irie wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:13 pm
Screwdriver wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 6:21 pm
I can't think why? The article just moans about Tucker and make unsubstantiated allegations. There is no factual content other than to say what did NOT happen. Can you not see how easy that sort of vacuous criticism is?
Then I got to the bit about criticising Tucker because of "the lies" regarding the Dominion voting machines. Naturally they wouldn't expand on what they mean by those "lies" because what Tucker actually did was to reveal the truth.
That is why he got fired and that is why the legacy media are so terrified of independent, real journalists.
And you
know that the above is "the truth" because someone somewhere who you have chosen to believe has said that it is.
For a brief moment, I thought you might be asking a sensible question but <sigh> just another insult.
For what it's worth, the mere fact that you stick a LOL at me tells me you have no idea what that report actually revealed about those Dominion machines. They were for example subpoena'd to be examined by an independent authority and the company point blank refused. Lots and lots of stuff like that, with witness statements, data logs revealing those machines were in fact networked, manipulation of error data. Tons and tons of very curious and suspicious "stories", 'accounts", "lies" (if you insist) and yet not a single one of them has ever been meaningfully addressed.
Even if every single one of the vast number of anomalous behaviours indicating election interference was a complete fabrication, you would expect they would therefore be easily and comprehensively rebutted with simple and incontrovertible evidence to prove beyond any doubt those allegations were false.
But no. Every single one is dodged, denied, refused or thrown out of court on some technicality. That in and of itself is enough for me to remain highly skeptical and yet for those who choose to lean the other way, they see the exact same scenario as "fair enough".
Getting back on topic, it reminds me of the attitude towards a US journalist daring to actually talk to the enemy. Er, ok so what is the plan then? One assumes at some stage someone will have to talk to Putin to negotiate some sort of settlement. Or is the plan to just keep syphoning off BILLIONS of dollars out of the economy and giving it to your mates in the weapons manufacturing industry. Billion for you, couple of million for me....
Question the irregularities and obvious signs or interference with the election and you are branded a right wing terr'ist by the legacy media. Well why is the data so unusual with record numbers of voters for the most deeply unpopular president of all time? Could it have been a done deal long before the election even took place? With 60% of the postal votes being harvested three months prior to the election? Is that why all Biden had to do was hide in his cellar and suppress all of the stories about his corrupt activities (in Ukraine!), denounce the Hunter Biden laptop, pump out non stop lies about Russian interference sponsored by H. Clinton. The whole thing was a scam.
Question the merit of pumping billions and billions of dollars into an unwinnable war in the most corrupt corner of the former Soviet Union and again, the legacy media will spend more time going after the whistleblower, denouncing them as traitors than addressing the facts (or lies!) of answers to questions which they insist cannot be asked. What is the plan then? Just keep going? Are things getting better? Or worse? What's the worst that could happen?
A more pertinent question being, who benefits most from this shitshow? Are the people making those decisions benefitting financially from the current situation and if so, what is their motivation (if any) for finding a peaceful solution?
)
