Conspiracy Theories

[Joe]

Mueller indicted all the Trumps he had evidence to.

It has been explained to you repeatedly that the idea you're expressing here is based on a complete failure to understand or acknowledge the reality of the purpose of the investigation. It ignores the constraints under which the investigation operated. It screams 'I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about!' Fap on, o leftie comrade.

Also, it's a recurring troll for our stir-crazy member from Yellowknife.

[Cunt]

It's not a troll. It's the fact that Mueller did indict all the Trumps he was able to.

ALL the investigators would be supported in trying to take down Trump. The Ukraine whistleblower (outed by Schiff) is STILL a protected name on social media...

They used everything they had. It bounced off. You can keep rereading the report, but it won't indict Turnip. He'll have to have another offence for his third impeachment.

[Joe]

It came out almost two years ago, and you didn't read it. You've been spewing uninformed nonsense ever since, and have been corrected numerous times by members here.

Since you obviously have no interest in learning or conversation, just repeating nonsense, you're clearly trolling for attention.

Bad Cunt.

[Cunt]

I'm not trolling, I watched it when it went by.

Did they indict Trump when I wasn't looking? Or are you just repeating that it is important despite the utter failure to indict Trump?

[Cunt]

New Conspiracy Theory - antifa is a peaceful non-group, which only stands against fascism.

And reporting of facts.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/13 ... 86305?s=19

Overnight in Portland, #antifa shut down the roads of downtown as they marched around for an anti-ICE event. Police did not respond. Approved “press” had to wear markings on their arm.

[Hermit]

I'm not ignoring links.

Yes you are. You keep prattling on about people claiming to have a ton of evidence proving massive election/voter fraud. I have seen those links, and we have discussed them at length. Those claims don't matter until they are proven in courts of law. Not one of them has. I provided links to them, which you evaded by falsely asserting that cases were thrown out without a hearing.

[Cunt]

It's a conspiracy theory, that Time outlined after the election was secured.

You will read their piece, and probably see it as a great leap forward for democracy. Those who aren't in the bag for the Dems, have described it quite differently. If you want a different take on it, I suggest the Lotus Eaters, or for a more ribald and boistrous perspective, Crowder.

I don't want to disagree with you here though, so yup. You are right. Always are, no need to prove it.

Can you see the Time article from both perspectives? Or just the mainstream/corporate one?

[Joe]

I'm not trolling, I watched it when it went by.

Did they indict Trump when I wasn't looking? Or are you just repeating that it is important despite the utter failure to indict Trump?

[Cunt]

It's not irrelevant, it is the thing they were looking to do.

They tried real hard. It didn't work. Third time will work out though. I mean, this one will fail (as far as having Turnip removed) but the THIRD time - THAT'LL be the one to stick!

Pulling up Turnip is the new conspiracy theory. It's deeply connected to Russia.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I've seen the videos of observers being excluded, windows being blocked, court orders being ignored. I have no problem believing that many people haven't seen it.

I've seen many of the alleged items of evidence. So have the courts. While it's true that some of the cases brought by the Trumpists were dismissed for lack of standing, some of them were dismissed because the evidence presented didn't support the allegations made in the complaint.

If there were any definitive evidence of voting fraud on any significant scale, the Trumpists would not have lost all of their cases in which voting fraud was alleged. Altogether there were well over sixty cases brought.

Though Trumpist propaganda sources claim that the evidence was 'not argued' in any of the cases, that's a red herring. A judge and their staff will of course review the evidence presented in support of the allegations. If that evidence is found deficient or if it is found that the evidence presented does not actually support the allegations, the case will be dismissed. While the evidence was 'not argued', it was in fact examined by the presiding judge. Again, if the judge determines that the evidence fails to support the allegations, the case will be dismissed.

The US Department of Justice, lead by noted Trumpist lackey Attorney General William Barr, investigated claims of voting fraud and found no voting fraud on a scale that would have affected the election. There was no reason for Barr to lie about that fact, and plenty of reason for him to make it known had there been any such evidence.

It's been several months, and if any compelling evidence of widespread voting fraud existed, it would be known by now, and not just by those on the right wing who share videos with each other.

There have been isolated actual instances of voting fraud, as there are in any election. All of the instances that I'm aware of were Trump voters, but I would assume that there are some Biden voters who engaged in fraud as well.

Feel free to present any evidence that you find particularly compelling. Or continue to post innuendo and bullshit. That will show your devotion to your cause, at least.

As for the TIME article, you have yet to provide an instance of unfairness or any underhanded or shady behavior from it. When asked to do so, you claim that you and your sources can see it because reasons, but those that don't see it only show their bias. That's all very well, but unsupported claims are correctly dismissed, and you've dodged supporting your claims.

You can yalp about 'bias' all you want, but your failure to support your claims speaks far louder. Go ahead and yalp, but anybody can see that your yalping is empty noise. Until you come to the table with facts and evidence, it looks like you're just making noise to hear your head rattle.

[Joe]

Again, you speak from a position of massive ignorance and superficiality. You make a lot of noise about media bias, but you swallowed the false narrative they and Trump put out like it was mother's milk.

Several members here have tried to get you to see that there's a whole lot more to the story, but you obviously don't care.

It's just another troll. Bad Cunt! No soup for you!

[Cunt]

Of course there is more to the story, but the tl:dr is this -
Sought indictment on Trump. No indictment on Trump.

Not misrepresenting anything. Yes it IS very superficial. It is the point of interest for me, the rest of the million points may be interesting. If you want to ask about one, go ahead.

The conspiracy theory is that the deep state conspired to 'get him'. Obviously, if you follow that theory, they didn't get him.

If you want to convince me of something around it, what is it? I've been accused of trolling for maintaining my position, but you haven't said how you disagree. Maybe I missed it, but it is easy to get confused between the conspiracy theory threads, and serious political bollocks threads.

[Tero]

What even happened to these people?

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/02/12/tech ... index.html

[Joe]

Of course there is more to the story, but the tl:dr is this -
Sought indictment on Trump. No indictment on Trump.

Not misrepresenting anything. Yes it IS very superficial. It is the point of interest for me, the rest of the million points may be interesting. If you want to ask about one, go ahead.

The conspiracy theory is that the deep state conspired to 'get him'. Obviously, if you follow that theory, they didn't get him.

If you want to convince me of something around it, what is it? I've been accused of trolling for maintaining my position, but you haven't said how you disagree. Maybe I missed it, but it is easy to get confused between the conspiracy theory threads, and serious political bollocks threads.

Cunt, over the past two years I and others have repeatedly told you how we disagree with your position. You've been provided abundant, credible information that you've disregarded, over and over. You've had opportunity after opportunity to discuss this seriously and passed. Instead, you repeat your nonsense ad nauseum, and that's trolling.

Don't worry, you're one of those fuzzy, cute little trolls, not one of the scaly brutes that reek of rancid fish and old socks, so you're mostly amusing and I enjoy teasing you about it from time to time.

However, your tl;dr is wrong. It's

Couldn't seek indictment on Trump. Busted Russians and spies because it was his job. You'd know that if you'd paid attention.

[pErvinalia]

Those court decisions...how many reviewed evidence, and how many rejected the cases on process issues?

No matter, it's over anyway.

As to links, the point I was making is that you guys haven't seen it. It's been on several of the conservative shows you avoid, in favour of your 'agreeable' news. Millions of Americans clearly saw them.

Weird that you would all ask ME.

But go ahead, keep reiterating that you haven't seen any. I think it's a fair point to emphasize.

In other words, "I don't have any links to back up what I'm saying".

You understand this is why you get accused of trolling, right? You're not here for honest debate.