Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Who cares who is using  marijuana? On the other hand, you better care who is on meth and heroin along with some other stuff. If you know any people on these things, you know the real truth about what destroys

https://www.thedailybeast.com/wisconsin-...s?ref=home

The number of idiots that believe in (and act upon) conspiracy theories these days is troubling.

Certainly didn't help having a POTUS for four years constantly lending them credence on a nearly daily basis.

Of course we now have a number of these morons in Congress espousing Qanon bull [BLEEP] to their constituents.

I wonder if the upcoming impeachment trial might establish some new precedent on propagation of disinformation that leads to illegal actions from supporters? It seems like our justice system may be in need of something more suiting the times soon.

There are lots of people that believe in easily falsifiable conspiracy theories, but they are in the vast minority when it comes to the whole of the population. Again, news takes one crazy and makes them into a sizeable force. Always one way. It's all Trump's fault.

(02-01-2021, 11:46 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]There are lots of people that believe in easily falsifiable conspiracy theories, but they are in the vast minority when it comes to the whole of the population. Again, news takes one crazy and makes them into a sizeable force. Always one way.  It's all Trump's fault.

Hundreds of people storming the capitol, killing a cop in the process is a sizeable force that no news outlet need magnify to be considered such. 

One nutcase squandering valuable life saving medication is also impactful without being a "sizeable force." 

The capitol siege wasn't "all Trump's fault" but he played his role and did too little too late to quell it. 

The question I'm raising is about where accountability should come into play legally -  given the rise of so many conspiracy theories and their rapid propagation via the internet and S.M. 

"Vast minority" doesn't mean [BLEEP] when you have enough nutjobs actually taking violent or life threatening action.

This is true of BLM, too. Police brutality, the way it's portrayed by the media, is a myth. That lie has created division and devastation in this country, but those sources get to keep their legitimacy. Why? What happened at the Capitol was not ok, but it was preceded by a media that rationalized leftist violence for months, but they still get to keep their legitimacy. Those conspiracy groups would not be growing the way they are if our media was responsible, transparent, and unbiased. It's not. Instead of holding our institutions accountable, we're going to keep chipping away at freedom of speech. Keep running with it, bro. We'll get where you want us.

I'm really mad at Trump for his comments on the 6th that made that guy plant those pipe bombs on January 5th. Damn him and his time machine.

(02-01-2021, 11:07 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.thedailybeast.com/wisconsin-...s?ref=home

The number of idiots that believe in (and act upon) conspiracy theories these days is troubling.

Certainly didn't help having a POTUS for four years constantly lending them credence on a nearly daily basis.

Of course we now have a number of these morons in Congress espousing Qanon bull [BLEEP] to their constituents.

I wonder if the upcoming impeachment trial might establish some new precedent on propagation of disinformation that leads to illegal actions from supporters?  It seems like our justice system may be in need of something more suiting the times soon.

You can't be serious.

(02-01-2021, 03:25 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-01-2021, 11:07 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.thedailybeast.com/wisconsin-...s?ref=home

The number of idiots that believe in (and act upon) conspiracy theories these days is troubling.

Certainly didn't help having a POTUS for four years constantly lending them credence on a nearly daily basis.

Of course we now have a number of these morons in Congress espousing Qanon bull [BLEEP] to their constituents.

I wonder if the upcoming impeachment trial might establish some new precedent on propagation of disinformation that leads to illegal actions from supporters?  It seems like our justice system may be in need of something more suiting the times soon.

You can't be serious.

He is.. Just sit back and watch.. He's one of the posters I laugh at the most. Dude's hilarious lolol

(02-01-2021, 11:07 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.thedailybeast.com/wisconsin-...s?ref=home

The number of idiots that believe in (and act upon) conspiracy theories these days is troubling.

Certainly didn't help having a POTUS for four years constantly lending them credence on a nearly daily basis.

Of course we now have a number of these morons in Congress espousing Qanon bull [BLEEP] to their constituents.

I wonder if the upcoming impeachment trial might establish some new precedent on propagation of disinformation that leads to illegal actions from supporters?  It seems like our justice system may be in need of something more suiting the times soon.

 

(02-01-2021, 03:11 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I'm really mad at Trump for his comments on the 6th that made that guy plant those pipe bombs on January 5th. Damn him and his time machine.

LOL

He lied to anyone who'd listen about the election results being fraudulent for weeks on end.

He believed the election was stolen. Stacey Abrams still hasn't conceded. The standards are one sided.

(02-01-2021, 03:47 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-01-2021, 03:11 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I'm really mad at Trump for his comments on the 6th that made that guy plant those pipe bombs on January 5th. Damn him and his time machine.

LOL

He lied to anyone who'd listen about the election results being fraudulent for weeks on end.

He was correct about that.

(02-01-2021, 04:16 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-01-2021, 03:47 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]LOL

He lied to anyone who'd listen about the election results being fraudulent for weeks on end.

He was correct about that.

His own AG and a multitude of duly elected judges who threw out case after case disagree with you. 

It was a lie. Black and white and irrefutable.

(02-01-2021, 04:18 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-01-2021, 04:16 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]He was correct about that.

His own AG and a multitude of duly elected judges who threw out case after case disagree with you. 

It was a lie. Black and white and irrefutable.

Perfectly refutable, and denying it because your guy won just creates further distrust in the system.

(02-01-2021, 04:18 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-01-2021, 04:16 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]He was correct about that.

His own AG and a multitude of duly elected judges who threw out case after case disagree with you. 

It was a lie. Black and white and irrefutable.

I literally just made a post addressing this. Barr said there wasn't evidence to prove the fraud was extensive enough to overturn the election. The courts threw it out on standing, which is basically the same thing. Trump never got to present evidence in the courts, so the fact you guys keep saying there wasn't evidence is patently false. The debate that you want to have is whether or not he can PROVE it would have changed the election, and he can't. You win that one. However, there is evidence of fraud. There is evidence of shenanigans. It just isn't enough to do anything with it. This should lend itself to the debate that would prevent this resentment in the future, which is how do we have secure and transparent elections. Which party doesn't want to address that?

(02-01-2021, 04:08 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]He believed the election was stolen. Stacey Abrams still hasn't conceded. The standards are one sided.

Just like Hillary believed the election was stolen from her in 2016. Both were/are delusional. The system works, they just didn't agree with the outcome, because it didn't go their way. That's called being a sore loser. They're two of a kind, only one of them didn't start an insurrection over it. 

(02-01-2021, 04:26 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-01-2021, 04:18 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]His own AG and a multitude of duly elected judges who threw out case after case disagree with you. 

It was a lie. Black and white and irrefutable.

Perfectly refutable, and denying it because your guy won just creates further distrust in the system.

(02-01-2021, 04:46 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-01-2021, 04:18 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]His own AG and a multitude of duly elected judges who threw out case after case disagree with you. 

It was a lie. Black and white and irrefutable.

I literally just made a post addressing this. Barr said there wasn't evidence to prove the fraud was extensive enough to overturn the election. The courts threw it out on standing, which is basically the same thing. Trump never got to present evidence in the courts, so the fact you guys keep saying there wasn't evidence is patently false. The debate that you want to have is whether or not he can PROVE it would have changed the election, and he can't. You win that one. However, there is evidence of fraud. There is evidence of shenanigans. It just isn't enough to do anything with it. This should lend itself to the debate that would prevent this resentment in the future, which is how do we have secure and transparent elections. Which party doesn't want to address that?

Yawn


There is a limited amount of fraud in every election.

Pressed time and again, there has been zero evidence that fraud in this election was enough to affect results in any state. 

These are facts. Not opinion.
 They've been agreed upon unilaterally by lawmakers. 
  The insistence that there is some underlying "steal" is pure and absolute fiction.

(02-02-2021, 01:15 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-01-2021, 04:26 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Perfectly refutable, and denying it because your guy won just creates further distrust in the system.

(02-01-2021, 04:46 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I literally just made a post addressing this. Barr said there wasn't evidence to prove the fraud was extensive enough to overturn the election. The courts threw it out on standing, which is basically the same thing. Trump never got to present evidence in the courts, so the fact you guys keep saying there wasn't evidence is patently false. The debate that you want to have is whether or not he can PROVE it would have changed the election, and he can't. You win that one. However, there is evidence of fraud. There is evidence of shenanigans. It just isn't enough to do anything with it. This should lend itself to the debate that would prevent this resentment in the future, which is how do we have secure and transparent elections. Which party doesn't want to address that?

Yawn


There is a limited amount of fraud in every election.

Pressed time and again, there has been zero evidence that fraud in this election was enough to affect results in any state. 

These are facts. Not opinion.
 They've been agreed upon unilaterally by lawmakers. 
  The insistence that there is some underlying "steal" is pure and absolute fiction.

Agree 1000%.

(02-02-2021, 02:56 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2021, 01:15 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Yawn


There is a limited amount of fraud in every election.

Pressed time and again, there has been zero evidence that fraud in this election was enough to affect results in any state. 

These are facts. Not opinion.
 They've been agreed upon unilaterally by lawmakers. 
  The insistence that there is some underlying "steal" is pure and absolute fiction.

Agree 1000%.

Four USSC Justices disagreed with that assessment. Had the 5th been seated in time to be part of the case then this would've been a whole different narrative.

(02-02-2021, 09:17 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2021, 02:56 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Agree 1000%.

Four USSC Justices disagreed with that assessment. Had the 5th been seated in time to be part of the case then this would've been a whole different narrative.

Two of the "cases" of voter fraud that made their way to the supreme court were immediately dismissed as baseless. 
To which case are you referring?