NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 2

[Kurve]

Here is US Politics - Pt 1

 

[PurpleEyes]

No problem, I appreciate your response.

You asked me to try and put it into my own words with quotes to support it. Specifically in regards to the transcript. And I did that.
It's also hard to explain intent, manipulation, coercive language etc. Especially on such a politically charged topic.
And we are always going to interpret information with their own biases.




But it brings me back to my original point and reason for raising it.
If you cannot see anything wrong with the Trump-Ukraine scandal, then what can you possibly say that Joe Biden HAS done, with evidence, that is worse?

If you can look at that transcript, and state that there was nothing you can see that could even imply impropriety, (let alone in connection to the other actions). Then what is a single thing that Joe Biden has said or done that you can actually condemn, while maintaining your same standards for Trump?

In this question and approach you are totally ignoring the political climate in the US in which this transcript was only allowed to be released by a treasonous whistle-blower because of that very one-sided biased anti-Trump climate.
You and many other anti-Trumpers see impeachment in this transcript. I do not see it. That is, this transcript was only allowed to be made public because of the "let's get Trump" climate that exists in the US.
My strong belief is that the same conversation or worse could be had between Biden and another foreign leader and we would never hear of it. This is what I feel you are missing.

There are numerous examples of this one-sided bias against Trump. The Hunter Biden laptop was dismissed by MSM as Russia misinformation. We now know that was blatantly wrong.
Anti-Trumpers like to take the wins every time a Trump supporter is sued or jailed, but fail to ever step back to consider that the DOJ has been corrupted and a Lawfair now exists in the US, hence the reason for only Trump supporters being found guilty. And please do not respond with whatabout Hunter Biden's latest guilty conviction ... that is just theatrics and part of this propaganda narrative at play.

 

[CM86]

In this question and approach you are totally ignoring the political climate in the US in which this transcript was only allowed to be released by a treasonous whistle-blower because of that very one-sided biased anti-Trump climate.
You and many other anti-Trumpers see impeachment in this transcript. I do not see it. That is, this transcript was only allowed to be made public because of the "let's get Trump" climate that exists in the US.
My strong belief is that the same conversation or worse could be had between Biden and another foreign leader and we would never hear of it. This is what I feel you are missing.

There are numerous examples of this one-sided bias against Trump. The Hunter Biden laptop was dismissed by MSM as Russia misinformation. We now know that was blatantly wrong.
Anti-Trumpers like to take the wins every time a Trump supporter is sued or jailed, but fail to ever step back to consider that the DOJ has been corrupted and a Lawfair now exists in the US, hence the reason for only Trump supporters being found guilty. And please do not respond with whatabout Hunter Biden's latest guilty conviction ... that is just theatrics and part of this propaganda narrative at play.

No, that's fine and I understand that.

As there is so much discussion around Biden being corrupt etc, I'm asking what can be pointed to, with evidence, of something Biden has said or done that supports the claims of corruption/evil etc... By people who cannot see any impropriety with the Trump-Ukraine scandal.

 

[CM86]

I will just say on this, if your position is going to be that the lack of evidence is the evidence, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

In this question and approach you are totally ignoring the political climate in the US in which this transcript was only allowed to be released by a treasonous whistle-blower because of that very one-sided biased anti-Trump climate.
You and many other anti-Trumpers see impeachment in this transcript. I do not see it. That is, this transcript was only allowed to be made public because of the "let's get Trump" climate that exists in the US.
My strong belief is that the same conversation or worse could be had between Biden and another foreign leader and we would never hear of it. This is what I feel you are missing.

There are numerous examples of this one-sided bias against Trump. The Hunter Biden laptop was dismissed by MSM as Russia misinformation. We now know that was blatantly wrong.
Anti-Trumpers like to take the wins every time a Trump supporter is sued or jailed, but fail to ever step back to consider that the DOJ has been corrupted and a Lawfair now exists in the US, hence the reason for only Trump supporters being found guilty. And please do not respond with whatabout Hunter Biden's latest guilty conviction ... that is just theatrics and part of this propaganda narrative at play.

Mate, you're more articulate than most of the cookers here, but this is still cooker stuff.

And you're also smart enough to avoid answering "Why are you a Trump supporter?"

In fact, I don't think one Trumpie has ever answered that question here.

 

[PurpleEyes]

OK, simplify it for me.

Whay are you a Trump supporter?

I'll try hard to keep it simple and short ...

Trump is currently the best leader available to upset the current corrupt globalist cabal that exists in the US.
The MAGA community are not so much Republicans vs Democratics. Both political parties in the US are as bad as each other.
Both political parties hate Trump because he continues to shine the light on the Establishment/Deep State/Globalists.

Once you open your mind to consider such a thing, the pieces of the puzzle make sense.

Trump is no saint, but I am not one who knocks a leader unless I am confident of a better choice.
I believe the US currently has buyers remorse for thinking Biden would be better.

 

[PurpleEyes]

He isn't a Trump supporter... He just thinks that the Jan 6th insurrectionists did nothing wrong.

Can you please name me a Jan 6th insurrectionist found guilty, and what their actual charge and sentence was?

EDIT: I'll make that easier, just give me a name of one.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

I'll try hard to keep it simple and short ...

Trump is currently the best leader available to upset the current corrupt globalist cabal that exists in the US.
The MAGA community are not so much Republicans vs Democratics. Both political parties in the US are as bad as each other.
Both political parties hate Trump because he continues to shine the light on the Establishment/Deep State/Globalists.

Once you open your mind to consider such a thing, the pieces of the puzzle make sense.

Trump is no saint, but I am not one who knocks a leader unless I am confident of a better choice.
I believe the US currently has buyers remorse for thinking Biden would be better.

OK, some questions.

Who are the persons / entities comprising the "current corrupt globalist cabal that exists in the US"?

On what basis do you base your claim that "The MAGA community are not so much Republicans"? How do you refute the view that they are absolutely a sub-set of the population of Republicans? The sub-set that supports Trump.

There is plenty of evidence that only the non-MAGA Republicans hate Trump - what is your evidence to the contrary?

Who are the persons / entities comprising the Establishment/Deep State/Globalists? Are all three the same? What are they focused on achieving? Any evidence or examples to support this?

What is your evidence that Trump continues to shine the light on these entities? Do you have any clear examples of him doing so?

If you could answer these questions with clear and irrefutable evidence, I would be most surprised. I'm betting you can't. Absent any plausible evidence, your claims are not indicative of an open mind, despite you implying they are.

 

[CM86]

Can you please name me a Jan 6th insurrectionist found guilty, and what their actual charge and sentence was?

EDIT: I'll make that easier, just give me a name of one.

Was anyone even charged with insurrection??

If this is a terminology thing, I'm happy to change my language to "The people who attacked the capitol on January the 6th".

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Can you please name me a Jan 6th insurrectionist found guilty, and what their actual charge and sentence was?

EDIT: I'll make that easier, just give me a name of one.

Here's a list of over 1,000 who were found guilty. It's 9 months old, so the number is under-stated.

Full list of Capitol rioters jailed so far, the sentences they are serving

Around 64 percent of those who have received sentences in relation to the January 6 uprising have been handed jail time.

www.newsweek.com

Edit: Aaah, I see you're going with the usual semantics around insurrection.

 

[CM86]

Here's a list of over 1,000 who were found guilty. It's 9 months old, so the number is under-stated.

Full list of Capitol rioters jailed so far, the sentences they are serving

Around 64 percent of those who have received sentences in relation to the January 6 uprising have been handed jail time.

www.newsweek.com

Edit: Aaah, I see you're going with the usual semantics around insurrection.

Yep agreed.
A sort of terminology/word trick.

I used the word insurrectionists.
And the talking point is that these people were charged with like, trespass, assault, civil disorder, conspiracy to commit etc etc etc.
Insurrection isn't really something that you charge individuals with, especially as there was no successful insurrection. So it's used as 'evidence' that Trump could not be guilty of incitement of insurrection as no one was found guilty of 'committing an insurrection', kind of thing.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

I think it's a sort of terminology/word trick.

I used the word insurrectionists.
And the talking point is that these people were charged with like, trespass, assault, civil disorder, conspiracy to commit etc etc etc.
Insurrection isn't really something that you charge individuals with, so it's used as 'evidence' that Trump could not be guilty of incitement of insurrection as no one was found guilty of 'committing an insurrection', kind of thing.

Indeed. Insurrection requires proof of intent and that is the most difficult thing to prove. The prosecutors took the pragmatic approach of prosecuting offences that were more straightforward to prove (the usual strategy), i.e. the trespass, obstruction, assault, etc. that was all on camera. They even got the main Proud Boy for the more serious charge of seditious conspiracy, because they could prove it based on his communications.

We all know Trump's actions were those of an insurrectionist, but it's near impossible to prove the intent behind those actions in the absence of documentary evidence.

Stating that no insurrection charges mean no insurrection took place is akin to saying a Not Guilty verdict means innocent.

 

[Lebbo73]

Lebbo73 Why is it that people in your position and people in the above position completely disagree with each other on the laptop stuff, but you never argue with each other?


They are pointing out that there was nothing on the laptop, and only nutters believe the pedo stuff.


You dispute Malifice's position by saying there is pedo stuff on the laptop.
They dispute Malifice's position by saying there is no pedo stuff and no one believed there was.

But you don't seem to find disagreement with each other on this.

There’s plenty of Americans and alternative media in America talking about the laptop from hell and its’ contents. We’ll all just have to be patient and wait, won’t we!

 

[CM86]

There’s plenty of Americans and alternative media in America talking about the laptop from hell and its’ contents. We’ll all just have to be patient and wait, won’t we!

I can agree with that.

But what I'm asking you, is why do you not disagree with all the people who say you're wrong? Why only some.

There are posters saying that not only are you wrong, but that you're so wrong that almost no one else in the world is 'crazy' enough to believe what you believe.

They say Mal is wrong for his position on 'the laptop', because it's ridiculous to think people actually believe the disinformation (their words as well) about the pedo stuff etc. And that almost no one would be fooled by it. Basically that people like you, and many Americans and alternative media don't really exist.

Why don't you ever correct them, or explain to them why they're wrong to think it's fake etc?

 

[Stokey]

Just finished up my meeting with the great man. He's going to win bigly.

 

[PurpleEyes]

Indeed. Insurrection requires proof of intent and that is the most difficult thing to prove. The prosecutors took the pragmatic approach of prosecuting offences that were more straightforward to prove (the usual strategy), i.e. the trespass, obstruction, assault, etc. that was all on camera. They even got the main Proud Boy for the more serious charge of seditious conspiracy, because they could prove it based on his communications.

We all know Trump's actions were those of an insurrectionist, but it's near impossible to prove the intent behind those actions in the absence of documentary evidence.

Stating that no insurrection charges mean no insurrection took place is akin to saying a Not Guilty verdict means innocent.

And here lies the problem that I am trying to explain.
There is a two-tiered justice system in the US using lawfare to persecute, attack, cancel and silence Trump supporters.

I asked for one name charged with insurrection and so far we have mentioned an individual who was the main Proud Boy.
He (Enrique Tarrio) wasn't even at DC on Jan 6, and now has a 22 year prison sentence because of some messages sent on the day to some other Proud Boys that were there. There was no evidence shown of any conspiracy, plot or plans ... just Tarrio celebrating some of the actions of his mates.
The prosecution wanted 30 years are are even appealing the 22 year sentence. The maximum sentence for seditious conspiracy is 20 years so they had to pile on other nonsense charges aswell.
Appeals courts have since found egregious sentencing for J6ers stating the use of enhancements when sentencing were not proper or lawful.
Prior to these Jan 6 prosecutions, the last time a person was found guilty of seditious conspiracy in the US was in 1995 when some Islamic militants conspired to bomb New York landmarks.

The Feds asked Tarrio to do a deal and have him lie about Trump being involved in a conspiracy to attack the Capitol.

And now we have anti-Trumpers celebrating Tarrio's sentencing because they will gladly take any wins, regardless of the details or justice, so long as it means a point score against Trump and Trump supporters.

 

[Malifice]

And here lies the problem that I am trying to explain.
There is a two-tiered justice system in the US using lawfare to persecute, attack, cancel and silence Trump supporters.

I asked for one name charged with insurrection and so far we have mentioned an individual who was the main Proud Boy.
He (Enrique Tarrio) wasn't even at DC on Jan 6, and now has a 22 year prison sentence because of some messages sent on the day to some other Proud Boys that were there. There was no evidence shown of any conspiracy, plot or plans ... just Tarrio celebrating some of the actions of his mates.
The prosecution wanted 30 years are are even appealing the 22 year sentence. The maximum sentence for seditious conspiracy is 20 years so they had to pile on other nonsense charges aswell.
Appeals courts have since found egregious sentencing for J6ers stating the use of enhancements when sentencing were not proper or lawful.
Prior to these Jan 6 prosecutions, the last time a person was found guilty of seditious conspiracy in the US was in 1995 when some Islamic militants conspired to bomb New York landmarks.

The Feds asked Tarrio to do a deal and have him lie about Trump being involved in a conspiracy to attack the Capitol.

And now we have anti-Trumpers celebrating Tarrio's sentencing because they will gladly take any wins, regardless of the details or justice, so long as it means a point score against Trump and Trump supporters.

Didn't an impartial jury find that he literally coordinated an armed attack on the Capital with the goal of overturning a democratic election?

On January 6, Tarrio told his followers on social media, "Do what must be done"; later, in an encrypted group chat, he directed other Proud Boys to "Do it again." In another message, Tarrio wrote, "Make no mistake. We did this."[78] Prosecutors also introduced evidence that Tarrio had discussed with associates a plan to have a large crowd in Washington storm government buildings, a scheme that the Proud Boys dubbed "1776 Returns", in which "The Winter Palace" was used as apparent code for the US Capitol.[87]

Tarrio chose not to take the stand to testify in his own defense.[84] A key prosecution witness was former Proud Boy Jeremy Bertino, a former lieutenant of Tarrio who after the January 6 attack pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy and cooperated with the government. On the stand, Bertino implicated Tarrio and his codefendants in the conspiracy, testifying that their objective was to subvert the election results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Tarrio

 

[Stokey]

Stating that no insurrection charges mean no insurrection took place is akin to saying a Not Guilty verdict means innocent.

It really isn't. And why does not guilty not mean innocent?

Sounds like the typical
'I like the legal system when they deliver the verdict I wanted'
'I like the Supreme Court when they deliver a verdict I agree with but if they dont then they are corrupt and the bench needs to be expanded.

 

[PurpleEyes]

Didn't an impartial jury find that he literally coordinated an armed attack on the Capital with the goal of overturning a democratic election?

No, but I am not surprised to see you here gaslighting.

 

[CM86]

No, but I am not surprised to see you here gaslighting.

is there some way you would you like people to engage with you?
Or would you prefer if people didn't.

Because you are just making claims and wanting them to be accepted. And it seems that anyone who has a different opinion to you on your claims are deliberate actors who are part of a system geared at 'discrediting the truth'. Gaslighting etc. Rather than substantiating your claims.
I don't see a way to engage with you, with that framework.


Do you want your ideas and views to be challenged, or would you prefer to just be able to post your opinions to people to be agreed with?
I ask because you and I have very different base positions that many of these issues stem from, and I don't want you to feel attack by me responding to you, if you don't actually want that kind of interaction.

 

[CM86]

It really isn't. And why does not guilty not mean innocent?

Sounds like the typical
'I like the legal system when they deliver the verdict I wanted'
'I like the Supreme Court when they deliver a verdict I agree with but if they dont then they are corrupt and the bench needs to be expanded.

I agree that people shouldn't only support a system when the outcome suits them, and discredit the system when the outcome doesn't suit them.



Having said that, I don't think anyone is able to defend the millions that Justice Clarence Thomas of the SCOTUS has received from obviously vested interests.
I think the only possible response people defending him can make is to ignore it or to point to a different situation in some form of whataboutism.

 

[PurpleEyes]

is there some way you would you like people to engage with you?
Or would you prefer if people didn't.

Because you are just making claims and wanting them to be accepted. And it seems that anyone who has a different opinion to you on your claims are deliberate actors who are part of a system geared at 'discrediting the truth'. Gaslighting etc. Rather than substantiating your claims.
I don't see a way to engage with you, with that framework.


Do you want your ideas and views to be challenged, or would you prefer to just be able to post your opinions to people to be agreed with?
I ask because you and I have very different base positions that many of these issues stem from, and I don't want you to feel attack by me responding to you, if you don't actually want that kind of interaction.

The gaslighting comment was directed at one particular poster who has a long history with me.
And any thread he finds me in generally ends up with him banning me from the thread after I show evidence supporting my gaslighting claims.

Only this morning I was banned from yet another covid vaccine thread with no infractions or warnings.
This is the world we live in, but it is only apparent to those who do not preach in line with the official narratives.

 

[Malifice]

No, but I am not surprised to see you here gaslighting.

Yes they did.

He was convicted by an impartial jury of literally planning and coordinating an armed insurrection against the USA and its people, by a group he was the leader of at the time (the Proud boys).

The evidence was he not only took part in planning the attack, but also took part in directing it as it unfolded.

Presuming you think this was some kind of 'plot' by 'the left', how did the 'leftists' get all 12 men and women of the jury to convict him?

Were they all bribed or something?

 

[Malifice]

The gaslighting comment was directed at one particular poster who has a long history with me.
And any thread he finds me in generally ends up with him banning me from the thread after I show evidence supporting my gaslighting claims.

Wasnt it BlueE that accused me of gaslighting?

You know, the other totally cooked antivaxxer, pro Trump, conspiracist Fremantle fan.

 

[PurpleEyes]

Trump is going to win the election.

But the popularity of a person doesn't change if something is factual or not.

You wouldn't agree with De Niro's opinion on everything, even though he is incredibly popular.


I've seen many Trump supporters banned from SRP and BigFooty in general. Some of what they posted before being banned was pretty horrific. Some just repeatedly pushed the set boundaries until they were removed.

There was a lot of hateful and dangerous rhetoric around Soros, Jews and globalists.
If you were posting about Soros in political threads, you would have been aware prior to that that it was considered conspiratorial, and that conspiracy theories were to be kept to the conspiracy forum.
You may not agree that it's a conspiracy theory etc, but I don't think it's fair to claim you had no warning or that you had no way of knowing.

This was what I was SRP forum banned for ... that one line response;


If you do some good research, you will find the narrative of Shokin being corrupt was Soros manifested propaganda.
I could provide you links but do not want to hijack this thread. This post is just to clarify why I was banned.

 

[Lebbo73]

I can agree with that.

But what I'm asking you, is why do you not disagree with all the people who say you're wrong? Why only some.

There are posters saying that not only are you wrong, but that you're so wrong that almost no one else in the world is 'crazy' enough to believe what you believe.

They say Mal is wrong for his position on 'the laptop', because it's ridiculous to think people actually believe the disinformation (their words as well) about the pedo stuff etc. And that almost no one would be fooled by it. Basically that people like you, and many Americans and alternative media don't really exist.

Why don't you ever correct them, or explain to them why they're wrong to think it's fake etc?

I don’t have time to respond to everyone. Like everyone here, I’m assuming that we have a life outside of Bigfooty.
Also, you’ll always disagree with others on here, even those who you have a lot in common with.

Didn't an impartial jury find that he literally coordinated an armed attack on the Capital with the goal of overturning a democratic election?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Tarrio

Tell lies and we’ll make sure that you won’t do any prison time