50 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

From the disclaimer on MediaBiasFactCheck

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/disclaimer/

 

Thanks for your information el midgetron and you make a vaild point. But, Wikipedia was a bad choice to use as a source of information because according to Wikipedia they are not a trusted source of information. There are many reasons, here is a direct report from Wikipedia themselves. Like I have told you its important to research your source and again you obviously didn't so again, well I hope you finally learned how important cheking the facts are!

 

The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

1. Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
2. Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
3. Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing.
4. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference).

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia

Below is a fact check for media bias and for accuracy and Wikipedia dint do so well. In my opinion a major problem that exists with Wikipedia is the simply fact that anyone can write articles, and the data base is so large they do not have the staff to check out what is being presented!!

 

• Overall, we rate Wikipedia Least Biased based on a wide variety of content that often covers pros and cons, right and left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to possible inaccurate or incomplete entries as stated by Wikipedia themselves, that may reflect the personal biases of the top editors and a complete lack of transparency regarding the qualifications and who the editors are.

---

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

Analysis why Wikipedia can not be a reliable source of information

It is also vital to point out that Wikipedia does not consider itself credible. They state the following on their Wikipedia is not a reliable source page: “Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. Because anyone can edit it at any time, any information it contains at a particular time could be Vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error are usually fixed after some time. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot constantly monitor every contribution. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for hours, days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.”

Peace

[el midgetron]

So, you are going to keep posting those graphics from that opinion site? I wonder what mediabiasfactcheck.coms rating of MBFC rating is?

[Grim Reaper 6]

41 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

Mmm, no.

If you call me a socialist, even a 'progressive', I'm certainly happy with that.

Maybe on age I do hold some conservative traits. But I don't see that as a bad thing either.

Well, I didn't call you anything and honestly I dont care what your political beliefs are at all. To me political affiliations are meaningless, the only thing that makes a difference to me personally during a discussion are the facts as they can be best determined, and the manner in which people respond to me. I really dont enjoy foolish arguments with anyone. I can easily agree to disagree with anyone and have no negative feelings at the end of an exchange. Now from a outsiders point of view someone can appear to be terrible according to the manner in which they respond to others.

However, this can also create a false impression because this only gives that observer a particle view, and also because they have no idea what has occurred between those members in past conversations. This and this alone can easily cause false impressions of forum members to occur and yet it can not be avoided. People will only take so crap from others before they respond in a negative manner, this is perfectly normal human nature and no one is above it unfortunately!

JIMO

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 minute ago, el midgetron said:

So, you are going to keep posting those graphics from that opinion site? I wonder what mediabiasfactcheck.coms rating of MBFC rating is?

You should not let it bother you at all. If you are comfortable in your convictions and you believe what your saying is accurate it should make no difference what I choose to do. You used Wikipedia to try and discredit that site, but Wikipedia isn't considered an accurate source of information and they state that themselves. So I dont understand what you even talking about, but one thing is for certain and that is the credibility of the site I used or any of the other factcheck sites are generally very very good. Can mistakes happen  certainly they can, does that ruin the complete credibility of a site no way. Especially if they correct ant problems that occur once they are notified.

JIMO

It is also vital to point out that Wikipedia does not consider itself credible. They state the following on their Wikipedia is not a reliable source page: “Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. Because anyone can edit it at any time, any information it contains at a particular time could be Vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error are usually fixed after some time. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot constantly monitor every contribution. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for hours, days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.”

[el midgetron]

Mmkay, so Wikipedia can’t be trusted because anyone can edit it but MBFC can be trusted because its the opinions of 3 people? 

[Grim Reaper 6]

13 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

Mmkay, so Wikipedia can’t be trusted because anyone can edit it but MBFC can be trusted because its the opinions of 3 people? 

Are you unable to understand what has been said, Wikipedia says their own site can't be trusted as a source of information. What don't you understand?

If Wikipedia says that about themselves how can it not be accurate??

[Vorg]

31 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Are you unable to understand what has been said, Wikipedia says their own site can't be trusted as a source of information. What don't you understand?

If Wikipedia says that about themselves how can it not be accurate??

Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia

My greatest achievement was making the internet a reality - Abraham Lincoln.

[Grim Reaper 6]

32 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia

My greatest achievement was making the internet a reality - Abraham Lincoln.

That's really crazy, and it only Proves what I said. The sad is that el migetron knows he is wrong, however he refuses to admit it, so, I am through trying to explain it to him.

Thanks for! the link

[Vorg]

9 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

That's really crazy, and it only Proves what I said. The sad is that el migetron knows he is wrong, however he refuses to admit it, so, I am through trying to explain it to him.

Thanks for! the link

I made up that internet line, as a joke, but with anyone being able to edit., it could be in there.

[Grim Reaper 6]

33 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

I made up that internet line, as a joke, but with anyone being able to edit., it could be in there.

Well I did understand that, but I agreed with your analogy and I still do"

Thanks!

[Grim Reaper 6]

On 8/6/2021 at 12:39 PM, el midgetron said:

Pretty run of the mill Trump derangement fodder. It’s all hinged on the master-stroke of Trump commanding his brainwashed minions to attack the Capitol. Apparently the coup theory requires the belief that once Trump had a couple hundred random people running amok in the Capital the entire country would collapse and he would fill the void as orange ruler supreme. 

Well please don't include me into that situation, I don't think Trump has the necessary intelligence to blow his nose. I mean he paid someone to take his SATs, and he claims he is a genius but he has never taken an organized IQ test. Not to mention his poor ability to even pronounce the English Language, I mean he sounds like a grade school student when he speaks. So there is no master stroke, and he certainly isn't a master mind. 

Last, I don't know where this Coupe idea enter the conversation, because according to the Constitution and the insurrection Act  when they disrupted the electoral vote certification. They also disrupted Congress in session, and either one if those offenses is the act of Insurrection as defined by Law. You can dismiss it, disagree with it, dance around it, or anything else you choose to do but nothing changes the fact that Insurrection was committed. 

It can't be denied, and the truth will never change. However, what saved the idiots involved that day is the fact that President Biden instructed the sitting Attorney General to take the crime of Insurrection off the table. Even Biden realizes realizes Trumps base was brainwashed and not responsible for their actions that day. 

Edited August 8, 2021 by Manwon Lender

[Golden Duck]

4 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Are you unable to understand what has been said, Wikipedia says their own site can't be trusted as a source of information. What don't you understand?

If Wikipedia says that about themselves how can it not be accurate??

If Wikipedia says you shouldn't trust Wikipedia, doesn't that mean you can trust them?

[Grim Reaper 6]

32 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

If Wikipedia says you shouldn't trust Wikipedia, doesn't that mean you can trust them?

I am not able to read between the lines perhaps like you doing. 

So honestly what does it mean to you?

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

I am not able to read between the lines perhaps like you doing. 

So honestly what does it mean to you?

I was alluding to the liar's paradox.

In all seriousness though, the more technical the information the more accurate Wikipedia generally is.

Your earlier post was saying that Wikipedia shouldn't be used recursively.

[el midgetron]

6 hours ago, South Alabam said:

I made up that internet line, as a joke, but with anyone being able to edit., it could be in there.

That’s why you follow the citations. You know, “fact check”. 

Return to the topic please.

Edited August 8, 2021 by el midgetron

[el midgetron]

5 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Last, I don't know where this Coupe idea enter the conversation, because according to the Constitution and the insurrection Act  when they disrupted the electoral vote certification. They also disrupted Congress in session, and either one if those offenses is the act of Insurrection as defined by Law. You can dismiss it, disagree with it, dance around it, or anything else you choose to do but nothing changes the fact that Insurrection was committed. 

It’s in the title of the thread….. welcome to the premise of this entire thread. 

[Doug1066]

The problem with political media is the complete lack of peer review.  Peer review that can stop publication of an article before it appears in print, or pull it offline afterward.  You are never going to get a completely unbiased political viewpoint, so quit pretending that either side is unbiased.

Also, some things are not political.  Covid for example.  Kushner's belief that covid would hit blue states and the Rubs could blame that on Democratic governors paved the way for our current epidemic in red states.  Unlike Kushner, covid is not biased.  It doesn't believe in politics.  It's just a mindless organism trying to make a living as best it can.  It's not even antagonistic toward us.  We're just dinner.

Throw out the politics and use your minds.

Doug

[F3SS]

@Manwon Lender Lucky we nixed the bet and the mods shut the thread down due to "official narrative" but Obama's party went ahead as planned and there's no social distancing or masks anywhere in the pics that are out.