Discussion
DanL said:
People like to buy into conspiracy theories - they can read around the subject on various web sites, believe they’ve “researched” it, and feel smart. That’s nice for them, but it’s not research. It’s believing what someone’s told you, often followed by deriding someone else for believing what someone’s told them, simply because the source is “mainstream” and so somehow wrong...
Conspiracists invariably fit nicely into the "lazy narcissistic mediocrity" pigeonhole - a reaction to realising their drab humdrum lives are stretching out before them and promise nothing more than the same drab humdrum, but the narcissistic bent leaves them deeply uncomfortable with the notion that they are not in some way special, and in possession of deeper insights than the "sheeple". The ready availability of fantasist woo on the internet means even the laziest narcissistic mediocrity can find material to feed their neuroses, and the act of redistributing it gratifies the need to be seen as being superior (whilst in being denial of the fact they're seen as gibbering knobsockets)Of course, being one of the lizard people, I would say that, wouldn't I...
<blinks third eyelid>
eharding said:
Conspiracists invariably fit nicely into the "lazy narcissistic mediocrity" pigeonhole - a reaction to realising their drab humdrum lives are stretching out before them and promise nothing more than the same drab humdrum, but the narcissistic bent leaves them deeply uncomfortable with the notion that they are not in some way special, and in possession of deeper insights than the "sheeple". The ready availability of fantasist woo on the internet means even the laziest narcissistic mediocrity can find material to feed their neuroses, and the act of redistributing it gratifies the need to be seen as being superior (whilst in being denial of the fact they're seen as gibbering knobsockets)
Of course, being one of the lizard people, I would say that, wouldn't I...
<blinks third eyelid>
Of course, being one of the lizard people, I would say that, wouldn't I...
<blinks third eyelid>
eharding said:
Conspiracists invariably fit nicely into the "lazy narcissistic mediocrity" pigeonhole - a reaction to realising their drab humdrum lives are stretching out before them and promise nothing more than the same drab humdrum, but the narcissistic bent leaves them deeply uncomfortable with the notion that they are not in some way special, and in possession of deeper insights than the "sheeple". The ready availability of fantasist woo on the internet means even the laziest narcissistic mediocrity can find material to feed their neuroses, and the act of redistributing it gratifies the need to be seen as being superior (whilst in being denial of the fact they're seen as gibbering knobsockets)
Of course, being one of the lizard people, I would say that, wouldn't I...
<blinks third eyelid>
What? you don't believe that Lizard people exist?..the purple sheeple eaters?..I never.Of course, being one of the lizard people, I would say that, wouldn't I...
<blinks third eyelid>
dasigty said:
Countdown said:
dasigty said:
There is not now, or ever has been a qanon except in the many attacks by the MSM.
https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/terror/conspiracies-plotsDo you see all those references to QAnon.....?
Countdown said:
dasigty said:
Countdown said:
dasigty said:
There is not now, or ever has been a qanon except in the many attacks by the MSM.
https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/terror/conspiracies-plotsDo you see all those references to QAnon.....?
...until the occasional criticism of Trump entered their programming and suddenly because the big baby can't take negativitiy they're now MSM.
Similarly his fans cannot take negativity so they hate Fox and love OANN instead. They still watch Fox everyday for hours on end though.
dasigty said:
This is what happens when ill informed people latch on to the spoon fed nonsense of the MSM.
So, I decided to educate myself on Qanon...dasigty said:
An "Anon" is an individual, "Q" is a board (One of many) where links are posted up to be discussed.
Errrr, Q is the signature of the first Q poster - "Q clearance patriot", first posting on 4chan, then 8chan then 8kun. Hence Qanon. As more dasigty said:
The number one rule of that board is "Do your own research".
So, I did.dasigty said:
There is not now, or ever has been a qanon except in the many attacks by the MSM.
Even though some Qanon members refer to themselves as members of Qanon... 
See wiki and nytimes and a bazillion other websites for details.
Byker28i said:
vetrof said:
But how do they, you are anyone else know for sure it's nonsense? We know the leaked photos are real, it appears that at least some of the texts and emails are real, even pistonheads' very own Trumpsmeller pursuivant suggested as much.
The National Security chief had confirmed there is no connection to any Russian disinformation campaign, so there needs to be another explanation.
The timing is obviously highly political, the circumstances of the matter becoming public are also far from clear. Nevertheless the content and implications seem to warrant at least a cursory examination.
As an aside, I see nobody is prepared to stick their neck out and say that they believe Hunter Biden's career is all above board. I wonder why.
Actually John Ratcliffe is the Director of National Intelligence , a trump appointee, who said the russians had nothing to do with it. The same person thats been releasing selected documents and segments of documents trying to dish dirt on Clinton and Obama etc to support trump but failing miserably.The National Security chief had confirmed there is no connection to any Russian disinformation campaign, so there needs to be another explanation.
The timing is obviously highly political, the circumstances of the matter becoming public are also far from clear. Nevertheless the content and implications seem to warrant at least a cursory examination.
As an aside, I see nobody is prepared to stick their neck out and say that they believe Hunter Biden's career is all above board. I wonder why.
Hardly a non partisan player.
Meanwhile, the FBI are investigating, many say it is russian disinformation,
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-bi...
Even giuliani says it's 50/50 he got it from russian intelligence.
https://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-said-ther...
Remember what his daughter said:
"If being the daughter of a polarizing mayor who became the president's personal bulldog has taught me anything, it is that corruption starts with 'yes-men' and women, the cronies who create an echo chamber of lies and subservience to maintain their proximity to power," Caroline Giuliani wrote. "We've seen this ad nauseam with Trump and his cadre of high-level sycophants (the ones who weren't convicted, anyway)."
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/16/politics/rudy-g...
trump told us at the start of October that there would be an october surprise coming. He loves to boast so often gives the game away. It was all timed to have a similar effect of Comey's letter - also a success ultimately of Giuliani's contacts within the NY FBI office
To call this as anything else is laughable
As for Hunter Bidens career? I suggest you look into it fully, his qualifications which he sat (remember trump had someone sit hsi exams, has threatened Wharton College not to reveal anything) then look at his fall with his addiction and how he beat it and tried to rebuild again. The fact that team trump tried to make ditrt out of Bidens support and love for his son is incredible and just shows how out of touch they are, but then not unexpected when Donald Jnr and Eric constantly try desperately to win daddy's affection and approval without success (because only Ivanka gets a look in).
To question that when you've trump family members in the WH as Advisors, making $80m in 2018, $135m in 2019, using the position to get Qatar to bail out Kushners failing business for $1.4bn at 666 5th Ave after his mate MBS and Saudi blockaded Qatar ports, lifted after the loan was made.
Of course that deal was done by Brookfield, backed by Qatar, who just happened to have bought Westinghouse Electric, who make nuclear power plants, that Kushner and others were pushing selling those nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia over the objections of top national security officials.
Ivanka's numerous chinese patents given to her when trump started negotiating trade?
We could easily keep going. The claims that Hunter Biden set Joe Biden up for payments is laughable as Biden has released his tax returns for ten years, something that trump is strongly fighting against, and no wonder with what the NY Time shas discovered. No payment of taxes, writing down values fo rtaxes, inflating values for loans. Secret China bank accounts and payments taken from the banks/china govt...
You're barking entirely up the wrong family for corruption, hidden bank accounts, family connections being used. Everyone has sold out access to trump fro a profit.
Edited for my terrible spelling
Edited by Byker28i on Wednesday 21st October 08:00
But they still don't really address the question of whether the emails are fake or not.
It seems to me that it's almost a religious position, at this stage nobody can know for sure. Yet the answer must be an unequivocal 'fake'. An answer that can't be questioned is very concerning to me. The main reason that it can't be true seems to be 'cos Trump'.
Trump is obviously a liar, cheat, scumbag of the highest order, but it's also possible that the Biden's are not pure as the driven snow. I don't see why it's so difficult to see both as possibly true.
As for the Hunter Biden's career, again thanks for the extra reading. But what is your opinion? The fact that only one Biden defender on the whole thread has managed a somewhat tepid answer is rather strange.
I'd be very surprised if there's any Hunter Biden defenders at all seeing as he's a private citizen not seeking public office.
The fake/not fake debate can be easily solved by the accuser: Rudy Guiliani. Use yourself as any example. Someone in your work place says you sent them a dirty email, and as the only evidence, they hand over a paper print out with your email address on it. Anyone looking into it on the accuser's behalf would rightly then ask to see the actual email on their computer, but the accuser won't let them. How angry would that make you, and the rest of those who work around you? What reason could the accuser have for not giving that info out?
The fake/not fake debate can be easily solved by the accuser: Rudy Guiliani. Use yourself as any example. Someone in your work place says you sent them a dirty email, and as the only evidence, they hand over a paper print out with your email address on it. Anyone looking into it on the accuser's behalf would rightly then ask to see the actual email on their computer, but the accuser won't let them. How angry would that make you, and the rest of those who work around you? What reason could the accuser have for not giving that info out?
_dobbo_ said:
vetrof said:
But they still don't really address the question of whether the emails are fake or not.
Let's assume all the emails are real, and there is no fakery at all. What is it in the emails that means Joe Biden isn't fit to be President?You seem to be completely missing my point, welcome to the club.
vetrof said:
I have neither read them nor suggested that Joe Biden isn't fit to be President. What do you think would make him unfit to be President?
You seem to be completely missing my point, welcome to the club.
Could you state your point clearly and without hyperbole, sarcasm, euphemism or analogy, in less than three sentences?You seem to be completely missing my point, welcome to the club.
Sam.M said:
vetrof said:
I have neither read them nor suggested that Joe Biden isn't fit to be President. What do you think would make him unfit to be President?
You seem to be completely missing my point, welcome to the club.
Could you state your point clearly and without hyperbole, sarcasm, euphemism or analogy, in less than three sentences?You seem to be completely missing my point, welcome to the club.
vetrof said:
Sam.M said:
vetrof said:
I have neither read them nor suggested that Joe Biden isn't fit to be President. What do you think would make him unfit to be President?
You seem to be completely missing my point, welcome to the club.
Could you state your point clearly and without hyperbole, sarcasm, euphemism or analogy, in less than three sentences?You seem to be completely missing my point, welcome to the club.
Now, answer this - why does it matter to you? You keep going on about this point, but I confess I can’t see why. Joe Biden is running for president, not his son.
vetrof said:
I have neither read them nor suggested that Joe Biden isn't fit to be President. What do you think would make him unfit to be President?
You seem to be completely missing my point, welcome to the club.
So you don't know what's in the emails, or why they are important, and you won't find out.You seem to be completely missing my point, welcome to the club.
But the emails you haven't read and don't know anything about do seem fishy to you.
I'm happy to be in the club that thinks whatever point you have is probably worth missing.
DanL said:
Here’s the thing about doing your own research (which I’m sure a number of posters on this thread will disagree with)...
What is research?
Research is:
- speaking to the primary sources.
- visiting archives and libraries.
- gathering information.
- etc.
Research is not:
- visiting websites to read what someone else has written.
Research is hard, takes time, and often needs expert knowledge to understand what you’re researching - it’s a full time job for some journalists, for example. Visiting websites and deciding you like what they’ve written is not research. You have no idea whether the person writing knows what they’re talking about or not. You have no idea whether the name at the top of the page is the person who wrote it, even.
People like to buy into conspiracy theories - they can read around the subject on various web sites, believe they’ve “researched” it, and feel smart. That’s nice for them, but it’s not research. It’s believing what someone’s told you, often followed by deriding someone else for believing what someone’s told them, simply because the source is “mainstream” and so somehow wrong...
I feel in 2020 that we can also lump the word "PROOF" into a similar category. People repeatidly say "this proves it" by linking to a single internet page. That is not proof. Try standing up in a court of law and use an internet link as your defence as see how you get on.What is research?
Research is:
- speaking to the primary sources.
- visiting archives and libraries.
- gathering information.
- etc.
Research is not:
- visiting websites to read what someone else has written.
Research is hard, takes time, and often needs expert knowledge to understand what you’re researching - it’s a full time job for some journalists, for example. Visiting websites and deciding you like what they’ve written is not research. You have no idea whether the person writing knows what they’re talking about or not. You have no idea whether the name at the top of the page is the person who wrote it, even.
People like to buy into conspiracy theories - they can read around the subject on various web sites, believe they’ve “researched” it, and feel smart. That’s nice for them, but it’s not research. It’s believing what someone’s told you, often followed by deriding someone else for believing what someone’s told them, simply because the source is “mainstream” and so somehow wrong...
Definition of proof
a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
It is also fundamentally linked to the concept of "beyond reasonable doubt"..........
vetrof said:
Well that's convinced me.
It does seem like you want there to be dirt as validation for your posts and nothing we say or link to in the process of trying to argue against you is going to sway your already locked in position that there MUST be dirt because we aren't being told about it.F1GTRUeno said:
It does seem like you want there to be dirt as validation for your posts and nothing we say or link to in the process of trying to argue against you is going to sway your already locked in position that there MUST be dirt because we aren't being told about it.
It is a waste of time to try and argue with sense and reason with these conspiracy theorists. They've utterly convinced themselves of "the truth" that any attempt to break their cognitive dissonance with verifiable fact will be met with violent resistance. For them,
The past was erased, the erasure forgotten, the lie became truth.
Just mock them as they aren't worth any more effort.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff