Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Trump and QAnon gang remain the most influential power

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post

    Which specific conspiracy are you speaking about? Regional corruption in the 2020 general election? There's nothing "nutty" about that.
    QAnon is a well defined conspiracy theory. QAnon adherents also tend to adhere to the idea there was 'Regional corrution in the 2020 general election, which is not exacly 'nutty' (i.e. it is possible there could have been some - on both sides of course). What is nutty about that is that it is believed in spite of the fact there is no evidence for any corruption on a scale that could have actually changed the outcome, likewise no evidence of a vast conspiracy to defraud the election process.


    All assumption. I don't see any widespread nuttery.
    Then I would submit you are not looking.

    The QAnon stuff I had heard was that there are elitist pedophiles running amuck in government and Trump is some sort of savior attempting to crush the degenerates. If this is what you are talking about, then fine. But such weird beliefs aren't particularly dangerous to anyone - and I doubt Trump would deny it because it would mean losing votes.
    Given that to seriously believe what QAnon claims, one is required to have at best a tenuous grasp of reality:

    They are dangerous to everyone when they start getting elected to Congressional office. Taylor Green and Boebert is two such persons.

    They are dangerous when they get elected in local elections, as they have in Michigan:

    https://time.com/5955248/qanon-local-elections/

    They are also dangerous when they are granted the power to lead and monitor the audit of an election without the requisite safeguards to prevent corruption of the ballots or their chain of custody, as they have been in Arizona.

    https://www.salon.com/2021/04/28/qan...rump-comeback/

    Source: above

    The audit is being conducted by Florida-based tech company Cyber Ninjas, owned by Doug Logan, a known QAnon conspiracy theorist who, in advance of the recount, speculated that it would garner an extra 200,000 votes for Donald Trump, according to the Huffington Post.

    © Copyright Original Source




    And they are also dangerous when they become part of and participate in an insurrection on the Capitol as they did Jan 6.

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/qanon-emer...ry?id=75347445
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-03-2021, 11:39 AM.
    Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      QAnon is a well defined conspiracy theory.
      I beg to differ. Just the fact that you added they also "tend to adhere" proves it. It is a collection of beliefs placed under one unbrella. I've known two people who said they tought QAnon had merit, and one of them despised Trump. So go figure.

      QAnon adherents also tend to adhere to the idea there was 'Regional corrution in the 2020 general election, which is not exacly 'nutty' (i.e. it is possible there could have been some - on both sides of course). What is nutty about that is that it is believed in spite of the fact there is no evidence for any corruption on a scale that could have actually changed the outcome, likewise no evidence of a vast conspiracy to defraud the election process.

      Then I would submit you are not looking.
      No, I just think we rely on different sources.

      Given that to seriously believe what QAnon claims, one is required to have at best a tenuous grasp of reality:

      They are dangerous to everyone when they start getting elected to Congressional office. Taylor Green and Boebert is two such persons.

      They are dangerous when they get elected in local elections, as they have in Michigan:
      Do you think it is dangerous when Muslims or Mormons are elected? How about atheists or Christians? People have all sorts of unprovable beliefs that haven't become "dangerous." My father said he was positively paranoid when JFK was elected because he believed the pope would start running the country.

      https://time.com/5955248/qanon-local-elections/

      They are also dangerous when they are granted the power to lead and monitor the audit of an election without the requisite safeguards to prevent corruption of the ballots or their chain of custody, as they have been in Arizona.

      https://www.salon.com/2021/04/28/qan...rump-comeback/

      Source: above
      The audit is being conducted by Florida-based tech company Cyber Ninjas, owned by Doug Logan, a known QAnon conspiracy theorist who, in advance of the recount, speculated that it would garner an extra 200,000 votes for Donald Trump, according to the Huffington Post.
      Two things. 1) they will never dig up enough votes to change the election outcome. 2) Even if they did, what's done is done. There's no chance of a redo.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

        Yeah exactly - it's a made up term by those that want to play down their own party's connections to QAnon.
        1. Qanon is a made up term as well. Most new words are......

        2. Your dear friend Shuny here on this forum showed us that BlueAnon and their conspiracy theories are QUITE real and quite influential.

        3. My party does not have a connection to QAnon.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

          The issue is not QAnon per se. We've had moon landing deniers, holocaust deniers, the illuminatti, 911 conspiracists, JFK shooting conspiracists etc etc etc

          The issue is the widespread adoption of QAnon by a large contingent of GOP members, usually stanch Trump supporters, his refusal to speak against the conspiracy itself and call it what it is, and their close association with not just members of the GOP, but elected officials in the GOP. QAnon is not just nuttery, it's on the fast track to becoming institutionalized nuttery and it is gaining access to real power.
          Except BlueAnon similarly has a lot of influence in Democrat members, including in office. Indeed, the Sicknick conspiracy theory was used by Democrat House Managers in setting up the Impeachment 2: Impeachment Boogaloo. Countless Democrats in power pushed the Russiagate conspiracy theory, and the Jussie Smollet conspiracy theory, etc.. BlueAnon isn't just on the fast track of gaining access to real power, it has it.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

            I'm not arguing that point, but you do seem quite unwilling to acknowledge the point I am making.

            Perhaps more concisely, "blueAnon" is a term created to mock those that express concern over the GOP's connection to QAnon. It doesn't describe any actual conspiracy theory that developed on its own or is adhered to by an actual group of people.

            Now I'm absolutely sure you are smart enough to come up with some retort to that. But if you do, the only thing it proves is that you have no interest in civil or rational discourse.
            Actually it was created to collectively describe the group of conspiracy theorists on the left, who have a great deal more power than QAnoners on the right.

            It does, in fact, describe multiple conspiracy theories that developed on their own and are adhered to by actual groups of Democrats: Russiagate, Ukrainegate, Sicknick conspiracy theories, etc., etc.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Ronson View Post

              I beg to differ. Just the fact that you added they also "tend to adhere" proves it. It is a collection of beliefs placed under one unbrella. I've known two people who said they tought QAnon had merit, and one of them despised Trump. So go figure.
              .
              THIS^^^^^ I've actually talked to several different, quite serious QAnon people who did not like Trump and actually placed him as part of that satanic cabal of pedophiles, etc..

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                THIS^^^^^ I've actually talked to several different, quite serious QAnon people who did not like Trump and actually placed him as part of that satanic cabal of pedophiles, etc..
                Which makes sense if one buys into the conspiracy. The way I hear it, it was all connected somehow to Epstein. And since Trump (at one time, anyway) hung with Epstein, then one would think he was involved.

                I forgot to add my brother to this conspiracy group. He started babbling about it a couple months ago, about how billionaires connected with government, were kidnapping and killing children. I cut him off. Sad how deranged he's gotten in his old age.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

                  Not true at all.
                  Yes it is. BlueAnon does not represent any real conspiracy theory or theories. It does however draw from a certain mockery of actual US intelligence that indicated certain WS and Neo-Nazi groups still had designs on attacking the Capitol. Actionable intelligence from our Intelligence agencies does not equal 'a conspiracy theory'. At least not for me.

                  Or are you denying that there are conspiracy theories originating from the political left?
                  Did you see me denying there are conspiracy theories that people on the left buy into? Can you find text where I have said that? The only thing I have said is that BlueAnon is not actually such a theory. There is plenty of crazy to go around. And I'll be glad to call out crazy on the left just as vigorously as crazy on the right where it exists and comes into play here. (One problem here is that the crazy from the right tends to dominate, so that is mostly what I have opportunity to try to correct)



                  I want you to FINALLY come to the realization that you are neither objective or impartial in any discussion that involves Donald Trump or anything that has been attached to him. Until you can admit to that, then it's YOU who isn't interested in rational discourse.
                  Here is a clue BTC: Look at which people are using ad hominem and personal insult, and which people are just putting up data and trying to change minds without lacing every post with a personal or derogatory attack.
                  Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Urban Dictionary: Blue Anon

                    Blue Anon

                    The definition of "Blue Anon" is "a loosely organized network of Democrat voters, politicians and media personalities who spread left-wing conspiracy theories."
                    "Blue Anon adherents fervently believe that right-wing extremists are going to storm Capitol Hill any day now and "remove" lawmakers from office, hence the need for the deployment of thousands of National Guard stationed at the US Capitol."
                    Which is, perhaps, why Shuny was totally reeled in by the great "bludgeoning" lie?
                    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Here's a clue -- look at the guy who started a thread about conspiracy theories on the right who was TOTALLY taken in by a conspiracy theory on the left -- the Great Bludgeoning Lie.

                      And that ain't no gaslighting -- it's fact, Jact!
                      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                        I beg to differ. Just the fact that you added they also "tend to adhere" proves it. It is a collection of beliefs placed under one unbrella. I've known two people who said they tought QAnon had merit, and one of them despised Trump. So go figure.
                        No - QAnon is a collection of conspiracy theories advocated by 'the Q' who was supposed to be some sort of actual intelligence official deep in some US intelligence agency who was 'leaking' this data out to the public 'for the common good'. And we have a pretty good idea who this 'Q' is (and it isn't some deep mole in US intelligence), but it really doesn't matter, his followers will believe in 'him' regardless of what reality proves to be - as can be seen by the numbers of QAnon followers that still think Trump will be 'restored to power'.


                        No, I just think we rely on different sources.
                        Indeed.


                        Do you think it is dangerous when Muslims or Mormons are elected? How about atheists or Christians? People have all sorts of unprovable beliefs that haven't become "dangerous." My father said he was positively paranoid when JFK was elected because he believed the pope would start running the country.
                        First - a person of faith can't equate religious belief about God with the sort of thing QAnon represents. If there is truly no difference (and of course there is), then NONE of us should be believers.

                        Second - That isolated members of the public can be swayed by such things in a somewhat non-commital way is a problem, but it's impact is usually somewhat limited. It is a much greater problem when people who publicly and strongly believe conspiracy theories that can't be supported by hard evidence are elected, regardless of the religious persuasion or formal education. They become a danger to themselves and the country, and it means a very large group of people have also been persuaded by that conspiracy theory or are - at best - simply ignorant of the danger such a person poses to our country.



                        Two things. 1) they will never dig up enough votes to change the election outcome. 2) Even if they did, what's done is done. There's no chance of a redo.
                        I hope so. But regardless, they will perpetuate the lie that Trump 'really won', and that will have consequences for many elections to come. Why you don't understand how dangerous that is to our republic is baffling to me.
                        Our only real hope in the Arizona case is that the QAnon believer orchestrating it and the people running it have some honest bones in them and have the capacity to do what the Georgia Republican Election officials did and conclude there was not fraud sufficient to alter the result.

                        Now - before you go nuts saying "but what if there really was fraud", you need to understand that there is NOTHING about the group doing this audit that is believable. Nothing they say has any validity at all when if comes to giving us more knowledge about the Arizona election. If they say there was fraud, or if they say there was not, doesn't matter wrt what actually happened in Arizona during the 2020 election.

                        However, if they were to say there was no fraud, then what we would know (and the only thing we would know) is that they are probably honest people, because that is not what they expected to find. And it might, just maybe, start to put an end to Trump's 'Big Lie' about the election (probably just wishful thinking).
                        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-03-2021, 03:03 PM.
                        Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                          No - QAnon is a collection of conspiracy theories advocated by 'the Q' who was supposed to be some sort of actual intelligence official deep in some US intelligence agency who was 'leaking' this data out to the public 'for the common good'. And we have a pretty good idea who this 'Q' is (and it isn't some deep mole in US intelligence), but it really doesn't matter, his followers will believe in 'him' regardless of what reality proves to be - as can be seen by the numbers of QAnon followers that still think Trump will be 'restored to power'.

                          Indeed.

                          First - a person of faith can't equate religious belief about God with the sort of thing QAnon represents. If there is truly no difference (and of course there is), then NONE of us should be believers.

                          Second - That isolated members of the public can be swayed by such things in a somewhat non-commital way is a problem, but it's impact is usually somewhat limited. It is a much greater problem when people who publicly and strongly believe conspiracy theories that can't be supported by hard evidence are elected, regardless of the religious persuasion or formal education. They become a danger to themselves and the country, and it means a very large group of people have also been persuaded by that conspiracy theory or are - at best - simply ignorant of the danger such a person poses to our country.

                          I hope so. But regardless, they will perpetuate the lie that Trump 'really won', and that will have consequences for many elections to come. Why you don't understand how dangerous that is to our republic is baffling to me.
                          Our only real hope in the Arizona case is that the QAnon believer orchestrating it and the people running it have some honest bones in them and have the capacity to do what the Georgia Republican Election officials did and conclude there was not fraud sufficient to alter the result.

                          Now - before you go nuts saying "but what if there really was fraud", you need to understand that there is NOTHING about the group doing this audit that is believable. Nothing they say has any validity at all when if comes to giving us more knowledge about the Arizona election. If they say there was fraud, or if they say there was not, doesn't matter wrt what actually happened in Arizona during the 2020 election.
                          Just FYI, I read all of the above and generally disagree with much of it, but it's not important enough to bludgeon back-and-forth here.

                          However, if they were to say there was no fraud, then what we would know (and the only thing we would know) is that they are probably honest people ...
                          I'm sorry, but that's pretty funny. If they conclude what you already believe, then they are probably "honest." If they conclude anything different, then they are probably dishonest. Boy, talk about a no-win situation.

                          because that is not what they expected to find. And it might, just maybe, start to put an end to Trump's 'Big Lie' about the election (probably just wishful thinking).
                          All I am going to say in conclusion (which I've said many times before on this board) is that I witnessed irregularities. Some glaring irregularities - like nothing I have ever seen before, and which the most probable conclusion is vote tampering. I doubt it was enough to affect the outcome and it wouldn't matter anyway, because is a done deal. I only want to see some changes in election integrity and monitoring going forward.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                            I'm sorry, but that's pretty funny. If they conclude what you already believe, then they are probably "honest." If they conclude anything different, then they are probably dishonest. Boy, talk about a no-win situation.
                            Perhaps this will help you:

                            Let's suppose that a child believes in Santa Clause. And let's suppose we secretly agree with their dad that the dad will make a decision about whether to dress up as Santa when he puts the presents under the tree, but that the dad is not to tell us what he did. And further, let's suppose that we convince the child to wait up at night to see if Santa comes - and we promise the child $100 if they see Santa.

                            Now, let's suppose we interview the child on Christmas day (after a good nap). Now what can we learn if the child says he saw Santa? What are the likely possibilities?

                            1) the child saw his dad in the Santa suit
                            2) the child did not see his dad in the Santa suit but is lying because they want the $100.

                            So if the child says they saw Santa, (1) what do we know about what the child's honesty? basically nothing because we don't know what dad chose to do and (2) what do we know about what the dad actually chose to do? basically nothing because the kids answer is likely to be "he saw Santa" either way.

                            But suppose the child says he saw DAD putting presents under the tree?

                            Now what do we know (1) we know the kid is quite honest, he's willing to give up $100 for the truth and (2) we know that most likely dad chose NOT to dress as Santa.

                            So, there is one answer we can believe is true IF it is given. But it is the only answer we can believe is true if it is given. Not a no-win situation, simple logical analysis.
                            Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                              The issue is not QAnon per se. We've had moon landing deniers, holocaust deniers, the illuminatti, 911 conspiracists, JFK shooting conspiracists etc etc etc

                              The issue is the widespread adoption of QAnon by a large contingent of GOP members, usually stanch Trump supporters, his refusal to speak against the conspiracy itself and call it what it is, and their close association with not just members of the GOP, but elected officials in the GOP. QAnon is not just nuttery, it's on the fast track to becoming institutionalized nuttery and it is gaining access to real power.
                              This is paranoia hogwash. Polls show the support for Qanon has significantly plummeted since January. Blueanon is far more of a threat than Qanon ever was even during Qanon's height because Blueanon has always had the backing of the MSM, which perpetuates the lies and delusion on a much grander scale. Qanon never had that backing by the MSM, ever. Even REAL conspiracies that undoubtedly overlapped with Qanon, such as the Epstein/Clinton conspiracy connection, never was given the same sensational attention as the number of fake Blueanon conspiracies by the MSM like Jessie Smollet or the Russian bounty stories.
                              "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                                Perhaps this will help you:

                                Let's suppose that a child believes in Santa Clause. And let's suppose we secretly agree with their dad that the dad will make a decision about whether to dress up as Santa when he puts the presents under the tree, but that the dad is not to tell us what he did. And further, let's suppose that we convince the child to wait up at night to see if Santa comes - and we promise the child $100 if they see Santa.

                                Now, let's suppose we interview the child on Christmas day (after a good nap). Now what can we learn if the child says he saw Santa? What are the likely possibilities?

                                1) the child saw his dad in the Santa suit
                                2) the child did not see his dad in the Santa suit but is lying because they want the $100.

                                So if the child says they saw Santa, (1) what do we know about what the child's honesty? basically nothing because we don't know what dad chose to do and (2) what do we know about what the dad actually chose to do? basically nothing because the kids answer is likely to be "he saw Santa" either way.

                                But suppose the child says he saw DAD putting presents under the tree?

                                Now what do we know (1) we know the kid is quite honest, he's willing to give up $100 for the truth and (2) we know that most likely dad chose NOT to dress as Santa.

                                So, there is one answer we can believe is true IF it is given. But it is the only answer we can believe is true if it is given. Not a no-win situation, simple logical analysis.
                                You're losing it. You have so many assumptions built into your theory that it's going to meltdown.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by NorrinRadd, Today, 12:06 PM
                                1 response
                                30 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Backup
                                by Backup
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:43 AM
                                25 responses
                                145 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Backup
                                by Backup
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:27 AM
                                14 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by seer, 06-17-2021, 11:25 AM
                                7 responses
                                73 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Started by oxmixmudd, 06-17-2021, 11:16 AM
                                67 responses
                                433 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Working...
                                X