If you remember my prior post I agreed it was quite probable. I am NOT a Roebert fan... but this smelled funny from the start. I'm sure she has plenty of legit points to attack, so go that way..

Fair point.

The new far right are wackos (as are the new far left). But false accusations hurt real accusations. In general I am a realist, shying away from optimism and pessimism, but with politics i see a pessimistic outlook.

No surprise there. Politics have been shit for years. When is the last time people discussed ideas and campaigns weren’t about how the other side sucks?

Entropy... the scientist in me sees that. Politics will shift further. Sigh. No one wants to make any concessions anymore. It's an all or nothing attitude.

It was done by design. And here is the story of the architect who’s proud of his work…

https://www.theatlantic.com/...oure-welcome/570832/

I think we can safely stop calling it the “far” right. Too large a percentage of the party is all in on serious and nation-altering false accusations to be saying it’s “far” anything. Sorry, I simply can’t bring myself to compare election fraud lies accepted and embraced on a party level, in large part to the non-stop diarrhea broadcast over the 6 years, to saying these things about a low level congresswoman. Time will tell whether we’ll see a similar candidate on the left embraced this way. I too, have a very pessimistic outlook.

As I said earlier, these lies about Boebert are sleazy and I hope she gets the restitution she is owed.

Why are you treating this like it's a complete exoneration? Their report was sloppy and irresponsible but they are standing by the main points. It will be easy to judge going forward. Boebert has said she is going to file a suit, we can just wait and see if that ever happens.

Doesn't matter now, mistakes were made and that's all she and her supporters need, they'll chant fake news and she'll win again.
https://twitter.com/.../1540694755138539524

Interesting and a bit depressing.

However the article says he didn't design it as the architect but only capitalized on it. And his statements on what gets media headlines is true, media is becoming a societal danger.

And the author is not bias free, why call him an elephant framed person?:

Their report was sloppy and irresponsible but they are standing by their main points?

They have proven themselves to be not a believable source. Their sources have been proven wrong by left leaning media. They have zero credibility without new redeeming information. For now they are tinfoil hat crazies. Would you allow me to defend this source still if they had been attacking a lefty politician? No, you wouldn't. So don't defend them until they clear their mistakes/lies with actual facts. Facts are not just required for arguments from the right...they are required by all. Period.

Well, it was fake news. Liberals are not allowed more lies and fake made up stuff that rightys. The rules are the same. I know we all don't like her, but fake news is fake news. Until new facts are submitted this is currently fake news.

I wasn't comparing to the acts of the whatever you prefer we call them. My point was if this was an attack on a lefty politician this thread would have been shut down asap by the crowd for lack of facts. And lack if facts was shown true. Boebert is an idiot and may be some of those things alleged... but proof is needed to level those allegations.

You used, "fake news" 5 times in your post. Keep pounding that drum. The fact that there were factual errors in the story is not evidence that she wasn't an escort that had multiple abortions. She said she was going to sue them for lying. I think we can conclude if that turns out to be a lie she doesn't have a case or wants to avoid discovery. That's the beauty, we can just wait and see.

With all your talk of fake news, I'm glad you agree that CNN is a rock solid fact checking source.

I dont agree CNN is rock solid. However they posted information that the accused liars admitted was wrong on their end. An admission of guilt with no cops in a locked room using a rubber hose.

Please tell me you would defend Fox News in this situation if their sources on an accusation showed false across the board but then said "I know our information was proven wrong, but we promise it is still true!!"....

Can you point me to where the accused liars admitted that their information about her alleged abortions were false? They may well be wrong but to say they admitted they were liars when their admission only covers part of what they said is disingenuous. No worries, the facts will come out in the trial or settlement.

It was in the CNN article. They admitted their sources were wrong. Until they have correct information they are propagating lies. Spreading false information is lying. They posted pictures of her as a hooked that were proven to be someone else. I require a bit more factual reality to a smear campaign.

Again, it wasn't unbelievable to me at first, but I tried to tone down the circle jerk with only anonymous baseless accusations where early on in the thread we ready new the pictures were fake and not her. But those frothing at the mouth to believe whatever against someone they hate was laughable.... especially since it was only allowed against a far righty. No way this level of non information would have been allowed against a lefty. And that is the problem here.

Again, you are being disingenuous when you make claims of what they admitted. Say it as many times as you want, factual errors in the story do not discredit the whole story. Has she filed that lawsuit yet? It might all be bullshit, we'll see.

American Muckrakers PAC co-founder David Wheeler acknowledged to CNN that the super PAC had been "sloppy" and had published "inaccuracies" on its anti-Boebert website, though he said it remains confident in the "main points of the story."

Well, if the sloppy person that posted incorrect information and documentation "remains confident", I guess that should be enough. Get your pitchfork, ill meet you outside in 5...

Again, not a Boebert defender or fan, but we have fake info and fake photos so far. I'd recommend taking the sidelines until they can back up what originally has proved incorrect documentation, which means it is fake news if your sources prove false. Even USA Today journalists fake sources. Clear up their mistakes if it is still true. But they failed to prove their original assertion. Pretty sloppy, why side with someone so sloppy? Embarrassingly poor execution of their plan.


https://www.nytimes.com/...ricated-sources.html

How many times have I said I'm willing to wait to see how this plays out? Where did I suggest anything like a pitchfork.

You used faulty logic, I pointed it out. You then assigned a bunch of, "lefty" positions to me that I haven't taken. Let me know when she files that lawsuit.

Nope, you are not all at getting it. They are wrong until they prove themselves right. The whole point is this would be shut down asap if some right pack used just anonymous resources. But further than that we now see the picks were fake, the dates of Cruz money were far off that it couldn't be for what they claimed. Think about how people treat a hunter Biden laptop story when it was just rudy and Co and so far by then unsubstantiated claims...

I dont care if its true or not. But this site shows its willing to accept highly suspect anonymous sources with proven incorrect information when it is a righty politician being attacked. Hell, even a LR poster knew the photo was a fake before I posted the CNN investigative article. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

"The picks" [sic] weren't fake. One of the pictures was acknowledged as being of someone else. They're still claiming the others (which admittedly were only a half-step past regular cutish girl in jeans photos), are of Boebert and from her escort profile. This outfit is clearly sloppy as all heck. But they've withdrawn maybe 35% of their allegations and stood by the rest. I look forward to the lawsuit.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Don't know if any of the Muckraker stuff is true.

News yesterday had Tina Peters, County Clerk of Mesa County who is under indictment for election tampering, claiming Boebert told her to do it. Boebert is denying it.

Colorado primaries are today. Boebert may win. Tina Peters is running for Secretary of State and will likely lose.

---

Don

Tri-ing to have fun. Anything else is just a bonus!

You’re 2 for 2.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

I'm mostly on your side, and I think I have some credibility in this thread as my BS detection alarms were indicated in my first post.

But in defense of the "news" media, genuine news journalists seemed to have been very careful in their reporting. E.g. there were news stories about that Muckrakers release because the inflammatory release was itself a form of news, but very careful to not corroborate the validity of the claims about Boebert. And beyond that, detail the thin sourcing by the Muckrakers and their own inability to independently corroborate.

So I'd call it "fake," but not news.

I have a bit of a pet peeve for the term being watered down so as to become almost meaningless....