Conspiracy Theories

[Joe]

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.

Wow, you are running with Sasquatch! Did Spygate unravel? Did the Durham report drop?

I know you didn't read the Mueller Report or you wouldn't be talking about collusion.

But you're right, the Conspiracy Theories thread is the right place for such talk.

I spent a fair amount of time composing a response to that post, including links. When I attempted to post it I discovered that an admin was tinkering with the site and the post was consigned to oblivion. It was late Saturday night for me, Sunday morning at headquarters--completely understandable, but a bit disheartening.

Then I reminded myself that it was an exercise in futility anyway. If somebody is so enamoured of disinformation that they repeat it multiple times despite being spoon-fed facts to counter the disinformation, one further dose of facts isn't going to produce any change. They'll keep fapping to the fantasies they find pleasing.

As Cunt himself has pointed out, you can't expect a lot from someone with that particular user name.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Yeah, it's like walking around with a piece of dog shit taped to your hat. Whatever else, it's a fair warning.

Tucker Carlson is another one. It should never be forgotten that his network's lawyers won a defamation case by pointing out that everybody should be expected to know by now that he doesn't deal in facts or truth, but in vicious fairy tales for the gullible.

This one is a bit more sophisticated than the moronic 'it was ANTIFA!!!' fable told in the immediate aftermath, but still amounts to 'it was the RADICAL LEFTISTS (and of course those horrible black people)'.

'Tucker Carlson Goes Full Conspiracy Theorist, Ties Insurrection to George Floyd’s Death'

Fox News host Tucker Carlson went full conspiracy theorist on Wednesday night, suggesting George Floyd’s death somehow proves that the insurrectionist Capitol riot is part of a liberal plot to change the “old order” of America.

Following the House impeachment managers’ harrowing arguments on Wednesday, which featured chilling never-before-seen security footage and audio detailing the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Carlson kicked off his primetime program by thoroughly dismissing the evidence presented by Democrats.

Carlson, who has repeatedly portrayed the seditious riot incited by former President Donald Trump as just a “political protest that got out of hand,” first insisted that impeachment manager Rep. David Cicilline’s (D-RI) portrayal of the rioters as an “armed angry mob” was inaccurate.

“There are no reports to the rioters that day discharging weapons or threatening anyone with a gun so what is he talking about?” Carlson declared. “Apparently, he is referring to the death of Officer Brian Sicknick.”

Aside from Sicknick’s death, however, the Capitol Police officers’ union has said that roughly 140 officers were physically injured, some seriously, when thousands of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, some wearing full tactical gear and utilizing shields, tasers, hockey sticks and other weapons.

...

“The question is why would they lie about this?” Carlson rhetorically asked. “For an answer think back to last spring. Beginning on Memorial Day, BLM and their sponsors in corporate America completely changed this country. They changed this country more in five months than it had changed in the previous 50 years.”

He continued: “How did they do that? They used the sad death of a man called George Floyd to up-end our society. Months later, we learned that the story they told us about George Floyd's death was an utter lie.”

Insisting there “was no physical evidence that George Floyd was murdered” by Officer Derek Chauvin, who has been charged with second-degree murder, Carlson added that “the autopsy showed that George Floyd almost certainly died of a drug overdose, fentanyl.”

The Hennepin County medical examiner ruled Floyd’s death a homicide, claiming the cause of death as a “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.” The examiner added that the drugs in Floyd’s system were among “significant conditions,” but did not say if they contributed to his death. An independent autopsy found Floyd died of “asphyxiation from sustained pressure” from Chauvin’s knee on his neck.

“But by that point, the facts didn't matter. It was too late,” Carlson added. “Cities had been destroyed, along with the fabric of this country itself. Scores of people had been killed.”

“Democratic partisans used a carefully concocted myth, a lie, to bum-rush America into overturning the old order and handing them much more power,” the conservative host concluded. “It worked flawlessly. So why wouldn’t they do it again?”

[Cunt]

Mueller indicted all the Trumps he had evidence to.

Glad you guys still think he's got something though. It's cute you think he didn't use it. It's like Schiff claiming he had evidence. You would think he would show it at some point, and justice would be done...

[JimC]

It's like Trumpists claiming they had evidence of the steal. You would think they would show it at some point, and justice would be done...

[Cunt]

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.

[JimC]

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.

Links?

[L'Emmerdeur]

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.

[Hermit]

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.

What you have not seen is court cases being won that would prove massive election/voter fraud. Team Trump lost five dozen of those.

[JimC]

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.

What you have not seen is court cases being won that would prove massive election/voter fraud. Team Trump lost five dozen of those.

Yes Hermit, but all those "Courts" are part of the evil establishment that wants to block Trump because of stuff...

[Hermit]

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.

What you have not seen is court cases being won that would prove massive election/voter fraud. Team Trump lost five dozen of those.

Yes Hermit, but all those "Courts" are part of the evil establishment that wants to block Trump because of stuff...

Including the ones presided over by judges that were appointed by Trump or his allies. Traitors! The lot of them!

[Cunt]

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.

Links?

Is that your way of saying that you indeed haven't seen them?

If so, maybe you should go look up conservative sources, and see what they are complaining about.

Of course, it might be best to take the word of twitter and facebook.

[Hermit]

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.

Links?

Is that your way of saying that you indeed haven't seen them?

If so, maybe you should go look up conservative sources, and see what they are complaining about.

Better still to find court decisions that agree with the allegations. Links?

[Cunt]

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.

[Hermit]

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

Evidence was reviewed in all but two of the 60 cases. (Ignoring the 10 cases in which the plaintiffs themselves withdrew from the process, of course) In some of them the judges decided that the alleged evidence is not good enough to be taken beyond the preliminary hearing.

As to links, the point I was making is that you guys haven't seen it.

You mean the links to people claiming that there is a ton of evidence proving massive election/voter fraud? Yes, I have seen plenty of those. Pity that none of them stood the tests in court.

FFS, despite Team Trump's allegations to the contrary, Biden won Georgia. Then he won it again on the first recount. Then he won it for the third time on the second recount. He also won Wisconsin. Then he won Wisconsin again, this time as a result of a recount in its biggest county with an increased majority. It's you who keeps ignoring links.

[Cunt]

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/maxin ... e-rhetoric

I'm not ignoring links. It's the way you can look over this kind of thing, and see fairness.

You use different definitions of words (and facts?) which is the ONLY way you could stand behind the kind of quote I saved in my siggy.

My guess is that you can't see the other side of this, so you probably thought the Time article was good news, and nothing they did was unfair.