Speaking of conspiracy theories...

[dneal]

you're so great

I'm flattered to have such a fan going back over my posts. I particularly like how relevant to the thread topic that you are being.

And you demonstrate the issue clearly with that post. No rebuttal, just snide remarks and deflection. It's what you do.

[TSherbs]

Oh, I'm not suggesting you (and others) can't be objective, I'm pointing it out. I'm making the assertion. You and they have demonstrated it repeatedly.

This is where it started in this thread, dneal. Exactly this unfair generalization, meant as an aspersion against Chuck and the other more liberal posters here (and we know that you include me in these "they" comments). It was nothing but a slap to claim that Chuck and *they* can'tbe objective. Which, without qualification, means "are not capable of ever" being objective and to suggest, alternatively (since you do not include yourself in the generalization) that *you* somehow are better at this and a superior thinker, debater, whatever. Your sneers, even when in reply to Chuck's jibes or digressions, become intolerable, too, "brother," and all I did was suggest that you try including yourself in one of these criticisms. All I did was suggest that you tone down your criticism because you were looking like a hypocrite to be so openly sneering toward a fault that *you* also demonstrate repeatedly here. Even on this thread. You have a tendency to call people "hypocrites" or label their various responses with various logical fallacies (as if you don't make them either).

And when I point out that you might reflect on yourself a bit here to lessen your sweeping critical generalization, you go off on a rant digging up past threads of mine (which is really kind of weird) and posting them here. Whatever, dude. Like I said, you are demonstrating *your* triggeredness, even while you then try to justify in self-righteous terms.

[dneal]

I'm making the assertion. I can prove the assertion. I did with you, and you answered with a predictable snide remark and deflection.

Now go on, tell me how you're no longer interested in a discussion.

I say "Trump", "Bannon", "Glenn Beck", "ivermectin", and the chimp-screaming starts. I don't get triggered by "Obama", "Biden", "Vaccine", etc...

I do admit to becoming frustrated occasionally by the inane posts from the mental midgets in the peanut gallery, but hey... everybody has their character flaws. But triggered? Nope.

[TSherbs]

you're so great

I'm flattered to have such a fan going back over my posts. I particularly like how relevant to the thread topic that you are being.

And you demonstrate the issue clearly with that post. No rebuttal, just snide remarks and deflection. It's what you do.

Nice bait tactic. You posted this while I was answering your charge.

You know, you ought to take responsibility for your part in the dance on these pages, dneal. You love to blame Chuck, and Chip, and me (and some others) who occasionally are the ones to try to knock the arrogant, domineering chip off your shoulder. You openly sneer at people (occasionally) who won't fight back, you have threatened them with harsher treatment, you state repeatedly that the only interesting thread is one based on your terms of intellectual battle. These are all part of your "bias" and subjectivity. I don't understand why you are so angry about having this obvious point made to you.

[dneal]

I can pull your (and their) strings, but you can't pull mine. I'm sure it is infuriating. You call it "arrogance", but it's self-confidence. I'm perfectly comfortable with every aspect of my life. Morons on the internet are insignificant to me. I'd rather have reasonable discussion, but if you guys are going to prevent that then I'll find another way to enjoy the forum. It is all about the lulz, as you once said, at this point. Want something different? Act that way. Until then, I'm perfectly content with things the way they are. It would be nice if you guys presented more of a challenge occasionally.

[dneal]

It's a common strategy of every politician to pit one group against another. Democrats want to corrupt your children. Republicans want your grandma to die.

I'm talking about the content I cited. In the quoted text. Is he wrong? Do the elite rig the system knowing that the taxpayer will be left on the hook to bail them out? Sure that will pit the taxpayer against the elite, but there's more to it than that. Is he right that everyone's savings account nets them little to nothing in interest? Is that a reason to be upset with the system?

I think he makes some very salient points. Their veracity is not contingent on his behavior.

No they don't or if they do, not because of some weird evil intent. He makes points if that's what you want to hear. Reagan did the same to me. He made me proud to be an American while taking away government help from others. Interest rates came down then and I benefitted. However, I didn't benefit because of anything Reagan did. I got a hired by a large company and was very succesful for 22 years.

I remember 12 % mortage interest rates on my first house in 1979. People were making 10% putting their money in CD's. These were usually older folks retired or near retired. There were older couples with 5 percent mortages who had paid half what I did.

David Brooks does a good job being critical about academic and the Eastern Elites (like Obama et al) for which the rural and less educated feel less and for which Bannon recognized and exploited. While it got Trump is office, it was not good for the nation. Obama said "
"And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," . Obama gave Bannon a gift.
My opinion is, I don't succeed by making someone else fail.

Thank you for answering, and sorry I missed it in the TSherbs tussle.

I agree Bannon and other of Trumps team exploited emotion for votes. But that's again just politics. All of them do it so some extent.

The thing about the elites, or the "kleptocracy" Weinstein refers to is that it's not just the Democrats. We can both list numerous instances of politicians (still in office) exploiting the system. The congressional version of "insider trading", which was legal for them until they passed a law that forbid it, which they continue to ignore.

The thing Trump leveraged was the nationwide disgust with the system as it is. A lot of what we used to call "Reagan Democrats" I suspect pulled the lever for Trump when no one was watching. I applaud Kellyanne Conway's strategy. It worked. The "blue wall" fell.

[Chuck Naill]

It's a common strategy of every politician to pit one group against another. Democrats want to corrupt your children. Republicans want your grandma to die.

I'm talking about the content I cited. In the quoted text. Is he wrong? Do the elite rig the system knowing that the taxpayer will be left on the hook to bail them out? Sure that will pit the taxpayer against the elite, but there's more to it than that. Is he right that everyone's savings account nets them little to nothing in interest? Is that a reason to be upset with the system?

I think he makes some very salient points. Their veracity is not contingent on his behavior.

No they don't or if they do, not because of some weird evil intent. He makes points if that's what you want to hear. Reagan did the same to me. He made me proud to be an American while taking away government help from others. Interest rates came down then and I benefitted. However, I didn't benefit because of anything Reagan did. I got a hired by a large company and was very succesful for 22 years.

I remember 12 % mortage interest rates on my first house in 1979. People were making 10% putting their money in CD's. These were usually older folks retired or near retired. There were older couples with 5 percent mortages who had paid half what I did.

David Brooks does a good job being critical about academic and the Eastern Elites (like Obama et al) for which the rural and less educated feel less and for which Bannon recognized and exploited. While it got Trump is office, it was not good for the nation. Obama said "
"And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," . Obama gave Bannon a gift.
My opinion is, I don't succeed by making someone else fail.

Thank you for answering, and sorry I missed it in the TSherbs tussle.

I agree Bannon and other of Trumps team exploited emotion for votes. But that's again just politics. All of them do it so some extent.

The thing about the elites, or the "kleptocracy" Weinstein refers to is that it's not just the Democrats. We can both list numerous instances of politicians (still in office) exploiting the system. The congressional version of "insider trading", which was legal for them until they passed a law that forbid it, which they continue to ignore.

The thing Trump leveraged was the nationwide disgust with the system as it is. A lot of what we used to call "Reagan Democrats" I suspect pulled the lever for Trump when no one was watching. I applaud Kellyanne Conway's strategy. It worked. The "blue wall" fell.

I hope this will resonate, when Bannon and other use the word "elites" and Kleptocrat there is strategy and that strategy is not to inform or educate, but to divide. We are divided as a nation and it is deminishing us so that we are not efficient or effective.

Some see scientist as elites or science becomes something to not trust. Some see nature as opposed to religion where they think that it doesn't matter if they don't wear a mask or go to large gatherings, God will protect them. And we see each other as "you're either one of us or you're not of value or you are biased and not telling me the truth as with media.

Based on my observations of others, I think what fuels this mistrust include YouTube and some forms of social media. Secondly, people choose to not be informed, nor do they know how to read and understand for themselves. As example was myself when I couldn't believe that Rittenhouse was not found guilty until I came know the self defense laws in that state. Had I not come to know, I could have become convinced the system is rigged. People believed Trump was cheated out of an election where he lost the popular vote as well as the Electorial College and blamed voting machines and several states. So, if you think the scientists have an agenda, God will not allow a virus to infect, and you don't trust people who look and sound differently, at some point you will lash out and vote for vote for Bannon's boy, Trump.

If you've ever read the early part of the Trump election, you will see the players forming the strategy. They needed a spokeperson and Trump would say anything and do anything for which most other candidates didn't know how to respond, most noteably for me was Jeb Bush. Bannon's strategy was to divide and Clinton was a flawed candidate with a history and profile of what Bannon could call "elite". Most people didn't realize who Bannon is or his own career which could easily be labeled elite. Again, my "mushroom" analogy is spot on.

Ever watch those people sitting behing Trump at this rallies? Did you ever notice how willing they were to attack the Gold Star family, John McCain, journalists? Brewing distrust may win elections, but that's all you've done. You've not accomplished the purpose of government nor the services needed for the nation to survive. If you need an example, consider Trump's handling of the pandemic. You don't need to listen to YouTube because you have his own words and actions to consider.

We've discussed many topics and the tendancy is to run to our preferred corners.

[TSherbs]

More consequences for bringing the Big Lie to court:

Business Insider: Judge orders 'Kraken lawyers' to pay $175,000 to Michigan officials.

https://www.businessinsider.com/judg...icials-2021-12

[dneal]

It's a common strategy of every politician to pit one group against another. Democrats want to corrupt your children. Republicans want your grandma to die.

I'm talking about the content I cited. In the quoted text. Is he wrong? Do the elite rig the system knowing that the taxpayer will be left on the hook to bail them out? Sure that will pit the taxpayer against the elite, but there's more to it than that. Is he right that everyone's savings account nets them little to nothing in interest? Is that a reason to be upset with the system?

I think he makes some very salient points. Their veracity is not contingent on his behavior.

No they don't or if they do, not because of some weird evil intent. He makes points if that's what you want to hear. Reagan did the same to me. He made me proud to be an American while taking away government help from others. Interest rates came down then and I benefitted. However, I didn't benefit because of anything Reagan did. I got a hired by a large company and was very succesful for 22 years.

I remember 12 % mortage interest rates on my first house in 1979. People were making 10% putting their money in CD's. These were usually older folks retired or near retired. There were older couples with 5 percent mortages who had paid half what I did.

David Brooks does a good job being critical about academic and the Eastern Elites (like Obama et al) for which the rural and less educated feel less and for which Bannon recognized and exploited. While it got Trump is office, it was not good for the nation. Obama said "
"And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," . Obama gave Bannon a gift.
My opinion is, I don't succeed by making someone else fail.

Thank you for answering, and sorry I missed it in the TSherbs tussle.

I agree Bannon and other of Trumps team exploited emotion for votes. But that's again just politics. All of them do it so some extent.

The thing about the elites, or the "kleptocracy" Weinstein refers to is that it's not just the Democrats. We can both list numerous instances of politicians (still in office) exploiting the system. The congressional version of "insider trading", which was legal for them until they passed a law that forbid it, which they continue to ignore.

The thing Trump leveraged was the nationwide disgust with the system as it is. A lot of what we used to call "Reagan Democrats" I suspect pulled the lever for Trump when no one was watching. I applaud Kellyanne Conway's strategy. It worked. The "blue wall" fell.

I hope this will resonate, when Bannon and other use the word "elites" and Kleptocrat there is strategy and that strategy is not to inform or educate, but to divide. We are divided as a nation and it is deminishing us so that we are not efficient or effective.

Some see scientist as elites or science becomes something to not trust. Some see nature as opposed to religion where they think that it doesn't matter if they don't wear a mask or go to large gatherings, God will protect them. And we see each other as "you're either one of us or you're not of value or you are biased and not telling me the truth as with media.

Based on my observations of others, I think what fuels this mistrust include YouTube and some forms of social media. Secondly, people choose to not be informed, nor do they know how to read and understand for themselves. As example was myself when I couldn't believe that Rittenhouse was not found guilty until I came know the self defense laws in that state. Had I not come to know, I could have become convinced the system is rigged. People believed Trump was cheated out of an election where he lost the popular vote as well as the Electorial College and blamed voting machines and several states. So, if you think the scientists have an agenda, God will not allow a virus to infect, and you don't trust people who look and sound differently, at some point you will lash out and vote for vote for Bannon's boy, Trump.

If you've ever read the early part of the Trump election, you will see the players forming the strategy. They needed a spokeperson and Trump would say anything and do anything for which most other candidates didn't know how to respond, most noteably for me was Jeb Bush. Bannon's strategy was to divide and Clinton was a flawed candidate with a history and profile of what Bannon could call "elite". Most people didn't realize who Bannon is or his own career which could easily be labeled elite. Again, my "mushroom" analogy is spot on.

Ever watch those people sitting behing Trump at this rallies? Did you ever notice how willing they were to attack the Gold Star family, John McCain, journalists? Brewing distrust may win elections, but that's all you've done. You've not accomplished the purpose of government nor the services needed for the nation to survive. If you need an example, consider Trump's handling of the pandemic. You don't need to listen to YouTube because you have his own words and actions to consider.

We've discussed many topics and the tendancy is to run to our preferred corners.

I'll summarize that to: "People can be misinformed and reach erroneous conclusions. Misinformation comes from many sources, and is often intentional in order to motivate opinions and behavior". If you don't agree with that summation, feel free to clarify it as you see fit.

I agree.

That is why it is important to be skeptical of pretty much everything, particularly in today's information environment. There are plenty of maxims that illustrate. PT Barnum's statement on "suckers". "Don't believe anything you hear, and half of what you see". My own State's motto of "Show Me".

That's not to say we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. CNN, FOX, YouTube, etc... all have accurate and inaccurate information. One must remain skeptical, particularly in regard to what one desires to be true. One must learn to think critically. One must assess credibility. One must learn to identify influential language (see: Russell Conjugation). It doesn't matter where the information originates.

[Chuck Naill]

It's a common strategy of every politician to pit one group against another. Democrats want to corrupt your children. Republicans want your grandma to die.

I'm talking about the content I cited. In the quoted text. Is he wrong? Do the elite rig the system knowing that the taxpayer will be left on the hook to bail them out? Sure that will pit the taxpayer against the elite, but there's more to it than that. Is he right that everyone's savings account nets them little to nothing in interest? Is that a reason to be upset with the system?

I think he makes some very salient points. Their veracity is not contingent on his behavior.

No they don't or if they do, not because of some weird evil intent. He makes points if that's what you want to hear. Reagan did the same to me. He made me proud to be an American while taking away government help from others. Interest rates came down then and I benefitted. However, I didn't benefit because of anything Reagan did. I got a hired by a large company and was very succesful for 22 years.

I remember 12 % mortage interest rates on my first house in 1979. People were making 10% putting their money in CD's. These were usually older folks retired or near retired. There were older couples with 5 percent mortages who had paid half what I did.

David Brooks does a good job being critical about academic and the Eastern Elites (like Obama et al) for which the rural and less educated feel less and for which Bannon recognized and exploited. While it got Trump is office, it was not good for the nation. Obama said "
"And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," . Obama gave Bannon a gift.
My opinion is, I don't succeed by making someone else fail.

Thank you for answering, and sorry I missed it in the TSherbs tussle.

I agree Bannon and other of Trumps team exploited emotion for votes. But that's again just politics. All of them do it so some extent.

The thing about the elites, or the "kleptocracy" Weinstein refers to is that it's not just the Democrats. We can both list numerous instances of politicians (still in office) exploiting the system. The congressional version of "insider trading", which was legal for them until they passed a law that forbid it, which they continue to ignore.

The thing Trump leveraged was the nationwide disgust with the system as it is. A lot of what we used to call "Reagan Democrats" I suspect pulled the lever for Trump when no one was watching. I applaud Kellyanne Conway's strategy. It worked. The "blue wall" fell.

I hope this will resonate, when Bannon and other use the word "elites" and Kleptocrat there is strategy and that strategy is not to inform or educate, but to divide. We are divided as a nation and it is deminishing us so that we are not efficient or effective.

Some see scientist as elites or science becomes something to not trust. Some see nature as opposed to religion where they think that it doesn't matter if they don't wear a mask or go to large gatherings, God will protect them. And we see each other as "you're either one of us or you're not of value or you are biased and not telling me the truth as with media.

Based on my observations of others, I think what fuels this mistrust include YouTube and some forms of social media. Secondly, people choose to not be informed, nor do they know how to read and understand for themselves. As example was myself when I couldn't believe that Rittenhouse was not found guilty until I came know the self defense laws in that state. Had I not come to know, I could have become convinced the system is rigged. People believed Trump was cheated out of an election where he lost the popular vote as well as the Electorial College and blamed voting machines and several states. So, if you think the scientists have an agenda, God will not allow a virus to infect, and you don't trust people who look and sound differently, at some point you will lash out and vote for vote for Bannon's boy, Trump.

If you've ever read the early part of the Trump election, you will see the players forming the strategy. They needed a spokeperson and Trump would say anything and do anything for which most other candidates didn't know how to respond, most noteably for me was Jeb Bush. Bannon's strategy was to divide and Clinton was a flawed candidate with a history and profile of what Bannon could call "elite". Most people didn't realize who Bannon is or his own career which could easily be labeled elite. Again, my "mushroom" analogy is spot on.

Ever watch those people sitting behing Trump at this rallies? Did you ever notice how willing they were to attack the Gold Star family, John McCain, journalists? Brewing distrust may win elections, but that's all you've done. You've not accomplished the purpose of government nor the services needed for the nation to survive. If you need an example, consider Trump's handling of the pandemic. You don't need to listen to YouTube because you have his own words and actions to consider.

We've discussed many topics and the tendancy is to run to our preferred corners.

I'll summarize that to: "People can be misinformed and reach erroneous conclusions. Misinformation comes from many sources, and is often intentional in order to motivate opinions and behavior". If you don't agree with that summation, feel free to clarify it as you see fit.

I agree.

That is why it is important to be skeptical of pretty much everything, particularly in today's information environment. There are plenty of maxims that illustrate. PT Barnum's statement on "suckers". "Don't believe anything you hear, and half of what you see". My own State's motto of "Show Me".

That's not to say we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. CNN, FOX, YouTube, etc... all have accurate and inaccurate information. One must remain skeptical, particularly in regard to what one desires to be true. One must learn to think critically. One must assess credibility. One must learn to identify influential language (see: Russell Conjugation). It doesn't matter where the information originates.

I agree that misinformation can come from many sources, but when you have Trump's strategist say their intent was to "flood the zone with shit" and in what you posted a continuation to divide by telling them they are being harmed by the elites, it fuels a unhealthy environment.

I heard yesterday some Republicans were thinking of standing in the way of the budget resolution talks unless vaccine mandate were lifted. My first thought was they are doing so because they think the people who voted for them wants not to have to take a vaccine. This might even appeal to you based on other threads content, but vaccines are the only preventitve proven to lessen the severity of the virus and I suspect those Republicans know so. So, because people are not informed and they lean on their elected officials, they could get sick and die because of their trust in people who only seek their vote.

We do need the "press" and we need it to be responsible to inform and be as unbiased as possible. We can benefit from opinioned journalists and writers. They provide a new way to think. It is not even bad to listen to a Bannon of Carlson as long as you listen to others as well. A steady diet and not questioning can lead to the inaccurate conclusions and some politicans are depending on you not paying good enough attention.

I will add one important factor, we must learn to realize when we are wrong.

[dneal]

I think Bannon's "flood the zone" strategy revolved around Trump's trolling, not his hypothesis on "the party of Davos". I assume every politician is lying - because "their lips are moving" or however the joke goes.

Check out Eric Weinstein's essay on "Russell Conjugation". Note that Bertrand Russell did not "discover" this principle, and the early Greek philosophers scorned the Sophists for the same reason. "Sophistry" in fact has come to be defined as: The use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving. In other words, the use of rhetoric and emotive words to influence. Lawyers are very familiar with the technique, and most politicians tend to be lawyers, but I digress... Anyway, Weinstein just describes it well.

The basic principle of Russell Conjugation is that the human mind is constantly looking ahead well beyond what is true or false to ask “What is the social consequence of accepting the facts as they are?” While this line of thinking is obviously self-serving, we are descended from social creatures who could not safely form opinions around pure facts so much as around how those facts are presented to us by those we ape, trust or fear. Thus, as listeners and readers our minds generally mirror the emotional state of the source, while in our roles as authoritative narrators presenting the facts, we maintain an arsenal of language to subliminally instruct our listeners and readers on how we expect them to color their perceptions. Russell discussed this by putting three such presentations of a common underlying fact in the form in which a verb is typically conjugated:

I am firm. [Positive empathy]
You are obstinate. [Neutral to mildly negative empathy]
He/She/It is pigheaded. [Very negative empathy]

In all three cases, Russell was describing people who did not readily change their minds. Yet by putting these descriptions so close together and without further factual information to separate the individual cases, we were forced to confront the fact that most of us feel positively towards the steadfast narrator and negatively towards the pigheaded fool, all without any basis in fact.

This is the problem with modern journalism. Adjectives/adverbs are used in the manner of the Russell Conjugation, when the author isn't outright manipulating language intentionally. That sort of thing (the editorializing) used to be reserved to the opinion section, but now it's prevalent throughout media - even in the "straight news" pieces.

[Chuck Naill]

I think Bannon's "flood the zone" strategy revolved around Trump's trolling, not his hypothesis on "the party of Davos". I assume every politician is lying - because "their lips are moving" or however the joke goes.

Check out Eric Weinstein's essay on "Russell Conjugation". Note that Bertrand Russell did not "discover" this principle, and the early Greek philosophers scorned the Sophists for the same reason. "Sophistry" in fact has come to be defined as: The use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving. In other words, the use of rhetoric and emotive words to influence. Lawyers are very familiar with the technique, and most politicians tend to be lawyers, but I digress... Anyway, Weinstein just describes it well.

The basic principle of Russell Conjugation is that the human mind is constantly looking ahead well beyond what is true or false to ask “What is the social consequence of accepting the facts as they are?” While this line of thinking is obviously self-serving, we are descended from social creatures who could not safely form opinions around pure facts so much as around how those facts are presented to us by those we ape, trust or fear. Thus, as listeners and readers our minds generally mirror the emotional state of the source, while in our roles as authoritative narrators presenting the facts, we maintain an arsenal of language to subliminally instruct our listeners and readers on how we expect them to color their perceptions. Russell discussed this by putting three such presentations of a common underlying fact in the form in which a verb is typically conjugated:

I am firm. [Positive empathy]
You are obstinate. [Neutral to mildly negative empathy]
He/She/It is pigheaded. [Very negative empathy]

In all three cases, Russell was describing people who did not readily change their minds. Yet by putting these descriptions so close together and without further factual information to separate the individual cases, we were forced to confront the fact that most of us feel positively towards the steadfast narrator and negatively towards the pigheaded fool, all without any basis in fact.

This is the problem with modern journalism. Adjectives/adverbs are used in the manner of the Russell Conjugation, when the author isn't outright manipulating language intentionally. That sort of thing (the editorializing) used to be reserved to the opinion section, but now it's prevalent throughout media - even in the "straight news" pieces.

But you and I are smart enough to recognize and use what we can, @dneal.

[TSherbs]

I agree that misinformation can come from many sources, but when you have Trump's strategist say their intent was to "flood the zone with shit"....

I agree with you about Bannon, and I think that this same strategy was employed in these court cases about the 2020 election: they tried to flood the courts with "shit" (Big Lie), but it turns out that there are legal and pecuniary consequences for bringing empty claims to courts with no intent to gather valid supporting evidence (ie, not done in "good faith").

The strategy can be effective, even though it is craven. Fortunately, some of these states are fighting back...and winning.

[Chuck Naill]

I agree that misinformation can come from many sources, but when you have Trump's strategist say their intent was to "flood the zone with shit"....

I agree with you about Bannon, and I think that this same strategy was employed in these court cases about the 2020 election: they tried to flood the courts with "shit" (Big Lie), but it turns out that there are legal and pecuniary consequences for bringing empty claims to courts with no intent to gather valid supporting evidence (ie, not done in "good faith").

The strategy can be effective, even though it is craven. Fortunately, some of these states are fighting back...and winning.

Better stated than I would have been able.

[dneal]

Fauci inadvertently revealed his institutional racism today, admitting “we” refer to the original Covid variant as the “Wuhan variant”.

Film at 11

[Chuck Naill]

If you want to discuss Fauci, start a thread. As you say to me, "psst".

[dneal]

This is my thread, derailed totally, but touche'.

[TSherbs]

It's always fun getting an update on the crazies:

Newsweek: QAnon Followers Believe Donald Trump Used 'Body Double' At Arizona Rally.

https://www.newsweek.com/qanon-follo...-rally-1669936

[dneal]

OrangeManBad.jpeg

[Chuck Naill]

Wait, wait, what about this!