Unproven accusations have gotten to be tiresome

Seems Bailey embraces those authors that produce theorems that will lead to the Orwellian society. But an investigative report is beyond credibility, or should at least be questionable if Bailey can find or conjure an incident that is irrelevant and tangent to the used for distraction. The election PROCESS was NOT extremely peculiar. you say, Bailey, right?

Did the Russians and Trump conspire? Did the swing states modify the PROCESS?

Tell us which over time has been exposed by revealing the facts, Bailey. Time has a way of both stifling and eventually revealing the truth - or rush to judgement is a fools refuge, temporarily.

Yes, David, I'm a big fan of investigation and adjudication. Did the Russians and Trump conspire? From the investigative reports I've read, no, not really. Did some states change their rules to allow for more people to vote by mail in the middle of a pandemic? Yes, they did. Did changing those rules steal the election? That's an allegation that needs to be proven in a court of law. If it is ever proven, I'll believe it. Until then, I won't. Why would I? Why would you?

BTW - my favorite author is Simon Winchester. Quite the radical, that one.

Bailey, I totally agree with you. It is that media quick to pollute the public with hyperbole that creates all our conflicts and trauma. Thanks for the reply that makes us in concert. We are struggling for the same tranquility, just an ideological conception of what serves humanity best keeps us in contention and allows the media to keep the attack from their door. If we joined an attack on them (media) that would serve us and humanity beyond anyone's expectations.

Any suggestions, Bailey?

Bailey posts, "Did the Russians and Trump conspire? From the investigative reports I've read, no, not really."

But it's sad it took you so long to realize that. But there are still Liberal Pundits in this forum who still adhere to FAKE NEWS.

David, all any of us can do - and it's also the least we can do, and what we all must do - is to be critical thinkers. If someone gives a quote to make a point, look it up and see what the context is. If a video shows a snippet of a speech, watch the whole thing and see what the speech is really about. If someone quotes an article, or a poll, or a document - look it up and see what it really says. If an article references reporting in another article, find and read the original. 90% of what comes your way can be easily proved true or false.

Understand that words are not facts and that we have ways of determining what is fact and what isn't. In science, we have peer reviews of research, and if you claim to have done an amazing experiment you can be sure that others will repeat it and they'd better get the same results. In crime, we have forensics experts. In law, we have courts and judges. In history, we have contemporaneous source materials. Get familiar with the various types of logical fallacies and how to recognize them. Don't be a tool or a fool.

Then hold the sources accountable. I don't follow Glenn Beck because 10 years ago (before he got kicked off Fox) he showed 20 seconds of an Obama speech and spent a week explaining how it proved that Obama was raising a secret army to round up conservatives. (The speech was about funding the Peace Corps.) I don't follow Rush Limbaugh because I found that he often quotes news articles out of context and lies outright. CNN keeps repeating the "fine people on both sides" remark as praising Nazis - and I don't believe the video of the press conference supports that. I don't follow talking heads like Hannity (either on the left or the right) because so much of what they say is unsubstantiated opinion. It's the same reason why I reject political labels, much preferring to discuss policy and principle. Finally, seek out people who hold contrary beliefs and listen to their arguments, fact check their sources, see if their logic is solid.

But most importantly - you must be able to admit that you are wrong.