Is he wrong?

[dneal]

From Forbes Breaking News - Representative Jim Jordan, on the House floor.

Is he wrong?



The democrats have objected to counting the presidential electors every single time this century that a republican has been elected President.

They spent four years trying to overturn the 2016 election. Democrats spied on a Presidential campaign.
They did impeachment in secret based on a so-called whistleblower whose identity only congressman Schiff got to know.

This Congress, they have closed the capitol, enacted proxy voting, kicked republicans off committee and for the first time in American history, denied republicans seats on a select committee that was chosen by the minority leader.

They are trying to make D.C. a state, end the electoral college, end the filibuster, pack the court, destroy executive privilege, take federal control of elections and are currently allowing in jurisdictions illegal immigrants to vote.

And finally, the January 6 committee has altered evidence and lied to the American people about it.

But somehow they tell us it's President Trump and republicans who are undermining democracy?

Give me a break. Undermining democracy because we actually think you should show a photo id when you go to vote? In one year's time, while democrats are doing all that; in one year's time they've given us:

Record crime, record inflation, record illegal immigration. And as bad as all that is, it's not the worst. The worst is how they've used the virus to attack our freedoms. How they've used the virus to attack our first amendment rights, and here's the irony: they use the virus to attack our liberties even though everything they have told us about the virus has been wrong.

They told us it didn't come from a lab.
They told us it wasn't gain of function research.
They told us it was only 15 days to slow the spread.
They told us masks work.
They told us we have a federal plan - Joe Biden said that himself.
They told us there would never be a vaccine mandate.
They told us to vaccinate - people who get vaccinated can't give get the virus, the vaccinated can't transmit the virus and they told us there was no such thing as natural immunity.

Think about this:

At the same time, democrats require you to put on a mask, show your papers - and an ID - to get a Big Mac at McDonald’s, they want to allow the federal government to stop states from requiring a photo ID to vote.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6rFSV1efLc

[Empty_of_Clouds]

The basic game is to underemphasize (or ignore if possible) what our side has done, and overemphasize what we are accusing the opposition of doing. Both sides are doing this, so, given the sheer enormity of the lying and cherry picking from all sides of the Government that passes for debate these days I would have to lean toward the 'yes, he is wrong' side. Not completely, but leaning.

[dneal]

No, both sides are not doing “this”.

But please describe what affects your “leaning”.

--edit--

To be more clear, you've used a lot of generic language to essentially say "meh, they all do this so I think he's wrong or I lean that way". This isn't just normal political rhetoric. He's describing why the right is upset with the left. What specifically they've done recently (and there is a lot left out that I'm sure you are not familiar with, since this is specifically American politics).

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Yes, the generic language was deliberate, and yes there is very much about American politics that is unclear to me. What affects my leaning, and this applies to both parties, is that neither shows any real sincerity in their approach to governance. And thus my leaning is toward them being wrong irrespective of sides. However, that could equally apply to political parties in any democratic country, only the degree seems to differ at times.

I can't address all the points in the OP statement, but there's plenty in there that makes me wonder. For instance, the bit about virus information: this remains a developing situation with adjustments being made as data flows in. The pandemic started when the Republicans were in the box seat. There was a lot of incorrect information being put out by them (mainly by their leader it must be said). Or how about the electoral college, filibuster etc. Basing my reading on news coverage the proposed changes are counter to the Republican efforts to create a voting environment that favours themselves. Regarding select committees, a quick Google reveals the whole first page of results about the 1/6 committee, which includes Pelosi rejecting GOP nominees (as is the right of whoever is in her position, GOP or Dem), and the GOP members refusing to be on the committee (which is their choice not a case of being denied). I wonder what the truth is there.

Obviously that is just my opinion looking on from a very long distance, and having only a passing understanding of what are being touted as 'issues'. Bearing in mind also that we have mandates and stuff here. I am in the 'happy to comply' camp in the interest of the 'greater good' and see nothing nefarious about the current requirements either short or long term.

[Chuck Naill]

@tsherbs informed me that Republicans have not won the popular vote in a Presidential race since 2004. 2.9 million more Americans voted for Clinton over Trump. 7 million more Americans voted for Biden. It should be pretty clear who Americans prefer to run the county. So, which party is in trouble identifying with the majority of Americans?

There is no evidence Trump actually won, @dneal. Even if you had voted and all of your non-voting military friends had voted, Trump would still have lost. Americans have not gotten to the point where they want a demigod.

[dneal]

@ EoC - If you want to argue "they all do it" in terms of general political lies, gerrymandering, using congressional knowledge (known as "insider trading" for everyone else) to score big in the stock market, or all sorts of other things; I'm on board. Rule changing and consolidation of power, is a particularly Democrat tradition though.

The Framers were very careful to create an adversarial system. Three branches of power (Executive, Legislative and Judicial). Large vs Small States' representation apportioned in the House's population representation vs the Senate's equal representation. States' voices vs the popular voice also in the House / Senate formulation.

In the late 19th century to mid 20th century, "political machines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machine)" came to prominence in larger cities. The overwhelming majority were Democrat. Pendergast, Daley, Tammany Hall and "Boss Tweed", etc... These were patronage systems full of corruption. That led to the 17th amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution), where Senators were no longer appointed by State legislatures and elected by popular vote instead. States (through their legislatures) lost their representation in Congress, and the balance of power shifted to the federal government. No Senator, for example, would vote for an "unfunded mandate" (one where the States have to foot the bill for federal legislation); if they would have to answer to a State legislature. Now they only have to worry about voters. A "rule change" of sorts (a Constitutional amendment being one of the most fundamental) which further consolidated power.

Arguably, that change made it easier for machines to leverage the population advantage of urban areas to win elections. Democrats held power in both houses for roughly 60 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses) - from the mid 30's to the mid 90's. There were a couple of occasions (mainly in the Senate) where that wasn't the case. Traditionally (20th century politics), Democrats were the party of the "working class", and had large Union support. Republicans were "uncle moneybags"/businessmen/bankers etc... and "Christian Conservatives"

In the early 40's, the Federal Communications Commission enacted the "fairness doctrine", which empowered the Federal Communications Commission to require broadcasters (television and radio) to present both sides of an issue. Not equal representation, mind you, but opposing views. Most political shows would have a "token" Republican amidst 3 or 4 Democrats. Democrats used that policy (mainly Kennedy and Johnson) for political purposes, to stifle more conservative radio in rural parts of the country. In 1987 (Reagan's 2nd term), the doctrine was abolished and we saw the rise of more conservative views (e.g.: Rush Limbaugh) come to national prominence. In 1995, Republicans gained control of both the House and Senate, and have held power for the majority of time following that shift. Democrats have been trying to reinstate the "fairness doctrine" ever since.

Democrats have long known of their advantage in urban areas. In 1964, the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v Sims (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims) decided that States (which also had bicameral legislatures) must be fairly apportioned. Most States had a construct similar to the Federal system, where the House would be apportioned by population and the Senate would balance that by giving rural areas equal representation. We see the result of that in Illinois, New York, California, etc... where the metropolitan areas control the entire State government. Live outside of the Chicago metro? You have no effective political voice in Illinois. Upstate New York or Northern California? Same.

Why now do you suppose Democrats are decrying the electoral college? The President isn't elected by 330M people. The President is elected by 50 States. That balance prevents the metropolitan areas from determining Presidential elections. That's why Hillary got 2M more votes than Trump in 2016 (the number alone being accounted for in metro California). Electoral "power" is apportioned by population, exactly how the U.S. House of Representatives is.

During a brief period of Democrat control of the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid changed the rules from 60 votes required to proceed on a judicial nomination to only 50. The "nuclear" option. Now Majority Leader Chuck Schumer wants to change the rules to abolish the filibuster. In each case, it is because Democrats do not have the power to do what they want because they can't get enough consensus. Montana gets two U.S. Senators just like California or New York, for reasons of balance laid out by the Framers. Why do you suppose Democrats want D.C. and perhaps Puerto Rico to be granted statehood? 2-4 more Democrat Senators to shift the balance.

Given that history, why do you suppose Democrats want to abolish identification requirements to vote? Why do you suppose they now want to revisit the composition of the Supreme Court? Could it be because they have lost power?

Democrats habitually change rules to suit them. When faced with the possibility of a conservative leaning Supreme Court, Democrats rejected Robert Bork's nomination. It was unprecedented. They tried to reject Clarence Thomas. They changed rules, and those changes were used against them during Merrick Garland's nomination and Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation - and Kavanaugh's, for that matter. Why now do they want to reevaluate the composition of the court? Why did (Democrat) FDR threaten the same when his unconstitutional policies were being shot down?

I can go on, but this post is long enough. Consider the rest of Jim Jordan's "who is undermining democracy" thesis (and list) in light of that history.

[dneal]

@tsherbs informed me that Republicans have not won the popular vote in a Presidential race since 2004. 2.9 million more Americans voted for Clinton over Trump. 7 million more Americans voted for Biden. It should be pretty clear who Americans prefer to run the county. So, which party is in trouble identifying with the majority of Americans?

There is no evidence Trump actually won, @dneal. Even if you had voted and all of your non-voting military friends had voted, Trump would still have lost. Americans have not gotten to the point where they want a demigod.

Wrong thread, Chuck. Please see the title of the OP and the quote of Rep Jordan's comments (if you don't want to watch the video). I don't go derail your threads, please offer the same courtesy.

[Chuck Naill]

:focus: Okay, he's wrong.

[dneal]

And you can't say why.

Let's just pick an easy one. You like harping on quoting out of context, so did the special committee (namely Adam Schiff) alter an email to fabricate a lie?

Seems to be a trend, like the FBI lawyer prosecuted for doing the same thing so they could investigate "Russia Collusion".

It seems the source of "mass formation psychosis" is blue kool-aid.

[Chuck Naill]

He voted to decertify two states where Biden won. He won't testify about conversations he had to find a legal way to make Trump the winner. These two verifiable events alone render your OP moot since he is a known politician that does not tell the truth. Again, if you want to believe him, it is your problem to hash out.

[dneal]

Typical character assassination to deflect. "Whataboutism" you cry about.

Is there some reason you can't even answer the fabricated email question? Is there some reason you can't just run through the list and demonstrate why Jim Jordan is wrong? Surely you can pick one or two. I can.

On the whole though, and as a thesis of who is actually undermining democracy; there's no real rebuttal - which is probably why you aren't offering one (and can't, apparently).

By the way, objecting to electors is not a crime (the legal process is explicitly laid out), and neither is having privileged conversations with a President. There's no reason to testify other than to have it used by unethical democrats trying to undermine democracy.

[Chuck Naill]

He wouldn't be a source for me, but I understand why he would be for you. Liz Cheney was there and sure understood. "get away from me, you fucking did this".

Mike Pence tried and even contacted Dan Quayle. Quayle said in effect, there is nothing here.

It is odd that you try to discredit Fauci, he might need to be discredited, but you overlook Jordan's actions which leads me to think you're addicted to confirmation bias.

[fountainpenkid]

Oh gosh, it's almost all bullshit. Inaccurate partisan bullshit. (Democrats didn't spy on the Trump campaign, the U.S government did, etc.; don't get me started on all his pandemic bullshit). Why are we wasting time discussing what a morally-bankrupt political hack is saying? Seriously, there's something called the National Review.
Some things he said are perfectly true though, at least for a good portion of elected Democrats: "They are trying to make D.C. a state, {check!} end the electoral college {check!}, end the filibuster {check!}, pack the court {check!}, destroy executive privilege {not so much}, take federal control of elections {check} and are currently allowing in jurisdictions illegal immigrants to vote {seriously lol?}."
He doesn't begin to realize the irony in him asking this question: "But somehow they tell us it's President Trump and republicans who are undermining democracy?" In fact, making D.C a state, ending the electoral college, and taking more federal control of national elections are the very sort of reforms that WOULD get us closer to representative democracy. There's really no way to dispute that. The thing is, the country wasn't designed as a truly representative democracy (both with the E.C and through racist thinking embedded in it), and some people--with valid arguments, at times--want to keep it that way.

[dneal]

More deflection.

Just off the top of my head, I could type a mini-essay of Democrat history of undermining democracy for EoC.

All you have is leftist talking points and some nonsense of "he wouldn't be a source for me". Confirmation bias, indeed.

[Chuck Naill]

Your definition of deflection is disagreeing with @dneal. Look, we all know you from previous posts. You have posted easily verifiably false, misleading, and quotes out of context. You are the boy who cried wolf one to many times, @dneal.

[fountainpenkid]

Oh shut up with your endless “talking points” boogeyman…what is democracy to you? How does giving people national representation in the form of statehood, for instance, in any way get us further from that concept?
And no, he shouldn’t be a source, just as any of these political people shouldn’t really be sources for serious debate unless they’re discussing decisions they have made.

[kazoolaw]

How does giving people national representation in the form of statehood, for instance, in any way get us further from that concept? .

What has changed since the District of Columbia was established to make the rationale for doing so irrelevant?

[kazoolaw]

Not sure why allowing non-citizens to vote is funny. It's real: https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/08/politics/nyc-noncitizens-voting/index.html
Why not let nonresidents vote?
The federal government taking over control of state elections conflicts with the Constitutional design of American government, with the reservation of powers,to the state.

[dneal]

Oh shut up with your endless “talking points” boogeyman…what is democracy to you? How does giving people national representation in the form of statehood, for instance, in any way get us further from that concept?
And no, he shouldn’t be a source, just as any of these political people shouldn’t really be sources for serious debate unless they’re discussing decisions they have made.

"Shut up". The go-to response from liberals who can't discuss a topic that triggers them and inflames their cognitive dissonance. Much easier to silence opposing points of view than discuss a topic on its merits or lack thereof.

You're not even typing cogent sentences. "How does giving people national representation in the form of statehood, for instance, in any way get us further from that concept?"

What does that even mean?

But feel free to move on, "ignore" me, or whatever else makes you feel warm and fuzzy. There are a bunch of Insurrection, 2020 edition threads for you to feel good in. I'll keep posting as I please, your demands to "shut up" notwithstanding.

[dneal]

Your definition of deflection is disagreeing with @dneal. Look, we all know you from previous posts. You have posted easily verifiably false, misleading, and quotes out of context. You are the boy who cried wolf one to many times, @dneal.

You need some new material, Chuck. I'm not the one deflecting. Perhaps there's a reason you can't address the topic, just like you can't seem to demonstrate "easily verifiably false, misleading and quotes out of context"

Cite the posts, Chuck.

You're the only one crying wolf.

[Chuck Naill]

"City Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez, an immigrant from the Dominican Republic, is sponsoring the legislation, which would give the right to vote in municipal elections to New York residents who are legal permanent residents or have a work authorization.
Nearly one million New York City residents cannot vote in local elections because they are not citizens, according to Rodriguez's office, despite paying taxes and being invested in and contributing to the city."

[dneal]

What does that have to do with democrats lying about republicans "undermining democracy"?

Why can't you follow a topic, Chuck?

[kazoolaw]

"... because they are not citizens, according to Rodriguez's office, despite paying taxes and being invested in and contributing to the city."

Become citizens. My people did.

[Chuck Naill]

Hard to follow BS and nonsense @dneal. I just kind of go along to provide you with something for which to reply.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

@ EoC - SNIP.

Thanks for this. Although I am not super interested in US politics, as it is all over the news these days I really should read around a bit more, and this is a reasonable start.

[dneal]

Hard to follow BS and nonsense @dneal. I just kind of go along to provide you with something for which to reply.

Chuck, check the bottom of your shoes. You're dragging it around, not following it around.

[dneal]

@ EoC - SNIP.

Thanks for this. Although I am not super interested in US politics, as it is all over the news these days I really should read around a bit more, and this is a reasonable start.

90% of it are information operation campaigns being waged by two opposing factions. Life's a lot easier if you just look at it from that standpoint. I only track it to get an update on what the bullshit narratives are from each side. The "politics as usual" point you rightly make earlier in the thread...

The reason I posted the Rep Jordan rant is because he so clearly lays out the hypocrisy the right sees the left doing, and it occurred to me that he's not wrong. From your perspective, it's a good summation of what's going on underneath the narratives - with the added historical backdrop.

You can see from the responses how wrapped up in the hyperbole people are, and how it impacts their critical thinking. I'm not a Republican or Democrat. If one were to assign me a political party, it would probably be "libertarian" - although they specifically are a mish-mash of obstinate idealists, with varying ideals.

But to the partisans, I'm the opposite of whatever they are. Since the board here leans left, I'm a "Trumpist" or whatever pejorative they come up with. In other places, I'm a "leftie". Marijuana laws, Israeli policy, international "policing", etc... I take a much more liberal view.

Everyone (particularly the left) is just consumed with Trump... I see why, although the degree with which baffles me.

[Chuck Naill]

:rolleyes:

There are many reasons to be concerned about Trump.

I am independent myself, but I choose to participate.

[dneal]

Your trolling game goes from sad to pathetic the more you try, Chuck.

Probably best to stick to your many Trump threads and leave this one to the grown ups, if you can’t act like one.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Just to add clarification, although this could probably be deduced from my other posts, I suspect that (although I've never looked too closely at it) my political position leans toward the post liberal. That's not to say I don't hold some conservative views, but I have to accept that my political stance probably leads me to seeing conservative transgressions (politically speaking) as being somehow worse than liberal transgressions, though I do see both as wrong. It's a bias of course, and I hope that makes sense to other readers. At least that should help to place in context any statements I make on political debates.

[dneal]

Just to add clarification, although this could probably be deduced from my other posts, I suspect that (although I've never looked too closely at it) my political position leans toward the post liberal. That's not to say I don't hold some conservative views, but I have to accept that my political stance probably leads me to seeing conservative transgressions (politically speaking) as being somehow worse than liberal transgressions, though I do see both as wrong. It's a bias of course, and I hope that makes sense to other readers. At least that should help to place in context any statements I make on political debates.

You always seemed like a typical "labor" left person to me. We all have biases. It's one thing to recognize them and be able to articulate a reason for them. Then they become principles. It's another to just assert positions based on how we feel, with no rational foundation; and claim to be correct. Then each side just shouts platitudes at each other, as often seen here.

If we can articulate our position, even though we ultimately end up disagreeing, we can have political (or religious or philosophical) conversations. Unfortunately, most do not seem to be able to do that.

Trump is a racist, Obama is a communist, so there!!! or variations of, is a waste of time.

Here, I'll critique Jordan's rant.


The democrats have objected to counting the presidential electors every single time this century that a republican has been elected President.

True, but this is just pointing out hypocrisy.

They spent four years trying to overturn the 2016 election. Democrats spied on a Presidential campaign.
They did impeachment in secret based on a so-called whistleblower whose identity only congressman Schiff got to know.

True, and it's cause for concern. It's not just Democrats though. Anti-Trump Republicans went along with it. I don't care how obnoxious the orange one is, this is fundamentally wrong.

This Congress, they have closed the capitol, enacted proxy voting, kicked republicans off committee and for the first time in American history, denied republicans seats on a select committee that was chosen by the minority leader.

True. The Republicans kicked off committee were the radicals though. I'm not sure if that's right or wrong. What is wrong is the Democrat Speaker of the House determining who the opposition party can appoint to the select committee "investigating" Jan 6.

They are trying to make D.C. a state, end the electoral college, end the filibuster, pack the court, destroy executive privilege, take federal control of elections and are currently allowing in jurisdictions illegal immigrants to vote.

All true. I see the benefit of executive privilege in ensuring advisers are free to advise without fear of repercussion, but I also see the problem of shenanigans being hidden (regardless of party). The Obama administration certainly wouldn't want their private conversations becoming public record, for example. It's a problem, with hypocrites on both sides.

And finally, the January 6 committee has altered evidence and lied to the American people about it.

True, and done by the same person responsible for the "Russia Collusion" lies. Despicable.

But somehow they tell us it's President Trump and republicans who are undermining democracy?

Just pointing out hypocrisy, but the point is valid.

Give me a break. Undermining democracy because we actually think you should show a photo id when you go to vote? In one year's time, while democrats are doing all that; in one year's time they've given us:

Record crime, record inflation, record illegal immigration. And as bad as all that is, it's not the worst. The worst is how they've used the virus to attack our freedoms. How they've used the virus to attack our first amendment rights, and here's the irony: they use the virus to attack our liberties even though everything they have told us about the virus has been wrong.

Now we are getting to the partisan hyperbole. Although hyperbolic rhetoric, it's grounded in truth. We do have record crime, record inflation, record illegal immigration. The last in particular is solely the fault of the current admin.

The "attack on 1st amendment rights" I suppose is a reference to Big Tech. He's right that there is censorship going on, and that Big Tech tends to lean left; but its a novel issue that needs clarity which won't happen in this political environment.

They told us it didn't come from a lab.
They told us it wasn't gain of function research.
They told us it was only 15 days to slow the spread.
They told us masks work.
They told us we have a federal plan - Joe Biden said that himself.
They told us there would never be a vaccine mandate.
They told us to vaccinate - people who get vaccinated can't give get the virus, the vaccinated can't transmit the virus and they told us there was no such thing as natural immunity.

More hyperbole, and pointing out of hypocrisy, but true. Some of it is criminal, in my opinion. Some of it (like discovering that vaccines weren't as effective as initially asserted) is political grandstanding - but politics led to the initial claim. The pandemic, like everything else in our hyper-political environment, is just another political football.

Think about this:

At the same time, democrats require you to put on a mask, show your papers - and an ID - to get a Big Mac at McDonald’s, they want to allow the federal government to stop states from requiring a photo ID to vote

Hyperbole and pointing out of hypocrisy, but true. If showing an ID is voter suppression, racist, or whatever; most civilized countries on the planet are guilty. The data is clear that ID is easy to get, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, etc... The numbers are over 90%. If you can't get an ID, you aren't trying..

So back to the original question: "Is he wrong?"

Not really.

Now ask why Chuck et al couldn't calmly articulate any of that, with whatever emphasis on hyperbole or pointing out of hypocrisy they felt needed. We got chimpscreaming, rhetoric and deflection instead. You would see more, but as Chuck claims many users have me on "ignore". I'm grateful for that.

[TSherbs]

Oh gosh, it's almost all bullshit. Inaccurate partisan bullshit. (Democrats didn't spy on the Trump campaign, the U.S government did, etc.; don't get me started on all his pandemic bullshit). Why are we wasting time discussing what a morally-bankrupt political hack is saying? Seriously, there's something called the National Review.
Some things he said are perfectly true though, at least for a good portion of elected Democrats: "They are trying to make D.C. a state, {check!} end the electoral college {check!}, end the filibuster {check!}, pack the court {check!}, destroy executive privilege {not so much}, take federal control of elections {check} and are currently allowing in jurisdictions illegal immigrants to vote {seriously lol?}."
He doesn't begin to realize the irony in him asking this question: "But somehow they tell us it's President Trump and republicans who are undermining democracy?" In fact, making D.C a state, ending the electoral college, and taking more federal control of national elections are the very sort of reforms that WOULD get us closer to representative democracy. There's really no way to dispute that. The thing is, the country wasn't designed as a truly representative democracy (both with the E.C and through racist thinking embedded in it), and some people--with valid arguments, at times--want to keep it that way.

Well put, Kid. I'm not sure how young you are, but you have a good head on your shoulders, and a good nose for bullshit.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Heh! I have no doubt that my political persuasions will shift again and again. During my adult life in the UK I have voted for opposing parties in separate elections. Never really examined my overall leaning because if questioned there are so many grey or ambiguous areas that I cannot decide what is right/correct. I'm quite uninformed about politics in any formal way I'm afraid. :)

Edit: I just took the Political Compass test (not sure if it is in any way accurate), answered everything honestly and quickly. The result is: Economic Left/Right: -6.0, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69

https://i.imgur.com/zw2wTful.png

Not exactly sure what this means of course.

[manoeuver]

stoppit you guys! think of the children!

[dneal]

Heh! I have no doubt that my political persuasions will shift again and again. During my adult life in the UK I have voted for opposing parties in separate elections. Never really examined my overall leaning because if questioned there are so many grey or ambiguous areas that I cannot decide what is right/correct. I'm quite uninformed about politics in any formal way I'm afraid. :)

Edit: I just took the Political Compass test (not sure if it is in any way accurate), answered everything honestly and quickly. The result is: Economic Left/Right: -6.0, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69

https://i.imgur.com/zw2wTful.png

Not exactly sure what this means of course.


They're general in nature and accuracy, and I can list all sorts of problems with the questions (not to mention that many I'm indifferent to require me to "agree" or "disagree"); but just for fun here's my result.

66658

[calamus]

I'm not surprised at the number of Kool Aid drinkers on this forum, or in society in general. Most people are defenseless in the face of the sophisticated psyops they are subjected to by the Ministry of Propaganda... not wait, silly me... by the mainstream "news" media. We've all been conditioned to accept the stuff they show us on tv "newscasts" as at least more or less true. The possibility that it might be anything else isn't even on most people's radar.

[calamus]

FWIW, here is my result:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=1.0&soc=-0.26

Funny, most of the looney lefties on this forum would expect to see me far right and highly authoritarian.

[Chuck Naill]

I have no expectations or a clue what you meant to say. Cheers dude!!

[dneal]

Funny, most of the looney lefties on this forum would expect to see me far right and highly authoritarian.

To which Chuck immediately responded:


I have no expectations or a clue what you meant to say. Cheers dude!!

So Chuck (probably inadvertently in his rush to snideness) admits or proclaims himself to be a "looney lefty"?

The jokes write themselves.

Bless your heart, Chuck.

[Chuck Naill]

Happy you’re supporting the science now.

[TSherbs]

I gave up after 3 pages of questions on that political chart when I saw that that was only half way. Boring.

[dneal]

Corresponds to the level of effort we see here too.

[calamus]

Happy you’re supporting the science now.

66862

[Chuck Naill]

Why not write something instead of posting a video? Perhaps that's all old people can do.

[calamus]

Why not write something instead of posting a video? Perhaps that's all old people can do.

Since when has a jpeg been a video? Are you a moron, or do you just act like one?

[Chuck Naill]

Why not write something instead of posting a video? Perhaps that's all old people can do.

Since when has a jpeg been a video? Are you a moron, or do you just act like one?

What was it you hoped to say, that masking doesn't work? Was that your idea of something useful? Might want to reconsider who you call a moron. Go back to Facebook.

[calamus]

I don't use Facebook. I hate it. And no, masking doesn't "stop the spread," (surgeons wear masks during surgery so that snot doesn't accidentally fall into the open wounds they've made in their patients) and over 80% of the people who came down with with Covid wore masks religiously, and it didn't help them. Furthermore, the "science" that the CDC is peddling is self-serving drivel. They hold dozens of vaccine patents, and are making millions if not billions off these frankenshots they're peddling -- a conflict of interest if there's ever been one. You still haven't figured out that you've been scammed, and now you're a genetically modified organism.

Meanwhile, "Perhaps that's all old people can do" is not just a cheap shot, but one so virulently cheap that it should make you cringe with embarrassment at the thought that it came out of your keyboard. You really need to be ashamed of yourself.

[Chuck Naill]

Goober boy