US Presidential election | Page 38 | Vital Football

US Presidential election

Yes I'm aware of the frog.
Have you looked at what has been happening at the Vatican? (I should have mentioned that the lawyer stuff and the Vatican were separate things)

How did you become aware of the frog? Or maybe it's me who should be wondering how comes I wasn't aware of the frog until very recently? Not sure.

Have tried to have a look at what's happening at the Vatican but it's all blackout ;).

No, in all seriousness a few quick searches provided little but what appears to be mad right-wing conspiracy shit. Did find this but it doesn't prove anything either way:
https://www.ibtimes.sg/vatican-blackout-trends-twitter-people-try-link-it-us-election-fraud-54800
 
Grammar lesson Bud 😀

I thought it might have been. Cheers mate. In the spirit of mutual aid I will reciprocate, and in doing so perhaps elucidate.

"Didn't" is a contraction of, "did not"; whilst, "don't" is a contraction of, "do not".

Ergo, when you said that you, "did not delve as deep as [me]", the implication was that in this particular instance you did not research your source as thoroughly as I had. Given that the 'I' is situated next to the 'O' on most keyboards I thought it mildly amusing to suggest that you had made a typographical mistake and that what you had meant to write was that you do not research your sources as thoroughly as I do.

I expect that it was not a mistake and that you were referring merely to this particular instance. Also, I wasn't actually suggesting that I am any more thorough than you in my research, I was simply trying to have a little joke.

Hope this clarifies things and thanks again for the grammar lesson.
 
Yeah, fair enough, about the RAF. More here for anyone interested:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...lain-create-conditions-raf-win-battle-britain

But he did follow a policy of appeasement with regard to Hitler and continued the British government's policy of non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War. He was quite prepared to do business with fascists. He might have wanted and overseen rearmament but that had nothing to do with a desire to fight fascism.

It may be that the uk forces were not ready at the time and therefore the stalling tactic was being used. Depends who's history you read or believe lol.
 
It may be that the uk forces were not ready at the time and therefore the stalling tactic was being used. Depends who's history you read or believe lol.

Whose history you been reading then? Who is this revisionist historian (or historians) who have Chamberlain as an anti-fascist luring Hitler into some kind of false security that would allow a reinforced RAF to gloriously defeat the Nazis?!

C'mon Jerry, you know I don't just swallow any old shoite I'm told, but here I find your stance hard to follow. What makes you think that Chamberlain was no appeaser to fascism? Do you have any other evidence other than this rearmament stuff?

Worth noting that although the Battle of Britain was a crucial in preventing a Nazi invasion of Britain, it was primarily a defensive victory. Chamberlain might well deserve credit for his rearmament policy but hindsight is a marvellous thing, and as far as I know (though interested to hear otherwise) Chamberlain never did anything to confront fascism head on.
 
Whose history you been reading then? Who is this revisionist historian (or historians) who have Chamberlain as an anti-fascist luring Hitler into some kind of false security that would allow a reinforced RAF to gloriously defeat the Nazis?!

C'mon Jerry, you know I don't just swallow any old shoite I'm told, but here I find your stance hard to follow. What makes you think that Chamberlain was no appeaser to fascism? Do you have any other evidence other than this rearmament stuff?

Worth noting that although the Battle of Britain was a crucial in preventing a Nazi invasion of Britain, it was primarily a defensive victory. Chamberlain might well deserve credit for his rearmament policy but hindsight is a marvellous thing, and as far as I know (though interested to hear otherwise) Chamberlain never did anything to confront fascism head on.

seen many lectures on it. Most things written before 1967 would follow your understanding mainly based on Churchill's book and the denial of access to parliamentary records to his official biographer at the time.
The records were unlocked in 1967 and since then there have been several revisionist versions. Will look up the lectures if I remember, my understanding was as yours until I delved a bit deeper a few years ago.
Apart from starting the rearmament whilst awaiting the war with hitler and making the invasion of poland the red line (hardly hindsight)i cannot recall any specific anti fascist stance, maybe I'll look again.
 
way out of my depth here, but wasn't the foreign minister at the time a bit of a nazi sympathiser?

You mean Lord Halifax? Yeah, he was, I think.

He visited Nazi Germany in the mid Thirties and was impressed with the regime and it's leaders. He also used to hang out with Nancy Astor who was big supporter of Hitler.

All of those Tories (except Churchill) were either sympathisers or if not sympathisers, perfectly happy to do business with fascists. They also offered the Spanish Republic no support against Franco. Only when Hitler started invading other countries did they begin to be concerned about the danger of fascism.
 
Objective reality is not a slippery slope - let's look at your above examples.

1 - creationism - there is currently no evidence to suggest it is true, however you are welcome to your religious beliefs, so feel free to crack on with your own religious practises so long as they don't affect anyone negatively.

2 - This is an opinion, so you are entitled to your view.

3 - This is an opinion, so you are entitled to your view.

4 - This is an opinion, so you are entitled to your view.

Objective truth isn't believing the "right" thing.

Objective truth is accepting the facts as the facts - it's what society is basically based on.

The objective truth has been dissolved by the right since fox started basically, and has come to it's pinnacle with the terrorists in the capitol last week.
MM,

Are you content with your answers for 2, 3 and 4 ?
Indeed, people may be entitled to their view - but any negative answers could impact other people - so is "entitled to their view" the end of the matter ?

We are being asked:
"Do you believe other people should be allowed to do x, y or z. ? "

Surely the answer we give depends on how genuinely "liberal" we are ?
....With any variant of "no" being justified ?

The objective truth has been dissolved by the right since fox started basically, and has come to it's pinnacle with the terrorists in the capitol last week.
So "objectively", who were these "terrorists in the capitol last week" ?
i.e. How many ?
Which bit of the Capitol ?
How identified ?
By what criteria "terrorists"?
Just wondering what an "objective truth" might look like":oops:

There was no significant fraud was found (ie that could be deemed to be significant or potentially affecting to the results), despite numerous court cases being raised.
No one knows how "significant" because of the resistance to actually investigating the scores of witness statements and affidavits.
Almost all Court cases were thrown out on procedural grounds.
e.g. The Court having no locus to investigate claims - that being the role of other Agencies...
...or the Court having no power to instruct State Officials to investigate - so if they decline to do so, then "tips of icebergs" won't be investigated.

Which allows State Officials to say (imply):
"Based on the witness statements, the number of questionable votes wouldn't change the result (and we can't be bothered to look for any more.)"

If there had been fraud, simply put, they would've found it by now.
They have:
"Georgia's top election official, Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, said there were just two confirmed cases of votes attributed to dead people."
Who knows how hard they looked, but when the BBC leads with "no evidence of fraud", it lies.

Then there was the vote-flipping in Antrim County, Michigan.
Nearly 6,000 votes were wrongly given to Biden.
Apparently because an election Official, using a Dominion Tabulation Machine "accidentally" flipped a switch.
This was spotted when locals (who knew the area) queried the tally.
The "human error" was corrected.
So everything's rosy ??:(

Even assuming genuine error, surely the ease with which votes can be flipped should raise concerns ??
Have all Dominion Tabulation machines been checked for the relevant "switch" ?
 
Well that was a lot of tosh.

There was a quote from Timothy Snyder, author of "Oh Tyranny" about the start of fascism in the modern world, on the Daily Show FB page the other day that dated back to about four years ago...

"If you want to rip the heart out of a democracy, you go after facts. That's what modern authoritarians do.

Step 1 - you lie all the time

Step 2 - you say it's your oppnents and the journalists who lie

Step 3 - everyone looks around and says "what is truth? there is no truth"

Then resistance is impossible and the game is over"

I think the game is over for you Tarian.
 
Last edited:
MM,


So "objectively", who were these "terrorists in the capitol last week" ?
i.e. How many ?
Which bit of the Capitol ?
How identified ?
By what criteria "terrorists"?
Just wondering what an "objective truth" might look like":oops:

Can I recommend catching up with 'Storming the Capitol' from ITV and shown last night at 10.45. It followed a British cameraman and reporter as they moved with the mob that forced their way toward the heart of the building.
Observe the colour profile of those taking part. Listen to the rhetoric, see the tooled up militia men in combats and watch the organisers orchestrating.
Possibly answers one or two of your questions above.
 
Can I recommend catching up with 'Storming the Capitol' from ITV and shown last night at 10.45. It followed a British cameraman and reporter as they moved with the mob that forced their way toward the heart of the building.
Observe the colour profile of those taking part. Listen to the rhetoric, see the tooled up militia men in combats and watch the organisers orchestrating.
Possibly answers one or two of your questions above.


So their crime was being white?
 
Shame you can't watch the documentary. Are you aware of Pepe the Frog?

Think the film is available elsewhere and in the meantime, if you're interested, you could always read this:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/aug/31/feels-good-man-pepe-frog-4chan-documentary-film

The Pepe the Frog "Feel Good Man" type memes were around the internet looooooong before the 2016 US Presidential election. It was never an offensive meme.

And then Hilary Clinton discovered someone had done a picture of Pepe to look like Trump and then suddenly the left declared it a hate symbol because any image associated with Trump is by definition a hate symbol. The fact that 99.9999999% of all other images of Pepe were clean and generally wholesome was irrelevant. And in light of the fact Clinton and supporters got wound up by it all, it let to Trump supporters coming up with the like of

1610557118288.png

just to troll those on the Democrat side of politics.

The left see Pepe as a racist hate symbol on par with the swastika while the right wing sees it as a trolling opportunity.

It is kinda like the way the "OK" symbol as per below became a white supremacy hand signal according to the identify politics left the first time people noticed Trump often did the gesture.

1610557515618.png
 
Can I recommend catching up with 'Storming the Capitol' from ITV and shown last night at 10.45. It followed a British cameraman and reporter as they moved with the mob that forced their way toward the heart of the building.
Observe the colour profile of those taking part. Listen to the rhetoric, see the tooled up militia men in combats and watch the organisers orchestrating.
Possibly answers one or two of your questions above.

I watched it. Certainly wasn’t a peaceful protest like some were claiming. Vast majority of those people were undeniably nutcases at best.