Random political thought thread.

[Jaguar]

Hillary is at the pizza parlor. Stop her now before it's too late.

 

[Tater]

How Trump Could Lose the Election and Remain President | Washington Monthly

 

[FemMecha]

[MENTION=37565]Dareyth[/MENTION]
I think they should do plenty of recounts because fraud could be found in both directions. I also think it should be dragged out as long as possible because the next step is physical violence. As long as there is a legal chance for Trump he has less reason to need the military on the streets or the nuclear bombs. Once he has no more legal recourse he will have to take it to the next level to keep his power. I'm all for shortening that timeframe as much as possible.

 

[Tilt]

From my INTJ friend after showing him this:

Lol he's gotta squeeze every last penny from his base before he leaves

Trump fundraising push for legal challenges also pays down campaign debt | TheHill

 

[Maou]

[MENTION=37565]Dareyth[/MENTION]
I think they should do plenty of recounts because fraud could be found in both directions. I also think it should be dragged out as long as possible because the next step is physical violence. As long as there is a legal chance for Trump he has less reason to need the military on the streets or the nuclear bombs. Once he has no more legal recourse he will have to take it to the next level to keep his power. I'm all for shortening that timeframe as much as possible.

Yes, fraud can and will be found on both sided. I believe there should be transparency in the entire process. Those responsible should be held accountable.

Dragging out the recount is a bad idea. Because there is a set date on the transfer of power. You don't want to hand the cheater the power, then say he cheated. That invites rebellion.

What do you mean the next step is physical violence? You mean civil unrest? Yeah, the nation is divided over this and half of them feel cheated. Transparency and addressing election integrity doubt should be top priority in a democracy. I don't get why the media and lead democrats are saying it was perfectly legit, when something was clearly off this election. Especially after they spent 4 years accusing Trump of Russian election interferance.

USA is a minority with voter laws, as other countries feel our way of doing it is easy to fraud. I think we can learn from other nations. I also don't get the hate for voter ID for example. I mean, you need a licenses to do everything else. I don't see why its a big deal to get one to vote, and the people against it are probably only so, so that they can keep cheating. I think it could put a lot of minds at ease, especially if they are free.

Trump isn't going to go fascist, but the media will paint it otherwise. I seen it coming a mile away, but everyone ignores me of course. You'd think people would learn by now that the media is biased, and overexaggerats Trump all the time. When you build a caricature of someone, its easy for them to act outside your expectations. It's also easy to manipulate your audience's feelings.

What are you going to do if Biden did commit fraud? What if the supreme court rules in Trump's favor? What if they deny Trump? What if the investigation reveals RnC actually cheated? Also, the Supreme court isnt Trump's dogs. I don't get why people immediately think they will side with him, just because he nominated them. They've already voted against some Republican's interests a few times. Like dismissing the BLM person's case. They just interpret the law.

I think Trump only has a 25% chance of overturning things. Not because I don't think Biden didn't cheat, but because it is hard to prove. Also, the stakes are insanely high.

Another question, if Biden does get into office and dems take the senate and house majority. Are you going to tolerate the Trump accountability project and black lists for Trump supporters? Or Biden conviscating all guns? Thats a gateway into real fascism. AOC literally said she wants all 71 million people who voted for Trump to essentially be outcast from society.

 

[Jaguar]

The Trump Accountability Project

Funny guys.

 

[FemMecha]

Yes, fraud can and will be found on both sided. I believe there should be transparency in the entire process. Those responsible should be held accountable.

Dragging out the recount is a bad idea. Because there is a set date on the transfer of power. You don't want to hand the cheater the power, then say he cheated. That invites rebellion.

What do you mean the next step is physical violence? You mean civil unrest? Yeah, the nation is divided over this and half of them feel cheated. Transparency and addressing election integrity doubt should be top priority in a democracy. I don't get why the media and lead democrats are saying it was perfectly legit, when something was clearly off this election. Especially after they spent 4 years accusing Trump of Russian election interferance.

USA is a minority with voter laws, as other countries feel our way of doing it is easy to fraud. I think we can learn from other nations. I also don't get the hate for voter ID for example. I mean, you need a licenses to do everything else. I don't see why its a big deal to get one to vote, and the people against it are probably only so, so that they can keep cheating. I think it could put a lot of minds at ease, especially if they are free.

Trump isn't going to go fascist, but the media will paint it otherwise. I seen it coming a mile away, but everyone ignores me of course. You'd think people would learn by now that the media is biased, and overexaggerats Trump all the time. When you build a caricature of someone, its easy for them to act outside your expectations. It's also easy to manipulate your audience's feelings.

What are you going to do if Biden did commit fraud? What if the supreme court rules in Trump's favor? What if they deny Trump? What if the investigation reveals RnC actually cheated? Also, the Supreme court isnt Trump's dogs. I don't get why people immediately think they will side with him, just because he nominated them. They've already voted against some Republican's interests a few times. Like dismissing the BLM person's case. They just interpret the law.

I think Trump only has a 25% chance of overturning things. Not because I don't think Biden didn't cheat, but because it is hard to prove. Also, the stakes are insanely high.

Another question, if Biden does get into office and dems take the senate and house majority. Are you going to tolerate the Trump accountability project and black lists for Trump supporters? Or Biden conviscating all guns? Thats a gateway into real fascism. AOC literally said she wants all 71 million people who voted for Trump to essentially be outcast from society.

If you have a link to a quote of what she said or a video of her saying it that would be helpful. No, I don't want th 71 million people who voted for Trump to be outcast from society and in Joe Biden's speech he was very strong about coming together as a nation to heal, that he intends to be the president of everyone, etc.

From what I understand the evidence for fraud right now is rather flimsy, which is the issue many are taking with it. You ask what I would do if Biden was proven to commit fraud? Are you wondering if I would just deny it? No, I willingly abandon any politician proven corrupt regardless of party affiliation. I don't belong to a political party. I also did not "unfriend" people on social media for being Trump supporters and I have hundreds of people I'm connected to who are. I disabled my own account because of the constant inundation. I also currently live in a structure with 200 people who are likely mostly all Trump supporters.

I know conservatives are afraid of the Democrats coming to take their guns. My ex is a strong Qanon guy who talked about that non-stop for six years to me. I have no idea how they would do that, especially because so many of the police support Trump. I don't own guns myself. I'm not certain what that is based on. I still don't know who said it, and why they would be in a position to do it. The following link is Biden's position on guns and he is going to attempt to get assault weapons off the streets. Yes, that is a good idea and I support it. He isn't going to take everyone's guns, and the United States is a complete mess with gun violence. Any leader who does not address the issue has questionable ulterior motives, like having "Proud Boys" standing by. It is well established that the far Right has the weapons. Most on the Left don't believe it and are not armed. So when there is concern about domestic unrest, guess who has the equipment to commit violence? The far Right, the Right in hunting cultures, street gangs, and the Left have their "soup cans" and their rude jokes.
Joe Biden's Plan to End Gun Violence | Joe Biden for President

 

[Maou]

If you have a link to a quote of what she said or a video of her saying it that would be helpful. No, I don't want th 71 million people who voted for Trump to be outcast from society and in Joe Biden's speech he was very strong about coming together as a nation to heal, that he intends to be the president of everyone, etc.

From what I understand the evidence for fraud right now is rather flimsy, which is the issue many are taking with it. You ask what I would do if Biden was proven to commit fraud? Are you wondering if I would just deny it? No, I willingly abandon any politician proven corrupt regardless of party affiliation. I don't belong to a political party. I also did not "unfriend" people on social media for being Trump supporters and I have hundreds of people I'm connected to who are. I disabled my own account because of the constant inundation. I also currently live in a structure with 200 people who are likely mostly all Trump supporters.

I know conservatives are afraid of the Democrats coming to take their guns. My ex is a strong Qanon guy who talked about that non-stop for six years to me. I have no idea how they would do that, especially because so many of the police support Trump. I don't own guns myself. I'm not certain what that is based on. I still don't know who said it, and why they would be in a position to do it. The following link is Biden's position on guns and he is going to attempt to get assault weapons off the streets. Yes, that is a good idea and I support it. He isn't going to take everyone's guns, and the United States is a complete mess with gun violence. Any leader who does not address the issue has questionable ulterior motives, like having "Proud Boys" standing by. It is well established that the far Right has the weapons. Most on the Left don't believe it and are not armed. So when there is concern about domestic unrest, guess who has the equipment to commit violence? The far Right, the Right in hunting cultures, street gangs, and the Left have their "soup cans" and their rude jokes.
Joe Biden's Plan to End Gun Violence | Joe Biden for President

Its been a few days, but you can google several articles that reported on it. Some deleted their tweets because of backlash.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, activists hint at blacklisting of Trump supporters after election | Just The News.

The Proud boys is no more significant than Antifa, and a smaller group. They are also Alt-lite, not far right. But of course media and google would have you believe otherwise. They are also a relatively new organization. The media is shameful in how it represents these groups as a valid threat or not.

I think the whole Q-anon larp is stupid, but I get why people put their hopes in it. Im more likely to trust random CIA posts on 4chan than a Qanon conspiracy.

The problem with "banning assault weapons" shows their ignorance on what guns is. You can't have someoen with zero knowledge on guns trying to make comprehensive gun control. There is no such thing as an assualt weapon. And if you asked them to point one out, they go based entirely by apperance. Not calibur and actual fire power.

Gun control doesnt stop gun violence, and the media frames it like its a huge problem. In reality most gun violence is highly localized, and in democratic cities. Ive also been telling Liberals to be pro gun, because in case of civil unrest. The cops can't save you. You can't rebel against Trump if he did go facist. The right to bear arms is solely a right to rebel against tyrannical government. I don't want to see what happened in Venesuela here.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Tulsi Gabbard has hinted at a run for Governor of Hawaii in 2024. Playing the long game, setting herself up for a presidential run in 2028, it seems. I'll wait for her.

 

[Red Memories]

Its been a few days, but you can google several articles that reported on it. Some deleted their tweets because of backlash.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, activists hint at blacklisting of Trump supporters after election | Just The News.

The Proud boys is no more significant than Antifa, and a smaller group. They are also Alt-lite, not far right. But of course media and google would have you believe otherwise. They are also a relatively new organization. The media is shameful in how it represents these groups as a valid threat or not.

I think the whole Q-anon larp is stupid, but I get why people put their hopes in it. Im more likely to trust random CIA posts on 4chan than a Qanon conspiracy.

The problem with "banning assault weapons" shows their ignorance on what guns is. You can't have someoen with zero knowledge on guns trying to make comprehensive gun control. There is no such thing as an assualt weapon. And if you asked them to point one out, they go based entirely by apperance. Not calibur and actual fire power.

Gun control doesnt stop gun violence, and the media frames it like its a huge problem. In reality most gun violence is highly localized, and in democratic cities. Ive also been telling Liberals to be pro gun, because in case of civil unrest. The cops can't save you. You can't rebel against Trump if he did go facist. The right to bear arms is solely a right to rebel against tyrannical government. I don't want to see what happened in Venesuela here.

I think what a lot of people miss about Gun Control is it is like putting a bandaid on a wound that needs stitches. It may minimize a symptom or two but ultimately something way deeper needs done. Which is where [MENTION=4050]ceecee[/MENTION] 's point of talking about having easy to access and affordable healthcare for all health needs would be the bigger fix. I think it is a sign how difficult it is to get good psychiatric treatment.

Plus if we do ban guns, the reality is, most of the people who commit the crimes hadn't bought the gun in the first place. And now we leave only the criminals with guns rather than law-abiding citizens. How does that actually fix anything? I want an actual fix, not a bandaid.

 

[FemMecha]

Its been a few days, but you can google several articles that reported on it. Some deleted their tweets because of backlash.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, activists hint at blacklisting of Trump supporters after election | Just The News.

It is a mistake to further polarize the country, and Liberals who are being radicalized will need to take a more moderate position. I don't think the focus should be on individuals, but on recreating the healthy boundaries in society that do not accept the moral violations that have been condoned. The human rights violations that have occurred at the border need to be investigated, stopped, and prosecuted. This isn't about who the people voted for, but their measurable actions that are over the line. I don't say this to minimize who I think Trump is, because my impression is that he is endpoint immoral, based primarily on what I've seen come directly out of his mouth. I don't have TV, so I don't hear talking heads go on about him. I am concerned about certain actions like his recent firings two months before the likely end of his term. People feeling allegiance to him will probably always see what they want to see, but he will continue to reveal himself in more extreme terms.

The Proud boys is no more significant than Antifa, and a smaller group. They are also Alt-lite, not far right. But of course media and google would have you believe otherwise. They are also a relatively new organization. The media is shameful in how it represents these groups as a valid threat or not.

What is the point of having the "Proud Boys" standing by? What was that about? It sounded like it was a safe way of conveying a sentiment to other groups, but using the one with a safer name that could be given plausible deniability. After there were so many white supremecist militias seen involved in the riots and investigated by the FBI, my concern is that he was referencing a larger population. If they are a small, meaningless group, what was accomplished by highlighting them in a speech?

I think the whole Q-anon larp is stupid, but I get why people put their hopes in it. Im more likely to trust random CIA posts on 4chan than a Qanon conspiracy.

Why do you think that the CIA posts on 4chan? That is not a credible site. There is no verification of posters.

The problem with "banning assault weapons" shows their ignorance on what guns is. You can't have someoen with zero knowledge on guns trying to make comprehensive gun control. There is no such thing as an assualt weapon. And if you asked them to point one out, they go based entirely by apperance. Not calibur and actual fire power.

Gun control doesnt stop gun violence, and the media frames it like its a huge problem. In reality most gun violence is highly localized, and in democratic cities. Ive also been telling Liberals to be pro gun, because in case of civil unrest. The cops can't save you. You can't rebel against Trump if he did go facist. The right to bear arms is solely a right to rebel against tyrannical government. I don't want to see what happened in Venesuela here.

Aren't assault weapons the ones that can fire several rounds quickly?. It is those weapons that are not used for hunting because they inundate a creature with bullets, so their only function is war-time function. That term "assault weapon" is a legitimate word with a definition, a category of guns, so whether or not a specific politician can identify one on site seems like a twist of the game to me. It is a category of guns that exist and they are not used for hunting or the other purposes, and the people involved in regulating them will know what they are. I don't think Biden is required to have the skill of identifying each one on site.

And yes, cities have more violence, but it isn't related to being Democratic. It is gang violence, organized crime violence. It has to do with the illegal transfer of drugs and goods, etc. People in the country are more connected with owning property, at the very least a mobile home. The families go back through history and pass on land to their descendants, and even nowadays after all these years, a person who lives rurally, typically is owning or renting a house on a little piece of land. Poverty in the country has more tendency to still involve property no matter how ramshackle. People in the cities are crammed into apartments, the homeless gather there, there is less ownership of property, more intrinsic poverty, which leads to social unrest. Even if you put rodents into clusters of close quarters they fight and even eat each other. It's basic instinctual behavior and not politically driven. It is idea game to connect inner city violence with the Democratic Party when there are so many other socio-economic factors.

 

[Red Herring]

Countries with a current constitution written before 1900 (purple), between 1900 and 2000 (pink) or after 2000 (blue)

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It is a mistake to further polarize the country, and Liberals who are being radicalized will need to take a more moderate position. I don't think the focus should be on individuals, but on recreating the healthy boundaries in society that do not accept the moral violations that have been condoned. The human rights violations that have occurred at the border need to be investigated, stopped, and prosecuted. This isn't about who the people voted for, but their measurable actions that are over the line. I don't say this to minimize who I think Trump is, because my impression is that he is endpoint immoral, based primarily on what I've seen come directly out of his mouth. I don't have TV, so I don't hear talking heads go on about him. I am concerned about certain actions like his recent firings two months before the likely end of his term. People feeling allegiance to him will probably always see what they want to see, but he will continue to reveal himself in more extreme terms.

How do you propose reasserting boundaries without punishing individuals? If individuals behave in such a manner with impunity, to me that indicates that whatever boundary that exists in meaningless. Adding new laws to codify norms won't fix anything when even people who break the existing laws get away with it if they have enough money.

I would also say that within the past four years, I have not been radicalized so much as re-radicalized after a long period of apathy. It will be harder for me to sink into apathy this time, I think. The emergence of Trump proves to me that "moving forward" after crimes of high-ranking officials is not moral-high mindedness in any meaningful sense, but rather enables things to continue getting worse. Everything I have seen in the past four years (ESPECIALLY the past year) has confirmed that my college-age conception of the world (if not my way of navigating it emotionally or ideas of solutions) was in fact, for the most part, correct. The U.S. government and institutions have, for the most part, in fact rotted under the presence of a sort of ossified neoliberal imperial religious cult. This is when they are not been brazenly and proudly corrupt. Trump's major crime for the establishment is not having the awareness to avoid doing all this shit out in the open.

Consider the emphasis among the pundit class upon appearances and decorum; the most horrifying thing for them is that Trump shows no respect for any of these things.

 

[Maou]

It is a mistake to further polarize the country, and Liberals who are being radicalized will need to take a more moderate position. I don't think the focus should be on individuals, but on recreating the healthy boundaries in society that do not accept the moral violations that have been condoned. The human rights violations that have occurred at the border need to be investigated, stopped, and prosecuted. This isn't about who the people voted for, but their measurable actions that are over the line. I don't say this to minimize who I think Trump is, because my impression is that he is endpoint immoral, based primarily on what I've seen come directly out of his mouth. I don't have TV, so I don't hear talking heads go on about him. I am concerned about certain actions like his recent firings two months before the likely end of his term. People feeling allegiance to him will probably always see what they want to see, but he will continue to reveal himself in more extreme terms.

I agree the entire system needs to be reexamined. I think more often than not, people are just forced to work with what is already in law and cannot change it that easy without 100% cooperation with lawmakers to do so. I don't blame Trump for what happened at the border, nor do I blame him for enforcing already existing laws. What should be blamed, is decades of shitty leaders, and lawmakers that let it get that bad to begin with. I am all for tearing down existing established laws and starting from scratch.

What is the point of having the "Proud Boys" standing by? What was that about? It sounded like it was a safe way of conveying a sentiment to other groups, but using the one with a safer name that could be given plausible deniability. After there were so many white supremecist militias seen involved in the riots and investigated by the FBI, my concern is that he was referencing a larger population. If they are a small, meaningless group, what was accomplished by highlighting them in a speech?

If you watched the debate, Trump didn't even know who the Proud boys was. So when the moderator brought it up, he interpreted it as a group that was rioting in his favor, very similar to how BLM and Antifa go about rioting in favor of change as well. So "Stand back, and standby" seems like asking that they do not commit violence on his behalf. Since Trump has established himself as a Law and order president. It makes sense that he would rather let law enforcement handle riots, instead of counter protesters etc. I think its also important to point out that leaders do not always get to choose who follows them. There are unsavory groups that support both sides, and there is violent groups on both sides. I feel that some of the riots where paid and instigated by political elites to cause unrest, so they can use the media against their opponents.

Why do you think that the CIA posts on 4chan? That is not a credible site. There is no verification of posters.

4chan has a history of being a dumping ground for leaks, because its anonymous. The same can be said for bad stuff, like murders bragging about killing someone. Even school shooters. Most people who "leak" there, usually verify themselves with a timestamp or proof via picture, video, or links so that 4chan can determine if it's real or not. 4chan has also been notorious for discrediting real leaks as "fake and gay" in the past as well. Its also been labeled as an potential honeypot. It's also common to see the news watching it, so they can make quick stories. Thegatewaypundit is one notable one that I know browses 4chan. It also has been involved a lot in internet activism in the past. I believe the government recognized its potential to spread information into mainstream internet culture and has thus tried to harness it for propaganda.

Man Leaks Sensitive Documents To 4chan; Receives Insults, Arrest For His Troubles | Techdirt

This is one example

Aren't assault weapons the ones that can fire several rounds quickly?. It is those weapons that are not used for hunting because they inundate a creature with bullets, so their only function is war-time function. That term "assault weapon" is a legitimate word with a definition, a category of guns, so whether or not a specific politician can identify one on site seems like a twist of the game to me. It is a category of guns that exist and they are not used for hunting or the other purposes, and the people involved in regulating them will know what they are. I don't think Biden is required to have the skill of identifying each one on site.

Automatics weapons are what you are thinking of, when people say assault weapons. And they are illegal to own, and even police officers do not carry automatic weapons. "War time function" is also highly subjective. Automatic weapons are used in war, so you don't have to reload after every shot, or keep pulling the trigger. Also, depending on what you are hunting, you need different caliber bullets. For example, many cheap rifles are a .22, and they are not very useful for hunting anything but small game like rabbits and squirrels. You need a higher caliber to down a deer, and you need multiple shots in case you miss the deer. Rifles fire slowly, and some are even bolt action. Meaning you have to manually remove the casing after each shot. Guns are used for more than just hunting as well. Home defense from intruders is important. As well as being able to defend your store etc from anyone who tries to rob it. You will not stop a robber with a .22 or a 38. And robbers are usually armed as well. I have seen videos of people taking 7 gunshots from a 38, not go down at all. Then continue to try to kill store owners with a shot gun. Also, guns are the great equalizer. Many women desire to carry a concealed carry permit, to stop assaults and rape. Its a hard pill to swallow, but there are many bad people out there who are more likely to prey on people where gun control is a thing.

And yes, cities have more violence, but it isn't related to being Democratic. It is gang violence, organized crime violence. It has to do with the illegal transfer of drugs and goods, etc. People in the country are more connected with owning property, at the very least a mobile home. The families go back through history and pass on land to their descendants, and even nowadays after all these years, a person who lives rurally, typically is owning or renting a house on a little piece of land. Poverty in the country has more tendency to still involve property no matter how ramshackle. People in the cities are crammed into apartments, the homeless gather there, there is less ownership of property, more intrinsic poverty, which leads to social unrest. Even if you put rodents into clusters of close quarters they fight and even eat each other. It's basic instinctual behavior and not politically driven. It is idea game to connect inner city violence with the Democratic Party when there are so many other socio-economic factors.

Have you asked yourself why gang violence exists? Why poverty exists? It's more to do with what the people choose for themselves, than anything else. Everything from fatherless homes, to a culture that rejects education and responsibility. I grew up largely rural, but have lived in Urban areas off and on. I was living in Portland when I was the most impoverished. I also grew up in a broken home. I understand the weight and difficulty of overcoming adversity quite well. Part of it is realizing you have a choice, and the other park is hard work. Accepting you are responsible for yourself, and your own improvement. Peer pressure is powerful in poor communities. It's easier to get on welfare than it is to work. It's easier to neglect your kids and get drunk, than it is to raise them and take an active role in their lives. There are so many factors at play here, and addressing the symptoms won't fix the problem. There are many studies that prove those who grow up in fatherless homes, are more likely to wind up in prison. Which is why I oppose the destruction of the family unit. I do however, fully support improving education and opportunities for impoverished communities. I 100% support free mental health care as well, since most homeless people have some form of mental illness or are veterans. I agree with some of what Democrats are trying to do, but I feel they don't actually want to fix it. They just say they do. Democratic lawmakers all live in comfy New England which is the least diverse area on the USA. Yet they claim they can help minorities, and know what it feels like. I feel that they just say so, so the minorities will vote for them. After all, if they fixed the inner cities. Then what reason would minorities have to vote democrat? Much of the black community has far more in common with Republicans for example. Many of them are religious and traditional. Since the Democrats seem to be at war with the Traditional, what does that do to traditional families? They fall apart, and single moms marry the state instead. Fatherless homes results in poverity, and crime.

The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community | The Heritage Foundation

 

[Jaguar]

Lt. Gov. Fetterman seeks claim of $1M voter fraud reward from Texas lieutenant governor | TribLIVE.com

 

[Maou]

2049 1046 3429 1117

Throw this number into google if you ever wanted to see how elites share data.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

2049 1046 3429 1117

Throw this number into google if you ever wanted to see how elites share data.

Excel files? I don't find that very shocking . Am I supposed to be shocked that the Center for Medicare counts nursing home staff and residents?

 

[Red Herring]

Excel files? I don't find that very shocking . Am I supposed to be shocked that the Center for Medicare counts nursing home staff and residents?

I gave up when I saw the only exact google matches where from some weird 4chan or 8chan conspiracy threat. It makes me sad (and a little worried for humanity) that there are people seriously buying into this stuff.

 

[Maou]

Excel files? I don't find that very shocking . Am I supposed to be shocked that the Center for Medicare counts nursing home staff and residents?

Its more than just that, there is a lot of information. I was just sharing the fact that information like that is hidden in google. I love how you just point that one out, but ignore the links to multiple government databases.

- - - Updated - - -

I gave up when I saw the only exact google matches where from some weird 4chan or 8chan conspiracy threat. It makes me sad (and a little worried for humanity) that there are people seriously buying into this stuff.

It exists on google, how is it a conspiracy? Also, what conspiracy are you even talking about?

 

[Burning Paradigm]

Probably Cuomo's best segment to date: