Americans will take up Arms if Trump runs and Loses in 2024: Newsweek

[cobber]

Going back to the OP, one could just as easily posit the progressives taking to the streets again if a candidate not of their choosing wins.

We've seen FAR MORE of that in the last five years than of violent Trump supporters.

 

[buckwacker]

Which conspiracy theories have been proven?

Well if this was addressed to me,

1 the covid shot will not do what is claimed
2 covid was created in a lab
3 the great reset is an actual thing
4 hilary, obama, and the intelligence apparatus started and perpetuated the trump Russia collusion b.s. to undermine an incoming president of the other party
5 big tech is censoring conservatives

These are just a few I jotted down in the time it took to type them.

 

[jsharmon7]

Well if this was addressed to me,

1 the covid shot will not do what is claimed
2 covid was created in a lab
3 the great reset is an actual thing
4 hilary, obama, and the intelligence apparatus started and perpetuated the trump Russia collusion b.s. to undermine an incoming president of the other party
5 big tech is censoring conservatives

These are just a few I jotted down in the time it took to type them.

It was addressed to anyone. I wondered what people considered “conspiracies” and what they considered “proven.”

 

[phylodog]

It was addressed to anyone. I wondered what people considered “conspiracies” and what they considered “proven.”

Entirely subjective on both counts. Some here think everything which doesn't get reported on CNN is a conspiracy.

 

[jsharmon7]

Entirely subjective on both counts. Some here think everything which doesn't get reported on CNN is a conspiracy.

I agree it’s subjective. I see posts/memes about all the conspiracies coming true, so I was curious which ones. For example, the “lab” vs “nature” argument about Covid origin doesn’t necessarily seem “proven.” I found an article from WSJ saying scientists are strongly leaning toward “lab.” One study said it was 99.5% optimized for human infection. Another said they found zero evidence of any bats ever having it, or any variation, to support the alternate theory. Some of those studies came from the WHO, which many here say should be dismissed immediately. So if we are saying it’s been proven to come from a lab, well, proven by whom? Which scientific entity have people decided to trust?

In the same month, another publication asserted scientists were strongly leaning toward “nature.” I forget their reasoning, but it made some sense.

I know there was allegedly a whistleblower who had inside information it came from a lab. Is that enough? I lean toward “lab,” but I don’t agree it’s been absolutely proven.

 

[Ingomike]

I agree it’s subjective. I see posts/memes about all the conspiracies coming true, so I was curious which ones. For example, the “lab” vs “nature” argument about Covid origin doesn’t necessarily seem “proven.” I found an article from WSJ saying scientists are strongly leaning toward “lab.” One study said it was 99.5% optimized for human infection. Another said they found zero evidence of any bats ever having it, or any variation, to support the alternate theory. Some of those studies came from the WHO, which many here say should be dismissed immediately. So if we are saying it’s been proven to come from a lab, well, proven by whom? Which scientific entity have people decided to trust?

In the same month, another publication asserted scientists were strongly leaning toward “nature.” I forget their reasoning, but it made some sense.

I know there was allegedly a whistleblower who had inside information it came from a lab. Is that enough? I lean toward “lab,” but I don’t agree it’s been absolutely proven.

Are you not in a roundabout way saying that if some others don’t come along and publish too you don’t believe it’s been proven. Therefore are you not living the meme that folks will not believe it until CNN reports it?

 

[Ingomike]

I agree it’s subjective. I see posts/memes about all the conspiracies coming true, so I was curious which ones. For example, the “lab” vs “nature” argument about Covid origin doesn’t necessarily seem “proven.” I found an article from WSJ saying scientists are strongly leaning toward “lab.” One study said it was 99.5% optimized for human infection. Another said they found zero evidence of any bats ever having it, or any variation, to support the alternate theory. Some of those studies came from the WHO, which many here say should be dismissed immediately. So if we are saying it’s been proven to come from a lab, well, proven by whom? Which scientific entity have people decided to trust?

In the same month, another publication asserted scientists were strongly leaning toward “nature.” I forget their reasoning, but it made some sense.

I know there was allegedly a whistleblower who had inside information it came from a lab. Is that enough? I lean toward “lab,” but I don’t agree it’s been absolutely proven.

You personally are never going to see the actual evidence that proves wether or not it was lab created, all you are ever going to get a word salad stories either read to you or that you read. What do those stories have to say to get you to say, yes, it is true the virus was lab made?


For me I have read enough stories to believe it is with a 90% confidence…

What was your confidence level there were WMD’s in Iraq?

 

[bwframe]

... Some here think everything which doesn't get reported on CNN is a conspiracy.

This needed to be quoted. "Conspiracy theory" seems to be the new "racist" in the lib narrative?

 

[jsharmon7]

Are you not in a roundabout way saying that if some others don’t come along and publish too you don’t believe it’s been proven. Therefore are you not living the meme that folks will not believe it until CNN reports it?

No. I’m saying that multiple scientific publications seem to have different, yet credible, opinions. Either side could say their view has been proven depending on which publication they want to believe. My original question was what people consider to be “proven” when it comes to various conspiracies. I may lean toward “lab,” but I can’t say for certain that I’m right.

 

[jsharmon7]

You personally are never going to see the actual evidence that proves wether or not it was lab created, all you are ever going to get a word salad stories either read to you or that you read. What do those stories have to say to get you to say, yes, it is true the virus was lab made?


For me I have read enough stories to believe it is with a 90% confidence…

What was your confidence level there were WMD’s in Iraq?

What would it take for me to be 100% convinced? A lack of a very credible argument to the contrary:

Cell

I don’t have the expertise these folks do, so I certainly can’t say they’re obviously wrong. This group of experts say it most likely came from nature, and they doubt the evidence of lab creation. How can I come to the conclusion that the “lab created” theory is absolutely proven after reading that? I can only say that I lean more toward that theory, but to say it’s “proven” is silly. It’s a real-life example of Dunning-Krueger to think I know more about this subject than actual scientists just because I read a few articles to the contrary.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

systemic racism is real

Can you point to a law that is racist?

 

[Route 45]

It’s a real-life example of Dunning-Krueger to think I know more about this subject than actual scientists just because I read a few articles to the contrary.

Welcome to INGO. Try the pizza, it's got pineapple on it.

 

[BugI02]

I am not left or right, I believe what is best for all is the best decision and not play into any one side or the other.

The determination of what is 'best' for any individual must be made by that individual, No one can determine what is 'best for all'

Your totalitarian slip is showing

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Can you point to a law that is racist?

Crack vs powder cocaine sentencing/crime level differences.

 

[phylodog]

Crack vs powder cocaine sentencing/crime level differences.

You are correct. Happened around the same time Hillary coined the term "super predator" or at least made it mainstream. What were the consequences? The victims of the democrat's racism continued to vote for them.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You are correct. Happened around the same time Hillary coined the term "super predator" or at least made it mainstream. What were the consequences? The victims of the democrat's racism continued to vote for them.

Same applies to early MJ laws as well. They were aimed at the mexican/black population.

ETA as well as firearm carry laws, the original intent of them was to prevent blacks from being able to legally carry.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Crack vs powder cocaine sentencing/crime level differences.

More of a poor vs rich thing than racist. Whats crack vs meth sentencing?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

More of a poor vs rich thing than racist. Whats crack vs meth sentencing?

No idea on crack vs meth. But at the time it wasn't poor vs rich. Crack was predominately in the black population, powder was more predominant in the white population. Same as MJ when it began being criminalized. Same with carry of firearms.

 

[buckwacker]

More of a poor vs rich thing than racist. Whats crack vs meth sentencing?

Also both are more visibly related to crime.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

No idea on crack vs meth. But at the time it wasn't poor vs rich. Crack was predominately in the black population, powder was more predominant in the white population. Same as MJ when it began being criminalized. Same with carry of firearms.

But we aren’t discussing the past. If we’re talking about systemic racism, talking about racist laws from 100 years ago is pointless. Focusing on today should be the goal, and if there’s a racist law on the books today, it should be pointed out. So, if there’s systemic racism, please point to a CURRENT law that is racist.