Trump implicates Scarborough in murder.

[Cow Poke]

To be fair, in a non political context, people often say the same thing about OJ Simpson using the same reasoning.

This is true! And something we often stress in a "castle doctrine" shooting --- you may be found CRIMINALLY 'not guilty', but you may lose your shirt and your house in a CIVIL action.

[Cow Poke]

It is often thrown around that "Trump is a criminal" and is "guilty". A civil suit does not establish guilt, nor does it make one a criminal. Then thar are facts.

ETA: So, I went back to see exactly what it was that I had corrected...

I was not referring to the House of Representatives, I was referring to Donald Trump.

For example: He has also been found guilty of his involvement in the 'Trump University,' and still faces law suits for his involvement.

So, I stand by my clarification --- Trump was not "found guilty".

[Sparko]

Are you suggesting Mountain Man can't be trusted?

No. But you believe that to be true. Maybe now you can see why conservatives have a problem with a liberal "fact-checking" their tweets? Do you want us "fact-checking" your posts, JimL? Would that be fair?

[Mountain Man]

Do you realize how utterly depraved your political views must be when "voter participation efforts" are routinely demonized? Do you realize how totally at odds with what it means to be a patriotic American you have to be to espouse that viewpoint?

Just pathetic and gross.

I'm all for LEGAL voter participation. "Vote-by-mail" is too risky. In-person with government issued ID only, please.

[JimL]

No. But you believe that to be true. Maybe now you can see why conservatives have a problem with a liberal "fact-checking" their tweets? Do you want us "fact-checking" your posts, JimL? Would that be fair?

Absolutely, how else would we determine if what we say is factual or not. There is no such thing as liberal fact checking, there is only fact checking. Regardless of what the Trump administration says, there are only facts, not alternative facts.

[JimL]

I'm all for LEGAL voter participation. "Vote-by-mail" is too risky. In-person with government issued ID only, please.

That would be fine if it was made more convenient. Make voting day a national day off, Open more polling stations, and make it a simple and free process for everyone to obtain a valid ID. The system is set up to discourage voting not to enhance it. People don't want to have to work all day and then stand in line for 2 hours in order to cast their vote.

[Sparko]

Absolutely, how else would we determine if what we say is factual or not. There is no such thing as liberal fact checking, there is only fact checking. Regardless of what the Trump administration says, there are only facts, not alternative facts.

So you think Mountain Man should be fact-checking your posts? Fine. I will give him the powers to do so. This could be fun.

You don't seem to realize that different people have different opinions and a different set of knowledge, so what one person thinks is true, another will disagree. These "fact-checkers" are not some infallible fount of knowledge. They are people with their own opinions. They select their "facts" that agree with those opinions, while ignoring those that don't.

In the example of Trump and his talking about mail-in ballots, the fact checker ignored all of the problems we have had with absentee ballots in the past elections, in order to claim that Trump was lying when he said they are not safe and can be abused. Sure, in most elections, most mail-in ballots are no problem at all. In fact, a lot of them don't even get counted unless the regular votes are close. They are a very small fraction of the total voting. But last election we had Florida losing whole trucks full of ballots. And people going around collecting ballots door to door and losing some. Now if the entire country goes to mail-in ballots, you can expect those problems to soar. So Trump is right. But he is exaggerating too. The "fact-checker" mentioned nothing about any of the problems of the past and just linked to some articles about how safe mail-in voting is by CNN.

The fact-checker either didn't have all the facts, or ignored those he didn't like.

So, again, do you want us to "fact-check" your posts?

[DivineOb]

So you think Mountain Man should be fact-checking your posts? Fine. I will give him the powers to do so. This could be fun.

You don't seem to realize that different people have different opinions and a different set of knowledge, so what one person thinks is true, another will disagree. These "fact-checkers" are not some infallible fount of knowledge. They are people with their own opinions. They select their "facts" that agree with those opinions, while ignoring those that don't.

In the example of Trump and his talking about mail-in ballots, the fact checker ignored all of the problems we have had with absentee ballots in the past elections, in order to claim that Trump was lying when he said they are not safe and can be abused. Sure, in most elections, most mail-in ballots are no problem at all. In fact, a lot of them don't even get counted unless the regular votes are close. They are a very small fraction of the total voting. But last election we had Florida losing whole trucks full of ballots. And people going around collecting ballots door to door and losing some. Now if the entire country goes to mail-in ballots, you can expect those problems to soar. So Trump is right. But he is exaggerating too. The "fact-checker" mentioned nothing about any of the problems of the past and just linked to some articles about how safe mail-in voting is by CNN.

The fact-checker either didn't have all the facts, or ignored those he didn't like.

So, again, do you want us to "fact-check" your posts?

Sounds serious. What did Trump's voting fraud commission find when investigating these claims?

[JimL]

So you think Mountain Man should be fact-checking your posts? Fine. I will give him the powers to do so. This could be fun.

You don't seem to realize that different people have different opinions and a different set of knowledge, so what one person thinks is true, another will disagree. These "fact-checkers" are not some infallible fount of knowledge. They are people with their own opinions. They select their "facts" that agree with those opinions, while ignoring those that don't.

In the example of Trump and his talking about mail-in ballots, the fact checker ignored all of the problems we have had with absentee ballots in the past elections, in order to claim that Trump was lying when he said they are not safe and can be abused. Sure, in most elections, most mail-in ballots are no problem at all. In fact, a lot of them don't even get counted unless the regular votes are close. They are a very small fraction of the total voting. But last election we had Florida losing whole trucks full of ballots. And people going around collecting ballots door to door and losing some. Now if the entire country goes to mail-in ballots, you can expect those problems to soar. So Trump is right. But he is exaggerating too. The "fact-checker" mentioned nothing about any of the problems of the past and just linked to some articles about how safe mail-in voting is by CNN.

The fact-checker either didn't have all the facts, or ignored those he didn't like.

So, again, do you want us to "fact-check" your posts?

Facts exist Sparko, opinions are only opinions and outright lies are only lies.. If someone tweets lies, then twitter can inform people that they are lies by fact-checking and informing rather than leaving it there for the gullible to just accept. Then people can double check the facts for themselves. Propaganda is not a good thing to be left unchecked.

[Cow Poke]

Absolutely, how else would we determine if what we say is factual or not. There is no such thing as liberal fact checking...

...because there is no such thing as liberal facts!

[Cow Poke]

Sounds serious. What did Trump's voting fraud commission find when investigating these claims?

I think I'm having a deja vu.

[JimL]

...because there is no such thing as liberal facts!

That's actually wat I said, CP.

[Cow Poke]

That's actually wat I said, CP.

No foolin.

[DivineOb]

I think I'm having a deja vu.

Yes, because the RWNJs are again claiming massive levels of fraud which, to my understanding, were *not found* when investigated by the side which had everything to gain and nothing to lose by finding fraud. Both MM and Mr. Photoshop came up empty last time so I'm giving them another bite at the apple.

ETA: So here's the first article I found

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — The now-disbanded voting integrity commission launched by the Trump administration uncovered no evidence to support claims of widespread voter fraud, according to an analysis of administration documents released Friday.

In a letter to Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who are both Republicans and led the commission, Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap said the documents show there was a “pre-ordained outcome” and that drafts of a commission report included a section on evidence of voter fraud that was “glaringly empty.”

My memory *was* correct after all.

Claims of widespread voter fraud *need evidence*, not just stories from those with a vested interest in claiming voter fraud.

[JimL]

No foolin.

The point that obviously went over your head is that there are no such things as conservative facts, also known as alternate facts, either.