Conquer Club

Over the past few years, we have seen an overwhelming majority of the Mainstream Media either lying with overt biases or censoring individuals. Let's go through all of them:

Facebook - Project Veritas exposed Facebook banning individuals that do not hold the same political views as them.

Google (and NBC to some degree) - Tim Pool reports that NBC & other activists prompted Google to ban rival news organizations from their Ad Program. Google did ban them, but have since walked their statements back.

CNN - Project Veritas exposed CNN to having an overt bias against President Donald Trump and propagating false news stories about the President. Let's not even get started on Jim Acosta or Brian Stelter.

Twitter - Tim Pool reports that Twitter edited a Tweet from President Trump to fact check him. However, the Tweet was the President's opinion. This has lead to serious concerns about Twitter editorializing opinions of those with whom they disagree with. To be fair, Tim is not a fan of Twitter, and that can be seen from the Joe Rogan Podcast Episode where they discuss the censorship of individuals and where Tim challenges Twitter.

MSNBC - After calls from several media organizations (NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.) to Trump to release his tax returns over criticisms of Russian Collusion, Rachel Maddow acquired President Trump's tax return from 2005 only to reveal that there was no evidence of collusion and that he was in fact a millionaire and did in fact pay his taxes. There was no retraction or walk-back for this claim. President Trump was ultimately exonerated on Russian Collusion in Bob Mueller's report "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election."

The New York Times - The NYT posted an article that they had an anonymous source that confirmed that Russia had placed bounties on US troops. However, as Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany notes, there was no consensus on the validity of whether or not the claim was true from the Intelligence Community. Anonymous sources do not hold these arguments up. If the reports are true, then we should be able to see who is the source who is backing up the claim.

Tik Tok - Apple caught Tik Tok spying on its iPhone users via an update to the security software in iOS 14. Tik Tok is a Chinese-owned company. The United States government is currently looking into banning the use of the app.

RECENT CONGLOMERATE MSM NARRATIVES DEBUNKED

• George Floyd Death - Bodycam Footage debunk the media consensus that this was a murder.
• Rayshard Brooks Death - Bodycam Footage and Security Camera Footage debunk the media consensus that this shooting was unjustified.
• Jacob Blake Death - New Reports from DOJ show Blake had an open warrant for his arrest and a knife was found inside his car. This debunks the media narrative that this shooting was unjustified.
• Breonna Taylor - Louisville Police released documents showing that Breonna was linked to drug-related crimes. The MSM narrative was false all along.

WHY ALL THE LIES

As time progresses, I will add more organizations to this list of extreme acts of lying, censoring, and spying of MSM.

It's almost like a free press can't be trusted to self-regulate, right? Like the press won't behave itself without some sort of external regulation?

On a side note, Tik Tok is owned by a Chinese company but operates totally independent of the Chinese company or any Chinese government influence. In response to the new security law in Hong Kong Tik Tok has announced it's going to pull out of Hong Kong rather than comply with the law, and has already disabled the app in Hong Kong. USG's hatred of Tik Tok is just more of the usual xenophobic political bluster from the Trump administration.

*patiently waits for the FOX condemnation*

mrswdk wrote:It's almost like a free press can't be trusted to self-regulate, right? Like the press won't behave itself without some sort of external regulation?

Like how Communist China controls all of its media? Are you suggesting that communist control over media is a good idea?

mrswdk wrote:On a side note, Tik Tok is owned by a Chinese company but operates totally independent of the Chinese company or any Chinese government influence.

"Claims" they operate independently and actually operating independently are two different things.

mrswdk wrote:In response to the new security law in Hong Kong Tik Tok has announced it's going to pull out of Hong Kong rather than comply with the law, and has already disabled the app in Hong Kong.

Right... Because Hong Kong doesn't want their citizens to be spied on by Communist China. Call me crazy for wanting my security.

mrswdk wrote:USG's hatred of Tik Tok is just more of the usual xenophobic political bluster from the Trump administration.

Ah bigotry! Completely forget that US citizens are being spied on. Just claim xenophobia and that will defeat their argument!

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

mrswdk wrote:It's almost like a free press can't be trusted to self-regulate, right? Like the press won't behave itself without some sort of external regulation?

Like how Communist China controls all of its media? Are you suggesting that communist control over media is a good idea?

Well you're the one complaining about what the media get up to when they aren't regulated.

mrswdk wrote:On a side note, Tik Tok is owned by a Chinese company but operates totally independent of the Chinese company or any Chinese government influence.

"Claims" they operate independently and actually operating independently are two different things.

mrswdk wrote:In response to the new security law in Hong Kong Tik Tok has announced it's going to pull out of Hong Kong rather than comply with the law, and has already disabled the app in Hong Kong.

Right... Because Hong Kong doesn't want their citizens to be spied on by Communist China. Call me crazy for wanting my security.

So you are acknowledging that Tik Tok is refusing to cooperate with the Chinese Government, then in the same breath stating you think Tik Tok is a pawn of the Chinese Government.

riskllama wrote:*patiently waits for the FOX condemnation*

mrswdk wrote:Well you're the one complaining about what the media get up to when they aren't regulated.

I never mentioned regulation, you did.

mrswdk wrote:So you are acknowledging that Tik Tok is refusing to cooperate with the Chinese Government, then in the same breath stating you think Tik Tok is a pawn of the Chinese Government.

Um, no. Hong Kong currently has a different governmental structure than the rest of Communist China as of right now. Lord bless all of the people in Hong Kong when 2047 comes around.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Well you're the one complaining about what the media get up to when they aren't regulated.

I never mentioned regulation, you did.

So what do you think needs doing about the lying, censoring, spying MSM?

Jdizzleslice wrote:

mrswdk wrote:So you are acknowledging that Tik Tok is refusing to cooperate with the Chinese Government, then in the same breath stating you think Tik Tok is a pawn of the Chinese Government.

Um, no. Hong Kong currently has a different governmental structure than the rest of Communist China as of right now. Lord bless all of the people in Hong Kong when 2047 comes around.

>Hong Kong's new security law drafted by Beijing, that puts some of the same restrictions on political activity in Hong Kong as already exist in the mainland
>Tik Tok refuses to comply with that law
>Tik Tok therefore refusing to comply with the Beijing Government's laws

You're welcome.

mrswdk wrote:So what do you think needs doing about the lying, censoring, spying MSM?

Accountability, not regulation. Accountability of speech happens in a free society, regulation of speech happens in a communist society. Restriction of speech is what you are essentially advocating for. Can't say that is a shock, you are in fact a communist after all.

mrswdk wrote:>Hong Kong's new security law drafted by Beijing, that puts some of the same restrictions on political activity in Hong Kong as already exist in the mainland
>Tik Tok refuses to comply with that law
>Tik Tok therefore refusing to comply with the Beijing Government's laws

You're welcome.

Actually, you are incorrect. The company claims that they do not give information to the Chinese government. If that is the case then why would they withdraw from Hong Kong? It's because it would discredit their earlier claim that they don't give information to Communist China. If they truly did not give any information to Communist China, then the new security law would have no affect on Tik Tok.

You're welcome.

But ultimately, this topic isn't really about Communist China at all. So let's bring this discussion back on topic about the MSM. All other posts will be ignored.

1) Claims MSM bias is obvious but disagrees that their is “systemic racial bias” in the US.
Isn’t MSM part of the USA when we are talking about “systemic” bias?

So the bias that MSM has is only against conservative thoughts and conservatives?

2) Claims Trump was “exonerated’ by the Mueller Report.
He wasn’t. The Mueller Report declined to press charges primarily because Mueller felt doing so against a sitting President was outside the scope of his authority / the authority of the Justice Department.

Furthermore, you can’t prove a negative. The Mueller Report did find actions that a reasonable person might pursue further. However, even if the Mueller Report found NOTHING (which it didn’t) that would not Exonerate the President. It would just prove Mueller found nothing.

Also, you might wanna actually read the Mueller Report, or at least highlights, before you go around making claims that are contradictory to what it states.

jimboston wrote:1) Claims MSM bias is obvious but disagrees that their is “systemic racial bias” in the US.

That's a loaded statement. I would say most prominent media organizations have a bias. Fox and New York Post lean right. ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, New York Times, HuffPo, Washington Times, etc. lean left. In my opinion, the media having a bias towards a side of political aisle isn't that troubling (as long as they admit to having that bias). Where I draw the line is the lying and censoring.

Also, what do the two points have to do with each other?

jimboston wrote:Isn’t MSM part of the USA when we are talking about “systemic” bias?

No I would not consider the MSM part of the system. The system refers to the government or jurisdictions.

jimboston wrote:So the bias that MSM has is only against conservative thoughts and conservatives?

My personal opinion is that the majority of the MSM is biased against conservatives. Again, where I draw the line is lying and censoring.

jimboston wrote:2) Claims Trump was “exonerated’ by the Mueller Report.
He wasn’t. The Mueller Report declined to press charges primarily because Mueller felt doing so against a sitting President was outside the scope of his authority / the authority of the Justice Department.

Furthermore, you can’t prove a negative. The Mueller Report did find actions that a reasonable person might pursue further. However, even if the Mueller Report found NOTHING (which it didn’t) that would not Exonerate the President. It would just prove Mueller found nothing.

Also, you might wanna actually read the Mueller Report, or at least highlights, before you go around making claims that are contradictory to what it states.

Ok you got me. Exposed!

In all seriousness, exoneration was the wrong word to use, technically. You're right in that he found nothing. But we haven't seen a case being made against the President for criminal offenses relating to the Mueller report. After this report dropped, a majority of the Russia-collusion claims disappeared. I say if there is evidence that Trump really did break the law, then let's see it, and if he did break the law, then he should face the consequences. But so far, we have seen no evidence in the Mueller case.

Technical exoneration? No. I would make the argument that the report was more of a figurative exoneration. The main point being that all of the claims of Russian Collusion ultimately resulted in nothing with no evidence supporting any claims. Just my thoughts anyways.

Lastly, I thought you were trying to avoid me, lol.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

jimboston wrote:2) Claims Trump was “exonerated’ by the Mueller Report.
He wasn’t. The Mueller Report declined to press charges primarily because Mueller felt doing so against a sitting President was outside the scope of his authority / the authority of the Justice Department.

Furthermore, you can’t prove a negative. The Mueller Report did find actions that a reasonable person might pursue further. However, even if the Mueller Report found NOTHING (which it didn’t) that would not Exonerate the President. It would just prove Mueller found nothing.

Also, you might wanna actually read the Mueller Report, or at least highlights, before you go around making claims that are contradictory to what it states.

Ok you got me. Exposed!

In all seriousness, exoneration was the wrong word to use, technically. You're right in that he found nothing. But we haven't seen a case being made against the President for criminal offenses relating to the Mueller report. After this report dropped, a majority of the Russia-collusion claims disappeared. I say if there is evidence that Trump really did break the law, then let's see it, and if he did break the law, then he should face the consequences. But so far, we have seen no evidence in the Mueller case.

Technical exoneration? No. I would make the argument that the report was more of a figurative exoneration. The main point being that all of the claims of Russian Collusion ultimately resulted in nothing with no evidence supporting any claims. Just my thoughts anyways.

Lastly, I thought you were trying to avoid me, lol.

There is evidence that Trump really did break the law, it's in the Mueller report...the question was really does Mueller have the legal authority to do anything to directly saction the sitting president(legal question) and does the congress act on it's sanctioning powers(political question).

I know it sounds all high and mighty to say, you should really read it... but I did read the whole thing cover to cover and there are multiple things that would be considered criminal for anyone besides a sitting president. So if you want to sweep it under the rug and claim he didn't break the law, you also have to full throat-ed-ly take the stance that the sitting president can't break the law at all ever because he's the president (a popular opinion among right wing)
But please don't claim there isn't anything in it...without actually taking the time to read it first. Mueller concluded indicting a sitting president for crimes was outside the scope of the authority he was given. Which was the correct decision according to how the law is written even if democrats didn't like it.

Do you think Trump is being covered unfairly in regards to his corona virus response?

mookiemcgee wrote:There is evidence that Trump really did break the law, it's in the Mueller report...the question was really does Mueller have the legal authority to do anything to directly saction the sitting president(legal question) and does the congress act on it's sanctioning powers(political question).

I know it sounds all high and mighty to say, you should really read it... but I did read the whole thing cover to cover and there are multiple things that would be considered criminal for anyone besides a sitting president. So if you want to sweep it under the rug and claim he didn't break the law, you also have to full throat-ed-ly take the stance that the sitting president can't break the law at all ever because he's the president (a popular opinion among right wing)
But please don't claim there isn't anything in it...without actually taking the time to read it first. Mueller concluded indicting a sitting president for crimes was outside the scope of the authority he was given. Which was the correct decision according to how the law is written even if democrats didn't like it.

Do you think Trump is being covered unfairly in regards to his corona virus response?

I did read it (albeit, not cover to cover). My point is that after the release of the report there have been zero indictments of the President. I haven't even seen a discussion as to what evidence may or may not be present to rightfully convict him. I whole-heartedly believe that if there were something the Democrats could pin on him and get him out of office in relation to the Mueller report, they would have done so. The contrast is that nothing came of the report, and no one has followed up with even a discussion of charges. What in the report in your opinion constitutes as evidence to prove he really did break the law?

As far as COVID-19 is concerned, I am convinced (mostly) no one knows what they are talking about. Trump has his criticisms about COVID-19 but he does not receive any praise from the media about COVID-19 when a good piece of information is found (so yes and no to your question). In this situation, I believe both parties have valid criticisms. Right now, the MSM says it's ok to protest in massive groups and Trump is saying we have the best testing ever. I'm limiting myself to what COVID-19 news I read because it's obvious numbers are inflated and people are using the pandemic as a political tool. I purposefully left COVID-19 out of this post because everyone has flip-flopped on the subject that it makes it extremely hard to believe anyone right now. I do think we are close to some sort of vaccine soon so maybe all of this will be moot. This really wasn't the topic for talking about COVID-19, we have a separate topic for that.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Accountability, not regulation

The difference being?

mrswdk wrote:>Hong Kong's new security law drafted by Beijing, that puts some of the same restrictions on political activity in Hong Kong as already exist in the mainland
>Tik Tok refuses to comply with that law
>Tik Tok therefore refusing to comply with the Beijing Government's laws

You're welcome.

Actually, you are incorrect. The company claims that they do not give information to the Chinese government. If that is the case then why would they withdraw from Hong Kong? It's because it would discredit their earlier claim that they don't give information to Communist China. If they truly did not give any information to Communist China, then the new security law would have no affect on Tik Tok.

Well I see you spent at two or three seconds attempting to engage your brain with the subject at hand before giving up.

Systemic and system are not equivalent words.

When people talk about “the system” or “the man”... yes they’re talking about the government.

When people say “systemic bias” or “systemic flaws” they’re talking not ONLY about official things, like laws or the government, but also about. the underlying structure of society which includes things like;
- education
- work, how people are hired /how they find jobs
- interpersonal interactions
- healthcare
- media
etc., etc., etc.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:
In all seriousness, exoneration was the wrong word to use, technically. You're right in that he found nothing. But we haven't seen a case being made against the President for criminal offenses relating to the Mueller report. After this report dropped, a majority of the Russia-collusion claims disappeared. I say if there is evidence that Trump really did break the law, then let's see it, and if he did break the law, then he should face the consequences. But so far, we have seen no evidence in the Mueller case.

I’ve read parts of the Mueller Report, and there is PLENTY of evidence to indict.
(Less directly on collusion, but definitely on obstruction.)

Apparently you haven’t read a word of it and are just taking your talking points from Fox.

The ONLY REASON the Mueller and the JD did not indict is because the precedent that the sitting President can not be charged by the JD. Mueller, and others, believe the President must first be removed from office either; by Impeachment, resignation, or expiration of term.

There are people in the JD just sitting and waiting to indict if Trump loses. If however Trump wins, he’ll get another 4 years, and the statute of limitations will apply to Obstruction charges.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:
Technical exoneration? No. I would make the argument that the report was more of a figurative exoneration. The main point being that all of the claims of Russian Collusion ultimately resulted in nothing with no evidence supporting any claims. Just my thoughts anyways.

There was not technical exoneration, there was not actual exoneration, no figurative exoneration, not even a material exoneration.

You are highly likely to see charges stemming from Mueller in 2021 if Trump loses.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:
Lastly, I thought you were trying to avoid me, lol.

You don’t apparently understand English. Go back and reread what I wrote about avoiding negative people.

mookiemcgee wrote:Mueller concluded indicting a sitting president for crimes was outside the scope of the authority he was given. Which was the correct decision according to how the law is written even if democrats didn't like it.

Just a technical point.

There’s no LAW that supports this decision.

It’s precedent dating back to Nixon.

There are valid arguments to be made on both sides. That said, it’s likely a good precedent... under most circumstances if the President does something completely outrageous and not nuanced then Congress/Senate would follow through with impeachment. In a world where he could be indicted, you may get rogue prosecutors from liberal districts pressing all kinds of weird charges just to distract him and waste his time.

In the Mueller Report the likely crimes are after-the-fact cover-up / obstruction. of justice. Direct collusion with Russia is less clear. If direct collusion’s evidence had been found chances of impeachment would have increased.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:I did read it (albeit, not cover to cover). My point is that after the release of the report there have been zero indictments of the President. I haven't even seen a discussion as to what evidence may or may not be present to rightfully convict him. I whole-heartedly believe that if there were something the Democrats could pin on him and get him out of office in relation to the Mueller report, they would have done so. The contrast is that nothing came of the report, and no one has followed up with even a discussion of charges.

Nothing came of it?

He was impeached by Congress. Only the 3rd President ever to be impeached.

The idea that “Nothing Came of It” is a complete falsehood, that Fox and the Right keep repeating... hoping that if they say it enough it’ll be true.

It’s now HISTORICAL FACT that Trump is the 3rd President of the USA to be Impeached.

You can’t argue with this.

mrswdk wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Accountability, not regulation

The difference being?

You’re engaging in the same stoopid trolling technique!

If you don;t understand what he’s saying then perhaps you need to go back to high school.

I think you’re smart enough to understand, and therefore this “question” from you is complete horseshit.

mrswdk wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Accountability, not regulation

The difference being?

Accountability: the fact or condition of being accountable; responsibility.

Regulation: a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority.

These two words have two distinct definitions. Do I need to explain this to you?

mrswdk wrote:Well I see you spent at two or three seconds attempting to engage your brain with the subject at hand before giving up.

"You're so stupid, I don't even have to have an argument." Well, consider me converted.

jimboston wrote:Systemic and system are not equivalent words.

When people talk about “the system” or “the man”... yes they’re talking about the government.

When people say “systemic bias” or “systemic flaws” they’re talking not ONLY about official things, like laws or the government, but also about. the underlying structure of society which includes things like;
- education
- work, how people are hired /how they find jobs
- interpersonal interactions
- healthcare
- media
etc., etc., etc.

I agree systemic and system are two different words. But systemic, by definition, refers to a specific system. I would disagree with the notion that systemic racism/bias/flaws are anything other than the government. Every point you make above is linked more toward the economy than the governmental system. So the way I read your point is that there is a complete economic bias. Correct me if this is not what you are trying to say.

jimboston wrote:I’ve read parts of the Mueller Report, and there is PLENTY of evidence to indict. (Less directly on collusion, but definitely on obstruction.)

Apparently you haven’t read a word of it and are just taking your talking points from Fox.

The ONLY REASON the Mueller and the JD did not indict is because the precedent that the sitting President can not be charged by the JD. Mueller, and others, believe the President must first be removed from office either; by Impeachment, resignation, or expiration of term.

There are people in the JD just sitting and waiting to indict if Trump loses. If however Trump wins, he’ll get another 4 years, and the statute of limitations will apply to Obstruction charges.

Are you assuming again that I only watch Fox News? Here we go again with blanket statements and over-generalizations...

Anyways, which people in the Justice Department are waiting to indict? I haven't seen any reports or stories about this topic. Point me to a report or story if I am wrong.

jimboston wrote:There was not technical exoneration, there was not actual exoneration, no figurative exoneration, not even a material exoneration.

You are highly likely to see charges stemming from Mueller in 2021 if Trump loses.

That's fair. However my point is that we have seen no discussion or reports of any possible charges being filed while in office or out of office. If there is a story or report I missed, feel free to enlighten me.

From my point of view, the Democrats tried for three years to pin Russian Collusion on President Trump. When the Mueller Report came out, they abandoned that chase because they knew that there was nothing there to remove him from office. Sure, you can make an argument (I suppose) about obstruction and all that, but I haven't heard a single thing from the Democratic party or the MSM after the report dropped about charges moving forward or charges that could come in the future.

jimboston wrote:You don’t apparently understand English. Go back and reread what I wrote about avoiding negative people.

jimboston wrote:I’ve trying to be happier (just started a new podcast about happiness),
One way to be happier is to disengage from negative people.

I’m not saying I’ll never engage Trolls on here... but I won’t get sucked into extended curricular or one-way conversations either.

I can’t change the world, and if I could the place to launch my crusade wouldn’t be Conquer Club Forums.
I can however be happier by limiting contact to people like you.

You use the phrasing "disengage from negative people" and "limiting contact to people like you" specifically addressed to me. Does the word "avoid" I used in this case not also mean "disengage" or "limit?"

jimboston wrote:Nothing came of it?

He was impeached by Congress. Only the 3rd President ever to be impeached.

The idea that “Nothing Came of It” is a complete falsehood, that Fox and the Right keep repeating... hoping that if they say it enough it’ll be true.

It’s now HISTORICAL FACT that Trump is the 3rd President of the USA to be Impeached.

You can’t argue with this.

There is no argument that Trump was impeached. President Trump was impeached for "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" both of which he was acquitted by the Senate for, and both of which are never mentioned in the Mueller Report. The Mueller Investigation and the Impeachment have nothing to do with each other.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Accountability, not regulation

The difference being?

Accountability: the fact or condition of being accountable; responsibility.

Regulation: a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority.

These two words have two distinct definitions. Do I need to explain this to you?

So who do you think the MSM should be accountable to? Given their lying, censoring and spying (your words) clearly shows that the current system is not holding them accountable enough.

mrswdk wrote:So who do you think the MSM should be accountable to? Given their lying, censoring and spying (your words) clearly shows that the current system is not holding them accountable enough.

They are accountable to the people. Section 230 Reform (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996) needs to happen, A great place to start is making it illegal for private companies/corporations to ban legal speech.

The language in Section 230 states that platforms cannot be sued or are not liable for things that they themselves (meaning third-parties) say in their platforms. It also states they have the right to remove things they "consider to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." This ultimately gives MSM companies the power to ban any speech they "deem" as offensive based off subjective language in Section 230. Facebook does this currently because they "deem" anything to do with President Trump as "objectionable."

Whether or not you agree with the Conservative viewpoint, the value to freedom of speech should be protected. Right now, Conservatives have the stance that our speech is being censored and that we do not have a fair platform to discuss our ideas. Reforming Section 230 will ensure that we have equal free speech on social media platforms for every person under the law.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

mrswdk wrote:So who do you think the MSM should be accountable to? Given their lying, censoring and spying (your words) clearly shows that the current system is not holding them accountable enough.

They are accountable to the people. Section 230 Reform (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996) needs to happen, A great place to start is making it illegal for private companies/corporations to ban legal speech.

So you think a new law is needed. i.e. you think regulation is needed.

Good stuff.