Ep. 7: The Elections, SJWs, Leaving For SteemFeststeemCreated with Sketch.

in podcast •  2 years ago


Well, I'm leaving for SteemFest in a few hours, so what better time to make a video about the election now that Donald Trump is the President Elect?

The Andrarchy Show is now on iTunes!!!

    Soundcloud

"No One Saw This Coming" Except Me: How I Predicted a Trump Win 6 Months Ago [With Evidence]

Jordan Peterson on The Origins of SJWs

Scott Adams explains the Persuasion Game

The Rubin Report

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Who are the cats? My cat's love suitcases too! Also is your podcast on Itunes? Doesn't matter if it isn't but it makes it easier to take it on my devices for listening when I'm out and about.

Edit: Just found it on ITunes:)

·

One's Val and one's Neechy.

Awesome! I didn't know it had been accepted! They didn't send me an email or anything! Thanks a lot for looking into that.

·
·

Cool:) I love cats.

That must be a nice surprise then!

My car louvres this too! She was most miffed to discover that I was taking a bag to steemfest!!

I get that all politicians, in a sense, have "killed people." What source do you use when talking about Hillary's death toll? Her voting record alone or is there more?

I think there may also be a bias about Hillary being a lying, cheating, murderous, wretched person... and yet other groups see her as being one of the most moral actors in the system. Evidence is needed for these claims, I think (on both sides).

·

Yes I meant it in the first sense. Being a politician isn't a get-out-of-murder-and-violence-free card. I was not referring to conspiracy theories. I was merely pointing out the fact that almost by definition any private citizen is going to be involved in fewer violent acts than a politician, especially Secretay of State, and obviously there is no actionable evidence that Trump has ever been violent. Mind you I said nothing about whether that violence is ever justified

·
·

Thanks for clarifying. :)

·

It's generally circumstantial evidence around people who were close to the Clintons who have died in mysterious circumstances. They talk about it all the time on /r/TheDonald, that would be the right place to ask and decide if it's conspiracy theory grade stuff or genuinely suspicious.

·
·

Okay... I looked around a bit and found some links that (IMO) aren't even worth linking to here. I don't have enough tin foil for all that. Way too much unsubstantiated conspiracy-filled lose connections. @andrarchy likes to argue from first principles and evidence, so I'm hoping he has more to go off of than what I found on reddit (which was far from evidence, IMO).

Is it possible she (or people close to her) had people killed? For sure. That's also a pretty serious claim which should require some serious evidence. People dying suspiciously is not evidence. Much has been written about how our brains make connections and correlations and pretend they are causations.

Many people are demonizing Hillary via memes and claims about her being a criminal and murderer, etc. I'd like to see more evidence before I jump onboard with that perspective. Some supporters of Hillary look at it differently and say she's been investigated in minute detail (10+ years of personal emails) with no dirt on her. That's kind of amazing.

(btw, I didn't vote and don't support either candidate).

·
·
·

I won't defend the murder claims.

Some supporters of Hillary look at it differently and say she's been investigated in minute detail (10+ years of personal emails) with no dirt on her. That's kind of amazing.

The only way you could say there was no evidence of wrongdoing in the emails are if you're not looking or are readily dismissing it. There is for example emails where her campaign discuss co-ordination with the DNC during the primaries, getting to hand pick electoral officers and requesting that Debbie Schultz put up phoney interviews on her calendar to give the impression of impartiality. They talk about using "leverage" on Bernie Sanders to keep him in line. The rigging of the DNC primaries is one thing there is mountains of evidence on. They talk about deliberately deleting emails just as they learn of an investigation into them. They get tips from people at the DoJ which help them to evade investigation. They have their own internal investigation into Chelsea Clinton spending Foundation money on her $3 million wedding. They talk about their donors expecting political favours, and instead of rebuking them they say they will talk about it in person. There's evidence of Bill Clinton doing favours for donations. They talk about "bird dogging", ie. trained agitators who provoke political supporters to anger so that they can present them as violent. They talk about co-ordination between her campaign and the Super PACs (that's a federal crime). Etc. etc. It's all there if you're willing to look. Ask people on the wikileaks subreddit.

·
·
·
·

They talk about "bird dogging", ie. trained agitators who provoke political supporters to anger so that they can present them as violent.

Have you seen the videos made by James O'Keefe?

Rigging the Election - Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies

·
·
·

The Clinton Chronicles film (1994) might be what you are looking for. The Clinton Body Count theory has to be at least as old as this documentary. You should find it on YouTube, I've watch it there about a year ago.

·
·
·
·

Not exactly what I would call "evidence" based on this initial reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clinton_Chronicles

The deaths listed in the film have largely been discredited due to deliberate bias, weak circumstantial evidence, and coincidence.

·
·
·
·
·

I was not proposing evidence but merely what could be the origin of the theory. The movie is not fresh in my mind so I can't discuss every detail of the corruption purported to be conducted by the Clintons in it. One thing is for sure, if my memory serve me correctly and even a small portion of what is alleged in the film really happened and involved Hillary and/or Bill, there would be matter for criminal prosecution.

You are quoting Snopes which according to the The Daily Caller is left-leaning and bias. Before looking into The Daily Caller fact-checking and reading the debunking piece by Snopes, I believe the best would be to start by watching the film so to judge it for yourself.

On another topic, I once tweeted to Kim LaCapria of Snopes that it is no argument just to say that the source of an information (Intellihub this time) is biased without adding any explanation to support the claim of not being objective. She did not adress my remark about her use of an ad hominem fallacy.

I think it's hard to find doubtless evidence for such a serious crime as murder, whether it's by gleaning on the Internet or as some kind of investigative citizen in real life. What we are often left with are the media, which like any other type of medium at the middle of a chain of information, will relay the best they can (or not) the data to us at the other end of some type of broken telephone line.

·
·
·
·
·

Another documentary I've seen a couple of months ago, this one only about the more recent influence peddling:

CLINTON CASH OFFICIAL DOCUMENTARY MOVIE ( FULL )


I found it, and I might actually rewatch and then compare it with Snopes' article:

The Clinton Chronicles (Full Version)

·

I don't know where the expectation comes from that politicians shouldn't be shrewd, in the first place. Mr. Rogers for President!

Just listened to the show. I will check out the other shows you recommend.

You make some great points.

The problem is that a good honest person like for example Bernie Sanders could never be a president or Prime Minister.

Why?

Well because they would not be willing to tell the lies or do the deals that would be necessary to get elected. You have to be ruthless and self serving in the extreme.

Sociopathic traits help a lot in this regard. If you are not like this the media will tear you to shreds and they will cause any reasonable person to give up very early.

Only sociopaths and narcissists can make it through that kind of scrutiny and continue to function and indeed thrive on it.

That is why you will sometimes see decent people make it through on the peripheries of politics but they will get stuck there and never progress any further.

BTW Have fun at Steemfest:)

This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the second half of Nov 10. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $5.54 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.

See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Nov 10 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.

If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.

Well, you did not see Jesus coming, did you? ;-)

·

No I did not. I guess Jesus is a bit like the Spanish Inquisition, no one expects it.