US Election 2020

[NineBerry]

I recommend from 0:00 to 30:00.

[Hermit]

Thanks.

[NineBerry]

I could watch that sign language interpreter all day

[pErvinalia]

I say again:

Yet you trust any number of right wing lunatics that you freely admit are biased. It's almost as if you only trust stuff that fits your preconceived views on a subject.

What do you think I 'believe' that is factually wrong? (and falsifiable)

I don't know, but I'll say it again:

You trust any number of right wing lunatics that you freely admit are biased. It's almost as if you only trust stuff that fits your preconceived views on a subject

[Cunt]

I say again:

Yet you trust any number of right wing lunatics that you freely admit are biased. It's almost as if you only trust stuff that fits your preconceived views on a subject.

What do you think I 'believe' that is factually wrong? (and falsifiable)

I don't know, but I'll say it again:

You trust any number of right wing lunatics that you freely admit are biased. It's almost as if you only trust stuff that fits your preconceived views on a subject

So you don't know what I believe about anything in particular, but because you know I listen to right-wing media (instead of the approved left-wing-only sources?) that I must trust them.

Um, you missed a step.

I listen to lots of people I don't trust. Just now, I was listening to a government announcement. It said those who support heavy-handed government lockdowns are secretly authoritarian masochists.

But I don't 'believe' it, it's just a perspective.

[Animavore]

15.

[Tero]

"If Mike Pence does not throw out the electoral votes, you can do whatever you like to him..."

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/stat ... 5498873857

[Hermit]

I say again:

Yet you trust any number of right wing lunatics that you freely admit are biased. It's almost as if you only trust stuff that fits your preconceived views on a subject.

What do you think I 'believe' that is factually wrong? (and falsifiable)

I am not going to trawl through 12,000 posts to provide examples of where you were factually wrong, so here are a few retrieved from memory:

You provided a list of several CEOs of major companies that resigned recently, and claimed the resignations were connected with their membership of a paedophilia ring. I went through the first few and proved that this was not the case. Eventually you actually admitted that you were wrong. Now, you did not cite your sources, as usual, but I don't think you made this shit up and it's pretty sure you did not get it from CNN. I put it to you that you got it from one of the right wing sites you like to visit.

You claimed that Trump's popularity increased after the first attempt to impeach him failed. No sources provided, of course. Again, I don't think you made this shit up and it's pretty sure you did not get it from CNN. I put it to you that you got it from one of the right wing sites you like to visit. I provided a neutral source showing that it actually dropped. You did not admit to having made a wrong assertion. Just that you were misled. Apparently, that means you did not make a wrong assertion.

Then there was that Facebook thing. You claimed that it banned Tommy Robinson because because he threatened beheading. This time you linked to a Youtube video, which was edited and chopped by some right wing mob to give you that impression. I dug up the original video which proved he was not banned because he threatened beheading. All of a sudden it was not you who posted a wrong assertion. Again, you were merely being misled.

There are plenty more, like the discussion involving Julie Brown's role in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking for instance, but please excuse me for not spending more time listing them. I think the point is made. It does not really matter whether you were wrong or 'merely' misled. There is a pattern of you posting untruths from right wing sides that you trust despite their obvious biased.

[pErvinalia]

He regularly admits he was wrong. I don't know why he doesn't research stuff before he spouts off wrong info.

[JimC]

He regularly admits he was wrong. I don't know why he doesn't research stuff before he spouts off wrong info.

I'm so glad that I never need to admit that...

[Joe]

I would never point it out if you were, you being a moderator with gin and all.

[JimC]

[Cunt]

I say again:

Yet you trust any number of right wing lunatics that you freely admit are biased. It's almost as if you only trust stuff that fits your preconceived views on a subject.

What do you think I 'believe' that is factually wrong? (and falsifiable)

I am not going to trawl through 12,000 posts to provide examples of where you were factually wrong, so here are a few retrieved from memory:

No need. I can address these as honestly as I can.

You provided a list of several CEOs of major companies that resigned recently, and claimed the resignations were connected with their membership of a paedophilia ring.

I believe I claimed that that was the rumour, though may have wandered into making the claim myself.

You pointed out one in particular (from Disney) who transferred, rather than being removed, so I was quite wrong about that.

But NXXVIM, Nygard, Epstein, Weinstein and the good old Randy Andy are not to be blamed for my believing that there was an elite pedophile group being taken down.

By the way, after grabbing Epstein and his honey (Maxwell?) did they just stop the government corruption investigation? Or do you think it could bear more fruit?

I went through the first few and proved that this was not the case. Eventually you actually admitted that you were wrong. Now, you did not cite your sources, as usual, but I don't think you made this shit up and it's pretty sure you did not get it from CNN. I put it to you that you got it from one of the right wing sites you like to visit.

Not 'right-wing', but open memes...comedy available to both sides.

Of course, the left has lost their sense of humour, so they can't properly participate, but that's really a quibble.

PC trends left, inappropriate humour trends right. Kind of a funny switch from my youth.

You claimed that Trump's popularity increased after the first attempt to impeach him failed. No sources provided, of course. Again, I don't think you made this shit up and it's pretty sure you did not get it from CNN. I put it to you that you got it from one of the right wing sites you like to visit. I provided a neutral source showing that it actually dropped. You did not admit to having made a wrong assertion. Just that you were misled. Apparently, that means you did not make a wrong assertion.

So, Biden has rallies for up to 2 dozen fans. His online speeches gather several times that many.

Trump has...um...a lot more popularity on display. At least in all those contexts we can see. The polls, and the news media tell us all otherwise.

Then there was that Facebook thing. You claimed that it banned Tommy Robinson because because he threatened beheading. This time you linked to a Youtube video, which was edited and chopped by some right wing mob to give you that impression. I dug up the original video which proved he was not banned because he threatened beheading. All of a sudden it was not you who posted a wrong assertion. Again, you were merely being misled.

Facebook didn't provide the evidence of why they banned him. They won't. They can't.

They can't for the same reason that no-one here can discuss the cases he is currently covering, even if they DO try to hide the parts he wants to expose.

It's almost like there is a conspiracy to hide certain information over there in England. But facebook is the subject, and they have never put upthe evidence for why he was banned.

Maybe they don't know how to screenshot. Or maybe, like everyone, they find the stories to scary to cover honestly.

There are plenty more, like the discussion involving Julie Brown's role in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking for instance, but please excuse me for not spending more time listing them. I think the point is made. It does not really matter whether you were wrong or 'merely' misled. There is a pattern of you posting untruths from right wing sides that you trust despite their obvious biased.

I don't remember Julie Brown, and I would, because I know a real-life lady with that name. Might be confused with another person.

I do pick up stuff from right-wing sources, but the fact that you can tell, shows me that you DO know how far left the mainstream is. So thanks for that.

[Cunt]

He regularly admits he was wrong. I don't know why he doesn't research stuff before he spouts off wrong info.

Same as you, I guess. I'm not here to do peer-reviewed research, just to drink gin and shoot the shit about hilariously gross elections in a foreign country.

Do you realize that just a few years ago, US elections were not secure, and any old shithole country could interfere and place their candidate in office. But right now, with millions being funneled into the family of the current president, those same commentators are happy with the results.

You couldn't get more dramatically stupid, unless you had a constitutional requirement that the duly elected president had to wear a colostomy bag and be over 80 years old.

[Hermit]

Look, Daggles, you asked "What do you think I 'believe' that is factually wrong?" I cited three occasions where you undeniably were wrong, mentioned a fourth and told you that there are plenty more, but I won't bother spending any time digging them up because the samples provided suffice as an answer to your question. They also show, for reasons I made explicit, that you are happily trusting information you obtain from sources with undeniably right wing bias while objecting to us sourcing information from the main stream media, which you reject because you regard those sources as biased to the left. Given your inability to refute the validity of our factual, testable information, such as, say Team Trump's spectacularly comprehensive failure to make their allegations of election/voter fraud stick in several dozen court cases it has initiated, while repeatedly dragging up alleged facts that turn out to be demonstrably untrue, you're not exactly covering yourself with glory. Raking over cold coal in an attempt to minimise the extent of your errors does nothing to retrieve some honour. You asked a question. It has been answered fairly and squarely. There's no more to be said.