Election 2024 Issues
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
CBS News has published a response to the “Cat Eaters of Ohio” story. It’s a supremely dishonest and completely partisan report, but let’s break it down, to show exactly how the establishment media maintains its lines of propaganda.
The CBS report hinges on two arguments. First, CBS writes: “The video shows what appears to be animal carcasses on a grill. The man filming the footage alleges, without evidence, that they are cats.” Without evidence? The eyewitness directly observed the incident and took a video recording of it—both of which are firsthand evidence. But CBS’s apparent standard, when such evidence violates the establishment narrative, is: Don’t believe your lying eyes.
The report also quotes Dayton’s Democratic mayor, who says there have been “absolutely zero reports of this type of activity.” Which is true, but does not contradict the evidence at all. Nobody filed a police report, so there would be no police report—and the absence of a police report does not mean that something did not happen. This is a convenient way of ignoring the evidence, and laundering lies through friendly media apparatus.
What did CBS not do? Journalism. The network, which has massive resources, did not send a reporter to the scene, interview the eyewitness, interview the neighbors, investigate the visual evidence, conduct background research, or provide a detailed analysis. They simply adopted “don’t believe your lying eyes” as their standard and repeated an empty, evidence-free statement from a partisan political figure.
Now, I’d like to take you through exactly how we produced the story and analyzed the evidence. This is precisely the case that I made in the original piece, that the establishment media is more interested in denial and obfuscation, even when the evidence points the other way.
Sourcing
An individual in my personal social network reached out with a tip and a link to the social media post with the video. (This source neither requested, nor received, the monetary prize I had posted on social media a few days prior.) Our team then collected the timestamped social media from August 2023, which was still live. We tracked down the author, authenticated the video, matched it to his voice, and conducted an interview by phone, in which he confirmed the key details of the story.
The following day, we had the author bring us to the location and make introductions, had a team member conduct background research, and sent a reporter into the field to make observations and conduct interviews. To confirm the exact location of the video, we matched the visual elements in the picture to the visual elements on the scene, down to matching knot patterns in fence planks, which provided us with the precise address and camera position relative to the scene. For extra care, we also cross-referenced the visual evidence with street and satellite images, plus residential property records.
So... again with the bomb threats.
They Have the Receipts: Trump Camp Links Dems’ Dangerous Rhetoric to Assassination Attempt
We’ve seen a pattern of inflammatory statements from top Democrats, many of which paint Trump as a threat not only to the country but to democracy itself. This kind of rhetoric isn't just dangerous; it's a direct catalyst for the violence we're seeing today. And the Trump campaign has brought the receipts.
Harris herself has been at the forefront, repeatedly saying things like, “Trump is a threat to our democracy and fundamental freedoms.”
x.com
x.com
Then, of course, there’s her infamous appearance on “The Ellen Degeneres Show,” when she joked about killing Trump. This is the kind of cavalier talk that fuels the fire of deranged individuals who may take it as a call to action.
Of course, Joe Biden is no better. His statements, such as “Trump is a genuine threat to this nation” and “Trump and MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic” were blatant attempts to paint Trump and his supporters as existential dangers to America.
It's OK to Call Your Political Opponents Insane If They're, You Know, Insane
On the Monday edition of our legendary VIP Gold live chat show "Five O'Clock Somewhere," Stephen Green and I were discussing our exasperation with the relentless vitriol from the American Left that, once again, induced some loon to try and kill former president Donald Trump. We have both been professionally writing and talking about politics for a very long time and we have never seen anything like this. It's even worse than the Democrats' unhinged behavior from 2016-2023.
The 2024 Democrats are in a dangerous state of mental unwellness. That's not hyperbole, it's an obvious conclusion that can be arrived at after even the most cursory examination of their behavior.
I would like to make it very clear that I never used to be the kind of guy who dismissed those he disagreed with politically as stupid or crazy. In fact, the decades that I have spent in the entertainment industry taught me how to get along with people who have differing viewpoints quite well.
Until recently, of course.
When they began acting crazy.
True, the point could be made that the Dems have always been a little nuts. They believe that things that come from the government are free, after all, and have no cost attached to them anywhere.
There is a big difference, however, between merely having political beliefs that are just plain wrong, and what we see from them these days. Democrats in the Biden-Harris era are fueled by rabid, animalistic rage that they use to dehumanize people on the Right. That's their gateway to justifying any kind of aberrant, often violent, behavior towards us.
And they're marketing it as joy.
It cannot be stated often or emphatically enough that every Democratic official — in office or out — who repeatedly lies about Donald Trump is complicit in the attacks on his life. Here's a prime example from the minority leader in the House of Representatives:
Press Narrative Melts After Truth About 'Bomb Threats' in Springfield Comes Out
This was completely predictable. As I noted above, bomb threats are essentially all hoaxes. I can't remember a single time that a bomb threat was made prior to an actual bombing. I'm not saying that's never happened in human history. I'm sure it has, but it's certainly rare to the point of being almost non-existent.
Typically, a bomb threat is called in as a prank or as a way to cause chaos. To take a series of them without knowing their origin or purpose and then to use them to suggest JD Vance and Donald Trump were inciting violence was baseless nonsense. It was also completely transparent. Democrats never apply that standard to anyone on their own side, even when the violence being perpetrated is unquestionably real.
So will the mainstream press share this new information about these "bomb threats?"
Ahead of the election, Republican lawmakers are raising alarm bells about Texas billionaire John Arnold, who was appointed to Meta’s board earlier this year — warning he could undermine the efforts to keep speech free and open on Facebook ahead of the presidential election.
Arnold, who is worth an estimated $2.9 billion according to Forbes, has spent tens of millions of dollars bankrolling left-wing causes, including bail reform in New York State and George Soros-affiliated organizations that slam “disinformation.”
“John Arnold is a far left radical who funded pro-criminal projects in Indiana and pro-censorship organizations nationwide. His board appointment should make every patriotic American nervous about Big Tech interfering in the 2024 presidential election, just like they did last cycle,” Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) told The Post.
“Mark Zuckerberg recently wrote to the House Judiciary Committee that he wanted to promote free speech and not manipulate the upcoming election,” Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC), a member of the committee, told The Post of the Meta CEO. “I’d like to believe that, but it defies credulity when John Arnold, funder of millions to pro-censorship groups, sits on Meta’s board. Americans deserve to speak freely without the leftist dark money network feeding the censorship industrial complex and working against their right of free expression.”
In an August letter to the House Judiciary Committee, Zuckerberg said he would push against censorship after acknowledging Facebook had demoted The Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop before the 2020 election, and that it had bowed to pressure by the Biden administration to censor Covid-related content.
Zuckerberg wrote that “I believe the government pressure was wrong and I regret I was not more outspoken about it.”
nypost.com
Arnold, who is worth an estimated $2.9 billion according to Forbes, has spent tens of millions of dollars bankrolling left-wing causes, including bail reform in New York State and George Soros-affiliated organizations that slam “disinformation.”
“John Arnold is a far left radical who funded pro-criminal projects in Indiana and pro-censorship organizations nationwide. His board appointment should make every patriotic American nervous about Big Tech interfering in the 2024 presidential election, just like they did last cycle,” Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) told The Post.
“Mark Zuckerberg recently wrote to the House Judiciary Committee that he wanted to promote free speech and not manipulate the upcoming election,” Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC), a member of the committee, told The Post of the Meta CEO. “I’d like to believe that, but it defies credulity when John Arnold, funder of millions to pro-censorship groups, sits on Meta’s board. Americans deserve to speak freely without the leftist dark money network feeding the censorship industrial complex and working against their right of free expression.”
In an August letter to the House Judiciary Committee, Zuckerberg said he would push against censorship after acknowledging Facebook had demoted The Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop before the 2020 election, and that it had bowed to pressure by the Biden administration to censor Covid-related content.
Zuckerberg wrote that “I believe the government pressure was wrong and I regret I was not more outspoken about it.”
Republican lawmakers issues warnings about ‘far-left’ Facebook board billionaire John Arnold
Mark Zuckerberg has said he is committed to not censoring free speech for the 2024 election, but House Judiciary members call one Meta board billionaire “pro-censorship.”
nypost.com
Let's start with the polling industry as a whole. RCP tracks 18 different polling outfits that do multi-state polling. And of those 18, 14 of them over the course of the last decade have missed the actual results in favor of the Democrat candidate. Four missed in favor of the Republican. So if 78% of the polling consistently reports polling that overstates the final margin for Democrats, how much is that average miss? 4.6%. The least amount of error on behalf of the Democratic candidate is 2.2%, and the biggest miss is 6.1%, but the sweet spot for missing is just a touch over four-and-a-half.
As of Sunday, the RCP average of averages shows Kamala Harris with a 1.7% lead nationally. That's down from 1.9% before the debate, by the way. So what does that mean? Using 2020 as a baseline example, roughly 165 million Americans cast a ballot for someone for president. A lot for Trump, more for Biden, and almost 10 million for minor parties and independents. 1.7% of that 165 million is a 2.8 million vote lead nationally for Kamala Harris, giving the polling out there the benefit of the doubt that they're accurate. Now again, using 2020 data as the baseline, take a look at how California voted. It's as deep blue of a state as there is in the Union, and they voted overwhelmingly for Joe Biden. The final margin, once they finally finished counting a couple months after Biden was sworn in (I exaggerate, but not by much), was 63-42. In raw vote totals, Biden netted 5.1 million more votes just in the Golden State than Donald Trump. Going back to the RCP average as of Sunday, if Kamala allegedly has a 2.8 million lead nationally, and would have roughly the same results out of California, you could actually make the case that if you were to take California out of the equation, Donald Trump is actually leading the national vote in the remaining 49 states by a little under 3 million votes.
Now we get to the poll that was released over the weekend by AtlasIntel, the most reliable pollster based upon prediction versus reality over the last two elections - 2020 and 2022. In the former, AtlasIntel was only off by 2.2%. In the case of the latter, they slipped a little bit, missing by 2.3%. AtlasIntel by far has the best track record this decade, earning 2.7 out of 3 stars at out of 538's ranking system. They just released their new national numbers, entirely surveyed post-debate.
3.6% lead for Trump, eh? Let's say they're off by 2.3%. He's still up over a point. Remember that 1.7% RCP lead for Harris as of Sunday? Add in their average miss of 4.6%. That means Trump's probably up even more than that.
Nate Silver has been getting a ton of grief online by the fever swamp on the left because his election projection has been growing increasing in Trump's favor, currently standing at nearly 60-40 odds. Keep in mind, Silver is a Democrat and a Harris backer, but he's essentially become a pariah on the left because he's looking at all of these numbers and extrapolating the obvious. You can pile up all the raw votes in the blue states of California, New York, and Illinois all you want, but it's not going to equate to an Electoral College victory.
Polls do two things. The compilation of them show a snapshot of where the election is, and a trend of which direction the race is moving. And you can then extrapolate to what effect the popular vote shown in these polls would have on an Electoral College result.
hotair.com
As of Sunday, the RCP average of averages shows Kamala Harris with a 1.7% lead nationally. That's down from 1.9% before the debate, by the way. So what does that mean? Using 2020 as a baseline example, roughly 165 million Americans cast a ballot for someone for president. A lot for Trump, more for Biden, and almost 10 million for minor parties and independents. 1.7% of that 165 million is a 2.8 million vote lead nationally for Kamala Harris, giving the polling out there the benefit of the doubt that they're accurate. Now again, using 2020 data as the baseline, take a look at how California voted. It's as deep blue of a state as there is in the Union, and they voted overwhelmingly for Joe Biden. The final margin, once they finally finished counting a couple months after Biden was sworn in (I exaggerate, but not by much), was 63-42. In raw vote totals, Biden netted 5.1 million more votes just in the Golden State than Donald Trump. Going back to the RCP average as of Sunday, if Kamala allegedly has a 2.8 million lead nationally, and would have roughly the same results out of California, you could actually make the case that if you were to take California out of the equation, Donald Trump is actually leading the national vote in the remaining 49 states by a little under 3 million votes.
Now we get to the poll that was released over the weekend by AtlasIntel, the most reliable pollster based upon prediction versus reality over the last two elections - 2020 and 2022. In the former, AtlasIntel was only off by 2.2%. In the case of the latter, they slipped a little bit, missing by 2.3%. AtlasIntel by far has the best track record this decade, earning 2.7 out of 3 stars at out of 538's ranking system. They just released their new national numbers, entirely surveyed post-debate.
3.6% lead for Trump, eh? Let's say they're off by 2.3%. He's still up over a point. Remember that 1.7% RCP lead for Harris as of Sunday? Add in their average miss of 4.6%. That means Trump's probably up even more than that.
Nate Silver has been getting a ton of grief online by the fever swamp on the left because his election projection has been growing increasing in Trump's favor, currently standing at nearly 60-40 odds. Keep in mind, Silver is a Democrat and a Harris backer, but he's essentially become a pariah on the left because he's looking at all of these numbers and extrapolating the obvious. You can pile up all the raw votes in the blue states of California, New York, and Illinois all you want, but it's not going to equate to an Electoral College victory.
Polls do two things. The compilation of them show a snapshot of where the election is, and a trend of which direction the race is moving. And you can then extrapolate to what effect the popular vote shown in these polls would have on an Electoral College result.
Reading the Lie of the Green (and Polls)
Now that's a gaping maw.
She used to suck start trucks for her fathers septic pumping business.
Let's start with the polling industry as a whole. RCP tracks 18 different polling outfits that do multi-state polling. And of those 18, 14 of them over the course of the last decade have missed the actual results in favor of the Democrat candidate. Four missed in favor of the Republican. So if 78% of the polling consistently reports polling that overstates the final margin for Democrats, how much is that average miss? 4.6%. The least amount of error on behalf of the Democratic candidate is 2.2%, and the biggest miss is 6.1%, but the sweet spot for missing is just a touch over four-and-a-half.
As of Sunday, the RCP average of averages shows Kamala Harris with a 1.7% lead nationally. That's down from 1.9% before the debate, by the way. So what does that mean? Using 2020 as a baseline example, roughly 165 million Americans cast a ballot for someone for president. A lot for Trump, more for Biden, and almost 10 million for minor parties and independents. 1.7% of that 165 million is a 2.8 million vote lead nationally for Kamala Harris, giving the polling out there the benefit of the doubt that they're accurate. Now again, using 2020 data as the baseline, take a look at how California voted. It's as deep blue of a state as there is in the Union, and they voted overwhelmingly for Joe Biden. The final margin, once they finally finished counting a couple months after Biden was sworn in (I exaggerate, but not by much), was 63-42. In raw vote totals, Biden netted 5.1 million more votes just in the Golden State than Donald Trump. Going back to the RCP average as of Sunday, if Kamala allegedly has a 2.8 million lead nationally, and would have roughly the same results out of California, you could actually make the case that if you were to take California out of the equation, Donald Trump is actually leading the national vote in the remaining 49 states by a little under 3 million votes.
Now we get to the poll that was released over the weekend by AtlasIntel, the most reliable pollster based upon prediction versus reality over the last two elections - 2020 and 2022. In the former, AtlasIntel was only off by 2.2%. In the case of the latter, they slipped a little bit, missing by 2.3%. AtlasIntel by far has the best track record this decade, earning 2.7 out of 3 stars at out of 538's ranking system. They just released their new national numbers, entirely surveyed post-debate.
3.6% lead for Trump, eh? Let's say they're off by 2.3%. He's still up over a point. Remember that 1.7% RCP lead for Harris as of Sunday? Add in their average miss of 4.6%. That means Trump's probably up even more than that.
Nate Silver has been getting a ton of grief online by the fever swamp on the left because his election projection has been growing increasing in Trump's favor, currently standing at nearly 60-40 odds. Keep in mind, Silver is a Democrat and a Harris backer, but he's essentially become a pariah on the left because he's looking at all of these numbers and extrapolating the obvious. You can pile up all the raw votes in the blue states of California, New York, and Illinois all you want, but it's not going to equate to an Electoral College victory.
Polls do two things. The compilation of them show a snapshot of where the election is, and a trend of which direction the race is moving. And you can then extrapolate to what effect the popular vote shown in these polls would have on an Electoral College result.
Reading the Lie of the Green (and Polls)
Many on the right say if Trump is polling 1-2 points behind, it's very likely he's actually ahead.
The Dayton Daily News did report it but placed in the lower part of the story. How many people read the first 3-4 paragraphs and never the complete article?
DeWine said threats have come from people overseas, many from the same country, which he declined to identify. But he did reference that country seeing another chance to “mess with the U.S.A.,” a possible reference to Russia or China.
Springfield schools to stop closing for threats, will add safety help from state
Springfield City Schools will stay open the rest of this week with increased safety measures, rather than closing school buildings as they’ve done in recent days when they received non-credible bomb threats.
Last edited:
I believe if this was Russia, progressives would be shouting from the rooftops ...
No this is some favored political or racial group
I think you are on the Bullseye with that remark. eek, can I use that word without being accused of hateful speech?
CBS News’ Diaz: ‘People Are Really Excited About Trump’
Diaz said, “Spanish settlers called this Nevada, meaning snowy, but down on the ground, the state is sizzling hot, just like what’s cooking at this smoker. It’s the outdoor kitchen hands of the award-winning Brothers Barbecue in Reno, where the alluring smell of pulled pork pulls people in like these friends.”
She asked a customer, “What is most important to you?”
A woman said, “I’m extremely concerned about the border.”
Diaz said, “Las Vegas in Clark County, home to casinos, Elvis impersonators and a vibrant Latino community representing more than 20% of the state’s electorate. ”
A food truck owner said, “Tacos used to be a dollar, $1.50, after the pandemic they don’t go under $3.50 to $4.”
Diaz said, “We had so much fun, but what was incredible is in every single restaurant, the people willing to talk to us, we could only find one Harris supporter in every restaurant. We left no stone unturned. I approached every single person except for this one, who guy I think had too many drinks at the bar. But people are really excited about Trump.”