The fact we are having this conversation indicates a key difference between our situation and the situation in North Korea.
Another is that the Pyongyang Times is state-owned. Military.com is owned by Monster, the job placement company. They have no incentive to lie about something like this and every reason to drop a scoop if there's a scoop to drop. But there isn't a scoop to drop, because this is a simple issue of fact.
You have given me everything I need to understand. I've spent time hanging out with flat-Earthers and I recognize the telltales of a conspiracy theory---disjoint from commonly-accepted facts and a widening gyre of organizations that have to be "in" on the conspiracy to maintain it. So far, this one encompasses every mainstream media outlet (since they are consistent on a raid in Germany never having happened), a Presidency that has lost dozens of court cases yet is secretly super-genius, multiple layers of the intelligence community, and an army division that by all accounts is a training division but, says the conspiracy, is in reality a super secret special ops division.
Hm... that rings a bell. I remember when people in Texas got upset about the Jade Helm training exercise, believing it to be a front for something sinister, like rounding up all the presidents enemies and putting them into detention centers (https://www.texastribune.org/2018/05/03/hysteria-over-jade-h...). It turns out, that information was sourced to Russian psy-ops, as part of their ongoing campaign to delegitimize the United States government in the eyes of its people by sowing doubt and mistrust. Quite a bit of overlap, I think, with the QAnon conspiracy claims. A conspiracy of multiple independent and often opposed organizations maintaining secrecy about a rigged election, or suppressing information about a CIA operation to raid an election machine manufacturer, strains the limits of credibility. But a Russian psyop inventing a story like that and feeding it to a public convinced that the mainstream media is not to be trusted and looking for alternative sources to find out what's "really going on..." that's not only plausible, it's already happened in the past. The recent past.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the mainstream media is either corrupt or incompetent and not to be trusted. Why should we trust the alternative sources you link to me instead? Lacking a history of journalistic integrity (or, from what I can tell, any attempt to follow basic journalistic practice, such as validating stories with multiple independent sources), wouldn't the sources you're using be at least as susceptible to state actor manipulation as mainstream media, if not more so? Mainstream media not having the truth doesn't imply that we accept the alternative that the truth can be found at brighteon.com.
"""
Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in
which four other states run their elections. Nor is that view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it.
"""
As much as Texas tends to be on the "state's rights" side of things usually, they're really off the bead here. There is, indeed, no legal mechanism by which Texas can say "We have the wrong President because Pennsylvania didn't follow its laws." They could say "Pennsylvania violated Federal voting law via discrimination," but they aren't trying to say that. What they're trying to argue is they suffered harm because PA's laws allow too much chance of fraud, and our government doesn't work that way in general. PA could pass a law saying that everyone gets to write a name on a piece of paper and put it in a giant hat, and the first name drawn is who they'll send their electors to vote for, and there's no grounds by which Texas could contest that. State voting process (barring violations of the 14th Amendment or the Voting Rights Act) are State affairs.
It's the best chance Trump has to somehow become President and it's already DOA.
Another is that the Pyongyang Times is state-owned. Military.com is owned by Monster, the job placement company. They have no incentive to lie about something like this and every reason to drop a scoop if there's a scoop to drop. But there isn't a scoop to drop, because this is a simple issue of fact.
You have given me everything I need to understand. I've spent time hanging out with flat-Earthers and I recognize the telltales of a conspiracy theory---disjoint from commonly-accepted facts and a widening gyre of organizations that have to be "in" on the conspiracy to maintain it. So far, this one encompasses every mainstream media outlet (since they are consistent on a raid in Germany never having happened), a Presidency that has lost dozens of court cases yet is secretly super-genius, multiple layers of the intelligence community, and an army division that by all accounts is a training division but, says the conspiracy, is in reality a super secret special ops division.
Hm... that rings a bell. I remember when people in Texas got upset about the Jade Helm training exercise, believing it to be a front for something sinister, like rounding up all the presidents enemies and putting them into detention centers (https://www.texastribune.org/2018/05/03/hysteria-over-jade-h...). It turns out, that information was sourced to Russian psy-ops, as part of their ongoing campaign to delegitimize the United States government in the eyes of its people by sowing doubt and mistrust. Quite a bit of overlap, I think, with the QAnon conspiracy claims. A conspiracy of multiple independent and often opposed organizations maintaining secrecy about a rigged election, or suppressing information about a CIA operation to raid an election machine manufacturer, strains the limits of credibility. But a Russian psyop inventing a story like that and feeding it to a public convinced that the mainstream media is not to be trusted and looking for alternative sources to find out what's "really going on..." that's not only plausible, it's already happened in the past. The recent past.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the mainstream media is either corrupt or incompetent and not to be trusted. Why should we trust the alternative sources you link to me instead? Lacking a history of journalistic integrity (or, from what I can tell, any attempt to follow basic journalistic practice, such as validating stories with multiple independent sources), wouldn't the sources you're using be at least as susceptible to state actor manipulation as mainstream media, if not more so? Mainstream media not having the truth doesn't imply that we accept the alternative that the truth can be found at brighteon.com.