@eladar said
At the moment, you believe what your politicians tell you what is 2+2. The proof is that judges appointed by the politicians judge it to be correct.

The proof is that what now? Huh? Can you reframe that argument in a coherent way?

@wildgrass said
The proof is that what now? Huh? Can you reframe that argument in a coherent way?

Translation... Can you reframe your argument from my belief point of view?

Of course I could, but I will not.

@wildgrass said
It's downright Orwellian how the term "orwellian" is being misused of late.

DT Jr. says that “we are living Orwell’s 1984. Free-speech no longer exists in America. It died with big tech and what’s left is only there for a chosen few.” Nevermind the fact that he has an entire White House press corp and can go on Foxnews whenever he asks, or put their message out through a ...[text shortened]... orts reality? Or are people using this term who either haven't read the book or don't understand it?

"Nevermind the fact that he has an entire White House press corp and can go on Foxnews whenever he asks, or put their message out through any number of a wide variety of news sources."

DJT already made a speech about election fraud. Why didn't you know about it until now? Here it is, it is about 46 minutes long.

YouTube

Most of the news media ignored it. Propaganda by omission.

@moonbus said
What's Orwellian is when a president feeds lies to a propaganda outlet, which feeds them to the general public and they believe them, and the president then cites his massive popularity has a certification of his lies. I.e., 'Millions of Americans are angry about the election.' Of course they are; it's not what it is, it became what he made it.

What's Orwellian is w ...[text shortened]... ellian' developments (such as restricting Trump's access to forums where he propagated doublespeak).

I’m sure if Orwell was writing 1984 at any time in the last 4 years the phrase ‘Trumpspeak’ would have made an appearance.

@eladar said
Translation... Can you reframe your argument from my belief point of view?

Of course I could, but I will not.

Wildgrass said coherent, so no you couldn’t your arguments are never coherent.

@eladar said
At the moment, you believe what your politicians tell you what is 2+2. The proof is that judges appointed by the politicians judge it to be correct.

Except that it was Trump that appointed a lot of the judges who laughed and berated his claims out of court. How do you explain that whilst retaining a semblance of coherence.