• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Politics & The CIC/Prez


Forums New posts
And here's a fact-check about the new provisions for the IRS, refuting the false claims of 87,000 armed agents being hired. Note that it includes references that you can follow up to decide for yourself if it's accurate or not:

www.usatoday.com

Fact check: False claims about IRS enforcement, taxes on Americans

Most of the employees hired by the Internal Revenue Service will not be special agents. H.R. 5376 will not raise individual tax rates either.
www.usatoday.com

And I see Randall has yet to find the courage to explain what he means when he says fact-checking sites are unreliable and provide some examples.
 
I'm still just worried that they'll put up Hillary again. If they do, they will lose.
Don't they have any good ones? Kerry was ok etc...
 
But don't forget, calling her "crooked" is not in any way true. It's just a partisan attempt to discredit her.

Sleepy Joe won't reveal his future plans till after the midterm elections.
 
Perhaps, perhaps not. The Clintons have had their ordeals. If I was discussing your parties, I'd get rid of then quick, and get all new people.
To be frank, they should had done that from start. Dump the "elite".

Same goes to Rep as well.

(Too bad I cannot vote - I was Reaganist when I was 12... ;)
 
[Deleted until Randall has the courage to respond to my request for evidence that fact check sites aren't reliable.]
 
Gene Steinberg said:
The only main effort to subvert elections came from Trump and his followers this time out.
Click to expand...
You got a fact check for that?

The difference between challenging the results of an election and interference on social media platforms by government agencies to influence the narrative prior to an election is vast. The challenges were presented in the courts and rejected. Trump's statements, however lacking in truth or merit, were made in the open a matter of public record. This was after the the election was over.
The latter, involving the DHS and the FBI were conducted in secret. Out of public view. Before all the voting took place. The intent was to suppress information that could influence people's votes.
One scenario is permitted by the constitution. The other is not.

If you have any documentation that proves Trump or anyone else orchestrated the events of Jan 6th, present it. Seriously, what kind of conspiracy theories do you hold to?
 
You are living in a bubble.

U.S. government agencies aren't trying to influence elections via social networks. That's what the Russians did during 2016 and, to a lesser extent, the 2020 elections. This is not to say they are not monitoring such places. It appears they are, and that they might be going overboard.

The documentation that proves Trump orchestrated the events of January 6th are in his own words on that day, and in the vast trove of information brought forth via the January 6th committee, with the vast majority of testimony from Republicans.

But someone who believes fringe sites such as Timcast is clearly not in this dimension.
 
Ad hominem attacks on valid news sources is not a fact check. That's all you have. I expect that's all you will ever have. So disappointed.

You also failed to produce hard documentation of your claims. I did. Text messages. Emails. Actual Government documents.

The Jan 6th hearings were/are a one sided affair. No contradictory testimony was permitted. The people accused by the panel were offorded no opportunity of defense. There were no rebuttals or challenges to the evidence presented. No hard documentation. Just a lot of "so and so said something to the effect of...."

Seriously you have nothing.

Is that link you provided to a Newsguard certified source? Rating?

You accuse others of failing to back up their claims. You don't hold yourself to the same standard. I think you owe Randall an apology.
 
Last edited:
I continue to back up my statements with references and links. You aren't paying attention.

As to the January 6th Committee, hard documentation includes videos of what happened on that day. I guess you weren't watching.

Remember, too, that the testimony was taken under oath, under penalty of perjury. Just a lot more than "so and so."

Texts messages have also been posted. Clearly you must have been somewhere else when that happened.

So:

www.bostonglobe.com

Committee reveals text messages between former Trump campaign officials in aftermath of attack - The Boston Globe

The committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capitol is referencing thousands of texts it obtained as it tries to make the case that former president Donald Trump is responsible for the violence at the Capitol. Here is a look at some notable messages.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

Now kindly pay attention to the dozens and dozens of links I've provided. If we're talking about apologies, I await yours.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
I continue to back up my statements with references and links. You aren't paying attention.

As to the January 6th Committee, hard documentation includes videos of what happened on that day. I guess you weren't watching.

Remember, too, that the testimony was taken under oath, under penalty of perjury. Just a lot more than "so and so."

Texts messages have also been posted. Clearly you must have been somewhere else when that happened.

So:

www.bostonglobe.com

Committee reveals text messages between former Trump campaign officials in aftermath of attack - The Boston Globe

The committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capitol is referencing thousands of texts it obtained as it tries to make the case that former president Donald Trump is responsible for the violence at the Capitol. Here is a look at some notable messages.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

Now kindly pay attention to the dozens and dozens of links I've provided. If we're talking about apologies, I await yours.
Click to expand...
Links behind paywalls again? Fiddlesticks.

Oh, I was watching alright. I was also paying attention to the games played by the committee. If Trump had done the things he was accused of he would have been charged by now. Name one crime Trump committed for which there is enough evidence for formal charges. Just one. Then explain why he hasn't been charged.

I've also seen the videos and text messages presented by the committee. My reaction was "What? You mean that's it? Really?" I have also seen video evidence ignored or even cropped by the committee.

I think Trump has a lot to answer for. For things far more serious than accusations of a congressional committee with no objective standards of evidence. I don't think you want to go there though.

I think a bubble is going to be burst in eight days.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top