Matt Geatz story gets stranger than before.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
Of course its possible but zero evidence at this point and he has denied it.. if they have real evidence bring it to a grand jury.

Politicians are really, really good at playing semantics.

That is so true! They all ought to be fired and replaced. Or not replaced. We have too many government employees.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Dunno. I've only met a few FBI agents face to face. I couldn't stand them. They were egotistical.

Sorry...there was 1 other. He used his position in the FBI to harass his exwife and anyone she dated.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
Of course its possible but zero evidence at this point and he has denied it.. if they have real evidence bring it to a grand jury.

Politicians are really, really good at playing semantics.

Even at 17, it's hard for any red blooded male to resist big semantics. . It's science...

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I don't disagree with any of what you've said... I think it's all of that and more. By both nature and nurture.

Everyone knows that we are being lied to on every level, by politicians, the media, Big Tech and Big Pharma, and on and on and on. Science is reduced to "consensus." Opinion is conflated with truth. We have no universal guiding principles. Echo chambers rule. People want to take sides and the truth be damned.

It's entirely possible that both charges are true -- that Gaetz is guilty AND he was/is being blackmailed and extorted. Nothing rules the other out. In fact, blackmail is usually most effective and successful when the target is actually guilty! That was actually going to be my response to the OP, but I kept reading and never responded directly to the OP. That's still my best guess. I don't trust Gaetz any more than any other political critter. I don't trust either party's people more than the other. They're all dirty as dirty can be.

Hence my cynicism. If the charges against Gaetz about the 17-year-old are true, I'm sure plenty of people knew about it -- both left and right -- and no one cared until they could exploit the people's sense of morality for their own gain both genuine and faux outrage. They don't care about the girl. She's just a political weapon.

a reply to: Boadicea

Don't get me wrong, I'm not ruling out him being innocent.

He's just not really high profile, so that possibility doesn't seem like a probability, but we just don't know and I don't claim to.

Just odd doing the rounds and listening to people's tone is all, on both sides.

If Qanon and the my pillow guy are correct; trump should be back in office soon [today actually] and Gaetz can get a pardon even if he is guilty.

Trump should be back in the WH any time now....

www.businessinsider.com...

a reply to: olaru12

Funny. But sort of off topic. Doncha think?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: olaru12

Funny. But sort of off topic. Doncha think?

Matt Geatz story gets stranger than before.

Just taking "strange" to a logical conclusion...it's science...not near as much fun as playing with semantics but it is ATS and conspiracy related after all. And after jan6, anything can happen and probably will!


www.forbes.com... 984c756985

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Boadicea

Don't get me wrong, I'm not ruling out him being innocent.

Those are the operative words. You aren't ruling out anything, nor ruling in anything. Nor am I. All we have are our best guesses, based upon our own thoughts and opinions. And that's good. Thinking people think, and sometimes have opinions, other times just wonder about possibilities.

If everyone kept their thoughts and opinions and wonderings in their proper perspective, we would not have so many of the social and political issues that we do. Truth and facts would not be moving targets.

a reply to: Boadicea

Truth and facts would not be moving targets.

Facts are not moving targets.

Truth is an interpretation of facts (and beliefs) and is thus dependent upon the one who spouts it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
all we need now is a 17 year old girl. Oh wait, what?

Pretty sure you're aware that they typically don't reveal the identify of child sex crime victims to the public.

And I understand that in order for a guy to be guilty of screwing a 17 year old girl, first and foremost, there has to actually be a girl, she actually has to be 17, or was at the time their integration can be proven, or the whole thing falls apart. I'm not saying he's innocent, just that we might do best to keep the pitchforks in the shed until some of this unravels.

a reply to: Boadicea

Those are the operative words. You aren't ruling out anything, nor ruling in anything. Nor am I. All we have are our best guesses, based upon our own thoughts and opinions. And that's good. Thinking people think, and sometimes have opinions, other times just wonder about possibilities.

Which is how most things like this need to be handled. We've seen how often politics and the media will make a mountain out of a molehill, or completely omit context that could change public perception from the wider narrative. We're also aware on the widespread depravity with politicians.

everyone kept their thoughts and opinions and wonderings in their proper perspective, we would not have so many of the social and political issues that we do. Truth and facts would not be moving targets.

Funny to see that the same mechanism that brought us instant information, also exacerbated human natures willingness to find the answers we want more than the truth. Obviously not everyone is (as) guilty on this note, but doing the rounds at Twitter and reddit show tribe mentality is thriving more now than ever. And narratives can quickly be put out, with their damage already done even if proven incorrect or malice.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think recognizing that neither party here is really credible to begin with. NYT in particular.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Boadicea

Facts are not moving targets.

I disagree... but let me explain/expand.

The Washington Post reports that anonymous sources say blahblahblah. The NY Times reports that the Washington Post reported blahblahblah. The Springfield Gazette reports that blahblahblah has been reported. The Columbia Herald reports that there is evidence of blahblahblah. Technically, every single one of those statements is true and factual, but not the whole truth, and moves farther and farther from the whole truth with each report. Hence, facts are moving targets.

And we've all seen unsubstantiated "reports" from unidentified sources repeated as fact, rather than the fact that someone said blahblahblah.

Truth is an interpretation of facts (and beliefs) and is thus dependent upon the one who spouts it.

If you're trying to say there are half-truths and semi-truths and mis-truths, which are technically correct, but not completely factual or truthful, then I agree. Which is how and why facts become moving targets.

But no, truth itself is not an interpretation of facts. Truth must conform to, confirm, adhere to the facts or it is not truth.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Funny to see that the same mechanism that brought us instant information, also exacerbated human natures willingness to find the answers we want more than the truth. Obviously not everyone is (as) guilty on this note, but doing the rounds at Twitter and reddit show tribe mentality is thriving more now than ever. And narratives can quickly be put out, with their damage already done even if proven incorrect or malice.

There is one more faction that I'm seeing more and more: Those who don't care what the truth is, and may even know what the truth is, but just have so much darn fun stirring the pot!

It's like the big brother who knows all the right buttons to push to rile up his younger brother. The big sister who knows just what to say to make little sis cry. Or when my kids were pre-teens and they didn't just bicker and argue every day... they went to bed bickering and arguing and they got up bickering and arguing. And they had no intention or desire to stop bickering and arguing.

Maybe it's misery loves company? Or defeatism loves company? I don't know. But I'm seeing it more and more.

a reply to: Boadicea

Truth must conform to, confirm, adhere to the facts or it is not truth.

I disagree. Truth is in the eye of the beholder. For many it is a truth that Jesus was resurrected, there are no facts to support this "truth", only faith.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think recognizing that neither party here is really credible to begin with. NYT in particular.

It's unfortunate that I have to read articles with a lens to filter out the writers'/institutions intent.

Rarely I'll find an up and coming journalist or outlet who does a kick ass job at giving low bias reporting, but it's usually just a matter of time before they convince themselves it's their moral duty to push their agenda on me.

Vice is a good example of that. They did these quirky and obscure documentaries. They also seemed to stray away from politics at first, or at least make it a low priority... Then they just became the image for everything I dislike about my generation.

Intercept was the saddest though. Jeremy Scahil and Glenn Greenwald coming together after the Snowden revelation to deliver what began as antiestablishment content, with different voices balancing each other out. Jeremy is pretty far left, but he's brought to light blackwater and subsequently the PMC issue, and Snowden trusting him and Glenn speaks volume IMO. But when Ryan Grim came on, it was pretty implicit the aim of the outlet was to push a far left agenda in a rather unpalatable way, at least for me. Kicking out Glenn was the last straw for me though... He was the only balance they had, as he was one of the few voices of reasons in the orange man bad years. I know many would find it ironic I view it that way, but I think people get the impression I hated Trump, I didn't, I just found blind admiration as distasteful as blind hate.

a reply to: Boadicea

Maybe it's misery loves company? Or defeatism loves company? I don't know. But I'm seeing it more and more.

Tribalism beating individuality. The latter is almost viewed as a flaw these days.

I think the world is moving really fast with an ever expanding disconnect. People are becoming lonely through it all and use groups or agreeabilty as a way to fill the void.

It's my personal opinion that true individuality, or at least a goal towards it is liberating. It also makes connections with other free spirits more rewarding even if we're not in constant agreement or more times than not in disagreement. Though, I recognize we're all different, maybe some do find enrichment in different ways, and I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't find groups to find community in... Maybe just not hard-line ideology.

a reply to: Phage

I disagree. Truth is in the eye of the beholder. For many it is a truth that Jesus was resurrected, there are no facts to support this "truth", only faith.

I honestly do not know anyone who considers Jesus' resurrection truth. They believe it is true. This is their faith. And they understand it is their faith. They understand they can neither prove nor disprove the truth. But that's okay, because faith is good in and of itself, when their faith is well placed. They understand this is their perceived or deemed truth for themselves. It is kept in proper perspective. It is their truth and not the truth.

If someone stated "Christ was resurrected" as the truth, and therefore everyone's truth, I'd be the first to say "Nope!"

More important is that the law and the critters making the laws keep "truth" in its proper perspective. For the same reasons I won't have Christians dictating Christianity, no one should be dictating their personal "truths" on everyone else.

a reply to: Boadicea

They believe it is true.

So, as I said. Facts and truth are not the same thing.
Truth depends on the person, facts do not.