Republicans: continued

[JimC]

...talking utter rubbish while sounding reasonable to people who've suspended their critical thinking ...

A perfect source for Cunt!

[rainbow]

...talking utter rubbish while sounding reasonable to people who've suspended their critical thinking ...

A perfect source for Cunt!

What a complete twat.

[Hermit]

You would have to ask Paul for the 'massive election/voter fraud' evidence. I didn't say there was such.

Of course not. You just agree with people who say they have convincing evidence of massive election/voter fraud and link to stuff 'proving' that it has occurred on a massive scale. Remember that Parler meme showing the discrepancy between the pitifully low number of counties Biden has won (477), and how many more (2,497) Trump got? Although it does not explicitly say it is convincing evidence of massive election/voter fraud, the unspoken message is obvious: It is convincing evidence of massive election/voter fraud. Are you trying to tell us that you threw that into the thread even though you are agnostic on the massive election/voter fraud issue?

Not surprised you strongly desire to make this about me being wrong.

Correction: I have no desire whatsoever of proving you wrong. Your opinions are another matter. I strongly desire to show them to be wrong. See the example given above.

[Brian Peacock]

I guess that suggests you should look into what Paul has been referring to.

I am not going to continue skimming for examples for you to discount. You don't know of any evidence. Senator Paul claims there is some, you claim there is not.

Why do you think it is better to demand evidence from me, instead of listening to him?

You challenged Joe's assessment. I provided a way for you to do better than your usual incredulity. I don't think it was unreasonable to assume you would be familiar with the evidence given your willingness to defend senator Paul. If he is acting in good faith then it's likely because he is aware of some evidence. You should be as well. But you're not.

I'm aware of some (as I'm sure he is, too).

You can dig up and refute all that you want. I am in agreement with Paul, that this is worth more investigation, but of course you must be right, and the corporate media line is correct too.

In a cold, dispassionate, unbiased sense, a reasonable argument, or claim, or assertion, needs equally reasonable support. Asking others to accept some pretty big things without offering reasonable support (reasons) does not depend on how earnest or convinced you are by the claims. Without support (evidence) the claims are indistinguishable from faith, fantasy, or fabrication.

For people whose political identity is defined by what they're prepared to unquestionably accept and believe, being convinced in actual-factuality by this-or-that claim isn't strictly necessary - one only has to, as far as things go, act like one believes in the claim (don't openly disagree with it; be willing to repeat it and pass it along; defend it when required). This is just to say that actually supporting the claim with good, logical, factual (honest) reasons does not matter to other people who share one's political identity, where agreeing that "this is just the stuff that we believe in" is all that's generally needed. As a result non-believers (everyone else) can be ignored, dismissed, criticised or ridiculed (or even vilified or oppressed) simply because "they don't believe what we believe." Also, if one sees political identity in terms of us-and-them (in terms of in-group and out-group identities), with what "we" believe and are willing to accept is that which "they" are not, then it could seem sensible to assume that this is all there is to politics and political beliefs: it's just a matter if picking a side and holding firm to the political positions which define that side (regardless of the facts, or the lack thereof).

So if it helps you to tell yourself that other people are just unthinkingly repeating what they've heard in the media, then that's understandable, but it isn't necessarily factual or reasonable. Nor does that mean that your political identity (your side) has some special access to better quality evidence that leads to higher orders of knowledge or understanding. Nonetheless, I can understand how that might feel empowering for you, how it might convince you that your political ideas and instincts are and should be convincing to others, and I'm not judging you for it. This is just how identity politics operates.

[Joe]

Cunt wrote:

...this is worth more investigation...

Fine. What's stopping you, and the millions of other Trump supporters from doing just that, and presenting the evidence in a clear and non-equivocal fashion?

Why do that when you can repeat the lie over and over until it becomes the truth? The principle seems to work as well for trolls as it does tyrants.

To me, it's worth listening to both sides. To some, they might look for Paul's retractors, before they would go find out what he said.

That's nice, prove it. Tell me why Trump lost 61 of 62 lawsuits, every audit and recount in the 5 contested states upheld the results, every county election board and state legislature in those states certified the results, and appellate courts all the way up to the Supreme Court rejected Trump's claims.

If you're really listening to both sides, you could summarize that pretty easily, but I expect you to evade the request in the usual trollist fashion.

[macdoc]

alternative facts eh

[Cunt]

You would have to ask Paul for the 'massive election/voter fraud' evidence. I didn't say there was such.

Of course not. You just agree with people who say they have convincing evidence of massive election/voter fraud and link to stuff 'proving' that it has occurred on a massive scale. Remember that Parler meme showing the discrepancy between the pitifully low number of counties Biden has won (477), and how many more (2,497) Trump got? Although it does not explicitly say it is convincing evidence of massive election/voter fraud, the unspoken message is obvious: It is convincing evidence of massive election/voter fraud. Are you trying to tell us that you threw that into the thread even though you are agnostic on the massive election/voter fraud issue?

Not surprised you strongly desire to make this about me being wrong.

Correction: I have no desire whatsoever of proving you wrong. Your opinions are another matter. I strongly desire to show them to be wrong. See the example given above.

I guess I still find Sen. Paul more convincing than facebook censorship. Good for you for not being fooled by anyone contradicting facebook though!

[Tero]

E0252AC4-5F93-4047-B7F4-563278264914.jpeg (36.06 KiB) Viewed 1570 times

Loves her guns but...

[Tero]

Even laklak has his limits

[Tero]

AB5D6963-682D-432A-B846-BA98E4E04D11.jpeg (52.38 KiB) Viewed 1554 times

[Hermit]

You would have to ask Paul for the 'massive election/voter fraud' evidence. I didn't say there was such.

Of course not. You just agree with people who say they have convincing evidence of massive election/voter fraud and link to stuff 'proving' that it has occurred on a massive scale. Remember that Parler meme showing the discrepancy between the pitifully low number of counties Biden has won (477), and how many more (2,497) Trump got? Although it does not explicitly say it is convincing evidence of massive election/voter fraud, the unspoken message is obvious: It is convincing evidence of massive election/voter fraud. Are you trying to tell us that you threw that into the thread even though you are agnostic on the massive election/voter fraud issue?

Not surprised you strongly desire to make this about me being wrong.

Correction: I have no desire whatsoever of proving you wrong. Your opinions are another matter. I strongly desire to show them to be wrong. See the example given above.

I guess I still find Sen. Paul more convincing than facebook censorship. Good for you for not being fooled by anyone contradicting facebook though!

Facebook censorship? Great. Another deviation.

You have hammered this forum with Parler links since you joined it. The stream only stopped when it went offline. It's back up. Once it has its technical problems with the Russian hosts resolved I presume you'll resume flooding us with more from that font of unbiased material. I challenge you to find a single piece I linked from Facebook.

[Joe]

Cunt wrote:

...this is worth more investigation...

Fine. What's stopping you, and the millions of other Trump supporters from doing just that, and presenting the evidence in a clear and non-equivocal fashion?

Why do that when you can repeat the lie over and over until it becomes the truth? The principle seems to work as well for trolls as it does tyrants.

To me, it's worth listening to both sides. To some, they might look for Paul's retractors, before they would go find out what he said.

That's nice, prove it. Tell me why Trump lost 61 of 62 lawsuits, every audit and recount in the 5 contested states upheld the results, every county election board and state legislature in those states certified the results, and appellate courts all the way up to the Supreme Court rejected Trump's claims.

If you're really listening to both sides, you could summarize that pretty easily, but I expect you to evade the request in the usual trollist fashion.

[JimC]

Tell me why Trump lost 61 of 62 lawsuits, every audit and recount in the 5 contested states upheld the results, every county election board and state legislature in those states certified the results, and appellate courts all the way up to the Supreme Court rejected Trump's claims.

Simple! There is a giant conspiracy infecting virtually all the media, all of academia and most of the legal profession, to deliberately conceal the real facts from trolls pounding on their keyboards in their mum's basement!

[Joe]

Tell me why Trump lost 61 of 62 lawsuits, every audit and recount in the 5 contested states upheld the results, every county election board and state legislature in those states certified the results, and appellate courts all the way up to the Supreme Court rejected Trump's claims.

Simple! There is a giant conspiracy infecting virtually all the media, all of academia and most of the legal profession, to deliberately conceal the real facts from trolls pounding on their keyboards in their mum's basement!

Well, that's certainly more plausible than Trump lying.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I'm looking forward to being regaled with mentions of the commendable Marjorie Taylor Greene. She's got her finger on the pulse of America, you know. Completely convincing, unlike the horde of big tech shills on this site!