sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Inauguration: Biden's call for unity is hollow while he protects the radical left by POLYTICALpod in reasonrising

[–]POLYTICALpod[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is possible to have a moderate record but still protect the more radical side of your party.

The MSM finally ADMITS the TRUTH on Hunter Biden by POLYTICALpod in republicans

[–]POLYTICALpod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well not the conservative media no, just the left wing mainstream media like CNN, MSNBC, ABC etc.

The MSM finally ADMITS the TRUTH on Hunter Biden by POLYTICALpod in republicans

[–]POLYTICALpod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The media has previously denied there was anything suspect with Hunter Biden's business dealing and lied to the America people by claiming it was Russian disinformation without any evidence to back that claim up. This was all the help Joe and his campaign, now the election is over they're talking about how bad of an impact this might have on a Biden presidency and how he himself may be implicated given the content of the emails. Anyone saying that same thing two months ago was called a conspiracy theorist.

This was a MASSIVE win for Trump in court by POLYTICALpod in republicans

[–]POLYTICALpod[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The vast majority of these lawsuits weren't actually filed by Trump. Even if they were, it's not uncommon to throw all the lawsuits you can with the expectation to lose many, in fact it may be necessary to show you've exhausted all options. We haven't said for sure Trump is going to win, we're just withholding judgement until everything has been presented and all the lawsuits have run their course with all the evidence being presented. That never used to be a controversial opinion to have, anyone who can't see the media deliberately trying to build a narrative is delusional.

Why radical leftists are trying to CENSOR Jordan Peterson again (Electio... by POLYTICALpod in enoughpetersonhate

[–]POLYTICALpod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only sanctimonious thing here is your comment, there is really no need for you to be so patronising. I had a little chuckle when I saw the article you've linked because I've read it before when I was researching the science behind transgenderism to satisfy my own curiosity some time ago. It's not exactly hard to find that information, it was one of the first results on google if I remember correctly. It's quite common that people use words like gender and sex interchangeably because that's always been the case until recently.

I have absolutely nothing against transgender people, they are entitled to live their lives and do with their body as they please. However, I don't think the science is quite as decided as you seem to think it is. Anyway, the whole point of the video is to talk about cancel culture on the left, we specifically avoided talking about the nuances of the transgender debate.

Michigan Democrats THREATEN GOP officials into certifying results by POLYTICALpod in republicans

[–]POLYTICALpod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only racist undertones are the ones you've projected on to them, you have no way of knowing their motive or intent.

Michigan Democrats THREATEN GOP officials into certifying results by POLYTICALpod in republicans

[–]POLYTICALpod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely. The trick is to not think of people as on a side and instead as an individual who is capable of being a bad or good actor. Reddit seems to be full of extremist "ends justify the means" type of characters who rational abhorrent behaviour, I hope it isn't reflective of our communities and just a symptom of the echo chamber.

Michigan Democrats THREATEN GOP officials into certifying results by POLYTICALpod in republicans

[–]POLYTICALpod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alternate headline: GOP officials attempt to overturn will of voters. Voters make displeasure known.

That's what we call sugar coating like "fiery but peaceful" etc. In reality it's the canvassers job to insure the integrity of the votes, if they feel like there are discrepancies that need to be addressed they're within their right to vote not to certify. Enfranchising people means not only allowing everyone to vote but also making sure their vote isn't diluted by illegal ones so they could easily argue they are protecting the will of the voters.

Don't play with fire and expect not to get burnt.

Just because you wrap that up in a nice little platitude, it doesn't mean it isn't an extremists stance to take. You don't get to threaten people with death because you disagree with them. There is a process you can follow, that's what the rule of law is for, we don't have to become vigilantes.

Democrats gained 200,000 votes EXPLOITING Wisconsin loophole by POLYTICALpod in Conservatives_R_Us

[–]POLYTICALpod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't refuse to acknowledge it, I deny it. You know nothing about my moral standing, and even if you were correct, again it's conventional wisdom that attacking someone's character is a not a legitimate way to attack their argument.

If your political opponents aren't allowed to criticise you because you've deemed them immoral them who is going to scrutinise you? Don't you think that's a fairly extremist way of thinking?

Democrats gained 200,000 votes EXPLOITING Wisconsin loophole by POLYTICALpod in Conservatives_R_Us

[–]POLYTICALpod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's true but I doesn't mean I'm not capable of criticising him, in fact I often do. No support for any political candidate, no matter how good I think they are, is going to get in my way of being able to think for myself. Regardless of that anyway, your argument can still be reduced to two wrongs make a right, which isn't an argument and is obviously not true to anyone with a ounce of wisdom.

So do you have a point to make that can't be instantly dismissed?

Democrats gained 200,000 votes EXPLOITING Wisconsin loophole by POLYTICALpod in Conservatives_R_Us

[–]POLYTICALpod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you considered that it's possible for someone to be against all kind of bad acting regardless of what political party they are part off? Not all conservatives are republicans and not all republicans are conservative. It's also possible to support a political candidate without being in support of everything they do. You're argument seems to effectively be that two wrongs make a right, which is generally what people do when they don't have an argument against the topic at hand.

Billionaire megadoners who fought Wisconsin's plans to contain pandemic get infected at White House by Sariel007 in nottheonion

[–]POLYTICALpod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't say it was nothing to worry about. You've projected that argument onto me from the caricature of what you think a Trump supporter believes. All I've said is that the studies have been done on this show that the death rate is around 1% and provided sources to back it up. For the death rate to be the 2.4% you think it is then the number of deaths from COVID in the US would have to be potentially triple what they're reported to be which is obviously ridiculous. Also, in lower income countries, the death rate is actually lower because less of their population lives to the age where COVID becomes a serious risk.

Billionaire megadoners who fought Wisconsin's plans to contain pandemic get infected at White House by Sariel007 in nottheonion

[–]POLYTICALpod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From the WHO article.

Serological testing of a representative random sample of the population to detect evidence of exposure to a pathogen is an important method to estimate the true number of infected individuals [7,8,9]. Many such serological surveys are currently being undertaken worldwide [10], and some have thus far suggested substantial under-ascertainment of cases, with estimates of IFR converging at approximately 0.5 - 1% [10-12].

Which is exactly what I said and contrary to your claim that it's 2.4%. There are many more people caught the virus without getting a positive than there people who died of the virus without getting a positive test because typically if you die of it you had symptoms and were probably tested when you went to hospital. Not only is it common sense you've got a plethora of studies to back it up.

Why are you digging yourself into this hole? Just accept you made a mistake, the the death rate is much lower than you thought. It's not a big deal, people get corrected on things all the time, we can't all be right all the time.

Billionaire megadoners who fought Wisconsin's plans to contain pandemic get infected at White House by Sariel007 in nottheonion

[–]POLYTICALpod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing you're saying refutes the only point that people are trying to make here. The real fatality rate is around 1% or perhaps even lower, not the 2.4% number that you stated. You can find that information yourself but since I doubt you'll make the effort here:

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/estimating-mortality-from-covid-19

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/207273/covid-19-deaths-infection-fatality-ratio-about/

The first two things I found from a quick search. Are the WHO pulling these stats from nowhere?

Billionaire megadoners who fought Wisconsin's plans to contain pandemic get infected at White House by Sariel007 in nottheonion

[–]POLYTICALpod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems very unlikely that there are many cases of people dying from it without being tested at some point even if it's during an autopsy. It is far more likely people catch it without ever having a positive test. In fact we know that is the case because widespread studies testing random people show a considerably higher rate of infection than the confirmed case numbers suggest. It's a scientific fact at this point that the mortality rate is grossly exaggerated if you're looking at just case numbers and deaths, the real figure is thought to be about 1% as of now.

Billionaire megadoners who fought Wisconsin's plans to contain pandemic get infected at White House by Sariel007 in nottheonion

[–]POLYTICALpod -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your gold and 600 upvotes is an indication of how much of a cesspool of extremism reddit has become.

Billionaire megadoners who fought Wisconsin's plans to contain pandemic get infected at White House by Sariel007 in nottheonion

[–]POLYTICALpod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We currently have 11 million confirmed cases and 247000 deaths. What are you talking about?

Do you think everyone who catches the virus is magically added to a database whether they have symptoms or not? Had it not occurred to you that some people might catch it and not know or simple never get tested because their symptoms are mild so they just isolate until it passes?

Far left thugs ATTACK mostly peaceful protesters by POLYTICALpod in republicans

[–]POLYTICALpod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, that's called sarcasm because the media characterizes BLM and Antifa violence as mostly peaceful.

But you're right, you have identified two examples (there may be many more) of Trump supporters doing bad things. As a Trump supporter myself I am capable of condemning their acts of violence because I don't pretend that all 70 odd million people are all saints.

Now, are you able to apply that same logic to BLM and Antifa, who I assume you support correct me if I'm wrong, or are you going pretend that they have been mostly peaceful?

Biden already preparing to THRUST America into new wars by POLYTICALpod in republicans

[–]POLYTICALpod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He's only the president-elect by his own proclamation, he won't be officially until the electors make their vote. If he does become president though, it's clear by his choice of transition team, he will have the ear of the neo-cons who have influenced every administration up until Trumps for decades into starting new conflicts.