Tuesday, March 14, 2023

Fake video of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Alexandria Cortez conversation is floating around



Someone spliced together different videos and utilized manipulation to create a false conversation, with false statements, to mislead audiences. There apparently is an attempt to discredit James O'Keefe and Project Veritas. This phony video, when utilized by the unsuspecting, opens an entire group for discrediting. 

The false statements making up the phony conversation:

Nancy Pelosi: I have given a shoot to kill order for any breach of the speaker's lobby. Every one of these maggots must be prosecuted. Yes, I agree, no more protests in our Capitol.

Nancy Pelosi: We must send a signal to the American people that we are in charge...

Joe Biden (To Alexandria Cortez): Listen sweetheart, let the men handle this. 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (To Joe Biden): Are you even listening to me?

Alexandria Cortez: No... No... No...

Joe Biden (To Alexandria Cortez): Why don't you let me finish?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (To Joe Biden): ... Congressional staffers were almost killed! I thought I was going to die!!!!

Joe Biden (To Alexandria Cortez): ... This is an adult discussion...

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (To Joe Biden): The public doesn't fear us anymore, and you better do something!

Nancy Pelosi (to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez): What am I supposed to do?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (to Nancy Pelosi): Do you fucking job, Nancy! 

Pelosi: Alexandria, let's both be patient and respectful of each other's ideas.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: No... No... No...

Joe Biden: Let's take a step back and look at the big picture.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Joe, I don't really have anything to say to you. If we don't make sure those who perpetrated this mayhem are brought to justice, we are all dead!

Nancy Pelosi: This was a mostly peaceful protest.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: I don't care why the were there, violence, non violence, doesn't matter. We can't allow those who showed up to get away with it.

This is all nonsense.


Monday, March 13, 2023

Kim Isaacson mistakes emotional and baseless opinion as "smoke to the fire"

 


Today's batch of posts are a continuation of the Tonya Zylka batch of posts from below. This is a debate that took place in 2020, on this thread that I lost access to due to being blocked.

Kim Isaacson responded to meme mocking leftist double standards. In this situation, accusing Trump voters of not caring about his being "racist." If this were the case, the Democrats should accept a similar argument that they have no issues with Joe Biden's sniffing children's hair, and engaging in unusual activities related to children. 

Kim Isaacson: [Redacted] I believe where there's smoke there's fire, 

Your "there is smoke, therefore there is fire" argument is just a cover. It's a cover for your emotions and feelings behind your opposition to President Trump in particular, and conservatives in general. It's not a valid foundation for this argument.

You, along with the rest of the left, are desperately looking at any negative reporting on the president. And then, when you find something that you think is damaging, you automatically assume that he is in the wrong and that your opinion is "gospel".



The fact of the matter is that you attempted to accuse him of being a rapist. However, it speaks volumes that the person behind this claim does not push for it after the election. She had dropped it a second time, right after the day of the presidential election.

The leftist, propagandist, media does not like President Trump. Had this been a valid case, it most certainly would have dominated the news. The "rape" would have dominated the news during the transition. I say this based on my being a news junkie since 1982. The propagandist media covers the Republicans and Democrats differently. 

The facts? The mainstream media did not blow this out of proportion. The person, that's the basis of this claim, didn't pursue these charges after the election. 

Kim Isaacson: too many, 

You disagree with much of what President Trump represents. That is where your "too many" comes from. That's not a valid argument to advance.  

Kim Isaacson: I wouldn't trust him to watch my granddaughters, would you? 


Would you trust Sleepy Creepy Joe to watch your granddaughters with nobody else present? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Copy and paste this question to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional response that you would want to provide to amplify your answer.

Kim Isaacson: I trust my gut, 

No, what you are identifying as "gut instincts", is nothing but an incredibly biased anti-Trump opinion. Your bias is what is shaping how you see him... This will drive you to look for everything, anything, negative about President Trump. Then, based on what you find, you assume that what you come up with is "gospel".

Kim Isaacson: This man is an abuser, 


Based on what? I'm sorry, your opinion, based on your anti-Trump bias, does not constitute a valid argument.

I have not seen any evidence of him being an abuser. I have not seen any court cases, or court convictions, convicting President Trump as an abuser. No police reports containing valid testimony.

You have absolutely no evidence other than your "gut instincts". These "instincts" are nothing but your anti-Trump bias.

Kim Isaacson: being a survivor 


I have dismantled your arguments numerous times before. You've exposed to me your apparent psychological profile. What I am detecting, based on your arguments, and on your decision to argue an erroneous argument, is an apparent psychological profile. This profile contains three main components: a tendency for anger, a tendency for control, and narcissism issues.

You refuse to take responsibility for your own situation. Yet, you have a strong opinion about how things should go. While reading about domestic altercations, I have found that both sides of the equation, the man and the woman, possessed those three issues.

A battle for control. Both sides want things their way. Both sides exerted control to attempt to make it that way. Unfortunately, without compromise, neither side is going to get what they want. Enter anger.

You may have had a situation where you were in disagreement with the other party. This disagreement led to a chain of reactions that resulted in an altercation, or a series of altercations.  Result? In addition to your political animosity against President Trump, you have effectively turned him into an "avatar" for the one who put you in the situation that you survived. 

Through President Trump, and through those of us that you disagree with on Facebook, you wind up reliving the conflict... Making us the "avatar" for the antagonist in your survivor story. 

You are still trying to, via these debates, relive and "win" that conflict with the attacker/abuser. Or... There is more to the story to your "survivor story" then what you are implying.

Kim Isaacson mistakes her emotion driven opinion as "gut instinct"




Kim Isaacson: my guts tells me and trump is the worst....

I'm sorry, but your "gut" is intoxicated with your anti-Trump bias. It's also intoxicated with your bias influenced by the circumstances that resulted in you being "a survivor". My disagreement with you is based on cold hard fact... A track record of facts.

Kim Isaacson: he's a con man, 

False. He advanced numerous campaign promises in 2016. Then, when he won the election, and then took office, he delivered on the majority of his promises. 

The vast majority of politicians have failed to deliver on the majority of their promises. Guess who the real conmen are? It's the career politicians, not someone who has been a politician for less than four years.

Kim Isaacson: he's a cheat, cheated on every woman he has been with, 




False. I'm not going to believe the word of a bunch of leftist women. These women are abusing their position in society in an effort to derail a man based on false claims.

Those women claimed to have an affair with him. They haven't effectively proven their case. As God commanded in the Old Testament, we are to do a diligent search of the truth before rendering judgment.

A diligent search of the truth does not support those women's claims. On a side note, I'm not going to believe them simply because they are women. 

Kim Isaacson: slime that paid for sex, 


Based on what evidence? The claim of the porn star whose court case fell flat on its face? In fact, didn't she lose against President Trump in court? Apparently, a court's decision is meaningless to you if it rendered judgment in favor of someone you don't like.

Kim Isaacson: making money off tax payers while golfing, 


Certainly, you have earned a salary at some point in your professional career... Have you? When you are earning a salary, you get paid regardless of whether you are working or are given time off. At least, that is how it was with my military pay. Now, let's take stock of what I did while I was in the military.

One of the things I did was go on a tour to visit the ruins of Pompeii. Then, visited some other sites before going to Mount Vesuvius... To the summit.

Was I making money at the taxpayers' expense while walking the ruins of Pompeii? While walking up the volcano?

The answer is no. Both an active duty military member, and the president, are earning a salary. They both get paid at a fixed rate per month (biweekly pay for military). Those three and four-day federal holidays? People working for the government, including the military on active duty, still get paid during those days off.

They are not "making money off the taxpayers" when engaging in leisurely activities during those days off.


Additionally, many a business decisions are being made on the golf course. I have gone to the golf course for an entire workday. You would be surprised at how many work-related discussions are held on the golf course. Additionally, there is a lot of "problem-solving" related to work that occurs during the round.

Kim Isaacson: won't show his tax returns cause it would prove it....

So how are his tax returns, from before he became president, going to "prove" that he made money off the taxpayers while golfing as president? No, a display of his tax returns will not prove any of the arguments that you advanced here.

Kim Isaacson: he will go done as the worst president 



False. He will go down as one of the greatest presidents that the United States has ever had. However, the last democrat president, Obama, will indeed go down as one of the worst presidents. In fact, he displaced Jimmy Carter as the worst president in modern history.

I've been following the news since 1982. I lost count of the number of people who lacerated, insulted, verbally attacked, etc., Ronald Reagan. Today, he is seen as one of the greatest presidents in American history.

Kim Isaacson: more people voted against him than for him, 


I recommend that you read the United States Constitution... Specifically in the area involving who chooses the president.

The states, not the people, are responsible for voting for president. The states vote for the president via the electoral college. 

Meaning, per the United States Constitution, the national popular vote is absolutely meaningless. The only popular vote that matters is what is contained within each state. In reality, the "Presidential Elections" held in November are not the actual elections for the president.

I say "elections", as this is not a single contest. The "presidential elections" are 51 separate contests... Each of the states and the District of Columbia. We, the people, don't vote for president. We vote for a set of electors.

The real presidential election takes place when the electors meet and vote for president.

Kim Isaacson: he is not the people's president.....

False. What matters is what the Constitution decides. President Trump is our duly elected president. He was elected per a constitutional process. Remember, it is the states through their electors, and not the American people as a whole, that vote for President. 

Tonya Zylka Johnson gets called out for her repeated propaganda


A Facebook netizen and I argued the same thing. Where he spoke his mind, I showed Tonya Zylka, via the disconnect between Tonya's arguments and reality, how GW was "center mass" on what he said about her. 

What he said:

GW: Tonya Zylka and so do you .. you are the most hateful racist period ... you spew lie after lie with you uneducated propaganda !!! You try to use a social media platform to push your bullshit agenda day in and day out .. it's a shit fucking broken record !!! 


Giving an opinion isn't hate, unless you're conservative

 

RE: GW...She doesn't like Trump...so what? Giving an opinion isn't hate dumbass!!!

And, providing an argument against Tonya Zylka does not make GW a "dumbass". He expressed what I, and I'm pretty sure other Trump supporters, feel. Unlike me; however, Gordy spoke his mind.

I did not use his exact words. I showed it by taking her argument, as well as everybody else's anti-Trump argument, apart... And countered them with a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument. It's a given, based on what she is arguing and saying, that she doesn't like Trump.

She could express her opinion. However, as with any political argument, the risk of debate is very high.


Carol King's meme about ventilator shortages, ignores knowledge timeline




 
Carol King: [meme: Our leaders knew about ventilator shortages]

The shortage of ventilators was an issue since 2003. In fact, from 2003 through 2015 and into the current pandemic. Both Democrats, and Republicans, at the federal, state, and local levels, did not take substantive action to actually have the materials needed to deal with this pandemic:

If that is what your meme is implying, then for once you expressed a valid argument. If you are trying to hang this around President Trump's neck, then you're doing nothing but pedaling propaganda. Trump followed the footsteps of career politicians on both sides of the political aisle in this specific matter.

Tonya Zylka Johnson makes the brigading call


Tonya Zylka: Teri Manisto, Callie Bush, Bo Johnson

I started a new semi thread rebutting all three of them. The intent was to get all three of them in that semi thread. You essentially helped me along to canalize their actions.

Bo Johnson dismisses a fact based argument as "Fantasy Island"

 



Bo Johnson: [Redacted] you leave me speechless! Life must be awesome for you, a true fantasy island. [SELF PROJECTION]

Correction. It is you, and the others here that I have rebutted, who live in a fantasy world. Your arguments are based solely on propaganda. Disinformation that is easily proven wrong. All one has to do is to go straight to the source of the news to find the facts.