quote:

(From a CNN broadcast) ZELENY: Well, president-elect Joe-bama — Joe Biden, rather, did finish speaking here.

RUSH: Did you hear that faux pas? President-elect Joe-bama, confirming my assertion that Biden serves at the pleasure of Obama. Make no mistake. And that’s not a lie based on supply or demand. It’s not a lie in any way, shape, manner, or form. Biden knows it, too, by the way. He knows he’s serving at the pleasure of Barack Obama. Obama’s the guy that made all of this happen.

quote:

In an interview with Ann Vandersteel, former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne alleged that he was complicit in facilitating a bribe for Hillary Clinton in the amount of $18M (on behalf of the FBI) in January, 2016.

The bribe, which he claims she accepted, was then going to be used by members of the Obama administration against Hillary after she was elected.

As it was later explained to him, “President Obama has his people across the federal bureaucracy at this point, but especially at the Department of Justice. Hillary Clinton is going to be President for 8 years and nothing is going to change that, but think of there being a Bunsen burner within the DOJ. That evidence about the bribes you were a part of gathering is going to be sitting on the Bunsen burner. The hand sitting on the burner is going to be one of Barack Obama’s people."

If Hillary is a “good girl” and defends Obamacare, that flame stays low. If she’s a “bad girl” and thinks for herself, that flame is going to get turned up high. That way Barack Obama is going to manage Hillary Clinton for the 8 years she’s President, and then when she steps down, Michelle is going to run.”

Byrne claims it was called “Operation Snowglobe” (allegedly thus dubbed by Obama and Brennan) so that once Hillary stepped into it, they would be able to “shake her up” at any time during her Presidency, if needed.

Twelve by Pies posted:

Well see the previous CEO of Overstock said that he was tasked by the FBI to bribe Hillary Clinton to submit to Obama.

I'm not kidding.

Twelve by Pies posted:

I'm also unsure how taking the bribe would allow Obama to "shake her up" if she fell out of line. Like, what would he do? Go on TV and say "I bribed Hillary with millions of dollars to do what I told her and she didn't do it, she should be imprisoned."

quote:

After voting technology company Smartmatic sent Fox News a blistering legal threat that accused the network of participating in a "disinformation campaign" against it, the network has started airing a remarkable news package debunking claims its hosts and guests have propagated.

The package aired for the first time Friday night on Lou Dobbs' show. Fox News said the same package would air Saturday night on Jeanine Pirro's program as well as Sunday morning on Maria Bartiromo's show. All three hosts, who use their platforms to air pro-Trump propaganda, are close with the President.

The stunning news package featured an interview with voting technology expert Eddie Perez, who poured cold water on a series of conspiracy theories that have been amplified and promoted on the shows of Dobbs, Pirro, and Bartiromo.

Perez said, for instance, that he had not seen any evidence that Smartmatic software was used to manipulate the election or that there was a direct connection between the company and liberal philanthropic billionaire George Soros.

DukeDuke posted:

Lol

https://twitter.com/dandrezner/status/1340863996602298368?s=21

BiggerBoat posted:

Is there a single thing on the planet that ever happens that Soros doesn't control? Because my direct pipeline to his vast fortune seems rather broken.

Seriously, if he's handing out checks for subversive influence, protesting, being unemployed, shooting off my mouth on message boards and social media, voting for Biden and for standing up to cops then I would very much like some money sooner rather than later and have yet to receive one payment in a horribly bad year where I carried a lot of weight. I'm in a very bad way on a number of rather serious levels and could honestly use some help. No joke.

Anyone with a direct pipeline to the Big S, please send me a PM because George won't return my calls.

greazeball posted:

They got their judges so they can afford to wait for the next messiah

Wikipedia posted:

The Gish gallop is a term for an eristic technique in which a debater attempts to overwhelm an opponent by excessive number of arguments, without regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott and named after the creationist Duane Gish, who used the technique frequently against proponents of evolution. Comparable terms include scattershot or scattergun argumentation, chaff, snow job or snowing under, flooding the zone, proof by verbosity, and spread debating.

During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate. In practice, each point raised by the "Gish galloper" takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place. The technique wastes an opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved or if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.

Generally, it is more difficult to use the Gish gallop in a structured debate than in a free-form one. If a debater is familiar with an opponent who is known to use the Gish gallop, the technique may be countered by pre-empting and refuting the opponent's commonly used arguments first, before the opponent has an opportunity to launch into a Gish gallop.

BiggerBoat posted:

Is there a single thing on the planet that ever happens that Soros doesn't control? Because my direct pipeline to his vast fortune seems rather broken.

mrbotus posted:

tek79 posted:

I don't know if it's an exact term for what you're describing, but "Gish galloping" seems like it might be close.

eggyolk posted:

Why is George Soros the rich person right wing boogieman number one? I know antisemitism has a lot to do with it, but there are plenty of other Jewish billionaires the right wing could direct their hate towards.

My hunch is that it's a "class traitor" thing. Like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet donating all their wealth to charity during their lifetimes. The right only like billionaires who hoard their money, and go frothing mad at those who embody anything left wing.

eggyolk posted:

My hunch is that it's a "class traitor" thing. Like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet donating all their wealth to charity during their lifetimes. The right only like billionaires who hoard their money, and go frothing mad at those who embody anything left wing.

Buckwheat Sings posted:

Pretty much. It is funny that even despite Gates donating so much, he's made even more. Once you hit a certain point you literally can't spend it all.

Abongination posted:

He absolutely could, but he won't. Its all carefully calculated.

Zedhe Khoja posted:

It's a european import. He was a big influence in liberalizing markets in eastern europe, and opening the way for the current crop of oligarchs to seize the economy. Anti-Soros sentiment melded pretty quickly with antisemitism, and his pro-refugee efforts (his one good trait) made him an even bigger demon among the right. On top of this the dude is pretty honest about how he makes his money which is a bad thing for a billionaire to do, because even if it's pretty tame by billionaire standards it's still sociopathic in the eyes of the public.

Space Gopher posted:

Even if Bill Gates gives every penny and every last valuable asset he owns to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, he's still going to keep the single most important thing he gets as a billionaire: the ability to influence society and policy. It's still his foundation, and as the guy who put in all the money, he gets to say what they do. Some of it might be good - Carnegie had his libraries, Gates has his vaccines and sanitation projects. But, if Bill has some really stupid idea like "school choice" privatization efforts (and boy oh boy does he believe in that) then Bill gets to spend the foundation's resources on what Bill wants and nobody else gets to say any different even if it's counterproductive to the stated goal of helping educate kids. The Gates Foundation and the giving pledge approach is very slightly better than Walton style generational hyperwealth, but if you believe that billionaires shouldn't have as much power in society, it does nothing to fix that problem.

Weatherman posted:

What's stopping Gates etc. from just donating parcels of stock to organisations instead of having to liquidate it first?