Of course. Local news, national news, my local newspaper and even these discussion groups can lead me to find out more of a story that interests me. Since neither you nor I are actors in those stories, we must hear of them first through some form of medium. Even the gossip corner at work qualifies as a medium.
So given media organizations at the editorial level are in fact feeding possible news stories into narratives that they have constructed topically, none of us can be entirely immune to these narratives, up to and including this forum, because at some level they become ubiquitous even if we are getting them third hand. The value of a video blogger like Tim Pool, for example, is that he has his own editorial narrative, that is not NYT, it's not WSJ, it's not NYP, not NR, Fox or CNN. Ultimately we are all teasing facts . . . what we hope are facts, out of these narratives. And we will deem somethings to be facts, or counterfactual based, on our own editorial narrative. What source documents you will bother to read is ultimately an editorial decision you make based on your own narrative.
There have always been voters (unfortunately the majority) who pay little attention and can be swayed one way or the other by the stupidest things.
I don't dispute that, but internet search result is good evidence that the searcher is attempting to think for herself. So in my view, this is a particularly insidious violation of the sanctity of a persons intellect.
I am not aware of any candidate paying for position on a search engine as some businesses do.
If we found that, it would be a mere flea bite. We are already alerted to the fact that a candidate has a vested interest in an election. We see that one coming a mile away. It's the political interests of the internet super spreaders whose political priorities are neither identified nor debated in the public square, that are the primary concerns here. It's the,
you are a weak candidate we will throw you over our shoulders and carry you across the finish line, and we will issue you a bill after you are elected; because after all you may want a second term, appeal. I hope you see the insidious nature of this kind of a problem. And all you need to pull this off is to be a internet billionaire.
Would that really be much different from buying ad times on a local station.
Yes, it's very, very, very different. Political ads are so regulated now that the candidate has to say I approve this add. Our defenses are on full alert when we watch a political ad. When we do an internet search we assume the algorithm that presumably delivers us what we requested doesn't have a political ax to grind, and that is 100% false. Conservatives are aware of this because we will hear someone make an argument, and we will very meticulously compose a search string to find that argument and we have to read five pages of content arguing the exact opposite to finally find what we were looking for, if ever we find it. I'm convinced the algorithm will deliberately bury what you are looking for if you are a conservative. In fact one of Robert Epstein's recent studies prove that conservatives are delivered 30% more liberal content than liberals are by search algorithms.
He then conceded when the SCOTUS stopped the counting.
It was stopped because the rationale for the counting violated Florida state election law.
Up until then Florida could have gone either way.
Had he asked for it in all the counties possibly.
The recount there guarantied the Presidency to whomever won the state.
True.
Of course. However, it does not become more than an allegation until it is heard in court.
No. Exactly the opposite. If there is no allegation there is no preceding.
In Arizona, mail in ballots to be counted are taken to the counting center only after they are verified by local municipalities. No verification takes place at the counting center because they were verified prior to their arrival. Was the allegation at the hearing that the violations took place at the counting center or at the local municipalities?
This alleged checking was mentioned. Under state election law it's subject to observation by the partisan poll watchers. Therefore, that irregularity placed every one of those votes in complete doubt. The only remedy for that, short of throwing out the votes, is auditing the signatures. An election has to conform to state law.
You can consider any question you wish.
What I can do is not the issue. What's indicated by law and reason is the issue.
You can present any hypothesis you wish.
Facts that assert themselves, backed by 75 million American voters, have to be dealt with.
You can claim 'it couldn't happen this way'. But, if it could happen that way, I will point it out.
I would hope so. That is how point and counter point keep each other in check.
We are both speculating, but we are both allowed to do so. And then we have to dig deeper. Hopefully, that's what we're doing now.
Indeed, and it's baring some fruit. I've noticed the mainstream narrative is migrating away from the
"no evidence" tagline to something like
"no proven fraud." That is not an immaterial change.
I only read the odd piece I'm linked to here. I have no opinion on the NYT other than to say I love doing their Sunday crossword.
They have a great impact on all of journalism. They call themselves
"the paper of record." And as near as I can tell no one is really trying to wrestle that title away from them.
It feels good to be understood.
I'm sure there is. Every year seems to be a new 'generation'.
Yes. Speaking of which you might check out "The Fourth Turning" if you've not already read it.