US Election & Politics - We're Making America Great Again!

[Niall_Quinn]

Well yes, that's something I can experience directly so correct, I don't need a source for that. But I might use a "source" like an app to find out when a bus is going to arrive, I can then compare that with direct experience to find out how reliable the source is. To find out when buses arrive in America I would need to find a source which tells me and would have no way of directly verifying that.


Those "independent channels" are sources. You weren't in court, neither was I. So we need a source to tell us what happened.
And if you want to point me in the direction of one of those channels you regard as independent then I will have a look.


It speaks to your ability to assess evidence. An example from that is you claimed the worker secretly recorded the interview as if that was some kind of "gotcha". Actually he told them about half way through that he was recording, they said that was fine and allowed him to continue - had they not done so then you wouldn't be able to listen to it.
Another example from Covid, your claim that the WHO admitted the tests didn't work. It took me 5 minutes tops to look at their website and find out that what they actually said was that if you want them to work then you have to use them properly.
In both cases your extreme distrust of authority led you to wrong conclusions.


Cool, then it should be easy to provide a source. The above paragraph is why I'm suspicious of any of your claims but if you have evidence of this then let's see it.


The claims Trump was making were machines switching votes, dumps of votes for Biden in the middle of the night, dead people voting, more people voting than actually lived in an area.
All of those claims should have been very easy to evidence, they all fell flat in court.
Remember the Kraken? The "evidence coming in through a fire hose"? What happened to all that?
Actually there WAS a lot of evidence...the trouble is it was almost all complete horseshit. Having a lot of people saying "I think I saw a thing" - which is basically what the USPS dude said - isn't credible evidence of widespread voter fraud. Which brings me back to my scepticism of your claims - you said the USPS dude witnessed voter fraud. He just didn't and didn't claim to.
You claimed the agents were trying to get him to change his story. Actually the agents read a statement which was written for him and when they did so he admitted that it massively overstated what he'd seen.


There's a bit more to it than that, but yes I provide sources for my claims. You do not. I happen to think claims should be evidenced. Otherwise they're just you or me saying a thing.


I'm very happy to be educated, but you are going to have to evidence the things you claim and provide sources.

This is what you do. Doesn't matter how many in-depth debates occur, every time it's back to the start with, "You never provide sources,.. please provide all the sources,.." That doesn't apply to you, of course, you can simply post up a link to a Facebook "fact" checker and there's your "source", taken for granted as accurate and impartial. But me? I'll need to go away and dig out transcripts from multiple court hearings, which you then won't read and which will lead you to pick a single sentence from the body of material so you can start the loop again.

Take your above misdirection on the jab and the WHO. When I went into that in great detail, several years ago now (but it's all there if you want to go back and find it) you'll see the core issue has nothing to do with the application of test kits themselves but rather the unscientific manner in which the results of those kits are analysed, initially in labs and later in almost useless self-assessment kits. I provided "source" material of the inventor of the underlying science, speaking about it directly. And you tried to smear that person and dismiss him in favour of the contradictory declarations (minus ANY scientific support) of authority. How do you assess that behaviour? Your absolute devotion to authority? Well, that's MY problem, I'm too suspicious of authority.

The crux of that matter was the number of cycles the sample material was subjected to. Mullis explained why the over-cycling rendered the analysis meaningless, whistleblowers explained how government labs were running the cycles until they got the desired result (as described by Mullis) and the WHO covered their arses by advising labs to FOLLOW Mullis' guidelines and NOT over sample. When the Irish labs followed the guidance the number of positive "cases" plummeted.

So now you say it's MY error to claim the WHO officially contradicted the bullshit science going on in the covid labs. Of course you have isolated the single incident from the wider debate, as always. Underlying all of it was the fake case rate and fake death toll being pumped by your "sources". It took you 5 minutes to cook up a lame distortion of the main argument, oh sure, do the tests correctly and they'll work. But the tests weren't being conducted correctly and that's the whole point.

And so on, I'd have to unpick each and every ingredient from your second-hand propaganda stew to reveal the actual facts, and then I'd have to do it again on the very next post and the next. This doesn't reveal anything about my response to authority, it reveals the fear you continuously display when authority is shown to be corrupt and operating against your interests. You are not prepared to accept such realities and so you will diligently work as an unpaid stenographer for the authorities.

[Letters]

I’m not sure I completely agree with you that it’s erroneous to blame the Democrats for inflation, when you do Quantative Easing of any kind it has to be targeted and giving people money won’t mean shit if the supply chain has been affected and in fact will just devalue the money that you’ve given out. So whilst they didn’t cause the inflationary problems, you can absolutely argue that they exacerbated the issue.

You understand you're arguing with someone who got a D in Economics?



You're probably right, I guess my main point is there are bigger things which have gone on in the world like Covid and the Ukraine situation which have a big effect on things whatever any government does. I'm not convinced Trump is going to fix the problems he says he will, but I guess we'll see.

[Niall_Quinn]

I think this sums it up more succinctly and accurately



All the stuff that you would think should completely disqualify Trump as president...most people don't care about it. They just know they're struggling to feed their family, blame the Democrats (I would argue erroneously) and believe Trump will make things better (ditto).

The irony of a war criminal like Campbell just sitting there, un-incarcerated, opining on the stupidity of the electorate and the misdeeds of Trump. Well the stupid electorate know all about Blair now, try running him again to put your theories to the test Alistair, let's see you get that ghoul elected again. He's one of the most reviled creatures on this planet, you have to wonder how the thicko public figured it out given the likes of Andrew Marr standing there and and fellating the arch war criminal live on TV.

It's good these talking heads remain complacent. It's good they are rather thick, or at least blind, themselves. There's a narrative doing the rounds with the wise losers on the left, it's the greedy, stupid people who just want a handout from the state who let Trump back into power, despite him being a "convicted criminal". No way could the moron population rise to the level of these sage studio dwellers who explained to us over the past months how worthy Harris was and how fit she would be to serve the people. But their genius fell of deaf ears and the people went and did democracy again, just so they could get cheaper gas. I wonder how long it takes to train up to reach such a nuanced and complex conclusion?

And yet, if you watch the other video in this thread, the host gives us 10 reasons why the stupid public stupidly disagree with these political titans. One of the key reasons seems to be a pesky desire for independence, a desire to rely on themselves rather than the bloated state. Assuming none of that could possibly be true I guess we'll just have to hope the stupid public get on-board at some point and finally submit to the wisdom of those who, purely coincidentally, strive to inject the state into every aspect of our lives. And then blame Donald Trump of doing the very thing they want to see done, bribes from the state in return for subservience.

They probably don't know Trump is kicking around the idea of vastly reducing the size of the state and (currently in pipe dream stage but amazingly being considered) eliminating the income tax altogether. Now it's unlikely any of that could ever happen given the Washington machine or in the four short years Trump has to influence anything at all. But the mere fact he's thinking in ways that are diametrically opposed to the "wisdom" of the usual suspects could be considered progress in itself.

[Niall_Quinn]

Anyway, that's enough of that. Too easy to get sucked back into this place and spend non-refundable time.

[IBK]

Not a fan of Konstantin Kisin, because he claims to be a neutral guy who criticises both sides but only ever criticises the left (which is fine I can’t stand the left), but then claimed a month ago that Trump would be the saviour of western civilisation. Anyone who claims that doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously, anymore than someone who claims Trump will be the end of democracy. Also this wouldn’t apply to me as I absolutely DID see this coming.

And frankly anyone surprised by this has learnt absolutely nothing over the past eight years

I'dnever heard of him, and he is clearly not impartial. Neither am i particularly surprised by what he says. Nevertheless (ignoring the cheesy flag waving), his summary of what motivated normal American voters is likely on point.

[HCZ_Reborn]

I'dnever heard of him, and he is clearly not impartial. Neither am i particularly surprised by what he says. Nevertheless (ignoring the cheesy flag waving), his summary of what motivated normal American voters is likely on point.

He has a podcast called Triggernometry which can be interesting, although it became the basis for people claiming Sam Harris has Trump derangement syndrome (which is normally the accusation the right give to people who correctly identify him as a deranged, self-serving, unpleasant piece of shit). He also once tried to claim that Hillary Clinton calling him an illegitimate president was equivalent to Trump’s attempts to overturn the election.

He’s also appeared on Question Time but that’s no real claim to fame given some of the people who have been on the panel

I don’t make any claims to impartiality, but having spent time online and in real life with people on both sides I absolutely detest tribal partisanship in which people make a big deal out of the sins of one side and downplay the sins/shortcomings of their own side. And whilst Konstantin is largely lockstep with me in his critique of the left, he has a massive blindspot on the right.

The reason why I find this objectionable is because people like this represent their podcasts as an alternative to mainstream media the way it’s equally said of someone like Joe Rogan. In many ways I like Joe Rogan, I like the diversity of guests he gets on his podcast but to suggest this format is somehow an alternative to journalist interviews where people are actually taken to task on things they say and do…no fuck that.


Anyway this is a bit of an unfocused rant which isn’t directed at you and isn’t totally relevant to your post.

[IBK]

He has a podcast called Triggernometry which can be interesting, although it became the basis for people claiming Sam Harris has Trump derangement syndrome (which is normally the accusation the right give to people who correctly identify him as a deranged, self-serving, unpleasant piece of shit). He also once tried to claim that Hillary Clinton calling him an illegitimate president was equivalent to Trump’s attempts to overturn the election.

He’s also appeared on Question Time but that’s no real claim to fame given some of the people who have been on the panel

I don’t make any claims to impartiality, but having spent time online and in real life with people on both sides I absolutely detest tribal partisanship in which people make a big deal out of the sins of one side and downplay the sins/shortcomings of their own side. And whilst Konstantin is largely lockstep with me in his critique of the left, he has a massive blindspot on the right.

The reason why I find this objectionable is because people like this represent their podcasts as an alternative to mainstream media the way it’s equally said of someone like Joe Rogan. In many ways I like Joe Rogan, I like the diversity of guests he gets on his podcast but to suggest this format is somehow an alternative to journalist interviews where people are actually taken to task on things they say and do…no fuck that.


Anyway this is a bit of an unfocused rant which isn’t directed at you and isn’t totally relevant to your post.

Fair enough - from your summary I guess this guy is no different to the majority of people expressing political views in the media...

[HCZ_Reborn]

Fair enough - from your summary I guess this guy is no different to the majority of people expressing political views in the media...

No just another pundit and podcaster

Which is no problem, as I’ve said there are things I do agree with him on. And I’m sure like you say he absolutely makes salient points on why people voted for Trump

I suppose I just have an issue with people who call themselves Heterodox thinkers who are no such thing.

Don't misrepresent yourself

[Letters]

This is what you do. Doesn't matter how many in-depth debates occur, every time it's back to the start with, "You never provide sources,.. please provide all the sources,.."

Yes. If you make a claim, you should evidence it.

That doesn't apply to you, of course

Yes it does. And I do provide sources for my claims.

you can simply post up a link to a Facebook "fact" checker and there's your "source"

Yes, that's a source. I'm starting to think you don't know what that word actually means

taken for granted as accurate and impartial.

Not impartial, no. I don't think any source is truly impartial but some are better than others.
As for accuracy - if you dispute the accuracy of any source I provide then you are free to explain why and provide an alternative source.

But me? I'll need to go away and dig out transcripts from multiple court hearings, which you then won't read and which will lead you to pick a single sentence from the body of material so you can start the loop again.

You said "you can find any number of independent channels online that review the COURT DOCUMENTS".
OK. Provide one then and I'll look.

Take your above misdirection on the jab and the WHO.

No, not misdirection. It was an example of you making a claim which took me 2 minutes to discover was inaccurate. I have given others.
It calls in to question your impartiality and your ability to assess evidence accurately. Which is why I want to see your sources, to see if they say what you claim. It's weird to ask why I need a source as if your beliefs are derived out of thin air or from your direct research rather than stuff you watch, listen to or read - all of which are sources.

Your absolute devotion to authority? Well, that's MY problem, I'm too suspicious of authority.

You are too suspicious of authority - that is evidenced by all the claims you made about the USPS interview. The agents were the authority figures there so of course they were trying to get the man to change his story (boo, hiss!), but luckily our plucky hero secretly recorded them (hooray!). Except...none of that is true. It goes beyond suspicion with you - the word implies a caution but it goes way beyond that. In your world anyone in a position of authority is bad. Which is why anyone who doesn't think that must have an "absolute devotion" to authority. In NQ World there are no shades of grey. Authority is either BAD or GOOD and there is no possible position in between. It's very silly.

The crux of that matter was the number of cycles the sample material was subjected to.

Correct. Which is what the WHO said.

So now you say it's MY error to claim the WHO officially contradicted the bullshit science going on in the covid labs.

Your error was to claim that the WHO "admitted the tests didn't work". They did not.

Underlying all of it was the fake case rate and fake death toll being pumped by your "sources".

My sources being the ONS
But, again, you were and are free to provide alternative sources.

But the tests weren't being conducted correctly and that's the whole point.

Well OK, so that's a different claim which I'm not going to look in to. But that isn't want you said, you said the WHO admitted the tests DON'T WORK. That's pretty much verbatim what you said. That is NOT what the WHO said at all.

And so on, I'd have to unpick each and every ingredient from your second-hand propaganda stew to reveal the actual facts

All you'd have to do is show where you're getting your information and data from. That's it. You're not out there gathering data so you're getting it from somewhere. Where?
Why is that an unreasonable ask?