16 thoughts on “News/Politics 12-18-20

  1. Just another reason “fact checks” are BS.


    “This Series Of Fact-Checks On America’s Mission To Defeat COVID Exposes Media Hatred

    Fact checks on the United States’ COVID vaccine timeline expose how outlets like NBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post are willing to attack American aspirations to score political points.”

    “America’s corporate fact-checkers are out of control.

    Long gone are the days of Snopes assuring readers there isn’t a million dollars waiting in a Nigerian bank account for them. Distant are the happier times when fact-checks assured us there was no hook-handed hitchhiker killing our grandparents on the local highway.

    Instead today, we see an alliance between corporate media and corporate tech titans to squelch debate, silence conservatives, and literally censor regular Americans, dissenting scientists, newspaper competitors, and even the president of the United States. No longer even content with simply nitpicking and undermining debate, the fact checks on the United States’ COVID vaccine timeline expose how outlets like NBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post are willing to attack American dreams and aspirations to score political points.

    “Trump’s inaccurate coronavirus vaccine timeline,” read a Washington Post headline that has since been updated to replace “inaccurate” with “accelerated.”

    “Trump appears to be expediting the vaccine development process, misrepresenting how fast a vaccine will be available to the public in fighting the novel coronavirus,” the article claimed, citing leftist media’s unassailable hero, Dr. Anthony Fauci.

    “As the United States and the rest of the world prepare for the novel coronavirus to continue spreading,” they continued, “it’s important to share factual information about the virus and methods to combat it.”

    “Fact check: Coronavirus vaccine could come this year, Trump says,” reads an NBC headline. “Experts say he needs a ‘miracle’ to be right.”

    When the president said he expected companies to develop a vaccine “relatively soon,” The New York Times “fact-checkers” called it “misleading.”

    Were newspapers wrong to ask questions about Operation Warp Speed, to push for transparency, and to ask experts in the field what they thought? Certainly not, but “fact-checks” are rarely journalism these days, when outlets like USA Today hire college interns to earn money from Facebook by censoring media they dislike.

    More to the point, the above three articles aren’t even checks on facts — they’re checks on hopeful goals, they’re checks on our national aspirations in the face of immense challenges, they’re checks on what the corporate media and their expert friends think America is capable of achieving. They’re checks on our future.”


  2. After 4 years of Russia, Russia, Russia the NYTimes seems seriously disinterested in a politician that actually was compromised by a foreign govt and it’s spy.

    Because the NYT is bird cage liner at best, although that’s cruel to the bird.


    “For NY Times, no news is fit to print about Rep. Swalwell and a spy”

    “If you’re a New York Times subscriber who also watches the broadcast network evening news and considers that your news diet, there’s a very good chance you haven’t heard about Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and his ties to an accused Chinese spy a few years ago.

    To review why this is absolutely worthy of coverage, Swalwell’s interaction with the alleged spy known as Fang Fang included, according to Axios, Fang placing an intern in Swalwell’s office and helping to fundraise for his 2014 reelection campaign. In 2015, the FBI provided Swalwell a “defensive briefing” to warn him of the threat she appeared to pose.

    So, the first obvious question is this: Given how easily Swalwell was duped, why did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) shortly thereafter place him on the House Intelligence Committee, which oversees the CIA and therefore has access to the highest level of sensitive, classified information?

    The New York Times doesn’t seem to care about getting an answer to that question.

    Of the biases we see in major media, the sin of omission is one that seems to occur only when the protagonist of a major story has a (D) next to his or her name. So, when the New York Times, which has a whopping 7 million subscribers and is considered the country’s most influential publication, doesn’t see the Swalwell story as a story at all, it tells you just as much about its moral compass as it does its editorial decisions.

    Swalwell isn’t just a random lawmaker. He’s arguably the most ubiquitous D.C. figure on cable news – and particularly CNN and MSNBC – this side of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) in conducting hundreds of interviews over the past four years, primarily to charge without evidence that President Trump is an agent of Russia. The 40-year-old also somehow sits on the House Intelligence Committee, meaning he has access to the nation’s top classified information.

    The Swalwell/Chinese spy story was broken 10 days ago by Axios, which isn’t exactly a bastion of right-wing sentiment. No matter: Swalwell decided to allege that Axios had colluded with Trump in terms of how the story came to light.

    “I’ve been a critic of the president. I’ve spoken out against him. I was on both committees that worked to impeach him. The timing feels like that should be looked at,” Swalwell claimed on Dec. 9. Yep — Eric Swalwell, who ran for president for about five minutes in 2019, is such a threat to an outgoing president that a decision was made to work with Axios (which worked on the story for more than a year) to run with a Trump leak.

    This is the same lawmaker who told MSNBC that Trump “is working on behalf of the Russians” and used his position on the Intel Committee to imply that he had evidence to back up such information. That evidence has yet to be presented, because it doesn’t exist.

    So, an obvious question is whether Swalwell should remain on the Intelligence Committee given the Chinese connection and the reckless statements about a sitting president working with a hostile nation. More than a dozen GOP House members are urging Speaker Pelosi to oust Swalwell from the committee; Pelosi has responded by saying she doesn’t have “any concerns” about the congressman.

    Again, are growing calls for a member of a very important committee worthy of a few drops of ink in the Times?

    One would think. ”


    But you’d be wrong.


  3. Unqualified only matters to the press if there’s an R after your name.



  4. ———–



  5. ———


  6. Jake Tapper is still a clown.



  7. Turns out that that story about Justice Roberts yelling at the other justices is a rumor. Due to Covid, the justices are not meeting in person.

    “Firstly, it should immediately that the claim is demonstrably false because of the initial claim it makes that the Supreme Court Justices met within a closed room. The video above that is circulating of a man giving testimony includes the below excerpt near the start of the testimony –

    ___’The Justices, as they always do, went into a closed room to discuss cases they’re taking … there are no phones, no computers, no nothing…’

    However, The Supreme Court Justices actually did not go into a closed room to discuss the Texas AG lawsuit. During November and December, all arguments have been conducted remotely. As per the Supreme Court website . . .

    The beginning of Patrick’s testimony is cropped out, but listening to his full remarks, it should be noted that Patrick is merely regurgitating a “report” he found online. He was neither describing a first-hand account, nor was he even describing an account he had heard directly from someone else. He had found something online, and opted to repeat that during his testimony.

    ___”I wish I could give you a specific citation for this, but I didn’t make note of it because it was something I read this morning … there was a report available online that was written by someone who is a current staffer for one of the Supreme Court Justices…’

    Patrick no doubt really did see such a report, since there are a number of such stories proliferating online that preceded the December 14th 2020 certification meeting when the above video of him speaking was taken. However such reports are largely found on conspiracy themed websites, and are solely based on a report from an anonymous “source inside the Supreme Court”, and make a number of unsubstantial and dubious claims. . . .

    However the claim the Justices met in person is false. Not a single person (other than these “anonymous sources”) has verified the claim that the Supreme Court Justices broke from the current norm to meet in person. The same article on the Hal Turner website also makes a number of other outlandish claim, including the accusation that a screaming John Roberts told fellow justice Neil Gorsuch ‘I will tell you how you will vote’.”



  8. Kizzie,

    All that was necessary was one person in the room with a laptop on Zoom or speaker phone with the volume up listening to the call.

    But the “fact check” never examines that possibility, because truth wasn’t their intent.

    The rest is just pure conjecture on their part, like where he found the info. It’s useless.

    So yeah, that fact check is nonsense.


  9. Kizzie, the report raised instant red flags with me, even not thinking about whether or not they were meeting in person, because it doesn’t make sense. Here are justices who have been meeting in a professional basis for decades, often on issues on which they strongly disagree, but they meet quietly. And then one day instead there is yelling loud enough for someone in another room to hear what is being said? It didn’t “pass the smell test.” (It also was several levels removed, even according to the original report: “Someone told me that he heard someone say . . .” is hearsay, not genuine evidence.)

    Liked by 1 person

  10. The truth, when it comes to current U.S. politics, is not always as transparent as we think it is, and trying to judge a post’s inner “intent” gets into some guesswork (unless, I’d say, it comes from a site is openly advocating a partisan agenda, then it’s easier to know).

    News consumption these days isn’t easy and requires a great deal of discernment and cross checking. Even then we may be left not fully “knowing” as much as we think or wish we did. Nothing should be swallowed hook-line-and-sinker these days.

    Thanks for posting Kizzie, I think it’s important we see different takes on some of these things.

    Good analysis Cheryl — that’s the kind of thing news consumers (which is all of us) need to be doing. I know, not enough time in most of our days.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Long, and likely behind the WSJ’s rock-solid paywall, but an interesting read



    Abortion, Guns and Trump: A Church Group Tries to Navigate America’s Divisions

    Calvary Christian Reformed in suburban Michigan seeks understanding through dialogue; ‘my soul is hurting’

    WYOMING, Mich.—The evening after Election Day, Mark and Nick Elders gathered nearly a dozen members of Calvary Christian Reformed Church in suburban Grand Rapids over Zoom. The brothers asked each person to reveal which presidential candidate they voted for and why.

    The churchgoers had been meeting weekly to work through their conflicting stances on health care, immigration, gun control, abortion and other issues. They started in early March in the church youth room, seated inches apart on worn couches. Now they were holding their last meeting amid a raging pandemic. Joe Biden’s victory over President Trump was just coming into focus.

    One by one the participants, a mix of conservatives, liberals and independents, disclosed their White House pick. Jayne Quist said she and her husband, Jim Quist, voted to re-elect President Trump because he is antiabortion and “socialism scares us.” Mark Westrate said he backed a Democrat for the first time in a half-century of voting because “everything seems to be falling apart.”

    Mark and Nick Elders picked Mr. Biden after voting for Mr. Trump in 2016. That put them at odds with a group member they deeply admire: their father, Dale Elders, who backed the Republican incumbent a second time.

    The Elders brothers, lifelong members of the church, asked the participants to crack open their 194-page workbooks and begin the difficult process of understanding those who voted the other way. The workbooks, developed by a nonpartisan Christian group, warned them not to treat people with opposing political beliefs as the enemy. Nick Elders closed his eyes and asked God to keep them from losing sight of this for the next four years.

    “Help us all to remember that we’re Christians first,” prayed the 28-year-old boat salesman. “We’re Republicans or Democrats or third party second.” …

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.