Media Determines What?

IKR

Great meme, at least some people still have some sanity

Ye can't. It doesn't exist.

2hsnp9.jpg (click to show) Upvoted!

One wonders why this is an issue now as the news has always relayed the ... well, the news, of who the next president will be.

2000 they said Al Gore won. He didnt

Who said Al Gore won?

Can you cite the news article?

There were too many to cite, see below link

Link checked, only talks about who won Florida, not the Presidency. Even then, it says in the first paragraph that GW was prematurely named President, not Al Gore. Next.

Lol try to Cherry pick. You can’t this is history and is documented see response below.

So let me get this straight, you're citing MSM?

History, unlike the present, is common and only subject to challenge by new evidence. Otherwise the fact is they said did what I said they did. I was right and you were wrong. Suck it up.

My conclusion is that Germany would still have lost the war. It would not have happened in 1945 - maybe it would have taken another 3 years. I don't think Hitler could EVER have defeated the Soviets. The need to have to fight on a second front in the west did weaken Hitler and hastened the demise of the Third Reich; however, Germany had received so many body blows even before Torch and Normandy that its defeat was assured at Soviet Hands. Operation Torch, the landings in North Africa, happened in October 1943; however, the German march eastward was forever stopped at Kursk earlier that year, in August 1943 (see Battle of Kursk). After Kursk, the Germans were in constant retreat. Normandy happened in June 1944; however, the success of Normandy, which merely established a beachhead in Northern France for allied forces to land and invade the continent, was massively eclipsed (though much less reported in the western press) by the much more successful Operation Bagration, which commenced on June 22 (three years from the start of the German-Soviet conflict in 1941) and ended on August 19, resulting in the deaths of 1.5 million Germans, the destruction of an entire Army Group (Army Group Center), the loss of about 17 army divisions, and the liberation of Belarus.

So my conclusion is that had America and Britain not invaded German-ruled Europe through Torch and Overlord, the Russians would still have won. The difference is that the map of Europe would have looked very different after the war. Instead of a democratic western Europe and a communist eastern Europe, the whole of Europe would have been painted red, and probably another few million Soviets would have died fighting.

Could Russia have defeated the Germans without the substantial assistance of the US in terms of jeeps, trucks, food, and the like? I aver that it could have, but it would have doubtless taken them longer. The Soviets proved even in 1941 that they could defeat the Germans, with no allied aid, when they caused a million casualties to the German armies in front of Moscow (aided by General Winter), so I believe they could have single-handedly defeated the Germans - in time. Instead of the war ending in 1945, maybe it would have taken the Soviets until 1950 to finish the war on their own terms - by conquering the whole of continental Europe.

Your response?

You're entitled to your own speculation regarding this matter, of course.

As are you

Agreed

Obviously I disagree, the Soviets had been destroyed until Hitler meddled with the plan and took the pressure off of this providing a respite for the Soviets to gather supplies and munitions. Early in the war including Moscow the Russians sent troops to the front without weapons and told them to pick them up from the dead. They were not ready and could not supply their vast manpower with food, weapons or ammunition. To say nothing of the tons and tons of supplies and factories that fell into German hands in the initial stages and advance over huge swaths of Russian territory. The USA provided the boost needed until they got on a war footing. The single greatest contribution was 400,000 trucks. This was the balance needed to supply and move their troops increasing their effectiveness and ability to fight.

At best we would likely have seen a surrender by one side or the other but not an unconditional surrender. They would have likely decided to stop fighting at some point. Without the second front the Germans would have likely fought the Soviets to a standstill.

As to the British they very nearly surrendered. If not for the courage of Churchill and the indomitable British citizens they would have. Here was another of Hitlers mistakes. He believed England was finished and would negotiate for peace or be irrelevant especially once the Japanese entered the war.

No commie or leftist will ever admit any of this because it doesn’t fit their glorious revolution, will of the people narrative.

You're entitled to your own speculation regarding this matter, of course.

Or did he..........

Certified, he lost. Proof is Bush was President for 8 years.

Ya he lost. But you said there was a claim that he won. Where is this claim?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20001108/aponline183922_000.htm?back=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fclient%3Dsafari%26as_qdr%3Dall%26as_occt%3Dany%26safe%3Dactive%26as_q%3DDid+the+networks+announce+Al+Gore+won+the+presidency%26channel%3Daplab%26source%3Da-app1%26hl%3Den

This article talks about the winner of Florida, not the winner of the presidency. No where in the article does it state that Al Gore won the Presidency.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/03/930828092/i-covered-medias-2000-election-night-fiasco-please-let-s-not-do-that-again?

At the time saying Bush one the State of Florida meant he won the Presidency. Not pick as much as you want it doesn’t change that the media Picked wrong before.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/newspaper-mistakenly-declares-dewey-president?

Let me ask you, do you find NPR credible?

Haha they have said they gotta destroy it to rebuild it. They have to destroy the constitution and free speech because those threaten their global leftist agenda. Cant have people thinking for themselves they must follow the official thought.

NPR is biased left on current events. As I previously stated history has common acceptance except by leftist re tellers who wish to destroy it.

I think the term "destroy" is an appeal to extremes and a mischaracterization of their agenda.

I find this story credible and factually correct. This is reality you can play your source games but you are obviously a leftist subversive not interested in Facts that don’t fit your narrative,

No, no. It's fine. I'm just asking you if you find NPR credible as a whole?

The media sure tries to determine who is president with all their leftist reporting.

Sorry that so many of you clearly have no understanding of how government works or our Constitutional Republic. Clearly you all failed at Civics ... or were just brainwashed into believing everything the media and your teachers tell you. The answers are very clear if you just read our Constitution. But that would mean you'd have to: 1) Read - which is a challenge to most of you and your basements are too dark to read in. 2) Comprehend - also a struggle since you have no one to help you with the big words. And 3) Unlearn - also very tough after decades of pablum from your progressive teachers and professors who all aided in your dumbing-down. As a side note I have no "dog" in this fight. I fight for the truth and the Constitution as written - not as "interpreted" by those other than the Founding Fathers in their various letters, journals and memoirs. If you like interpretation, go to a dance recital.

You realize that when you read the constitution, regardless of your alignment, you have your own contextual interpretation of it, right?

They don’t, but the liberal leftists need this so bad they will not even admit the media doesn’t certify elections or that they got it wrong in 2000

But...but, the media is never wrong! How could they ever lie?!
*sarcasm*

Sorry I'd prefer not to use a used binky.