Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

so, it wasn't even Trump's idea?

he just made it worse by jumping on the bandwagon

ChatGPT Just Passed Three Levels of the Master Sommelier Exam

https://vinepair.com/booze-news/chatgpt-passes-master-sommelier-exam/

That dude is the Left's Biggest Cheerleader?  Is there any factual flaw in his "analysis"?

well then, 2 cases!

HA! you're always thinkin' Butch!

The opinion piece relates to claims of dead people voting, nothing else.  It cites a survey ostensibly paid for by the Trump campaign that concluded very very few possibly dead people accounted for actual votes.  Now, maybe there is a flaw in there somewhere.  Opinion pieces can leave out critical other information.

It doesn't relate to possible other kinds of voter fraud.

I have seen some other pieces refuting the idea that a lot of dead people voted in X or Y.  Sometimes they died after casting the ballot.  Often it was a person with the same name who died, not the actual voter.  

It seems facile to me to dismiss a "news" item simply because of source.  The source can make one extra careful of course, which I would apply to every news outlet, not just MSNBC.  I realize it's easier just to ignore anything Fox News or MSNBC or CNN et al. reports as 'fake news' and be done with it without spending any time reading and refuting the actual item.

The opinion piece relates to claims of dead people voting, nothing else.  It cites a survey ostensibly paid for by the Trump campaign that concluded very very few possibly dead people accounted for actual votes.  Now, maybe there is a flaw in there somewhere.  Opinion pieces can leave out critical other information.

It doesn't relate to possible other kinds of voter fraud.

I have seen some other pieces refuting the idea that a lot of dead people voted in X or Y.  Sometimes they died after casting the ballot.  Often it was a person with the same name who died, not the actual voter. 

It seems facile to me to dismiss a "news" item simply because of source.  The source can make one extra careful of course, which I would apply to every news outlet, not just MSNBC.  I realize it's easier just to ignore anything Fox News or MSNBC or CNN et al. reports as 'fake news' and be done with it without spending any time reading and refuting the actual item.

I tend to be somewhat dismissive of a lot of stuff that comes out of Fox or MSNBC. Mainly for two reasons:

1. Inevitably what gets shared is often the most bombastic stuff. Both websites have like a quarter billion articles on them. Most of those are extremely stayed and boring. But they don’t tend to get shared.
2. Inevitably what gets shared from both those outlets tends to be heavily framed. Usually in a way to be easily shared to mock the other side. The best way to take anything by with a headline that makes you feel right is to click deeper, try to understand the context and read the original articles they are usually riffing off of. Often, it turns out reality is much less inflammatory than some folks would have you believe.

(I remain deeply skeptical about the voter fraud stuff, mostly because it implies incredible competence and discipline that I flat out think the party being accused of it does not possess)

some news is worthy of my effort to compare and contrast

political stuff - not
mostly slanted garbage