True, I don't care. I don't really know how many more times I need to say it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'll say it one more time.
I don't care. It's just a topic of discussion to me, nothing more.
Printable View
True, I don't care. I don't really know how many more times I need to say it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'll say it one more time.
I don't care. It's just a topic of discussion to me, nothing more.
Well with regards to the election, a reasonable theory of systematic fraud would be one with some actual evidence to support it, not just Rudy Guiliana parading "eywitnesses" in an alley behind a landscaping company, and MAGAtards on twitter going "Arrrrgggh, rigged!", and dipshits on a betting site taking the above seriously.
Well it's still not scientifically illiterate shit like flat earth and the like.
I can't speak to all the election fraud claims, ong, but the prominent ones were all tossed out summarily when the lawyers were directly asked by the judge if they had any direct evidence of fraud, and the lawyers had to admit they did not.
The lawyers can say whatever they want to the press, but when it comes to intentionally misleading a judge in a court of law... their credentials are on the line. They cannot intentionally mislead the judge and remain a lawyer.
The highest profile claims have already been before various judges and so far, all have been thrown out.
You can't simply "take a case to the supreme court." That's not how it works. You have to try and lose the case on the local and several appellate levels before the case is even under the noses of the SCOTUS. Then they decide which cases to rule on, and which to ignore. They don't have time for everything, and they get to pick what they rule on.
So no lawyer can "take a case to SCOTUS." That's simply not how it works. They can file local claims and the only way they can say with confidence that they have any chance to get to SCOTUS is if they already know they will lose in the local courts and on all appeals under SCOTUS to get there in the first place.
[EDIT]Oh, and FYI, the appellate courts do not look at any evidence, and no new evidence is allowed to enter at that level of the decision. The purpose of appellate courts is to determine if the original local court followed the correct rules of law. Since there were no juries involved, it's all just what did the lawyers say and do and what did the judge say and do and did anyone break the law during that whole process.[/EDIT]
Are you sure there was a widespread conspiracy theory about a CIA mind control program before 1975?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Indeed, though I haven't heard of there being any conspiracy theories about it until Deep Throat blew his whistle.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What is the difference between idiot theories and reasonable ones?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theories is that the former has evidence to prove it. Any other examples of ones that have been proven to be true? So far I think you're at 0.
idk, I wasn't alive before 1975. But even today, people will laugh at you if you say "MK Ultra" as though you're David Icke himself.Quote:
Are you sure there was a widespread conspiracy theory about a CIA mind control program before 1975?
Literacy. Flat earth is an idiot theory because it makes no scientific sense. Same with 5G covid and shapeshifting lizards. Moon landing hoax, not so much, I mean, at least that's feasible, even if it's incredibly unlikely.Quote:
What is the difference between idiot theories and reasonable ones?
So Einstein's Theory of Relativity has no evidence? I think you're misusing the word "theory", much like poop.Quote:
The difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theories is that the former has evidence to prove it.
Just making sure you're aware, "people laughing at you" is not evidence of anything. People laugh at things. If they can back up that laughing with evidence, then you should listen. I can't find any evidence of there being an MK Ultra conspiracy theory before the information about it got public, so it has never been a conspiracy theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What kind of conspiracy do you think is behind the theory of relativity?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I was attempting to demonstrate that a "theory" is not something lacking evidence, as you suggested.
I mean,it seems to me that you have a different definition for "theory" depending on if it has the word "conspiracy" before it.
Of course I do. A conspiracy theory and a scientific theory are completely different things. Just like "theory" and "scientific theory".
As in, if I say I have a theory that you're noticing how wrong you are and are trying to change the subject, I don't mean that I have a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment, I just have a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.
The word "theory" doesn't change meaning depending on the preceding word. It means...
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena"
A theory can be lacking in evidence, or supported by evidence. I mean, 9/11 is a "conspiracy theory", and there is evidence to support such a theory. Granted, it's not conclusive evidence, but the word "evidence" is another word that is misused. Evidence is not proof.
The "evidence" that flat earthers present can be conclusively proven to be bollocks, but that doesn't mean they're not presenting evidence. It just means their evidence is shit.
A "conspiracy theory" is not "a conspiracy that is lacking evidence", which you seem to think it is. It's better to say "a theory that is not widely held to be true".
An example when it comes to science is conformal cyclic cosmology, which myself and mojo have been discussing in the physics thread. This is pure theory, which is an important phrase in itself. It demonstrates that the word "theory", even in a scientific context, does not mean "a hypothesis backed up by evidence". If I argue that the universe started two weeks ago, that's a theory, even if it's complete and utter bollocks and can be proven so.
Well, I guess that ridiculous argument that the universe started two weeks ago is a hypothesis, because it is a statement alone, and not actually related to any observation. But as soon as I relate that hypothesis to an observation, then it becomes a theory.
My point is that the word "theory" has nothing to do with whether compelling evidence exists.
It does, that's why I used the dictionary definitions for "theory" and "scientific theory" in my previous reply. A scientific theory is a special case of what is normally meant by the word theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Agreed, and I never said that's the case. I said a conspiracy has evidence to prove it, that is, credible evidence. Conspiracy theories typically lack that.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Any other conspiracy theories that have been proven to be true? I'm still not aware of any. What I mean by that is just because you happen to believe in some, doesn't IMO justify not calling them conspiracy theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory
https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-theory
Having evidence is essential to a scientific theory.
You had to qualify this statement with the word "typically". Remove that word and you have a problem.Quote:
Conspiracy theories typically lack that.
There's no point in answering this question if we can't even agree what it means to say "theory". If I give you an example, you will simply refute "well it's not a theory, is it?".Quote:
Any other conspiracy theories that have been proven to be true?
Sure, but I already pointed out that "evidence" is another word we seem to have problems defining. If you're arguing "evidence" is something that can be tested, then you're arguing that conformal cyclic cosmology isn't a theory. There are lots of scientific theories that cannot be tested. That doesn't disqualify them from being a theory.Quote:
Having evidence is essential to a scientific theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics
Note how "theoretical physics" contrasts with "experimental physics". The former is based on mathematical models and abstractions, while the latter is based on experiment.
Wormholes are an excellent example of this, by the way. They have never been observed, yet remain a theory. The only evidence is mathematical.
A lot of people consider maths a good basis for a theory. Just saying.
That's an irrelevance. It's not testable on its own. It's purely theoretical. Note the word I use there... theoretical. We're talking about what theory means here. It doesn't mean a testable hypothesis.
A theory can be proven, or not. It can be testable, or not. A conspiracy theory can be a conspiracy that is unproven, or proven. Such a theory does not cease to be a theory when it is proven.
A word means what it's user meant when they used the word.
Many, many words have multiple definitions, sometimes those definitions are antonyms. Words are not a consistent system. Especially not English words.
No. CCC is a hypothesis, not a theory... in scientific terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The theory of General Relativity is a theory because after Einstein proposed the hypothesis, it has been widely tested by numerous independent researchers using a wide range of methods, and exactly none of those tests showed that hypothesis to be false.
Scientifically, a theory is as close to fact as we have. In science, theory and Law are basically the same. A theory may be composed of multiple laws, or a theory may be a single law.
Colloquially, it's a very different matter. Colloquially, a theory and a hypothesis or a (subjectively) well-thought-out opinion are the same things. If someone says, "I have this theory about XXX," that's not a scientific opinion, not a well-tested and established proposal... it's a guess. Maybe a good guess, maybe a bad guess. Just a guess, though.
As a scientist, I disagree with this wholeheartedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If it cannot be tested, it cannot ever be a scientific theory. The definition is radically different inside the scientific communities than in colloquial usage. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is.
You can't just insist that someone meant something they didn't mean. You can bully dumb people into believing you're an ass, sure. Even smart people would agree with them.
Just listen to what people are saying and try to hear their intended meaning. Anything less is not communicating in good faith.
Could you clarify what you mean by this please? I think I know what you mean, but I need to be sure what you mean when you say the following words...Quote:
A word means what it's user meant when they used the word.
"A", "word", "means", "what", "it's", "user", "meant", "when", "they", "used", "the" and "word" (perhaps you mean this is a different context this time).
I apologise for the sarcasm, but I don't know how else to point out that what you say is absurd.
As for "theory", what does "theoretical physics" mean? The opposite of "theoretical"? I'm genuinely confused how this can be.
Theoretical Physics is the search for new scientific laws through mathematical hypotheses and extrapolation of the current model(s).
It's not that every theoretical physicist produces theories. I mean... sure... all of their longest-term goal is to find something that will be promoted to a theory, but no one person in any science community gets to decide when something gets promoted from a hypothesis to a theory.
The entire fields of String Theory have not yet produced a String Theory. There are dozens if not hundreds of String Hypotheses as of now. The search for a theory does not mean that every hypothesis in that field is a theory.
In a conversation with non-scientists, I wont nitpick the use of the word theory, but when in the physics dept. and on the clock, I do ask clarifying questions when a student uses the word theory. Regardless of if I know their intended meaning, it's still good practice to help teach them when to be careful with the word having overloaded definitions that are at odds with each other.
You forgot to do this:Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I mean, you're seemingly unaware of the contradiction in your post. On the one hand, you're arguing that words can mean whatever the user intends, and on the other, you're telling me what theory means.
The problem is that it causes confusion. This discussion began with "conspiracy theory", and the use of the word theory here implies to poop and cocco "unproven", while you're saying that the word "theory" in a scientific context means the opposite.Quote:
Just listen to what people are saying and try to hear their intended meaning. Anything less is not communicating in good faith.
Also, if we have different ideas what a word means, we're not actually talking about the same thing.
And why do we even talk of "string theory" if it's not a theory?
I'm only trying to shed light on the fact that you, ong, have started insisting on what other people mean when they use the word "theory."
There are multiple definitions, and depending on the context, the users intended definition may be a near antonym of another user's intended usage, or even the same user in a different context.
I'm just saying that when everyone agrees on the usage, there's no difficulty in conversation.
When words are being interpreted differently by the listener than the speaker, then both need to pause and get on the same page.
That's all I'm really saying.
I don't care how you choose to talk about conspiracy theories... just that it makes no sense to keep talking if you don't even agree on what counts as a conspiracy theory. If you're just nitpicking language as opposed to engaging intellectually, then that's not communicating in good faith.
I'm telling you there are multiple definitions and those definitions are near antonyms of each other, and the context and usage matters a great deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm telling you that within the context of scientific theory... the definition is one thing. BUT beyond that context, it means something else.
Just make sure you understand the context of the user's intended meaning before you tell them they said something wrong. If you don't actually know what they meant to tell you, then you don't even know what they said, let alone if it's right or wrong.
EDIT:
Yeah... this
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Because, as I said, the goal is a search for a theory. We don't have any scientific theories about strings, yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
We have colloquial theories - scientifically called hypotheses - about strings... but they're not theories because they either cannot be tested or have been tested and shown to be in disagreement with already gathered data.
It's not a matter of whether those people working on string theory are doing one thing or another. It's just a matter of the "jargon" usage within a specific field's context being different from the "standard" usage. It's stupendously common for just about all fields to use jargon, and the fact that you're pretending this is weird or somehow the fault of those fields or even the words themselves is neither here nor there.
Just agree on what word makes the most sense to use in this context that grants the easiest synonymous meaning to all parties.
What's so hard about that?
This works both ways. I'm being told I'm wrong to use the term "conspiracy theory" to refer to proven theories. And we still have the absurdity of poop and cocco telling me that theory means the exact opposite of what you're telling me it means.Quote:
I'm only trying to shed light on the fact that you, ong, have started insisting on what other people mean when they use the word "theory."
I mean this is a kind of ridiculous situation here. This is why words have meaning.
Isn't it peculiar that you've been given the literal dictionary definitions of the words and terms we're discussing, and you feel that everyone else is somehow mangling what words mean.
No, what I find peculiar is how "theory" means "unproven" in the context of conspiracies, and "proven" in the context of science.
Do you not see this absurdity?
By the way, i already posted a dictionary definition of "theory".
All you're being told, ong, at least by me, is that the word "theory" has multiple definitions, and those definitions are near antonyms of each other. If 2 people are using the same word, but they mean the opposite when they say it, that's going to cause serious miscommunication.
I'm emphatically not telling you what you mean or what poop means when you use the word.
What I am telling you is that you should probably just agree to use only 1 definition of the word for the purposes of this conversation.
Yes. It is absurd. No one's saying the English language is not absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The word literally means both itself and it's own antonym, without any fuzziness.
[EDIT]Even that sentence is an unintended pun. Add quotes to the word "literally"[/EDIT]
It is what it is.
Verbal communication is already an awkward symbolic exchange.
All we can do is try to find the right combination of word-things that convey the invisible thought-ideas from our meat-brain to someone else's meat-brain in a way that gets them to think the same invisible thought-ideas we think. That takes cooperation on both sides.
Hang in there, buddy. The first of the month is tomorrow.
Ok so to clarify, when I talk of "conspiracy theories", I mean both proven and unproven, ridiculous and reasonable.
Because cocco and poop believe that a "conspiracy theory" is only unproven and/or ridiculous theories, we're in an absurd situation where we can't have a discussion about it without bickering, since we're not talking about the same thing.
Let's from here agree to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" to talk about proven theories (even though this itself is absurd), and "conspiracy hypothesis" for the ridiculous.
It's a good job you're not a maths teacher.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
We could do that, that is, agree on what we mean by words and list them here. Or, we could use the dictionary definitions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
"A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation,[2][3] when other explanations are more probable.[4][5] The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence."
I wonder why MK Ultra is listed in the examples of conspiracy theories?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pr...ss8jw3J5e-o91Y
I never said all conspiracy theories were hokum, I said a lot of them are pretty ridiculous, including the presently topical one about the election.
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Not that we need another hat in the ring, but I always felt that the obvious was that Conspiracy Theories are unproven, or not widely accepted as having been proven-- once proven/accepted as proven they are simply Conspiracies.
Of course, proven have always been conspiracies, and sometimes it makes sense to refer to them as conspiracy theories, such as in this context in which you may want to highlight that this slice of reality was widely treated with the derision often cast on unproven conspiracy theories. So, yeah, language is complicated-- but I'm with MMM here: digging in your heals on the definitions of words is to everyone's detriment. Try to take people's meaning as they mean it, if there's confusion and you can't agree on the usage of words, simply clarify your use, and in response to their use spell out your understanding of their use-- if this is untenable, then end the exchange.
That said, COINTELPRO is an example of a conspiracy theory that was widely disseminated (mostly in the black community in the US) prior to being proven/widely accepted as proven.
Honestly, it's the fault of the conspirators that all these "hokum" conspiracy theories have taken root. First, when conspiracies come to light, they sow seeds of doubt in the general population. Second, it's known, at least in the case of the Russians, that intelligence agencies have purposely planted conspiracies abroad to lay the ground work for discontent, and domestically to shroud their actual conspiracies in a fog of "hokum."Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Fun fact - this is a conspiracy theory.Quote:
Second, it's known, at least in the case of the Russians, that intelligence agencies have purposely planted conspiracies abroad to lay the ground work for discontent, and domestically to shroud their actual conspiracies in a fog of "hokum."
Some may regard it as one, but it isn't. There's extensive information about Russian disinformation campaigns going back to the 80s.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_INFEKTION
https://secondaryinfektion.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_web_brigades
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN21518F
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/...rt_Volume2.pdf
I know you're not gonna read any of those, but the more links I have, the more gravitas my argument has. That's another fact.
Yeah, that's why it's so insidious-- I cant remember the details to find a source, but from what I can remember, people are generally only capable of thinking a few levels deep without mapping things out on paper. Which makes sense, it becomes increasingly hard to keep track of the motivations of someone who is conspiring to create conspiracy theories to safeguard their conspiracies.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Further, it leads to endless rabbit holes of thought, like "maybe it's western intelligence agencies that have floated the conspiracy theory that the Russians have been fabricating conspiracy theories to give cover to their conspiracies, to give cover to their (western agency's) conspiracies." Pretty much an infinite regress that ends in "nothing is true and everything is possible."
I mean, look, as I said, I think the most obvious distinction is to use "conspiracy theory" to refer to something that isn't yet proven or widely accepted and "conspiracy" for those that have been, but I think it's pretty clear that you're arguing against a meaning that Ong did not intend.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
And again, this is why it's so insidious, because I think the way Ong is using "conspiracy theory" here might be novel to this conversation-- the phrase can describe a conspiracy that at a glances looks outlandish, far fetched, implicative of shadowy organizations pulling the strings, etc. As Ong pointed out, proven conspiracies often are lumped in with unproven conspiracies, making the set, "conspiracy theories," for aesthetic reasons, or by conspiracy theorists to bolster their unproven claims.
This honestly is a tough subject to talk about for these reasons, and so if we are going to it's pretty important to take MMM's advice and try your best to take the meaning intended by the speaker, and clarify when unsure.
I was never really on board with the whole Russia thing. There was always some doubt, until that Novichok incident in England. That was so obviously (to me at least) a crock of shit that I could only conclude that the whole Russiaphobia thing was propaganda on our part.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I'm also in no doubt that Russia are assholes, they've got their agenda too. In fact I kinda lean towards them being allies, and the whole "enemy" thing is to present to the public a strong reason for continued and massive military investment. We don't need nuclear weapons, nobody is ever going to use them. In fact I wouldn't at all be surprised if our nuclear arsenals are massively overstated, with the funding ending up elsewhere. We all know corruption happens, I think it's naive to think it's not happening on a truly massive scale.
So "conspiracy theory" to me doesn't mean crazy. As for the election, I do think it is a stretch to imagine they can pull off such a massive fraud without anyone being able to prove it. But it's not flat earth nonsense. It's a stretch, but not out of the question.
But bear in mind that the level of actual fraud claims that have been made and pressed by lawyers are stupid.
One was a charge that when vote-counters were counting Trump votes, they rolled their eyes. Not remotely a crime.
One was that a vote counter (not polling agent) made a joke that was derisive of Trump. Also not a crime.
One was that a specific representative of the Trump campaign wasn't allowed to be an "observer in the room" and the judge simply asked, "Was there a representative of the Trump campaign in the room?" The lawyer said, "Yeah." and the judge was like, "You're not entitled to pick who is in the room. If your side was represented, and you're not arguing that representative was compromised in any way, then this case is dismissed."
(Obv. paraphrasing)
One was about a 3rd-hand account that someone saw a box of votes that they didn't know whether or not had been counted start being counted. The judge asked, "How is this not hearsay." and the lawyer replied some nonsense, and the judge asked again, and reminded him he was in a court of law, and he said it is hearsay. The judge asked if he had any direct evidence of fraud and he said no.
These are the level of cases being brought to court. Nothing even suggesting widespread fraud in the specific instances claimed, let alone a state-wide or nation-wide effort.
An effort at the state or nation scale would require thousands of conspirators in on the act. What's that "law" about the more people in on a secret the shorter the time it takes for the secret to be revealed?
There were people with cell phone cameras at every polling and vote counting place in the US and there's no flood of hundreds or thousands of videos showing obvious wrong-doing.
At a certain point it IS the moon landing level of conspiracy. So many people had to be in on it. So many with good reasons to call BS had to keep quiet. At a certain point it's just about the scale. This is tiny, but the claims are huge. It doesn't add up.
Wait, so you were using "conspiracy theory" to mean "unproven and likely not true?"Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Now you've lost me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Most of which we already explained to Ong but apparently the facts are biased too just like we are.
If large numbers of vote counters start ending up dead in "accidents" I'll sit up and take notice. But the cases they've brought to court have all just been lolbad, like firing a shitgun at a wall and hoping something sticks.
Rudy's star witness in Michigan seems pretty reasonable.
https://twitter.com/Col_Hardstone/st...95418223390726
She's awesome!
She was REALLY piissed when they asked her to remove her tinfoil hat while in court.
The_Donald having a normal one.
https://i.imgur.com/Zfjw6Ip.png
https://thedonald.win/p/11QlFku0HP/m...pired-to-st/c/
I wonder if the resident trumpists are still hoping for a miraculous win, or if they died from covid.
Is it bad that while the "die fascist die" part of my brain came online, the thoroughly enjoys pun/world play part of my brain also lit up @ "riggers gonna hang?"
yes
It's perfectly healthy to acknowledge that your enemy is clever.
lol
That's a good one.
Damn, if he dies there go my hopes for 2024.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...79426516881409
Twitter in meltdown again over racism, only this time I actually agree.
Football match in Paris descends into chaos after 14 minutes, as the 4th official asks the ref to send off the Istanbul assistant manager for shouting his mouth off. When the ref asks which person to book, the official says "the black guy", in Romanian, and Romanian for "black" is "negru". So you can imagine the shit hitting the fan.
Obviously, the word "negru" is not racist, but identifying someone by colour when there are better ways to do so, for example name or number, is racist. This isn't the police looking for a black guy, this isn't a vague description, this is someone who has a jacket with his initials on, or a number on, who can be approached, this is someone who can be identified by going up to him and saying "this guy".
It doesn't help that the assistant wasn't the only black guy on the Istanbul bench.
So yeah, this guy is getting fired, and probably a barrage of death threats from people taking the moral high ground.
In other news, Trump is still getting action at 19/1.
His odds got better when Rudy got covid.
noQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Shut up. You know what I meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
weeee-ooooh-weeeee-oooooh the fun police has arrived!Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Haven't been following the US lately. Has Trump graciously agreed to leave the WH yet?
This is where we're currently at.
https://youtu.be/aSsPOomX3n0?t=227
I'd mark Jan 6th. They're planning a march on DC. https://thedonald.win/p/11R4q2aptJ/t...s-be-in-dc-/c/ - this is pretty entertaining... but if you're american and you click this your IP is guaranteed going on an FBI watchlist.
I read about the blackwater pardons today... It's shit like this that makes me just want to tune out until this piece of shit is out. If his dumbass supporters get gunned down in DC that will be at least a little bit of retribution.
https://nypost.com/2020/12/27/give-i...d-the-nations/
Even the Murdoch owned NY Post has had enough of his shit.Quote:
Democrats will try to write you off as a one-term aberration and, frankly, you’re helping them do it. The King Lear of Mar-a-Lago, ranting about the corruption of the world.
It seems he's hurting their chances in the Senate with all his MAGArigged shittalking.
It will be interesting to see what the Rs do after this year, if they try to replace him or keep him around for 2024.
It's not like the R's wanted him in the first place. The political R's at least.
The Rep. voters picked Trump and the politicians got behind them.
lolz gg Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yHlP3rRFxo
I listened to the whole thing yesterday. Could you imagine if he wasn't this stupid... He's over a month late with this. He keeps going after dead ends. He asked about Dominion about a dozen times. They did a hand recount. Nothing having to do with Dominion would change the results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW_Bdf_jGaA
On 2x it's bearable.
Those poor bastards who have to listen to him ramble on for an hour about his conspiracy theories. ffs.
At one point in the call there's an echo and Trump goes "Uh, there's a... there's a little double sound there" because he can't think of the word echo.
Wow, just listening to the call with the guy in Georgia. Shocking if that's not a hoax.
And that's the least dumbest thing he said the whole time.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I once forgot the word for bread so I asked my friend to pass me the potential toast.
But did you then threaten your friend with litigation if he didn't agree to defraud the public by rigging a national election?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOExxqWfH8k
Going point by point against Trump's claims. The FOX live chat is incredible.
I was going to ask that myself but it seemed a bit too easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Also: in b4 Ong asks you to define a "nation"
I particularly enjoy the ones calling this "fake news", as if the're not really listening to the election official from GA, but that the whole event is being faked (and by Fox News, mind you).Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1...257575426?s=20
This is like eugenics, but awesome!
I'm so hyped for tomorrow!
WH bunker being stockpiled with cheeseburgers and spray tan right now for Downfall, the Sequel.
Trying to find 3rd party coverage. The main rally coverage is pretty lame:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1scIsfw0qxE
Probably only worth it for the highlight reel:
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1346840894968897545
It's only noon in Washington. At 1pm the certification process begins. No idea how long that takes, and then the circus will kick into high gear.
Omg... listening to the Trump speech right now. His brain is completely fried. He can't hold a thought for more than 10s.
This has to be the highlight so far: Rudy prepping his 2024 run. I literally lmao'd.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1346845106310156290
For certain republicans like Ted Cruz and Jim Jordan it is necessary to do a song and dance for Trump if they want to stay in politics...
Here we go! Just started.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWpnHADKEb8
Certainly for Rudy or Cruz to run for president they can't lose the Trump base.
Trump supporters looking around like "why did we come here?" lol
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1346878019986665472
I can't believe it; they're actually objecting to the vote from AZ right now.