U.S Presidential Election

[Ian4]

serious question: WTF didnt QAnons catch proper institutional pedophiles in every Parish of every town? They didnt have to look for tunnels under Barack obamas place, they just had to pull back the curtain in the confessional box at their local church.

We all know QAnon people are delusional. But to me, the craziest thing is this: The whole paedophile thing. They claim Biden is a paedophile. There are paedophile rings. Children in tunnels, etc.

But the one thing they conveniently ignore is the one man who they believe is gonna save them from the cabal and deep state – Donald Trump – was friends with Epstein, allegedly paid hush money to underage girls, had access to girls when he owned Miss Universe/Miss Teen USA.

But for some reason, they do not make the same accusations of Trump as they do of Biden. Weird, hey?

 

[AngryAnt]

OK everyone knows that Murdoch media supports a more conservative POV. But I’m talking about the more respectable publications: which is why I said ‘most’.

They are all united against Trump and pursue a progressive agenda. It’s been this way for years and any conservatives have spotted the bias. Trump just managed to label it in the way that only he can: fake news.

And almost everything the progressive media told us about Trump over the past has been proved to be 100% true.

Facts don't care about your feelings Djevv.

 

[Djevv]

Based on what?

There were thousands at the rally. They didn’t all rush the Capitol building only a small minority did. I saw social media reports from people who were there.

 

[AngryAnt]

We all know QAnon people are delusional. But to me, the craziest thing is this: The whole paedophile thing. They claim Biden is a paedophile. There are paedophile rings. Children in tunnels, etc.

But the one thing they conveniently ignore is the one man who they believe is gonna save them from the cabal and deep state – Donald Trump – was friends with Epstein, allegedly paid hush money to underage girls, had access to girls when he owned Miss Universe/Miss Teen USA.

But for some reason, they do not make the same accusations of Trump as they do of Biden. Weird, hey?

The best part of the whole paedo network thing is that Trump is undercover working to bust the ring and at any moment now he will reveal all and there will be mass arrests of the Clintons, Obamas, and pretty much everyone else in government and society. This is known as The Storm and will be starting any tick of the clock now.





There's a storm in his diapers right now I'm guessing

 

[Sintiger]

Sorry but 7% violent is a lot. I posted a good article a few pages back. BLM protests might have been mostly peaceful but I would say Trumps rally was mostly peaceful. Unfortunately 7% rushed the Capitol building.

You are still completely missing the point. One is a demonstration about racism, the equal treatment of all races. Agree with that or not but the Capitol building attack was an insurrection.
They are nowhere near the same.
You are doing what many of us feared would be done when there was some violence at BLM, using that to diminish the cause. You can’t diminish the Capitol Building cause, it is diminished by what it is, an insurrection.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

... know what you mean, it’s really common. Seems to depend on how deep you journey down the internet woke or far right rabbit hole before your ‘you gotta be shittin me this is so *smile* bogus’ mechanism is tripped. For the most woke and committed Trumpsters it’s already been disabled. It’s too late. They’re gone. Lost in deep anti-cerebral cyber space.

Back in the day you had to really commit to become totally delusional – catch freezing cold trains in winter, join little clubs of kindred spirit, attend meetings, dress a certain way, read lots of long boring boring books etc etc. Now La La Land is just a few clicks of the mouse way…. and suddenly you're there...

Admittedly there is some hypocrisy in that I type this response on a social media platform of sorts. But it seems to be increasingly evident that social media in net terms is a negative force for the world, more than it is a positive - the negatives outweigh the positives.

The whole Trump saga and 'Tumpism' phenomenon is but one example on the so called right side of the spectrum. And the on the so called left side - with it's hyperbolised and exaggerated sense of social justice - is the opposite phenomenon.

But here's the crux of the issue. Who thought it a good idea to put every village idiot in the world within instant contact with every other village idiot in the world? Once upon a time, nutters might stand on a corner with a sandwich board shouting incoherent, deranged nonsense. Some people might get a bit agitated by it and dismissively tell the person to shut up. But most would simply shrug their shoulders and move on. With the virtual megaphone of social media, incoherent nonsense that in past eras wouldn't travel beyond idiotic street corner ramblings, now grows millions of legs and dimensions. I take issue too, with Zuckerberg and co picking winners out of the lunatics. As in, they get to pick and choose which incoherent, deranging nonsense gets heard and what doesn't. That said, perhaps some of the social media barons are actually some of the loonies themselves.

 

[BT Tiger]

Its true that most US-based, respectable and mainstream news organizations are aligned in their opposition to Trump, but its not some grand conspiracy against conservatives or anything like that.

They just prefer to keep their reputations intact and deal with actual facts, not the "alternative facts" peddled regularly by Trumpy and co.

 

[mrposhman]

Its true that most US-based, respectable and mainstream news organizations are aligned in their opposition to Trump, but its not some grand conspiracy against conservatives or anything like that.

They just prefer to keep their reputations intact and deal with actual facts, not the "alternative facts" peddled regularly by Trumpy and co.

Agreed, and the election is a perfect one. Trump in his speech last week actually said something like "at 10pm on election night we had won in a landslide" (I'm paraphrasing as I can't remember what was actually said, but the facts are election counting does not stop at a perceived time, it stops when all votes have been counted.

A bit like Chris Scott coming out after last years GF, and saying, "we are the real premiers, at half time we were comfortably ahead, Geelong should be premiers, our premiership has been stolen from us".

 

[Baloo]

Admittedly there is some hypocrisy in that I type this response on a social media platform of sorts. But it seems to be increasingly evident that social media in net terms is a negative force for the world, more than it is a positive - the negatives outweigh the positives.

The whole Trump saga and 'Tumpism' phenomenon is but one example on the so called right side of the spectrum. And the on the so called left side - with it's hyperbolised and exaggerated sense of social justice - is the opposite phenomenon.

But here's the crux of the issue. Who thought it a good idea to put every village idiot in the world within instant contact with every other village idiot in the world? Once upon a time, nutters might stand on a corner with a sandwich board shouting incoherent, deranged nonsense. Some people might get a bit agitated by it and dismissively tell the person to shut up. But most would simply shrug their shoulders and move on. With the virtual megaphone of social media, incoherent nonsense that in past eras wouldn't travel beyond idiotic street corner ramblings, now grows millions of legs and dimensions. I take issue too, with Zuckerberg and co picking winners out of the lunatics. As in, they get to pick and choose which incoherent, deranging nonsense gets heard and what doesn't. That said, perhaps some of the social media barons are actually some of the loonies themselves.

L. Ron Hubbard did ok without Social Media

 

[AngryAnt]

Admittedly there is some hypocrisy in that I type this response on a social media platform of sorts. But it seems to be increasingly evident that social media in net terms is a negative force for the world, more than it is a positive - the negatives outweigh the positives.

The whole Trump saga and 'Tumpism' phenomenon is but one example on the so called right side of the spectrum. And the on the so called left side - with it's hyperbolised and exaggerated sense of social justice - is the opposite phenomenon. But here's the crux of the issue. Who thought it a good idea to put every village idiot in the world within instant contact with every other village idiot in the world? Once upon a time, nutters might stand on a corner with a sandwich board shouting incoherent, deranged nonsense. Some people might get a bit agitated by it and dismissively tell the person to shut up. But most would simply shrug their shoulders and move on. With the virtual megaphone of social media, incoherent nonsense that in past eras wouldn't travel beyond idiotic street corner ramblings, now grows millions of legs and dimensions. I take issue too, with Zuckerberg and co picking winners out of the lunatics. As in, they get to pick and choose which incoherent, deranging nonsense gets heard and what doesn't.

Agree, the whole free exchange of information thing that would bring world peace and solve all our problems and misunderstandings went horribly wrong

 

[Djevv]

You are still completely missing the point. One is a demonstration about racism, the equal treatment of all races. Agree with that or not but the Capitol building attack was an insurrection.
They are nowhere near the same.
You are doing what many of us feared would be done when there was some violence at BLM, using that to diminish the cause. You can’t diminish the Capitol Building cause, it is diminished by what it is, an insurrection.

Yes BLM had a nice progressive aim that the mainstream media lapped up. So they excused the violence. What they didn’t tell you was BLM was a Marxist organisation. Some of those in the crowd actually believed in Marxism and looked to forment revolution (like in the communist manifesto) through violence. Insurrection by another name.

 

[AngryAnt]

Tough question. I don’t think anyone would have been harmed. Shouting slogans is one thing but murdering people is entirely another.

You seem to have forgotten a policeman was murdered by having his head beaten in with a fire extinguisher. What do you think these people would have done to Democratic congressmen and women? Nancy Pelosi? AOC?

The delusion and rewriting of history continues. If you don't like the fact, just pretend it didn't happen.

 

[Brodders17]

Yes BLM had a nice progressive aim that the mainstream media lapped up. So they excused the violence. What they didn’t tell you was BLM was a Marxist organisation. Some of those in the crowd actually believed in Marxism and looked to forment revolution (like in the communist manifesto) through violence. Insurrection by another name.

Can I ask, is Fox news in America, and News Corp in Australia considered 'mainstream media'?

 

[Sintiger]

Yes BLM had a nice progressive aim that the mainstream media lapped up. So they excused the violence. What they didn’t tell you was BLM was a Marxist organisation. Some of those in the crowd actually believed in Marxism and looked to forment revolution (like in the communist manifesto) through violence. Insurrection by another name.

No, BLM is a cause not an organisation. There may be organisations in and around the cause but millions of us who support the aims of BLM are not marxists, nor anything approaching marxists. We support the equal treatment of races.
This mixing up of the cause and some fringe organisations around it is just a convenient excuse to not confront what BLM is actually about.
I haven’t seen many excusing the violence in fact so many who support the cause have abhorred that violence.
BLM is not a “nice progressive aim” it is reinforcing a basic human right.

 

[tigerdell]

Can I ask, is Fox news in America, and News Corp in Australia considered 'mainstream media'?

That was my point. Fox cable is mainstream throughout the USA.
New york post is the most widely read daily in New york city.
The syndicated radio shock jocks have millions of listeners throughout that country.
To state that its not mainstream is wrong.
It would be like saying Alan Jones is not on mainstream radio.

The fact is that Trump has/had the strong support of a major section of mainstream media.
Not surprising as 70+ million voted for him.

Let,s not characterize it as Trump doing it against the media. He had media support

 

[Baloo]

If the MAGA movement were Muslim, the press would be talking about the radicalisation of terrorists.

 

[tigerdell]

Tough question. I don’t think anyone would have been harmed. Shouting slogans is one thing but murdering people is entirely another. Still there were some hard-heads in that crowd, people were scared. I think given what Trump said about Pence I would hold him responsible. Pence has every right to be absolutely livid with Trump.

Murdering people is another thing, totally agree. Unfortunately it happened with the brutal beating of a policeman.
And the significant number of people in helmets, body armour, carrying weapons and tools to take hostages is a big indicator that murder was on the agenda.
Maybe many of the protestors were peaceful but there was also an awful lot prepared for violence.
You might think nothing would have happened, but the evidence points the other way.

Its not a comparison with other events. The protest stands on its own. As a violent attack on the day a new president was confirmed. Terrorism.
And as for most terrorism perpetrated in the US, it was mostly white folk against other Americans.

ps Djevv not picking a fight with you mate!

 

[tigersnake]

Yes BLM had a nice progressive aim that the mainstream media lapped up. So they excused the violence. What they didn’t tell you was BLM was a Marxist organisation. Some of those in the crowd actually believed in Marxism and looked to forment revolution (like in the communist manifesto) through violence. Insurrection by another name.

And that is a bad thing? I won't bother going into the complex history of Marxism, including evil dictators that got into power under the banner, but Marxist philosophy and Socialism is a good thing. At the very least, even if you are anything but far right, it has good elements. Equality, lack of exploitation, what's not to like?

Also your argument implies that only marxist leaders can be murderous, manipluative megalomaniacs. Naive and ideological in the extreme. I could say exectly the same about the nutcase right moosehorn brigade, did you know Djevv, I have heard that some of those in the crowd actually beleived in facism, nationalism and white supremacy and looked to forment revolution?

Amazing I know. Even taking your argument at face value, the BLM are fighting for equality, and end to racist law enforcement. What are the rednecks fighting for? Their right to be dumb and racist, carry guns, and not have access to decent wages, healthcare and education? Marx sure got one thing right, (he got most things right AFAIC in terms of his analysis, even if his prescriptions need work): false consciousness.

 

[mrposhman]

Yes BLM had a nice progressive aim that the mainstream media lapped up. So they excused the violence. What they didn’t tell you was BLM was a Marxist organisation. Some of those in the crowd actually believed in Marxism and looked to forment revolution (like in the communist manifesto) through violence. Insurrection by another name.

You cannot seriously be comparing the aims with regards to insurrection as the same as BLM where the damage was mainly to shops etc (not condoning this) and the violent attack and occupation of a federal building with the senate present??

 

[mrposhman]

Murdering people is another thing, totally agree. Unfortunately it happened with the brutal beating of a policeman.
And the significant number of people in helmets, body armour, carrying weapons and tools to take hostages is a big indicator that murder was on the agenda.
Maybe many of the protestors were peaceful but there was also an awful lot prepared for violence.
You might think nothing would have happened, but the evidence points the other way.

Its not a comparison with other events. The protest stands on its own. As a violent attack on the day a new president was confirmed. Terrorism.
And as for most terrorism perpetrated in the US, it was mostly white folk against other Americans.

ps Djevv not picking a fight with you mate!

Agree tigerdell.

I believe the undercurrent of the wording (from what I've heard) on parler was of the same. They wanted someone to be punished.

The hardest element of Trumps supporters actually believe (because of what he has told them) that the election was unlawful and they regarded the act last week as no different to those that are now well regarded as patriots. They believed that their government was illegitimate and were prepared to take it back with force. To think that this wouldn't have resulted in loss of life is ignorant at best.