Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
It's not my style because I approach conversation on this site as if I were on a debate site, where disagreements are a reason to have a discussion, not a reason to stop one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You literally refuse to explain how the bill did more good than harm
I don't need to, the bill was written by one of the most conservative republicans in Congress. So unless you're seriously going to argue that this was some left wing bill, you have no ground at the outset to stand on.
And meanwhile, you literally refuse how it did more harm than good, so look in the mirror.
and admit you didn't read it
You didn't read it either
I pointed an example of one bad thing and you are moving the goal posts
It's not moving the goal posts, it's common sense. I asked you to show how voting against the bill is unwarranted and you came back with one provision (that you didn't even cite or explain where it is so it could be verified) that amounts to 0.00004% of the bill. That doesn't logically follow.
What next you ask for 5 bad things and then you go "well that's not 10 things"
What next is that explain to you how evaluating a bill isn't about counting good vs bad provisions and going with the higher number. It's about looking at the real world effects of the bill and determining whether the good outweighs the bad. This is again, common sense.
75k towards any museum pales in comparison to the millions that would have been spent on more agents, better equipment to stop fentanyl from getting passed checkpoints (where it's actually coming in from), and changing our asylum laws which is what the crisis over the past few years is actually about. Your argument so far is like saying you don't want the brand new house that was offered to you because you don't like the paint color used in one of it's 6 bedrooms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
In what part of the bill $75000 was set aside to help fund a trans museum.
While I am sure this claim is complete and total BS, I'm not even going to bother fact checking that because it's a downright silly thing to focus on. It's a $118 billion bill, do you have any examples that account for, I don't know, a tenth of one percent of it?
The bill is thousands of pages long though and I pointed out one problem. Please read and research every page and tell me how every single item benefits the United states
Oh please, don't sit here and pretend that you read this entire bill yourself.
My conviction that right wingers have no legitimate substantive issues with this bill comes from the fact that this was literally written by republicans as a negotiating tool that was supposed to be put against items the Democratic party wanted as a compromise, coupled with the fact that I've heard hours worth of right wingers explaining what they take issue with and none of them are able to make a coherent case. If anyone had a better argument I'm quite sure I would have heard it by now.
What is your conviction based on? A $75k provision in a $118 billion dollar bill? Really?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Predicted response: “What a silly comparison to make. The two situations could not be more different.”
The difference between you and me as that at least I provide justification for my positions.
This particular line of discussion started with a question I posed (and which you “reinterpreted”) in post 128 which you should have left as rhetorical as I had suggested.
This topic started when you asked me: "Why was the DNC unable to generate better candidates than Biden/Harris?"
So I answered substantively and meaningfully pointing out that the democrats didn't "pick" anything, they already had an incumbent president which historically never gets challenged by either party and for good reasons politically. You broke up my response with two silly and meaningless retorts;
The idea that he was the best candidate in 2020 is the problem - That has nothing to do with anything, we're talking about 2024, not 2020.
Also the idea that the DNC allowed Biden to run - this is ridiculous framing. They didn't "allow" anything, the DNC doesn't decide whether a first term president gets to run again.
And once I pointed this out to you the conversation devolved even further by you asking me how 2020 worked out for 2024, as if one had anything to do with the other, and you pretending that the actions/decisions of the DNC occurred in a vacuum.
I've addressed your questions, but rather than accept that your questions are based on nonsense premises you just keep digging in, then when the entire conversation seems silly you pretend I'm responsible for that.
You don’t wish to discuss political strategy, remember?
I never forgot. I'm responding to your points, as much as I would love to stay focused on the topic we were discussing, this is what you decided to focus on instead. Perhaps if you provided more substantive rebuttals rather than hiding behind caricatures of what you think I would have said this conversation might have been more meaningful.
I’m not sure what you expect with your stubborn, strawman reinterpretations of what I am saying. Yet you insist on posting to me unsolicited anyway.
I post to you just like I post to anyone here who says something I find questionable for the same reason; to see if you have a coherent response.
If you do, then maybe I can learn something.
If not, like when you respond by attacking me as stubborn, a sophist, a propagandist, or by telling me I'm strawmanning you, all without any rational attempt to justify your accusations or the arguments you dropped in favor of them, it just further confirms for me that my position is probably right. If you had a better argument you would have offered it.
Either way, I come out better for it. So respond back or don't, I really don't care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why are you here? Seriously, what is the point of frequenting a debate site when all you're going to do is say stupid things?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
That was an omnibus bill with a lot of stupid shit in it and less serious than the efforts being taken
Please explain what was in it that warranted not supporting it. I have yet to hear a single MAGA supporter provide a coherent argument.
and no Mexico never had 10k troops on the Mexico America border
"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration has struck an agreement with Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala to temporarily surge security forces to their borders in an effort to reduce the tide of migration to the U.S. border.
The agreement comes as the U.S. saw a record number of unaccompanied children attempting to cross the border in March, and the largest number of Border Patrol encounters overall with migrants on the southern border — just under 170,000 — since March 2001.
According to White House press secretary Jen Psaki, Mexico will maintain a deployment of about 10,000 troops, while Guatemala has surged 1,500 police and military personnel to its southern border and Honduras deployed 7,000 police and military to its border “to disperse a large contingent of migrants” there. Guatemala will also set up 12 checkpoints along the migratory route through the country.
...
On Monday, Mexico’s Foreign Affairs ministry said, “Mexico will maintain the existing deployment of federal forces in the its border area, with the objective of enforcing its own immigration legislation, to attend to migrants, mainly unaccompanied minors, and to combat the trafficking of people.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Ah, there’s the gaslighting. I was wondering when you were going to resort to that, Mr. Anton.Me: “They should have done [A] before it was too late.”You: “To do [A] would have been unprecedented.”Me: “That IS what they ended up doing!”You: “And it was unprecedented just as I claimed.”
Why do right wingers seem so incapable of understanding what context is and why it matters?
The context before and after the debate performance was night and day different. Up until that point the DNC was not in any position to stand up against Joe Biden the way you are claiming they should have. And in fact they rightly refrained from stepping in afterwards allowing Biden the space to make his own decision as he was entitled to do. So what are you talking about?
Yes Joe Biden is old. Everyone knew that. What ended his campaign was the image of him standing on that debate stage fumbling his words spectacularly. That was the point he was no longer viable, any action taken before that moment would have been premature, especially for an organization whose literal job it is to support the Democratic candidate.
But to pretend it's the DNC's job to hold Americans hands and tell them who to vote for is ridiculous.Not what I said.
You said you "blame the DNC" in the context of why Americans voted for the moron. My interpretation is exactly what those words mean. If you meant something different then by all means enlighten me.
Your routine and predictable strawmanning and gaslighting is tedious.
So is swatting aside your epithets.
Indeed, the case was clear: “Trump is an existential threat. He is, quite simply, unfit for the office. Instead, vote for me, Kamala Harris, despite the possibility that I may be the worst major candidate for president any y’all ever seen!”
That's a neat little trick you got there by starting off as if you're representing Kamala's message to suddenly switch to your own view of it mid message. Turns out it becomes very easy to make a message sound stupid when you inject your own stupidity into it. Who knew?
To the point, the first half is accurate. Trump is an existential threat and he is unfit as he is now proving it daily. The people should have seen that, but they were too stupid. And you all knew that, which is why you guys go so hard at Democratic candidates. No way to defend the barrage of stupidity he unleashes every day so the only way to win is to paint the other side as evil. All you need is a populace susceptible to it, and that's exactly what we have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The problem with democracy is that it is at its best just a tyranny of majority.
I've always hated that phrase. It is wrong in the sense that the majority isn't made up of any superficially defined group, is made up of nothing but opinions, which can change. Thus it fosters an environment where debate, not force, becomes the primary tool for achieving ones own ends. That is meaningfully different than any reasonable usage of the word tyranny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
They're both laughing their assess off at this.They are both breathing a sigh of relief the tariffs didn’t happen.
We all are, not sure what point you're making though. Trump is a lunatic that's suddenly been handed the nuclear codes. I don't give him credit for scaring people after he threatens to push the button, all it proves is that he is unfit to have it in his hand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
I don't know why u r still harping on the credibility of the article.
Because reality is irrelevant to him, just as it is to all of MAGA. "Fake news", "your experts vs my experts"... These are just cliches designed to terminate all thought and allow the individual to rationalize any belief they want. Someone posted Rupert Murdoch's quote before about how other news organizations tell people what to think while Fox will be the ones to tell them how to feel... That's the best encapsulation of right wing media vs left wing media I've ever heard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, don't try to defend that ridiculous poison pill political play. Americans didn't bite and swallow it in November and most certainly not now.
Americans didn't buy it because Fox news and others told you along with the rest of the MAGA base to believe the bullshit you just repeated.
You can't give me one solid reason without turning to Google as to why the border bill would have left us worse off. I know this because I heard the arguments made by the MAGA ilk repeatedly and the best they could come up with is the idea that the cap on border crossings before an emergency could be declared was too high, ignoring the fact that there is no cap now which is by any rationale objectively worse.
Like I said, propaganda works. You are living proof of it.
Mad respect to Trump for admitting that there was going to be some short term economic pain for a long term plan of action
lol
Mad respect? For admitting that he lied on the campaign trail? Well that's quite a spin.
This is the Trump cycle. Trump declares he will do something that's ridiculous, the left reacts vehemently, MAGA tells us it's not going to happen and we all have Trump derangement syndrome, then when Trump does it MAGA pretends it was a great idea all along. Wash rinse repeat.
As we know from previous failed leadership, admitting economic downturns rarely happens, if ever, which is why faith in the Democrat party is at an all time low. Nobody wants to hear over and over that inflation wasn't a real problem. That's why the channel was switched.
It was switched because propaganda works, as you continue to demonstrate.
Facts? The article clearly is listed on the top as "opinion"
If you had bothered to read the article you would have noticed it contained plenty of facts. But why bother, Trump already showed you the "fake news" escape hatch you get to fall back on any time you are confronted with reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
No, I don’t recall that. The only viable challenger turned out to be Hayley, but she dropped out, ceding the nomination to Trump prior to the events you mention.
The assassination attempts were the icing on the cake. The indictments is where it started, prior to that Desantis was polling about even with Trump and Haley was down but on the rise. I don't think Desantis would have stuck because he was unlikable and that was starting to come through, but I think Haley stood a very real chance... If not for the indictments.
Trump is the only candidate in American political history who voters wanted even more because he was indicted. That's cult level stuff.
Where did you get the idea I was talking about you?
From the fact that it was my comments you were criticizing as a "defeatest mentality" and then said "this reminds me of a teacher who...". If you weren't talking about my comments then I don't know what "This" in that sentence was talking about.
You seem to have forgotten that he won.No, but you seem to have forgotten that you said this:“congratulations on your home team winning the prize, since that is clearly all you care about.”And how did Biden’s win in 2020 work out in 2024 for the Democratic Party?
You seem to have forgotten what this conversation is about. You asked why Biden was picked, I answered and showed that it worked out for its purpose. What happens in the following election has nothing to do with that, moreover it's just a dumb thing to say. Trump won in 2016, so how did that work out in 2020? We can play that silly little game all day.
A political party standing in the way of their own incumbent President's reelection campaign would have been unprecedentedGeesh, man. What do you think happened right after the Trump/Biden debate??
An unprecedented response to an unprecedentedly terrible performance. It never ceases to amaze me how right wingers always seem to forget what happened before the action they criticize as if everything happens in a vacuum.
I get it: you blame the DNC for nothing.
There is plenty to criticize the DNC for, especially when Monday morning quarterbacking it. But those criticisms pale in comparison to the culpability of the American voter. It isn't hard to understand why, just ask yourself... What do you think people in the EU, or China, or South America are thinking? Hint: none of them are asking how the DNC failed so badly, they're asking what is wrong with Americans.
Anyhoo, to sum up: I blame the DNC whereas you blame the American people.
Pretty much yeah, I find your position absurd. Like I said, you can criticize the DNC, that's fine and fair. But to pretend it's the DNC's job to hold Americans hands and tell them who to vote for is ridiculous. It's there job to make the case, but the case couldn't have been any clearer.
Again, when a terrible decision is made, the responsibility falls onto the party making that decision. This is basic common sense. The American people chose Trump, and unlike in 2016 they did so with no excuse. Trump showed us who he is. He showed us what a liar he is, he showed us what an imbecile he is, he showed us what a narcissist he is, and despite all that people looked at him and saw a savior. It's beyond absurd, and anyone who was fooled by him deserves all of the contempt they get.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The tariffs on Mexico worked, they are committing 18000 troops to the border.
First of all, it's 10k troops, as in the same number of troops Mexico already deployed to the border under the Biden administration. Mexico didn't cave, they gave Trump was the US already had.
The deal Canada announced - committing 1.3 billion towards border security... That was announced last year. So once again, all Canada did was give Trump what he already had.
They're both laughing their assess off at this.
Moreover, the incoherence of Trump's position here cannot be overstated. He's been talking about tariffs since the campaign trail saying we need to do this to fix our trade deficit because these countries are "ripping us off". So if these tariffs were necessary for economic purposes, what the hell does any of this have to do with fentanyl? No one knows.
And then there's the fact that the amount of fentanyl coming into this country from Canada amounts to about 0.2%. The amount coming in from Mexico is significantly higher but the overwhelming majority of that is brought in by Americans through legal ports of entry. So you could put 100k troops on the border, that would do nothing to solve the problem, so the "fix" Trump is claiming victory on will do absolutely nothing.
You know what would have done a lot to solve this problem? Investing in agents and equipment to detect fentanyl at the border. You know where that was? In the border bill that Congress was ready to pass last year until Trump intervened to stop it.
And in the meantime, all this posturing and claiming victory ignores the fact that Trump has now alienated or closest ally and trading partner, caused the stock market to crash, and has lead to an economic environment of confusion and uncertainty which is the opposite of what an economy needs to thrive. But Trump claimed victory and Fox repeated it, so it must be so.
This is why Trump won. Because all he has to do is look strong and people like you uncritically accept every fantasy he sells you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Sure it will mean nobody has jobs in America
Unemployment reached record lows offer the last 4 years
but at least China has cheap prices.The president should be a cuck and have America, just bend over for everyone.
Cheap prices is how those people with and without jobs are able to afford things. That's also literally why Americans voted for Trump, because he was supposedly going to lower them. Yet he's doing the exact opposite. Will be interesting to see what alternative reality MAGA creates to resolve that cognitive dissonance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
For any republican candidate yes.Huh? Obviously the opposite was true in the Republican primaries.
The opposite turned out to be true, that's not where we started. Recall that prior to the indictments and assassination attempts there were viable challengers to Trump, but the party coalesced around him after those events.
That is of course, a perfect example of what we're talking about when we say MAGA is a cult. Despite the fact that Trump was the most flawed candidate the republican party could have nominated, the party suddenly decided he was the guy - not on the basis of him having the best chance of winning or because they thought her was offering the best policies - but because they felt the need to prioritize protecting him personally. Because on the right, it's not about what he can do for you, it's about what you can do for him.
If you show people the worst of who you are and they are willing to set it all aside and assume you're actually terrific... The outcome is pretty much set.That’s a very defeatist mentality.
It's literally what happened. Despite everything I just listed and so much more demonstrating that Trump was a terrible choice to fix any of the problems most people said they cared about, they excused it all away and voted for him anyway.
Instead of blaming the leadership, blame the followers?
The "followers" are the ones who get to decide, so yes. When someone makes a poor decision the only rational reaction is to blame the decision maker(s). Just because "America" is a large group doesn't excuse them from that criticism. The world once believed the earth was flat, they were wrong.
This reminds me of a mediocre math teacher who chastised her students for poor test scores. That she was perhaps teaching ineffectively never entered her mind.
I'm not the teacher, it's not my job to teach my classmates, especially given that there are over 300 million of them.
Again, and as I've made clear repeatedly to GP, I am entirely uninterested in arguing political strategy or effectiveness. I care about real, actual issues. If all you've got is "you're wrong because Trump voters said so" I couldn't care less what you have to say.
Biden was picked by the voters in 2020 because every poll showed that he was the best candidate to beat Trump,Yes, I know. Biden was supposedly the most electable the DNC had. That’s the problem!
You seem to have forgotten that he won.
And the DNC allowed this charade to occur and continue until it became unsustainable and unwinnable. Again, that’s the problem!
A political party standing in the way of their own incumbent President's reelection campaign would have been unprecedented, do not pretend this would have gone over any better if the republican party tried to pull that one. Hell, I don't even believe they would stand in the way if Trump tries to run for a third term. That's not how any political party works and you know that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Honest question: if there was an open primary at the convention, would Trump have likely lost?
See my response to Cristo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Trump should have been fairly easy to beat in 2024
For any republican candidate yes. The election I think proved that the democrats would have likely lost no matter what.
Donald Trump's stated economic plan was tariffs, something every economist agrees if implemented in the fashion Trump ran on would be terrible for inflation and economic growth. Yet when Trump was asked for his plan to just about anything, like say childcare, tariffs was all he had in response. When he was asked whether Google should be broken up he responded by talking about the voter rolls in Virginia. When he was asked about healthcare said he had "concepts of a plan". He couldn't have made it any clearer that he was deeply unqualified to fix any perceived economic problems, yet voters thought he was the strong economy guy because he was lucky enough to inherit Obama's economy.
There's nothing the democrats can do with that. If you show people the worst of who you are and they are willing to set it all aside and assume you're actually terrific... The outcome is pretty much set.
Why was the DNC unable to generate better candidates than Biden/Harris?
Biden was picked by the voters in 2020 because every poll showed that he was the best candidate to beat Trump, that's what the party was focused on as they should have been.
In 2024 Biden made the fatal mistake of trying to run again. There were no good options at that point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And this is how your party flops, when people don't care enough to select the best for their leaders.
Double_R: ['I don't care about political strategy, I'm talking about actual issues that affect actual people, do you have anything to say about that or is the sport of politics all you care about and all you have to offer']
Greyparrot: ['here's why your party flops...']
Great job avoiding the discussion of any real issue, and congratulations on your home team winning the prize, since that is clearly all you care about.
Or the party just decides on their own to skip primaries and select leaders via secret ballot in a cigar filled room for all the people that do not care. That's democracy for you.
We had a primary genius. The candidate dropped out. Democracy doesn't entail forcing someone to continue running against their will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The advent of radio changed politics, and TV changed it even more. Social media has changed it yet even more.This is exactly the concept I was trying to show Double R...sadly, my lesson plan stunk.
The issue isn't that I don't understand, it's that I don't care. Again, I'm not a political strategist so it's not my job to figure out how to apoeal to stupid people. I know this is difficult for you to understand, but not everyone thinks of politics as a sport. To some people the issues at hand really do matter, because they really do impact people's lives. So telling those people "duh well my argument is winning elections" isn't just stupid, but a demonstration of how unserious of a person you are to listen to and how void you are of anything to say of any intellectual value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
After 4 years of Trump culminating in the pandemic, the American people said, “We deserve better!” and elected Biden. After 4 years of Biden, the American people said, “We deserve better!” and reelected Trump.
People didn't want Trump back, they wanted 2019 back. Sadly, the American voter just wasn't educated enough to understand that Trump did little to nothing to get us there, he was just the guy bragging about it.
Perhaps once people head to the grocery store this weekend and see what Trump's genius economic plan has wrought they'll finally realize the con he always was.
Then again, we already saw January 6th and yet half the country thinks the democrats are the real threat to democracy so I'm not holding my breath.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Any radical organizational shakeup will produce chaos and harm its efficiency in the short-term. This doesn't make them not worth doing.
God works in mysterious ways.
Heard this argument before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I have no idea what narratives any of those people espoused so I will just repeat mine, and if you have any actual thoughts perhaps you can engage with the points I'm making instead of your usual pointing to what others have said. Here it is, again:
We get the government we deserve
This isn't complicated, we do not need to talk about Sunny Hostin, Elie Mystal, or Joy Reid. Americans elected a moron, therefore Americans deserve a moron. That's it, that's all.
But yet somehow you've managed to rationalize your own position which seems to be based on nothing but an unwillingness to admit that your positions are indefensible by arguing that the Americans who didn't vote for the moron are really the ones who deserve the moron.
You're entitled to your views, no matter how self defeating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Called it.Pilot was a tranny
Well that settles it then. Clearly this individual couldn't have been qualified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I leave that to the people whose job it is to care.Apparently they don't care as much as you thought to be competent enough to matter.
lol. Of everything I just said this is the only thing you have to respond to. Sounds right.
The job of the Democratic party is to show the country what it values and how it intends to achieve what they say they wish to achieve. Not to convince stupid people that things that are good for them, are good for them.
We get the government we deserve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I guess you will shed no tears for the passing of the Democrat party then since you feel no obligation to reform it to keep up with the times.
Again, we get the government we deserve. It's up to the people to recognize that a narcissistic moron who in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy decides this is great time to talk about how wonderful he is, how terrible the last administration was, and blame the tragedy on something he has absolutely no evidence whatsoever for... Shouldn't be president. That's not on the Democratic party. You can only lead a horse to water.
And I love how every time something like this that you absolutely cannot defend comes up you immediately pivot to political strategy. It goes to show how dishonest you are. I couldn't give a shit less about it, I'm not a political strategist, just an American with opinions. I leave that to the people whose job it is to care.
Setting aside the total and stupid lie that the Democratic party skin shamed white peopleLol, Harris literally had a support group called "white dudes for Harris" which had an hour long cringe fest of apologies for having white skin and balls
What ballot was White dudes for Harris on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Even if your working theory is that the country is full of morons, it still doesn't absolve the Democrat party's incompetence of winning over said morons.
It does as far as I am concerned. The responsibility of maintaining our democracy and our position in the world is not just on the Democratic party's shoulders, it's on the shoulders of every American because the people, not the parties, are the boss. We get the government we deserve.
Skin shaming wasn't the way to win over the morons in the swing states, and now the Democrats lost all that power. Maybe don't skin shame next time if the Democrats want to win elections. (or IQ shaming for that matter)Alienating voters is good clickbait, but bad for the polls
This is a perfect example of all of my criticisms against right wing voters.
Setting aside the total and stupid lie that the Democratic party skin shamed white people, the point of an election is to determine who will run the government, which in turn determines what direction government policies will go. The fact that right wing voters are such snowflakes that they will cast their ballots not based on what policies they believe will best benefit society but rather what side (which rarely if ever even includes the people actually running) makes fun of them less goes to show why a complete and total imbecilec moron like Donald Trump gets elected. You guys are so pathetic.
Uh oh, Double_R on debateart called MAGA supporters pathetic... I guess you'll all go out and vote now based on that, who cares which party is actually fighting for the betterment of your life, just don't make fun of you. That's what's important.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
I am saying that the genius strategy of calling white Americans evil and mandating indoctrination classes explaining exactly why the skin they were born in made them an evil person probably wasn't a winning strategy for consolidating democratic power.LOL, you guys sure have a flair for drama when you make shit up.
And that post got 7 likes.
This is the world we live in now. Reality be damned, it sounds good therefore it's true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, they certainly won the last election due to Democrat incompetence.Or did you really think MAGA was run by a bunch of geniuses?
Neither. Trump won because most voters are morons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Everyone at MSNBC has said MAGA was evil.
And everyone at Fox news, Newsmax, and every single right wing influencer has said they love fucking little boys.
Since we're just making shit up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am saying that the genius strategy of calling white Americans evil and mandating indoctrination classes explaining exactly why the skin they were born in made them an evil person probably wasn't a winning strategy for consolidating democratic power.
This is why republicans win elections. Not because they have any solutions to the problems they rail about, but because they've figured out that half the country is completely and totally disconnected from reality and couldn't care less what the truth is so they get to just make up whatever they want about the other side and their mindless minions will just gobble it up.
Created:
Posted in:
Common sense says if red states actually got most of the discretionary spending, then the MSNBC libtards would be celebrating right now, not crying.
It's common sense when you are the kind of person that doesn't have any principles whatsoever and base your political positions not on any set of values but on whether it helps your side and hurts the other. This is why MAGA is so disconnected from reality and really believes liberals are evil. It's called projection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Over the course of five decades, Donald Trump has been accused of sexual assault, tax evasion, money laundering, non-payment of employees, and the defrauding of tenants, customers, contractors, investors, bankers, and charities. Also filed 6 bankruptcies. Trump paid 88.5 million to E.Jean Carroll for raping and defaming her. Trump was charged with paying hush money to porn stat Stormy Daniels to keep secret their sexual encounter while Melania was pregnant with Barron.
You're talking to MAGA, all this proves to them is that Trump is the greatest victim in history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
By who?
Are they all of a sudden human to you now or is it still okay to cull poor people and their offspring with abortions and "MAID"
I never suggested they weren't human, that's a whole different level. I said they are morons, because they are.
And what are you talking about with abortions? No one is forcing anyone to go get one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
First, it's a violation of the Constitution because the power to spend is in the hands of Congress, not the Executive branchSecond, does this mean his supporters won't get their food stamps this month?
Let this be just the latest example of how we've been saying you cannot use Trump's first term to determine what his second will look like. He knows this time around that all he had to do was get rid of the guard rails and make loyalty to himself, not the constitution, the number one qualifier. They said we had Trump derangement syndrome. No, they're just morons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Second, does this mean his supporters won't get their food stamps this month?Yes niggers and 3rd world immigrants overwhelmingly vote Republican. Great logic
Federal assistance is relied upon in red states more than blue states genius.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm sorry, but I would never welcome or shake Hitler's hand. If Hitler wants the Whitehouse, I do not give my approval or salute.
Setting aside this stupid little game where you're pretending anyone is arguing that Trump is Hitler, your approval is irrelevant. The people have spoken. That's called democracy. If you don't believe in it just say so.
Biden should never have approved. It's equivalent to aiding and abetting criminality. That makes Biden as much of a Hitler in intent
So Biden is a criminal for respecting the will of the people. Ok bro.
Your posts just keep getting dumber and dumber. Why do you bother?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Cheese Hitler was elected by the people, so now he takes office. It's not magic, that's what we call democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
What are you talking about?
The 50% confidence comes from evidence. That had absolutely nothing to do with faith.
It's what goes beyond the 50% that is then attributable to faith.
If the evidence supports 50% and yet you're 90% confident, then it's 50% belief and 40% faith. They're not joined, one is standing on top of the other. Provide evidence sufficient to justify the additional 40% and faith becomes unnecessary.
Why is this so difficult?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not just "elect" Hitler, but shake his hand and smile and say "welcome Hitler" if you are Biden or make a bunch of jokes and laugh with Hitler if you are Obama!
It's called respecting democracy, you guys should try it.
the first time a former U.S. president has been convicted of a crime....and then got elected with a larger mandate than the guy who beat him.
You do know that 81 is greater than 77... Right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
If faith and belief resulting from evidence is irrelevant. Then...
Then nothing, because that's not what I said.
I didn't say it was irrelevant that it was based on evidence, I said it was irrelevant that the two can coexist, because the implication to this point seems to be that if a belief is, say, half based on evidence but your conviction is absolute then the two are somehow joined. My point is that they're not.
I don't know why this is so difficult. If the evidence supports a position of 50% confidence, then that 50% is simply belief. Faith is what would fill any remaining gap between that point and any level of confidence one might have above 50%.
If this is still unclear please explain why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@baggins
If you are truly convinced by something you don't need to play these mind games with yourself.Yes but again there are scenarios where you are not truly convinced, only partly.
My post already addressed this. Moving on.
You are combining sperate things.To show that they can coexist.
My post already included this. Moving on.
Faith, much like trust, better describes an action or a choice.Yes, the decision to trust is an action, it’s a choice. I don’t see any relevance to the evidence issue.
If you accept that belief is not a choice, then by accepting trust or faith as a choice you are accepting they are not a belief, which would seem to undercut what you have argued so far.
So if a belief is 50% justifiable and you do justify it to whatever extent possible. How did you justify those 50%? By Some evidence?
The point of the percentages is to express what part is justified vs what part is not. If you are 50% justified that means the evidence supports a 50/50 conviction. For example, you are investigating a murder and the evidence narrows your case down to two individuals whom the evidence can be interpreted to point to equally. In that case your conviction should be on both suspects equally. But if you favor one suspect heavily over the other, perhaps because one of the suspects you happen to like and therefore refuse to believe could do something so terrible, then any assurance beyond 50% that it's not them would be attributed as faith.
The fact that faith and belief resulting from evidence can coexist is irrelevant. The existence of one does not negate the existence of the other nor does it make the other any more or less reasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@baggins
The point of contention seems to be your assertion that “you don’t need faith (or optimism) if you have evidence.” Perhaps you intended to say, “You don’t need faith (or optimism) if you have all the evidence (which is equivalent to proof).”
I explained in my last post that this is not what I was saying in detail.
However, as I pointed out earlier, sometimes some evidence (such as a good movie trailer & cast) doesn’t fully prove a proposition (whether the movie will be good). If you choose to trust the claim and fill the gap of uncertainty with faith, you’re still holding a belief, albeit one under uncertainty. This exemplifies that it’s possible to have both faith and evidence for the same proposition, thereby countering the claim that “faith is belief without evidence.”
Again, I addressed all of this in my previous post. You are combining sperate things. If a belief is 50% justifiable yet you have 80% confidence, that additional 30% is faith. It doesn't become entirely justifiable or entirely unjustified because there's a bit of both mixed in. So in that example I still maintain that faith is best described at belief without evidence.
I did however mention in my last post that I do have a quibble even with that definition, because the truth is that while faith is considered a subset of belief, I would argue that it is not. Faith, much like trust, better describes an action or a choice. "You just have to have faith" is more often used to describe a decision to remain optimistic and act accordingly. Trust is very similar. "I'm going to trust you" describes a decision to take an action that aligns with a particular belief. If that belief were actually present, there would be no need for the word.
My position which I don't consider reasonably debatable is that belief is not a choice. You can't choose to believe you can fly. What you can do is act like you believe something, and ultimately you might be able to convince yourself on a surface level that you believe it, but deep down what you really believe will still be there no matter how hard one tries to burry it. This to me is the ultimate disguiser between belief and faith. If you are truly convinced by something you don't need to play these mind games with yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@baggins
Those words (faith, belief, trust, knowledge) are interchangeable sometimes because like I said they are closely related. And like you said one can be subset of another.
They are interchangable at times in the sense that there is overlap in some cases, but that doesn't change the fact that the common usage of these terms are pointing to things that are meaningfully different.
And like you said one can be subset of another.
To be more specific, belief is the overarching term here, everything else is a subset of belief.
So when I broke it down in my last post I defined belief simply as accepting something as true. That definition also applies to knowledge and faith (although I have some quibbles on the latter), so they are both subsets of belief. For example, the generally accepted definition of knowledge among philosophers is "justified true belief", so there we're talking about a belief with qualifies. Thus those qualifiers are the very thing we are pointing to when we use the word knowledge. Belief in that case is treated as a given.
And I don't know why you cant be optimistic when you have evidence for something.
I didn't say you couldn't. As I just explained, it all falls under the umbrella of belief so that part of it will always be there.
What I expressed was the idea that optimism is a central tenant of the word faith, so when someone says they have faith in something that's what they're expressing. Optimism is by definition a state of mind held in the absence of certainty, so the more evidence one has for a proposition the less need that have for it.
What you went on to do here was create a scenario where there is a bit of both. The fact that you have two different things occurring at the same time does not negate the fact that they are different things. In your example the belief itself was based on evidence, but the level of conviction expressed rose above the evidence so the gap was filled with faith.
Im not going to go into the religious use of the word since there could be a debate also. Why should the word in that context mean “belief with no evidence”. Maybe you mean “belief with no definite proof” since many religions people would say they do have their own evidence but they cannot prove their propositions to others.
This is an entirely different conversation. I distinguish between evidence and proof as evidence being that which rationally supports a conclusion while proof is the complete justification for it. In other words evidence are the pieces that make up the whole, proof is the whole.
In some cases one piece of evidence, like video footage for example can be both because this one piece is all you need. I would not call anything proof unless it's sufficient to convince a reasonable person without anything else.
With that said, when I use these terms I'm abiding by the reasonable person standard. You can call something evidence all you want and it can convince you all day long, but if it's not enough to convince others it's probably because it's not rational. So calling it evidence in that case is meaningless because at that point it's just a tautology; "it convinces me therefore it's evidence, and thus my belief is backed up by evidence". By that standard every belief is backed by evidence since there is always something convincing the person it's true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@baggins
Trust , faith and believe are connected in a sense so it’s hard to make big distinctions. Over here I am talking about the word faith outside of any context (religious or traditional).
All words are made up so ultimately they mean whatever we say they mean, but if we're going to have a meaningful discission about the proper use of a word we can't divorce it from it's historical usage because that's where it gets it's connotation from, which is what ultimately drives how people think about it and in turn drives the takeaway from any message that includes it. To disregard that is to disregard the concept of communication itself, which makes the rest of this conversation pointless.
In a way, it’s almost like faith acts as a placeholder for knowledge we don't yet possess but expect to gain, based on current evidence.
But again, all you're doing here is interchanging faith and belief thereby rendering any distinction between them null and void when that's just not how they are understood.
Faith is most typically associated with religion, and is most often used to express belief in an optimistic sense. You don't need optimism if you have evidence, which is why I would define it as belief without evidence.
Belief simply means to accept something as true.
Knowledge like faith, is also a subset of belief. There's different angles on this, but from the self assessment standpoint it is used to describe a belief so strong in it's convictions that it is regarded as beyond question.
These are the definitions I stick with, andI not only find them clarifying but also consistent with any well understood usages of these terms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@baggins
@MAV99
What would you define it as?
Belief without evidence
I can have faith that my bed wont fall apart next time I lay on in based on evidence.
If there's evidence to back up the belief then the word faith becomes meaningless because there's no distinction between that and belief. It also doesn't match to how the word is historically used. No juror for example would ever say "we had faith the defendant is guilty" unless they were describing something other than a careful and thorough review of the evidence that lead to a clear conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
That was Trump’s campaign promise to pardon all Jan 6 rioters.
Apparently it was too cumbersome to sort through all of the violators and limit the pardons to those who didn't beat up police officers.
I would love to see a democrat offer that same excuse in any comparable context and watch how the same people celebrating this would lose their ever loving minds over it. The hypocrisy and bad faith is beyond astonishing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, thanks for your silence and concession.
Why do you bother? What is the point of engaging in conversation when you can't defend your position so instead have to play these stupid games?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Name one actual "violent rioter" that you specifically have an issue with that got a pardon.
Pull up any of the hundreds of videos available at your finger tips right now showing rioters beating on police officers. Every single person in those videos was pardoned. You can't be this stupid to think you found some sort of gotcha by asking me to tell you their names.
Or did you think the 140 plus capitol police officers who were injured that day, including some who lost limbs, is completely unrelated to the fact that they just got ransacked by a violent mob?
Why do you bother? What is the point of engaging in conversation when you can't defend your position so instead have to play these stupid games?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Did you know a lot of people who participated in the BLM riots and attacked cops spent less than 2 weeks in jail.
No, I didn't. If you show me specific examples and can explain the details which show that your narrative is complete and accurate I will have no problem admitting that this is wrong. That is of course, a big if, and in my experience right wing claims like this normally turn out to be BS that sounds good because it's based on a kernel of truth while brazenly disregarding key facts in the case.
Regardless, all of that is completely and totally irrelevant to this conversation. Not only because two wrongs do not make a right, but also because I care far far less about what charges some random prosecutor in NY or Minnesota decided to drop than I do about the purposeful decision made by the President of the United States to pardon violent rioters en masse who beat up police officers on his behalf. And if you were honest, you would too. But you're not, so here we are, so instead all you do is engage in whataboutism after whataboutism because you can't just admit the obvious truth that what Trump did is deeply wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thank you for your humble concession
Thank you for proving once again how unserious you are.
After everything I said, that's all you have in response? What joke, but that's MAGA.
It's exactly how you can justify zero jail time for BLM rioters caught clearly on video attacking police and yet also advocate for 20 years in prison for someone in a MAGA hat.
No one is advocating for BLM rioters who committed violence to get zero jail time, nor is anyone advocating for 'anyone wearing a MAGA hat' to get 20 years. This is what happens when you have no rational defense of your position, you have to invent an argument to stand up against to make yourself look like you're on the right side of the dispute.
When asked how much time a random person should serve for throwing a rock at the police, a postmodernist amoral evil partisan must remain silent
No, when you refuse to acknowledge the issue at hand - that the president of the United States just pardoned the people who committed political violence against the police on his behalf - the "evil partisan" is going to bring you back to the actual conversation by ignoring your whataboutisms.
Created: