He was def not trolling. This is why I am pushing so hard against the left. It's very obvious that this type of thinking is growing. It's coming out of the universities, and young people are too stupid to realize how dangerous it is. The more the ideas become mainstream, the more I see otherwise reasonable people adopting them. People like Mikesez who say to me, maybe it won't be so bad. It won't stop until we beat it back or they win, which will result in the dissolution of our government as we know it. Oh, and it will be bad. It's going to start with packing the courts.

---

(12-07-2020, 10:27 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(12-07-2020, 09:34 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: He didn't say neutral. He said neutral arbiter. Do you know what an arbiter is? You're killing me, dude.

If you want to call a fact checker an arbiter, fine.  But they should not be neutral.  They should be objective.  The job of a "fact checker" is to present the facts, and evaluate the case.  Here are the facts, and based on all the facts we know, here is the truth.  

And that's what they're doing in this case.  All the actual facts that we know (which are mostly the explanations of the people on the scene and people who know the process, many of them Republicans) take that idea that that film shows fraud, and completely blows it out of the water.

It's not rocket science, dude. Just retract the statement. Neutral means non being aligned with any side and arbiter means judge. So, yeah, that's exactly what a fact checker is supposed to be: A judge of facts without favoring a political side. Politifact absolutely does not qualify. Your original analogy was bad. JJ properly put it in it's place, and you need to accept that and move on.

---