Trust & the Election: Left, Right & Center | Wilfred Reilly, S. Banerjee & C. Paul with J. Wood, Jr.

[@rpjswish]

Google executives swore that "something like a Trump election would never occur again" in 2016.. everything else is secondary.

[@anonosaurus4517]

Yep, "We the People" don't get the right to choose our leaders ever again. Remember that the next time you hear some idiot Democrat prattling on about "Democracy!"....

[@Throgan]

Beyond my disagreements with him, Chris was clearly uninterested in having a constructive "Braver Angels" type conversation, and was probably the worst guest I've ever heard on their podcast. Just in his introduction he put the onus of not concluding there was fraud on others for not investigating deep enough (rather than sticking to the "I believe" personal experience of typical BA discourse), and then in the same breath said it's not worth talking specifics and in big picture there was clearly fraud. This is classic covering of all of your bases ("I didn't do that, but even if I did it's not illegal") that betrays the mission Braver Angels is aiming for. It only got worse throughout the rest of the podcast. John and the other two guests handled it as well as they could, but to me this was a blow to the BA's generally great track record of interesting red & blue guests. Incredibly disappointing.

[@satiricalsymphony]

Agreed 100%. This was my first attempt to reengage BA after the last debate on this topic and I came away very frustrated again by BA hosting a guest (Chris) that didn't seem to be coming in the "good faith" spirit that is required for these types of debates. For future discussions, if a guest doesn't think it's within the realm of possibility that either Joe Biden or Donald Trump could have legally won the previous election, they are in a total echo chamber and are likely unable to engage in good faith debate.

[@johnwood1911]

@@satiricalsymphony Well, a person can be speaking from an echo chamber and still be engaging in good faith. A person's arguments can be totally incorrect and still be articulated in good faith. All good faith suggests is that a person is not deliberately seeking to mislead or humiliate the other party. It is a question of intention.

[@Dubinski2382]

You are doing exactly what you accuse Chris of doing. Why not address the facts.

[@Throgan]

@@johnwood1911 Thanks John. I agree, it's nearly impossible to truly judge someone's intent based on their arguments; I believe you that Chris thought he was coming to the table in good faith. However, he did not reflect that good faith back. He was constantly presumptive about others (whether other panelists, or viewers like me), and to my recollection never acknowledged with empathy what his fellow guests were saying; he just launched into predictable attacks. I watch, listen, and contribute to Braver Angels because they promote listening and understanding, and actively denounce those kind of toxic discussion tactics I see basically everywhere else (including my own bubble), so it was distressing to see it seep into this space.

[@Krestshinable]

Riley steals the show here with his rational reasoning. I don’t know how we ever reach people like C. Paul that are so deeply rooted in conspiratorial and logically fallacious thinking. I assume better education at an early age would help these people but with the influence of the internet and online echo chambers I really don’t know.

[@spywriter007]

Unfortunately, there's not just a political divide in this country... there's an educational one. You got a large segment of the population that has NO CRITICAL THINKING skills... if they find something on google or facebook they believe it as FACT without doing any research.

[@honestjohn6418]

Riley is on point as usual

[@eboomer]

Chris Paul was a bad guest. He just made a long list of baseless claims. His disgruntled pathos may appeal to some, but his lack of underlying substance should dissuade all. If he feels that certain that he's right, based on such little basis, he's somebody whose judgement you should distrust. About halfway through I just skipped past his parts of the video because it simply gave me a headache, and didn't enrich my understanding of the facts of the issue at all.

[@SamCarleton]

So, one thing I am finding VERY interesting in this whole discussion is this concept of nonpartisan, objective newspapers. I was just listening to the May 6,2021 podcast (link below) of NPR's Invisilia. This is a cut/paste from the transcript of the provided link where the claim is made by the reporter Shaw, that for the longest time everyone knew reporters were and still are bias: SHAW: And he (WALLACE) found a history that is relatively recent and ethically ambiguous. To begin with, until the 1830s, there was no such thing as a nonpartisan, objective newspaper in the U.S. Newspapers were funded by business interests or political parties, and their readers were elites. WALLACE: So your political reporting came straight from the political party. It's the opposite of nonpartisan. SHAW: But then there was a big influx of population into northern cities and a rise in public education. More people were reading. And newspaper publishers - they had an idea. What if they sold papers on street corners to lots of people? Voila - the penny paper. WALLACE: And with that shift in business model came an incentive to be a little bit more nonpartisan and a little bit more outside of politics because you wanted to sell lots of papers. And you wanted to advertise in them, so you didn't want to piss off advertisers. So it was really an economic incentive that started this whole thing. SHAW: It wasn't until the 1920s and '30s that the word objectivity began appearing in journalism ethics codes. But that professional norm of objectivity, a presumption of neutrality - Lewis points out that it's been used again and again to maintain the status quo, which is great if you benefit from the current status quo, not so great if you don't. For example, just look at how The New York Times used to report on lynchings of Black people. www.npr.org/transcripts/993985378 What is the better focus: trying to eliminate bias or learn how to identify bias so we can learn to separate out the bias from the truth in what ANYONE has to say.

[@spywriter007]

True journalists fact check... they don't spew commentary like Breitbart or Faux News.

[@Dubinski2382]

Let's look at specific claims that have not been investigated! Smart!