LogFAQs > #966255138

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Okay... Let's consider that. Given that information was tightly controlled in order to manipulate voters and get the election results they wanted, that means... what?

That not every nonsense conspiracy theory is granted the same media exposure time as actual news. This is inevitable; air time is finite and people are already bombarded by more information than they can possibly process. Some curation is necessary.

Also, "tightly controlled" is a gross overstatement. If it were actually tightly controlled, you wouldn't have heard about it because you aren't exactly digging hard.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's not what I stated though. I conceded earlier that I wasn't referring to all democrats, just the ones that are prominent figures in politics.

Most prominent ones also don't support the autonomous zones. They just don't see the autonomous zones as reason to withdraw support from the movement as a whole, given that they are non-representative of the broader movement.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I had some trouble following how you reached either conclusion. Then I remembered about your difficulties with abstract thinking and realized you're just confused.
Maybe some clues will help.
If I agree with what you said, and someone who did what you described had succeeded at it, who would be in power as a result?

Had the coup succeeded, Trump would be in power. The coup did not succeed. Participating in a failed coup is no less treasonous than participating in a successful one.

Either you mistakenly believe that I think the coup succeeded (I don't) or you mistakenly believe that Biden being president indicates that a coup succeeded (which is baseless, conspiratorial nonsense). Which mistake are you making?