2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
The incels who love Trump love that he is not afraid to use his power to grab women by the pussy. They want that power over women more than anything, and the fact that they cannot have it but think they deserve it, infuriates them. Trump gives them hope. The fact that Trump repulses the very women they long for but are incapable of wooing only strengthens their attraction for him. He is their Messiah.
You would think more dudes transitioning would be good for the incels, less competition and more women.
Accusations, especially from chronic liars, who have no evidence are not compelling evidence of guilt.
Some pattern you see that can easily be explained away (she is a dove) is not evidence.
You keep saying you "have no idea" if she is a secret agent. You're right there
Then you launch into this other stuff. If you have no idea, just stop there.
There's no point in continuing to shoot down conspiracy points, cuz you'll just make up new ones, like China and Russia are allies. But, she has also
So you admit there are no colleagues of Bernie who accused him of being a Russian asset, ok, good.
Do you see how that's a huge accusation, and one that wouldn't be taken lightly. It's extremely damning, and my only assumption is they have seen some form of intelligence we haven't.
I'm a poker player. I deal in a world of likelihood and probability. I don't have direct evidence that Gabbard is a Russian asset. I have a lot of information that points that way.
Let's back up though. Do you think Russia has assets in the US government, specifically in the congressional house?
So it’s just projection of republican crazy on their opponent. Lozen would be proud of you.
It's more prevelant on the right, and much more fantastical, with satanic cults and such.
However, it is becoming fairly common among dems. 1/3 of Biden supporters thought Trump may have staged his assassination attempt.
le sigh. that is your post from a few days ago with an edit. you have no sense of humor.
I have a fantastic sense of humor. Was that a display of...yours?
Cool man. Stuff your bra and I heard trump loves the uneducated
So you admit there are no colleagues of Bernie who accused him of being a Russian asset, ok, good.
Do you see how that's a huge accusation, and one that wouldn't be taken lightly. It's extremely damning, and my only assumption is they have seen some form of intelligence we haven't.
I'm a poker player. I deal in a world of likelihood and probability. I don't have direct evidence that Gabbard is a Russian asset. I have a lot of information that points that way.
Let's back up though. Do you think Russ
Nobody ever said that Bernie was specifically accused of being a Russian agent. Vic said he was smeared with all the Russia Russia Russia stuff.
If Hillary and Mitt had evidence they should either go public or turn it over to the FBI so Tulsi can be prosecuted. I'm not willing to believe in some hypothetical evidence they don't even claim to have.
I don't know how many, if any, people in congress are agents of foreign govs. I haven't really studied espionage but my uninformed guess is that it's rare.
For one thing, they already make millions legally and risk free. Though some do occasionally resort to illegal corruption
libs doing Mccarthyism will never be surprising
Nobody ever said that Bernie was specifically accused of being a Russian agent. Vic said he was smeared with all the Russia Russia Russia stuff.
If Hillary and Mitt had evidence they should either go public or turn it over to the FBI so Tulsi can be prosecuted. I'm not willing to believe in some hypothetical evidence they don't even claim to have.
I don't know how many, if any, people in congress are agents of foreign govs. I haven't really studied espionage but my uninformed guess is that it's
Bad conspiracy thinking comes from bad critical thinking skills. I think it's a bit comical you're lecturing people in here about conspiracy thinking, when you're exhibiting extremely horrendous critical thinking skills. I don't like to turn this stuff personal, but you've been extremely rude throughout this exchange, and I've ignored it to this point.
You said Tulsi likely was accused of being a Russian asset because she was a non-interventionist (NI), and "the establishment" (no conspiracy there), was against anyone who was NI. I then pointed out Bernie Sanders was a NI, and nobody accused him of being a Russian asset. You then posted a long post of many Bernie and Russia headlines, that had no connection to a colleague calling him a Russian asset.
You then exhibit a classic Genetic Fallacy by saying because some of the people who accused Tulsi of being a Russian asset, have lied in the past, that means their information is no good.
You then exhibit a Willful Ignorance fallacy, likely because it doesn't support your view of Tulsi and/or non-interventionism. This was pretty transparent from your first post.
99.6% of conspiracy theories are fkn stupid, and easily dismissed by just asking a question or two. I can't do that w/ Tulsi because I'm left w/ unanswerable questions.
In 1940, there were 11 confirmed Nazi assets in the US house. I posted about them previously in this thread. Most of them were ideologues, and monetary compensation was probably secondary to their modus operandi. To think there aren't some currently active Russian assets, when Russia is actively engaged in undermining western liberal democracies across the world, is extremely naive.
If you want to continue on this discussion, which I'm guessing you don't, please be polite and respectful and I will do the same.
Just want to thank all the wokesters for delivering us the Legion of Doom that will soon be running the country.
I'll go on record that the relationship between Trump and Tesla Boy will devolve to acrimony and outright hatred, resentment, and envy before the term is over. On an epic scale. Trying to think of a good comparison. Little help?
Logical fallacies don't work like that. If I said everything these chronic liars say is logically certain to be false, you'd be right.
You're claim is that we should just believe them without evidence. I'm not inclined to believe habitual liars making negative claims about their ideological opponents. The claims might be true, but with zero evidence I don't accept them.
If you want to believe them on the basis of conjecture or because you think they must have hidden evidence that's fine.
The fact that she consistently opposes wars, sanctions and trade wars in most cases doesn't seem all that crazy to me or evidence of treason.
Many people agreed with Nazi and Communist ideology. It's harder to imagine an American becoming passionate about supporting Russian oligarchy. I guess it's possible. If evidence is ever uncovered maybe Tulsi will explain her motivations.
If a bunch of our representatives are agents for foreign govs, hopefully they are found out. I think they probably would be.
You keep saying "I have no idea if Tulsi is a Russian agent." I agree. I would need evidence to believe so. No amount of speculation much matters to me.
I'm sure everyone is sick of this.
It takes zero critical thinking skills to put something in a box and marginalize it. But I'll attempt to repeat my QUESTION. Why would she back a Russian propaganda talking point, at a critical point in history, when Putin was looking for any justification for invading Ukraine? At best, it's moronic and incompetent, at worst she's a Russian asset.
I'll say again... I have no idea if she's a Russian asset. I can't answer why she's made a public statement, as a supposed non-interventionist and pe
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Most likely explanation: Gabbard said something dumb in an interview.
Most convoluted explanation: Gabbard is a Russian asset on the payroll of The Kremlin.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Most likely explanation: Gabbard said something dumb in an interview.
Most convoluted explanation: Gabbard is a Russian asset on the payroll of The Kremlin.
What's up with this common defense (mostly since Trump and MAGA) about stupidity?
Not their fault they just stupid.
Wtf, couldn't you pick someone not stupid to head national security posts, or any post to begin with?
And if you realise said person is stupid then fire her or don;t nominate her?
If anything serious happens with these jokers in power, these appointments ... say China moves on Taiwan or somebody moves on the US mainland, I wouldn't be surprised if they just fled Washington, screaming: "We were never serious. It was a prank. A stunt."
You know, like the "Big Steal" crap. When it got in a courtroom, they said the equivalent of: "Well nobody could take that seriously. It was a prank. We're punking the system a bit, don't expect seriousness from us."
There may be a minority of religious zealots left holding the bag, who didn't know it was all a farce. But reality will not be mocked. This is where the superstitious put "god" in place of "reality." Reality always gets the last laugh.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Most likely explanation: Gabbard said something dumb in an interview.
Most convoluted explanation: Gabbard is a Russian asset on the payroll of The Kremlin.
Well, we can throw another hat into the ring:
Nikki Haley on Wednesday slammed former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard — President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to be director of national intelligence — over her 2017 “photo-op” with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
“He was massacring his own people. She said she was skeptical that he was behind the chemical weapons attacks,” said Haley of Gabbard on her SiriusXM show.
“Now, this to me, is disgusting.”
Haley, who served as United Nations ambassador under Trump, pointed to a 2017 speech she gave where she held up pictures of Syrian children who were victims of a chemical weapons attack in the town of Khan Shaykhun.
Gabbard, just months before the attack, met with Assad during a secret trip to Syria and, in 2019, would declare that the Syrian president was “not an enemy” to the United States.
“For her to say that Assad was not behind that, literally, everything she said about that were Russian talking points, every bit of that, that was Russian propaganda,” said Haley before adding that the Democrat-turned-Republican also blamed NATO for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
She continued, “And the Russians and the Chinese echoed her talking points and her interviews on Russian and Chinese television.”
Assad chemical weapons attack has been thoroughly debunked. now we are just talking conspiracy theories.
yes that's a lie
I think if you look up "thoroughly debunked" in the Victionary you'll find it means "stuff I choose to disbelieve regardless of evidence because it's inconvenient for my narrative".
I'm no chemical weapons expert, but I just did a google search and I didn't find anything remotely resembling a consensus that the allegations had been debunked.
Because there's not. There's overwhelming evidence by international organizations that he did.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature. Like I said, I think most of them are fkn stupid, and can easily be debunked w/ a question or 2. I'm not a 9/11 truther, or covid conspiracy theorist, etc... In the last 30+ years, I can think of 2 conspiracies that I'm confident are true, one of them being Tulsi is likely a Russian asset. I'm 99.4% sure Tulsi is. The .6% is because she doesn't seem like the brightest bulb to me, not that she's dumb. But I hold out the possibility she's been groomed and manipulated by Russia.
I listed several people that have spoken up about her, and they were dismissed by saying they are liars. A dumb rebuttal, btw. Elizabeth Warren is a chronic liar? What's her motivation for saying Tulsi is a Putin puppet?
I'm telling you guys, I'm pretty good at this stuff. My biggest strength is noticing things people tend to overlook, and I've always scored extremely high in logic test. I got my degree in philosophy and wrote a dissertation on the importance of inductive / deductive logic skills in uncovering personal confirmation biases. It's probably part of the reason I was such a good HS poker player as well.
Quick personal story. I used to have a second home in Hawaii on the Big Island. A small mac nut farm. I had a lot of friends that were big Tulsi supporters that lived over there. I was as well at first. Then she started saying some weird **** that got me raising my eyebrows. When Kīlauea erupted in 18', I had a good friend, and Tulsi supporter that last his home. I let him stay at my place for 6 months. He was actively campaigning for Tulsi at the time. Very bright guy. He actually started a solar BTC mining farm on the island and is doing quite well for himself (yes I got a piece of that action).
When I would go back and stay over there, we had several conversations about Tulsi, and I raised concerns to him that I think she's possibly a Russian asset. We had a lot of back and forth about it, and he thought I was being ridiculous. He was such a big supporter that it wore on our friendship. We're still friends, but it had a strange impact because he just couldn't accept some of the info I was bringing to him.
Any ways... This whole thread on here brought me back to that moment a bit.
I am anti Putin and anti Assad as much as someone can possibly be, but you have to give your enemies the benefit of thinking they are rational when they have been for decades.
There was absolutely no logical, strategical, tactical reason for Assad to use chemical weapons banned by international treaties to achieve what? what was easily achievable with conventional weapons?
And keep in mind that in my model of geopolitics we (=the west) didn't need him using chemical weapons to justify any aggression on our side, we had full rights to intervene regardless as we do everywhere in the world everytime we think it's proper.
But given many people want the fake casus belli to cover themselves, and fake casus belli have been invented before by the USA to justify intervention (tonkin gulf, "weapons of mass destruction") i think they invented the chemical weapons stuff tbh.
We can't believe any "proof", or any "counter", it's a warzone no proper evidence gathering that can be verified by third party neutral observers will ever exist.
So we have to go with rationality, and we can't assume Assad and Putin are so terrible at playing imho.
I am anti Putin and anti Assad as much as someone can possibly be, but you have to give your enemies the benefit of thinking they are rational when they have been for decades.
There was absolutely no logical, strategical, tactical reason for Assad to use chemical weapons banned by international treaties to achieve what? what was easily achievable with conventional weapons?
And keep in mind that in my model of geopolitics we (=the west) didn't need him using chemical weapons to justify any aggressi
Even if you are correct, that isn't a "thorough debunking." It's just an inference based on how you expect rational people to behave.
I haven't looked the evidence, and I probably wouldn't be competent to assess it if I did, but if the evidence were strong enough, then rationality eventually would compel you to conclude that your inferences have been swamped by hard evidence.
To give a crude example, as a lawyer, even if I have compelling argument that my client had no logical reason to kill his wife, that argument isn't going to get me very far if a nanny cam captured clear video of my client shooting his wife.
Even if you are correct, that isn't a "thorough debunking." It's just an inference based on how you expect rational people to behave.
I haven't looked the evidence, and I probably wouldn't be competent to assess it if I did, but if the evidence were strong enough, then rationality eventually would compel you to conclude that your inferences have been swamped by hard evidence.
To give a crude example, as a lawyer, even if I have compelling argument that my client had no logical reason to kill
In fact I wasn't claiming it was a debunk I claimed no hard counter can exist.
There is no need to look at evidence you know for a certainty has been tampered with. It doesn't inculpate nor disculpate, just isn't actual evidence.
I understand your lawyer take for a random defendant, but the rationality of a leader who (with his father) had to be a master of intrigue for decades in order to force an unwanted minority rule over a complicated country, is proven more than that of a random person who is rational on his job but can be weak emotionally.
We are talking proven true evil monsters with 0 ethics and a capacity to cold blood decision making in the top 0.01% of the population.
It's like a chess grandmaster losing with a stupid move, you know something doesn't smell right if that happens.
And it's not only Assad, it's Putin as well, and it not only him, it's their small entourages of people who have their hears as well.
Far harder to get caught "in the moment" and respond emotionally to events.
