Readers, this sort of thing below is exhausting me now and that’s even being in reasonably good health.
“80 or 90% of the media is the opposition party… these aren’t reporters, these are propagandists.” – @newtgingrich
You wake up around 4.25 a.m., bleary, woozy, shaking from cold – the hoody you wore – well, the hood fell off and the bedclothes have fallen off. It’s minus 2 outside, the flat is 10 degrees because the gas price is so high that it’s heat or eat.
The compromise is that you run the gas heating for an hour every five hours during out-of-bed hours and one large meal a day and that does keep life and limb going.
Now warm again, you reach for the iPad and go to Twitter, as you normally get 2 to 3 retweets an hour offpeak and about 10 to 12 at peak hours.
And there is this one, by Steph, a fellow tweeter from the States:
Steph’s a good lady and outraged, as we all are, by the constant lying by the left, plus globalist right [Remainers over here]. However, there are two points here – his ‘fact is …’ and the problem for her – how does she prove he’s lying?
It went on:
You can feel her outrage from here and this is what we’re all like on this side – dismayed at these tactics, which I strongly assert we do not do ourselves. We try to check our blinkin’ facts first. I replied to her:
Who carries fact checkers around in pockets? So most would just believe Sciutto’s ‘fact is that’. This is how the left gets away with lies.
Now, she and I know what’s what but how the hell do we show others out there? Because we come up against people who strongly wish to establish the opposite of what we say and they pull old ploy after old ploy.
One of these tricks is to demand levels of Final Proof well beyond the capacity of any normal person and then couple this with the statement: ‘Because if you cannot supply me with this fine detail, corroborated by at least three sources [note the task thrown back on the other person] … then it just isn’t true.’
And that’s a logical conclusion, is it? How much investigation has he ever undertaken?
Let’s take a concrete example:
Now I know that was so because I sat up during the night of the Presidential election and followed it all on the channel most centre-right and some of the left were watching and every so often, a tweet came up where someone in a booth was showing, on vid, the machine malfunctioning, changing a Trump vote to a Clinton, plus precincts were coming through where the tally of votes was higher than those eligible to vote – they showed former rolls etc.
So over the course of some eight hours, a lot of data was coming through and there was little doubt that shenanigans were going on across the land and what’s more – they were in Democrat areas.
Grandma above quoted the Detroit News in a tweet, 140 character limit. What was she to do – list the names of all returning officers in the city of Detroit? Conduct interviews with city officials who patently, if that detail is so, would not wish to even talk about it?
There is a level of fine detail which someone on the other side has no right to demand, as he does not demand that level of scrutiny of his own assertions. This game really p***es me off, as it’s a form of dishonesty.
‘Show me the proof’ is a w**k because there never is any final proof in court of law terms, there are firm indicators and ‘probable cause’. The very fact that efforts are made by miscreants to muddy waters and conceal misdeeds makes it all that much harder.
On the other hand, there have to be some pretty corroborating indicators to come out and assert – that much is true and accepted. And on Detroit, there were plenty of those that night. Plus elsewhere:
The Department of Justice alleges the New York Board of Elections broke the law when it purged approximately 117,000 Brooklyn voters before the presidential primary.
The federal agency intervened in a lawsuit against the New York City Board of Elections (NYCBOE) over the purge which had many Brooklyn residents showing up at the polls to vote to be told they were not eligible.
DemSpring: RT FilmsForChange: DOJ calls NY Board of Elections on illegal voter purge https://t.co/SUCbapNw6p NOW ask DOJ to look at purge …
— Pasco Revolution (@PascoRevolution) January 13, 2017
The Department of Justice said in its brief, filed in federal court on Thursday, the move violated the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
On one of the sites, it had:
Once again, when election fraud is confirmed, we get the “It didn’t really change the outcome” argument from corporate media.
And so it goes on. When someone on that side trots out ‘fact is …’ and the average reader reads that from a news service he or she has always taken as ‘the news’, e.g. CNN, then it’s very hard not to take on board the strawman, confirmed by the very person putting the strawman in the first place, using the technique of ‘fact is …’.
And if we have to explain this, in detail, on every single fiction, then who has the time and resources for that? Let alone that if you go to Google search on Detroit voter fraud, almost all the first page, which is the only place most people check online, apart from Wiki, it has articles on No Voter Fraud after all, Sean Spicer makes it official etc.
That misleading headline said that Spicer had confirmed there was no voter fraud. This is the ‘careful wording’ trick. He confirmed there wasn’t in the states they won but get this – or at least not enough to be significant – and Clinton did not even dispute this. Fox News reporter John Roberts had interviewed Spicer and had put to him that there was no voter fraud.
Spicer said: “I think there’s a lot of states that we didn’t compete in where that’s not necessarily the case.
And guess who ran that headline? Go on – guess.
Now that one small issue – look how much fine detail reading I had to do to find the key sentence. Multiply that by how many issues there are out there – think you see where this is going.
Trouble for the Donald is – he knows that from all the evidence of Clinton funding coming in but here he just comes out with an unadorned statement and the left immediately cries: ‘Where’s your proof,’ firmly ignoring all the proof which had come in over the course of the campaign.
This is the dishonesty I detest in these people.
This next one he made clear was a mock-up, an idea of what the left media would come out with next, that appeal to emotion, complete with devastated kiddy and appeal for funds, following the ‘super-checking’ command over certain countries’ citizens applying for entry to the US:
Another game they play is: ‘Oh, you’re the only one who thinks that, that’s just your opinion,’ and unless you put the idea out there and see the response, they have you starting to doubt your own reasoning powers.
So I put out something about Kuenssberg and this came back:
That was one of about a hundred. So it’s not bollox to think that – it struck others the same way.
And not forgetting Katie:
Sadly, the BBC’s political correspondent, Laura Kuenssberg WAS there to ask a question having apparently been nominated by the PM’s press team to ask the first question. What were they thinking. Squealing like a true liberal she did her best to rip apart all Theresa May’s good work thus far.
Throwing in pretty much every insult anyone had ever levelled at the Donald, she said Trump had ‘alarming beliefs’ and many people in Britain were worried about his role as leader of America and the Free World; she asked how he could reassure the people of Britain. Instantly, my toes curled in shame that she was the voice of Britain on the world stage.
Now the Donald has a real issue on his hands. For a start, he’s super-busy and even though he delegates, he still has to spend time delegating. So when he comes out with something, it’s not off the top of his head, it’s what we’ve all come round to as a result of our reading of alternative media online:
An MSM journo, one of Them, is ‘speechless’, is he? He well might be because nothing even remotely like this ever gets through the liberal media, it’s not allowed to. So this is the first he’s heard of it … or else he’s dissembling.
But look at Richard’s comment on my post about the March for Life and he says my post was the first he’d heard about it. Do you want to see how tiny and insignificant that march actually was?
Now you explain how the MSM failed to cover that. Particularly as the VP was there, making a speech.
Do you see why we’re angry? Do you see why I’m almost exhausted helping correct lies put out by those bastards? And then multiply me by a few million, all utterly knackered after such gruelling years seeing the snowflake kids being fed horse manure.
And how flippantly they lie, how it trips off the tongue or keyboard – they have no marriage contract with the truth, so they can, without conscience, do this and grin. meanwhile, it’s yet another we have to spedn our own time and resources debunking.
Well now, you prats, it’s come full circle. Because executive action is actually proceeding from the millions of pages of online research from reputable sites, let alone the billions of others. This is why Steve Bannon is in there – he knows how to access these things.
And people like us can now take a breather – just a bit, sip of coffee – then back to it.