Fu*%face Von Clownstick

Regarding so many false comments on Trump by otherwise smart members of this forum, here are just a few of the gas lighting lies fed nonstop to the American people by the corrupt dying old school media. Thankfully with so many independent broadcasters podcasts and YouTubers in the news today, old news can't get away with fooling (as many of) the American people anymore. This is an analysis by AI of just a few of the lies told over and over and over and over by what used to be the mainstream media. Now essentially dead. Good riddance to them. I can tolerate biased media if they admit that they are biased. As long as they tell the truth, I can tolerate it. We can disagree on our opinions. But I can't tolerate outright liars.

Obama (2009-2017):
Approximately $11.8-12.2 trillion in today's dollars (adjusted from $9.3 trillion)

Trump (2017-2021):
Approximately $8.7-9 trillion in today's dollars (adjusted from $7.8 trillion)

Russia collusion narrative: While Russian interference in 2016 was confirmed, the specific allegations of direct Trump-Russia conspiracy/coordination were not proven by the Mueller investigation, leading to corrections by several outlets.

Lafayette Square clearing: Initial widespread reporting that protesters were cleared specifically for a photo op was later contradicted by the Interior Department IG report, leading to corrections.

Georgia phone call: Initial reports about Trump telling officials to "find the fraud" used quotes that were later retracted as not verbatim.

Early COVID vaccine development timeline: Claims that Operation Warp Speed had no role were later revised by fact-checkers.

Steele Dossier: Many specific claims that received extensive coverage were later debunked or retracted by outlets that had reported them.

AI Analysis: Focusing on prominent media claims that were later disproven or appear demonstrably incorrect, with confidence ratings:

"Trump will refuse to leave office/stage a coup after losing" (98% confidence this claim was false given peaceful transfer occurred)

"The Hunter Biden laptop story is Russian disinformation" (95% confidence this media narrative was false, as major outlets later authenticated key elements)

"Trump called neo-Nazis 'fine people' in Charlottesville" (90% confidence this was false - full transcript shows he explicitly condemned them)

"Trump told Georgia officials to 'find the fraud'" (90% confidence the specific quote was false - Washington Post issued correction)

"Trump colluded directly with Russia to win 2016" (85% confidence this broad claim was false based on Mueller report conclusions)

"Trump ordered tear gas used on protesters for a church photo" (85% confidence this was false per Interior Department IG report)
"Trump suggested injecting bleach as COVID treatment" (80% confidence this was a mischaracterization - he asked about UV light/disinfectant research)

"Trump called all immigrants 'animals'" (80% confidence this was false - context shows MS-13 gang reference)

"Trump removed MLK bust from Oval Office" (90% confidence false - reporter corrected this within hours)

"Trump campaign changed GOP platform to favor Russia" (85% confidence false - later reporting showed this didn't occur)

Note: These confidence ratings reflect my assessment of the specific media claims being false, not broader political judgments.

I've aimed to be precise and direct while avoiding partisan interpretation. Would you like me to elaborate on any specific example with more detailed sourcing and fact-checking?
 
Daniel said:

after 15 years my GF threatened to break up if I voted for Trump...

I guess that's fair.... I threatened to break up with her if she got vaxxed...
Click to expand...

Speaking of “moral superiority“, could you imagine giving certain groups of citizens (lgbtq+) less protection under that law because you simply disagree with their sexual orientation.

Speaking of “moral superiority“, could you imagine one party taking away a woman’s bodily autonomy and choosing what she can and cannot do with her body?
 
Stumpsprouts said:
Nooooo
No mandatory anything my dude.

Don’t give the government any more powers over you.

If people aren’t compelled to vote, then the salespeople didn’t do their job, it’s not the voters fault there wasn’t anything worth buying.
Click to expand...
So, on this specific issue, mandatory voting, what is the downside? I generally agree with that sentiment, but no mandatory ANYTHING is anarchy, and while that is the highest ideal that we can aim for, I don't think that is a realistic expectation of most humans. Like, no mandatory locking up of murderers and rapists? No mandate about private property? No mandates of any kind would be fucked up, and I would bet my testicles that there are at least a few mandates aka laws that you support.

Mandatory voting doesn't mean you have to pick from one of the top listed options, and if combined with fractional representation, would reduce the power of the big two. I said we need both. If everyone who could vote did so, then neither of the two main parties would have even gotten 40% of the total votes.

I know sooooo many people who complain about the state of things but don't vote. FUCK THAT! If you didn't go out and put your opinion in the box, then shut the fuck up.

Furthermore, I get not liking what the two big parties are selling, but don't tell me that nobody was. Mandatory voting would probably be an enourmous boost to other parties, and make it far more likely that we see things shift in that direction. but if you couple it with fractional representation, ypu would see people run third party campaigns much more seriously, knowing that they don't have to get the top spot to make a difference in how things are actually governed.

And I am genuinely curious what you see as the big downside to just mandatory voting. Not mandatory anything else, just voting. I am struggling to concieve of a downside.
 
Mike Islander said:
Somehow you missed the context? Bro, that was obvious to the most casual observer that I was specifically talking about NEWS. Either you are trying to dishonestly discuss this with me, or you aren't concentrating. Either way, do better.
Click to expand...
Exactly how did I miss any context? I simply find it curious that you say you cannot abide lying (news, whatever) yet the whole slant of your voluminous post tells us who you probably voted for, someone who can't make a single full sentence without lying or totally twisting the truth. As for media lying and partisan bias in reporting, I think there are few more glaring examples of that than Fox News.
 
Tom Dunlap said:
Don’t waste effort on mandatory voting Get rid of the electoral college first
Click to expand...
It's all mental masturbation BECAUSE of the electoral college. You can't get rid of it without putting it to a vote, and all the states that have too much power will almost certainly vote to keep their outsized power. Another constitutionally enshrined remnant of the days of slavery that will probably remain for the rest of any of our lives.

Shit, look at how narrowly the 13th ammendment passed. I'd bet anything that if it weren't for the exception of permitting the use of prisoners as slaves, it wouldn't have passed. Even in California, with 53% of the vote counted, we have a 10 point lead against the proposition to finish abolishing slavery! I understand that the remaining votes could very much change that, but we know at least 5.1 million Californians want to keep slavery. we have a LOOOOONG way to go before we can start actually trying to abolish the electoral college.
 
Last edited:
Matias said:
So, on this specific issue, mandatory voting, what is the downside? I generally agree with that sentiment, but no mandatory ANYTHING is anarchy, and while that is the highest ideal that we can aim for, I don't think that is a realistic expectation of most humans. Like, no mandatory locking up of murderers and rapists? No mandate about private property? No mandates of any kind would be fucked up, and I would bet my testicles that there are at least a few mandates aka laws that you support.

Mandatory voting doesn't mean you have to pick from one of the top listed options, and if combined with fractional representation, would reduce the power of the big two. I said we need both. If everyone who could vote did so, then neither of the two main parties would have even gotten 40% of the total votes.

I know sooooo many people who complain about the state of things but don't vote. FUCK THAT! If you didn't go out and put your opinion in the box, then shut the fuck up.

Furthermore, I get not liking what the two big parties are selling, but don't tell me that nobody was. Mandatory voting would probably be an enourmous boost to other parties, and make it far more likely that we see things shift in that direction. but if you couple it with fractional representation, ypu would see people run third party campaigns much more seriously, knowing that they don't have to get the top spot to make a difference in how things are actually governed.

And I am genuinely curious what you see as the big downside to just mandatory voting. Not mandatory anything else, just voting. I am struggling to concieve of a downside.
Click to expand...
What would be the penalty for not voting? No mandates without consequences
 
Matias said:
It's all mental masturbation BECAUSE of the electoral college. You can't get rid of it without putting it to a vote, and all the states that have too much power will almost certainly vote to keep their outsized power. Another constitutionally enshrined remnant of the days of slavery that will probably remain for the rest of any of our lives.

Shit, look at how narrowly the 13th ammendment passed. I'd bet anything that if it weren't for the exception of permitting the use of prisoners as slaves, it wouldn't have passed. Even in California, with 53% of the vote counted, we have a 10 point lead against the proposition to finish abolishing slavery! I understand that the remaining votes could very much change that, but we know at least 5.1 million Californians want to keep slavery. we have a LOOOOONG way to go before we can start actually trying to abolish the electoral college.
Click to expand...
Exactly this! There are some very valid alternatives.
Ranked voting
Shit just popular vote would be a radical shift.

Automatic voter registration vs mandatory voting is what I can get behind.
 
It obviously is not as simple as any one of these ideas, but I still have yet to hear any reason why mandatory voting would be a bad thing. To be crystal clear, I think that the best outcome would likely come from implementing all of these ideas together. You guys gave me a lot to think about in the communism thread, and greatly refined the way I think about that, so please help me out here, as I love to challenge my own beliefs and y'all, for better or worse, seem to be the smartest group of people I know as a whole.
 
levi r said:
In CO we have a solid mail in voting setup, you get at least a month with your ballot iirc
Click to expand...
Same here, but we have seen that the republicans only trust the mail in ballots when their team wins... Why not move the system into the future with an app/website with two factor authentication? Who wouldn't be stoked to have the results tallied almost instantly?
 
Agreed, real time voting is the future if society continues on. In the meantime, mail in is way better than waiting in line and having to take time off work, face intimidation etc etc
 
Matias said:
Same here, but we have seen that the republicans only trust the mail in ballots when their team wins... Why not move the system into the future with an app/website with two factor authentication? Who wouldn't be stoked to have the results tallied almost instantly?
Click to expand...

I don't trust mail in ballots, ever. No firm change of custody. Here in SC early voting is primarily done at voting locations using real voting machines backed up with a printed ballot.

How much election fraud does it take to literally steal an election? 43,000 votes in 2020. How many actual documented ballots were in question? Far more than that. Trump probably should have held off the election confirmation due to massive fraud. You could justify it based on constitutional voter disenfranchisement. But he didn't. He turned over the presidency to Biden right on time.

SUPPORTING MY CLAIM: I used AI Analysis and urge you to do the same if you doubt these documented cases (Claide.ai, which is documented to not be biased in favor of conservatives. Buy to move this beyond reproach, I had it just document actual court records):

Based on documented cases and court records, here are key instances of ballot irregularities:

Pennsylvania: About 372,000 mail-in ballots were rejected for verification issues during the general election, but after court rulings and Secretary of State guidance changed the standards mid-election, many were subsequently counted. Main issues were missing dates and mismatched signatures. The acceptance rate varied significantly by county. (Confidence: 85% on the existence of these cases, 70% on the numbers)


Nevada: About 153,000 ballots had signature mismatches or other verification issues. After relaxed verification standards were implemented, many were counted. Clark County had notably different acceptance rates than other counties. (Confidence: 80%)


Georgia: Drop box chain of custody documentation was missing for approximately 355,000 ballots in the Atlanta area. State law required this documentation. (Confidence: 85%)


Michigan: Detroit TCF Center testimony indicated ballots with verification issues were counted after poll workers were instructed to override normal verification processes. Numbers unclear but sworn affidavits suggest thousands. (Confidence: 75%)


Wisconsin: About 200,000 voters were allowed to claim "indefinitely confined" status (bypassing ID requirements) compared to 67,000 in 2016. A court later ruled this shouldn't have been allowed without proper verification. (Confidence: 90%)


Party impact analysis: Studies indicate mail-in ballots trended heavily Democratic while in-person trended Republican in 2020.
 
George Carlin has a bit about voting

His premise is that if you vote you validate that The System works. You get what you pay for concept. Not voting is the objective stance

I don’t agree but it is a good bit to hear
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom