Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
All those southern Democrats became Republicans after LBJ passed the Civil Rights Laws. Remember dummy?Rooskielover,That doesn't deny the fact that DEMOCRATS wanted segregation. You endorse racism!
Don't give him that, it's false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
For once your whole post is correct
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It was an example of how production does not always scale with workers.It might not, but for many industries, more workers means more machienes being built and more GDP being produced.
Ok, we've been around the wheel too many times on that. I still disagree but you're not coming up with new arguments so I'll let it go.
Fair point, but I'm worried about not having a job if a machine takes it.
You should be worried about somebody trying to monopolize the machine. The value is product not effort.
If you are admitting that every poor person costs the public $10k/year in medical costs on average (and this is how much it really costs, it won't go down) how can you assume they would be a net positive to production?I don't support giving government programs to the undocumented. If they need a hospital visit and can't afford it, I'm cool with letting them die since I don't want to pay for their healthcare bills; it's too socialist for me.
How in the world would you have a government program to increase the population while calling the immigrants "undocumented?"
More relevantly taxing company income vs individual income is merely a layer of indirection. You're still stealing, you're just planning to allocate the stolen money on the premise that the existing budget is sacred even as the average quality of life goes down.
I guess that explains why you think this plan could be carried through instead of being voted down by the billion new people. They don't get votes right?
So you're telling them to come on over, there is no new land for them, no better tools, no affordable education, no affordable medical care, no right to vote.
I know it seems like the ride of immigrants never ends, but that is a bad deal and at some point people will notice. They can leave just as easily as they came, especially if they own nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I just explained to you why he is a credible witness.
You asserted he was a credible witness according to some generalized formula that anyone who testifies against their boss is credible.
BREAKING NEWS: Cohen lied in oath to implicate Trump. Trump told the truth about not knowing about the Stormy Daniels payment.
Your formula predicted that Cohen would be reliable. You just implied being under oath increases credibility. Maybe it does, but again the world seems a bit more complicated. Unfortunately I can't engage with you in a meaningful way since you will call anything outside of your simplistic model conspiracy theory.
Evidence of a coincidence? That's a new one. Explain the abstract form of such evidence. Contrast it with "proving a negative".Evidence of a coincidence is any evidence which supports an alternative theory as more probable. It's literally how we determine anything as a coincidence.
The alternative theory to a coincidence would be a non-coincidence. Proving non-coincidence explanation rules out coincidence, but that does not prove coincidence.
I'll give you a hint about the correct analysis: What is the sample size?
Apparent correlation is always coincidence, common cause, or direct cause. Coincidence can be ruled out by finding the common cause, direct cause, OR by repeating the trial many times (large sample size).
At no point is coincidence itself proved. It goes from assumption to disproved or it remains an assumption.
I know it sounds strange to you, but in debate you actually do have to address the arguments against your position. Anyone who cares about reality understand this.
Everest is the tallest mountain in the world, until you can disprove that you've lost this debate. <- How do you address that? You point out the irrelevance. No more is needed.
...why exactly you need to extort anyone if everyone wanted him fired we don't know but there you have it.Because the person above him was just as corrupt add her was. Is this a serious point?
The elected leader of Ukraine was just as corrupt huh? Yet that kind of implies that more than half of Ukraine agreed to his leadership and therefore Shokin... unless you're an election denier that is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You ADREAMof LIIBERTY and his espousing violent protests for Trumpet.
for democracy, not Trump.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Allow me to summarize: Trump told the truth. He never told anyone to pay her off, he doesn't believe in giving money to liars.
As of this moment I think he never had sex with her, she was one of a hundred random people who asked for a photograph and Trump posed for it. When Trump was big news she tried to capitalize.
The real story is Michael Cohen. Why did he commit perjury? The only possible purpose was to harm Trump.
Is Trump constantly finding people who hate his guts to work for him or is someone making these people offers they can't refuse?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
They were hoping for a crowd, then they would have set off some small bomb and called it insurrection 2.0. It's hilarious that they expect anyone to believe a bomb scare on the same day was a coincidence. (Well Double_R will)
The Jan 6 lesson has been fully internalized. If you're an old grandma being waved in by cops you're a terrorist and these left-tribe judges/juries will send you to the gallows. There is no point in giving yourself over to an honorless enemy.
It should be obvious that I don't think very highly of Trump. I think he is a failure, and he just keeps showing it. Asking for protests?
They don't care about protests. They use them for false flags. Nobody sane is coming out until it's time to start shooting.
Still there is no other choice. If I vote for anyone else that will be capitulating to a terror campaign. Trump must win on principle, but I wouldn't recommend following his advise on strategy or tactics.
Created:
1.) Stopped believing in god
2.) Stopped believing the market we see is determined by productivity and started believing in an international cabal of war mongers operating a loosely associated machine made of large corporations that use government force to stay on top and governments that use these large corporations to steer public opinion and economics, i.e. the deep state AKA the military industrial complex AKA the original gangsta fascist economic theory
There are plenty of moments where I came to new conclusions that were very important from then on, but these were the only real "changed my mind", as in I held a strong opinion before and then I reversed it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
In this case, Sondland is testifying against his own personal interests. His testimony clearly endangers his job security, and he is testifying against someone he obviously supports. That makes his testimony as reliable as one could possibly be.
He was threatened, like Cohen and just about everyone else who has been attacked around Trump. This is obvious. Your only alternative theory would be a sudden bout of honesty that never materialized before. It therefore may not have been in his own personal interests if he feared others more than Trump.
I don't need hard evidence to counter your unprovable speculation about his motives. If you say "conspiracy theory" consider it pre-ignored.
No, I dismiss correlation as coincidence when I have evidence that it is just coincidence
Evidence of a coincidence? That's a new one. Explain the abstract form of such evidence. Contrast it with "proving a negative".
Not only do you have no evidence that any of the articles I listed are lies, you haven't even attempted to argue that any of them are lies.
and yet despite going around in circles like that three times it still hasn't occurred to you that I haven't attempted to discredit those articles because I don't need to? The articles do not have the implications you want them to.
In chibi animation:
Article: Ambassador says Shokin bad
You: Everyone in the entire universe including aliens demanded Shokin be fired, even by extortion.
...why exactly you need to extort anyone if everyone wanted him fired we don't know but there you have it.
There is a leap.
He was loud and proud, he released the transcript.He released the transcript after news of the call leaked and democrats started calling for his impeachment. That's not exactly "loud and proud". If he refused that would have only made him look that much more clearly guilty.
Sure it is, he released it when he understood a political attack was underway. Before knowing that it would be unusual to release state communications as a matter of course, besides letting the Biden crime family know something was coming down the pipe would give them time to hide evidence.
I'm ignoring your claims about the details of the aid, I don't care to engage in more heavy research when you were basically beaten senseless with the facts in Ukraine and didn't care.
Yes, loyal to the constitution. Turns out most government employees tend to take their oaths of office seriously.
That's sad-laugh material.
I'd ask you to prove it, but I know you can't without invoking the logical tools you've denied me; and I won't acknowledge a conclusion made with double standards.That's the difference between us, you dismiss it as coincidence simply because it refutes your preferred narrative.If you need evidence of this look no further than this one point. You have nothing to say here except to pretend I do the same thing you do and then argue a concocted double standard rather than just admitting this is a strong point against your position.Your refusal to do so is what demonstrates your unseriousness. You can disagree with my position all day long. You cannot pretend I don't address the points you raise.Again, this is the difference between us. I argue based on evidence and logic. You argue based on faith.Of course you're ignoring it, because it doesn't suit your narrative.This is just the latest attempt to hand waive away the evidence, it's clearly a specialty of yours.I know you don't, because god forbid you address a serious point that demolishes your position; why is it that so many in his administration, including people he hand picked are testifying against him?Because he's corrupt. Says basic logic.Or you could just make shit up and blame it on your imaginary "deep state" boogeyman you have absolutely no evidence for.Not surprisingly, you chose the latter.
Rhetorical fluff
Created:
Trump’s the big fat guy on the left
Ok now post the tweet or video where Trump said he never met her.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
if trump used campaign money to pay the hush money, couldn't the government say that he used campaign funds for a non-election purpose?
- there's no evidence I'm aware of claiming that Trump used campaign money
Obtuse as always. The point is that the required interpretation of the law creates a set a venn diagram where the criminals and the citizens are the same circle.
Created:
Well there was that picture of him with Stormy
Post it.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh I’m not saying we need to kill the red necks, we just shouldn’t consider their ignorant uninformed opinions
An honest insight into what a left-triber thinks when he says "our democracy"
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
initially he said he didn't even know Stormy
Has he recanted?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Hardly provenThis came from Donald Trump's handpicked ambassador to the EU. A man who donated a million dollars to Trump's campaign.
and therefore what? He wouldn't dare lie to harm Trump? You insist that I trust the credibility of the people who say things you want to be true and accuse me of conspiracy theories after demanding I explain why assertions aren't necessarily trustworthy.
When I cite articles you dismiss them as russian propaganda. When I cite high officials, you say it was personally interested; complete with your own conspiracy theory.
Only you are allowed to explain away statements. Only you are allowed to explain away articles. Only you are allowed to dismiss correlation as coincidence.
I am done, I am not interested in your double standards Double R.
Coincidences don't matter when tribal interests are at stake, haven't you noticed?A tongue and cheek response to a serious point. That's what it looks like when you have no rebuttal to offer.
That was the rebuttal. If the probability of multiple correlations mattered there would be no question that Biden was corrupt in his blackmail. You feel entitled to dismiss correlation as coincidence.
I reject the double standard and there is nothing else to say on that matter.
That's crucial, because if Biden was acting in his own personal interests against that of the United States there would be plenty of people who noticed and had no reason to support Biden.
Only those who knew about Biden's corruption would know targeting Shokin was a personal interest. I have no faith that Obama or anyone else would have vetoed Biden even if they knew his personal motivations. Remember what you think of Giuliani? That's what I think of anyone in the Obama admin.
Deep staters know how to surround themselves with friends. If Trump knew there would be no leaks, and he would be president right now because he would have been using the FBI to threaten states that were considering mass mail in voting.
This is also where the articles come in which show that this move was supported by individuals everywhere.
At this point it should be obvious to anyone that you're merely attempting to repeat a lie so often that people forget what the truth looks like. Ignored.
That was your response to the single most damning point against your "Trump was fighting corruption" narrative - Trump's own actions in the wake of getting caught. This one point alone proves the entire case.
Suddenly correlation can be proof? "Coincidence", ignored.
If Trump was just fighting corruption, he would have done so loudly and proudly.
He was loud and proud, he released the transcript.
he would have stayed the course with the withholding of aid, and he would have defended his actions once it gained attention.
He was never on the course of withholding aid.
He used back channels including his own personal attorney who had no official involvement in the administration (imagine if Obama did that to resolve an international issue).
Obama would never have to, he had loyalty within his regime.
If this were a serious anti corruption effort he would have just said "I need this corruption investigated or you're not getting the money"
This is going to require you to stop thinking like a left-triber for a moment: What if he didn't feel the powers of the president permitted him to make such threats? What if he didn't want to make threats even if he had the legal right?
Only an idiot or someone with TDS could look at the full facts and believe that there exists any standard which would allow Biden to act as he did without being a criminal and yet what Trump did in response was criminal.It is pattenly absurd to look at all of the facts here and see anything else.With Trump you have nearly everyone is his administration including both of his ambassadors to Ukraine, his ambassador to the EU, his top Russia expert, hell even his own national security advisor telling the world this was corrupt and all about his own personal gain. With Biden you have not one person inside the administration saying anything like that, in fact it's the exact opposite.Yet Trump was acting honorably and Biden is corrupt. This is the upside down world of MAGA, where of you don't like reality just invent your own.
I noticed you feel comfortable taking silence as concession. Do as you will, I have no interest in meaningless responses to reasserted summaries like this.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
"A field", a field grows plants. Plants need certain things to grow: Water, carbon dioxide, secondary biological elements (fertilizer), and energy.This is correct, but there are 2 possibilities:1) More fields can be produced with the excess population (like with deforestation). if this happens, America merely does this, creating jobs and causing the economy to skyrocket.2) More fields CANNOT be produced with excess population. If this happens, then the private sector buys the food they need to sell to the American free market from overseas, and since letting people into the country does not cause the world's population to increase, there is still enough food to feed everybody, and the people that move here will get jobs in non farming industries, leading to these industries skyrocketing due to more customers buying more goods and there being more workers to produce them.
It was an example of how production does not always scale with workers. There are thousands of other examples. In general we know mechanization has moved us far away from the days where production was proportional to population.
This "problem" is general, you can't just hand waive it away. I'm not going to go through every single scenario, as I said there are thousands. I shown the assumption of proportionality is incorrect.
If the specialized machine is outlawed the business dies, or never starts.This is an argument against automation, not mass immigration.
It is not even close to such an argument. If you outlaw sailing ships because you think employing rowers is a good idea, you simply won't get colonies or overseas trade because it's not worth it to anybody.
Limiting advancement is always the wrong move (strategically and morally).
But in practice, if businesses could be automated now, they would have been automated a long time ago, so it would have been machines, not migrants, that took people's jobs.
Depends on the cost of the labor, but can't you see that demonstrates non-proportionality?
If machines have already replaced people almost everywhere they can, then immigrants would compete with machines, not people. If you're claiming they can try to compete with a machine and still feed themselves I doubt it.
If 32 million Americans pay into it, it will have money.If those 32 million Americans are poor, they can't afford it.
If you are admitting that every poor person costs the public $10k/year in medical costs on average (and this is how much it really costs, it won't go down) how can you assume they would be a net positive to production? There mere fact of greater medical demand would increase costs further.
They either produce more than they consume or they don't. If they do, they don't need charity. If they don't, they certainly aren't helping you pay off any debt.
This is Biden's plan of a public option (I'm not knocking you for supporting this, I'm just surprised since you are a libertarian).
The liberal (renamed libertarian by left-tribe) checkbox is filled already by "abolish taxes". Anything that works or fails would then be by consent alone.
They, like the medicaid and social security beneficiaries were scammed.Scams are not fair, but neither can the victims be made whole in all cases.I don't want the government to be a scammer.
*darth vader voice* It's too late for that now, Underdog.
The department of education does not consume a significant portion of the budget.650 billion dollars is significant enough to mention.I don't think the department of education costs $650 billion a year. 20summary.pdf (ed.gov) puts the figure at $64 billion.
You misread:
The President’s fiscal year 2020 Budget Request (the Request) includes $64.0 billion in new discretionary
Budget Authority for the Department of Education
That was how much it was going up with no strings attached, also it was a request not a final budget decision.
Created:
Why does Trump hire so many people who are convicted felons?
TDS, as continuously proven up till this second. Latest example this DA.
Created:
Posted in:
Please continue Roosevelt, every time you alienate someone the left-tribe shrinks a little and that decreases the chances of another civil war and/or the collapse of the western world into a police state.
I mean I understand that sometimes you have to offend people, when you're asked a question or making a point and your beliefs themselves are both necessary and offensive there is no escape besides dishonesty... but pure unadulterated class hatred... It's like the nazis hating jews and driving their best scientists away, it buys you nothing; it only weakens you.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Dream of violence, not liberty. Your conflating the two. Typical Trumpeteer cultist. They could have used you on Jan 6th at the capital in D.C.
I was there. It was clearly far too peaceful.
End-date-for-humanity...?....
Why don't you integrate over the dark matter )( geodesic to find out?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
@PREZ-HILTON
Was the main character raped or not?
Lol, "they can't rape you if you consent fast enough"
If the threat of violence still loomed he was raped.
Created:
Posted in:
Nope, my school is very left leaning.[IwantRooseveltagain] No. You are undoubtedly from a rural, Christian weirdo state.
Ladies and gentlemen, the great unifying spirit of the left-tribe.
Created:
8...9...ten decasector bending pole ~~~~~
The bending pole is probably a torus, there are waves inside the bisected torus I hear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
What are you on about? Why wouldn't "compassion and fairness" explain voting against one's interests just as well?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you have a field that can be fully harvested by two machines and ten workers, and 100 workers ask for a job; what are you going to do?If you have 5x as many customers and before you had 10 workers that you would hire to maintain all the customers, now you would need 50 workers and 10 machienes to maintain all the customers. If the company only has 10 workers for maximum profit, it's not going to lead to 90 unemployed people. The unemployment rate in the US isn't 90%, it's about 3% (and it was higher when there were less immigrants in the country).
I may not respond to everything else, but this is the most important because this is the heart of your error.
I gave an example where economic production is not proportional to labor availability and you just blew through and assumed it was still proportional.
"A field", a field grows plants. Plants need certain things to grow: Water, carbon dioxide, secondary biological elements (fertilizer), and energy.
The energy comes from a nuclear reaction in a nearby star. The irradiance on the ground is fixed.
A field represents a fixed amount of power, a very quantifiable amount of energy is delivered to it every year. A certain percentage of that energy can be used by crops.
Once a farmer has added all the other ingredients in excess there is nothing (without further technology) he can do to get past the limiting factors of power and carbon dioxide.
In my example it took 10 people and some machines to provide excess for everything else. You just assumed you could scale up production to 50 workers. You can call 50 people workers, and you can put them to work, but that field will produce exactly the same amount of crops.
If the wage the government demands for 10 workers is less than the cost of buying a specialized machine, you'll buy the machine and then you'll be employing nobody.This is an argument against automation, not mass immigration. I am pro AI restriction to reduce the unemployment rate.
You're still not getting it. If the specialized machine is outlawed the business dies, or never starts. You can't make something profitable by law. If you could communism wouldn't have failed every time.
They can't produce chicken sandwiches without a chicken farm.If 5x as many people wanted chicken sandwiches, more infrastructure would be built by the private sector to accommodate everybody and more chicken sandwiches are being produced by more workers.
If desire was the same as economic demand, and demand inevitably caused supply; they wouldn't want to come to the USA in the first place because their desire for chicken sandwiches exists in their home country even now.
They want to come because their country is poor and they think they can become rich in the USA. Why? USA is rich. Why? Means of production. Why? We were a bit more free for a bit longer than others.
If population predicted prosperity the USA would never have overtaken the old world, Europe would have never overtaken the classical and ancient world.
First define a standardized government contract (SGC) system with rules and requiring double-blind and confrontational evaluation mechanisms.I don't know what your asking. Your using big words.
I was describing, not asking. The legal system is confrontational, you don't just have a judge that works with cops to decide if you go to jail or not. Prosecutors and barristers confront each other. Double blind is a mechanism for preventing conspiracy or contagious biases, it keeps people more honest when they can't tell what the opinions of others will be before deciding.
If you abolish social security, the elderly that paid for it in advance are going to sue and win the legal case, causing us to go deeper into debt.
Come on now, this is all fantasy anyway. Your plan and mine would never pass any congress likely to exist before some kind of armed revolution.
Why in the world would the rules of this imaginary world allow my plan to have near total popular support and yet I get a foolish judge. The truth is that those old people who were forced into social security were victims of theft. Their money is gone, it was wasted. It was a scam. The government is not responsible for making whole the victims of a scam.
If a judge would dare to imply that the previous system was not a scam, I'll simply pay plaintiffs in US dollars printed for the very purpose and utterly worthless since they were superseded by an honest currency.
A government option medical service. Government medical service (GMS) is just a corp of doctors, hospitals, pharmacological factories, and insurance program all administered as a non-profit.I don't think you will be able to provide healthcare to 32 million Americans under a nonprofit. Nonprofits get little funding.
The funding would depend on how many people use the service. If 32 million Americans pay into it, it will have money. The only reason it wouldn't have money is if nobody subscribed. The only reason nobody would subscribe is if it's doing a shit job compared to the private sector medical services.
Thus I don't give a shit how much funding it gets. It will get exactly as much as the "greed"/(quality + efficiency) of the private market allows.
Public medical charity fund on the order of $10/year per citizen. The purpose of this fund is to provide for medical care through the GMS (or cheaper) to those people who genuinely can't afford it and only in cases where the medical situation threatens their life/productivity, is easily treated, and is not due to their idiocy.This doesn't raise enough money to pay for Medicaid as it currently is. Medicaid costs about $300 billion a year. This idea cuts their funding to $3 billion a year....Doing this costs more than $10 per citizen in taxes.
First, you're confusing two different things. Medical charity is not a replacement for medicaid. Charity is for those who find themselves on the wrong side of bad fortune. If 32 million Americans couldn't provide for their own medical care that is proof positive the medical costs have been blown way out of proportion.
If it really costs $10,000 a year people need to make that choice themselves. I seriously doubt it costs truly $10,000 per year on average. ['Truly' means in an unmolested market, a market where prices were strongly negotiated and not skewed by government regulation and willingness to spend stolen money]
Declare the US insolvent and delete the debt.This is unfair to the entities that borrowed money from the US. You can't just delete a debt without paying it off.
They, like the medicaid and social security beneficiaries were scammed.
Scams are not fair, but neither can the victims be made whole in all cases.
Department of education abolished and not replaced with anything with a significant budget.The department of education does not consume a significant portion of the budget.
650 billion dollars is significant enough to mention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Now, can you prove that Trump did not believe that investigating Biden was the best move for the United States?To any reasonable person, yes.
- The ask wasn't for Biden to be investigated, only for Ukraine to announce the investigation.
Hardly proven, and not certainly not the only thing he asked for in any case. In the transcript he asked for an investigation.
Biden just so happened to be his top domestic political rival
Coincidences don't matter when tribal interests are at stake, haven't you noticed? Questioning the probability of coincidences only leads to conspiracy theories.
Trump has never shown interest in investigating corruption anywhere else, only in this one case
If true, quite symmetric with the special interest the Obama admin (via Biden and probably just Biden) took in a singular prosecutor in a nation half way around the world. How many prosecutors in supposedly sovereign nations do we fire in the name of national interests anyway?
His own ambassador said it was a quid pro quo
Setting aside the questionable order of events leading to that, is this ambassador a telepath?
You want me to take Biden's underling as evidence of independent national interest and Trump's as evidence of no such interest.
Yet it seems obvious that Trump could have found someone in this world who would have agreed with him that investigating the admitted blackmail of a US official acting officially was definitely worth investigating.
I for instance, would have backed him 100%. Now if that had happened this could be completely symmetric, Trump would have told his ambassador to start making a fus about it, a few articles would have been written saying that the ambassador was making a fus about it, then a few months later Trump would have tried the extortion. Then by your own logic it would have been in the national interest.
The only difference I see here is that Trump can't figure out if someone is a spineless coward or a deep state plant, which I already knew. Also Trump didn't brag about extortion, in fact he denies it and there is no incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
In any case, the opinions of others about Trump's motivations are irrelevant. He did ask for an investigation. There was a crime. Biden's actions did have a reasonable expectation providing some level of cover for his previous extortion/bribery/money laundering.
He got rid of his former ambassador because she was in the way
...and as we know, ambassadors are the true and constant compass pointing the way to legitimate national interests... except some of us have eyes and ears of our own and don't ignore a combination of apparent coincidences that if truly coincidental would represent extraordinary unlikelihood.
How do you know that she wasn't in the way of asking for a genuine investigation?
There's more, but this is more than enough. No reasonable person would look at this and conclude anything other than this was an attempt to use the power of his office to help himself personally over the people he supposedly represents. That's the literal definition of corruption.
"over the people he supposedly represents"? I voted for him. He represented me, and I applaud his attempt to uncover corruption. It was pathetic for a president to fail so quickly, but I have no problem with his intentions whatsoever.
If I was a citizen of another country, especially Ukraine, I would also applaud his actions. The reputation of the USA is tarnished by people like Biden. In the case of Ukraine his and in general deep state actions may well have been the last straw on the path to war.
No reasonable person buys for an instant that it is corrupt to investigate corruption GIVEN that the suspected corruption was since confirmed.
The fact that any idiot out there can look at all of this
Only an idiot or someone with TDS could look at the full facts and believe that there exists any standard which would allow Biden to act as he did without being a criminal and yet what Trump did in response was criminal. See Sam Harris, not an idiot; serious TDS. People like that are not to be trusted on the subject of Trump.
ignore all the facts, ignore Occam's razor, make shit up to fill in the holes
Yea yea you've already proven you don't care about facts or logic the last time we went through this. You don't care about your own standards of proof. You don't care about Occam's razor. You don't care about correlated probabilities. You don't care about the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Sorry to not back you up, but I never said that you were liberal in the subverted left-tribe sense or the true sense. Categorizing posters doesn't help address their arguments or commentary.
Based on ebuc's scifi nonsense posts I find it very unlikely that any conversation with him would be useful.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
trump paid hush money to someone, a porn star, that he had sex with.
Allegedly...
i can understand rand paul... this is a witch hunt, and if anyone should go to jail, it's the district attorney who brought this case.thoughts?
It's treason then *grabs lightsaber*
Seriously, I've been saying for a long time that there are so many laws and they are so vauge that they can always go after someone if they're willing to look stupid to sane people. From county regulation to campaign finance.
Using the law this way is no different from acting outside of the color of law (morally).
To do so to prevent a person from being reelected is a direct attack on democracy. The foundational premise of the social contract is already informal and poorly established. To add on top of that the overt inequitable use of that contract?
Nothing but violence is the appropriate response. I'm not saying violence is the most likely to succeed in restoring the republic, but certainly it is the appropriate response. Probably the best form of violence would be to use whatever small grip on government the right-tribe has and accelerate the weaponization of government faster than can be responded to.
What can absolutely not be allowed to happen is that they use institutional power (swamp monsters) to limit the range of tactics and policies of the right-tribe by vetoing candidates (even more than they already do).
Part of me hopes they do this. They already had the advantage by rigging the election system. By doing this their claim of believing in democracy would suffer a fatal blow. Such illegitimacy would help sway elements of the military towards the right-tribe when the civil war breaks out.
Created:
Posted in:
The reported statistic is not even a worse graduation rate based on the number of people trying, they're not even applying (I assume). This implies a higher level of wisdom in Iowa seeing as universities at this moment are scams.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Only if it produces something that is worth something to others who have something to trade.True, but the workers will produce things others are willing to buy. Otherwise companies wouldn't hire them.
... but companies won't hire them. That's the point. If you have a field that can be fully harvested by two machines and ten workers, and 100 workers ask for a job; what are you going to do?
You're not going to hire 100 workers. Most would just be standing around, you couldn't afford to hire them because if 90 just stand around you aren't producing anymore than you used to.
You're going to hire the smartest/most hardworking workers that are willing to work for the least pay. If the wage is forced by government you will simply hire the smartest/most hardworking. If the wage the government demands for 10 workers is less than the cost of buying a specialized machine, you'll buy the machine and then you'll be employing nobody.
You've discovered the conceptual error at the root of minimum wage laws. You can't mandate value into existence. All you can do is mandate a certain level of compensation.The companies still manage to make profit from the minimum wage; otherwise they would have gone out of business.
That is fallacious reasoning. Companies go out of business all the time. Do you simply assume that none of them have gone out of business because their business model required less than minimum wage labor?
Do you know how many currently unemployed could have been employed had those business models not been effectively outlawed?
Do you think the currently unemployed are better off getting no wage rather than a wage arbitrarily decided to be illegal?
Of course not, and it is quite plainly a vicious cycle. The more people sitting around doing nothing but collecting unemployment the less actual production goes on. The less production the more expensive things are. The more expensive things are the higher the poverty threshold and then ignorant left-tribers want to raise the minimum wage thus resetting the cycle.
In circumstances where the work is not worth the product, there simply won't be a job opportunity.True, but if this is the case, companies would have already gone out of business.
Or automated...
What if you added to your plan that minimum wage is $1000/hr?I don't agree with this and have never advocated this position. I think counties should set their own minimum wages, provided it's at least $7.25 an hour.
Irrelevant what you agree with, we're testing your economic assumptions here.
You can't produce chicken sandwiches by signing a piece of paper or printing money.True, but more workers and more customers means you can produce more chicken sandwiches and more people would buy them.
They aren't customers unless they're producing value to trade. They can't produce chicken sandwiches without a chicken farm. Like I said it depends on the available means of production. If there was a plethora of potential productive positions to fill more people will increase production. That is conditional, not some reliable law of economics.
Perhaps you could argue that you could open up federal lands and let them build new low-tech farms and mines... That would hardly be instant growth.
It's true that if everyone is doing manual labor there is no time to do anything else, however it was innovation not slavery (or cheap labor) that freed people by increasing the food production per person.Innovation allows for more food to be produced, but so does more workers. Why not both? I don't think they are mutually exclusive, in fact I think the more people are in your country, the more innovation comes to your country. It's why as the world has gotten more people, technology levels have skyrocketed.
Or maybe the population skyrocketed with more technology... When 3/4 of your kids die from starvation and sickness it really dampens the enthusiasm.
U.S. Spending under deep state policies is proportional only to what they can get away with. If you increased the real GDP by some means they would simply spend more on something or other.I'd want to end that; the only spending I propose is outlined in operation get out of debt.
Then the necessary condition to get out of debt is within your plan and the rest are unrelated points. We don't need more or less people, we need to stop wasting money and driving the means of production out of the country.
You must understand our current spending is at least ten times what could be considered necessary.What would you cut to reduce spending by 90%?
First define a standardized government contract (SGC) system with rules and requiring double-blind and confrontational evaluation mechanisms.
Abolish taxes, causing the last veto on inefficiency to be the paying public. From that point (assuming the paying public agreed with whatever I said):
Cut the military budget by 80%, destroy the military industrial complex with SGC. Preparing to take over the world is an enormous waste of money if you aren't going to take over the world. There is much waste in government spending on top of that. So long as we have ICBMs we are immune from traditional forms of aggression.
Abolish both social security and income security and replace it with a closed wallet system with clear rules administered by computers (blockchain). Closed wallet = no discretion in spending money in hopes that future generations will buy in, that's called a pyramid scheme. The idea behind it is welfare/retirement insurance, run it like welfare/retirement insurance.
Abolish medicaid, medicare, and all government medical programs. Replace it with:
1.) A government option medical service. Government medical service (GMS) is just a corp of doctors, hospitals, pharmacological factories, and insurance program all administered as a non-profit. If the theory is that big pharma is conspiring to keep prices high, undercut is the obvious answer. If the non-profit can produce drugs cheaper then you were right. If it can't you were wrong. Neither scenario justifies stealing or (much much) worse threatening violence to anyone who doesn't practice medicine under your command.
2.) Public medical charity fund on the order of $10/year per citizen. The purpose of this fund is to provide for medical care through the GMS (or cheaper) to those people who genuinely can't afford it and only in cases where the medical situation threatens their life/productivity, is easily treated, and is not due to their idiocy.
So a homeless person breaks a bone for example. Someone who gives themselves diabetes is not. The rules governing what qualifies must be clearly spelled out and if they are not popular it may cause the fund to split. So for example left-tribers might think that someone contracting COVID would not qualify if they choose not to get vaccinated. Right-tribers might disagree, then they would have two different funds. One which funds unvaccinated covid patients and one which doesn't.
With computers, keeping track of thousands of different rule sets and getting instant answers about qualification is quite possible.
Abolish DOJ. Replace it with standard cooperation protocols between police forces of different states and counties. (there never was any intention for the federal government to enforce common law and the corruption of the DOJ is such that it is better to start over)
Declare the US insolvent and delete the debt. Constitutionally prevent the US from taking on debt again. Adopt a blockchain currency as the national currency to remove currency manipulation as an option for theft and fraud. (this removes all interest payments).
Department of education abolished and not replaced with anything with a significant budget. National guidelines on objective levels of education is fine, but it takes like a hundred people in a single office floor to maintain and publish such things. There is absolutely no reason for the federal government to steal money from the people just to give it to states in the name of "education". Those who care about education can and should do it as locally as they want. If an efficient system emerges it can grow organically.
Transport budget remains but becomes more efficient via SGC.
That reduces the total spending by 90% and makes the remaining 10% an order of magnitude more efficient.
There was a time before income taxMy plan has no income tax.
Your plan assumes that the portion of GDP spent by government can be much lower than it is now. You're wrong about what would produce a much greater GDP but you are right that public sector spending need not be so high.
It thus follows that if the economy could grow by 500% without the government spending growing, that we could reduce the current government spending by 1- 1/500% = 80%.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
On that subject, you can only come to the conclusion that right-tribers are more hypocritical then left-tribers by assuming all the allegations against left-tribe politicians are false.
For example, right-tribe says Biden sent Hunter to Ukraine to collect money from the puppet state in an severe act of either bribery or extortion.
Left-tribers say it's all fine, Biden had other reasons for threatening the Ukrainian government and Hunter was just pulling an independent con job.
You can't just say left-tribers are hypocrites for supporting a clearly corrupt politician while cheering on the impeachment of Trump. They don't view it that way, so even if they're profoundly deluded they aren't hypocrites.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The people coming in have no assets (wealth in real goods or liquids like gold, silver, diamonds, currency). They don't have the means of production. Most are unskilled. The only thing they have to sell is manual labor.Labor is worth money.
Only if it produces something that is worth something to others who have something to trade.
If they ALL work a minimum wage job that pays $7.25 an hour for 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, and there are 900 million workers, this produces an additional $13 trillion in the US economy.
You've discovered the conceptual error at the root of minimum wage laws. You can't mandate value into existence. All you can do is mandate a certain level of compensation.
In circumstances where the work is not worth the product, there simply won't be a job opportunity.
There is a very useful skill in critical (rational) thinking: Take it to the extremes. Just like there are interesting points in the domain of a mathematical function, you learn about the nature of a relationship by looking at the extrema, equilibrium points, and asymptotes of proposed dynamics (even if they don't have explicit mathematical formulation).
What if you added to your plan that minimum wage is $1000/hr?
Wouldn't that imply that you don't need any new people and the GDP would just grow by the factor of approximately 1000/7.25?
You must see that is not what would happen. If the Federal Reserve didn't print 1000X the dollar bills almost all people would become instantly unemployed. If the Fed did print the money people would stay employed but a chicken sandwich would be $899.
You can't produce chicken sandwiches by signing a piece of paper or printing money.
I don't want a society based on manual labor. Great empires destroyed themselves with slavery (the cheapest of manual labor). When human time and effort is cheap there is no economic motivation to become more efficient (or stay efficient). Efficiency multipliers are what increases the average quality of life.Empires destroyed themselves because countries invaded them. When there are a lot of labourers, you have more of a capability to innovate because there are more minds in the country with the possibility to innovate.
No, that is a shallow analysis. Like guns, germs, and steel. The threats to the Roman Empire for example only went down with time. Carthage was a greater threat than the Goths ever were. It was Rome that became weaker, yet they had more slaves than ever.
It's true that if everyone is doing manual labor there is no time to do anything else, however it was innovation not slavery (or cheap labor) that freed people by increasing the food production per person.
The agricultural revolution was not built on the back of slaves either. Slavery was an "innovation" born of war. Prisoners put to work.
If the US population increased 4.64 fold, the US GDP (assuming the GDP per capita stays constant) will increase 4.64 fold
No, the real GDP will not increase at all due only to human bodies.
This is because the US government spends money on many expensive items that don't have to go up with population growth.
U.S. Spending under deep state policies is proportional only to what they can get away with. If you increased the real GDP by some means they would simply spend more on something or other.
You must understand our current spending is at least ten times what could be considered necessary. There was a time before income tax, and while things have gotten better it has not been due to things paid for with income taxes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
That's what you may have been talking about. I was talking about extortion, selling US foreign policy for personal gain, and money laundering.Those are all examples of corruption.
Perhaps, but I'm interested in the part where you think they aren't crimes if the perpetrator is delusional enough.
If Biden believed this was the best move for the United States, you have no argument.And you honestly believe that was the case? Can you prove it?I don't have to. You are the one alleging Biden was acting corruptly, so the burden of proof is on you here. That's how it works.
Jeez you fell into that one so easily.
Now, can you prove that Trump did not believe that investigating Biden was the best move for the United States?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Again, we’re talking about corruption. Corruption is a crime entirely based on an individuals state of mind.
That's what you may have been talking about. I was talking about extortion, selling US foreign policy for personal gain, and money laundering.
If Biden believed this was the best move for the United States, you have no argument.
And you honestly believe that was the case? Can you prove it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Why don't you bible thump (R) ebuc? Do you bots know how to recognize each other?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
What about Superposition, in an unobserved state, Schroedinger's cat is both dead and alive, causation that is retroactively dependent upon observation when the box is opened is not conventional causation .This interpretation of quantum mechanics is nonsense.OK, and which interpretation of quantummechanics resolves the superposition paradox again?
There is no paradox once you let go of the constant particle concept.
Schrodinger created the example of the cat to demonstrate it is nonsense.No, Schrödinger's thought experiment was toillustrate the paradox of quantum superposition, he was demonstrating anexample of how conventional causation does not apply to quantum physics.
Incorrect.
The only people who think the cat's life depends upon the box being opened are people who don't understand the experiments and mathematics of quantum mechanics.Schrödinger used it in conversation withEinstein, do you think Erwin Schrödinger and Albert Einstein are two of thepeople who people who don’t understand the experiments and mathematics ofquantum mechanics?
They did (I assume Eisenstein did, I know Schrodinger did), and neither believed the cat's life depends on opening the box.
“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.” - Richard Feynman
Cuts both ways don't it?
conventionalcausation is not probabilistic, it is deterministic.
The definition of "conventional causality" is implied by the original post I was responding to. In that post it was suggested that the universe need not have a cause because causes are unconventional in quantum mechanics.
The only way this could possibly make sense is by implying that something that happened once the universe "began" caused the universe to begin.
Thus unconventional causality = effect precedes cause.
There is nothing about probability distributions that implies such a thing.
Oh please, quantum superposition is afundamental principle of quantum mechanics, do you really want to call PaulDirac, Erwin Schrödinger, NielsBohr, , Louis de Broglie, Max Born, WernerHeisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Richard Feynman some of the“fake experts” of quantum physics.
I do not, and will put no more effort into addressing your strawmen than to say "strawman".
The traditional interpretation of ThomasYoung's iconic double-slit experiment demonstrates that the photon not onlygoes through both slits; it simultaneously takes every possible trajectory, notexactly what I would call “conventional causation”.
"interpretation" -> "demonstrate", that's an oddity. The double slit experiment demonstrates that there is no photon billiard ball. The only reason we ever suspected there was one is quantized interactions of the whole wave which is considerably stranger than a billiard ball but is in no way a mystical contradiction.
What you call conventional is up to you. The context does not allow you the freedom to dispute what I meant.
Nonsense, the finite speed of informationtransfer is foundational to the mathematics of the Theory of Relativity
It is not. It deals with time dilation, length elongation when they are caused by relative motion and mass distortions (gravity).
It was assumed (rightly in my opinion) that since all energy and matter exists as fields (of various types) that do not propagate faster than light that no information can travel faster. It is not required by the theory in the slightest.
without it you don’t get Lorentz transformation and the mathematics of the Theoryof Relativity falls apart.
The Lorentz transform has nothing to do with information. See my last paragraph.
So now Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking are two “fake experts” that don't understand Relativity?
Strawman
“Time travel used to be thought of as just science fiction, but Einstein’s general theory of relativity allows for the possibility that we could warp space-time so much that you could go off in a rocket and return before you set out.” - Stephen Hawking
Eisenstein's purported quote could be dismissed as metaphysical musings, but this one is certainly false. If Hawking really said this he was acting as a dishonest showman at the time.
The “twin paradox” of Relativity is a matterof time dilation rather than superluminal signaling
Read more carefully, once again: The error that produces the twin paradox is the same error that causes some to conclude that superluminal signaling constitutes time travel.
it results from thedifference in the elapsed time of the two twins, and it demonstrates Relativity’stheoretical violation of conventional causality.
It demonstrates the conceptual error of the one who thinks he is dealing with an implication of special relativity, nothing more. If it was truly a prediction of special relativity we could thus conclude special relativity is incorrect. Contradictions do not exist in reality, this is the only definition of truth that allows for debate.
The asymmetry in the paradox is that one twinleaves the other twin’s reference frame and comes back, theoretically, one twinis now younger than the other, the actual paradox relates to which twin isyounger.
It is a contradiction for both to be younger or both older. Therefore any understanding of general relativity which predicts both results is false, else general relativity is false.
General relativity is a series of assertions with clear mathematical formulations. It does not predict a contradiction. Only Eisenstein's aesthetic desire for an equality of reference frames predicts the contradiction, and he eventually recanted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The evidence needed to prove a politician acted corruptly is to show not only that his actions align with his personal interests, but more importantly, that they were counter productive to his public responsibilities.
The definition of an official's public responsibilities is not to be found in the opinions of a handful of his underlings, a few persons in their circle, and a minority party in a client state.
This is where the articles come in. What they demonstrate is that everyone within the national and international community as far as we can possibly tell were all in agreement, including the people of the country those actions were in regards to.
Nor does that group constitute "everyone". This is the error you continue to make. A report of a US ambassador complaining months prior is not evidence of anything other than that a US ambassador complained months earlier. Yet you seem to believe it is evidence of "the people of the country those actions were in regards to".
When it comes to politicians there are none without some detractors. Marjorie Tailor Greene and Loren Bobert could, I imagine, very easily complain of the corruption of Pete Buttigieg, but that doesn't mean "everyone" is in favor of removing him and it most certainly doesn't mean a UK (picked at random) official has a public duty to blackmail his firing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
What about Superposition, in an unobserved state, Schroedinger's cat is both dead and alive, causation that is retroactively dependent upon observation when the box is opened is not conventional causation .
This interpretation of quantum mechanics is nonsense.
Schrodinger created the example of the cat to demonstrate it is nonsense. The only people who think the cat's life depends upon the box being opened are people who don't understand the experiments and mathematics of quantum mechanics.
The state of the cat depends on the wave-collapse of the photon which triggers the Geiger counter. The wave collapse in turns depends on the electromagnetic wave encountering a locality where a quantum of energy could change state. The only "observation" necessary is the "observation" of a single electron in an electric potential.
"observation" was a poor word and people have been paying for it ever sense as they are duped by mystics, fake experts, and science-communicator-showmen.
What about entanglement, nonlocality implies instantaneous data transfer where sending and recieving information at different locations at the same time (in a Minkowski spacetime), violates conventional causality as it is defined in special relativity.
No more than the wave collapse phenomenon itself, which could be described as "instantly" communicating from the point of collapse to everywhere else the wave suddenly disappears.
Furthermore instantaneous communication does not violate conventional causality or the mathematics of general relativity. If you have heard that traveling faster than the speed of light means time travel it is almost certainly due to the flawed analysis linked to in post #22.
The error that allows for the twin paradox is identical to the error that leaves some to believe that a moving reference frame has access to the past. Consider this simple example:
Relative to Earth a ship travels at the speed of light and sends a signal back to Earth at the speed of light. Following the false projections shown in the link above would imply the message was received exactly when the ship left Earth. As if moving back to Earth undid the time spent as well as the displacement.
It is (or should) be obvious that the message sent back travels only at the speed of light as seen in Earth's reference frame. The error implies that a ship traveling at the speed of light looks behind itself and sees the past and not only that it can send objects and energy into the past by shooting them out the back. The ship doesn't perceive anything behind it. It has been redshifted to darkness (no waves are catching up). It has NO information.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Roy Moore: Rapes a childRepublicans(most of them): We'll vote for him. We think he is a child rapist, but he has an R next to his name, so we will vote for him.
No Underdog, they did not say "we think he is a child rapist, but..." They knew enough to not trust the left-tribe propaganda machine. You seem to be headed for a strong engagement with political life, you should learn the lesson too. The sooner the better.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Lots of work clearly went into that spreadsheet. However it seems that the fundamental assumption is that if you somehow get 1.5 billion people in the front door the stock market would increase in value by the same ratio as the population shift.
It does not work that way. Let's set aside all the nonsense about manipulated currency and assume a perfect currency which always buys the same basket of goods.
The people coming in have no assets (wealth in real goods or liquids like gold, silver, diamonds, currency). They don't have the means of production. Most are unskilled. The only thing they have to sell is manual labor.
Of course, given time to work they will produce value. Given time to learn and an efficient education sector they will also become more skilled.
However, in the interim they will add almost nothing to the wealth of the nation. Mechanization does almost everything, by that I mean almost all the energy we use in our economy (for growth) is expended by machines and not humans or animals.
In many cases we simply couldn't even organize a way for humans to do it faster or cheaper no matter how many there were or how cheaply they were willing to work.
Most simple treatments of macroeconomics lump everything together into GDP, but the more classical theories and the more obvious truth is that spending money on lipstick and silicon valley social media companies (for example) is not producing any further wealth.
It is luxury (or you might say discretionary) spending, economies grow fastest when you invest your production in further means of production. If you have a lathe in a town of a thousand, don't spend all your time making bolts. If you do bolts will always be expensive. Spend as much time as you can building new lathes.
I don't want a society based on manual labor. Great empires destroyed themselves with slavery (the cheapest of manual labor). When human time and effort is cheap there is no economic motivation to become more efficient (or stay efficient). Efficiency multipliers are what increases the average quality of life.
We should run headlong into the utopia singularity and that is not done by drowning ourselves in desperate misguided people. When we put ourselves back on the exponential growth curve we will be able to afford to bring in people and educate them in one shot so they can do things that humans do best (not working in the fields).
What you think your chart shows is a way to get out of debt, but only by magically assuming that you can 5x the population and production while not 5x the spending. The spending is already ridiculous, and so long as you don't address the root cause of that it will simply continue to outpace all economic growth and potential.
The root cause is government action based on the premise that failure indicates insufficient funding no matter the details. There is no upper limit to the wastefulness of this notion.
The government has thrown away the greatest of advantages after WW2 and lost the manufacturing edge. The US is a dying economy living on old credit, clout, and military/clandestine interventionism.
The government spends more than it has and burns fat. The trade deficit is the other glaring clue.
The inexorable laws of economics are causing the world to ask the simple question: What has the USA done for us lately?
The answer is: Not much, we barely build anything, our new tech is no longer cutting edge, our science is average.
We sell weapons, food, culture, and culture related accessories (like everything silicon valley does).
Culture and weapons, and the culture is barely selling anymore (Hollywood is crap).
All we have left is weapons, and wow look a war started that just happens to call for an enormous amount of US weapons. Weird coincidence.
We need to stop wasting all the stolen money, best way to do this is to stop stealing the money. Then we need to stop skewing the market in detrimental directions. If skewing must be done it should be towards investing in better means of production and more durable products.
Only then will our wealth begin to build fast enough to satisfy the ever increasing expectations for luxury and free time.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Also, many cases of election fraud that could be scrutinized are regularly thrown out by the courts on the basis of "standing," as low interest or dead people won't care to or cannot file the required legal paperwork.
It was quite the eye-opener. The idea of a reliable judiciary went out the window. It's like they think no one is paying attention. I know many aren't, people like IWantRoosevelt read "judge says" and think that's proof that there was no merit; but for so many judges to hide under their desk or just gleefully not care.
It happened again in miniature with the Arizona election case (which I watched from beginning to end). An election official near the top of the hierarchy committed perjury and the judge didn't seem to care. Obviously treasonous of the judge; yet it was pathetic to see the pro-democracy crowd so demoralized by the deep state that they were content with merely the fact that the case was heard in the first place.
There used to be laws against proxy voting instead of what we have today. Today's legalized ballot harvesting is a direct opposition to the traditional election laws designed to protect the anonymity of the voter.
The legal but obviously antidemocratic laws are a whole other problem that may have swung the outcome in 2020 and 2022.
People who can't remember their own address aren't competent to vote (I've personally seen this). Yet the law allows caregivers to basically utilize an entire retirement home full of Alzheimer's patients (or simply don't know what the hec is happening due to general senility) for votes. This is a clear and obvious threat to democracy that became extremely easy to exploit due to unsolicited mass mail in voting.
You also left out another inevitable outcome of your game theory. If the system allows rigging, you learn to cheat better than the other side.
Unfortunately this playing field is not symmetric. As we've seen the judges and cops are mostly on the left-tribe's side simply by default of "Don't burn down my house". The USA is a post terror intimidation state after the BLM riots were neither stopped nor punished. Everyone knows that antifa will burn down your house and get away with it.
People who got waived in on Jan 6 are kept as political prisoners, evidence is destroyed and hidden to keep the witch-hunt going.
You can see from this that the rules will not be evenly applied. Just because they turn a blind eye to their own side's cheating does not mean they will do so for you.
In terms of election rigging they also have an inherent advantage. They control the high population density regions. This gives them significant sample pool to impersonate from while relatively few election workers oversee potentially huge voting districts.
The final and most important difference is the naive integrity, represented perfectly by one man: Mike Pence. Starts talking about the intentions of the founding fathers in what is basically a post-insurrection state of war.
Those who do not understand the enemy doesn't care how they win are enormous liabilities.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
1.) Having a unique ID on a ballot is unverifiable unless that unique ID can be correlated with a particular citizen. Such a correlation violates the secrecy of the ballot.Not having this is mind-blowing. In China, everyone has an ID card with a number. When they buy something, they enter the number.
People are rightly concerned about government registries and twice as concerned about secret government registries.
If the state knew who voted for whom that would give them information which could be used to politically persecute people, perhaps even entire districts.
Still, given the grave importance of these systems the utter lack of forethought an apathetic approach to all legal requirements is... It's some combination of intentional vulnerability or utter incompetence, either possibility is as you put it mind-blowing.
The best solution is biometric blockchain voting. I've described it before on this site I believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Anyone interested in becoming a potential judge?
If the fixed premises of the debate are well defined.
For example caffeine is a psychoactive drug, and any time you say "should be legal" you're invoking morality so there would need to be a moral principle by which to decide.
Created:
Posted in:
I make no claim about the truth value of anything by this comment. I do not claim there is an arrest warrant, I do not claim that international law allows for an arrest warrant, I do not claim that Putin did or did not commit any war crimes.
All I wish to say is this: What deranged mind simultaneously claims to be upholding western democratic values, including legal traditions, and conflates an arrest warrant with proof of guilt?
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
One of the reasons it seems so many americans do not know how it could be rigged or believe it could be rigged in ways it could not have been is because they don't understand how it works in theory or practice. People who believe in dastardly dominion electronic tabulators don't understand that recount audits (the only kind of audit that was or could be done in most cases) would catch that cheating.
No intelligent opponent would cheat in a way that could be verified after the fact unless they could be sure that no attempt would be made.
Then we come to your comment:
The same precautions are used to prevent you from voting deliberately for some other voter. Only the first card per ID counts and illegitimate ID numbers are not counted.
American democracy is by secret ballot. This isn't in the constitution but it has been so widely adopted (by legislatures) that it may as well be.
To you (and many others) this is a simple matter: just don't let people vote more than once. But:
1.) Having a unique ID on a ballot is unverifiable unless that unique ID can be correlated with a particular citizen. Such a correlation violates the secrecy of the ballot. There are cryptographic means to solve this problem, however implementing them on paper rather than by computer would be pointless and inelegant. No state except West Virginia has tried. In all other states (that I've heard of) there is a pile of anonymous ballots, there is no way to verify anything except that the number of ballots matches the number of envelope forms.
2.) Even when there is a unique ID, it can be stolen. There are already many approximates for a voter-ID number that states use. Drivers license #, social security #, address + name. If any of these things were robust secrets there wouldn't be so much identity theft. With the possibility of inside jobs these mechanisms of ID cannot be considered any level of security at all.
The important question would be, Is this already being used? I am not old enough to vote, so I don't know.
Automated ballot counters are used, they have (in theory) sensitive rejection algorithms so they refuse to count a ballot unless the marking is clear. They are not a major vector for cheating so long as the paper ballots are kept.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Copy pasted from a similar comment of yours in a different thread:
The system is rigged. Information is controlled. Ballots are harvested and probably forged.If you REALLY believe the election is rigged, don't vote in it. Why vote in an election where they will take some of your votes and turn them into democrat votes? You would be helping the democrat party if that happens.
That's not the most probable significant mechanism of cheating. They don't turn my ballot into a democrat ballot. It's basically identity fraud, they pretend to be someone who died, doesn't live there anymore, or is extremely unlikely to vote and thus discover the fraud.
A). They use the information of a real person (or at least a real record in the voter registry) to request a mail in ballot, fill it out, send it back in. In every case I've investigated having access to someone's driver's licence number, address, and full name is sufficient information. Such information is stored by county governments, if it wasn't it wouldn't be possible to verify information. In my county (I can't say which for anonymity) the database is unencrypted and present on every SD card used by every poll book.
If a single one was copied it would provide anyone everything they needed to know to request a ballot for anyone in the county.
When considering that mechanism continuing to vote is vital, if they attempt to request a mail in ballot in my name it would be flagged in the system when I went to vote in person (or asked for a ballot myself). Enough of that would force your so called "independents" to admit something was up. At the very least I can turn in a provisional ballot which has a chance of causing my true intentions to be counted.
When I worked as an election official in the midterms a significant number of people were flagged as having requested a mail in ballot and said either they didn't request a ballot or it didn't arrive in time. One did this on purpose, seeing if we would detect an attempted double vote. This is the only pattern of evidence that could be expected with (A).
(A) has a minimum conspiracy size of 1; that is only 1 person at a time is needed to move the process forward, no plans need to be discussed and no identity leaking coordination is necessary.
B.) Another mechanism which is possible with a small conspiracy sizes (perhaps as little as 2) is ballot swapping after separation yet before the official counting. The conspirators identify undesirable ballots and remove X of them, throwing them out or destroying them. They then replace them with an equal number of ballots with the preferred choices.
This method requires access to authentic blank ballots, this is not difficult; especially given the enormous excess that are printed to be mailed, much greater than the number returned.
The main inhibitor to this method would be surveillance in the counting room, so long as there is constant video of the ballot envelopes of high enough quality it would be very risky to try and bring in or remove ballots from the room much less presort.
However, in many instances there is plenty of reason to believe that no such cameras exist, or that they are not constantly recording.
Another variant of this method is the opening of ballot envelopes before the arrive at the counting center. Unwanted ballots are discarded but the accompanying form is retained. If the conspiracy is large enough they can be smuggled into the post separation storage areas. Otherwise they can be repacked and brought in as normal mail in ballots.
In this case I would indeed be providing a form which they can use to steal my vote, however if I vote in person there is no form to steal.
-------
Even excluding either of those methods, not voting is the one way to assure defeat even if they don't cheat. Thus it would be important to continue voting regardless for no other purpose than to force them to continue cheating.
So long as they are cheating, it's possible that they fail. They could chicken out, not have enough ground support, be caught (best case scenario).
Also it is possible that the cheaters become weary of the constant doomsaying, say if Ron DeSantis is the next great satan, they may realize that the media is just doing this to anyone who opposes the deep state and it's nothing unique with Trump. If they loose motivation to cheat, obviously the good guys would still lose if they just stopped voting.
Finally, if there isn't much cheating it's important to keep voting.
In conclusion, the game theory is straightforward and clear: Keep voting, no matter what is going on in what degree it is critical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
This is literally undebatable. To debate is to exchange arguments. Arguments have conclusions which are meant to be inferred as true if the premises are true.
If nothing is true then arguments don't exist.
If truth is not universal then exchanging arguments is pointless.
If anyone tells you that truth is subjective or arbitrary they're trying to avoid admitting they have no confidence in their beliefs or the way they came to them. If they really believed it, they would never have related assertions to another thinking being in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It's basically identity fraud, they pretend to be someone who died, doesn't live there anymore, or is extremely unlikely to vote and thus discover the fraud.This didn't happen on a big scale, since when I vote, I have to state my name and if I'm dead, I can't put in someone else's name.
Do you know what "pretend" means? Dead people don't write down their names. Living people who are falsely claiming to be dead people write down dead people's names.
But he won in 2020
You have no way of knowing that.
Our election security is fine
This is false, and ever I find that the only people who think this know almost nothing about the theory and practice of elections as they were done in 2020 and before.
if Trump never claimed the election was rigged, the right would accept the results.
What the right would or would not do is irrelevant to the truth of the matter.
When I worked as an election official in the midterms a significant number of people were flagged as having requested a mail in ballot and said either they didn't request a ballot or it didn't arrive in time. One did this on purpose, seeing if we would detect an attempted double vote.So out of the thousands of people you saw vote, just one person did a double vote?
Not thousands, hundreds, and only in person voters. No one was knowingly allowed to double vote, someone merely tried as a "white hacker". Election cheaters put considerably more thought into it than you appear to be. They wouldn't send in a ballot and then try to vote in person under the same name. Anyone can predict that would fail.
Yeah, that's some REAL evidence of widespread voter fraud.
1.) The number of people who told us that they had never asked for a mail in ballot yet our system recorded them requesting one roughly 0.5%. The number predicted by fraud theory (A) would be only those individuals they mistakenly identified as "never voters". If the fraud was on the scale of 5% they could make that mistake in 10% of cases and that would result in a "detection" rate of 0.5%. 5% is enough to change the outcome in most battleground states and thus federally. Therefore YES it is real evidence of relevant voter fraud.
2.) Far stronger evidence is that the left-tribe made election integrity a partisan issue. This tells any rational observer that they believe at some level of leadership that they benefit from lesser election security. The only way to benefit form lowered security is fraud.
3.) It doesn't ultimately matter if there was actually fraud or not. There are situations where trust is owed and a breach of trust must be treated as no differently from a crime. If a bank claims to have invested your money but can provide no audit trail; they must be treated as if they stole your money. If a scientist claims to have made a discovery, but refuses to explain his experiments or share his data that conclusion must be treated as fraudulent. If a country claims to be democratic, but doesn't seem to care if anyone can prove the election was free and fair, that country must be treated like a banana republic (not a democracy).
If you want Trump to win in 2024, focus on the future, not 2020.
Some people define insanity as doing the same thing over again while expecting a different result. The way to avoid insanity is then to learn from what past. I will not forget about 2022, 2020, 2016, or any other election; or and other event from which truth may be inferred going back to the beginning of the universe.
There is no hope for a better future without learning from the past.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The system is rigged. Information is controlled. Ballots are harvested and probably forged.If you REALLY believe the election is rigged, don't vote in it. Why vote in an election where they will take some of your votes and turn them into democrat votes? You would be helping the democrat party if that happens.
That's not the most probable significant mechanism of cheating. They don't turn my ballot into a democrat ballot. It's basically identity fraud, they pretend to be someone who died, doesn't live there anymore, or is extremely unlikely to vote and thus discover the fraud.
A). They use the information of a real person (or at least a real record in the voter registry) to request a mail in ballot, fill it out, send it back in. In every case I've investigated having access to someone's driver's licence number, address, and full name is sufficient information. Such information is stored by county governments, if it wasn't it wouldn't be possible to verify information. In my county (I can't say which for anonymity) the database is unencrypted and present on every SD card used by every poll book.
If a single one was copied it would provide anyone everything they needed to know to request a ballot for anyone in the county.
When considering that mechanism continuing to vote is vital, if they attempt to request a mail in ballot in my name it would be flagged in the system when I went to vote in person (or asked for a ballot myself). Enough of that would force your so called "independents" to admit something was up. At the very least I can turn in a provisional ballot which has a chance of causing my true intentions to be counted.
When I worked as an election official in the midterms a significant number of people were flagged as having requested a mail in ballot and said either they didn't request a ballot or it didn't arrive in time. One did this on purpose, seeing if we would detect an attempted double vote. This is the only pattern of evidence that could be expected with (A).
(A) has a minimum conspiracy size of 1; that is only 1 person at a time is needed to move the process forward, no plans need to be discussed and no identity leaking coordination is necessary.
B.) Another mechanism which is possible with a small conspiracy sizes (perhaps as little as 2) is ballot swapping after separation yet before the official counting. The conspirators identify undesirable ballots and remove X of them, throwing them out or destroying them. They then replace them with an equal number of ballots with the preferred choices.
This method requires access to authentic blank ballots, this is not difficult; especially given the enormous excess that are printed to be mailed, much greater than the number returned.
The main inhibitor to this method would be surveillance in the counting room, so long as there is constant video of the ballot envelopes of high enough quality it would be very risky to try and bring in or remove ballots from the room much less presort.
However, in many instances there is plenty of reason to believe that no such cameras exist, or that they are not constantly recording.
Another variant of this method is the opening of ballot envelopes before the arrive at the counting center. Unwanted ballots are discarded but the accompanying form is retained. If the conspiracy is large enough they can be smuggled into the post separation storage areas. Otherwise they can be repacked and brought in as normal mail in ballots.
In this case I would indeed be providing a form which they can use to steal my vote, however if I vote in person there is no form to steal.
-------
Even excluding either of those methods, not voting is the one way to assure defeat even if they don't cheat. Thus it would be important to continue voting regardless for no other purpose than to force them to continue cheating.
So long as they are cheating, it's possible that they fail. They could chicken out, not have enough ground support, be caught (best case scenario).
Also it is possible that the cheaters become weary of the constant doomsaying, say if Ron DeSantis is the next great satan, they may realize that the media is just doing this to anyone who opposes the deep state and it's nothing unique with Trump. If they loose motivation to cheat, obviously the good guys would still lose if they just stopped voting.
Finally, if there isn't much cheating it's important to keep voting.
In conclusion, the game theory is straightforward and clear: Keep voting, no matter what is going on in what degree it is critical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What rock have you been hiding under? They didn't even answer questions forty years ago. Now they'll say your racist or fake news just for asking.If politicians don't answer questions like how people can use frozen embryos to avoid taxes, then they end up losing a lot of independent voters next election. The job of journalists is to ask questions from leaders and to hold them accountable.
No, they wouldn't let you write off your taxes. If you went to court they would say the zygotes aren't dependents (after all I'm sure they don't let you write off kids you had in Gambia and left there), and no politician loses because of independents or independent journalists.
The system is rigged. Information is controlled. Ballots are harvested and probably forged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The law doesn't answer questions.The people making the laws would have too.
What rock have you been hiding under? They didn't even answer questions forty years ago. Now they'll say your racist or fake news just for asking.
Why provide some people food stamps but not others? Inconsistency is built into laws.Because they are poor.
and if that's a good enough excuse for the law to treat people differently, why wouldn't the fact that your kids living expenses are $5/year in cooling mean your tax write off is $5/year?
Created: