ANTIFA

[RiverDog]

According t Politifact, one of my three go to fact check sites, ATR.org scores "mostly false" to "pants on fire" on 74% of their checked content.

https://www.politifact.com/personalitie ... ax-reform/

Check your sources.

Even the headline is a lie.

Nowhere does the ad say “Joe Biden told Americans.”

All the ad does is play Biden’s own words twice and then quote a couple of left-wing sources, like the New York Times, admitting Biden intends to raise taxes.

“The New York Times says Biden’s tax increases are more than double Hillary Clinton’s plan,” the ad says.

“Even the Tax Policy Center admits taxes would increase on all income groups,” the ad says.

But that’s not even the worst of PolitiFact’s godless lying…

PolitiFact itself admits…

Allow me to repeat that…

PolitiFact itself admits in the same fact check that rates this ad as false that “some tax experts estimate that Biden’s plan would mean higher taxes on average for all income groups[.]”

All income groups.

ALL.


https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/202 ... ing-taxes/

Check your sources, indeed!

[c_hawkbob]

OMFG! You're actually going to counter Politifact with Brightbart?!!

Of course the alt-right is going to come out against fact checkers!!

I guess we can't discuss politics here after all.

[I-5]

Wow, I'm surprised to see Breitbart quoted in this forum.

"Breitbart News Network is an American far-right syndicated news, opinion and commentary website founded in mid-2007 by American conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, who conceived it as "the Huffington Post of the right". Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and some of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and many traditional conservatives alike. The site has published a number of conspiracy theories and intentionally misleading stories."

"PolitiFact.com is a nonprofit project operated by the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Florida, with offices there and in Washington, D.C. It began in 2007 as a project of the Tampa Bay Times (then the St. Petersburg Times), with reporters and editors from the newspaper and its affiliated news media partners reporting on the accuracy of statements made by elected officials, candidates, their staffs, lobbyists, interest groups and others involved in U.S. politics.[2] Its journalists evaluate original statements and publish their findings on the PolitiFact.com website, where each statement receives a "Truth-O-Meter" rating. The ratings range from "True" for statements the journalists deems as accurate to "Pants on Fire" (from the taunt "Liar, liar, pants on fire") for claims the journalists deems as false or ludicrous. The Tampa Bay Times, previously named the St. Petersburg Times through 2011, is an American newspaper published in St. Petersburg, Florida, United States. It has won twelve Pulitzer Prizes since 1964, and in 2009, won two in a single year for the first time in its history, one of which was for its PolitiFact project. It is published by the Times Publishing Company, which is owned by The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a nonprofit journalism school directly adjacent to the University of South Florida St. Petersburg campus."

Maybe we need to agree on what sources we think are credible. I would consider Fox News and CNN off the table for their transparent bias. For the same reason, I would never quote Huffington Post (which Breitbart also cofounded) here. I would have thought we would all agree Breitbart is even more extreme than Fox News.

[RiverDog]

OMFG! You're actually going to counter Politifact with Brightbart?!!

Of course the alt-right is going to come out against fact checkers!!

I guess we can't discuss politics here after all.

If you do a little research, you'll see that there's quite a debate as to Politifact's objectivity and not just from the alt-right, so IMO it is not an unfair tactic to post an opinion back by facts from a conservative source in a political discussion. Below are some examples:

https://www.quora.com/Is-PolitiFact-liberally-biased

If we're going to eliminate Breitbart as an acceptable source in our discussions, we might as well eliminate the New York Times and the Washington Post as those publications are decidedly liberal. As a matter of fact, most of the well known sources (Fox, CNN, MSNBC, et al) have a political slant one way or another. Eliminate all those and there won't be much for us to discuss.

[RiverDog]

Maybe we need to agree on what sources we think are credible. I would consider Fox News and CNN off the table for their transparent bias. For the same reason, I would never quote Huffington Post (which Breitbart also cofounded) here. I would have thought we would all agree Breitbart is even more extreme than Fox News.

I don't think there's a need to eliminate any source that have direct, attributable quotes or references. The source I posted had a quote directly from Politifact.

I've quoted Fox and CNN many times. Their editorials and commentary are obviously politically slanted and they will either bury or highlight stories that cater to a specific political interest of theirs and/or their audience, but they generally do a good job vetting their information. None of them want a Bush Air National Guard or an Operation Tailwind to deal with.

[c_hawkbob]

Sorry man, no. Credibility is gone. I guess I'll just have to stay out of political discussions here.

[curmudgeon]

When it comes to politicians and the media, Mark Twain said it best:
“Honesty: The best of all the lost arts.”

[Aseahawkfan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g51RcoOKHPI

This guy broke down some candidate tax plans of both parties using available information.

I don't much look at the tax plans as such changes are hard to push through unless Congress is all one way and the majority of the party back it. If the Dems sweep in November, higher taxes is a given. But I wouldn't believe any extreme sites. I'd go off what the candidates say combined with reason if what they want to do is even possible.

[RiverDog]

Some of the provisions in the TCJA, aka "Trump" tax cuts, are set to expire in 2024, which includes individual tax brackets. Unless the POTUS and Congress vote to extend them, the individual tax brackets will return to their pre-TCJA levels. For example, the 12% bracket, ie $9701-$39,475 as of 2019, will go back up to 15%. Other brackets will also go up. In addition, the expansion of standard deduction and child tax credit will also expire and return to their previous levels.

So Biden and Congress don't have to do anything and our taxes will go up automatically. I want to hear Biden and the Democrats say that they plan on extending the TCJA provisions regarding individual tax rates to keep these tax rates from going back up. All I've heard is that they want to abolish the TCJA w/o any provisions to keep the lower and middle tax brackets at their current level and preserve the standard deduction/child tax credits.

[I-5]

If we're going to eliminate Breitbart as an acceptable source in our discussions, we might as well eliminate the New York Times and the Washington Post as those publications are decidedly liberal.

I stay away from quoting the NY Times and Washington Post too for that reason, unless it's not on the editorial page. Anyway, this forum is for OUR opinions, so there's no point in sharing anything from an editorial page, we already know what they think. I look to news sources to try to get data that informs our thoughts and opinions and sometimes the discussions here can affirm or change our opinion. That's the value of this forum for me.

[RiverDog]

I stay away from quoting the NY Times and Washington Post too for that reason, unless it's not on the editorial page. Anyway, this forum is for OUR opinions, so there's no point in sharing anything from an editorial page, we already know what they think. I look to news sources to try to get data that informs our thoughts and opinions and sometimes the discussions here can affirm or change our opinion. That's the value of this forum for me.

Except that contained within an editorial are often times direct quotes or references. In the case of the Breitbart post, there was information from the NYT. a liberal publication, the Tax Policy Center, and from Politifact. Look at what is contained within the parenthesis and ignore the rest.

The same goes for random articles from any source. Even from so-called objective sources, the writer of the article can put their spin on it and change how the article is interpreted by the reader. For example, if the day's high temperature was 89 degrees and you want to make it sound cooler, you can say "it didn't even get into the 90's today!", or if you want to make it sound warmer you can say "it was nearly 90 degrees!"

The point is that in reviewing any information, no matter the source, one has to keep it in context and disregard the static.

[I-5]

Here's something more alarming than ANTIFA. No surprise, but Russian state media and their proxy websites are jumping on the mail in vote issue by amplifying allegations...none of which would be as effective if it wasn't for our Dear Leader being the ringleader of those false claims. Barr is on record now fanning the baseless allegations, too. Trump may be a narcissistic idiot and a tool...what's Barr's excuse?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/09/03/russia-pushing-mail-in-voting-conspiracies-government-report-claims/#550d0a8e58bd