Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I think the person in this thread complaining about O'ists getting too much info on this subject from the MSM has been getting too much of his own info (nonsensical conservative propaganda) from Tucker (who I like in many ways even though he's a lunatic about this subject which is objectively evil Russian aggression, war crimes, and atrocities that are clearly reminiscent of those of the 3rd Reich). This is WW3's (let's call it by what it actually is) of the shit the actual Nazis did during WW2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'm here, I have been occasionally checking this forum to see how long it would actually take for a discussion on what is likely the beginning of WW3 to start (yeah, I know I could have started it myself, but don't love participating in long ass "discussions" where I have to keep responding to shots from twenty different peeps at a time too much these days).

But I do have a more meta take on this that is the reason why our Objectivist "movement" had grinded to a near halt and national irrelevance lately: While what's likely to be the most significant event of the early 21st Century is beginning all or most of the folk's on what's supposed to be the premier Objectivist Forum are busy only discussing relatively esoteric subjects. Not that these philosophic subjects shouldn't be discussed (they should, especially on a philosophy forum) but extremely important current events also *need* to be discussed from a clearly Objectivist perspective or, like what has currently happened, we become irrelevant on the national stage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Do we need to be relevant on the national stage all the time?  We're still at an early stage of gaining adherents.

 

Uh yeah, that's kinda the entire point/purpose of all this... to create a free rational world in our lifetimes. Right now we have various degrees of evil altruistic statists from the far Left to the far Right controlling some of the most important things in our lives and that needs to change ASAP. And you change it by publicly talking about these types of things that are important to every man, women, and child on the face of the Earth. The reason COVID has been a mess and created the groundwork of what's likely to become the Third World War is because of all of them. The only way to possibly fix this is *us* and Objectivist/Egoist/Capitalism ideas/ideals. And the only way to do that is to actually talk about these things constantly where these people and the public can see and interact with them (our ideas 💡).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, EC said:

. . .

But I do have a more meta take on this that is the reason why our Objectivist "movement" had grinded to a near halt and national irrelevance lately: While what's likely to be the most significant event of the early 21st Century is beginning all or most of the folk's on what's supposed to be the premier Objectivist Forum are busy only discussing relatively esoteric subjects. Not that these philosophic subjects shouldn't be discussed (they should, especially on a philosophy forum) but extremely important current events also *need* to be discussed from a clearly Objectivist perspective or, like what has currently happened, we become irrelevant on the national stage.

 

I'd say the most important current event going on in America the last 21 years is the failure to achieve a Federal budget not in the red. Distracting the public with hot culture wars has been a disaster for getting attention on what is actually the top threat to the future survival of the Republic, which is deficit spending. Our priority of pronouncements and public education should be on that. I don't mean taking sides on what projects should not be funded, but on the lack of an overarching requirement on the lawmakers to balance the budget. It is not what is widely perceived to be an important current event, but we should do what we can to change that perception.

(I don't mean to imply that the most important potential function of Rand's philosophy is to change the world or country for the better or to save civilzation. Those were not in its realistic potentials ever. Its greatest value has been and will be in persoanal self-liberation.)

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, necrovore said:

Maybe because this is a case of bad guys vs. bad guys, like two groups of gangsters in a gang war. Sure, one of them had to start it, and that one (Russia) was wrong for starting it, but that doesn't make the other group of gangsters "good guys."

p.s. I do not know if my position here matches that of anybody else in this thread. I just saw that one statement and wanted to respond to it.

>and that one (Russia) was wrong for starting it,

Actually Ukraine started it back in 2014 when it started shelling the Donbas region populated by Ukrainians who are ethnically and linguistically Russian. The Ukrainian military has killed at least 14,000 civilians there, possibly more. So Russia is simply responding to long-time Ukrainian aggression against ethnic Russians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Within this website, Mister Swig asks where are the charismatic proponents of the Morality of Life to counter some of the more charismatic salesmen that peddle so many snake oil solutions.

The best programs that have emerged lately are like Alex Epstein, a number of themed podcasts from ARCUK, Tal Tsfany's delving into happiness via a more scientific assessment. Still many of these are preaching to the choir, yes. 

Catch-22. Building individuals that think for themselves while pining for something more effective than Galt's Speech to "start spreading the news."

Recently an article on Real Clear Media was crying that scientific research should be made freely available even by skirting pay-walls if need be. ARI, after I spent many dollars purchasing materials for my own edification, has made lots of information available. 

Information of this nature has yet to go viral. Viral capitalizes on the entertainment value. As entertaining as Atlas Shrugged may be, to unlock the door harboring the motor(s) is dependant on the mind choosing to discover what's behind the ray-screen for themselves.

(/rant)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, EC said:

I think the person in this thread complaining about O'ists getting too much info on this subject from the MSM has been getting too much of his own info (nonsensical conservative propaganda) from Tucker (who I like in many ways even though he's a lunatic about this subject which is objectively evil Russian aggression, war crimes, and atrocities that are clearly reminiscent of those of the 3rd Reich). This is WW3's (let's call it by what it actually is) of the shit the actual Nazis did during WW2.

>which is objectively evil Russian aggression

As a response to objectively evil Ukrainian government aggression against other Ukrainians who are ethnically Russian. If you study some history of the subject instead of watching CNN and MSNBC you might learn something and arrive at a conclusion more consistent with the actual historical record.

This is known as the "correspondence theory truth," in which "truth = correspondence to fact"; as opposed to slavishly following MSM, which is known as the "coherence theory of truth," in which "truth = beliefs and statements that are not only internally consistent but concur, and are consistent with, stories and viewpoints espoused by pundits on MSM." As an example of the latter, when Brian Stelter on CNN went to one of the areas that were rioting after the George Floyd killing, and with a straight face told the cameras that "this is mainly a peaceful demonstration" when viewers could plainly see buildings burning in the background and people rioting violently in the streets, there were many viewers who, to this day, deny that there was any violent rioting in the streets because Brian Stelter -- Johnny-on-the-Spot -- told them what to think, and told them how to interpret what they were seeing. That's called "controlling the narrative."

It's like the scene in "The Wizard of Oz" where the little terrier Toto pulls back the curtain, revealing a harmless old man at a machine that amplifies his voice, making him sound menacing, and who then shouts (as a last-ditch attempt to "control the narrative" of Dorothy and her companions), "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

>war crimes, and atrocities

False flags. For example, the maternity hospital that was shelled several weeks ago, with reports of dead women and babies, and blamed on Russian forces by western mainstream media, had been evacuated several weeks earlier in February and was being used as a headquarters by Ukrainian military and the Azov battalion. That's why it was shelled by Russian forces. But women and babies were not among the casualties.

The online newscast called "The Hill: Rising" hosted by Kim Iversen had a webcast at the end of February about some of the fake images and newscasts coming out of Ukraine and promoted by mainstream media, such as spectacular nighttime rocket attacks that were actually images from a video game; images of "brave" president Zelensky donning military gear, apparently "ready to appear on the front lines to support his troops" that were actually recycled pictures from a year ago of a training exercise; etc. See link.

The more recent hysteria by MSM over Russian forces "about to attack a nuclear power plant" was a false flag, too. Ukrainian military took over the power plant and fired on Russian forces hoping to goad them into returning the fire (they didn't). Nevertheless, sleepwalkers in the west who swallow Blue Pills handed out to them by MSM got to shake their heads and virtual-signal to one another, "I just saw on The View that those nasty, nasty Russians were about to attack a nuclear power plant! That Putin guy sure is nuts!" Etc. Controlling the narrative.

>that are clearly reminiscent of those of the 3rd Reich

That's for sure! The members of the Azov Battalion are the scions of WWII-era Nazis (can't even call them "neo-Nazis; they're actual, old-style Nazis, and they even don some of the runic symbolism on their military gear). So when Putin declared that one of the aims of the incursion would be to "de-Nazify" Ukraine, he was being literal.

The Objectivists on this board are simply uninformed. It's understandable, though. Ayn Rand hated Russia, so followers of Ayn Rand should also hate Russia. That seems to be about the extent of "research" most Objectivists here have done on the topic of Ukraine.

As for Tucker Carlson: he's a good interviewer and very likable. Many haven't forgiven him, though, for the insulting way he treated attorney Sidney Powell after the fraud of the 2020 election started to become known (see Dinesh D'Souza's recent documentary on that, titled "2000 Mules" showing video evidence of massive ballot-stuffing by Democrats). The problem isn't Tucker; the problem is that Fox is really part of MSM now (it was been for a long time), whose function within that space is being seen by many (including me) as being "Controlled Opposition", i.e., a venue that is permitted to voice opposition to some of the prevailing narratives but only within certain limits. This applies to Newsmax, as well. Both Fox and Newsmax have taken large sums of money from Big Pharma so you won't hear a peep from them regarding the poisonous effects of the mass vaccination and mass boosting programs, and both news venues have demurred on the January 6th "insurrection" at the Capitol, and the 2020 election fraud.

Regarding the vaccines: as Edward Dowd (former managing director at BlackRock) has said, there's been a 40% increase since the vax rollout in 2021 of "All Cause Mortality" in a demographic that shouldn't be having such an increase: working age adults between 18 and 64. This was first reported a few months ago by the CEO of OneAmerica, a large insurance company headquartered in Indiana. A 40% increase in All Cause Mortality is about 10 Standard Deviations on a Normal Distribution, indicating an event that one wouldn't expect to see even in 200 years. Other insurance carriers, both US and European, have noticed similar kinds of increases over the past year. There are probably several causes (the lockdowns, for sure) but the injurious effects of the mRNA technology on causing long-term damage to the immune system, as well as contributing to blood clots and myocarditis, has now been admitted even by Pfizer during its recent FOIA releases of its trial data. Dowd and others (MDs and PhDs) are expecting huge numbers in excess mortality -- in the many millions, possibly more -- to die in the next few years. Unfortunately, many of those will be children.

Alternative viewpoints that aren't censored or controlled can only be had on alternative platforms such as Rumble, BitChute, Telegram, Gab, Gettr, Parler, Truth Social (Trump's platform), Frank Speech (Mike Lindell's platform), and maybe a few others. Under Elon Musk's helmsmanship, Twitter might rebound as an actual mainstream platform promoting free speech, hence, alternative narratives, but we'll have to wait to see how that all plays out in the next few months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Economic Freedom said:

The Objectivists on this board are simply uninformed.

Brushing aside the rest of your yet to be earned accolades of your sought-out information, who are the Objectivists on this board, and what is your evidence? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, EC said:

Not that these philosophic subjects shouldn't be discussed (they should, especially on a philosophy forum) but extremely important current events also *need* to be discussed from a clearly Objectivist perspective or, like what has currently happened, we become irrelevant on the national stage.

Discuss, and then what? 

The issue I think is more like a lack of substantive speakers. But another issue is a lack of support of anyone, then complaining and nitpicking about people saying things in ways they don't like. I'm not saying you, just casual observations of other self-proclaimed Oists.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Economic Freedom said:

The Objectivists on this board are simply uninformed. It's understandable, though. Ayn Rand hated Russia, so followers of Ayn Rand should also hate Russia.

What point are you trying to make? Why are you spending time on stupid and uninformed people? I just find it curious when people opt for self-mutilation rather than something interesting and productive even in their own eyes. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Eiuol said:

What point are you trying to make? Why are you spending time on stupid and uninformed people? I just find it curious when people opt for self-mutilation rather than something interesting and productive even in their own eyes. 

 

>What point are you trying to make? 

Objectivists live in an echo chamber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Economic Freedom said:

>which is objectively evil Russian aggression

As a response to objectively evil Ukrainian government aggression against other Ukrainians who are ethnically Russian. If you study some history of the subject instead of watching CNN and MSNBC you might learn something and arrive at a conclusion more consistent with the actual historical record.

This is known as the "correspondence theory truth," in which "truth = correspondence to fact"; as opposed to slavishly following MSM, which is known as the "coherence theory of truth," in which "truth = beliefs and statements that are not only internally consistent but concur, and are consistent with, stories and viewpoints espoused by pundits on MSM." As an example of the latter, when Brian Stelter on CNN went to one of the areas that were rioting after the George Floyd killing, and with a straight face told the cameras that "this is mainly a peaceful demonstration" when viewers could plainly see buildings burning in the background and people rioting violently in the streets, there were many viewers who, to this day, deny that there was any violent rioting in the streets because Brian Stelter -- Johnny-on-the-Spot -- told them what to think, and told them how to interpret what they were seeing. That's called "controlling the narrative."

It's like the scene in "The Wizard of Oz" where the little terrier Toto pulls back the curtain, revealing a harmless old man at a machine that amplifies his voice, making him sound menacing, and who then shouts (as a last-ditch attempt to "control the narrative" of Dorothy and her companions), "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

>war crimes, and atrocities

False flags. For example, the maternity hospital that was shelled several weeks ago, with reports of dead women and babies, and blamed on Russian forces by western mainstream media, had been evacuated several weeks earlier in February and was being used as a headquarters by Ukrainian military and the Azov battalion. That's why it was shelled by Russian forces. But women and babies were not among the casualties.

The online newscast called "The Hill: Rising" hosted by Kim Iversen had a webcast at the end of February about some of the fake images and newscasts coming out of Ukraine and promoted by mainstream media, such as spectacular nighttime rocket attacks that were actually images from a video game; images of "brave" president Zelensky donning military gear, apparently "ready to appear on the front lines to support his troops" that were actually recycled pictures from a year ago of a training exercise; etc. See link.

The more recent hysteria by MSM over Russian forces "about to attack a nuclear power plant" was a false flag, too. Ukrainian military took over the power plant and fired on Russian forces hoping to goad them into returning the fire (they didn't). Nevertheless, sleepwalkers in the west who swallow Blue Pills handed out to them by MSM got to shake their heads and virtual-signal to one another, "I just saw on The View that those nasty, nasty Russians were about to attack a nuclear power plant! That Putin guy sure is nuts!" Etc. Controlling the narrative.

>that are clearly reminiscent of those of the 3rd Reich

That's for sure! The members of the Azov Battalion are the scions of WWII-era Nazis (can't even call them "neo-Nazis; they're actual, old-style Nazis, and they even don some of the runic symbolism on their military gear). So when Putin declared that one of the aims of the incursion would be to "de-Nazify" Ukraine, he was being literal.

The Objectivists on this board are simply uninformed. It's understandable, though. Ayn Rand hated Russia, so followers of Ayn Rand should also hate Russia. That seems to be about the extent of "research" most Objectivists here have done on the topic of Ukraine.

As for Tucker Carlson: he's a good interviewer and very likable. Many haven't forgiven him, though, for the insulting way he treated attorney Sidney Powell after the fraud of the 2020 election started to become known (see Dinesh D'Souza's recent documentary on that, titled "2000 Mules" showing video evidence of massive ballot-stuffing by Democrats). The problem isn't Tucker; the problem is that Fox is really part of MSM now (it was been for a long time), whose function within that space is being seen by many (including me) as being "Controlled Opposition", i.e., a venue that is permitted to voice opposition to some of the prevailing narratives but only within certain limits. This applies to Newsmax, as well. Both Fox and Newsmax have taken large sums of money from Big Pharma so you won't hear a peep from them regarding the poisonous effects of the mass vaccination and mass boosting programs, and both news venues have demurred on the January 6th "insurrection" at the Capitol, and the 2020 election fraud.

Regarding the vaccines: as Edward Dowd (former managing director at BlackRock) has said, there's been a 40% increase since the vax rollout in 2021 of "All Cause Mortality" in a demographic that shouldn't be having such an increase: working age adults between 18 and 64. This was first reported a few months ago by the CEO of OneAmerica, a large insurance company headquartered in Indiana. A 40% increase in All Cause Mortality is about 10 Standard Deviations on a Normal Distribution, indicating an event that one wouldn't expect to see even in 200 years. Other insurance carriers, both US and European, have noticed similar kinds of increases over the past year. There are probably several causes (the lockdowns, for sure) but the injurious effects of the mRNA technology on causing long-term damage to the immune system, as well as contributing to blood clots and myocarditis, has now been admitted even by Pfizer during its recent FOIA releases of its trial data. Dowd and others (MDs and PhDs) are expecting huge numbers in excess mortality -- in the many millions, possibly more -- to die in the next few years. Unfortunately, many of those will be children.

Alternative viewpoints that aren't censored or controlled can only be had on alternative platforms such as Rumble, BitChute, Telegram, Gab, Gettr, Parler, Truth Social (Trump's platform), Frank Speech (Mike Lindell's platform), and maybe a few others. Under Elon Musk's helmsmanship, Twitter might rebound as an actual mainstream platform promoting free speech, hence, alternative narratives, but we'll have to wait to see how that all plays out in the next few months.

I stopped reading when you claimed I get my news from CNN and MSNBC. I don't watch left-wing propaganda stations and when I watch a national news channel it's only FOX News, but, and this is very important, I watch it objectively, and have mostly stopped watching Tucker even though as I said earlier I like a lot of what he has to say over exactly this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Discuss, and then what? 

The issue I think is more like a lack of substantive speakers. But another issue is a lack of support of anyone, then complaining and nitpicking about people saying things in ways they don't like. I'm not saying you, just casual observations of other self-proclaimed Oists.  

Possibly take action if the right situations and/or opportunities then arise? Change in the world can now happen very quickly as the exponential rise of the internet, 9/11, and Covid have shown me over about the last 25 years of my life.

Also, what's the difference between an Oist and "a self-proclaimed Oist"? Is there a secret handshake that I'm not aware of? Does one have to complete a philosophy degree before they can be an "official" Oist?

Here's how I justify my claim in case you were wondering: At the age of about 12 I tried to understand how to make socialism "work" in my mind so I ran through a scenario in my mind about a government providing "free" shoes to citizens and it lead me within about an hour and a half to most of the arguments/reasons why it never could, and more, that it is evil and why it is. About 11-12 years later an event called 9/11 occurred and soon after the War on Terror which within days was being protested by Leftists (I didn't know Left from Right at the time) and I knew this was also evil. So I joined the university's Conservative Union because they also supported the war. That lasted about a week before the other members said that everything I was saying sounded like stuff Ayn Rand said. I was like who??? Then let's say after reading everything Miss Rand ever wrote, the rest is history... Did I earn my Oist card sir?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, EC said:

I stopped reading when you claimed I get my news from CNN and MSNBC. I don't watch left-wing propaganda stations and when I watch a national news channel it's only FOX News, but, and this is very important, I watch it objectively, and have mostly stopped watching Tucker even though as I said earlier I like a lot of what he has to say over exactly this issue.

>it's only FOX News

That's a mistake. FOX (as well as its conservative competitor, Newsmax) is controlled opposition: it's permitted by its sponsors to criticize certain things, but not to criticize -- or even mention -- other things.

Examples: a year ago, Newt Gingrich was a guest being interviewed by commentator Harris Faulkner. When Newt started to mention the funding by George Soros of local Attorneys General who were radical lefties, Faulkner cut him off and told him that "we're not going to talk about Soros..." At first Newt laughed, thinking this was some sort of joke, but then he realized that FOX was simply censoring his statements: he was not permitted to mention the name "George Soros". More recently, Catherine Engelbrecht, a founding member of True-the-Vote (investigating the fraud of the 2020 presidential election) was on Tucker Carlson's show. She was told by Carlson before the show not to mention Dinesh D'Souza's recent documentary on the fraud, titled "2000 Mules", which used cell-phone tracking data to track thousands of ballot-harvesters ("mules") who went back and forth to ballot drop-boxes in many states, and then picked up more ballots (with names of dead people on them, or names of out-of-state people), to drop them into the ballot drop boxes. The documentary also tracks them going to various NGO headquarters where they picked up the ballots and were paid per ballot. FOX and Newsmax have stated publicly that they will not air the documentary or even mention it. 

As stated earlier, both FOX and Newsmax receive millions of dollars in sponsorship from Big Pharma (mainly Pfizer, it appears) and thus will not honestly criticize the so-called "vaccines."

In that sense, FOX and Newsmax are no different from CNN and MSNBC. The only way to watch these venues "objectively" is to start from the assumption that they are presenting propaganda promoting someone's interests that are most likely not your interests.

Wake up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should also add -- for those who harp on the issue that "Putin is not the legitimate leader of the Russian Republic" -- that not only (as posted earlier) is Zelensky not the legitimate leader of Ukraine, but Joe Biden is not the legitimate leader of the U.S., so the lend-lease arrangement recently made between the U.S. and Ukraine has no "moral legitimacy" either.

You really believe a guy who stayed in his basement during most of the campaign phase, and made a few public appearances in which a dozen or so people showed up, each one sitting compliantly with a face mask, and separated by one another by six feet, sitting in a chair with a circle drawn around it -- that he got 80 million votes? The most popular POTUS in history? Even more popular than Obama? When Trump would speak at rallies in various cities, each filled with capacity crowds, e.g., when he spoke in Butler, PA, there are almost 60,000 people who showed up. And yet Biden won in a "secure, fair, and honest election"? I don't think so.

Watch "2000 Mules".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Economic Freedom said:

FOX and Newsmax are no different from CNN and MSNBC. The only way to watch these venues "objectively" is to start from the assumption that they are presenting propaganda promoting someone's interests that are most likely not your interests.

This statement I agree with completely (also congrats on understanding what it means to consume a news source objectively even if the scare quotes imply that you don't seem to believe this is actually possible), but I also didn't state that this is my only source of news content just that it is what I usually watch for national news on television. And this is for a simple reason: it's content isn't explicitly Leftist and it's convenient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, EC said:

to create a free rational world in our lifetimes

How realistic is this goal?  Especially for those of us who are getting on in years.

20 hours ago, EC said:

ASAP

What degree of soonness is possible?

20 hours ago, EC said:

And you change it by publicly talking about these types of things that are important to every man, women, and child on the face of the Earth.

You change it by spreading Ayn Rand's ideas.  You are describing one way to do this.  Another way is to discuss the ideas with individuals or small groups who are willing to listen.  Another way is to encourage people to read Objectivist books.  Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2022 at 10:08 PM, Economic Freedom said:

[...]

You claimed that the Ukraine government is run by “a neo-Nazi gang”. I have asked you to prove this. Instead of evidence you produced evasions, misrepresentations and ad hominems.

Afterwards I asked you if you do intend to prove your allegation, e.g. by naming the top government officials who are Nazis or by naming the specifically Nazi policies of this government. You did not react.

This is my third and last attempt: what is your evidence that the Ukraine government is run by Nazis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

How realistic is this goal?  Especially for those of us who are getting on in years.

What degree of soonness is possible?

You change it by spreading Ayn Rand's ideas.  You are describing one way to do this.  Another way is to discuss the ideas with individuals or small groups who are willing to listen.  Another way is to encourage people to read Objectivist books.  Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

 

I answered everything but the Internet ate it because I was signed in on my new phone. I'll try to recraft the post again later when I'm not as frustrated about it 🥴

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EC said:

I answered everything but the Internet ate it because I was signed in on my new phone. I'll try to recraft the post again later when I'm not as frustrated about it 🥴

wasn't*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@EC

Sign back in using the same phone and you may get asked to clear or edit what you had previously typed up. 

Click in the window to add a new message rather than replying to an existing post. (Hope that helps.)

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Economic Freedom said:

You really believe a guy who stayed in his basement during most of the campaign phase, and made a few public appearances in which a dozen or so people showed up, each one sitting compliantly with a face mask, and separated by one another by six feet, sitting in a chair with a circle drawn around it -- that he got 80 million votes? The most popular POTUS in history? Even more popular than Obama? When Trump would speak at rallies in various cities, each filled with capacity crowds, e.g., when he spoke in Butler, PA, there are almost 60,000 people who showed up. And yet Biden won in a "secure, fair, and honest election"? I don't think so.

How many people attend a candidate's rallies does not necessarily correlate well with how many vote for that candidate, especially if candidates are using different strategies, and especially if their followers tend to differ in attitudes and motivations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

How many people attend a candidate's rallies does not necessarily correlate well with how many vote for that candidate, especially if candidates are using different strategies, and especially if their followers tend to differ in attitudes and motivations.

 

LOL! Right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...