Total posts: 4,833
-->
@Greyparrot
He should be talking to Trump about his obsession with Trump's wife and Slovenian "sex workers" in general. He at least shares the interest and likes to talk about pussy grabbing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If you want to call that a win. The prospect that a jewish spiritual leader once existed is significantly less of an issue to me than people throwing around "proof is subjective" and then proceeding to pretend like anything they might say would have any relevance to other people.
The only honest subjectivist may as well take a vow of silence since communication is predicated on a shared objective reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If you reject it as proof you assert that proof is not subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And a woman is born with approximately 2million eggs, of which perhaps 500 will be ovulated, and on average only about 2.4 will be successfully fertilized.So in the hardcore right wing mind, that's about 1999997.6 potential babies that the bitches murder in a life time.
No one can honestly believe that there are more than a hundred people in this world who think gametes have human rights. They think zygotes have human rights.
Why strawman?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Your call, my proof stands.Trust me buddyNo, I only trust God.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
3) the ways in which he lied are harder to prove than if you lied to a bank. Like, how do you establish how much mar-a-lago is worth? It is a much harder question to answer than "how much is in your bank account" or "how much is your single family home worth".
Yea, almost like it's not lying to pick a number on the high end of plausibility like everyone else in the universe does....
that is not how the law works.
You are profoundly ignorant of the law.
You are not allowed to lie in these documents. It is a crime.
That's why Fani Willis is going to jail along with Hilary Clinton.... oh wait... no "lying" suddenly means something quite different for those types.
Or saying mar-a-lago is 10 times more valuable than it is (which trump also did).
False
They cost banks around 100 million dollars.
False
Created:
Posted in:
Proof is subjective.
In that case, yes I can prove Jesus isn't real: Trust me buddy. QED
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
It's because they need to save democracy from voters.no, it's because he is a criminal who engages in insurrection and the law is very clear that insurrectionists can't hold office.
I agree insurrectionists can't hold office. I've recognized many people as disqualified and no longer office holders. They just keep pretending though.
For the millions of people who don't have a driver's license, it certainly is.
Background checks for guns.
But those people are probably poor and the republicans DEFINITELY don't want them voting.
There are only two kinds of people who don't have and don't care to get photo IDs: Illegal immigrants and the profoundly politically illiterate (for if they could not spare an hour to ID themselves they have not spared an hour to inform themselves).
One doesn't have the right to vote and the other harms everyone by voting.
It does not require a charge or conviction for it.
Which is how I was able to remove Adam Schiff from congress just by noting his aid and comfort to the enemies of the united states.
It is the 14th amendment that specifically says this.
The 14th amendment does not specifically say "and you don't need any process to determine this, just declare it; have fun!"
Section 3 of the 14th amendment specifically says that anyone who engaged in insurrection is ineligible to run for public office.
It does not.
Created:
-->
@Mall
The virus was real, the people who took advantage of the virus to create precedent for shutting down the economy and rigging elections was just taking advantage of an opportunity.
It had nothing to do with reducing populations and it didn't reduce populations. You need to kill the young and child-bearing ages to reduce population.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Except if you're named Clinton or Biden. Then it's easy. You can even do an investigation and conclude all the elements of the crime exist but you're not charging "cause you know, the thing".Turns out that prosecutors have a much harder time turning a blind eye to your crimes when every detail of them is printed on the front page on the New York Times.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
An Illinois TDS judge just joined the far-left states and vowed to nullify any vote for Trump in a bold violation of the 1965 voting rights act.
It's because they need to save democracy from voters.
This is the same tribe that claims showing a driver's license is an undue burden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You're pointing to three words out of an hour long speech while also ignoring everything else he did and said over the prior two months.He never told anyone to be violent. He did tell them to be peaceful.Right, and the mob boss never told you he was going to come after your family. He did however express concern over the well being of their safety.
Your theory of coded language fails for this above many other reasons: It doesn't work when the addressed don't have the cipher.
You assert "it will be wild" must mean violence. That is your assertion, no different than those who claim the "OK" hand signal is white supremacist dog whistling. "It will be wild" remains your only claimed coded language.
Your assertion that telling them the election rigged is identical to calling for violence is rejected both on the face and due to double standards.You agreed with it in this very thread.
I did not.
If someone screams "murder murder" that doesn't mean they're calling for violence, even though violence is an appropriate response to murderers.
No I asked you "Why were they so unprepared". You gave a reason why they would not want to appear militarized, but that motivation doesn't outweigh the motivation of wanting to prevent a riot (if you assume they are honest).I don't have an explanation on why they were so incompetent so I offered a speculative answer.
and the form of the 'incompetence' was the presumption of non-violence from the right-tribe.
The reason why is irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant. It is evidence that the threat was not obvious, which goes to show that you're trying to rewrite history so that it appears obvious and inevitable that when Trump calls for a wild protest he must mean an attack. If it was so obvious, why is it that the entire left-tribe leadership failed to (in their erroneous view) 'protect democracy'?
Damned either way apparently. If he didn't offer you say its because he wanted an attack to succeed (somehow at something), if he did that proves he was expecting violence.Yes, either way the answer is damning. That's what it looks like when you are wrong.
Uh huh.
Three paragraphs in and your answer is literally "nothing".
If you want to mischaracterize my answer I can't stop you, but I've answered the question.
"Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what needed to be done". That is not someone concerned with the violence.
If Mike Pence had done what needed to be done the violence would have simmered down.
That is absolutely disgraceful, but what's even worse is that there are people like you out there by the millions pretending that this is what it looks like when we have a president who doesn't want violence.
I have said that he didn't call for violence, that he called for peace beforehand, that he didn't expect violence, and that violence was not part of his plan to save democracy.
I have not said that he didn't want violence. Everyone who is angry wants violence. It was clearly cathartic for him to see people were just as angry as he was.
Created:
Posted in:
A screenshot is full resolution on windows and most linux distros. If it doesn't show on the full screen grab it's probably the monitor or graphics card.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Also, the most recent harvard/harris poll has Trump up 8 points EVEN IF TRUMP IS FOUND GUILTY of inciting the Jan 6 riot.How was that red wave?
Obama v McCain was a smaller margin. It's a pretty big wave if accurate.
Created:
He actually debated the pedo stuff. This apparent waffling is just assertions of belief with very thin excuses "gays spread disease".
In one thread he's bragging about offering his sins to Loki, in another he says he cares what God (of Israel I assume?) thinks. Starting off with the obvious trolling of blind loyalty to a reviled communist dictatorship was already beyond reasonable belief because he has not confessed to the rare and specific belief system required to have that make any sense.
This is not tribalism or worldview evolution.
Perhaps he's a very stable genius studying us by seeing whose going to jump on the offered bandwagon / throw a temper tantrum.
Perhaps he's just nuts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If he’s convicted for inciting the riots at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, his lead extends to 8 points, with 54 percent to Biden’s 46 percent.
It's not a great idea to read too deeply into polls. They gave a false sense of security to the deep state in 2016 and to the right tribe in 2022.
Still it wouldn't surprise me if this is reflecting a true shifting of opinion as more and more people realize they're out to GET TRUMP. In a way the EJC and "civil fraud" stuff were tactical mistakes even under the premise of fascist lawfare, since they are so outrageously unjust and unprecedented they are waking people up.
The way the mind works is once they no longer trust the accusers they care less about the accusations, which is how people like me have thought for a long time; but anyway it's not that 6% more people are happy to vote for an insurrectionist, it's that 6% of people are angry and frightened that if they don't punish the people going after Trump we'll be full banana republic in short order (in regards to Trump & friends we already are).
It's hilarious (in a sad way), they accuse "us" of being obsessed with Trump, of having devotion for him, but their own actions make supporting Trump the only sane option. It's not a martyr complex, it's that 'we' need to show 'them' they can't get away with this. It's unacceptable. You do not get to veto giant political movements by using lies and the apparatus of the state to attack figureheads.
IF we let them get away with this, we will no longer have a democracy even if the elections are secure because the range of candidates will be filtered to the ones they won't railroad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
There is, ultimately, a hard entropic limit to the number of operations a computer can perform per second for a given amount of energy input.
This assumes that the reason we don't have true artificial intelligence yet is because we don't have enough operations per unit time.
Algorithm efficiency is something that many people in IT don't really understand or care about anymore (and it shows, our software is crap), they're only getting away with it because the hardware keeps getting better and the corporate world doesn't favor reusable and refined solutions as compared to bazzilions of patchware interpretive nonsense.
It also assumes that we're using energy efficiently and that we are using alot of energy on computing, which we aren't on both counts.
If we had low voltage/low clock rate parallel computing (like a GPU or a biological brain and what a neural net needs) in a cube 500 meters on each side we could power (probably with one nuclear plant) it and it would be very hard to argue it didn't have the computing power required for an efficient artificial intelligence to do some impressive things.
Imagine, if you would, a 24/7 arms race between criminals and state hackers who use AI to crack cryptographic digital security layers and their would-be targets who add more and more layers to protect their property. To brute force AES-256 would take enough power to supply 50 million American households for billion of years
The later fact is why there is no arms race and will never be an arms race. The advantage is so firmly on the party wishing to keep a secret that there is no point.
In real life the most efficient operation to mine one Bitcoin will expend 155,000 kilowatt hours; at its peak Bitcoin mining took up more than 7% of Kazakhstan's electricity usage, despite being a fairly rich country of almost 20,000,000 people.
BTC was designed to plateau. They wouldn't have used 7% of their energy if there was anything more worthwhile to do with it.
2. Water ConstraintsRelated to the above, computers guzzle water. A lot of water. Cooling is used to raise computing efficiency and keep physical components from frying. Every 5-50 ChatGPT queries will use half a liter of water, and one Bitcoin transaction uses 16,000 liters of water.
This is utter nonsense. Water is not destroyed by being used in a coolant loop (open or closed). It's not destroyed by evaporation. It's not destroyed when dumped into a river at a slightly warmer temperature.
One bitcoin transaction does not use 16,000 liters of water it doesn't use 1 mL of water. I've computed the confirmation hashes for thousands of bitcoin transactions on my home PC. Never given it a molecule of water.
3D printers are limited to working with certain materials and can only produce a certain range of results. Assuming human owners of these enterprises, it would remain within human control. Assuming that governments recognized the property rights of AI, it still wouldn't be outside human control unless all the work was automated as well.
The full production chain can be automated. That will be a singularity of sorts (people won't have to work anymore and the only long term questions will be population control and natural resource allocation).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
it was yet another indication to his followers that he was calling for violence
The other one being "peacefully and patriotically let your voices be heard"
They said it at the Capitol genius.Show me.This is literally the second link to pop up in my Google search. I would show you more but we both know that is a complete waste of time as you will find an excuse to hand waive away any example I provide.
Contains no sound recordings from the capitol.
"All over the place" isn't a location. My 10 year old niece understands that
"All over the country", and if that isn't a location "on the planet Earth" isn't a location either. You and your niece better tell NASA, they have been working under some mistaken premises for a while now.
Why would pointing out your double standards take away from my ability to prove my own standards?Because it's a distraction.
No, I would prioritize defending my moral theory if there was a time conflict.
Why is it so obvious to any reasonable person that "nice family you got there, would be a real change of something were to happen to them" is not actually an expression of concern but rather a threat to you and your family?
You also tried to use this so called example to explain why you didn't need to identify any defamatory statements and yet were comfortable claiming there was defamation. Not a serious person.
You're pointing to three words out of an hour long speech while also ignoring everything else he did and said over the prior two months.
He never told anyone to be violent. He did tell them to be peaceful. Your assertion that telling them the election rigged is identical to calling for violence is rejected both on the face and due to double standards.
You know nothing about military solutions if you think that. The first step would be to bypass anyone you can't trust, get a platoon (personally by going to a base); have them ready, and then fire anyone who has ever shown a hint of questioning your orders or having any motivation to do so. Escort them to house arrest with your loyal soldiers.Spoken like a true dictator.
Deflection. That is what a military solution would look like.
The only option he had to steal the election was through the color of law, so he had to try this tactic of having his VP reject the electors.That is the only option he planned for.Right, that's why he watched the riots by himself from the dining room wondering why no one else was as excited as he was.
Do you also believe that he tried to hijack his own car? Lol
And he knew that violence on the 6th would have made that whole plot easier.Why is that?Because his goal was to stop the certification, and it worked... At least temporarily. The plan failed only because members of Congress, including and especially the republicans, decided that failing to fulfill their constitutional duty was going too far and because those same members refused to listen to Trump's lawyers calling them during the riots to tell them not to verify the results.
We know the plan was to stop the certification, and we know that Trump was telling them not to certify beforehand. What does violence have to do with it?
you're saying they cared about optics so they didn't want to militarize it like they did before (I bet whatever you're referring to is no more militarized than the capitol was on Jan 6).
June 2nd is the day after they tried to burn down the church and sent POTUS into a bunker.
That's a motivation not an explanation.You literally asked me to explain their motivations.
No I asked you "Why were they so unprepared". You gave a reason why they would not want to appear militarized, but that motivation doesn't outweigh the motivation of wanting to prevent a riot (if you assume they are honest).
It thus follows that they either did not foresee a riot or they did not truly want to prevent one.
Here's a real question for you; Trump says he offered them 10,000 troops... Do you believe he did? Yes or No?I think it's more likely than not that he mentioned something.And why would he have made that offer of he wasn't expecting any violence?
Someone could have asked about it. Damned either way apparently. If he didn't offer you say its because he wanted an attack to succeed (somehow at something), if he did that proves he was expecting violence.
Something about the thought process of a conspiracy theorists? You can fill in the blanks you've accused others plenty of times.
Even if that was true, it's one unreasonable plan vs another unreasonable plan.Yes, so stop pretending that all of this constitutional strategizing is a useful way to analyze this.
"Even if" != "I totally cede the point"
It also ignores the fact that Trump did absolutely nothing to stop the violence which according to you he did not want and was taken by surprise.Well except for telling them to respect the police and go home.Right, in a Facebook post he didn't write and had to be pleaded with to allow to be released.
Well there is a video of him saying it.
You're the president of the US. Your supporters gather to protest at the US Capitol. You learn that they have turned violent and are breaching the Capitol perimeter, you also get news that your VP had been evacuated for his safety. Congress is being evacuated as well.Please enlighten me... What do you do? What do the next three hours look like for you?
Well if I have a functioning brain with the most basic understanding of military matters I would know that you can't shove people out of a building unless you have similar numbers and if the hallways are all full it's impossible without people getting trampled to death.
There is also no point pretending you can instantly deploy more infantry. Even fast reaction aerial cavalry (chopper and osprey deployed) need to be on standby. Everything else but local police and whatever was there already would have taken hours. The metropolitan police went in at 2:24 PM. Shortly after there were people in full camo with combat helmets and M4s on the hill just forming a perimeter (so much for not appearing militarized). There was also a crowd control squad sitting over by the supreme court doing nothing.
So I would say fill the building with tear gas and wait for them to leave, but it wouldn't be my call because nobody on scene was actually under my command. If you're implying that words alone would have mattered
First rioter enters the building - 2:12 p.m
"Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!" - 2:38
That's 26 minutes. Not three hours. The reason the majority of people left is because congress left. Not Trump's tweet. Not tear gas. Not metro police.
That's assuming I disagree with the violence, which I don't; in which case I would cheer them on and promise to pardon each one for anything short of rape, murder, unnecessary arson, and maiming. Of course since I believe violence was already called for I wouldn't have let a bunch of desperate unarmed people handle it. I would have declared the states with fake election to be in a state of insurrection and deployed the military to administer a fully transparent election. If the supreme court started making noise I would have put them under house arrest. Same to any congressman or senator who starting rumbling about impeachment. It worked before after all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
The theory of context is as important as the actions themselves. Until the decisions of people in history make sense (given that contemporaries also thought it made sense) you keep trying new contextual theories.Do you think that the knowledge extracted as result from action is contextual, and if so, how is it applicable in a modern context?
These contextual theories are important because they are possibilities for human society to take. If you've taken differential equations you know one of the most useful things in determining a solution is to know the boundary conditions.
What is possible for humanity? History expands the answer to that question from spatial to temporal and vastly increases the resolution of the big picture.
Do you agree that the older history is the less practical it is since there are not only fewer accounts but even a greated deviance in context?
Not necessarily. Yes there is less data the farther back you go, but also the greater the deviance in context the more useful it can be to know.
One of the most important questions that linger is what causes innovation? Archeology and paleontology tell us that we've been roaming around this planet for half a million years. The number of generations of obviously intelligent human beings is staggering.
What is this thing that shows exponential growth? What changes in culture and the mindset it instills are responsible? This reaches into prehistory, but the earliest history is the most useful for answering that question. What did the people at the beginning of the transition from nomadic family groups to large culture groups (and eventually civilization) think? If we could isolate that factor we would know what to maximize (or at least not suppress) to ensure our own continued improvement.
For example, the last ten years of history are probably more important or relevant than the ten previous to it.
Yes, that's true. It's two different phenomenon though, the usefulness of the last 10 years and the usefulness of the last 5000 don't come from the same reasons.
The efficiency of a functioning factory for the past ten years might be relevant to the future of that factory which still exists. If it was 1000 years ago we wouldn't care about improving a long gone factory, we would care about why the factory was built, whether the things it made actually improved people's lives in the long run, etc... etc...
Created:
-->
@Mall
Where are you getting this stuff? This is like last generation chat bot prompts.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
the main way other countries have affordable care that covers everyone, is because they regulate costs. so your theory that it can't be done, is for practical purposes disproven.
They do not regulate costs because that cannot be done. They shift costs, and whether the way they steal is more efficient than the way the US steals is not something I have claimed. In fact I think their system is less corrupt and more efficient.
it's just an abstract theory
Like money, and no matter what you write on a price sticker the product it is affixed to still takes the same amount of resources and effort to produce. Doctors and nurses in Europe have to work and study just as hard. Drug factories have to be just as carefully designed. It's not any easier for them, they just have less parasites attached.
That is a reason to switch from our even more parasitised system to theirs, but it's an even better reason to switch to a system with little to no parasites.
we'll have to agree to disagree on charity v social contract.
It's not charity vs social contract it's charity vs theft. There is a word for a social contract to mitigate health risks: Health insurance.
That doesn't cover every situation though, insurance works when people on average pay more or equal to average health costs. There are people who produce less than their healthcare costs.
That's not a social contract, that's like saying you're going to make a deal with a cripple that when he needs food you feed him and vice versa except he can't run a farm so he will never be able to feed you if you need it.
When you give someone something with the full knowledge that they cannot (or will not) pay you back in anyway (regardless of what may happen) that's charity.
i can't see how you think it's fair for the governmetn to deprive people of natural resources, even if the resources are privately held, and not compensate proportioanlly in response.
If it's wrong to take from people without giving back something proportional, then what is taxing the rich? You don't really think Jeff Bezos gets millions of dollars in government benefits do you?
yes a farmer would shoot trespassers, but the tresspassers up to a point have a natural right to shoot back. that's the key.
There is something very ironic about you admitting this while previously complaining that no civilized country could exist without following your moral theory. Your moral theory is based on theft and this proves it.
you say we steal by taxation at gunpoint... you deprive people of resources at gun point.
Natural resources are not the font of wealth, productivity is. Almost no wealth is available simply by having access to a natural resource, the exceptions are spectacular and interesting (a gold rush for example) but ultimately irrelevant.
So what you really mean is that you are being deprived of other people's product at counter-gunpoint. The key is that it's theft to take the natural property (person and product) of others without consent. You offer a dichotomy: Allow us to steal through government or allow us to steal directly.
This is a false dichotomy. We can exist without stealing. That is the difference between civilization and anarchy. Civilization has so far been imperfect because one thief has almost always been left: The state. Yet the vast majority of thieves are impeded. I say we can survive (and thrive) when there are no thieves. You say you need at least one thief since you're not allowed to be a thief in person.
it's the government by force teling people they can't have God's creation.
You think if they opened up the national parks to anyone who wanted to exploit them that you would find healthcare there?
i already showed you that there are none that exist now.
You have ignored relevant examples for invalid reasons.
do you think every developed country is wrong and you are the sole beacon of truth?
Logic + evidence is the sole beacon of truth. I follow those. It would be odd if I was the only one who could, but I am not. There is merchandise that says "taxes are theft", and I didn't design them.
It is not at all unprecedented that every developed country has been morally, practically, or scientifically wrong about something.
Flat earth and slavery come to mind.
It's also not unusual for a few independent thinkers to be right against the grain of their society.
how arrogant can you be?
Debate is for those who have realized the uselessness of the concepts of arrogance and humility in epistemology. The proof is in the pudding, well it's in the proof. Follow the logic, ignore the crowd and the ego.
maybe it worked good enough in our early pioneer days
1870 England is not "our early pioneer days"
it's an untested theory, at best, that you want to foist on everyone.
Like emancipation.
Created:
Posted in:
They aren't. You may want to expand your sources.[RM] Then why is Europe doing so fantastically well in every department?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
No, but no decision is based on one account in history. It's based on the mechanics inferred by the whole dataset.I guess the real question is, can history of only one account be taken with any amount of certainty for practical decision making?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
if i changed my basic premise that charity should be the provider, maybe you could call it adequate.
Morally adequate yes.
plus i dont even know in today's depraved world if charity would do it
That's because tons of people are getting poorer and they're told the government is stealing from them to handle these issues.
Giving beyond the absurd amounts already stolen feels like being cheated (and it is).
When people are wealthy and getting more wealthy, when they can see how donations are helping they give much more (and they did).
unlike you, maybe, i dont think it's right to let people die in the streets
I value life, especially human life; I don't think it's right to let people die in the streets and nothing I've ever said would reasonably lead someone to that conclusion.
I understand the dynamics involved so I understand that the best way to keep people from dying on the streets is to have a society with overflowing prosperity where even those of meager capabilities can meet their own needs and those with no productive capacity can be taken care of without seriously harming quality of life for the rest.
Morally this is profoundly simple: If you want to give bread, give bread. If I want to give bread, I'll give bread. If you want to steal from me or anyone else to pay for someone else's bread, you're in the wrong.
Practically this is almost as simple: If you steal to pay for bread, and you buy the bread regardless of how much the price increases (because you don't care it's not like it's your money/production), then the bread price will go up and up; there will be more and more freeloaders and the ratio of productive people to non-productive people will increase which again increases the price of bread. You will try to inflate the currency to keep buying bread because "if I don't people will starve" and in the end a slice of bread will be 20 trillion dollars and no matter who you try to steal from in what way there will be no more bread.
This is a theory, you can read about it in "wealth of nations", this is also a fact; you can observe the history of communism.
it's the idea that if God let apple trees grow, and the government deprives me of accessing that tree, or farmland, they have an obligation to proportionally serivce its population.
but god doesn't let apple trees grow, first of all he doesn't exist; second of all you need to graft many fruit varieties (including the good apples) to get an acceptable result.
Food, housing, healthcare, energy. It all comes from people. You aren't being blocked from nature you're being blocked from stealing.
Now of course you are being blocked from nature by national parks, but if you weren't what you would do is go in there live on subsistence farming and then somebody else would come by and ask why you should get to enjoy that cabin you made without sharing.
It doesn't matter what you think the government owes you. The government is not god, it has no resources except those that it is given, those that it earns, and those that it steals (just like the rest of us).
If there was no government you could not go steal apples, the farmer would shoot you.
Yes government ought to be based around a social contract, but the social contract you're assuming isn't the only one and it's not one I would sign up for because it is immoral and it won't work (just like the partial implementation isn't working).
your idea of taxation as theft is completly ridiculous and a sheltered view.
Sheltered from what? Do you think there is something I can go out and see to change my mind? Should I expose myself to counter arguments?
I've done the latter for over a decade, that's what convinced me it was true; I wouldn't have felt comfortable believing such an abnormal (yet at the same time obvious) thing if I never gave others a chance to debunk it.
i think the only reason the government got involved in healthcare, again in every develoepd country, is because people couldn't afford it
People couldn't afford food in post WW1 Russia. So they took over the farms. If you're climbing a mountain and fall a few meters, the solution isn't to jump off the nearest cliff.
In almost all cases you'll find that a period of avoidable suffering was caused first by government (wars are government behavior too), and then using that suffering as an excuse the government steals more and regulates more and the suffering persists, worsens, or is resolved more slowly than it could have been.
i dont know how often other government ration care... but it's not necessary to ration it, just regulate the cost.
Costs cannot be regulated. The cost is determined by the supply and demand curve and the relative availability of all required inputs including human labor.
Technology, good ideas, that changes costs. Force does not change costs, force can only immorally shift the cost from some people to other people. For instance slavery forces the costs away from the master to the slave and allows the master to prosper in ways that would have been impossible if the slave was allowed to maximize his own profit.
Government theft for social programs is just that, shifting costs; the partial slave is the dollar holder (for inflation) or the taxpayer (for taxation). The slave master can (and they often did) use the wellbeing of slaves and others as excuses, but in reality often wasted the excess they stole and the total utility was reduced regardless of distribution.
just because the libertarian elements of other countries are what makes them sucessful, including ours, doesn't mean libertarianism is ideal.
We tried near pure communism. It wasn't ideal. Let's try pure liberty, see how many people it kills. It worked out pretty well when we were closer before (industrial revolution).
i pointed out that no libertarian countires are sucessful and you technically didn't show me any
There are no pure countries under any theory. The united states from 1870 to 1913 was as close as we've gotten to a libertarian country (economically). Whatever cultural problems there were that period saw exponential increase in quality of life for every demographic group across all objective measures.
We took a golden goose and we strangled it because people did not know why things the good things were appearing and what was causing the troubles that they did have. This allowed thieves and ideologues pedaling fallacious philosophy (socialism) to subvert civilization and causes people like you to ignore the grand pattern of history for the fantasy that you can guarantee anything by stealing.
Created:
Posted in:
That’s capitalism.
Oh no, it wasn't "capitalism" that made US steel production crap.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
But/For Donald Trump's actions... There would have been no violence on January 6th.It would have happened some other place and time. This is not a relevant difference.Right, it would have happened the next time a major presidential.... [bla bla bla]
So you have no argument for the relevance of specific time and place being necessary for incitement.
You assume just as you assume without "it will be wild" there would be no violence at the capitol (or anywhere else).Never said nor implied this.
You did imply it. If "will be wild" isn't secret-speak for "violence" then it is irrelevant. If Trump endorsing violence was not necessary for violence then it wasn't incitement.
I'll be able to do that just as soon as I can arrest them after pulling their text messages in a mass canvas, face them up against a jury of proud-boys, threaten them with ten years in prison, and imply that the only chance of lenience would be if they blame it all on Nancy Pelosi.They said it at the Capitol genius.
Show me.
She did set a place: "all over the country", which fairly describes the place of the subsequent left-tribe violence.Another example of your unseriousness.
You drop the point.
If you actually believed in your position and thought you could defend it, you would have little use for attacking my "double standards".Why is that?Because my double standards would be irrelevant to the fact that you would be right, so your constant deflections and whataboutisms would only take away from your ability to prove it.
Why would pointing out your double standards take away from my ability to prove my own standards?
What you call a false exculpatory is absolutely damning proof of this. If you want people to attack without telling them to attack it would be hard enough to get that message across much less sending mixed signals.It wasn't a mixed signal. I already explained this.
You claimed to have. You did not. 'Peaceful' is not violent, they're opposites.
All of this on one side, but on the other, he said "peacefully" in an hour long speech. Not one single sentence anywhere else in his hour long speech emphasized the need to be peaceful.
Your arbitrary expectations for the ratio between urging peace and inflammatory (but not unequivocally violent) rhetoric are irrelevant.
but cannot provide a single example in any other scenario where your theory of communication makes any sense.
The theory of communication is that you don't get to pick the more obscure and contradictory interpretation because you need to GET TRUMP.
In Trump's mind there was still a chance to save democracy peacefully, and that was by congress rejecting electors. This fully explains why he organized a protest instead of trying to assemble loyalist from the military like anyone who wanted to use force to stay in power would have.If Trump had tried to steal the election by force it would have failed because none of his senior officials would have went along with it
You know nothing about military solutions if you think that. The first step would be to bypass anyone you can't trust, get a platoon (personally by going to a base); have them ready, and then fire anyone who has ever shown a hint of questioning your orders or having any motivation to do so. Escort them to house arrest with your loyal soldiers.
just like when he tried to make Jeffrey Clark the acting AG and his entire senior DOJ staff threatened to resign.
Stalin would have accepted their resignations and then had them sent to Siberia after they had left the building.
The only option he had to steal the election was through the color of law, so he had to try this tactic of having his VP reject the electors.
That is the only option he planned for.
And he knew that violence on the 6th would have made that whole plot easier.
Why is that?
The right-tribe had not been violent before. Trump didn't expect it. Neither did the left-tribe. You don't have to take my word for it, you just need to ask the question: Why were they so unprepared?Probably because we as a nation just went through months of civil unrest over excessive police force so they didn't want the look of a military vs the people the way they did a few months prior when BLM protested there.
If the mainstream media was free and fair you would know there were plenty of military-level-equipment people there. They stood by. My point stands (easily), you're saying they cared about optics so they didn't want to militarize it like they did before (I bet whatever you're referring to is no more militarized than the capitol was on Jan 6).
That's a motivation not an explanation. If they thought the right-tribe were liable to start burning things down (as the left-tribe repeatedly tried to do) that risk would have outweighed optics.... unless they liked the optics of the right-tribe burning things down.
Here's a real question for you; Trump says he offered them 10,000 troops... Do you believe he did? Yes or No?
I think it's more likely than not that he mentioned something.
The fact that there is technically a theory of peaceful resolution (to overturn the election) does not mean that any reasonable person would have bought it, and certainly no one did.
Even if that was true, it's one unreasonable plan vs another unreasonable plan. Walking around the capitol taking selfies with cops and mildly mocking the personal property of congress people (without destroying anything) does not have a reasonable chance of success, in fact it's a hell of a lot more unreasonable than putting pressure on Pence and congress by chanting and shouting.
It also ignores the fact that Trump did absolutely nothing to stop the violence which according to you he did not want and was taken by surprise.
Well except for telling them to respect the police and go home. Your complaints about timing continue to break against the facts like waves on rocks.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
but if we do nothing on healthcare, people die, or get neglected. plus it isn't private charities responsibility to provide that..
Charity is by definition the only moral way to help people who can't trade for what they need.
Public or private, what matters is that corruption (fraud) is minimized. The most basic and indispensable anti-fraud mechanism is the ability of the person paying to say "this isn't worth it, I'll try someone else".
it's rooted in our social contract that a person in a country such as ours should be able to afford healthcare.
It's not in the constitution, but it would probably be the case that almost everyone could afford basic healthcare if the government/corrupt corporation combo had not been stealing huge amounts of wealth since the federal reserve was established.
every other developed country but ours delivers healthcare to everyone at half the cost of us with better wait times in general.
Comparing pickles to lemons. They are both sour in different ways. Anyone who objectively looks at NHS and nordic healthcare must admit that they are far from efficient or complete. Especially offensive is the way they essentially write you off if it's cost prohibitive to try something. Now that has to be done sometimes, but people should have the right to launch a go-fund me or something and make it a priority.
no developed country is a free market in healthcare, the very idea is ridiculous for civilized society.
and yet it describes the situation in 1890 very well. Was that a primitive pre-civilization in your eyes?
St. Marys was a voluntary hospital. Did you know the first research into Penicillin was done here?
"They provided free medical care to those who could not afford it."
"In the late 19th century working class people were encouraged to pay into subscription schemes to help maintain their hospital. Many gave a penny a week and then had a right to treatment rather than receiving it as charity."
It is not ridiculous to argue that the NHS replaced a system that was moral and functional (in every important way) and that from then on the theft-funding "you can't fail no matter how much you fail" framework has only reduced the rate at which medical care could have improved.
you can't provide any examples
... spoke too soon?
just like there generally aren't successful libertarian countries.
Every country that is successful is successful due to libertarian policies and are less successful in proportion to how non-libertarian they are. All history is the example.
Keep your eye on Argentina, see what happens if they don't force Milei out or to fold. Note that they're only in that position because of people thinking the same way you are right now.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Try to keep up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
He had plenty of time and still he couldn't do it.
Then lets see the audits.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
He was also a vile racist and a major contributing factor to the trail of tears.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Debunked theory.In theory, Communism works.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
No, they are eating some pills and they think they're $5 but they're actually $190 per bottle and they don't care about price because they only care about the boolean "am I insured for it".There is simply no way to justify these numbers unless every American is eating pills like candies.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
If Javier Milei pulls this off I will brush up on my Spanish because that is the evacuation plan.
If I had a pussy, Milei could grab it. ¡Viva, Partido Libertario!
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Its taxes, its lots of unnecessary spending.I dont see how can US budget spend over a trillion on healthcare.
It's more like $1.8 trillion public spending and $4.5 trillion total, and they are related because the government regulation and spending is causing the inefficiency which is driving the prices up even if you don't use stolen money to buy healthcare at all.
Thats over 10,000$ a year per person, 40,000$ per family.
And the average person consumes no more than 2 hours of medical professional's time per year.
The explanation is simple and horrifying: They are stealing it. Everytime a voter let's compassion blind them they are participating in grand larceny. It is not for the sake of the poor and gravely ill that there are 5000% markups on drugs and they prescribe 20x the painkillers you need. It is not an objective requirement of healthcare that they won't provide harmless medical tests without involving 5 layers of bureaucracy.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
defense and healthcare are morally and existentially necessary, but a libertarian such as yourself won't acnowledge that.
Do you think I deny that food is necessary?
Yet I have food without the government running all the farms. In fact we have two huge examples of government running the farms. Leninist USSR (decades after WW2) and Maoist China.
Everybody Died. (exaggeration, ~60 million people died)
It is a strawman of the libertarian position to say "they deny food is necessary" because their real position is "Since food is necessary, (corruptible) governments should be kept far away from food production."
If healthcare is necessary, it's especially dangerous to let it be turned into a money laundering scheme for big pharma and the deep state as it currently is.
but again a libertarian such as yourself is too far gone to even entertain that idea.
I'll listen to any argument, that's what entertaining means.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Confusing cause and effect.if these were run better, we could at least not deficit spend
If the system didn't steal whatever those sectors demanded from the people they wouldn't run so inefficiently. Also your life would be better because they wouldn't have stolen 1/3->1/2 of your product.
So you could have the same material and services from working 20 hours a week and have 20 hours of spare time to improve your quality of life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
There are no official versions of history, or at least none that mean anything. History follows the rules of any other science. There are those who will corrupt it for their agenda and those who will follow the dictates of reason.You could never know history is skewed by only reading history. I would imagine this is similar to determining whether a ruler is warped by comparing it to itself, you cannot.You assume there is only one account and no corroborating evidence. That is not the case.In fact the accompaniment of archeology has proven skepticism of even single-account or myth-level history to be overdone. The existence of Troy or Nineveh come to mind.I don't consider multiple accounts to be mainstream, only the offically accepted version
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
You could never know history is skewed by only reading history. I would imagine this is similar to determining whether a ruler is warped by comparing it to itself, you cannot.
You assume there is only one account and no corroborating evidence. That is not the case.
In fact the accompaniment of archeology has proven skepticism of even single-account or myth-level history to be overdone. The existence of Troy or Nineveh come to mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
making the past decision only a guestimation of what is appropriate for the present, not an assured prediction.
The point is not to search for past decisions but to understand the mechanics of humanity, society, civilization, war, productivity and most importantly of all philosophy.
Understanding mechanics allows for predictions valid in future contexts, or for things present but not known. For example you can make predictions about where coal or oil will be found by understanding the mechanics of geology, but there is no way to understand the mechanics of geology without discovering millions of years of geological history.
Even then the objective aspect of history can easily be skewed toward the people of power, especially in ancient times when only the elite could read and write while the people were oblivious to the documents recorded.
How would you be aware of such skewing if no one studied history?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
He's allowed to make any argument he wants, but I don't believe he's changed his mind or that we've ever known his true beliefs about this or a myriad of other subjects.
This forum is not for people who want to have no personal growth and want to remain intellectually stagnant.
Growth is moving towards a more perfect worldview where fewer of your beliefs contract each other and evidence, that's not something Korea cares about. Playing gracefully with ideas would be "does disease justify hatred of sexual deviants?" or something. You can ask questions without claiming you believe it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
He said "I'll tell Russia to do whatever they want"
Created:
-->
@sadolite
It's America, we have guns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Can you explain how Trump's "will be wild" comment was anything other than an allusion to violence? Yes or No?YesA wild event can be an exciting event:Right, never seen anything more exciting than a bunch of peaceful protesters making their voices heard.
I'll take that as acceptance of my answer.
I have said repeatedly now that anyone who rioted or looted in the summer of 2020 should be locked the fuck upBut you have not said nancy pelosi or maxene waters should be held responsible.Because we treat different things... Differently.
For instance black people are different than white people so we can treat them differently.
But/For Donald Trump's actions... There would have been no violence on January 6th.
It would have happened some other place and time. This is not a relevant difference.
But/For Nancy Pelosi... Nothing about the BLM riots would have been any differentBut/For Maxine Waters... Nothing about the BLM riots would have been any different
You assume just as you assume without "it will be wild" there would be no violence at the capitol (or anywhere else).
When you can show me the rioters and looters who said we're here because Nanci Pelosi told us to be, and you can show me where she called for them to be there...
Don't forget insurrectionists.
I'll be able to do that just as soon as I can arrest them after pulling their text messages in a mass canvas, face them up against a jury of proud-boys, threaten them with ten years in prison, and imply that the only chance of lenience would be if they blame it all on Nancy Pelosi.
She didn't say "should" and neither did Trump. She predicted violence and said you have to be ready for to throw a punch.Did she also go on to call for, organize and headline the rally she predicted would turn violent?
She did set a place: "all over the country", which fairly describes the place of the subsequent left-tribe violence.
Maxine waters set a timeline: "tonight" (I will go and take Trump out tonight)
Elizabeth warren wanted it even sooner "take him out now".
If you actually believed in your position and thought you could defend it, you would have little use for attacking my "double standards".
Why is that?
Whether my moral framework is internally consistent has nothing to do with whether yours is.
That's true, but my moral framework isn't the only one that needs to be critically examined.
So it would appear that our only difference here is on the evidence of election rigging.
No, it's the most important difference but I also deny that Trump is responsible for the violence in any sense even the non-moral one. i.e. Bomber Harris is amorally responsible for killing children in Dresden (as are the bomber crews, the bomb makers, the anglophone public, etc...), but he is not morally responsible.
Trump is neither morally nor amorally responsible for the violence on Jan 6. I don't think he intended it. He certainly didn't ask for it in a way a reasonable person would understand. What you call a false exculpatory is absolutely damning proof of this. If you want people to attack without telling them to attack it would be hard enough to get that message across much less sending mixed signals.
In Trump's mind there was still a chance to save democracy peacefully, and that was by congress rejecting electors. This fully explains why he organized a protest instead of trying to assemble loyalist from the military like anyone who wanted to use force to stay in power would have.
The right-tribe had not been violent before. Trump didn't expect it. Neither did the left-tribe. You don't have to take my word for it, you just need to ask the question: Why were they so unprepared?
I know the conspiracy theory is that they had insufficient fencing and crowd control because they wanted to invite violence but that is far from the simplest explanation. Deep down, they knew from experience that the right-tribe of the modern era has never been violent or even disrespectful of symbolic fencing. They knew all their rhetoric about terrorism was pure fiction, because if they believed it they might have done something right? Well unless you're ready to believe the conspiracy theory.
The violence shocked Trump and the capitol police. I think it shocked left-tribe leaders and maybe even the more cunning thinkers of the deep state. They thought they could just keep pushing forever. They were wrong, and if they think making martyrs out of the people they've locked up for seditious conspiracy or shot dead has neutralized the threat they are wrong again.
Let me tell you as someone with an ocean of rage bottled up. Fear doesn't make it go away, it just adds to it. They're just winding the spring tighter. Making sure the next shot will be to kill.
You are simultaneously arguing that the election was rigged and therefore violence was a natural, morally permissible, and to some extent a necessary response, but also that Trump despite leading the charge on the case for a rigged election never wanted the violence and that any reasonable person would recognize that he never wanted there to be violence.
For once your summary is accurate.
Those are two opposing things. You cannot argue that Outcome A was a natural and permissible response and also that no one should have believed that Outcome A was the desired outcome.
Of course I can because there is temporal distance between them.
So say the election is rigged, but there are audits pending. Is violence necessary yet? No of course it's the last resort.
Audits are cursory, unpublished, and there are whistleblowers who say the state lied about doing audits in several cases. Violence yet?
No, there are still tons of court cases pending. Judges hide under their benches, hand down ridiculous excuses that basically absolve courts of involving themselves in elections if believed. Violence yet?
No, there are still state legislatures, they could act. They cower as well, in some cases they are paralyzed by governors refusing to call sessions. Violence yet?
No, congress could reject the electors and/or Pence could refuse to count them. This would force a constitutional crises that would likely have to be resolved by a combination of the supreme court and the state legislatures, hopefully a full constitutional convention where amendments related to election integrity are added.
Pence failed, congress bailed; but Trump didn't count on that outcome. Trump didn't have a military solution. We wish he had, but he never did. We would have learned all about it if he had done anything more than speculate. A mob of unarmed people you told to be peaceful isn't a military solution. A mob of unarmed people putting their feet on Pelosi's desk doesn't force a constitutional convention.
Now that may have been the hope of many of the rioters and protestors but they had no other options they were already inside the building, congress was gone, there was no one to shout at. Trump was POTUS and cloaked in enormous power (to quote Lincoln). If he wanted to try a military solution he may have failed but he could have done a hell of a lot better than the shaman's fake spear.
At the time he called for the protest, there was a theory of a peaceful solution. Even now there is a theory of a peaceful remedy: If you expose enough deep state lies it will become impossible to neutralize the growing majority with fraud.
Now this is important to realize, because there will continue to be growing violence and separatism every election doubt remains. Nothing is resolved. If Trump is apparently elected in 2024 that will simply be called illegal and illegitimate with some other set of excuses. The violence of the left-tribe hasn't gone anywhere it just has expression in the form of the DOJ right now. This cycle is not going to end until the federal government is gutted and elections are diamond houses (transparent yet impossible to break into).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The irony.These are not honest people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Time to play spot the difference:A) Making everything free to take is the answer to theft.B) Consenting faster is the solution to rape.C) Giving everyone a path to immigrate legally is the answer to illegal immigration.this is really dumb.
Glad you realized. Hopefully you'll think more carefully next time.
For a party that claims to love free market capitalism, your seem to have a very hard time understanding it. Americans demand cheap labor to provide them goods and services. People to pick fruit, to clean hotel rooms etc.
because that's all immigrants are good for huh? What happened to "wage slavery"? Your racism is showing again :)
it doesn't matter how much you spend fortifying the border.
That is definitely false. If you start shooting people instead of giving them thousands of dollars and bussing them to their destination of choice I bet you the number of illegal crossings will drop to below 100/year (and they'll all be drug runners).
The solution is to create a path to citizenship so people can come legally and do the jobs that americans demand done, but aren't willing to do themselves.
There is no job I'm not willing to do myself. I've done the worst jobs and I've done the best jobs. Increasing the population only increases quality of life if the average productivity increases and that is far from guaranteed thanks to the extremely corrupt and inefficiency welfare state.
That is all besides the point because my objection to your comment has nothing to do with jobs or opportunity or who should get either. It's about princible.
You implied that the solution for someone violating you by taking something that requires consent would be to give them consent. If that is the only solution then you didn't own it in the first place and they had the right to do what they did regardless of what you thought.
No matter what your immigration laws are, if anyone is excluded (say an out and proud islamic terrorist), then the solution to them entering illegally is not to change policy to give them permission or forgiveness.
One of the examples was "Consenting faster is the solution to rape."
You're arguing "No really, it will feel great"
Yea perhaps you're right. Perhaps 'we' (USA) should consent because it's what's good for us; but if we aren't allowed to use force after saying "no" then we don't really own our body (territory).
If that's what you're saying, that anyone who wants to come here has a right to come here; just say it. I would have a different objection to that then you might assume.
It's the same reason why the war on drugs is pointless. As long as americans want drugs and are willing to pay for them, people will find a way to supply them.
As a principle it is absurd to claim that because something can't be stamped out it shouldn't be suppressed. Because of the arbitrary happenstance of international law it would be frowned upon to go to the source of the problem and fix it (more than "we've" already done), but those arbitrary laws also say you don't have to let anybody into your country.
You use the tools you're given, and if we aren't allowed to stop people from entering then the only other solution is to go solve those problems at the source; but then you need to integrate the territory to keep the place civilized.
Congratulations now you're an empire. If you ask me there is only one way empire can be justified and that's if you have your moral shit together in a way other people do not. That does not describe the United States of America right now. We're about to start killing each other en masse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Uh, yes? Did you think police departments were hereditary positions of nobility? They're either elected directly or appointed by purportedly elected officialsIf this is the way you look at things, then why would you want voter laws? They are enforced by government employees.
Same reason I want laws against theft and murder? Just because corruption is possible doesn't mean we don't need the laws. What it means is that we need more laws requiring transparency and anything else that fights corruption without significantly compromising functionality.
You seem to think that those employees can't be trusted,
An old strategy for preventing corruption is an adversarial system, in this context especially adversarial double blind confirmation. Open audits. Random audits. Chain of custody paper trails. Free observation.
Almost all of those strategies are already election laws or election regulations. They were simply ignored or nullified by pseudo-courts to GET TRUMP in 2020.
Those were the safeguards that were subverted before and during 2020 with no apparent remedy or consequence, but we can do better than that with technology. Specifically biometric blockchains allow for a system nearly impossible to cheat in and with automatic constant and effective auditing. No trusting election officials with everything to lose by admitting they signed off on potentially fraudulent results required.
so how would laws preventing people from voting actually help with this nonexistent issue?
"laws preventing people from voting" is a strawman and I will ignore it. If a right delayed through an inconvenience is a right removed then every state in the union is currently violating the 2nd amendment (with background checks). If that's your true belief we can debate that, but I doubt it is and I won't entertain the notion that you believe that until you admit that every background check and red flag law is unconstitutional.
Oh there is plenty of evidence, but no proof because the enemies of democracy have made sure there is no way to prove it.Ohhh I see. So there is a problem, but there is no proof that is possible to be found.
The problem is that there is no proof of accuracy to be found. There is overwhelming evidence of that problem.
That makes total sense. you are aware that this is the sort of logic cults use right?
Also apparently banks, corporations, insurance companies, post offices, delivery companies, schools, colleges, daycares, hospitals, clinics, car dealers (the list goes on).
Don't base your thinking on things that can actually be proven
Said the ostrich in the sand, desperately defending keeping his head in the sand because there is nothing to see (nobody can prove you would see anything if you opened your eyes). I mean there are noises coming from up there, but that doesn't prove anything!
But both have the same amount of evidence to support them.
This is not true.
It doesn't matter if you think the election is fraudulent if there is absolutely no evidence that it is.
It's not really an election if there is reasonable doubt as to whether the numbers reflect the will of the people. If it's not a real election it's not a real democracy.
They don't care that you tell them that happened because they know it didn't.Trump said he wanted to overthrow the constitution.
He did not.
If you actually cared about the constitution, that would bother you.
I care about justice and justice means respecting liberty. When the constitution fails to achieve greater liberty than alternatives I would discard it in an instant. That is not this scenario. Instead there are people (enemies of liberty) subverting and ignoring the constitution to gain power and increase injustice. They violate the social contract and yet expect to be treated as valid authorities under that contract. This claim I can discard without discarding the constitution.
I would not have used Trump's words, I would have used stronger words for the same practical outcome: They are not duly elected leaders, they have no legitimate authority, no one owes any obedience to them or their laws or orders under the constitution even if they considered the constitution morally binding at one point.
Not my president, not my congress, not my senate, not my supreme court, not my DOJ, not my CIA.
Whatever Donald Trump threatens to trample it's nothing that wasn't in the gutter already. He may go full Napoleon and leave it in the gutter or he might start the slow process of picking it up and cleaning it off. Regardless there is nothing to lose. In fact if he did destroy the deep state and crown himself king it would be a lot easier to take him and his heirs out than all those nameless spooks who skulk around DC.
Then we could have a renaissance and some good might come of that. At least the world would be safe from the digital fascist state that is currently being constructed.
Or, you're a cultist who support trump no matter what he says or does.
You're a cultist who will claim that no matter what I say or do.
Suspension of the constitution is by definition abandoning the constitution.
If you're being beaten up and you punch back you have not abandoned peace, you've merely suspended it until people stop beating you up.
If you have a contract with a company to deliver you electricity and they stop sending electricity, and you stop paying, that doesn't mean you abandoned the contract. The contract is null and void but you may choose to resume it once the original breach is corrected. You suspend payments because they suspended their duties.
The place to challenge election results is in a court.
That's not what the constitution says, and it's not what the courts were willing to do. The vast majority proceeded upon absurd premises and loopholes which taken as a whole implied the following:
If you sue before an election there is no injury go to jail do not collect $200.
If you sue after an election laches (you waited too long) go to jail, do not collect $200.
If you're a citizen you have no standing to sue.
If you're a candidate you have no standing to sue.
If you're a party you have no standing to sue.
If you're a state you have no standing to sue.
If you can't prove election fraud sufficient to change the results your claims are without merit (this is the false burden of proof you imply as well)
If you are complaining about violation election laws you have no standing
In summary judges are cowards, they didn't want to deal with it; precedent is now set: Courts are not where violation of election laws & constitutional provisions relating to elections are enforced.
If it's not at the congressional counting, then it's nowhere, and if it's nowhere violence is the last and morally sound recourse.
Trying to change the outcome by any other method is an attempt to overthrow democracy.
Democracy isn't defined as blind obedience to anything, not courts, not bureaucrats, not so called congresses, so called kings, so called senates, or so called journalists.
It is republicans that constantly try to undermine the rule of law.
and yet there is never any precedent for the legal attacks the left-tribe keeps using. Who is really changing the rules of the game?
For example nazis bomb London. Anyone who opposes bombing Berlin because "that would destroy everything we claim to believe in" is delusional.no, the comparison would be: there is a rumor that the london was bombed. But there isn't any evidence it happened.
Wrong, the violations of the constitution are not rumors they are objectively observable.
Now the same analogy for election fraud specifically (as opposed to the unconstitutional violation of election law) would be: There is a rumor the nazis are killing all the jews, and they won't tell you where the jews are going or let you talk to them. That's not good enough. You can't just cart off millions of people without explanation and you can't just claim any operation is an election if there are openings for significant undetected and unauditable fraud.
When people violate a social contract (like the constitution) they can no longer call upon elements of that social contract for their advantage.you realize that trump is the one violating the social contract right?
No.
it is usually the right trying to undermine democracy with their gerrymandering, voter suppression etc
The fact that you think gerrymandering is isolated to one side proves you are clueless.
Created:
He said could, not would.he would do anything he could to them and did. This is what he said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The budget total is negative every single year..... duh?so you know absolutely nothing about economics, gotcha.
That is the most quintessential left-tribey response.
I state the blindly obvious. You ignore your own life experiences, common sense, don't care about the facts, and imply that anyone who dares to utter the blindingly obvious is ignorant.
Do you honestly that wasn't government policy under trump?
Yes
The law allows them to all be kept at the border and shoved back within 24 hours regardless of what they claim.it does not.
I could cite the law with quotes, I've done it on this site recently; but you have and continue to show that you are worth only this: So you know absolutely nothing about immigration law, gotcha.
[IlDiavolo] Busing them to cities thousands of miles away from the borders to be processed? Really?[HistoryBuff] yes. why does that confuse you?
because it's an enormous waste of resources just to tell someone the objective truth: You do not qualify as an asylum. (and that's if they were actually holding hearings, they just parole them and never contact them again except to hand out more stolen resources.
[IlDiavolo] This is what americans think of it. You'd better watch the news so that you convince yourself.[HistoryBuff] stupid people believe lots of things. it doesn't make it true.
Said the guy who implies only those ignorant of economics think a constantly increasing debt with no hope of reversal is the definition of bankruptcy.
[HistoryBuff] I'm thinking you know nothing about border policy.
You've already you know absolutely nothing about immigration law.
Biden deports more migrants than trump did.
You don't have to deport them if you don't let them in. *mind blown meme*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Time to play spot the difference:
A) Making everything free to take is the answer to theft.
B) Consenting faster is the solution to rape.
C) Giving everyone a path to immigrate legally is the answer to illegal immigration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
what are you even talking about? America is not close to bankruptcy. Where would you even get that idea?
The budget total is negative every single year..... duh?
Because Biden continued almost all of trump's border policies. So I'm curious what you think biden should be doing that trump was doing.
Trump did not have a border policy where he bussed illegal entries to cities and patrolled them with no intention of having an asylum judgement made any time this century.
The law allows them to all be kept at the border and shoved back within 24 hours regardless of what they claim.
Created: