Apparently a "Sandoval" is a colloquial term for a specific USA New York
State criminal law component.

"Last week, Judge Merchan held a Sandoval hearing to determine what can be
used to impeach his credibility on the witness stand if he testifies in his
own defence."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-trial-opening-statements-election-fraud-b2532750.html

I wasn't sure what a "Sandoval" was, but this explains the usage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Sandoval

"Sandoval pre-trial hearings (the procedure is unique to New York state)
allow the accused to make an informed decision as to whether to testify
given that it sets the scope of cross-examination. A presumably probative
result of a Sandoval hearing has been termed "a Sandoval"."

A Sandoval is covered in more detail here.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-hush-money-trial-sandoval-b2531472.html

"While the day's proceedings involves jury selection to find five more
alternates, the other important order of business today will be an
evidentiary hearing colloquially known as a "Sandoval Notice".

A Sandoval hearing is required under New York law in criminal cases in
which the defendant has a history of misconduct or criminal acts and plans
to testify."

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 20:12:40 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
wrote:

>Apparently a "Sandoval" is a colloquial term for a specific USA New York
>State criminal law component.
>
>"Last week, Judge Merchan held a Sandoval hearing to determine what can be
>used to impeach his credibility on the witness stand if he testifies in his
>own defence."
>https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-trial-opening-statements-election-fraud-b2532750.html
>
>I wasn't sure what a "Sandoval" was, but this explains the usage.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Sandoval
>
>"Sandoval pre-trial hearings (the procedure is unique to New York state)
>allow the accused to make an informed decision as to whether to testify
>given that it sets the scope of cross-examination. A presumably probative
>result of a Sandoval hearing has been termed "a Sandoval"."
>
>A Sandoval is covered in more detail here.
>https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-hush-money-trial-sandoval-b2531472.html
>
>"While the day's proceedings involves jury selection to find five more
>alternates, the other important order of business today will be an
>evidentiary hearing colloquially known as a "Sandoval Notice".
>
>A Sandoval hearing is required under New York law in criminal cases in
>which the defendant has a history of misconduct or criminal acts and plans
>to testify."

In Trump's case today, the prosecutors were reported to have
brought 13 questions: 7 will be allowed, 6 were ruled out. I did not
hear the discussion of whether that was what they expected, or if
they put in questions just to torture him.

I did hear it said, again, that Trump looks really miserable having
to sit quietly in court. Mary Trump (niece) says he has to hate it.
MSNBC hosts again say it is very unlikely that his lawyers will let
him testify. If he WERE to get on the stand, he would have to
answer questions on the 7, which will try to undermine the
credibility of his testimony.

However, he is known for lack of impulse control and cynics say that
any smart-ass answer is likely to 'open the door' to a question
previously ruled out.

--
Rich Ulrich

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 00:06:23 -0400, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> In Trump's case today, the prosecutors were reported to have
> brought 13 questions: 7 will be allowed, 6 were ruled out. I did not
> hear the discussion of whether that was what they expected, or if
> they put in questions just to torture him.
>
> I did hear it said, again, that Trump looks really miserable having
> to sit quietly in court. Mary Trump (niece) says he has to hate it.
> MSNBC hosts again say it is very unlikely that his lawyers will let
> him testify. If he WERE to get on the stand, he would have to
> answer questions on the 7, which will try to undermine the
> credibility of his testimony.
>
> However, he is known for lack of impulse control and cynics say that
> any smart-ass answer is likely to 'open the door' to a question
> previously ruled out.

While this is unrelated to the Sandoval, Trump is infamous for saying
something to the effect of "only the guilty refuse to take the stand" (or
something like that), where now he's being hoisted by his own petard.

Back on topic, in that same article is the use of "remit" which I had to
also look up as it was apparently being used as a noun.

[remit] Has many definitions - but only the BrEnglish noun seems to fit
"From a defence point of view, a Sandoval hearing ensures that the criminal
defendant is fully aware of what he might be asked if he or she does choose
to take the stand in their defence, so that they are not caught off-guard
by unexpected lines of questioning outside of an approved remit."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-hush-money-trial-sandoval-b2531472.html

This is one of those short words of many meanings, as there is a long list
of definitions in the AmEnglish dictionary, but this BrEnglish variant for
the noun seems (to me) to fit best in the usage above.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/remit
1 British : an area of responsibility or authority -usually singular

Etymology
Middle English remyt "pardon" noun derivative of remitten "to REMIT entry
1"

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 10:30:16 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
wrote:

>
>While this is unrelated to the Sandoval, Trump is infamous for saying
>something to the effect of "only the guilty refuse to take the stand" (or
>something like that), where now he's being hoisted by his own petard.

I think the famous Trump statement is about taking the Fifth Amendment
(self-incrimination). He has made various statements across time,
according to this Fact Check.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/10/donald-trump/how-does-trump-feel-about-fifth-amendment-depends-/

Trump, on Trump
In an Aug. 10 [2022] statement following his deposition, Trump
explained why he took the Fifth Amendment:

"I once asked, ‘If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth
Amendment?’ Now I know the answer to that question. When your
family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become
the targets of an unfounded, politically motivated witch hunt
supported by lawyers, prosecutors, and the fake news media, you
have no choice...."

and
Trump’s explanation for taking the Fifth Amendment because he is
being targeted by prosecutors is a reason many people give for
asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege, Ohio State University
law professor Ric Simmons said.

"They claim that even though they have nothing to hide, a
prosecutor will be able to use the testimony against them in an
unfair way to charge or convict them of something they did not do.
This is almost always an unfounded claim; there are very few cases
in this country of a prosecutor ‘targeting’ an individual or acting
in bad faith to use a person's testimony against them. Trump's case
is no different."

--
Rich Ulrich

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 13:06:12 -0400, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> I think the famous Trump statement is about taking the Fifth Amendment
> (self-incrimination). He has made various statements across time,
> according to this Fact Check.
>
> https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/10/donald-trump/how-does-trump-feel-about-fifth-amendment-depends-/
>
> Trump, on Trump
> In an Aug. 10 [2022] statement following his deposition, Trump
> explained why he took the Fifth Amendment:
>
> "I once asked, 'If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth
> Amendment?' Now I know the answer to that question. When your
> family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become
> the targets of an unfounded, politically motivated witch hunt
> supported by lawyers, prosecutors, and the fake news media, you
> have no choice...."
>
> and
> Trump's explanation for taking the Fifth Amendment because he is
> being targeted by prosecutors is a reason many people give for
> asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege, Ohio State University
> law professor Ric Simmons said.
>
> "They claim that even though they have nothing to hide, a
> prosecutor will be able to use the testimony against them in an
> unfair way to charge or convict them of something they did not do.
> This is almost always an unfounded claim; there are very few cases
> in this country of a prosecutor 'targeting' an individual or acting
> in bad faith to use a person's testimony against them. Trump's case
> is no different."

Thanks for that clarification, as I don't follow Trump but I can't help but
hear about his antics where none of the rules apply to him - even his own
rules (such as taking the fifth).

I think the only reason Trump exists as a "thing" is that the Democrats
don't offer half the country what they want, and neither do the Republicans
offer the other half what they want - with the voters in the middle making
the call because nobody sensible could be 100% down any one party line.

What's odd is their arguments aren't even self consistent, in that the
Democrats readily support homicide of an unborn defenseless baby up until
the day before it's born (at least in NY State they do) and yet, the
Democrats say they stand for what they call "gun control" on the opposite
basis of homicide.

But it's not only the Democrats who don't have self consistent platforms.
In the end, it's the swing voters, the only sensible ones out there, who
will make the final call, mainly because the country is divided in half.

The cities go Democrat.
The rural areas go Republican.

The swing states make the final call.
Luckily Arizona is a swing state so my vote counts.

But when I was in NY, my vote didn't matter because it was always going to
go Democrat no matter who was vying for the presidency at that particular
time.

On 23-Apr-24 5:06, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 20:12:40 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Apparently a "Sandoval" is a colloquial term for a specific USA New York
>> State criminal law component.
>>
>> "Last week, Judge Merchan held a Sandoval hearing to determine what can be
>> used to impeach his credibility on the witness stand if he testifies in his
>> own defence."
>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-trial-opening-statements-election-fraud-b2532750.html
>>
>> I wasn't sure what a "Sandoval" was, but this explains the usage.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Sandoval
>>
>> "Sandoval pre-trial hearings (the procedure is unique to New York state)
>> allow the accused to make an informed decision as to whether to testify
>> given that it sets the scope of cross-examination. A presumably probative
>> result of a Sandoval hearing has been termed "a Sandoval"."
>>
>> A Sandoval is covered in more detail here.
>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-hush-money-trial-sandoval-b2531472.html
>>
>> "While the day's proceedings involves jury selection to find five more
>> alternates, the other important order of business today will be an
>> evidentiary hearing colloquially known as a "Sandoval Notice".
>>
>> A Sandoval hearing is required under New York law in criminal cases in
>> which the defendant has a history of misconduct or criminal acts and plans
>> to testify."
>
> In Trump's case today, the prosecutors were reported to have
> brought 13 questions: 7 will be allowed, 6 were ruled out. I did not
> hear the discussion of whether that was what they expected, or if
> they put in questions just to torture him.
>
> I did hear it said, again, that Trump looks really miserable having
> to sit quietly in court. Mary Trump (niece) says he has to hate it.
> MSNBC hosts again say it is very unlikely that his lawyers will let
> him testify. If he WERE to get on the stand, he would have to
> answer questions on the 7, which will try to undermine the
> credibility of his testimony.
>
> However, he is known for lack of impulse control and cynics say that
> any smart-ass answer is likely to 'open the door' to a question
> previously ruled out.
>
I think Trump prefers to give testimony on the courthouse steps. That
way he doesn't have to worry about cross examination or charges of perjury.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 23-Apr-24 18:06, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 10:30:16 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> While this is unrelated to the Sandoval, Trump is infamous for saying
>> something to the effect of "only the guilty refuse to take the stand" (or
>> something like that), where now he's being hoisted by his own petard.
>
> I think the famous Trump statement is about taking the Fifth Amendment
> (self-incrimination). He has made various statements across time,
> according to this Fact Check.

But neither his supporters of his opponents expect any kind of
consistency from him.
I can't think of anyone else who has such complete freedom to say
whatever he chooses without concern for any consequences.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 24/04/24 03:30, Ken Blake wrote:

> I think the only reason Trump exists as a "thing" is that the
> Democrats don't offer half the country what they want, and neither do
> the Republicans offer the other half what they want - with the voters
> in the middle making the call because nobody sensible could be 100%
> down any one party line.

The husband of a US congressperson once described it to me a little
differently.

"The Democrats appeal to the left-wingers and the stupid. The
Republicans appeal to the right-wingers and the stupid. But the
left-wingers and the right-wingers pretty much cancel each other out, so
all of politics is about trying to attract the stupid vote."

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:56:22 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:

>> I think the only reason Trump exists as a "thing" is that the
>> Democrats don't offer half the country what they want, and neither do
>> the Republicans offer the other half what they want - with the voters
>> in the middle making the call because nobody sensible could be 100%
>> down any one party line.
>
> The husband of a US congressperson once described it to me a little
> differently.
>
> "The Democrats appeal to the left-wingers and the stupid. The
> Republicans appeal to the right-wingers and the stupid. But the
> left-wingers and the right-wingers pretty much cancel each other out, so
> all of politics is about trying to attract the stupid vote."

I can't disagree. Anyone who 100% agrees with _any_ (rather well-managed!)
party platform is likely a herd animal because sensible people aren't
usually 100% in agreement with any (carefully managed) party platform.

So the swing voters (and their states) carry the power of the decision.

In addition, left wingers tend to exclusively watch MSNBC all day, every
day, to the exclusion of other sources of information while right wingers
watch FOX to the exclusion of more balanced news.

I think they do this for their herd animal instinct as the news justifies
their herd for them - as I can't watch either due to the brazen media bias.
https://san.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/mediabiaschart.jpg

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:47:09 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:56:22 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>>> I think the only reason Trump exists as a "thing" is that the
>>> Democrats don't offer half the country what they want, and neither do
>>> the Republicans offer the other half what they want - with the voters
>>> in the middle making the call because nobody sensible could be 100%
>>> down any one party line.
>>
>> The husband of a US congressperson once described it to me a little
>> differently.
>>
>> "The Democrats appeal to the left-wingers and the stupid. The
>> Republicans appeal to the right-wingers and the stupid. But the
>> left-wingers and the right-wingers pretty much cancel each other out, so
>> all of politics is about trying to attract the stupid vote."
>
>I can't disagree. Anyone who 100% agrees with _any_ (rather well-managed!)
>party platform is likely a herd animal because sensible people aren't
>usually 100% in agreement with any (carefully managed) party platform.
>
>So the swing voters (and their states) carry the power of the decision.
>
>In addition, left wingers tend to exclusively watch MSNBC all day, every
>day, to the exclusion of other sources of information while right wingers
>watch FOX to the exclusion of more balanced news.

I think you are behind times in this criticism. And wrong, too.

We who watch MSNBC also watch ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., and
read NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc.

Those who watch Fox are now the moderates among the
nut jobs. Fox paid their defamation settlement (787 billion
USD) for chasing the audience who wanted to hear the Big Lie.
In that case, they knowing applauded Guiliani and Powell on the
air, while scoffing at them in all their internal communications
['their thesis was a lie; both were stooges or crazy liars.'] Since
then, Fox hosts have been cooler to Trump, and have (even) fact-
checked him a couple of times.

The right wingers (I speak now of my sister, last night) think
of ABC, CBS, NBC as "Democrat" news and don't watch it.
Trump's Fake News excoriations seem to mean, from context,
"anything that I don't like". He applies it to the True. As his
audience receives it, it becomes "lies" in the simple case. I'm
afraid it often is something worse. Being cursed as "Fake News"
is like being listed (long ago?) as pornography by the Catholics --
That is, it is tainting or contaminating, and you risk your soul
if you read it. If some reaches you, ignore it; certainly do not
think about it. And that is why the ignorance is so hard to
penetrate. Claims of Fake News get easily applied. So...

They do not know there is EVIDENCE in the testimony (of
Republicans) that Trump ran seven or more of the strands of a
conspiracy to hijack the electoral college, or what those efforts
included -- documented in memos and sworn testimony.

Polls show that ignorance of the crimes for each of his four trials
is widespread. And I'm sure that they feel no guilt, since, as they
rationalize, Who cares that much about details of weird conspiracies?

--
Rich Ulrich

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 19:03:49 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

me >
>> However, he is known for lack of impulse control and cynics say that
>> any smart-ass answer is likely to 'open the door' to a question
>> previously ruled out.
>>
>I think Trump prefers to give testimony on the courthouse steps. That
>way he doesn't have to worry about cross examination or charges of perjury.

But! Watch out for his lack of impulse control!

Those words on the steps or in tweets can be used against him.

Right now, he is racking up charges for ignoring the gag order.

I've heard it said, though not in this trial, that his evening
words would be used against him otherwise in court. I can
imagine them being relevant when his lawyers want to Object
with some argument, but he has contradicted them in public.

--
Rich Ulrich

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 11:30:53 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 13:06:12 -0400, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
>> I think the famous Trump statement is about taking the Fifth Amendment
>> (self-incrimination). He has made various statements across time,
>> according to this Fact Check.
>>
>> https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/10/donald-trump/how-does-trump-feel-about-fifth-amendment-depends-/
>>
>> Trump, on Trump
>> In an Aug. 10 [2022] statement following his deposition, Trump
>> explained why he took the Fifth Amendment:
>>
>> "I once asked, 'If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth
>> Amendment?' Now I know the answer to that question. When your
>> family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become
>> the targets of an unfounded, politically motivated witch hunt
>> supported by lawyers, prosecutors, and the fake news media, you
>> have no choice...."
>>
>> and
>> Trump's explanation for taking the Fifth Amendment because he is
>> being targeted by prosecutors is a reason many people give for
>> asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege, Ohio State University
>> law professor Ric Simmons said.
>>
>> "They claim that even though they have nothing to hide, a
>> prosecutor will be able to use the testimony against them in an
>> unfair way to charge or convict them of something they did not do.
>> This is almost always an unfounded claim; there are very few cases
>> in this country of a prosecutor 'targeting' an individual or acting
>> in bad faith to use a person's testimony against them. Trump's case
>> is no different."
>
>Thanks for that clarification, as I don't follow Trump but I can't help but
>hear about his antics where none of the rules apply to him - even his own
>rules (such as taking the fifth).
>
>I think the only reason Trump exists as a "thing" is that the Democrats
>don't offer half the country what they want, and neither do the Republicans
>offer the other half what they want - with the voters in the middle making
>the call because nobody sensible could be 100% down any one party line.
>
>What's odd is their arguments aren't even self consistent, in that the
>Democrats readily support homicide of an unborn defenseless baby up until
>the day before it's born (at least in NY State they do) and yet, the
>Democrats say they stand for what they call "gun control" on the opposite
>basis of homicide.

Rather like the Republicans who oppose abortion as murder but support
capital punishment?

New York technically allows abortions up until the time of birth, but
after the 24th week an abortion is allowed only if the fetus is not
viable or the woman's life or health is at risk.

>But it's not only the Democrats who don't have self consistent platforms.
>In the end, it's the swing voters, the only sensible ones out there, who
>will make the final call, mainly because the country is divided in half.
>
>The cities go Democrat.
>The rural areas go Republican.
>
>The swing states make the final call.
>Luckily Arizona is a swing state so my vote counts.
>
>But when I was in NY, my vote didn't matter because it was always going to
>go Democrat no matter who was vying for the presidency at that particular
>time.

We balance out. I could say that my vote doesn't matter in that
election because I live in Florida and my vote won't be for the
Republican.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 23:29:49 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>We balance out. I could say that my vote doesn't matter in that
>election because I live in Florida and my vote won't be for the
>Republican.

I'm still hopeful for a huge Democratic sweep in November-

Trump hurt his fellow Republicans in 2018, 2020, and 2022.

And in those years, the RNC was helping everyone -- whereas,
this year, Trump is their concern. Lara Trump is co-chair, to
help make it happen.

I thought it was Trump-clever, when he asked every candidate
who uses his name or picture in fund-raising to send him 5%
of the proceeds. And the RNC is paying rent to Mar-A-Lago.

Between legal fees and skimming and contributors unhappy
with the chaos in GOP congress, campaign money looks short.

Meanwhile, some state Republican organizations have replaced
old pols (having experience in fundraising and campaigning) with
new Trump enthusiasts -- who (Trump hopes) will support the
2024 attempt to hijack the electoral college, no matter how
illegal it looks. He hopes to avoid the bitter disappointments when
Pence and Barr decided there were lengths they would not go.

--
Rich Ulrich

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 20:43:01 -0400, Rich Ulrich wrote:

>>In addition, left wingers tend to exclusively watch MSNBC all day, every
>>day, to the exclusion of other sources of information while right wingers
>>watch FOX to the exclusion of more balanced news.
>
> I think you are behind times in this criticism. And wrong, too.

It's fine if I'm wrong, but I do have proof to back up my claims.
https://san.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/mediabiaschart.jpg
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-source-you-probably-wont-agree-with-this-chart-2018-02-28
https://www.ksfr.org/news/2020-05-01/allsides-com-calls-out-media-bias-from-both-sides-promoting-democratic-dialogue-and-free-speech

Look at where MSNBC and Fox are on accuracy and bias.
Compare each of those to the more balanced press.

Note there are MANY (many!) articles which say the same thing, so it's not
"me" who is "wrong" - as Ground News also says the same things as do all
the articles that cover media bias that include both MSNBC & Fox.

If you think I'm wrong, then everyone is wrong, including adfontesmedia.com
But if you can find an article that backs up your point, I'll read it.

> We who watch MSNBC also watch ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., and
> read NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc.

That's different than what I said. I said specifically MSNBC (which is
always listed in all articles that speak about bias as bias left) and Fox
(which likewise, is always listed as biased to the right).

You added the rest, so let's LOOK at what they are in terms of bias.
Taking just the first JPG above... here's what they say about them.

ABC = middle (slightly left) bias, and reasonable mix of facts
CBS = skews further left bias and reasonable mix of facts
NBC = middle left (almost center) bias, and reasonable mix of facts
NY Times = skews reasonably left of center, reasonably accurate on facts
Washington Post = skews further left bias and reasonable mix of facts
Wall Street Journal = skews reasonably right of center, reasonably accurate
> Those who watch Fox are now the moderates among the
> nut jobs. Fox paid their defamation settlement (787 billion
> USD) for chasing the audience who wanted to hear the Big Lie.
> In that case, they knowing applauded Guiliani and Powell on the
> air, while scoffing at them in all their internal communications
> ['their thesis was a lie; both were stooges or crazy liars.'] Since
> then, Fox hosts have been cooler to Trump, and have (even) fact-
> checked him a couple of times.

Fox news is invariably skewing right and less accurate in the charts.
If you can find reports saying otherwise, let me know.
I provided you the reports that I used to base my opinion on.
And they're unanimous that Fox is right and less accurate.

> The right wingers (I speak now of my sister, last night) think
> of ABC, CBS, NBC as "Democrat" news and don't watch it.
> Trump's Fake News excoriations seem to mean, from context,
> "anything that I don't like". He applies it to the True. As his
> audience receives it, it becomes "lies" in the simple case. I'm
> afraid it often is something worse. Being cursed as "Fake News"
> is like being listed (long ago?) as pornography by the Catholics --
> That is, it is tainting or contaminating, and you risk your soul
> if you read it. If some reaches you, ignore it; certainly do not
> think about it. And that is why the ignorance is so hard to
> penetrate. Claims of Fake News get easily applied. So...

I think most people who watch skewed news (which is most news, according to
the data), are doing so to validate their opinions of themselves.

However, that's just a guess as I'm not a psychologist.
I simply strive to read news that is not biased to either side.

> They do not know there is EVIDENCE in the testimony (of
> Republicans) that Trump ran seven or more of the strands of a
> conspiracy to hijack the electoral college, or what those efforts
> included -- documented in memos and sworn testimony.

You'll never hear me defend Trump, where my assessment is that he's a
"thing" only because they first put him up against the worst candidate
possible - against whom he won, and now they're putting him up against a
candidate who may not be as bad as Hillary was, but isn't all that good.

> Polls show that ignorance of the crimes for each of his four trials
> is widespread. And I'm sure that they feel no guilt, since, as they
> rationalize, Who cares that much about details of weird conspiracies?

Many people get their opinions from the words of Trump (or Biden) or any
politician (Reagan, for example, or Nixon or FDR, etc.).

Smart people don't - but most people appear to be incredibly ignorant, and
one way to tell that they're getting their views fed to them is when
someone 100% fits the party line (which I find statistically almost
impossible) although again, I'm saying this only as a well educated person,
and not as an actuary or psychologist.

An example is I like some of the things Democrats "say" they stand for, and
I dislike some of them. Likewise with Republicans. Unfortunately, Teddy
Roosevelt proved the only thing a third party does is dilute one of the
two.

That means we're stuck, forever, with a two-party system.

I think Trump is a "thing" mostly because the other party isn't.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 23:29:49 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:

>>What's odd is their arguments aren't even self consistent, in that the
>>Democrats readily support homicide of an unborn defenseless baby up until
>>the day before it's born (at least in NY State they do) and yet, the
>>Democrats say they stand for what they call "gun control" on the opposite
>>basis of homicide.
>
> Rather like the Republicans who oppose abortion as murder but support
> capital punishment?

Exactly. The very carefully planned tested and honed "platforms" aren't
even self consistent. For either side.

> New York technically allows abortions up until the time of birth, but
> after the 24th week an abortion is allowed only if the fetus is not
> viable or the woman's life or health is at risk.

It's great you know that because most people are flabbergasted when they
hear the baby can legally be "gotten rid of" up to a day prior to birth.

But did you notice what's _missing_ in that law? It's big. Really big.
The law does NOT specify in any detail what "health at risk" means.

So, for example, for arguments' sake (argument's sake?) - if the birth is
causing a rash on the mother's face, that could be construed as her health
being at risk.

If they were serious about the law, then they would have made sure to
specify the terms and conditions - but they left them almost completely
open. On purpose.

>>But it's not only the Democrats who don't have self consistent platforms.

Since the two platforms are generally mutulaly exclusive, it means that
BOTH parties have a lack of self consistency.

Democrats = kill the baby, but don't kill the school child with guns
Republicans = save the baby but allow guns to be used by the militia

>>In the end, it's the swing voters, the only sensible ones out there, who
>>will make the final call, mainly because the country is divided in half.
>>
>>The cities go Democrat.
>>The rural areas go Republican.
>>
>>The swing states make the final call.
>>Luckily Arizona is a swing state so my vote counts.
>>
>>But when I was in NY, my vote didn't matter because it was always going to
>>go Democrat no matter who was vying for the presidency at that particular
>>time.

> We balance out. I could say that my vote doesn't matter in that
> election because I live in Florida and my vote won't be for the
> Republican.

I'm an undeclared voter, where I can vote for either candidate but neither
fits my idea of a president, and more importantly, neither party stands for
what I believe in.

There's not much I can do about it as Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) won only
because Teddy Roosevelt tried the trick of a third party - and it failed.

As such, there can only be two viable parties in the United States,
unfortunately. Neither one of which has a self-consistent platform.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 01:26:26 -0400, Rich Ulrich wrote:

>>We balance out. I could say that my vote doesn't matter in that
>>election because I live in Florida and my vote won't be for the
>>Republican.
>
> I'm still hopeful for a huge Democratic sweep in November-

For me, since neither party has a self-consistent platform, it's a wash
which party wins in any given election.

Take the Democrats - who are always trying to take away your rights under
the 2nd amendment - but then compare that to the Republicans who are always
trying to take away the (previous) right of the Roe-v-Wade decision.

They're all trying to take away your rights - only they aim differently.

> Trump hurt his fellow Republicans in 2018, 2020, and 2022.
>
> And in those years, the RNC was helping everyone -- whereas,
> this year, Trump is their concern. Lara Trump is co-chair, to
> help make it happen.
>
> I thought it was Trump-clever, when he asked every candidate
> who uses his name or picture in fund-raising to send him 5%
> of the proceeds. And the RNC is paying rent to Mar-A-Lago.
>
> Between legal fees and skimming and contributors unhappy
> with the chaos in GOP congress, campaign money looks short.

I'm not a political pundit, but it seems to me the only thing Trump is
interested in is himself. I'm afraid he'd make any deal with anyone who
paid him money or who furthered his business interests.

And we can all rest assured every malefactor out there knows this.

> Meanwhile, some state Republican organizations have replaced
> old pols (having experience in fundraising and campaigning) with
> new Trump enthusiasts -- who (Trump hopes) will support the
> 2024 attempt to hijack the electoral college, no matter how
> illegal it looks. He hopes to avoid the bitter disappointments when
> Pence and Barr decided there were lengths they would not go.

It is amazing to me that people believe the crap Trump spews, but then
again, Biden's uncle was almost eaten by cannibals (which didn't happen).

None of them tell the truth. Ask George Santos.

In the end, the cities will vote the Democratic party almost every time.
And the rural areas will vote Republican party almost every time.

What's left are the swing votes given the two above just about equal.

On 24/04/24 09:47, Ken Blake wrote:

> In addition, left wingers tend to exclusively watch MSNBC all day,
> every day, to the exclusion of other sources of information while
> right wingers watch FOX to the exclusion of more balanced news.

Australian television watching works differently. (I'm not commenting
here on non-TV media, for which the story is a little different.) After
local TV stations ended up not being commercially viable -- because of
too small a population -- we ended up with just five networks, all of
which are national and all of which run several TV channels. Two of the
networks (ABC and SBS) are publicly funded. The other three are
commercial and are funded by advertising.

The great unwashed public watches *only* the commercial channels, and
would not have the faintest idea of what ABC and SBS are showing. A
smaller group watches *only* ABC and SBS, and has no interest in the
rubbish on the commercial channels. My loaded language probably tells
you which group I'm in.

This occasionally leads to humorous results. Now and then ABC runs a
series, and then sells it off to a commercial channel. Someone will say
to me "You should watch 'Cops in Space'. It's really good". I'll reply
"I've already seen it." "But you haven't seen it all, it's only just
started." "Yes, but it was on ABC last year."

The two groups are not divided by political opinion, but rather by
aesthetic taste. There is probably some correlation with political
views, but it's probably not a strong correlation.

If you want to look at political leanings, it's better to look at the
newspapers.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 24/04/24 16:56, Ken Blake wrote:

> In the end, the cities will vote the Democratic party almost every
> time. And the rural areas will vote Republican party almost every
> time.
>
> What's left are the swing votes given the two above just about
> equal.

The same thing seems to happen in every genuine democracy. (I exclude
those "democracies" where the most powerful person wins by a landslide
every time.) It's very noticeable that in so many countries the ruling
party hangs on by a little less than 50% support.

My theory on this is that the major parties realign their policies to
ensure that they will get approximately 50% support. (In Australia, this
means 50% after distribution of preferences. In other countries, apply
the local rules to mean "got in by the skin of their teeth".) If, now
and then, one party wins by a landslide, that party will adjust its
policies to make itself marginal again.

The present situation in Australia is that the Labor Party, nominally a
left-wing party, is now the dominant right-wing party in the country.
After every election, the winning party tries to position itself as
occupying the centre.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 24/04/24 10:53, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 19:03:49 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>
> me >
>>> However, he is known for lack of impulse control and cynics say that
>>> any smart-ass answer is likely to 'open the door' to a question
>>> previously ruled out.
>>>
>> I think Trump prefers to give testimony on the courthouse steps. That
>> way he doesn't have to worry about cross examination or charges of perjury.
>
> But! Watch out for his lack of impulse control!
>
> Those words on the steps or in tweets can be used against him.
>
> Right now, he is racking up charges for ignoring the gag order.
>
> I've heard it said, though not in this trial, that his evening
> words would be used against him otherwise in court. I can
> imagine them being relevant when his lawyers want to Object
> with some argument, but he has contradicted them in public.

At present, Trump's biggest problem is his unwillingness to agree with
what his lawyers want.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 02:44:57 -0400, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 23:29:49 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>>What's odd is their arguments aren't even self consistent, in that the
>>>Democrats readily support homicide of an unborn defenseless baby up until
>>>the day before it's born (at least in NY State they do) and yet, the
>>>Democrats say they stand for what they call "gun control" on the opposite
>>>basis of homicide.
>>
>> Rather like the Republicans who oppose abortion as murder but support
>> capital punishment?
>
>Exactly. The very carefully planned tested and honed "platforms" aren't
>even self consistent. For either side.
>
>> New York technically allows abortions up until the time of birth, but
>> after the 24th week an abortion is allowed only if the fetus is not
>> viable or the woman's life or health is at risk.
>
>It's great you know that because most people are flabbergasted when they
>hear the baby can legally be "gotten rid of" up to a day prior to birth.
>
>But did you notice what's _missing_ in that law? It's big. Really big.
>The law does NOT specify in any detail what "health at risk" means.\

Good Lord! No! "The law" should not specify what determines health
risk!

Laws are written by or for politicians. I wrote "for" because many
laws are actually written by lobbyists or representitives of special
interest groups and merely presented by members of congress.

You want a Marjorie Taylor Greene or John Kennedy (R - Louisiana)
writing a law that determines what risk may affect a woman's life? Or
Josh Hawley proposing a law drafted by his wife?

Maybe it could be a good thing, though. If "specifics" were included
in laws, based on the current knowledge of the drafters, the Second
Amendment would provide only the right of people to bear muskets,
sabres, pikes, and canons. We could outlaw AK-47s and other automatic
weapons and save far more people from violent death than any abortion
law.
>
>So, for example, for arguments' sake (argument's sake?) - if the birth is
>causing a rash on the mother's face, that could be construed as her health
>being at risk.

A rash is a manifstation of some underlying condition, and that
condition should be diagnosed by a qualified medical expert like a
doctor, not a politician.

>If they were serious about the law, then they would have made sure to
>specify the terms and conditions - but they left them almost completely
>open. On purpose.

Yes, the drafters of the law should recognize it is not their
responsibility to make medical decisions and to leave that to the
medical professionals.

>
>>>But it's not only the Democrats who don't have self consistent platforms.
>
>Since the two platforms are generally mutulaly exclusive, it means that
>BOTH parties have a lack of self consistency.
>
>Democrats = kill the baby, but don't kill the school child with guns
>Republicans = save the baby but allow guns to be used by the militia

Where are the "specifics" of "A well regulated Militia"?

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36:42 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 24/04/24 10:53, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 19:03:49 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> me >
>>>> However, he is known for lack of impulse control and cynics say that
>>>> any smart-ass answer is likely to 'open the door' to a question
>>>> previously ruled out.
>>>>
>>> I think Trump prefers to give testimony on the courthouse steps. That
>>> way he doesn't have to worry about cross examination or charges of perjury.
>>
>> But! Watch out for his lack of impulse control!
>>
>> Those words on the steps or in tweets can be used against him.
>>
>> Right now, he is racking up charges for ignoring the gag order.
>>
>> I've heard it said, though not in this trial, that his evening
>> words would be used against him otherwise in court. I can
>> imagine them being relevant when his lawyers want to Object
>> with some argument, but he has contradicted them in public.
>
>At present, Trump's biggest problem is his unwillingness to agree with
>what his lawyers want.

Trump and lawyers?

From 2016 - why New York lawyers mostly would not work
for him - "He won't do what you say, and he doesn't pay."
That was a problem for someone whose count of court cases
(self and company) already ran to 3600 in 2016.
In fairness: a third or so of those were from the casino and
not from his real estate practices.

From 2023 - MAGA is coming to stand for, "Make Attorneys
Get Attorneys."

--
Rich Ulrich

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 02:36:58 -0400, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 20:43:01 -0400, Rich Ulrich wrote:
(My apologies for getting a bit repetitive below; I don't have the
time to reply more briefly. Somebody famous said that.)

>
>>>In addition, left wingers tend to exclusively watch MSNBC all day, every
>>>day, to the exclusion of other sources of information while right wingers
>>>watch FOX to the exclusion of more balanced news.
>>
>> I think you are behind times in this criticism. And wrong, too.
>
>It's fine if I'm wrong, but I do have proof to back up my claims.
>https://san.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/mediabiaschart.jpg

(2023) This takes the helpful approach of naming some particular
shows. But ... The category-range with MSNBC and a couple of
Fox shows is "opinion OR wide range in variability". I will grant
that MSNBC offers opinion. I've also seen errors, but I haven't
seen lies presented to follow top-down instructions (re: Fox).

Lower ranges are "selective, unfair" + "misleading". There
are 11+3 sources listed with Left bias, and 11+11 listed with
Right bias. "Hannity" (Fox) is the only major source falling
in either of those.

What claim are you backing up? I did say that Fox was no
longer the ONLY or the most Right of what was watched. The
chart does show more competitors on the Right than on the Left.

>https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-source-you-probably-wont-agree-with-this-chart-2018-02-28

Its date, April, 2018, is the worst problem with this chart.

Nonetheless -- MSNBC scores at "opnion". Fox News falls
(just barely) into, "nonsense damaging public discourse."
Infowars is plotted as farther Right and less credible; Newmax
is less credible. OAN and Drudge report are a bit more credible,
falling in "unfair interpretations."

What is your point here? MSNBC scores as more reliable. And
that was 6 years ago, before Trump went fullly unhinged.

What has happened since 2018? Everyone says, "polarized."
Trump averaged (WaPost count) almost 6 lies/errors per day
in 2017, rising to 18 per day in 2018 after he got rid of his
cabinet nannies. Right wing news echoed Trump, to their
loss. So this is a bit dated, and I expect the Right to look
worse today.

>https://www.ksfr.org/news/2020-05-01/allsides-com-calls-out-media-bias-from-both-sides-promoting-democratic-dialogue-and-free-speech

This one is dated 2020 which makes it old. It says that it
looks only at bias, and not at accuracy, which makes it rather
beside the point. It might have links for Who watches How
Much, but that was 2020. I didn't look.

>
>Look at where MSNBC and Fox are on accuracy and bias.
>Compare each of those to the more balanced press.

It says that MSNBC is Opinion; Fox varies.

Talking about "Fox News" is also problematic for a reason
not mentioned. The BAD stuff from Fox comes from their
evening entertainers, but they have a separate agency
that produces decent news which is presented earlier in
the day. Chris Matthews used to be the big name there.
They are the ones who produced the early call on Arizona
(Trump will lose) which upset Trump fans.

>
>Note there are MANY (many!) articles which say the same thing, so it's not
>"me" who is "wrong" - as Ground News also says the same things as do all
>the articles that cover media bias that include both MSNBC & Fox.

I do not dispute the Left-Right bias in the charts. I say, Fox
is no longer most extreme, and I say that Fox viewers are
much more likely than MSNBC viewers to live in an echo chamber.

>
>If you think I'm wrong, then everyone is wrong, including adfontesmedia.com
>But if you can find an article that backs up your point, I'll read it.

I said, Fox is no longer the most extreme voice popular on
the Right. The Fox defamation case documents the Fox fears
in that regard.

I said that viewers on the Right now ignore much of the factual
news as 'real news' -- Trump tells them it is fake. The literature
on Fake News shows more clicks on Fake stuff by people on
the Right than on the Left.

You can find a lot of articles that use the metaphor "echo chamber"
to describe their insularity. I've started thinking "isolation booth"
would be appropriate.

<snip>
>
>Fox news is invariably skewing right and less accurate in the charts.

Absolutely.

>If you can find reports saying otherwise, let me know.
>I provided you the reports that I used to base my opinion on.
>And they're unanimous that Fox is right and less accurate.

What I said was that OTHER folks are now worse, and they are
gaining in support. Fox, for instance, does not do much of the
Q-Anon conspiracy stuff. Put another way: MSNBC viewers do not
self-select away from factual news when Trump calls it Fake;
MSNBC viewers end up more widely informed.
<snip>

>Many people get their opinions from the words of Trump (or Biden) or any
>politician (Reagan, for example, or Nixon or FDR, etc.).

Yep, that's absolutely the case.

That is why the modern tragedy is that Republicans are being converted
to cultists by that narcissist without a conscience, the con man,
cheater and liar ( Donald Trump) who would like to be king.

<snip>

--
Rich Ulrich

Peter Moylan blurted out:
> On 24/04/24 10:53, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 19:03:49 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> me >
>>>> However, he is known for lack of impulse control and cynics say that
>>>> any smart-ass answer is likely to 'open the door' to a question
>>>> previously ruled out.
>>>>
>>> I think Trump prefers to give testimony on the courthouse steps. That
>>> way he doesn't have to worry about cross examination or charges of
>>> perjury.
>>
>> But! Watch out for his lack of impulse control!
>>
>> Those words on the steps or in tweets can be used against him.
>>
>> Right now, he is racking up charges for ignoring the gag order.
>>
>> I've heard it said, though not in this trial, that his evening
>> words would be used against him otherwise in court. I can
>> imagine them being relevant when his lawyers want to Object
>> with some argument, but he has contradicted them in public.
>
> At present, Trump's biggest problem is his unwillingness to agree with
> what his lawyers want.

I think we've seen evidence over the years that lawyers who work for
Trump end up hating the job.

/dps

--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.

On 24-Apr-24 13:33, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 24/04/24 16:56, Ken Blake wrote:
>
>> In the end, the cities will vote the Democratic party almost every
>> time. And the rural areas will vote Republican party almost every
>> time.
>>
>> What's left are the swing votes given the two above just about
>> equal.
>
> The same thing seems to happen in every genuine democracy. (I exclude
> those "democracies" where the most powerful person wins by a landslide
> every time.) It's very noticeable that in so many countries the ruling
> party hangs on by a little less than 50% support.
>
> My theory on this is that the major parties realign their policies to
> ensure that they will get approximately 50% support. (In Australia, this
> means 50% after distribution of preferences. In other countries, apply
> the local rules to mean "got in by the skin of their teeth".) If, now
> and then, one party wins by a landslide, that party will adjust its
> policies to make itself marginal again.
>
> The present situation in Australia is that the Labor Party, nominally a
> left-wing party, is now the dominant right-wing party in the country.
> After every election, the winning party tries to position itself as
> occupying the centre.

That latter point isn't happening here in the UK at the moment. The
party in government has been focused on internal divisions and seems
determined to move further right - away from the centre.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:12:52 -0400, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> What claim are you backing up?

Thanks for asking for a clarification. The only claim I was backing up was
that MSNBC skewed left (by all accounts) while FOX skewed right (by those
same accounts).

My observation is that I've seen many people _exclusively_ watch one or the
other; my assessment based on that, was that they don't get balanced news.

To be clear, I wasn't accusing anyone here of being exclusively left or
exclusively right; I was just observing that people who are extremists,
tend to only watch bias news that is skewed toward their particular
extreme.

> I did say that Fox was no
> longer the ONLY or the most Right of what was watched. The
> chart does show more competitors on the Right than on the Left.

Thanks for noticing that. The chart is hard to read, as I'm sure you found
out, but they have an interactive web site that you can look up any media.
https://adfontesmedia.com/

Of course, there's also places like Ground News which will rate specific
story for media bias, where, for example (and I'm making this up by way of
analogy) we might see MSNBC run stories all week about Trump's kids
breaking the law while FOX might run similar stories about Biden's kids
doing the same - and yet neither will cover the other.
https://ground.news/media-bias

>>https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-source-you-probably-wont-agree-with-this-chart-2018-02-28
>
> Its date, April, 2018, is the worst problem with this chart.

You bring up a good point on age, particularly since I think your claim is
that some of those on the far right/left are cleaning up their acts.

It might be better to use the more current interactive sites than the JPG.
https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/
https://ground.news/interest/us-presidential-election

> Nonetheless -- MSNBC scores at "opnion". Fox News falls
> (just barely) into, "nonsense damaging public discourse."
> Infowars is plotted as farther Right and less credible; Newmax
> is less credible. OAN and Drudge report are a bit more credible,
> falling in "unfair interpretations."
>
> What is your point here? MSNBC scores as more reliable. And
> that was 6 years ago, before Trump went fullly unhinged.

I understand your viewpoint that the bias skew changes for media, but I
disagree with you that it has changed appreciably - yet - I have to admit
openly that I puke my guts out just listening to someone else watching
either MSNBC or FOX News as both are so biased as to be gut wrenching.

I prefer to get my news from sensible sources which aren't tainted by any
one political party, but which simply print all the news that is fit to
print (and no, the New York Times isn't reliable as they brazenly lied
about the Israel Gaza hospital implications and didn't even care that they
published completely false news without bothering to check up on it).

Just like a swindler only needs to swindle me once for me to write him off,
and just like a back stabber only needs to stab me in the back once, the
New York Times lost all credibility publishing that story which was pure
fabrication and the New York Times didn't even apologize for lying to us.

All they cared about was their ratings.

> What has happened since 2018? Everyone says, "polarized."
> Trump averaged (WaPost count) almost 6 lies/errors per day
> in 2017, rising to 18 per day in 2018 after he got rid of his
> cabinet nannies. Right wing news echoed Trump, to their
> loss. So this is a bit dated, and I expect the Right to look
> worse today.

I don't disagree that almost everything out of Trump's mouth is a lie, or
an attack on a witness, or an accusation of ill will of a prosecutor, or
even a commendation that the most evil autocrats are "very smart" people.

However, bear in mind Biden said on tape to the Afgan president to brazenly
lie (when all the Afgan president wanted to do was grab the money & run),
and Biden recently made up the dumbest stories about his uncle which simply
didn't happen.

They're all liars, although not at the pathological level of George Santos
and Mike Johnson - but still - they're all liars (Nancy Pelosi being one of
the biggest liars on the planet - which has been proven with the Pinocchio
Awards, for example).

The Democrats lie all the time about climate change for example, and the
Republicans lie all the time about immigration. They use fear mongering to
scare people into voting for their made-up inconsistent platforms.

In the end, the only sensible voters are the swing voters who vote their
conscience since no one party could possibly completely fit any one
sensibly logical person (IMHO) given the party platforms are self
inconsistent.

Democrats -> You can't kill people with guns but you can kill babies.
Republicans -> You can kill people with guns but you can't kill babies.

>>https://www.ksfr.org/news/2020-05-01/allsides-com-calls-out-media-bias-from-both-sides-promoting-democratic-dialogue-and-free-speech
>
> This one is dated 2020 which makes it old. It says that it
> looks only at bias, and not at accuracy, which makes it rather
> beside the point. It might have links for Who watches How
> Much, but that was 2020. I didn't look.

Again, I don't disagree that you "think" 2020 is "old"; but it's my opinion
that the news bias does not change quickly - but I do understand that it's
your opinion that the news bias does change quickly.

So we can only look at the more recent reports which abound out there, and
every one I've ever seen shows MSNBC skewed left & Fox News skewed right.

My point only is that anyone who watches one or the other exclusively, is
receiving highly biased news which is not balanced and which therefore
contains not only glaring inaccuracies, but gaping omissions, and in
evitable falsities - as a fundamental result of that bias.

>>Look at where MSNBC and Fox are on accuracy and bias.
>>Compare each of those to the more balanced press.
>
> It says that MSNBC is Opinion; Fox varies.
>
> Talking about "Fox News" is also problematic for a reason
> not mentioned. The BAD stuff from Fox comes from their
> evening entertainers, but they have a separate agency
> that produces decent news which is presented earlier in
> the day. Chris Matthews used to be the big name there.
> They are the ones who produced the early call on Arizona
> (Trump will lose) which upset Trump fans.

You bring up a good point that there are MANY entities that have the "FOX"
name in them, and I puke at any that I see, but you are almost certainly
correct that some of those "Fox" entities are worse than others (and hence,
some are better).

>>Note there are MANY (many!) articles which say the same thing, so it's not
>>"me" who is "wrong" - as Ground News also says the same things as do all
>>the articles that cover media bias that include both MSNBC & Fox.
>
> I do not dispute the Left-Right bias in the charts. I say, Fox
> is no longer most extreme, and I say that Fox viewers are
> much more likely than MSNBC viewers to live in an echo chamber.

I know personally some family members who are solely Fox and some which are
solely MSNBC and that's where I get my assessment that they're not getting
the accurate news.

If Biden tells a lie, and if Trump tells a lie, we could debate until the
end of time who is telling the bigger lie (which, I'm reasonably sure most
would agree that Trump tells bigger lies than does Biden) but the point I'm
making is both are deceitful liars.

In the same vein is how I treat MSNBC and Fox. It could be that Fox tells
more lies than MSNBC but as I said before - once they tell me a lie -
they're off my radar.

It's why I won't click on anything from WION or Al Jazeera or even TVP
World for example. Skewed news is inaccurate news.

>>If you think I'm wrong, then everyone is wrong, including adfontesmedia.com
>>But if you can find an article that backs up your point, I'll read it.
>
> I said, Fox is no longer the most extreme voice popular on
> the Right. The Fox defamation case documents the Fox fears
> in that regard.

I understand you, as it's like saying that Trump's defamation case makes
him an honest man because it cost him over 400 million in penalties, but we
differ in how much we trust whether they're recidivists or not.

I feel Fox (and Trump) did not learn from losing their defamation cases.
You feel they did. That's fine. We simply differ in our assessments.

Time will tell...

> I said that viewers on the Right now ignore much of the factual
> news as 'real news' -- Trump tells them it is fake. The literature
> on Fake News shows more clicks on Fake stuff by people on
> the Right than on the Left.