In what specific way did The Conservative Treehouse convince you they had the right Donald Sterling that you now find lacking?
The same way Mother Jones convinced you.
I strongly doubt that. Mother Jones convinced me by providing reliable evidence that Donald Sterling is registered as a Republican. That can't be how CTH convinced you that Donald Sterling is a Democrat, because they provided no evidence at all of Donald Sterling's party registration.
So you still need to explain how CTH convinced you of a 'fact' which we now know to be false.
I'm happy to run through how CTH convinced me their claims were false and how Mother Jones convinced me their claim was true, so that you can get a better idea of the question you're being asked.
I rejected the claims made by
Conservative Treehouse (that Sterling is a Democratic fundraiser, a Democratic donor and a Democratic supporter) because the evidence they cited did not support their claims. I classed as undetermined an additional claim you made (that Sterling is a member of the Democratic Party) because neither you nor
Conservative Treehouse offered any evidence to support that claim.
In contrast I accepted the
Mother Jones claim (that Donald Sterling is a registered Republican) because they provided solid evidence of this fact which I and others were able to independently look up and verify.
Let's go through the claims one by one.
First, the CTH claims:
1. CTH (and you) claimed that Donald Sterling is a Democratic fundraiser. The cited source, RealGM.com, said no such thing. You, when asked by posters here to provide evidence, refused to do -- saying simply that it had been talked about in the media so people could look it up for themselves.
If Sterling actually had been a Democratic Party fundraiser there should be news stories about fundraising events he'd put together or testimony from people whom he'd solicited for funds. The complete lack of this evidence in the sources cited, the evasive tactics used by folks putting forward the claim when asked to produce evidence, and my own inability to turn up any such evidence was sufficient for me to conclude (correctly) that the claim was false
2.CTH (and you) claimed that Donald Sterling is a Democratic contributor / supporter. The source cited by CTH cited another source which in turn cited OpenSecrets.org.
What OpenSecrets showed is that 2 decades ago Sterling had made donations to Bill Bradley, Patrick Leahy and Gray Davis. Other sources I checked confirmed that Sterling had not made any contributions to Democrats in more than a decade, and had never made any contributions to Democratic Party groups such as the
DSCC,
DCCC,
Democrats.org,
ActBlue, etc.
The misrepresentation of the evidence to be found at the cited source, and the confirmation by checking other sources that Sterling had not been a contributor to the Democratic Party in recent years and that there was no evidence Sterling had ever been an outspoken advocate of the Democratic Party, was sufficient for me to conclude (correctly) that the claim was false. (A claim that many years past Sterling had contributed money to several individual Democrats would have been true, but that's not the claim which was being made by CTH or you.)
3. You claimed (but CTH didn't) that Donald Sterling is a member of the Democratic Party.
It's possible you misread CTH's claim that Donald Sterling is "a Democrat Fundraiser and a democrat contributor/donor" as a claim that Donald Sterling is a Democrat. But the word
Democrat in that sentence is an adjective, not a noun. (The correct spelling of the adjectival form is Democratic, but many the right prefer to deliberately misspell it. CTH appears to be among them.) As an adjective, the sentence simply says that Sterling raised funds for the Democrats and contributed to the Democrats; it makes no claim about actual party affiliation although it deceptively implies it.
Since CTH didn't make that claim, they provided no evidence to support it. Nor did you, despite repeated requests from other posters to do so (simply saying it had been talked about on the news and folks could look it up themselves). With no evidence to check, I concluded (correctly) that this was undetermined.
Now the
Mother Jones claim:
1. Mother Jones claimed that Donald Sterling is registered as a member of the Republican Party. As evidence, they attested to having looked up the information at the LA County Registrar's office.
I was able to locate numerous other sources saying the same thing, several of which offered instructions for how I and others could check with the Registrar's office for ourselves to confirm this information. So far everyone who has checked the LA County Registrar's office --
using the method established by the LA County Registrar's office for checking voter registration information -- has found the
Mother Jones information to be correct. No one to date has come up with any contradictory evidence to this claim. I therefore conclude that this claim is true.
I and others here are still waiting for your explanation of how you concluded that Donald Sterling is a Democrat (which you asserted confidently and repeatedly in this thread).
Please: (a) quote the exact part of the CTH article (or the sources they cited) which convinced you that Donald Sterling is a registered Democrat, and (b) explain why you found it persuasive.
