YouTube Share Blocking

Political debate. Welcome Yahoo Message Board exiles and everybody else !!
Antisteroidforce
Caporegime
Posts: 10206
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 6:48 am

Re: YouTube Share Blocking

Post by Antisteroidforce » Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:02 pm

Here we go again.

FoxNews lost viewers because like many so-called Conservatives on this board - they decided to behave as Progressive Liberal Democrats instruct them to behave.

There is no debate that Fox has a number of anti-Trumpers, and they decided to report in a manner that ensures their membership in the Progressive Liberal Democrat group think and establishment in general they “think” is unfolding.

Newsmax has seen the opportunity to expand its audience as a result and it has.

Simple little board Progressive Liberal Democrats.

Next?
0 x

User avatar
brookboy123
Caporegime
Posts: 12686
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:48 pm

Re: YouTube Share Blocking

Post by brookboy123 » Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:08 pm

KC_ wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:49 pm
brookboy123 wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:47 pm
My Trumpanzee relatives are all flocking to Newsmax......Bone Spurs doesn't like Fox any longer....so off they go...as ordered.

It's a good thing NOTHING can ever stand between me and my awesome family.
Just another political talking head Channel to ignore. I find them all to be unwatchable.
I don't know how people watch any of that.

Unwatchable, indeed.
0 x

User avatar
psk836
Underboss
Posts: 26536
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 9:22 am

Re: YouTube Share Blocking

Post by psk836 » Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:09 pm

0 x

User avatar
clusterchuck
Associate
Posts: 4782
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:19 pm

Re: YouTube Share Blocking

Post by clusterchuck » Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:14 pm

Evil wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:54 pm
clusterchuck wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:50 pm
Evil wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:10 pm
Does she actually provide some evidence this time? She's been embarrassing herself on TV for a while now. She wouldn't even give Tucker Carlson evidence when he requested it.
The summary evidence is public knowledge, every media outlet has the same information available to the public. I agree the big talk Sydney Powell and Lin Wood are putting out there wears thin, if for no other reason that the messaging has been often repeated. The outcome of those big talking claims is pending ruling by Appeals courts and potentially, SCOTUS, so the process needs to run its course.

Your statement "She wouldn't even give Tucker Carlson evidence when he requested it." implies you think Carlson should have been shown preferential treatment by being given information that isn't already publicly known. Which aligns with typical liberal political thinking.

Had she done so, you'd likely have all sorts of comments about that.
No, implies that she wouldn't give the alleged evidence to a host that is very friendly to her cause. If this alleged evidence is "public knowledge" then someone should let all those judges know about it because they keep dismissing their cases due to a lack of evidence.
Oh, so you expected Powell to show preferential treatment, but she wouldn't "even" give it to Carlson. Obviously, you don't think much of the woman. I would suggest bias and preferential treatment is becoming the expected norm on the liberal side of the aisle. Which is very sad indeed.

The public knowledge mentioned is that of several press conferences where legal council laid out multiple examples of breathtaking statistical anomalies and hundred of witness affidavits. And I could be wrong, but I think the details of complaints filed with the court become public record. Just guessing there.

There's a school of thought that the legal strategy is to enter/exit the lower courts ASAP in effort to appeal to higher courts. Which might explain why a seasoned attorney like Lin Wood entered a Georgia court with a case he has no standing to present, seems like a real rookie move to me. But that's pure speculation on my part cuz I have no idea about the mechanics of court proceedings. The case Lin presented in GA was dismissed on lack of standing grounds.

Any how, IF what Wood and Powell are alleging is true, I think any American would be more interested in getting to the truth of such a foundational issue facing Democracy than they are in scoring a "win" for their "side". Seems to me, internet warriors are more interested in using every opportunity they can to ridicule Trump rather than stop and consider "what if there really was a coordinated effort to undermine a U.S. election?"

Just my opinion, of course.
1 x

User avatar
Evil
Consigliere
Posts: 50575
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 7:25 am

Re: YouTube Share Blocking

Post by Evil » Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:41 pm

clusterchuck wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:14 pm
Evil wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:54 pm
clusterchuck wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:50 pm
Evil wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:10 pm
Does she actually provide some evidence this time? She's been embarrassing herself on TV for a while now. She wouldn't even give Tucker Carlson evidence when he requested it.
The summary evidence is public knowledge, every media outlet has the same information available to the public. I agree the big talk Sydney Powell and Lin Wood are putting out there wears thin, if for no other reason that the messaging has been often repeated. The outcome of those big talking claims is pending ruling by Appeals courts and potentially, SCOTUS, so the process needs to run its course.

Your statement "She wouldn't even give Tucker Carlson evidence when he requested it." implies you think Carlson should have been shown preferential treatment by being given information that isn't already publicly known. Which aligns with typical liberal political thinking.

Had she done so, you'd likely have all sorts of comments about that.
No, implies that she wouldn't give the alleged evidence to a host that is very friendly to her cause. If this alleged evidence is "public knowledge" then someone should let all those judges know about it because they keep dismissing their cases due to a lack of evidence.
Oh, so you expected Powell to show preferential treatment, but she wouldn't "even" give it to Carlson. Obviously, you don't think much of the woman. I would suggest bias and preferential treatment is becoming the expected norm on the liberal side of the aisle. Which is very sad indeed.

The public knowledge mentioned is that of several press conferences where legal council laid out multiple examples of breathtaking statistical anomalies and hundred of witness affidavits. And I could be wrong, but I think the details of complaints filed with the court become public record. Just guessing there.

There's a school of thought that the legal strategy is to enter/exit the lower courts ASAP in effort to appeal to higher courts. Which might explain why a seasoned attorney like Lin Wood entered a Georgia court with a case he has no standing to present, seems like a real rookie move to me. But that's pure speculation on my part cuz I have no idea about the mechanics of court proceedings. The case Lin presented in GA was dismissed on lack of standing grounds.

Any how, IF what Wood and Powell are alleging is true, I think any American would be more interested in getting to the truth of such a foundational issue facing Democracy than they are in scoring a "win" for their "side". Seems to me, internet warriors are more interested in using every opportunity they can to ridicule Trump rather than stop and consider "what if there really was a coordinated effort to undermine a U.S. election?"

Just my opinion, of course.
I don't know the woman. It's her claims that I don't think much of.

I think that you're right though. The hope is that they can get this to their stacked SCOTUS, but with a case so severely lacking in evidence I doubt even it can save them.

I remember all this after the 16 election too. Trump won so he was able to put together a commission to investigate the "millions of illegal votes." That commission was disbanded when it couldn't find what Trump claimed existed. He has a pattern of making unfounded claims then hoping someone can make them true so forgive me for being skeptical.
0 x
"science should not stand in the way of' schools reopening in the fall" - White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany

User avatar
psk836
Underboss
Posts: 26536
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 9:22 am

Re: YouTube Share Blocking

Post by psk836 » Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:45 pm

What liberals consider insightful reporting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5N1y1Es1m4
0 x

User avatar
nolaxride
Global Moderator
Posts: 27399
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:09 pm

Re: YouTube Share Blocking

Post by nolaxride » Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:06 pm

psk836 wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:03 pm
There is a long Sidney Powell Newsmax fraud update on YouTube, but for some reason it won’t allow me to share the link. I am not sure if the issue is with my device or what, but this has been happening frequently for the past month or so.

Very informative video.
When is she going to present her evidence? Statistics can be manipulated. That the Trump Justice Department isn't interested says a lot. And yes, if Barr wanted it investigated, he'd see that it would happen. If not someone else, he can do it himself. All I'm hearing is more conspiracy theories about Dominion.
0 x
-- Ο Μπάρι είναι ηλίθιος

User avatar
clusterchuck
Associate
Posts: 4782
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:19 pm

Re: YouTube Share Blocking

Post by clusterchuck » Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:31 pm

Evil wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:41 pm
clusterchuck wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:14 pm
Evil wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:54 pm
clusterchuck wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:50 pm
Evil wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:10 pm
Does she actually provide some evidence this time? She's been embarrassing herself on TV for a while now. She wouldn't even give Tucker Carlson evidence when he requested it.
The summary evidence is public knowledge, every media outlet has the same information available to the public. I agree the big talk Sydney Powell and Lin Wood are putting out there wears thin, if for no other reason that the messaging has been often repeated. The outcome of those big talking claims is pending ruling by Appeals courts and potentially, SCOTUS, so the process needs to run its course.

Your statement "She wouldn't even give Tucker Carlson evidence when he requested it." implies you think Carlson should have been shown preferential treatment by being given information that isn't already publicly known. Which aligns with typical liberal political thinking.

Had she done so, you'd likely have all sorts of comments about that.
No, implies that she wouldn't give the alleged evidence to a host that is very friendly to her cause. If this alleged evidence is "public knowledge" then someone should let all those judges know about it because they keep dismissing their cases due to a lack of evidence.
Oh, so you expected Powell to show preferential treatment, but she wouldn't "even" give it to Carlson. Obviously, you don't think much of the woman. I would suggest bias and preferential treatment is becoming the expected norm on the liberal side of the aisle. Which is very sad indeed.

The public knowledge mentioned is that of several press conferences where legal council laid out multiple examples of breathtaking statistical anomalies and hundred of witness affidavits. And I could be wrong, but I think the details of complaints filed with the court become public record. Just guessing there.

There's a school of thought that the legal strategy is to enter/exit the lower courts ASAP in effort to appeal to higher courts. Which might explain why a seasoned attorney like Lin Wood entered a Georgia court with a case he has no standing to present, seems like a real rookie move to me. But that's pure speculation on my part cuz I have no idea about the mechanics of court proceedings. The case Lin presented in GA was dismissed on lack of standing grounds.

Any how, IF what Wood and Powell are alleging is true, I think any American would be more interested in getting to the truth of such a foundational issue facing Democracy than they are in scoring a "win" for their "side". Seems to me, internet warriors are more interested in using every opportunity they can to ridicule Trump rather than stop and consider "what if there really was a coordinated effort to undermine a U.S. election?"

Just my opinion, of course.
I don't know the woman. It's her claims that I don't think much of.

I think that you're right though. The hope is that they can get this to their stacked SCOTUS, but with a case so severely lacking in evidence I doubt even it can save them.

I remember all this after the 16 election too. Trump won so he was able to put together a commission to investigate the "millions of illegal votes." That commission was disbanded when it couldn't find what Trump claimed existed. He has a pattern of making unfounded claims then hoping someone can make them true so forgive me for being skeptical.
Your expectation that SCOTUS would adhere to your brand of political bias sets the stage for never ending claims of judicial bias in every future decision they might make. It's understandable your liberal ideology forces sticking to that heinous opinion.
0 x

User avatar
clusterchuck
Associate
Posts: 4782
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:19 pm

Re: YouTube Share Blocking

Post by clusterchuck » Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:46 pm

nolaxride wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:06 pm
psk836 wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:03 pm
There is a long Sidney Powell Newsmax fraud update on YouTube, but for some reason it won’t allow me to share the link. I am not sure if the issue is with my device or what, but this has been happening frequently for the past month or so.

Very informative video.
When is she going to present her evidence? Statistics can be manipulated. That the Trump Justice Department isn't interested says a lot. And yes, if Barr wanted it investigated, he'd see that it would happen. If not someone else, he can do it himself. All I'm hearing is more conspiracy theories about Dominion.
Horse hockey. Statistical norms cannot be manipulated. Justification to refute or defend statistical norms are wide open to mental gymnastic manipulation - that is where "conspiracy theory" lives.

Affidavits signed by hundreds of eye witnesses is not conspiracy theory.

Removing legal observers from ballot counting is not conspiracy theory.

Audio recordings of Detroit "trainers" instructing counters on how to process ballots is not conspiracy theory.
0 x

User avatar
Evil
Consigliere
Posts: 50575
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 7:25 am

Re: YouTube Share Blocking

Post by Evil » Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:56 pm

clusterchuck wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:31 pm
Evil wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:41 pm
clusterchuck wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:14 pm
Evil wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:54 pm
clusterchuck wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:50 pm
Evil wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:10 pm
Does she actually provide some evidence this time? She's been embarrassing herself on TV for a while now. She wouldn't even give Tucker Carlson evidence when he requested it.
The summary evidence is public knowledge, every media outlet has the same information available to the public. I agree the big talk Sydney Powell and Lin Wood are putting out there wears thin, if for no other reason that the messaging has been often repeated. The outcome of those big talking claims is pending ruling by Appeals courts and potentially, SCOTUS, so the process needs to run its course.

Your statement "She wouldn't even give Tucker Carlson evidence when he requested it." implies you think Carlson should have been shown preferential treatment by being given information that isn't already publicly known. Which aligns with typical liberal political thinking.

Had she done so, you'd likely have all sorts of comments about that.
No, implies that she wouldn't give the alleged evidence to a host that is very friendly to her cause. If this alleged evidence is "public knowledge" then someone should let all those judges know about it because they keep dismissing their cases due to a lack of evidence.
Oh, so you expected Powell to show preferential treatment, but she wouldn't "even" give it to Carlson. Obviously, you don't think much of the woman. I would suggest bias and preferential treatment is becoming the expected norm on the liberal side of the aisle. Which is very sad indeed.

The public knowledge mentioned is that of several press conferences where legal council laid out multiple examples of breathtaking statistical anomalies and hundred of witness affidavits. And I could be wrong, but I think the details of complaints filed with the court become public record. Just guessing there.

There's a school of thought that the legal strategy is to enter/exit the lower courts ASAP in effort to appeal to higher courts. Which might explain why a seasoned attorney like Lin Wood entered a Georgia court with a case he has no standing to present, seems like a real rookie move to me. But that's pure speculation on my part cuz I have no idea about the mechanics of court proceedings. The case Lin presented in GA was dismissed on lack of standing grounds.

Any how, IF what Wood and Powell are alleging is true, I think any American would be more interested in getting to the truth of such a foundational issue facing Democracy than they are in scoring a "win" for their "side". Seems to me, internet warriors are more interested in using every opportunity they can to ridicule Trump rather than stop and consider "what if there really was a coordinated effort to undermine a U.S. election?"

Just my opinion, of course.
I don't know the woman. It's her claims that I don't think much of.

I think that you're right though. The hope is that they can get this to their stacked SCOTUS, but with a case so severely lacking in evidence I doubt even it can save them.

I remember all this after the 16 election too. Trump won so he was able to put together a commission to investigate the "millions of illegal votes." That commission was disbanded when it couldn't find what Trump claimed existed. He has a pattern of making unfounded claims then hoping someone can make them true so forgive me for being skeptical.
Your expectation that SCOTUS would adhere to your brand of political bias sets the stage for never ending claims of judicial bias in every future decision they might make. It's understandable your liberal ideology forces sticking to that heinous opinion.
I don't expect anything. I'm just commenting on how even a conservative court would have difficulty ruling on Trump's favor with a complete lack of evidence. I wouldn't consider that a heinous opinion, but it seems you do
1 x
"science should not stand in the way of' schools reopening in the fall" - White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany

Post Reply