The Trump Pandemic

[Hermit]

I'm still glad you had the courage to take a firm position on it. I mean that, Hermit.

Any change in your position on that, by the way?

What position?

If I recall correctly, you were of the opinion that Q was NOT coordinating their messages with the White House (Trump etc.)

To date I have not come across any evidence that Q is (are) coordinating their messages with the White House (Trump etc.). That remains my position until evidence for coordination comes to light.

Excellent. Thanks again for clarifying.

When evidence sufficient to convince you does emerge, I look forward to seeing if you think it changes the value of the information being released.

No secret here - I think it is the same as the Dem leaks, but on the Rep side. Disinfo. And the question you weighed in on, I am NOT qualified to answer.

I doubt you are, either, so we're in the same boat there.

Both of us are qualified to evaluate information, regardless of where it comes from, or how. So, if Reuters gets its hands on a copy of a leaked report from an anonymous source, and publishes details from it, I tend to give that information some credence. Scuttlebutt spread by anonymous sources regarding Pizzagate type information, not so much.

I also discriminate between anonymous sources depending on who cites them. For instance, although Simon Hersh can get things spectacularly wrong, he usually gets them right. Alex Jones not so much.

[Hermit]

Except one has a propensity for rational thinking, and the other for believing a host of conspiracy theories. (Hint: Hermit is the rational one)

Well, mostly rational...

Sometimes inaccurate, sometimes ill-informed, sometimes downright wrong, always rational.

[Cunt]

Except one has a propensity for rational thinking, and the other for believing a host of conspiracy theories. (Hint: Hermit is the rational one)

I don't disagree with you, and yet stand firmly by everything I say.

It's often the case. Frustrating.

Both of us are qualified to evaluate information, regardless of where it comes from, or how.

There is an awful lot to 'vet' in this packed statement, when considering Q posts.

Limit the 'information' to the question - 'Is Q coordinating with the White House?'

First bit to evaluate - is Q a single poster, posting anonymously and untraceably, on various boards online (currently eight shan)

I am not qualified to confirm, disconfirm or even be fully sure I'm asking the right question to see...maybe you are more qualified, I doubt it.

If accepting the widespread 'q posts' as 'real q posts' (I'm not sure enough yet) then the problem becomes assessing the dozens of 'q proofs'.

If the proofs check out, then it all means that the information IS coming from within the White House.

To me, that means the posts have a different meaning, than if they are from some crank (or knarc) spewing bait and bullshit out of a basement somewhere.

Because you have dared to disagree, the difference WILL be noted by you. That's why I appreciate your directness on that teeny point.

So, if Reuters gets its hands on a copy of a leaked report from an anonymous source, and publishes details from it, I tend to give that information some credence. Scuttlebutt spread by anonymous sources regarding Pizzagate type information, not so much.

Are they consistently good?

The last example I can think of, was their coverage of the Tanzania Presidential testing drama. It struck me as weirdly bad reporting.

I also discriminate between anonymous sources depending on who cites them. For instance, although Simon Hersh can get things spectacularly wrong, he usually gets them right. Alex Jones not so much.

Absolutely. If a reporter I follow says something, their reputation weighs into it.

Since so little is known about Q, the only assessable quality I can see is that one - is it from within the White House?

Have you browsed some of the q proofs to see what you think of them? Or just the articles written by others?

[Hermit]

My guess about Q: An individual started posting as Q. Then others piled in, also posting as Q.

As for proof, you seem to confusing it with confirmation bias. I could post as H about the weather and claim my information comes from Freyr, the Norse god of rain and sunshine, or from contacts very close to him. I could claim there'll be a thunderstorm on Monday. Monday arrives. There is a thunderstorm. H proof that my information comes from Freyr?

I don't think that posts by Q are sufficiently consistent in predictions that turn out to be true to lend that source a lot of credence, but must admit that I have not found a list showing which items turned out to be right, wrong and undecided. Do you have one?

Reuters makes mistakes. Duh. But what is its ratio of good reports to faulty ones? I think I already made that point in regard to Simon Hersh.

[Cunt]

My guess about Q: An individual started posting as Q. Then others piled in, also posting as Q.

As for proof, you seem to confusing it with confirmation bias. I could post as H about the weather and claim my information comes from Freyr, the Norse god of rain and sunshine, or from contacts very close to him. I could claim there'll be a thunderstorm on Monday. Monday arrives. There is a thunderstorm. H proof that my information comes from Freyr?

I don't think that posts by Q are sufficiently consistent in predictions that turn out to be true to lend that source a lot of credence, but must admit that I have not found a list showing which items turned out to be right, wrong and undecided. Do you have one?

You are getting close to why I don't...go ahead and mock, but please pay attention.

There are such sources, readily available. Something like q map dot pub, and an app which sorts the posts with a database, including proof examples (over 100 last time I remember someone mentioning it)

Now, why haven't I? Because it wouldn't increase my foundation at all. I still wouldn't know what I was reading. It is 'crowdsourced' mainly, and while I accept that most of qanon is in agreement on the veracity of the posts, I just know the story.

I don't need more story, and examining those apps, or sites, would not give me anything new except that.

Following some meme accounts gets some honest reaction, planted honest-looking reaction and noise of all sorts. It also provides a bit of minimum 'crowd-vetting', but it isn't VERY good.

It's quite reasonable to think you know something I don't, which would make those worth your examination. For me, it would be like counting the colours in a rainbow. OF COURSE there are more!

Reuters makes mistakes. Duh. But what is its ratio of good reports to faulty ones? I think I already made that point in regard to Simon Hersh.

It didn't look like a mistake, but I'll admit I'm overly suspicious about some of the more dramatic reports around this.

[Cunt]

As for proof, you seem to confusing it with confirmation bias.

In many of the cases of q-proofs, what are offered are 'zero-delta' posts, where the q post and a Trump tweet are within a few seconds, and contain keywords in both.

One of the more dramatic 'coincidences' I remember, was when q was 'vetting' itself, on the new board. It provided a post (with pic?) including a tripcode of garbled capital and lowercase letters and numbers. The corresponding Trumptweet, had all the letters and numbers including capitalization in it.

So not exactly confirmation bias, but you may have misunderstood me.

(above is the 'story as I understand it' - not saying I'm on top of all details)

[Brian Peacock]

My thoughts and prayers are with the virus during this difficult time...

[Tero]

Did Nostradamus predict Covid19 as well?

[Tero]

arbeit macht frei.jpg (37.76 KiB) Viewed 552 times

[pErvinalia]

It's Freedum!

[Tero]

Capitalism and the meat thing
https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/8/212 ... ery-stores

Is there a problem with "kangaroo packing"?

[Seabass]

Here he goes again. Katie tested negative one day, then positive the next, ergo the concept of testing is useless.

"This is why the whole concept of tests aren't necessarily great," the president continued. "The tests are perfect, but something can happen between a test where it's good and then something happens and all of the sudden. She was tested very recently and tested negative, and then today I guess for some reason she tested positive.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/0 ... rus-244816

[JimC]

That ranks up there with his highest levels of both incoherence and ignorance. Vintage Trump...

[Tero]

Trump admin. botched Remdesivir distribution.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/0 ... rus-245887

But if Trump or Pence get the virus, plenty of vials will show up.

[Animavore]

I Will Personally Be Thrilled If Stephen Miller Dies of Covid-19

...

This is the man who has spent his entire life pursuing the idea that America’s diversity is a disease; who laundered white nationalist talking points first through right-wing blogs and then wrote them into the now-President’s campaign speeches; who has been “obsessed” with the idea of “consequences” for immigrants; who “actually enjoys seeing those pictures at the border.” This is the person who relentlessly hammered the idea that the only punishment of consequence was to treat children as poorly as the law could possibly allow. If thousands of Americans, the vast majority of them black and Latinx, are going to die every day from the new coronavirus, Stephen Miller should absolutely get it too.

https://jezebel.com/i-will-personally-b ... G-g2fVaJkI

I'm guessing she's not a fan.