MyPillow guy has to pay $5 million as promised

[Bootstrap]

The question from Robert was, why did Bootstrap start this thread when he consistently calls for less of these types of threads.

Could you please tell me what you mean by "these types of threads"?

Fact checking this kind of thing is not something I object to.

Robert asked you why you started this thread, when "you cry out the need for less of this". Why did you start it, when it seems like you want less?

Less facts? Less information on what courts, arbitrators, election boards, recounts, etc. have determined when they actually investigate? If we are going to discuss political topics at all, this is what we need more of.

Less personality politics, less treating partisan political sides as our source of truth, less demonization of each other ... those are things I would like to see.

[Bootstrap]

Could you please tell me what you mean by "these types of threads"?

Fact checking this kind of thing is not something I object to.

*snort* "Fact checking"

You snort at facts. Over and over again. It's your main contribution to this thread. Snorting more loudly doesn't make it true.

Facts do exist.

[Josh]

Less facts? Less information on what courts, arbitrators, election boards, recounts, etc. have determined when they actually investigate? If we are going to discuss political topics at all, this is what we need more of.

Despite your wishes that it were so, there is not consensus here that "courts, arbitrators, boards, recounts, etc." somehow actually determine what is true.

Less personality politics, less treating partisan political sides as our source of truth, less demonization of each other ... those are things I would like to see.

You're welcome to start doing that. Anytime I discuss my opinions, Boot, you retort that I'm just repeating what I hear on Fox News. It's really tiresome. You seem to believe I am incapable of forming any independent opinions.

[Josh]

You snort at facts. Over and over again. It's your main contribution to this thread. Snorting more loudly doesn't make it true.

Facts do exist.

No, I don't snort at facts.

I don't agree with your definition of what the "facts" are, and I don't think you've been elected the arbiter of who decides what is true and false in this forum.

I believe much of what you think are facts are simply your opinions. I am content to state my opinions, and content to listen to yours as well. But let's not insist over and over that our opinions are somehow the true, honest facts when the reality is, none of us really have any idea what goes on at all outside of our own spheres of influence. I'd be much more interested in hearing what you have to say about Bible translations, for example, than opinions on Mike Lindell. I don't think either of us is an expert on pillows.

[Bootstrap]

Less facts? Less information on what courts, arbitrators, election boards, recounts, etc. have determined when they actually investigate? If we are going to discuss political topics at all, this is what we need more of.

Despite your wishes that it were so, there is not consensus here that "courts, arbitrators, boards, recounts, etc." somehow actually determine what is true.

There is no consensus that any verifiable source of fact is relevant. Or that we should actually discuss the facts at all. Or that we should discuss the topic of a thread in a thread.

For instance, in this thread, why not discuss the topic of the original post? Why do you object to that? Why is heckling an acceptable response? Isn't that the same kind of "trying to silence me" that you accuse others of? There are plenty of other threads to discuss other things.

Anyone who doesn't want to discuss the topic of this thread or the facts that have come out is very welcome to leave this thread.

[Josh]

There is no consensus that any verifiable source of fact is relevant. Or that we should actually discuss the facts at all. Or that we should discuss the topic of a thread in a thread.

For instance, in this thread, why not discuss the topic of the original post? Why do you object to that?

The topic of the original thread was a New York Times article, a notorious source of false information. There aren't any "facts" to discuss beyond that. I wasn't sitting in the arbitration hearing and don't know much more about the facts of the case.

Do you?

[Bootstrap]

There aren't any "facts" to discuss beyond that.

Well, good-bye then. See you in another thread.

Meanwhile, perhaps you will allow others to discuss it here? Instead of flooding and heckling?

[Josh]

There aren't any "facts" to discuss beyond that.

Well, good-bye then. See you in another thread.

Meanwhile, perhaps you will allow others to discuss it here? Instead of flooding and heckling?

I don't feel a compulsion to concede that the sloppy journalism from the NY Times somehow need to be accepted as the "facts". It should be criticised for what it is, which is biased, political coverage meant to push the country into a particular ideological direction. I have levelled the same criticism (and indeed I have) when people have posted articles from WorldNetDaily or LifeSite News back in the MennoDiscuss days.

[Ken]

But since you brought the subject up about election fraud, it is turning out that the biggest actual fraud committed, was the suppression and lies about the Hunter Biden laptop story, right before the 2020 election. An action that denied voters the right to have all the facts about the president the were about to elect.

That wasn't election fraud. It wasn't big fraud, or small fraud. or any kind of fraud at all.

And the story wasn't suppressed by the government. It was all over the news. The fact that some media outlets chose not to run the story when they were unable to independently verify it doesn't constitute any sort of fraud or suppression whatsoever. That is simply an editorial choice that they are perfectly entitled to make. And the kind of choice that every media outlet makes hundreds of times every single day.

I agree, but what you're not saying, but everybody knows, is that it was manipulation of news content in a way that benefited the political party and candidate that certain news outlets favored. Something that Fox News never does of course

Political parties, political campaigns, and the interests behind them have sought to control media narratives since the dawn of the printing press. In fact political parties started their own newspapers which is why so many newspapers have legacy names like "Democratic Herald" and so forth. The daily paper in Little Rock Arkansas is the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and in Springfield MA it is the Springfield Republican. Where do you think those names came from? You can find similar examples all across the country. The US has a long and rich history of partisan media. FOX news is only the latest incarnation. A free press doesn't mean an unbiased press. Tom Paine's famous tract "Common Sense printed during the American Revolution was certainly not an unbiased news source. It was propaganda with a specific tilt.

Today we see that continuing with social media, media campaigns, and political operatives who continually shop stories and dirt on opponents. And campaigns who try to control their media messaging and talking points. And we now have foreign governments trying to manipulate the US media and social media. None of that is new or even slightly surprising. It is the political environment in which all politics occurs in the US.

But it is not elections fraud.

[Bootstrap]

There aren't any "facts" to discuss beyond that.

Well, good-bye then. See you in another thread.

Meanwhile, perhaps you will allow others to discuss it here? Instead of flooding and heckling?

I don't feel a compulsion to concede that the sloppy journalism from the NY Times somehow need to be accepted as the "facts". It should be criticised for what it is, which is biased, political coverage meant to push the country into a particular ideological direction. I have levelled the same criticism (and indeed I have) when people have posted articles from WorldNetDaily or LifeSite News back in the MennoDiscuss days.

You can find the same facts from any number of other news sources.

I'm going to start using phrases like "ignoring the heckling" or "back to the topic" with a specific meaning in threads that are about a given topic when you or others try to silence discussion of the topic by flooding the thread. And I won't bother responding to the rest of what you post to do so. So you will know what that means.

It means that I think truth depends on facts, and the way to determine facts is to discuss the facts for or against a particular understanding. And to discuss a given topic instead of heckling. And that I think political fights are stupid and ugly, so I don't want to spend my time and energy in that direction.