Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
It would be logically incorrect to assume that they dont exist.I find a more correct position is to admit they can exist, while not acting as if they do exist.
You're not listening to what I'm saying. No one is disputing whether they can exist, I just explained that anything is possible so long as it doesn't contradict itself. When I say we presume non-existence I'm talking about from a practical standpoint, because our beliefs inform our actions.
When someone says "X is not real" or "X exists only in your mind", they're generally not proclaiming to have searched every corner of the universe and to have concluded it's absence. They're simply stating the rational position that follows from a lack of evidence, which is to tentatively take the default position (non-existence) until such time as evidence surfaces for X.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
As a generalization, yes of course. But when you are having conversation with an individual, and especially when the point that individual has been making to you is that you do not have as good of an understanding of alternative viewpoints as you think, anyone who actually cares about a productive dialog would refrain from telling the individual you are talking to how they think or what they would think under certain circumstances.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
That default position is fallacious. To say nothing exists until proven is false. There are many things that exist, have existed long before proven to me.
Default positions are not assertions of reality, they're positions one adopts as a placeholder in order to inform their actions.
Do you pray to Zeus? Thor? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? I'm guessing you don't. If not why not? Have you proven they don't exist?
No, you carry yourself and live your life as if they don't exist because that is the default position. Until you are presented with a valid reason to take the possibility of their existence seriously, you assume they don't. The alternative position of that is to live your life as if they along with every god concept you have ever been presented with all exist until you are given a valid reason to presume their non-existence. That leads to all kinds of absurdities which is why we do not take that position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Then one would be in the position of accepting every unproven proposition simultaneously, even when they contradict each other.Accepting as possibility, yes, not as total truth.
We were not talking about possiblity. Logically, anything is possible as long as it doesn't contradict itself. We were talking about probability, which implies a basis for a belief system.
We know that both options are of equally unknown probability.This translates to 50% probability, since 50% = 50%.
Again, an unknown probability =/= a known probability.
This is the exact same logic as when people claim that not knowing how the universe got here justifies belief that goddidit. The logical error in that argument is that they're saying "I can't explain the origin of the universe, therefore I can explain the origin of the universe". Same thing.
Think of it with this example. If you were given the option to enter doors which might kill you or do nothing at all, would you enter those doors?
No, because without any further information I am unable to guarantee my survival.
Recall the part where I explained that we are reasonable to act as if the probability were 50%, I'm not arguing that I disagree with you from a practical standpoint. I'm just explaining that what you're talking about is not probability. Probability is an assessment based on data, not the absence of data.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Despite being on somewhat less than 1000 calories a day for the past few days, I am not really losing as much weight as expected.
Have you tried keto? Works for me everytime. When I do it I lose weight at will, last time I went from about 200 to 168 and then stopped because my wife said I was looking anorexic. I you are thinking about trying it I can give you some tips I've learned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Actually, when probability is unknown, it follows that each point of probability (0 to 100) is equally likely.That results in average (50%) as what is the obvious position for probability of probability.
This is a contradiction. You're arguing by not knowing what the probability is, we therefore know what the probability is (50%).
As a matter of practicality we would be right to act as if the probability were even because we have no other choice. But that is very different from asserting the probability is in fact equal.
That can be your default position, but one can also go with the idea that things dont exist only when demonstrated to not exist
Then one would be in the position of accepting every unproven proposition simultaneously, even when they contradict each other.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you want to argue that their opinion should be regarded, then make a new thread listing all your arguments about all the beneficial things lobbyists have done for democracy and the public.
These two things have nothing to do with each other.
Establishing that any individual's opinion should be regarded or disregarded requires taking a look at that individual. And as I have already explained and you ignored multiple times now: The default position is to tentatively accept what someone states as their personal beliefs until given a valid reason to reject it.
Feel free to read and respond to the many points I made above on how it applies to the subject of this thread.
Whether lobbyists as a collective group have done anything beneficial to the public is completely irrelevant to this process.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
When probability is equally unknown on both sides, it follows that both sides are equally possible since unknown probability of one side equals unknown probability of the other side.
Probability is determined by using known past examples as a means of assessing the likelihood of future outcomes. So once it is established that the answer is unknown, probability is definitionally excluded.
The ideas at that point shift. Once we get to the unknown we're now into the realm of philosophy. That is, if a proposition is unknowable then we act in accordance with logical defaults. In terms of existence, the default position is that nothing exists until it is demonstrated to exist, which is why the burden of proof is on theists.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, had to fact check that one as false, since I wasn't sure if you were serious about that claim. There were names on ballots and people voted
Just as there are here
Here's what I was thinking of that you didn't see on the Democratic side:
Either way this is kind of irrelevant. Political parties are free to operate however they wish, they are not the government. We are the ones who keep giving them our power by voting for their candidates. That's called democracy regardless of how unpleasant we think it is.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, this is how every primary has worked for decades if not over a century. We don't just put names on the ballot to see how they'll do, you have to demonstrate a base level of support to qualify. No one else does.
Nothing is stopping any other candidate from running third party or as an independent. The fact that the RNC and DNC candidates are the only ones with realistic chance is again, a product of our democracy. Take that issue up with the voters.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Did the RNC not allow a primary like the DNC isn't allowing right now? That's news.
They didn't in 2020.
Incumbent presidents never face a real challenge. It's been that way in both parties for decades if not centuries. Everyone understands the power of incumbency, political die hards are reluctant to say the least about putting forward someone who is new and untested.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
They didn't even bother putting Biden as a choice for NH today. It's like the DNC is tired of pretending there's actually a choice in today's version of democracy..
Again, if the people really did want an alternative there would be one. No one else has that support. That is why Biden will cruise to the nomination.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
In 2015 the republican party wanted nothing to do with Donald Trump but he got the nomination anyway. The people decided it, so the party had no choice. That's how it works.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If people really wanted a Biden alternative there would be one. The only thing stopping a challenger from getting themselves on the primary ballots and overtaking him is the fact that there is no challenger with enough support to do that.
Anyone can say "I don't like that guy". That's easy. Finding someone who everyone will like better is much harder.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most legislation today is passed with little to no support from the public and full support from the lobbies.
Correct, so put the blame where it belongs; on the people passing it and the people voting for them anyway.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Should the US government consistently indoctrinate kids with leftist values no matter what the leftist value is?
The anti-indoctrination argument is one of the dumbest political arguments out there right now. We've been teaching kids that slavery was wrong for over a century. That is objectivity a progressive point of view, but no one cared that we were "indoctrinating" our kids into believing this because the overwhelming majority of us already moved in that direction. It's only indoctrination when one disagrees with it.
Furthermore, I can't help but notice the breathtaking hypocrisy of those most likely to rely on this argument. It's notable that it tends to come from the most religious segment of the population, their entire worldview is the product of indoctrination. How many children do we see at Trump rallies with MAGA hats being interviewed by right wing reporters praising the children for being so smart? Ron Desantis ran in Florida an ad for governor showcasing him teaching his child to follows MAGA while he was still in the crib. None of these anti-indoctrination people cared.
Because to me, that's what you want because it helps retain power for the democratic party.
Has it ever occurred to you that a person might hold a core set of values?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
How else are you going to get rid of the lobbyists?
I'm not trying to. The hype around lobbyists is dramatically overblown. The most basic and foundational principal of our democracy is that everyone has the right to advocate for what they believe. Lobbyists are people who do this professionally. They're not robbing people, they're not assaulting people, they're just advocating for an issue. If you don't like where their influence leads then get mad at the politicians who listened to them, because they're the ones with the actual power who made the actual decisions and whose responsibility is to the rest of us, not the lobbyists.
You claimed the lobbyists are responsible for shifting wealth to the rich. Bullshit. Not a single lobbyist anywhere took a vote on a single policy that lead to that outcome. They don't have that power.
If I were a politician I would meet with lobbyists regularly. What better way is there to understand the other side of an issue than to talk to someone who gets paid to spread that viewpoint? I am pro gun safety, so I would hear what the gun lobby has to say. I am for lowering the price of prescription drugs, so I would meet with drug companies. If I am wrong, these are the people who could show me how. Why is it that someone like Kim Kardashian goes to the White House to lobby for the release of a federal prisoner and no one cares, but people who do it for a living are evil?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don't think it's useless; it's how low IQ people are
Agreed, only a Lowe IQ person would think telling others what they believe it's a great way to have a productive conversation
Spoke too soon.What do you mean?
I saw that the useless presumptions of how I think instead of just asking me continue
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
America is now that evil empire that needs to be wiped clean and reset, like Nazi Germany.
But the lobbyists are the ones whose opinions cannot be trusted because they hate America so much. Ok bro.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
if all of that happened, I believe your mind would change on the issue.
Do you have any other useless predictions on what I would believe that you'd rather share as opposed to just asking me what I think?
Is it, "Can't think of very many.", or is it, "Nothing. The left is always correct."? Part of me thinks it's the ladder.
Spoke too soon.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you want to argue that their opinion should be regarded, then make a new thread listing all your arguments about all the beneficial things lobbyists have done for democracy and the public.
I've already explained this to you and it's very simple. Let me repeat this again, slowly:
The default position is to tentatively accept what someone states as their personal beliefs until given a valid reason to reject it.
Read that sentence as many times as needed before continuing.
What you have provided is not a valid reason to reject anything they have said. Let's go through the reasons why:
- You claim this was a list of "Ultra lobbyists" yet only provided two examples from the 8 people listed
- Neither of your two examples qualify as a conflict of interest
- You continue to base your opinion on a second grade level world view where everyone is either a good guy or a bad guy. That's not how real life works
- You continue to act as if this message is the product of the lobbying industry, seemingly giving no thought to the idea that these people are individuals speaking on their own individual experience
- You continue to falsely assert that the sharing of an honest opinion about Trump can only occur if the individual cares about the country more than their own personal interests. That's ridiculous
So being that the default position is to accept their stated opinions about Trump and you have given no reason to reject it, we have every reason to take them at their word. But especially when considering
- the volume of people within Trump's inner circle have shared the same opinions
- as well as the fact that everything they are saying lines up perfectly with everything we already know about Trump...
It becomes absurd to believe anything else. You are desperately trying to make this conversation about evil lobbyists in DC, that's not what we're talking about. At all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What conservative belief(s) do you have?
Can't think of very many. I tend to be more conservative when it comes to the balance between privacy and security. I am generally fine with government technology that allows them to "spy" on us to a reasonable extent provided it makes us safer.
Some traditions conservatives do not want to support:
- Roe V Wade
- The progressive income tax
- Trump is not a traditional president
The GOP isn't consistent either with being pro status quo.
You're confusing ideology and political party.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just don't ask me to believe any Ultra Lobbyist cares about the country.
No one is asking you to accept that proposition. You have created a false dichotomy (lobbyist, or a person who cares about America) and are now using this false dichotomy as an excuse to shut off any critical thinking skills you have.
A lobbyist is a person who professionally advocates for a position on behalf of their employer. There is nothing about this which tells us that the person doesn't care about the country, doesn't believe in the issue they are advocating, and certainly nothing about this that says their opinion on the former president - based upon actual first hand experience - is not valid.
If you want to argue that their opinion should be disregarded you would need to go through them one by one and explain how their current position conflicts with their ability to give an honest assessment. That's how logic works.
The problem for you is that in order to show that their lobbying position is a valid reason to disregard their opinion you have to show the conflict, which means that the opposite position would go against their personal interests. In other words, if it turned out that Trump were good for their lobbying form then their negative opinion would be even stronger evidence for us to take into account. But what you're trying to do instead is dismiss their position altogether regardless of what they have to say. That defies reason, which is why you are (as so far argued) objectively wrong on your approach here.
Since you have a tendency to skim through and strawman what I said, please let me know if you need me to slow down and expand on any of that before responding with your usual throw away lines.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you post a list of Ultra Lobbyists, and ask me to believe they care about what's a danger to THE COUNTRY? Give me a break.
No, I am asking you to stop pretending you're in second grade where the world is made up of good people vs. bad people. The fact that someone is or was a lobbyist has absolutely no bearing on whether their stated opinion on Trump should be accepted as their actual opinion. That requires assessing the individual, and the more people who say the same thing makes it exceedingly harder and harder to deny.
People are always going to look out for their personal best interests first, just as you do. It's basic human nature, there is nothing disqualifying about taking a high paying job in DC. Any of us would under the right circumstances.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Do you believe every conservative position is stupid?
No, I believe this position is stupid. And if you ask me about various conservative positions I'm going to tell you that some I find stupid, some I find just wrong, some I just see differently, and few I may even agree with. It is because I tend to see things this way that I identify as a liberal. Not the other way around. Why that's so difficult for you to accept I have no idea.
If the right was the first group to accept the belief that transwomen are real women, the left would call transgenderism a conspiracy theory.
No, they wouldn't. You're just making shit up with absolutely no basis and going against the very notion of conservatism. Conservatism comes from the word "conserve", which is an ideal centered around keeping things the way they have always been or adhering to tradition. Transgenderism is entirely new to society and bucks all traditional concepts of gender, romantic relationships, and family. It is by definition the opposite of a conservative position, so asserting that the left would run away from it if the right embraced it is absurd.
If the left were the first to oppose vacciene mandates, citing the claim that they disproportionally effect people of color, then the right would be claiming it's your patriotic duty to get the American shot.
I'm sure many MAGA cultists would because they don't seem to hold any core values other than supporting Trump but anti-vaxerism has always been prominent on the left, particularly in the black community for historical reasons and that played itself out through COVID, yet it's the right who primarily ended up there anyway.
In the spreadsheet I linked, I actually defined what a woman is in a way the left and right might agree too. But you don't point that out because you are just doing your narraitve.
Your personal definition is irrelevant to the point you made which I originally responded to and every argument I've made in this thread.
I'm generalizing. The vast majority of trans activists are going to be left wing on issues unrelated to transgenderism just because the left pre selected the issues for them, but it's a generalization.
Yet another unfalsifiable assertion ignoring any concept of how causality is determined. Your adherence to this position is at religious devotee levels.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It's the standard conservative position on transgenderism that you are calling stupid.
Correct, because it is.
As your OP states, the "woke left" "can't even" define a woman "consistently" - implying very clearly that you think there's something wrong with that and worthy of calling out.
Let's set aside for a moment that the King of "you're just believing what your tribe tells you to believe" suddenly thinks it's a problem for a large political group to have widespread disagreement on the specifics of an issue... The position expressed here is that the term "woman" should be expected to have only one clear and consistent definition across the board, which defies everything we know about the limits of biology.
We know that there are plenty of real world examples where individuals are born with all kinds of genetic abnormalities that make sex difficult to determine. We must also take into account that gender ) which is inherently subjective) is a major part of this discission as that is where this issue became political in the first place. But even worse when taking a step back is the insinuation that words have some sort of inherent meaning imposed onto us by some external authority. None of this reflects real life.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sure you did. I even reposted it for you. Learn to read your own words I guess? You clearly believed with no hesitation that a list of lobbyists and defense contractors worry about the country over any other factor. What's that word you always use for groups like that??? sounds like fult?
Ok, let me rephrase... Learn what words mean.
I clearly and explicitly made the case that the most reasonable explanation for why all of these former Trump officials would speak out against him is because they believe him to be a danger to the country.
Nothing about this suggests that I believe anything without hesitation. Google Occam's razor and educate yourself.
Nothing about this suggests that I believe these individuals worry more about the country than any other factor. There's no comparison going on within this argument. Again, Google Occam's razor and educate yourself.
The default position when someone tells you what they believe it's to tentatively accept what they say as true until given reason to disbelieve it. What you presented was not a valid reason to disbelieve what they were saying yet you dismiss it anyway. That's blatantly irrational.
Moreover, every criticism these individuals have of Trump fits perfectly with everything we know about him. So before we even assess the individuals motivations we already have reason to accept every word they have said. What would be remarkable is for any of them to look at him and see anything else.
But what is most ironic about this entire back and forth is that you sit here acting like I trust what these people say out of TDS while also pretending that you feel the same way about Trump as they do. This is why you are so obviously full of shit everytime you pretend to hate Trump. Not only is it your impulse everytime someone attacks him to defend him, but you do it with such blatant absurdities only a MAGA cult follower would think makes sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I would say that by this point, with gender and science being part of the national dialog for at least a year now and a prominent topic on this site, anyone who still pretends gender and/or sex is a simple one or the other proposition with no reasonable room for question either suffers from a diagnosable cognitive deficiency or is being disingenuous.
If it's the former then I apologize to the OP. If it's the latter then it is certainly warranted.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I rest my case.
Don't forget the other tactic, ignore 90% of what the person you are responding to says, focus only on one small part, strawman it, then respond with a throw away line.
Works everytime.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's time to stop hero worshipping unelected lobbyists and defense contractors.
You are clearly trolling. No one is this stupid.
None of them care about you or me or the country as a whole.
Nor did I assert anything close to that. Learn to read.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The radical left and the thousands of woke gender studies PHD majors can't even answer the question in their own field consistency with years to answer; what is a woman?
That's because biology is not the either/or that simpletons like yourself seem to think. Plus definitions are invented by people, and no one person has a monopoly on what words mean.
It doesn't take much to realize all of this, just a willingness to understand reality for what it is.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sorry, but your presumption that appointed officials who also double dip as lobbyists and defense contractors really care about you or me is very laughable and hard to swallow.
Nothing about my post suggested this as the takeaway. What my post highlighted, and your response demonstrated yet again, was how the Trump playbook is working to warp the minds of his followers such that they abandon any semblance of critical thinking.
The question any normal rational person would ask themselves when presented with the fact that multiple members of Trump's inner circle are declaring him unfit for office is; if they're lying about this, why? And the more people saying the same thing the more difficult it becomes to dismiss.
But again, that's how normal, rational people work.
What Trumpers have learned from Trump is that critical thinking is irrelevant. If you are confronted with a fact you would rather not hear, the source of that fact in some way will always originate with a person, so all you have to do is figure out who that person is and search through that person's history for any blemish you can find. And when you find something, anything, you get to just hand waive away anything that came from them. And if others said the same thing, well then just categorize them all into one bucket and paint them all with the same brush. Crisis averted. This is MAGA 101, and it works everytime.
The judges ruling against Trump: Trump haters
The prosecutors charging Trump: Liberal activists
News papers reporting on his actions: Fake news
The fact checkers calling out his lies: Left wing propagandists
The election workers where Biden won: corrupt theives
Government workers pushing back against his ignorance: Deep State
His inner circle warning against him: Double dipping lobbyists
Etc. Etc. Etc.
It's quite easy. Assessing reality using real facts and valid logic, that's a little harder.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
In January 2017, The Intercept reported that Kelly failed to disclose his position as...Mattis was also employed on the infamous Theranos board that scammed a ton of money.The list just shows how incompetent Trump was at selecting non-swampers.
What the list shows is that the people who worked most closely with Trump understand how much of a danger he is to the country.
What your response shows is why. Not only because he doesn't believe in democracy, civility, reality, etc., but because his war on critical thinking is working, with the latest example being your post searching for any little thing you can find on any of the people on this list so you can use it as an excuse to dismiss whole cloth the plain and obvious take away any rational person would have walked away with when confronted with the facts of the OP.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's only natural that a peace loving president would be despised by the military. A simple calculus of job security.
None of the individuals named are employed in the armed forces.
And peaceloving? You mean the guy who repeatedly threatened nuclear war over Twitter bragging about the size of his button? The guy who used US airstrikes as an opportunity to stage photo ops showing him "looking strong"? The guy who assassinated Iran's Military commander entirely unprovoked risking all out war with a country we were cooperating with when Trump came into office for absolutely no reason? That guy?
No, he isn't peaceloving. He doesn't give a shit about anything but himself, so if the military has no personal use to him he couldn't care less what they were doing. That's why he wouldn't even read his national security briefs.
What is it about MAGA that just comes up with any excuse to defend Trump no matter how ridiculous? If one single high ranking Biden official came out and declared him unfit he would get booked every single night on Fox News, be used in ad after ad and be received as the superstar key note speaker at the republican conventions. Yet you pretend the list above (which is no where near complete) is insignificant while inventing a fictional character, why?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The fact is, a DC jury is a rigged jury. Objective fact.
No, it's not. Please learn what words mean.
Whelp, time to break out the final solution for those Deplorable Ultra Nazi Fascists. Enjoy the war.
When people cannot be reasoned with that is often the end result.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yet again, ignoring the facts and evidence and instead attacking a jury that doesn't even exist yet. Trump has trained you to shut off your critical thinking skills well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Further more why have a useless large vocabulary?
No one said a large vocabulary is useless, only that it's not always useful. When emotion is the driver of the interaction, big words are not the key to getting your point across. You need words that make an impact.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The election was free and fair in 2020 and will be so again in 2024.
The DC jury will convict Trump because the evidence we already have is irrefutable and will only get worse when Jack Smith shows us what else he has. Funny how right wing propaganda peddlers like yourself always stay clear of the arguments and instead just attack whoever is involved. That's Trump 101: always make it personal, that way facts and logic go out the window.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It won't work with MAGA voters because MAGA is a cult, the rest of the country is not. Believe it or not there are still people out there who think being indicted on 91 felony counts gives less reason to elect that person president, not more.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
One lasting legacy of partisan politics is that Democrats will forever be labeled conspiracy theorists for simply asking any question because that is how the term has been redefined and repurposed by the MSM.
Why is the flag swaying back and forth if there's no wind? - Moon landing conspiracy theorist
Why did building 7 fall if it wasn't even hit by a plane? 9/11 conspiracy theorist
"Just asking questions" is the mantra of every conspiracy theorist. The problem is that conspiracy theorists never have evidence to support their claims, so all they do is present arguments from ignorance. Then when pressed to explain what they think actually happened, they hide behind this mantra because as long as they're only asking questions they can never be proven wrong.
It's not a sophisticated tactic but it's good enough to fool people who aren't sophisticated in their thinking. Particularly, people who have difficulty telling different things apart from each other, like someone for example who would pretend as if the MSM's recognition of unsophisticated actors pretending to engage in good faith conversation and calling it out is the same thing as repurposing the definition of a conspiracy theorist.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
but the fact remains that many enough govenors probably broke the law enough, to change the outcome of the election. in short, the election was rigged.
This isn't a fact, it's a completely unsubstantiated presumption fueled by endless right wing propaganda. Election laws give state officials quite a bit of leeway to make decisions in emergency situations, that's why they were able to do it on the first place. I can hardly think of a more appropriate situation than a global pandemic that caused the entire country to shut down.
And again, these claims were all litigated and none of them got anywhere. If they were legitimate judges would have taken them and ruled appropriately.
But even if we accept your premise that election laws are violated, it still does not follow that the election was rigged. Changing election laws in an emergency without going through the proper process in order to ensure people can vote is not election rigging. This is like when 9/11 truthers claim it was an inside job, then when asked to prove it argue that Bush failed to react to the warning signs.
i also think the fact this sort of thing isn't talked about more, is evidence the media is bias.
No, it's evidence that they are using proper judgement in reporting facts, not falling into BS right wing propaganda. The election was not rigged, and election officials taking action to ensure their constituents can vote safely is not news.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Can a person express emotion without profanity?
Of course, it's just a lot easier with it. I don't swear around my wife often, so when I do she knows I mean it.
Do you think if a person's vocabulary is large enough, would there still be any room or space for the use of profanity left?
No, I don't think a large repertoire makes any difference. Sometimes people just don't know whether to take your words seriously, profanity is one tool people can use to ensure their tone is resonating.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
One third of Iowa GOP caucus voters said Trump was unelectable of he gets convicted, which he will because the evidence is really not debatable. Might be time to recalibrate your expectations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Although the OT command in Israel to Israelites was that such persons broke the covenant and thereby deserved capital punishment, this doesn't apply to Christians in the New Covenant. In the New Covenant, homosexuality is still considered sinful, yet it is not an unforgivable sin.
So God changed his mind?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump already promised to end the Donbas war on day one. That means a promise to stop funding global wars and making peace.
Right, just like he would have negotiated a peace deal to avoid the Civil War.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I didn't mean to claim he started wars in the traditional sense, only that he supported global wars.
Do you ever read the sources you cite?
"In foreign policy, perception can be reality, and at some point, US support for Israel will be seen as active participation. It may not matter that the US is not directly involved, or that Biden has taken steps to try to reduce the toll, or that a President Donald Trump would likely be putting no restraints on Israel, much as current Republican candidates have called for."
How ironic. You are demonstrating the exact disregard for reality in your perceptions that the article is talking about.
Biden supports that global war as well.
Do you have anything other than a source saying the opposite to back that claim up?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
One third of Iowa GOP caucus voters said Trump was unelectable of he gets convicted, which he will because the evidence is really not debatable. Might be time to recalibrate your expectations.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Iran Backed Houthis MISSILE STRIKE US Cargo Ship, FIRE ON US Warship Inching Us To World War Three
Why do you keep posting this stupid show? The guy has no idea what he's talking about, but at least arguing with you makes more sense after seeing where you get your information from.
One of the most warmongering presidents ever.
Right, the guy who finally ended the longest war in our nations history. And what wars did he start again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Says the guy who hand waived away a dozen articles written before the politicization of the issue as nothing more than parroting Joe Biden, as if journalism doesn't exist and the job of every journalist is to just repeat whatever the politicians tell them.
But you want to talk about me as being the dishonest one who dismisses evidence. Ok bro...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Trump also got the most support from the uneducated and the working poor.
Right, the Manhattan billionaire who spent his entire life trying to get his name in the tabloids and getting the elite class to like him, who is obsessed with gold everything in his residence, whose only major legislative accomplishment was a tax cut of which 81% of the benefits went to the rich, whose policies are very anti-union, who bragged to a room full of elite business people that he made them all very rich... Is the man fighting for the little guy.
Makes sense.
Created: