jakee

Can you? Who was paying who for what? You don't even believe there was an end result of this conspiracy, let alone that there is any evidence of its inner workings. See above, isn't this exactly what makes you a shitlib? You have no stance, no ideals, no principles, you'll just say anything to justify your glee at a bilionaire taking some imagined revenge on tens of thousands of ordinary working people and their families. Right, so the whole thing about Biden trying to get you fired was always a lie. Quelle surprise.

So you might as well dive right in? Ironic that the guys who coined that phrase used it to justify joining the Fascist party. That’s not hyperbole by the way, he literally became a member of Mussolini’s Fascist party because he bought it would help people. What lesson is it that you are taking from that exactly, given that you’re making the exact same mistake all over again 100 years later? Last time it was Fortune 10, wasn’t it? Your CV is moving up in the world! But you you’ve repeatedly told us your Damascus moment was when your employer decided to fire you and you couldn’t accept that it was a result of your own choices.

Exactly right - you assumed that because the people who sold you the InterNews story are so good at wrapping round their little fingers. And even now, you still believe the InterNews story despite having no other evidence, and despite finding your one bit of support was actually evidence of the exact opposite. How long do you think your list of conservative media viewpoints needs to be in order to convince people there’s a conspiracy to suppress conservative views?

You consumed the narrative that the entire media establishment was being scripted by USAID because someone fed you a video about Sinclair stations and lied to you about what it showed. It made you so hysterical about the conspiracy that you still insist it’s real even though all your evidence for it is gone. And the thing is, right, if you’re so proud of not consuming the media how are you so sure of what it’s doing? You intentionally avoid 99% of media stories yet you know exactly what 99% of those stories say right down to the nuance? How do you know? Who is telling that, and stoking your hysteria?

You do get that you are describing yourself, right? You don’t believe in democracy, you believe the rich and powerful should be in charge purely by the virtue of being rich and powerful, you’ve completely bought into the slogan of Doge without any concept of what they’re actually doing. You don’t appear to have any motivating beliefs or values beyond a vague desire for revenge against people you blame for your own career failings. Apart from the fact that shitlibs are obviously ‘other people’ - in what way are you not one under the above definition?

And the thing is, they told you this was the plan. The head of the Heritage Foundation and architect of Project 2025 said Viktor Orban of Hungary is THE model of conservative governance. A ruler who ended freedom of the press, brought the judiciary under complete political control and is an authoritarian proto-dictator. And we know Trump is happy to follow that model because he’s already literally tried to overthrow the government. But according to true partisans like Bigun, Kamal Harris mumble mumble something, and that’s just as bad.

Errrrrr, by voting for a mix of Republicans and Democrats. Not by voting for anyone outside the two party system.

So your argument now hinges on the question of why don't some mainstream liberal news sources present psychotic editorial stances? And if mainstream liberal news sources don't present psychotic editorial stances, it must be a conspiracy orchestrated by USAID? I really shouldn't have to tell you that you know that's total bollocks. A ) You absolutely did not do that, and you know you didn't. B ) A genuinely random sampling of 50 unconnected news organisations regarding for instance George Floyd would result in a mix of opinions including those in support of Derek Chauvin, and you know it would. By the way Mr Mathematical Man, run the numbers on the jury. With so much on the line and a far higher burden of proof than needed to write an opinion column, how sure must they all have been for 12 out of 12 of them to all individually vote the same way? Sounds pretty damn unlikely already doesn't it? I guess USAID paid them all off too. Hell, if you tweet that to Elon I bet it'll be reposted by tonight, and that will make it THE TRUTH. First, because it's the only piece of evidence you have provided, and the fact that you have not provided any other piece of evidence since shows that you never believed what you were saying, you were only ever pretending you could back it up. Second, aside from all these rabbit warrens you're trying to drag us down, it shows the difference between what your argument was at the start, vs what it is now. What you said originally was that every media organisation, even those that should be idealogically diverse, have the same exact messaging, even the same script, and that's proof that it's a USAID conspiracy. Well if that was true, it would be suspicious. But the only 'evidence' you had was the Sinclair clip, and you always knew that was never evidence. What you're saying now is that if you pick the news organisations that all lean to the same side anyway and ignore the ones that are idealogically diverse, then you kinda get the same general views about the same stories and none of them are even a little bit psychotic... and that is proof that there's a massive USAID conspiracy! It's quite obviously total bollocks and you absolutely do know that it is, otherwise you woudn't have tried to change your own argument so much. Oh good, you've run out of ways to talk obvious nonsense that you know is nonsense. So why not try talking about reality? For instance bang in the middle of Biden's presidency CNN famously hired a CEO with the mission statement of ditching the liberal image and making programming more attractive to Republican viewers. You know this is true. You know the version you're trying to push isn't true.

You don’t believe that any of that is anything other than mathematical gibberish and intentional falsehoods. Like where’s your 2% of white nationalists? Maybe they’re at Fox. Plenty of people on Fox were more than happy to defend Chauvin and denounce the guilty verdicts. So all of a sudden your stats, as utterly baseless and made up as they are… make perfect sense. Because as you very well know you can’t just cherry pick all the sources that agree, ignore the ones that don’t, and say ‘holy crap how unlikely is it that all these sources I’ve picked because they agree with each other actually agree with each other!?!?!?’ You know that would make any statisticians head explode. Otherwise you could say something like what are the chances Donald Trump got 70,000,000 votes? Like even if every one of them was 99.9999% Trump was their guy, the probability of every single one of them following through and voting that way is zero. Genuinely zero, you can’t even round it up to a comprehensible number. So Donald Trump definitely stole the election, because that’s how numbers work, right? Of course you don’t really believe that. You know very well where the error lies. And even that is still misdirection. Your earlier point with the Sinclair video wasn’t that all these sources merely agreed, it was that they were all reading from the same script! Which, again aside from all the people who work for Sinclair reading Sinclair’s pro-Trump script, you know is not a thing that is happening. You know that’s a nonsense conspiracy theory.

Oh ok, I guess he must be fine then! My mistake. Obviously you’re right, it’s completely impossible for someone half Jewish to be a racist shitposter. Obviously you know exactly why - you don’t really believe it. If you did, you would have found at least one source that actually demonstrates what you’re claiming instead of just pretending. Lol, you obviously don’t believe that! Take Floyd - victim of a murder so obvious that a serving police offer was successfully convicted of committing it (and you KNOW how difficult that is) - why would you expect any mainstream non far right source to have any significantly different opinions? The answer is that you wouldn’t and you don’t. I would imagine that every news source in the country (even including the right wing ones) had the same reactions after the Boston marathon bombings, for instance. Or 9/11. Must be a pro-nationalist conspiracy!

Thing is dude, you said that about people who thought Trump's idea was the permanent relocation of Palestinians out of Gaza. And he has since made it explicitly, undeniably clear that he really does want to ethnically cleanse Gaza by permanently relocating all the Palestinians. So it's kinda rich for you to imply that other people are being naive when you're going out of your way to not understand what's actually going on.

Again bro - the title of the video made it clear that they were all Sinclair stations. I.e. stations owned by Sinclair. You obviously know that you don't need a gov't conspiracy to explain why they're all saying the same thing. You didn't think it showed that, because you know it doesn't exist. If you did, you'd have tried to find some actual evidence instead of just pretending. And we both know you don't believe any of that. If you did, you wouldn't have chosen a source which makes it clear the originator of the theory is a fucking insane shitposter primarily motivated by a staggering level of explicit racism.

Just two completely unrelated mistakes which have absolutely nothing to do with each other, nothing to do with his extreme deportation drive against mostly Spanish speakers, and nothing to do with the openly white supremacist staffers he has supported and nominees he’s put forward to the Senate. Every single one of these is an isolated incident that can be explained away. It would be pure conspiracy theory to try and draw any wider conclusions.

And then you pretended it supported the USAID propaganda accusations, even though you know very well it doesn’t, not least because you know vey well that the accusations are fake. That’s good, since you know very well that it is. And you know it doesn’t make that point. You know there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that a bunch of different TV stations all owned by the same man should be ideologically diverse. You absolutely know that there is nothing inexplicable about that man deciding to make all his stations push the same pro-Trump messaging. But you tried it on anyway because you hoped no-one would check.

“A problem with how these things are covered is that Trump and his supporters are almost always allowed to get away with treating every individual instance of white supremacist speech, policy, association or staffing as just one individual thing on its own with no connection to the whole. Then every individual thing can be explained away on its own, that speech was misinterpreted, that dinner with a neo-Nazi was accidental, we didn't know that guy was into white-power when we hired him etc etc. When you put it all together though it's undeniable, but they're never hammered on it. “ Now, the next topic would be why did they do it at all? It’s the only language they took down. Why? And why have they done it… again? According to the article they took down the Spanish language site during Trump 1, promising it would be back soon and never brought it back. Now again they’re saying it will be back soon. Will it?

Which is why you know nothing about it, and why it was so easy for Musk to fool you into thinking a right wing media conglomerate pushing a mandatory pro-Trump message across its channels was actually evidence of a left wing deep state USAID propaganda plot? Ah, sorry I got sucked into taking your posts at face value for a moment. I know you don't really believe any of that, you just need some cover to make revelling in the illegal mass firings of tens of thousands of ordinary people less wealthy than you seem more palatable. A Skydive AZ tandem costs £260. In 2018 did it cost $90? $130? I find either of those hard to believe. Similarly a normal jump ticket is $33. In 2018 was it $11? $16.50? I think almost certainly not. What do you think it was? Now what about particularly egregious groceries? In 2018 a gallon of milk was $2.85, in 2024 it was $4.10. Doesn't look particularly like a 3x increase to me. And 2018 was a freakishly low priced year. In 2014 it was £3.82 and in 2007 it was $3.87! So really in nearly 20 years the peak price of milk has increased by 1.07x. If anything that sounds unsustainably low for producers.

So? Biden didn't do that, your companies did that. That would be a way out of complying with their own internal policy. Biden did not require you to be vaccinated or to say you were vaccinated. You were simply having a private dispute with your employer over the conditions of your employment. Given what you support you cannot possibly claim they did not have the right to fire you if they wanted. You think it causes wages to stay flat? No, people like Musk and Bezos do that.

There's nothing 'gotcha' about it. It's totally legal for Trump to take a large amount of money in exchange for pardoning someone he thinks should be executed, so there's nothing anyone can do about it. There's no come back. This is just curiosity. Now that Trump is in the White House he doesn't need the libertarian vote any more, and he sure as shit isn't one himself. He's quite radically the opposite of that. And of course, he also made a play for the WH via the super tough law and order 'kill all drug dealers' vote. So why did he choose to take the side of Ross Ulbricht, a man who made a shit ton of money selling drugs and doubtless has a large stash of untraceable bitcoin squirrelled away? It's (not) a mystery...

Which is, again, all obvious nonsense which you don't believe and which has nothing to do with the government potentially firing tens of thousands of people without due process. You just like seeing people fired.

The first sentence, dude. The very first sentence. The US Supreme Court has blocked President Joe Biden's rule requiring workers at large companies to be vaccinated or masked and tested weekly. Oh for sure Trump and his supporters spread a huge amount of disinformation on social media. Good to see you recognise that at least. But the clip you provide is of Sinclair's stations accusing the mainstream media of spreading misinformation against Trump. You know this (in part because the clip is literally titled "Sinclair's script for stations"), which is why I know you don't believe for a second that it has anything to do with USAID.

No he didn't. What do you care if a private company decides to fire someone? You like people being fired.

Ok, you've got a clip of a number of local stations all owned by the same media company reading out a pro-Trump statement written by the owner of the company. It's very obvious that you don't believe any of that has anything to do with USAID.

It's not the Government's fault that wages are constant, and firing a huge number of people while cutting benefits and services for those on low wages won't make them change by a cent. You dont believe that for a second. Then you were never under threat. So why all the bitching and moaning? <Sigh> Internet censorship and media narratives did not cause covid.

You don't really believe any of that. Anyway: You voted specifically to make the thing which hapened to you that you hated, happen to tens of thousands of other people? Do you still think it was unfair or wrong in anyway when it was done to you? If so, how do you justify that feeling when it's actually what you want?

You don't believe any of that. Anyway, you said you voted for Trump primarily because the Dems tried to get you fired. Now, Musk and Trump are illegally firing tens of thousands of people. Real people with families to feed and mortgages to pay. Aren't you angry about that? It's exactly what you ought to hate. Or are you more of a revenge kinda person - like if you can't have exactly what you want then fuck everyone else?