Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
We don't need to agree, if you have a legitimate point to make you could destroy my arguments with your logic for the rest of those reading.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I mean the word that mentions one's mother, you know, the mother f...I hear it all the time so I guess it's already part of the everyday language, eventhough it's considered for some as the most abhorrent offense one can receive.
It's the same word just used Ina sightly different context. I think it's very similar to ass----... Somehow the "hole" becomes profane if you put ass in front of it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
What is the point in using profanity upon communicating with anybody whatsoever?
It's just a way to express emotion. Of course, the now you use it the less impact it makes. I have a co-worker who used to work in corrections, he says fuck so much the rest of us don't even hear it anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Which is not to say retribution needs to be any more extra-legal than what the left-tribe has already endorsed. Indeed if judged by their own standards we could probably imprison around 50,000 of them for three years without trial.
Can you provide one example of an individual "the left" unjustly imprisoned without a legitimate trial?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I would say I'm a pragmatic leaning libertarian (my beliefs are outlined in the following spreadsheet):
Political leanings and values are not the same thing. Anyone can answer a multiple choice question, caring about the question is another thing.
But it seems that to you, if my core political values were, "MAGA all the way", you would still make this claim.
No, I wouldn't. I make this claim for the same two reasons I've been explaining to you for weeks now; because you have shown no ability to understand anyone else's viewpoint left, right, or anything else, and because I've never seen you engage in deep discussion defending any of these values you seem to think you hold. All you do here is make one post after another calling everyone else hypocrites while strawmanning them most of the time. The only value you have demonstrated here is the need to paint yourself as being above partisanship.
And the exclamation point to all of this is declaring that you would vote for Trump on the basis of the fact that left wing media hates him. That's not what person who cares anything about any actual issues would do.
So you believe it's okay to advocate tough deportation measures as long as you don't make it central to your campaign? I think whether someone makes it central to their campaign or not is irrelevant
You didn't pay attention to a word I said.
Governing and campaigning are two totally different things. Governing means running a beurocracy, dealing with the day issues that arise and finding solutions. Every Congress passes dozens of bills every cycle that you never hear them talk about because governing is a job.
Campaigning is a statement of what your values are and who you intend to appeal to. Trump's signature campaign promise was a border wall yet he built next to none of it in his 4 years. He did manage to separate children from their families though. It turns out the wall was not the point, what his voters wanted was someone who was going to do anything, no matter how borderline illegal and definitely inhumane it was. That's what his supporters were actually responding to everytime he chanted "build that wall".
So again, this isn't rocket science, the wall itself was not the point. That's why it was a very different thing when Bush did it. Do you understand?
You seem to have forgotten that Trump began his campaign by calling Mexicans living in the US criminals and rapists.If I say, "Men are rapists", it's not sexist. It merely means there exists at least 2 men are rapists.
Ok, now that's just plain stupid.
It's also notable that you use literally the most generic and top of the chain group there is to which (I believe) you are a part of. That is an entirely different thing than singling out brown people in the US. Why do I need to explain this to you? Could it be that you don't really care about any of this and are just trying your level best to make anything I say sound contradictory so you can beat your chest and once again declare yourself above it all?
I didn't like Trump in 2016. 2024 Trump is different.
Oh yes, he is far more dangerous this time around. If you care about democracy and the rule of law that is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I can understand the social effect , how it comes about, it's derivative so forth and so on.But to sum it up what use would you say it has?
Don't understand the question
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
What about that word that attacks one's old woman?
You mean bitch? Not sure what you mean by asking me what about it, but it's another interesting example. About 30 years ago it was considered profanity but was all the way at the bottom of the list. Now I would say ass is the least offensive word that's still considered profane while bitch is up there towards the top.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Profanity has changed over the years and it reflects whatever concepts society considers most taboo. Going back centuries profanity mostly centered around religion. The worst thing you could say was to take the lord's name in vane.
Over more recent decades profanity centered around sex, but as society has become more decentizised to it, that has wained. When I was a child, ass and shit was considered profanity and still kind of is but doesn't have anywhere near the bite it used to and is now allowed on TV. Hilariously, when someone calls someone else an asshole the "ass" they'll say while bleeping out the "hole". Now fuck is kind of the only word left from that era no one can say.
Now it tends to be about race and descrimination. The worst word anyone can utter in the English language is nigge... Oh wait I can't say it, I'll get banned.
Faggot is not that far off either. When I was growing up that was a word people casually threw around all the time, now it's sure to receive nothing but disgust from anyone who is not an open and proud bigot.
Created:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
Can the judiciary determine whether Trump is disqualified as per the 14th amendment, Yes or No?NO!
Then by extension, when you said...
Strawman. Never said "no one else other than Congress can decide" on anything.
You were contradicting your own position, or bulshitting at the very least.
So to be clear, based sec 5, no other body other than Congress can determine whether Trump engaged in inserection for the purposes of the 14th amendment. Is this correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think if your biggest political concern is who left wing media hates, you should just stay home.It's not so much as who the left wing media hates, but why they hate Trump more than other republicans?
Which still has absolutely nothing to do with which candidate is ultimately a better choice to lead our country forward.
But thank you once again for demonstrating the point I've been making to you; that you have no core political values (other than making yourself feel above everyone else) which is why you seem incapable of understanding anyone else's worldview or why anyone else feels the way they do about political issues. Case and point:
Claims that he's racist over support for a border wall. Bush actually built the wall. The left wing matrix didn't get angry at Bush over actually building the wall.
The secure borders and fencing act of 06 was a practical solution to a practical problem. It wasn't the cornerstone of Bush's campaign.
You seem to have forgotten that Trump began his campaign by calling Mexicans living in the US criminals and rapists. You also seem to have given no thought to what it says about Trump that the wall became his central campaign promise and yet he was never able to coherently answer the most basic questions about it, such as how or why we would build a wall across all of Mexico when there are natural barriers all throughout the border including mountainous terrain and the Rio Grande. Or why we would spend so much on this wall when the bulk of drugs are coming in through ports of entry and the majority of illegals in the country flew in and overstayed their visas.
None of this mattered because the actual wall wasn't the point, it was the chant. The wall was just a symbol of bigotry that Trump used to dog whistle to his supporters. None of them actually cared whether Trump built it as is demonstrated by the fact that his base is still as fervent as ever despite him building next to none of it. They love him because he hates the same people they do, and he wasn't afraid to signal that to them loud and clear.
But this is all stuff you would need to have some set of values over to pick up on. If you were as bigoted as his supporters you would have seen this. If you cared about migrants you would have seen this also. Yet your understanding of this whole issue is at about a third grade level. At some point you need to realize the problem is not that the media is lying to you, thre problem is that you are just not understanding the issues they are talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
MAGA will be dramatically crippled once Trump is gone. This is clear by the fact that everytime someone else comes along and tries to emulate him they fail badly.
It will also be the case that once Trump is gone and republican leaders are no longer concerned about him attacking them on Twitter, they will no longer be cornered into defending his latest absurdities, like the notion that a POTUS can order the assassination of his political rivals with no recourse from the justice department.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I know the left wing media is scared of Trump, so I might have to vote for Trump.But I'm fairly persuadable on this, so let me know what you guys think.
I think if your biggest political concern is who left wing media hates, you should just stay home.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So the key difference is that Trump loyalists are more vocal and honest than the Biden loyalists?
No. Not on the slightest. I just went on about this at length and explained it in painstaking detail. You are either trolling or incapable of retaining anything past a paragraph, so let me dumb this down for you:
Biden supporters defend Biden's policies because they agree with them. Trump supporters defend Trump because loyalty to Trump is all that matters.
Biden supporters would stop defending Biden the minute he violates their core political philosophies. Trump supporters have no core political philosophy and will not stop defending him in any circumstance.
Is this simple enough?
Created:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
Can the judiciary determine whether Trump is disqualified as per the 14th amendment, Yes or No?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's cute, but doesn't pass the dictionary definition
My post wasn't intended as a definition, it was intended to highlight the central idea that gives the word "cult" it's meaning and the emotional connotations that follow. When a person is said to be in a cult what immediately follows are thoughts of an individual being manipulated into their own demise in service of a figurehead, and that manipulation being so pronounced that the individual doesn't even recognize it as they continue to facilitate it.
You're trying to use this to apply to Joe Biden's followers, which is just obscenely stupid. No supporter of Biden is doing anything in service to him. Even if I grant you your silly little inflation argument as an example - that it's all because of his policies and not because of the supply chain disruptions from COVID - that's a policy dispute. None of that is about Joe Biden or any other figure on the left.
You have never heard Joe Biden telling his supporters that he's taking political abuse for them. You never heard him argue that he's their retribution, or that without him fighting for them no one else will. Joe Biden's connection with his followers is entirely about an alignment with them on policy and philosophy of governing. And when Biden leaves politics, the rest of us will move onto whomever shares those same values.
You can't seriously say any of this about Trump supporters, and that key difference is the difference between political support vs a cult. Trump supporters regularly tell interviewers that there is nothing Trump can do to lose their support. They regularly flip flop on their own stated values to align themselves with whatever Trump does. The political test in the party is not about any set of policy ideas, but whether and how often the individual sides with Trump. The republican party platform is literally 'whatever Trump says'.
If you can't tell the difference between these two things then I truly do feel sorry for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Very well put. But it’s like a college professor teaching a mentally challenged 8 year old.
George Carlin once said "never argue with stupid people, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience". I disagree, why give them that edge?
Created:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
Congress... in its solely prescribed power
Never said "no one else other than Congress can decide"
It doesn't take a genius to recognize the contradiction here, only someone who speaks English.
Created:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
At that point we can continue this discussion, because as it stands now you're just not getting it
I am not getting it because your arguments are entirely incoherent and self defeating. You are simultaneously arguing that the courts do not have the authority to adjudicate whether Donald Trump is disqualified in accordance with the 14th amendment because that power rests solely with Congress...
"Show me where in the US Constitution that if Congress fails in its solely prescribed power to enforce the Constitution (which obviously includes the BoR), then by default it is up to the Judicial Branch of government to enforce the provisions of the Constitution upon the People"
...and that Congress is not the only authority that can decide the 14th amendment.
"Never said "no one else other than Congress can decide" on anything"
The fact that two mutually exclusive claims being made and defended at the same time is confusing is not my fault.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
so how would you address the science?
I don't, because at their core, science and religion do not overlap with each other.
Again, science is based on the principal of methodological naturalism, which is the presumption for methodological purposes that the natural world is all there is. It therefore limits any and all scientific explanations to natural causes. Religion is based on belief in the supernatural which science does not address.
You talked about thermodynamics and entropy, that's about energy transfer and temperatures which have no application outside of space and time. Many skeptics talk about quantum physics, but that doesn't apply here either because we can only examine it within the boundaries of space. It's said that virtual particles pop in and out of existence from nothing but this is an argument from ignorance fallacy, just because we don't know where they come from doesn't mean they come from nothing.
We are physical beings constrained within a physical universe, there is no form of experimentation we could possibly conduct that goes beyond the physical.
all you are doing, is reverting to philosophy when confronted with the science....
Because there's nothing left. If science doesn't address religious claims (because it does not have access to them) then all we can do is figure out what to do about this limitation and how it relates to what we should believe. That is necessarily a matter of philosophy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There are loyal followers on both sides that would not waver for ANY reason. Period.
All you keep eluding to is people who are stuck on what they believe. That is not a cult. Joy Reid once recounted a conversation with a cult expert who put it best - when asked what's the difference between a religion and a cult he explained; 'in a religion, your savior sacrifices themself for you. In a cult, you sacrifice yourself for your savior'.
This explains MAGA perfectly. Just start by looking around at his inner circle; Michael Cohen, Steve Bannon, Rick Gates, and plenty others all convicted for crimes they committed for Trump (and many more to come). Giuliani, financially ruined. Lindsay Grahm, Elise Stefanic, and others sold their soul and now daily peddle nonsense they clearly do not believe. The entire republican party surrendering every principal it used to pretend to value, plus losing election after election and ready to do it again this year. Evangelicals completely abandoning the teachings of Christ to support Trump. Right wingers getting COVID and dying because they bought Trump's BS that COVID was a hoax. J6 rioters in prison because Trump told them to fight like hell. Trump's supporters donating their hard earned money to Trump's campaign so he can pocket the money as he has been doing.
Trump doesn't sacrifice for MAGA, they sacrifice themselves for him.
There is no equivalent to this anywhere on the left no matter how much you pretend otherwise. Biden is not a savior to anyone, we are thankful to him is because of the things he did for us, including saving us from a second Trump term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
he has enough of a cult following to hang on to power and dreams of another 4 years.
Setting aside that you don't know what the word "cult" even means, Biden remains on top because there is no other figure within the Democratic party that could mount a reasonable challenge. Biden is as unpopular as he is because we live in an age of propaganda not seen before in our lifetimes. Biden is perfectly capable cognitively, demonstrated by the fact that everytime he goes out there he makes perfect sense and speaks eloquently to real issues facing the country. Yet half the country hears nothing more than 3 second soundbites played on a loop while the commentators tell their audience he belongs in a mental institution.
No one thought this about Biden before he ran for president, but when you have an entire media apparatus with no regard for facts and evidence, anything they want to paint you as is what people will think of you. That is not because of Biden, anyone who steps into the lead role will face the same nonsense.
But if you actually look at what Biden has done, most of it is very popular and reasonable so he stands in better position than most if not everyone to withstand the propaganda storm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Morphinekid77
A materialist must simply presuppose them without any explanation for how a material universe can have immaterial transcendent laws.In my worldview however I can have immaterial transcendent laws because they're grounded in an immaterial transcendent Mind.
Claiming that the laws of logic are grounded in an immaterial transcendent mind is not only a baseless assertion, but as I've already broken down for you, it's not an explanation at all because it tells us nothing about how any of this would actually work.
Let's first look at your god definition. It comprised of 3 words; transcendent, immaterial, mind.
Immaterial is a negative trait, it tells us only what this mind is not. It tells us nothing about what it actually is.
A mind is as far as we have ever been able to observe, the product of a functioning brain. Brains are material, so a brain that is not the product of a mind is something we can't possibly have any knowledge of with regards to how that works.
Transcendent simply means it crosses over, but crosses over to what? Don't know because we don't even know what the immaterial is let alone have the basis for understanding how a mind could cross over to it.
So not one word in your three word definition tells us anything about your claim, but the rest of your "explanation" is even worse because you assert that the laws of logic are grounded in it. What does this even mean? If the laws are grounded in it then that implies they are subject to it, meaning it's possible for this mind to be what it is not, or to exist and not exist at the same time, etc. That's logically absurd so it is at the outset missing the most basic qualifier of an explanation.
The reality is that what you're appealing to here is a silly tactic meant to sound like a reasonable argument. It fails because at it's core it is nothing more than an attempt to use logic to argue against the use of logic. That is, you're claiming that without first presupposing God, logic itself would not be valid. But you have to use logic in order to reach that conclusion. "Valid" is itself a logical term.
The reality is that logic is foundational because any attempt to justify or invalidate it requires it's presupposition. That's why it is the foundation of all intelligible thought, we cannot even begin to have a conversation until both parties accept it.
So as much as you claim our world views are different in this respect you are just flat out wrong. You do in fact presuppose logic without any explanation for it just as we do. The difference is that after presupposing it, you are then using it in order to justify it's use. That is not only unnecessary, it's self defeating.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
People write books when they have a story to tell. The fact that they are making money off of their story is not in and of itself a rational basis to disregard their story.
Read the above paragraph again.
You also disregard the market for MAGA to tell them what they want to hear. There's plenty of money to be made by sticking to their side, yet they leave and go to the other side. Why do you think that is?
And why do you think it doesn't happen in any other administration? Do you not realize how much money someone in Obama's inner circle could have made by just making a bunch of shit up about him in a tell all promoted daily on Fox News?
Moreover, is there a single thing we've learned from Any of these tell all books that is not entirely consistent with the Donald Trump we see in public everyday? As someone who pretends to hate Trump, you sure adopt a strange notion of refusing to believe bad things about him that line up perfectly with other bad things people say about him.
But if this is truly your standard and you refuse to think any further than that, let me know when Bill Barr, John Kelly, or Rex Tillerson come out with book deals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sounds like a Democrat TBH. Or at least the 30% that really like Biden.
This is such a ridiculous talking point born out of nothing more than 3rd grade level "I'm rubber and you're glue" thinking.
Democrats sometimes defend Biden vehemently not because of fielty to him but because the people who criticize him are normally fine with Trump who is objectively worse in every way a human being could possibly be. Comparing the two in any sense is itself absurd. Biden sniff's women? Trump has over 26 accusers and was found liable for rape. Biden doesn't know where he is? Trump thinks Obama is still the president. Biden took classified documents home? Trump took boxes and boxes of them and hid them from the FBI next to his toilet. Biden made money off of China? Trump took home over 7.8 million and unlike with Biden we actually have the receipts. Every accusation against Biden is pure projection.
Meanwhile no democrat I've ever heard speak on this would vote for him if he were convicted of serious federal crimes, or that there is literally nothing Biden could do to change their minds, and not a single democrat anywhere in Washington is afraid to criticize Biden for fear of that the base will turn on them. The two do not compare in the least, so it is flagrantly dishonest of you to pretend there is any parallel here.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
but given u r taking a skeptic position to something causing the universe, you have no choice but to engage scientifically... otherwise u have empty logic and rhetoric
Science does not address the question of why anything exists. All science, and specifically big bang cosmology begins at the point of the big bang. It does not delve into what came before the big bang or whether that is even a coherent question to ask because we cannot go back beyond that point - all of the laws of physics, math, logic etc. break down at that point.
Like my last post says I think theists have a stronger argument scientifically and that is what should inform our philosophy.
If theists had a stronger argument scientifically then scientists would largely be theists, yet that is the opposite of what we see.
Science is born out of philosophy. You have to understand how to think before you can apply it to the real world.
Science is rooted in methodological naturalism, which means it does not take a position on whether there is such thing as the supernatural but instead presumes based on practicality that there is no supernatural and moves to find explanations for phenomenon from that point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
My wife once asked me whether I thought religion itself was harmful to humanity. I don't know whether I would take that position on balance but if I were to list the bad things about it, among them would be that it teaches subservience to an unquestionable authority as a virtue and that it's not only ok but preferable for one's core values to be derived from whatever that authority says.
It's no accident that the same party who once routinely appealed to Ronald Reagan as some diety who's actions and beliefs were treated as the standard by which any acceptable political positions were judged, has now moved on to doing the same for Trump. Except now that's on steroids.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's normal to work first and get compensated later. Even in the government.
After all I've said, the typical meaningless response.
Like I said, this is nothing more than an excuse to disregard reality and shut off all critical thinking faculties. A specialty of MAGA.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
a few things wrong with that idea. one is that you yourself seem pretty keen on not sticking to it... you are clearly defending the atheist view point.
Correct, but the atheist viewpoint is not "the universe came from nothing" or whatever version of that you apply. The atheist position is "I don't believe a god exists", which says absolutely nothing about what one does believe. Therefore "I don't know" (my actual position) fits into atheism.
there's 'accepting' something as objective truth, and there's accepting something as a running hypothesis, and there's aceepting something as debateably the best hypothesis.
To justify a belief/proposition as reasonable is to establish that the proposition is more likely or more plausibly true than any other alternative.
When it comes to explaining existence, that is in my view not logically possible because the laws of logic themselves break down once we get to the most basic question there is: why is there something rather than nothing?
If the answer is a nothing, that contradicts the concept of nothing - self contradictory.
If the answer is a something, that means something is responsible for itself - self contradictory.
There is no third option, so we're stuck without an answer.
At this point it's just a matter of what you value. I value logic, so that which lies outside of it is irrelevant to me. If you value emotional satisfaction, then asserting an answer in defiance of logic may still serve your purpose.
From here it's up to you.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, I mean fund a "book deal" like they did for Cassidy Hutchinson where a billionaire purchases vast quantities of the books.
Cassidy Hutchinson testified well before she decided to write a book, and she is by far not the only person speaking out against Trump.
Essentially, the argument that you're making is that we can't believe anything that his former aids say about him because they're benefiting personally in some way by opposing him. That's absurd. First of all the same opportunites apply to every former aid of any prominent politician, especially president. Imagine how many times Fox news would book any member of Biden's inner circle who came out telling stories about him not knowing where he is...
Second, these are the people Trump picked. No rational person would accept that a man so capable and genius as MAGA thinks he is would be so terrible at judging others when this is supposed to be one of his greatest strengths (I only hire the best people).
This is nothing more than an excuse to disregard reality and shut off all critical thinking faculties. A specialty of MAGA.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
that's fair enough, i dont know, and possibly the best answer, but i think it's fair to have an opinion and then defend it.
If it is the best answer then accepting any other answer is not logically justifiable.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
He exists because he has the principal of existence within him. Duh.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm sure if the Billionaire lobby class paid thousands of dollars to push Bidenmanbad, it would probably happen.
It's called Fox news
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
That's the engine car. The engine car has the principle of motion within itself, therefore, it is a sufficient explanation for why the train cars are moving.
If someone has never heard of an engine or understood how an engine works, telling them that the engine car "has the principle of motion within itself" is not an explanation because it doesn't explain anything. In order for something to qualify as an explanation it has to add clarity, which is why we can only explain things by referring to other things that we already understand.
If I pulled a rabbit out of my hat and you asked me how I did it, "magic" would not be an explanation because magic itself has no qualities which we understand.
Likewise, "having the quality of existence" does absolutely nothing to explain why anything exists nor does it address the logical contradictions I pointed out.
We need to stop at an entity that has the principle of existence within itself. That, we would call God.
This argument could very easily be used to support pantheism. There is nothing about the need to start somewhere which necessitates starting with some sort of personal creator. The universe itself could very easily be the entity with the "principal of existence".
Created:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
The language of "The Congress shall have the power to..." is pretty freaking clear.
Yes, to enforce via appropriate legislation. You continue to ignore that part even though I've repeatedly pointed out the difference, that this isn't a matter of legislation it's a matter of adjudication, and Congress is not the body nor does it even have the processes in place to adjudicate matters of law. The courts are designed for that purpose which is why this issue can only be decided in the courts. If Congress wants to pass a law now determining how the 14th amendment applies or is adjudicated then we'd be constitutionally bound to follow it, until then the language in the 14th is what we we have.
"In enforcing by appropriate legislation the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees against state denials, Congress has the discretion to adopt remedial measures..."
Let's look at the rest of it:
"In enforcing by appropriate legislation the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees against state denials, Congress has the discretion to adopt remedial measures, such as authorizing persons being denied their civil rights in state courts to remove their cases to federal courts,"
The passage never said states cannot rule, it said that any dispute over the amendment can be pushed upward to the federal level but again, it's not Congress that adjudicates it.
I think it is also noteworthy to point out here that according to what you've been arguing, if based on Section 5 no one else other than Congress can decide Section 3 then the same also applies to Section 1, so every federal case adjudicating Section 1 over the past century and a half were apparently all unconstitutional.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Amazing considering how cognitively impaired Joe Biden is that not one notable member of his inner circle has ever came out and declared him to be unfit for office.
A bunch of junior staffers disagreeing with Biden on some of his policies - you think this is the same thing as Trump's senior officials who worked side by side with Trump explaining how he is totally unfit for office
But we're the ones with Trump derangement syndrome. Ok.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I reject it as well, because it's just as incoherent as its alternative. Therefore the only justifiable response to this question is "I don't know".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Morphinekid77
A material universe without an eternal Mind cannot justify the existence of the laws. My view can however.
No view can. Justification is shorthand for "rational justification", which by definition means "in accordance with logic". In other words, you have to presuppose logic in order to justify anything, and if your position is not ultimately based within the laws of logic then it is by definition not justified.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Amazing considering how cognitively impaired Joe Biden is that not one notable member of his inner circle has ever came out and declared him to be unfit for office. It only happens, and happens en masse, to Trump. I wonder why that is?
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
A Necessary entity does not depend on an outside agent. It's explanation for it's existence is found in itself.
Placing a label on an incoherent concept doesn't make it any more coherent.
Existence itself is a concept based within a temporal framework. Something cannot coherently exist for 0 seconds, or negative 5 seconds.
The word responsible necessarily denotes a temporal relationship, i.e. A -> B, which means A necessarily occured before B.
To say A is responsible for A is to say that A came before A, which is logically contradictory and therefore not a justifiable statement.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
A conclusion is the result of applying logic to your premises, so any attempt to come to a justified belief or decision requires both. Neither gets preference, if either is missing or is wrong/invalid the conclusion will not follow.
Created:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
The Amendment itself IS the Constitutional (Supreme) Law of the land
Agreed, that's why we have judges who can decide whether the law is being followed
Federal statutory legislation is not needed,
Yes, that's my point which you have been arguing against
until needed. When needed is when a State passes its own laws in violation of the Constitution
Yes, and if we've reached that point then it's time for Congress to pass legislation explaining how the 14th section 3 is adjudicated. Until then, it's up to the courts to sort out.
That bolded statement isn't mine; it was provided by the source as the legal analysis of the highlighted provision of Sec 5. It's a legal analysis, so it is a serious contention.
I didn't imply the bolded section was your words nor was it the contention I was talking about. I was referring to your argument - that only Congress can enforce the 14th amendment - that was not a serious contention. The bolded legal analysis doesn't contradict that because it doesn't argue that Congress is exclusive in this authority.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Can you provide a couple of relevant, convincing precedents for self-executing legislation?
The disqualification of any presidential candidate under 35 or not born in the United States.
Essentially, what you're arguing is that the only outcome which can satisfy such judgement is for an inserectionist to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
- Or a Congresssional act.
What act would that be? The only process Congress has at its disposal to determine whether someone is guilty of an act is impeachment, and I went on about that at length in the OP.
The most convincing and damning tactic for ending MAGA is to win a one or two humiliating landslide elections that drive the facists and opportunist haters back into the closet for another generation.
I agree with this sentiment entirely, I really do wish this wasn't what we would be debating in an election year. But the constitution with all is provisions exist for a reason, if the best thing for a society to do is whatever the majority wants it would have no purpose. The whole idea is that we follow it regardless of whatever we deem to be best for the moment.
Created:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
This language ensured that Congress would have enforcement powers, paralleling language used in the 13th Amendment."
And Congress never appropriated any legislation enforcing the outlaw of slavery, so under your legal theory slavery was essentially still legal in the United States until 2015 when the modern slavery act was passed.
This isn’t a serious contention. You're treating the language as if Congress was intended to be some sort of tribunal to determine whether the amendment had been violated. Their job is to pass laws, it's up to the judges to sort out whether those laws are violated. If Congress passes no further laws then the judges are forced to work with whatever has been passed. That's the way law in this country has worked for centuries.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I won't support Jack Smith until he charges Trump for insurrection.
Are you implying that the standard in order to exercise the 14th amendment is to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law by a unanimous jury vote of 12-0?
Also, since you missed the actual point:
So now that we agree on that much, are you going to stop pretending that the left's attempt to hold Trump accountable in accordance with the constitution amounts to some kind of declaration of war against Trump supporters?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sure. Now go arrest him.
So you support the Jack Smith trial as well. Good to know.
So now that we agree on that much, are you going to stop pretending that the left's attempt to hold Trump accountable in accordance with the constitution amounts to some kind of declaration of war against Trump supporters?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I’m curious if anyone voting for Biden in a Trump v Biden scenario would vote for Nikki Haley in a Haley v Biden scenario.
Not a chance.
I will say however, that if God came before me and left it entirely up to me to decide between one of two options: A president Nikki Haley or a Biden/Trump rematch, then, even though I believe Trump will lose, I wouldn't take that chance. I'd go with President Nikki Haley.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you believe we are obligated to follow the constitution? YES or NO?Of course.
Then, if Trump did in fact engage in inserection, you would support removing him from the ballot correct?
Note that this is a very simple Yes or No question before sidestepping with your deflections.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You explained why you take issue with Jan 6. I agree with you; Jan 6 was terrorism.You didn't say how you would prevent it from happening again, and maybe being successful....The only way you are going to wipe out MAGAism is if somebody assassinates Trump.
You seem to be confusing two different things.
In the OP you talked about J6 as an event so that's what I was responding to. I didn't talk about how to prevent it because that's obvious - more security. The government failed to anticipate the size of the threat, that will not happen next time.
But what you seem to be talking about now is preventing MAGA extremism. That's an entirely different conversation and there isn't really an answer to it. Defeating an ideology is a years long battle which involves understanding where people are coming from and figuring out how to reach them. If anyone had the key to that we wouldn't need political campaigns.
Do you give Person B what they want (the $50K)? If I loved my family, I would. I hate person B, but I don't want my family getting raped and murdered.
False analogy for a number of reasons. First of all voting for Trump is not somehow going to make MAGA better.
Second, MAGA is a minority of this country, they do not have our family at gunpoint. They have lost every election since 2016, they don't have the kind of power you imply.
Third, Trump doesn't have our "wife and kids" to give back. You are acting like voting for Trump will result in some kind of personal benefit even if Trump also wins out. There's no benefit to reelecting the guy who tried to overthrow or democracy. Ask Germany.
You're trying to justify cowardice and demonstrating again a complete lack of core values. Do better.
Created:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
Section 5, again, says Congress "shall have" the "power" to "enforce" the provisions of the 14th. The "by appropriate legislation" tells Congress (and us) how they may execute their power. It does not tell Congress (or us) that if they do not act, then said power is transferred to the states.
So as I addressed in the OP, your interpretation of it is that absent any appropriated legislation by Congress, Section 3 of the 14th amendment essentially doesn't exist.
I'm no constitutional scholar so I can't say whether that's right or wrong, but I get the sense that this would be news to the framers.
The last sentence of Sec 3 merely implies that if they are contemplating pushing forward with legislation, but 2/3rd majority rejects said proposed legislation, then the disability is lifted.
That makes no sense. If 2/3rds of Congress opposes any legislation it would never pass in the first place.
Again, you're arguing that the purpose of that last sentence is to "give Congress the power" to override itself.
Created:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
Forgot to ping you, see above.
Created: