Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
The Legislature is able to appoint electors. If the election is irreparably compromised, they could do that.
Here’s an idea @blueyeti @peterrobinson @roblong @jameslileks @jongabriel @bethanymandel – why not add an editor’s comment to a questionable assertion that “Ricochet cannot attest to the veracity of this claim” or words to that effect, so the Ricochet membership can see the claim being made.
I ask that because many of the major news organizations are immediately dismissing very credible claims of voter fraud in Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and elsewhere and not following up on those claims. When a FoxNews host like Neil Cavuto on-air censors a Trump Campaign presser describing lawsuits being filed, it appears we’re in new very chilling territory when it comes to censorship.
Permit me to be more emphatic, If Ricochet cancels a credible claim of voter fraud that the GOP or the Trump campaign is incorporating into one of its legal challenges, I may have to cancel my membership.
I think you have that problem fairly often from what I have seen.
Lefties sure are in a hurry. Even Al Gore had more patience.
More lefties chiming in. Do you guys send out a bat signal or something ?
Do what you have to do, Brian. We’ll do the same.
Like Facebook.
I can accept this as a shot across the bow pending seeing how it applies in practice.
However, this strikes me as an unusual time to start drawing a line in the sand about “conspiracy theories” and “false information,” notwithstanding a rarely used provision in the CoC.
I agree.
I have some concerns with this. I would like to think that Ricochet could say unconditionally that they would not redact the White House Press Secretary or the Chairwoman of the Republican National Party. Regardless of whether what they say is correct, them saying it is news and should be worthy of discussion.
I would also think this should apply across the Ricochet Platform. There are multiple podcasts that I listened to today that talked about voter fraud and irregularities. Whiskey Politics, Federalist, Daily Signal all seem to say fraud occurred but we don’t yet know how much. Erik Erikson was fraud did happen, but it is unlikely/difficult to prove, that it happened to an extent that would change the elections. If the podcasts on Ricochet can talk about something, then we should be able to. If we are redacted, then a podcast should be pulled down.
Censorship is tough. The Daily Signal went with the idea that the Sharpie thing in Arizona was real and discussed litigation about it, I believe Erickson said it did not matter that sharpies would work. Is this unproven? If a member is redacted for discussing this will the podcast be removed?
ABC News just called the North Carolina US Senate race for the Republican incumbent Thom Tillis.
My guess is that by tomorrow ABC News will call North Carolina’s 15 electoral votes for Donald Trump.
Sure, I realize that nothing is final until the elections are certified. But it’s still significant, given how cautious the ABC News decision desk is.
This is uncalled for.
This is the last place I thought I would see censoring or censuring or cautioning against conservative thought.
Conspiracies exist. That’s why they’re illegal.
Discussing election fraud and the predicate instances and likelihood and scope of both voter fraud and election fraud are legitimate topics.
The “conspiracy theories” barred in the the CoC are loony, crazy theories that will bring ridicule upon Ricochet. There is a tremendous difference between legitimate hot topics in the news, and the nature of which can fraudulently swing elections, and possibly bring about a functional and tragic change in the Republic, and for examples debating the existence of the Abominable Snowman or aliens living under the oceans.
To censure these discussions is and insult to Ricochet members and moral violation of the spirit of Free Speech.
It’s not clear to me which comment(s) claimed verifiably false rumors as fact, will you please point them out for me? In term of unproven and unsubstantiated, isn’t that why President Trump is going to court and not ordering the arrest of criminals?
To the best of my knowledge, the White House Press Secretary or the Chairwoman of the Republican National Party are not Ricochet members so we are not responsible for what they say. That said, their statements are news and we have no issue with what they say being discussed here.
I think this is a good idea. We’ll discuss it internally and determine if we can implement it. Thanks, @brianwatt.
We are not looking to censor anyone and we are not promoting or suppressing an agenda. What we are trying to do is maintain some degree of accuracy and not be a party to transmitting verifiably false info if we can avoid it.
In terms of the podcasts, for the vast majority of them, it is content we distribute but do not produce and cannot control nor are we responsible for what is said on those shows. Those shows (which we do not host) falls under a different standard than what gets published by our contributors and our members.
And if we comment about The Hammer computer program, which was spoken about my Lt. Gen. McInerney, in several interviews, does that get deleted as a “conspiracy theory” or “misinformation”?
In my observation, the Ricochet membership as a whole has been more than capable and willing to correct all forms of false information that has been erroneously posted here.
What makes your new standards necessary?
If you follow any “right” media this stuff about the election and possible fraud is being discussed. We can here about it on podcasts Ricochet hosts. The left leaning media acknowledges that Trump/ the right are making lots of varied claims, even as they say the claims aren’t valid. It would seem that we should be able to discuss any issue that is widely being discussed on the Right on a Center Right conversation site.
Some of the stuff out there I think should be looked into, some of it seems a bit of a reach. It should all be allowed to be discussed and hashed out by the membership. That I thought was the point of a conversation site. If it is real talk about it. IF it is garbage call it out.
Thanks for the response.
I still have some trouble with this answer. If an issue is being discussed on multiple podcasts that Ricochet puts on its platform/super feed, then it should be something that the membership is allowed to talk about.
Yes, absolutely. But seriously, if you’ll allow me, what does “verifiably false” mean? is it that which is determined to be “fake news”? Does it mean “settle science”? Does it mean viewed in court and found to be erroneous?
Or does it mean irritating to the Never Trump assembly?
Or is it determined by fear of litigation?
Whatever the cause of the site’s censure, this seems to be just an extension of what facebook and twitter have been doing and saying for months, and this is in fact part of the whole election fraud question.
“In Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties there were over 682,000 ballots that were tabulated outside the view of observers who were entitled by law to review those ballots. And we believe that a meaningful review of those ballots could discern that there were ballots that were illegally counted.” – Matt Morgan, General Counsel for the Trump Campaign
About 6:35 into the press conference.
From my earlier comment:
The number cited by the President’s counsel above was some 682,000 ballots. It appears I was off by -44,000 ballots. My humble apologies. My favorite ice cream is vanilla by the way. It’s time for my nap.
The Pennsylvania Secretary of State has announced that she will ask the judge to promptly dismiss Trump’s lawsuit.
KDKA, the CBS affiliate in Pittsburgh quoting the Republican Allegheny County election board member:
I also recommend reading Andy McCarthy’s NR piece on NR about PA.
Of course she will. She’s a Democrat.
Does he also speak for Philadelphia?
Did you censor anything on the Russia hoax, where people were accused of ginning up conspiracy theories around it?
Because this is a sea change in policy. I think you fail to give your members any credibility at all, if you feel their posts now need fact-checking, from who, exactly? The handful of mods and admins in place now?
Wow. And your response above should be part of Rob’s pitches during the podcasts. It’s wonderful.
“Join Ricochet! Where you’re pay for the privilege of having your conversations erased based on fact-checkers”.
Regarding the news quote, was the statement made by the “Republican Allegheny County election board member” made under oath? Or is it just hearsay, as in politically motivated speech?
So your contention is that there was only fraud in Philadelphia? Because if you were going to commit fraud, why would you limit it to one district or county? How would you know if that was enough votes?
This is the larger problem with all of these theories — they don’t really make sense from an effectiveness standpoint.
Earlier today, I also spoke to a well known pollster and astute political observer on the right and this person (sorry I did not get their permission to name them, so for now this will have to be an anonymous quote) said the following about how difficult it would actually be to pull off coordinated voter fraud on a national scale:
P.S. I am also setting up a video event with John Yoo in which he will take your questions on election law and voter fraud. Working out a time for that right now, but it will be in the next 24/48 hours.
That’s part of the claim/problem, though; isn’t it? That alarm bells were triggered in part because they didn’t spread them out? That’s a sincere question because I don’t have enough time at the moment to follow the situation like I would like.
What about the reports from other places where observers were barred from observing? And there’s video of it happening?
We can’t talk about that either?
Good to know. That might be about it for me.