daelm
Expert Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,348
You have promoted the views of a cult that has been making crazier and crazier predictions for a year now. There are pages and pages of your claims where you encourage readers to anticipate dates and events promulgated by QAnon. These now include your recent views on countries and cities actually being "corporations", which QAnon uses to underpin their most recent fantasy that the election is fraudulent because it appoints a CEO, not a president and so on.
When you say you don't support an ideology, you are therefore actively misrepresenting your own behaviour on the forum. Doing so makes it harder for people to engage you in good faith.
You routinely get offended and take action based on that, the least of which is putting people on ignore. There are dozens of examples in your own hand.
When you say you don't get offended easily, you are therefore actively misrepresenting your behaviour on the forum. Doing so makes it harder for people to engage you in good faith.
You routinely refuse to engage with anything that disagrees with you, reject evidence presented to you, block, report, and ignore people who disagree with you. Doing so makes it harder for people to engage you in good faith.
There have been something like 64 cases lodged in the US. Trump appointed judges are amongst the people who have reviewed them and they have all been found wanting. To date, under the greatest scrutiny of any American election ever, no evidence has emerged that the election was fraudulent. Donald Trump's own Attorney General has rejected this claim.
You have been asked repeatedly for evidence of these claims.
If you're talking about the political left, zero people are unaware of his flaws. The vast majority of politically active left analysis is horrified that Biden was promoted to nominee, and, again, there are thousands and thousands of examples of this being discussed online.
The maneuvering, for example, that led to Sanders being relegated is going to be the subject of a lot of future histories. I predict that it will be seen as the moment when the Democratic party had the window to revitalise and become relevant again to the vast number of Americans who don't vote, and turned it down. The Democrats reversion to the middle is their signal failure.
If you're talking about the average American voter, the media diet they consume depends largely on their ideology. (American media bias is such a well known phenomenon that people teach it in universities.) The idea that there was some unique, conspiratorial push to elect Biden, involving everyone you're scared of just shows how little you actually know about the American media landscape. There was, with Biden, as there was with Trump, Obama, Bush, et al, pretty much business as usual - media fell in line with party affiliation.
"We found that the tendency to believe in conspiracy theories was associated with the feeling of possessing scarce information about the situations explained by the conspiracy theories (Study 1) and higher need for uniqueness (Study 2)."
100% think this is your hobby, not a job, but happy to take your word for it.
This was Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman's point in Manufacturing Consent and events since then have only made it stronger. They made, and make, a much stronger argument than your screaming and link-spamming, and draw much deeper conclusions. Rather than the fantasy of a left-wing bias, they identify media as subservient to power irrespective of the ideology of power. (they achieve this with a little known skill called "research".)
The solution to that problem, fyi, does not lie in joining a cult or parroting a party line.
Biden is, if the Democrats wished to have a vibrant, relevant party in 10 years, definitely the worst possible candidate for them. Is he the "worst possible candidate" for the presidency? No. He's mediocre, but the nature of American structures is that "mediocre" is fine. They've had so many mediocre presidents that it's almost a norm. In the American political landscape, there are dozens of equally mediocre persons who are worse candidates. Is he "totally incompetent"? No, not that either. He's a career politician and a moderately successful one, although that's a very low bar. Does that make him good? Not at all. A large part of that career has been spent doing bad things.
Did some conspiratorial cabal place him in the role to give Harris a run in? Nope. Democrats pushed him into the job because they didn't have another centrist, career politician to call on, and because doing so allowed them to hark back to Obama and hope that counted for something, is all. They're terrified of a "non-normal" politician. Trump, Sanders, even Bloomberg, all have in common that they are loose cannons to some degree. The parties don't like loose cannons.
They put Harris in for similar reasons.
Trump has, based on election outcomes, just over 20% support. That's (a) after the biggest turnout ever, and (b) after the most publicised election ever. Throughout his term, his core never changed, nor did it increase. In fact, he lost the edges of that core, primarily based on his behaviour.
Is 20% of America "white supremacist"? Probably not. Are they white supremacist adjacent? Definitely yes. The overlaps between people in the evangelical community, militia movements, Tea Party, sovereign citizens, etc and formal white supremacists have been documented for decades. That's why you saw that blend at the capitol.
edit: for clarity and grammar.
Last edited:
