ADreamOfLiberty

We've already established in this thread that you ignore all evidence

You haven't provided any.

It's you vs MAGA and the bill of rights on this one. If following the constitution isn't the definition of being American nothing is.

The constitution says black people are 3/5th's of a person and that the only people who get to vote are rich white men.

Would believing that make me a "real" American in your view?

Not going to pretend you just made a serious point.

We accept representation as the default until given a reason not to.

The fact that everyone who opposes Putin just so happens to fall out of a window would be an example of such a reason.

That's OK, when Trump weaponizes the government to control the media, then the public will be able to see his side.

Putin will be so proud.

This seems to have led her to the absurd conclusion that Reagan, Clinton, and Obama didn't steal classified material due to something about them being presidents and the presidential records act letting them decide what is theirs and what isn't.

The presidential records act doesn't give president's the power to decide what belongs to them and what belongs to the government, it's literally the opposite. The entire point was to restrict that perceived power as a response to the Watergate fiasco and the threat that Nixon would have just declared the tapes to be his personal property.

YYW once did a post on this topic. He put it like this:

Your average child molester victimizes what, more than a hundred kids?

Fuck the poor and increase the military budget, so we can have military stronger than the rest of the world combined, which will force them to seek protection from us and even pay for protection or pay not to get invaded, and keep testing weapons in Ukraine to fuck Russia.

So even if there was voter fraud on a scale where fraudulent ballots surpassed the margin of victory, you still would have no reason to believe that fraud changed the outcome.

Cost of a good house: 500K.

Declaring an arrest unlawful doesn't make it unlawful. If Trump had a legal argument he would be making it

Do a cost-benefit analysis on that. What if you're wrong, the right-tribe will submit to a real/proven democracy and you're just barreling on into a civil war for no good reason?

The left tribe are not the ones barreling towards a civil war.

The idea that we would barrel towards a civil war over disagreements in how far we should go to ensure ballot integrity is absolutely absurd.

You have no evidence of widespread fraud, you have no legitimate reason to suspect widespread fraud, and most remarkably every study that has been done on this shows there is no correlation between voter fraud and political ideology.

So even if there was voter fraud on a scale where fraudulent ballots surpassed the margin of victory, you still would have no reason to believe that fraud changed the outcome.

Nothing I've argued implies in any way that the left is afraid of accurate voting.

you are the one expecting us to proceed as if there is fraud.

You are the ones expecting us to proceed as if there was an election.

Uh, yeah, it's hard to have fraud if no election took place, so looks like my burden of proof has been long satisfied.

You're arguing that legislators changed the laws to hide crucial election information

There is an easy fix to this, provide the example you are talking about so we can take a closer look.

Yeah, for MAGA that's definitely right.

You basically conceded that MAGA are the real americans.

No, I "conceded" that MAGA's definition of what it means to be a real American is to value guns over democracy

Because the guy is a crackpot conspiracy theorist whose own family doesn't take his candidacy seriously.

Notice how you get to disclaim RFK at will but refuse to allow me to do the same for Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensburger.

I get to disclaim RFK because he is in fact a crackpot conspiracy theorist and because his beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with anything I've argued.

You are claiming the election was full of fraud and that those in charge of elections (like Kemp and Raffensburger) are actively working to hide the massive fraud that would show Biden lost

also completely goes against the known political ideology and more importantly against the political interests of these two individuals.

So no you don't get to pretend that isn't a serious problem for your position.

Proper election integrity measures or lack thereof is not the problem here.

Where in all of this do you address the fact that belief in god was nearly universal in certain societies for a long time?

I don't because it has nothing to do with the conversation.

Theists are the ones expecting us to proceed as if there is a god, you are the one expecting us to proceed as if there is fraud.

Before legislators "gave in to conspiracy theorists" and we trusted elections as a result of the transparency those legislators required.

Citation please.

Participating in our most basic constitutional process is supposed to be a protected right

Actually carrying weapons is more basic.

Yeah, for MAGA that's definitely right.

It's probably better to have verified votes rather than trying to meet the burden of proof afterwards with audits.

They are verified, there's a whole process for that.

I was clearly talking about public figures. People who actually believe in the ideology of the party they represent.

I don't think such things are clear.

If you don't think people like Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensburder are clear right wingers you are lost.

RFK says Biden is a greater threat to democracy than Trump. What does he believe in and why doesn't that make him a reliable critic?

Because the guy is a crackpot conspiracy theorist whose own family doesn't take his candidacy seriously.

Because the Karen screams the loudest and uses deception and the normies don't have the time nor interest to figure out who is right the boards of HOAs become infested and often monopoized by karens.

You can roll the answer into the answer to Wylted's question: 2. If the neighbor is playing loud music or shining a light through their window at night, would these beams of light or sound waves be considered trespassing?

How would "normative principles in market based law" thwart the karens and their evil schemes? (and yes that is the goal,  liberty is the root objective value regardless of government or societal organization)

I think this exposes an additional issue with government issued programs. Because they are not in risk of termination, nor are incentivised by market forces, those most irritating wind up having the most power. In a truly free market, this will not happen - any business model preference the interest of the 70% - 90% and cater to their needs for basic economic reasons. If there is a niche 2% causing a hassle, this isn't really a cause for concern, given they will be overwhelmed by the majority and more logical individuals of society. 

Basically, is it more profitable to appease the loud 2%, or the quiet 90%? 

When the entire country is talking about how the idiot who used to be our president was withholding classified documents to the point they needed a search warrant to get them back, it isn't surprising in the least that it would cause others to look around and say "I don't have any of those do I?"

And I love how lying to federal investigators is to you, a "made up crime". You're hilarious.

RFK says Biden is a greater threat to democracy than Trump. 

RFK thinks eliminating your competition through means OTHER than a democratic ballot is a dire threat to democracy.

Timing? Trump was being investigated for his blatant mishandling of classified documents and obstruction. Nothing about that says 'they're coming for Biden next'.

I like how Biden asserting he had done nothing wrong is interpreted as "Cooperating"

I believe that with the current inflated prices, you need to earn 6 figures to purchase a median priced home in many cities.

Also, it's not really possible to cheat by raising of the hands. Somebody in a crowded Agora is going to see if you raise two hands and it's obvious when a raised hand is a mirror of the other.

Feel free to start your own country of over 300 million people and run elections by having people raise their hands. Good luck.

I had no responsibility to prove the absence of a contract so I didn't have to do a damn thing.

So you can assert fraud without a burden of proof?

Yes

You also claimed that ignorance is not "a conclusion". If it's not a conclusion, it must be the default.

How can ignorance of god(s) existence be both a default and not a default?

Ignorance is the default when it comes to any question of knowledge. When it comes to our approach, ignorance cannot coherently guide us in any direction. Therefore, in any dichotomy we are forced by practical necessity to default to one of our two choices.

With regards to claims of existence, the default is always non-existence until existence is demonstrated. That's why we don't go to sleep every night searching for monsters under our bed. We default to non-existence because the only alternative is to default to existence until non-existence is demonstrated which results in entirely contradictory belief systems being held simultaneously.

Philosophically, when someone tells us something we accept their word as the default and reject it only when have reason to do so, a concept I will refer to as acceptance of representation. The alternative is to insist every statement is proven, which would be impossible because every justifying statement would then require other justifying statements triggering infinite regress.

It's a futile game of infinite regress, which is why people don't takes these demands seriously.

If there were legitimate reasons to hide the information that outweighed the legitimate reasons to not hide the information, why did so many states (yes fewer now but that is besides the point) create laws which mandate publication?

Because of legislators giving in to conspiracy theorists like you.

That means tens of thousands of in-person interviews, two people at least, with body cams, going to addresses where ballots were sent and confirming identities, ballot requests, and ballot returns.

All camera footage should be publicly available along with queryable answers to the questions.

Wow, ok that's absolutely ridiculous.

Participating in our most basic constitutional process is supposed to be a protected right

This perfectly demonstrates why your proposal

If the government performed such an audit in the wake of 2020 and Trump's never ending baseless claims of voter fraud, MAGA cultists everywhere would have just told the investigators they didn't vote and drive the number of "fraudulent" ballots found through the roof so they can nullify the results.

I was clearly talking about public figures. People who actually believe in the ideology of the party they represent.

The FBI did not come to him, he came to them

It's also baffling that those businesses were already suffering with Bidenflation, being forced to charge 15 dollars for a combo meal.... I guess they realized people wouldn't shop there anymore if they were forced to charge 20 dollars for a combo meal. Mandated wages only work if there is also mandated consumption. Cue the subsidies and tax theft....

Do we really have evidence of evolution of man from apes?

When will the rest of these apes change?

Why hasn't anything else changed in that manner?

Why couldn't dinosaurs live along side man?

Dinosaurs exist with us now we know.

I'm really happy that we can see the experiment of the progressive Utopia, so people can see in real time what it is like to enact these policies. Same thing with Chicago, same thing with New York. We're able to see, it's not theoretical anymore... ....lo and behold it's a disaster.

You keep harping on the consent of the worker, but that doesn't remove exploitation, because if there's effectively unlimited labor or subpar workers, it's easy to take advantage.

Neither of us can prove we're right

I do have the history of the USA and the rest of the developed world who says minimum wage is good

I'm just sticking to what works

and not allowing for your untested theory.

If we had no minimum we know for a fact people would be expolited

we'd be outside of civilized society.

If mcdonalds sells something for 2 bucks, they r maximizing profit. They can't just ask for more money to make up for a minimum wage... they'd be forced to cut their workers in on profit. It is true that wages in aggregate can effect prices but only at the margins, not at the levels I'm proposing.

could morally be argued with

it's a principle

He returned the documents as soon as he discovered them when no one was even looking for them.

You are doing good at showing me the theories that say a wage increase is bad.

cause no minimum wage is exploitative plus also bad for our economy

just that it seems that there should be one

past precedent shows what has worked before

Your theory lacks real world application, it's just theory.

Plus supply and demand determines prices, not wages primarily.

And if u look at the industry standards, walmart and mcdonalds, they're already starting around 14 an hour.

Making it 15 is just setting the floor, setting a standard.

but paying 12 percent of workers more isn't going to break the market

Plus I'd rather 10 get paid decent with two unemployed than for all 12 to be expoited

this would require you to accept that there should be a wage to begin with

There's a book authored by Morris which puts forth the idea of a free market of laws, which argues that natural forces will find the must just laws to govern the people.

I think we've seen what a "free market of laws" looks like, it's an HOA and that's not good.

Why is my impression wrong?

It is theorised that in a market based law, normative principles will be more streamlined and better reflect the interest of the people. You might ask whether the interest of the people is good, and I would think that it is - people generally have a good understanding of right and wrong through their reaction to when certain acts are done to them - when something bad or unjust is happening to them, they generally know and want to prevent it. And so a market of law would simply scale this system up. 

There's a book authored by Morris which puts forth the idea of a free market of laws, which argues that natural forces will find the must just laws to govern the people.

These agencies, unlike the state police, risk extinction, if their performance is poor. 

These agencies, unlike the state police, have an active incentive to do good.

These agencies, unlike the state police, will offer contracts detailing what services they owe their customers.

SO you will likely see him get the Candace Owens treatment soon

Logic would dictate that when a person says something and then a sentence later goes on to explain what they mean, the second part is the take away, not the initial impression you got before they explained themselves.

I mean, white person can choose not to get robbed by handing out money willingly to pay for white crime.

it will disproprtionately help those in minimum wage territory, which is the point.

My theory is that if the minimum wages of the past was good enough for our country and the country still prospered, it's good enough for us now too at that rate.

Notice I'm basing it on past precedent, not arbitrarily picking a number that I like.

A decent wage is good for those workers and stimulates our economy and overall job growth

We need a balance and past precedent is the best way to make that determination.

Mr. Biden was

emphatic, declaring that his notebooks are "my property" and that "every president

before me has done the exact same thing," that is, kept handwritten classified

materials after leaving office. Ho also cited the diaries that President Reagan kept in

his private home after leaving office, noting that they included classified information.

Contemporaneous evidence suggests that when Mr. Biden left office in 2017,

he believed he was allowed to keep the notebooks in his home. 

Even Biden thinks Trump is innocent, lol.

after all these years my position is officially that the minimum wage should be 15 bucks.

some basic reading comprehension would help you out here.

[HistoryBuff] For it to be willful retention, he has to have known that he wasn't allowed. Hur could not find evidence that would show that biden did this.

[Hur] Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.

Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retainedand disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a privatecitizen.

In a recorded conversation on February 16, 2017, at Mr. Biden's rental homein Virginia, Mr. Biden told Mark Zwonitzer that Mr. Biden had "just found all the classified stuff downstairs."818

If that is what "willful retention" means then why did Hur say Biden willfully retained classified documents?

The critical difference is that biden believed he was allowed to have them since they were his own personal notes. He didn't know having them was wrong. Once he found out it was, he gave them back. 

IE after he was told he wasn't allowed to have them and that he needed to give them back, he "willfully retained them".