Investment Strategies / Mechanical Investing
No. of Recommendations: 2
I will acknowledge the liberals here are pretty well informed about political issues but when it comes to the average democrat voter, there is no mystery about why they vote as their told and don't hold any convictions of the own making. It's the news sources they rely on.
Example, Fox covered the IRS whistleblower testimony all day live. I know this is too much to ask for from the liberal MSM but surely they would at least mention it or the Grassley document in their primetime headline news. Nope.
NBC - The future of the road, powered by the sun. Testing a new type of electric vehicle.
ABC - One very lucky person in California, just one winner in the Billion Dollar Powerball jackpot.
CBS - the lights of Broadway will continue to shine after a last minute deal between producers and the backstage workers union.
Three impactful stories for sure, certainly more impactful than potential corruption at the highest levels of goverment.
No. of Recommendations: 8
bighairymike: I will acknowledge the liberals here are pretty well informed about political issues but when it comes to the average democrat voter, there is no mystery about why they vote as their [sic] told and don't hold any convictions of the [sic] own making. It's the news sources they rely on.
Well, yes, we democrats vote as we're told and hold no convictions of our own. But we do have to know the secret handshake in order to get our marching orders.
bighairymike: Three impactful stories for sure, certainly more impactful than potential corruption at the highest levels of goverment.[sic]
What potential corruption? President Biden had nothing to do with the investigation or with the plea agreement of his son. The whistleblowers said they felt the U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, David Weiss was hamstrung. Weiss issued a statement that declared that was not true:
"I want to make clear that, as the Attorney General has stated, I have been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the prosecution, consistent with federal law, the Principles of Federal Prosecution, and Departmental regulations."
The whistleblowers said they thought there was sufficient evidence to charge Hunter Biden with felonies. Prosecutors disagreed. Shapely was asked how often his recommendations for charges differed from prosecutor's final decision.
QUESTION: "Can you give us a percentage of how often you've said, 'We ought to charge someone,' and [the tax council] has said, 'No, that may not be a good idea?'"
SHAPELY: "A vast majority."
So Shapely admitted that his recommendations, more often than not, were rejected.
And what would you have the stations report? Investigators and prosecutors disagreed on charges? How is that news?
As far as the Grassley press release is concerned, again, where's the news?
Grassley was blabbing this on Fox News before releasing his press release and when asked if he had evidence of Biden wrongdoing said, "Well, there are allegations."
Umm, allegations are not evidence.
And the FBI informant was 'not able to provide any further opinion as to the veracity' of the claims, according to the FBI document.
So there's no evidence president Biden was involved in his son's work for the Ukrainian energy company or ever received any payments.
No evidence. Zero. Zilch.
And you do know that when he was Attorney General, Bill Barr received this information from Rudy Giuliani and assigned Pittsburgh US Attorney Scott Brady to investigate the allegations.
Again, there was no 'there' there. The accusations were so unreliable that Barr declined to pursue them.
CNN previously reported that the allegations in the 1023 surfaced years ago as Giuliani was sharing information with the Justice Department during the Trump administration. Then-Attorney General Bill Barr tapped former Pittsburgh US Attorney Scott Brady to oversee an FBI investigation into a variety of claims Giuliani provided the department.
Not only was there nothing there but republicans put intelligence assets at risk by disclosing the information after the FBI warned republicans against public disclosure.
'While not classified, these materials have significant law enforcement value and sensitivity, and should not be disclosed without authorization, as wider distribution could pose a risk of physical harm to FBI sources or others.'
So I guess there's the news: republicans putting intelligence assts' lives at risk.
On second thought, maybe that's not news. Republicans don't give a squat about national security.
Good night.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I will acknowledge the liberals here are pretty well informed about political issues
Erm, some of them are.
My favorite left wingers need clues segment was Jake Tapper I think it was explaining to some town hall who Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were'because his idiot network hadn't covered anything.
People who rely on the mainstream media for their information'are often not well informed.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Umm, allegations are not evidence.
And the FBI informant was 'not able to provide any further opinion as to the veracity' of the claims, according to the FBI document.
So there's no evidence president Biden was involved in his son's work for the Ukrainian energy company or ever received any payments. = CO
-----------------
That is my point. The MSM did not provide their viewers the opportunity to see and assess the testimony for themselves. Instead they must rely on others to tell them what to think as you opine above.
But they did make sure their viewers knew about the lotto winner and solar car developments so there's that.
No. of Recommendations: 4
bighairymike:
The MSM did not provide their viewers the opportunity to see and assess the testimony for themselves. Instead they must rely on others to tell them what to think as you opine above.Dope1:
People who rely on the mainstream media for their information'are [sic] often not well informed.NBC Nightly News reported the whistleblower hearing. Evidently you missed it and, by missing it, accuse NBC News of neglect or cover-up (or of democrats being poorly informed by the mainstream media).
You might want to rethink your own biases.
Clip:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/irs-whis...And no, this isn't an "online" segment, it's network news... wait for the end and you'll see Lester Holt.
So, you guys ready to admit you were wrong?
No. of Recommendations: 1
So, you guys ready to admit you were wrong? - CO
-------------------
OK, I was wrong about not covering "at all". BTW, your use of "you guys" expands my error to be the entirety of some population which is not correct either.
Concerning the coverage itself. 1 minute and 44 seconds is hardly equivalent to several hours of coverage of actual testimony.
Further, each point within that 1 minute and 44 seconds consisted of a few seconds of actual testimony of the IRS investigators followed by a rebuttal by the NBC commentator about why that slice of testimony was wrong. It was as much an op-ed as it was straight news. No actual questions by any committee member were shown. NBC could have shown democrat questions which were most often speeches if they wanted rebuttal.
But back to the central issue. I was wrong and I should have said "barely covered".
No. of Recommendations: 0
Clip: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/irs-whis...
And no, this isn't an "online" segment, it's network news... wait for the end and you'll see Lester Holt.To be fair, that's a summary of the entire whistleblower testimony with short excerpts of the most relevant things. But it still seems pretty "fair and balanced" to me.
Perhaps BHM was looking for the complete hearing to be broadcast on MSM? I doubt even Fox does that. I watch C-SPAN for such things myself if I really want to see it all and "make up my own mind". But any short synopsis is almost always going to be a bit biased, even when seen on Fox!
No. of Recommendations: 1
Wow.
A minute 44?
No. of Recommendations: 5
The MSM did not provide their viewers the opportunity to see and assess the testimony for themselves.
Assess the testimony for themselves???
What exactly can a viewer's brain add to the assessment process when there's no proof to support the allegation; adding right wing spin is just adding spin.
The fact remains the document is simply an unproven allegation. Beyond that, what else can a viewer do but insinuate, or agree with a pundit's insinuation, based on a profound anti-Biden bias?
No. of Recommendations: 3
But back to the central issue. I was wrong and I should have said "barely covered".
Exactly how much expensive airtime do you think should be given to unsubstantiated allegations?
When something is substantiated it becomes a major story and the main news channels dedicate appropriate airtime to an issue. Until then, it's only of major interest to those who are foaming for a stained blue dress.
No. of Recommendations: 1
What exactly can a viewer's brain add to the assessment process when there's no proof to support the allegation; adding right wing spin is just adding spin. - sano
------------------------------------
They can conclude that more information is needed and be on the lookout for it. Or they may become interested in whether or not the FBI showed any interest in investigating the matter. And if not, why not?
Based strictly on the MSM told their viewers, there is nothing to see here so forget about it. Quite different.
No. of Recommendations: 3
bighairyguy:
Concerning the coverage itself. 1 minute and 44 seconds is hardly equivalent to several hours of coverage of actual testimony.
Further, each point within that 1 minute and 44 seconds consisted of a few seconds of actual testimony of the IRS investigators followed by a rebuttal by the NBC commentator about why that slice of testimony was wrong.Two minutes or so is what a 20-minute nightly news show (less commercials) provides a news story. And what, you think reporting the "news" is running film of the testimony without context or contrary evidence?
Here, this is the 3-minute CBS segment which you also missed, reported on the CBS Evening News with Norah O'Donnell by their far-rightwing investigative correspondent, Catherine Herridge (a Fox News reporter for two decades). Herridge lets Shapely go on and on without push-back. But even Herridge has to give time to the other side, but literally just a few seconds.
I think even you'll admit that ninety percent of this segment is pro-whistleblower, anti-Hunter Biden. Although clearly one-sided reporting, it does refute your claim that democrats are brainwashed by their liberal sources.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/irs-whistleblower-sa...
No. of Recommendations: 3
They can conclude that more information is needed and be on the lookout for it.
I'll go look under my sink! Nope; no information there, but we do need more soap for the dishwasher.
Let's look on Truth Social! Aha...more information and a bunch of leading insinuations, but alas, no confirmation of allegations...and more importantly, we still need to get more dishwasher soap.
Based strictly on the MSM told their viewers, there is nothing to see here so forget about it.
The MSM did not say 'so forget about it. That's right-wing victimhood feeling bad because there's no stained blue dress.
When the stained blue dress is discovered you can be sure it'll lead on all major media.
Until then, I need to go get some dishwasher soap.
