U.S.A. Politics Thread

Poll

I have posted a possibility for the election outcome in 6 variations. Choose your preferred below.

A. https://i.imgur.com/F6TVPLY.png
8 (34.8%)
B. https://i.imgur.com/uuRmNcE.png
3 (13%)
C. https://i.imgur.com/JK2OSsA.png
1 (4.3%)
D. https://i.imgur.com/sl6MVas.png
2 (8.7%)
E. https://i.imgur.com/K1GHlD3.png
2 (8.7%)
F. https://i.imgur.com/br3Sp06.png
7 (30.4%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Author Topic: U.S.A. Politics Thread  (Read 264819 times)

Damn so this what they talk about in Brickadiacord

I posted a video of the man himself, stating he did not recant, while the entire media claims he does.
  • how do you know that is the same person?
  • how do you know "the man himself" is trustworthy and that they're telling the truth? after all if the claim is true, then they're a criminal. are you going to trust what a criminal says?
  • how do you know the news source has not manipulated, taken out of context, or distorted the footage in any way?

If those questions sound silly it's probably because you have a trust in the source that nobody else here does, because the answer to all of these points is that you can't know that any of these are true. you just have to trust it's true. That's my point. no amount of whataboutism "but the MSM narrative is X!" will change that. because it's coming from an untrustworthy source, from a person who may or may not be who they say they are, who for all i know is untrustworthy, i'm not going to trust it.

I have posted a possibility for the election outcome in 6 variations. Choose your preferred below.

Pageloss

how the forget do you get off to 0-1 year old babies

Pageloss
do you guys like coordinate posts or something why do i always see you guys in a cluster

  • how do you know that is the same person?
  • how do you know "the man himself" is trustworthy and that they're telling the truth? after all if the claim is true, then they're a criminal. are you going to trust what a criminal says?
  • how do you know the news source has not manipulated, taken out of context, or distorted the footage in any way?

If those questions sound silly it's probably because you have a trust in the source that nobody else here does, because the answer to all of these points is that you can't know that any of these are true. you just have to trust it's true. That's my point. no amount of whataboutism "but the MSM narrative is X!" will change that. because it's coming from an untrustworthy source, from a person who may or may not be who they say they are, who for all i know is untrustworthy, i'm not going to trust it.

The MSM IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY.

They have lied, multiple times over.
They have been caught, multiple times.

I'm not the crazy one, when I say maybe, just maybe THIS

Is evidence of FAKE NEWS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78

Interesting video on Benford's law, which was mentioned in here earlier

how do you know "the man himself" is trustworthy and that they're telling the truth? after all if the claim is true, then they're a criminal. are you going to trust what a criminal says?
*walks into jail*
cop: "can I help you?"
criminal: "yes sir i'd like to turn myself in for killing someone"
cop: "hmm...well, seeing as how you are a criminal, how do I know you are telling the truth?"

*walks into jail*
cop: "can I help you?"
criminal: "yes sir i'd like to turn myself in for killing someone"
cop: "hmm...well, seeing as how you are a criminal, how do I know you are telling the truth?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78

Interesting video on Benford's law, which was mentioned in here earlier
That's why benfords law does not stand alone as a piece of info.

It's an indicator.

There is a never ending list of indicators and evidence of fraud to INVESTIGATE.

But instead all I get is blatantly false "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF FRAUD" posts, which is just asinine.

Even in the squeakiest of squeaky clean elections statistically will have some form of fraud. But the amount of
evidence in this instance is just off the charts.

But every piece of evidence gets dismissed as "alt-right" or "untrustworthy" without any real reason.

No, the "SOURCE" is not the almighty judgement tool. Just cause it's not from loving CNN doesn't mean it's fake.



Yeah, that is ridiculous? so why the forget did you explain the exact same situational logic in a different crime?

If they come forward, then at the very least it warrants an INVESTIGATION.


Yeah, that is ridiculous? so why the forget did you explain the exact same situational logic in a different crime?

If they come forward, then at the very least it warrants an INVESTIGATION.
Richard Hopkins is a liar he just came into the Subway I work at and asked for a veterans discount footlong but I looked him up and all he did was repair refrigerators in Afghanistan for 2 years

That's why benfords law does not stand alone as a piece of info.

It's an indicator.

There is a never ending list of indicators and evidence of fraud to INVESTIGATE.

But instead all I get is blatantly false "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF FRAUD" posts, which is just asinine.

Even in the squeakiest of squeaky clean elections statistically will have some form of fraud. But the amount of
evidence in this instance is just off the charts.

But every piece of evidence gets dismissed as "alt-right" or "untrustworthy" without any real reason.

No, the "SOURCE" is not the almighty judgement tool. Just cause it's not from loving CNN doesn't mean it's fake.
Honey, the part that it's not from MSM isn't why we believe it's fake

We believe it's fake because it keeps being proven fake by people investigating it

*walks into jail*
cop: "can I help you?"
criminal: "yes sir i'd like to turn myself in for killing someone"
cop: "hmm...well, seeing as how you are a criminal, how do I know you are telling the truth?"
gothboy said defund the police for being incompetent??