Perhaps it is NOT that you do not look objectively at the facts as you know them but where you get your "facts" from. It may just be that you might need a better source for your facts...

We have all heard the same oh so true statement, "Garbage in, garbage out". If we base our understanding of t***h and reality on incorrect information, we will have an inaccurate view of both t***h AND reality. Just something to consider and to that point, I will direct you to just one of the videos I ran across the last time I was on Youtube, clicked to view but had to pause before I finished viewing because... Well, life... It shows just ONE of the many ways people become so misinformed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYKkr773ICw

I know many will take note of a certain... Let's say interesting choice of reporting outlet to be "fact checking" the legitimacy of certain "damning" tweets. That would certainly be a fair observation to make. To those individuals I would say, treat the reporting in the linked video as we should treat ANY reporting from ANY outlet. Do your own fact checking, verify the facts they purport to be true. Dig deep and confirm or disprove those "facts" to determine whether the reporting in the video is true or false. IF you find proof the reporting is false, that will be undeniable evidence that the outlet IS putting out f**e news. Have fun with it and enjoy your investigation.



There are some people that, either out of boredom or malice, they set about deliberately to deceive unwary information seekers who fail to do their due diligence in ensuring that the information they base their opinions and views on is accurate. Sadly, all too many fall for the disinformation, either due to "confirmation bias" or just plain laziness. Or perhaps it is naivete or gullibility. Wh**ever the cause, far too many fall for disinformation. I choose NOT to be one of them.

You can choose to rely upon your partisan beliefs, that IS your prerogative. I have no such partisan beliefs because I DO NOT align with any known party completely, therefore, I have no party to stand up for or defend with such vigor. I believe THAT is the key to my objectivity, not having to ignore "inconvenient" facts.

IF you wish to know REAL t***h, REAL reality, ditch your firmly held partisan beliefs, truly look objectively at ALL that each of the politicians say and do on BOTH sides of the aisle and weigh their words and actions fairly and honestly with no political bias standing in your way and it may just paint a substantially different picture than what you are seeing today. Now, if you choose to do this, you DO NOT have to change how you think or feel on the ISSUES that matter to YOU, only whether you choose to evaluate the words and/or actions of partisan politicians unfairly based solely on whether they claim to agree with you on the issues you care the most about.

If a politician is a completely immoral, unethical, UNWORTHY individual, does it REALLY matter whether or not they agree with you on certain issues? Corruption and dirty dealing is corruption and dirty dealing, if they do not align with you on the issues, it is still corruption and dirty dealing if they do. Alignment with YOU on the issues YOU care about should NEVER be the sole criteria to determine the worthiness of a politician. The primary focus should be on their honesty and integrity, secondary focus should be their alignment on the issues. A lying scumbag can also lie on the issues as well as wh**ever else they are already lying about, keep that in mind as well.

With all of that said, I do not wish for you to assume that I am saying that EITHER party is all bad or all good, just that EACH politician from ANY party should be weighed based on THEIR OWN honesty and integrity, individually. Set aside their party affiliation, their claimed alignment on the issues, look at THEIR honesty, THEIR integrity and if THAT is failing, cast them aside and look to the next one that claims to share YOUR values, provided of course that your values do not favor dishonesty and an utter lack of integrity, that goes without saying. That seems like the best way for us to try to get the government we deserve, at least in my opinion.

Ah, it is a matter of perspective then? Perhaps, you being so far right might make anybody left of you seem far left, we shall chalk it up to your extreme far right stance... For now...

Prepare to be disappointed. I have never seen that particular poster ever post ANYTHING factual and worthwhile here on OPP. They may post respectfully to you in the future, but do not expect anything factual or intelligent.

You DO realize that seemingly, the ONLY part of his post that appears to ring true was, "My teachers were always telling me to quit dreaming and focus on the task at hand.", right? The entirety of the rest of his post... It looks to be nothing more than buffoonish puffery. Does ANYONE believe, even if only for a moment, that Mensa would "86" someone for "being too smart"? Does ANYONE believe, even if only for a moment, that the poster in question IS too smart? Judging solely by his posts here on OPP, and nothing more, I wouldn't expect that his IQ would even be sufficient for admission into Mensa, even under their new, lowered, minimum IQ of 150 to join requirement. I seriously suspect that poster's IQ to be BELOW 150. Of course, I could be wrong, but I do not think that I am.

I say again, good day to you.

I am not prone to lying, I am assuming that you can't HONESTLY make that same claim...


With that, I say, good day to you.

How would YOU know what way I swing? I have not commented on what policies I like or dislike. See, That is how I know you lie. You ASSUME that since I see Trump and his minions for who and what they are, that I would be a l*****t, you assume incorrectly. Personally, I do not care what you think since you come off to me as... If there were to be only one thing that I couldn't tolerate, It would likely be lying scumbags. Am I saying you might be one? Maybe I am, maybe I ain't, that is for me to know and others' to guess.


As for your "maverick", policy, not politician stance... Pardon me if I am a tad skeptical, I have seen far too many Trumplicans lie about their stance. Trumplicans, in my experience, are no less dishonest or more honest than Trump himself and with Trump, the best way to know whether he is lying or not is to see if his lips are moving.

Yes, Rupert Murdoch founded Fox and it is currently under Lachlan's command. As much as the "lunatic fringe" here on OPP try to claim that "the sons are 'craven liberals'", That does not seem to be the case in regards to Lachlan and may not even be the case in regards to James though James DOES donate to somewhat liberal causes, for wh**ever that is worth. You want a "top tip" Tiptop? Ignore the more "looney" people here on OPP, be they LW or be they RW. No point in trying to get through to either.

Precisely the way I KNOW you to be an easily deceived Trumplican. You fall for the lies of RW media and politicians so easily. Though, in my case... Yeah, "If it walks like" someone that can tell fantasy from reality, quacks like someone that can tell fantasy from reality, and bobs around in the water" like someone that can tell fantasy from reality, it must be a liberal, right? Wrong, not everyone that resisted the Kool-Aid is a Democrat, some of us are non-partisan, some are Republican, strangely enough, some are even Libertarian and yes, Many of the rest are Democrats or Progressives. Me personally, I am not Republican, Libertarian, Democrat or Progressive, I am more centrist or non-partisan. You know, the thing you don't believe exists. It would seem that you suffer the same affliction that it seems ALL Trumplicans are afflicted with, the inability to perceive the world as anything other than binary. The whole world knows of reality, the fact that the world is NOT binary. There are many states of things and many shades of colors or light and dark. Some things CAN be looked at in a binary sense, moving, not moving, alive, dead, black, white, but even those things have shades or additional states. Rejoin reality and see the world the way it is meant to be seen, it really isn't that scary of a place.

Nothing personal about it really, just pointing out that I AM NOT so liberal as you appear to believe me to be.


The thing that the Democrats are claiming to be, "immoral, unethical, and/or despicable", that is the "Trumpian" Republicans' attempts to essentially destroy what America has of democracy, that and the myriad of things the "Trumpian" Republicans are trying, and in some cases succeeding in doing, that will do nothing but harm American citizens, primarily the less fortunate ones.

Now you have also asserted that the MSM "MSM REGULARLY states left wing CTs as factual news". Okay, please point out some of these that I must have either glazed over or missed entirely. I genuinely would like to know what the MSM has been pushing that isn't reality. I will admit that I don't always have time for televised news, don't like listening to the news on the radio and typically get my news from news feeds on my phone and the internet, both written and videos. I avoid sensationalized stories and/or save those for last. I prefer the more "prescient" and less salacious news. It is highly likely that I could have EASILY missed the CTs of which you speak due to my own proclivities and preferences. That is on me and my limited free time. You can help me with that, point out to me what I have missed.



I have in the past looked into such allegations and did so again just now. As I found with past attempts, the allegation that you are making DOES stand true, though the severity of the false and/or faulty reporting falls a tad lacking, especially when compared to the over hyped CTs that we find with much of the RW media's falsified "facts". The events that I find with the MSM reporting false information, it typically deals with a trivial part of the overall story. Such as with the Paul Manafort passing polling data to Russian oligarchs issue, Manafort passed the polling data to Ukrainian oligarchs Serhiy Lyovochkin, a pro-Russian, Ukrainian oligarch & Rinat , a pro-Russian, Ukrainian oligarch, and NOT to Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch. A distinction with no actual REAL difference. The information was bound for Russia regardless of whether it was passed to pro-Russian, Ukrainian oligarchs or just straight to Russian oligarchs. Not much of an attempt to paint a false picture there. The INTENTION of Manafort in passing that data to the oligarchs was to get it to Russia so that Russia could assist Trump, does it matter whether it passed through pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs or Russian oligarchs? Can one be more pedantic? Perhaps that one isn't one YOU were concerned about, it certainly concerned some on the RW, they went nuts over it. Please, point to the examples YOU are concerned about, I will delve in and see what I see.


What I see is that the MSM DID post retractions, even IF weakly and perhaps not consistently. It is more than I have seen from some RW media over much larger scandals. Take for instance, the "Hilary spied on the Trump administration" scandal that fell flat as the "events" occurred during the Obama administration. What? Were they using time traveling hacks" Notice that when John Durham pointed out the f**e allegations supposedly based on his reports and court filings, those same RW media outlets that were hyping these false allegations to the heavens, they went REAL quiet afterwards with NO retractions... Yeah, I think I should definitely trust media that DOESN'T retract their allegations when proven false over media that DOES... Wait... Did I just say that backwards? Case not made...

Ah, now we get to the core of the issue. Because the MSM ignored baseless conspiracy theory, they are biased.

A. We do not even know for sure that the laptop in question was even H****r B***n's laptop in the first place

B. Many "damning things" were SAID to be found on this laptop but never fully revealed, in fact, Tucker Carlson GREATLY hyped that he would reveal the contents but then NEVER DID.

C. The owner of the shop who eventually admitted that he couldn't verify that the laptop was indeed H****r B***n's laptop, he was in fact a Trump supporter. The lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, that the shop owner gave the laptop to who EVENTUALLY handed it over to the FBI, was IN FACT, Trump's lawyer. Giuliani had the laptop for quite some time BEFORE turning it over to the FBI, and finally, the FBI DID NOT file ANY charges against H****r B***n. Have I missed any of the key elements? If so, please enlighten me. Obviously the entire story was legitimate and the MSM chose not to run with it... Give me a break with these damned CTs...


As for your assertion that I will do anything to further the cause of the Democrats, normally you would be mistaken and technically you still are. I WILL NOT lie for them. But, I will grant you this, I will do quite a bit for them, something that wouldn't have been true even as recently as during Obama's presidency. The reason why is this. The Republican party is NO LONGER the Republican party, it is t***sforming into the DJT party. A party so fringe that it threatens the American way of life and even what little democracy America has. I am not FOR authoritarian dictatorships. IF you are, there are already countries with just such leadership. Instead of converting the America that I love into one, why not move to the one you like best? Why convert THIS America into one that will fall into authoritarian rule just to satisfy what I believe to be the minority of it's citizens?

As for your assertion that I shy away from a real debate or discussion, if you have been paying attention, you would realize that couldn't be further from the t***h. Let's discuss this, WITHOUT of course baseless CTs mind you.


I notice that you claim a "science and engineering background and a base of facts. If that is so, why is so much of what you are saying being based in feelings, CTs, talking points and propaganda? I am ALL FOR facts, bring the FACTS, leave the talking points, lies, CTs and propaganda behind and let's move forward on facts alone.


You further assert that I am the one that left reality behind. Not true. I have looked into the reality of our situation, researched it, used reliable source of information, used logic, reasoning and even mere "sniff tests" to ascertain the t***h of the matters. The t***h is that some RW media admits the t***h, at least in their news department and to some extent, even Fox "News" does as well, primarily on non-political issues that HAVEN'T been politicized by "culture war politicians". But Fox "News" and on down the rabbit hole, NewsMax, OANN and the like, they tend to veer away from reality where politics or "culture wars" are concerned. The fact that you can not see this means that you have bought into what they are selling.

As for, "Therefore I will do some research and when I have something, I will start a new topic. Look for it in March.", I will try, schedule permitting, but I can not make any guarantees, earlier may, or may not be better. I can not foresee the future, my schedule clears and fills on it's own schedule, not mine, but I will make an honest attempt of course.


I wish you well as well.

When precisely have I EVER said that they do? Wasn't Sinema and Manchin and what they have been doing AGAINST their constituency evidence enough that the Democrats AREN'T doing that? Those are NOT the only two either. IF they hadn't pulled those stunts, there were plenty enough other Democrats that would have stepped up, thrown themselves on that grenade in Sinema's place or in Manchin's place.

So, where DID that "question" come from. We KNOW it didn't come from something I have said. As for this "h**e" the Democrats are trying to drum up... I haven't seen them trying to drum up h**e, I haven't seen too many Democrats even assign blame. I have seen plenty of Republicans assigning blame and drumming up h**e, MTG, Boebert, Jordan, Gaetz and so many other congress persons as well as everyone's favorite h**e monger, DJT. Don't open that can of worms without checking to be sure it isn't going to "bitecha back". Very few Democrats have the spine to cast blame onto others, even if/when they are deserving of it and the ones that do, don't do it enough.

Oh yes, obviously you MUST be correct, no personal attacks when factual statements by me are depicted by you as "factually wrong conclusions" even though they are in fact FACTUAL, supported by logic and common sense, unlike these false claims supported only by conspiracy theorists and propagandists. I also enjoyed how you have decided to label me as thin skinned when it is I that am maintaining a level head and NOT resorting to personal attacks. Your one claim in this response "showing" me to have "personally attacked" you is "If only you would. It is quite obvious that you don't even just in the previous quote." which was in response to your false statement of "I treat ALL media the same. I look for news facts that can be verified, then strive to do so.". If you DID treat all media the same, how do you explain this comment by you, "I watch as much of the LW media as I can stand", do you say the same of RW media? If you don't, then OBVIOUSLY my "If only you would. It is quite obvious that you don't even just in the previous quote." stands as an uncontested FACT. Facts are NOT personal attacks as much as you may wish to call them so. Though I did mis-speak, I should have used the word "prior" in place of "previous" as "previous" might cause one to infer that I meant the quote I was commenting on and not the comment prior to that one. Sorry for any possible confusion I may have caused anyone with my improper working.

As for your second paragraph, enlighten me, how does the fact that those that identify as their opposing biological g****r at birth typically favor those that match their g****r at birth as prospective intimate partners fail to be the rule and NOT the exception? Do you have evidence to the contrary? You can claim someone is wrong all you like but if you can not provide evidence, your claims fall flat.

As for your third paragraph, nobody has claimed that both parties DON'T use smoke screens. I certainly never made those claims. They BOTH do ALL the time, But only the RW has Fox "News" going to such lengths in assisting the smokescreen. The MSM typically shies away from conspiracy theory in providing cover for "bad actors" in politics. Fox has no such shame. They engage in CTs on a regular basis.

As for, "As to fact checking FOX against the MSMs? Any time." If you wish, I will even let you post the first fact check(s). Feel free to go and gather your evidence of "MSM lies" with the evidence that they have lied. After that will be MY turn... You may even be able to guess which one I will start with. I may even choose to outdo you and really "go to town" in shaming one or more of the "t***h tellers" of RW media, or I may go easy on you, depends on how busy I get between now and then in real life. We shall see. Since RW media has no qualms about digging deep and burrowing way down them rabbit holes in their slinging of lies, this will NOT be a fair fight. I will have the distinct advantage.

You seem to mistake popularity for integrity. Fox is definitely more popular, but you fail to take into consideration WHY they are more popular. So may people are taken in by sensational headlines and salacious rumors. THAT is why Fox is more popular, not because their reporting is legitimate, which it ABSOLUTELY is NOT.

As for your final paragraph, the one that oddly does not seem separated from the second to last paragraph... Just because a media outlet fails to run a false story, that isn't "censorship", that is integrity. Of course there ARE times that even legitimate stories fail to run as well. Sometimes it is due to miscalculation, the outlet didn't think it was a big enough story to warrant the coverage, sometimes due to it not passing the "sniff test" even though it may have been true, sometimes it is more nefarious which is typically a tactic call "trap and k**l" but that tactic is generally used most frequently by RW media outlets but not exclusively I suspect.

As for ACTUAL news, what Fox has of it is far outweighed by their opinion hosts and even what little they have is tainted by RW spin, lies, CTs and propaganda. On Fox's website, opinion pieces are clearly marked like so, "https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/opinion piece headline", example, "https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trudeau-cuba-free-speech-canada-truckers-jonathan-turley". I have seen spin, lies, CTs and propaganda in articles without the "https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/" preface to the url.


Yes, now please feel free to fire the first shot, I would LOVE the opportunity to show you the lies of Fox and perhaps some of the other "trusted" RW media. Don't forget, YOU get to fact check the so called "l*****t" MSM so make sure to point out the "lies" with proper documentation from legitimate sources which may include, but are not limited to, government run sites showing facts and stats, non-partisan third party sites or sites without apparent bias, reference related sites, any site really that provides ACTUAL facts and stats that conform to reality. What ISN'T allowed is any site with REAL, apparent bias or that fails to provide facts and/or stats to support their claims with links to confirmation where necessary.

To my own point regarding the DISHONESTY of Fox "News", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDvHe7nqCT0&t=839s, beginning to 9:25, but you can watch the whole thing, if you wish. One of the more recent examples that undeniably shows Fox's dishonesty.

Everybody BUT Fox "News" followers KNOW Fox "News" lies continually. They push Conspiracy theories and straight out propaganda yet it's followers refuse to acknowledge the facts. Between the three best known RW media outlets on T.V., Fox "News" NewsMax and OANN, Fox "News" is the LEAST "off their rocker insane", OANN is the most "off their rocker insane". ALL three are alt-right fringe media.

They took John Durham's court filing and built upon it, creating more and more salacious lies based on and supposedly fully supported by John Durham's court filing. They ran the bogus, false stories on ALL of their shows over and over again for what? Two weeks? John Durham had to come out and point out that the stories were untrue then we hear crickets from Fox "news" regarding their lies. But yeah, Fox "News" is the more "trustworthy" media outlet...


Edit: Here is the link to the John Durham court filing so that you can read it for yourself and SEE how badly Fox "News" lied and fabricated so called "facts" that couldn't have been further from the t***h... https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.35.0_1.pdf

THEY didn't have dirt on him, if they had, they WOULD HAVE been pardoned...