Expanding upon what I wrote yesterday, with respect to Democrat voters being concerned about Trump supporters, as opposed to actual ISSUES, I continue with a bit about this phenonmenon known as "Q".
My own personal observation of them is that it appeared to be mostly offbeat and not to be taken completely seriously. I didn't, so that is why I was dumbfounded to learn that so many on the Democrat side have an alarmed view of them. All that I ever saw was stuff that you can find on more mainstream sources like Bongino.
If you think Bongino is like "Q", then I don't know what to tell you.
As for what Wikipedia wrote, it is off-the-charts gonzo. I'm not talking about "Q" being gonzo, I am talking Wikipedia. None of their stuff really checks out. Or it is unnecessarily difficult to track down all their footnotes. It's garbage as I best I can tell.
If the New York Times can report that Officer Sicknick was killed by a fire extinguisher being smashed against his head, then these guys cannot talk credibly about anybody else's "conspiracy theories". The New York Times retracted that story. By the way, Sicknick's autopsy reports---where are they? It is written up as a mystery as to what he died of. Really? They don't KNOW???
By the way, we still don't know who shot Ashli Babbit. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/
Democrat voters really need to examine their own sources of information. Only then will they be able to sort through what's true and what isn't. If they are concerned about "Q", they are making their decisions based upon faulty information, if the Wikipedia can be any indication. Actually, most of the Media is off-the-charts loony from what I can tell.
This post was meant to discuss QAnon, but there isn't much out there to write about. What does exist is just assertion with little actual factual information to back it up. That appears to be the normal thing today. If you want any serious discussion of anything the last place you would go would be the media.
CTH via conservapedia yielded a lengthy article warning about what was being written about Q.
Update:
It should be obvious that I haven't followed the QAnon controversy. Unfortunately for the GOP, there seems to be many who allow themselves to be used to promote this garbage.
I did a non-google search on Representative Liz Cheney, who said something to the effect that the GOP is not the party of QAnon. As if it was!
What it appears to be is a straw-man argument, in which the create this straw-man, QAnon, who is then attacked as a dangerous influence.
One article on National Review, which is supposedly conservative, but is not really anymore, mentioned a question posed to Trump. The question was prejudicial in the extreme, and Trump didn't condemn the group---according to NR.
This is how it happens. The reporter created the straw-man question, to which Trump said, "I didn't hear that", and then it gets echoed in so-called "conservative" outlets like NR. Trump didn't endorse nor condemn. He basically said that he didn't know anything about the group, or what the reporter was saying about the group.
You could criticize Trump a bit for not being concise with his answers. They plastered this all on him, but Trump was not endorsing nor condemning the group. That should have been how NR reported it. But they didn't. Instead they glom on the reporters' characterization about the group as if it were FACTUAL, and Trump isn't condemning it.
The problem here is that the GOP and the Establishment wing won't fight back harder against this kind of thing, but instead JOINS IN. Or appears to.
If all you had to go on was what that reporter asked, then why would Trump ENDORSE it? After all, that is the impression that they are trying to create with the straw- man argument.
The straw-man argument is what should be addressed here, not whether or not Trump has some QAnon supporters and what that means. The media cannot even support what they are saying from what research that I've done. They just make these claims, and then demand that you respond to them as if they are FACTUAL.
The GOP types like Cheney are being dishonest or stupid. That's no way to lead a party.
Shame on Liz Cheney
No comments:
Post a Comment