As a foreigner who doesn't know any of these names I decided to spot check two of them which I chose at random.
The first was genuinely a suspicious death tied to Clintons. The second one seemed unsubstantiated except on a narrow ring of sites which placate this particular list.
Voaters are encouraged to exercise caution and check facts for themselves.
I half agree with you, but please remember who controls major media. Stuff like that will be under-reported or mentioned in passing only in major media outlets. You don't have to look hard to find videos illustrating this either on /v/conspiracy or Youtube directly.
Right, not saying that just because it comes out of someone's mouth who's on TV makes it anymore true. Just that the Internet is the worst of platforms for honesty.
That's like saying a lot of people lie on the telephone. What's better than the internet? Scholarly articles? That's not always the case depending what info you are looking for. There may have been a few journos in history that would have the balls to look into things like this, but that's likely too dangerous a proposition with how closely people are tracked and monitored nowadays. So, you get shitty sources, half of which are lies and misinformation, and, if any of these "wingnuts" became popular, they wouldn't survive long.
You know that the few existing quality journos or certain types of general scholars serve to piece together contemporary knowledge? The historians or related researchers may record events once the dust has settled, but even if they chose to study developing events such as an anthropologist would, the results of that research may not been seen for decades. You really don't seem to understand the nature of scholarly articles or the history of science. There are so many things that you are ignoring, but suffice it to say, the complete truth about Hillary will probably never be written about. The greatest minds in history were suppressed or even crucified. Even today, research is driven largely by financial concerns. I could go on, but it should have already been clear to you that the truth has always been suppressed and areas outside of the hard sciences are even more of a clusterfuck. Ultimately, there's not solid proof that Hilary has murdered any of her opponents, but there's probably no life insurance policy big enough for people that get close to exposing her.
view the rest of the comments →
Caboose_Calloway ago
As a foreigner who doesn't know any of these names I decided to spot check two of them which I chose at random.
The first was genuinely a suspicious death tied to Clintons. The second one seemed unsubstantiated except on a narrow ring of sites which placate this particular list.
Voaters are encouraged to exercise caution and check facts for themselves.
iamrage ago
Do bear in mind that a lot of these type of 'events' are scrubbed from the Internet (and history) in many different ways i.e. blackmail, etc.
Chiefpacman ago
You don't need to scrub the internet clean. The fact that it's only on the internet makes it weak enough.
iamrage ago
I half agree with you, but please remember who controls major media. Stuff like that will be under-reported or mentioned in passing only in major media outlets. You don't have to look hard to find videos illustrating this either on /v/conspiracy or Youtube directly.
Chiefpacman ago
Right, not saying that just because it comes out of someone's mouth who's on TV makes it anymore true. Just that the Internet is the worst of platforms for honesty.
tcp ago
That's like saying a lot of people lie on the telephone. What's better than the internet? Scholarly articles? That's not always the case depending what info you are looking for. There may have been a few journos in history that would have the balls to look into things like this, but that's likely too dangerous a proposition with how closely people are tracked and monitored nowadays. So, you get shitty sources, half of which are lies and misinformation, and, if any of these "wingnuts" became popular, they wouldn't survive long.
Chiefpacman ago
"That's not always the case"
Yup. But it usually is, IMO. If you disagree, you can say so here.
If you want me to give more of a shit, get a degree in that field- and write a report.
tcp ago
You know that the few existing quality journos or certain types of general scholars serve to piece together contemporary knowledge? The historians or related researchers may record events once the dust has settled, but even if they chose to study developing events such as an anthropologist would, the results of that research may not been seen for decades. You really don't seem to understand the nature of scholarly articles or the history of science. There are so many things that you are ignoring, but suffice it to say, the complete truth about Hillary will probably never be written about. The greatest minds in history were suppressed or even crucified. Even today, research is driven largely by financial concerns. I could go on, but it should have already been clear to you that the truth has always been suppressed and areas outside of the hard sciences are even more of a clusterfuck. Ultimately, there's not solid proof that Hilary has murdered any of her opponents, but there's probably no life insurance policy big enough for people that get close to exposing her.