Total posts: 5,890
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So getting ahead of it because they realized the "law" just changed.
No, paying closer attention to something they might not have concerned themselves with before. That's what happens when a story makes national headlines. Shocker I know.
I don't care about that fluff, amounts to "resisting arrest" on an unlawful arrest.
Declaring an arrest unlawful doesn't make it unlawful. If Trump had a legal argument he would be making it, he doesn't, that's why he has to play these delay games.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You do realize Trump is going to exploit the hell out of mail in and early voting this year. Excusing oversight this time is literally supporting Trump.
I have no doubt MAGA cultists will do everything they can to cheat in 2024. It's classic projection, accuse the other side of that which you would love to do, then when enough people repeat the same claim, you now believe it. Once you believe it you now have all the reason you wanted to actually do it.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Now notice all the years Biden didn't give back the classified material. Then notice how he "discovered" (November 2, 2022) some right after they started going after Trump for this (totally made up) crime (Feb. 9, 2022: The National Archives refers the matter to the Justice Department).
When the entire country is talking about how the idiot who used to be our president was withholding classified documents to the point they needed a search warrant to get them back, it isn't surprising in the least that it would cause others to look around and say "I don't have any of those do I?". Notice how Mike Pence also had classified documents, was he also the next target of the deep state?
And I love how lying to federal investigators is to you, a "made up crime". You're hilarious.
Also notice the decades between Trump committing all these NY "Crimes" and anyone going after him.
Yeah and you don't have to make up tin foil hat conspiracy theories to explain it. It's a lot harder to commit crimes without getting caught when the evidence of your crimes is published on the front page of the New York Times. Turns out that when you decide to run for president and especially when you base your entire claim to fame on your business record, people are going to pay very close attention to your business record.
So yes we agree, the cause is recent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Feel free to keep a country of 300 million together when a third doubt there are real elections. Good luck.
We will need luck, because we can't reason with cultists.
"In this case, the underlying belief being rationalized is the Republican turn against democracy itself. Republican voters understand their ideology and party are both unpopular. They know that maintaining power means overruling the wishes of the majority of Americans. But rather than admit out loud — or possibly even to themselves — that they would rather end American democracy, they cling to these comforting conspiracy theories that let them tell a story where they're the heroes, not the villains trying to strip rights away from other Americans."
Proper election integrity measures or lack thereof is not the problem here.
So you can assert fraud without a burden of proof?YesThat's what I thought.
I know. As usual, you take a snippet of the conversation and leave out the part that actually explains the point, because the point is inconvenient for you.
You do not understand how the burden of proof works and have no interest in learning, you've made that clear by just repeating the same shallow retorts against my position that don't even attempt to address the perported errors or offer an alternative interpretation. It's difficult to be any more transparently unserious.
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.
You implied that if people believed something for a long time, that was the default.
No I didn't, read my words, in context. We were talking about the burden of proof and I was making the point about how you shoulder the burden when you are expecting other people to accept your claim, and I had also argued why acceptance of representation is the proper default which all amount to you having the burden since you are the one claiming fraud.
It's a futile game of infinite regress, which is why people don't takes these demands seriously.That's also what the theists say. In the end, they have insufficient evidence, and so do you.
Theists are the ones expecting us to proceed as if there is a god, you are the one expecting us to proceed as if there is fraud. You are the one here who belongs in the theist camp. I don't need evidence to prove there is no fraud.
If I accused you of stealing from the cash register it is me who has to do the proving. The fact that you could have stolen and found a way to make the drawer look even is irrelevant.
Before you pointed out that people used to trust elections and pretended as if the only reason that could have changed is the unfounded accusations of a certain orangeman. Here you admit there was another change.
No, it's all the same thing. There was always some contingent of internet crackpots who believed this stuff, it was Trump who made these theories mainstream. Once they became mainstream, legislators had to listen to their base.
Before legislators "gave in to conspiracy theorists" and we trusted elections as a result of the transparency those legislators required.
Citation please.
Participating in our most basic constitutional process is supposed to be a protected rightActually carrying weapons is more basic.
Yeah, for MAGA that's definitely right.
Possibly, and possibly there would be those who didn't vote but said they did. If you couldn't prove they were lying then you're admitting you can't prove the origin of the ballot envelopes.
You also can't prove that the ID someone uses to vote in person is real. So what's your point?
It's probably better to have verified votes rather than trying to meet the burden of proof afterwards with audits.
They are verified, there's a whole process for that.
I was clearly talking about public figures. People who actually believe in the ideology of the party they represent.I don't think such things are clear.
If you don't think people like Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensburder are clear right wingers you are lost.
RFK says Biden is a greater threat to democracy than Trump. What does he believe in and why doesn't that make him a reliable critic?
Because the guy is a crackpot conspiracy theorist whose own family doesn't take his candidacy seriously.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
They (the deep state) realized that Biden was the obvious target of a counter-attack and got ahead of it. The timing allows no other conclusion.
This is just full blown conspiracy theory nonsense.
Timing? Trump was being investigated for his blatant mishandling of classified documents and obstruction. Nothing about that says 'they're coming for Biden next'.
Second, I thought Biden was the mastermind weaponizing the DOJ against Trump? Now he's the target? How does that work?
Third, even if Biden was the next target that would still be irrelevant. Biden cooperated. Trump obstructed. Cooperation =/= Obstruction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
"Thomas' argument was essentially the same as Cruz's: Even if there isn't evidence of fraud, if one side claims the other side might have stolen an election, that's enough to justify making it harder for the other side to vote."
Yeah, that sums up the OP's case quite nicely.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If he thought they were his, why would he 'return them' without being asked?
The documents he believed were his are not the same documents he initially returned. After discovering that he had documents he wasn't supposed to have, he opened up his home and offices to investigators to comb through every corner to make sure there was nothing left. That's when the issue over his handwritten notes came up.
And even if that were not the case... The FBI did not come to him, he came to them (which was my point). He didn't order his documents moved from one location to another to evade detection. He didn't order his attorneys to lie and say they gave them all back while he continued to stash them by the box load. He didn't order his staff to delete and destroy the evidence of their whereabouts.
The fact that you guys can't tell the difference between these night and day scenarios is the greatest example I've seen yet of how MAGA cultism rots the brain. Second best is the complete and total wipeout from the mind of how basic language and communication works, like this gem...
Listen just because he uses the same words as a right-triber does not mean he should be held to the meaning of those words.
Yeah, words can be used in many different ways. That's why the word context exists, I'm sorry if you missed that lesson in third grade.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JoeBob
Mine comes from the Ruff Ryders, which was a nickname my friends gave to me since it was also my initials.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ADreamOfLiberty
Apparently post 88 doesn't exist. MAGA cultism seems to run so deep it literally renders inconvenient imagery invisible.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
They are here legally. What are you talking about?
There's nothing unclear about my sentence, you're just focusing on the wrong part I suspect because you know what I'm asking and you know you'll have no good answer for it.
Should these children be allowed to starve? Yes or No?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, and has been pointed out repeatedly to you, the crimes Trump is being charged for and the reason these charges are serious is because he blatantly lied to federal investigators and did everything he could to destroy the evidence of his guilt. Nothing Biden did came close to that in any way.
If you hand waive away all of the differences and focus only on the similarities what's left will be similarities. What you're doing here is neither clever nor opague. The shoplifter analogy is spot on.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The parents are here legally
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Serious question; Do you believe the children of migrants (who are here legally) should be allowed to starve?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I need to prevent this from happening. I take meds; they don't work.
This sounds like a conversation you need to have with a therapist. There is no medical explanation for why ranting about a goat fuckers cousin's sister would bring you relief from physical pain, or why the n word would be any more effective. Something is going on within you and I doubt anyone here is qualified to help you figure it out.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
And yet fits your equivocation perfectly.Nope. Biden broke the law and would still be breaking the law if he had not been caught.
He wasn't caught genius. He returned the documents as soon as he discovered them when no one was even looking for them.
Yep. Equal.
Again, and has been pointed out repeatedly to you, the crimes Trump is being charged for and the reason these charges are serious is because he blatantly lied to federal investigators and did everything he could to destroy the evidence of his guilt. Nothing Biden did came close to that in any way.
If you hand waive away all of the differences and focus only on the similarities what's left will be similarities. What you're doing here is neither clever nor opague. The shoplifter analogy is spot on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Also, it's not really possible to cheat by raising of the hands. Somebody in a crowded Agora is going to see if you raise two hands and it's obvious when a raised hand is a mirror of the other.
Feel free to start your own country of over 300 million people and run elections by having people raise their hands. Good luck.
I had no responsibility to prove the absence of a contract so I didn't have to do a damn thing.So you can assert fraud without a burden of proof?
Yes, I have no burden because I'm not trying to move you or anyone else over to my position. Whether you believe me is irrelevant, the point is that you haven't proven your case. That's what the "burden" in "burden of proof"... is.
You are really struggling with this concept and I don't know why. Here, try this. Maybe this will teach you something.
You also claimed that ignorance is not "a conclusion". If it's not a conclusion, it must be the default.How can ignorance of god(s) existence be both a default and not a default?
Ignorance is the default when it comes to any question of knowledge. When it comes to our approach, ignorance cannot coherently guide us in any direction. Therefore, in any dichotomy we are forced by practical necessity to default to one of our two choices.
With regards to claims of existence, the default is always non-existence until existence is demonstrated. That's why we don't go to sleep every night searching for monsters under our bed. We default to non-existence because the only alternative is to default to existence until non-existence is demonstrated which results in entirely contradictory belief systems being held simultaneously.
Philosophically, when someone tells us something we accept their word as the default and reject it only when have reason to do so, a concept I will refer to as acceptance of representation. The alternative is to insist every statement is proven, which would be impossible because every justifying statement would then require other justifying statements triggering infinite regress.
So when we design an election system, we do have to put safeguards in because while each individual statement (voter) is accepted as the default we know that big picture without safeguards in we will have some level of false voters. So that's exactly what we did.
The question is whether those safeguards are enough, and that is a perfectly reasonable conversation to have. What's not reasonable is to proceed with as your default position, the notion that the election was rife with fraud until proven otherwise. That is a reversal of the burden of proof because it reverses the default position of acceptance of representation.
The last statement is both a conclusion, and an assertion of ignorance.You're asserting two sperate things as if they are one. They're not. You can conclude that you are ignorant. The conclusion is in regards to your own state of mind. Your ignorance is in regards to the issue at hand.You did not address the counter example. I will proceed as if ignorance can be a conclusion.
Ignoring my response doesn't mean I didn't address your example. It's right there. Try again.
You made a general epistemological statement: "Ignorance is still, by definition, not a conclusion." You have failed to justify this assertion and did not address a generalized counter-example.
It's right there. In English. Try again. If you're not going to acknowledge what I wrote you cannot seriously expect me to continue writing more.
The default is that audits did not occur, and that if they did occur their secret results fail to serve the purpose of an audit (establishing trust).
No, that's the default position you land on when you begin with a default position against acceptance of representation. There is no reason why the state after having already gone through the process of creating safeguards and counting the ballots which passed those safeguards and then auditing their own results to ensure they are right then has to produce the "evidence for their audits" without a predicate to call them into question unless you begin with the presumption that everything fraud until proven otherwise. And then of course, whatever evidence they produce doesn't matter because people like you will just ask for evidence to support the evidence. It's a futile game of infinite regress, which is why people don't takes these demands seriously.
If someone is "hiding" something from you, they're by definition doing it to conceal the truth.Correct. Which is suspicious when you are entitled to the truth and not suspicious when you aren't.
Right. Now google question begging.
If there were legitimate reasons to hide the information that outweighed the legitimate reasons to not hide the information, why did so many states (yes fewer now but that is besides the point) create laws which mandate publication?
Because of legislators giving in to conspiracy theorists like you. But that's not even relevant here, if the law says they have to publish it then they have to publish it, at which point it would then become expected, at which point you can then claim it to be problematic when they don't.
The reason they are hiding the information now is because for the first time citizen audits were actually happening. Citizen audits were the reason they were public before.
Yes, until Trump lead his cult into a culture declaring conspiracy and going after people. There purpose was always transparency, not as a tool for vigilantism. When the latter starts to occur we have to consider the balance between these two things.
That means tens of thousands of in-person interviews, two people at least, with body cams, going to addresses where ballots were sent and confirming identities, ballot requests, and ballot returns.All camera footage should be publicly available along with queryable answers to the questions.
Wow, ok that's absolutely ridiculous. Participating in our most basic constitutional process is supposed to be a protected right, not something that subjects you to harassment by the government seeking to interview you on camera and share your interview with the public.
You're out of your mind.
That inference is what the audit would publish and if that number is on the same order of magnitude as the margin of victory then the audit would conclude the election was irreparably tainted and must be redone (with vulnerabilities fixed).
This perfectly demonstrates why your proposal, setting aside the incredible breach of privacy, is absurd. If the government performed such an audit in the wake of 2020 and Trump's never ending baseless claims of voter fraud, MAGA cultists everywhere would have just told the investigators they didn't vote and drive the number of "fraudulent" ballots found through the roof so they can nullify the results. Democrats could easily do the same. This would be totally weaponized by whatever side lost.
The notion that you can divine the interests and beliefs of a person because of a party affiliation statement is hilariously naive. For instance I was a registered democrat when I worked as an election judge.
I was clearly talking about public figures. People who actually believe in the ideology of the party they represent.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
"President Trump has been indicted on a total of 91 counts by supporters of JoeBiden and his Justice Department. If convicted of these charges, do you think thatJoe Biden wants to stop President Trump from winning the election by puttinghim in jail?"So the question was, if he is convicted of crimes, do you think biden would want him put in jail.
I also love how the question begins by bootstrapping onto it at the outset the premise that Trump's legal woes are the product of Joe Biden.
The blatant partisan hackery of this question couldn't be any more obvious.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I wonder how many documents showing the location of US nuclear weapons Melania has on her iPhone?
Who knows? I wonder how many documents were hauled onto a plane and flown to Bedminster before the FBI could get them back which are still at large?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nice fanfiction
And yet fits your equivocation perfectly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Logic dictates that if you allow people to contradict the definition of words they use you're vulnerable to rhetorical manipulation
That doesn't follow, at all. And you know this.
"would be a shame if something were to happen to them", means "I'm concerned for your family's well being". And yet, you fully acknowledge this is a threat. You acknowledge this because you do in fact understand how basic communication and language works. You understand how context works. You understand that understanding what someone is saying is more nuanced than just picking up a dictionary.
You understand all of this, and yet you pretend you don't. Because Trump, or own the libs, or whatever you are holding onto that makes you stoop to making such a ridiculous argument.
The democrats shouted fire. They denied the election.
These are two different things, and they will always be no matter how much you keep repeating yourself.
Democrats denied the legitimacy of the election which is inherently subjective.
Republicans denied the vote tallies which is inherently objective.
Subjective =/= Objective.
If you really want to talk about definitions, try googling the definition of "different".
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The classified doc cases are nearly identical.
Right. The guy who realizes he had an unpaid item in his cart and walks back in the store to return it, and the guy who stuffs items down his pants, gets to the door, gets stopped, and runs off to his getaway car and peels off...
Are nearly identical. Because both walked out of the store with unpaid items.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
When you disregard what the person clearly meant to say and instead take away only what the dictionary definition of their words amount to you aren't communicating.If you let words mean whatever is convenient after the fact then you can't do logic.
Logic would dictate that when a person says something and then a sentence later goes on to explain what they mean, the second part is the take away, not the initial impression you got before they explained themselves.
My 7 year old neice can figure that out. Why can't you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Even if he explicitly denied it two seconds later that would not matter.If Bob accuses Amy of murder and then follows it up by saying "and by that I mean she used all the penutbutter, not that she killed a human being" that's just Bob contradicting himself.
No, that's not a contradiction, that's an example of poor usage of words in the extreme.
The purpose of language is to convey thoughts from one person's mind to another's. When you disregard what the person clearly meant to say and instead take away only what the dictionary definition of their words amount to you aren't communicating.
So in the end you've made your position clear; you aren't interested in what the democrats are saying. To you this is all just a game of gotcha, and as long as you can find words that overlap with the words of your tribe then you get to claim both sides are equal. That's ridiculous and brazenly dishonest. There is no way you would do the same thing to someone in your tribe who uses the wrong choice of words (I could ramble of dozens of examples of Trump doing those that you will no doubt excuse away).
This is of course predictable to a certain extent. When you are fundamentally wrong on an issue the only way to argue your position is to focus on word games.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If the public being exposed to information one side thinks is misleading makes an election illegitimate then there has never been a legitimate election.
I generally agree with you here, it is a stretch to me to say a president is illegitimate because people may have been influenced by a campaign of a foreign advasary to get that individual elected, but it isn't an entirely unreasonable position. Until Trump rotted the brains of half the country, we all used to agree that welcoming the help of a foreign advasary in an election was out of the question. I think it was Al Gore who was sent a brief case with oppo research on Bush and immediately turned it over to the FBI. It was an accepted part of the rules for how campaigns were supposed to operate, so when Trump refused to take the same approach in 2016 it gave a lot of people room to argue his election was illegitimate.
Inaccurate and wrong generally means the vote tallies did not match to what the people voted. Is that what you're claiming he was taking about?It is.
Ok, so your claim is that Jimmy Carter was alleging the vote tallies were not accurate, even though he explained in detail that he was talking about the fact that the Russians interfered to help Trump.
Do you have any basis for that belief other than the fact that he used the term "didn't win"? Is your position seriously that if someone uses those two words, then they are only talking about the ballot counts and nothing else?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Was he alleging that election was fraudulent?He was alleging they the result was inaccurate, wrong, illegitimate, etc... etc...
This isn't an answer, the debate over the past week has been almost entirely about what each of these words mean.
So again, what was he alleging?
Inaccurate and wrong generally means the vote tallies did not match to what the people voted. Is that what you're claiming he was taking about?
Illegitimate has many different uses here, including the idea that he won because he got help from Russia in the form of a disinformation campaign against Clinton.
This isn't complicated, this isn't a gotcha, it's really simple... What was he alleging happened?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You don't get to control language.
No, the people who use words get to control their own word usage, because that's what language is. I am not the one pretending I control what other people are saying, that's what you've been doing since this thread began.
Here is your tired Jimmy Carter example. Let's look at what he actually said:
"I think a full investigation would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election, and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf"
So you tell me... What was Jimmy Carter actually saying here? Was he alleging that election was fraudulent? Was he alleging that Russia controlled the electoral college? Go ahead, tell us. Break it down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You realize he was just using your style....
No, what he was doing is trying to argue the that merely proclaiming my argument irrelevant means he gets to ignore the multiple paragraphs I wrote explaining how it's very relevant.
And he did so by presenting such a ridiculous case that he had to resort to arguing that "because" doesn't imply a casual relationship.
He would argue the earth is flat just to avoid having to accept anything I have to say. Hell, I should just start arguing that Biden is terrible and Trump is the greatest president ever, if I did that I'd probably succeed in getting him to vote for Biden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Election denial means denying the officially reported results ( winners and losers) of an election. That is what democrats did. The end.
That certainly is where it ends... In your mind, because you are incapable of telling different things apart from each other.
Calling what the democrats did "election denial" doesn't mean what they did actually meets your definition of "election denial". This is no different than when theists define atheism as a positive belief that no gods exist, and then attack the atheists for their unsubstantiated belief system.
You don't get to define someone else's position, and you don't get to just bully your definition of someone else's words into the record. In the real world, where facts and logic matter, you have to make real arguments based on reality. Let me know when you'd like to engage in that excise.
The democratic rejection of the results of a process they call an election is a concept
Yes, and I've been trying to explain that concept to you for weeks now. Why your brain is hardwired to shut down and not allow any new data in every time is beyond me.
To explain it I've given you a baseball analogy, I gave you a sprinter analogy, and I explained it within the actual topic at least three different ways now. Each time you completely ignore everything I've said pretending that your pre-prepared sheild excuse of just calling it Irrelevant means you get to pretend it doesn't exist.
In my last post I broke down what each side was saying and explained how one was a matter of subjective opinion while the other was a matter of objective fact. Did you have any response to that? No of course you didn't. I talked about how the exact same phrase using the same words defined in the same way could still result in different meanings based on the context in which they are used. Did you have any response to that? No of course you didn't. Why respond when you can just say the magic word "irrelevant".
Watching you time and time again ignore every point that threatens your cherished beliefs is amusing and informing. There is no reasoning with a person who has decided reason is irrelevant. It is no wonder you believe the ridiculous things you do.
Yes pointing out that there is no connecting premise (and thus no argument) is the only correct response. You proved you did not understand that with this example.
Right, you really owned me when you explained that the word "because" does not denote a casual connection.
It's not me who doesn't understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
We all know these politicians ghost write books. If anything this is more honest because he isn't claiming to be the author.
The issue was about audacity, not dishonesty. But of we want to talk about dishonesty it's notable that the guy pretending to be a Bible lover is a man who's been a public figure his entire adult life and yet no one has ever seen him inside a church till he ran for president, couldn't name a single bible verse that was special to him and couldn't even pronounce "two" Corinthians. The guy is a con in everything he does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
2016 came before 2020. Ask the MAGA cultists.So you admit that in your mind the definition changed.
No, the context changed. That's literally what context is - what someone is talking about.
Question: does "Trump didn't win legitimately" = "Trump lost"?
It depends on what you're talking about.
Legitimacy is about winning in "the spirit" of the contest, which reasonable people can see differently.
We can reasonably disagree on whether Trump's victory was legitimate given that he received welcomed help from a foreign advasary. We can reasonably disagree on whether his victory was legitimate given that he lost the popular vote. We can reasonably disagree because these are matters of subjective opinion.
What you are talking about is not. The the vote tallies and whether those votes were cast by legal voters is not subject to your or anyone else's opinion. Here we're talking about facts. We're talking about reality. That's not the same thing. Why is this so difficult for you? Are you even still reading this or did you just see a bunch of words and it overloaded your circuits?
Subjective opinion =/= objective fact. Do you understand that?
Nor did you use the premise "If someone denies an election for some reasons they aren't denying an election" as that would be a self-contradicting premise.
It's actually not necessarily.
The first law of logic is the law of identity which states something must be what it is and cannot be what it is not. Yet when you hear any philosopher explain it they will ad the caveat "at the same time in the same sense".
Why do they have to add this? Because people often talk about things using the same words but talking about them in different senses. Because that's how human language works. Example: "I'm old, but I'm not old". Translation: "I'm old in the sense that I'm older than everyone else here, but I'm not old in the sense that I am an elderly person"
Using words in different senses does not = changing definitions.
So the premise can easily be translated into "If someone denies [the legitimacy of] an election for some reasons they aren't denying [the technical result of] an election [as decided by the electoral college vote].
Why this melts your brain to the point of an endless feedback loop is beyond me. It is not complicated. At all.
You also failed to provide a casual mechanismNo causality was implied.
That's literally where the word "be-cause" comes from, which you even put in bold.
I'm done with this stupid example, no serious person would still be trying this hard and failing this badly to show that declaring an argument to be irrelevant is not an end-all-be-all rebuttal. Try that in an actual debate and see what happens.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because far-left liberals are the most intellectually bankrupt group in America, they are the ones who resort most often to character assassination.When liberals are confronted with arguments they cannot answer, they hide their inability to answer the argument by attacking the person.
Reporter: “What do you say to Americans, who are watching you right now, who are scared?”
President: "I say that you’re a terrible reporter"
Yep, those liberals just can't answer a question without attacking the person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
The latest and greatest Bible is the only one endorsed by Trump, with additions such as Lee Greenwood song lyrics (“God Bless the U.S.A.”), the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and other valuable additions.
And he hasn't read any of them
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Book deals usually mean writing your own, not slapping your name over God's.
The extent to which you will pretend to completely different things are the same is breathtaking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If there are different ways to deny an election, than those ways each... mean... something different.Then why use the same phrase?
2016 came before 2020. Ask the MAGA cultists.
Actually don't, we already know why; because the best way to make a ridiculous argument in politics is to make it sound like something the other side already did or said, that way you can take it to a new low while pretending it's all the same.
Example:
Democrats in 2016: POTUS didn't win legitimately
Republicans in 2020: POTUS didn't win
Both sides said he didn't win, so they're both the same. English be damned.
Who said Joe Biden's sexuality impacted impact craters?I said because the moon has been struck by meteors and meteors cause craters Joe Biden is a pedophile.
If moon craters made people pedophiles then everyone would be pedophiles, but most people are not, therefore craters do not make people pedophiles.
You also failed to provide a casual mechanism, which is necessary to make this statement in the first place. Without that it's a violation of the null hypothesis.
You also ignore Occam's razor, which clearly leads us to conclude Joe Biden's alleged pedophilia would be a product of natural human impulses rather than the effect of a celestial object.
And then there's the burden of proof, which you've completely ignored.
You also ignore the concept of the default position that nothing is reasonably accepted to exist until it is demonstrated to exist, like for example mystical pedophilia causing rays from the moon's craters.
Ate we done with this stupid example?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
We are all racist on some level (depending on the definition of course). All life on earth prefers its own kind over that which is different, that's why we gravitate towards people we have things in common with. When we look at someone with completely different skin color, our natural instincts presume differences until the similarities are demonstrated.
The question we should be asking is at what point does this natural impulse become problematic? At what point does this instinct infect our ability to relate to and care for others?
This is the problem with the folks who see racism in everything. If you are looking everywhere for it, of course you're going to find it. And to those who think it isn't a real thing worthy of attention as if we've solved it, you're just denying basic human nature. The worthwhile conversation is in the nuance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Whether the words in question have only one meaning/usage is the very thing being contestedGood luck with that.
I don't need luck, it's basic human communication aka common sense. Everyone knows this, your denial of the fact that words can be and are used in many different ways (says everyone who uses language) is just another indicator of how MAGA cultism rots people's brains.
If there were 50,000 ways to deny an election and democrats only used two, have democrats denied an election?
If there are different ways to deny an election, than those ways each... mean... something different.
Also, take note of how I literally just explained the difference to you in what these differences are and why they matter and notice how you once again ignored every point I made entirely. You're not a serious person.
Are you ever going to provide a thoughtful response to thisI think I'm cutting to the heart of the matter quite efficiently.
I know you do, that's the problem.
The moon has been struck by many meteors over its history, craters come from meteor strikes, therefore Joe Biden is a pedophile.
The meteors that struck the moon did so in most cases before Joe Biden was ever born, therefore there is no possible way his sexual preferences could have possibly impacted them.
Not that hard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Ah, so when Trump uses a word it can mean anything but when a democrat uses a word it's only limited to one usage.No, when the word in the context of the sentence or a paragraph has only one meaning it has only one meaning.
Question begging fallacy at its finest.
Whether the words in question have only one meaning/usage is the very thing being contested, you don't get to pretend you're right merely because you declared yourself so.
You deny elections. Then there are excuses for denying elections. No excuse will change the fact that you denied elections.
I was about to continue with the Socratic method and ask whether you really believe there is only one way to deny an election until realizing what an utter waste of time that would be. The answer is obvious; of course there is, just like there are multiple ways to deny any victory of any kind.
We can generally group these into two categories, denying the technical result, and denying the legitimacy of the result. A sprinter who crosses the finish line first technically won the race, but if they did it while using a PED and didn't get caught then their victory would reasonably be considered illegitimate.
You continue to pretend as if these are the same thing when any person with an IQ above room temperature can easily tell the difference. The fact that I have to repeatedly explain this to you demonstrates not only how wrong you are, but how low you have to sink yourself to to keep defending this nonsense.
The democrats are not denying Trump's victory in a technical sense. That would require disputing basic facts, which are objective. They are denying the legitimacy of his victory, that is about values and what the underlying ideas behind the contest itself are about which is all inherently subjective.
Objective and subjective are not the same thing.
Are you ever going to provide a thoughtful response to this, or just keep pretending this doesn't matter?
Democrats deny elections without a theory of fraud. Right-tribers have many theories of fraud. The difference in excuses is that republicans have an excuse
Pretending the other person's argument doesn't exist is not a refutation.
Whether a conclusion follows from the premises (that's what we call logic) will always be relevant to an argument. If it doesn't, you can always point out why, which isn't what ignoring it means.The conclusion is irrelevant as it fails to contradict much less override the facts in evidence.
Declaring it irrelevant doesn't make it so. You actually have to argue your points to be taken seriously.
Shouting "context" is not an argument.
I didn't just shout context, I wrote multiple paragraphs explaining how the context added up to my interpretation as well as the interpretation of the very people he was talking to. I have also pointed this out to you multiple times since including in my last post, each time you just ignore or and pretend what I said doesn't exist.
You're a brazen liar. I continue with this conversation for no reasons other than the exercise and because each time you do this it only cements further and further how wrong you are and preserves the record for anyone who may be reading this the brain disease that is MAGA cultism.
Created:
@Amber
If I drive through a school zone ...You clearly suffer from denial and factually incorrect information in your ignorant analogies to the alleged allegation in the fraud case where there were NO VICTIMS, and likewise, NO COMPLAINTANT!!
No answer to the analogy I see, just your usual pronouncements of superiority followed by your repetition of the same arguments I've already refuted.
I don't know why you bother.
Like listing your 11k square foot penthouse as a 30k square foot penthouse.
"The attachment was a 1994 document, signed by Trump, that pegged his Trump Tower triplex at 10,996 square feet — not the 30,000 square feet later claimed for years on financial statements that were given to banks, insurers and others to make deals and secure loans."
In other words, the point of this article is to show that not only did Trump misrepresent his wealth on his financial statements, but his earlier statements demonstrate that he did it on purpose.
Next time read the actual article, don't just skim the headline.
This is not a "whataboutism," you dolt. If the prosecutor is guilty of the same damn thing she is accusing Trump of, that means her credibility is ZERO!
She didn't do the same thing. I already pointed that out to you earlier to which you had no response.
The prosecutors credibility is irrelevant. Court cases rely on evidence and witnesses.
The prosecutors prior conduct is irrelevant. If she broke the law she should be held responsible as well. That has nothing to do with Trump and his conduct.
I'm not the one trying to argue that fraud =/= fraud.When the banks are willing participants in the manner in which they engage with developers loaning money, there is NO fucking fraud!!
Fraudulent conduct is determined by the law, not the banks willingness to excuse it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The banks don't get to write the laws as we go...That would be the job of TDS judges.
I accept your concession
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Reality disagrees with you.Getting a bank loan isn’t a crime.
He wasn't charged for getting a bank loan. Read the law I just quoted.
Listing your 11k square foot apartment at 30k square feet is not a poor valuation. That's lying, aka fraud.Want to prove where he did that and still got a loan?
No, because that's irrelevant to this discussion. The conduct is what's illegal.
That's an example of fraud.If the salesperson knew, yes.
And the Trump Org. knew, that makes it fraud.
Can you point to a single thing I've said which implies anyone should believe anything without question?That’s the entire premise of the case.
It has nothing to do with with the case. Trump was charged for his conduct.
What factual information was wrong, and why did the banks still do business with him? And why would they to this day continue business with him? Answer those two questions please.
The information that was wrong is listed in the charges. You are free to Google them.
Every question here is irrelevant. The banks outlook on the situation has nothing to do with whether the client blatantly and repeatedly violated the law.
People don't take out loans so they can put it under their mattress. Once the money has been loaned, there's no money there to get back. In fact in many cases the check isn't even given to the applicant, it's directly handed to a third party.Your background is clearly not in finance. Loans have covenants, collateral, etc.
I promise you I have more experiencein finance and real estate deals than you do.
You are the one who asserted that the bank after loaning its money to the client can simply get it back. That's ridiculous. The collateral in this case along with the assets which determine the clients ability to get the bank their money back is the literal thing he was lying about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Fixed. If it works for you then it works for me.No it doesn't because "bloodbath" could mean many things besides political violence but "win that election" only means one.
Ah, so when Trump uses a word it can mean anything but when a democrat uses a word it's only limited to one usage. Wow, incredible how convenient that is for you.
Because no one has ever used the word "win" in anything other than a completely technical sense.
Is this really the hill you are going to die on?
then go on to write multiple paragraphs explaining in detail why the comments in context of the situation being discussed does not mean what you claim.Excuses, you explained their excuses for making the statement. Excuses don't change the meaning.
Yeah, that's what the word excuse means. So are you going to argue your point or just define yourself as being right?
If I said Biden didn't win the election because of X I still said Biden didn't win the election. Democrats still denied (purported) election results. You will never be able to change that.
No prominent democrat has ever claimed the vote tallies reported by the states in 2016 or 2020 were not accurate or driven by fraud. That is strictly a republican thing. You will never be able to change that.
All these little word games you're playing, like pretending words can have multiple usages when Trump utters them, but only one usage when it comes out of the mouth of a democrat is not going to make your point any more reasonable.
would bother to read it and point out the errorsThe error is one of relevance. That's why I can ignore it.
Whether a conclusion follows from the premises (that's what we call logic) will always be relevant to an argument. If it doesn't, you can always point out why, which isn't what ignoring it means.
That's a nice family you got there, would be a real change of something were to happen to them.Is coded language. If nobody ever watched mafia films/TV they would have no idea what it meant."peacefully protest" is not code for anything but "peacefully protest" in any context. YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE OTHERWISE.
Anyone with a shred of common sense can figure out what it means when someone whom you owe money to and is capable of such brutality utters these words to you. The fact that you think coded language only comes from Mafia movies shows the depths you have to sink yourself to in order to hold your position. At what point do you finally just admit you are wrong?
And I have to repeat my earlier observation, it never ceases to amaze me how the same people who excuse every stupid, vile, and incoherent thing Trump says on the basis that he "speaks in metaphors" are also the same people who (when it's convenient) pretend there only exists literal and explicit language - that every word a person speaks can only be interpreted by it's dictionary definition. The hypocrisy and double standards here are beyond flagrant. These are the logic pretzels one must contort themselves into to defend Trumpism.
P.S. nice job on ignoring the fine people hoax in the video.
I wasn't ignoring it, it's the same thing we're already talking about. In fact, that's an even better example for me because you cannot possibly defend Trump's "both sides" comment without accepting every single argument I've made here which you are actively rejecting.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you think loan application fraud should be illegal? Yes or No?Yes, if the banks declare fraud, then it should be illegal.
The banks don't get to write the laws as we go. If something is illegal, then it's illegal. It doesn't start off as legal and then magically become illegal because a bank declared it so.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s a false equivalency since one is a crime and the other isn’t.
Reality disagrees with you.
Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term "persistent fraud" or "illegality" as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term "repeated" as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.
The first rule of valuation is that there is no true valuation. By your definition, a person would always be lying, which you argue is criminal.
Listing your 11k square foot apartment at 30k square feet is not a poor valuation. That's lying, aka fraud.
Let’s say for example Mike says DebateArt is worth 5 million. He has to back up his claim with numbers. Now, the bank can say your methodology and numbers make zero sense and therefore say they think the value is 1 million. That’s not a crime at all.
Correct, and if Mike claims the site gets 30k hits a day when it only gets 11k, he's lying, aka committing fraud.
If they sell me a car by purposefully misrepresenting key facts about that car, that's fraud.Everyone knows this.That’s a whole different case that involves warranties and implied liabilities, etc.. It’s a false equivalency.
No, it absolutely isn't. The fact that the car might come with warranties doesn't change the underlying conduct.
I made a financial decision based in part on false information I was given by the dealership that sold me the car. That's an example of fraud.
This is common sense.
Lol that’s exactly what you’re doing. If Trump provides his numbers, the banks don’t take them as gospel. The banks go and get their own lawyers, appraisers, etc.. That’s literally what due diligence means
Q1: Do you understand what the term "without question" means, and how believing something vs believing something without question are two different things?
Q2: Can you point to a single thing I've said which implies anyone should believe anything without question?
Lenders can't fire the loan applicant, they already gave them their money.They can immediately request their money back
People don't take out loans so they can put it under their mattress. Once the money has been loaned, there's no money there to get back. In fact in many cases the check isn't even given to the applicant, it's directly handed to a third party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Explain the context where you say ["If I don't win this election it's going to be a blood bath"] and that isn't ["an endorsement of political violence"].Am I going to ignore your answer? Yes, because there is no context that changes that. The sentence is complete and specific. There are no alternate interpretations or pronouns to identify. There is no secondary reference or conditionals.
Fixed. If it works for you then it works for me.
You're just nuts, and you think you can just say "context" and have sentences mean things they do not.
No, I think I can start off by pointing out that context matters, and then go on to write multiple paragraphs explaining in detail why the comments in context of the situation being discussed does not mean what you claim.
The fact that you would go on to ignore everything I wrote, as you just admitted you do, is not my issue. Anyone who cares about reality and basic logic who is also willing to sit here on this site debating it... would bother to read it and point out the errors, which would be easy to do if I were so nuts.
Context! therefore "peacefully" doesn't mean peacefully.
That's a nice family you got there, would be a real change of something were to happen to them.
Context doesn't change the meaning of words, so this will always be a genuine expression of concern for the safety of your family. It's not a threat, and no one who has ever uttered it meant it as such. Says ADreamOfLiberty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So very predictable. Liars gona lie.How is anything in this ad a lie? It's literally his own words.Suddenly the context-magic stops. Amazing.
lol
It's not me that all of a sudden made the magic stop.
You've been ignoring context for weeks now as you've scrambled to make your arguments sound legitimate, but suddenly when it came to the Biden ad against Trump, the very notion you've been ignoring became the central issue you had with it. So yeah I agree... Amazing.
Unless you care to explain what part I am missing that explains how Biden is a liar here...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
this ad a lieI agree. See what I did there? It's literally your own words....
Hmmm... So it sounds to me like you're saying you cannot properly assess what someone is saying without understanding the full circumstances in which they said it (aka context). Is that right?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
(that's why I used the word "part").It's still wrong.
No, it's not. So there.
But if the applicant was permitted to flat out lie, then there would be no point in the banks communicating with the applicant at all.Wrong. Just because people lie on resumes doesn't mean an employer throws out every resume....
No, but employers can fire any applicant at any point after job offer if they later learn that the applicant lied. Lenders can't fire the loan applicant, they already gave them their money.
Serious question for you... Do you think loan application fraud should be illegal? Yes or No?
No deflections, no whataboutisms, this is a very simple Yes or No.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
So when a drug dealer gets arrested, he gets to be set free until the prosecutor can prove one of his drugs killed someone, right?Lmao what? That’s not even close to what happened in the case.
You asserted that there is no punishable crime here because no one was harmed. So I simply took your stated position and applied the exact same logic to another example.
If the lack of a victim = no punishable crime, then it follows that someone who deals drugs cannot be prosecuted unless the drugs he sells cause harm to the people who purchased them.
Therefore, the burden is on the prosecution not only to show the drug dealer broke the law by selling drugs, but they just produce actual victims from the drugs he sold, otherwise he goes free with no charges.
He just explained how laws against fraud are to protect the marketplace, which used to be common sense.And how do those laws apply here.
Because he committed fraud within the marketplace.
That’s literally not what due diligence means lol.
See my latest response to GP
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You just described the opposite of due diligence.
It's not the opposite genius, it's part of the process (that's why I used the word "part").
Of course the lender needs to verify the information, because the applicants do get things wrong. But if the applicant was permitted to flat out lie, then there would be no point in the banks communicating with the applicant at all. The very idea of disclosure goes completely out the window, making real estate loans a much more dangerous venture, thereby driving up the prices for everyone.
I suppose with this mindset, you would not dare question any car salesman because they are required by law to tell the truth.
If they sell me a car by purposefully misrepresenting key facts about that car, that's fraud.
Everyone knows this.
Can you imagine any situation in your life where you felt you could trust someone without question
No one said anything about believing without question. You just made that up because you cannot refute the arguments being made without misrepresenting them.
Created: