quash wrote:Conspiracy theories? Like how it's been proven that the Democratic party conspired against its base? Or how they planted protestors at numerous events? Or how they were actively corroborating with media outlets to manipulate the narrative in their favor?
I'm pretty sure that nobody here has called those things conspiracy theories...they're just blurbs you like to trot out at every opportunity (along with
Syria!, which makes its latest out-of-left-field cameo as well) in grand "somebody else did a bad thing at some point, change the subject immediately!" fashion.
You want
real conspiracy theories, I'll name two of my personal favorites, just from your last couple of posts:
1) Hillary Clinton has dispatched operatives specifically to spread propaganda to the Shmups Forum, and
2 Objective reality doesn't actually exist, but all of society is in on a plot to make sure you don't realize it.
You know what? Before I waste another second on you, I'll ask you one last time:
How can anyone expect to carry on anything resembling a worthwhile conversation with someone who believes the things you say you believe, the italicized portion in particular?
BulletMagnet wrote:Name any issue which frequently persuades people to vote the way you mention: climate change, taxes, government services, gun rights, abortion, gay marriage, etc...the reason most of them do so, if you ask them directly, is because they've been fed false information for years on end that they genuinely believe to be true, with little to no resistance from the opposition to even attempt to cancel it out.
EmperorIng wrote:"If you ask people directly why they support certain policy positions, they will admit it's because they've willfully believed false information this whole time."
First off, spot the difference between what I actually said and what you claim I said.
Second, I'm eager to hear you explain why advocating for a better-informed populace on issues of import (i.e. no, tax cuts for rich people do
not pay for themselves, and have never come
close to doing so) means that I'm somehow demeaning the very same people I would most like to see better-informed, as hopeless bigots, no less. To quote an old Calvin and Hobbes strip...
Hobbes wrote:Is it a right to remain ignorant?
Calvin wrote:I don't know, but I refuse to find out!
Mischief Maker wrote:Disgust with Bush jr. should have made him a single-term president like his daddy, but the overall strategy of the Kerry 2004 campaign was so poor, people stuck with the devil you know.
That whole "swiftboating" thing probably didn't help either, especially since most people, despite 24/7 election coverage across the board, somehow weren't told it was total bullshit until the election was over. Funny how that works.
You know what? While I'm here, I'll open up my previous question to quash to the whole class:
And Trump - as he's done in the past - will scoff at the official unemployment figure of around 5 percent, saying the real jobless number is much higher.
"The real number of jobless is the number outside the labor force, which is 94 million," the aide said. "And that's the number that we should be talking about, obviously.
"This 5 percent unemployment thing is absolute hokum."
Since the original subject either refuses to acknowledge the question altogether or, more likely, simply lacks the first clue about it, can
anyone tell me why the bolded portion of the quote is
brazen, consummate bullshit?
