Media Bias

[Scot Dutchy]

Aren't the Bidens part of the 1%?

[Brian Peacock]

Aren't you and I both part of the 3%? Everyone in a particular income bracket are not all of a single type. That kind of class reductionism is too reductive and simplistic imo.

[Scot Dutchy]

3% of what? The 1% in America is a clear group owning 90% of America's wealth.

[Hermit]

3% of what? The 1% in America is a clear group owning 90% of America's wealth.

You pulled those statistics straight out of your arse, didn't you?

Share of Total Net Worth 	        	                   Q2 2020    Q1 2020    Q2 2019	
Held by the Top 1% (99th to 100th Wealth Percentiles) 	30.5 	30.0 	31.1	
Held by the 90th to 99th Wealth Percentiles              	38.5 	38.5 	38.5	
Held by the 50th to 90th Wealth Percentiles 	                29.1 	29.7 	28.8	
Held by the Bottom 50% (1st to 50th Wealth Percentiles) 	  1.9 	  1.8 	  1.7

Share of Total Assets                                                   Q2 2020    Q1 2020     Q2 2019	
Held by the Top 1% (99th to 100th Wealth Percentiles) 	27.4 	26.7 	27.8	
Held by the 90th to 99th Wealth Percentiles              	36.1 	36.0 	36.1	
Held by the 50th to 90th Wealth Percentiles 	                30.9 	31.5 	30.6	
Held by the Bottom 50% (1st to 50th Wealth Percentiles) 	  5.5           5.7           5.4 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tab ... eid=813804

[Brian Peacock]

3% of what? The 1% in America is a clear group owning 90% of America's wealth.

Top 3% for global wealth.

[Cunt]

You have very commonly known statements there

You wrote that the media bias in favour of suppressing the Epstein story and that I am the media. Accepting the latter nonsense for the sake of the argument, I have quoted snippets from my posts that cannot be described as "suppressing the Epstein story" by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, they are explicit acknowledgements of said story.

I guess what I'm trying to point out is you have a lack of curiosity around the unknowns here. I accuse you of 'being media', because I don't really think it is ALL a conspiracy in the normal sense, but a 'stand-alone-complex' of behaviours that lefty-biased will drift toward.

If Trump is corrupt, that's fine and may be significant. If Epstein is corrupt and has tentacles in many organizations which exert control, it seems MUCH more significant. Both are investigated. One a bit more thoroughly than the other. (investigated by media, and by individual shitposters, and everyone between)

If Epstein / Maxwell were being investigated by the branch I think was investigating, then you would have to agree that it is very likely more significant than 'Trump corruption'.

[Scot Dutchy]

3% of what? The 1% in America is a clear group owning 90% of America's wealth.

You pulled those statistics straight out of your arse, didn't you?

Share of Total Net Worth 	        	                   Q2 2020    Q1 2020    Q2 2019	
Held by the Top 1% (99th to 100th Wealth Percentiles) 	30.5 	30.0 	31.1	
Held by the 90th to 99th Wealth Percentiles              	38.5 	38.5 	38.5	
Held by the 50th to 90th Wealth Percentiles 	                29.1 	29.7 	28.8	
Held by the Bottom 50% (1st to 50th Wealth Percentiles) 	  1.9 	  1.8 	  1.7

Share of Total Assets                                                   Q2 2020    Q1 2020     Q2 2019	
Held by the Top 1% (99th to 100th Wealth Percentiles) 	27.4 	26.7 	27.8	
Held by the 90th to 99th Wealth Percentiles              	36.1 	36.0 	36.1	
Held by the 50th to 90th Wealth Percentiles 	                30.9 	31.5 	30.6	
Held by the Bottom 50% (1st to 50th Wealth Percentiles) 	  5.5           5.7           5.4 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tab ... eid=813804

Talk about arse pulling. A bloody right wing organisation!

[Brian Peacock]

Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'?

[Scot Dutchy]

It can be anything you want. Typical right wing data.

[pErvinalia]

Scot only believes data which supports his preconceived opinions.

[Cunt]

I think one of the more blatant places one could measure media bias, is in uneven application of content moderation on social media platforms.

[Hermit]

You wrote that the media bias in favour of suppressing the Epstein story and that I am the media. Accepting the latter nonsense for the sake of the argument, I have quoted snippets from my posts that cannot be described as "suppressing the Epstein story" by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, they are explicit acknowledgements of said story.

I guess what I'm trying to point out is you have a lack of curiosity around the unknowns here.

My posts about Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein etc. indicate that I do not lack curiosity around the unknowns here.

I accuse you of 'being media', because I don't really think it is ALL a conspiracy in the normal sense, but a 'stand-alone-complex' of behaviours that lefty-biased will drift toward.

Do yourself a favour and stop accusing anyone of being media. You are using the word commonly applied to the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, magazines, and the internet, that reach or influence people widely, or maybe a collective of people who claim to be psychics.

If Trump is corrupt, that's fine and may be significant. If Epstein is corrupt and has tentacles in many organizations which exert control, it seems MUCH more significant. Both are investigated. One a bit more thoroughly than the other. (investigated by media, and by individual shitposters, and everyone between)

If Epstein / Maxwell were being investigated by the branch I think was investigating, then you would have to agree that it is very likely more significant than 'Trump corruption'.

Trump's corruption is not something I focus on at all. Only 17 of my posts that mention Trump also refer to corruption, and some of those only because I have quoted someone else's post that contain a word starting with "corrupt". That leaves 1290 posts where I mention Trump without any reference to corruption whatsoever. Not that it mattered if I did. Trump appointed by far the most corrupt administration in living memory.



Not only that, but Trump's malfeasance totally dwarfs any damage even the largest sex-trafficking network could inflict on a population. Take his cavalier approach to the Covid-19 pandemic, for example. More than 320,000 US inhabitants have died from it to date. Had Trump

• not thrown out the 69 page "Playbook for early response to high-consequence emerging infectious disease threats and biological incidents" Obama handed to him
• not dismissed the catastrophe to come with the words that "It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear." and "It goes away in April with the heat, as the heat comes in."
• not ended a $200-million pandemic early-warning program aimed at training scientists in China and other countries to detect and respond to such a threat
• encourage his supporters who slavishly believe him to observe proper distancing protocol and wear masks where appropriate by doing so himself

it's reasonable to expect that the death toll due to the Corona epidemic would be reduced by at least 100,000, and that hundreds of thousands more who survived the infection with permanent damage would be spared being crippled by it. This dwarfs the damage even the largest hebephile sex trafficking network could possibly inflict.
So, no, I cannot agree that

[Hermit]

3% of what? The 1% in America is a clear group owning 90% of America's wealth.

You pulled those statistics straight out of your arse, didn't you?

Share of Total Net Worth 	        	                   Q2 2020    Q1 2020    Q2 2019	
Held by the Top 1% (99th to 100th Wealth Percentiles) 	30.5 	30.0 	31.1	
Held by the 90th to 99th Wealth Percentiles              	38.5 	38.5 	38.5	
Held by the 50th to 90th Wealth Percentiles 	                29.1 	29.7 	28.8	
Held by the Bottom 50% (1st to 50th Wealth Percentiles) 	  1.9 	  1.8 	  1.7

Share of Total Assets                                                   Q2 2020    Q1 2020     Q2 2019	
Held by the Top 1% (99th to 100th Wealth Percentiles) 	27.4 	26.7 	27.8	
Held by the 90th to 99th Wealth Percentiles              	36.1 	36.0 	36.1	
Held by the 50th to 90th Wealth Percentiles 	                30.9 	31.5 	30.6	
Held by the Bottom 50% (1st to 50th Wealth Percentiles) 	  5.5           5.7           5.4 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tab ... eid=813804

Talk about arse pulling. A bloody right wing organisation!

That's not arse pulling. That is quoting statistics and providing the link to a source you don't like.

Now, where is your source for your claim that "The 1% in America is a clear group owning 90% of America's wealth"? Provide a link to it please? Until you do I regard that statistic as something you pulled straight out of your arse.

[Cunt]

Yeah, it was unfair to call you media, or anti Trump in some weird way. I apologise.

As to how to weigh the damage, I see that Trump really bothers you, and I believe what you say about him, mainly.

But I wish you weren't so dismissive about the subtle damage that could be done by a honey pot like Epstein appears to be. If Trump did all the damage you say he did, does that take away from the potentially larger damage of this kind of corruption.

Can you confirm who was investigating and what, when Epstein was taken into custody? (I think I know, but distrust my 'sources')

[Hermit]

But I wish you weren't so dismissive about the subtle damage that could be done by a honey pot like Epstein appears to be. If Trump did all the damage you say he did, does that take away from the potentially larger damage of this kind of corruption.

You wrote that "If Epstein / Maxwell were being investigated by the branch I think was investigating, then you would have to agree that it is very likely more significant than 'Trump corruption'." Would that constitute a dismissal of the damage done by Trump? I think not. By the same token, noting that "Trump's malfeasance totally dwarfs any damage even the largest sex-trafficking network could inflict on a population" is not a dismissal of the damage that could be done by a honey pot like Epstein either. It is, as you put it yourself, weighing the damage. We just disagree on which weighs more.

Can you confirm who was investigating and what, when Epstein was taken into custody? (I think I know, but distrust my 'sources')

We've discussed this a few months ago. You linked to a source and following that link I found some more. Allow me to remind you by pasting some bits of it:

I love government press releases. Don't you?

The press release is dated October 2018. Can you cite statistics showing some reduction of human trafficking since then that is the result of Trump's positive work?

I said it was blather.

So you can't come up with something positive to say about Trump's work? Besides some blather, that is?

Pity. I was rather looking forward to discussing positive aspects about Trump's work because I must confess that I have found no more reports about that as I have found reports concerning flying pigs. Possibly for the same reason, but you could provide some links to the relevant articles to remove my ignorance on that matter.

https://townhall.com/columnists/lizcrok ... s-n2290379

Ah, a link at last. Thank you very much.

The statistics are astounding.

There have been a staggering 1,500-plus arrests in one short month; compare that to less than 400 sex trafficking-related arrests in 2014 according to the FBI.

And more links in that article too. I like that. Unfortunately it's four in the morning here, and I should really get some sleep, but I did click on one of those links to get an idea of where this is heading. This one: 474 Arrested, 28 Sexually Exploited Children Rescued During Statewide Human Trafficking Operation: LASD. Excellent news. I had to look up what LASD stands for. Turns out that's the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. So, local government. Anyway, reading on:

More than 30 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies and task forces, including the Los Angeles Regional Human Trafficking Task Force, participated in the third annual “Operation Reclaim and Rebuild” enforcement operation, according to a sheriff’s news release.

So, 30 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies and task forces participated. Trump must be a busy man.

And, oh dear. Another link. That news release. Down the rabbit hole we go. Reading on "...results from the third annual ‘Operation Reclaim and Rebuild’ enforcement operation, conducted by the Los Angeles Regional Human Trafficking Task Force..." That would be a state level organisation, I suppose, and Operation Reclaim and Rebuild is only in its third year. Stands to reason. Human trafficking wasn't even a crime until 2000 and bureaucracies move slowly, especially the big ones. I bet it was Trump who made that change in 2000, though, between grabbing Miss Universe contestants by their pussies and hosting that show with the punchline "you're fired". Did Trump also start Operation Reclaim and Rebuild two years before he became President?

I'm afraid I'll have to catch some shuteye soon. Sunrise in a couple of hours, so I'll stop here for now. But you can see where I am going with this, can't you? In case you can't, here's a hint: When something positive happens it is not automatically attributable to the work of Donald Trump. In this case I cannot imagine that Trump's team organised more than 30 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies and task forces to achieve that excellent result.

But yeah, thanks again for that link. And keep more coming. They enable us to discuss stuff.

I noticed you immediately looked for some reason to say that the good work wasn't Trump, and avoided mentioning the high-profile sex-trafficker arrests (Epstein being a most prominent one)

Huh? I clicked on the link you provided, then followed a couple of links that link led to. What I looked for was information, plain and simple. The fact that you don't like what I found is not my problem.

Saying I "immediately looked for some reason to say that the good work wasn't Trump" is a shabby reaction to my report of what I found. It would have been quite acceptable that my bias defeated my attempt at doing an objective analysis, provided you could marshal the necessary facts to argue that this is what happened, but that is not what you did. You imputed that my bias motivated my search for information rather than that it misled me. That, as I said, is quite shabby of you. An attempt at producing a cogent rebuttal of my analysis would have been better.

Now to Jeffrey Epstein: He was not caught as a result of Trump's work. His undoing was the work of an investigative journalist named Julie Brown. She stumbled on Epstein's continued sex crimes almost by accident. When Trump nominated Alexander Acosta to be secretary of labor in 2017, she decided to have a look at his background. Among the first things she discovered was that when Acosta was a United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, he brokered, then approved a scandalously lenient and much criticised deal for Epstein's 2008 federal sex-trafficking charges. It was the journalist whose investigation then discovered and identified about 80 of Epstein’s alleged victims. If it were not for Julie Brown, Epstein would not have been caught. You can follow up on the story here and here. After reading those brief accounts I am sure you won't need my help to find more detailed articles on how Epstein got caught.