• 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!

The Official Paracast Political Thread! — Part Three

Free episodes:

Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gene Steinberg said:
The mainstream media helped to elect Trump by spending months treating him as a novelty with full and uncritical coverage. You are sure out of the loop here.
Click to expand...
Gene, in June of 2016 I thought, like probably a large majority of Americans thought too, that Trump was an idiot and buffoon. So, your logic is unbelievably faulty from what I know to be true with my own experience. The MSM except for Fox did everything in its power to destroy Trump, and "they" failed.

Sure, the MSM made billions off these controversies, but it was assuring Trump's destruction at every turn except for Fox. How you can think otherwise only proves to me you can't think logically about this.

In June and July I was watching BBC and C-SPAN and because I watched both the DNC and RNC conventions and watched Trump speak directly without the MSM interference, I began to see he might be far better than Hillary. Don't forget Hillary was seriously flawed except for her gender appeal, and then the FBI hearings sealed her fate with me. Remember, I don't have Fox access, but I learned in August I could find some Fox clips on youtube. I began watching Fox in September by youtube until the election, it's not a live service, and Fox never changed my mind about Trump or Hillary from what I already learned from C-SPAN.

You seriously need to consider just how flawed a candidate Hillary was to understand why Trump won. Once you can get past that acceptance you will understand correctly why Hillary lost.
 
Last edited:
Your interpretation of Clinton's flaws is very much removed from reality. There are valid reasons why this happened. You do not understand what they were.

Again, I don't believe you about your lack of prior experience with Fox News and the right-wing mantras.

Let me ask you: Do you have any views outside of the political realm?
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Your interpretation of Clinton's flaws is very much removed from reality. There are valid reasons why this happened. You do not understand what they were.
Click to expand...
Besides your idea that the MSM gave Trump too much attention worth billions of dollars what are your reasons why Trump won? Can you write a few paragraphs about it or point to your analysis sources with online links?

Gene Steinberg said:
Again, I don't believe you about your lack of prior experience with Fox News and the right-wing mantras.
Click to expand...
That's very clear you stubbornly hold to this premise without a shred of evidence, and I clearly repeatedly post plenty of information to the contrary. I didn't even watch Fox today or since the Assange interview on youtube.

At times I check Drudge and I go to BreitBart rarely, but I never did that ever before the conventions in 2016. Never. I did check Drudge every day for about 3 months before the election. I read BreitBart vs Drudge far less for about 2-3 months before the election. I haven't read BreitBart since November until I started to post here too just a few days ago.
Gene Steinberg said:
Let me ask you: Do you have any views outside of the political realm?
Click to expand...
Sure. I listen to Paracast, Dark Matters Radio, and a lot of Space Science. I'm very interested in the sociology and psychology that's related to our beliefs in political and religious and science thought processes.

Don't worry, I can't possibly sustain myself in this thread the way you and Tyger do. You realize alternate views have been driven away from being sustained here, because these views are not tolerated in a friendly, open, and inviting way. No one can stick around for very long here in that environment.
 
vesvehighfolk said:
Hillary Clinton in white pantsuit for Trump inauguration | Daily Mail Online

and lest we forget:
hillary-clinton-jail-800x416.png 42b16fa9072b65cb9415f48a8c32e583.jpg soon Hillary...
Click to expand...
Awesome post! Why? Not because of your Hillary for Prision pics, but the link you provide to the article is excellent. Those are awesome pictures in that article! Worth thousands of words that would fall far short of conveying the meaning signaled by their body language. Wow!

Seriously, fantastic link to that article of pics. Great find. Thanks. :)
 
11thDimensionAlien said:
That's very clear you stubbornly hold to this premise without a shred of evidence, and I clearly repeatedly post plenty of information to the contrary. I didn't even watch Fox today or since the Assange interview on youtube.

At times I check Drudge and I go to BreitBart rarely, but I never did that ever before the conventions in 2016. Never. I did check Drudge every day for about 3 months before the election. I read BreitBart vs Drudge far less for about 2-3 months before the election. I haven't read BreitBart since November until I started to post here too just a few days ago.
Click to expand...
This is why I do not believe you. You religiously regurgitate nonsense from these places, but claim to pay only passing attention.

Even when you're shown evidence you are dead wrong, you ignore it, distort it, and repeat the same falsehoods.

There is no way to argue when one party is not treating the discussion honestly.

Since you say you listen to paranormal radio shows, please go to another thread and discuss them.

I've had enough of people who talk a lot with their ears covered.
 
I'm going to find an excellent C-SPAN interview to post for anyone interested in why Trump won. I asked you to provide a few paragraphs or links to some analysis why Trump won, but you haven't so far other than your point I already mentioned. Maybe you already have elsewhere, so point me to it.

This C-SPAN interview was done with a professor that has analyzed historical elections since the 1800's. I think his record of analysis is perfect or with just one miss. He steadfastly said Trump was going to win, and this is mainly because all his analysis markers pointed to Trump winning. It was a change election, so it was only going to be some huge mistake that Trump would have to make to lose.

I'll post the interview once I find the link.
 
First respond to my questions and concerns. If you cannot do that, I may need to give you a short vacation to reconsider.
 
Tyger said:
The US cannot 'move on' - the reality is looming and must be faced daily. We can never undo the fact that Trump is illegitimate: he was elected by 1/4 of the population, lost the popular vote by 3 million votes, 'won' the Electoral College because of serious voter suppression - in a society that has lost it's bearings on truth and facts. He does not have a mandate - and that is what Trump and Trump supporters need to accept: they are not the majority. However, that said, the majority have only themselves to blame for this genuine tragedy, for not only us, but for the world. (IMO).
Click to expand...
You need to be more thorough to consider other information before drawing such conclusions!

Wasn't the 2016 vote a high voter turnout year vs most other years? Yes, it was, so 1/4 of the population is a bogus argument that could be used against most other elections with lower turnout. It's meaningless unless you're going to force people to vote, and that's really dumb. Our founding fathers and founding principles speak against such ideas.

State's rights is not voter suppression. Hillary's favorite Virginia governor gave tens of thousands of felons the right to vote just before the election. Get rid of the DNC/RNC if you want that to end, and that's wishful thinking.

The Electoral College protects the geographical majority vs highly concentrated populations in NY or east coast and California or west coast. It's why each state also gets two Senators as well. And, it's really really dumb to put forward ideas that Hillary deserves to win, because she won the popular vote, seriously!??? Why? Hillary knew the system herself, and the DNC dominated the states that Trump had no presence in for decades! It's so laughable how naive it is to not understand the incredible feat Trump pulled off to win the states he did. I wonder why? Your reasoning is incredibly flawed to suggest it's voter suppression. That's crazy talk...

The mandate is pretty clear: Trump has a majority in the House and Senate. More states went Republican, so there's a mandate regionally too.
 
Last edited:
Yo
11thDimensionAlien said:
State's rights is not voter suppression. Hillary's favorite Virginia governor gave tens of thousands of felons the right to vote just before the election. Get rid of the DNC/RNC if you want that to end, and that's wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
I, for one, think that when a convinced felon has served their time in prison and/or their probation is over, they ought to regain their full rights of citizenship. Otherwise, it is cruel and unusual punishment. When someone has paid their debt to society, why should they selectively be denied their rights? I thought we believed in rehabilitation. How is that supposed to work when they remain crippled through the rest of their lives?

Maybe because some believe that Democrats would get more votes from convicted felons, because they tend to be lower income people. Well, except for certain white collar criminals.

So perhaps one of the objections to restoring all their rights is to help keep Republicans in office. Have you thought how the outcomes might change if all eligible felons were able to regain their right to vote?

Otherwise, you are already repeating yourself. You are also ignoring the messages in which your claims are disproven.

If you don't take the hint, I'll help you along and give you a little vacation from posting. It's enough already. You're not helping the discussion by repeating proven lies and right wing talking points.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Yo

I, for one, think that when a convinced felon has served their time in prison and/or their probation is over, they ought to regain their full rights of citizenship. Otherwise, it is cruel and unusual punishment. When someone has paid their debt to society, why should they selectively be denied their rights? I thought we believed in rehabilitation. How is that supposed to work when they remain crippled through the rest of their lives?

Maybe because some believe that Democrats would get more votes from convicted felons, because they tend to be lower income people. Well, except for certain white collar criminals.

So perhaps one of the objections to restoring all their rights is to help keep Republicans in office. Have you thought how the outcomes might change if all eligible felons were able to regain their right to vote?

Otherwise, you are already repeating yourself. You are also ignoring the messages in which your claims are disproven.

If you don't take the hint, I'll help you along and give you a little vacation from posting. It's enough already. You're not helping the discussion by repeating proven lies and right wing talking points.
Click to expand...

Gene and his "I'll ban you if you don't agree with me" crap again... so predictable and so liberal.
Lmao.

‘NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!’
 
Personally, I think forgiving certain felony crimes or certain convicted felons to restore their right to vote on a case by case basis is something I have no problem with supporting except with repeat offenders or violent crimes. Maybe a probation period after serving and release to allow for good behavior vs more criminal behavior. But, I'm guessing the Supreme Court has already spoken on this issue, and so it's up to each state to decide. I only have one vote, and I will probably vote for other reasons that I choose a candidate to vote for.

Remember Gene, I've never voted for a Republican candidate, so it's not my agenda to prevent certain people from voting except for non-citizens. Most importantly, I do not want one American citizen's vote neutralized by any non-citizen illegal voter or voting more than once illegally. That has to stop! Period.

How to do that and get the Supreme Court to uphold any law that requires and enforces that is the problem. I'm certain many EU countries absolutely prevent their non-citizens from voting by requiring ID to prove it, and I'm certain their citizens do not consider that voter suppression.

Sooo???
 
Last edited:
The most interesting question about Trump's inaugural address is who he had translate it from the original Russian.

Meanwhile, my thoughts and hopes center on the memory of one man: William Henry Harrison.
 
In trying to find a silver lining today, I realized that with Trump as Il Duce the members of the James Buchanan Fan Club will no longer have to listen to people saying their guy was the worst President ever, so there's that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top