Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
It's from poor people who don't give a shit about the world because they live in socialist regions and are told it's all somebody else's fault/responsibility. (this includes deep blue US cities and landless rural poor)The amount of plastics in the ocean has increased by 10 times since 2005.
There are rivers of trash coming out of central america.
That's not "capitalism", it's socialism, or more generally bad philosophy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
White paper is actually black, since all the light is reflected.
Speak for yourself, I see in the deep infrared and all the paper around me is glowing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There is titanium dioxide. We could white face if we needed to.There's also no pure whites left.
Created:
Your thinking is 1 dimensional and it is grating. Calling the execution of murderers and rapists is simply crude vernacular. It's the fact that you can't/refuse to understand something as simple as: It doesn't actually cost that much money to imprison people (especially with forced labor), the government makes everything expensive because it is corrupt.
You bake your narrow minded and simplistic assumptions into inane false dichotomies
Some poor people will suffer if you cut taxes and government spending. That’s just harsh reality. Accept that or become fiscally left.
"Agree with me or you are part of the political tribe I assign to you"
No. You're wrong, and you don't get to pick and sort people into two (and only) two buckets even if you were right. The way you phrase things requires others to contort their minds into absurd oversimplifications just to engage with your claims. Then on top of that when (every once in a long while) you come upon a matter of simple fact you refuse to be fact checked.
Just trying to let you know that the problem (with you) is not what you are claiming it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So when the left-tribe leadership of Washington and Seattle did nothing to stop this murder that makes them accessories? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_ReinoehlNo. Tying someone to an action via a dubious chain reaction theory that could work in any circumstance is a not remotely the same as holding someone responsible for watching a crime in action and making a conscious decision to do nothing about it despite having both the means and responsibility to actively intervene.
Oh, he had the means now? and the state of Washington and the city of Seattle didn't?
I present arguments to back up mine.
Then you ignore the fact that they are debunked.
Big difference.The lack of a specific time and place merely meant it went on everywhere for a long timeIt also shows that this was a matter of civil unrest, not a plot orchastrated by the person who was supposedly swarn to protect against such actions.
Civil unrest = attacking small family businesses in poor urban areas
Attacking the giant corrupt organization of traitors stealing half your money and trying to rule the world through military posturing = "a plot"
got it
There is no relevance in debating a point when no hard evidence exists.It comes down to credibility and you won't acknowledge that your sources are pathological liars. End of story.Calling my sources pathological liars while your source is Trump. Oh the irony.
bla la bla
"It's Trump... HES COMING THROUGH THE GLASS"
"SHOOOOOTTTT HERRRRR"
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Legally speaking, there needs to be a law for there to be a crime.Micheal Cohen was indicted for the payment, plead guilty to it, and served 3 years for it. So legally speaking
I do not care for non-crimes be they part of stage play or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amber
The definition of 'under the jurisdiction thereof' is perfectly clear based on the legislative history that was debated and put forth when approving and passing the 14th Amendment.
Did you post one of these debates in this thread? Jurisdiction appears elsewhere in the constitution you know.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The non-convicted, non-charged, not even against the law because the law doesn't say NDAs are illegal for candidates "federal crime"No, it isn't. Not when it's done in furtherence of another crime.that's the "federal crime"
Honestly acting like a state charging a federal crime is the biggest problem is confusing to me. Any state presuming guilt without charges, verdicts, or an underlying law is a much much more fundamental problem that prosecutorial jurisdiction.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The so called jury can say whatever they want, it does not change reality.1) they aren't "so called". They are a jury. By any definition.
Jury - people who to the best of their ability weigh the evidence and decide on the elements of a criminal or civil case
Whoops there is a definition that excludes them.
2) it does change reality.
Well that nazis realy existed, but that doesn't mean jews need to all be killed. Them coming to a conclusion and that conclusion being true are two different things.
It makes trump an adjudicated rapist.
You are a rapist <- Me saying that doesn't mean you are a rapist. If you are saying that you are not an adjudicated rapist then your definition of "adjudication" doesn't include baseless assertions by random people.
I am saying that whatever credence is warranted by the word "adjudicated" does not exist for this clown pretend court. So you can say that "adjudication" doesn't signify anything of importance or you can admit that they weren't a real court and they didn't adjudicate anything.
I choose the former because if you let corrupt people delete definitions you won't have any left after enough time.
Pedo -> MAP REJECTED
Socialist -> liberal REJECTED
Court -> thin facade ritual over a fascist state organizing a mob lynching REJECTED
That is a legal fact.
It is not a fact, and if I let you redefine "legal" as "not a" it would be hard to communicate.
Anyone and everyone call publicly call him a rapist and he can't sue them because in the eyes of the law, it is the truth.
There are no "eyes of the law" if it does not mean "the objective meaning of the law" there are the eyes of judges and juries, and real ones could certainly allow him to sue for trillions. Whether that happens or not is up to the whims of chaotic war and politics. The outcome of which in no way proves the case one way or the other.
I would kill to remove the constraints of what that manhaten pseudo-court calls "law and order" from myself and others.So you're either an idiot who wants anarchy, or you're a traitor who want an angry minority to have the power to overthrow the laws created by the people.
"the people" rofl 6 people.
I can't betray what I have never sworn loyalty to and I have never (as an adult) and never will swear blind obedience to any group of people or organization. My loyalty is to an ideal: Liberty.
That makes me more American than those so called jurors.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Having some level of border security.Democrats already stand behind the toughest border bill in our lifetimes. Trump is the only person opposing it.
"tough" = instead of stopping them from coming in make it legal for them all coming it. No illegals if you make random entry legal and no rape if you consent fast enough. Genius.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I choose not to believe it because there was no evidencea jury of his peers says otherwise.
The so called jury can say whatever they want, it does not change reality. That is why subjectivism is wrong and objectivism is right.
She told people about this long before trump was a politician.
Purportedly, one person, in private.
Also there was no time he wasn't rich and famous.
the behavior of the pseudo-judgelol, this is just sad. Just because they ruled against trump you attempt to downplay their credentials.
Against Trump? No against truth, justice, and The Constitution, in other words against his oath. Oaths he swore, oaths he broke bringing us to:
Downplay? No, absolutely cancelled and reversed. Nothing but contempt and intermittent rage remains.
You can disagree with their decision, but how could you even claim they are a "pseudo-jury"?
There is disagreeing with a decision and there is recognizing that the decision would not be possible to sane honest people.
Governments exist for only one legitimate purpose and when they fail at that purpose so spectacularly that there is no way to empathize with their thought process and no mechanism for redress and repair they are not legitimate governments.
This applies to the whole and to every element.
Much like a god, it's easy to attack the believer in government; for there are hundreds of governments you do not respect or obey in history and existing right now. In order to have a coherent position you must believe there is a reason some governments deserve respect and others don't. Therefore you cannot maintain that others cannot have a reason to do the same.
A judge is meant to interpret law objectively. A jury is meant to judge facts from evidence honestly and objectively. Both are meant to follow precedent and err on the side of liberty.
I do not care what these scum think, I do not care what the dare to call a court, I do not care about them at all beyond the military power they can bring to bear. The are enemies of liberty and too dishonest to negotiate with.
Not my law.lol, you are bound by the same laws as everyone else. You aren't a special little butterfly who gets his own laws.
I would kill to remove the constraints of what that manhaten pseudo-court calls "law and order" from myself and others. Please continue to believe that doesn't matter, it makes it easier to win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Do you or do you not recognize that Trump's inaction only further assisted the rioters?Inaction doesn't assist.It absolutely does when you are directly responsible for intervening.
So when the left-tribe leadership of Washington and Seattle did nothing to stop this murder that makes them accessories? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl
Trump was the president, he is directly responsible for intervening in the event we have an attack of the US Capitol and the authorization to intervene starts with him. If any of our other 44 (now 45) presidents were in office they would have intervened
The first one attacked the established government with insurgents and an army.
The oath is to defend the constitution, not a building or a corrupt proceeding.
The BLM riots was a violent response to violence, January 6th was a violent response to bullshit conspiracy theories that were adjudicated and disproven.
Difference between your violence and my violence is that I'm right. Yea, heard that one before; right back at ya.
Big difference.
The lack of a specific time and place merely meant it went on everywhere for a long time (and consequently a lot more people died and a lot more property was destroyed).
Irrelevant to the fact that the offer was never made.
There is no relevance in debating a point when no hard evidence exists.
It comes down to credibility and you won't acknowledge that your sources are pathological liars. End of story.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Something he has been proven in court to have done by the way.No such proof exists.he was found to have done so by a jury of his peers. You choose not to believe it
I choose not to believe it because there was no evidence and every indication of dishonesty and ulterior motivation both in the accusation, the modification of the law to allow for the suit, the behavior of the pseudo-judge, and the dishonor of the pseudo-jury which can be inferred from the previous.
but the law says he did
Not my law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
@WyIted
That Trump has previously refused to disavow white supremacists?
It concerns me that people believe that when it is false.
Deceptive propaganda is dangerous. People who believe it and take it for granted are more dangerous.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
They stopped working on their own estates/homesteads and started working for other people, and then hired others to work on their estates/homesteads.
Now they even outsource being a parent to daycare, schools, afterschool care, etc...
Production efficiency has increased, but that is because of technology not some kind of non-existential past laziness.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Something he has been proven in court to have done by the way.
No such proof exists.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Trump has said countless evil things, but his followers just ignore it.
No, you delude yourself into thinking innocuous things are evil.
That was actually a secret recording..true. And he was publicly bragging about sexually assaulting women. Just because he wasn't intending to be recorded doesn't make it less publicly said.
If by "publicly" you mean "privately" and by "sexually assaulting" you mean "hypothetically consensually touching", and by "bragging" you mean making up clearly exaggerated generalizations.
So I took his statement to mean that if he gets elected he will give them all their evil desires during his 1st term
Yes but you're nuts.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
while I agree with you about what he probably meant, I disagree with this statement. the man is an idiot. He says things ALL THE TIME that would get anyone else drummed out of politics forever.
"If you don't know if you're voting for me or Trump, then you ain't black"
I agree in general though, never underestimate stupidity or brazenness.
Most genocides in history were preceded by people saying "let's kill them all" in public. Hitler wrote a book about how he was going to take over a huge area of land to the east. Then people were all like "huh, he said he was going to stop at the Sudetenland?! Why is he attacking Poland?"
Like that he like sexually assaulting women.
That was actually a secret recording... and he was bragging that he didn't need to sexually assault women because so many consent to celebrities.
As to the OP, yes he was saying that an excessive turnout is required to cancel the cheating. He claims to be able to stop the cheating by next election at which point an abnormally high turnout won't be required to crush those ever dwindling (and very unlikely to be 80 million) deep state sheeple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's been proven they can just make stuff up when they want to. Homosexual marriage and a right to abortion for example.
I don't trust authority, I never have, but specifically the supreme court has betrayed its mandate many times before and they might very well do it again.
That is a separate issue from whether or not the constitution/law objectively says something. The 14th amendment citizenship clause is fairly clear language and trying to corrupt the definition of 'jurisdiction' is classic subversion.
A third issue is whether or not the constitution/law is rational, practical, and moral.
People breaking laws to smuggle their wombs into the country is a perfectly predictable result of a coveted citizenship and the practically no exceptions birthright citizenship. It was a mistake to write it that way given the intention was clearly to tell the ex-slavers to "shut up and sit down" because ex-slaves were citizens. They didn't want a roman style subclass of non-citizen "subjects", this was long before work visas and greencards and they would have been highly suspicious of such things if they were over 0.5% of the population at any given time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The parents in that case being legal residents was not critical to their ruling. They did not make their ruling based on the residency status of the parents.Courts don't mention irrelevant details in final rulings, at least not in honest interpretations of rulings.So did the courts explicitly say this, or is it more of the same leftist fanfiction?
The quote is real, but it is within the context of a preamble and not a conclusion:
As for whether it's "natural born" for your parents to conspire to illegally enter in order to get an unborn child citizenship has to my knowledge never been addressed by the supreme court. I had not heard the accusation that Kamala's parents had illegally entered until this thread.
It would seem rational that the child of non-citizens would not be a citizen and that if somebody wanted their child to be a US citizen it would behoove them to earn US citizenship themselves first. That standard does appear to contradict the 14th amendment so it would require a modification of the constitution to be kosher.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The parents in that case being legal residents was not critical to their ruling. They did not make their ruling based on the residency status of the parents.
Courts don't mention irrelevant details in final rulings, at least not in honest interpretations of rulings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Good fiction is still logical, it just has a few premises that might be (or could easily have been) true.That is supposition.I prefer fanfiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You have certainly argued he didn't incite the riot while also arguing that the riots were a good thing and expressing that your gripe about Trump is that he didn't go far enough, which means he did go in that direction and you like that. So yeah, it wasn't intended to be a literal take but it's pretty damn close.
You described a contradiction
"no he didn't, but it's good that he did"
There is no contradiction in saying "no he didn't, but they were a good thing" <- which also isn't precisely what I said
"Churchill didn't order the assassination of Hitler (pick an attempt), but it's good that someone tried" <- no contradiction
you guys want Trump to be the guy he was on January 6thI never said that, in fact I said things that directly contradict that statement.Do you or do you not support the rioters?
Their cause of action was correct, they were justified in using violence, but there was no chance of violence being successful. That is what I think, it doesn't get any simpler without loss of accuracy.
Do you or do you not recognize that Trump's inaction only further assisted the rioters?
Inaction doesn't assist. I recognize that Trump's inaction (for 73 minutes) assisted the rioters as much as the bedrock of the Himalayas and a rare species of New Zealand butterfly assisted them.
while pretending he was never that guy because you know the overwhelming majority of the country doesn't want it.No sane person could believe that I censor my opinions based on what the majority of the country does or does not want.It wasn't a take on you individually
".... and goes to show why folks like yourself have no coherent argument here, you...."
it was a generalization about the political right. Part of my point was that the republican party is not as explicit as you are because if they were the democrats would run the table in November.
True, like Tim Pool says violence scares the low-information normies; but if the left-tribe were honest they would lose even to an honest right-tribe. Again, actions speak louder than words.
We're all just about willing to kill each other but experiencing some serious barrier aggression. The normies may hope that reacting negatively to anyone who seems more violent is going to maintain peace but it's not a pressure valve and it will just mean the shift if the overton window to include violence will be swift and terrible when it does come.
The BLM riots were the close call with the left-tribe, Jan 6 was the close call with the right-tribe. In both cases leaders used incendiary rhetoric (left-tribe still worse, I'll bring out the compilation if you deny it). Then after they change their tune and start acting like innocent little puppies.
"Whoopsie did I say riots are the language of the unheard?"
"Ugh oh, when I said it's 1776 again I meant it was time to peacefully petition, you believe me don't you *big eyes*"
The day is coming, absent radical defeat of a tribe via cultural revolution/counter revolution, when the backlash will be less important than the doubling down. Every time we get closer. Did you notice Destiny saying?
It's hilarious watching them trying to catch each other disavowing the least. Rubin is a softie and may actually not want violence, but he is not representative. Both tribes feel themselves in an existential struggle for the future of civilization. Of course they'll use violence and feel themselves totally justified. To expect anything else is stupidity, and yes admitting that would cause you to lose an election; truth hurts, one of the flaws of democracy is that in many contexts liars have an advantage.
3) The offer was never made
and they just couldn't find enough security in the whole wide world... poor them.
The tweet? The fact that he and the secret service agree he wanted to go to the capitol?He wanted to go to the Capitol to inspire the riotets, not stop them.
That is supposition.
The fact that the US Capitol was under attack for three hours and the only evidence you have that he did anything at all during those three hours is a tweet... tells me everything I need to know.
Good, then you have your answers. Thread succeeded.
I should have started with that and not bothered to write anything else.
Yep, or better yet not even start with that since there was no need for any other party to say anything. Really just a private thought that has no significance at all.
I suppose when I ask you what Trump's plan is to stop the war in Ukraine or Gaza you'll tell me he'll stop that with his Twitter account as well.
I would not. His failure to stop justified rioting is not a criteria I judge him on, and as you've pointed out an election is always a comparison so he only needs to be better than the other guy for the future of human civilization. That's what "support" means BTW. I have always thought I could do a much better job than him either as an honest executor of the constitution or as a liberal subversive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You can't have it both ways.Yes I can (again).Yeah, that pretty much sums up our entire conversation. When I accuse Trump of inciting and then allowing the attack on the Capitol your answer is essentially "no he didn't, but it's good that he did".
That does not describe the context of the above response in the slightest.
you guys want Trump to be the guy he was on January 6th
I never said that, in fact I said things that directly contradict that statement.
while pretending he was never that guy because you know the overwhelming majority of the country doesn't want it.
No sane person could believe that I censor my opinions based on what the majority of the country does or does not want.
You don't send in 10,000 troops to deal with a few crazies.That's what Pelosi thought.You do know that Nancy Pelosi was not in charge of Capitol security and had no authority to refuse national guard assistance right?
No I don't know that. Notice "don't" not "didn't", because it's still the case.
This is what happens when we elect a pathological liar and a complete moron to be our president. He just says things and then for half the country it becomes the truth no matter how easily disprovable.
Did you see the video of Pelosi admitting responsibility?
In fact the reason Pelosi and goons refused is because they thought he would execute a military coup with the troops he sent to helpCompletely and totally made up.
There are only two other explanations:
1.) She refused because she wanted violence (for optics)
1.) She refused because she wanted violence (for optics)
2.) She refused because she didn't see a threat
Take your pick
He wasn't idle for three hoursDo you have any evidence to back that up?
The tweet? The fact that he and the secret service agree he wanted to go to the capitol?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
...but telling them to go home is supposed to work?It literally did. Many of the rioters started clearing out as soon as he sent that video.
Many of the "rioters" were peaceful as well.
You keep arguing that sending any kind of communication to them was futile because they wouldn't have listened, but when I make the point that he did nothing for 3 hours your immediate response was to jump to his Twitter post to say he did. So which side of the fence is it?
You're wrong on both sides of the fence. He wasn't idle for three hours and words alone did not prevent or end the riot.
which cuts entirely against the argument that he never expected violenceYou always expect a few crazies.You don't send in 10,000 troops to deal with a few crazies.
That's what Pelosi thought.
Again, if Trump was offering these troops it's only because he recognized a very real threat of violence on a massive scale.
Then he tricked the left-tribe leadership into refusing help with his dastardly reverse psychology *rolls eyes*
You can't have it both ways.
Yes I can (again). Neither Trump nor Pelosi thought they were unprepared, but Trump was doing his duty as POTUS by offering resources. He didn't care too much if they refused because he didn't expect anything violent to happen (he thought congress was just going to suddenly choose democracy over corruption because he doesn't plan for failure).
Both were out of touch, but Pelosi's paranoia and lack of caution was the deciding factor and the existence of the offer (all but) disproves the accused coup plan. In fact the reason Pelosi and goons refused is because they thought he would execute a military coup with the troops he sent to help, that would be what an actual military coup looked like.
Jan 6 was an attack BY the American people, not the military, not the executive branch and history will not rewrite itself.
But this debate isn't about how effectively Trump could have stopped the attack, it's about what his purposeful inaction says about him and how that is not an unquestionable disqualification for office.
Thoughts and prayers must be sent ASAP, got it.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Lol no. Prices are 20% more than 2016, so inflation is not "down"The inflation rate may be going downInflation is a rate genius
No, it is a comparative state. Like voltage. Here it is X there it was Y. Then it was X, now it is Y.
that inflation was caused by the aftermath of COVID
Diseases don't print money, the fed does, and the fed prints money when the deep state needs to pretend to borrow money.
inflation along with it is behind us.
Just keep telling that to the people who can't afford the quality of life they had. I know some homeless encampments that might need to hear the good news as well.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you knew of none, you would encounter them faster.The idea is a phantom. The only real choice is to be ignorant and thus powerless or to be enlightened and thus potentially potent.well, the "reality" of impending death, dismemberment, disease, loss of friends and family, and general disastercan get a bit tedious
Created:
I think it's shitty parenting to publicly talk about controversies between you and your children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Telling a crowd to "be peaceful" after they have already gotten violent is silly.
...but telling them to go home is supposed to work?
Accusing Pence of failure does not speak to his opinion about violence.It absolutely does when the tweet was written while the violence was on going.
So anyone who talked about police brutality,racism, gun control, Kyle Rittenhouse, etc... during the entire summer of love was endorsing the violence?
I really don't know why this is so complicated for you. If the crowd is rioting, they're pissed. If they're pissed, don't rile them up further. And if you do, then clearly you see them as acting in accordance with what you want. This is common sense.
but not a common principle, and until the left-tribe lives by the standards they would impose on others there will be no reconciliation, only escalation.
There is no world in which a person who does not want violence spends 98% of his words and his actions inciting violence
There is no world where making accusations of injustice and fraud don't inspire violence.
Politics is by nature inspiration for violence. The left tribe and free speech could not survive the application of your theory of incitement, which along with being unsupported by any reasoned argument makes it totally uninteresting to me.
There is a difference between inspiration and advocacy, and the difference is made clear by words like "peacefully" even if they are said only once they are explicit calls for non-violence with no explicit calls for violence to stand against them.
Contrast with Joe Biden saying he would beat someone up behind a gym and other left-tribers saying Trump needs to be assassinated by "putting a bullet in him".
Even if we were to believe the lie that he tried to secure the Capitol beforehand
The only time it could be secured....
which cuts entirely against the argument that he never expected violence
You always expect a few crazies. No one expected what happened, if the left-tribe in control of the city and capitol police did expect the level of aggression that happened then they let it happen on purpose, which is actually a fairly popular conspiracy theory.
that is absolutely no excuse to sit on your hands as the violence breaks out.
Maybe for superman, but when you're an old man whose secret service refused to let you go to the scene there is not much you can do. I suppose he could have tried to order a napalm strike but otherwise there was nothing that could be done.
Imagine I offer my wife a life vest before getting in the water and she refuses, then I sit and watch her struggle till she drowns to death.
More like you offer a vaccine and she refuses, then you sit and watch her struggle until death because vaccines and non-lethal security forces only work preemptively.
There are no secret alien teleportation beams. There was no secret battalion of personal guard hiding under the national monument Trump could have sent in. You needed forces present or standing by to react.
There were plenty of security people and national guard there already, if they were willing to shoot they could have mown down everyone. They waited until they had stronger chemical weapons because they didn't want to start a civil war. Or maybe because it was a false flag. You decide. Either way, they were not waiting for Trump's order they were not under his command.
He doesn't have a coherent excuse because he was fence sitting.So after offering all of these incoherent defenses you agree with me?
No I don't agree with you. You (claim to) see no excuse for him not magically stopping a riot. I see no excuse for him half-assing his strategy and relying on naive men.
His theoretical model of other people's behavior was flawed, almost as flawed as the left-tribe leadership if they truly were acting in good faith and thought they were preventing a riot with their preparations and/or discouraging violence with their threats and censorship.
Sitting and doing nothing during that time signified nothing beyond that he had no plans for a coupDuring the time the rioters took over and Congress was in hiding multiple members received phone calls urging them to use the delay as further reason to stop the certification and send it back to the states. That was the plan from the start and the actions of his attorney make that clear.
lol <- too pathetically silly to take seriously laugh
And then it all made sense when we would later learn that Trump didn't write that tweet and didn't want to send it. That was Dan Scavino who wrote it and a few other aids begging Trump to do something.I trust nothing out of the fake trial known as the Jan 6 hearings.I know, it's how conspiracy theorists maintain their psychosis. Just hand waive away any piece of evidence that contradicts the conspiracy, that way all that's left is evidence for the conspiracy.
Like the wall between the back seat and the driver's seat in the presidential vehicle. Jan 6 committee wasn't too interested in that fact. Unfortunately physical objects can't be coerced into non-existence with the threat of jail-time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
"isn't going to", "can't", and "can't legally" are three different things.Considering I didn't say "can't" or "can't legally,"
You implied "can't legally":
and even if they [the supreme court] did [take up the case and find that jurisdiction excluded the children of non-citizens], they're over 59 years too late to do so.
They aren't too late. There is no such thing as too late for reinterpretation of law (in US common law theory).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I'm not challenging the merits of your argument because, unless you can somehow get the Supreme Court to take up this case, they're irrelevant, and even if they did, they're over 59 years too late to do so.
It's incorrect to assume that court rulings can't be retroactive, that is make changes in interpretation that apply to past events.
Post ex facto is a principle applying to changing the rules or adding them in a way that creates criminal or civil liability.
Courts can and constantly do make decisions invalidating previous interpretations or assumptions about statues and constitutions. The fundamental claim of court rulings is not "I have altered the deal, pray I do not alter it further" it is "This was always the rule, it doesn't matter how long you've been ignoring it."
When the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade the claim was not "there was a right to abortion, but now we say there isn't" it was (necessarily) "There was never a constitutional right to an abortion and any law struck down on those grounds is still valid."
Contrast this to bureaucratic decisions like the EPA, OSHA, or the FEC making new rules at random. That is not a claim that they have always been rules. The authority (supposedly) derives from the legislative branch but that does not mean the law specified their rules.
New rules mean ex post facto applies. They can't (legally) retroactively charge you for violating regulations that did not exist.
The only intersection between retroactive interpretation (or reinterpretation) and criminal/civil liability would be intent. If courts had said in the past that there a law meant X but 'it really meant' Y (according to the latest ruling) then nobody could be found to have the intent to violate the law given that they were behaving according to an adjudicated interpretation.
It's not a perfect system, it contains conceptual errors that produce contradictions in edge cases.
The Supreme Court isn't going to retroactively deny people the citizenship they were born with.
"isn't going to", "can't", and "can't legally" are three different things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Left-tribe propagandists aren't too good at math:2:38 p.m - 1:25 p.m = 73 minutesWhen I first learned of Trump's 2:38pm tweet it did make me wonder if I needed to adjust my assessment, but it doesn't take long to realize something wasn't right here.
lol, there is no way he could say "peaceful" more than once in the same day huh?
First of all, he tells them to "be peaceful" after violence was well underway, which seems kind of silly on its own.
"be extra peaceful" rofl
But more importantly, he didn't even tell them to leave the Capitol.
Maybe you should go back in time to write a speech for him.
If he didn't want them there he would have said so
I wanted them to be there so of course I don't care if Trump wanted them to be there, I was just pointing out that you are using false numbers.
It also didn't make sense because well after the rioting began he put out that tweet targeting Mike Pence, so he clearly didn't care about the violence then.
Accusing Pence of failure does not speak to his opinion about violence.
And then it all made sense when we would later learn that Trump didn't write that tweet and didn't want to send it. That was Dan Scavino who wrote it and a few other aids begging Trump to do something.
I trust nothing out of the fake trial known as the Jan 6 hearings. Before you spout your automatic "conspiracy theory nutjob you should trust everything the government says or causes to be extorted from people", remember you asked (people like) me.
He's the president, he was in control of far more than his Twitter account. I'm talking about how he didn't make a single phone call, didn't talk to a single person involved in national defense.
He did that before the protest started. Nobody cared because they were more afraid of his DoD than the protestors. That might be why Pelosi admitted responsibility.
While the entire government is scrambling to figure out a response he just sits there watching TV. Do you have any response to that?
I already gave my commentary. He should have acted long before that so that there was nothing to riot about.
He doesn't have a coherent excuse because he was fence sitting. To me he failed his duty by allowing the constitution to be violated up to that point. To left tribers he failed his duty by allowing the mob to interfere (although whether they would have done more than yell is unknown since congress fled) what they believed to be a legitimate constitutional process.
Sitting and doing nothing during that time signified nothing beyond that he had no plans for a coup, did not expect a riot, did not know how he could stop one.
In fact there was no way to stop it without killing (more) protestors. When one man (who was a political prisoners, Jacob Chansley) read to the crowd that Trump wanted them to go home, did they leave? No, they scoffed.
"We're staying"
"We will abide, but we want to be heard, this is the people's house"
You don't understand what happened that day and you never will so long as you persist in the delusion that MAGA is simply a cult of personality.
This excuse never ceases to amuse me.
I have ceased to be interested in running around in a circle because you refuse to concede when you lose a point. I will not be baited into rehashes. You asked a question, you have answers. The end.
The charge against the left over the past few weeks is that the left is responsible because we said mean things about Trump.
If you want people to stop having absurd standards, make them live up to the standards they demand of others. Some of these events occurred before others.
Nuking Nagasaki before Pearl Harbor is a lot different than nuking Nagasaki after Pearl Harbor.
You mean when like leftist deep state actors were trying to ban free speech on social media platforms?We believe in freedom. That includes the freedom of private companies to decide that they don't want their platforms being used to spread dangerous misinformation.
... and the "freedom" for FBI agents to form political officer corps in those "private" companies and coordinate censorship lists and agendas with the federal government (thereby making the 'private' company an agent of the federal government).
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can't know whether a falsehood will be comfortable unless you know the truth.that's like saying you can't know whether a bed will be comfortable unless you first try sleeping on a rock
No it is not, although there is some truth to that statement as well.
If sleeping is the act of exercising an epistemology (logic in my case) then sleeping cannot be redone or undone to cure the analogy.
If "the rock" is knowledge and "the bed" is ignorance, then sleeping on the rock gives you knowledge of what it would be like to sleep on the bed and sleeping on the bed gives you no knowledge of what it would be like sleeping on the bed.
Those with knowledge might suspect they would have been happier without it, but they cannot return themselves to ignorance. Those who choose ignorance from the start may suspect they would be happier if they were enlightened but they would have no way to know that. (They can't just take someone's word for it either, that is knowledge about the truth)
The idea is a phantom. The only real choice is to be ignorant and thus powerless or to be enlightened and thus potentially potent.
Rather than a rock and a bed, you have two doors leading to two sleeping spots. Both might be rocks. Both might be beds. One might be a bed while the other a rock. The choice in question is whether you know what is behind the doors before you choose one.
If both are rocks then you might lose hope, but you have not lost a comfortable sleeping spot.
If both are beds, then you would have been just as happy in ignorance but you have lost nothing.
If however you know that one is a bed and one is a rock you can make a choice to seek comfort and your knowledge gave you power over your destiny, which as it happens (evolution and stuff) makes our brains much happier than anything else in the universe.
Created:
-->
@Mall
I should be allowed to have the starship Enterprise, but there is no starship Enterprise and there is no way to change your gender.
The question is what level of make believe is unhealthy and whether parents have a responsibility to correct delusions (which is not fantasy, fantasy is a falsehood the person knows is false).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why would they want to pass up the chance to have her cackle about how she gets to smoke weed without consequences while putting people in jail for 40,000 years for doing the exact same thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It is ironic.But let's not pretend like you actually care about democracy.I don't, but there is a party that most definitely pretends.
However dubious the constitutional originalists might be of "mob rule", however much he may point to the need to temper it with courts and representatives, however much he might be called "undemocratic" for these points; it is so fantastically easy to "love democracy" more than the people trying to stab it to death that the right-tribe has become its champions.
Created:
Posted in:
Notice how IWRA tries to shift from the violence of the BLM riots to their claimed justifications.
That's what someone does when he thinks the violence was justified. That's why I don't talk about Jan 6 and the precious police barriers/windows that were harmed without reminding people they were fighting for democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amber
Thoughts?
Courts aren't infallible, but I don't see any apparent errors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
what do you make of those 187 minutes?
I make of the claim several things:
Left-tribe propagandists aren't too good at math:
2:38 p.m - 1:25 p.m = 73 minutes
That does not matter to you because if it was zero minutes you would not change your determination of culpability at all as you have implied many times by dismissing the words "peaceful" in his ellipse speech.
Why should your opinion about too late matter when it is obvious that you would ignore any message that was 'early enough'?
Why pretend as if those who broke police barriers cared what Trump had to say when they were doing so before he had even finished speaking (having walked away from his speech or never started listening)?
I think of the whole "stop the steal" that Trump alone was cloaked in the enormous power of the presidency and it was HIS job to stop the steal before it happened. History has proven that they tried to imprison him regardless, may as well go to jail for actually overstepping his authority instead of made up crimes and twisted corruptions of defamation precedent.
The earlier he used military force the less people would have gotten hurt and the less mob violence would have been justified. He was and is no genius of strategy and his least dictatorial traits failed us. We needed something a lot closer to Lincoln than Trump.
This nation needs catharsis. Heads (metaphorically) must roll. Nothing sacred was defiled on Jan 6, it was merely the end of a theater play put on for the previously sleeping masses. As many many commenters around the world said "who are they to lecture us about democracy?"
the problem is that the MAGA right continues to pretend to be for it
Actions speak louder than words. There is on tribe that wants secure elections and one that wants fake elections (because insecure elections aren't real elections)
Everyone knows he was trying to overthrow American democracy
Nobody in this thread said that.
Wylted said that democracy is not the best way to get freedom. I am not certain what the best way to obtain and maintain freedom is; but I can say with 100% confidence that democracy has no value beyond its ability to obtain and preserve liberty. It is a tool, if it was ever shown to be an inferior tool it would be worthless and should be discarded.
Same with republics, monarchies, technocracies, an AI overlord, and any other system of government you can imagine.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Always the truth.
You can't know whether a falsehood will be comfortable unless you know the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Wasn't the act of voting for Biden the same as tacitly consenting to Harris as the nominee if Biden dropped out? Since, you know, she was his running mate?
No it was consenting to Harris if Biden became unfit to serve after winning the election.
You can't consent to what you are being deceived about. The NPCs are easily fooled and believed Biden was actually being considered for leader instead of a partially mobile figurehead.
They told them "Biden is an honest genius", people with honesty said he was a crooked dementia patient.
By pulling Biden they are tacitly admitting he's a dementia patient. The only reason they would do it now instead of before the primaries is to prevent the democratic party as a whole from democratically choosing their nominee.
It's no different than if Trump choose Alex Jones to be his VP (now, after the primary) and then dropped out to play golf. A party nomination is not a wildcard to be used at the whim of the nominee and anyone who treats it like that doesn't think too highly of democracy.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There are too many lies (real lies, not exaggerations or turns of phrase) to keep track of. The way they all parrot each other barely changing phrasing within 2 hours of each other also makes it kind of obvious when they're lying.
I was specifically referring to the people who said things like "Well he may have looked like a senile old man on camera but I spoke to him for an hour and he is sharp as a razor."
There were quite a lot of them.
These events give lots of useful information though. The people who will now pretend like they always knew there was a problem with Biden's brain are epistemologically unreachable, don't waste time on them.
It also allows you to distinguish honest (bus misguided) opposition from agents of the deep state. For example the young turks are not deep state as their refusal to refrain from commenting on the emperor's lack of clothes show.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
They said things which a person of below average intelligence would know were untrue given the claimed source of the knowledge, i.e. personal interaction.You have no evidence that anything was done intentionally by "the media" to hide anything. Just
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Joe Biden is deadHow can they tell?
Have some respect for the dead lol (JK)
I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did lie about this and forge his signature. They love forging things. That being said there mere absence of a public appearance is not strong evidence. They are probably just afraid he'll forget he dropped out or complain about the people who made him do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Consensus in a self-selected group of people combined with their ability to produce extensive dialogue is unrelated to verity.the problem is that you are comparing people who actually study data and look for evidence with people who study a fictional book and talk about it. There is no comparison.
I am comparing appeals to authority. Whether or not there is real evidence does not depend on who claims to study and who agrees with who.
You claimed there were studies. The only thing there is any indication of anyone studying is news articles. I also 'study' the news. Recall my claim is that you have no first hand knowledge, you said there were people who did have first hand knowledge. If reading news is firsthand knowledge then we both have it, but it is not.
You didn't provide any details beyond the same name being registered twice in the same day.
The treatment of the subject is enough detail to show the asserting entity is clueless or malicious.
There are hundreds of millions of people in America. That's alot of people registering to vote on any given day. If there had never been a day where the same name was registered twice, that would be extremely unlikely.
When unlikely events happen often that is circumstantial evidence of hidden mechanics.
If the events are rare they are easily audited. If they aren't, democracy requires an audit all the more. There is no escape.
Mail is not traceable, faces can be remembered even if they are not recorded. <- wow so hardmail is tracible.
lol, then release the data. Find where the data is released.
I don't know why you would think it isn't.
Just living in the country while not being an idiot I guess.
Faces can be remembered, but when you are looking at thousands of faces the odds you would remember or even care if you saw the same one twice is pretty low.
Low is more than zero.
so you assume it is without any evidence to support it.
I don't need evidence when the opposition concedes the premise. You have already conceded that faces can be recognized. If you didn't I wouldn't waste my time responding.
1) the only way it could matter is if someone already suspected their votes were fraudelent and reviewed the tapes, which is highly unlikely to happen.
It would be much more likely to happen if people who cared about democracy ran elections in swing states.
2) if they used fake IDs, then you wouldn't know who they are anyway. So it still wouldn't be riskier.
Using someone else's SSN is a hell of a lot easier than replacing their image with yours in a photo ID database.
There are no photo ID checks at polling booths. The assumption is that if you are registered you are eligible and that anyone who gives the right name and address combination is the person in question.
Other than signatures, which we have learned are not truly checked, there is no further safeguard around mail-in-ballots. The main difference is that someone can produce fraudulent ballots and get them into the ballot box without exposing themselves to any risk which is not true for in-person voting.
so you don't even know how elections work?
I do, you don't; and you don't know how mail works either.
They check to make sure you are the person on the ID.
There is no ID checking going on in left-tribe influenced areas including swing states.
All you need is a name and an address and democracy betraying left-tribers went so far as to send ballots do addresses different from the registered address upon request.
1) the costs with reviewing video footage of every election site to try to spot this would be HUGE. millions of man hours.
You don't need to check every hour and every face to have a chance of catching a cheater. That is what "risk" means, something that could happen.
Since mail is untraceable there is no risk. No risk of your car being photographed going to different polling places. No need to go to different polling places. No one sees your face. No one knows your real address.
Confession or equivalent mistake is the only way to catch a mail-cheater and that is the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So has theology, most theologians agree god exists.theologians don't "study" anything. They read fictional accounts made up by previous theologians.
Precisely.
Consensus in a self-selected group of people combined with their ability to produce extensive dialogue is unrelated to verity.
Benefit of the doubt now expired. Moving on.There are reasonable reasons why 2 registrations could happen on the same day. Like a clerical error.
Of two different clerics in two different states at on the same day out of 365 possible days?
There are reasons, but they are very low probability events. Anyone who doesn't admit this is stupid or deceptive. The example given to supposedly disprove the entire class of red flags is in furtherance of that deception. There are no such things as criminal duplicate registrations for the same state. That is not a crime, it could (to my knowledge) never result in the opportunity to cast two ballots.
Registering as yourself in two different states and the big one: registering as someone else is the problem. Duplicate registrations for the same state are evidence of attempted identity theft and just because there are low probability alternative explanations does not mean the entire statistic may be discarded.
So you see them saying something obviously true
Obviously deceptive.
you're not really making any sense or disputing anything. You're just looking for paper thin reasons to hand wave away studies.
I think "that's not a study" is a pretty thick reason to hand wave away a purported "study".
prove it.
Mail is not traceable, faces can be remembered even if they are not recorded. <- wow so hard
I don't care about your feelings.
I don't care about your unsupported denials.
If there were cameras on the polling centers it would be more risky to try and vote twice in person, true or false?why would it?
A review of the footage could show someone casting a ballot twice in the same election.... <- duhhhhh?
Do you think there are people examining everyone who shows up to vote to make sure they didn't vote twice?
rofl, if there aren't I think I found the reason people are concerned.
They check ID's
No, they don't. They check names and if the name was given for in person voting or mail ballot already they are prevented from casting a ballot as normal. If they insist they did not already vote they vote provisionally. At no point is a photo ID checked.
The only reason a camera would do anything is if someone already suspected you were voting twice and reviewed it as evidence later.
Yes....
But for that to happen, you have to already know the fraud took place.
No, I think it is possible to review records without knowing fraud (or any other crime) took place. They call this an "audit". It's a term 'experts' use which means investigation done to prove there was no crime, deception, or error. Try google for more.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I agree, the reasons are obvious and they have been for a long time.Just in time to have the new nominee chosen by elites in backroom deals rather than the public, how predictably deep state.Biden was the only person who could have made the decision to drop out and he did for obvious reasons
Let's just keep pretending that all the people who lied to you about it are trustworthy. One of those people is Kamala Harris.
the data right now says he's going to lose
The data is a result of propaganda breakdown. Joe Biden can't speak, his brain is broken and has been for a long time. It's also true that the deep state which is puppeting Biden is attempting to imprison political opposition and inspiring assassination attempts, but that's not a problem swapping candidates is going to fix.
An honest Biden and deep state would not have attempted a propaganda campaign to hide Biden's mental failure until it was too late to put it to a vote. In fact without their lies and anti-democratic interference against other options the democratic primary would not have chosen Biden.
From there we do not have time to set up another primary process
Convenient, why let democracy ruin a perfectly good deep state anyway?
so the delegates will choose the nominee as is how the rules work
Uh huh, "the rules" lol
Got to love those shadow campaigns.
There's nothing "deep state" about it, it's all very foreseeable and reasonable to anyone looking at this with a hint of common sense.
rofl, yes it's completely reasonable and foreseeable that a demented figurehead for a fascist takeover would be unpopular.
What is inexplicable (without a deep state) is why the demented fascist figurehead won a primary and a flock of "journalistic" organizations did their very best to hide and confuse the facts up until total defeat was looming over them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You assume, you have no first hand knowledge.the topic has been extensively studied.
So has theology, most theologians agree god exists.
All studies agree that voter fraud is very rare.
Rumors of studies which could not possibly have relevant data, how modern.
Here's a link to a list of studies by people who have extensive 1st hand knowledge.
Let's do some spot checking.
The Brennan Center’s seminal report on this issue
Not a study, not peer reviewed (not that that is any guarantee of anything).
Let's look at the first citation for the first so called statistic
Similarly, in New Hampshire, 22 pairs of people who shared the same
first and last names were flagged for possible double-voting; in fact, all of the flagged voters had different
middle names. 28
http://www.nh.gov/nhdoj/publications/nreleases/pdf/040606wrongful_voting.pdf.
Dead link, promising
It may seem significantly more suspicious to register twice on the same day but even then, two registrations do not necessarily yield two votes.In 2004, for example
Benefit of the doubt now expired. Moving on.
Columbia University is in New York...but the document reports contact info for "Project Vote" out of DC and Little Rock (Little Rock AK is the dark tower of dol guldur of the Clintons for those not aware)
Let's look at the references: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266271678_The_Politics_of_Voter_Fraud
Greg K Borowski
Greg K Borowski
Greg K Borowski
Greg K Borowski
Greg K Borowski
All five references are to the same guy, the guy who is clearly basing the claims on newspapers "Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel", also all from 2005 to 2007. Long before there was a danger the deep state. Even if they did make some kind of compelling case giving an upper limit to the amount of fraud (which they most certainly did not) one could simply argue that the fraud was not highly motivated before the deep state propaganda campaign created derangement syndromes. In simpler terms nobody thought Bush or John Kerry were racist nascent Hitlers that need to be strangled in their crib.
A study? How academic for the the Washington Post.
That's enough spot checking. Your false pretense of academic rigor and eye-witness testimony is wearing thin very quickly. In fact it's totally debunked if the first three examples of a supposedly rigorously researched article fail the test.
This is a thin veneer of scientific labeling over tabloids. The Brennan Center has no more credibility than True The Vote from first principles and the fact that they are deceptively presenting their claims and sources is an instant detriment to that potential credibility.
If you weren't afraid of being caught on camera voting twice. Then again there are "polcies" and laws in many places preventing the recording of voting places.ok, so you raise a point, then immediately disprove your own point. Why did bother saying it when you already know it's wrong?
I didn't disprove anything. In those places where cameras are illegal and poll watchers are marginalized it is still safer and more practical to commit mail fraud.
The common denominator is left-tribers following propaganda and making it easy to commit election fraud in more than one way.
The left wants as many people to vote as possible because the higher the turnout, the less likely the right is to win.
The more ballots there are the more likely the left is to win. This is because it's easier to dilute the votes of honest citizens with fraudulent ballots than it is to prevent the honest citizen ballots from being counted.
2) Early voting is most heavily used by the elderly. Statistically, the older people get the more right leaning they become. So no, your point is wrong. It has been true in the last few years only because trump keeps lying and telling his followers that early voting can't be trusted.
"ok, so you raise a point, then immediately disprove your own point. Why did bother saying it when you already know it's wrong?"
Also that premise is wrong. They don't get right-leaning when they grow old, the cultural revolution leaves them behind.
you haven't shown it makes cheating easier.
You can't tell with your eyes closed like that.
If there were cameras on the polling centers it would be more risky to try and vote twice in person, true or false?
Created:
Posted in:
I'm going to make an exception to my normally ironclad rule of not taking anything ebuc posts at all seriously (since he is insane).
born out, breathing, independent human individual...has taken its first in-spiration of air/oxygen on its own
Independently breathing != independently doing everything
Babies need to be fed, cleaned, and protected, and humans are social so adults in practice need a society.
What foundation is implied by this distinction anyway? Killing is murder unless the target depends on you for existence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So does every electronic credit check.That's why you can buy as many valid SSNs as you want.There are other security checks too.
You assume, you have no first hand knowledge.
But if you are able to fake enough ID and get past security checks to register to vote fraudulently, then you could do it in person too.
If you weren't afraid of being caught on camera voting twice. Then again there are "polcies" and laws in many places preventing the recording of voting places.
Also if there was no early voting then you would have to generally be in two places at the same time since stealing the identity of people in one small district is infinitely more difficult. Left-tribe loves early voting (or are told to).
Yet another example of the left-tribe coincidentally favoring policies that make cheating easier.
Created: