Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What does any of this have to do with the conversation?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah ok bro. If that were true you would provide serious responses instead of the usual irrelevant trollish one liners you are famous for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Now you're just distorting the conversation. Let's go back to post 92 where this began:
No, I "conceded" that MAGA's definition of what it means to be a real American is to value guns over democracyIt's you vs MAGA and the bill of rights on this one. If following the constitution isn't the definition of being American nothing is.
So here you argued that the constitution and the principals enshrined within it is the metric by which a "real American" is defined. And you did this because I disagreed with you on the notion that the right to own a gun is more fundamental than democracy itself (or more specifically the right of everyone to participate in it).
So I pointed out how this very same document you are holding up and this sacred metric sanctions slavery. But you didn't seem to want to own that principal.
Either the constitution as it was written is your metric or it is not. Pick one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Smoking is an addictive action; recreational sex is an addictive action. Totally legal to do; but the moment the smoker harms someone else in the name of their addiction (or the pregnant person), then it becomes a problem that should be illegal.
So you're advocating for outlawing sex?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, just wasn't a point that was intelligent enough or relevant enough to respond to, so I pointed out the glaring hypocrisy instead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If someone wants to smoke tobacco, then should they be allowed to do so? Yes.Should they be allowed to rob you to satisfy their tobacco addiction? No.
Smoking is an action, that's not comparable to a physical state where you are sacrificing your well being and risking your health.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"I'm wrong, but somehow I'm still right"
No, you're correct on a technicality but wrong on the entire point of the conversation. That was obviously what I was saying.
I never said I accepted the document. I've only ever said it's the closest thing to a real social contract we have.
You tried to argue that gun rights are more fundamental than the right to vote, and went as far as to claim your views reflect what it means to be a "real American" while mines do not. And your support for this notion? Argument based on sound and consistent moral or philosophical principals? No, but 'because the constitution says so'. Now you claim you never said you accept the document. Talk about having it both ways.
What happened to all that "rule of law" nonsense you prattle on about so long as your biases are being stroked by "the law"?
I never said the constitution wasn't the constitution.
The rule of law is just that, rules that are followed not only in governing our behavior but in how we deal with those who break them. Those were all followed in the examples we argued over, yet you not only pretended they weren't, but went way further as to claim the individuals appointed by these rules to enforce them didn't have that authority (because you said so) and that no one should follow them (because you said so).
Don't sit here and pretend what you did is remotely similar to my pointing out to you that your own standard for what qualifies as a real American fails according to your views.
You want to disclaim the constitution? Absolutely fine by me, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
I did nothing of the sort, and if you were paying attention to this conversation you would know that.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
They're here legally genius.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Please define "shittiest"Jimmy Kimmel DESTROYED For Calling America DISGUSTING & Praising Japan!
It never ceases to amaze me how MAGA cultists lose their minds everytime someone criticizes America while feverishly devoting themselves to a man whose entire political schtick is to talk about what failure and embarrassment this country is while also praising the job being done by foreign dictators.
Irony is beyond dead, it's been wiped from memory.
Created:
I am likely to be banmd soon because the mods are calling me a national security threat. But I will respond if I a allowed to come back
The site overlords coming for it's president? Debateart is just as fucked up as the country.
Created:
@Wylted
What crushed small businesses was big businesses, because that's how capitalism works.Nope I showed a direct Correlation to how everything was practically a small business prior to heavy regulations.
And yet correlation =/= causation. I already explained this and went further to explain how the correlation here actuality makes much more sense in reverse.
It takes approximately 1 billion dollars to bring a life saving drug to market because of the FDA. How is a small biolab supposed to compete with that? How is that not government interference coming to put small businesses out of service?
That number sounds over inflated, but regardless it's expensive because drugs have to be proven to work and especially not harm the consumer before putting out there for mass consumption. That's common sense, characterizing that as government coming to put small businesses out of service is ridiculous.
All problems in society would come from improper governance. So by correcting the governance the problem goes away.
Government intention can certainly cause problems, but as a general notion this statement is not only wrong but also illuminating as it sets up an unfalsifiable distaste of government where every problem is blamed on it regardless of reality.
Government policies are responses to problems, which is the entire point of having a government. People and entities are inherently selfish, they're going to do whatever is best for themselves enemy of it comes at the expense of the rest of society itself. Government regulations are nothing more than rules for everyone to make sure they're competing in such a way that is beneficial to everyone. There is nothing inherently wrong or harmful about this, it's a basic necessity given human nature.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
They can have dozens of factors but don't you find it at least a bit odd that the more interventionist American cities are the shittiest
Please define "shittest" and then provide the data which supports your talking point.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Policies are either good or bad. Good policies will be good policies in all environments and bad policies will be bad in all environments.
Policies address the problems within a given environment. To argue as if they are divorced from each other makes no sense.
They crushed small businesses. Now we have nothing but big businesses. Then everyone was a business owner, so there is your answer.
Not following your point here. What crushed small businesses was big businesses, because that's how capitalism works. Think of the mom and pop store that have to pay full wholesale price for a product competing with Walmart who can squeeze their producers to sell it to them below wholesale because they're buying that same product by the millions. Think of a small business owner creating a neat product to sell online until Amazon catches wind of what they're doing, mass produces it and directs it's millions of shoppers to their in house product first. Think of the real estate investor trying to get a loan for an investment property only to have a billionaire investment firm scoop it up for even less because they were able to come along and offer the seller cash.
The more money you have the more powerful you become, the more you are able to leverage that power to gain an advantage over your competition. This is capitalism 101, that's why small businesses are disappearing.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
You do know that it isn't just non whites that can take advantage of situations that discard meritocracy correct?
I'm not aware of any DEI program that is looking for more white people to round out its employee pool.
ou can't honestly believe that getting rid of meritocracy would mean no impacts to complex systems can you.
DEI is not the opposite of meritocracy, to claim it is demonstrates the racism anti DEI advocates are accused of.
DEI is about recognizing that there is diversity within our society, so if there isn't diversity within your company is only because of one of two reasons; you either do not believe people of a certain creed can do the job or you're not hiring based on merit.
Also, and probably more central to what DEI actually is, is the recognition that people of different backgrounds, sexes, etc. bring different perspectives which is valuable to any large organization. Think back to examples like the Jenner Pepsi commercial... If they had some black people in the room that fiasco probably would have been avoided.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
He'll if I am wrong about economic interventionism being worse than freedom I want to know but you also failed to address my arguments about the impacts of regulatory agencies on Markey competition so I doubt you will engage me here
If I skipped over any argument you've made it's because I didn't see a point of contention relevant to the conversation but I may have missed it.
But to your suggestions, while they seem like good metrics for the conversation the fact is that these are, as I pointed out, extremely complex subjects and economic output can have dozens or even hundred's of factors. I'm just not interested in getting that deep especially with the limited service I often have while on this site.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
It would need to be something extremely disgusting and very clearly wrong. Technically George Bush and Obama could be charged with war crimes but we just don't do that to presidents and persecuting tru.p means the elite want one set of rules for themselves and another for their political opponents. What are they even going after him for? Over Valuing his home? It's retarded and no Obama would have never been gone after for such petty shit
Of Trump's 4 criminal indictments the least serious and the trial no one really cares about is something his personal attorney has already served 3 years for and it was a violation of the law that may possibly have swung a presidential election.
The civil fraud trial you are referencing is as brazen a violation of the law as one could have engaged in and the details have been publicly known for years. To not hold him accountable is to declare open season on financial fraud in the state.
It's not the prosecutors fault Trump is such a blatant criminal to the point where his crimes could not possibly be looked over by any serious agent of the law, Trump did that. And this is exactly why people like me in 2016 said this man was a danger to the country, because we all knew he would put us in this situation and burn the country to the ground to save his own hide. What's shocking is how many people have gotten behind him as he is actively doing it.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I think it's much more about looking at the results of the policies and not the policies per say. Do liberal policies help poor people. Are their places like skid row where we can look to see if this is true or do conservative policies help people?
I'm fine with a results based argument on this question but it needs to be extremely nuanced and based on data. We don't get there by pointing to one disgusting place and branding it as the face of an entire political party's ideology. That's just confirmation bias.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Fine, keep trying to jail your political opponent and calling that an equal application of the law. You can't have it both ways.
Or let's try this... serious question:
Do you believe a former president/presidential candidate should be immune from criminal prosecution? Yes or No?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I will also just leave this here again for you to trip all over.and this:Your MSNBC "big lies" simply are not landing on the ears of the working poor.
You mean those being prapogandized by Fox News, OANN and all of their YouTube imitators.
Again, the way any reasonable person would determine which is the party of the rich and which is the party of the poor is by looking at their policies. Anything else is a red herring.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Fine, keep trying to jail your political opponent and calling that an equal application of the law. You can't have it both ways.
Again, you have no response to any of the points I made so you just pout and storm off like a child. Why bother?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lawfare is now the culture, and the means of the destruction of the establishment. Only the propaganda of the radical far left could have made this happen.
This isn't lawfare, it's the rule of law working exactly as it should. Or honestly, it's the rule of law almost working as it should since Trump continues to get away with things that no other defendant has ever gotten away with.
Everytime you make these claims I notice that you have no legal arguments whatsoever, just assertions of Trump being held accountable as evidence itself that he's being persecuted while ignoring wholecloth his actions and the evidence against him as part of the equation. That's not how math works.
But more telling is what you and all your right wing compatriots do afterwards; just declare that since democrats did it you get to do it to. No one who actually believes in the principals they are feigning outage over would hold that attitude. If you actually cared about the rule of law and were actually bothered that someone was breaking it the response would be to advocate for it to be fixed, not to claim privilege to break it more blatantly than the other side.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No, it never "DID".Representative apportionment was reduced for slaves, it was ridiculous to give the slave states any seats based on populations that weren't allowed to vote; but it certainly wasn't even close to a statement about percentage of person hood or even explicitly about race.
The 3/5th compromise was about apportionment and not a statement of personhood, but the entire reason why it's in the constitution is because slaves were not considered people, so to pretend that's some kind of logical leap to get from one to another is ridiculous.
When a document codifies that slaves will only count as partial people for the purposes of apportionment, that is at the very least a direct and explicit sanction of slavery as an institution.
So back to the point here, you are holding up a document that sanctions slavery as the end-all-be-all arbiter of what defines a "real" American, so if you are being consistent then you too must sanction slavery, and yet it appears you don't.
So just call this argument what it is; an attempt to sheild your views from moral and philosophical scrutiny as well as critical thinking by hiding behind a document you don't fully accept yourself.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
There are planes falling out of the sky, boats taking out bridges and trains derailing and these idiots look at themselves and say"Do glad we said fuck you to meritocracy and went with DEI"
The boat took out the bridge because the ship lost power and thus lost it's ability to stop itself from colliding with the bridge.
Can you please explain, with sources provided, who was directly responsible for that, show that this person or person's were minorities, and substantiate that the person's were in that position not because of their merits or even nepotism but because the company needed a hire that wasn't a straight white male?
Or are you just a racist looking for anything you can find to substantiate your chicken little complex so that you can blame it on those "others"?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Do me a favor go to a blue city to ee what we are protecting you from. Go to skid row or look at some other liberal strong hold like Chicago where places like Walmart are fleeing due to the crime sprees making it unprofitable.
You do realize that crime is higher in red areas of the country than blue right?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You can call it a "big lie" all you want. This is how the swing state workers see the world without the MSNBC blinders.
Classic GP; ignore every argument I made and then just proclaim that you're right because the people you proclaim to agree with you, (allegedly) agree with you.
I can't wait to see how your argument changes after Trump loses.
It also explains the Fact that Biden's donors are the super rich.
You mean like the guy who put up $175 million to bail Trump out?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I suggest we elect tech literate people so that way they are qualified.
Tech literacy is one very small aspect of what any reasonable person would want in the person who represents them in their government. There is no reason we would want that to be their first qualifier, and without that as their first qualification there is no reason we would want them deciding each and every regulation. That should be left up to people who know what they're doing.
Yes we have and no we shouldn't be slaves to technocrats there needs to be a democratic process and oversights.
That's why we have a Congress and an entire executive branch overseeing them.
Prior to the 1920s regulatory agencies didn't even exist and things were fine.
Actually it began in 1887, but setting that aside... Do you seriously think 1920's America is comparable to 2020's America?
And even if you somehow do, regulatory bodies were formed for a reason. You might think the 1920's were great but I promise you anyone who lived through them would come to undetstand the price we paid for it.
Tightening screws created that sort of corruption but yes go ahead and keep doing the same thing over and over again and see if you get different results.
This is like arguing that stores should stop selling merchandise because sometimes items get stolen.
Exactly and so your solution is to give the government more power?
No, solutions are what we come up with to solve a problem. I'm talking about the processes by which we do so.
Why not put the power in the hands of the people instead of the technocrats elite and billionaires?
The power is in the hands of the people, that's what democratic government is.
But if by "people" you mean why not leave it to businesses to regulate themselves then the answer is really simple; because they won't. Individuals and businesses will do and are only responsible for whatever is in their best personal interests. Regulations exist because what is in the best interest for one can be detrimental to the rest of society, like a factory dumping it's waste in the local river everyone gets their drinking water from.
The entire point of regulations is to protect consumers from harmful or predatory business practices.Well I showed you the corruption involved and how it achieves the opposite.
No, you didn't. I acknowledge there is corruption because that is true anywhere there are humans. The fact that corruption exists is not a reason to deregulate every industry. It's a pro vs con debate, so if you want to argue that the benefits of corruption outweigh the benefits of regulation you've got a really steep hill to climb, and that debate only comes after accepting that the level of corruption we're talking about is not avoidable with oversight and law enforcement.
Also check out these facts that disprove you1. Prior to the FDA Americans got most of their food supply from local businesses. Now most can be traced back to a handful of corporations2. Prior to heavy banking regulations, 80% of banking was done with small mom and pop banks. Now nearly all banking is done with billion dollar corporations.3. Local regulators were used to help form regional monopolies of utility companies
Classic correlation = causation fallacy.
Regulations came about as the world became more complicated and businesses were finding new ways to make money at the expense of the rest of society.
During this same period capitalism continued to mature, so because those with more money have an edge over those who don't, large corporations began to crush smaller businesses who didn't have the Capitol to compete.
These are two entirely seperate things which both would have followed their paths regardless of the other. If anything you could actually make the argument in reverse which would be far more compelling; that the formation of large businesses and corporations is what lead to the need for more regulations. The lessons we learned after the great depression would be a great example of that.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I could actually afford to go out to eat occasionally when he was in office now My income has increased significantly and I struggle to pay bills.
This has nothing to do with Trump. Trump inherited an economy that had been growing for 7 straight years, all he did was not fuck it up. Look at every economic indicator, nothing happened when Trump took office except the same growth continued and in some cases slowed down. We gained more jobs in the last 3 years of Obama's presidency than the first the years of Trump's. Giving him credit for where we were is like Trump purchasing the Burj Kaleifa, adding one floor to the top and then claiming he built the tallest building in the world.
Biden meanwhile came into office dealing with the aftermath of the disaster Trump left behind. Trump didn't cause COVID, but he did fuck up the response to it royally. Still, look around, the US use doing better than all of our peer nations when it comes to inflation, job growth, etc. There is no reason to believe Trump's response to it would have been any better.
This is a complete apples to oranges comparison.
Be honest. You are a rich kid which is why you are okay with all the suffering under Biden
I'm not a rich kid, just some guy who recognizes that correlation =/= causation. You have to look at the circumstances and judge president's by what they did to influence them, not by pretending they are the almighty king of the earth who are in complete control and fully responsible for everything that happens on the planet.
I noticed how you focus on tax cuts instead of quality of living. Who gives a fuck about cuts. How would a billionairepaying less taxes hurt me?
I focused on what was relevant to the conversation I was having. GP is trying to argue that the democrats are the party of the super rich while ignoring the fact that the policies each party supports shows the exact opposite. You are free to agree or disagree with whether billionaires should get their taxes cut, you don't get to pretend that the party who prioritizes this is the party of the little guy.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Serious answers:1) Debt amnesty for college clearly benefits richer people and disproportionally benefits the wealthy people who pursued doctorate degrees. This amnesty is paid with the taxes collected from the poor and middle class who never went to college.2) Money and services in many Democrat cities are set aside for illegal invaders instead of poor Americans.3) Money for Ukraine instead of poor Americans.4) Inflation hurts poor people much more than rich people, and Biden had zero sane reasons to push his 3rd stimulus which then catapulted inflation over 8%5) Illegal migrants depress the wages of the working poor at a time when inflation is hurting them the most.6) Defunding police disproportionately hurts the poor as the ultra rich can just sequester their assets far away and with private security.
So no, you cannot name a single policy where democrats are the party of the super rich fighting back against the republicans trying to help the lower classes. Noted.
Your first example, cancelling student loans, isn't a give away to super rich. People struggling with student loans are in most cases broke, and the loan forgiveness programs they've put forward are capped. This is primarily a middle class issue.
Every other issue you raised has nothing to do with this.
Inflation is not a policy and it's just plain stupid to blame Biden for the inflation caused by the third stimulus while pretending the first two stimuluses passed by Trump didn't do the same.
Point 5 is not a policy and it's also a lie, those migrants are here legally. If you don't like that then tell Trump to stop blocking the law that would outlaw them so they could be legally sent back.
Point 6 is another lie, the only people actually trying to defund the police are republicans who've turned on the FBI.
Points 2 and 3 are just policy disagreements over where the money should go. But these two are the most dishonest because you know damn well if we stopped spending that money republicans would never advocate for using it to help poor people. Only democrats do that.
Again, republicans are the party of tax cuts for the rich, of killing social security and Medicare, of killing food stamps, of business deregulation which large corporations and the super rich love... that is what the party of the rich looks like. Every policy that has ever been designed to help working and poor people had been primarily pushed by the democrats. Calling the republicans the party of the poor is like calling Nazis the party of human rights.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most of DNC Congress represent the wealthiest places in America. For the DNC to say they feel for the poor is simply fabricating sympathy pains.
Can you name a single policy difference where the democrats fall on the side of the ultra rich while the republicans are the ones fighting to protect the little guy? Just one?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Democrat party is the party of the ultra rich, so it could be both.
Correct, the party lead by Manhattan real estate billionaire whose only accomplishments in office were a major tax break for the rich and deregulation of businesses that allowed large corporations to get away with murder is definitely the party of the rich.
Oh sorry, wrong party.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Not business regulation but putting it in the hand of a regulatory body s opposed to having congress vote on those regulations.
You started this thread on the basis that the people in Congress are wildly unqualified to have any say in what goes on in the tech industry, now you're suggesting they be the ones who decide on each and every individual regulation?
It is a loss of political freedom to take away most of th power voters have to choose what regulations do or do not serve them.
Voters never had the power to vote on every individual regulation and for good reason, that is a job best left up to experts in the feild.
You also have the issue that regulatory bodies often are revolving doors where billion dollar corporations and those agencies frequently go from working with those industries to the regulatory agency and back and forth. Which also by the way fucks small businesses over because you know those policies favor large business's.
Then we need to tighten up the screws on what goes on in these agencies. That means more Congressional oversight and DOJ involvement, so defunding the FBI is probably not the best idea here.
There will always be corruption wherever there is power, that is not an excuse to stop regulating industries that need to be regulated.
We also have the fact these regulatory agencies are unconstitutional, unless you can point me to the part of the constitution that gives power to create laws to regulatory agencies.
The constitution gives lawmakers the power to make laws, and they did that here. This case is already before the SC so we'll see what happens there.
Be honest are you a corporate shill who hates American people or are you just brainwashed by large corporations to support policies that harm Americans but help them?
This is just plain stupid. The entire point of regulations is to protect consumers from harmful or predatory business practices. If you generally oppose regulations then you are the one promoting the same agenda as the large corporations, that would if anything make you the shill here.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
i use two unconventional proofs for god. one is healing miracles, i dont see the kinds of miracles that happen to theists happen to atheists
This has been studied. They compared patients that prayed and were prayed for to patients who died neither. They found no statistical difference in those who had favorable outcomes to those who didn't.
the other one is that the large majority of atheists come back believing in God after NDEs. it's irrational to say there's no evidence for the afterlife, when you get into the science of NDEs, and the credibility of NDEs lend credbility to all the atheists that convert.
The fact that atheists have converted as a result of NDE's is only evidence of how compelling the experience feels. The question still remains as to why we experience them in the first place, and there are more reasonable explanations than a temporary visit to the afterlife.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
You are talking about a technocracy
I am talking about a system in which you have regulatory agencies who are there to specialize and address issues on a granular level while being overseen by the representatives of the society they are overseeing, which is exactly how we would want to go about overseeing industries that need regulating.
It's much better to have competent leadership than to abandon our freedom
What are you talking about? Business regulation =/= a loss of freedom. We have regulations to ensure that businesses are forced to consider and take responsibility for the harm that may come from their business practices.
The freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else's nose. Absolute freedom in a society with other people is not possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'll let you ignore the insane lack of probability of it all and stay in the round Earth fantasy
This is a joke right? I wouldn't have even asked until seeing BK's comments, now I'm confused.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Only a partisan hack would say today's Constitution currently states this.
No one here suggested that.
get some better gaslighting talking points from crony establishment sir. Voting rights were never granted universally, or there would be zero restrictions on voting.
No one said voting rights were granted universally (by which you clearly mean to every living breathing person in the country).
Read what I wrote and I'd be happy to enlighten you on what you are missing.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Have you watched any segment of these hearing longer than 20 minutes?Have you seen Mark Zuckerberg male these people look absolutely retarded and seen the shock I'm his face at their stupid questions?
I've seen the anecdotes of members of Congress looking stupid because they didn't do their homework and don't understand the basics of how today's technology works. Not sure what your point is. You are acting like these would be the people overseeing the tech sector if the role of government expanded to oversee it. That's not how it works. Lawmakers craft laws addressing the very basics, from there we hire experts in the feild to run the agencies doing the actual work. Politicians spend half their time in Washington fundraising for their next election they wouldn't have much time to get involved.
And to be clear, I'm not advocating for anything here, just explaining how it works.
And a side note here, this is also why a Trump presidency would be so dangerous. You are right about one thing, we don't want politicians getting deeply involved in this kind of stuff. That's why we have career experts, not loyalists to the administration in charge at granular levels. Trump is trying to do away with all of that, which should concern everyone.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The real self-fulfilling prophecy is giving absolute power to esoteric people to make even the most banal of individual decisions for society knowing that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
There are three branches of government, within one of those branches there are two Chambers, and within each of those Chambers there are at least 100 members who all have equal say over any given piece of legislation. No one in our government has absolute power, so your post is both wrong, a distraction from the point, and not even a complete thought since you never said what the self fulfilling prophecy was (which I'm not interested in since it was irrelevant to begin with).
Created:
-->
@WyIted
government itself is the problem and then elects people to go so Washington to blow it up.I believe Nazi Germany also thought the solution was more government control. So I mean when given the option between having literally the same beliefs as Hitler or the same beliefs as Thomas Jefferson shouldn't people choose Jefferson?
So there's appeal to authority, it's opposite (I forget what it's called) where you claim that X must be wrong because person A believes it, and a herring since this is all irrelevant to my point. Impressive.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Also if you think we should expand the size and scope of Government than spend a few hours watching these people interview Mark Zuckerberg. And if you still feel the same way after. Avoid reproducing.
The biggest problem with increasing the size and scope of government is that the ethos of about half the country is that government itself is the problem and then elects people to go so Washington to blow it up.
Imagine how much more effective and productive our government could be if we actually sent people there who were going there to fix problems as opposed to boasting on social media about how they owned the other side. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Questionable on the first, wrong on the second; and a red herring regardless. There is no current amendment which makes voting for the president a right. It is therefore not a constitutional right.
It's not a red herring, you know that. You are trying to argue that believing inthe right to a gun is more fundamental to being a "real American" than believing in the right to vote, and your justification for this opinion is that it's what the constitution puts first. And yet like I already pointed out, that same document you are holding up also explicitly does not consider black people as full people and limits voting to a specific segment of white men.
You either believe that this document is the defining metric of what real American looks like or you don't.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Do you think you can overcome yourself, overcome getting emotional and frustrated by simply debating?
I gave you my answer already, if any part was unclear please let me know
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
lol, and the reason is that your handlers told you russians don't have real elections. So all I have to do is take over MSNBC and have them feed you the continuous stream of evidence of fraud in the USA.
Was this supposed to be clever?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You're not this stupid, so why pretend to be? What do you get out of it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The left tribe are not the ones barreling towards a civil war.Interesting new theory of conflict you got there.
Asserting one side as an instigator of a conflict is not interesting or new. It's common sense. Well, to the rest of us.
We've already established in this thread that you ignore all evidence
You haven't provided any. You've even admitted that your claim isn't that widespread fraud occurred but that it's possible, so there's not even anything for me to ignore.
Moreover, you're just lying as usual. I haven't ignored anything you've provided. I've explained to you in far more words than you've bothered to type in response why your examples are meaningless and what would need to happen to make them meaningful. You don't address any of that because you have no response other than to retreat to the abstract which you always do, probably because it's much easier to strawman me that way.
no study can be done on the types of people who commit fraud because no one can possibly have a representative sample since nobody is caught since no useful data is collected or investigated.
Then you have no evidence.
I'm not buying your premises, just pointing out the conclusion of yours.
Yes, lets just assume completely uniform cheating. Then it doesn't matter how much fraud there is.
Another strawman
The person who doesn't care if anyone knows how much fraud or what bias the fraud might have
Another strawman
This is going in the list.
Your strawman is famous. Congratulations.
You're arguing that legislators changed the laws to hide crucial election informationNo, I'm arguing that people broke laws requiring elections to be transparent; which was highly suspicious and by Occam's razor is the simpler explanation for loss of faith in American elections.
Translation: 'legislators changed the laws to hide crucial election information'
That's what you're implying by saying it's suspicious. If you didn't think that is what might be going on here there would be nothing suspicious about it.
Stop tap dancing and just own your position.
You've already admitted you thought election transparency laws were "giving into conspiracy theorists", there is nothing that need be proved on that point.
Yes and now I'm giving you the opportunity to provide the example that proves that point wrong but you passed. I wonder why.
It's you vs MAGA and the bill of rights on this one. If following the constitution isn't the definition of being American nothing is.
The constitution says black people are 3/5th's of a person and that the only people who get to vote are rich white men. Would believing that make me a "real" American in your view?
I get to disclaim RFK because he is in fact a crackpot conspiracy theorist and because his beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with anything I've argued.lol ok, you get to disclaim people because you're just that correct about everything. Fair enough. I take the same privilege.
What a stupid and childish response.
Here, I bolded the part of my post that was far more important but for some reason you missed.
The political interests of those two might just be to keep themselves in power in Georgia.
Ah. So according to you, ignoring all of the Democratic cheating that changed the results and won Joe Biden the state was all part of the plan for the top two republicans in the state to get reelected. Got it.
Not going to pretend you just made a serious point.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well Putin is way more popular that Trump. He keeps winning elections over and over again. We don't doubt elections without hard proof you know!
If you had actually bothered to pay attention to anything I've argued (you haven't) you would understand this.
We accept representation as the default until given a reason not to.
The fact that everyone who opposes Putin just so happens to fall out of a window would be an example of such a reason.
This isn't complicated.
Created:
-->
@Mall
No.
The better the argument the other person makes, the more challenging it'll be to respond, and if I'm wrong then I've learned something.
The worse the argument the other person makes, the clearer it becomes that they have no rebuttal.
But my favorite is when an argument sounds right but feels wrong, that's when I get to figure out why and potentially what fallacies I almost fell for which better prepare me for the next one.
It's all about expectations. If your goal is to change the other person's mind you're probably in for disappointment. I just approach it as an exercise. The only time I get frustrated or disappointed is when I expected more from the individual I'm talking too, but that only hits once.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's OK, when Trump weaponizes the government to control the media, then the public will be able to see his side.
Putin will be so proud.
If Trump had a side to the story other than his obvious guilt he would not be spending all of his energy trying to ensure no one ever gets to see it.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This seems to have led her to the absurd conclusion that Reagan, Clinton, and Obama didn't steal classified material due to something about them being presidents and the presidential records act letting them decide what is theirs and what isn't.
The presidential records act doesn't give president's the power to decide what belongs to them and what belongs to the government, it's literally the opposite. The entire point was to restrict that perceived power as a response to the Watergate fiasco and the threat that Nixon would have just declared the tapes to be his personal property.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Do a cost-benefit analysis on that. What if you're wrong, the right-tribe will submit to a real/proven democracy and you're just barreling on into a civil war for no good reason?
The left tribe are not the ones barreling towards a civil war. This kind of talk only exists in Rightwingville, because right wingers are obsessed with making themselves out to be the hero when the reality is that this is all because they know the world is moving past them.
The idea that we would barrel towards a civil war over disagreements in how far we should go to ensure ballot integrity is absolutely absurd. You have no evidence of widespread fraud, you have no legitimate reason to suspect widespread fraud, and most remarkably every study that has been done on this shows there is no correlation between voter fraud and political ideology. So even if there was voter fraud on a scale where fraudulent ballots surpassed the margin of victory, you still would have no reason to believe that fraud changed the outcome. Thus the idea that we should not accept and respect election outcomes over this is patiently absurd.
That "logic" of yours works just as well in reverse. "If the left-tribe really believed their ideology was popular, they wouldn't be afraid of accurate voting"
Complete strawman and you know that. Nothing I've argued implies in any way that the left is afraid of accurate voting.
Where in all of this do you address the fact that belief in god was nearly universal in certain societies for a long time?I don't because it has nothing to do with the conversation.Then I will consider all your statements about burden of proof as moot as you refuse to defend your implicit claims on the subject.
lol yep that sounds about right.
Step 1: Strawman my position. In this case by claiming that I argued believing something for a long time makes it the default position
Step 2: Ignore any response I give showing you how you strawmanned my position. Notice how the very next paragraph I wrote explained what my point actually was and how you didn't bother to include it here anywhere, as if it doesn't exist.
Step 3: Use your own made up version of what I said along with your intentional blindness to my response as an excuse to hand waive away a central point in this debate showing your position to be wrong.
This is what arguing with you is like. But that's fine because it's very illuminating to see the hoops people jump through to believe these things.
you are the one expecting us to proceed as if there is fraud.You are the ones expecting us to proceed as if there was an election.
Uh, yeah, it's hard to have fraud if no election took place, so looks like my burden of proof has been long satisfied.
Citation please.Be more specific.
You're arguing that legislators changed the laws to hide crucial election information, and this is what lead to distrust in elections. I'm telling you that's nonsense. There is an easy fix to this, provide the example you are talking about so we can take a closer look.
Yeah, for MAGA that's definitely right.You basically conceded that MAGA are the real americans.
No, I "conceded" that MAGA's definition of what it means to be a real American is to value guns over democracy. Why you think that's a good thing is beyond me along with the rest of the world.
Because the guy is a crackpot conspiracy theorist whose own family doesn't take his candidacy seriously.Notice how you get to disclaim RFK at will but refuse to allow me to do the same for Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensburger.
I get to disclaim RFK because he is in fact a crackpot conspiracy theorist and because his beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with anything I've argued.
That is not the case with your position and Kemp/Raffensburger. You are claiming the election was full of fraud and that those in charge of elections (like Kemp and Raffensburger) are actively working to hide the massive fraud that would show Biden lost. Except, aside from being extraordinary and completely baseless and therefore unworthy of being taken seriously, also completely goes against the known political ideology and more importantly against the political interests of these two individuals. So no you don't get to pretend that isn't a serious problem for your position.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's kinda funny that Biden's last hope is to actually win the election legitimately.
Yeah, really funny that the American people won't get to see the full evidence showing how Trump mishandled classified documents and tried to subvert democracy before deciding whether to make him president again.
Created: