7 ms·

> I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left? > Can’t we all try to find co

by sumedh 6y ago

> I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left? > Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? What consensus and compromise do you want when the President of the US wants to "find" the votes or when calls the rioters good people and we love you?

S_A_P 6y ago
That’s just it. A lot of people of all political persuasions are reasonable and rational. I don’t think the current administration is at all. I’m a generally middle of the road guy that has a general viewpoint of live and let live. The problem is we are letting fringe opinions dictate the narrative.
- wtfiswiththis 6y ago
  Can't help but notice you didn't answer this: >Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left?
  - avs733 6y ago
    It’s funny how that never gets answered... I really am befuddled at the inability of people to avoid beng taken in by bad faith arguments like this.
    - tanseydavid 6y ago
      Choose any person who is placed in position where they speak on behalf of the Democrat side of the aisle. It is exceedingly difficult to understand your position that this represent a 'bad faith argument'. The comparison is one comparing the role played. It not a comparison of one's opinion of the person playing the role.
      - wtfiswiththis 6y ago
        Yea well, name a person. This is a subject with concrete incidents and figures involved. The question is who on the left would be comparable to Bannon. The subject is not generic nonsense. Talking about generic nonsense is only another non-answer that evades the very specific question. A question that should have names as an answer and nothing else.
  - avs733 6y ago
    It’s funny how that never gets answered... I really am befuddled at the inability of people to be taken in by bad faith arguments like this.
thepasswordis 6y ago
Keith Olbermann perhaps? https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1314674750858297344 https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1314674750858297344
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  When's Keith urged assault on Congress? Oh yeah, he hasn't. You'd have to go considerably further out.
- loopz 6y ago
  I don't see the reason not to be outraged after having been at receiving end of gaslighting for 4-5 years and now consequences start accellerating?
- ribosometronome 6y ago
  In that clip, Olbermann is saying that people who have broken the law should be prosecuted for it. Steve Bannon was arrested for fraud and, while on bond, used his podcast to call for beheading Fauci and FBI director Wray and putting their heads up on pikes. The both sides-ism doesn't work when one person is suggesting upholding the law and the other routinely suggests killing people who they disagree with politically. >“Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci. Now I actually want to go a step farther, but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man... I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you’re gone – time to stop playing games.”” https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-makes-beheading-comment-about-fauci-on-war-room-podcast-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-makes-beheading... It's also hard to compare the two as Olbermann is a sports presenter turned Political Opinion show host while Bannon was the head of a news organization, became head of a party's Presidential campaign and then served in the White House. I'm not sure there's any insider who has made anything close to the kind of unsubstantiated rhetoric Bannon has or used their journalistic positions (rather than Opinion show) in the way he has. There are a few podcasts by former Obama staffers but I can't recall any of them ever calling for murder.
casefields 6y ago
If we rewind back to 9/11 there were plenty of Truthers on the left spreading nonsense. I remember the internet at the time used to feel like there were tons of Truthers that would argue and argue on all sorts of forums. Where did all those people go anyway?
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  What about if we don't rewind to 9/11 and talk about today's platforms? I'm for banning anyone who's inciting violence like what we saw at the capital regardless of political leaning, so it's not a rhetorical question I want to know who to report
- sumedh 6y ago
  Not sure what do you mean by Truthers, were there any elected officials or high profile people like Bannon saying that?
  - 3131s 6y ago
    Bob Graham is the highest elected official that has challenged the government's narrative on 9/11. He was a US senator, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and he led the joint congressional investigation into 9/11. In these interviews, he indicates that there are reasons to believe that Bush administration had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. These statements came long before the "28 pages", which removed any doubt that there was a cover-up after the fact and provided more evidence that Bush and his terrorist friends organized the whole thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRNti8P_o-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRNti8P_o-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=656b7n9--ps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=656b7n9--ps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Graham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Graham
    - sumedh 6y ago
      Can please give a direct link to the time stamp, not everyone has the time to watch almost 40 mins of video.
  - 6y ago
marcusverus 6y ago
How about Adam Schiff, whose lie that he had seen "more than circumstantial evidence" of Trump-Russia collusion was the cornerstone of the case for a Special Council?[0] We got a two year investigation into the question of collusion... which found no such evidence: "The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.""[1] And yet, even after Barr released his summary of the report, 84% of Democrats and 41% of Independents believed that Trump had colluded with the Russians.[2] Many of you in this thread likely still believe the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians. If the past is any guide, many of you will attempt to defend the lie by replying with distracting "whataboutisms" regarding Paul Manafort, or obstruction, or what have you, willfully ignoring the fact that that *the overwhelming majority of Democrats* were, less than two years ago, convinced of a lie that is eerily similar to right's lie-de-jour regarding the results of the 2016 election. [0]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/schiff-there-is-more-than-circumstantial-evidence-now/520509/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/schiff-... [1]https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/ https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2... [2]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-poll/despite-report-findings-almost-half-of-americans-think-trump-colluded-with-russia-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1R72S0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-poll/des...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sumedh 6y ago
  > We got a two year investigation into the question of collusion... which found no such evidence: No that is wrong. "The investigation found there were over 100 contacts between Trump campaign advisors and individuals affiliated with the Russian government, before and after the election, but the evidence was insufficient to show an illegal conspiracy" > Many of you in this thread likely still believe the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians. Many of you also believed that Hillary was responsible for Benghazi and Republicans wasted millions of dollars and time on that investigation and yet she was not guilty. > replying with distracting "whataboutisms" regarding Paul Manafort So he and many other broke the law and went to jail for that, why is that a bad thing. Why did Trump pardon them though? How many people in the US went to jail because of the Benghazi investigations? Mueller did not say that Trump was innocent, why didnt he say that?
sholdery 6y ago
There is lots of evidence of fraud but people wouldn’t know about it as it’s censored on big tech and mainstream news.
- sumedh 6y ago
  Then why wasn't all this evidence shown to the courts. Guliani even said in a court that this not a fraud case, that is what the Trump admin does they lie to people on TV but since they cannot lie in courts they lost the cases. Even Trump appointed Supreme court judges rejected these cases.
  - sholdery 6y ago
    The courts have refused to accept the case. It didn’t have the opportunity to be shown in court.
    - sumedh 6y ago
      Many cases did end up in the lower courts and Trump lost. Guliani even said in court that this is not a fraud case even though on TV he says its fraud. Even Trump appointed Supreme court judges rejected the case because there is nothing there.
ghthor 6y ago
Sen Cortez, Sen Warren, Sen Sanders, Rep Pelosi are a good start.
- reducesuffering 6y ago
  AOC, Cortez, is a house representative, not a senator.
- sumedh 6y ago
  Can you give any specific examples?

by sumedh 6y ago

S_A_P 6y ago

That’s just it. A lot of people of all political persuasions are reasonable and rational. I don’t think the current administration is at all. I’m a generally middle of the road guy that has a general viewpoint of live and let live. The problem is we are letting fringe opinions dictate the narrative.

wtfiswiththis 6y ago
Can't help but notice you didn't answer this: >Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left?
- avs733 6y ago
  It’s funny how that never gets answered... I really am befuddled at the inability of people to avoid beng taken in by bad faith arguments like this.
  - tanseydavid 6y ago
    Choose any person who is placed in position where they speak on behalf of the Democrat side of the aisle. It is exceedingly difficult to understand your position that this represent a 'bad faith argument'. The comparison is one comparing the role played. It not a comparison of one's opinion of the person playing the role.
    - wtfiswiththis 6y ago
      Yea well, name a person. This is a subject with concrete incidents and figures involved. The question is who on the left would be comparable to Bannon. The subject is not generic nonsense. Talking about generic nonsense is only another non-answer that evades the very specific question. A question that should have names as an answer and nothing else.
- avs733 6y ago
  It’s funny how that never gets answered... I really am befuddled at the inability of people to be taken in by bad faith arguments like this.

thepasswordis 6y ago

Keith Olbermann perhaps? https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1314674750858297344 https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1314674750858297344

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dredmorbius 6y ago
When's Keith urged assault on Congress? Oh yeah, he hasn't. You'd have to go considerably further out.
loopz 6y ago
I don't see the reason not to be outraged after having been at receiving end of gaslighting for 4-5 years and now consequences start accellerating?
ribosometronome 6y ago
In that clip, Olbermann is saying that people who have broken the law should be prosecuted for it. Steve Bannon was arrested for fraud and, while on bond, used his podcast to call for beheading Fauci and FBI director Wray and putting their heads up on pikes. The both sides-ism doesn't work when one person is suggesting upholding the law and the other routinely suggests killing people who they disagree with politically. >“Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci. Now I actually want to go a step farther, but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man... I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you’re gone – time to stop playing games.”” https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-makes-beheading-comment-about-fauci-on-war-room-podcast-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-makes-beheading... It's also hard to compare the two as Olbermann is a sports presenter turned Political Opinion show host while Bannon was the head of a news organization, became head of a party's Presidential campaign and then served in the White House. I'm not sure there's any insider who has made anything close to the kind of unsubstantiated rhetoric Bannon has or used their journalistic positions (rather than Opinion show) in the way he has. There are a few podcasts by former Obama staffers but I can't recall any of them ever calling for murder.

casefields 6y ago

If we rewind back to 9/11 there were plenty of Truthers on the left spreading nonsense. I remember the internet at the time used to feel like there were tons of Truthers that would argue and argue on all sorts of forums. Where did all those people go anyway?

BoorishBears 6y ago
What about if we don't rewind to 9/11 and talk about today's platforms? I'm for banning anyone who's inciting violence like what we saw at the capital regardless of political leaning, so it's not a rhetorical question I want to know who to report
sumedh 6y ago
Not sure what do you mean by Truthers, were there any elected officials or high profile people like Bannon saying that?
- 3131s 6y ago
  Bob Graham is the highest elected official that has challenged the government's narrative on 9/11. He was a US senator, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and he led the joint congressional investigation into 9/11. In these interviews, he indicates that there are reasons to believe that Bush administration had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. These statements came long before the "28 pages", which removed any doubt that there was a cover-up after the fact and provided more evidence that Bush and his terrorist friends organized the whole thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRNti8P_o-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRNti8P_o-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=656b7n9--ps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=656b7n9--ps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Graham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Graham
  - sumedh 6y ago
    Can please give a direct link to the time stamp, not everyone has the time to watch almost 40 mins of video.
- 6y ago

marcusverus 6y ago

How about Adam Schiff, whose lie that he had seen "more than circumstantial evidence" of Trump-Russia collusion was the cornerstone of the case for a Special Council?[0] We got a two year investigation into the question of collusion... which found no such evidence: "The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.""[1] And yet, even after Barr released his summary of the report, 84% of Democrats and 41% of Independents believed that Trump had colluded with the Russians.[2] Many of you in this thread likely still believe the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians. If the past is any guide, many of you will attempt to defend the lie by replying with distracting "whataboutisms" regarding Paul Manafort, or obstruction, or what have you, willfully ignoring the fact that that *the overwhelming majority of Democrats* were, less than two years ago, convinced of a lie that is eerily similar to right's lie-de-jour regarding the results of the 2016 election. [0]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/schiff-there-is-more-than-circumstantial-evidence-now/520509/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/schiff-... [1]https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/ https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2... [2]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-poll/despite-report-findings-almost-half-of-americans-think-trump-colluded-with-russia-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1R72S0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-poll/des...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sumedh 6y ago
> We got a two year investigation into the question of collusion... which found no such evidence: No that is wrong. "The investigation found there were over 100 contacts between Trump campaign advisors and individuals affiliated with the Russian government, before and after the election, but the evidence was insufficient to show an illegal conspiracy" > Many of you in this thread likely still believe the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians. Many of you also believed that Hillary was responsible for Benghazi and Republicans wasted millions of dollars and time on that investigation and yet she was not guilty. > replying with distracting "whataboutisms" regarding Paul Manafort So he and many other broke the law and went to jail for that, why is that a bad thing. Why did Trump pardon them though? How many people in the US went to jail because of the Benghazi investigations? Mueller did not say that Trump was innocent, why didnt he say that?

sholdery 6y ago

There is lots of evidence of fraud but people wouldn’t know about it as it’s censored on big tech and mainstream news.

sumedh 6y ago
Then why wasn't all this evidence shown to the courts. Guliani even said in a court that this not a fraud case, that is what the Trump admin does they lie to people on TV but since they cannot lie in courts they lost the cases. Even Trump appointed Supreme court judges rejected these cases.
- sholdery 6y ago
  The courts have refused to accept the case. It didn’t have the opportunity to be shown in court.
  - sumedh 6y ago
    Many cases did end up in the lower courts and Trump lost. Guliani even said in court that this is not a fraud case even though on TV he says its fraud. Even Trump appointed Supreme court judges rejected the case because there is nothing there.

ghthor 6y ago

Sen Cortez, Sen Warren, Sen Sanders, Rep Pelosi are a good start.

reducesuffering 6y ago
AOC, Cortez, is a house representative, not a senator.
sumedh 6y ago
Can you give any specific examples?