"So, I apologise for thinking that you ate babies."

First topic message reminder :

The Independent reports:

A former QAnon supporter has apologised to Anderson Cooper for previously believing that the CNN anchor ate babies.

Jitarth Jadeja, who believed in the baseless conspiracy movement until June 2019, spoke with Cooper for an upcoming CNN report investigating the QAnon movement titled “Inside the QAnon Conspiracy”.


In a preview released ahead of the special report, Cooper began by acknowledging that he, as well as other high-profile individuals, have been the target of some of QAnon’s most “outlandish” conspiracies.

“It’s also something of a personal project, as the QAnon fringe has previously focused on me and a bunch of other reporters, as well as many other public figures, as somehow being responsible for some of their more outlandish, should we say, and bizarre conspiracies,” the journalist said ahead of the interview, adding that he was called a “paedophile” and linked to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein through “phony flight logs”.


During the interview, Cooper asked Jadeja whether he, at the time, believed some of the movement’s claims, which include that high-level Democrats and celebrities “worship Satan” and “drink the blood of children”.

Read more
Moving on from QAnon? Experts say these tips could help
Moving on from QAnon? Experts say these tips could help
QAnon spreads rumours Trump will be president again on March 4
QAnon spreads rumours Trump will be president again on March 4
QAnon followers angry as conspiracy’s ‘storm’ fails to materialise
QAnon followers angry as conspiracy’s ‘storm’ fails to materialise
In response to the question, Jadeja revealed that he thought Cooper was guilty of the claims.

“Anderson, I thought you did that,” he responded. “And I would like to apologise for that right now. So, I apologise for thinking that you ate babies. But, yeah, 100 per cent.”

your@email.com
Please enter your email addressPlease enter a valid email addressPlease enter a valid email address

The Independent would like to keep you informed about offers, events and updates by email, please tick the box if you would like to be contacted
Read our full mailing list consent terms here

Jadeja’s response appeared to surprise Cooper, who responded: “You actually believed that I was drinking the blood of children?” to which Jadeja replied: “Yes, I did.”

According to Jadeja, who stopped believing in the unhinged theories after watching YouTube videos debunking the movement’s claims, he believed Cooper was involved because Q, the conspiracy movement’s leader, “specifically mentioned” the CNN anchor.

“And he mentioned you very early on,” Jadeja continued, adding that the anonymous conspiracy theorist also referenced Cooper’s family and that more recent QAnon theories have speculated that the journalist is a “robot”.

During the interview, Jadeja, who lives in Sydney, Australia, also revealed that his belief in the baseless theories spouted by Q also extended much further, telling Cooper that he believed “that QAnon was part of military intelligence, which is what he says,” and that “the people behind him were actually a group of fifth-dimensional, intradimensional, extraterrestrial bipedal bird aliens called blue aliens”.

“I was so far down in this conspiracy black hole that I was essentially picking and choosing whatever narrative that I wanted to believe in,” he said.

QAnon, which started as a fringe internet conspiracy, entered the mainstream under the Trump presidency, with followers convinced that the former president was waging a secret war against high-profile paedophiles running a Satanic sex ring, among other baseless beliefs.


The group was dealt one of its biggest blows on Inauguration Day, which many had believed for months would be a day of reckoning and would see Donald Trump arrest enemies of the country and remain president.

CNN’s QAnon special airs Saturday at 9 pm ET.

Christian Broughton
Please support truly independent journalism
Every penny you give will fund public-interest reporting

Contribute
MORE ABOUT
ANDERSON COOPER
QANON
CNN
CONSPIRACIES

Maddog wrote:

Korban wrote:From what i have read The NRA where a good organization till wayne lapierre took over then it took a hard turn to the right and blocked every measure to introduce common sense measures .and now it seems he has fleeced Its members out of millions  

The members gave money mostly to lobby politicians. They got what they paid for.  

First let me say i am not against gun owner ship in general Americans have some very legitimate reasons for owning certain types of guns.

i will also admit my view (generally anti gun)is colored by by the society i live and grew up in

However to your point

A 2017 poll conducted by the political action committee Americans for Responsible Solutions, which supports gun control, exclusively questioned 661 gun owners. 26% of the respondents stated they were a member of the NRA.

The ARS reported that less than 50% of gun owners polled believed the NRA represented their interests, while 67% of them somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement that it had been "overtaken by lobbyists and the interests of gun manufacturers and lost its original purpose and mission."

The NRA disputed the poll's veracity in an e-mail sent to Politico, which had published the story.

Polling trends since 2018 show a significant decline in NRA favorability.A 2018 NBC News/ Wall Street Journal poll found that "for the first time since at least 2000, Americans hold a net unfavorable view of the NRA"—the poll showed respondents view of the NRA was 40% negative and 37% positive.

The poll showed that compared to the same question in 2017, the favorability rating of the NRA overall dropped 5%, noting that the shift was largely due to favorability declines among certain demographics: married white women, urban residents, white women (overall), and moderate Republicans.

A February 2018 Quinnipiac poll found that 51% of Americans believe that the policies supported by the NRA are bad for the U.S., a 4% increase since October 2017.

certainly the amount of gun violence in America, is something of an American problem that you need to address i am just grateful to live in a country where the availability of guns is very restricted with various laws and rules around owning them

Maddog wrote:

Korban wrote:From what i have read The NRA where a good organization till wayne lapierre took over then it took a hard turn to the right and blocked every measure to introduce common sense measures .and now it seems he has fleeced Its members out of millions

The members gave money mostly to lobby politicians. They got what they paid for.

The money doled out by the NRA wasn't primarily "member money". It is Russian money, laundered through the NRA with the express purpose of doling it out to Republican candidates. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization. How much each candidate gets, and what the money is for, is a matter of grading, based upon criteria solely in the control of the NRA. The NRA keeps a list of 'friendly' politicians, called the NRA-Political Victory Fund:

National Rifle Assn. wrote:The NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) is NRA's political action committee. The NRA-PVF ranks political candidates — irrespective of party affiliation — based on voting records, public statements and their responses to an NRA-PVF questionnaire.
https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/

The Washington Post called the NRA "arguably the most powerful lobbying organization in the nation’s capital." It pretends to be an educational (about firearms) institution, however it notoriously opposes any legislation requiring education for licensing for gunmen.

Every election, the National Rifle Association issues letter grades to hundreds of candidates running for federal office. A decade ago, these ratings reflected bipartisan support for the gun group’s agenda, but newly released grades for the 2020 election offer a snapshot of America’s widening political polarization: a lone Democratic House candidate—Minnesota’s Collin Peterson—and no Democratic Senate candidates received A grades from the NRA this year, while 92 percent flunked.

Since the Russians have started funneling money through the NRA, and the NRA to the candidates, the NRA carries on with pro-Russian positions and sponsors trips to and from Russia for candidates. It is speculated that the NRA has been overtaken by Russian interests, even beyond solely gun-related matters.

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The members gave money mostly to lobby politicians. They got what they paid for.  

First let me say i am not against gun owner ship in general Americans have some very legitimate reasons for owning certain types of guns.

i will also admit my view (generally anti gun)is colored by by the society i live and grew up in

However to your point

A 2017 poll conducted by the political action committee Americans for Responsible Solutions, which supports gun control, exclusively questioned 661 gun owners. 26% of the respondents stated they were a member of the NRA.

The ARS reported that less than 50% of gun owners polled believed the NRA represented their interests, while 67% of them somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement that it had been "overtaken by lobbyists and the interests of gun manufacturers and lost its original purpose and mission."

The NRA disputed the poll's veracity in an e-mail sent to Politico, which had published the story.

Polling trends since 2018 show a significant decline in NRA favorability.A 2018 NBC News/ Wall Street Journal poll found that "for the first time since at least 2000, Americans hold a net unfavorable view of the NRA"—the poll showed respondents view of the NRA was 40% negative and 37% positive.

The poll showed that compared to the same question in 2017, the favorability rating of the NRA overall dropped 5%, noting that the shift was largely due to favorability declines among certain demographics: married white women, urban residents, white women (overall), and moderate Republicans.

A February 2018 Quinnipiac poll found that 51% of Americans believe that the policies supported by the NRA are bad for the U.S., a 4% increase since October 2017.

certainly the amount of gun violence in America, is something of an American problem that you need to address i am just grateful to live in a country where the availability of guns is very restricted with various laws and rules around owning them

I never said the NRA represented all or even most gun owners. It's why I haven't been a member for years. But when push comes to shove they are the most powerful of the 2nd amendment groups out there, even if I have problems with their luke warm defense of that amendment at times.

Like everything remotely tied to the orange idiot, they have some rebuilding of their brand to do.

Maddog wrote:I never said the NRA represented all or even most gun owners. It's why I haven't been a member for years. But when push comes to shove they are the most powerful of the 2nd amendment groups out there, even if I have problems with their luke warm defense of that amendment at times.

Like everything remotely tied to the orange idiot, they have some rebuilding of their brand to do.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has been bought out by the Russians...get used to it.  As a result, they have shifted their aim (no pun intended) to promoting Russia and Russian causes.  The fact that you “have problems with their luke-warm defense of [the 2d Amendment] ...” is indicative of that shift.

The NRA has become a mechanism for direct payments of money—which is to say, money laundering—to Republican politicians and causes, using their (NRA’s) Political Victory Fund, under the said sham grading system, for cover.  The Russians chose Republicans over Democrats because the Republicans were the most compatible with the surreptitious tactics of organized crime…which describes the Russian government.

Once inside, there are many more opportunities for mischief available to the Russian government than the old “gun” issue.  Forget that trite cause.  The Russians, in old KGB fashion, can exploit the simple kompromat of the said Republicans, for use of their own (Russian) illegal foreign contribution.

Candidates are criminally liable for accepting contributions, donations, or expenditures in connection with any election—federal, state or local.  The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA),  52 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq.  Thus, once inside the American political arena via the NRA, the Russians can ask for anything.  Why do you think that Republican office-holders like midnight-rider Devin Nunez, and Moscow Mitch McConnell, were so compliant with serving the Russian-backed president?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:I never said the NRA represented all or even most gun owners. It's why I haven't been a member for years. But when push comes to shove they are the most powerful of the 2nd amendment groups out there, even if I have problems with their luke warm defense of that amendment at times.

Like everything remotely tied to the orange idiot, they have some rebuilding of their brand to do.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has been bought out by the Russians...get used to it.  As a result, they have shifted their aim (no pun intended) to promoting Russia and Russian causes.  The fact that you “have problems with their luke-warm defense of [the 2d Amendment] ...” is indicative of that shift.

The NRA has become a mechanism for direct payments of money—which is to say, money laundering—to Republican politicians and causes, using their (NRA’s) Political Victory Fund, under the said sham grading system, for cover.  The Russians chose Republicans over Democrats because the Republicans were the most compatible with the surreptitious tactics of organized crime…which describes the Russian government.

Once inside, there are many more opportunities for mischief available to the Russian government than the old “gun” issue.  Forget that trite cause.  The Russians, in old KGB fashion, can exploit the simple kompromat of the said Republicans, for use of their own (Russian) illegal foreign contribution.

Candidates are criminally liable for accepting contributions, donations, or expenditures in connection with any election—federal, state or local.  The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA),  52 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq.  Thus, once inside the American political arena via the NRA, the Russians can ask for anything.  Why do you think that Republican office-holders like midnight-rider Devin Nunez, and Moscow Mitch McConnell, were so compliant with serving the Russian-backed president?

Ironic because Russia has some quite strong gun laws i understand.but IMO it feeds in to making a country turn in on it self, Russia's ultimate goal

Korban wrote:Ironic because Russia has some quite strong gun laws i understand.but IMO it feeds in to making a country turn in on it self, Russia's ultimate goal

What is bad for me, is good for my enemy...or the inverse, as well. But, as I say, it's much bigger than guns now.