Jump to content









Why is the MAGA movement so susceptible to crazy conspiracy theories?


Inderpland

Recommended Posts


32 minutes ago, Inderpland said:

OK. He tried to prevent the lawful and peaceful transfer of power after he lost the election, after having sworn a solemn oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the US of A.

That (and several other things) makes him a traitor.

is that the constitution john kelly, clinton and harris, etc etc want to change, are they also traitors?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Inderpland said:

Actually, I'd wager good money I'm younger than 95% of the MAGA crowd - including you.

You see, for the MAGA voters in general there's one thing your kind don't have on your side and that's time.

 

ii am under 50, i  reckon you are the other side of 60, to be generous

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

MY COMMENTS IN CAPS:

 

I also favor peace and USA non-interference in foreign conflicts.  Unfortunately, Trump did not end a single conflict, in which the USA was engaged - after hiring Neocon staff - and he escalated with Russia in Ukraine as POTUS - consistently. YOU SEEM TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE EU WAS EFFECTIVELY EXPANDING EAST FOR YEARS. 

 

Obama** refused to send lethal-aid to Ukraine, but Trump did, and has bragged how what he sent was used to kill Russians.

TRUMP ALLOWED A FEW (DEFENSIVE) JAVELINS WHICH WERE ONLY USED AFTER RUSSIA INVADED. 

 

Trump also withdrew from the INF Treaty on medium-range nuke-capable missiles, which would have been placed in Ukraine, within striking-distance of Moscow. He also withdrew from the "open skies" treaty.  Dismantling these firewalls to war was "short-sighted," to use a polite term. US AND NATO AGREED THAT RUSSIA HAD BROKEN THE TREATY WITH DEPLOYMENT OF THE 9M7W9 CRUISE MISSILE

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565

 

Trump never ordered Ukraine to follow the Minsk Agreements, in exchange for receiving aid, which would have prevented the war.  Neither did co-signatories Macron or Merkel - with Merkel admitting later, it was just a ruse to buy time to build up Ukraine's army for war. 

 

AS ABOVE, BEFORE THE WAR, US AID WAS MINIMAL. THE MINSK AGREEMENTS (2014) DID NOT ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM, THEY WERE OF POOR TECHNICAL CONTENT AND FAILED TO DIRECTLY INCLUDE AND OBLIGATE RUSSIA. THERE WERE TOO MANY DISPUTES FROM BOTH  SIDES FOR MORE THAN 2 YEARS BEFORE TRUMP TOOK OFFICE. HOW COULD TRUMP "ORDER" ANY NATION TO FOLLOW ANY AGREEMENT ALREADY IN PIECES????

 

Trump increased sanctions on Russia, including blocking the Nord-Stream II pipeline.  That economic bridge to Europe was beneficial to maintaining a reason for peace, as well as keeping energy costs low in Europe (to spite their idiotic "green" energy-policy), to facilitate their (now wrecked) manufacturing base. THERE WERE EU COUNTRIES FOR AND AGAINST THIS. 

** To be fair, the Coup of 2014 with the CIA and Gloria Nuland (Neocon Team I.S.W. / Kagan) was under Obama's watch - I am not a fan.  But he did correctly state that Russia had "escalatory dominance" in Ukraine - why he refused to send lethal-aid - a perspective which has been proven correct.  They also had 'surge capacity' for war-production, which we did/do not. TROUBLE WITH THAT IS THAT INITIAL WEAKNESS THAT UKRAINE WAS LEFT EVEN MORE VULNERABLE .... AND THE REST IS HISTORY.

 

OH, AND RUSSSIA DID NOT INVADE UA UNTIL BIDEN WAS POTUS. THE DONBAS AND CRIMEA OCCUPATIONS WERE UNDER OBAMA. 

Thank you for the detailed reply.

 

I am aware of when Russia entered the ongoing conflict, which began with the Coup in 2014.  Ukraine was (again) violating Minsk, by shelling Donbass - as they had over and over - but, this time, clearly preparing for another offensive.  

 

The Minsk agreement was binding on Ukraine and the "breakaway" areas, which had refused to accept the anti-ethnic-Russian Coup'd government installed.  It was only "in pieces" because Ukraine refused to honor it.  And, again, Merkel ADMITTED it was just a ruse from the start, after she left her PM position.

 

As to the "EU"  trade-block - the issue was that they wanted Ukraine to join, but Russia said this would invalidate their free-trade agreement with Ukraine by allowing European products to flow through.  The then-president of Ukraine was aware that wrecking their huge and beneficial trade-relationship with Russia was not a good option, and began to look for a middle-ground.  The coup was launched at this point.

 

NATO expansion was something else entirely, and Ukraine's stated intent to join NATO - plus saying they wanted nukes - was a huge escalation.

 

As to the INF treaty - those so-called "defensive" missiles can easily become both offensive and nuclear.  From your linked-article:

Russia denied the accusation and President Putin said it was a pretext for the US to leave the pact.

 

Forgive me if I do not trust "We Lied, We Cheated, We Stole" Pompeo's word on this - from the same "intelligence" which put non-existent WMDs in Iraq to start that war. 

 

Russia claimed the maximum firing range is 480 kilometers and, as the fuel cannot be changed in the field, the produced missiles could not be modified to a higher range.  They even offered the USA to come inspect, which was rebuffed.

 

The USA had no business meddling in the Nord-Stream-II pipeline - was primarily between Germany and Russia, and other EU states could deal with Germany on it.  You could point out, "Well, at least Trump didn't blow it up" - which is true.

 

As to the lethal aid - it was much more than just the Javelins:
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/25/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-aid-package-to-ukraine-that-trump-delayed/

... and Javelins are not necessarily "defensive," any more than their tank / APC targets are - though both can be used for defense.

 

My primary point, is that Trump ran on a peace platform, and delivered exactly nothing of the sort.  There was some hope with N-Korea, but he blew that up by hiring infamous arch-neocon Bolton, who wrecked that hope by saying we would handle them "Like Libya" (see how that worked out for Gadaffi).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, xylophone said:

But he did say this and it is verbatim................"...

 

Which shows that he is a dumb as a bag of rocks!!

I doubt he can read beyond a 4th grade level, yet he actively-meddled in the FDA's approval process (and bragged about it).   We need to shame-force presidential-candidates to take the GRE or similar.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rob Browder said:

Trump says lots of stupid things, yes.  He never suggested "injecting bleach," as some claimed, but what he did say at that press-conference showed he could not pass Biology 101. 

 

Trump never mentioned Ivermecitin - to this day, that I have seen.  Note that HCQ was called a "curative" in leaked govt-documents from April 2020**, and it is quite possible then-president Trump learned this, while it was still classified.

 

One can see/review all of the medical studies for these and other substances, here - you be the judge of what actually worked, and did not.  Make a mental-note of which were "on patent" and "off patent" - and which were actively-used, vs what was shown to actually work / not-work:

https://c19early.org/

Also an early study using HCQ, used to discredit it, was pulled by the Lancet for fraud:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine/truly-sorry-scientists-pull-panned-lancet-study-of-trump-touted-drug-idUSKBN23B31W/

 

Trump announced to the press that he quit taking HCQ two weeks in, after it was demonized by that later-retracted study.  The smear-study had served its purpose.

 

** This information was leaked by a member of the USMC, and remarked upon by Senator Ron Johnson here:
https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/2022/1/senator-johnson-demands-answers-from-dod-on-disclosure-about-covid-19-origins-and-early-treatment

As isaid previously, he is plain dumb..............

 

New study shows ivermectin lacks meaningful benefits in COVID-19 treatment....

Despite early studies suggesting potential, the PRINCIPLE trial's findings – published in the Journal of Infection - indicate that ivermectin does not lead to clinically significant improvements in COVID-19 recovery times, hospital admissions, or mortality rates. While a modest two-day reduction in symptom duration, from 16 days to 14 days, was observed, this did not translate into clinically meaningful benefits or improvements in longer-term health outcomes.  

 

The researchers conclude that ivermectin should not be prescribed as a treatment for COVID-19 in such populations and recommend against conducting further trials on ivermectin for this purpose. 

 

https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/news/new-study-shows-ivermectin-lacks-meaningful-benefits-in-covid-19-treatment

  • The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. 
  • The FDA has determined that currently available clinical trial data do not demonstrate that ivermectin is effective against COVID 19 in humans. 

Hydroxychloroquine is not recommended as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Also, hydroxychloroquine doesn't prevent infection with the virus that causes COVID-19.

 

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19/art-20555331

 

Best that he stays on the golf course where he can cheat and lie and no-one cares.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, xylophone said:

The book also reports that Trump, while still in office early during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, secretly sent Putin what were then rare Abbott Point of Care test machines for the Russian’s personal use.

Oh my Godddd! Did he? That's, that's... Outright.. Well... Almost... My God... I'm so shocked... 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, frank83628 said:

all these left wing, democrat, acronym sufferers posts/threads that aim to discredit, mock and acttack the republicans, right, Trump and maga are great for shooting themselves in the foot, on a global stage.

just as Trump did with Springfield, the attention it gets brings it all out into the open.. here is another of clip of many that are now proving that the US gov has been involved in weather manipulation for decades, to what extent is has progressed too, who knows.... well done MGT.!

 

 

 

 

 

 

B.S.!

Nothing secret about project Citrus, it was publicly known from the 50s. And it was about cloud seeding.

 

In 1952, General Electric published its own "History of Project Cirrus", compiled by Barrington Havens of G.E.'s public relations department.

https://archives.albany.edu/description/catalog/ua902-010aspace_5ffdd0d7156d14616da5066f040d4f1f

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BruceWayne said:

 

Am confident even a child or an average boomer could work it out

But below average you're gonna struggle.

Soz, can explain it to you but understand tt for u

kap 🙏

 

 

For the subs https://archive.ph/Dnb06

 

From 2007 so maybe MTG is correct

and youre all wrong.

 

Also bear in mind the US army were already using weather mod tech in Vietnam (!1960s) to flood them but dyor

 

image.png.49b6e74b736965da1b1d532b1bb100d2.png

Edited by BruceWayne
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rob Browder said:

Thank you for the detailed reply.

 

I am aware of when Russia entered the ongoing conflict, which began with the Coup in 2014.  Ukraine was (again) violating Minsk, by shelling Donbass - as they had over and over - but, this time, clearly preparing for another offensive.  

 

The Minsk agreement was binding on Ukraine and the "breakaway" areas, which had refused to accept the anti-ethnic-Russian Coup'd government installed.  It was only "in pieces" because Ukraine refused to honor it.  And, again, Merkel ADMITTED it was just a ruse from the start, after she left her PM position.

 

As to the "EU"  trade-block - the issue was that they wanted Ukraine to join, but Russia said this would invalidate their free-trade agreement with Ukraine by allowing European products to flow through.  The then-president of Ukraine was aware that wrecking their huge and beneficial trade-relationship with Russia was not a good option, and began to look for a middle-ground.  The coup was launched at this point.

 

NATO expansion was something else entirely, and Ukraine's stated intent to join NATO - plus saying they wanted nukes - was a huge escalation.

 

As to the INF treaty - those so-called "defensive" missiles can easily become both offensive and nuclear.  From your linked-article:

Russia denied the accusation and President Putin said it was a pretext for the US to leave the pact.

 

Forgive me if I do not trust "We Lied, We Cheated, We Stole" Pompeo's word on this - from the same "intelligence" which put non-existent WMDs in Iraq to start that war. 

 

Russia claimed the maximum firing range is 480 kilometers and, as the fuel cannot be changed in the field, the produced missiles could not be modified to a higher range.  They even offered the USA to come inspect, which was rebuffed.

 

The USA had no business meddling in the Nord-Stream-II pipeline - was primarily between Germany and Russia, and other EU states could deal with Germany on it.  You could point out, "Well, at least Trump didn't blow it up" - which is true.

 

As to the lethal aid - it was much more than just the Javelins:
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/25/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-aid-package-to-ukraine-that-trump-delayed/

... and Javelins are not necessarily "defensive," any more than their tank / APC targets are - though both can be used for defense.

 

My primary point, is that Trump ran on a peace platform, and delivered exactly nothing of the sort.  There was some hope with N-Korea, but he blew that up by hiring infamous arch-neocon Bolton, who wrecked that hope by saying we would handle them "Like Libya" (see how that worked out for Gadaffi).

 

You seem confused and haven't really addressed my replies, which did not really concern Trump's running platform anyway.

 

Better leave it there.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, candide said:

B.S.!

Nothing secret about project Citrus, it was publicly known from the 50s. And it was about cloud seeding.

 

In 1952, General Electric published its own "History of Project Cirrus", compiled by Barrington Havens of G.E.'s public relations department.

https://archives.albany.edu/description/catalog/ua902-010aspace_5ffdd0d7156d14616da5066f040d4f1f

you might know, but others clearly don't.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2024 at 4:23 PM, frank83628 said:

so how about the 'conspiracy theory' that the areas affected by the hurricane (Asheville) sits on or near huge lithium deposits, thats is something i have seen popping up a couple of times over the last week

Yeah Asheville is a really Blue Area

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BruceWayne said:

 

For the subs https://archive.ph/Dnb06

 

From 2007 so maybe MTG is correct

and youre all wrong.

 

Also bear in mind the US army were already using weather mod tech in Vietnam (!1960s) to flood them but dyor

 

image.png.49b6e74b736965da1b1d532b1bb100d2.png

 

So you're no longer linking to that 17 y/o article behind a paywall but rather posting a picture of it?! I guess it's par for the course and just another day in the life of a conspiracy "enthusiast'. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Rob Browder said:

Trump never mentioned Ivermecitin - to this day, that I have seen.  Note that HCQ was called a "curative" in leaked govt-documents from April 2020**, and it is quite possible then-president Trump learned this, while it was still classified.

 

This might help as it states that trump USED ivermectin to treat his Covid, and of course his cult followers caught on and promoted it....plain dumb:-

 

"Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug used by former President Donald Trump to treat Covid-19 and promoted by some Republican legislators, does nothing to prevent the disease from progressing, according to a study out of Malaysia published Friday by the Journal of the American Medical Association, confirming prior studies suggesting that ivermectin does not effectively prevent or treat the disease".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, xylophone said:

This might help as it states that trump USED ivermectin to treat his Covid, and of course his cult followers caught on and promoted it....plain dumb:-

 

"Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug used by former President Donald Trump to treat Covid-19 and promoted by some Republican legislators, does nothing to prevent the disease from progressing, according to a study out of Malaysia published Friday by the Journal of the American Medical Association, confirming prior studies suggesting that ivermectin does not effectively prevent or treat the disease".

That is incorrect information, unless you have a source I have not seen for Trump using Ivermectin - preferably from the White House or his treating-doctor. 

 

Trump used HCQ for 2 weeks, as a prophylactic, then announced he quit using it - that being long before he later caught covid.   Trump was treated for covid with "monoclonal antibodies", which was a very effective treatment (but hard to scale-up), until the Omicron variant, when it ceased being helpful.

 

Rather than citing a single study, see a full and complete list of ALL the studies done on HCQ, Ivermectin, and everything else, here:

https://c19early.org/


Note that many treatments were only shown to work if given early in the illness - in the first days of symptoms or as a prophylactic, yet many studies ONLY tested them on people who were very sick when treatment started - after being hospitalized.  The data for each study must be examined for context.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Rob Browder said:

That is incorrect information, unless you have a source I have not seen for Trump using Ivermectin - preferably from the White House or his treating-doctor. 

 

Trump used HCQ for 2 weeks, as a prophylactic, then announced he quit using it - that being long before he later caught covid.   Trump was treated for covid with "monoclonal antibodies", which was a very effective treatment (but hard to scale-up), until the Omicron variant, when it ceased being helpful.

 

Rather than citing a single study, see a full and complete list of ALL the studies done on HCQ, Ivermectin, and everything else, here:

https://c19early.org/


Note that many treatments were only shown to work if given early in the illness - in the first days of symptoms or as a prophylactic, yet many studies ONLY tested them on people who were very sick when treatment started - after being hospitalized.  The data for each study must be examined for context.

Here is the source of that information.....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2022/02/18/ivermectin-doesnt-help-covid-patients-study-finds/ 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...