Conspiracy Theories

[Hermit]

You say you read the article, but I wonder if that's an accurate description of what you did.

If you read it in the article, then it should be easy for you to show me with accurate quotes from the article how Podhorzer and the groups that worked with him stole the election. You will be able to demonstrate with accurate quotes from the article that what they did was unfair, and to whom it was unfair.

If you read the article you must realize that 'the tech companies' played a minimal part in the effort, and that the things that probably made the biggest difference in how the election was handled had next to nothing to do with them. Why do you make a point of giving them credit for it?

It's a great article because righties have no problem seeing the 'steal', while lefties can't see it at all. There are some few in the middle who can see both sides of it maybe, but I don't know any.

So I misspoke about the tech companies. Is that better, Lemmy? Does it change the fact that a cabal of the powerful is working behind the scenes to get their chosen candidate elected? For your own good, of course.

No support for your claims, no quotes from the article, you just assert that you can 'see the the "steal"' and leave it at that. I understand. Those quotes are certainly in there, right? You're just too busy listening to Crowder and Pool to waste your time demonstrating something that would be obvious to anybody who isn't blinded by their political leaning. The article clearly recounts how the election was stolen, and if I don't see that it's my own failing, is that it?

I don't think you misspoke. I think you've allowed propagandists to make 'the tech companies' some kind of universal bad actor in your mind, and if there's something going on in politics and public life that you disapprove of, it's bound to be the fault of 'the tech companies' boogeyman.

Our member from Yellowknife did quote from the article. Sort of. More accurately, he quote-mined it to the extent of making it appear to mean the exact opposite of what it did say. I corrected him here, but he has taken to ignoring the correction. In fact, he has taken to ignoring my corrections ever since I corrected this clanger at Mindromp three weeks ago:

So he's won, it's clear, and Turnip has accepted the result a little ungratiously, but put another way, he accepted them 4 years faster than Hillary.

My reply:

Huh? The 2016 election took place on the 8th of November. On the 9th of November Hillary Clinton made a speech. Here are a couple of excerpts from the start of it:

Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans. This is not the outcome we wanted or we worked so hard for and I'm sorry that we did not win this election for the values we share and the vision we hold for our country.
...
Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.

It's been ever since.

[Hermit]

double

[Cunt]

You say you read the article, but I wonder if that's an accurate description of what you did.

If you read it in the article, then it should be easy for you to show me with accurate quotes from the article how Podhorzer and the groups that worked with him stole the election. You will be able to demonstrate with accurate quotes from the article that what they did was unfair, and to whom it was unfair.

If you read the article you must realize that 'the tech companies' played a minimal part in the effort, and that the things that probably made the biggest difference in how the election was handled had next to nothing to do with them. Why do you make a point of giving them credit for it?

It's a great article because righties have no problem seeing the 'steal', while lefties can't see it at all. There are some few in the middle who can see both sides of it maybe, but I don't know any.

So I misspoke about the tech companies. Is that better, Lemmy? Does it change the fact that a cabal of the powerful is working behind the scenes to get their chosen candidate elected? For your own good, of course.

No support for your claims, no quotes from the article, you just assert that you can 'see the the "steal"' and leave it at that. I understand. Those quotes are certainly in there, right? You're just too busy listening to Crowder and Pool

Crowder and Pool say they see it as a steal. I know that from the titles of their podcasts, and what they said. They are the righties who can 'see the steal'.

to waste your time demonstrating something that would be obvious to anybody who isn't blinded by their political leaning. The article clearly recounts how the election was stolen, and if I don't see that it's my own failing, is that it?

I don't think you misspoke. I think you've allowed propagandists to make 'the tech companies' some kind of universal bad actor in your mind, and if there's something going on in politics and public life that you disapprove of, it's bound to be the fault of 'the tech companies' boogeyman.

The tech companies are some kind of universal bad actor in my mind. I condemn them all, until they give me reason to improve my view of them.

The biggest tech companies are the most suspicious, to me.

They aren't a boogeyman, but they are in the pocket of governments (of course)

Remember what Pompeo said about apple? I don't remember exactly when, but he pointed out that a strict communist country like China would NEVER let apple in without having backdoor access to ios. I don't think his credibility has to come into question to consider that the most authoritarian governments have similar interests, and will try to take advantage of the data mining coming in through iDevices ANDothers.

[Cunt]

Dunno if that's what you are actually talking about. Not going to read the thread.

I'm glad you're here. Have a new conspiracy theory?

I'm tempted to run with sasquatch...

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's been ever since.

I have doubts that he genuinely read the article. It's not in podcast form, and it's rather long. It's entirely possible that he heard about it from his trusted sources (quote-mine and all) and attempted to parrot what he'd heard.

[Cunt]

Our member from Yellowknife did quote from the article. Sort of. More accurately, he quote-mined it to the extent of making it appear to mean the exact opposite of what it did say. I corrected him here, but he has taken to ignoring the correction. In fact, he has taken to ignoring my corrections ever since I corrected this clanger at Mindromp three weeks ago:

So he's won, it's clear, and Turnip has accepted the result a little ungratiously, but put another way, he accepted them 4 years faster than Hillary.

My reply:

Huh? The 2016 election took place on the 8th of November. On the 9th of November Hillary Clinton made a speech. Here are a couple of excerpts from the start of it:

Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans. This is not the outcome we wanted or we worked so hard for and I'm sorry that we did not win this election for the values we share and the vision we hold for our country.
...
Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.

It's been ever since.

No, I was just giving you time. You were going to answer as to who is qualified to decide what you can read, hear or see (wrt free speech)

I'll not bother with that one here though, I've moved on. Since you know mindromp so well, you can have a go discussing it over there. Maybe someone will want to write with you about it there.

oops eta -

And Hillary letting go is a matter of perspective. Here is one.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/1 ... -election/

Clinton whined about the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” Comey and the Russians when asked why she thought she lost the 2016 election.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Bullshit. It looks like you simply regurgitated Gateway Pundit's take on the interview. The paragraph they quote was not an illustration of Clinton not letting go. It was in fact a reply to a question about why she thinks Trump continued to bring her up at his rallies during the 2020 campaign. Hilarious. The Gateway Pundit selectively quotes to create a false narrative, and you jump right on it and ride it into the wall.

I know you find these sources 'convincing' but you might ask yourself why they continually feed you bullshit takes and misrepresentations.

[Cunt]

I said it was a matter of perspective. That perspective is theirs. Mine is she pushed the 'russia russia russia' conspiracy theory for years after, and it was all hogwash.

Here is Dan Bongino, accusing Adam Schiff of pushing conspiracy theories, about a year ago.


Schiff is still on the fence about providing the evidence he claimed to have, or something. Hasn't provided it, in any case.

[Cunt]

And more conspiracy theories...

[L'Emmerdeur]

I said it was a matter of perspective. That perspective is theirs. Mine is she pushed the 'russia russia russia' conspiracy theory for years after, and it was all hogwash.

Their 'perspective' is to promote a false narrative. I don't know what yours is based on. I don't recall people regularly coming to Clinton for her perspective, and she hasn't got into the news much. Maybe I wasn't paying attention to the right podcasts. The people who were asked on newscasts about their perspectives on the Russia investigation were mostly serving in government or had a professional background in relevant topics.

Trump would be pleased to hear that you believe his 'Russia hoax!!!1!' mantra. You and millions of red-blooded American Trumpists.

[Cunt]

Their 'perspective' is to promote a false narrative. I don't know what yours is based on. I don't recall people regularly coming to Clinton for her perspective, and she hasn't got into the news much. Maybe I wasn't paying attention to the right podcasts. The people who were asked on newscasts about their perspectives on the Russia investigation were mostly serving in government or had a professional background in relevant topics.

Trump would be pleased to hear that you believe his 'Russia hoax!!!1!' mantra. You and millions of red-blooded American Trumpists.

It WAS a hoax. That's why Mueller spent his wad, and got nothing.

Nothing.

They had to 'pivot' to impeaching him on something else...ANYthing else...quick - call 'Voldemort' ! Impeach him on the Ukraine phone call!

Wait - wait for the order of signature impeachment pens to arrive first...

OK NOW!! Impeach!!

So Democrat. Much high crimes. Many misdemeanors.

[L'Emmerdeur]

It WAS a hoax. That's why Mueller spent his wad, and got nothing.

Nothing.

They had to 'pivot' to impeaching him on something else...ANYthing else...quick - call 'Voldemort' ! Impeach him on the Ukraine phone call!

Wait - wait for the order of signature impeachment pens to arrive first...

OK NOW!! Impeach!!

So Democrat. Much high crimes. Many misdemeanors.

You are mistaken. Mueller's investigation produced multiple convictions and guilty pleas, and exposed damning information about the Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. You are either willingly repeating falsehoods or have failed to inform yourself regarding the facts. You've had this explained to you more than once here -- I don't know why you continue to assert blatant falsehoods.

Trump clearly abused the power of the office for his personal political benefit in the Ukraine matter and was impeached for it. You choose to believe that it was a 'pivot' but in fact the offence and the response stand on their own.

You can believe whatever fairy tales you like though. I'll try to understand.

[Cunt]

Mueller missed. Trump completed his term, unconvicted by the 'Russian Collusion' fever-dream.

Schiff said he had evidence. What do you suppose he did with it?

What did Mueller convict Trump of? All those convictions and guilty pleas...how many of them were D J Trump?

I'll review your list.

[L'Emmerdeur]

You appear to be labouring under the impression that Mueller's purpose was to take down Trump. Did your ever-so-reliable sources tell you that's what you should believe?

[Cunt]

You appear to be labouring under the impression that Mueller's purpose was to take down Trump. Did your ever-so-reliable sources tell you that's what you should believe?

Right, no crimes by the President. No 'Russian Collusion' conspiracy.

This IS in the right thread, but I feel funny being the reasonable one. Lets look at better ones.

The Dark Horse Podcasters are talking about the 'rona origin story again. Those rascals.

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH ... HQAAAAAQAg

In this episode, we begin by discussing what the increasing visibility of a viable hypothesis for the origins of SARS-CoV2 says about modern science and politics.