Trump

[Swansman]

You forgot to mention the primary was staight up rigged against Bernie by Hillary n co.

Forgot and forgot... those who want to know the truth already knows it.

 

[beorhthelm]

The "do your own research, from my list of self-approved sources" argument really goes both ways.

not really, its typically used where one doesnt have anything to back up a claim or doesnt want to show the source. its easy enough to give some source, let the reader judge the quality and credibility. those with decent sources usually give them, those without say dyor.

 

[lasvegan]

There is no argument to be made that president Biden is worse, by any metric at all. He is a return to actual leadership and an administration which is getting things done. He isn't a reality TV star, he's a president. His administration is competently writing and passing bills into law, rather than needing to do everything by executive action due to sheer incompetence. They have already passed more impactful reforms than anything Trump's administration managed and for all the "infrastructure weeks" under Trump, Biden's build back better is actually happening. I think the Americans who aren't on the fringes can see the difference and can see that Biden's administration are actually capable of fulfilling their promises. Hopefully they'll strengthen their overall majorities in the House and the Senate and then get to work writing laws to protect women's rights, among other things.

Do your research, five minute job…

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pr...timated-to-cost-taxpayers-almost-1-5-trillion

https://townhall.com/columnists/oli...11/30/bidens-build-back-better-fraud-n2599806

 

[lasvegan]

If you had any evidence you'd present the links to it, rather than pretend I'm a fool because I can't find it.

Present your evidence - it will clearly take you far less than five minutes for you to find it and post it. Then I promise to properly evaluate it.

And remember, I am looking for evidence that President Biden is as bad as President Trump, not evidence that his son may be a prat.

Well I don’t think you’re a fool and I apologize if it was implied. I don’t need to provide evidence that his son is a prat (that is being very kind) because everyone already knows that. Whether you think one president is better than the other depends,I suppose, on one’s ideology. I’m a conservative and you’re not, the character of the individual we’re voting for is often secondary, we just want what we feel is best for the country, regardless.

Anyhow, a link or two, give me 5 minutes…

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...-doj-investigation-into-hunter-biden-n2610966

https://nypost.com/2022/07/16/hunter-biden-laptop-shows-meetings-with-joe-business-partners/

https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/3...-what-we-all-knew-about-hunter-biden-in-2020/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-th...ork-post-new-york-times-joe-biden-11647637814

To be fair, these are conservative sites, but there are hundreds to sift through starting with the left wing ones. That’s how search engines work these days.

 

[lasvegan]

If they actually had an 'open border policy', people wouldn't be trying to swim across the river, or hide in trucks, would they?

2 million encounters so far this year, plus 900,000 “getaways”. Once they are here, they are processed and released.

https://twitter.com/BillFOXLA/status/1547211238794461185?s=20&t=PjH3bh3DtEJPjboiSZqR4Q

 

[lasvegan]

Stop being silly. People are claiming that Biden is as bad as Trump (or worse) and some of us are asking to see the evidence. 'Both parties are corrupt' is playground talk.

The evidence that Trump is properly bad was broadcast live on television when he triggered a riot that resulted in death, and when he was found to have stolen secret documents and moved them from the white house. In themselves these actions are sufficient to define the man, without the need to invoke the lack of tax returns, Stormy Daniels and so on.

Getting shirty when the world at large says 'show us the evidence' when Trump's goons say 'whatabout Biden/Clinton?' is not a good look.

You can argue either way if the speech triggered a riot (go and peacefully protest), but the only death that day was a young lady murdered by a Capitol policeman.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You can argue either way if the speech triggered a riot (go and peacefully protest), but the only death that day was a young lady murdered by a Capitol policeman.

You have a peculiar take on 'murder'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ashli_Babbitt

I find it extraordinary that you align yourself with Trump and Putin:

"In October 2021, Trump recorded a video message arguing that "There was no reason Ashli should've lost her life that day. We must all demand justice for Ashli and her family". Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the shooting of Babbitt, describing it as an "assassination"."

You self-identification as 'conservative' would deeply offend the majority of British conservatives.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

You can argue either way if the speech triggered a riot (go and peacefully protest), but the only death that day was a young lady murdered by a Capitol policeman.

It was riot, she tried to storm Capital Hill and paid the price. It was a stupid thing to try and do with absolutely no justification.
A number of those involved have all stated that they were there because of the orange buffoon, he stirred the shit and they responded.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Baldseagull]

The "do your own research, from my list of self-approved sources" argument really goes both ways.

If I claim that Wall Street-businessmen funded both the Second World War and the Russian revolution and refer to a certain book, there is a very high likelyhood that it will either be ignored or someone will claim that eg George Seldes once farted in the wrong direction and therefore can not be trusted which - apparently - invalidates all the evidence he brought forward on any subject, ever. This happens all the time. Because George Seldes is not an authority in their eyes.

To take examples people are more aware of:
If Alex Jones writes that Bill Clinton is from Mars, mainstreamers (and every other sensible human, but lets skip that for now) are going to think: who is sending me this message - are there other parties other than himself involved? what interest does he have in sending this message? What would he gain from persuading me to believe that Bill Clinton is from Mars? It will be fairly easy to conclude that his main purpose is to sell weird pills and lousy books to nutjobs.

This is the right way of doing it. All these questions should be asked.

But people tend to avoid asking these questions when it comes to someone they see as an authority, whereas I and other "conspiracy theorists" of the sensible kind apply to the same thing to mainstream media: who are sending me this message - are there other parties other than the reporter/CNN? what interest do they have in sending this message? What would they gain from persuading me to believe that the socialist is evil and the free-market neo-liberal is good?

The answers to that would be:
who are sending me this message - are there other parties involved other than the CNN? CNN is a company which is a company owned by Warner Bros. Discovery, which is a company owned by Vanguard Group, BlackRock, SSGA and a variety of other American investment companies. We can go deeper, but for simplicity lets go with that.
what interest do they have in sending this message? The socialist who wants to increase economic equality and nationalize currently private markets may not be the best candidate to provide a good climate for these gigantic investment companies... so quite simply: their interest is that the socialist does not get elected.
What would they gain from persuading me to believe that the socialist is evil and the free-market neo-liberal is good? My approval/acceptance of their candidate, his beliefs, and therefore a vote for the candidate who would act in the best interests of the corporations sending this message.

Equally untrustworthy. Yet, just like Seldes is on my list of approved sources, these media corporations may be on the list of most mainstreamers approved soruces.

I think vested interests should be considered, ego's and pay masters too, but that doesn't mean a source is untrustworthy. There is a difference between presenting news with a bias and presenting utter bullshit as news, it is one thing to try and direct your gaze on to what the left is getting wrong from what the right is doing wrong, but quite another to invent absolute bollocks, or direct attention to claims by others that you know to be absolute bollocks.

 

[Swansman]

I think vested interests should be considered, ego's and pay masters too, but that doesn't mean a source is untrustworthy. There is a difference between presenting news with a bias and presenting utter bullshit as news, it is one thing to try and direct your gaze on to what the left is getting wrong from what the right is doing wrong, but quite another to invent absolute bollocks, or direct attention to claims by others that you know to be absolute bollocks.

I disagree, it absolutely makes a source untrustworthy. What I can agree with is that there is a difference - the consequences of mainstream media, which reaches 100+ million people, being biased is obviously going to be a lot more severe than the consequences of a couple of million nutties believing that Adam Sandler is strangling kids in his loft.

 

[FamilyGuy]

You can argue either way if the speech triggered a riot (go and peacefully protest), but the only death that day was a young lady murdered by a Capitol policeman.

... so do injuries on the day (on both sides), and heart attacks, and subsequent police suicides (for example) not contribute to your definition of "a riot"?

Did you not see the policeman stuck in the doorway being repeatedly attacked by "peaceful protesters", or the same "peaceful protesters" attacking the "blue line" defenders that they claim to support and attacking the same people and buildings with fencing/flagpoles (ironically)/mace/bear spray? Did you not see the "peaceful protesters" dressed in full attack gear? Did you not hear their peaceful chants of "hang Mike Pence"? Did you not see the "only joking"/comical gallows that they took with them as a further indication of their peacefulness? Have you not seen the reports and videos of peacefully threatening to systematically kill their own government members? Did you not see the peaceful "Q Anon" flags and supporters spewing their craziness?

Left wing bad, right wing good (to paraphrase George Orwell), remains a fallacy, but the actions of the "peaceful protesters" on the 6th June (and subsequently) are simply indefensible and has made the USA a laughing stock in the eyes of the world.

<end rant, and relax>

 

[A1X]

You can argue either way if the speech triggered a riot (go and peacefully protest), but the only death that day was a young lady murdered by a Capitol policeman.

So if someone tried to break into 10 Downing Street with the intention of killing the Prime Minister and was shot by the police when they refused to stop, would you also deem that as "murder"?

Do you think the Ukranian army have been "murdering" Russian soldiers for the last 8 months?

 

[Swansman]

So if someone tried to break into 10 Downing Street with the intention of killing the Prime Minister and was shot by the police when they refused to stop, would you also deem that as "murder"?

Do you think the Ukranian army have been "murdering" Russian soldiers for the last 8 months?

Absolutely murder. If you look at the video and the way she was climbing (using both hands meaning there was no chance she could be armed) she could easily have been stopped without shooting her in the neck. Plenty of time to aim somewhere else if he necessarily had to shot her.

 

[Badger Boy]

Do your research, five minute job…

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pr...timated-to-cost-taxpayers-almost-1-5-trillion

https://townhall.com/columnists/oli...11/30/bidens-build-back-better-fraud-n2599806

Ignore your biases a little bit and think about what benefits the country. If you're worried about fraud, do some research into the Trump Organisation.

 

[Baldseagull]

I disagree, it absolutely makes a source untrustworthy. What I can agree with is that there is a difference - the consequences of mainstream media, which reaches 100+ million people, being biased is obviously going to be a lot more severe than the consequences of a couple of million nutties believing that Adam Sandler is strangling kids in his loft.

I think we are kind of in agreement except for the use of the word untrustworthy, I would not use it to describe factual reporting that might be misleading by omission of other facts, I would call that biased. I often find this sort of reporting a useful starting point for further investigation, which can reveal the whole truth, whereas further investigation of utter bullshit just reveals the source to be a bullshitter.

 

[A1X]

Absolutely murder. If you look at the video and the way she was climbing (using both hands meaning there was no chance she could be armed) she could easily have been stopped without shooting her in the neck. Plenty of time to aim somewhere else if he necessarily had to shot her.

Incredible attempt to totally disregard the entire context of what was going on

 

[Swansman]

Incredible attempt to totally disregard the entire context of what was going on

One of the most over-dramatised events in recent history is what was going on. 2000 fat dumb incels playing a game of rebellion.

 

[vegster]

... so do injuries on the day (on both sides), and heart attacks, and subsequent police suicides (for example) not contribute to your definition of "a riot"?

Did you not see the policeman stuck in the doorway being repeatedly attacked by "peaceful protesters", or the same "peaceful protesters" attacking the "blue line" defenders that they claim to support and attacking the same people and buildings with fencing/flagpoles (ironically)/mace/bear spray? Did you not see the "peaceful protesters" dressed in full attack gear? Did you not hear their peaceful chants of "hang Mike Pence"? Did you not see the "only joking"/comical gallows that they took with them as a further indication of their peacefulness? Have you not seen the reports and videos of peacefully threatening to systematically kill their own government members? Did you not see the peaceful "Q Anon" flags and supporters spewing their craziness?

Left wing bad, right wing good (to paraphrase George Orwell), remains a fallacy, but the actions of the "peaceful protesters" on the 6th June (and subsequently) are simply indefensible and has made the USA a laughing stock in the eyes of the world.

<end rant, and relax>

He didn't see that, he saw what he wanted to see.. like that first day when Trump was inaugurated when Trump said it did not rain and that there was the largest ever crowd to witness and inauguration... both lies of course but handily proscribed as " Alternative Facts " by Kelly-anne Conway and thus setting the ground rules for the denial of truth. And here we are now in a Post Truth society on both sides of the Atlantic.

 

[A1X]

One of the most over-dramatised events in recent history is what was going on. 2000 fat dumb incels playing a game of rebellion.

Spoken as someone thousands of miles away from the event and not facing a couple of thousand people screaming in your face and carrying a set of gallows.

 

[Weststander]

... so do injuries on the day (on both sides), and heart attacks, and subsequent police suicides (for example) not contribute to your definition of "a riot"?

Did you not see the policeman stuck in the doorway being repeatedly attacked by "peaceful protesters", or the same "peaceful protesters" attacking the "blue line" defenders that they claim to support and attacking the same people and buildings with fencing/flagpoles (ironically)/mace/bear spray? Did you not see the "peaceful protesters" dressed in full attack gear? Did you not hear their peaceful chants of "hang Mike Pence"? Did you not see the "only joking"/comical gallows that they took with them as a further indication of their peacefulness? Have you not seen the reports and videos of peacefully threatening to systematically kill their own government members? Did you not see the peaceful "Q Anon" flags and supporters spewing their craziness?

Left wing bad, right wing good (to paraphrase George Orwell), remains a fallacy, but the actions of the "peaceful protesters" on the 6th June (and subsequently) are simply indefensible and has made the USA a laughing stock in the eyes of the world.

<end rant, and relax>

Excellent post.