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

  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    This is an interesting post. Bill, I know you are a very intelligent person. But you are blinded by false assumptions about me.
    It ain't just me Jim. It's every mod here on this site. Without exception.


    Its sarcasm bill. Made up out of whole cloth, mocking those that took the intelligence reports wrt continued threats to the capitol seriously and trying to distract from the complete depravity that is a political party run by Trump and dependent on people like QAnon believers.
    No. It is putting a unified label on existing leftist conspiracy theories using an existing leftist dog whistle label.



    The NG remained in place for a good while bill. That is 'acting on the intelligence'.
    That's not what "acting on intelligence" means in the military or in the IC, Jim.



    we are saying the same thing here, excepting I believe the intelligence existed, and you believe those that mentioned the intelligence were lying about it.. either way 'blueanon' is sarcasm, it is not a name for an actual conspiracy theory.
    Not "AN" actual conspiracy. It's SOME leftist conspiracies lumped together under a name meant to poke fun at the obsession of the left with fringe nutters on the right.




    While we can probably agree that happens to some extent on both sides,I said in this forum bill. The crazy that dominates conversations here that keeps being brought in by many of the conservatives posting as if they are real things e.g. the nutcase conspiracy theories about covid, about the election, about Biden, or the Clinton's, or Obama, or the news media. It's a never ending stream of it. Right here. And most of them believe it's all real.
    And there is a never-ending stream of it from the left. You are just hyper-focused on Trump and are too blind to see what everyone else sees in you.


    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • https://www.joeuscinski.com/uploads/...non_2-4-21.pdf

      Abstract:
      The QAnon conspiracy theory has garnered increasing attention as more than 80 pro-QAnon congressional candidates vied for nominations in 2020 primary races. The QAnon movement is widely characterized as “far-right” and “growing,” but such claims rest on flimsy evidence. Using 6 public opinion polls from 2018-2020, we find that support for QAnon is both meager and stable across time. QAnon also appears to find support among both the political right and left; rather than partisan valence, it is the extremity of political orientations that relates to QAnon support. Finally, we demonstrate that while QAnon supporters are “extreme,” they are not so in the ideological sense. Rather, QAnon support is best explained by conspiratorial worldviews, dark triad personality traits, and a predisposition toward other non-normative behavior. These findings have implications for the study of conspiracy theories and the spread of fake news and suggest new directions for research on political extremism


      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

        I didn't think you could grasp what was being said, but it was worth one more try just to be sure
        I grasped it. You are equating the outcome of a recount to the existence of Santa Claus. You have predetermined the outcome and are judging everything by that.

        Here's my example:

        If a person attacks homosexuality, then he/she is in denial and lashing out because they are ashamed of being homosexual.
        If a person defends homosexuals, then it is obvious they are hiding their true nature as a homosexual.
        If a person is silent on homosexuality, then they are attempting to fly under the radar because they are obviously homosexual.

        Everybody is homosexual. I have predetermined the outcome and am basing everyone's honesty on that.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

          There are many Republicans that will vote for the QAnon supporters in elections and Trump enthusiastically supports QAnon supporters in their elections. The polls demonstrate wide spread support.
          And.... There are plenty of non-Republican QAnon supporters as well (BillTheCat gave an interesting link showing just that). I'm unsure what your point is, but whatever it is, it was blunted beyond reckoning the moment you started pushing BlueAnon conspiracy theories on the thread while not only attacking conspiracy theorists but also insisting BlueAnon didn't exist. You not only shot yourself in the foot, you shot yourself in the other foot while hopping about after the first shot.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Ronson View Post

            I grasped it. You are equating the outcome of a recount to the existence of Santa Claus. You have predetermined the outcome and are judging everything by that.

            Here's my example:

            If a person attacks homosexuality, then he/she is in denial and lashing out because they are ashamed of being homosexual.
            If a person defends homosexuals, then it is obvious they are hiding their true nature as a homosexual.
            If a person is silent on homosexuality, then they are attempting to fly under the radar because they are obviously homosexual.

            Everybody is homosexual. I have predetermined the outcome and am basing everyone's honesty on that.
            No. His point was this.

            You had two possible outcomes. A and B. A had an added incentive of $100 if claimed, regardless of whether A was true or false.

            Outcome A was unreliable for honesty because it was either true, or a lie based on an incentive.
            Outcome B was reliable for honesty because there was not an incentive (and actually a counter incentive since the kid would lose $100) by saying it.

            So, while either outcome was possible, and possibly true, only one outcome could actually be trusted due to the incentive to lie on one of them.


            It does make me curious. How often did Jim trust people who used to be part of Trump's circle when they aired dirty Trump laundry? After all, once out of his circle of influence, they had plenty of incentive to lie about trump in order to either make money, rescue their reputation, or try and get revenge on someone who threw them under the bus. Did He believe Christine Ford, since she had political incentive to lie (stop Kavanaugh confirmation.)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

              And.... There are plenty of non-Republican QAnon supporters as well. I'm unsure what your point is, but whatever it is, it was blunted beyond reckoning the moment you started pushing BlueAnon conspiracy theories on the thread while not only attacking conspiracy theorists but also insisting BlueAnon didn't exist. You not only shot yourself in the foot, you shot yourself in the other foot while hopping about after the first shot.
              Honestly, I'm not sure why people try to engage with Shuny, he has shown time and time again that he's not actually here for honest debate. Gond, he reminds me of Ferengi, who would simply dismiss counter arguments as "Assertions without evidence" even when evidence was presented. You guys might as well be yelling at a brick wall for all the good this debate will do, it'll be about as productive. Even debates about definitions with H_A are more honest than debates with Shuny about anything.
              Last edited by CivilDiscourse; 05-04-2021, 08:52 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                No. His point was this.

                You had two possible outcomes. A and B. A had an added incentive of $100 if claimed, regardless of whether A was true or false.

                Outcome A was unreliable for honesty because it was either true, or a lie based on an incentive.
                Outcome B was reliable for honesty because there was not an incentive (and actually a counter incentive since the kid would lose $100) by saying it.

                So, while either outcome was possible, and possibly true, only one outcome could actually be trusted due to the incentive to lie on one of them.
                The problem with that argument is that it has to be supported. It's not like the auditors will appear from out of a locked room and announce "The election was fraudulent" and then everybody goes home. They'll have to show evidence for their conclusion, incentives or not.

                It does make me curious. How often did Jim trust people who used to be part of Trump's circle when they aired dirty Trump laundry? After all, once out of his circle of influence, they had plenty of incentive to lie about trump in order to either make money, rescue their reputation, or try and get revenge on someone who threw them under the bus. Did He believe Christine Ford, since she had political incentive to lie (stop Kavanaugh confirmation.)
                I was prepared to believe Ford - except her timing was suspicious and her testimony was hearsay. Aside from those on the Left, people saw her for what she was: a monkey wrench. And talk about incentives, she's probably made a tidy fortune off her new-found fame.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                  Honestly, I'm not sure why people try to engage with Shuny, he has shown time and time again that he's not actually here for honest debate. Gond, her reminds me of Ferengi, who would simply dismiss counter arguments as "Assertions without evidence" even when evidence was presented. You guys might as well be yelling at a brick wall for all the good this debate will do, it'll be about as productive. Even debates about definitions with H_A are more honest than debates with Shuny about anything.
                  hm, you're actually not wrong, that's a good comparison. A slightly more eloquent and wordy version of Ferengi.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                    No. His point was this.

                    You had two possible outcomes. A and B. A had an added incentive of $100 if claimed...
                    Let's be honest, it was a stupid and self-serving analogy that strained the point.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                      It's not like the auditors will appear from out of a locked room and announce "The election was fraudulent" and then everybody goes home.
                      Apparently we are only to accept pronouncements from locked rooms when it's to declare a Democrat victory.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                        Let's be honest, it was a stupid and self-serving analogy that strained the point.
                        I never said the point was great. Just clarifying what the point was.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
                          Did He believe Christine Ford, since she had political incentive to lie (stop Kavanaugh confirmation.)
                          Not only did ox uncritically accept any and all claims made by Ford even after her story fell apart, but he enthusiastically condemned anybody who doubted her.

                          You can find some examples here: https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...634#post812634
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                            hm, you're actually not wrong, that's a good comparison. A slightly more eloquent and wordy version of Ferengi.
                            I'd hate to see this Ferengi guy if shuny is more eloquent.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                              I'd hate to see this Ferengi guy if shuny is more eloquent.
                              He was a right wing person. He would come in, spout some random/extreme nonsesne/conspiracy.

                              If people explained his logic was wrong, he would reply "Assertion without evidence"
                              If people explained his obvious facts were wrong he would reply "Assertion without evidence"
                              If people explained his facts were wrong, and supplied links he would reply "Assertion without evidence"

                              Then he would crow that he was great and nobody could ever counter what he said in the thread.

                              Compare that to Shuny.
                              Shuny is left wing.

                              His go-to's are generally "Off topic" or "already answered" regardless of whether the responses are on-topic, or regardless of whether he's answered the question prior.

                              Either way, it doesn't take long to realize that there's no point in actually engaging them in debate. Not because they won't change their mind, but because they are pretty much not engaging in any meaningful way with dissenters. You might as well be talking to a brick wall or arguing with a doll with a pull-string.
                              Last edited by CivilDiscourse; 05-04-2021, 11:38 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                                No. His point was this.

                                You had two possible outcomes. A and B. A had an added incentive of $100 if claimed, regardless of whether A was true or false.

                                Outcome A was unreliable for honesty because it was either true, or a lie based on an incentive.
                                Outcome B was reliable for honesty because there was not an incentive (and actually a counter incentive since the kid would lose $100) by saying it.

                                So, while either outcome was possible, and possibly true, only one outcome could actually be trusted due to the incentive to lie on one of them.
                                You did in fact understand the point. And the only reason I gave the example was that I was accused of presenting a no win situation by saying that if those doing the Arizona audit, who expect to find fraud, and who will be greatly rewarded if thy find fraud, could be able to be judged honest if they announced they did not find fraud. Unfortunately, I need to accept the fact that making any sort of nuanced observation on this website is not likely to induce anything but a hostile and derogatory response and therefore simply isn't worth noting.

                                It does make me curious. How often did Jim trust people who used to be part of Trump's circle when they aired dirty Trump laundry? After all, once out of his circle of influence, they had plenty of incentive to lie about trump in order to either make money, rescue their reputation, or try and get revenge on someone who threw them under the bus. Did He believe Christine Ford, since she had political incentive to lie (stop Kavanaugh confirmation.)
                                MM's responses are necessarily self serving - so I'd take them with a grain of salt. I did not 'uncritically accept' what she said, though it seemed she was probably assaulted at some point by someone. I was on the 'opposition' side in most of those discussions, which means I did not express belief that Kavanaugh did nothing wrong and she was a perfect devil hired by the democratic party to sink the nomination. I really had a hard time with just how vicious and nasty the conversation was about her and said so, which was received about as well as you might expect. I was especially sympathetic to her when Trump publicly shamed her at one (some?) of his rallies - given that public humiliation was part of what she claimed to have been put through by whoever it was that she believed attacked her. I tended to believe something happened - there had been real discussions with a counselor about the incident long before Kavanaugh was nominated - and I doubted seriously that a woman would put herself through what she went through making the case public if she believed nothing had happened.

                                In the end, there was never enough evidence one way or the other to be sure of her claim it was Kavanaugh.


                                Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 07:54 AM
                                9 responses
                                52 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Backup
                                by Backup
                                 
                                Started by NorrinRadd, Yesterday, 12:06 PM
                                5 responses
                                49 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 06-18-2021, 06:43 AM
                                28 responses
                                163 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 06-18-2021, 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  
                                Working...
                                X