Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Uh yeah. So if that's your answer, that "researching" means "doing the experiment yourself"Wanna take a second guess since you are all into the "guessing game" on this site?
I asked you to explain your position and you responded with a question, so I replied with an if/then which is a logical statement that replies to your point while taking into account the possibility that your position wasn't well represented by your response.
I'm sorry rational conversation is so difficult for you to follow.
it's who you should trustAnd you have said before that you trust the MSM. They said the people love Kamala. They said crime, immigration, and the economy is not something the people really care about. They said Biden was super cogent and just wanted to let Kamala get her turn when he dropped out. They said Trump was worse than Hitler.
Pretty much everything you just listed here is bullshit, at best it's a list of caricatured exaggerations, first off all.
Second, when I say I trust MSNBC I'm speaking generally. It does not mean I believe every claim made by every host and every pundit on the network. It means I believe the network operates with journalistic integrity, because they demonstrate it.
Third, again, trust is not an all or nothing. You seem incapable of understanding this.
Fourth, trusting reporting is not the same thing as certainty of outcome. If a reporter says that talked to a source that said Trump is planning to nominate Jim Jordan to his cabinet, I trust that he spoke to a source who said that. It doesn't mean the source was being truthful or had full knowledge of the situation. Integrity =/= perfection.
If pundits on MSNBC give their predictions on what will happen on election day, they're just that, predictions. Being wrong doesn't mean they are untrustworthy, it means they're not Nostradamus. Anyone who thought they were or holds them to that standard is a moron, as is anyone who thinks that them being wrong on a prediction makes them untrustworthy as a network. The difference between MSNBC and MAGA is that MSNBC will admit when they are wrong.
None of that was true, and Biden's smiling face today tells you everything you need to know about the deep state subverting democracy by pulling the donors out from under Biden.
This argument is so stupid.
Biden had a terrible debate performance and it worried everyone in the Democratic party as well as those within his own campaign ad to whether he could possibly recover. Many felt, probably rightly, that for him to continue as the nominee would effectively hand Donald Trump the White House, so they used their free speech you guys love to obsess over to our pressure on him to step aside. Political donations are also free speech, presidential candidates are not entitled to your money.
It was a completely rational response to three circumstances, to call that a subversion of democracy is such a ridiculous attempt of third grade "I know you are but what am I?" tactics.
The simple fact is: you lack the ability to decide who to trust.
You don't even know what trust is so your assessment of me is less than worthless.
Created:
Posted in:
Back in 2016 when I was asked why Donald Trump concerned me so much I answered; out of the many many reasons to be concerned about him, my greatest concern is that he's a conspiracy theorist. Why is this so troubling? Because the conspiracist mindset is extremely dangerous as it has a tenancy, especially when being pushed by the most powerful man on the planet, to spread like cancer.
This whole thread is perfect example of this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
How do you know what people know more than you is true?Is it just because they explain with a lot of words?
It's because we have lives to live and can't sit around becoming an expert ourselves in every field everytime someone tells us something, therefore the solution is to apply Occam's razor; is it more likely that someone who has worked in a field their entire life is correct or incorrect when they are speaking to that field? Does this person have a reason to lie? Etc.
We trust experts as a generalization because we recognize that experience > non-experience. It's not blind, it's not unquestionable, it's not infallible. It's a basic application of critical thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Please explain how you conduct this research without trusting what anyone else has told youHave you ever done a high school lab?
Uh yeah. So if that's your answer, that "researching" means "doing the experiment yourself" then we're back to my original post where I pointed out that it is a practical impossibility for anyone to live their life that way, which also means you do not live your life that way, thereby highlighting your dishonesty.
It also disregards the fact that simply doing an experiment doesn't mean you understand all the variables and readings that may follow from that experiment. What would probably cure that is years of experience in that particular field, further making my point.
The question isn't whether you should trust, it's who you should trust and at what point does your skepticism warrant withholding that trust. The conversation is far more complex that the cartoonish strawman you and your cohorts here love to throw at the rest of us who think like normal people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Thinking about it, I'm starting to prefer Trump to Harris
Being that these words were written a full 10 days after the election, a stretch where Trump has nominated Fox News host to be secretary of defense, a credibly accused child trafficker who has stated repeatedly his desires for the DOJ to go after Trump's political opponents as his Attorney general, and an antivax conspiracy theorist to be secretary of health and human services, it is clear that your opinion on who is better has nothing to do with who would be better at governing, so perhaps you could enlighten us as to what your values are in the first place.
How do the hardcore Harris people counter that?
I've already countered it, and you don't seem to have considered a word I wrote. There are very reasonable alternative reasons to explain why she didn't go there but you ignore them. That suggests you aren't really interested in the answer to the question you are asking.
And again, the ability of an individual to rhetorically manuver through a hard hitting interview is not an indicator of how well they would do as president. The job is to govern, not win debates, so your entire premise is disconnected from the point of an election. Harris and Trump couldn't be any more different from eachother, so why it matters to you so much that she go on JRE suggests you have no clue what is going on, and don't seem to want one.
It doesn't matter how much better Kevin Durant is than me at basketball; if there is a game scheduled between both of us and he doesn't show up, then I'm going to win by default.
A forfeit is a win by technicality, it is not in any way an indication of which person or team is better at the sport. And when the sport is making decisions that will deeply impact the direction of the country and the world, picking your winner by such a contrived and arbitrary criteria is foolish.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not afraid of civil war.
Stop being an idiot. Even you are better than this, hell I'd even take a chatgp post at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
My stance is, and has always been, that the alternative to blindly trusting authority figures is for you to do your own research
Please explain how you conduct this research without trusting what anyone else has told you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You cannot be an educated individual without trusting what others have said,Wrong.You cannot be an educated individual without questioning what others have said
It's not an either/or.
To be educated requires that you learn. To learn requires that you accept. To accept requires that you... Trust. Questioning an authority without the willingness to at some point accept what they tell you is not a rational exercise, it's a childish game of gotcha.
Now sure, you're probably thinking of examples where you can teach yourself something without having to accept a word anyone else tells you but that only brings me back to everything I just said that you ignored; there is no way you can live your life like that, and you know you never have so stop being so dishonest.
It really speaks to the monumental lack of critical thinking the MAGA movement cultivates that you and apparently every other MAGA lunitic here doesn't understand the difference between accepting what someone tells you as true because Occam's razor dictates that as the rational response, and blind acceptance of anything told to you by anyone who purports to be an expert.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And yet, when they really wanted to, the left re-enacted all the executive orders to curb illegal immigration a month before election day
It's not the left that's been screaming from the mountaintops about immigration for the past 8 years. That was there republicans far mongering about how they're coning here to rape your daughters, only to turn around and say "nah, we'll wait till Trump is in office to fix it".
Say whatever you want about the democrats failure to take a serious problem seriously, when it comes to brazen hypocrisy and dishonesty they don't come close to MAGA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I've often ranted about the appeals to authority as often expressed "Trust the experts" or "Trust the science".While I've been absolutely correct in those rants and in fully dismissing appeals to authority within unscoped debate, I don't think I've put it as succinctly as RFK does here:Put all our faith in the technocrats. That's why this mantra of "trust the experts". Trusting the experts is not a feature of democracy, it is not a feature of science. It's a feature of religion, it's a feature of totalitarianism, but it's absolutely anathema to science and democracy.
To say trusting the experts is tantamount to religion is either a ploy to manipulate people or it's just breathtakingly stupid.
First off all, trust isn't black or white. There are all degrees of trust one can put into the conclusions of others, so to automatically assume that the level of trust we must be asserting is that of infallibility (which is what religion is) is a strawman at the outset.
Second, everyone puts some level of trust in the expertise of others because it's not avoidable. Unless it's what you do for a living, no one is going to put on a lab coat and study samples to tell if COVID is real, no one is going to perform their own studies to tell if the food they're eating is healthy, no one decides to become an expert in nuclear physics before deciding whether they support the building of a new nuclear power plant.
No organization can function without relying on the expertise of those within the organization. I am considered a subject matter expert in many areas of my job, so my boss will not make a decision regarding certain matters without seeking my input first. That's not some appeal to authority fallacy, it's common sense.
Our personal experiences make up a small fraction of what we know about the world, nearly everything else we know came from someone else in some form or another. You cannot be an educated individual without trusting what others have said, so the question isn't whether you should trust people with expertise but what processes you should run through and what standards should be applied earn your trust. And within that process is the common sense notion that having experience in a field makes you more likely to be correct about the conclusions you draw within that field.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ok, so you're just trolling. No one is this stupid.
We were talking about the prospect of civil war and why voting for someone with the propensity to drum up those conditions shouldn't be president, so of course you change the subject to tariffs. I take that as your concession.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Where do you even find this bullshit?
I read
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
It's easy to get stuff done if you want to get stuff done.
Again, something like that would need Congress and Congress was not going to pass it weeks before an election. All the will in the world wasn't going to change that.
But if you want to insist they should have tried or if the whole point here is about left vs right, then fine, just argue that she didn't want to pass it and instead just wanted to win an election. If any right wing voter really wants to pretend that this is a terrible thing then remind them about how republicans shelved the border bill they've been asking for for years and keeping the border "open" for an entire additional year all because Trump wanted to run on fixing immigration. That is infinitely worse.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You don't put on a seatbelt because you think you're going to crash. You don't pay into a term life insurance policy because you think you're going to die.Only a crazy person thinks this way.
Only a moron would argue against this.
Q1: Do you believe you're going to crash when you get in a car?
Q2: Do you wear a seatbelt
An analogy that would make sense with the Orangemanbad cult is that the risk of death is high (when it isn't) so we need to install a rollbar cage and wear a neckbrace to drive to the grocery store...
The analogy went completely over your head, and no this isn't an apt analogy.
My analogy made one central point: You do not need for a bad outcome to be probable in order to take steps to ensure protection. This isn't controversial, it's common sense.
The reason that applies is because people like you excuse voting for Trump on the basis that the chances of him plunging us into civil was is "insanely small". Setting aside the accuracy of your characterization, the implication of your statement is that it isn't a disqualifier for a president to be a potential instigator of a civil war. That's absurd.
In any sane rational world the president is expected to be the nation's primary protector of democracy, not the inspiration for it's failure which the rest of the country must guard against. Electing a president who has contempt for democracy is like hiring a bank robber to be the lead security guard for your jewelry store. Sure, he might not pull off a heist, doesn't mean it was a smart choice. Either way you're still an idiot for putting yourself in that situation.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No serious person would claim Trump would have accepted the results if he lostand that's your definition of a "threat to democracy"?
As usual, you focus on one small piece of what I said and pretend the rest of it doesn't exist. It's like telling you 1+1+1=3 and you just sit there looking at the 1's going "dUh I don't see a 3 anywhere"
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
There are some posters in this forum that really want the most horrible death for Trump. SideWalker is one of them and maybe DoubleR is the other.
I've never said anything remotely close to this.
So, Democrats wanted Trump dead during the presidential campaign, everybody saw it.
The first assassination attempt was caried out by a conservative republican who researched mass shootings and other celebrities. He was nothing but a loser who wanted to become famous by killing someone famous.
The second attempt was a republican who favored Vivek and Nikki Haley.
It's just like how Kelly, Mattis, and Esper all called him a fascist, and then when democrats say "look, his own people are calling him fascists" you guys go "duh democrats keep calling Trump a fascist".
It's grossly dishonest, but whatever you guys need to tell yourselves...
Created:
-->
@Mall
You still have to support President Trump.
Bullshit I do.
I support the constitution, Trump has shown us repeatedly he doesn't care about it.
I support doing what's right, for Trump to meet that he would have to abandon pretty much his entire political platform.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
How does taxing a foreign country on one good raise the price of everything domestically?
Taxing a foreign country? WTF? You can't be this stupid. Tariffs are not a tax on other countries, they're a tax on American businesses that are then passed on to the consumer (us). We learned this in middle school.
And no, he didn't pledge to raise the price of one good, he pledged to raise it on all goods coming from China. That's huge.
You will make any excuse to defend the wealthy elites.
You are completely delusional, we're not even having the same conversation. Please join me out here in reality.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Well you've got to do your best to support him now.
No, I don't. I won't support his tariffs that will drastically raise prices on everything. I won't support him walking into people's homes to deport grandma along with the guy picking fruits for next to nothing thereby allowing us all to pay less at the grocery store. I won't support his rampant corruption as her taps billionaires with government contracts to lead his department in charge of figuring out where government money should go. And I won't support his actual weaponization of the government against his political enemies.
I will support his inaction if he turns out to do nothing he said he was going to do and govern like a normal human being, but that possibility appears to get smaller everyday.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You are the reason Kamala was allowed to be selected.You are the reason Kamala 2.0 will be selected.Own it.
Didn't know I was that powerful. Crazy.
And while you sit there masturbating to the fantasy that Trump won because America hates Kamala and the left I remind you as I have numerous times that Trump's victory had very little to do with that. He won because grocery prices are high, and they're high because of the aftermath of COVID. If Trump had been president these past 4 years they would probably be higher given that his solution to everything is a tariff, and the democrats would have won this election with an actual landslide.
Politics is a pendulum, see you in two years.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It says you are wrong to think the insanely small chance that MSNBC was right and Trump will start a civil war was enough to deter more than half the country from voting in their best interests.
As usual, you just make shit up to refute. I'm talking about what is actually right, not what uneducated people think is right.
It's crazy how you talk about the "insanely small chance" that reelecting Trump would lead to a civil war as something that shouldn't factor into one's vote. One of the greatest responsibilities of the president is to hold the country together. That's what Abraham Lincoln did and for that he is widely considered the best president in US history, meanwhile the guy who preceded him is widely considered the worst.
This is because people understand (or used to) that you don't need probable certainty of a bad outcome in order to go to great lengths to avoid that outcome. You don't put on a seatbelt because you think you're going to crash. You don't pay into a term life insurance policy because you think you're going to die. The mere possibility is enough to make these precautions a rational tradeoff. With Trump we did the exact opposite. With him we decided that the American experiment was worth risking because we're paying to much for groceries. That is unforgivable.
BTW, your Nostradamus, MSNBC
Are you this stupid on purpose?
MSNBC is currently losing a ton of viewership post election
They'll be back with a vengeance. People are checking out because they're angry and feeling despair, but once that wears off they'll be right back and being the party out of power is always good for viewership. David Packman lost like 5k subscribers the day after the election, since then he's netted a 10k increase. So sorry you're death of liberal media wet dream is just that. My condolences.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nothing about his article says I’m wrong, it doesn’t even say anything I disagree with. As usual, you have no clue what you’re talking about and nothing of any intellectual substance to add to the conversation.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
How do you explain the fact that nearly every left politician and nearly all the left media outlets stopped calling Trump a threat to democracy since the election?
Because it’s no longer the immediate concern. He’s the president-elect now, so they’re rightly focused on what he’s gearing up to do for the next 4 years.
Let’s recognize something, as the PA example illustrated, Trump was absolutely planning to unleash hell upon this country if he lost. He had already spent the past few months (just as he did in 2020) telling his supporters that the only way he could lose this election is if it were rigged. And as January 6th demonstrated, if his followers decided to turn violent he would have done absolutely nothing to turn down the temperature. He was ready and willing to burn it all to the ground if he didn’t get his way, so for now, the only thing that saved us is the fact that he won. That’s not democracy, the choice of the American people cannot only be followed if he wins.
So now the next threat is what happens in 2028. It’s not really worth getting bent over at the moment because there are so many variables. At his age, we don’t even know if he’ll be alive. But if he’s still kicking, still aware of where he is, and is still expecting prosecutions against him - all very plausible - there is no reason to believe we will not see 2020 on steroids. With criminal immunity and a DOJ full of complete Trump lackeys (which he didn’t have in 2020), there is a very real possibility this one man will plunge us into a civil war.
You cannot possibly tell me I’m wrong on any of that.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Like the Democrat cult accepted the reality that Trump isn't a threat to democracy?
He is a threat to democracy, that’s a fact.
Remember on Election Day when Trump went on and on about the fraud that was taking place in Pennsylvania? What happened to that? Oh, Trump won so it’s all fine now.
No serious person would claim Trump would have accepted the results if he lost, and he now has the power of the Justice department along with criminal immunity to use them however he wants. He won’t be on the ballot next election (although I guarantee he’ll at least dip his toes in the water to so if he can) but if he thinks (which he probably will) that the democrats will prosecute him should he leave office he’ll try to rig the next election and this time he’ll have the lackeys in place to help him do it.
That’s the reasonable presumption at this point based on everything this man has shown us about him. Regardless of whether it comes to pass or not, the fact that we put ourselves in this position where the only thing stopping it from happening is the personal restraint of a man who has never demonstrated such restraint is a damming indictment on us as a society and the disrespect we have towards past and future generations.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Have lessons been learned here? Or will there be the usual endless excuses about how one side is garbage misogyny and racism?
I can’t speak for anyone else, and I wouldn’t call any of it a “lesson” because I’m not in politics. Here are some of the learnings I’ve taken out of the past week.
America is a heavily misogynist country, even more so than I previously thought. It turns out Trump’s support for men was boosted tremendously by men who saw his (fake) bravado as an inspiration, and despite the fact that this is the man entirely responsible for the rolling back of woman’s rights to their own bodies, the male vote for Trump still outpaced the female vote for Harris. I find that remarkable.
The left badly underestimated the right’s ability to bolster an imaginary bogeyman. To quote one pundit, “maybe if the left wasn’t so obsessed with trans issues they might of won”. The ignorance and reality inventing here is insane. No prominent left wing figure campaigned on trans issues. It’s not the left that is obsessed with trans people, it’s the right. The left generally isn’t thinking about any of this and yet the right just kept inventing an image of the left going out everyday trying to find new ways to turn kids trans. It’s remarkably stupid and totally disconnected from reality, and yet it worked.
This election reinforced that no one actually cares about policy. Kamala Harris talked about her economic plans ad museum while Trump could barely utter a sentence without just repeating the word tariff over and over again. Despite economists everywhere telling America Trump’s plans were far more catastrophic it went almost unchallenged that Trump was the better candidate on the economy. That’s absurd. He’s just the guy who pounded the table harder. People just aren’t smart or educated enough to understand how basic economics works so they just credit/blame whoever happens to be sitting in the WH. Little can be done about that.
Lastly, America is now a country that either does not care about the country we leave to our children or we’re just too stupid to realize that a government of by and for the people is not actuated by magic, it’s something we have to work for and maintain. We just reelected the man who incited an attack on the US Capitol as part of his attempt to overturn an election because we were worried about the price of eggs. There used to be a time when we as a country appreciated the sacrifices made by those who came before us to give us the gift of democracy and felt the obligation to pass that to future generations, but not anymore. Our passions of the day are now more important.
That’s what I’ve learned. As far as what needs to change? Not a whole lot. We do have to be more careful of the silly little anecdotes that the right will use to create their new imaginary enemies of the future, but the reality is that this is how government works; it’s a pendulum that is always swinging back and forth. The governing parties lost vote share in every developed nation on earth for the first time since 1905. That’s not because of our political differences, it’s because of the damage covid caused. That was out of our control, but after another Trump term that pendulum will swing way back.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you are clearly in with the "garbage" and "deplorable" crowd.
lol
But we’re the snowflakes. I’ve never seen a political movement so bent around the idea of retribution for being called names. You guys are so pathetic.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Those of you that are disappointed, how are you coping?
It’s just a realignment of expectations. After 2016 I was shocked that we were this dumb as a country, but I took solace in the optimism fueled belief that once people saw that the man is exactly who he showed us he was, people would realize what a mistake we made. And for a moment after COVID and January 6th it seemed like we finally came around.
After Tuesday I realized that I have to learn to accept that we really are a country of idiots. I am no longer proud to be an American to the degree I once was, if I leave the country for vacation I would no longer want people to know I’m an American because I find it embarrassing.
I have zero doubt that historians will look at this period of American history with befuddlement. We just reelected a complete and total buffoon who tried to overthrow an American election because we were mad at the price of eggs. Generations to come will not be kind to us.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So if it turns out that Trump does contest an essential element of the purported crime, then what could the possible relevance of "most of which Trump is not even contesting"be?
Because proving a case means proving all of the elements, so when most of the elements are there that simplifies things nicely.
Better question is; Why do you need that explained?
....but he couldn't have done that because nobody thought it was illegal or even inappropriate until they went after Trump.
Nobody thought it was illegal to lie to the FBI, obstruct their investigation, and maintain the documents you have been warned are property of the US government and told to give back?
But I’m the one with derangement syndrome. Ok bro.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
This is fundamentally dishonest. Saying we shouldn’t trust institutions doesn’t lead anyone to the conclusion that any given event was a false flagYou are the one who claimed false flag.
WTF? I’m quoting what conspiracy theorists say every time they raise issues with the “official story”. I’m not claiming false flag, I’m arguing against that allegation.
I would say it is fair to accuse them of a false flag or a cover up kind of as a pressure tactic to get them to be more honest
The time to accuse the government of a false flag is when there’s evidence to support it. “I don’t understand the official story” is not evidence.
So they believe differently than you and are bad guys for noticing facts that don't align with the official version of events?
They are bad because they are spreading damaging and dangerous disinformation all based on arguments rooted in their own ignorance and lack of willingness to accept reality for what it is. It’s fundamentally dishonest and grotesque.
This is a lie. So when you prevent a conspiracy usually you are aware your theory could be wrong but it is a mental exercise to provide a different explanation of events.
Philosophical exercises are fine, provided you are grounded in intellectual honesty and consistency and thereby willing to accept whatever comes out of them. That’s the opposite of a conspiracy theorist, which is exactly why the term conspiracy theorist is used as a pejorative.
Conspiracy theorists don’t change their position in the face of evidence, they simply adapt their conspiracy to the new evidence. A witness comes out and says they saw it happen? They must be working for the conspirators. A group of professionals comes out and explains why the official story holds up? They must be getting paid off by the conspirators. As the conspiracy becomes more implausible, the scale of the conspiracy grows. Conspiracy theorists will change their entire world view around the conspiracy rather than apply their world view to the evidence. And ideas don’t live in a vacuum, so fallacious reasoning towards one proposition will likely make its way towards other propositions. That’s why people who accept one conspiracy are likely to accept others, thereby driving the individual further and further away from reality.
Alex jones did not call to threaten anyone and HE didn't tell anyone to.
That’s not the charge. When you tell your millions of followers the parents are part of a false flag operation aimed to play on your fears in order to take away your guns what the hell do you think is going to happen?
If you are claiming somebody is a crisis actor and doesn't exist, than how would you get their phone number to threaten them?
The parents are the alleged crisis actors genius, the kids who were killed are the ones who allegedly don’t exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
There are literally Twitter files released showing pressure by the government to censor information.
And the people at Twitter made very clear that this was a conscious decision on their part to work with the government to root out disinformation. The fact that a few agents on the government’s end got a bit overzealous on their emails doesn’t change that fact. If you believe in free speech that means Twitter has every right to run their platform as they saw fit and there is no evidence that anything they did fell out of line with that.
Also deep state politicians like Paul Ryan, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Nikki Haley have all called for government controlled speech in some fashion.
They called for the reversal of section 230, as has Trump.
“President Donald J. Trump has called to repeal the law and signed an executive order attempting to curb some of its protections, though the order has been challenged in court. More recently, he threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), an annual defense funding bill, if it does not revoke Section 230”
Besides that we can see what you left tards did in England
I have no interest in whatever anecdote you want to quote from England. Next.
Besides we collectively saw during covid every mention of a Wuhan lab theory cause every major platform to censor speech.
Social media platforms are not the government. Next.
Not that I expect consistency from the left because your criticisms are not about intellectual honesty are they? Because you would defend a baker from having to make a cake with a Nazi Insignia.
These are completely different things. The ruling forcing bakers to make a cake for a gay wedding is about protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination. Forcing someone to bake a cake with a swastica is about symbolism of an idea, that is totally different.
I am going to let you know something the left that has brain washed you doesn't want you to know. You have a strength inside of you and if you are currently weak you can become strong. If you are weak in moral character you are not powerless, you can overcome yourself.
lol how pathetic.
Here’s something you don’t know; you are grossly ignorant of how anyone on the left thinks and what motivates it. But the good news is you can overcome yourself, and it starts right here. All you have to do is read the words written and apply real English meaning to them, stop searching for the caricature your mind creates and instead try to actually understand, then maybe you’ll recognize how ridiculous your cartoonish demonization of the left really is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
If a theorists us not proposing an alternate theory than it may just be them stating that the official story can't be trusted and we should be more skeptical of institutions that we really should be able to trust.
This is fundamentally dishonest. Saying we shouldn’t trust institutions doesn’t lead anyone to the conclusion that any given event was a false flag, yet that’s what the conspiracy theorists focus on so clearly that’s what they believe and want other people to believe. You pretend that accusing the government of lying to cover up “the truth” about events like 9/11 or Sandy hook do not have obvious and nefarious implications which is just ridiculous.
Moreover, another giveaway that this is BS is that conspiracy theorists never stop with the government. Anyone who is involved in any way, including witnessing these kinds of events becomes part of the conspiracy. Like the parents of the slaughtered Sandy Hook children, or I think of Mark Bingham’s mother who they attacked with death threats because she said it wasn’t unusual for her son to give his full name. Anyone who poor’s cold water on their fantasy narrative is immediately castigated.
This is not about being more skeptical of institutions, it’s very clear what this is about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
How is speculating about a false flag conspiracy "exploiting the misery of parents"?
He wasn’t speculating. He said explicitly that it was a false flag.
People have a right to advance conspiracy theories about government behavior.
He didn’t limit his propaganda to the government, he directly accused the parents of the slaughtered children of being crisis actors in his imaginary plot. Accusing someone of being a government plant doesn’t give you the free speech shield of criticizing the government.
Months eh? So how about you post videos of the first and last time he speculated?
Why don’t you tell me, since you seem to think a more limited timeframe a valid defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
If everyone agrees, then passing it should be very simple.
Again, you asked how does the blue voter respond to it. I just gave you the reality, no party is going to pass major legislation like that in the waning months of a political campaign. Harris has only been the nominee for a little over 100 days, and getting rid of tax on tips is a major sea change in our tax policy that would have severe domino effects if not done properly. With every member of the house out campaigning for their seats and about a third of the senate, this isn’t feasible and goes against the grain of everything politics is.
That answer may not satisfy some, but their gripe isn’t Biden or Harris it’s the entire US political system, so to take that out or use it against Harris is ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
How would the blue voter respond to this?
Because none of this was brought up until months before an election. Congress was all out campaigning, no one is going to pass anything meaningful at that point.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The fact that he admits to taking the documentsThought you said that wasn't the issue?Yea here:And what makes you obtuse is the fact that you can’t get through your head that the mere possession of those documents is not the issue.Pick a story.
Ok, let’s slow this down.
First, please notice the word “mere” in the second quote. That means that him simply having possession of the documents doesn’t make it illegal/unethical/immoral. Whether we’re talking about the legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence that is admissible in a court of law, or whether we’re talking about the court of public opinion where the standard is much lower and the only real test of admissibility is Occam’s razor, the principal is the same; No one piece in isolation is going to substantiate the crime. The question is whether the case against him adds up. Please read that again if you need to before continuing.
Now that we understand the basic principal, let’s go back to my quote except this time, I’ll include the part you cut off:
The fact that he admits to taking the documents and defending it based on the ridiculous notion that they’re his is pretty damn relevant
The second part of this quote is what gives the first part meaning. It doesn’t matter that he took the documents, it matters why. Because there are circumstances where the fact of him taking the documents isn’t prosecutable. For example, it could have gotten mixed up with other records and he didn’t realize it. Doesn't matter whether we’re talking about the law or assessing his viability as a candidate, the principal is exactly the same and that is what you ignore every single time you argue about this, which is why you’re wrong.
If Donald Trump did what Joe Biden did; called the FBI and said hey I’ve got classified documents that belongs to the government here, you good should take them… we wouldn’t be having this discussion. There would have been no raid, no indictments, no political firestorm. But he didn’t do what Joe Biden did. That’s called a difference, and differences explain why they are not treated the same. Because different =/= the same.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Perfect outcome.
Perfect encapsulation of Trump; a man completely incapable and uninterested in the job millions of Americans just handed him. Says more about us than about him.
If you don't know what your plans are, neither can the enemy!
Neither can the people who voted for them.
What we will get is a man they don't control. A man who won't lie to us because he clearly has no idea how to lie
lol
Except for the 30k he told in his first 4 years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
It’s not a law, it’s not a policy, and it is the political right that brought it into politics. This notion of getting rid of it is nonsensical babble.Oh, you mean by the supreme court justice pick being a black woman? Surely that's wasn't political.
You said we should get rid of DEI, now you’re talking about an appointment to the Supreme Court you don’t like. So what are you actually talking about getting rid of? An elected leader’s right to make the decisions that they ran on?
Moreover, Katanji Brown Jackson is as accomplished and qualified as any other member to sit on that bench, and what Joe Biden pledged to do was fill that seat with someone of a viewpoint that has never been represented on the Supreme Court… ever. Compare that to Donald Trump’s overtly naked politization of what is supposed to be a non partisan branch of the government by pledging to only fill his seats with those who would overturn 50 years of political precedent on one of the most contentious issues in our politics. But you’re bothered by the black woman. Gee, I wonder why.
Debatable, but they were not following it equally. To raid a president's home and to arrange and post their findings on social media is not the law, it's propaganda.
They raided his home because he was hiding classified documents including top secret nuclear SCI secrets - the most sensitive of all classified secrets in our country - while lying to the FBI saying he didn’t have them. To not raid his home after that would have been absurd.
The indictments made their way to social media because they were made public, because that’s how indictments work. That’s law 101.
To create a brand new law just to charge Trump is not law, it's a banana republic AND to claim there are 32 different charges linked with one transaction, without naming the actual charge, is also a banana republic.
Is also completely made up. The law was on the books well before Trump broke them, and the separate charges is because he made separate payments - that’s how the law works. And they named the charge. Your ignorance is not the fault of NY prosecutors.
Yeah, seriously. Ever heard of CRT?
Yes, it’s a college course on the impact of racism on American institutions, a course that isn’t being taught in a single k-12 classroom in America.
What right wingers like yourself are actually talking about is a buzzword that simply means “any conversation about race that I don’t like”. I’m sorry you are so afraid of these conversations that you would march out to the voting booth to vent your frustrations rather than talk to your damn kids.
How about pushing LQBGT(etc) down the children's throats at schools?
You mean telling kids it’s ok to be whoever they are? I know, travesty.
The liberals are crying for days now because of some invented boogeyman made by the media and Kamala Harris claiming that Trump is Hitler and women's rights are going away and he is a racist. So who makes the boogeyman?
Trump’s campaign is predicated on the idea that immigrants are sick people who eat your pets, live like vermin, and anyone who defends them are the enemy from within. If you don’t think that bears a striking resemblance to Hitler’s message you need to go back to school.
Millions of woman in this country have already lost their right to bodily autonomy because of Trump. That’s a fact.
Trump began his political campaign by calling Mexicans rapists and calling for the banning of all Muslims. That’s a fact and if you don’t think that is racism then you don’t know what the word means.
The party guilty of inventing this is reality itself.
I work with a girl that was afraid she was going to get deported since Trump is in office. The propaganda is in full swing with the blue side of America that it turns all of them in to scared sheep.
Do you think his calling to deport 11 million people might have had something to do with that?
If there is one thing I have noticed from the last 8 years with American politics, is that whatever the left is blaming the right on, they are the one's that are doing it.
lol wow, so even the political right’s projection is now being projected.
Remember in 2020 when Trump literally tried to overturn an election, then turned around and said democrats are the threat to democracy?
That’s what projection looks like.
Created:
-->
@RemyBrown
MAGA: Trump doesn't support Project 2025 which would ban porn.
I’m actually going to be the devil’s advocate here. Not sure Matt Walsh or Steve Bannon will be on his team or represent those he fills out his team with, so we can pump the brakes for now.
The issue here is that everyone knows Trump does not care about policy, that’s why he strolled into the Oval Office around 11am every morning and filled his schedule with “executive time” which really meant “watching Fox News to see how much they talk about him”. It’s also why he can’t talk for more than 20 seconds about any policy proposal, and why he said Bobby Kennedy will “go wild on health”. Translation: “he’ll figure it all out because I don’t care”.
What this also means is that no one, not even Trump has any idea what his policies will look like, that will be all up to the people he brings in board. And since loyalty (to himself, not the constitution) is his top and probably only qualification it’s a literal wild card where we’ll end up.
So with all that said, we’ll have to wait and see, although it is obvious that many in his circle do want these things so it is a strong possibility that much of project 2025 will go into effect or at the very least be pursued by this administration. This is what we voted for, even his own supporters admit that they didn’t know what we would get out of him. We get the government we deserve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
He speculated on a conspiracy theory
He spent months propagating the overt lie that it was all faked and that the parents of those kids were actors playing a role in a massive government conspiracy to take away everyone’s guns. He said this explicitly, it was not speculation.
That aside, I suspect where you are trying to go with this defense is to point to his presentation of all of this as “just asking questions” which everyone knows is bullshit. This is how every conspiracy theory works from the moon landings to 9/11 - the conspiracy theorists never, out loud, say what they think actually happened because then not only would they sound ridiculous but then they would be making a claim themselves which they have no evidence for. It’s all about attacking “the official story” and then pretending that if they can poke enough holes in it their conspiracy wins by default. It doesn’t. It’s a fundamental failure of logic and critical thinking, hiding behind “just asking questions” doesn’t change that.
fuck off with your fascist anti free speech rhetoric
Throwing in all the buzzwords there I see. To bad you don’t know what any of them mean.
Free speech doesn’t give you the right to defame other people by lying about them, first of all, so all of the court cases against him were perfectly legitimate in that sense.
With regards to the rest you love to attack “cancel culture” as anti free speech which is just ridiculous. What’s illegal and possibly facist is to stop speech from a position of government power, that’s why the first amendment only limits the government. What you’re talking about is the rights of others to criticize you, which is itself free speech. So yes you have the right to say all the crazy and vile things you want, and I have the right to call you out on it and if I should so choose, I can boycott your work and call for others to do the same, or if I own a business I can stop using my business to support yours. That’s called free speech, so it’s not me who’s against it. Look in the mirror, and learn something about what you are talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Get rid of DEI and start putting people into position by qualifications, not race or sex. Such foolishness that has ever been in politics.
DEI is a philosophy that encourages everyone to embrace the cultural differences between distant ethnicities. It’s not a law, it’s not a policy, and it is the political right that brought it into politics. This notion of getting rid of it is nonsensical babble.
Punish the crooked judges and prosecutors. They were not merciful to us.
They were doing their jobs and following the law. To punish them would be to violate the rule of law. You guys have been completely gaslit.
Liberals went for my kids
My god dude, seriously?
It's payback time
If there is anything the political right has shown it’s the ability to invent a boogeyman out of thin air so that they can have something to rail against.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Trump has named Alex Jones as the press secretary. This is going to be a fun 4 years
Yeah, nothing like rewarding the guy who made a fortune off of exploiting the misery of parents who lost their children in a school shooting with a top job in the White House.
You’re a sick individual, so of course you support Trump.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Is there anything of relevance (to your absurd theory of the law) that he has not contested?
The fact that he admits to taking the documents and defending it based on the ridiculous notion that they’re his is pretty damn relevant, assuming we’re applying basic logic to the case that he lied to the FBI about having them and even went so far as to move them to a different location to prevent them from finding it.
there is every reason to think their position will be much better after there is no election to subvert as a motivation.
What didn’t take long? For the special counsel to recognize that pursuing a criminal trial against a sitting president, especially one who has already said he would fire him “in 2 seconds” is pointless to continue with? Sounds like common sense to me.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
He does not concede that he concealed anything.
His concession is irrelevant, the evidence shows clearly that he did.
He does not concede that the documents (as copies) were the property of anyone but himself.
He doesn’t get to decide what is his personal property, just as I don’t get to fight off a shoplifting charge by claiming ownership of the items I grabbed off the shelf.
precedent is clearly on his side as previous rulings have stated that the advise given to the president (everything presented to him classified or not) is sacrosanct and irrevocable.
Lawyers don’t get advise you to commit crimes, and him telling his lawyers to lie to the FBI is not covered under the law.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wow, members of Congress raising money over their political positions. How unthinkable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
They were doomed to win this election when they didn't get to vote for their candidate in the primary.
It wouldn’t have made any difference. The problem the democrats faced in this election is that they were running against a fantasy. People remember 2017-2019 being great years, and memory holed 2020. From there, nothing Trump did mattered. No matter how clearly he showed us how ignorant and unprepared he was, no matter how obvious his cognitive decline, no matter how anti constitution he showed himself to be, no matter how self centered and narcissistic he demonstrated himself to be, no matter how unserious everyone knew he was… he was president before and things were good, therefore things will be good again.
Meanwhile every time Kamala opened her mouth she had to show us that she was exceptionally intelligent, understood everything she was talking about, had all the answers, and had to make us feel like she could accomplish anything. The double standards were unlike anything I’ve ever seen.
Even Trump supporters admit that they don’t know what he’s going to do, that’s what people voted for. This is a pass we give to Trump and no one else. The Democrats didn’t stand a chance.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
I would like to see the corrupt judges and prosecutors punished for the lawfare that they imposed on Trump.
Trump was prosecuted because he committed series and obvious crimes. This notion is pure fantasy, but it helps explain how someone like trump Trump is able to get elected.
I would like to see all the RINOs', who endorsed Harris, houses burn down. (No legislation obviously. Just my hope that it does happen. Scumbags!)
What makes them scumbags? The fact that they were willing to put their country above their party?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Ah, so if the crime requires intent; then one cannot intend to deprive another of property if one does not believe it is the property of another.
Google reasonable person standard
How convenient that you know Trump's intent.
It’s not convenience, it’s basic logic and reason. If a person solicits a minor for sex online, tells them he’s coming over with a bottle of wine to “show them the ropes”, then appears at their door with a bottle of wine and condoms… it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what his intent was.
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly Trump supporters are to abandon all semblance of common sense to defend this guy. Assessing people’s intent is something you do literally every day of your life. You look for clues in people’s words, actions, tone, and even body language to assess them often without even thinking about it to come up with your own opinion on how pure their intentions are. It’s one of the most basic human traits we have, hell even animals do this. But when it comes to Trump suddenly this is an impossible task that no amount of evidence could ever prove. How utterly ridiculous.
Where is intent built into the law you claim he broke?
It was all noted in bold in my previous post which you clearly didn’t bother to read.
Ask chat GPT why Hur said "willfully" means "knowing he took classified material" rather than "thinking he had a right to keep classified material"?
Because that’s not what it means.
For example, when Biden said that his notes were his to keep, was that "making false statements to federal investigators" or "obstructing the investigation"?
Google reasonable person standard
That’s where evidence comes in, and it’s overwhelming.So did he concede or not?
The lack of the defendants concession is irrelevant to what the evidence proves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The quantity of the cheating is immeasurable but could plausibly be on the order of 5%
More like 50%.
Since we’re just making shit up.
Whatever the reported results we will never know the actual will of the people on this day
Did George Washington win his election, or was it all those illegals voting? We will never know.
we are on the path to civil war until real elections return to the land.
MAGA wet dream.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
We will know if there is cheating because they always have the election not end at midnight or sooner when they cheat.
You are such a tool. The reason certain swing states count their ballots for days is because republicans refused to allow rule changes that would allow them to get a head start like nearly every other state in the country. It’s all a concerted effort to make the count look nefarious so that they could claim it as evidence of fraud when they lose, and they know it works because people like you swallow it up whole.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
Predicting Harris. It’s close, but the enthusiasm for Trump seems to be waning over the past week and a half especially, the democrats have a serious ground game and Trump has outsourced his, and the gender gap math just isn’t adding up for Trump. The past two elections have undercounted Trump voters significantly so it’s anyone’s guess what happens there, but on the other hand if there’s anyone who isn’t keenly aware of this it’s pollsters and they seem obsessed with not letting it happen again to which Nate Silver made a pretty compelling case that they’re hiding their true polling results, which could explain why we went from a small but consistent Harris lead to a tie over the past 3 weeks. On net it all favors Harris.
Created: