It came from a discussion about whether or not Trump was a conservative, and a claim that conservatives don't think that the government should be issuing marriage licences, as that is not a government matter. That led onto a discussion about what the government should or should not be regulating regarding relationships.

Not at all. Yes, there may be some similarities, but also differences. The number of wives, for example, is quite a difference.

As a jury member, you would be required to determine whether or not a person was guilty *as defined by what the law says*. Otherwise you're not doing your duty as a jury member.

You have to determine guilt or innocence. Probably technically it's the judge that then convicts.

Okay, I did say "probably". As for "trial by jury", that doesn't mean that the jury handles the entire process; the judge is the one that passes sentence, at least.

Well, except perhaps for Texas!

From https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/criminal-sentencing-faq.html: "Judges, not juries, almost always determine the punishment, even following jury trials. In fact, a common jury instruction warns jurors not to consider the question of punishment when deciding a defendant's guilt or innocence."

That would be why it said "almost always".

In fact, when I Googled "do juries pass sentence ", one of the options that came up was "do juries pass sentence in Texas"!

I said that trial by jury doesn't mean that the jury does everything; judges still pass sentence. And therefore "trial by jury" doesn't *necessarily* mean that juries convict as opposed to just determining guilt or otherwise.

That's the bit that I wasn't sure of (and did not dogmatically claim). But I've now checked, and you're correct; determination of guilt IS the conviction.

I was on one once, but the trial was aborted.

There were walls?

It should say "nor shall any State deprive any person of life".

I haven't been notified of a broadcast since the Existence Systems one two days ago. Has there been any?

I thought it was supposed to be every day, but that's fine if that's the case.

"No, it's exactly because you didn't like the results."
Going by what he said, it's because the results were not legitimate, not simply because he didn't like them. What's your evidence that it's just that he didn't like them?

There can be more than one reason someone challenges a result; it isn't alway simply because they don't like them.

But do they have good reasons for not agreeing? This is supposed to be about facts, not opinions.

You indicated that challenging them was the reason he supposedly didn't like them, as opposed to them being wrong.

The evidence is, in my opinion, overwhelming. But I'm including the mainstream media disinformation and lies, the social media censorship, and so on, not just the voting itself.

But I don't. Only then things that *are* lies. Pretending that's "everything" is disingenuous.

That's not in evidence. I've seen evidence of the MSM's lies; I haven't seen it for the RWM, and the criticisms I *have* seen clearly don't stack up.

Then you would be wrong. I look at both sides.

Absolutely not. It's the left that often lives in a bubble, because they only get the information from the leftist MSM. I have to get some of mine from the MSM (I can't avoid it), but I also make the effort to get it from better sources.

See for example the testimonies of Brandon Straka and Bindi Cole, who both admitted after having their eyes opened that they lived in a leftist bubble.

I'm not arguing that any are perfectly accurate and objective; I'm saying that I get information from various sources, not just the left. I have not seen any evidence that Sky New and Andrew Bolt (Australia) nor OANN and NewsMax are, at the very worst, any worse than the mainstream media.

That makes no sense in the light of my comment that you were replying to.

So you agree? Good. (Because I noted that you have not shown otherwise.)

And I was indirectly pointing out that sarcasm was your only response. But that's typical of people who can't actually make a case.

"There are very strong arguments to be made..."
Then why do I only see elephant-hurling claims like this, and not actual argument?

A common excuse for not actually trying, and maligning me as not being open to evidence (which you haven't provided).

No, I didn't "suggest" it. I pointed out that a study done showed it to be *balanced* based on coverage of Trump's first 100 days, but also said that it had moved a bit to the left since.

Except that I haven't said that all your sources are biased.

If it was typical left, it would have been anti-Trump. The fact that it was neutral strongly suggests that it wasn't anti-Trump, like much of the rest of the MSM.

I don't have to watch it to learn about it. There are other ways to learn about it than trying it for myself. I have seen some Fox clips on YouTube, but I don't watch the news on it (I'm not sure that it's even available here in Oz).

"You're talking about weak correlation."
Far more relevant than whether or not I watch Fox News.

What is that in reference to? Moving to the left? It's not in evidence that they moved in order to maintain some journalistic integrity. Especially given that the rest of the MSM clearly have so little.

I have explained the logic. Dismissal is not an rebuttal.

Only because taste is a matter of preference. You don't have to try rat poison to learn that it could kill you. So that was a false analogy.

What lies of Trump's? I'm not suggesting that he never lies (most politicians do at times), but I've checked out a sample of a list of his supposed lies and they don't stack up.

Huh? My point—which the analogy is a poor one for—is that you can learn about things without trying them for yourself.

I did not simply dismiss it.

I explained why it was improper, and I stand by that. Are you seriously arguing that you cannot learn about something without trying it for yourself?

No, it was not an "excuse". I give reasons, not excuses. I rejected or questioned (I don't recall which) with reasons.

Did they actually do that? Or is that just an anti-Trump spin?

Because you decide to call it that?

That was a *suggestion*.

So Trump criticised Fox, and they hit back. But how much of the hit back was accurate and how much was spin? That is not clear.

Not true. As I said, I don't recall if I rejected it or merely questioned it's reliability, but I certainly didn't *reject* on on that basis.

Well, according to you. And I the video clip did not show evidence of "demanding" an "allegiance". *That*, at least, is just spin (or based on something other than that video clip).

Sure, there are some things that can't be reasonably learned without personal experience. But I'll rephrase my question, "Are you seriously arguing that you cannot learn about anything without trying it for yourself?"

From memory, I rejected it as being a direct refutation of the study I showed.

Not in evidence.

Citing examples of where personal experience is better does not make the case that it's always better. On the contrary. What's a more objective assessment of a media outlet? Personal viewing, which might be subject to confirmation bias, or something like a peer-reviewed study objectively looking at the evidence?
Also, both mechanics you mention are not certified based on personal experience, but on training, i.e. learning objectively about their respective vehicles.

Is that an answer to my question, or another attempt to reject the study I cited?

Many examples of fraud have been shown.

You can read into it what you want to? Is that what you just said?

No, they wouldn't just be made fun of. They'd be demonised, called traitors, and more.

The onus to substantiate a claim is always on the one making it. So no, it's not on me to check.

I questioned a claim. So your point is...?

That was in the video, but I've already pointed out that there was nothing in the video to support the claim. That doesn't.

I apply that reasoning consistently. Your evidence-free insinuation is wrong.

Your claim was "Trump was demanding a kind of media allegiance"

No, but they are insinuating, like you are doing here, that this is because I'm not objective. But they don't produce evidence, because they can't. So they resort to maligning instead.

He didn't like what they were saying, but (a) it's not in evidence that it was because it wasn't flattering; it could have been because they weren't being fair, and (b) saying that you're not happy with their coverage is not "demanding allegiance".

That is not evidence of "demanding allegiance". That could equally be "demanding fairness". To argue that it's "demanding allegiance" *assumes* that they are already being fair.

That's spin. Unless you can provide evidence.

Another evidence-free claim.

I think you could well be right, although it will be more because of forcing things on the people such as climate change hysteria (i.e. the over-reaction to some small change in the climate, as the climate does), forcing taxpayers to pay for killing innocent babies, spreading anti-scientific nonsense about genders and dividing people by race, etc.

A vague claim with no substance.

Yes, I think the word "fraud" has been applied too broadly. It's wrong, but "fraud" is not always the right word.

It could be. Or it could be him wanting objectivity. How do you determine which it is?

Fraud, I think, implies an intent to gain false advantage. A legal technicality suggests otherwise.

You watch it 24/7 do you? Otherwise, what is the basis of your "never"? From memory, I have actually heard them saying things unflattering about him.

We *were *comparing networks, but then got onto a claim that Trump "demands allegiance"..
If you're suggesting that OAN is biased because it's much more favourable to Trump, then sure, if that's the sole measure of bias, then it's as biased towards him as many others are against him.
But then the MSM has also been demonstrated to be inaccurate, showing that their bias is influencing their claims.

Not a comment on what the U.S. situation IS, but a comment on how good it is (or isn't). Australia is like America in having a federation of states, but the federal election is run by (an arm of) the federal government, not differently by each state, and it works very well (much better than this fiasco in the U.S.).

Evidence? Because that again was just a claim. And, for the record, I do watch other networks. Unlike the left and their bubble, I get my information from a variety of sources, as I mentioned earlier.

There are sometimes call in Oz to abolish the states (get rid of one of the three levels of government for such a small country, population-wise), but I disagree with those, and see merit in the states remaining and having their rights.
I just don't see why the states should control a *federal* election.

Yes, but only a small fraction of lefties come to places like this. That is, the lefties here are the exception to the rule.

I've seen things about their coverage that I find problematic, for sure. But no more than in the MSM. And that is my point, as much as anything.

So you don't watch Fox either?

It was a question, not an idea.

So it was a bad question? Why?

Who? The MSM? Yeah, I know.

I don't see any good evidence that it is. Sure, it's not strongly left-wing either, but certainly (from what I've been able to learn) not particularly right-wing either.

So you're saying that Fox is as "right wing" as OAN, NewsMax, and Epoch Times?

But I've also seen people describe Sky News here in Oz as right wing, when in fact it's merely balanced, unlike the left-leaning media. So I want evidence, not subjective opinions.

How do I determine which is accurate? By comparison with the MSM?

Unlike the left-leaning media?

No, you've shown me, from memory, one assessment that was questionable, and even that only claimed centre-right. The rest was opinion and evidence-free claims.

Yes, in principle. But without access to the actual, say, ballot papers, it's not practicable. Any other suggestions?

Sorry, yes. But that was the evidence you showed me.

I questioned the impartiality of the fact checkers. I don't recall if I linked this before, but I do now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-scS7FCrs4

"Yes the left media is left leaning but held back by facts and morality conversely."
I've seen plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Are they worth looking at? Are they reliable sources?

I can't speak for the impartiality of some of the judges.

But you're citing them. So if I decide, on the basis of evidence I've seen that fact checkers are often themselves biased, that they are not credible, then what? (And I HAVE seen evidence, not limited to the link I posted.)

I'm not saying that all are bad. But enough are that there can be no a priori presumption of accuracy.

Anyway, it's well past my bedtime, so goodnight all.