Does "Do your own research" really mean "I don't have any proof of what I said"?

[goaded]

I've heard it so often on here, usually from people who sound like this woman.

[Friendlybro79]

A few things:

It means when a Doctor, official, or any expert say something you don't want to be true, go on line, and find anything that says otherwise, without regard for the source.

It's code for I think I'm smarter than everyone else despite having no education in the subject and will blindly trust anyone on right wing media.

[goaded]

That sounds about right. the mistaken belief that democracy means "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge".

[DryGermanGuy]

„Do your own research“ is just MAGA newspeak for „keep your facts away from my fantasies.“ 🙄

[Drewtate]

No. It likely means that they believe what they are saying but lack the skills necessary to present their pov clearly. There are a lot of conspiracy theories out there, doesn't mean there isn't a conspiracy. Non linerar warfare, keep the people so off balance, so confused and ultimately apathetic that they just go a long with it.

The woman in video has heard a lot of buzz words and various other conspiracy theories that she doesn't understand or think through.

[AmeerX]

Gulags were prison towns. Beats the Prison Labor
Intervention in Ukraine* beats any bells?

[Drewtate]

@AmeerX us prisons are prison towns. Full if prisoners who did very little other than be born black.
Ukraine is all about bleeding Russia, we will fight to the last Ukrainian.

[AmeerX]

I wouldn't be surprised. Ukraine is being made into a scapegoat, a proxy war. It's sad that those two countries were brothers and they are being made to fight

[goaded]

@AmeerX There never had to be a fight. Putin chose to have one.

[AmeerX]

He wouldn't if the Orange revolution didn't happen and elections were called in.

[goaded]

@AmeerX It was still an internal Ukrainian matter.

[AmeerX]

Yes but it had external spillover.

In the end, Ukraine will have to stand on its own. US and Europeans will leave it after getting what they need. So I hope Zelensky and common Ukrainians do have a plan for rebuilding and development

[goaded]

@AmeerX Ukraine didn't invade anyone, did they? It's a big and rich country, which is why Putin wants it.

[AmeerX]

I know they didn't. And it's not just Putin that wants it.

[goaded]

@AmeerX The West wants it free, Putin wants it his. There's a difference.

[AmeerX]

The debt and AID to Ukraine has conditions. It's never free. Ukrainians should be aware of that. I would be weary of the AID too.

[goaded]

@AmeerX Free as in a democracy without corruption.

[Drewtate]

The US wants to break Russia and Ukraine is where it will be done

[Drewtate]

I remember after the invasion of Iraq, the rebuilding was paid by Iraq and only us companies were allowed to do it.

[AmeerX]

I hope you are correct about it

[findacure4wokeness]

Sometimes but most of the time it means what it sounds like. there was once time where I never believed in things that if have found to be the truth today. Hearing right wing talking points with no proof sounded crazy and I rejected what they said until I did my own research. I'd hear some shocking conservatives talking points and evidence then I'd run to the left with questions they couldn't and wouldn't answer convincingly. So I started to understand things like why the left love cancelation and censorship so much instead of actual debate unless of course you call running around asking 200 conservatives questions and harvest sound bites from the least intelligent one you can find a like in this video a debate. She never got to ask any questions either.

[WilmaReportu]

Reported

[findacure4wokeness]

@WilmaReportu oh the irony! lmao.

[goaded]

I think you'll find that was a joke. Check out her name.

Do you still think that the colour of someone's skin determines their character?

[findacure4wokeness]

Do you believe that every race is responsible for the same amount of crime per capita? Do you value people's right to have a culture?

[goaded]

So that would be a yes, you still think that the colour of someone's skin determines their character.

[love_conquers_lust]

@goaded Collectivism verse individualism. There’s a bell curve. The law of averages may or may not apply at the individual level. But stereotypes emerge for a reason. Culture emerges for a reason. So yes, complexion can be indicative of character. But you won’t know for certain until after you’ve judged them individually.

[AmeerX]

You know I am not an American but I think Trump and his supporters are really cool 😅. I would support them too. They are not as crazy as people are led to believe. Trump's hated and his people are hated by rivals because he doesn't beat around the bush and he definitely was a good candidate. Not the best but good

I only disagree with Trump's Wall construction because I don't like a closed off society but other than that I think he was doing things by the book. Reducing taxes and caring for blue collar workers is not wrong. These people worked their asses off to be put off by LGBTQ and illegal immigrants and pro choice and such nonsense. They are doing the right thing by supporting him.

[goaded]

She's not crazy, but she thinks Trump is running the US military?

(By the way, I know someone who visited the Pakistan-India border recently. It doesn't sound very open.)

[AmeerX]

@goaded you are right. It's not open and I wish it was. Without peace military budget is bleeding us dry. A pretext to coffer up more money.

[jshm2]

What she's trying to imply is that the US military is running the show behind the scenes, like we see in African states.

What she's clueless about is that the military hated Donald Trump.

[goaded]

Isn't it amazing that nobody else has noticed what she sees?

[Sonorous]

Nah, but I usually say this with things that aren't very important to me. For instance, I could believe a credible scientist on YouTube that says a scientific fact with data to back it up through the form of links to the peer reviewed scientific pages, but I might not feel like going & searching for it or I might have forgotten where to find it.

[goaded]

I suppose that's fair enough, but you'd at least give some pointers, like the name of the thing you're talking about, I expect.

[Sonorous]

Yeah, if I disagree with people online, I usually try to be as specific as I can without using too much energy or effort to really try. Unless ofc they agree with me, then it will take less energy to talk to them because I won't be having to defend my position so much. 🤣

[goaded]

I definitely waste too much energy on idiots who will claim the opposite of reality as a reflex action. When I'm making a claim, I back it up or express uncertainty. At least, I try to.

[Sonorous]

The expression of uncertainty is a good trait to have! I wish many had it. But yeah with insufferable types that have a defensive wall up the size of the great wall of china, I tend to not try as hard. I tend be more playful with them. 🤣 If there's no getting through to them, I might as well have some fun with it. Unless ofc I'm in a mood where I want to legitimately sharpen my rebuttals to those types in case I encounter them more in the immediate future.

[Kaneki05]

I just link people to research that proves them wrong. So if they said this I would just respond the same going yeah I already did it what about yours?

[goaded]

In this case, nobody's researched the truth of whether or not Trump is still commander in chief, so it would be impossible. The president is C-in-C, Biden is the president, therefore...

[Kaneki05]

Don't you know though it's The Awaking? Leviathan is about to awaken from a deep slumber and bring upon it's eternal sea. We came out of the dark ages some time ago but many still refuse to accept they aren't in a RPG.

[goaded]

"I always wanted to fight a Dragon".

[Rei13]

I didn’t watch that video but generally it just means to do your own research and the person saying it doesn’t want to do it for you. They could be right or wrong, may or may not have proof, just not wanting to take the time to do so for whomever asked

[goaded]

I find it's usually someone making an outrageous claim and being unwilling to back it up. Maybe something like "Eating 2 bananas a day reduces hair loss". If they've seen some publication that discovered it, it's not research for them, it's just showing how they "know" it.

[BoopBoopBeep]

I'd tell you if that's what it means or not, but you should do your own research.

Society is fucked. That's why I live in the woods.

[goaded]

Funny man.

[Meropatrick]

No i respect someone who tells me to use my own mind or do my own research. People rarely these days wants u to use ur mind or intuition when they r lying. They want to u to accept what they say and move on. Because if u follow ur heart u would know they r lying.

[purplepoppy]

it usually means "I get my news off truth social and I've pulled my kids out of school so tiktok can educate them."

[goaded]

Why bother, if you're in Florida your kids will be educated by PragerU!

[Fabiloso]

It means there's no set standard of what true research is. I could go on tiktok for an hour and say I researched. I think what is really meant to come out of people's mouths is "look up both sides of the argument and really look into all in how each peice of media is published. Who writes and makes the media, what is said about them and their backgrounds. So on and so forth."

[goaded]

The trouble is that I already do that (not the TikTok thing), with a certain amount of critical ignoring. Have you heard of "Critical Ignoring"? ↗

[SmokinAces2000]

That video was hilarious 😂 I can’t believe shit like this is real life but to answer your question most times when people say to do your own research on this site that indicates they are just talking nonsense.

[goaded]

That is my conclusion, too.

[Jersey2]

Not always. I say it sometimes as its tiresome to dig out what you know is there on the internet for a troll or someone who has no independent thinking capabilities. Sometimes you know you are just talking to someone who is as dumb as a rock and its not worth it.

[slatyb]

Yes, it does. That's typical of people who make some ridiculous claim that is completely unsupported.

[Astarlessnightsky]

Usually it means "find something that agrees with my statement"

[catarecute]

it means i know i am right but i don't have the extra free time to spend hours convincing a complete strangers who doesn't agree with me anyway.

[goaded]

Nobody's asking for hours of work, just a hint about where you found the information.

[catarecute]

on the internet. you can find anything on the internet.

[goaded]

You can't find proof that Trump's still commander in chief of the US military.

[coachTanthony]

Let’s face it if you say something about something I’m sure I can find research to dispute it so what’s the difference lol

[goaded]

The difference is that you can then discuss the dispute. Do you really think you can find something that says Trump is still C-in-C of the US military?

[coachTanthony]

I get it…. I think people who say that don’t want to discuss right?

[goaded]

Yup. Some of them will even post links disproving their case, presumably hoping you won't click them.

[DaveJord]

Wow, that was scarey to listen to! 😱

That's as crazy as cutting off your penis and calling your self a woman.

We are all so fucked!!!

[Sasahara]

Could be. Would explain why the whiners who were complaining about Hogwarts legacy used similar arguments to dismiss people asking for proof of what they claim Rowling supposedly has said.

[fonduegirl]

I don't think anyone has the energy to explain all their beliefs here. So yes, try to look it up on internet. If no material is found, ask them to get it for you.

[goaded]

That's when they tell you to do your own research. They think Google shows me what it shows them. It doesn't, it's learned the sort of things they're likely to click on.

[fonduegirl]

Don't assume things

[Jazzy54]

Yup. That’s exactly what it means. Unless you can back up your claims, I don’t want to hear your BS.

[A_Bell]

No one has the duty to prove their opinion to you. What an asshole thing to believe.

[goaded]

I think it's an asshole thing to believe someone else should put in work to prove your claim. You make the claim, you prove it. It's even less work for you; you can remember the "research" you did to come up with the claim, right?

[Still-alive]

"You make the claim, you prove it."

I'll reiterate this point. people keep saying 'i don't have to do your homework for you' when NO thats not how it works. you make a claim the onus is on you to back it up with evidence. its not on anyone else to do that. If thats the case anyone can just make up whatever the fuck they want and who cares what the truth is

[A_Bell]

@Still-alive discussion boards are where people spout opinion. If you want to disprove them post your evidence, otherwise find a better way to waste your time.

This isn't a scholarly journal. Only dumb people take social media that seriously.

[Still-alive]

Lol ok then you admit you’re dumb then.

[Anonymous]

Yes. Because you wouldn’t want people to do their own reading and make up their own minds about something. How else are you little globalist authoritarians supposed to sucker everyone into going along with your horseshit policies?

[goaded]

Did I say I wouldn't do my own reading? Unlike the right wing, I don't ignore evidence. All I'm asking for is a link to the thing you think proves your claim. Because those "horseshit policies" are really popular.

And, look, here's how easy it is to prove it to anyone who can read and make up their own mind:

www.kff.org/.../
eu.usatoday.com/.../

[msc545]

No, what it means is I am not spending my time dragging around to do research to answer your questions. If you're that interested answer your questions yourself. I don't get paid to do work for you and I'm not doing it.

[goaded]

Usually, I find, the people who are telling you to "do your own research" are the people making ridiculous claims. If they want me to accept claims that sound ridiculous, they should be able to back them up.

[msc545]

The only people who seem to make ridiculous claims are Trumpers who always come back with conspiracy theory Youtube videos and websites if you ask them for proof.

[msc545]

@goaded I don't know where you found that video, but that woman is grossly delusional and paranoid, and she needs psychiatric help.

[goaded]

You're not wrong. She's not the problem, though, it's the liars who encourage people like her (by saying things like witnesses against them are traitors and posting pictures of the judge, knowing full well people like her and the guy who attacked Paul Pelosi are out there).

[msc545]

exactly.

[katiesmuff]

It usually means exactly like it was said! Do your own damn research

[Achram]

,🙂 🤔 👅⭕

[GOOSEBOY78]

no it basiacally means CBF putting in a link for you to click on to prove why im right and you are going to have to look for it your damn self.

[goaded]

Why should I believe someone who can't be bothered to put up a link they've supposedly already got and can't be bothered to post? It's more likely they were lying in the first place.

[Snakeyes7]

That's what "I am not going to educate you" means.

I often hear that in regards to having alternative resources than the mainstream media.

[goaded]

Do you mean you have alternative resources, or they do? I mean, it makes sense to have alternatives as long as you can reasonably trust them. Massive media corportations aren't going to advertise how bad massive corporations are for society, for example.

[Exterminatore]

Massive media corporations are full of propaganda, to include social media.

On the subject of doing your own research, look into Operation Mockingbird. That is still very much going on.

Independent media is the way to go, however it’s as you stated, so long as they’re reliable and not filled with either left wing or right wing lunatics busy spinning the news. When it comes to news, I just want the facts. I’ll form my own opinion based on facts, I don’t need CNN or Fox News to tell me what to think.

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded Whatever sources that run counter to the mainstream and decide for yourself which is accurate.

[goaded]

Would you exclude any site that says, for example, Joe Biden received money wired from China because his address was on his son's bank account? The discovery by the House inquiry was quite clear that the money went to Hunter, not the president.

As usual, the Republicans jumped to a conclusion and made an accusation that is not supported by the evidence. Does your father know what payments are made into your bank account? Perhaps Hunter's doesn't, either.

oversight.house.gov/.../

[Dargil]

It means "I don't need to educate you."

[goaded]

Yes, that sounds about the same, and just as useless. If you want to convince someone, perhaps you should try "educating them".

If, as recently happened, someone tells me only 21% of murders in the US are committed with firearms and I know it's around 80%, I give them a link to the CDC.

[Exterminatore]

No. We should all do our own research as much as possible.

[goaded]

Well, that's fair enough, but it usually comes after an outrageous claim, like "Biden is taking bribes from China to change US policy!!". It's not like there's a sliver of proof of that, as even the impeachment inquiry farce doesn't have the nerve to say it. "There are questions..." they say, but anybody can ask questions.

[Exterminatore]

As far as Biden taking bribes from China I do not know for certain. I suspect this may be the case due to Hunters business dealings there, though I will admit I have not researched it.

What I do know is Joe used his political influence to get Hunter the Barisma job. He threatened to withhold economic aid if the Ukrainian prosecutor was not fired, who was investigating corruption. He even boasted about this on camera. The pay for Hunter’s job at Barisma was deposited into a bank in Malta that was closed by Maltese authorities due to money laundering. There is no doubt corruption in that case.

That said, is that an astounding level of corruption? Not really. I suppose we should expect those in power to do such things. By no means am I excusing Joe or Hunter in this. I’m just saying that’s a pretty standard level of corruption for someone in a position of power.

However, none of that was reported in main stream media so far as I know. One would have to do their research to discover that information.

The issue is that main stream media is all controlled by corporations who ensure the stories that are run are ones that suits their agendas. Additionally consider Operation Mockingbird. That is the CIA bribing over 400+ journalists in the 60’s and 70’s to put their talking points into the news as well as writing fake stories. It was exposed by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hursht. It is still very much going on, at least in America. Whether foreign intelligence services do the same in other countries, I don't know. I’ve never researched it. I see no reason to think it doesn’t occur outside of America.

Additionally Biden is being sued by the state of Missouri for using the FBI to influence social media via censorship. Mark Zuckerberg openly admitted the FBI asked him to censor conservative posts as “misinformation.” He admitted the labeling of things as “misinformation” was strictly in the opinion of the “fact checkers” and not 100% fact.

[Exterminatore]

Zuckerberg stated that Facebook would just put a “misinformation” label on things, but Twitter who was also approached by the FBI outright censored such information completely. In both cases the FBI wanted both companies to label the material as “Russian Misinformation” when in fact it was not.

That is the problem with where you get your news from. All mainstream media is completely propaganda, and pretty much everything on FB labeled “misinformation” is in fact not.

Additionally Democrats in America openly admitted to influencing the majority of main stream media to propagandize the American people in the Democrats favor for the 2020 election.

So, all that said it needs to be taken into careful consideration where you get your information from as almost all main stream media at least in America is propaganda designed to influence the opinions of the American public. They deliberately lie, and omit info that does not fit their agenda or how they wish to influence people.

In reality the news should be the truth, and the whole truth and should have no other agenda other than to inform the general public about events and their facts. However that is clearly not the case and as stated people need to do their own investigations and not trust what they see in main stream media.

[goaded]

I read no further than this: "What I do know is Joe used his political influence to get Hunter the Barisma job. He threatened to withhold economic aid if the Ukrainian prosecutor was not fired, who was investigating corruption. He even boasted about this on camera. The pay for Hunter’s job at Barisma was deposited into a bank in Malta that was closed by Maltese authorities due to money laundering. There is no doubt corruption in that case."

You do not know that, because it's not true.

Hunter got the job at Burisma because his father was Joe Biden, that doesn't mean Joe Biden did anything to get him the job.

The prosecutor was known to be corrupt and not investigating corruption. If anything, getting him fired increased scrutiny on Burisma. (He's since claimed to have had an open investigation, but that's not at all the same thing as actually investigating.) Removing the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was US government policy and supported internationally.

"... by 2016, officials throughout the Obama administration and in Western Europe had come to a consensus that Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, wasn’t doing enough to crack down on corruption. Biden, as he later colorfully recounted, delivered the message that the West wanted Shokin gone or else loan guarantees would be held up, and Shokin was, in turn, fired."
www.vox.com/.../hunter-biden-burisma-ukraine-shokin

Hunter Biden is not a good and honest person. That says absolutely nothing about his father.

[goaded]

OK, I read to the end, and find this funny: "Biden is being sued by the state of Missouri for using the FBI to influence social media via censorship".

When did this supposedly occur? If we're talking about Hunter's laptop, that started before Biden became president.

[goaded]

I agree with you when you say the following, but I'd insert the word "blindly" near the end. Just because you don't completely trust a mainstream media outlet doesn't mean you should trust every nutcase on the internet instead. That's worse, they don't have reputations to consider.

"In reality the news should be the truth, and the whole truth and should have no other agenda other than to inform the general public about events and their facts. However that is clearly not the case and as stated people need to do their own investigations and not trust what they see in main stream media. "

[Exterminatore]

@goaded

This is exactly what I’m talking about.

Watch this it’s only 1 min and 12 seconds long:

https://youtu.be/UXA--dj2-CY?si=wkaOHEQtf1CqSEZf

That is irrefutable proof backing up what I said and showing what you said is nothing more than propaganda.

[Exterminatore]

@goaded

Certainly true about independent media sources. You must be careful to completely trust NO ONE or any source completely. Information must be corroborated and verified.

[Exterminatore]

Here is Zuckerberg on The Joe Rogan Experience speaking about government censorship:

https://youtu.be/BN3PIGLDscQ?si=xu4c2nP02ii_72Nb

[Exterminatore]

Here is a Wall St Journal article about Biden’s censorship:

www.wsj.com/.../missouri-v-biden-fifth-circuit-tech-censorship-white-house-covid-pandemic-86051c19

[Exterminatore]

Here is info about Missouri suing Biden over censorship:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._Biden

[Exterminatore]

All of this is a shock to you. You never heard it because main stream media does not report on these matters.

[goaded]

I'm off to bed now, but the Biden video I've seen many times before. Do you really think he's such an idiot he'd be bragging about doing something seedy in public, on video, rather than progressing international interests in reducing corruption in Ukraine?

I might look at the Zuckerberg video tomorrow, but The Joe Rogan Experience is an outlet I'm not inclined to trust at all.

[Exterminatore]

@goaded

Yes I do. I think he’s just arrogant enough to do something like that.

Think it through. Why would he want the Ukrainian prosecutor fired or threaten to withhold foreign aid if he’s not fired? If the Ukrainian prosecutor was unfairly prosecuting the case shouldn’t the Ukraine investigate? If he was lying, should Joe go to the media and tell everyone what injustice is happening in the Ukraine? After all, if there’s really injustice it could easily be exposed. But that didn’t happen did it. Why would he need to threaten to withhold financial aid if there was injustice going on? Do you really think the Ukraine is going to risk loosing financial aid over a lying prosecutor making waves? They’d fire him all by themselves without Biden having to threaten them wouldn’t they? What motive can you attribute to what was said other than corruption. That is not to mention Hunters laptop, phone calls and e-mails which definitely seem to further corroborate there was definite corruption. Why was Hunter’s pay being deposited in Malta? Why not into an American bank account? Could it be that info would be more easily discovered? Why was the money deposited into a bank that was known by the Maltese government for money laundering and afterwards shut down? Could it be they deliberately went to a money laundering bank to deliberately attempt to conceal criminal activity.

In regards to Zuckerberg on Joe Rogan, Joe asks the questions and Mark answers them. He says in his own words what happened. Rogan asks the questions propagandist journalists do not ask, and since the media is propaganda we have to turn to a show like The Joe Rogan Experience to get some of the info that should be being exposed elsewhere. This is why Rogan’s show is so popular and why there are so many subscribers to it on YouTube. Rogan asks questions main stream journalist do not.

[goaded]

Well, you're welcome to your own opinion, but it disagrees with the news at the time.

""This decision creates an opportunity to make a fresh start in the prosecutor general's office. I hope that the new prosecutor general will ensure that [his] office. . . becomes independent from political influence and pressure and enjoys public trust," said Jan Tombinski, the EU's envoy to Ukraine.

“There is still a lack of tangible results of investigations into serious cases. . . as well as investigations of high-level officials within the prosecutor general’s office,” he added."
www.irishtimes.com/.../...-viktor-shokin-1.2591190

"Think it through." I have. Everyone knew he was corrupt, but he'd been appointed by then-president Poroshenko (who's currently under investigation for the alleged theft of servers with classified information and alleged tax evasion and money laundering).

In case you think that's all a cover-up, 127 members of the Ukrainian parliament requested an investigation into Shokin in 2015, Representatives of the EU and the United States pressed Poroshenko for his removal, and so did the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
www.independent.co.uk/.../...achment-a9147001.html
www.ft.com/.../e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc
www.washingtonpost.com/.../

Why do you think the sins of the son should be visited on the father? If Hunter is a fraud (it sounds like he is), that doesn't mean his father is. Well, no more than your average politician.

[goaded]

In the Rogan video, Zuck doesn't say anything with don't already know. He says he doesn't remember if the FBI talked about the laptop story specifically, he says they were warned to look out for Russian disinformation because there was a lot of it on Facebook in 2016. There was.

At the time the laptop story came out, even Fox News wouldn't touch it because it looked so much like disinformation. The source was Rudy Giuliani, who was instrumental in the attempt to get Ukraine to make up dirt on Biden that was the reason for the first Trump impeachment, and he released it without leaving time to verify it, although he'd had it for months.

From the automatic transcript: "... Monday morning quarterbacking i should say because in the moment you had reason to believe based on the fbi talking to you that it wasn't real and that there was going to be some propaganda so what do you do yeah and then if you just let it get out there and what if it changes the election it turns out to be [ __ ] that's a real problem... i think the right way is to establish principles for governance that try to be balanced and not have the decision making too centralized"

That's what both the FBI and Facebook did, by using Facebook and fact checkers respectively. Should they be forced to allow deepfakes of Biden saying he's declared personal firearms illegal and authorised the Post Office to collect them and if you don't surrender them to the Post Office he'll send in the military? Can you imagine how many idiots there are out there that would shoot their very confused postal worker?

[Exterminatore]

@goaded

Yeah, it’s a lie. The FBI was telling them to censor conservative posts because they were “Russian” disinformation, when in fact they were not.

The information was then given to “fact checkers” who gave their opinion why the info was false.

It had nothing to do with Russian disinformation. It has everything to do with censoring conservative posts to win an election.

Idc about the stupid lap top. What I’m taking about is the FBI labeling pretty much all conservative posts as “Russian disinformation” in an attempt to sway the election. To silence voices. I saw this happen to post after post.

What is your deal dude? I know you’re not too stupid to get all this. I think you’re full of crap and you know it. No one on hear is more indoctrinated than you.

[goaded]

Wait, you post a video of Zuckerberg to prove your point, then claim he was lying? He said Facebook was asked to watch out for disinformation, he said he relied on independent fact checkers to make the calls.

By the way, Trump was president at the time this was going on ("this" meaning vigilance for Russian disinformation).

What other "conservative posts" were labelled “Russian disinformation”? You "saw this happen to post after post", apparently.

I remember Facebook, years ago, saying they couldn't automatically suppress fascists on their platform the same way they did with Muslim extremists because it would flag up too many Republican politicians. Sorry, I was wrong, it was Twitter.

"At a Twitter all-hands meeting on March 22, an employee asked a blunt question: Twitter has largely eradicated Islamic State propaganda off its platform. Why can’t it do the same for white supremacist content? ... [an expert responded:] When a platform aggressively enforces against ISIS content, for instance, it can also flag innocent accounts as well, such as Arabic language broadcasters. Society, in general, accepts the benefit of banning ISIS for inconveniencing some others... that employee said Twitter hasn’t taken the same aggressive approach to white supremacist content because the collateral accounts that are impacted can, in some instances, be Republican politicians."
www.vice.com/.../why-wont-twitter-treat-white-supremacy-like-isis-because-it-would-mean-banning-some-republican-politicians-too

[Exterminatore]

Zuckerberg is not lying. The government are the ones lying. What part of this is hard to understand?

[goaded]

Well, the part where you say Zuckerberg isn't lying when he says the government didn't tell him what to do about the laptop story. Also what these other censored posts you're talking about were (maybe I never saw that because I follow reputable sources of information).

Oh, and why you think private citizen Biden had control of the FBI.

[Exterminatore]

You’re either indoctrinated, stupid, or a mouth piece for globalists. There is no room for anything else. There is no way you are not able to connect the dots.

If you seriously believe conservative and anti vaccine posts are Russian propaganda and if you think the appropriate way to handle that is to give them to fact checkers who simply give their opinion on it, not fact then you are the problem.

That’s also something Zuckerberg admitted. That the fact checkers are not professionals but simply rendering an opinion. And their opinion just happens to be in line with the people who want to censor this.

Seriously dude, your not so dumb you can understand this.

[Exterminatore]

So, again, the FBI told Zuckerberg to censor stuff. Because it was Russian propaganda. The same Russians they lied about colluding with Trump to steal our election. The same FBI who had the crowd loaded with agents on Jan 6th, the same FBI who refused to answer Ted Cruz’s questions about there being agents in the crowd and if those agents helped insight any of the violence. The 2 highest people in the FBI both told Cruz they could not answer his questions regarding if there were FBI agents in the crowd and if they insighted any violence on Jan 6th and they continually responded with “I cannot answer that question at this time.” Why can’t they answer the question and about who Ray Epps is. I’ll tell you why. Because it would incriminate them that’s why.

Yet you don’t see a problem with any of this and vehemently defend these liars with propaganda you found in main stream media. Come on dude. You’re smarter than this.

[goaded]

"If you seriously believe conservative and anti vaccine posts are Russian propaganda"
I don't, though, and nor do the fact checkers. Why do you think I do?

As far as I know, there's no correlation between Russia and anti-vaccine nonsense. Republicans? Without a doubt! Check out what DeSantis is saying about boosters, as his state tops New York by over 12,000 deaths (about 17%, while having been hit later in the pandemic), and exceeding all but 8 countries worldwide in deaths per million.

Which "conservative" posts do you think are being dismissed as "Russian propaganda"? There are a lot that are accused of being pro-Russia or pro-Putin, but that's not a fact checker's job, that's free speech.

"The same FBI who had the crowd loaded with agents on Jan 6th, the same FBI who refused to answer Ted Cruz’s questions about there being agents in the crowd and if those agents helped insight any of the violence."
You must understand that there's a massive difference between having FBI agents or informants in the crowd and agents inciting violence, right? If they felt they should not answer the former question, presumably on the basis of protecting their human assets, how could they answer the latter? Have you considered that the Senator who asked the question knew that they wouldn't be able to answer, and used the questions to imply something that they couldn't legally deny?

Do you think there weren't FBI agents and informants in BLM? They'd be incompetent in the extreme if they didn't. That doesn't mean that Umbrella Man was an FBI agent.

How about those dots?

[Exterminatore]

Dude, you’re missing my point. That is WHY the FBI asked both FB and Twitter to sensor material. They claimed they were Russian propaganda, yet ironically they were just conservative posts and pro Trump posts.

Do you understand? They were using the lie that anything anti Biden and pro trump and anything anti vaccine/mandate and anything conservative politically was RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA.

It was a deliberate attempt to make Americans question the validity of what they saw because there was a “misinformation” label attached to it. I personally watched this happen over and over again to my posts and my friends posts on FB. Then when reading the reason it was labeled “misinformation” it was abundantly clear it was BS and that this was censorship. Censorship that was requested by the FBI.

What part of this is hard to understand?

Yes, it’s free speech. Exactly! This is why the state of Missouri is suing Biden. Because it was outright deliberate and intentional censorship.

Yes, there a difference, yet when asked if they incited any of the violence, both the head of the FBI and 2nd in command of the FBI said: “I cannot answer that question at this time”…because they knew damn well that’s exactly what had occurred!

The whole scheme was to try to incite an insurrection. They then took one part of Trumps speech that day and said: “see, here he is calling for an insurrection” when it was taken completely out of context, meanwhile the FBI and other federal agencies were inciting the crowd to violence. This was to use the 14th Amendment against Trump to insure he wouldn’t be able to run again.

This is not hard to understand. There is NO reason for either of them to not admit there were feds in that crowd. NONE. Except they were doing illegal things and admitting the truth would incriminate themselves.

[goaded]

I think you're missing a few points, yourself.

You'll make statements like "That is WHY the FBI asked both FB and Twitter to sensor material.", but that both misrepresents what they asked for (to consider that some things might be Russian disinformation) and ignores that this was Trump's FBI, and that they'd seen it happen in previous elections.

"They claimed they were Russian propaganda"
Who did? Not the FBI.

Just before an election, you receive a bombshell from someone who was involved in a previous attempt to extract disinformation from the government of Ukraine and it would take weeks to verify that it doesn't contain disinformation. Do you run with it or not?

Most media outlets decided not to, and even the NY Post ran it under the byline of a nobody in journalism because no serious reporter (even with NYPost's low standards) was willing to put their name to it.

Not to mention that nobody, in three years of looking, has managed to come up with any evidence, from the laptop or otherwise, that Joe Biden did anything wrong as VP.

If people could still read your posts, they were not being censored, were they? [TBC]

[goaded]

I can imagine why some of your posts might be considered misinformation.

For example, you say:
"... when asked if they incited any of the violence, both the head of the FBI and 2nd in command of the FBI said: “I cannot answer that question at this time”" is (almost) a fact. (It was Jill Sanborn, executive assistant director for the FBI's national security branch, and she said "Sir, I can’t answer that," in response to a question from Senator Cruz.)

But this is pure speculation on your part: "…because they knew damn well that’s exactly what had occurred!"

That speculation delivered as fact ignores that she'd just said: "she could not discuss "the specifics of sources and methods" of the FBI".

www.foxnews.com/.../fbi-official-ted-cruz-agents-participated-jan-6-riot

[goaded]

Another example is where you say: "The whole scheme was to try to incite an insurrection.", which is clearly bullshit.

How could they have incited an insurrection without Trump, Alex Jones, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, etc. all working very hard to get people to turn up on Jan 6?

Do you think the FBI fooled Trump into bringing an armed mob to DC and sending them to the Capitol to stop the count? Then why would you support such a fool?

[Exterminatore]

No bro. That is completely inaccurate. That is not what she said. That’s what Fox News is saying she said, but it is in fact not what she said. She responded to that question with “sir I am unable to answer that question at this time”

Watch this video from 7 min 50 seconds on wards. There’s only about 3 min more in that video after that point. You can see the entire line of questing and that is NOT what the deputy director says. She says that the first time Cruz questions her about the presents of agents. When asked a second time she says “I can’t answer that.”

Let’s start with that. Why can’t she answer it? This is a government hearing to determine what took place on Jan 6th. Of course due to the nature of where those protests were taking place there were feds in the crowd. Nobody should be surprised at this. However, why can’t she answer if there were or weren’t agents in that crowd? What harm, what breach to the methods the FBI uses would that harm. There is literally no reason she could not say: “yes, due to the proximity of the Capital, feds we’re there monitoring things.” What harm would that truth do to the FBI to admit that? Then when asked if they insighted any of the violence, she again said “I can’t answer that. How are we gonna get to the truth without transparency? Is this not why we have congressional hearings? To determine the truth? Yet that woman refused to answer these questions. WHY? What is the problem with being forthcoming about this? When questioned about Ray Epps, Cruz showed that Epps was walking around the capital saying “tomorrow, we need to get into the capital” and the crowd began to chant fed, fed, Fed! She refused to answer that. Epps was never charged. Why is that? Why did Epps disappear for the list of people the Feds were looking at?

Do you see the problem? Why is she can’t answer those questions? Because she’s trying to conceal the truth that’s why! Watch this: from 7 min 50 sec onward:

[Exterminatore]

https://youtu.be/w1gc9Desq1w?si=V0CQ-KV71fzjV-UR

[Exterminatore]

On the subject of the FBI censoring free speech, watch this video of Congress questioning the director of the FBI:

https://youtu.be/9vi-yrVMslY?si=D1lva0eIQTn8a1nB

It’s like 5 min long. The courts ruled that they did in fact do that. Conservative posts were censored and they threatened social media companies if they did not censor them. That is fact. It corroborates perfectly with that video of Zuckerburg stating the FBI asked them to censor conservative posts.

[Exterminatore]

I could literally post video after video after video from these hearings demonstrating the FBI is in fact partisan, that they work on behalf of the Democrats and that they are engaged in propaganda against the American people. How much more do you need to see?

Again, regarding Jan 6th, is there are real reason they can’t tell the truth?

Is that not why we have these hearings? To determine the truth, yet time after time they refused to answer questions about the presence of agents and if they invited violence. Why? Why are they not being forthcoming? How will the truth be established otherwise?

I’ll tell you why, because they are a rouge agency who has been politicized, they are politically controlled and are committing crimes and doing unethical things.

[goaded]

Dude, if you're going to "correct" me and Fox News, don't post a video that proves us right!

You: " No bro. That is completely inaccurate. That is not what she said. That’s what Fox News is saying she said, but it is in fact not what she said. She responded to that question with “sir I am unable to answer that question at this time” "

Cruz: how many FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of January 6th?
FBI: "Sir I'm sure you can appreciate that I can't go into the specifics of sources and methods..."
Cruz: "did any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participate in the events of January 6th yes or no yes or no"
FBI: "Sir I can't, I can't answer that"
Cruz: "did any FBI agents or confidential informants commit crimes of violence on January 6th" (there's some echo here)

and so on. Here's the transcript with time markings from YouTube:

7:49 and this was the answers he got how many
7:51 FBI agents or confidential informants
7:54 actively participated in the events of
7:56 January 6th
8:00 sir I'm sure you can appreciate that I
8:03 can't go into the specifics of sources
8:05 and methods uh did any FBI agents or
8:08 confidential informants actively
8:10 participate in the events of January 6th
8:13 yes or no yes or no sir I can't I can't
8:15 answer that did any FBI agents or
8:18 confidential informants commit crimes of
8:20 violence on January 6th sixth
8:24 answer that sir
8:25 did any FBI agents or FBI informants
8:29 actively encourage and incite crimes of
8:32 violence on January 6th
8:34 sir I can't answer that Miss sadburn who
8:39 is Ray Epps

[Exterminatore]

Did you watch this video:

https://youtu.be/9vi-yrVMslY?si=D1lva0eIQTn8a1nB

It’s 5 min long where Wray is testifying before Congress and how a federal judge issued a 100+ page decision on how the FBI was threatening social media companies to censor posts as “foreign misinformation.”

It clearly shows how he’s lying.

[goaded]

I stopped at the point where you'd obviously, how can I put this, made a massive mistake. Admit you were wrong and Fox News (God help me) and I were right, and maybe the conversation is worth pursuing.

[Exterminatore]

Again…. why can’t she answer those questions? Is it a matter of national security to disclose feds we’re observing that crowd on Jan 6th? No it is not.

She can’t divulge the FBI’s methods. Right, because they’re illegal and incriminating.

Why can’t she tell if the FBI incited any of the violence?

Why is she never able to answer any question directly? Will the Russians learn of our secrets? Is this top secret info. It certainly is not. She is clearly trying to conceal the facts because the FBI has become weaponized.

Watch the above link. Right there the FBI is guilty clear as sin of censoring free speech.

Is it not becoming clear they incited that riot to use the 14th amendment against trump to keep him from running? They already tried propaganda and censoring free speech. They already had that circus called the Russian collusion hoax. Are you not seeing a pattern here?

[goaded]

No! I'm not going to engage with you on anything you want to discuss until you admit that you were factually wrong about the words she said and the reporting of them on Fox News. If we're not going to agree on facts, we're not going to agree on anything.

[Exterminatore]

She did in fact say for her first answer to the effect the FBI cannot divulge its methods and such. WTF kind of answer is that? It’s no answer at all. Is there some reason she can’t say “yeah, we had feds in the crowd as a protection against domestic terrorism” or something to that effect? Why can’t she divulge that info?

I will admit I did mistakenly say the Fox News article cited that part correctly and I am incorrect in saying she did not say that. My mistake. I had to go back and rewatch that video, and can see my error.

Nothing else I’ve said is incorrect. Zuckerberg admitted the FBI wanted to censor stuff and the Senator questioning Chris Wray specifically stated there was evidence the FBI threatened social media companies if they did not censor info.

[Exterminatore]

And again, for what reason can’t she answer those questions?

[goaded]

Why can't you admit that you were 100% wrong when you said " No bro. That is completely inaccurate. That is not what she said. That’s what Fox News is saying she said, but it is in fact not what she said. She responded to that question with “sir I am unable to answer that question at this time” "?

Unless you're capable of admitting fault, you're not someone who's worth discussing anything with.

[Exterminatore]

Read up. I just admitted I was incorrect.

[goaded]

Apologies, I stopped reading before that. OK, so, would you be surprised if a four star General in front of a congressional committee refused to explain the US plan of attack against Russia in open forum? I'll watch the other video now.

[Exterminatore]

Also I think I posted the wrong video of Rogans interview with Zuckerburg.

In this one he admits the FBI told him to sensor content as “Russian disinformation.”

https://youtu.be/dgRqxZBmRLY?si=xJC72RrhUA5hxOLt

[Exterminatore]

I wouldn’t be surprised at that because it directly relates to national security.

However, agents in the crowd looking for suspicious activity is NOT a matter of national security. We’d expect they were doing that. We’d hope they were doing that. That would not be a shocker.

So, what can’t the FBI admit it? Why can’t they answer if those agents incited any violence?

Why can’t questions about Ray Epps be answered?

None of this is vital to national security. All of it is incriminating.

It 5 min long. Watch this. Where there is conclusive proof of the FBI censoring info on social media because in the opinion of a Louisiana count judge it states as much and that the FBI threatened social media if they didn’t. You can hear Wrays responses and he openly lies:

https://youtu.be/9vi-yrVMslY?si=BFqP6seIdkIBw_Bq

[goaded]

So far, it's a monolgue by a Republican. The court ruling was overturned on appeal a week or two later. The judge was Trump-appointed, although I'm sure that had nothing to do with it.

[Exterminatore]

The point is not about the legal wrangling.

The point is Zuckerberg admitted it happens and the evidence found in a court case admitted it happened.

I don’t care if it was legal or not. What I want to know is why is the FBI threatening social media companies to censor posts that speak negatively about the stollen election, the BS with Covid, and other matters. Why the need to do that under the guise they are “misinformation.”

Whether or not the FBI is legally allowed to do that is of no consequence. What is of consequence is this proves conclusively our governments agents are involved in propaganda and censorship.

In regards to propaganda, look up operation mockingbird. That was so big they even had a senate committee about it in the 70. That was the CIA inserting their talking points into our news and even paying journalists to write fake stories.

So censorship and lies by our government and the main stream media in on all of it.

Is there a problem just telling the truth?

[goaded]

The other video is even worse for your case, "... based on a general recommendation to restrict election misinformation" is not the same as government orders.

[Exterminatore]

Here, this just came out last month:

www.reuters.com/.../

An excerpt from that article:

Sept 8 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Friday ruled the White House, the FBI and top health officials may not "coerce or significantly encourage" social-media companies to remove content the Biden administration considers misinformation, including about COVID-19.

To remove content which administration CONSIDERS misinformation? THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION. Well then, was it the FBI that determined all those posts were Russian misinformation or was it the BIDEN ADMINISTRATION?

[goaded]

That's the ruling that got overturned on appeal.

[Exterminatore]

Another excerpt from the same article:

The Biden administration has argued that it asked social-media companies to take down posts it considered to be harmful misinformation, but never forced them to do so.

Ohhhhh. So we see the Biden administration was behind using the FBI to do that don’t we?

[Exterminatore]

No dude. The part that was changed was Biden was not allowed to contact social media companies at all.

[Exterminatore]

So. It’s clear. The Biden administration has been weaponizing the FBI against conservatives and the American people.

It’s abundantly clear, whether or not it was legal they used they FBI to have social media companies under threat censor content THEY considered harmful and this had NOTHING to do with RUSSIAN disinformation. It was misinformation so far as the BIDEN ADMINISTRATION was concerned. And why would that be? Ohhhhh because we don’t want people talking the truth and most especially voting for Trump.

Dude:

1. 2016 upon Trumps election nation wide left wing protests
2. Russian Collision hoax
3. 2 impeachments
4. Jan 6th hearings
5. 4 separate indictments
And 6. Attempting to censor information.

Is it clear yet democrats do not want him in office and will do anything no matter how illegal or immoral to keep him out because he’s a threat to the establishment. Or are you gonna tell me that’s all legit and not using the law to persecute political opponents?

[goaded]

You're wrong on most points, I may come back to them tomorrow, it's after midnight here.

[Exterminatore]

Alright man. Sleep well.

[goaded]

Good morning!

You say "It’s abundantly clear, whether or not it was legal they used they FBI to have social media companies under threat censor content THEY considered harmful and this had NOTHING to do with RUSSIAN disinformation."

Three things wrong with that:
1. Threat of what, exactly? (Also, what's wrong with encouraging good citizenship?)
2. Who's saying all misinformation has to do with Russia? Covid misinformation was getting people killed.
3. It's far from "clear".

"It was misinformation so far as the BIDEN ADMINISTRATION was concerned."
Again, I remind you that the laptop story broke while Trump was still president and Barr was AG.

[goaded]

"1. 2016 upon Trumps election nation wide left wing protests"
Organised by a Russian troll farm, at least the one in NYC.
www.buzzfeednews.com/.../thousands-of-new-yorkers-took-to-the-streets-in-anti-trump


"2. Russian Collision hoax"
Not a hoax. There was Russian interference (see above), there were many, many contacts between Russian agents and the Trump campaign, and there was illegal obstruction of the investigation.

"3. 2 impeachments"
Both justified. Reportedly, Republicans in the second one didn't vote to convict because of fears for their families' safety. Whether there were ten of them (the number needed to convict) or not, it's clear that Trump supporters terrorised at least some out of voting to convict (others just feared losing their position of power).

"4. Jan 6th hearings"
All valid, with a clear crime to be investigated, and they exposed that Trump's inner circle were involved in the attack and confirmed what everybody could see at the time, it was on Trump's behalf.

"5. 4 separate indictments"
For 91 separate state and federal crimes.

"And 6. Attempting to censor information."
You have a different definition of censor than everyone else. Private companies aren't required to let you use their servers, and they're allowed to set rules.

All in all, yes, I am gonna tell you that’s all legit and not using the law to persecute political opponents.

[Exterminatore]

You’ve made up you’re mind. I’m not going to try to convince you that mainstream media, at least in America is mostly CIA propaganda, or that the FBI tried to censor social media.

You are a globalist authoritarian. You’ve already made up you mind. I’ve shared enough video clips and links with you. If you don’t trust those, fine. Go listen to MSNBC, CNN and wherever else you get your daily dose of propaganda.

You even just mentioned Covid. Yet are not even going to mention that it is now fact that masks, lockdowns, and social distancing were complete crap. The media lied about that. You’re not going to mention how in the US the vaccine manufactures don’t have to show the test data for the vaccines. You’re not going to mention how no one can sue the manufacturers of the vaccines for ill effects. You just want to believe everything the CIA propaganda tells you in the news.

Look that’s your business but this conversation has exhausted me. You probably believe Oswald killed Kennedy too.

[goaded]

I've made up my mind, as you say, but it's from looking at the facts, not because I've been brainwashed by the CIA.

Saying that US mainstream media "is mostly CIA propaganda" is as ridiculous as saying it's always or never accurate. Asking social media companies to avoid spreading misinformation is nothing like the government censoring anyone. There were no threats, there was no chance anyone was going to be arrested, it's akin to the police asking people to keep a special eye out for suspicious characters in an area experiencing a spate of burglaries.

"You are a globalist authoritarian."
Sigh. No, I'm not.

[goaded]

"You even just mentioned Covid. Yet are not even going to mention that it is now fact that masks, lockdowns, and social distancing were complete crap."
No, it's not a "fact", it's basically one pre-publication paper written by economists that defined "lockdown" as "at least one non-pharmaceutical intervention", which would include "wear a mask in enclosed public places". Hardly what any sane person would call a lockdown. The media did not lie about that.

Why America didn't mandate better masks and allowed people to walk around with a single layer of cheesecloth in the few places they were required, I don't know. Oh, yes I do, it's because you had an entire political party seemingly intent on seeing as many people die as possible as long as they die "free" of having to care about their neighbours.

"You’re not going to mention how in the US the vaccine manufactures don’t have to show the test data for the vaccines."
The initial test data was on some 30,000 people, iirc. If just one of them died after receiving a dose of something that was 99% likely unrelated, do you really think you and your friends would have considered the data honestly, or screamed that the vaccine would kill one in 10,000 recipients, maybe 1 in 1,000? I think the latter.

At the time, there were well over half a million new cases a day and over 10,000 deaths (1 in 50). By the time vaccinations were commonplace, there was another peak (Delta, I think, Jan 2022), of over 3 million new cases a day but still only 10,000 deaths a day (1 in 300).

Can't you conceive of a public health perspective at all?

"You just want to believe everything the CIA propaganda tells you in the news."
No, I don't. But I can look at facts. Delta was more likely to send unvaccinated people to hospital than Alpha, but it killed fewer people because of vaccinations.

[Exterminatore]

You’re too indoctrinated by the global authoritarians we call liberals. I can’t continue on with this convo. I give you link after link showing how the FBI is a bunch of criminals.

I show you that 2 states are suing the Biden administration over censorship and have Weaponized the FBI in that. You ignore it. I give you video clips to show Jan 6th was all the scam. You didn’t even watch the video.

Now you want to tell me the masks and lockdowns and social distancing weren’t complete lies.

I just can’t continue this conversation. I’m not going to bother providing you links about all the Covid stuff.

Next you’ll be telling me Oswald killed Kennedy.

[goaded]

Come back to me when they win the lawsuit, or if a scientific paper gets through peer review that says masks and lockdowns and social distancing did nothing.

[love_conquers_lust]

Dog whistling. What makes you think Democrats are above such tactics?

[goaded]

Are you referring the subject of the question or what the woman in the video believes? If the latter, can you think of anything remotely equivalent on the left to her belief that Trump's still commander in chief?

[love_conquers_lust]

Both. Have you listened to any debate from either Republicans or Democrats whatsoever? It’s all dog whistling. They speak in vague terms because the attention spans of citizens are pathetic when it comes to politics.

Here are specific examples, the left believes in the wage gap. The left thinks race and gender are social constructs. The left thinks Republicans gerrymander and prevent voters from choosing the ACTUAL commander and chief with voter ID. The left cried about the electoral college in 2016 saying Trump didn’t win the popular vote and that he wasn’t the commander in chief. Need I keep going?

The Supreme Court stacking by conservatives was the Democrat’s doing. They changed the rules years ago when it came to filibustering justice appointees and Mitch McConnell exploited it. Democrats have said themselves they regret it. Democrats tried to use a clause from 9/11 legislature passed by Republicans to declare national states of emergency to delay/alleviate student debt. Democrats used that same power during CoVid for student debt forgiveness.

Not sorry, bud. You don’t like this woman, you can try pointing your finger where the blame lies. Not at her, since I feel we have to be literal. She is responding in kind.

[goaded]

Well, that's a load of rubbish.

"Here are specific examples, the left believes in the wage gap. The left thinks race and gender are social constructs. The left thinks Republicans gerrymander and prevent voters from choosing the ACTUAL commander and chief with voter ID. The left cried about the electoral college in 2016 saying Trump didn’t win the popular vote and that he wasn’t the commander in chief."

There is still a wage gap, it's smaller now, as long as you exclude absenses from work to have children and a dozen other things, but it's still there.

Race is a social construct: "[T]he answer to the question whether races exist in humans is clear and unambiguous: no." en.wikipedia.org/.../Historical_race_concepts

Gender has similar problems, where it's impossible to define any one attribute that distinguishes between two discrete genders. Scientists were talking about 300 races before they worked out it was pointless.

Republicans DO gerrymander. www.nytimes.com/.../...al-maps-gerrymandering.html

The voter ID concerns were valid when they were first introduced, less so now it's possible to get them for free. Still essentially pointless, though.

Nobody said Trump "wasn’t the commander in chief", and it's a fact that "Trump didn’t win the popular vote".

"Need I keep going?"
It would be equally pointless.

[goaded]

Your reversal of victim and offender is also wrong. Do you know what DARVO means? ↗

Nobody forced the Republicans to change the rules about filibusters on SCOTUS appointments. Nobody forced McConnell to delay considering Obama's nominee for 10 months "because of an upcoming election", or to force through Trump's third while voting was ongoing.

The Democrats changed the rules for non-SCOTUS appointments because Republicans were holding up the process (like Tuberville is with military promotions right now). Their rule explicitly excluded SCOTUS nominees. McConnell wasn't using that new rule, he just used it as an excuse to put extremists on the court.

[love_conquers_lust]

Not only do Democrats do it, you do it too because you’re a little dog whistling pussy. Scared to take a stance and defend your argument.

Wage gap implies men are paid more just because they have a dick. It makes no mention of the fact that they outperform women. If women were in fact getting screwed, ALL men should be fired because companies are paying a markup for labor that brings no additional value to products and services.

If race and gender are is social constructs that can’t be defined, then they can’t be used to enforce. Which means the CRA is unenforceable and women and minorities CAN’T be discriminated against.

I don’t care about gerrymandering. You don’t like it, go out to rural areas where your food source comes from instead of cowering in urban cities replete with conveniences. The divide between urban and rural is the same as the the 13 colonies rebelling against the British. They didn’t want a tyrant from afar telling them what to do without adequate representation.

Voter ID complaints were always pointless because most minorities have fucking IDs. It was about denying illegals a vote, because they DON’T have a right.

Dumb point you made on Trump.

You’re right. it would be pointless to keep going. Why don’t you take yourself to the zoo and roll with the next gorilla in their exhibit since technically even human beings can’t be defined by the same logic. Better yet, go back to Africa to roam with them because you share dang near 95% or so of their DNA…Dumbass.

[love_conquers_lust]

Here you go, fuckhead. From a left leaning source no less:

www.usatoday.com/.../#

Democrats changed the rules on Justice appointees you idiot. And nobody forced Democrats to change the rules or exploit the 9/11 legislation. Round and around we go you DARVO mother fucker. The difference is, I’m bringing facts to the table, you aren’t.

[goaded]

Very eloquent. Also very wrong about practically everything. "Scared to take a stance and defend your argument."? That's precisely what I was doing.

Your link: "For four decades, a 60-vote supermajority had been required to advance all federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments, per The Washington Post.

Then, Senate Republicans attempted to filibuster multiple Obama nominees to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, his pick for Defense secretary, and his choices to lead the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In response, Reid orchestrated a move to lower the Senate vote threshold to 51 to confirm most presidential appointments — but not nominees to the Supreme Court."

For forty years, any reasonable appointee was confirmed by the Senate, then the Republicans started gumming up the works. Just because they could. Just like Tuberville is doing right now with military promotions.

"Dumb point you made on Trump."
What, that it was a fact that he lost the popular vote both times? It seemed relevant considering you'd said "The left cried about the electoral college in 2016 saying Trump didn’t win the popular vote and that he wasn’t the commander in chief." Nobody said he wasn't President. Shouldn't have been, perhaps, but that's a different thing.

[goaded]

Hell, I didn't even read to the end of your link. I should have, it's funnier. (They're talking about your claim, by the way.)

"Our rating: False

We rate this claim FALSE, based on research. Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was not responsible for lowering the vote threshold to confirm Supreme Court nominees to 51. Rather, he orchestrated that change for judicial nominees and presidential appointments, excluding the Supreme Court. When control of the Senate changed parties, it was Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who extended the rule change to apply to nominees to the Supreme Court in 2017."

[love_conquers_lust]

And here’s the point dumb shit, it’s all part of the dog whistling. The Democrats laid the foundation for the change by McConnell. I don’t really give a shit about the CONCLUSION of a left leaning paper source. I care about the facts they laid out, their premises. You can keep going back in time and there is a paper trail of all changes made going back to the founding of the country. It truly is pointless to point fingers at the changes people don’t like because it never ends. Unlike you, in all probability, I read both sources left and right.

You’ve won nothing and proved nothing. I find it funny you chose to latch on to one issue on the grounds of escalation and completely ignore the others. “Hell”, you couldn’t even win on a supposed error.

You also do NOT know what “practically everything” means. You’ve not a clue. You know emotion, that’s what you know. No, you haven’t defended your arguments. No new facts brought forth. Zero. You’ve recycled mine because you’re too fucking lazy to get tour own. In that case, I can feed you whatever bull shit I feel like and you’ll have no choice but to believe it or withdraw if you can’t think on your own.

Yes, they did claim he wasn’t president. You may not have, but others did. That’s a baldfaced lie to claim otherwise.

“Defending” your stance with supposedly valid arguments without proving your premises, the soundness, is not truly defending. It’s arguing to argue. Pointing fingers, by you.

I think we’re done with the handholding.

[goaded]

Nice Gish Gallop. Bye!

[love_conquers_lust]

Irony. Off you go, boy.

[goaded]

Oh, come on, you post one link supposedly in support of your case and get upset when I point out it says you're wrong. Then you claim it's a left-wing outlet without addressing the question. You pepper your responses with insults, and finally pretend you were trying to help me see the Truth.

Democrats explicitly did not change the rules for SCOTUS nominees, and they only changed the rules for other nominees in the face of unprecedented obstruction. Republicans, McConnell, refused to do what any other Senate Majority Leader would have allowed, and used the filibuster to obstruct the president's agenda, not just to exclude unreasonable nominees. Just like Tuberville is doing right now with the military promotions.

Republicans break the system, forcing a work-around, then extend the work-around to break the system some more. It's been going on for decades.

Republican President Nixon gets impeached, and has the decency to resign before he's convicted, Republicans find an excuse to impeach Clinton (that had nothing to do with the original inquiry), there aren't the votes to convict in the Senate because the "crime" (lying about his sex life) had little to do with his duties as president (that was, arguably a mistake, a couple of years of President Gore might well have changed the results of the 2000 election), then Republicans refuse to convict, or even hear the evidence, of the next Republican president the first time, and refuse to convict the second time, even though they all knew he was responsible for the first refusal of a US president to leave office peacefully. Now, Republicans are trying to impeach another Democratic president on the basis of a years-old accusation that came through disgraced Trump ex-lawyer Rude Giuliani.

[love_conquers_lust]

So, you don’t know what “bye” means?

[goaded]

It means I won't respond unless you say something stupid. You'll note it doesn't mean I've blocked you, because I believe in having conversations with people, even if they're rude to me.

[love_conquers_lust]

No it doesn’t.

[goaded]

Really? That's what I mean by it. Haven't you been rude to me? Didn't you post one single link that disagreed with your claim? Do you really think that McConnell was forced to extend the exception the Democrats made in order to work around the unprecedented behaviour of McConnell? Didn't McConnell delay a SCOTUS nomination for almost a year? Didn't he then change the rules so that Trump's (the Federal Society's) three SCOTUS nominees could get confirmed with a simple majority? Didn't he allow one of those to go through while the election for president was under way? Didn't they then proceed to undo 50 years of precedent despite claiming that they'd respect it?

[love_conquers_lust]

Yes, really.

[goaded]

Way to avoid the question! Shall I repeat it?

Haven't you been rude to me? Didn't you post one single link that disagreed with your claim? Do you really think that McConnell was forced to extend the exception the Democrats made in order to work around the unprecedented behaviour of McConnell? Didn't McConnell delay a SCOTUS nomination for almost a year? Didn't he then change the rules so that Trump's (the Federal Society's) three SCOTUS nominees could get confirmed with a simple majority? Didn't he allow one of those to go through while the election for president was under way? Didn't they then proceed to undo 50 years of precedent despite claiming that they'd respect it?

[love_conquers_lust]

You’re still talking.

[goaded]

Oh, you're another one who can't stand not to have the last word. Not that you'll address the questions posed.

[love_conquers_lust]

You said “bye”. You would have conceded not caring about the last word, except you’re still here.

[goaded]

It's my question.

[love_conquers_lust]

My thread. Leave the thread and abide by the connotation of “bye”.

[goaded]

Maybe I should have just blocked you. You add nothing to the conversation except lies.

[love_conquers_lust]

The “block” would constitute an effective “bye”. Which means it’s actually you who cares more about the last word.

[goaded]

Whatever, see you in the morning. (Feel free to answer any of the points I raised in the meantime.)

[love_conquers_lust]

“Bye”

[In_Trance]

No, I think it means, they are both in mindsets where they are not willing to listen to opposing views.

[goaded]

Have you seen the kind of conversation I get into on here?

[Sabretooth]

More often than not.

[PrettyCrumblBb]

Both parties are full of crazies

[goaded]

I don't think it's remotely equal at this point.

[AngryCarl2]

Bingo!

[Anonymous]

no it means you are a moron , kindly fk off

[Fuentes]

Trump 2024

[Malwi93]

,, 🤣🤣🤣