Total posts: 4,833
-->
@Greyparrot
Eh you might still get a judge who thinks the rules mean something and dismiss it. Just lambast them so they won't win again and try again.
Created:
Posted in:
You think he's tried any of this out? Nah, he's jousting with windmills.You're learning how gullible the right is to propaganda.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
What is that some legal definition? We don't need to follow those anymore.Trump's not a public figure, he is now a private citizen.what? He is running for the nomination of the republican party. That is as public as you can get.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
More like break precedent, but using defamation to silence 1st amendment protected speech can be described as "breaking the law" so I'll grant it.Trying to sue Journalists as a public figure is an extremely high bar to clear.That was when there was rule of law. This is war disguised as legal proceedings. The juries of Manhattan and DC understand this. The juries of southern Florida, Texas, and West Virginia will at some point too.Are you trying to argue that juries in southern states will intentionally break the law to allow Trump to silence journalists and violate the 1st amendment?
Whether or not they admit it to themselves I don't know or care, same with the TDS pseudo-courts that started this fight. Too crazy to know better while stabbing you, or evil enough to stab you are both 'stabbing you'.
The judge said he was found liable for sexually assaulting her. But the actions he was found liable would meet the definition of rape as it is commonly used.
Let's not let legal definitions get in the way. After all evidence is now completely optional so why should laws matter? What is important is that orange man is very bad.
even basic facts without putting them through the lens of
I've seen how you people handle "basic facts". Double standards aren't pretty.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
That was when there was rule of law. This is war disguised as legal proceedings. The juries of Manhattan and DC understand this. The juries of southern Florida, Texas, and West Virginia will at some point too.Trying to sue Journalists as a public figure is an extremely high bar to clear.
The judge in that case said in his ruling "Mr. Trump in fact did 'rape' Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood."
It is nice that the pseudo-judge contradicts the jury (whose instructions he approved). Helps filter those who believe a real court hearing occurred down to the most dangerously ignorant or malicious.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I know you hate me, so everything I say, you assume is false.
That's the only possible explanation surely.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I have never yet seen a body of communication more wrong in so many unique ways.
There is a level of non-sense which is beyond mere accident.
Created:
Posted in:
Now Jen Psaki and MSNBC wield context magic. We could barely handle Double_R, whatever shall we do now?!
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well that's why "appealing to nature" is a fallacy, it doesn't really mean much without relative scope.
In a certain scope a magnatar eating another star and blasting us with so many gamma rays all earth on life dies within a day is natural.
Landfills are a mess and the engineering attitude that leads to them is more of a mess. That's how I feel about it, and yes it is a feeling and not an objective moral dictate as I am usually armed with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Oh I am afraid you misunderstood. It's the Karens that need to be shipped off, them and their county inspector goons. HOA boards must be the first of course.
Created:
Trump is now suing George Stephanopoulos over defamatory claims of liability for rape.
This time in the U.S. District Court in Southern Florida
At last the blessed day has arrived. The counter attacks are occurring.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Too many complaints about your society? Just kill the complainers. Problem solved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Just make me dictator adi can literally fix everything in less than 72 hours
lol, well that is the classic solution isn't it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
[Double_R ] I'm not the one pretending the plain English says something it doesn't.
A few moments earlier:
[Double_R ] Please find one example of democrats "denying election results""I think he is an illegitimate president that didn't really win.""You are absolutely right" - Kamela Harris"Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016, he lost the election." - Jimmy Carter[Double_R ] Just because someone uses the same words didn't mean they're saying the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
Look at poor Double_R, he can't imagine the concept of "worse" without an orangeman to blame.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Everything in nature is a sacrifice.
Well let's be more specific.
Biology. The biosphere. The ecosystem (which is the interaction of organisms with each other and with inanimate matter and energy).
You can find examples of just about anything in the biosphere; but what strikes more often than anything else is profound efficiency and endless examples of eternal cycles.
Last year I read through all of Liu Cixin's works and he has a story where aliens (kinda) say the universe is the most vulgar display of excess (paraphrasing), the example given is stars.
There is nothing renewable about stars. They are burning through unimaginable amounts of potential nuclear energy (at the cost of increasing entropy) and if they seem stable compared to the life of a biosphere it is only because of the vast scale of the universe (including potential energy) compared to a biosphere.
Yet stars are arguably the most natural thing there is in the universe of dead matter.
So I advance this notion: What is natural to the inanimate universe and what is natural to life are not the same. I'll go further and say that what is natural to life and what is natural to abstract intelligence are not necessarily the same either.
The notion that the non-human biosphere must be destroyed, damaged, or severely diminished for the human biosphere to reach it's "proper glory" is one I take issue with; and that is the notion which unifies all the so called environmental concerns. It explains the irrational objection to nuclear fission and the nitpicking about hydroelectric, wind, and solar.
It is a premise looking for an excuse. The premise being: If it helps man, it hurts the environment. Man must be the problem and the only real solution is less men.
The landfills of wind and solar machines are the legacy of this religion. It takes a certain level of religious hubris to believe humans are exempt from the laws of nature and that they can create "renewable energy."
I agree the landfills full of "renewable machines" is a failure and the result of an irrational worldview chosen for emotional resonance (which is a fair definition of a religion).
I can't agree that it is hubris or folly to believe we can't have machines and energy sources that last for much longer than human life spans, or even the life spans of the civilizations we've known.
If we used solar, wind, and geothermal energy we would not be exempting ourselves for the laws of nature we would be emulating the resilience of the biosphere which has been using this energy for millions of years.
Our civilization is being wasteful and it's making quite a mess with all the littering. Mass littering is really the best term, it's not like life can't exist with random bits of trash permeating the soil and sea but that's not a world I want humanity to be forced to live on.
In that sense I am an environmentalist. I have always valued the biosphere and the ecosystems of Earth. I just don't have that religious tenant that human happiness is the root problem so I constrain my complaints to rational ones, such as littering.
We don't need to make these landfills, and there are landfills filled with plenty more than sad attempts at solar and wind power. Before plastics our midden heaps were essentially more of the same refuse that Earth has always been caked in.
I have a deeply unfavorable view of how we're literally burying our messes knowing that they won't degrade, won't rust, and often contain a lot of those elements and compounds we're ripping the earth open to find.
I have solutions, but they aren't solutions self-described environmentalists will accept because they have already decided that anything that gives human beings power (physically and metaphysically) is evil. All my solutions involve lots of power and they won't even compromise with people who want to just keep using the same amount of power.
Regardless one good way to stop throwing so much stuff away is for stuff to stop breaking so damn often. In the case of solar and wind, it's a matter of financial necessity that they last a long time making the poor engineering all the more troublesome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, they so often do leave out the stetting things on fire and home made bombs that the left tries to do.
Also when they say things like "Trump hid the boxes and that's why he gets treated worse", they tend to not apply that standard to people who show up to "protests" wearing black block to resist identification efforts.
Only those idiot MAGAs show their faces when they're trying to "overthrow the government"
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
because a certain kind of philosophy believes human satisfaction requires sacrifice of 'nature' by some cosmic law.And any sort of energy production will inevitably raise environmental concerns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You have no idea what the actual story is with any of these claims, yet you already assume the ballot supposedly received in their name was fraudulent.There is no doubt that it is fraudulent. If they sent it in and then tried to vote in person that is an attempt to commit election fraud. If someone else sent in a ballot in their name... that's fraud.Yes... *If*Hence: You have no idea what the actual story is with any of these claims, yet you already assume the ballot supposedly received in their name was fraudulent.
Well I could assume you're they were all lying when I saw their faces and emotions, or I could assume your blind trust in tens of thousands of people who you don't know is warranted.
I know which I'm choosing, and I know I'm the reasonable one.
If I skipped over this question before it's probably because it's unclear what you're asking. Please rephrase.
It was a request to explain your statement. If you don't know what makes fraud "serious" then your previously attempted point is void.
Let's not forget you provided for examples of confirmed voter fraud and there are plenty more.I didn't forget it, it's one of the data points that proves my case. Dead voters is a very easy thing to audit, yet in the entire state of Georgia they found only 4 examples.
You claim there was an audit. Show me the audit.
If the fraud you are claiming to be happening were actually happening there would be thousands of examples.
Depends on how many mistakes the fraudsters made.
There are not.
You trust. I don't.
That means that if half of the people whose identities were stolen didn't vote, and that out of those who tried 6% didn't correct it (out of disgust or apathy) then the fraudulent count would be greater than the margin of victory.You are still presuming that every provisional ballot is the result of an attempt at fraud which is nonsense.
I defined PBPF as the number of provisional ballots issued for potential fraud. If they really did audits and didn't hide data then we would have a number for that.
If you're going to start with the default position that every ballot which was questionable in any way must have been fraudulent until proven otherwise then of course you are going to see fraud everywhere. That's not a problem with the system, that's a you problem.
Jan 6, an enormous spike in support for secession, Trump getting railroaded leading to a complete collapse of trust in the federal and opposition state legal systems; and the very real probability of Trump getting back in come 2024 says it's a "us" problem.
I hope no one pays you to do any statistics.Actually, providing numbers is a very big part of my job, and I make 6 figures doing it
...and we wonder why things are getting worse....
If you get 50 convictions and there are a 100 murdered bodies you can now do statistics: Only 50% of murders are solved.We have no bodies for these elections because they ARE UNAUDITABLE.In person fraud cannot be audited either yet you have so issue with that, so what is your point?
There are two options: invulnerability or auditability. The first is better, but the latter is tolerable so long as the response to discovered fraud is a new election.
Vulnerabilities for in-person voting are just as much of a problem as any other vulnerability, but there is reason to believe the scope of such fraud is limited because there exists risks of being recognized. Despite that cameras and photo ID should be required in the unfortunate scenario that we don't instantly switch to bio-metric blockchain voting.
There is no risk for committing mail fraud, it is untraceable.
Quantifying voters who have been practically disenfranchised is not difficult to quantify at all and plenty of studies have done on this. If you pass a new voter ID law that requires particular ID types, you can easily see how many people don't have that ID and follow up to see how many of them ended up without it.You mean didn't get it for the election? That doesn't prove "disenfranchisement" since an equally valid explanation is that they just didn't give a shit.You know these are real people you can talk to right now, right?Many of them are living in poverty and don't have the means to get these ID's. In some cases they need multiple documents and have to pay multiple fees, not to mention the transportation costs of they don't live anywhere near these places.
Therefore remote voter registration without ID verification allowing for mail ballots sent from people whose faces have never been seen nor address even confirmed to be an occupied residence is the solution.
I don't think so. Not in a real democracy.
For many people it's not easy despite the fact that we're talking about something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.
You lost any basis to talk about constitutional rights when you discarded the 2nd amendment. "well regulated milita" means you can do whatever the hell you want in your mind. Therefore "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" means I can do whatever the hell I want.
you can't argue that on this one point my priority is far more aligned with the basic concept of democracy than the point that it doesn't matter if these people get to vote if they weren't willing to jump through these hoops.
Democracy with hoops is still democracy. The first democracies required physical presence and had hoops to prevent fraud BECAUSE when fraud can change the outcome it's not democracy anymore. So no, your priorities are wrong. There is no balance. Fraud must be eliminated as a factor so that democracy exists, and any proposal for convenience must not change that fact.
Alleged voter fraud is entirely different, because you have no evidence that the thing you're alleging to be happening is actually happening.Other than the evidence you've chosen to ignore, yes.I haven't ignored it
Emphasis added
I said the perception of untrustworthiness is a problem in of itself and the single indispensable mitigation of that problem is to be in fact trustworthy.The only reason it's a problem is because people like you and Trump are out there telling people it's a problem. Turns out people will believe whatever they're told, I know shocker.
They've been told (hilariously and constantly) that the 2020 election was the safest and most secure in history.
If people believed whatever they were told they would believe the 2020 election was perfect. i.e. democrats. There are people who remember everything they're told and try to integrate it into a cohesive worldview.
Those people remembered they were also told that the Russians "somehow" changed the outcome of the 2016 election causing Trump to be the unduly elected POTUS. They have chosen not to believe everything they are told because they have a problem with contradictions.
You don't get to tell people mail in ballots are rigged and then point to the fact that people believe you as a valid reason to now have to get rid of them.
Sure I can, if they can be rigged.
So when Nancy Pelosi and Maxene Waters doubts elections public trust also takes a hit. Ceded...Well except for the confederacy, the contingent election after that, Al Gore, and Stacey Abrams.They never claimed the results were fraudulent genius.
Yes they did. I'd post the evidence again if I hadn't done it more than three times.
Refusal to establish trust is a reason to suspect dishonesty.Circular logic. 'I don't trust elections therefore my distrust in elections is validated'
Circular logic 'I don't trust cops, therefore my distrust in cops is validated'
Forgot to mention the part where a trust-proving mechanism was inexplicably rejected didn't ya?
Google philosophic burden of proof.
Google appeal to ignorance and then think about what the original positive claim must be.
So if you are, for example, claiming fraud, then the burden is on you to provide evidence for that fraud.You owe me ten billion dollars as you previously agreed.Now where does the burden of proof lay? Surely you wouldn't claim that I don't have a contract signed by you without evidence would you?I don't have to. You claimed I owe you ten billion dollars, so provide the evidence to support that claim or it will rightly be dismissed in any legal setting, anywhere.
It would be fraud if I lied about a contractual obligation wouldn't it?
Well I say Trump wins, I counted the ballots with my invisible alien friends. You can't prove I didn't QED.I don't have to, that's why the burden of proof is a real thing. You made the claim, so prove it.
Is that so? I made the original claim?
What was the claim?
And if you fail take your burden seriously then you relieve the rest of us of the burden of having to take you're claim seriously.
Yes indeed.
He's not claiming ballots were stolen by illegals and recorded in the name of dead people.
Then he's claiming those are not the only ways for the officially reported result to be wrong.
Who would miss ballots they didn't request delivered to addresses they don't live at?Show me how many times this has happened.
Give me surveillance footage of every ballot being delivered and the photos of everyone who lives at every house.
Woops, you can't. That means it's unauditable.
That doesn't mean *shrug* don't worry about it, it means that the people who decided it was time to send out ballots by mail (a completely untraceable system) wasted a lot of effort because democracy not achieved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Created:
Posted in:
The subjective is for all intents and purposes the imaginary
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Or failing to empathize with a cat.Merely having a differing opinion can make you a bad person. For instance: Not supporting a political narrative like LGBTQ or voting for a political candidate like Donald Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think it's a useful question to ask about yourself or others.
If you generally work to achieve your values you are a good person, but nothing depends on that evaluation since the direction you should change is the same regardless. Nobody is perfect and if you're irredeemable admitting it won't change anything either.
Created:
Posted in:
Not only have they failed to do audits and publish the results and data, not only have they hidden the data from the public (illegally), they physically attack people for soliciting audits:
"U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya on Tuesday ordered, opens new tab Lambert and Byrne to stop sharing Dominion records with others."
Ignore pseudo-judges. Release all information of public interest. The enemies of democracy and traitors to the constitution are disqualified under the 14th amendment. Their orders have no force of law. They are armed assailants, and should be treated as such.
Use force when persons impersonating officers of the law attempt to impede your exercise of constitutional rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's unfortunate that the supreme court has decided that Biden can continue despite having disqualified himself under the 14th amendment.
Created:
-->
@7000series
Can't know exactly what you're talking about based on one sentence, but it sounds right.
Sometimes you meet kids who sound way more mature and intelligent than their age and sometimes you see the inverse. The difference is what is expected of them by the people around them.
If you explain something more complicated than they can handle they may nod pretending to understand it, but they also want to understand; and their mind grows faster.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Edit: RM is more correct. She could argue (in a completely fictional world where she actually requested welfare, and where she wasn't still owed a ton) that if the government didn't steal all the time she would have been able to find a good job and wouldn't be homeless.How would taxation make it harder for someone who already has a job to find another job?
If a company can afford to pay 3 employees $10 each and then the government steals $10 then the company can only afford to pay 2 employees $10 each or 3 employees less.
There is no such thing as "passing it on to the customer", if every seller "passes on costs" then the buying power of the dollar is reduced by the same proportion with the same effect: Less buying power for the three employees or less employees.
There is no way to trick reality. When somebody steals your product it is gone.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
It can't be called voting when you steal from somebody and offer to not steal as much or to return some of it if they do what you want. That's called extortion.you keep reverting to this basic argument.
The same issue keeps being brought up.
you should be arguing why they cant do it better, but instead you deflect to your moral argument here.
There is no deflection what so ever. You asked me a question. "wouldn't it be good if the government required all these new energy technologies to be recycled?"
You can't talk about what would be good, or what should happen without invoking morality.
We can be talking about cheese fermenting without bringing up morality at all, but if you start saying things like "Well wouldn't be easier if we just enslaved women to make our cheese" there is no amoral way to answer that.
you ignore these basic theories that disprove your point.
I ignore nothing of the sort, the tragedy of the commons is caused by the perception of freeloaders. The perception of freeloading is most often caused by freeloading. Solve the freeloader problem and the tragedy is avoided.
If carbon dioxde truly was an environmental damage significant enough to constitute the violation of rights then phased banning of burning previously buried carbon is the only role any government force would have.
How people adapt so long as they aren't violating rights is not a matter for extortion.
There are plenty of rich people who say they believe carbon dioxide concentrations are an existential threat. Do you believe they are lying?and, on that specific point, maybe there are some rich people who think climate change is a problem, but there aren't enough of them to do anything about it right now.
How did you come to that conclusion? Do you think a majority of people think it's a problem? What about a majority of income being made by those who believe it is a problem?
on the point that if the rich have not enough incentives, you just ignore the fact that i stated that the poor will suffer massively when the cost of fossil fuels are too much for the rich to switch to something else. that's a logical fact that you can't get around and are ignoring
You are drifting to a different context. We were talking about whether there would be enough willing support for the development of high quality renewable energy sources without government force.
Making a new better energy source doesn't make fossil fuels more expensive, in fact it will make them cheaper as fewer people will use them. If the new energy source is truly more efficient then eventually fossil fuel use will taper off to those rare scenarios where they still have a use and that means that fossil fuel extraction will shrink to meet that demand. The price would then be determined by the use case but given how easy it would be to meet a lighter load of fossil fuels it would still be very cheap.
if you actually made the argument, that government intervention could be worse
That I have already explained.
What do you suppose the future of energy is?Long term? Magnetic resonance fusion. Medium term should be fission but it might be resurgence of coal burning or mass investment in solar panels.i agree with these. except i will say, weren't you the one sayin how the market is too stupid and short sighted with the solar panel thing?
The solar panel market is not natural, it's being propped up by irrational demand. The irrational demand is coming from stolen money. Stolen money produces irrational demand because people do not care whether someone else's money is wasted.
I said that there are cases where people are irrational without stolen money, but solar panels and wind turbines isn't one of those cases.
The renewables that are being built today are inferior to burning coal and methane. That is it takes humans less time and effort to get energy from fossil fuels than by building these inferior versions of renewables not in small part due to the fact that these inferior versions keep failing.
It is conceivable that a mass production line of a small number of models of renewable modules that have been expertly engineered to last for centuries could within four decades realize a higher ROI than fossil fuels.
That won't happen so long as people are being subsidized and paid to install any renewable regardless of the quality or longevity (which is exactly what has been happening).
how they use plasic instead of glass? and you, the non expert
I'm not quite a non-expert on material science. Like I said though, this isn't for lack of knowing better; it's a complete rejection of anything but the absolute fastest (and thus cheapest) production line. Why? Because they can get away with it, because nobody is doing better, because there is no reason to invest in high quality when the government subsidies and contracts will accept low quality.
It's the customer's rationality that makes the market work and when the customer is the government the customer is very irrational (actually they're corrupt or lazy, they don't care about the end goal; often being in it only for a paycheck or bribes)
The solution is building at scale, to make a complicated high quality product cheaply means large specialized production lines. Something the free market did perfectly fine during the industrial revolution (when there was almost no regulation and far lower taxes). Before that can happen naturally though, the customer needs to prefer high quality to low quality products.
yet instead of sayin how the government could regulate that point
Yes, put me in charge and I'll regulate all the engineering. Tell them exactly what materials they can use and how. That will fix it all right?
Except what if I'm wrong about the best way? What if there is a better way?
In fact, if the government is producing engineering drawings that have to be followed (more or less), why wouldn't the government just produce the solar panels? Why shouldn't the government just manage all the production?
Well that's been tried, the people who tried it called it communism. It's not that it doesn't produce things. It's just that it does it worse, and people are miserable, and it's unjust.
If there is a role for government here, a practical and moral role, it is to setup the project, define the metrics of evaluation, and run a competition to design better renewables and factories to make them en masse.
The government could guarantee legal structures so the public could invest without worrying about being defrauded and competing firms can see the very huge and tangible rewards for winning (billions of dollars of pledged funds).
No elite private investors required. Just citizens, their hopes, and teams who claim to have a solution.
you arent saying how the government is too dysfunctional to do the research
I'm trying very hard to make you see the connection between the practical and the moral. The reason government as we see it practiced today is dysfunctional is because people who get money regardless of success aren't motivated by success and aren't selected for responsibility by a history of success. The only way to pay people the same or more even when they fail is when you can steal the money. Nobody who produces wealth (earns the money) will tolerate failure after failure.
If you went to a restaurant and they gave you raw or burnt food 9/10 you would stop going there. BUT if they threatened to put you in a little box if you didn't order from them they could keep serving you raw or burnt food.
It's immoral to threaten you, but it's also a detriment to the efficiency of the system because it allows them to keep producing crap at your expense.
Government CAN do the research, but only if it organizes itself such that people within the organization are rewarded by success and punished by failure. Like a free market. The first, best, and indispensable step to make sure that government organizes itself in this way is to give the people the right to stop paying them for failure. The effort as a whole needs to know that they can fail, that if they don't deliver there is no federal reserve or tax increase that will save them.
In other words government can do it, when it has to play by the same rules a non-profit or a corporation has to. Thus you can see the only reason to not call this "part of the government" a corporation or a non-profit is because of additional oversight and the air of officialdom. Those factors are not problems and thus "government" is not the problem.
That's why I won't shut up about "theft", I'm telling you the root of the problem. The difference in the rules creates the difference in behavior creates the difference in outcome. That's why governments waste. Any private entity that could just steal without effort would quickly become just as wasteful.
so this area is magically okay for it to intrude upon?
Threatening people is intrusion. Skewing the market with stolen money is intrusion. Doing a better job than private entities is not intrusion.
when the moral green light is there, suddenly the practical wisdom is also there? don't you see how inconsistent you are being?
What in your life taught you to find that odd?
To quote the bible without making a religious argument at all: the wages of sin is death.
If that wasn't the case, you're probably wrong about morality.
i think instead of all the distraction arguments you make, you should take each specific proposal people make, and say why the government involvement would end in a worse result
Policy Proposal: Steal a bunch of money and build an offshore windfarm
Question: if the windmills fall apart in ten years, catch on fire, kill a bunch of birds, whatever what happens to the politicians, the company that installed the windmills, etc...?
Answer: Absolutely nothing, they're probably out of office, even if they aren't it's not like the public can remember something like that. The company will also be just fine. In fact they'll slip some extra cash to the new candidate who will brag about 'modernizing' the windfarm. Somehow costs keep going up, the windmills don't get better; but that profit margin for the corrupt company makes bribes all the easier.
Worse result: Replacing a bunch of poorly designed windmills as an eternal money laundering operation at the expense of the entire economy + a corrupt company that is now interested in subverting the government.
Better result: Big investment to produce electricity to sell. If the windmills fail that means investors lose a lot of money. They are feverishly interested in making sure the windmills do what is expected. They hire proxies to vet everything. They look at many designs and designers. They are interested in efficient maintenance rather than replacing the whole thing. Because they are rewarded by the actual production of electricity rather than the shallow appearance of progress they produce electricity for less resources to the nation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Things like, what is the proper default positionThe government has a duty to have elections, elections must be legitimate which means either auditable or invulnerable (preferably both).No. The default position is that we presume honesty until we have a legitimate reason to suspect dishonesty (fraud).
Refusal to establish trust is a reason to suspect dishonesty.
Just like a bank that doesn't keep records.
Just like a cop who won't wear a camera.
where does the burden of proof lieThe government.Wrong. The burden of proof lies on the person who makes the claim.
Rejected.
So if you are, for example, claiming fraud, then the burden is on you to provide evidence for that fraud.
You owe me ten billion dollars as you previously agreed.
Now where does the burden of proof lay? Surely you wouldn't claim that I don't have a contract signed by you without evidence would you?
We can take risks, but only if we can quantify the damage.I don't understand what you mean here. Are you suggesting that we have to be able to count every instance of fraud?
We need to have a maximum count for the fraud that is established beyond reasonable doubt.
Neither have any of these people running around claiming the fraud swung the election, at least not to my knowledge. I'd love for you to prove me wrong.We don't need to. The inability of anyone to put error bars on it means we win the debate.Wrong. You lose by default because you have provided no evidence to support your claims.
Well I say Trump wins, I counted the ballots with my invisible alien friends. You can't prove I didn't QED.
They're not saying Biden didn't win the right way, they're saying he didn't win.
Trump didn't actually win - Jimmy Carter
Cue the BS, if you're predicting I'll ignore it I will. The plain English remains.
Then I guess we no longer trust voter registration either.Not if you are reasonable. It should have been obvious to you when there are actual human beings who object when somebody tries to remove the dead voters from the voter rolls.No one objects to removing dead voters
The objection is at the way many of the states have carried this out which would objectively result in large numbers of legal voters also being thrown off the roles and the burden being placed on them to get themselves back on.
The only way that could be true is if they had no way to objectively determine who is an eligible voter. Again proving non-auditability.
If you care about democracy, which means everyone's voice counts
Democracy means everyone's voice counts once. There is no requirement for it to be easier than breathing air.
especially when dead people do not cast ballots says every audit that's been done (and yes, this is easily auditable).
No zombies or vampires, that's good to know. People do commit election fraud by casting ballots pretending to be dead people though: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9760/posts/408140
No one is going through the trouble of stealing your identity and ending up in jail just so they can cast a single fraudulent ballot in your name.Nobody is ending up in jail because there is no way to trace the fraudulent ballot to the fraudsterPeople do end up in jail because of this, and everytime it's a monumentally stupid decision given the risk vs reward ratio. Hey few people are stupid enough to try this, and most of those that do are republicans because they've been so brainwashed by this nonsense.
Non-responsive.
Mail in balloting as practiced in 2020 and 2022 removes all the risk. That's why its susceptible to fraud.There is no reason that they can only send in one fraudulent ballots, they're only physically limited by the number of ballots they can collect from defunct or rarely used addresses during the period when mail ballots are sent out which is often 30-45 days before the election.Are you even listening to yourself? Who do you think is doing this? Who is going door and doing oppo research on their neighbors stealing people's mail in ballots and do you really think no one's going to catch on when ballot after ballot in the same neighborhoods end up missing? And for what?
It is clear you aren't even reading.
Who would miss ballots they didn't request delivered to addresses they don't live at?
Voter fraud of this type would need to be done on a massive scale to make any difference at all.
If <2% of the ballots is a "massive scale" yes.
there are still 49 others so you're chance of swinging the election would still be marginal at best. No one is going to go through all this trouble and risk to not make a difference.
It is intolerable to stake democracy itself upon your poor judgement in the range of motivations possible to people you don't know. There is almost no risk to weigh against. Everything before and since has proven to rational observers that there is very little the TDS zombies won't try to stop Trump. I'd believe IWRA would cheat in a heartbeat if there was no risk (and there wouldn't be if he knew what he was doing and was given the information needed)
It also not as if there wasn't plenty of cash to pay people to do footwork. Enormous sums were being dumped from the usual suspects including silicon valley.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
If we don't inventivize alt energy then rich people won't vote with their wallets what direction alt energy should go.
It can't be called voting when you steal from somebody and offer to not steal as much or to return some of it if they do what you want. That's called extortion.
There are plenty of rich people who say they believe carbon dioxide concentrations are an existential threat. Do you believe they are lying?
If we don't direct anything, you admit yourself that the market can be irrational.
but it is not the only thing that can be irrational
What u r doing, is replacing one dysfunction, the government, with another, an irrational market
No, that assumes the default state is government enslavement. What you are doing is replacing one dysfunction, occasional fads, with another far more unjust and dangerous dysfunction: government enslavement.
I'd like to think we can use expertise to guide a market that isn't always effective.
Guide is a nice word, but it does not describe threatening people with abduction and deprivation at the point of a gun. It doesn't matter how well the stick works, the carrot is the only moral way to move peers.
What do you suppose the future of energy is?
Long term? Magnetic resonance fusion. Medium term should be fission but it might be resurgence of coal burning or mass investment in solar panels.
Do u think it'd be best to get to it via the free market?
The moral dichotomy is between force and liberty.
It's best to get it by means that don't violate rights just as its best to get anything good without violating rights.
If the initial investment for a novel technology is too great for normal corporations then there is nothing wrong with an investment facilitated through public institutions.
Such institutions could be called government or private depending on definitions, but need not and should not have anything to do with the law or use of force.
As an individual I could easily be convinced to invest in fusion research and I don't have any objection to that research being organized and overseen by properly organized public servants.
What about all the problems I'm pointing out?
You haven't pointed out a problem that isn't universal. Humans are irrational sometimes. There is no system that removes that possibility, just ones that let the consequences for irrationality fall onto the heads of the irrational as opposed to innocent victims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
So very predictable. Liars gona lie.
Fortunately there is a way out from the terrible fate that awaits all the blacks. Just admit you're not sure whether to vote for Biden or for Trump, then you're not black anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
No I'm saying it's a side effect of something that benefited the reproductive chain of our ancestors.You saying homosexuality benefits us is that right?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
it sounds like u r describing market failures and market inefficiency and lack of rational actors.
Yes
all things free market fundamentalists carry on about. wouldn't it be good if the government required all these new energy technologies to be recycled?
Wouldn't it be better if the government outlawed gasses absorbing IR radiation?
No amount of whipping will make a slave come up with a good idea. No law can create good engineering. In fact a lot of bad engineering comes from blind adherence to regulations created by committees of men who couldn't cut it as engineers themselves.
It was government lies which made people start virtue signaling about green energy. It was government theft that produced a supply of income for renewables that was not tied to the quality of the renewable.
In other words individuals and companies only wanted to take advantage of incentives, grants, and virtue signaling (all government or government related); they didn't know or care if the product they were buying had a woefully short service life.
Now there are times when the market is irrational even without people being forced. That is because people are irrational. The reason those "free market fundamentalist" are still 100% right (in terms of practicality not morality) is the democracy theorem: It's less likely for millions of people to go crazy than for hundreds of people to go crazy.
Government force allows the irrationality of hundreds to dictate the economic behavior of millions. Governments also tend to be manned by economic idiots who see the world in terms of what can be taken or controlled rather than what can be produced. So when the inevitable irrationality strikes it's way way worse when it strikes in the heart of government tyrants.
they use a lot of unsustainable minerals
Elements are quite stable, the absurdity of worrying about running out of a substance you dug out of the earth because you keep burying it in shallow trash heaps is a point of special shame for humanity.
We wouldn't need to sustain production if we built them to last/be refurbishable.
but my understanding is it'd be sustainable if the products were recycled.
In terms of absolutes recycling is necessary to have a cycle. It has to be recyclable to be sustainable... but that obscures the much more important concept of efficiency (also called return on investment).
Recycling takes energy, and decision making, and logistics. Even if we knew how to recycle everything it would still be much better to make things last as long as possible up until the point that recycling is cheaper.
Where the ideal design is depends on a lot of things not the least of which is the product in question.
Solar panels are solid state semi-conductor devices (essentially) with nearly ambient temperature cycling. No moving parts, no cooling fins or fans, no need for corrodable metals.
An object like this could (and should) easily be made to last for thousands of years with glass polishing every 50 years in abrasive environments.
"UV exposure – exposure to sun’s ultraviolet rays can cause discoloration and degradation of the cover of the side of the panel that faces away from the sun, called the backsheet. The backsheet protects the photovoltaic cells and electrical components from external stresses as well as to act as an electrical insulator."
Discoloration due to UV tells me they're not using glass sheets, they're using hydrocarbon polymers (basically plastic wrap). Why? It makes the panel cheaper. There is no physical reason not to use a simple glass (and there are many kinds of glasses, some of which weather as slow as bed rock). Problem solved for 1,000,000 years.
"Humidity freeze – the phenomenon of sudden freezing in a situation of high humidity – can impact the junction box adhesion."
Because you used some cheap glue! Platinum cure silicone rubber gasket shielded from radiation and held in tension by stainless steel bolts with self-tightening washers. Problem solved for 200 years.
"Thermal cycling involves dramatic changes between extremes of hot and cold temperatures. This impacts the soldered connections within the panel."
Brittle metal connections are the only kind that would have this problem. Connections that have been properly designed are flexible and have no problem with dissimilar thermal expansion coefficients. This could be by using a slightly more expensive solder or annealing the connections. Problem solved for 500 years.
Or don't use solder, use gold plated copper mechanical connections with oversized contact surfaces. Problem solved for 100,000,000 years.
"“Busbars are attached to the solar cell typically by soldering,” said Kelly Pickerel, editor-in-chief of Solar Power World. “Those soldering points put stress on the solar cell and can lead to microcracking."
Here is an idea: don't attach metal wire to fragile semi-conductor wafers.
Put the busbars in free sliding grooves on the inside face of the GLASS protector sheet. They can then expand and contract without stressing anything. Probably take trillions upon trillions of cycles before the wires wear themselves to breaking.
It's not that I'm a genius, it's that any of those ideas would have been turned down because the irrational market (heavily driven by government irrationality in this case) places insufficient value on longevity.
especially when it comes to electric car batteries.
Well cell batteries are all but impossible to make long lasting, so yes they need to be easily recycled until we have a better energy storage system. If we had plentiful energy I would say we should use the proven energy density of hydrocarbons in lieu of constantly recycled batteries.
Hydrocarbons for vehicles, not for the power grid still means way less consumption.
is the government not the solution to this?
Government could be the solution, but government force is not.
If the claim is that hundreds of millions of americans (some of them very wealthy) all agree on the necessity of long lasting (not con job) renewable energy then there would be no need to force them to pay would there?
No need to create regulations or threaten people with fines and prison. No need to steal.
Just people pledging money to a government overseen engineering competition/effort. If the government can't produce a better product with that kind of focused income then why do you think it would work any better to try and threaten random companies and engineers?
how is the government the problem here, unwise use of tax breaks and subsidies?
You got it. You make it sounds so trivial though. It's a fundamental problem. You can't legislate rationality by minutia of detail.
If the government pays people to paint their house yellow suddenly a huge industry (complete with scam callers) will spring up offering to paint your house yellow, their paints will be crap; it will peel, they won't care, and neither will the home owner because it didn't cost them anything (that they can see, it cost everybody though).
Who is to care? Government inspectors?
So you start regulating yellow paint; and boy that is complicated. Now you have regulations that don't respond to innovation, tons of people whose houses are yellow (when they didn't really care if it was yellow or not), and to add onto it you've got the yellow paint lobby who will start trying to control government to make sure those subsidies never go away and those paint regulations never get too unprofitable.
Added bonus, if someone is pissing a government thug off, he can find fault with the yellowness of the guys house.
It's all connected, it's all branches of the same root evil. There are more layers so it's harder to see, but it was always a flawed premise. It is no more rational to solve engineering or cultural problems with legislation than it is try and command physics = "Wouldn't it be better if the government outlawed gasses absorbing IR radiation?
No chances of success, every chance at corruption and waste.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
the deep state are the window makersMore like the window breakers.The window makers are deluded into thinking they are saving the planet and the country when they are only saving the wealthy elites. 10 percent for the big guy, as usual. They think they are part of the club. They are not.
No, that's the people who keep "paying" (being stolen from) the window maker.
The window makers shell companies are Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Blackrock, etc... They make weapons (very inefficiently). They launder the money to people who control the institutions that control the narrative (academia, media, 'fact checkers', etc...), those narrative controllers make sure that only people who like windows (weapons and war) get (apparently) elected or at least make sure the people elected don't remove the bureaucratic layers that make sure every congressman and POTUS thinks escalation and arms dealing is necessary.
The subverted government then starts wars, fans wars, and gives away weapons to give them an excuse to steal from the public and give to the weapon makers. Circle complete.
So if you call the deep state all parties in this cycle it includes Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Blackrock, etc... so they are the window makers and the window breakers at the same time (like in the parable).
Maybe if they would stop smashing windows (creating conflicts that the sheeple are brainwashed into caring about) we could build a reasonable amount of weapons and only replace them as they are rendered obsolete (which would cost like 1/50th).
In the window maker parable the victims are the people who have to give more and more to the window makers, not the window makers themselves.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
We make a lot of things disposable that should not be disposable. Buildings, vehicles, tools, etc... etc...
People are short sighted and too often irrational perceptions of "luxury" or "authenticity" cause price gouging and inefficiency on any product line above the bare minimum. It's a cultural problem that's self-reinforcing because there are very few if any brands that offer "This lasts a long time who gives a shit if it is covered in Italian leather or reclaimed barnwood"
In the particular case of massive investments in power production it should have been blindingly obvious that the already tenuous ROI could absolutely not tolerate any appreciable maintenance or replacement costs; but they forged ahead anyways making the waste of time all the worse.
The worst part is that it wouldn't even cost that much more to make reliable windmills or solar panels. It's just bad engineering because the people buying the product aren't rationally motivated they don't care whether the engineering is good or bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
So homosexuality is a disorder.
Depends on how you define a disorder. It could be seen as the correlated cost of the complicated psycho-sexuality we have which has inevitably been a benefit for millions of years.
A lot of people are dangerously fat because it was advantageous for our entire evolutionary history until 5 seconds ago. With willpower you can not eat, but you never stop being hungry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
So homosexuality is a learned nurtured groomed behavior as opposed to it being natural, is that right?
Hold on there, just because something is developmental does not mean it was groomed. That means intentional.
Suppose for instance that we learned that pollen of a certain kind exposed to children between 4 and 5 produces allergies later in life. That does not mean anyone wanted the kid to have allergies, it doesn't mean anyone taught the kid to have allergies, it doesn't mean the kid wants to have allergies, and it doesn't mean there is a way to stop having allergies after the fact.
All that can be true even if "you're not born that way".
If there was simple genetic correlation it would have been found already. If it was simple environmental correlation (like watching same-sex hugging in cartoons) it would have been found already.
Thus we can infer that it is a fairly complicated and obscure set of causes, like autoimmune disorders, and it isn't at all wrong to call such disorders "natural". Ideal? No, but natural as pimples.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Exactly, and similarly federal theft is used to extort states.
"Whoopsies, looks like under the new guidelines your state infrastructure and education department no longer qualifies for federal assistance."
"So you'll stop taxing our citizens so they can have the government policy they want?"
"lol no, you had your chance; this is going to Ukraine also so NASA can explain middle age Islamic scholarship to women in Afghanistan."
Created:
Posted in:
I can feel IWRA itching, frothing at the mouth almost, to spread this misinformation. So I thought I would do it for him.
Trump recently promised to bathe in and drink all the blood of his political enemies, the orange lord upon sat upon a dark throne adding "I'm basically Hitler, I was not talking about auto manufacturing and you know it. The bloodbath will be wild my precious white nationalist"
He then began kicking a baby seal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's in this government's interest, the deep state are the window makers in our wonderful "world order".It's in the government's best interest to break windows to keep the ponzi scheme going. This is why we have endless proxy wars and wide open borders and zero police in the cities. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
... but you're right about power. In this case the power to steal. Of course that was always going to turn sour.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
It was a cat, not a human being.
It's not a boolean. They have emotions. I see only blindness to the obvious, but there is only so much one can say about someone's lack of values and I've said it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
broken windows fallacyI have heard of broken windows policing and have seen it called a fallacy but that can't be what you are talking about hear, so the criticism is unfamiliar
Well it's probably the most important thing that people don't know about economics which makes it way more important than trace gasses.
Here is how the story goes:
There once was a window maker (or glazier) who had more time than work. He wanted more money but he couldn't raise prices due to a competitor. So to create more work he put on on a mask and at night broke windows.
When he was discovered and brought to court he hired John Maynard Keynes to defend him. Keynes said that all those windows he broke was actually a net benefit to society since the GDP went up. (and it did go up, GDP is measured in products sold)
The lesson is this (although not always presented correctly): Keynes is wrong because GDP is not what needs to be maximized, value needs to be maximized and only people can decide what is valuable to them. They don't value paying the window maker, they value the window.
The window maker got more goods and services from other people while everyone else got only the same windows again and again. Just because people are getting paid doesn't mean they produced something useful.
War is often used as another example. On paper, with the computations Kenyes cared about; war is great for business. There is lots of buying, a huge surplus of "jobs".
Only one problem: It's all aimed towards killing people and blowing things up, and while it may at times be necessary it doesn't contribute to quality of life. It's of no real economic value. Even raiders eventually run out of other people's wealth.
Another example is the New Deal, the so called solution to the great depression (caused by federal reserve). Now obviously not everything the government spent stolen money on was worthless, but there was a significant amount of "paying people to dig ditches that no one needed" or "bridges to nowhere".
Imagine if you will a country where everyone had the same job, digging a ditch, all government workers, all getting paid $500,000 a year. In terms of absolute GDP that economy would be better than ours. Except there is no bread or houses, only ditches, soon to be filled with people who starved to death.
So, you say 8T in American jobs. The ability to spend 8T domestically does not mean you're increasing domestic prosperity. You could be digging a ditch.
That is the broken windows fallacy: spending != value creation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Since there is a chance Wylted will think about what I say I will engage with some of the bigger points.
It should also be noted that the United States has more coal than any other country. Power in history has always followed countries who were the best at energy production so decreasing coal usage even if it is not replaced with renewable puts the United States in a position to be very dominant in the energy sector once the world has to start moving towards coal. So reducing coal usage now pays off in the future and is part of foreign policy.
It's an expiring goldmine though. It's only a matter of time before people get over themselves and start using a lot more nuclear. Then coal will be a novelty resource. Maybe useful for straight heat production and that's about it.
There are no holes in the ozone anymore, and very little energy was carried by as UV. Also if the cartoon theory of global warming was right having less ozone means less "greenhouse" gas so it should cool us down right?These holes in the Ozone actually make temperature swings more pronounced even if the temperature stayed the same.
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C10028156&Mask=80 <- look at those nasty peaks around 10 microns.
more famine in places that can't afford famine
Famine comes from humans, specifically humans doing the civilization thing wrong; like say killing the farmers and stealing their land because you're on the verge of a egalitarian utopia.
if temperature shifts are making it harder to farm in some areas
It's making it easier in far more places and not very much of a difference in any case.
8 trillion dollars in New jobs.
broken windows fallacy
American jobs instead of going to Saudi oil prince's with Isis ties sounds like a good investment in America.
Like you said, we have a lot of coal. We could burn like lunatics (aka like China) and thereby have our cake and eat it too.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
On a related note, being vaguely sympathetic toward Russia because they're "not woke" is not objectively worse than being anti-Russia because they have laws perceived as homophobic or anti-feminist. Which was a serious factor in many Americans hating Russia well before the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
This issue particular drives me up a tree.
In Russia it's legal to have sex with consenting adults. Their "error" is in not creating special protections, special celebrations, new government categorization.
Meanwhile in just about every sharia country it is criminalized, sometimes with death. Prime example: Gaza.
They are putty in the hands of the media.
Note the very recent 2022 extension of banning LGBT propaganda is an obvious violation of free speech (as opposed to its 2013 existence when it applied only to minors), but like you said they've been mad at Russia for a long time over this stuff. How convenient for the military industrial complex, homophobes who need to be countered with enormous sums of military hardware as opposed to the homophobes who MURDER people while buying large quantities of military hardware (Arabia, Pakistan, and more).
To some, the US is rightly a paradise of free love in a global sea of repressive societies.
To others the US is still repressive with plenty of victimless sexual behavior criminalized or pseudo-criminalized via "I'll get you somehow" legal action.
My reason for disliking Russia is that it's an inwardly and outwardly aggressive dictatorship
Doesn't that depend on the premise that the Russian elections are rigged?
Created:
-->
@Savant
Charity is tax deductible, so taxes wouldn't affect how much they could donate.
That's not quite true.
Charitable donations can be deducted from your gross adjusted income, they aren't subtracted from your tax liability.
So if Bob earned $100k in a year $21,911 would be stolen. 21.91% effective rate. (he keeps $78,089)
If he donated $39,900 in that year then his effective income would be 100,000 - 39,900 = $60,100
Then they would steal 16.77% of the rest = $10,081 (he keeps $50,019)
If you say he needs $50,000 to live (which is way low in most suburban to urban areas) then he could give $50,000 without taxes, but only $40,000 with taxes.
So it's not like you have a clear choice between charity and taxes unless you're willing to leave yourself below the standard deductible. This makes perfect since from the thieves point of view. If they let you choose to spend your money on charities, we would just create government services and call them charities.
The "save a house from fire" charity and so on. No sane person would fund the military industrial complex when they could pick a cause they actually cared about.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Nice try, I'm still voting for Trump.If anyone really wants Roosevelt again they should vote Trump because he is the modern day Roosevelt.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If she believed the same thing and was homeless and never paid enough taxes to make back social security, then she would be a hypocrite.
Correct.
Edit: RM is more correct. She could argue (in a completely fictional world where she actually requested welfare, and where she wasn't still owed a ton) that if the government didn't steal all the time she would have been able to find a good job and wouldn't be homeless.
The only thing that could make her a true hypocrite is wielding the force and extorting people herself (either directly or through proxy responsibility like voting for a candidate more likely to do that).
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I owe the IRS several thousand dollars. I don't intend to pay it. When they come after me I am negotiating it down to 10% of what I owe which after inflation is more like 5%.Is this a bad strategy?
It is if you let slip you planned it that way.
To pull it off I think you need one of those specialist lawyers, they cost a lot but the IRS knows they can't out-annoy them; it will just end up costing everyone way more so they settle.
So that negotiation stuff is real but you can't do it yourself. They need to believe you'll waste five years in court. Also be whiny, and talk about the dreams covid destroyed or something.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
That's a mythAym rand also got a lot of shit for living off of social security
but she paid into it and the only ay you see yourmoney back is to take advantage of services that would go to waste.
This is correct. If a thief steals your bread, and you take his cake that doesn't make you a hypocrite. It's recovering stolen value, no different than compensatory damages that courts order all the time.
Created: