The American (USA) 2016 presidential elections thread?

[Ocean1]

There is. That's why they created the tool. The rest of us use our brains as we don't need a manual to work things out.

They created the tool to help amateur conspiracy theorists identify which of a small range of incredible theories they could believe.

On the evidence to date it's abundantly apparent that a seasoned professional such as yourself is absolutely capable of resolving every single one of the various and mutually exclusive impossibilities involved and needs no assistance whatsoever in believing every single one of them.

[mashman]

They created the tool to help amateur conspiracy theorists identify which of a small range of incredible theories they could believe.

On the evidence to date it's abundantly apparent that a seasoned professional such as yourself is absolutely capable of resolving every single one of the various and mutually exclusive impossibilities involved and needs no assistance whatsoever in believing every single one of them.

Who created it?

And you know my belief is what exactly? As stringent as yours because that's all you know? I sit at 51% conspiracy theory media v's 49% as advertised in the mainstream media with virtually every subject. Some are more obvious than other to be far from conspiracy theories. And given that so many conspiracy theories have become truths over the years, you know, the sinking of ships, coups, and the various modern day theatre that's put forwards with which to gain an objective, yeah right, view on the subject, how is one supposed to sift the wheat from the chaff? A practice exists, as do the people who undertake those practices. The rest is entirely up to you, and if you ever ........ ooo squirrel.

[Ocean1]

Who created it?

Who cares?

And you know my belief is what exactly?

Wrong.

As stringent as yours because that's all you know?.

Oh no, all I need to know to calibrate your credibility is your history of fracturing data to suit your narrative.

Which is overwhelmingly suggestive of a complete idiot.

Your propensity to then present such mashups of alternative facts as some sort of evidence supporting your economic cargo cult fantasies is the sort of behavior that's cute in a 4 year old, (and about as credible) but in a presumably grown man it's just plain pathetic.

[mashman]

Who cares?

Wrong.

Oh no, all I need to know to calibrate your credibility is your history of fracturing data to suit your narrative.

Which is overwhelmingly suggestive of a complete idiot.

Your propensity to then present such mashups of alternative facts as some sort of evidence supporting your economic cargo cult fantasies is the sort of behavior that's cute in a 4 year old, (and about as credible) but in a presumably grown man it's just plain pathetic.

Source matters yeah?

...

@ credibility. Your projection of what you read me as is well documented. It's wrong. But it's well documented. I'd expect any rational anarchist to understand that. Even a 4 year old one.

[oldrider]

Warning - those of delicate disposition should not look at this post!
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/...nvestigations/

[Graystone]

Like I thought - you wouldn't have a fucking clue.

Thats simply the way that you choose to interpret and believe - you sound (to me) like you would like to be a member of the thought police.

The spray and walk away approach is a dead giveaway, those who lack the wherewithal to discuss and defend their position and that which they post is a pretty good indicator that it's misinformation.

[mashman]

The spray and walk away approach is a dead giveaway, those who lack the wherewithal to discuss and defend their position and that which they post is a pretty good indicator that it's misinformation.

Maybe you should shout louder. CAPS is good for that apparently. Coz if you shout a little louder what you're saying might actually become true, as repeating it sure as hell isn't working. It's information. Make your own mind up as oldrider states. You're claiming to know why he's posting it when he has clearly stated why he has posting it. That's seriously irrational behaviour Son. Fucked in the head mentality even.

[Graystone]

Maybe you should shout louder. CAPS is good for that apparently. Coz if you shout a little louder what you're saying might actually become true, as repeating it sure as hell isn't working. It's information. Make your own mind up as oldrider states. You're claiming to know why he's posting it when he has clearly stated why he has posting it. That's seriously irrational behaviour Son. Fucked in the head mentality even.

What makes you think it isn't working? conspiracy theorists are still quickly identified and not taken seriously. Seems like it is working fine to me.

[mashman]

What makes you think it isn't working? conspiracy theorists are still quickly identified and not taken seriously. Seems like it is working fine to me.

Of course it seems to be working fine for you... coz you know why people post what they post better than they do. Hard to learn anything from that perspective, and the only reason you revert to name calling (despite deriding such approaches). Son, using hypocrisy, brute ignorance and name calling to claim logic, reason and common sense based on the opposite of what has been stated by another is a pathetic way to discount anything. Fortunately we know that that's the best you have and summarily laugh at it. You're dumb, but in a really funny way.

[Graystone]

Of course it seems to be working fine for you... coz you know why people post what they post better than they do. Hard to learn anything from that perspective, and the only reason you revert to name calling (despite deriding such approaches). Son, using hypocrisy, brute ignorance and name calling to claim logic, reason and common sense based on the opposite of what has been stated by another is a pathetic way to discount anything. Fortunately we know that that's the best you have and summarily laugh at it. You're dumb, but in a really funny way.

Name calling? I do not recall ever doing so, could you substantiate that, or is it exactly the type of misinformation I just characterised...

Given you seem to disagree with me, does that mean you think that conspiracy theorists are being taken seriously?

[mashman]

Name calling? I do not recall ever doing so, could you substantiate that, or is it exactly the type of misinformation I just characterised...

Given you seem to disagree with me, does that mean you think that conspiracy theorists are being taken seriously?

"The spray and walk away approach is a dead giveaway, those who lack the wherewithal to discuss and defend their position and that which they post is a pretty good indicator that it's misinformation.". You didn't characterise any misinformation, you played the man as a conspiracy theorist and therefore that's supposed to mean something in terms of the credibility of the information i.e. making your own mind up and dealing with it like a grown up. It's ok though, I realise that Denial is a river in Egypt.

Fuckwit.

[Graystone]

"The spray and walk away approach is a dead giveaway, those who lack the wherewithal to discuss and defend their position and that which they post is a pretty good indicator that it's misinformation.". You didn't characterise any misinformation, you played the man as a conspiracy theorist and therefore that's supposed to mean something in terms of the credibility of the information i.e. making your own mind up and dealing with it like a grown up. It's ok though, I realise that Denial is a river in Egypt.

Fuckwit.

And you think categorising someone is name calling? That seems a bit precious.

But to the more relevant point, do you think conspiracy theorists are being taken seriously?

[oldrider]

The spray and walk away approach is a dead giveaway, those who lack the wherewithal to discuss and defend their position and that which they post is a pretty good indicator that it's misinformation.

Agree to disagree - vive la difference perhaps?

[Graystone]

Agree to disagree - vive la difference perhaps?

Not quite sure you understand what that saying means. It applies after a thing has been discussed, and no consensus reached. You can't agree to disagree about misinformation because the discussing of such a thing makes it self evident. So it comes as not surprise you jump straight to such cop outs and by doing so implicitly confirm that it is indeed, simple misinformation.

[mashman]

And you think categorising someone is name calling? That seems a bit precious.

But to the more relevant point, do you think conspiracy theorists are being taken seriously?

Fuckwit.

Fuckwit.