Total posts: 5,890
-->
@cristo71
My point is to counter your assessment here:
But you didn't. You and me for some positions I disagreed with the left on, then pulled up examples of things Kamala/Joe did/said. That doesn't counter anything unless you thought my position was that I agreed with them on everything.
I take this to mean: “Because Harris had unclear positions on certain issues, voters held her responsible for what other people on the left had to say on those issues.”
Yes, that was exactly my point, but it went further than that. Not only did they hold her responsible, but they pretended these issues were central to her campaign and therefore representative of what her priorities would have been as president. That's where it gets ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You're right, because Kamala stupid is about 50 IQ points higher.Oh god, next you will be saying Kamala is smarter drunk rambling about why she can't pay her bills. The age of Destiny is over for the left. Probably forever.
Yeah, that's what I thought. No response so you just retreat to you're usual pretending that you're on solid ground when you know you're not.
Who pays them?Nobody if there are no buyers.
So there entire US economy is supposed to alter it's supply chain overnight? And Dodd it ever occur to you that if companies are buying things from another country instead of domestically that there is a reason for it?
I found it hilarious that with the same breath, NPR on Wednesday announced 'China pays nothing for the tariffs" while also reporting retaliatory actions. Which is it? China isn't negatively affected (pays for it) or China is. Pick one and stick with it.
My goods dude, you can't be this stupid. So why do you spend so many hours pretending?
Trump tarrifs will paid by us, not by China. Those tariffs will hurt China because many companies will find new domestic suppliers (which will probably be more expensive, thereby raising prices regardless), which means Chinese companies will lose business. So in return, they will probably place tariffs of their own to hurt our companies. The result will be a massive supply displacement which will wreak havoc throughout our economy.
This is why no one wins a trade war. If I have ham and you have bread, we're better off trading with eachother so that we can both have a sandwich. Trade benefits both parties, so putting a wrench in it hurts both parties. This is common sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So congratulations to those countries not run by "morons" who successfully kept COVID-19 out of their populations. Would they now come forward to receive our applause:*crickets*
When you have to pretend to be this dumb or uniformed to defend your position, that's probably a good indication that you should change your position.
Keeping COVID out entirely was never an option. The goal for any reasonable country was to minimize it's spread in order to minimize it's death count until we could get a vaccine to the public.
So when Fauci was actually head of the response under Trump, what we he have done differently had Trump not stopped him?
It's not about what Fauci would have done differently, it's about what we all should have done differently. It's not a coincidence that once we got past the initial spread which of course was going to hit metro areas first, the red states all saw the highest death rates. Again, all Fauci could do was offer guidelines and direct agency resources. It's our behavior that ultimately determined the effect of the virus.
So arguments don't establish expertise and in practice neither do results since you just dismiss the facts if the "expert" failed to deliver results.
Wasn't his result to deliver, it was ours. You don't get to ignore what the health experts are telling you and then pretend it's their fault when the results are not what you think they should have been.
But many people are not effective communicators, that has little bearing on whether they know what they are doing.It has a major impact on whether other people know that they know what they're doing.
It does, that's still irrelevant to whether they actually know what they're doing and should therefore be listened to.
"Trust the experts" refers to the claim that somebody knows a truth that you don't know and can't know because you're too stupid or uneducated. They supposedly have the best argument but it's not your role as a plebeian to understand it.
No, it doesn't. That's just you're the caricature of it you've sold yourself for whatever psychological needs it fulfills.
Trust the experts is a simple reminder to people that just because you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night doesn't mean you know what you're talking about, and we as a society are better off deferring to people who actually know what they're talking about because they actually put in the time and work required to understand it.
It is the height of hubris to think that you are qualified to assess every complex subject purely on the basis of which argument sounds better. As if it didn't in many cases take years of study and experience to fully understand the subject.
The funny thing about ignorance is that it has a way of flipping reality upside down to the person who is ignorant. When you don't understand something it always sounds stupid. 'Why should I get vaccinated of I'm probably going to get infected anyway? That's stupid'. Sure it is, to the idiot who doesn't understand that the main point of vaccine isn't to stop an infection but to stop the more severe consequences like hospitalizations and deaths.
In case I haven't already asked this directly of you: Was hippocrates an expert?
I know almost nothing about him, but sure, he was an expert for his time.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Kamala was the blatant 2024 exposition of the grift paying millions of dollars to billionaire celebrities
Can you provide a shred of evidence to support this?
Created:
-->
@cristo71
That means she supports a stance which you believe to be stupid.
So what's your point?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
POTUS, right before the election, calling the entire opposing base garbage...an "anecdote"
Actually, correction. It's not even an anecdote. It's completely irrelevant to what we were talking about.
The comment I made was about how when the left attacks the right, almost always those attacks are against things Trump has done and said himself, if not it's about what those in actual power in the party have done, which contrasts with the attacks on the left which overwhelmingly are about cultural issues which have very little to do with the Democratic party or it's nominee.
The example you gave isn't even about that, it was of Biden attacking Trump's supporters which has even less to do with political substance than the silly cultural war issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump is stupid, but he just wasn't Kamala level stupid.
You're right, because Kamala stupid is about 50 IQ points higher.
Remind me again how tariffs work? Who pays them?
So is Trump really so stupid that he still doesn't get how they work, or is he such a brazen liar that he would lie about something so basic and so easily checkable?
Regardless of which one you think it is, there is no example of anything remotely close to this coming from Harris, and for Trump this is barely noteworthy because it just fades into the background along with all the other egregiously stupid things he does and says.
The standards are not remotely similar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Better than Alan Lichtman and his 13 keys...
He got acknowledged today he was wrong and gave a prescient assessment; "the keys assume a pragmatic populace concerned with good governance". That's just not what we have in this country anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you don't deny Kamala did a fake black accent to get identity votes
This is such a stupid criticism, but it's also very telling. When it comes to Trump we're talking about how he tried to overturn an election, how he plans to weaponize the government against his political foes, and how he's a fundamentally unserious person running for the most serious job on earth.
On the right you guys are talking about Kamala Harris's fake accent and the way she laughs.
Everytime you come out with this stupid criticism it's just a reminder of how little you actually have against her which serves as a reminder of how egregious the double standards were in this election. Everything she did mattered. Nothing he did mattered. That's why she lost, and yes, the voters are to blame for that. We are a country of idiots.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Nice, but Harris never disavowed those things. She didn’t state any opinion on “Latinx” but generally implied support for the other positions.
Implied support... In other words her positions on [insert niche issues here] weren't clear and certainly weren't priorities she felt the need to address, but because someone on the left did or said something crazy it made sense for people to saddle her with it and then vote against her for it, regardless of whether the issue even had anything to do with actual governance.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
A simple fact check is a bit short to be called a debate.
Responding to a general assesment with an anecdote is not a fact check, especially when it doesn't even address the issue that was raised.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
What are some things anyone on the left has done which you think are stupid?
Latinx
I think it's stupid in most cases to allow transwomen to play in women's sports
I think those college protesters acting like Hamas are the victims is pretty stupid
I think it's stupid everytime someone acts as if America has made no progress on issues of race or says something like black people aren't free.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
When the left was on the attack, they would attack the candidate himself
lol
Let me guess, next time you brag about how often you own me in debate this will be one of the examples you think of... amiright?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
It's because you never see a Democrat ever attack anyone who would ever vote democrat now matter how far to the left are, meanwhile the right has to disavow anyone to the right of George Bush.
This whole notion is nonsense. YouTuber Destiny recently made a really good point when he pointed out a remarkable asymmetry in the world of political influencers; on the right you get your bonifides by being slavishly supportive of Donald Trump, on the left you get your bonifides by criticizing the current administration.
He's absolutely right. After Biden's debate performance even within the left it was the Biden supporters who were derided as being delusional. Throughout the campaign every left vs right debate was about how bad Trump was, no one on the left wanted to defend Harris cause they wanted to show their independence meanwhile everyone on the right would sit there defending every stupid and ridiculous thing Trump would say and do cause they realized they're not allowed to criticize him.
You see democrats are a hive mind you can see this with then voting with Biden about 99% of the time while republican congressman voted with Trump about 65% of the time.
Let's turn to Chatgpt:
A study by FiveThirtyEight found that Republican members of Congress, on average, voted in line with Trump about 93% of the time during his presidency.
During President Biden's time in office, Democratic members of Congress generally voted in alignment with his policies. According to various analyses of congressional voting data, approximately 90-95% of Democratic members of Congress typically voted in line with Biden's positions on key pieces of legislation.
So really it is fair to attack the ideology of said hive mind
Not when everything you're saying is just made up.
Maybe if your candidates would do stuff like say. "Maybe it is bad to cut the dick off of a 6 year old to please his manchausen by proxy mother"
Why do the democrats need to respond to such ridiculous contrived issues? How many 6 year olds have gotten their dicks chopped off during the last 4 years? How many of those are a direct result of some policy that democrats pushed for? How many democrats campaigned or even prioritized anything like this?
All you guys do is look around for all of the stupidest anecdotal examples of someone on the left taking an idea to it's extreme, compile them, and then pretend that represents the entire left and especially the candidates themselves. This is exactly what I was talking about. On the left we hardly need to look any further than the words that come out of there cult leader's mouth himself. It's a ridiculous double standard, but it works in politics because most people are idiots.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah! I remember when Trump used a fake black accent to talk to black people....or was that Kamala doing that to be what ever she thought they wanted her to be?
What do you get out of such pointless trolling?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Trump's success lies in the fact that his racism is moderate and not obvious or extreme, thus he gets more votes.
This is his MO in everything. Look at this election, people voted for him because they believed he would deport tens of millions of migrants. Others voted for him because they thought he will close the border but that deportation stuff was just bluster. Whatever they wanted him to be, that's what he is.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
- They propose superficial changes, such as renaming terms like "Latinx" to "Latiné" and "economy" to "economé," while ignoring voter preferences.
It really highlights the asymmetry of American politics this past election. When the left was on the attack, they would attack the candidate himself. When the right is on the attack, they get to attack every stupid thing anyone on the left has ever done regardless of whether the candidate herself bought into any of it or whether the issue at hand even has anything at all to do with politics.
Trump would say the stupidest things daily and then doubles down on it, and he got a pass no matter how ridiculous because they said he'll do great anyway. Kamala said one stupid thing 5 years ago and has since walked away from it, she gets millions of dollars of attack ads playing it on a loop to which millions of people revolted against her for it. That's the difference here; Trump was treated as a fantasy, Kamala was treated as a caricature.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Atheism is a religion.
I always find it amusing when religious people accuse atheists of being religious. All I hear is "yeah my views are ridiculous, but yours are just as bad as mine". Well, at least we agree on the standing of your views...
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
But Americans think economy is biggest issue.So they chose money over human rights
...by electing a complete imbecile who has shown no understanding of how any of this stuff works and whose economic plan is forecasted to wreak havoc over or economy.
So they're 0 for 2 there...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What is intrinsically beneficial about the term "career D.C. unelected employee?"
What does this have to do with our conversation? That's the first time anyone here has used that term. Focus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Then you have been listening to the wrong things. Clearly that's what people who elected Trump heard.
Then that's just plain stupid. The term "deep state" has no value unless you are implying something nefarious, so if that's really what you hear the term is completely useless.
And yet you people throw it out constantly, so we both know your full of shit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Are you claiming that the builder burger group doesn't exist
You are so dishonest it's almost impressive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Much or maybe even most of the electorate are ignorant and always have been. That’s one of the problems with democracy. At least this fact both afflicts and benefits both parties.
Agreed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
So you think that the professional managerial class existing is a myth?
You know damn well that "professional managerial class" is not what people hear when the words "deep state" are uttered. Stop being dishonest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You are ignoring context.The context was your statement "So when you suggest an election result cannot be trusted because of the cheating."
You are butchering the context. Since I made that statement the focus has shifted several times, so you appear to be reading my responses without following the actual point I was responding to in the first place.
I am pointing out that in order to rationally justify your skepticism regarding the election results on the basis of fraud, you have to make a plausible case that the fraud could have overturned the results. So just as a thought experiment, let's say the election was decided by exactly 10k votes and let's also say that there were exactly 10k plus 1 fraudulent ballots cast. What are the chances that fraud changed the result?
Answer: Statistical impossibility. For that to occur literally every single one of the 10k plus fraudulent ballots needed to be for the same side while 0 fraudulent ballots were cast for the opposite. Given that we know fraud is committed on both sides, that mathematically raises the threshold on how many fraudulent ballots it would take to swing the results, which in turn puts that much more emphasis on the need not only to prove a high rate of fraud, but a disproportionate beneficiary of that fraud. That's what it would take mathematically therefore that point cannot be discarded while claiming to be rational.
See there it is again. "untrustworthy"It's untrustworthy when you can't trust the result is accurate no matter which way the bias is.
If your definition of accurate is 100.00000000% then probably no national election in our nation's history has ever been accurate. That's not what any rational person is talking about. The purpose of an election is to decide who gets to govern, you do not need that level of accuracy to be reasonably certain as to which candidate was chosen by the electorate, yet that's all you seem to be trying to challenge. That's not rational.
I do think and did claim that the left-tribers are cheating more and that true democracy would favor the right, but I do not need to prove that to prove untrustworthiness.
You do if you care about logic. When the left wing candidate wins and you claim we should not accept that result on the basis of fraud, your claim logically necessitates that the left cheated more than the right. That's not debatable, it's basic math.
So no you don't get to pretend it doesn't matter who's doing the cheating and provide no basis for why you claim one side is notably worse than the other.
If that is your default position you owe me money, the contract I claim you signed says so. <- remember this, it's the thought experiment you couldn't handle last time.
You are so delusional.
I destroyed that point, but clearly you couldn't handle it. Don't remember what thread it was, pull it up and I'll gladly show you.
If somebody claimed I owed them money and obedience because they landed on the moon, it sure as hell is their job to prove they landed on the moon (in a world where landing on the moon is somehow relevant to that).
Basic epistemological error.
The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim. The standard of evidence is a totally different thing, and that depends on how extraordinary the claim is. "I went shopping" is not extraordinary at all and therefore requires no supporting evidence to be accepted. "I ran into Beyonce" is pretty extraordinary and therefore some skepticism (and evidentiary demand) is appropriate. "I went to the moon" is a totally different category.
A voting precinct reporting that they counted X number of votes for each candidate, is not an extraordinary claim in the least provided the totals are within some range of normalcy. And given the number of safeguards in place and lack of any historical precedent for the kind of thing you're talking about, it's more than sufficient.
How did you determine the number of fraudulent ballots was exactly 10,000?
You do know what a hypothetical is right?
That's not one of the options. It's either:1.) People paid by the Harris campaign cheated2.) It's a false flag by people trying to spread distrust in the election3.) Lancaster county election officials were lying about fraudulent registrations and who did them"your evidence doesn't matter" = (3).In which case: Now whose accusing others of fraud/cover up?
You are. I'm pointing out that you haven't provided anything of value.
Again, a group that allegedly provided services to the Harris campaign was caught trying to cheat. So what does this prove?
And do we even know that it was the organization, or just someone working within it? Those are two different things.
Again, have you confirmed that the Biden/Harris campaign was in fact a client of this organization?If they weren't then there is only one possibility: The field and media corps claiming that they were clients was an overt lie.
No, it isn't. It means people got things wrong. Proving a lie requires they did so knowingly and intentionally and you haven't even tried to make that case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That may be the reality, that doesn't excuse the ignoramuses who think the economy is basically a PlayStation game that depends entirely on the skills of the person holding the controller (the president) and the second a less skilled person takes that controller the entire thing collapses.
I'm describing people like you, in case you didn't catch that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The entire point and purpose of expertise is accomplish a particular goal. If you cannot accomplish that goal then you are not an expert.What if you don't pay them?Are all mechanics you refuse to pay no longer experts?
I have no idea what this has to do with the conversation. The difference between getting paid vs working for free is definitionally that of an amateur vs a professional. Neither makes you necessarily an expert, that come from knowledge gained through experience.
What goal did Anthony Fauci accomplish?
If you care to learn about his distinguished career you are free to Google him.
If it was to prevent people from being infected or reduce the death count of a pandemic with effective measures it looks like absolute failure.
If you're talking about COVID, the reason we were an absolute failure is because we as a country followed the lead of the moron in the oval office and did not take COVID seriously, which is exactly what happens when you politicize a pandemic.
It doesn't matter what you do to educate people who aren't interested in being educated because they've become convinced that the educators themselves are really just nefarious conspirators hell bent on manipulating the public for some undetermined reason. It also doesn't matter what guidelines you put in place if people are just going to ignore them. It's not up to Anthony Fauci to stop everyone from getting infected, it's up to people to protect themselves. If people aren't doing that is all a big waste.
No, it's not. It's a demonstration of the fact that you are an effective communicator.I shouldn't be surprised that you don't really believe in rational epistemology
What a stupid response.
you've lost many debates to me
lol... Says you. According to my count I'm undefeated against you. So are we going to keep measuring dicks or talk about the subject at hand?
It is easily explained if you think logic can be brushed off as "effective communication".
It's easily explained if you were actually paying attention to the conversation. Argument is literally, by definition, communication. So an effective argument is by definition an effective communication sample. But many people are not effective communicators, that has little bearing on whether they know what they are doing. Scientists for example are very often introverts who gravitated towards science because they get to work alone, their inability to explain things to layman people, especially when met with a torrent of logical fallacies, says little about their subject matter knowledge.
So then when the knowledge is not shared, it is not repeatable by others. So an "expert" who won't share is indistinguishable from a non-expert.
According to that logic a world class chef who doesn't share his recipes is indistinguishable from you or I. Pretty sure everyone who's ever tried my cooking will tell you otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Burden of proof error.My conclusion is: We don't know who the winner was/is.That's a negative.
You claimed that Trump won because the right overcame the fraud, that's not a negative and it logically necessitates that the fraud worked against them, meaning it was mostly done by the left.
And again, it's not a burden of proof error. You're the one claiming our elections are untrustworthy while ignoring the hurdles your claim has to overcome. Proving the levels of fraud being committed are plausibly sufficient to change the outcome is just one of them. Proving that the fraud skews in either direction is another hurdle, says math.
Skepticism is good. Baseless skepticism is not rational.
Correct translation: Those who claim a democratic election took place have no evidence
The checks and balances in place to ensure election integrity are more than sufficient. Overcoming them to the kinds of levels you are talking about requires fraud on a mass scale. The burden of proof is not on the person who takes the position no (as in insufficient) fraud, that's the default position.
You're simply doing what every conspiracy theorist does, accusing others of fraud/cover up and pretending it's everyone else's job to refute your baseless allegations. It isn't.
Math says otherwise.Post the math.
-5000 + 5000 = 0
The only other possibility is a false flag. Is that what you are claiming is more probable?
What I'm saying is that your "evidence" is terribly underwhelming.
Again, have you confirmed that the Biden/Harris campaign was in fact a client of this organization? (obviously not otherwise you would have had something better than a way back machine posting of their logo) If so, what was the relationship between them? If that relationship indicates that the campaign had some connection to the fraud, what evidence do you have to support it?
This is what's necessary to make an entry level case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
credibly accused child fuckerI am credible accusing you right now of fucking me when I was a child.
So you don't know what credible means. Interesting.
Way to deflect from what his actual policy positions are by repeating a rumor that the deepstate made up
So let me guess, all the evidence against him is fake and the witnesses are just lying puppets of the shadow government?
Odd how anti establishment people not in bed with the illuminati
The Illuminati? Seriously bro, what are you, 10? And who's in charge, Kanye and Taylor Swift?
Double R. Just don't be evil.
Just don't be stupid. The slightest bit of critical thinking would easily dissolve you of such ridiculous beliefs but you refuse to learn how it works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Because he was the only one running who wasn't a deep state stooge
So a delusional conspiracy theory, that's your big reason?
and the harris administration was far worse, which is why I had disposable income in 2017 but now I have to work hard to maintain a comfortable lifestyle
Well, at least you adapted your talking point from how great things were for you in 2016, moving that line back to 2017 just so you can give Trump the credit.
As I've pointed out to deaf ears on this site many times before, Trump inherited an economy that had been growing for 7 straight years and nothing changed when he took office. My 9 year old niece could have been president and everything would have been just fine. Biden inherited an economy shattered by a global pandemic which Trump terribly mismanaged. Blaming Biden for the problems it's havoc created all over the world is ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
So the deep state losing = we do not get a credibly accused child fucker to be our attorney general. And you decided to start a whole thread about it.
Is there any point where you will step back and recognize the utter absurdity of what you are standing up for, or against?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If 10,000 people cheat in an election and 5k cheat for one side while 5k cheat for the other...So we shouldn't care about cheating because it is mathematically possible that the cheating cancels out and has no net effect....
No one said anything like that. Pay attention.
I pointed out the fact that proving that there is cheating doesn't prove the results were skewed by it in any particular direction. You and all your right wing cohorts here love to pretend that you are reasonable by claiming Trump won in 2020 or at least claiming the existence of cheating gives us rational justification to reject that Biden won. I'm pointing out that your conclusion doesn't follow. That's about your illogic, not a statement of what anyone should value.
So when you suggest an election result cannot be trusted because of the cheating, it is not enough to prove that there has been some fraudOf course it is.
Math says otherwise.
No I do not. An unknown upper limit to the fraud or an upper limit to the fraud that is in excess of the margin of victory is by definition untrustworthy.Fake election = untrusted results = outcome that could have been changed by fraud for all we know
For all we know we're all human robots in a field somewhere being subjected to a simulation that Neo is going to save us from any day now.
We don't operate based on possibilities, we operate based on logic. Logic dictates that we follow the evidence. If you don't have it, you do not have reason to support any of your theories, making them by definition irrational.
You haven't even bothered to try and make that case.and I won't. I can't even quantify the fraud much less figure out which ballots are fraudulent and who those ballots were cast for. If I could that would mean the election was auditable, which would be inherently more trustworthy and the entire situation could be resolved by an audit.
Translation; "I have no evidence"
And...?A client is someone who pays you.The Biden Harris campaign paid an organization that submitted fraudulent voter registrations and then went into hiding when it was discovered. This is what they call "evidence of left-tribe election fraud" in the real world.
Wow, an organization that was caught in a fraudulent scheme were paid by a presidential campaign. And we know this because the fraudsters told us so.
Amazing how your impossibly high standards of critical thinking plummet as soon as the narrative becomes convenient for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Your example did not prove that. You may not care about the explanation if the car isn't fixed, but that does not mean the explanation doesn't prove expertise.
The entire point and purpose of expertise is accomplish a particular goal. If you cannot accomplish that goal then you are not an expert.
The convincing argument is demonstration.
No, it's not. It's a demonstration of the fact that you are an effective communicator. Unless your purported expertise is communication itself that particular skill is by itself, useless.
Again, a mechanic who cannot fix your car is worthless. No sane rational person would rather take their car to someone solely because they can make a convincing case.
Argument is crucial to the success of a business because no one will spend money with you if they are not convinced you know what you're doing, that is irrelevant to the question of whether you actually know what you're doing. The latter is what expertise is, the former is not.
The fact that "trust the experts" is never a valid argument because there is no situation where you should be trying to convince other people of a conclusion you don't understand the argument for.
We do this all the time, and in fact no large organization can function without it. There is a reason we break organizations up into different departments handling different fields. HR used to mostly be handled by business managers until companies realized that it was beneficial to have people who specialize in those fields alone.
Anyone who has ever worked high up in an organization knows that no one can know everything and that trying to understand every element of every consideration of a big decision is paralyzing. Having the buy off of different people and/or departments is the process by which any effective manager operates. Trust is not avoidable.
We do the exact same thing in everyday life. We don't put on a lab coat everytime we go to the doctor, we don't roll up our sleeves everytime we go to a mechanic. We listen and if what they have to say sounds good to us we proceed. That's called trust, and we wouldn't do it if the individuals we are putting our trust in have never demonstrated through results that they will accomplish what they say they will.
When the phrase "trust the experts" is uttered, no one is talking about science and/or debate.Which is the problem.
It's only a problem if your interest is strawmanning other people
That's notably different from "I am able to heal people because I understand how all of this works and if you learned what I have learned you can do it too".What's the practical difference if the secular "expert" refuses to give reasons (teach)?
The practical differences is irrelevant to this topic. Expertise, by definition, requires that one's ability to achieve results is based on knowledge and is repeatable by others. A person who is able to achieve results because they were sent by God is definitionally a different thing, and therefore definitionally a different topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
So Trump is responsible for the catistrophic economic circumstances as well as the national civil unrest of 2020... Right?Yes.
Ok cool. Would love to know where all this was during the election we just had.
So with Trump being responsible for a tanking economy and national civil unrest... What was the argument for why he should get a second term?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nah bro, that was the propaganda machine's ideas.
Right, they must have implanted them into his mouth just so they could attack him when they came out.
Crazy how capable they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I don't see the point in pretending you've been paying attention. You know nothing because you wish to know nothing.
I already challenged you, in depth on the example you started this thread off with. There was nothing legitimate about it.
I've seen this movie a thousand times, conspiracy theories are predictable.
But that of course doesn't matter to the Trump conspiracy wing.The solution is the same no matter who is cheating and by how much. So why should it matter?
Because math. If 10,000 people cheat in an election and 5k cheat for one side while 5k cheat for the other... The net effect is zero. So even if the election was decided by 100 votes, cheating didn't matter.
So when you suggest an election result cannot be trusted because of the cheating, it is not enough to prove that there has been some fraud, you also need to prove that the fraud benefited one side over the other. You haven't even bothered to try and make that case.
That's right they listed Biden Harris as a client.
And...?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
So Trump is responsible for the catistrophic economic circumstances as well as the national civil unrest of 2020... Right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ty Joe!
As long as nuclear war doesn't happen till January 21st 2025, it's not Joe's fault, says the American voter.
Created:
-->
@Owen_T
Thoughts?
Of course these are legitimate concerns. It's not like Trump was agreeing with Hitler on how he likes his eggs, the ideas he propagated throughout the election mirrored the same sentiment Hitler used to divide his county before turning to it as an excuse to carry out the atrocities he did.
But people dismissed all of this out of arrogance, complacency, and selfishness. They didn't think anything like that could possibly happen here, and many thought it was a risk worth taking as long as Trump can lower their grocery bill. History will not be kind to us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This thread is filled with the evidence.
It's filled with anecdotes, many of which (and probably most) are not even legitimate examples.
Moreover, if this thread is really all you have been able to dig up, that does more to prove that voter fraud (sufficient to impact elections) is a myth.
And then there's the fact you haven't provided a single reason to believe whatever levels of voter fraud are actually taking place benefit ones side over the other in any meaningful way. Like I've already pointed out, the only example we have of an election that was actually swayed by voter fraud was that NC race in 2018 where it was the republicans that committed it. So we know for a fact this is not a one sided issue. But that of course doesn't matter to the Trump conspiracy wing.
How convenient...for cheaters, yes.
For people who aren't concerned about facts and logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well if you were trying to make a general point shouldn't you be able to find a specific example that makes it?
I did, you just didn't listen to it because you held my analogy to the standard where it must prove the entire argument I am making here instead of the subset of the argument I was responding to.
You claimed that results are irrelevant without argument. The point of my analogy is to show that you have it backwards, argument is irrelevant without results. So there's an example to make that one point, which it does. Anyone can make a convincing argument, it's not till they prove themselves by demonstrating that they have it right that we can begin to evaluate them as an expert.
I know that in our every day life we need to trust the expertise of others, there is too much for one man to know it all
Then what are we talking about?
Repeat the experiment, don't trust the claim.
You just said the opposite
establishing expertise is itself a rational process, the best argument, and therefore in debate and in science (which is a subset of rational epistemology) there is absolutely no place for trust.
When the phrase "trust the experts" is uttered, no one is talking about science and/or debate. Of course if I'm conducting a scientific experiment I don't get to say "my results are X because that's what other experts told me to report". The phrase refers to decision making, and people making such decisions don't often have the time or even the literacy to put on a lab coat and figure it out themselves.
in your hypothetical the man isn't even claiming to be one.Of course he is. You simply defined a prophet as "not an expert".
No, you did. You claimed that his status as a prophet from God was his explanation for being able to heal people. That's notably different from "I am able to heal people because I understand how all of this works and if you learned what I have learned you can do it too".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
DO....WE....HAVE.... TIME....TO....SEE....THINGS...... FOR.....OUR....SELVES?Very basic yes or no question.
It's an ill formed and terribly worded question which is why I asked for clarity. Shouting the exact same question louder doesn't provide it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
First, you can certainly verify or disprove the mechanics expertise by his explanation if you have enough expertise yourself to understand it or to understand that he is not using terms correctly.
Irrelevant. If you're an expert yourself then you have no need to trust the experts
Second, causing the car to run does not prove he is an expert. Some problems solve themselves, an overheated coolant system, engine oil that was too cold until it was brought into the shop, a computer that was reset when he blindly unplugged the battery.
Irrelevant. It was just a hypothetical example, you're missing the whole point.
Moreover if "results" are defined as "fixing something"
I stated very clearly that expertise is demonstrated by a proven track record of results.
Antibiotics are "the power of god"?
Ugh. No.
You gave an example of someone claiming they are a prophet of God as their explanation for their positive results. The topic is about whether it is rational to "trust the experts", in your hypothetical the man isn't even claiming to be one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump is also a "guard rail"
And...?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Consistent
Constantly made up with no evidence to fit your narrative.
Wouldn't help, the fake elections are unauditable by design.
How convenient
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
he'll have the justice department and presidential immunity so he won't need to concern himself with it.lol,impeachment: flopjustice system: flopassassination: flopIt's like there's too many "guard rails" to allow subverting a democratically elected president.
It's there a rational argument hidden somewhere underneath your nonsense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Experts become authorities in their fields by demonstrating their knowledge and abilitiesWhich is to say they have the best argument.
If presenting the best argument is the profession they're in, then sure. Otherwise it's largely irrelevant.
with a proven track record of results, not by winning debates."results" that are a not a subset of "the best argument" is irrelevant.
That's ridiculous.
A mechanic can explain to you all day long why your car is not running and what needs to be done to fix it, it's not till your car is actually running again that he proves he knows what he's talking about and should therefore be taken seriously.
If I went back in time (or to sentinel island) with a bunch of antibiotics claiming to be a prophet of god would "the results" be all the "miracles" I did?
One does not need to have subject matter expertise when they are able to wield the power of God. Wrong subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The reason they have stopped complaining is that they think it was "too big to rig" that the level of fraud which is possible without even further detection (for we have certainly detected some see this thread) was insufficient to overcome the sheer majority of people which have rejected the deep state candidates.
lol
If you lose, it's because they cheated. If you win, it's because you won so big the cheating didn't matter.
Pathetic.
Maricopa county has been an epicenter of proven dirty election subversion
Maybe they should hire an independent party to come in and investigate.
how would you explain it if in two years Trump has done nothing to secure elections?
You mean like put together a voter fraud commission?
Nothing will happen. He doesn't care about election integrity, he cares about winning. If he actually tries to run again, or if he feels invested in the next republican nominee (which if he's still around is highly probable) he'll have the justice department and presidential immunity so he won't need to concern himself with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
We don't have time huh. Do we have to see things for ourselves?
No idea what you're asking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
First off all, trust isn't black or white.Irrelevant.Second, everyone puts some level of trust in the expertise of others because it's not avoidable.Irrelevant.
When your critics lack the ability to see anything other than black or white, pointing out that gray exists is absolutely relevant.
Debate is not where we rely on trust. Debate is where trust is vindicated or betrayed.
Experts become authorities in their fields by demonstrating their knowledge and abilities with a proven track record of results, not by winning debates.
Created: