Stop the Steal

[98cwitr]

That might be true in theory. But back here in reality, it was an attempt by the GOP legislator to suppress minority voters.

There were an infinite number of ways to enact voter ID which "doesn't hurt anyone", and yet Republicans resorted to specifically targeting African American voters. I think that makes the intent pretty obvious.

By minority you mean racial minority (not political, even if there is a correlation). That is a spin that simply doesn't hold water. Effects of proportionality does not prove intent to suppress based on immutable traits, but does mean that we need to ensure there are no roadblocks.

IOW, if minority votes were being suppressed, you need to show me the law that limits Voter ID based on race...there are none.

Black people voted for Voter ID too...Mark Robinson is a huge advocate of it. Kinda kills the narrative.

 

[disciple Clint]

Yes, I've noticed any number of individuals ignoring the abundant evidence surrounding this issue, sometimes by abruptly attempting to change the subject.


I support them by posting links to the courts findings on the subject. You know, that evidence you asked for and then didn't read?

What specific provisions in the proposed legislation do you feel discriminate against black voters

 

[98cwitr]

Evidence to support these claims are required. Otherwise, these two posts only amount to 'Contradiction' in debates. Links to the evidence will give more credibility than expecting others to simply take our word for anything.

No harm intended towards anyone. I am simply using these two posts as an example.

Please and thank you. God bless!

View attachment 296873

Here Is The Evidence

 

[Arcangl86]

Not exactly. It's that Trump and Tillis got so many votes, but they didn't correlate well between Cooper and Forest. Many of us are scratching our heads: Who votes for Trump and Tillis but NOT for Dan Forest?!

Trump and Tillis were both incumbents, and so was Cooper. That alone can explain it. There's a huge advantage to being an incumbent, because people don't like changing their votes because it means they were wrong.

 

[98cwitr]

Trump and Tillis were both incumbents, and so was Cooper. That alone can explain it. There's a huge advantage to being an incumbent, because people don't like changing their votes because it means they were wrong.

Mark Robinson get 2.8M+ votes seems to contradict the "incumbent" claim though.

 

[Arcangl86]

Mark Robinson get 2.8M+ votes seems to contradict the "incumbent" claim though.

No it doesn't because there wasn't an incumbent in that race.

 

[Rene Loup]

are you questioning that the msm is predominately liberal?

No, because I used Media Bias to confirm that:

CNN - Media Bias Fact Check​

MSNBC - Media Bias Fact Check​

Washington Post - Media Bias Fact Check​

Occupy Democrats - Media Bias Fact Check​

Toronto Today - Media Bias Fact Check​

mostly liberal news services are verified by mostly liberal fact checkers and that is supposed to confirm that you are getting unbiased facts?

Based on the evidence so far, yes.

With all the evidence provided, can you still make the claim that Media Bias is biased towards liberalism? Why or why not?

Before I answer any more of your questions, please answer my following questions:

If you are distrustful of fact-checking sources, then what is your plan to filter out the lies from the truth in online news sources?

Do you have evidence of this? If so, what is your source?

Otherwise, I will have to walk away from this conversation (1 John 4:1-6, Luke 20:1-8, Mark 11:27-33, Matthew 7:6, 10:11-16, 21:23-27, 1 Peter 3:13-17). Please and thank you.

 

[98cwitr]

No it doesn't because there wasn't an incumbent in that race.

Are you suggesting that incumbency trumps political party affiliation? I am hard pressed to place myself in such a frame of thinking....I can, but it seems...preposterous to do so.

 

[Arcangl86]

Are you suggesting that incumbency trumps political party affiliation? I am hard pressed to place myself in such a frame of thinking....I can, but it seems...preposterous to do so.

I think party means a lot less on the local level then it does on the federal level. If all that mattered was party, Roy Cooper never would have gotten elected to begin with, especially in a state like NC that is so heavily Republican. And if you look at the history of NC, you would see that only once in history has an incumbent lost, and that was when Roy Cooper edged out McCory.

 

[98cwitr]

I think party means a lot less on the local level then it does on the federal level. If all that mattered was party, Roy Cooper never would have gotten elected to begin with, especially in a state like NC that is so heavily Republican. And if you look at the history of NC, you would see that only once in history has an incumbent lost, and that was when Roy Cooper edged out McCory.

I'd agree with you except Roy's failure to implement voter ID (which was democratically voted in), the draconian shutdowns (comparatively one of the most strict in the country), and the failure to secure the Capitol and downtown Raleigh during the summer rioting raises some suspicions. Maybe there was something other voters know about Forest that I didn't, but it's a fishy win. Too bad there's no way for the public to gain confidence over the election process when we aren't even allowed to see our legally retrievable ballots.

 

[disciple Clint]

No, because I used Media Bias to confirm that:

CNN - Media Bias Fact Check​

View attachment 296884

MSNBC - Media Bias Fact Check​

View attachment 296885

Washington Post - Media Bias Fact Check​

View attachment 296886

Occupy Democrats - Media Bias Fact Check​

View attachment 296889

Toronto Today - Media Bias Fact Check​

View attachment 296890​

Based on the evidence so far, yes.

With all the evidence provided, can you still make the claim that Media Bias is biased towards liberalism? Why or why not?

Before I answer any more of your questions, please answer my following questions:





Otherwise, I will have to walk away from this conversation (1 John 4:1-6, Luke 20:1-8, Mark 11:27-33, Matthew 7:6, 10:11-16, 21:23-27, 1 Peter 3:13-17). Please and thank you.

I think you have done a good job of confirming what I said. My method of deciding what is fact and fiction in news is to listen to both sides recognizing the bias that they have, sorting out the facts from opinion, and at times using multiple sources to check those facts. Frankly I have very little confidence in any of our news sources and find that I often get a better picture of our nation and our policies by listening to or reading foreign news services.

 

[KCfromNC]

By minority you mean racial minority (not political, even if there is a correlation). That is a spin that simply doesn't hold water.

Effects of proportionality does not prove intent to suppress based on immutable traits, but does mean that we need to ensure there are no roadblocks.

Lots of words here. I wonder why none of them discuss the actual evidence I posted.

IOW, if minority votes were being suppressed

Might want to read what I actually posted before trying to argue against things I didn't.

Black people voted for Voter ID too...Mark Robinson is a huge advocate of it. Kinda kills the narrative.

As I've said before, this reads like "this law even has a black friend, it can't be racist".

 

[KCfromNC]

What specific provisions in the proposed legislation do you feel discriminate against black voters

The part where GOP legislators looked up which IDs were most difficult for minority voters to get and then used them as the forms of ID required by law.

I don't know why you keep asking the same thing over and over and over. It was in the link I replied to when you asked again earlier in the thread. It is almost as if you're asking for evidence and then avoiding looking at it.

 

[KCfromNC]

No it doesn't because there wasn't an incumbent in that race.

I find it ironic that we're supposed to accept that posts are well informed about the intricacies of election fraud but at the same time don't even know who was running for office in the most recent election.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'd agree with you except Roy's failure to implement voter ID (which was democratically voted in), the draconian shutdowns (comparatively one of the most strict in the country), and the failure to secure the Capitol and downtown Raleigh during the summer rioting raises some suspicions.

Certainly in right-wing echo chambers. The problem is assuming that these manufactured outrages play well with the larger majority of voters.

 

[Nithavela]

I think you have done a good job of confirming what I said. My method of deciding what is fact and fiction in news is to listen to both sides recognizing the bias that they have, sorting out the facts from opinion, and at times using multiple sources to check those facts. Frankly I have very little confidence in any of our news sources and find that I often get a better picture of our nation and our policies by listening to or reading foreign news services.

You would be better served to find a source with high factual reporting, no matter their bias, than to listen to two sets of lies and then decide between them.

 

[Valletta]

Do you have evidence of this? If so, what is your source?

Take a look at the polls of those in the major media as to their political views and affiliations.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

And as Sydney Powell said, no reasonable person would have agreed with her claims of voter fraud.

This either gets ignored by Trump supporters. Or they believe she's a lying traitor. That went liberal.

BTW, the title alone of this thread gives away the political bias of this thread.
"Stop the steal" - What steal???

Cult like brainwashing.

 

[disciple Clint]

You would be better served to find a source with high factual reporting, no matter their bias, than to listen to two sets of lies and then decide between them.

One of the goals of education is the ability to consider alternate sources of conflicting information and come to a rational decision.

 

[Valletta]

Lots of words here. I wonder why none of them discuss the actual evidence I posted.



Might want to read what I actually posted before trying to argue against things I didn't.



As I've said before, this reads like "this law even has a black friend, it can't be racist".

The part where GOP legislators looked up which IDs were most difficult for minority voters to get and then used them as the forms of ID required by law.

I don't know why you keep asking the same thing over and over and over. It was in the link I replied to when you asked again earlier in the thread. It is almost as if you're asking for evidence and then avoiding looking at it.

Do you have any documentation about GOP legislators looking up what was "most difficult for minority voters to get" or is this just more malicious gossip? Any films, recorded audio conversations, any evidence at all? Many minorities do have driver's licenses, those that don't get IDs. They need IDs for getting health procedures from COVID vaccinations to colonoscopies. I had to show my ID to get the COVID vaccine.

 

[KCfromNC]

Do you have any documentation about GOP legislators looking up what was "most difficult for minority voters to get"

Yes. Post 96. It is the one where I mention that I keep posting the same link over and over and over each time this subject comes up, only to be met with posts implying there's no evidence of the GOP actively working to suppress minority votes.