Have you got the Vaccine

[altaguetta]

So, in otherwords, you cannot explain it and now you are running and hiding. We all understand you very well. So either man up and explain it or shut up.

You don't get it... I've been explaining it all along.

This is how the world works: the opposite what you think.

 

[Hornet]

You don't get it... I've been explaining it all along.

This is how the world works: the opposite what you think.

You’ve explained nothing. Nobody listens to you. But, I’m offering you an opportunity to explain it to us and you are running away like a coward.

Man up or shut up.

 

[altaguetta]

You’ve explained nothing. Nobody listens to you. But, I’m offering you an opportunity to explain it to us and you are running away like a coward.

Man up or shut up.

Rich people have the means to buy people to do whatever they want.

That's it.

 

[altaguetta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1413136431875194882

 

[Hornet]

Rich people have the means to buy people to do whatever they want.

That's it.

WOW! You actually came up with that all by yourself. You deserve a purple star sticker for your report card to take home to mommy.

That doesn’t explain how the DOJ having Hunter Biden’s laptop fast sat on it for over a year. The head of the DOJ was William Barr a Trump cronie. Trump is a billionaire. So, whey didn’t that rich guy (Trump) order Barr to release whatever was on the laptop if Rich people have the means to do whatever they want? Explain that one dumbfuck.

 

[sy barite]

We disagree. I believe that if there was actually a story, which you apparently believe there is one but I do not since i believe a real story would have come out long before October 2020 as the laptop was in possession of the DOJ since 2019.

What I believe is the propaganda has changed over the last several generations. In days of past (or some communist countries today) a propaganda department of the government would control the messaging. But that drove suspicion from the population. Now, with social media, propaganda is much more covert and is all about flooding the airways with programmed nonsense and by having other people retweet it or share it on Facebook so that it takes a life of it’s own because people believe that if other people are sharing it then it has legitimacy. But a lot of that is nonsense and there are too many dumb people out there that will blindly agree with it and not even question if it makes sense. I recall months ago seeing a video of a former Alex Jones employee (don’t recall the name) who acknowledged that even Alex doesn’t believe the bullshit he’s peddling but it makes him rich so he keeps doing it.

What I believe is that people saw the polls and Biden was looking like a win then that propaganda machine started with the laptop story to stir up shit to try to salvage the election. Barr or other Trump advisors probably reviewed it all and said there was nothing there a long time ago but Trump being himself started spreading it further and Rudy followed suit.

The laptop story was really first and foremost about the Ukrainian situation. It later took a life of it’s own with the accusations of drugs and other stuff. But again, the DOJ had the laptop since 2019. If there was a real story it could have come out way back then and sabotaged Biden’s run against Sanders.

I’m not buying any media coverup because I believe it was just that social media propaganda engine fueled by Trump and Rudy making up shit and the media spotted that is was really a nothing burger and said they won’t be a party to it. All media platforms have editors in charge that decide what is or is not newsworthy and that has been that way since the printing press was invented. Them doing their jobs has not been called out as a grand conspiracy before.

Yes, we disagree, but it would be interesting to nail down the specific points we disagree on, since to an extent, we seem to be having separate conversations.

For the record, I've conceded nothing is proven with respect to ownership of the laptop or what was on it. I agree Trump et al would could be expected to exaggerate and distort things for political gain (I'd expect the same from Dems). Real reporting would have uncovered that and exposed Trump's attempt to mislead the public. That's not what happened. The story was buried to an extent and degree I've never seen before.

You have said you don't buy any media coverup. What specifically are you not buying? That Twitter suspended a major newspaper's account for weeks to prevent mention of this story? That Facebook throttled any content mentioning this story? That NPR issued a statement saying they would not investigate "distractions"? That the U.S. government--supported by most major media outlets--alleged the laptop was Russian disinformation without a shred of supporting proof? Are you saying you don't believe those things happened or that you're ok with them? If you think these actions are right and good, then you must have been clamoring for big Tech and media to take the same actions when Trump was accused of Russian collusion and the existence of pee tapes was (and still is) openly discussed.

Whether there was actionable (legally speaking) material on the laptop or not, is for me besides the point--so I am absolutely fine with your suppositions on that point. If the DOJ had the laptop and it was a total "nothing burger" as the Yanks like to say, then I'd still expect the media to have investigated to the same extent and degree that they would have if the laptop belonged to Donald Trump Jr. If the laptop had belonged to D.T. Jr. and U.S. intelligence had said it was planted by China, do you think the media might have asked them how they knew that? Or would they have just asked Trump what his favourite ice cream flavour was? Do you doubt that if the players had been switched around the media's attitude would have been totally different? Moreover, do you doubt this was all clearly done to prevent affecting the election? Trump and Giuliani have made fools of themselves alleging interference they were unable to prove and could not get a single court to support, when the case for election tampering was far clearer in the court of public opinion.

Having so much of the media, tech and other public institutions favouring one side of the political spectrum is not healthy. Seventy-five million people voted for Trump and they have some cause to feel gaslit. The result is ever deepening division.

Btw, on a separate topic, you'll recall we recently had a discussion about CRT. At the time, I believe you asked for examples of it being taught in K-12? If you've been following the news, I guess you noticed that you got an answer.

 

[Hornet]

Yes, we disagree, but it would be interesting to nail down the specific points we disagree on, since to an extent, we seem to be having separate conversations.

For the record, I've conceded nothing is proven with respect to ownership of the laptop or what was on it. I agree Trump et al would could be expected to exaggerate and distort things for political gain (I'd expect the same from Dems). Real reporting would have uncovered that and exposed Trump's attempt to mislead the public. That's not what happened. The story was buried to an extent and degree I've never seen before.

You have said you don't buy any media coverup. What specifically are you not buying? That Twitter suspended a major newspaper's account for weeks to prevent mention of this story? That Facebook throttled any content mentioning this story? That NPR issued a statement saying they would not investigate "distractions"? That the U.S. government--supported by most major media outlets--alleged the laptop was Russian disinformation without a shred of supporting proof? Are you saying you don't believe those things happened or that you're ok with them? If you think these actions are right and good, then you must have been clamoring for big Tech and media to take the same actions when Trump was accused of Russian collusion and the existence of pee tapes was (and still is) openly discussed.

Whether there was actionable (legally speaking) material on the laptop or not, is for me besides the point--so I am absolutely fine with your suppositions on that point. If the DOJ had the laptop and it was a total "nothing burger" as the Yanks like to say, then I'd still expect the media to have investigated to the same extent and degree that they would have if the laptop belonged to Donald Trump Jr. If the laptop had belonged to D.T. Jr. and U.S. intelligence had said it was planted by China, do you think the media might have asked them how they knew that? Or would they have just asked Trump what his favourite ice cream flavour was? Do you doubt that if the players had been switched around the media's attitude would have been totally different? Moreover, do you doubt this was all clearly done to prevent affecting the election? Trump and Giuliani have made fools of themselves alleging interference they were unable to prove and could not get a single court to support, when the case for election tampering was far clearer in the court of public opinion.

Having so much of the media, tech and other public institutions favouring one side of the political spectrum is not healthy. Seventy-five million people voted for Trump and they have some cause to feel gaslit. The result is ever deepening division.

Btw, on a separate topic, you'll recall we recently had a discussion about CRT. At the time, I believe you asked for examples of it being taught in K-12? If you've been following the news, I guess you noticed that you got an answer.

Maybe this will help. I believe that newspapers, tv and social media are private enterprises that have editorial rights to publish what they want. That also means they can screen, filter and throw away bullshit. Conversely, those like Info Wars (who I’ll call a US bad actor), will throw away any reasonable news and only peddle the bullshit. I believe Twitter and Facebook have policies on what they will allow to be posted and people accept that to use their platform. Like any editor, I believe they have the right to screen and filter content just like a newspaper or tv station. The key difference is that they are post-screening and removing posts where tv and newspapers pre-scene and the content never gets out to begin with. This editorial oversight has been around since the invention of the printing press and is not new. I think there is a lot of bullshit being thrown out there by US bad actors not seeking the truth but to create noise in order to make a buck. I also believe there are bad state actors fuelling that as well in an attempt to undermine democracy. Kind of like in that Jodie Foster movie Contact, the bad state actors have the hidden signal riding on the tv signal.

What I see is that if there was a real story it would have come out much earlier and then yes I’d want to know about it. What I saw was that the poll results showed Trump fading away and those bad actors spun into gear with the laptop story (again, a story that could have come to light many months earlier) to try to sway the election results to Trumps favour. What I saw, was an impulsive Trump latching onto those stories and giving it oxygen to help his campaign. What I saw was those newspaper, tv and social media outlets (again private enterprises with editorial control on what they distribute or publish) seeing a nothing burger and refusing to publish that. You may see that as a political attempt to sway the election but I do not. I saw a bullshit news story that itself was an attempt to sway the election and media outlets saying, we’re not going to give this bullshit any oxygen. You may think everything should be given oxygen, but I do not because when the bullshit is given oxygen and takes a life of it’s own it will spread and sow more divide and undermine the foundations of democracy. I seat Trump and Rudy as the Boy who cried Wolf too many times and those media outlets ignored him.

Let’s put it another way for example purposes. This is an extreme example but maybe it makes it a little more clear. I see the bullshit being spread by these right-wing outlets, and bad state actors using those outset’s to sow the divide in the US and distribute more bullshit as an insurgent attempt to undermine US democracy. Weakening the US by default makes them stronger. The US bad actors don’t necessarily mean to undermine democracy, they are more interested in getting rich off of guys like altaguetta and his like, but their outlets and their hosts become “useful idiots” for the bad state actors. If demcracy was a dam holding back water, the bad state actors don’t need to blow up the dam, they just need to put a crack in it and then let the water pressure (the right-wing media outlets) do the rest of the work for them until the damn eventually breaks. In that light, the other media outlets not publishing what those right-winger started pushing it is thereby the counter insurgent response. They chose not to aid and abet that attempt.

 

[stripfan]

His daughter is extremely pissed off.

Bruce David Ward: 64-year-old Canadian man suffers sudden aortic dissection, dead 30 days after first experimental Moderna mRNA injection - The COVID Blog®

Bruce David Ward had a great Father's Day weekend with his wife. The following day, he felt excruciating pain. He died 24 hours later.

thecovidblog.com

 

[Ninersfan]

So many suckers will continually believe that the government is here to save them.
All while hiding their eyes to the fact that guidelines have been around for God knows how long in order for people to save themselves.

The people dying and the kids developing permanent heart damage from the Warp Speed shot appear to be real. I know two in each group.

You gullible government bootlickers who take everything Big Brother says as gospel will only get what you deserve.

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

vaers.hhs.gov

 

[sy barite]

Maybe this will help. I believe that newspapers, tv and social media are private enterprises that have editorial rights to publish what they want. That also means they can screen, filter and throw away bullshit. Conversely, those like Info Wars (who I’ll call a US bad actor), will throw away any reasonable news and only peddle the bullshit. I believe Twitter and Facebook have policies on what they will allow to be posted and people accept that to use their platform. Like any editor, I believe they have the right to screen and filter content just like a newspaper or tv station. The key difference is that they are post-screening and removing posts where tv and newspapers pre-scene and the content never gets out to begin with. This editorial oversight has been around since the invention of the printing press and is not new. I think there is a lot of bullshit being thrown out there by US bad actors not seeking the truth but to create noise in order to make a buck. I also believe there are bad state actors fuelling that as well in an attempt to undermine democracy. Kind of like in that Jodie Foster movie Contact, the bad state actors have the hidden signal riding on the tv signal.

What I see is that if there was a real story it would have come out much earlier and then yes I’d want to know about it. What I saw was that the poll results showed Trump fading away and those bad actors spun into gear with the laptop story (again, a story that could have come to light many months earlier) to try to sway the election results to Trumps favour. What I saw, was an impulsive Trump latching onto those stories and giving it oxygen to help his campaign. What I saw was those newspaper, tv and social media outlets (again private enterprises with editorial control on what they distribute or publish) seeing a nothing burger and refusing to publish that. You may see that as a political attempt to sway the election but I do not. I saw a bullshit news story that itself was an attempt to sway the election and media outlets saying, we’re not going to give this bullshit any oxygen. You may think everything should be given oxygen, but I do not because when the bullshit is given oxygen and takes a life of it’s own it will spread and sow more divide and undermine the foundations of democracy. I seat Trump and Rudy as the Boy who cried Wolf too many times and those media outlets ignored him.

Let’s put it another way for example purposes. This is an extreme example but maybe it makes it a little more clear. I see the bullshit being spread by these right-wing outlets, and bad state actors using those outset’s to sow the divide in the US and distribute more bullshit as an insurgent attempt to undermine US democracy. Weakening the US by default makes them stronger. The US bad actors don’t necessarily mean to undermine democracy, they are more interested in getting rich off of guys like altaguetta and his like, but their outlets and their hosts become “useful idiots” for the bad state actors. If demcracy was a dam holding back water, the bad state actors don’t need to blow up the dam, they just need to put a crack in it and then let the water pressure (the right-wing media outlets) do the rest of the work for them until the damn eventually breaks. In that light, the other media outlets not publishing what those right-winger started pushing it is thereby the counter insurgent response. They chose not to aid and abet that attempt.

First, if we are considering Twitter and Facebook to be publishers with the same kind of publishing rights and responsibilities as say...The New York Times, then I guess they should be held to the same libel laws. I don't think they'd want to be held responsible for the content they host though, do you?

So to summarize our little exchange here, you do not see any media malfeasance, but if there were, it's their right to do it, and anyway they're only stifling bad actors. Did I get that right?

And as you continue to maintain the story is bullshit, I can only assume your sentiments would be exactly the same in only the names were changed. Even without knowing that the laptop is definitely Hunter's or what was on it, we know the following. Hunter Biden was traveling with his father on government jets while pursuing his business. We know that his father has denied knowing anything about his son's business. We know Hunter has not denied ownership of the laptop. We know no evidence has been put forward to show the laptop was a plant by foreign intelligence. That is an admittedly sketchy basis for a story, but are you sincerely telling me that if all of the above was true of the Trumps instead of the Bidens that our media would not consider it a story and go after it tooth and nail? Don't tell me they're private business entities and are free to decide what to pursue and what not to pursue, you know what I'm getting at here.

A year ago they chose not to "aid and abet" the idea that covid might have sprung from a lab.

 

[altaguetta]

WOW! You actually came up with that all by yourself. You deserve a purple star sticker for your report card to take home to mommy.

That doesn’t explain how the DOJ having Hunter Biden’s laptop fast sat on it for over a year. The head of the DOJ was William Barr a Trump cronie. Trump is a billionaire. So, whey didn’t that rich guy (Trump) order Barr to release whatever was on the laptop if Rich people have the means to do whatever they want? Explain that one dumbfuck.

Here is your chance to learn and move from dumbfuck to the power of 10 to the power of 0 where I stand.

Trump is a giant whale compare to you and me as a billionaire but he is just a tiny fish compared to other billionaires and their corporations.

Watch these videos in their entirety and you can lower your dumbfuck exponent.

 

[altaguetta]

That doesn’t explain how the DOJ having Hunter Biden’s laptop fast sat on it for over a year. The head of the DOJ was William Barr a Trump cronie. Trump is a billionaire. So, whey didn’t that rich guy (Trump) order Barr to release whatever was on the laptop if Rich people have the means to do whatever they want? Explain that one dumbfuck.

The FBI had the laptop not the DOJ, retard.

Trump appointed a lot of people but almost all of turned against him. Why? Because Trump wasn't the ruling elites candidate for the job and they had more power to turn people against Trump.

It's that simple. See?
Even a 14-year-old would know that.

 

[Hornet]

First, if we are considering Twitter and Facebook to be publishers with the same kind of publishing rights and responsibilities as say...The New York Times, then I guess they should be held to the same libel laws. I don't think they'd want to be held responsible for the content they host though, do you?

So to summarize our little exchange here, you do not see any media malfeasance, but if there were, it's their right to do it, and anyway they're only stifling bad actors. Did I get that right?

And as you continue to maintain the story is bullshit, I can only assume your sentiments would be exactly the same in only the names were changed. Even without knowing that the laptop is definitely Hunter's or what was on it, we know the following. Hunter Biden was traveling with his father on government jets while pursuing his business. We know that his father has denied knowing anything about his son's business. We know Hunter has not denied ownership of the laptop. We know no evidence has been put forward to show the laptop was a plant by foreign intelligence. That is an admittedly sketchy basis for a story, but are you sincerely telling me that if all of the above was true of the Trumps instead of the Bidens that our media would not consider it a story and go after it tooth and nail? Don't tell me they're private business entities and are free to decide what to pursue and what not to pursue, you know what I'm getting at here.

A year ago they chose not to "aid and abet" the idea that covid might have sprung from a lab.

When I say bad state actors I was referring to the intelligence community’s consensus of how Russia was using Facebook and so forth to swing the 2016 election. That is why I used “for example”. The US intelligence community has testified in congress that did and that they are still at it. I don’t know what is on Hunters laptop but those with the skills to find out had it a full year earlier. If there was a story they had plenty of time to uncover it and report it. I’ve said that repeatedly now. But the timing of Trump and team hyping it up just weeks before the vote is very suspicious.

Facebook and Twitter are service providers. They have every right to remove content that violates their policies on what is acceptable because anyone who signed up agreed to their Terms & Conditions. That is that little “I accept” box upon registration that I talked about months ago in a separate thread. Now, Trump just filed a lawsuit against them for banning him so the courts will ultimately decide the final position on whether they have the right to do so. I’m merely taking the position that they do have that right.

With the dissolution of the Fairness Doctrine (something the right wanted and doesn’t want to reintroduce btw), each end of the political spectrum can choose what they want to publish or not publish. They no longer have to be balanced which is what the Fairness Doctrine required (every side must be presented). I see the non-Fox news outlets of the US exercising their right all the time. Breitbart, Info Wars etc. could not exist if the Fairness Doctrine was still in place. I think the Fairness doctrine should be put back and each outlet needs to be more balanced in their reporting. But this was thrown away long ago and polarization has taken root as a result and here we are today. Without that Fairness Doctrine, where each side has their freedoms to publish or not publish what they want then no, on this playing field, I see no malfeasance at all. Malfeasance is a wrong doing but I’m merely highlighting the current playing field and the current playing field says anything goes. So, if anything goes, there can be no wrongdoing unless harm was created and a lawsuit follows. If harm was done, why didn’t Trump and arudy sue the media outlets then claiming they cost him the election for not running the Hunter laptop story? They were suing everyone about the election results, why not the media then and there? You or I can hate the game but still recognize the rules of the game we have today. It is merely the product of removing the Fairness Doctrine. One cannot have it both ways where one side can choose to give opinions and publish anything they want and then complain that the other side is not allowed the same freedoms which in this case means it is their choice to not publish the same stories the other side is pushing. Bad actors or good actors, media are no longer required to persue any story at all. And yes, I consider Info Wars and similar outlets and personalities to be bad actors. I do so because their defences against lawsuits are often “no reasonable person would believe what I was stating” while at the same time they know people are indeed lapping it up and by doing so they make millions of those rubes. Good actors wouldn’t push bullshit to begin with and it’s that simple. But, left or right, each side only has to pick and chose to publish the ones they want and that is their right, like it or not.

Now, if you believe those media outlets don’t have the right to pick and choose what to report on, supposedly in the noble pursuit of the “truth”, then what is the standard for Newsmax, Info Wars, etc.? Are they not also supposed to report the “truth”? What recourse is there against them if they report lies? Because unless harm was done and a libel/slander lawsuit brought, such as in the voting machine suit, I don’t see any. And without any, they are free and clear to push whatever bullshit they want which I’ll say it again, whenever they find themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit, they use as their defence that they peddle bullshit and no one could reasonably believe that bullshit so the case should be dropped. That is a disgusting defence in my mind and is like saying I took advantage of someone and stole their money but I’m not guilty because the victim should have spotted me doing it before I did it or while I was doing it.

 

[altaguetta]

I don’t know what is on Hunters laptop but those with the skills to find out had it a full year earlier. If there was a story they had plenty of time to uncover it and report it. I’ve said that repeatedly now. But the timing of Trump and team hyping it up just weeks before the vote is very suspicious.

You should know the facts before you write your garbage lies.

What We Know and Don’t About Hunter Biden and a Laptop (Published 2020)

President Trump’s allies have promoted claims of corruption aimed at the former vice president’s son in an effort to damage the Biden campaign.

www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[Hornet]

The FBI had the laptop not the DOJ, retard.

Trump appointed a lot of people but almost all of turned against him. Why? Because Trump wasn't the ruling elites candidate for the job and they had more power to turn people against Trump.

It's that simple. See?
Even a 14-year-old would know that.

Here’s the DOJ organization chart. The FBI reports into the Attorney General and that is all part of the DOJ fuckwit.

Agencies

www.justice.gov

 

[altaguetta]

Here’s the DOJ organization chart. The FBI reports into the Attorney General and that is all part of the DOJ fuckwit.

Agencies

www.justice.gov

Still. Facts: The DOJ is not the FBI. The laptop wasn't delivered to the DOJ. The FBI had the laptop not the DOJ. The DOJ wasn't Trump's friend. Bill Barr wasn't favouring Trump contrary to popular belief.

"It is also not clear what the F.B.I. did with the laptop or what Justice Department officials knew about the sensitive F.B.I. investigation at the time. F.B.I. officials have declined to discuss the inquiry."

 

[Hornet]

You should know the facts before you write your garbage lies.

What We Know and Don’t About Hunter Biden and a Laptop (Published 2020)

President Trump’s allies have promoted claims of corruption aimed at the former vice president’s son in an effort to damage the Biden campaign.

www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Wow! Did you even read that article dipshit?

Let me summarize so everyone can see all the holes:

• NY Times article about a NY Post
• Trump and allies pushed corruption claims to hurt Biden’s campaign
• Rudy gave information to the NY Post
• The article suggested Joe Biden used his foreign policy influence to give Hunter Biden a job
• The NY Post writer of the article wouldn’t even attach his name to the article because of concerns of it’s credibility (wow, big red flag there, or as I’ve been calling it, “bullshit”)
• Laptop was dropped off in April 2019
• The laptop repair shop owner, who is legally blind, couldn’t confirm if Hunter Biden left the laptop or not
• The repair shop guy would not reveal the specifics other than call what he saw as being “alarming” and “disturbing”. So that could be anything but nobody knows what that is.
• The repair shop owner copied the contents and sent to the FBI
• December 2019 the FBI seized the laptop with a subpoena. Wow, 8 moths later and the laptop was never picked up. Hmm, that’s kinda funny.
• The shop owner wondered why the contents weren’t used during Trump’s impeachment hearing and wondered if it was being buried. Now, if there was damming information against Biden, why the concern about Trump’s impeachment? Was it more damming to Trump? Hmm…
• The shop owner gave a copy to Rudy’s lawyer and Rudy gave copies to tabloids (read non-credible news outlets) and Steven Bannon had a role.
• Rudy pushed the story to the tabloids.
• The FBI reviewed the content and told Congress and Senator Ron Johnson no Russian disinformation was on the laptop
• They intelligence offices warned the White House that Russia (a bad state actor as I call them) was using Rudy to spread disinformation to harm the Biden campaign. Rudy was a “useful idiot” for the Russians.
• The article ends of with the “what we don’t know” which they said was “a lot”. But is also says, the shop owner voted for Trump in 2016 (ok, whatever. Maybe it means something, maybe it doesn’t) and that Trump loyalists orchestrated a plan to make the contents public just before the election. That’s the “suspicious” comment I made earlier.

Let’s summarize: Russia was using Rudy according to intelligence officials and they told the White House (Trump). Rudy is not employed in any government capacity, he’s Trump’s personal lawyer. Rudy was the source of the information to NY Post article and even the article writer wouldn’t put his name to it because he didn’t find it credible. Rudy and Bannon then went to the tabloids (by definition tabloids don’t have any credibility) in an orchestrated pre-planned maneuver just immediately before the election. And, nobody can confirm if Hunter Biden dropped off a laptop for repair. All we know is that it never got picked up by the guy that dropped it off.

Yet, despite all this guys like you think the laptop is a big fucking deal.

 

[jimmyd]

Maybe this will help. I believe that newspapers, tv and social media are private enterprises that have editorial rights to publish what they want. That also means they can screen, filter and throw away bullshit. Conversely, those like Info Wars (who I’ll call a US bad actor), will throw away any reasonable news and only peddle the bullshit. I believe Twitter and Facebook have policies on what they will allow to be posted and people accept that to use their platform. Like any editor, I believe they have the right to screen and filter content just like a newspaper or tv station. The key difference is that they are post-screening and removing posts where tv and newspapers pre-scene and the content never gets out to begin with. This editorial oversight has been around since the invention of the printing press and is not new. I think there is a lot of bullshit being thrown out there by US bad actors not seeking the truth but to create noise in order to make a buck. I also believe there are bad state actors fuelling that as well in an attempt to undermine democracy. Kind of like in that Jodie Foster movie Contact, the bad state actors have the hidden signal riding on the tv signal.

What I see is that if there was a real story it would have come out much earlier and then yes I’d want to know about it. What I saw was that the poll results showed Trump fading away and those bad actors spun into gear with the laptop story (again, a story that could have come to light many months earlier) to try to sway the election results to Trumps favour. What I saw, was an impulsive Trump latching onto those stories and giving it oxygen to help his campaign. What I saw was those newspaper, tv and social media outlets (again private enterprises with editorial control on what they distribute or publish) seeing a nothing burger and refusing to publish that. You may see that as a political attempt to sway the election but I do not. I saw a bullshit news story that itself was an attempt to sway the election and media outlets saying, we’re not going to give this bullshit any oxygen. You may think everything should be given oxygen, but I do not because when the bullshit is given oxygen and takes a life of it’s own it will spread and sow more divide and undermine the foundations of democracy. I seat Trump and Rudy as the Boy who cried Wolf too many times and those media outlets ignored him.

Let’s put it another way for example purposes. This is an extreme example but maybe it makes it a little more clear. I see the bullshit being spread by these right-wing outlets, and bad state actors using those outset’s to sow the divide in the US and distribute more bullshit as an insurgent attempt to undermine US democracy. Weakening the US by default makes them stronger. The US bad actors don’t necessarily mean to undermine democracy, they are more interested in getting rich off of guys like altaguetta and his like, but their outlets and their hosts become “useful idiots” for the bad state actors. If demcracy was a dam holding back water, the bad state actors don’t need to blow up the dam, they just need to put a crack in it and then let the water pressure (the right-wing media outlets) do the rest of the work for them until the damn eventually breaks. In that light, the other media outlets not publishing what those right-winger started pushing it is thereby the counter insurgent response. They chose not to aid and abet that attempt.

One question you won’t answer is, would Donald Trump Jr. have been treated the same way as Hunter, if the situation was reversed?

But I guess the answer blows up everything else you have said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hornet]

One question you won’t answer is, would Donald Trump Jr. have been treated the same way as Hunter, if the situation was reversed?

But I guess the answer blows up everything else you have said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we’d be having a party.

No, Don jr. wouldn’t have been attacked that way because Joe Biden’s team wouldn’t stoop so low as to hire a unscrupulous lawyer being manipulated by Russians to make up tabloid stories about him. Biden has more class than that.

Now, go back to your basement little man.

 

[altaguetta]

It's time for another shot!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1413258160559857668