Again, You are disregarding my reference to facts that are a basis for some of my conclusions. You use the term “Trusted source”. Most if not all, media is politically biased. Even a single unbiased source may have not considered all the information, including myself, for that matter. Media companies are certainly aware of their advertiser’s interests. Some media outlets in the world are funded by a government and are biased in favor of that government. I’m not paid advertising dollars. I am not accountable to any political party. I am not forced into trying to fit events into an narrative. While I can’t say I’m always fully free of bias, I certaintly don’t have the conflicts of interest to often lead to bias or worse. Since you have indicated there are sources you trust, name them. As a heads up, I will research any sources you list and will report back on this thread. I will be specific and include citations from a variety of sources. It seems you are attempting to impose a higher standard on my posting than you do on yourself or on others, either in an effort to discourage my posting or discredit it. In a way, it is understandable. A reasoned, foundational approach to decision making is dangerous to those who rely on devisive indentity politics in an attempt to get people to make decisions with their emotions and against their best interests. Fifty plus years of failure in many long term Democrat controlled communities bear this out. Fact reference: Baltimore, MD, Pelosi’s birth town. While indentity politics is a method of gaining votes by Democrats for a long time, it is getting stale, because the same issues they are trying to get people up in arms over are still there over fifty years later. On one level, you could say if people are that stupid, why not take advantage of them? Another level of thinking says our system is dysfunctional when you see Presidental approval polls low and Democrat Party leaders such as Pelosi approval polls even lower as shown by polls listed on left front page of realclearpolitics.com. People have lost confidence in their representatives and it is not the people’s fault, right? We have a systemic deficiency that is caused by the corrupt practices of politicians and those in the media. Relying on a source that has a conflict of interest is self defeating. Weighting different points of view, performing followup if necessary, and taking action are keys to a healthy Democracy. You do want a healthy Democracy, right? This is what I’m promoting. Bottom line, my contribution to this forum is my unbiased as possible conclusions based on my independent research through a variety of sources, not just one. The reader can accept, reject, research, or feel free ask me a question for clarification on what I’ve said. I am confortable with people reaching a different conclusion than mine if they are not being misled. When I see efforts at misleading others, such as by Leftists here on ET, I speak out. US Leftists are almost constantly attempting to guide thought with “Political correctnesse”, narratives(Another word for bias), and opinion pieces instead of fully reporting the news. Why does it seem the Leftist media is so afraid of people reaching their own conclusions? Those of us who are uncompromised, uncompensated, and care about the system the forefathers of the United States have put into place will continue to put our community over politics by posting our thoughts, among other things. Even if it offends those who are offended by the United States. By the way, userque, what country are you originally from, which country do you live in now, and how do you personally feel about the United States?
Here, you make an allegation as to what I am doing in my mind. Cite your source indicating you know better than I do as to my state of mind. Again. Facts aren't biased. Opinions are. Secondly, When I say, "trusted source," that means trusted with regard to that particular piece of information, as well with regard to recent historical assertions. IOW, I don't blindly trust a source simply because they have been reliable in the past. But I do take the past into consideration. Everyone has a bias. The worst biases are free biases. Free biases are rooted in our true beliefs, and not rooted in a paycheck. Again, I vet sources as they are cited. I consider current information, in addition to past information, and past propensities to be reliable. You'll have to look through my past posts again to see where I cited a source; and the circumstances around that citation. False. Cite your evidence to support your allegation. So, assuming your cite is true, you are proffering one city of thousands, to support a claim of "many?" While you claim to have the least bias of most members of this website? Sure. Yet, you still fail to cite any such research to my original question regarding your first original allegation. Or the reader can accept, or reject what you've said, without a single question to you. Source? When I ask such questions of strangers, I do it like this, usually: Where are you from, I'm from so and so? IOW, you first.
Edit: There is a fomatting error on my response to your first question on top of this post. My response begins immediately below your two line response.
As our discussions are growing exponentially, I'm keeping a que of the ones that still "need" my response. I'll try to keep one discussion on the table at a time, so realize that I'm not ignoring your posts. LOL ... is that what you call it? Correct, silence doesn't necessarily imply acquiescence ... but sometimes it can: http://educationcenter2000.com/doctrine_of_acquiescence.htm So you can either provide sources; or not. I'm good either way. I was good before; but you seem to enjoy protracted discussions. Your posts will likely receive the same consideration by readers that most posts receive on the internet when they don't cite a source, imo. As you continue to make unsubstantiated claims of "fact," I'll continue to request that you cite a source. So, it's your turn with this same topic; or we can try to conclude another topic from the que? Your choice.
Yes, because I got lucky after about 5 minutes. I looked at several pages of the beginnings of your posts and the quoted post was the second one I opened, if I’m recalling correctly. Anyway, I already felt this horse has been beaten beyond its molecular components and I think you know my position, so this should be the last post on that subject. One idea that is related to this topic is the idea of the efficiency and economic opportunity of honesty. I’m talking about honesty in communications with people you know as well as you people you don’t and honesty in agreements, both written and unwritten. Honesty means not having to reinvent the wheel, at least to a degree, with every different subject or with every different person you meet. By partially reinventing the wheel, I mean submitting “Proof” or “Sources” when making a statement. Even written contracts usually fail to address all possible ways that a party can fail to deliver what the other party was expecting, as there are often intangible issues involved. It comes down to character whether someone will perform the way they would want the other side to perform if the roles were reversed. Many cultures who have been historically impovershed are often unreliable ethically because they try to maximize the short term gain of an opportunity by looking for ways to cut corners on their obligations. This results in disatisfaction of the other party, resulting in a loss of potential future business. A specific example is someone I know was in Vietnam after the Vietnam War looking to see if there was a business opportunity there. While over in Vietnam, he came up with the idea of exporting shrimp, but had learned early there were few legal protections over there, rampant dishonest dealing, and potential legal liability for him in the US if the other party failed to perform in some way. Instead, a underdeveloped resource failed to benefit him, the counterparty, and ultimately, the consumer, for quite some time. In US politics, honesty and character are critical to a properly functioning system. Politicians and the media have obligations to be honest and to represent the public’s interests above all else, even above lobbyists and advertisers. Those who believe otherwise, may I suggest the current state of US politics already reflects the misallocation of these primary obligations by those in power and influence. When a politician or newsman lies, distorts, mischaracterizes, leaves out pertinent information, maintains undisclosed conflicts of interests, they have failed in their duties to the public and to the principles upon which the United States was founded. When the media shows a bias or preference for a political candidate, they are useless as a credible and needed check and balance against politician abuse of power. Media credibility is key aspect of a healthy system. Reforms are needed, but how are can we get corrupted politicians to agree to them? Especially since it would change the status quo of their conduct and stoke fears their livelihood is threatened? This is where I had high hopes of Trump accomplishing, with his “Clean up the Swamp” campaign promise. Instead, for the most part, the Swamp has tried to get rid of Trump. Entrenched politicians fight hard to keep what they stole, I suppose. I’m certaintly not suggesting Democrats are alone when it comes to corruption. What I’m hoping for at this point, is to see enough come out on Biden and some of the other key Democrats to not necessarily to put them in jail or to remove them from office, but to bring them to the negotiating table for their agreement to system saving reforms. It is this sliver of dwindling hope that I still support Trump to allow enough time for Democrat stalling tactics to run out and that we may yet restore our political system back to where ethics count.
I’ll have to take your word for it. Well, of your numerous words I still have queued, I may still respond. However, I understand that you may no longer reply as you’ve deemed the topics closed … from your perspective.
I had a few thoughts today on the subject of providing sources and or methodology. These thoughts were the result of a discussion involving a survey that could potentially be used as either a justification for a wider survey, an investigation, or even an input into policy. This helped me appreciate the various levels of significance of information. It is one thing to convey your own opinion, whether you are a blogger or even an editor of a major publication. As a side note, I don’t ever recall seeing editorials that included sources or citations. Quite another when you are conveying information about other people’s opinions. At some point, certain statements should trigger disclosures. A survey would definately be one of those situations because the way a survey is conducted can influence its outcome. Thus, the methodology employed in that survey should be disclosed. Looking at various, say political polls, there is usually linsufficient information given about the methodology used, such as whether landlines or cellphones were contacted, time of day, day of week, locations called, whether the pollster’s number was spoofed to a local number to improve odds of contact, etc. Further, how a polster says a question can influence an answer. A little emphasis on a single word can result in an completely different answer. Even formatting on mailed or online surveys can influence answers by the order of questions or even how many questions are presented at once. Then there is bias selection. All the issues above with surveys clearly should be disclosed because most people probably don’t realize the impact of methodology has on surveys or poll results. Marketers use various techniques to influence opinions to get people to buy what they’re selling. They will use known and respected people to represent their product because people tend to let their guard down when presented with information by someone they trust. Marketers have also long realized that people are more comfortable when they belong to a group, leading to the creation of techniques that leverage this knowledge. We see these marketer techniques applied to politics all the time. From famous actors endorsing a particular candidate for credibility, to polls with missing disclosures suggesting one candidate is favored over another that serves the purpose of highlighting the larger group. Particularily evident use of polls to influence the opinion of a target audience was the Democrat primaries in 2008 between Hillary and Barrack and the 2020 Democrat primaries between Sanders and Biden. I’m not going to provide source material here, but perhaps you recall having the sense that these polls moved unnaturally fast given the events at the time. May I suggest that it is better to Independently consider what is important for you, not necessarily what a media personality says should be important, and reach your own conclusions on who to vote for? Yes, it requires some work, but marketers have been known to sell things that are not good for us. Cigarette, anybody?