Total posts: 4,833
More examples of "courts are rigged"
Conspiracy theories appear to be spoilers.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
he “emphatically denies” the incident occurred” = calling accuser a liar = defamation??!?!!?
Actually Monica initiated the affair.
"I did not have sex with that woman, not a single time" = "Monica is a liar" = defamation?!?!?!!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because people who tried to sue him committed suicide at unusual rates?
Oh I know! An enormous apparatus of propaganda wasn't indoctrinating entire populations to hate his guts.
Created:
he “emphatically denies” the incident occurred”
Created:
Vulture.com says this:“Moonves, former CEO and chairman of CBS who was fired after numerous sexual assault and harassment allegations, told New York he “emphatically denies” the incident occurred”
Well that proves it. Juries and judges sometimes get it wrong, but never HR departments or boards of directors. They're like the eye of sauron.
So how come Moonves isn't out 83 million dollars? could it be a certain lack of orangeness/being a thorn in the side of the deep state?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The only conceivable scenario of printing money that isn't theftWell, by your standards, taxes are theft too.
Correct.
So, I am curious, how does a state exist without taxes and without printing money?
Without taxes? Fee schedules and donations.
Without printing money? Well let's me more precise:
Without minting of any kind:
1) You just have to accept deflation. (and you're still wrong about that being some kind of inevitable catastrophe)
2) You can have an algorithm that allows barter without a central currency, although getting the details of that algorithm perfect such that there are no vulnerabilities for thieves may not be feasible
Without fiat currency?
1) Mint new coins from a limited selection of rare resources which. Selecting rare and useful resources would help protect against too much "striking it rich", for instance gold is pretty useful; not as useful as the price implies but still. Tungsten is as well and probably will stay useful for a very very long time. Deal with any inflation or deflation as it comes.
2) Use a cryptocurrency with a money supply that increases with the scale of transactions and hope (it's a well informed hope) that the size of the economy scales with the number of transactions.
Voluntary donations?
Where appropriate, such charitable government actions.
Unrelated to the topic, but how do you feel about printed money used as universal basic income?
Bad, well it would be a better use than now but only because it's a better way to spend money.
It's better for everyone if the government theft is not constantly throwing off prices and wages.
Created:
No.
The only conceivable scenario of printing money that isn't theft is as absolutely uniform injection as possible. This can be achieved by a "reverse sales tax" in which a small percentage of each sale is paid for with newly minted money.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I took for granted that u were right about the law in this situation. It looks like the feds and Supreme Court r right.
You're going to have to be more specific.
Is your position more legal or moral?
Legal: Congress passed laws on immigration outlining immigration limits, application for entry, asylum, visas, and citizenship. The current executive regime is not only failing to enforce those laws (in violation of their oaths) but are in some cases facilitating the direct breaking of those laws (by providing illegal migrants with transport and logistics, apparently to the point of choosing end points in some cases)
(iii) Removal without further review if no credible fear of persecution(I) In generalSubject to subclause (III), if the officer determines that an alien does not have a credible fear of persecution, the officer shall order the alien removed from the United States without further hearing or review.
This law does not grant the executive branch the leeway to order officers to make a certain determination or keep firing them until they find someone who always makes a determination of preference regardless of the facts.
There is no credible fear of persecution in Mexico. Keep mind persecution must be based on religion, politics, ethnicity, something like that. Being a human being that cartels want to enslave doesn't qualify. This is the law. It's open to interpretation, but absurd interpretations mean you're breaking the law.
Even you accepted the lie that these people are eligible for asylum under the law:
(ii) Referral of certain aliensIf the officer determines at the time of the interview that an alien has a credible fear of persecution (within the meaning of clause (v)), the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum.
Furthermore those migrants who lie about being persecuting are commiting a crime, and they cannot be paroled either:
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of factsAny alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
If you are familiar with legalize "shall" is not an option. Any intentional failure to fine or imprison an alien who has lied about their status (and they must lie in order to apply for asylum without being persecuted) is a violation of the law and of the oath. Not only for Biden, but everyone in the chain of command down to the border patrol officer.
So why do they think they can just cut the razor wire and bus people to Chicago?
(5)(A) The Attorney General may, except as provided in subparagraph (B) or in section 1184(f) of this title, in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Attorney General, have been served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States.
They are paroling everybody from mandatory detention, on a "case by case" basis for "urgent humanitarian reasons" or "significant public benefit"
What are these "urgent humanitarian reasons"? Well they'd get hungry and cold sitting on the Mexican side of the border.
This interpretation of the law is absurd because it implies that anyone who is willing to sit on your border is entitled to be paroled into the country for an unspecified amount of time because certain executive bureaucrats can gaslight each other into claiming "persecution".
Everybody gets hungry. If being hungry because you made a trip based on the willingness of the Biden admin to lie about persecution is a humanitarian crises then people from Switzerland could be paroled into the US because hey, they get hungry too.
Moral: When a government becomes a greater detriment than help in securing objective rights it is the right of every person to disobey that government and to defend himself and others from attacks by that government meant to coerce his obedience.
A government that purports to be regulated by democratic means, and which ignores the laws passed by the (purportedly) democratically elected representatives of the people, is no longer regulated and has become a danger to the rights of the people.
Moral: A social contract is a contract and as such an agreement that can be breached. Contracts can contain duties and entitlements. A duty for party A is an entitlement for party B. The US constitution is a social contract (if it is anything of moral significance). Despite the fact that it has not been signed by each citizen (as a contract must be to be valid) it is the nearest thing to justifying a need to obey the federal government. When the federal government fails its duties other parties are denied their entitlements.
If the federal government as a duty to defend against invasion for example, then failing to do so breaks the social contract and absolves the states of any duties they may have including a duty to let federal soldiers run around their state doing whatever they please.
But, even if u r right morally, it's still Texas firing the first shot, so to speak
Not in terms of left vs right agendas. If ignoring supreme court interpretation of federal law is a "shot" sanctuary cities and the attempts to ban magazine, gun kits, and stocks were all the first shots.
In terms of just border policy the first people who broke the law were the federal government.
In terms of social contract the federal government has violated the terms of the constitution by ignoring the mechanism for national defense which delegates from Texas voted on.
-------------------------
Note that I don't believe the is an absolute objective justification for immigration constraints. Land can't be owned and thus free movement is a corollary right of the immorality of attacking travelers.
However when determining who is in the right what the parties are trying to do and why matters.
If Germany had attacked Poland in 1940 because the Poles repeatedly refused to reduce their taxes, Germany would have been right to do so. Instead they attacked so they could steal everything and kill a third of the population. So the same attack was wrong because of intention.
A moral government would necessarily have to mitigate the interaction with territories controlled by immoral governments to prevent said interactions from being vectors of attack.
If the US was a moral government (where everyone agreed with my policy proposals), and we didn't have the means to integrate mass migration into our economy I would proclaim this binding policy: We accept economic refugees without question, but we count every one and where they came from. We assign points proportional to the excess of what we have determined we can integrate. When we get to 5X the number we have set for integration, we invade and annex the country of origin with the most points.
In this case it would most likely be Guatemala.
Simple, self-regulting solution: If your country is such a shithole that millions of your people are coming to us to escape it, more than we can handle, we'll fix your country.
They'll stop themselves, and if they don't then they really do need a change of government.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I lived in 1996If only personal unverifiable experience counted as proof in debates.
They seem to work in Manhattan courtrooms, provided it hurts Trump.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Demonize the victim because she was raped at the time when most people would blame her for being raped?
I don't know what world you've been living in, or whether you are 15 years old, but I lived in 1996. Nobody blamed anybody for getting raped in 1996 New York. It wasn't Saudi Arabia.
What they did at that time, because we were still a nation of laws, was ask for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.... and if you didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt then the prosecutor said "I'm sorry, we're not saying it didn't happen; but it's better for the guilty to go free than the innocent suffer".
Then, if you tried to sue for a criminal act, people were sane enough to think "Hey, if the evidence isn't good enough to throw someone in jail; why should it be enough to pretend as if something happened?"
This is a he-said/she-said scenario pure and simple. The appropriate course of action has already been precomputed: nothing. You can't take 83 million dollars or throw someone in jail because one other person said something.
So, once again: There is no victim. Not as far as I or any reasonable person is concerned.
Demonize the victim because she didnt behave in the way you would expect her to?
The only reason to believe that this happened is her credibility. Everything I've talked about speaks to her credibility. Real survivors of real rape probably have issues with rape fantasies even if they had them beforehand.
and because she had no way of dealing with it at the time?
There may not have been millions of TDS zombies, but there was this thing called the police department. Now if I were her, I wouldn't expect much. It's not a fair world sometimes, but at least she could have gotten a rape kit done so she could prove there was sex. Also you have to scream and fight. It's still rape if you don't scream and fight, but if you want the justice system to do something you need evidence.
Also by immediately reporting the security recordings for the store would have been pulled.
All of that would require that she was actually raped though, something I consider about as likely as Q'anon claims of child sacrifice.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There must be a reason that all fascists say that though, it's right out of the fascist playbook.It's called, "when the people in charge screw you and laugh."
Just remember folks, there is nothing more fascist than dismantling government attack squads who have been accused of political arrests.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Greyparrot stop! Didn't you hear Korea? It's not permitted to use fact-magic in this way. Fact-magic is for support of the state narrative ONLY!
Can't remember the year, can't remember talking to her friend. Can't remember laughing about her 'rape' (which wasn't sexy despite popular opinion).
Only thing she can be sure about is the orange man is bad, now and forever, amen.
... but they want us to think we're the clowns...
COOPER: Was there a thought you should go to the police for you?CARROLL: No. I just didn't want the rigmarole. I just didn't want to do it.
... The police wouldn't have given me 83 million dollars at that time.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
i think for your overall point to be valid, you would have to explicitly show a strong trend where federal over reach is occurring, and that it's worth sacrificing the greatest country in history.
You're still casting it in the wrong terms. "Worth sacrificing X".
You used marriage as an analogy.
If Mary says that you should get the mail every morning but you think every other day is fine, that's a minor disagreement. Is it "worth divorcing" over?
Most would say no.
However suppose Mary won't let it go. Every single day and night. Then she stops sleeping with you until you agree to get the mail every day. Then she starts spending money out of your joint account and when you confront her she says "Should have got the mail every day". Then she sleeps with other men.
Then you file for a divorce, and she tells the judge "All this over who gets the mail, isn't he petty!" Now it started with a disagreement over who gets the mail, but that doesn't mean that a disagreement over mail caused it. The cause was how both parties reacted to the disagreement.
So let's get back to the real situation, which may or may not escalate; and as I said probably won't escalate to an actual move for secession:
Will defending the Rio Grande "sacrifice the greatest country in history"?
No. So Texas isn't "sacrificing the greatest country in history" by defending the border.
Is trying to federalize the Texas national guard "sacrificing the greatest country in history"? No, getting warmer
Is refusing to allow the Texas national guard "sacrificing the greatest country in history"? No, getting warmer
Is the federal government sending swat teams to arrest high officers of Texas "sacrificing the greatest country in history?" Getting a lot warmer
Is the Texas national guard intercepting federal agents who were abducting Texas officers before they escape Texas and under gunpoint freeing their men and arresting those federal agents on charges of armed abduction, sedition, etc...etc.. "sacrificing the greatest country in history"? Almost there
Is the federal government declaring Texas to be in a state of rebellion and mobilizing the army to occupy the state "sacrificing the greatest country in history"? Yea pretty much.
By presuming Texas has to be making a choice that "some illegal immigration is worth destroying the united states" you are ignoring all the steps the federal government needs to take between point A and point B.
The feds have to agree it's worth it, and ultimately start shooting. They won't say "we did this over razor wire" they will say they did it to preserve "the laws of the united states" (hilariously since they're breaking the law). You pretend as if there is no responsibility there.
you aren't showing how those existing infractions are sufficient to dissolve the country
They're sufficient for Texas to defend the border and defy the supreme court ruling that POTUS can choose to the exact opposite of the law if he wants to (despite ruling the otherwise many times before).
Whether that leads to the dissolution of the union is not on Texas' shoulders.
If the federal government would rather wage war than enforce their own laws (or even let others enforce them), then yes it's a sufficient cause because any such lawless entity no longer deserves to exist. Maybe if they were breaking the law to bring about an objectively more moral system there could be an argument, but breaking the law because of some idiotic notion that it's racist to make people go through checkpoints or a nefarious plan to change the demographics? No it would be entirely the feds fault under these circumstances.
i dont mean to keep keep insulting, but i see it that way, like it's a baby crying cause he doesn't get his way.
In what way? Because the next thing you say is "i mean i can see why you're upset, you have a case for that" so it's not like a baby in that there is no basis for it.
Is it like a baby because babies are powerless? Texas may not be a world superpower but I think it's a bit ridiculous to call any group of people with a battleship, A10 warthogs, Abrams tanks, and 16 million potential infantry "helpless as a baby"
maybe trump could have or should have sent troops to sancturary cities
I never said should have. I said under left-tribe logic, which is the logic of "if there is even the slightest hint of legal justification and it lets us enforce our agenda then do it".
What needs to happen is a system of consequences for violating the US constitution. Personal consequences, for all those involved along the chain of command.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It is obvious to me that at this point nothing will convince you, no matter how much responses I give.
Oh? The goal was to convince me? and it's my fault I won't be convinced?
What if the goal was to convince you, and it's your fault you aren't convinced?
No theory of mind. Intellectual toddlers. Can't imagine being the other guy.
and sadly you both use that rare skill for same wrong purposes.
rofl, I guess I disappointed you by wielding the facts for the purposes you have not preordained.
Created:
"I think most people think of rape as being sexy. Think of the fantasies." - Jean Carroll June 25 2019
Poor Anderson Cooper.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Average US citizen would not have been falsely accused and then found liable without a shred of evidence.Every trial has judge or jury.They are the ones who decide if the evidence is enough.
They are the ones who were trusted to decide under the social contract as it once existed.
That contract is broken. The trust is gone.
To see that all you need to do is ask the left-tribe to bring their charges in 90% right-tribe jurisdictions (like rural West Virginia)
They don't trust "us", and "we" don't trust "them".
If you dislike their opinion, you can make an appeal to a different court.
Or I can alternate between laughing at them and ignoring them and advise everyone else to do the same.
Your idea of "every trial which involves Trump is a corrupt trial" is just due to your devotion to Trump.
I have no devotion to Trump, and plenty of people with no devotion to Trump see the same thing I do. The reason every trial attacking Trump is corrupt is because every charge against Trump was brought due to TDS and involves either a complete lack of evidence, absurd made up crimes, or interpret ions of laws that would have left every single politician alive just as guilty.
It's definitely not a coincidence.
If it was about someone irrelevant to you or a democrat, you would be speaking another story.
The only thing that makes Trump relevant to me is that they are doing this to him.
I can't speak to other people because I have not been observing the circumstances around them as closely. I have seen the law abused beyond breaking to try and attack Trump.
If they do it to others that changes nothing. They're still the bad guys and need to be stopped.
She gave hints to that herself.Really?
Yes. A lot of people have that fetish, it's not that surprising.
So your defense of Trump is that you have same opinion as Trump?
I don't need to defend Trump. Speculating about other people's sexual preferences is protected speech and the fact that there is some basis for it means the actual malice burden could never be met (in a real court).
Let's find out. If somebody calls Trump a white supremacist, do they have to prove it lest they be guilty of defamation?Trump would have to take it to court.
If Trump sued would the accuser have the burden of proof?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I believe he denied the encounter ever took place, but that would be how it would go if someone actually had sex and then tried to claim rape after consenting.You misunderstood.He presented her as a person who has a rape fetish.
She gave hints to that herself. I saw the clip where she was cut off on public broadcast before she could explain further.
Just an agenda: Get TrumpYour Trump already had more rights than almost any other US citizen ever when on trial.
"My Trump" He's not mine you can do a DNA test. and no, he has had less because the people going after him don't care about the law, precedent, or evidence.
Average US citizen would not only be unable to have best lawyers to defend him and make appeals, but average citizen wouldnt even be able to pay the fine.
Average US citizen would not have been falsely accused and then found liable without a shred of evidence.
You really don't know much about liable laws do you?I dont think you know much about defamation laws.
Let's find out. If somebody calls Trump a white supremacist, do they have to prove it lest they be guilty of defamation?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
i think you are taking your ideas too far, like a radical or maybe an extremist.
I don't care about "radical" or "extremist" these words are meant to marginalize ideas and people but they don't have any logical meaning except to say something is far from the norm. Since the norm is no guarantee of truth or morality that is neither here nor there.
The question is whether I am wrong. To know if I'm wrong about morality requires a moral debate. To know if I'm wrong about the dynamics requires either a debate about sociology or simple patience.
I think we will all live to see a day when a hundred people are killed for political reasons per day in the United States of America. Call me out if I'm wrong.
i know you disagree, though
Yep
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
he already lost the portion that found him guilty of rape.
He was found guilty of NOTHING. Even if he was these brainwashed joke courts mean nothing. There is no victim. Just an agenda: Get Trump
Trump has brought over 3,500 lawsuits, he's currently the defendent in 91 felony charges, you'd think he'd understand the process by now.
You have a point there. Why keep wasting money on lawyers? Ignore these clowns and beef up private security so you don't get assassinated.
E. Jean Carroll is only one of the 27 women who have accused him of sexual assault.
How many does it take? I can accuse you of sexual assault if evidence isn't an issue.
Do tell, if you were a woman, you'd let Trump just grab your pussy, wouldn't you?
Probably under some circumstances. You would probably as well, but you'd lie about it later so you could get 83 million.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
"So am I allowed to deny that I committed a crime?"He did way more than just denying a crime.
Denying a crime is identical to calling your accuser a liar.
He went to present his victim as if she was asking for it and lying about it at the same time.
I believe he denied the encounter ever took place, but that would be how it would go if someone actually had sex and then tried to claim rape after consenting.
Also, he made bunch of claims about her which he could not prove.
You really don't know much about liable laws do you?
If people had to prove everything they said, then every claim would go to court.
For instance, has anyone proved Trump is a white supremacist?
He was found guilty on sexual abuse and the many verbal attacks he made later against his victim.
He was found guilty of NOTHING. Even if he was these brainwashed joke courts mean nothing. There is no victim. Just an agenda: Get Trump
And this is all while he had a team of lawyers who know law much better than you and who defended him much better than you would.
Doesn't look like it. I would have defended him by sending bullshit letters to the judge while moving any vulnerable assets out of the bandit gang calling itself a state's power. Going and arguing with these people is proceeding from a false premise: That they care about evidence or the law. They're nothing more than angry people with TDS and guns. Flee to friendly territory!
...and I would have charged him less than those lawyers for the advice.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
a jury finds him guilty
Liable.
Guilty would require, I guess a shred of evidence? But that's pre-Trump thinking on my part. I'm sure guilty verdicts in TDS cities no longer require evidence so long as the defendant is orange.
Be honest, you are wearing big floppy shoes and a big red Styrofoam nose, right?
May as well, it's about as much respect as this so called "nation of laws" deserves.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
That night, the judge ruled that Trump's lawyers could not argue before the jury that Trump did not rape Carroll.
Yep, that's "the rule of law" in left-tribe world.
"So am I allowed to deny that I committed a crime?"
"Uh, no; did you think this was a free country or something? You may make your confession now."
I hope he uses the IRS to audit every single juror, judge, bailiff, and anyone involved in making good on this extortion. Better yet, sue them for defamation in West Virginia. Just ignore all precedent, pretend like evidence is unnecessary. Rules for thee as well as for me you know?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
It does, but only in deep blue democrat cities/counties.Not just the courts, also the election, the media, the justice department, the FBI...the list goes on and on.
Created:
Ah the left-tribe mind: in which it makes total sense to be simultaneously found not liable for rape but liable for denying that rape occurred.
A: You raped me!
B: No I didn't!
A: Are you calling me a liar punk?
B: Obviously.
Judge: Did A rape B?
zombie jury: No
Judge: Did A lie when she said she was raped?
zombie jury: No
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
texas is sticking to its guns, but its bluffing if you think it'd wage a war against the USA.
It doesn't need to "wage war against the USA". The next "raise" is fighting federal agents trying to assert the supremacy of federal policy (which happens to be illegal).
It's a lot of bluffs yet until US army is deployed on US soil, and I agree it is unlikely in any particular instance; but I also know that unless something seriously changes in the cultural fracture the problem isn't going away. Given enough trials even unlikely events occur.
If DJT (or similar) gain control of the federal government the show will simply switch to California, Oregon, and Washington.
The differences in moral codes are too great to be governed. The only solution is to force compliance or cease attempting to govern. Since it is a federal system ceasing to govern on these issues does not require dissolving of the union, however; as with all moral beliefs people are so easily tempted to control their neighbors.
For instance the supreme court (being legally correct) struck down Roe v Wade. Did left-tribers say "well fair enough I guess we'll live with the laws we believe in in the states we control".
No, they did not. They want a federal guarantee, and the anti-abortionists want a federal ban. Their fear makes them unwilling to stop fighting for control of the federal government. This is the inevitable result of centralizing power.
maybe i misunderstood you, and you dont think war is the likely outcome.
Not in any particular instance, but ultimately it's fairly likely if other factors remain. Individuals and specific events don't drive these things. People's attitudes do, and the chasm is growing larger by the day. The derision and contempt Sidewinder showed in this thread is representative of millions of people and is the driving force behind the coming conflict.
That is my point. The law means nothing now. It is a plaything for very angry people (getting angrier every day). The law only matters when people believe it is just and sacred and that is not what people in either tribe believe anymore.
For a decade GOP politicians have been in a state of self-delusion. Believing that if they stick to the spirit of the law things will work out. Mike Pence exemplified this when he refused to reject tended electors on Jan 6. "I don't think the founding fathers intended for me to have that power" were his words.
He could not have been more out of touch with the right-tribe at that moment. The right tribe was already convinced (with cause) that the constitution had been ripped up and stomped on by the left-tribe.
What Texas is doing now is already a fulfillment of previous predictions I made, predictions about a path that leads to civil war or peaceful divorce. Ten years ago ignoring the supreme court would have been what normalist like yourself would have said would "never happen".
but you do think that texas should be willing to go to war.
Everyone should be ready to fight for justice. That doesn't work out too well when we can't agree on morality. So we compromise to gain peace. That compromise was the US constitution. The compromise was democracy. The compromise was the law.
I think that compromise has been broken. I didn't want it to be broken. In fact what I want is for us to agree on an objectively correct morality already. BUT given these circumstances Texas has every right to use force against the federal government and so does every individual.
So yes.
that's what you said by saying i shouldn't be calling texas stupid like a baby.
I don't think you should be calling anyone in the throes of deep resentment a stupid baby. I know there are many right-tribers who indulge in such behavior but they're making enemies and making existing enemies more bitter.
They say that people these days don't know what it's like to be punched in the face, and there is a big kernel of truth in that. We achieved a society where people are very isolated from the hate they induce and while the lack of violence and revenge is a good thing this consequence may be a ticking time bomb in the end.
I've seen plenty on the right tribe like sidewinder. When you combine sidewinder's contempt with Korea's ignorance you get a very dangerous combination. Contempt for the other and total ignorance of how much it will hurt when it comes to blows.
This is where all the boys ripe for slaughter come from. They go to war defiant and happy and they come home broken. This is the difference between ignorance and knowledge.
These matters are deadly serious. Even if you can't see why, even if you're right and the other guy is delusional. Don't mock them. They may be standing over you with a gun some day.
you actually think an immigration problem is a big enough reason for texas etc to divide the usa through war? in no way does that make sense.
If you subdivide a problem and look at the details enough times it will always seem trivial.
Texas joined a federation. The federation has laws about immigration. The federal government is violating those laws. All checks and balances have failed to remedy that problem.
That is the real problem.
we're a long way from that to be so seriously entertaining the idea that texas should be willing to go to war.
Yet not so far away from the waterfall as to be able to claim ignorance.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I'm just curious as to what kind of pearls the communist dictator worshiper/adult-child sexual relations apologist thinks he can clutchI mean, technically, you are the one helping Kim Jong Un.So you are more of a communist dictator worshipper here.
Not a very good try.
Contrast, who sounds more excitedIts not about who sounds more excited, its more about who sounds more excited while promoting what.
Greyparrot hasn't promoted anything. I have applauded a change the heralds equality under the law: namely everybody ignores it instead of just left-tribers.
When Donald Trump was elected more than a few left-tribers explained that secession may be necessary and if Trump wins again they will do so again.
No one has blind loyalty to the federal government. Anyone who pretends they do is simply gaslighting the opposition who happen to be out of power at the moment.
You have no foundation for your derision.
Well, I guess having a job, a smartphone, and enough free time to complain all day on the internet counts as living under tyranny for them.
I'm sure the people in an annexed Ukraine would have job, a smartphone, and the ability to complain on the internet (via Tor). You might need a more comprehensive definition of non-tyranny.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
the most likely outcome will be that texas will ignore the court order, and the feds and texas will continue with a stand off. texas will for practical purposes do what it wants to do, unless they are forced not to, which i dont think will happen.
I agree this is the most likely outcome, followed by Texas folding and withdrawing its soldiers.
It is no different from the way other states have been ignoring federal laws and supreme court rulings. Yet what I said in the OP remains true. Authority asserted but denied is not a stable situation. The bluffs will grow in frequency and size and if the federal government doesn't start shooting people their authority will collapse.
but it won't warp into a great civil war
I never said civil war was the only outcome. I said it's the only (realistic) outcome where federal authority is preserved.
an immigration crisis isn't a big enough reason to start a war.
...but a tax on tea is?
this is like letting a relatively small argument in a marriage end in divorce.
Large problems are exposed by otherwise small issues. Millions of people have divorced after a chain of events started by a small argument. You prove my point.
so to try to secede or whatever a war would be for, would be, again, stupid. like a baby crying over not getting its way.
For some reason calling people stupid and telling them they're crying like a spoiled baby just doesn't work very well when it comes to convincing them you can live in harmony.
If Donal Trump had invoked the insurrection act and attack the CHAZ, who would you blame for that? Your statement here implies the people of the CHAZ were stupid, like crying babies; but would your solution be the same as Trumps in the real timeline? (To leave them alone)
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You just cant hide your excitement!
Contrast, who sounds more excited:
They said that in 1860.
Punk ass talk is cheap, and oath keepers are a joke, a bunch of green teeth rednecks with a gun in one hand and a beer in the other does not a civil war make.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
every government is involuntary to someone inside of that government. we are still called, at least by the bible, to respect the government.
Not everyone is a christian, and not all christians agree with that interpretation. For example the founding fathers of the USA.
no state is realistically going to start a civil war.
1) But they will realistically and have already repeatedly ignored the supreme court.
2) Then the question is whether federal agents will be sent to enforce the ruling of the supreme court.
3) Then the question is whether those federal agents will be arrested for participating in a criminal conspiracy to violate state laws.
4) Then the question is whether the federal government will declare an insurrection.
5) Then the question is whether the military mobilizes or turns on itself.
At what step and with which party to you lay the blame for "starting a civil war"?
Wars do not only come from people aiming for war as an end in of itself, in fact rarely is that the case. The people who fired on fort Sumter were completely convinced they were not the aggressors.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Civil War is the inevitable result of unwarranted Ad Homs.Sadly, now all IWRA's ad homs are well warranted 🙂
Why is that?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So promoting a civil war warrants ad homs?I am just waiting for you to claim "unwarranted ad hom" to remind you that you are promoting civil war.
And where did he promote a civil war?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
He just want's to be able to call us deplorable like Hillary and Biden and get away with it.
IWRA is constantly getting away with it. I have no idea where this "warranted" stuff came from. I'm just curious as to what kind of pearls the communist dictator worshiper/adult-child sexual relations apologist thinks he can clutch.
I would never dismiss an argument just because it came from someone who has said wrong (or unpopular) things before, but when someone who has said profoundly unpopular things before tries to imply he's above explaining himself because someone has said something "beyond the pale"... well we're getting into hypocrisy territory now.
I believe in the golden rule. If they don't try to overton window me, I won't try to overton window them; but you can't mix and match.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
...and why is that?Really? You cant figure out why?
Your mind does work in mysterious ways.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I mean, at this point, ad hominem against you or greyparrot is warranted.
...and why is that?
Well, more against greyparrot, since he made many claims of unwarranted ad hominems and many reports.
So reporting ad homs earns ad homs?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
@Sidewalker
@Best.Korea I said about you "Most people are like you (well maybe a bit better than you) in terms of total ignorance of military science."
Here is an example of a person who is even more ignorant than you, you at least talked about a tank which is indeed a weapon:
[Sidewalker] I can only imagine how they would go to war, "Oh no, they have trans people, run away, run away", "Oh no, there are some LGBTQ people, run away, run away", "Oh no, there are some Drag Queens, run away, run away", "Oh no, a football player took a knee, run away, run away".
People like this are no threat, nor are the people who mock the left-tribe as a bunch of balless, blue-haired, weaklings who don't know which way to point a gun.
Such fools will not affect the outcome of war. These people will:
The first rule of military science (well maybe not the first, but a big one) is: Don't underestimate the enemy. You overestimate you miss opportunities. You underestimate you get obliterated. If you need to use fuzzy logic (and you will) assume the worst.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
They only need to switch back if they need to affect a primary in the other party. The guy in the video does not need to switch back to vote for Biden.He would though; it's not like a guy like that would call himself a republican.
So your theory is that he would be so disgusted with himself that he couldn't stand being a registered republican?
That's pure projection. You think everyone is blindly loyal to a party and thus you assume they would be emotionally motivated over something that has no practical significance.
Anyone paying attention enough (even if to propaganda) to understand that primary attack strategy is not so shallow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Thats an anecdote.
If anecdotes are irrelevant then how could you possibly have information to the effect of "Primary Party switching is very rare."
What % of people party switch solely for a primary and then switch back?
They only need to switch back if they need to affect a primary in the other party. The guy in the video does not need to switch back to vote for Biden.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Okay, but if you accept definitions from the insane how long until you become insane too?Many would agree that restricting a person from voting by requiring ID and a verified signature is not a free election and possibly racist.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
In a 100% free election, you can mail unlimited amounts of ballots and anybody can fill them out.
You're just reasserting that definition. Ultimately definitions are arbitrary. You need to look at context and history to know if you're using a honest definition or not.
So let me ask you three questions:
A) Should that be what "free election" means?
B) Do you think "free election" always meant that?
C) If you took a poll with a multi choice and it had my definition and your definition, do you think the majority would agree with me or with you? Do you think it's 95% one or the other?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
No it isn't Free means there is no measure of fairness. Everything is fair.
Nah, it means liberal. As in arising from or respecting the right to liberty. In a economic context it could mean "without charge" or "given away". In a physical context it can mean "independent/unconstrained by a physical phenomenon"
There is no context where I will accept that fair is mutually exclusive with free.
Fair in the context of an election also has a clear meaning: Accurate, results uncontaminated by cheating or deception.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am saying you can have a free election or a fair election, but you cannot have both. If everyone is free to vote with no restrictions, that will necessarily include illegal votes.
Eh, sounds like a semantic complaint. Like the latest trend of saying "we're a republic not a democracy". Or "gender is a social construct, sex is biological"
One lesson I learned well from Ayn Rand: Don't let them redefine words. She wrote a book "the virtue of selfishness". Why did she think she could get away with that? Because she asked people who called her ideas "selfish" what was "selfish" about them and then she took them at their word.
Free is good. Fair is good. If they use a definition of free that contradicts with fair, they need to be called out on it; not ceded semantic territory.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You can make it pretty damn easy without sacrificing integrity. They just don't want to.You cannot let everyone freely vote yet also have safeguards to prevent the freedom to vote illegally.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The democratic choice is to have real elections by what ever means are necessaryIs that what most people think?
<dripping with irony>Well I don't know, maybe if we had a real election we would find out?</dripping with irony>
That you need civil war to have elections?
You only need civil war to have elections if your government refuses to hold a real election, just like you only need to punch a mugger if they decided to mug you.
Letting people get constantly mugged is tyranny even if nobody wants to fight a mugger.Preventing people from being mugged and starting a civil war arent same things.
A difference of scale not quality.
Its a tyranny to impose a civil war on majority who doesnt want it.
The aggressor takes the blame, not the defender. That's why WW2 isn't Poland's fault.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Really, the idea that one should start civil war any time there is inflation and high cost is nonsense.
Add a few factors: A faction that caused the inflation and high cost by mass theft (via the government), infiltrated many media organizations, controls the public square (social media), and subverts democracy by opening windows for their brainwashed puppets to cheat.
Then there really isn't much choice. They won't leave you alone, they won't let you convince anyone in open debate, and even if you do convince people they just dilute their votes with fraudulent ones (and other ways of cheating).
I dont live in USA, but most people in USA dont want civil war, so please follow the democratic choice, not choice of minority of extremists.
The democratic choice is to have real elections by what ever means are necessary.
It's what the country was founded on. The idea that people didn't have to suffer under tyranny and just take it.What percentage of Americans want civil war?I assume a very small percentage.
These three numbers aren't contradictory:
People who want to be mugged: 0.001%
People who will fight a mugger if they think they can win: 25%
People who will stand by and let someone else fight a mugger without helping the mugger: 95%
Letting people get constantly mugged is tyranny even if nobody wants to fight a mugger.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The alternative is a lot worse.So you think that having a job, money and peace is bad.
If that's the alternative, then why does social program spending just keep going up? Why do citizens flee cities while migrants who will prop up congressional seats without affecting vote totals get dumped there? Why are the railroads shit? Why are the roads shit? Why are people in enormous debt over college when it was said it would help you make money? Why are legal and illegal drugs ever more used and ever more expensive? Why does it seem like wherever there is a war, the USA is right there to give away privately made weapons and tell anybody and everybody "keep going, fight the good fight" even if it happens to be Pakistan (Islamist state) fighting Indians. Even if it happens to be the Taliban. Even if it happens to be Saudi Arabia (they throw homosexuals off buildings).
Maybe it's because we're all getting poorer (unless we're obedient state workers) and more and more people are falling off the edge into poverty and homelessness.
Maybe that's because they steal half our stuff every year.
Maybe they're attacking our democracy so they can keep doing that.
Maybe it will only get worse, and when there is no independent form of money, when every transaction is traceable and reversible by state AI, when every device spies on every person, when no one is allowed to own more than two bullets, when every election is unauditable, and every media source that is contra-government has been shut down over "disinformation" you'll find that you woke up too late.
Peace? Maybe if you live in a gated community of government contractors and collaborators. Nowhere else it seems.
Money? Yea, plenty of USD. Not so much goods and services.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Let the pacifist drop the first stone. Government is violence. A bad government is not something you can just turn a blind eye to.Well, I dont know what definition of a pacifist are you using.
Someone who condemns all violence and refuses to use it even in the defense of one's life or the rights of others.
You assume that civil war would fix government, and that government is bad because its violent.
I made no such assumptions.
Violence against the innocence is bad. Government is defined by the use of violence to enforce laws. When the laws are unjust government is bad because it is unjustly violent. When the laws are inequitably applied it is even worse. When there is no peaceful remedy for correcting unjust government violence then violence against the government is moral and necessary.
The weaponization of the law is just another name for inequitable application. The destruction of election integrity is an attack on democracy finishing the pattern of tyranny.
This government is therefore bad, and since it's a government it's violently bad. That is a fact, not an assumption.
As for the outcome of war, that is famously unpredictable as most phenomenon where chaotic events can snowball are. Chaos is better than tyrannical order. For instance if nobody had stood in the way the fascist in the early 20th century Europe would be very ordered. The real timeline where over a hundred cities were majorly destroyed and 60 million people died is preferable because if you sacrifice human liberty to preserve lives then evil need only to threaten lives and good will never win again.
Well, I dont see how a civil war will produce non-violent government
It produces a chance for a just government.
So you assume that overweight MAGA civilians
Look up Ashli Babbitt. Multiple deployments. Not overweight. Not unusual at all.
are as capable as Talibans
The Taliban are clearly dedicated and experienced fighters. There weren't 50 million of them though.
or Ukrainian military supported by whole world.
It is an absolute fact that the armor defeating weapons provided to the Ukrainian military have had a huge impact. What you may be deluded about is the impossibility of acquiring such weapons without the approval of the deep state. If nothing else, they can be stolen.
Do they need to be stolen to win a civil war? No. If the only areas under deep state control have tanks constantly patrolling them how long do you think that standoff could last?
Do tanks harvest wheat? Can tanks refill fuel depots?
You know I once worked at a place where I was in the position to sabotage defense infrastructure. There are plenty more of me I'm sure.
So you assume that MAGA starting civil war and killing Americans and US soldiers wont make MAGA lose supporters.
Who will blame who has already been decided. They have to shoot first, they're in control of the government. For instance they might shoot Texas National Guard to keep them from building new fence.
I just wonder how many would support your cause after that.
The vast majority will hunker down, try to protect their families, curse anyone who is even remotely involved in starting it, and wait for things to improve. I know that because that is what happens in every civil war.
I also know that a military which requires an extremely complex production chain to stay supplied and superior cannot risk losing transit routes. In an asymmetric war (and that's not guaranteed) in the integrated power-base (the lower 48) the victory will go to the most determined. The guy who is willing to sit in ambush the longest.
In fact you said "overweight", obviously no more true than the generalization of all Americans, but having an extra 50 lb would be a great asset after the supply chains have been disrupted. Another great asset would be not living in densely populated areas where the food runs out very quickly.
So you think its a good idea that US military fights US military?
I think it's preferable to eternal digital fascism (which is where this is heading).
Peace and prosperity is of course preferable in the grand scheme, but when you're getting beaten up that's not one of the options. You can take the beating, beg for it to stop or you can fight back. That's it.
I guess after that, there would really be no USA anymore.
That's a distinct possibility, and still very preferable to a digital fascist state holding hegemony over the human race. It gives other nations a chance.
It would just be war everywhere.
It's already war everywhere and it always has been. War will stop when our knowledge of morality is so perfect and so universal that the motivations for war do not exist.
That day is not today, clearly.
Ah, so you assume that now is same as 300 years ago.
The relevant factors are.
And you assume that there is no guarantee about who will win, but entire NATO and allies vs MAGA kinda tells you the odds.
lol NATO? ~ delusions of grandeur. The deep state would be lucky to have the full loyalty of more than five US army divisions much less bringing in Europeans.
There are plenty of sympathizers for both sides in Europe (just like last time).
I do think that Kim Jong Un is the most skilled politician with supernatural abilities in command, politics and leadership.
Uh huh, well how about this MAGA would just bring him over as a general. Problem solved. <- See this is what happens when you troll.
...basically abolish democracy in USA...
It's already been subverted, doing nothing is allowing it to be abolished.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Guys, you really need to stop promoting civil wars.You mean the Democrats? Last I checked, it was Biden destroying Texas, not some other president.
Not just Texas. NYC and Chicago are kicking people out of schools and seizing hotels. They really couldn't do much more to convince people that giant masses of illegal immigrants having no productive work lined up are a problem and convince them Trump was right the whole time.
If they're doing this on purpose, it's an enormous gamble.
Eagle Pass is the beginning of the end.
The end of something for sure.
How much is going to get destroyed is yet to be seen. It is still possible the deep state is currently in the process of shooting their last toe off, that they're going to be overwhelmed at the polls beyond any chance for fraud to overcome, and that the pushback from the new administration will be so severe that no one will try this shit again for a hundred years.
It's all possible, but I'd say unlikely. War 10%, peaceful correction 10%, the 80% is some kind of severe unrest possibly involving multiple assassinations, constant street brawls, several near-miss secession attempts, etc... think Balkans.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Guys, you really need to stop promoting civil wars.
Let the pacifist drop the first stone. Government is violence. A bad government is not something you can just turn a blind eye to.
Your entire group with guns wouldnt be able to do shit against just one tank.
Most people are like you (well maybe a bit better than you) in terms of total ignorance of military science.
To put it nicely: you simply haven't a clue. People way more educated than you on the subject were in command of the Russian attack force on Ukraine. They brought tanks. Where is the Taliban? They must be gone because all their guns wouldn't be able to do shit against just one tank right? Oh right, they won.
The question isn't what can be destroyed, but what can be destroyed without losing what you claim to be fighting for. By the time deep state tanks can open up with antipersonnel 120mm rounds on American buildings with unknown number of non-combatants in them there won't be anything left of this country.
The deep state will lose the baseline logistics supported needed to carry on any kind of war long long before the war escalates to that point.
US military is the strongest military in the world.
...and those parts of it which aren't crippled by internal mistrust will join a side.
And it has plenty of allies which would come to help to uphold government.
No one interfered last time and no one will interfere this time for the same reasons. They have their own enemies and if they get involved so will their enemies.
Unlike proxy wars like Korea or Vietnam there is no guarantee about final policies and whoever wins will have nukes. It's a huge risk with no reward.
Now they will send weapons, to both sides; and given the last 60 years of deep state arms dealings most of those weapons will be of US manufacture.
The only ones who would benefit from your "prefered outcome" are Putin and Kim Jong Un.
So you should support it because you're a big fan of Kim right?
Created: