US politics: Georgia on my mind

[SweetPea]

28 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Those devices were fully functional. So there goes your theory. 

1. Source?
2. Even if they were functional, none of them exploded, they presumably weren't meant to.

21 minutes ago, mormont said:

It is, I'm afraid. It has no basis.

Your argument appears to be that if something is possible, if it can be imagined to be true, that's enough. It can't be called 'baseless'. But as an argument that, to use a technical term, is bollocks. By that argument, nothing is baseless.

As you wish, I'm not going to waste time further with you.

Quote

I'll repeat my point above. There have been numerous terrorist attacks in the US in the last few years. Why is it that on this particular occasion, suddenly you feel there are all these 'valid questions' and a 'different explanation also worth considering'? What is it about this specific attack that has you coming over all speculative and so keen to consider alternative possibilities?

I've only been on this forum for the last few months, during which no (major) terrorist attacks happened, so you clearly don't know how speculative I've been in the past, or if this particular occasion is special in that regard. My position has always been: it's ok to speculate and make assumptions, but don't be close minded and wait for the eivdence before drawing conclusions and acting on them.

21 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I really don't condone political violence. But, I do balk when certain sorts of people want to make false comparisons between Antifa and Nazis. There is no comparison. Nazis are way worse. The comparisons between the two are horseshit.

And you know which sorts of people that like to make the comparisions, I think. They typically are alt right sympathizers, who try to play the "reasonable centrist" role.

Your point? Do you deny that there are radical leftists who would potentionally be willing to do something like this?

[Week]

41 minutes ago, mormont said:

It is, I'm afraid. It has no basis.

The basis is all of the previous false flag operations that these ninnies correctly identified -- Parkland, Sandy Hook, Vegas, etc. etc.

eta -

1 minute ago, SweetPea said:

1. Source?

What and when was the last source that you posted? -- You've supported none of your assertions with anything but the stench of hot air coming out of your ass.

[OldGimletEye]

13 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

.Your point? Do you deny that there are radical leftists who would potentionally be willing to do something like this?

Nope, I do not.

Does the left have some crazies? Sure. Does that mean the American Left is as loony as the American Right. Nope, it sure in the hell doesn't. And at this point, it's not even close.

But yet again, I find your both sidism quite tiresome. In fact, you're not even a both sider, even though you keep trying to blow smoke up everyone's ass by playing the "reasonable centrist" act. Everyone sees right through this crap.

You actually prefer the Republican Party. Your both sidism of course brings bile to the back of my throat because it's garbage. Instead, stop being so modest. Tell us why you actually think Trump and the Republican Party is better. Let your "conservative values" shine!

It would just be nice if certain sorts of people were upfront about what they are about.

[Ice Queen]

4 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

1. Source?
2. Even if they were functional, none of them exploded, they presumably weren't meant to.

As you wish, I'm not going to waste time further with you.

I've only been on this forum for the last few months, during which no (major) terrorist attacks happened, so you clearly don't know how speculative I've been in the past, or if this particular occasion is special in that regard. My position has always been: it's ok to speculate and make assumptions, but don't be close minded and wait for the eivdence before drawing conclusions and acting on them.

Your point? Do you deny that there are radical leftists who would potentionally be willing to do something like this?

1. The FBI.

2. Just because none of them exploded doesn't mean they couldn't have. You're saying that everything is just hunky dory because no one got hurt. 

If you're going to speculate and make assumptions, then make sure they're consistent with the known facts. 

 

[SweetPea]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Nope, I do not.

Thanks, that's all I was interested in. So it's possible. Former FBI agent Jim Fitzgerald, who is credited with catching Unabomber Ted Kaczynski in 1996, agrees. 

Quote

He also said it was possible the author of the attacks could was operating a “black op” or “false flag” event ahead of the midterm elections, in order to paint Republicans as responsible.

It could be “some kind of a letter or an operation or something is done to make it look like it belongs to one entity where it actually in real life belongs to the other.”

“I am by no means locked into this theory,” he said.

“But … it could be someone in there, a Democrat, a low level person, I’m not suggesting anyone on the top, who just decided, you know what I am going to put this out because two weeks before a major election, who’s going to look like the bad guy here? The Republicans.”

Too bad he didn't talk with @mormont, he would have realized it's a baseless theory not worth considering.

Quote

But yet again, I find your both sidism quite tiresome. In fact, you're not even a both sider, even though you keep trying to blow smoke up everyone's ass by playing the "reasonable centrist" act. Everyone sees right through this crap.

You actually prefer the Republican Party. Your both sidism of course brings bile to the back of my throat because it's garbage. Instead, stop being so modest. Tell us why you actually think Trump and the Republican Party is better. Let your "conservative values" shine!

Depends on what you mean by both sidism. I don't think both sides are equal, or equally bad at some things. But I do think both sides should be held to equal standards.
Yes, I do prefer one party over the other right now, but I don't do so happily. I have no love for the Republican Party, I detest them in many regards. I don't want to get into the details for it would take too much time, but long story short, in their current state I see the democrats as more destructive. I know you think the opposite, because we don't agree on the underlying facts. Maybe I'll write a post about that sometime.. but I have work to do now.

[Rippounet]

48 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

They weren't functional anyway, none of the bombs had the fuse connected. At least, that's what I read, might not be true.

I'll help with that. Breitbart -among others- has been suggesting this. For instance:

Quote

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2018/10/25/nolte-establishment-media-exploit-bomb-scare-bully-trump-silence/
Thankfully, so far, not a single one of the bombs has gone off. There is some speculation they were not meant to go off; they were deliberate duds. Regardless, it is still an inexcusable act of terrorism.

But even Breitbart hasn't gone as far as clearly saying that the bombs were duds ; they report "speculation," which is bad enough. One might also notice the subtle use of the semi-colon, which is obivously meant to confuse the reader.
The speculation itself will be found in the comments section, or on worse sites than Breitbart (alt-right stuff, 4chan... etc). Which is, of course, no doubt where SweetPea gets his information from.

On the subject of conspiracies.... They all work the same way. Pretend to ask "valid questions," raise some seemingly "common sense" objection, and subtly -or not- suggest an alternative explanation to the facts. The alternative is, of course, the point from the beginning, whether it's clearly stated or not. At the root of any conspiracy theory is the refusal to accept the reality of events that do not correspond to one's world view. For instance, someone believing that the left is the political violent side will find it hard to believe that right-wingers might commit acts of domestic terrorism.
It's worrying that the right has been going full conspiracism lately: birtherism, pizzagate, QAnon... etc. One could even throw in the myth of voter fraud in the mix. It shows that there is no longer any desire to accept reality. But it's also a problem because it blurs the line between healthy debates on how facts should be interpreted, and conspiracism, which questions the facts themselves. In this instance, the facts are that high-profile liberals were targetted. One could have a debate on the who and why ; it's certainly possible to point out that this will not help the right and wonder what kind of crazy moron would do this. But to question the very fact that they were targetted is crossing the red line into a denial of reality. In other words, while it's possible to suggest that the culprit is not a right-winger (yes, it is, don't hate me for that please ^^), denying the reality of the attack is crazy.
 

 

[Zorral]

30 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

1. The FBI.

2. Just because none of them exploded doesn't mean they couldn't have. You're saying that everything is just hunky dory because no one got hurt. 

If you're going to speculate and make assumptions, then make sure they're consistent with the known facts. 

 

That P guy just keeps pulling more and more shyte out of u no where.  He never even bothers to fact check his idjiot blatherings.

Every responsible and respected news source, from CNN (which was targeted via Brennan), to CBS, NBC, etc. described the explosive devices as 'crude,' or 'rudimentary,' but functional' and all of them have to be disarmed.  As anyone who spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan will tell you, a crude or rudimentary device is more than adequate to create tremendous damage to vehicles, buildings and human beings.

They are appearing more strongly by the same person or persons . . . .

[OldGimletEye]

28 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Thanks, that's all I was interested in. So it's possible. Former FBI agent Jim Fitzgerald, who is credited with catching Unabomber Ted Kaczynski in 1996, agrees. 

Yeah, you won a real big victory there. Don't celebrate too hard.

28 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Depends on what you mean by both sidism. I don't think both sides are equal, or equally bad at some things. But I do think both sides should be held to equal standards.

Hmm. It seems to me in the this country conservatives actually get away with more shit. If the left was as dishonest and crazy as the right, you'd here all the professional centrist complain about it more I think.

28 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

I don't want to get into the details for it would take too much time, but long story short, in their current state I see the democrats as more destructive. I know you think the opposite, because we don't agree on the underlying facts. Maybe I'll write a post about that sometime.. but I have work to do now.

Yeah, real nice cop out by you.

Tell us how the Democrats are more destructive. What  load of horseshit.

I'm going to be real interested in how you defend this, if you ever do. I'd imagine it would be some jumbled and confused garbage about Hillary's Emails, "identity politics", and space colonies on Mars.

Instead we'll keep getting, "but, but, the left has crazies too! Ego, it is as bad or worse than right!"

You don't ever bother actually addressing the issue directly. It would be nice if you'd just hit the issue head on, rather than always tap dancing around it.

[Darth Richard II]

Ok lemme go back a few pages before peabrain started mouth farting.

did...did someone just accuse kalbear of being a Nazi and part of the alt right?

I laughed so hard at that one I scared the cats. :p

[mormont]

1 hour ago, SweetPea said:

My position has always been: it's ok to speculate and make assumptions, but don't be close minded and wait for the eivdence before drawing conclusions and acting on them.

But we're not discussing drawing conclusions, still less acting on them. We're discussing whether a particular piece of speculation is reasonable or just bizarre, pulled-out-of-the-air nonsense.

Now, I understand why you want to pretend this is 'close-minded' or 'drawing conclusions'. You've got nothing else. No reason to believe this guff, no credible motives, nothing but hypotheses you're trying to dress up as 'valid questions'. But that's not how these things work.

37 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Thanks, that's all I was interested in. So it's possible. Former FBI agent Jim Fitzgerald, who is credited with catching Unabomber Ted Kaczynski in 1996, agrees. 

Too bad he didn't talk with @mormont, he would have realized it's a baseless theory not worth considering.

He's not actually suggesting there's any basis to the theory, though, is he?

Again, 'it's theoretically possible' doesn't mean 'there is a basis to believe it'.

[Ser Reptitious]

44 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Yes, I do prefer one party over the other right now, but I don't do so happily. I have no love for the Republican Party, I detest them in many regards. I don't want to get into the details for it would take too much time, but ...

Oh come on, it can't take that long to list the reasons why you hate the Republican Party. You don't need to write a thesis. Bullet points will do for starters...

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Oh come on, it can't take that long to list the reasons why you hate the Republican Party. You don't need to write a thesis. Bullet points will do for starters...

Keep in mind he's not a US citizen and to my knowledge doesn't live in North America. 

[Frog Eater]

5 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Ok lemme go back a few pages before peabrain started mouth farting.

did...did someone just accuse kalbear of being a Nazi and part of the alt right?

I laughed so hard at that one I scared the cats. :p

The guy who was defending the sweet, innocent Keith Ellison who is being persecuted because he is a muslim black man?

it was someone with 13 posts. I just assumed it was a regular's alt and was trolling. 

[S John]

3 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I mentioned this in an earlier post, but Republicans do better in mail-in early voting, and Democrats in-person early voting (insert Millenials not knowing what a stamp is joke here).  And in-person early voting hasnt begun yet in Texas and Florida.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/surge-in-first-early-voting-numbers.html

"As noted, in-person early voting has just begun in Texas, and won’t begin in Florida until October 27. "

" Historically, the relationship between early voting in a state and the final voting totals there has been weak, and attempts to make inferences from early voting data have made fools of otherwise smart people "

 

It's hard to make too many inferences from early-voting trends, so we should probably just wait till Nov 6 to see how turnout is.

Yea, I have voted early in Texas several times now and there's always a lot of people there and I always think.... hey maybe (D) has a chance this time!  Suffice to say, I don't put much stock into this anymore.  I voted for Beto.  I'm pretty sure 90% of the people around me at the polling place were there to vote for Beto.  Beto still (probably) gonna lose on the 6th.  

[Darth Richard II]

33 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

The guy who was defending the sweet, innocent Keith Ellison who is being persecuted because he is a muslim black man?

it was someone with 13 posts. I just assumed it was a regular's alt and was trolling. 

Well of course it's a troll, doesn't make it not funny!

[TrueMetis]

2 hours ago, Week said:

The basis is all of the previous false flag operations that these ninnies correctly identified -- Parkland, Sandy Hook, Vegas, etc. etc.

eta -

What and when was the last source that you posted? -- You've supported none of your assertions with anything but the stench of hot air coming out of your ass.

Moreover he apparently can't be bothered with sources that have already been posted. Why the fuck are you people bothering with someone either so stupid or dishonest that they can't be bothered to read the threat they are posting in?

[Darth Richard II]

I don't know why anyone responds to a few people in here at all. I mean, it's nice to see mormont smack them down like the idiots they are, but it gets a bit repetitive.

 

Also, I would argue he's stupid AND dishonest.

[HoodedCrow]

Perhaps it’s possible that Sweetpea and associates did a little extracurricular work against the people that Trump regularly smears?

[Guy Kilmore]

If people are curious, here is the investigative report that the DNC did of the Keith Ellison stuff.

 

ETA:  I found it interesting, being a Minnesotan as this impacts my decision on this particular vote.

[Ice Queen]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

That P guy just keeps pulling more and more shyte out of u no where.  He never even bothers to fact check his idjiot blatherings.

Every responsible and respected news source, from CNN (which was targeted via Brennan), to CBS, NBC, etc. described the explosive devices as 'crude,' or 'rudimentary,' but functional' and all of them have to be disarmed.  As anyone who spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan will tell you, a crude or rudimentary device is more than adequate to create tremendous damage to vehicles, buildings and human beings.

They are appearing more strongly by the same person or persons . . . .

Facts and research aren't their strong suit. They think they can spout all kinds of bullshit and no one will notice.

The FBI probably has a pretty good idea of who's behind this and whether it's a lone wolf or coordinated effort. They'll get him. It's only a question of when.