*** Q: INTO THE STORM *** (HBO Docuseries)

63,904 Views | 790 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by St Hedwig Aggie
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

Seriously? This is your argument now?

The reason political opinions are shouted down, as opposed to, you know, sports opinions, or celebrity opinions, opinions on Scientology, etc, is because those things aren't even remotely as polarizing as politics - not even close - nor do they almost always lead to heated, personal and ideological arguments in which names are called, soapboxes are stood on, virtues are signaled, and people refuse to cede any common ground.

This isn't rocket science, dude. Politics is an outlier, and there's an obvious reason as to why. As always ends up being the case, you're reaching *really* hard to keep this argument going now.

As for YOU insisting to ME that *I'm* more liberal than *I* think, while also taking shots at the people I hang out with on a daily basis - people you've literally never met, of which you have no clue what thoughts/views they hold - tells me everything I need to know about your deranged state of mind and where you're coming from.

You will never, ever change, and I ALWAYS regret interacting with you in any way, shape, or form.

We're done here.
Actually, it's been my argument all along. Political opinions are polarizing because people like YOU make it so. If a person posted on a thread "for those who are interested, this movie has a bunch of SJW crap like X, Y, and Z." and YOU were able to leave it at that, then it wouldn't be polarizing. Instead, you and a few like you always get your panties in a wad and start arguing how they are wrong, how Hollywood is really not that liberal, how there is no political agenda behind it, etc. That's is when it goes back and for for 5 pages.

And the 28th congressional district votes 70%-80% liberal every election. So it's a damn safe bet that I'm right about the people you hang out with.
Another Doug
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Btw, not exactly what you want but, HBO did have a good documentary about the Baltimore BLM protests and the police response. It was called "Baltimore Rising" . Covers the police favorably IMO, but it might acknowledge that racism exists at some point so I'm sure some of you will find it intolerable.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggieforester05 said:

You shouldn't be surprised that political discussion comes up regarding a political film. Especially considering the far left leanings of Hollywood and their influence on society. A company like HBO making documentary after documentary pointing out the failings of the right while never doing so for the many failings of the left is a driving force behind a rapid cultural shift that is detrimental to this country and based on a heavily biased information. Social media has made this much more impactful.

Even if you agree with left wing ideology, you must admit that rapid cultural change will come with consequences that may outweigh anything you perceive as beneficial to you. In other words, this specific film may be factual correct (IDK), but cumulatively Hollywood's influence has become propagandistic and combined with the oversupply of left wing news sources (who purport to be objective). The average citizen thinks "the middle" is much further left than it really is. They've also succeeded in painting anyone right of Chairman Mao as a conspiracy theorists whack job. That's not healthy!

Again I ask when is HBO releasing the documentary on the founders of BLM? Somehow I think they're not going to make that one.

First of all, in no way am I surprised that political discussion comes up regarding political films. I've literally said multiple times now in this very thread that I expect and embrace as much when a film is political in nature.

Secondly, a company like HBO owes us nothing in terms of what they make or cover politically. Tell me, are you as equally concerned that Dinesh D'Souza makes "documentary after documentary pointing out the failings of the" left "while never doing so for the many failings of the" right? This is such a bad faith argument that assumes only one side has a platform, and that Fox News and the like aren't ratings kings (or, well, at least used to be up until a couple weeks ago).
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Another Doug said:

Btw, not exactly what you want but, HBO did have a good documentary about the Baltimore BLM protests and the police response. It was called "Baltimore Rising" . Covers the police favorably IMO, but it might acknowledge that racism exists at some point so I'm sure some of you will find it intolerable.
Was the racism they referred to talking about black on white/asian/etc. racism? Unlike white on black racism, which is mostly a thing of the past and reduced to people living in single wide trailers out in the boonies.
tk for tu juan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ron reminds me of a Hideo Kojima character. At this point it wouldn't surprise me if Ron was an AI bot set to destroy the world
dmart90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If that tool Ron was Q... Wow! A bunch of people got trolled!
aggieforester05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

aggieforester05 said:

You shouldn't be surprised that political discussion comes up regarding a political film. Especially considering the far left leanings of Hollywood and their influence on society. A company like HBO making documentary after documentary pointing out the failings of the right while never doing so for the many failings of the left is a driving force behind a rapid cultural shift that is detrimental to this country and based on a heavily biased information. Social media has made this much more impactful.

Even if you agree with left wing ideology, you must admit that rapid cultural change will come with consequences that may outweigh anything you perceive as beneficial to you. In other words, this specific film may be factual correct (IDK), but cumulatively Hollywood's influence has become propagandistic and combined with the oversupply of left wing news sources (who purport to be objective). The average citizen thinks "the middle" is much further left than it really is. They've also succeeded in painting anyone right of Chairman Mao as a conspiracy theorists whack job. That's not healthy!

Again I ask when is HBO releasing the documentary on the founders of BLM? Somehow I think they're not going to make that one.

First of all, in no way am I surprised that political discussion comes up regarding political films. I've literally said multiple times now in this very thread that I expect and embrace as much when a film is political in nature.

Secondly, a company like HBO owes us nothing in terms of what they make or cover politically. Tell me, are you as equally concerned that Dinesh D'Souza makes "documentary after documentary pointing out the failings of the" left "while never doing so for the many failings of the" right? This is such a bad faith argument that assumes only one side has a platform, and that Fox News and the like aren't ratings kings (or, well, at least used to be up until a couple weeks ago).


Comparing HBO to Dinesh D'Souza is apples to oranges. I have no problem with Huffington Post, Vox, Vice, etc. making left leaning documentaries because they are admittedly left wing media organizations. What I have a problem with is seemingly objective sources that push narratives to influence popular opinion one way or another. FTR, It's no better when Fox News does it than CNN, Netflix, or HBO. This is why the country is so polarized.

LOL, at equating the influence of right wing media to left wing media. Fox News having high ratings is a drop in the bucket compared to all of the other cable networks, almost every local, regional, and national newspaper, most online publications, all of Hollywood, and the major streaming services. Not to mention big tech censoring and controlling narratives in the Democrat's favor. The imbalance has empowered the Democrat party to act with near impunity.

ETA: it's also empowered the Republican Party to be a weak opposition party who's perfectly happy in minority status as the country constantly drifts further left.

oragator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I am two epsiodes in, and it very much has a tiger king feel to it, They all look like fools.

What I found particularly fasincating about episode 1 though is the strange feedback loop that the vagueness of the posts creates. There was a great quote somewhere in episode one about all these theories kind of existing before Q, but now all having a home. Q posts a vague message, the bakers find a meaning that fits their world view, Q reinforces some of the more easily latched on to theories and the cycle perpetuates. So in that way, all of the old theories find their way back into this.
It's also fascinating but not surprising how ardent they are. Pizzagate should have been the wake up call that this was silly, or at a minimum things were being taken way out of context, but they are still citing it as proof.
It also has a Nostradamus feel to it, the few things that could vaguely be seen as being "proven" true reinforce the narrative, while the countless things that aren't are ignored.

I think at least through two episodes it's done a good job of not attacking the right, even if their connection to it has to be discussed because of their interpretation of the clues. This could happen to any group. It's a fascinating if scary tale of how easily people accept info that reinforces their world view. And scary that one anonymous and continually wrong poster could be this powerful. The show uses the hook about who Q really is, but that's almost irrelevant to what matters.
Will check back in after episode 6, when I might have a different view after the capitol events.
Ulrich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I know this isn't what the thread is about, but I think it's a good thing to keep in mind anyway.

If you find yourself having a hard time knowing whether to trust a source, there is a pretty simple test. It works whether it's a nationally-known pundit, an independent journalist, or an anonymous rando in a virtual cesspool.

Here it is. Listen to what they are saying for concrete predictions that can be right or wrong. Write down the predictions. Come back later and see how many were right.

If none of the predictions were right, stop listening to that person. This is why I don't pay much attention to public prognosticators, most are quantifiably useless.

If you can't even figure out what they are predicting, that is even worse. Setting aside the platform and content, this was the objective test Q failed: it was non-falsifiable gibberish.

If you're interested in this sort of thing, spend some time with the ideas of Phil Tetlock, Karl Popper, and Danny Kahneman.
BCG Disciple
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

Yep, I've heard that one countless times. A similar statistic they like to throw around is that more white people die at the hands of cops than blacks. Which is true, except when you break it down by RATE, the comparative ratio at which blacks are killed by cops far surpasses the ratio at which whites are killed by cops, never mind the fact that there are simply far more white people in this country. Either way, there's ALWAYS an excuse. They either throw sh*t statistics at you or claim that the black community is overreacting or that there's no such thing as systemic racism, etc, etc, etc. Whatever it is, it's never ever a sincere attempt to listen to or feel empathy toward the black community.

Just as a counter to this, whomever was using a raw number and not a rate should have their opinion purged from existence. I don't recall seeing that on 16chan, but it may have been too stupid that I just kept going and didn't pay it attention.

The counter I have seen is that as it relates to violent crimes / resisting arrests, whites are more likely to die. This is a rate number, not a raw number. Of course as it relates to population rates blacks are still more likely, but not when the denominator is violent crimes. The counter to this is basically that criminal code is against blacks and that statistics and numbers are thereby tossed out. Circular argument that lets the left continue believing what it wants to believe. Like a left wing Q.
BCG Disciple
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Are we doing teasers in this thread?

I'm fine accepting most information presented in this doc. I have not fact checked or attempted to refute / rebut any of it, mostly because I work for a living and don't know where to start.

Hilarious in the end. The era we live in is ripe for this type of idiocy. Very interesting to see how these (this type of movement) things move. The fact that I know people completely bought in to this movement makes me sad for them.

If we're keeping score and keeping with thread whataboutisms, I think this sort of thing happens on the left. Now, the characters involved may not be as batsh**, but they're not far off. Our enemies have sowed discord repeatedly and Russian bots were at the start of the calexit movement as well as texit. Social media algorithms (as beautifully articulated in the social dilemma and touched on in this doc) force us all to the poles of our particular world view. Half on this thread realize it, the other half is still squarely in finger pointing mode.
John Francis Donaghy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Social media algorithms (as beautifully articulated in the social dilemma and touched on in this doc) force us all to the poles of our particular world view. Half on this thread realize it, the other half is still squarely in finger pointing mode.
TyHolden
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sounds like this should be on /16....
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No, YOU'RE in finger pointing mode!
TyHolden
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Take it to /16.
BCG Disciple
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

No, YOU'RE in finger pointing mode!

I'll certainly admit to doing my fair share.
TyHolden
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Flag it.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dude. I'm CLEARLY joking, hence the use of a winking emoji, essentially admitting my guilt in all this nonsense and arguing as well. But thanks for showing up to a thread a full week after it was posted, 10 pages in, incessantly suggesting that *now* is the time to move it and flag it.
Trucker 96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aTmAg said:

Charpie said:

Are you really equating QANON to BLM?
There is no comparison. BLM is much more damaging to the nation than conspiracy theorists posting anonymously from their basements.


Truth
Trucker 96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
expresswrittenconsent said:

Voting is the backbone of the concept of America. One party wants to limit it as much as possible rather than try to appeal to the average American. It is the same party that has only won the popular vote in 1 of the last 8 presidential elections. It's the same party that was soundly defeated in the last election but acted like a spoiled toddler refusing to accept reality. It's the same party who's leader encouraged the capitol riots (and multiple deaths including a cop) from a few blocks away. You need to clean your fkin house. It's rat infested.


This is ****ing nonsense. I want to make sure votes are legitimate. Period. That is the only way to ensure our votes matter, regardless of what race or political affiliation. There is almost nothing of any substance you can do in this country without an ID, and we require It for a reason.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Actual, verifiable voter fraud has occurred in only .00006 instances over the past 20 years of elections held nationally in the U.S. That is a fact and the reality.

Despite all the bluff and bluster, there has been ZERO credible evidence presented to the contrary.

In state after state after state, of the more than 60 CASES presented in court, judges (many of them Trump-appointed) looked at the allegations that Trump's lawyers and his allies made about voter fraud and determined that each and every one of them were without *any* merit whatsoever. Then Sidney Powell, the Kraken herself, in defense of Dominion's $1.3 billion dollar suit against her, recently admitted in court that "no reasonable person" should have believed her outrageous claims of voter fraud. That is literally her official defense.

In other words, what the right has been doing for months now is stoking a false narrative that our elections are insecure, and then, in the wake of the panic, distrust, and unrest they themselves have sown, claimed that all they want is "confidence" in our election process.

Except that no one else is saying the system is broken.

You guys were duped, are going apesh*t about a problem that doesn't exist, and are now incredulous that we don't want to fix according to your standards what ain't broke. I'm sorry, but *we* weren't the ones who fell for the lies of a desperate, disgraced former President, his minions, his lunatic lawyer, and a deranged pillow salesman.

Sure, if we lived in a world in which voter fraud was a legit phenomenon that didn't require millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of officials acting in perfect, covert harmony - without a single soul finding out - your justification would be spot on. But out here, in the real world, it's not.

Proponents of BLM may have destroyed a bunch of property, which was an undeniable disgrace. And the division that some of them sow is no doubt a serious issue. But to see what Q and Trump and the far right have done in terms of completely eroding confidence in our election process - the bedrock of Democracy - which led to an actual, coordinated insurrection on the Capitol resulting in deaths and countless arrests - and to then claim that those efforts aren't even in the same vicinity as the damage BLM has caused, is nothing more than complete and utter bullsh*t.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As for the Q doc itself, I just finished episode five, and at this point there's no way Ron and/or Jim aren't Q, right? Which, if so, is simultaneously infuriating, sad, and hilarious. Imagine being a Q nut and finding out that THOSE were the guys who reeled you in. It's insane.

Also, right when I was beginning to feel legit sorry for Fred, and thought he'd actually turned a corner, he went scorched Earth and just completely screwed himself. What an epic downfall, and what a tense and crazy last 10 minutes or so that was.

I just continue to be in awe of the footage Cullen Hoback was able to get, and how he pieced this all together. What a fantastic documentary, and I can't wait to dig into the finale Monday night.
Trucker 96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Were you in a coma last summer?

Also, what's the issue with requiring ID? There are clearly massive stakes in play, and one has to be incredibly obtuse to not want to provide a very simple amount of verification. This isn't about the 2020 election to me. It's about protecting the legitimacy of the vote for all us in the future knowing that the stakes seem to be massively ramping up and the incentive to cheat is clearly is there. When people don't trust the process, you end up with chaos.

When the process completely sucks, you aren't going to find fraud because you've positioned yourself poorly to detect it. Finding fraud is what I do for a living. From an internal control perspective, many states' processes are a joke.
BCG Disciple
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not sure about your numbers (heritage foundation js only a sampling of that was your source), but the rough estimates are 1000/ election year. Your conclusion is the same. Trump's false narrative MAY have had some truth to it, but when you engage in textbook marketing disinformation campaigns you should lose any and all credibility. It was all weaponized bullsh** and the only goal looking back was to weaponize his base to either monetize 60 million followers when he's out of office or to keep hope alive in 2024. You are much more likely to follow him when you think he was cheated.

Not sure why this thread needs to go. It's a passionate polarizing discussion where most posters thumb their nose at the other side and are in disbelief of the other sides opinion. It's about as an appropriate discussion for a Q thread as you get.
TyHolden
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

Dude. I'm CLEARLY joking, hence the use of a winking emoji, essentially admitting my guilt in all this nonsense and arguing as well. But thanks for showing up to a thread a full week after it was posted, 10 pages in, incessantly suggesting that *now* is the time to move it and flag it.
i just read a couple of statements you made at the beginning of this thread. You're obviously guilty of bringing a political topic to your arena to avoid any real conversation with the political board. Calling a certain group of people "wackjobs" based off a piece done by liberal Hollywood is no different than the conservative Q calling Hollywood lizard people. I don't trust either. Go back to critiquing kids movies.
Charpie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This thread is off its rails now.
ATM9000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggieforester05 said:

TCTTS said:

aggieforester05 said:

You shouldn't be surprised that political discussion comes up regarding a political film. Especially considering the far left leanings of Hollywood and their influence on society. A company like HBO making documentary after documentary pointing out the failings of the right while never doing so for the many failings of the left is a driving force behind a rapid cultural shift that is detrimental to this country and based on a heavily biased information. Social media has made this much more impactful.

Even if you agree with left wing ideology, you must admit that rapid cultural change will come with consequences that may outweigh anything you perceive as beneficial to you. In other words, this specific film may be factual correct (IDK), but cumulatively Hollywood's influence has become propagandistic and combined with the oversupply of left wing news sources (who purport to be objective). The average citizen thinks "the middle" is much further left than it really is. They've also succeeded in painting anyone right of Chairman Mao as a conspiracy theorists whack job. That's not healthy!

Again I ask when is HBO releasing the documentary on the founders of BLM? Somehow I think they're not going to make that one.

First of all, in no way am I surprised that political discussion comes up regarding political films. I've literally said multiple times now in this very thread that I expect and embrace as much when a film is political in nature.

Secondly, a company like HBO owes us nothing in terms of what they make or cover politically. Tell me, are you as equally concerned that Dinesh D'Souza makes "documentary after documentary pointing out the failings of the" left "while never doing so for the many failings of the" right? This is such a bad faith argument that assumes only one side has a platform, and that Fox News and the like aren't ratings kings (or, well, at least used to be up until a couple weeks ago).


Comparing HBO to Dinesh D'Souza is apples to oranges. I have no problem with Huffington Post, Vox, Vice, etc. making left leaning documentaries because they are admittedly left wing media organizations. What I have a problem with is seemingly objective sources that push narratives to influence popular opinion one way or another. FTR, It's no better when Fox News does it than CNN, Netflix, or HBO. This is why the country is so polarized.

LOL, at equating the influence of right wing media to left wing media. Fox News having high ratings is a drop in the bucket compared to all of the other cable networks, almost every local, regional, and national newspaper, most online publications, all of Hollywood, and the major streaming services. Not to mention big tech censoring and controlling narratives in the Democrat's favor. The imbalance has empowered the Democrat party to act with near impunity.

ETA: it's also empowered the Republican Party to be a weak opposition party who's perfectly happy in minority status as the country constantly drifts further left.




Alright so you've spend the better part of 10 pages bloviating about problems with the media which btw I don't necessarily disagree with. Now be the critical thinker you claim to be. What are the alternatives and are they any better than the current system?
aggieforester05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ATM9000 said:

aggieforester05 said:

TCTTS said:

aggieforester05 said:

You shouldn't be surprised that political discussion comes up regarding a political film. Especially considering the far left leanings of Hollywood and their influence on society. A company like HBO making documentary after documentary pointing out the failings of the right while never doing so for the many failings of the left is a driving force behind a rapid cultural shift that is detrimental to this country and based on a heavily biased information. Social media has made this much more impactful.

Even if you agree with left wing ideology, you must admit that rapid cultural change will come with consequences that may outweigh anything you perceive as beneficial to you. In other words, this specific film may be factual correct (IDK), but cumulatively Hollywood's influence has become propagandistic and combined with the oversupply of left wing news sources (who purport to be objective). The average citizen thinks "the middle" is much further left than it really is. They've also succeeded in painting anyone right of Chairman Mao as a conspiracy theorists whack job. That's not healthy!

Again I ask when is HBO releasing the documentary on the founders of BLM? Somehow I think they're not going to make that one.

First of all, in no way am I surprised that political discussion comes up regarding political films. I've literally said multiple times now in this very thread that I expect and embrace as much when a film is political in nature.

Secondly, a company like HBO owes us nothing in terms of what they make or cover politically. Tell me, are you as equally concerned that Dinesh D'Souza makes "documentary after documentary pointing out the failings of the" left "while never doing so for the many failings of the" right? This is such a bad faith argument that assumes only one side has a platform, and that Fox News and the like aren't ratings kings (or, well, at least used to be up until a couple weeks ago).


Comparing HBO to Dinesh D'Souza is apples to oranges. I have no problem with Huffington Post, Vox, Vice, etc. making left leaning documentaries because they are admittedly left wing media organizations. What I have a problem with is seemingly objective sources that push narratives to influence popular opinion one way or another. FTR, It's no better when Fox News does it than CNN, Netflix, or HBO. This is why the country is so polarized.

LOL, at equating the influence of right wing media to left wing media. Fox News having high ratings is a drop in the bucket compared to all of the other cable networks, almost every local, regional, and national newspaper, most online publications, all of Hollywood, and the major streaming services. Not to mention big tech censoring and controlling narratives in the Democrat's favor. The imbalance has empowered the Democrat party to act with near impunity.

ETA: it's also empowered the Republican Party to be a weak opposition party who's perfectly happy in minority status as the country constantly drifts further left.




Alright so you've spend the better part of 10 pages bloviating about problems with the media which btw I don't necessarily disagree with. Now be the critical thinker you claim to be. What are the alternatives and are they any better than the current system?
I'm in no way in favor of government intervention. I'd prefer for the journalism industry to hold themselves to a higher standard and self police. There needs to be strong journalistic oversight of all political sides. What we have now is 95%+ of journalists doing nothing more than goaltending for team Democrat and using lies to defame the Republican party instead of making legitimate complaints, of which there are many. Covering the benefits and problems of policy positions objectively instead of screaming racism where none exists would be a start. There's very little coverage of the ins and outs of policy positions from either left wing media or right wing media. Just useless narratives to pit one side against the other, while the populace gets dumber and low information voters remain the deciders of elections.

I actually really appreciate well done documentaries from companies like Netflix, HBO, and even VICE. I'd just like to see companies like the former two provide a little more balance since they are so mainstream and have a following across the political spectrum, unlike someone like Dinesh. I'm not asking for less critical investigative journalism of the right, but more of the left. I added Vice in there even though they are admittedly left wing, because I like their style and think they do a great job making international documentaries. They could do some great things if they approached American politics more objectively.
aggieforester05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

Actual, verifiable voter fraud has occurred in only .00006 instances over the past 20 years of elections held nationally in the U.S. That is a fact and the reality.

Despite all the bluff and bluster, there has been ZERO credible evidence presented to the contrary.

In state after state after state, of the more than 60 CASES presented in court, judges (many of them Trump-appointed) looked at the allegations that Trump's lawyers and his allies made about voter fraud and determined that each and every one of them were without *any* merit whatsoever. Then Sidney Powell, the Kraken herself, in defense of Dominion's $1.3 billion dollar suit against her, recently admitted in court that "no reasonable person" should have believed her outrageous claims of voter fraud. That is literally her official defense.

In other words, what the right has been doing for months now is stoking a false narrative that our elections are insecure, and then, in the wake of the panic, distrust, and unrest they themselves have sown, claimed that all they want is "confidence" in our election process.

Except that no one else is saying the system is broken.

You guys were duped, are going apesh*t about a problem that doesn't exist, and are now incredulous that we don't want to fix according to your standards what ain't broke. I'm sorry, but *we* weren't the ones who fell for the lies of a desperate, disgraced former President, his minions, his lunatic lawyer, and a deranged pillow salesman.

Sure, if we lived in a world in which voter fraud was a legit phenomenon that didn't require millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of officials acting in perfect, covert harmony - without a single soul finding out - your justification would be spot on. But out here, in the real world, it's not.

Proponents of BLM may have destroyed a bunch of property, which was an undeniable disgrace. And the division that some of them sow is no doubt a serious issue. But to see what Q and Trump and the far right have done in terms of completely eroding confidence in our election process - the bedrock of Democracy - which led to an actual, coordinated insurrection on the Capitol resulting in deaths and countless arrests - and to then claim that those efforts aren't even in the same vicinity as the damage BLM has caused, is nothing more than complete and utter bullsh*t.
Repeating Democrat talking points ad nauseum does not make one well informed. If you're actually interested in the shady electioneering tactics used by Democrats and their operatives in the 2020 election, then I suggest you read the last 20 or 30 pages of the official election thread on forum 16. There's plenty of well sourced (linked) documentation about the antics of Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, Abrams, social media censorship, and the last minute illegal changes to election laws that were the wet dream of ballot harvesters. There will never be enough evidence produced to determine how much fraud there was, but to claim there was none has no basis in reality. Most court cases were thrown out of court due to standing or laches which is not evidence of an absence of fraud. You guys were duped into believing that a clearly demented career politician, known for his lack of intellect, racist past, corruption, and sexual assault allegations, blew Chicago Jesus's popular vote total out by 16 million votes. That's much less believable than scum bag Democrat operatives in the heavily Democratic urban areas of swing states stuffing ballot boxes every chance they got, knowing they could do so with impunity. They were all in on this election, so it's no surprise that it has costs them in credibility.

When rules are set up to give people the chance to cheat, then they will. Especially when the media has no interest in investigating it. I'm sure you'll disagree, but fire away. It's also insulting to assume that the right only suspected voter fraud because Trump, Giuliani and the pillow nut said there was. That goes to show that you are the one incapable of "listening to their complaints".

Sidney Powell is a nut, I'll give you that. Her idiotic narratives took the focus off of the real problems and only gave the Democrats and media ammunition to ignore the sleazy behavior that has left half the country with no trust in the process.

Coordinated insurrection - More Democrat talking points with no factual basis. Quit spreading lies and actually research what happened if you're going to bother trying to debate it. I make no excuses for those people on January 6th and I was pissed as soon as I saw what they were doing, but you need to get your facts right. BLM has caused far more damage to this country by every objective measure. Why the constant need to downplay the violence and destruction caused by radical leftist extremists?
snowdog90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TCTTS said
"Actual, verifiable voter fraud has occurred in only .00006 instances over the past 20 years of elections held nationally in the U.S. That is a fact and the reality."


Please explain to me how the above statement is a fact, especially in regards to the 2020 election which included millions of easily defrauded mail in ballots.

Real investigations have been done by real people who have found tons of evidence of voter fraud. Of course, none of this was done by the mainstream media, which is probably your source for the above statistic.

Just so we're clear, just because the mainstream media uses the word "debunked", that does not rise to the level of "proof" that something is a fact.

You probably know this, but with all your sweeping generalizations, it is hard to tell.

Believe what you want to believe about last year's election. Hate Trump all you want, continue to call him racist based on lies and absolutely no real-world policy decisions. FACT - Trump got more percentage of Black voters than any Republican since 1960. FACT - He got at least 74 million votes, 14 million more than 2016.

And somehow lost. If that makes sense to you, enjoy your delusion. It doesn't make sense to thinking people, and thank goodness some states are trying to find the truth and rectify things with audits of the election and sensible voting law changes.
AgfromHOU
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Audits have justified the results.

Also, what's sensible about closing voting locations and making it illegal to give someone a bottle of water waiting in line? Especially when that line is longer than it's supposed to be because of the closed voting locations and methods?

I'm all for a legal ID being required, but the bull**** attached to it is, well, bull*****
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You know how much you fear the left and see everything they do as the destruction of America? That is how much the left fears the right and thinks they hate America. Add in how many on the center right were disgusted by trump s behavior, sickened by trolls like bannon, miller, the other miller, and trump's complete incompetence of a covid response and the only thing surprising about the election was that Biden only got 81mm votes.

The funny/sad thing is if trump had responded to covid in a similar fashion to ardern in new zealand (made it patriotic to follow all NPIs and mourned every lost life), he would have won 49 states and probably been able to get the 22nd repealed.
snowdog90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Duncan Idaho said:

You know how much you fear the left and see everything they do as the destruction of America? That is how much the left fears the right and thinks they hate America. Add in how many on the center right were disgusted by trump s behavior, sickened by trolls like bannon, miller, the other miller, and trump's complete incompetence of a covid response and the only thing surprising about the election was that Biden only got 81mm votes.

The funny/sad thing is if trump had responded to covid in a similar fashion to ardern in new zealand (made it patriotic to follow all NPIs and mourned every lost life), he would have won 49 states and probably been able to get the 22nd repealed.


This statement is delusional and based on fantasy. Just mind-boggling. I'll respond with a rebuttal later. I wish I could be drunk by then, but sadly I have to do it sober. So many sweeping generalizations to rebut.
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ok boomer
PatAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

aggieforester05 said:

You shouldn't be surprised that political discussion comes up regarding a political film. Especially considering the far left leanings of Hollywood and their influence on society. A company like HBO making documentary after documentary pointing out the failings of the right while never doing so for the many failings of the left is a driving force behind a rapid cultural shift that is detrimental to this country and based on a heavily biased information. Social media has made this much more impactful.

Even if you agree with left wing ideology, you must admit that rapid cultural change will come with consequences that may outweigh anything you perceive as beneficial to you. In other words, this specific film may be factual correct (IDK), but cumulatively Hollywood's influence has become propagandistic and combined with the oversupply of left wing news sources (who purport to be objective). The average citizen thinks "the middle" is much further left than it really is. They've also succeeded in painting anyone right of Chairman Mao as a conspiracy theorists whack job. That's not healthy!

Again I ask when is HBO releasing the documentary on the founders of BLM? Somehow I think they're not going to make that one.

First of all, in no way am I surprised that political discussion comes up regarding political films. I've literally said multiple times now in this very thread that I expect and embrace as much when a film is political in nature.

Secondly, a company like HBO owes us nothing in terms of what they make or cover politically. Tell me, are you as equally concerned that Dinesh D'Souza makes "documentary after documentary pointing out the failings of the" left "while never doing so for the many failings of the" right? This is such a bad faith argument that assumes only one side has a platform, and that Fox News and the like aren't ratings kings (or, well, at least used to be up until a couple weeks ago).
If HBO thought a documentary like that would make them money, it would air. That's their bottom line.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.