"Democracy is Teetering"

There are Democrats and Independents who will be voting for Biden as they likely would in any election, but the fanatics in the U.S. are almost entirely on the Right.   As far as a criminal past, Trump makes Biden look like Mr. Rogers.

^ And incidentally, the topic of masks is a good example for how "the system", through massive gaslighting, creates confusion and chaos to distract people from the important things that are happening simultaneously. Assuming that masks don't actually work (which, as the article above reminds us, has always been the scientific consensus before the pandemic), getting people riled up to either support masks (and attack the evil mask deniers), or fight masks (and the "sheep" wearing them), it's just yet another circus (as in bread and circuses), while governments around the world are changing legislation to move us further away from liberty and closer towards an authoritarian society, including censorship and also giving more and more power to openly undemocratic organisations, like the WHO and (in Europe) the EU commission. Which takes us back to the "teetering democracy".

Edited by MikeEnRegalia - April 03 2024 at 23:47

^ There are no 'fanatical Biden supporters', that's why Trump has a chance to win.

My understanding is that most conspiracy theorists have an emotional investment in their chosen theory, and emotion is very hard to shift with logic.

^ the point being?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: SteveG wrote: Let's use an example. Donald Trump was recently bailed out of paying a bond in excess of 175 million dollars, in a NYC court case that ruled against him, by a billionaire as Trump couldn't come up with the money himself. That's an exuberant amount of money "lent" by the billionaire as the chances of paying back the debt, even without interest, is slim to none. It's fair to assume that such an action would be devoid of some future lobbying, either political or in some way financial.  Is there any president for that action? Yes of course. But it need not be done as any back room deal as it's commonly done in the open with business lobbyists supporting politicians and their causes, so why not a back room deal? Now, this is all an example. I don't know who this billionaire is, so I reserve judgement. But this example is based on rational and compelling arguments. But none of this is a known fact, so I would caution anyone taking it as fact until this argument is proven concretely. That's something conspiracy theorists seldom do. The argument becomes a fact with no evidence to support it. Let's not forget that the whole court case was arguably silly in the first place. I fail to see the relevance of the example. It's douche vs. turd. Neither stands for democracy, it's two sides of the same (rotten) coin.

The relevance was the possibility of the rich in political power. It was a conspiracy theory that can't be proven. Is that what's bothering you?

Lewian wrote: The thing with discussing "conspiracy theories" and how "conspiracy theorists" argue is that it distracts from whatever topic the "conspiracy theory" is about, here democracy and its problems. You've got to give it to siLLy puPPy that at least from time to time he puts his cards on the table so that it is possible to see what his actual "theory" is, and whether it holds water (even though of course where the stuff he posts doesn't hold water it's always "far more complicated and far more research is needed to understand it all"). Now when I look at this: The world is ruled by a small number of extremely wealthy people - assuming that this is your view (in case it's not maybe better say that it's not and what it is instead rather than saying that "your words are twisted") - I have the following questions, given that we have elections and what happens in a democracy in some way depends on who is elected:

SteveG wrote: Let's use an example. Donald Trump was recently bailed out of paying a bond in excess of 175 million dollars, in a NYC court case that ruled against him, by a billionaire as Trump couldn't come up with the money himself. That's an exuberant amount of money "lent" by the billionaire as the chances of paying back the debt, even without interest, is slime to none.

Great typo. Or was it intentional?

The thing with discussing "conspiracy theories" and how "conspiracy theorists" argue is that it distracts from whatever topic the "conspiracy theory" is about, here democracy and its problems.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Atavachron wrote: ^ No, conspiracy theorists are attracted to the plausibility of a conspiracy.   Nothing wrong with that any more than being attracted to the non-conspiracy narrative.   What's important is knowing what things are conspiracy and what aren't.   No easy task. So conspiracy theorists are sometimes right, and sometimes wrong? That was kind of my point, since it was suggested that they're never right.

Well sure because sometimes conspiracies are real.   It's incorrect to assume that someone who is generally non-Conspiracy is simply ignorant of that, or of the fact that certain specific conspiracies may exist.   In fact it's often because they've traveled that long road, been sown that deep ravine, and realized there are superior & more accurate ways of perceiving things.