Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
ask yourself before you vote whether there is a place on the site for the senior members to say things that could set off the occasional schizo that visits the site
This kind of logic is like me deciding to stay home because there's always a possibility that if I get in my car I'll die of a car accident.
Anything *could* happen, every choice we make in life is a risk vs reward ratio. The point of this site is for its (very small) member base to be able to speak their minds freely and defend their positions. The idea of banning someone because they said something that could be interpreted as a call to violence that will not in any plausible reality inspire anyone to do anything cuts against all of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Nay
This is a debate site, no one here is posting to 20 million followers. The TOS should cover overtly violent language and language aimed at other users, not vaguely worded coded language that will be read by 10 people who already have their own opinions.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
in politics what really counts is people's impressions, not real facts.
Yeah, that's the problem.
No one here is disagreeing with this so I don't know why you thought this needed to be said. It doesn't refute or even address a single argument I've made.
Or you just forgot what you were saying in this forum? I recall you spreading the same narrative, that Trump is a threat for democracy
I've argued multiple times that he's an existential threat to American democracy. Because he is. That's a fact, and I'm not going to start pretending that reality is not real because all of a sudden the political right wants to pretend to care about the implications of political rhetoric.
So, as far as I am concerned, people's impression is that this assassination attempt was political, meaning that the left tried to kill Trump as he's a threat for democracy, which coincidentaly is part of the narrative that the left has been spreading everywhere.
Again, the fact that one deranged 20 year old kid decided to jump on a roof with an AR rifle doesn't tell you anything about the political left. I don't know why I have to point that out to you, it's basic common sense.
But here's what I find most brazen... People like myself have been telling people like you for years now about how Trump's speech on January 6th along with all of the things he did and said prior to election day all lead to the undeniable conclusion that he wanted the crowd to attack the Capitol, and that argument is rejected out of hand by every single Trump supporter I've ever heard talk about this on the basis that Trump did not tell them to use physical violence explicitly. The idea there being that it's wrong to infer anything, Trump is not responsible for how people connect the dots to his words, only the people who did it are responsible.
But now, all of a sudden, because it's your guy that got attacked, any mere suggestion of anything that might make a person angry enough to carry out such an act is entirely the fault of the people who called something bad... bad.
Hypocrisy doesn't even cover it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
There seems to be a pattern in who is voting for the MEEP proposal. Those voting against the meep proposal with the exception of 2 people are those who would have criticized Trump for stochastic terrorism just 3 months ago. Not to say they would ban stochastic terrorism but by it's nature it is a left wing term not usually found in right wing circles.
Is that where the impetus for this is coming from?
Stochastic terrorism isn't something anyone on this site can engage in effectively. There are two ingredients that make it notably dangerous: reach and influence. No one in this site is going to engage in violence because Wylted or Double_R on debateart told them to. But when you're the president of the United States and you have a cult following, your words become especially dangerous which also means you have a greater responsibility to use them appropriately.
As usual, you throw context out the window so you can pretend it's all the same. It's not.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This is what happens when you elect a moron to lead the country. He brings in more morons to high levels of government.
When you're a moron you don't see these people as morons, to you they look like the first people smart enough to get it right.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
lol studies? please show me the studies that say he has a 70% chance of winning.
Funny how these studies were conducted, proofed, and released all in two days before people have even decided how they feel about the events which these studies supposedly measured.
Created:
-->
@Tidycraft
Maybe you shouldn't have called Trump an existential threat 1000 times on media then. Americans remember the slurs.
I called him an existential threat multiple times because he is. That's a fact to anyone who shares the same values as the people who wrote the constitution. Recognizing that is not a slur, it's the only intellectually honest position any rationally thinking person could take.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Are you setting the "destruction of democracy" in regards to Jan 6 or the 2025 project?
Both. January 6th showed us what Trump was capable of, project 2025 shows us what Trump will do and more importantly how he will accomplish it.
I could talk about January 6th at length and have on this site many times, but if I had to narrow it down to two words it would be: 187 minutes. There is no plausible rational argument to be made that the violence that erupted was not exactly what Trump wanted when he, as commander in chief, was somehow both MIA and sitting right there in the WH dining room watching the entire thing play out on TV.
Project 2025 has gotten a lot of attention due to some of the more salacious and absurd ideas within it, like banning porn. Those are attention grabbers but that's not what makes it so significant. What makes it significant is schedule F and the fact that they are already vetting people to take the positions they plan to open up.
What we have all (including Trump) learned through 4 years of his presidency is just how fragile our democracy really is with the wrong people in charge. No matter how absurd and frankly un-American Trump's impulses were no one was really scared because we all knew we had institutions in place to keep him in check. The problem is that those institutions are only as good as the people running them.
In the beginning Trump had no idea what he was doing, he admitted that he didn't even know what NATO was till after he got elected. So naturally, he had to surround himself with people who knew how government was supposed to work. But those individuals would constantly get in his way because they actually cared about the constitution. Those "anynomous" op eds are a perfect example of this.
As we look back at the 4 years of his term you see a gradual backslide to him putting people in place who's main qualification wasn't experience or subject matter competence like before, but loyalty to him personally. The culmination of this is Jeffrey Clark, whom Trump tried to install as his acting attorney general despite being deeply unqualified. The only reason Trump wanted to put him in was because he was the only one willing to go along with Trump's attempt to use the justice department to steal the election. So what stopped him? All of the senior officials within the department threatened to resign in protest.
You see back then, this was a threat to Trump. In the political climate Trump has cultivated since through January 6th, his ridiculous claims that Biden weaponized the DOJ, the recent absolute immunity SC ruling, and now, this assassination attempt on him... That is laughable as a deterrent.
Trump is not the same person he was in 2016. Back then he really thought he would ride into Washington and walk out a beloved hero who did such a great job. That Trump was hopeful and didn't realize the power he had. The person running at the top of the ticket today is nothing like that. This Trump has given up entirely on those ideas, and is instead full of anger and wants nothing but retribution. But most concerning, is that this Trump knows now how to accomplish his worst impulses and most importantly... Will have the sycophants in place to make it happen.
The next time Trump tells his DOJ to seize voting machines there will not be seasoned experienced officials who have served for both republicans and democrats telling him no. Next time it will be a room full of people who's only credential is loyalty to Trump.
The constitution in the end is nothing more than piece of paper. It takes the people in charge to interpret and enforce it. Put the wrong people in charge and that piece of paper can be thrown in the trash. This is what Trump has figured out, and now he has nearly half the country behind his effort to rewrite it. 2016 and 2024 are not the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
In case you haven’t heard yet he picked Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio. I don’t have much of an opinion on this, but I thought some people might.
He's another Trump sycophant whom we all know is lying every time he praises Trump because back before he ever thought he'd find himself stuck having to kiss the ring to remain viable he trashed Trump just like every other republican in Congress.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Whether it was the left or not, the shooting helps to complete the story or narrative that Trump was creating, and this narrative is about the left trying to take Trump out of the race. The shooting was the last piece he needed to pull it off.
The shooter was a lone wolf 20 year old kid. The idea that this qualifies to anyone as proof that "the left" is trying to kill Trump speaks to the intellectual depravity of the American right and the moral depravity of those using this to bolster that narrative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
if you think Trump is more qualified than a dementia guy, then really your standards are pretty low.
Not sure exactly what you meant to say, this makes no sense. Trump has on multiple occasions thought he was running against Obama and thought Nikki Haley was in charge of Capitol security, just to name a few, so he's not exactly all there either.
But even if we were to set all of that to the side and accept that Biden has completely lost it while Trump is as sharp as a tack, Trump is still orders of magnitude worse. I'd rather have someone who is too weak to effectively defend American democracy than someone who is actively seeking to destroy it. Voting for Trump because he is strong without regard for what he is trying to do is like firing the security guard of your jewelry store because he keeps falling asleep and replacing him with a convicted bank robber.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
You are okay with it because it was Trump that got shot.
I never argued or implied anything like this, you are arguing with the Double_R you invented in your own mind.
One of the reasons I so passionately oppose Trump is because of his weaponization of violent rhetoric. What is absolutely disgusting to watch here are all of the right wingers who have had no issue with it while we have been screaming from the mountaintops about it for years to now all of a sudden be so concerned when it finally happens to their guy. Hypocrisy doesn't even describe it. It's beyond stupid, it's insulting and at the same time downright frustrating because I know that so many idiots out there will buy into it and vote based on it. I used to think we were better than this, but unfortunately way too many of us are not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
There is obviously political rhetoric on both sides.
Yes there is, but there is no equivolence between the dangerous and absurd things Trump says regularly vs the things any prominent democrats say.
I gave you three examples, there are plenty more. Find me one example of one prominent democrat anywhere saying anything relatively close to any of those for which they were not immediately castigated by the rest of their party. I'll wait.
Also, keep in mind, Biden has not been shot, it was Trump, so the mindset of America's idiots are blatantly being trained by the liberal media.
The mindset of America isn't determined by one deranged 20 year old.
Tell me that the Stormy trail was not political theater. You know it was. Made up charges somehow tied to federal charges
I argued the stormy trial in detail here. You are more than welcome to jump into the conversation. Starts well before this post and much before it would be missed, but it's a good 'cut to the end' post if that's all you'd care for.
You don't think that there people who rig elections?
I think there is no evidence to support the claim that the election was stolen. You are free to provide some. If you could you'd be the first.
I'm just so baffled at your attempt to discredit everything that is being said when it was obvious that your media covered for Biden's dementia for YEARS!
You appear to be baffled about me saying things I never said. Please provide the example of me discrediting "everything that is being said" which is true.
This is clear that there are some people in power that doesn't like Trump. This is the very reason that I will vote for him, adulterer or not, fraud believer or not.
Which just goes to show why this country is so screwed.
Your standards for whom you will vote for is not who has the best policies, not who is the most qualified, not who is the best representative to protect our country's values, but the guy whom the powerful hate the most. To you politics is just a reality TV show so your guy is the one who will get the best ratings.
God help us all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Let’s play a game. Which is the real Trump quote?
They're going to be so angry when they find out since they really hate dangerous political rhetoric.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
This is obviously a result of the Liberal and Media destructive rhetoric. For years they have pushed the demonization of Trump, calling Trump Hitler, making him look like a sub-human, etc etc. Now someone who is easily swayed and needing some attention is willing to do the "justice of the people".
Remind me how the political right reacted when a deranged Trump sycophant tried to assassinate the speaker of the house and ended up almost killing her husband by striking him in the head with a hammer. I'll wait.
Remind me which political candidate posted a video online of his opponent being hogtied to the back of a pick up truck.
Remind me which candidate is pledging to pardon and release the people who stormed the US Capitol on January 6th.
Great job at preserving Democracy when you try to jail a political opponents
Trump is being prosecuted because he committed clear and obvious crimes. That's how the rule of law works. The way it doesn't work is to declare Trump immune because he's running for president, at least not to any halfway thinking rational person.
Democracy only counts as long as your side is the only voice that is heard. Kind of like a catch 22, isn't it?
It is, we agree. So let's see what your candidate had to say about this...
"The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged"
Looks like you're preaching to the wrong crowd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Finished his rally speech by telling the crowd to fight like hell or their not going to have a country anymore.This is actually true though. However it doesn't seem reasonable to think storming the capital would work
It's irrelevant whether that was a reasonable assumption. The conversation here is about Trump's violent rhetoric and as I have laid out in detail, there is no coherent alternative explanation other than Trump's rhetoric being aimed at stoking violence in his behalf.
It doesn't matter how a reasonable person would react, that's the entire point of stochastic terrorism. You say things that you know will appeal to the unreasonable people within the group who are a statistical certainty to be there. Every public speaker understands this, please stop pretending Trump was unaware that some people among his followers would take his message to it's logical ends and act on it.
I would be more concerned with Nancy Pelosi refused. Maybe so she could form this false narrative. There is also footage showing capital officers letting protestors in and unlocking doors for the.. have you ever wondered why that would happen if not to set up a narrative?
This is all tin foil hat nonsense.
Trump never offered 10k troops to Nancy Pelosi, but he claims he did so either you accept that he's lying which calls into question why he would need to lie about something like that if his motives were pure, or he did offer those troops which speaks to his awareness of the threat as he repeatedly told the crowd to fight like hell.
This narrative that Pelosi refused the troops to set the stage for J6 is just stupid. Those troops would have been offered literally for her own protection, there are very few people who would have been more in danger if the protesters managed to get their physical hands on lawmakers. And that's setting aside the absurd disregard for Occam's razor to even suggest such a ridiculous plot.
The Capitol police began letting the protesters in after Congress had been evacuated because that was the only choice they had at that time. They were overpowered so the rational course of action at that point was to stand down to avoid further bloodshed. It was common sense, not conspiracy.
the middle of the speech surrounded by no supporting context he utters the words "peacefully and patriotically" make their voices heard.So it seems pretty obvious that statement would not be here if he didn't want that to be the takeaway..
It's called a false exculpatory and anyone with an IQ above room temperature can figure out why someone would throw a line like that in there... Because they know cultists like you will use it to defend them. This is very much like when a mob boss tells you what a shame it would be of something happened to your family. No, that's not an expression of concern.
Moreover, you focus only on this one miniscule part of his speech and throw away not only every other word he uttered, but also everything he's said and done for the prior two months.
Again, he uttered 13,000 words. I challenge you to pull up the transcript of that speech and see how long it takes you to find it, and while you're at it I dare you to search for a single sentence anywhere else in his speech aimed at cooling down the temperature of the crowd. It isn't there because that's not what he wanted. And the people who stormed the Capitol understood that.
I didn't go there to do that, so it wasn't my take away at all.
Your personal takeaway is irrelevant.
Did anyone say we should assassinate Trump, or is that just the conclusion you came to regarding what the logical way to respond to that would be?Yes. Even directly saying it mtiple times.
Then you agree that telling people to come to a rally to fight like hell if they want to have a country after having a presidential election literally stolen from them... Does not mean... Peacefully make your voice heard.
Therefore, it is logical when two words out of a 13k word speech contradict everything else within that speech and said over the prior two months, to dismiss it as a false exculpatory aimed at pointing to it as an excuse when accused of orchastrating the violence that would ensue.
will be wild". Please tell me something... When the hell has a peaceful protest ever been described as "wild"?I just got invited to a party where I was told it was going to be wild. We just drank beers and set off fireworks. When white people say wild we aren't saying it to mean murder politicians.
We're not talking about a college style party genius, we're talking about a political rally protesting the alleged theft of a presidential election.
Google the word "context"
Hillary Clinton had the same opinion.
Tired, debunked, absurd, false equivalence.
Hilary Clinton argued Trump's victory was illegitimate, not that he didn't win.
Do you understand the difference between those two things.
It's his opinion that there were some unfair elements.
"The election was rigged" is not a statement of opinion, it's a statement of fact. To substantiate statements of facts you need evidence. Not only does Trump not have any, he couldn't have possibly had any given that the votes hadn't even been counted yet by the time he started claiming it.
When all of the evidence supporting a claim comes out after the claim was made, it doesn't take a genius to see that it's all an ad hoc bullshit backwards rationalization to justify the original claim, which logically leads to a motive to use that claim for other purposes. This is all common sense.
You guys also literally called George Bush Hitler for years...You also don't have the moral high ground here after the left was rioting for months
You aren't talking to "the left". You're talking to a real person with real thoughts and opinions. I never called Bush Hitler, I wasn't even paying attention to politics then. I did not support the riots and have never defended them.
Stop deflecting with irrelevant nonsense. You can either defend your position or you can't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Riddle me this... How do you make your voice heard to a group of people who have demonstrated that they couldn't care less what you have to say because they just finished stealing your voice from you?Maybe write or something. Who knows. This is weird and out of context.
No, it is the context. Let me slow it down.
Even before the election was called Trump already declared that he won the election and that democrats were in the process of stealing it. Complete bullshit, but all part of Trump's plan.
He then spent the next two months telling his supporters that the democrats were stealing their voice by installing their own candidate into power against their will.
Then when all of Trump's attempts to overturn the election failed, he called his supporters to the US Capitol to protest telling them it "will be wild". Please tell me something... When the hell has a peaceful protest ever been described as "wild"? Answer: never, because that's not how English works. This was a very clear elusion to violence, so by the time J6 came around, his supporters had already been primed for it.
So now it's J6 and all these people are there at the elipse, after multiple speeches by Trump lackies saying things like "let's have trial by combat", Trump takes the stage. He then proceeds to give a 13k word speech that includes the word fight over 20 times and once, in the middle of the speech surrounded by no supporting context he utters the words "peacefully and patriotically" make their voices heard.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that those two words uttered with absolutely no emphasis whatsoever doesn't match anything you've heard from Trump over the prior to months.
The idea that these two words should have been your take away is absurd and incoherent. This guy has been telling you that your country is being literally stolen from you for two months, and after rallying you up over it now you're supposed to think what he wants you to do about it is yell very loud on the Capitol lawn while the people who couldn't give a shit less about what you want finish stealing it? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
And since we're here, let's explore this narrative further. Trump on multiple occasions claimed that he offered Nancy Pelosi 10k troops... Why would he have done this? There is only one coherent answer... Because he understood there was a real threat of violence. So how does a president who's concerned about violence proceed? Answer: By calling off the protest he was the orchastrator of. You know what a president who was actually concerned about violence would not have done? Finished his rally speech by telling the crowd to fight like hell or their not going to have a country anymore.
And here's another question for you... If Trump really didn't want violence what would he have been doing for three hours while the US Capitol was under attack? Hint: not watching the attack unfold in the WH dining room. Not one single phone call to anyone, no authorization to send in the national guard. Why? Because it's fucking obvious; he wanted the attack and all of the evidence for what he was doing during those three hours only further proves that.
This shit is not the same as it was yesterday double r. This rhetoric that Trump is literally Hitler and about to set up concentration camps or that Republicans want to their supporters to invade congress and start murdering politicians isn't going to be tolerated
This is absolutely absurd. When someone tried to assassinate the democratic speaker of the house and ended up within inches of killing her husband, Trump stood on stage to a crowd of laughing supporters joking about it. When the Democratic governor of Michigan was saved by the FBI from a plot to kidnap her Trump joked about it. When people defied Trump's wishes while he was president he routinely called for them to be executed. When protestors were getting out of hand at his rallies Trump told his followers to knock the crap out of them. When Trump supporters rode around with an image of Joe Biden hog tied to the back of a pick up truck Trump reposted it.
We've been warning about the temperature and violent rhetoric for years, but now that it almost came for Trump, now you're concerned about it? Are you fucking kidding me?
You say this rhetoric isn't the same. You say that calling Trump a fascist is some kind of call for violence. Did anyone say we should assassinate Trump, or is that just the conclusion you came to regarding what the logical way to respond to that would be? Ok then, now use that exact same logic towards January 6th.
I oppose Trump so passionately in large part because I want our politics to have nothing to do with violence like this. But blaming the people who are acknowledging the objective reality that Trump is the one cultivating this environment is the height of stupidity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I have heard Nancy Pelosi say fight for the country as well and nobody assumed she meant to start punching people.
That's because there is this thing in language and communication we call context. The implication that Trump was communicating to his followers to get physical is the only coherent interpretation that stems from a two months long campaign telling his supporters that their country had literally been stolen from them.
Riddle me this... How do you make your voice heard to a group of people who have demonstrated that they couldn't care less what you have to say because they just finished stealing your voice from you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
bUT mUh tHReaT tO dEMocRacy
One deranged 20 year old does not compare to a sitting president trying to steal an election and an entire movement trying to hand him back power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Your ideal of encouraging violence is him telling protestors to go home peacefully
A reference to his J6 speech, where he spoke something like 13,000 words and only once sentence in the middle of it had a peaceful undertone, meanwhile the entire rest of the speech was filled with violent underdones including using the word "fight" something like 20 times and ending the speech with "you need to fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore".
The reason he threw in those two words was to plant in a false exculpatory. He knew people like you don't care about reality and will just point to those two words as if the rest of the speech didn't happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Queue the onslaught of republicans claiming the left are the violent ones while they continue to explicitly encourage violence.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Translation: "were justified in our hatred, because we say so"
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
I just don’t really get it. Why do some people have a problem with other people changing their gender, or being gay?
Sexual insecurity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
You assumed that the average American cares about real issues.
No I didn't. I said they care about whether he shares their values. Like when Trump comes out and calls Mexicans criminals and rapists. What would become the MAGA base wouldn't have cared whether he wanted a wall or to ramp up deportations, they just knew he was a bigot like them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Lol even Pelosi and Schumer know they’re going to lose if Biden stays. They would’ve dropped him ages ago if Kamala wasn’t worse
It's always telling to me when I point out a fact like Trump's instances demonstrating his cognitive decline and all you can come back with is "oh yeah well people agree with me".
Sure, take comfort in that.
Created:
Posted in:
Thanks for pointing out he had a gaffe in 2007. I guess that means he doesn't have dementia.
Again, you can't refute what I'm saying so you have to make something up to refute instead. I'm just wondering if you do it on purpose because you're dishonest, or if you are incapable of reading words and translating them into thoughts.
The article is literally titled "Joe Biden's barrel of gaffes". It's about how he's been a gaffe machine his entire life, and that was written 18 years ago. The take away is not that he "doesn't have dementia". It's that your pointing to every single gaffe he makes as evidence of dementia or serious cognitive decline is useless at best and disingenuous at worst.
I guess we can ignore that some polls show him losing every single electoral vote if Trump is swapped out for another republican
Yes we can. Just like we can ignore that done polls show the opposite. Outliars are perfectly normal in this business, that's why we look at the polling averages.
Please tell me this is a joke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
What they believe is beyond my control. It's all on tape. You either care about reality or you don't.Hey, I support Biden continuing in the race. Dunno about your rank and file House/Senate members. I wonder why
Because not everyone cares about reality. Anyone who does knows that political opinions is no indication of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Anyone who wants to know how full of shit the left is read that sentence above and go Google a Biden speech from decades ago
Here's an LA Times article from 2007 talking about Biden's gaffes. Apparently the conspiracy to hide his cognitive decline started way back then.
Can you quote one thing I actually said which his 2012 debate performance contradicts?
And after you find that you can't, will you then finally open yourself up to acknowledging that you just make shit up in your own mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
You have more confidence in the intelligence of the average American voter than I do.
What about my post gave you that impression?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Yep, keep telling that to independents. Let’s see who they believe :)
What they believe is beyond my control. It's all on tape. You either care about reality or you don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Ya we definitely want someone who isn’t cognitively there to control the nuclear codes. Definitely.
If you cared about cognitive ability you wouldn't be enthusiastically supporting the guy who thinks he's running against Obama and that Nikki Haley was in charge of Capitol security.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
This is getting ridiculous. I’m starting to change my mind about him. There is not way this guy is winning the election.
I think the punditry freak out over this is wildly overblown. Is Biden losing to Trump right now? Yes, I would say he is. Does his age have something to do with it? Sadly, I would say yes. But this isn't what the soon to be engaged voters that are going to decide this election are really going to care about.
Debate performances and ability to sound in command of the facts isn't what makes most Americans want to vote for you, if that were the case Trump would have never made it past the first primary in 2016. People care about whether their president shares their values, and when it comes to that these two men couldn't possibly be any more different.
I honestly think the cognitive debate is a huge waste of time. If it were possible to wind the clock back 20 years it wouldn't change a thing. People voting for Trump believe 4 more years of Biden is an existential threat to the country. Biden voters feel the same about Trump. If both of their abilities could be restored to 20 years ago levels, that would only make them seem worse to those who oppose them - because now they would be more competent in their ability to enact their visions. So when people say they're voting for one cause the other is cognitively impaired, it's almost always bullshit. You would vote that way either way, you're just using the cognitive thing as an excuse to not have to justify it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
OH MY GOSH WHAT IS HAPPENING!?
You tell me. I saw some of it, he seemed fine. What has got your panties in a twist?
"look, I wouldn't of picked vice president trump if she was not qualified to be vice president." -Biden
He mixed up the names. So what? He's been doing that for decades.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You know that the word some would technically mean a majority right?
Wow.
The word "some" does not in any sense mean "a majority".
"being an unknown, undetermined, or unspecified unit or thing"
This is one of the most basic words in the English language, we learn it right there alongside "more" and "now". I'm not trying to be a dick, but for you to not know what it means speaks volumes about how you end up being so fundamentally delusional with regards to what Trump is saying when he opens his mouth. You're not living in reality.
So are you nitpicking over what percentage of illegal immigrants are bad people?
No, no one brought percentages into the mix but you. Not me, not Trump. Trump said some are good people, since some by definition is an unspecified number this is a classic Trump tactic to get his message across without actually saying it so he can deny it later. That's why it matters that he put a qualifier before that but not when he was calling them rapists. The implied message (which the racists understood loud and clear) is that he's generalizing that Mexicans are rapists.
This is also text book fascism. You gain power by singling out groups of people to attack and demonize, likening them to scum (or perhaps vermin) effectively dehumanizing them do you can further justify the things you plan to do to them later (likes separating them from their families). That's why racists love him, because he knows how to communicate these things to them while also saying them in a way that people like you will sit here and go "duh he's talking about amnesty statistics over the prior 8 years".
Yeah like with celebrities getting caught faking Maga attacks in the middle of a snow storm.
I just talked about the undeniable spike in hate crimes all over the country and your response is to quote one anecdote about one celebrity who did a stupid thing as if that refutes it.
If you don't have a way to refute a point then stop trying to convince yourself it's not true.
When did we beat Japan at anything? They send their cars over by the millions, and what do we do? When was the last time you saw a Chevrolet in Tokyo? It doesn't exist, folks. They beat us all the time.Statement implies we can and should be doing better to compete with Japanese car manufacturers it shows confidence in American aut manufacturers.
Wow, you found a paragraph in there that didn't contain racism. Congrats.
When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they're killing us economically.Mexico is making smarter economic decisions than the United States and we can do better
"They are not our friend" is not exactly anti racist. Mexico is a US Aly, that's just a fact. And there is no reasonable metric by which they are beating is economically. So again, Trump is just saying outright stupid things that are so brazenly dishonest to cover up the point; "they are not our friend", in other words... Hate those Mexicans.
The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems.A call to stop being the world police and bailing out the world. Insinuating we should be empowering nations to take care of problems before they reach our shore
Again, just purely made up out of no where. This is why I posted the entire section of his speech, so you wouldn't just pull things out of your ass but you're doing so anyway.
He didn't say a word about us being the world's police anywhere. He was talking about the people coming here from Mexico saying that those people are"Mexico's problem" that they have unleashed on us. That's about as racist as you can get.
Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best.Mexico employs a strategy of making cartel issues our problem so they can weasel out of solving them
Employs a strategy? WTF? My god dude, please listen to yourself. This is insane.
And some, I assume, are good people.A statement indicating he is aware most are good people and if not most a good amount that shouldn't be lumped in with the criminals
This really reminds me of the January 6th debate where Trump defenders will take literally two words he uttered out of the entire speech and pretend that was the take away, ignoring the other 13,000 words that were all alined with the opposite.
Trump spent his entire speech trashing the people that come here, and he did so loudly, proudly and confident. The only time in that entire speech he made a pronouncement that wasn't bold and confident is when he said some of them are good people. No rational person can hear that and not recognize that factually, objectively, amounts to an insinuation that there are far more bad people than good people. But you just don't care, facts be damned, logic be dammed.
This excersize is really helping me see went people vote for this man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I already showed you that even in elections with RCV you have frequent problems such as in sanfransisco where errors caused the wrong person to sit on the board for 6 months or in the Minneaopolis mayoral election where less than 50k votes were cast and it took 30,000 man hours and 3 weeks to correct.Certainly a ru off would be superior to dealing with that.
These are anecdotes, not data. You would need to show that the problems you're pointing to are inherent to the system and not just things that happened which can be overcome. We can figure out better ways to count and verify the ballots. If we gave up every time we came across a problem we would still be traveling by horse.
Finally, I am glad you now agree that he said most Mexicans are not rapists and was merely referencing amnesty international stats and saying that criminals can slip through invested.
I said nothing close to this. He did not say, suggest, or imply that most Mexicans are not rapists. He stated that when Mexico "sends it's people" those people are bringing drugs, crime, and rapists. But "some" he "assumes" are good people. You can pretend all you want that this is some kind of kind words speech towards Mexicans, but that's just straight up delusional. There is no context in accordance with the English language that comports with that. You're just making shit up and it's really sad.
You knew what he meant when you heard that and you are being disingenuous though.
Yes, I knew what he meant because I speak English and can read obvious context clues. The speech was entirely anti Mexican immigrants. He did not say anything about them "not" being rapists. He did not say anything about them being great except for that one assumption he threw in there. Telling me that I'm being disingenuous while you continue to blatantly make things up is insane. Here is his entire speech on this subject. Not one single thing you made up is in there.
When did we beat Japan at anything? They send their cars over by the millions, and what do we do? When was the last time you saw a Chevrolet in Tokyo? It doesn't exist, folks. They beat us all the time.
When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they're killing us economically.
The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems.
Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people.
It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably — probably — from the Middle East. But we don't know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don't know what's happening. And it's got to stop and it's got to stop fast.
Islamic terrorism is...
Stop making shit up.
Let's be honest for once. You know that Trump.is not some white bayionalist or secret KKK member.
Completely irrelevant. I couldn't care less what is actually going on inside that man's head, I care what he gives us to work with because that is the only rational basis by which any of us can make a judgement about him and that is what people are seeing and drawing inspiration from which is impacting how society treats these issues. If he's playing some kind of character then it's the character that has to be judged because that's all we have access to.
It is not a coincidence that during the Trump presidency hate crimes spiked and for the first time in decades white supremacists all over the country felt comfortable showing their faces. To quote Andrew Gilliam; "I'm not saying he's a racist, but the racists sure think he's a racist". That is what matters.
I mean if every leftist is calling him racist for suggesting some level of border security and claiming republics are racist for also supporting secure borders and meritocracy than certainly it would help him win an election by being openly racist and not giving off these hints that set conspiracy y theorists off.
They're calling him a racist because that is how he portrays himself. Read his speech above, point me to one part of that which doesn't scream "terrible people!". Point me to one part of it that is positive and uplifting other than when he brags about himself. His formula is clear, whether it's genuine or strategy is irrelevant. He knows how to do one thing: make people angry by finding someone to deamonize.
Your defenses of him are based purely on wishful thinking, not reality. Every word of his speech spews hatred towards anyone he identifies as "other" and then he makes up BS ad hoc excuses like "I just care about border security" and people like you eat it up. It's insanely sad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
That's one of the lesser premises and one I gave you because I thought you cared about it, I have shown that it delays the results of elections, increases inaccurate results and results in thrown away ballots.
You keep referencing thrown away ballots as if you're not describing exactly what happens now. I understand you prefer the run off election model but having nearly every election across the country run twice is a non-starter so it's a waste of time to use as a basis for comparison.
But to the point, if it's one of your lesser premises then you really haven't made a case because that's mostly been what you've talked about. And as far as that goes, yes I care about voter turnout but I only care so much as I care about leading a horse to water. Casting a RCV ballot requires nothing more from a voter than few seconds of thought to figure out how the check boxes work, if they are unwilling that is their choice. It is a very different thing than turning away a willing voter because they brought the wrong ID or don't have the time and money it takes in many cases to aquire the ID suddenly needed as a result of new and unnecessary laws.
Voter ID is just common sense. It is significantly more important to have security
There is no evidence whatsoever that voter ID laws have any significant impact on election security, because there is no evidence whatsoever that election security is even a problem in the first place. This is a bullshit excuse to pass laws that disproportionatly impact democratic constituencies.
you know I can just watch the video to disprove this right?Give me the time stamp where he says all mexicans or even illegal immigrants. He even qualifies the statement by saying some are great people.The definition of some is "A portion of" .
One way to know your position is weak is when you have to make up the opposing argument in order to refute it. I never said he called "all" Mexicans rapists, that's what you're mind interpreted so that so you can apply the 100% standard which almost no claim can live up to. I said he called Mexicans rapists, which is a generalization.
But if you really want to defend this then let's look at his actual words:
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
Setting aside the absurdity of claiming Mexico is "sending" its people here... He immediately moves on to say Mexico is not sending their best. This is a generalization of Mexicans living in the US. No it doesn't point to every single individual, but no individual Mexican American should hear that and not be offended. Don't forget where this conversation started (you argued that the "R" next to his name is why people were alienated by him).
But more importantly... I highlighted that last part because you are presenting it as a defense when it is actually an indictment. "I assume" is a qualifier. He had to assume that some are good people. Notice that he did not have to qualify any of his statements when he was talking about them being rapists and criminals. Those were pronounced loud, proud, and confident.
Portraying this as anything other than him calling Mexicans in the US criminals and rapists is just not following English. And you know who saw that clearly? The racists.
You are getting into semantics, you know he uses imprecise language. Even your quote does not say a permanent moratorium on it, just a temporary one of a few weeks until some statistics can be gathered to reduce the odds of terrorism. Here is the actual bill
It's not semantics, it's basic English and inference. He did in fact call for the banning of Muslims, and you defend it in part by claiming he only called for it temporarily. Yet as he always does, not only did he give no actual timeline on how long it should be in effect for but gave an brazenly ignorant test (when we figure out what is going on...?). What a flagrant display of projection. It is clearly him that does not know what is going on. He sees Muslims as a threat and can't figure out why we allow them here. That's what any reasonable person would take out of that.
And by pointing to the bill that was actually passed you are again ignoring reality. Banning Muslims was his campaign promise but there was no way to deliver it because it was unconstitutional, so he had to find another way to deliver. His executive orders went through multiple iterations and kept failing until finally it was watered down enough to get passed the courts. And no, it wasn't only in place for 90 days, after that one expired there were multiple others that were implemented all throughout his presidency. Turns out his own officials never figured out what was going on.
After pointing this out I really must say that I notice you along with every other Trump defender loves to do this - you pretend that the end result was always the point. Trump didn't fire Mueller, therefore he decided to keep him on. No, he tried to fire Meuller and his WH lawyers ignored him. Trump didn't prosecute Hilary Clinton, therefore he decided to respect our political norms. No, he told his DOJ to go after her and they refused to do so. Trump funded HBCU's, therefore he loves black people. No, the CBC put that funding in the bill and Trump wanted it removed until he relented as a compromise.
This is the same fallacious "results only" based epistemology we see over and over again from Trump defenders, it entirely ignores the complexities that are part of reality and just skips to the end leaping over every relevant fact that stands in the way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Non-sequitor. RCV is a method of selecting the winner, it has nothing to do with how many candidates end up on the ballot.not a non sequiter because there are race with 20 people and my ballot risks being exhausted if i do not no my order preference for all 20
First, this almost never happens. I've never seen a ballot with 20 candidates on it.
Second, the only solution for that is a run off election, so what you're really arguing is that nearly every political race nationwide take multiple elections to decide all so that we can narrow our focus in the rare event that there are so many candidates on the ballot the people can't research all of them. That's a pretty extreme position that I doubt very many people would agree with.
Tell me your position on voter ID.irrelevant
It actually is. You are really hinging your position on the idea that we must value voter turnout to such a degree that it overrides the obvious benefits of RCV, it's pretty hard to take you seriously on that argument if you don't seem to care about the effect on turnout voter ID laws have particularly within certain segments of the population.
I think it is a superior option to RCV. or what is currently being touted as RCV.
So perhaps you are better off advocating for a different tabulation method rather than abandoning RCV all together.
my opinion is I watched the speech that is taken from and it's clear trump was saying that their are a lot of criminals that sneak in illegally and he was referring to statistics by...
This isn't an opinion, it's an entire reimagination of what he said. His words were clear and were nothing close to this.
Also the Muslim ban was him banning the countries statistically most likely to have terrorists
No, that's the reworked watered down version of his campaign promise after it went through multiple iterations to get past the courts since a religious test is flagrantly unconstitutional.
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on" - Donald Trump, December 7th 2015
Please stop making excuses for him. We all heard what he said and we all speak English. That's why he alienated half the country, not because of the "R".
Moreover, it's just sad to see people keep defending him with such obvious nonsense. If you can't defend him with the truth perhaps you should evaluate why you defend him at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
He is running against somebody who prior to putting an R beside his name was pretty much beloved by the entire nation
lol
It wasn't because he put an R next to his name. Calling Mexicans rapists and calling for the banning of all Muslims from entering the United States (among many other things) has a way of alienating large numbers of people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
It looks as though selecting a 2nd choice robs your first choice of its power. Knowing this, what is to stop voters from only putting down a first choice?
It doesn't Rob your first choice of it's power. Your second choice would only count if your first choice is eliminated, and it would only be eliminated if it was the least popular of the remaining choices.
Under the current system, if it's Trump, Biden, RFK and you vote RFK who lands with 5%, then your vote is effectively wasted. With RCV in that scenario you can still have a say as to who in Biden v Trump wins, but only if you choose one as a second pick.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
explain how having to research 20 candidates is easier than researching just a few?
Non-sequitor. RCV is a method of selecting the winner, it has nothing to do with how many candidates end up on the ballot.
You guys haven't come up with a single rebuttal than a single biased source that somehow claims ranked choice voting does not reduce voter turn out despite multiple sanfransisco based studies proving it does and despite minneapolis and st. Paul minnesota having lower voter turn out than surrounding areas
The source I provided linked to multiple studies as well. So your argument is that "your" studies are real but "mine" are fake. Doesn't exactly scream unbiased.
What I find funny about this is that suddenly you've become an advocate for voter turnout, so much so that you would consider the benefits of RCV null and void at least partially to protect it. So...
Tell me your position on voter ID.
Also... The other problem here is that you don't seem to have considered is that RCV doesn't have to be tabulated the way it does currently. The current system is that each round the least favored candidate gets removed and the ballots retabulate until someone reaches 50%. I understand why they do it this way, but they could do it another way...
Limit the retabulation to two rounds. The first round, if no one gets to 50% then remove everyone except the top two and retabulate with only those two choices. This is exactly how a run of election works except you wouldn't need to hold two separate elections. What do you think about that option?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Wylted is going to be against RCV because it would benefit democrats. Look at what happened in Alaska with Mary Pelota. You aren't changing his mind.
Not really about changing anyone's mind. I just like the exercise, it helps me to learn more about the subject and test my own position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Not really because most areas have a run off election between the top 2, if nobody gets a majority. This means that if their candidate isn't chosen they have a chance to reanalyze the top 2 candidates to see who is better.
Why would you favor a system that requires the state to organize (and pay for) two separate elections and for voters to have to come out and vote twice to pick one candidate as opposed to one where it can all be settled in one shot?
citations from the video
You provided like 6 of them and none worked. Regardless, your claim is that turnout drops when RCV is implemented, a quick Google search seems to refute that so your claim is probably unresolved at best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
No, I am telling you most people just make 2 or 3 selections and their votes being exhausted when there are 6 or 7 candidates.
If you only made 2 or 3 choices and none of them made it past those rounds it's because your preferred candidates were not popular enough to win. That's the exact same thing that happens now, except now you only get one chance to pick a candidate that might win. You have yet to explain what the issue is.
Most of my citations were from Minneaopolis and St. PAUL Minnesota who have had RCV for over 10 years.
Doesn't appear to be any citations in this thread.
It iisn't challenged though. It's just normally a bare assertion that it can have practical solutions without offering them.
Read the full exchange. I already addressed that in the paragraph immediately before the one you quoted and responded to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
caring about practical ways to solve a problem means you don't care about the issue?
No, if you cared about finding a practical way to solve the problem then you wouldn't call it a pain in the ass when your assertion that there is no practical solution is challenged, in fact you would welcome that challenge. That's all I said.
Read the full exchange.
If it scares 20% of people away from voting and throws 53% of votes in the trash then no no that is by definition a less democratic way to function.
I see no evidence that this "scares people away" from voting, and if it does then the antidote is to educate them. People are always intimidated by something new, that is not a reason to disregard it.
It doesn't throw 53% of ballots in the trash, that's just nonsense. You're talking about people's fourth, fifth, sixed, etc. choices not being counted, which the current system doesn't even consider in the first place so I don't see what your issue is.
As with any new system, there will be bugs when it is first implemented but if it is a good thing we will learn and improve as we do with anything else. There is nothing inherent to RCV in this example that couldn't be easily fixed.
It takes about 100 hours of research on every candidate to get to know them. It's much easier to choose between which 2 people are better, but the average person doesn't have 1000 hours to vet 10 candidates and place them in order by preference.
So now your issue is that we would have to many choices?
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Why am I hearing about this from a DART shit poster and not as the lead story of every news organization remotely left of Newsmax?
Probably because it's fake. If it were real it would be everywhere by now.
Your "Biden is fine it's just that messaging is hard in the heat of the moment because Trump lies" theory has some explaining to do.
I think you're talking to the wrong person. Is there a flagrant double standard in how both of these men are graded? Absolutely. But your characterization of my position is exaggerated at best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
What about the criticism about how the one election where 53% of the votes did not count towards the final ballot.
It's not any different than the current system. They didn't count because there were too many candidates and the viable candidates were too far down on their list. It's effectively the same thing as when a would be partisan voter doesn't like their nominee and votes third party. The person they would have otherwise voted for is not recorded and therefore they lost their vote in that sense.
It's a pain in the ass to get around because ultimately a Liberal and conservative will be against children starving, it's just that in that particular instanceb(not claiming all) than the conservative is making the pragmatic point.
If you're explaining to a liberal why a problem can't be solved and the response is that we "need to address" the explanation, then by the rules of any logical conversation, the burden is on the liberal to address them. And if they can't, they lose.
The only time this becomes a pain in the ass is if you have no interest in continuing the conversation, which would imply that you don't really care about addressing the issue you are purporting to care about.
Earlier in the thread I believe you insinuated or Said there were bad motives for being against RCV. Particularly is that it harms both the democratic and republican party.If you acknowledge the logistical concerns, could it actually be that a lot of these people who you have assigned bad motives to, are just trying to protect voters and potentially be willing to change their minds if the logistical concerns were dealt with?
I don't know which of my comments you are referring to, but I assume it was the part where I said that you're not going to get people who benefit from a system to change that system. That's not impuning people's motives, it's just following a basic fact of human nature; people are going to act towards their own personal benefit. It would be irrational to expect anything else in any situation where we are pointing towards large groups of people.
Moving on... The claim is not so much that it would harm the political parties, but that it will change the political parties because they would be forced to adapt to the new reality that third parties would have a realistic shot of winning seats if RCV were in place. It essentially places more power back in the hands of the people rather than those at the top of their parties.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Finally, I put together a response
Two main critiques, first is that the logical concerns are why I believe it will never happen, but is not an argument as to whether it should happen. Is there are difficulties in implementing this then we should work on solutions. If RCV solves many of our issues as a society then it is clearly worth overcoming.
More importantly though is that you seem to be arguing that this is bad because it means the person who gets the most most votes in the first round doesn't always win. Not only is that not an argument against RCV, it's the entire point. If candidate A has the full support of 40% of the population while 60% of the population do not want candidate A and can't decide between candidates B and C, then whoever is more popular between B and C should take power. It's a far more representative result then letting A take power because neither B or C was willing to step aside.
Btw don't expect me to respond to these videos too often, shouldn't take anyone 16 minutes to know what your points are and for me most of my posts are written on the subway where I have little to no service.
Right now an outright communist needs to vote for a moderate if he wants a chance to win and for his vote to count. Under a different system we would all vote for those who are ideologically similar first and o ly as a 3rd 4th or 5th choice then elect the compromise candidate. We already have primaries for the 2 major parties which forces voters and the various factions to compromise, which normally results in putting a moderate on the ticket.
I don't know what political system you've been watching but is certainly not the one in the US. You think Hershel Walker was a compromise candidate? Or how about Kerri Lake?
The parties have gone to their extreme corners, so when the general election comes around any moderate option will lose handedly because people don't want to throw away their vote. If the parties knew they would have to compete with a viable 3rd option who was moderate they would be far less inclined to push people like that forward as their nominee.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
It was a, uh… rhetorical question. That you dismiss it as “meaningless” is, yet again, you adhering to your “5 D’s of debate.”
I dismissed it and then went on to explain why it is meaningless. Just because you can throw around cute little phrases like "the 5 D's of debate" doesn't mean you're saying anything meaningful or relevant.
Again (for what, the third, forth time now?), this entire thread you have yet to engage in a single sentence of substance I have provided explaining my position in detail on what the ruling says and how it applies, meanwhile you have repeatedly attacked me with your insinuations of being close minded and/or disingenuous in my position. The projection is staggering, and frankly pathetic.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
If the extremely detailed and authoritative opinion of the Chief Justice failed to lead you to understanding, what hope does a layperson you have already decided to dismiss have?
A meaningless question coming from someone who has yet to offer a single sentence demonstrating that you've even read let alone understand anything within the written majority opinion.
I've given you all the dots, connected them for you, and asked you (or anyone else here) to explain how they are wrong or don't connect. If you are unable to do so then spare me your opinion of me, it couldn't be any more worthless.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Yeah, it’s truly a shame seeing as how genuinely open and curious you are regarding these sorts of things…
Note that you haven't even attempted to provide a single rational substantive defense of your position or scrutiny of mine with regards to what the ruling says or how it applies, only characterizations and insinuations.
It's clear which one of us is close minded on this subject.
Created: