Total posts: 5,890
Sec 5 of the 14th delegates to Congress the powers to enforce the 14th. That power is retained by Congress, not surrendered by Congress, even if they do not act accordingly, that inaction =/= surrender.
Which is why when I addressed this very point in the OP I highlighted the phrase "by appropriate legislation". If the intention was to give Congress full power to enforce however they choose then this language would not have been in there. Section 5 made clear by my understanding that the means by which Congress had this power was not unlimited.
Moreover, and as I explained, the last sentence of Section 3 also appears to contradict this as it states that Congress has the ability to override any disqualification judgement resulting from this amendment by a 2/3rds majority. Again, if Congress was intended as the sole arbiter of this provision why would they need to be given the power to override themselves?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You never did answer the question I asked you in the other thread... Do you believe we are obligated to follow the constitution? YES or NO?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
because we reject the notion of force being the ultimate arbiter of who gets to control the levers of our government.Which is also why most people recoil in horror at the idea of forcefully suspending Democracy because you have the feel-bads about Trump.
I was very clearly talking about physical force. Following the constitution does not qualify.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you want Biden and hate Jan 6, please explain to me how Biden winning would prevent another Jan 6.
I know you are not this stupid, but for the excercise of addressing fallacious logic I'll go ahead and pretend you're being serious.
The reason people like myself take such issue with January 6th is not because we're afraid of a bunch of MAGA idiots ransacking the US Capitol (the capitol police will be far more prepared the next time, btw), the issue is what January 6th represents; an attempt by the loser of an election to maintain unwarranted power by force.
We do not do things this way in this country because we reject the notion of force being the ultimate arbiter of who gets to control the levers of our government. Instead we believe power is given with consent of the governed and decided based on who had the best ideas for what this country should be.
So when you suggest that we vote for Trump out of fear you're suggesting we abandon everything we believe in and everything this country was founded upon.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Democrats are trying to convince America that Trump is the master mind behind J6, but at the same time they say he's an ignorant dumbass.
Intelligence is not one thing. People can be intelligent in certain ways and terribly unintelligent in others. We've all known someone who was incredible at math and science and yet can't figure out how to get a girl.
Trump is a complete buffoon and an ignoramus when it comes to understanding how the world works and making critical complex decisions. But when it comes to tapping into people's emotions, he's quite skilled. Especially when it comes to tapping into the emotions of people who are just as dumb and ignorant as he is. He's just like them, so of course he knows what buttons to push. It's why his entire fortune has been built on exploiting and conning people.
From what I see, what happened in J6 wasn't Trump's fault. I agree with you when you say that Trump's tweets brought some extremists to the Capitol, but this is not Trump's fault. I mean, from a legal perspective, Trump shouldn't be responsible for what happened in the Capitol because he didn't planned anything, he just threw a tantrum because he was losing the elections, it's just the way he is.
First of all, it's pretty remarkable that you would admit Trump's actions are directly responsible for what happened while arguing that he shouldn't be held responsible. I believe people are responsible for their own actions, so I guess we can agree to disagree there.
But to argue that he was just throwing a temper tantrum and didn't plan this defies basic logic. When a person commits an action, the only reasonable presumption one can make is that the natural and likely result of their actions was their intent. Trump spent weeks telling his supporters that their country was being stolen from them and then called them to the US Capitol to stop it. He then gave a speech telling them to "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore".
That right there tells us what he wanted, but what puts this question to bed is the fact that after the attack began he sat in the WH dining room for 3 hours watching the entire thing play out on TV while not making a single phone call or issuing a single order for anyone in the government or military to intervene. When he finally, 3 hours later, told them to go home he couldn't help but also throw in "we love you, you're very special" to the people who just attacked the US Capitol.
And if all of that still isn't enough he had his lawyers call members of Congress during the attack urging them to use the delay to stop the certification. And that's not even everything we know. To say this wasn't what he intended or at the very least that he wasn't pleased with it is absurd.
taking him off ballot is unfair. Just let americans judge Trump in the elections.
The US constitution disagrees with you
I don't know how to interpret this comment.
You claimed that Trump has accepted the results and called for peace, so I was explaining to you why that claim is nonsense.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I think a legal criminal conviction of insurrection or similar treason likewise automatically disqualifies any officer so sworn. In spite of one Congressional finding and two findings by Justices of civil courts, I do not think that the question of Trump's insurrection has yet met the standard of "proven" guilty, whatever my personal convictions.
What did you think about my point that because there is no official proceeding designated to deal with this amendment it becomes self executing? 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. That standard not only seems wholly inappropriate given what's at steak, is also not what the constitution says and is very much at odds with the clear intentions of the amendment.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
@Best.Korea
i dont think he'd say to 'peaceably' protestI wonder why all his supporters didnt follow that command, but some chose this instead:"if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore"Could you imagine MAGA thinking that they are not going to have a country if they accept election results?
This is the game Trump plays. If there's one thing he is truly good at it's playing both sides of the fence in a way that confuses his critics while giving his supporters enough of a void to fill in the blank with whatever they want.
With January 6th though it fails more spectacularly than most. He had just spent the prior two months telling his supporters that their voices had been stolen from them by the very people in 'that building over there'. So the idea that they were going to save their country by making their voices heard to the very people who just stole them is logically absurd.
It was a false exculpatory, he knew none of his supporters would hear that. The purpose of him saying it is to provide an out to anyone who might be reluctant to hold him accountable for whatever would happen next. It's the same tactic mob bosses have been using for decades, and it's no wonder where Trump learned this from given the attorney he proudly looks up to as his mentor.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
But his name is not Hunter Biden
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Can't download the PDF, says I need a sign on and password. Was there something beyond the abstract you found pertinent to pursue?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
2) Did Donald Trump engage in insurrection or provide aid and comfort to the enemies thereof?Under the process of impeachment and more recently, due to the removal of executive immunity, under the courts of law, No.
The impeachment implications was one of the main points of my post. Care to explain what I got wrong?
It's worth noting that the Constitution can be flawed. Suspending democracy for any reason has significant unintended effects.
Do you believe we are obligated to follow the constitution? Yes or No?
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Why are you blaming only Trump for Jan 6?
I'm not blaming only Trump, of course the people around Trump who helped him facilitate it as well the the rioters themselves all played a role in making it happen and are responsible for their own actions. But going back to what I had just said about how we judge presidents, we have to look at Trump's impact. Here's a very simple fact: January 6th would not have happened but for Donald Trump.
And I don't mean that in some indirect butterfly effect kind of way. Trump is the single individual whom all of this came from. It was his years long push to convince half the country our election system cannot be trusted and that our fellow Americans are intent in stealing it that laid the ground work. It was his insistence that 2020 was stolen that everyone followed. It was his tweet that brought everyone to the Capitol on that day. And it was his egregious dereliction of duty that allowed it to get to the point it did. If Trump had conceded the way Clinton did, the way Romney did, the way McCain did, January 6th would have been the uneventful day in Washington it always is that no one ever remembers.
As far as I know Trump finally accepted the results and called for peace.
Is that a joke? Trump just yesterday released a document containing "proof" the election was rigged. It's literally half of his platform for why he's running. He told all his supporters he's running as their retribution. That's not a call for peace, that's the exact opposite.
Created:
There's been plenty of debate here over whether Trump should be disqualified but I wanted to focus purely on the legal arguments everyone finds most convincing, including one in particular that I came up with which I will lay out below.
First, let's break this down. The legal case comes down to three parts:
1) Does the 14th amendment section 3 apply to Trump?
2) Did Donald Trump engage in insurrection or provide aid and comfort to the enemies thereof?
3) Who and by what process is this decision made?
Part 1 is obvious in my opinion. To argue the office of the presidency is not an office under the United States is absurd on its face, plus this question was already brought up and resolved at the time the amendment was drafted.
Part 2 is a big one but ultimately pointless to debate until the answer to part 3 is resolved.
Part 3 is therefore where I believe the debate here is. So when it comes to who decides let me begin with section 5:
"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
What I'm reading here is that it's Congress's job to determine the proper process by which this issue is resolved, however it appears no such legislation was ever drafted. This in my opinion strengthens the argument that section 3 is "self executing", meaning that it's up to the courts to decide based on the legal challenges it receives. This amendment is therefore no different than adjudicating any other ballot eligibility issue such as whether an aspiring candidate is 35 or an American born citizen. No trial is required in those cases, nor is one required here.
Being that Congress never did appropriate legislation to resolve this, the only option apart from self execution is that the courts don't have the authority to decide either, in which case the answer is that no one gets to decide and section 3 becomes null and void. That outcome is definitionally out of line with the constitution.
But wait...
About two days ago I heard a rebuttal that actually did change my mind and convinced me that Trump should in fact be left in the ballot. It went as follows: Although there is no official process to address section 3, this question was already adjudicated in Congress in Trump's 2nd impeachment trial. It was the exact charge section 3 describes and Trump was aquitted. Therefore the SC has no rightful business stepping in and deciding that their opinion on whether Trump is guilty overrides the very body that section 5 deems as the body with the power to enforce this amendment.
I accepted this argument until thinking it over today. Here is why I believe that argument ultimately fails: First is that the reason Congress used the impeachment process to adjudicate this issue is because that was the only process constitutionally available to them so it wasn't designed to address this specific issue. The Impeachment trial in the Senate is split into two votes, first is conviction requiring a 2/3rds majority which results in removal from office. The second, upon conviction, requires a simple majority resulting in disqualification. The bar for the first vote is intentionally high because the removal of a sitting president is far more disruptive and demoralizing to the country. The second vote has a lower threshold because disqualification is not nearly as disruptive.
So with that in mind, the fact that the Senate voted 57 to 43 when the only issue at play here was disqualification is notable for a number of reasons. First is that disqualification requiring a simple majority was intended for the case where a president commits any action that qualifies as a high crime or misdemeanor. But the charge here is not any high crime or misdemeanor, in fact it is the only high crime that has its own special disqualification clause in the constitution so that right there tells us the threshold here could very easily be thought of differently. And in fact, section 3 lays it out:
"But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
In the context of this argument, this clause tells us a lot. First is that the framers of the 14th amendment thought this issue was so important that even if 3/5ths of Congress thought he should be on the ballot, that would not be enough to clear him. The second thing it tells us is that Congress is not actually the intended arbiter if this issue. Section 5 is clearly meant as an override, meaning the case would have been decided by the time it gets to Congress.
So given all of this, here's how I see it; The only two bodies in question that have a constitutional claim to arbitrate this issue nationally is Congress and the SC. The argument that Congress is the arbiter fails in my opinion but even if it doesn't that only hurts Trump. The most favorable answer to Part 3 I asked earlier is therefore that the SC gets to decide Part 2.
From there, is just a question of whether in the opinions of the 9 justices, Trump engaged in insurrection. While I have no confidence they would find that he did, from here is just a matter of facts and logic which I find undeniable.
So what do you think about this? And what arguments for or against his disqualification do you find most convincing.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What that means is there is nowhere for the Democrat party to go but down as there won't be anything to fix on their end. The polls reflect this.
Politics is a game of perception. You love to talk about politics/perception, I couldn't care less. I'm talking about reality. If you want to discuss that I'm all for it, otherwise I'm not interested.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Jan 6 was just an anecdote.
No, it wasn't. It was the culmination of a months long plot by Trump top hold onto power regardless of what the people decided, and it showed us the depths of what he was willing to do. Everyone on that day understood full well that Trump was fully responsible for what happened, only in the following weeks and months did the spin cycle begin to the point where people now pretend it's debatable.
Whatever, the reality is that Trump is first in the polls and you have to blame Biden and not Trump for all the fuck-ups 'merica should face in the near future.
Presidents are not some sort of god like king, they are the head one just one of our three branches of a federal government presiding over a country comprised of 50 separate jurisdictions run by their own governments. You can't just give them all of the credit or all of the blame for what happens. You need to look at how their words and actions impacted the state of our country and judge them based on that.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you really believe Trump is 100 percent at fault here?
I addressed this question directly in my post. Read it.
Do you think the Jan 6 select committee could have done a better job convincing the people that elections are now secure instead of the current perception that the Jan 6 select committee was nothing more than a partisan grab for more political power at public expense? That's the perception the people are predictably going to have when only a fraction of the Jan 6 footage is selectively shown to the public by a select committee....
The J6 committee did about the best job they could have given the current political climate. Convincing Americans that elections are now secure had nothing to do with their investigation.
There was never a possibility that they were not going to be accused of engaging in a partisan witch-hunt, it was decided well before the members were even selected that this attack line was going to be the strategy, that's why Kevin McCarthy tried to put Jim Jordan - a literal material witness to the investigation - on the committee. He was a poison pill designed to put Pelosi in a no win situation and when she rightly rejected him, they used that to put on a fake show that the democrats were not allowing republicans to participate. It was bullshit from the start and was planned that way.
The line that only a fraction of the relevant footage was shown is again, bullshit. They showed what happened on January 6th as was the point. The purpose was not to spend 3 hours debunking absurd internet conspiracy theories. It's not their fault much of the country doesn't engage in critical thinking and now turn to Alex Jones and his ilk for news.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
You are focusing only on superficial issues.
The fact that half of our country no longer believes our democracy is legitimate is not a superficial issue. The perceived legitimacy of our institutions is the thing that ensures our country will continue to thrive.
The fact that we are divided more so than we have been in a generation because our former president has so corrupted the minds of so many that they can't tell the difference between a legitimate argument and personal attack... Is not a superficial issue.
The rise in hate crimes ever since electing a president who ran on a platform of calling migrants rapists and banning Muslims is neither a coincidence nor is it superficial.
The complete degredation of our media institutions resulting from half the country being given intellectual permission to dismiss whole cloth any report from any institution that tells them a story they don't want to hear, thereby destroying the very concept of truth itself and preventing us as a society from having any reality and fact based conversation to resolve our differences... Is not a superficial issue.
Donald Trump did not do all of this entirely on his own, but he is by far the biggest reason we are here and and as long as he remains the standard bearer for one of our two major political parties there is no hope that any of this will be resolved.
Trump defenders love to pretend the personality stuff is just about not liking his character. No, it's about recognizing that his character is influencing us and destroying us from within in tangible ways that are clear as day, and if we don't rekon with it it is not an exaggeration or hyperbole to say that it has the potential to end the American experiment.
That's what I'm focusing on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You're bouncing back and forth between two extremes and ignoring a perfectly rational middle ground. Eliminating all Indian reservations and feeling forced to give up the life you were born into (to no one's benefit) are not the only two options. We can continue to live this life while giving back by maintaining the reservations. It doesn't wipe out all the wrongs but that's not what we're trying to do because that's not possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Fair enough; if Trump didn't call himself very religious to get votes, you wouldn't get angry at him for sleeping with a pornstar.
I don't care that he slept with a pornstar. Although the fact that he did it without protection while his wife was at home pregnant with his child is quite deplorable and does count against him for something, that doesn't really have any bearing on his ability to run the federal government.
What irritates me about it is the blatant hypocrisy of those supporting Trump. These are mostly the same people who impeached Bill Clinton for lying about a blow job, but Trump was sent to us by God. Ok.
He's a salesman; he's a New Yorker and he wore that on his sleeve. I heard from Trae Crowder that in some inaugural speech he never quoted the bible once in it.
He's an atheist. Multiple people in his family and around him said he never walked into a church until he decided to run for president, he clearly never read the Bible (2 Corinthians, the new and old testament are "probably equal"), and he's way to narcissistic to think that there's anything out there bigger than himself.
He's a conman, plain and simple.
Created:
If you really believed that, why didn't the Jan 6 select committee allow the people to see it?
What the J6 committee did or did not do has absolutely nothing to do with anything I just said. Do you have a response to any of it or do all you have is deflection?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If I did have a problem with it, I would have to move out of the US
Or, you could instead just be supportive of the fact that the country maintains these reservations.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I guess, it shows the Q-anon Shaman telling people to go home. Not sure how you can spin that to satisfy your bias.
Doesn't require a spin, only an objective look at the entire picture. Yes, Trump did send two tweets saying that he didn't want violence in addition to the "make your voices heard peacefully" comments at the Elipse an hour before. But what you have to do is weigh that on one side compared to the weight of everything else he said and did (or remarkably, did not do).
Starting with the tweets themselves; notice the remarkable absence of any instructions to the rioters to leave the capitol, or to forcefully tell them that this is not what he wanted them to do. He tells them to remain peaceful well after the violence had already begun and was being widely reported. Not exactly the forceful insistence any normal president would have issued. But whatever, we'll give him the credit where it's due, for whatever it's worth.
Now weigh that against 2 months of telling his supporters that their country was being stolen, choosing January 6th and inviting them to the Capitol, telling them to "fight like hell" or they will not have a country anymore, tweeting an attack on Mike Pence after the violence had already started, having his attorney call members of Congress during the attack urging them to use the delay to help stop the certification, taking no official action whatsoever to protect the Capitol while the attack was underway, telling the rioters "we love you, you're very special" after they attacked the Capitol, and tweeting "these are the things that happen..." after the attack - essentially gloating about it afterwards.
Trump loves to play both sides of the fence and this is why, because people like you will come across 3 exculpatory things he said and pretend they cancel out everything else. They don't.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you really find this video convincing?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
"Thought crime" is a misleading term, that was kind of the point. What someone thinks is irrelevant, it's when those thoughts lead to words and actions that one can be charged.
My post was not about violence, it was about where the line is drawn regarding when it's appropriate for government to involve itself, which is not only about violence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The US government before I was born genocided most of the Natives. But people shouldn't be held responsible for crimes other people committed.
And yet you have no problem being the beneficiary of said crimes.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you equate speech and thought crimes to a nose swing? Ok. I think I see how you view thought-crimes.
I thought about adding a "PS" statement at the end of my post clarifying what should have been obvious - that nothing in my post said anything about "thought crimes", but I thought even you wouldn't be so dishonest and so incapable of reading to come away with that.
In your post you specifically asked me what I thought about "thought-crimes and the government policies that would prohibit it". We do not have mind reading capabilities, so the only possible way for government to create a policy addressing thought crimes is to go after the actual words spoken or written and publicly shared by that individual. And if that individual does that then we are no longer dealing with thought, we are dealing with words. This is where my post came in explaining when words can be dealt with by the government.
This is also why I asked you for a more specific example, so I can give you my actual thoughts on whatever scenario you are imagining. I'm sure there is an actual example somewhere, and I'm pretty sure you don't actually believe anyone thinks a mere thought could be outlawed.
Why do you bother asking questions when you have no interest in the answer?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
How do you feel about thought-crimes and the government policies that would prohibit it? Is this a component of an ideal world for the modern Democrat?
The freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else's nose.
Freedom of speech does not give you license to say anything you want about anyone you want. When your words are defamatory or unnecessarily create a situation where you are putting the safety of others at risk, there is room for government involvement to step in for the sake of protecting it's people.
If that doesn't address whatever scenario you are thinking of please feel free to provide an example and I'll give you a more tailored response.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
January 6th was clearly a plot by the deep state to fake an atrocity just so they could blame it on Trump.
It was also just a big peaceful protest full of tourists aimlessly wandering the Capitol.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
But tell me, is it his personal traits or his political ideas that bother you so much? If it's the last then you fit very well in the democrat party.
His policies are atrocious but his "personality traits" are what makes him so historically terrible. What people like yourself miss is that we're not just talking about someone with an ego. Personality does in fact matter, whether people like to admit it or not (most on the right deny it now), Presidents are in fact leaders in our society and people do follow them.
When Trump was first elected I remember my mother and sister asking me at Thanksgiving what I thought about it. I told them then that the thing that bothered me most about him is that he's a conspiracy theorist and he will take the country down the intellectual abyss with him. That's exactly what he has done.
His blatant stupidity being on display has lead all of his followers to the point where anything can be denied outright, every institutional decision of any kind can be chalked up to nothing more than one person's personal vendetta against him (even when that person picked by him), expertise is not a real thing, anyone who is smart and educated are just against their way of life, etc. etc. etc.
And it's not just the intellectual stuff either. Trump has given every racist and bigot out there the freedom to express themselves and show everyone else that is ok. A significant and growing portion of our society no longer values democracy, and the idea that we as a society respect decency in people is pretty much lost.
No one else could have accomplished this, and it was all foreseeable in 2016.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The left generally thinks prostitution and adultury should be legal (I would assume adultery because it's legal in many states and the left tends to favor consensual sexual freedom).If they are going to believe that, fine. But then don't get angry at Trump for sleeping with prostitutes while married; if he did do that, by the left's logic, it would not matter.
Believing something should be legal an condoning it are two entirely different things. That should have been obvious.
The biggest reason the left consistently brings up Trump and his pornstar mistress is to point out how unbelievably hypocritical the republican party is. Your personal life is no one else's business and it should not be a major part of our politics, but when you brand yourself as a devoted flower of Christ and a fighter for family values and then cultishly support a man who did what Trump did you don't get to tell anyone else about values.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Well, you just gave a good reason to kill Trump.
I'm not the one who provided such reason, he did.
I'm not defending him, if you noted. I'm just trying to understand the situation.
You're not defending him but you are implying that it's the left that we should be concerned about while ignoring that the problem is far worse on the right. It comes off as a disingenuous concern.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
The left is teaching people to hate Trump. And considering the poor mental health in the US, my guess is that Trump will be murdered sooner or later by a liberal wacko that is going to shout "black lives matter" while he stabs Trump.
They're not "teaching people how to hate Trump", they're explaining why he is such a dangerous individual who has no business within a mile of the oval office. That's what happens when you run for public office after trying to overturn American democracy.
Curious as to why you keep ignoring the point I'm making. For someone so concerned about the fomenting of political violence, you sure seem to have nothing to say about all of the judges and prosecutors literally just doing their jobs that Trump continues to attack everyday resulting in a serious, tangible, and clearly correlated increase in threats to the safety of themselves and their families which Trump has done absolutely nothing to push back against. It's there a reason for that, or is it only a problem if it happens to Trump?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The left is more anti tobacco and vape legalization than the conservatives. If you believe the answer to the questions is, "Yes", how is this any different from weed?
Tobacco and vaping are obscure political issues and I have no idea where you are getting that anti-tobacco is a left wing position. You are really grasping for straws.
Driving cars directly impacts the people I share this society with. 30,000 car accidents happen a year and cars pollute, impacting climate change. Does this mean we should mandate remote working when applicable?
There is no political divide in the country as to whether people should be allowed to drive cars. The fact that these kinds of ridiculous examples are the best you can do should make you rethink your position.
AR 15 owners are a group, and not letting them have what they want because of homicide the vast majority aren't responsible for is bigoted. But the left can be bigoted to whoever they want.
AR15 owners are not a group in any political sense of the word.
I just finished explaining to you how this happens in every area of life anywhere there is an authority in position to set laws/rules/policy. You didn't read a single word I wrote on this. Not repeating it.
Why is heroin illegal? Because some people get addicted to it. Doesn't that mean we're punishing those who don't?So then regulate heroin. Lets just say dudes like this should be allowed to use heroin:Why do we not permit 18 year olds to drink? Because many 18 year olds are not mature and responsible enough. Doesn't that mean we're punishing those who are?In order to be allowed to drink alcohol, you need to be financially independent, have parental consent, or have it be for medical use. In Belgium, their age is 16.Why don't we allow foreign born citizens to run for president?I don't agree with that either.
Yet another example of how you do not pay attention to the conversation and instead focus entirely on triggers you think you can respond to.
All three of these were nothing more than examples explaining how rule making works. Your response is to talk about whether you agree with them. Whether you agree with them is completely and utterly irrelevant to the conversation.
MAGA is a cult, and so is Bernie or Bust.
Then talk to a Bernie or Bust supporter
I'm the one trying to get people out of cults.
No, you're not. All you're trying to do is get people to move from their sacred unchallengable ideology to your sacred unchallengable ideology. The difference is that at least their sacred unchallengable ideology has a purpose beyond making them feel above everyone else.
Conservatives use the same logos to justify all of their beliefs.
And they're wrong, that's why I'm not a conservative.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
It might be better politically for Republicans, rather than Democrats,If Trump was assassinated.
Agreed. I used to say to my boss all the time in 2020, I'd rather see Trump go out a loser than a martyr. That's why I kind of hope the SC will rule against Colorado, even though I think that ruling would be plain wrong.
I am conflicted though because at the same time I do see Trump as an existential threat to the republic, so there is that old saying about those who play with fire...
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
This topic is just for presenting arguments for why you believe.
A DART thread that stays on topic? You must be new here.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I didn't mention anything about "timeless". Eternal doesn't necesarily mean "timeless", I said it's not affected by time, meaning that time is part of its existence
You referred to time as a "creation of the ultimate creator". For it to have a creator that means something had to come before it, which could not be the case if time itself did not already apply.
Besides, either you're atheist or theist, in order to solve the puzzle of the universe existence, there is no better solution than the eternal existence, which means the universe or the material it is composed of should have always existed. Or do you really think the universe came up out of nothing?
I think there is no solution to the puzzle, because no matter how you attempt to solve it it doesn't work.
It's the age old question I've addressed here before; why is there something rather than nothing? There are only two possible categories in which the answer can lie; either it's a something or it's a nothing.
A nothing being the answer is logically incoherent, anything that could possibly qualify is definitionally excluded from this category.
A something being the answer is also logically contradictory as it would require something to be responsible for its own existence.
Both answers fail and there's no third option. So the only honest answer remaining is "I don't know".
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Double has a frequent tendency of arguing that he is right, by definition
That's because theists have a tendency to present arguments that are definitionally incoherent.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
If you see it carefully, liberals are even using the justice system to get Trump out, this is unbelievable.
Liberals aren't "using the justice system" to get rid of Trump, they're using the justice system to hold someone accountable for the clear and obvious crimes they committed. That's called the rule of law, and it's something republicans used to pretend to care about.
So, the concern for Trump's life is founded.
No, it's not, it's nothing more than projection. Again, the acceptance of violence as a means to political ends is primarily a right wing issue. There is no one on the left calling for violence of any kind, nor is there a single prominent left wing figure that would not immediately and convincingly denounce any threat against a public official. No one on the left would name the judges ruling against them and stand by while those judges receive death threats. No one on the left would ever talk about "second amendment remedies".
The problem is not on the left.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
There is absolutely nothing about banning abortion that makes it a collectivist idea by this definition
It's good for society if abortion is banned because the unborn are a chunk of society comparable in size to transgenders (if the unborn get classified as people).
The collectivist notion I described has nothing to do with whether the result will be better for society, it is about how we approach issues in the first place. More specifically, it's about how we figure out who's problem it is to solve and what are the limitations to solve it.
This is really simple so let's try it this way: Does your decision to [insert issue here] directly impact the people you share in this society with?
Get an abortion? No
Marry someone of the opposite sex? No
Carry around a loaded firearm? Yes
Buy/sell stocks? Yes
Smoke weed? No
Have sex for money? No
Use speech to defame others or foment violence? Yes
Notice how in every "No" above liberals are against government involvement while for every "Yes" above liberals support government intervention. That's what I'm talking about.
And take note that immigration has no place in the above conversation. Like I said, it's an entirely different issue.
This is really simple so let's try it this way: Does your decision to [insert issue here] directly impact the people you share in this society with?
Get an abortion? No
Marry someone of the opposite sex? No
Carry around a loaded firearm? Yes
Buy/sell stocks? Yes
Smoke weed? No
Have sex for money? No
Use speech to defame others or foment violence? Yes
Notice how in every "No" above liberals are against government involvement while for every "Yes" above liberals support government intervention. That's what I'm talking about.
And take note that immigration has no place in the above conversation. Like I said, it's an entirely different issue.
If constitutional carry made life so dangerous, then surely Vermont would be a bloodbath.
"A 2022 analysis found that states with permitless carry laws saw a 22 percent increase in gun homicide for the three years following the law's passage."
First search result on Google.
First search result on Google.
It is just as much of an excuse for bigots to be bigoted (with the undocumented community) as it does for mass shootings to be an excuse to be bigoted towards the AR 15 owning community.
No one is being "bigoted" against AR-15 owners, we're pushing back against the legal sale of AR15's. Please stop responding just to respond and think about the point beforehand, thanks.
But the 99.5% shouldn't be getting a murder charge for a crime they didn't commit and shouldn't be punished with tough on the border policies for murders they did not commit. People are individuals.The same applies for gun owners.But your party's media will tell you the opposite and you believe the party's media over a consistent standard.
If you would stop and pay attention instead of searching for a way to feed your obsession with thinking you're better than everyone else because you "think for yourself" you would recognize the constancies.
This is one of the most basic concepts in law and in any setting where there is an authority of any kind making rules/policies; when something is causing a problem, solving that problem often requires banning a product or action for everyone. 2A advocates are the ones being inconsistent because they understand and accept this reality in every other instance except for when it comes to guns.
Why is heroin illegal? Because some people get addicted to it. Doesn't that mean we're punishing those who don't?
Why do we not permit 18 year olds to drink? Because many 18 year olds are not mature and responsible enough. Doesn't that mean we're punishing those who are?
Why don't we allow foreign born citizens to run for president? Because that creates a greater threat of them having dual allegences. Doesn't that mean we're punishing every foreign born citizen?
Literally every law, rule, or policy banning something takes away some right for everyone on the basis of the fact that some people abuse it. Only when we're talking about guns does that all of a sudden become "punishment".
The unvaccinated are more likely to carry the virus, but it's such a nominal difference in percentage that it's just being very melodramatic.
Irrelevant to the conversation. We're talking about the principal of the mandates, not the effectiveness.
But your party owns your fucking mind, so no matter what argument I make, I won't change your mind because you are in a cult (just like 100% of socialists).
Ok, now this is just plain stupid.
First of all, do you even know what cult is? Hint: At minimum it requires a figurehead. "The democrats" is not a figurehead.
Second, throughout this conversation and others you constantly demonstrate that you have no understanding of alternative viewpoints, no ability to decipher complex and nuanced arguments, and ultimately show that your only interest is being right for the sake of being right by repeatedly responding without a hint of thought behind the words you write. You haven't provided a single point worthy of anything but a deep sighed dismissal, so you have no business crticizing me or anyone else as to whether you believe we're "thinking for ourselves".
Third, even if your obsession with identifying as an independent thinker does not allow you to consider the possibility that you are actually talking to a real person, there is still a basic concept in conversation that if you're going to engage in it that you respect the other person by acknowledging their arguments as their own. You can make whatever assessment about me you want after the fact, but to do so within the conversation is disrespectful and ultimately a waste of time. Then next time you do that you are demonstrating your inability to see past your own nose and so this conversation will abruptly end.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
This may sound like old news, but given the current context in which liberals can't get Trump out of the elections, do you think liberals are capable of doing what the title of this thread says?
I don't hear very many liberals threatening civil war, talking about taking up arms, or otherwise suggesting that the means by which we need to save the country is through any other than at the ballot box or in a courtroom where the outcome is subject to the adjudication of constitutional processes. So while any idiot can always commit any act, generally this is not a liberal problem.
Everytime Trump is indicted or ruled against, those who worked against him are plastered by Trump all over his social media and become infamous targets at his rallies. Consequently, everytime, threats against their safety dramatically increase by Trump's own supporters and Trump has never made any serious effort to lower the temperature. The FBI has gone on to say that threats against their employees is at crisis levels never before seen in modern history.
As was eloquently pointed out by one of the judges in Trump's trials; when a person engages in an act, the only reasonable conclusion is that the natural and likely consequences of said action are that person's intention.
Trump is clearly fomenting political violence intentionally because he believes it works to his best interests. I'm not sure why you seem to think liberals are the threat here, you really need to ask yourself whether you're looking in the right place.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
This argument is no longer a problem. If you consider the ultimate creator ("God" in this case) as eternal, meaning not affected by the time, you don’t need to go any further. And that is possible because time is just a variable according to physic laws, which means time is just a creation of the ultimate creator.
This is an incoherent concept. A timeless existence would by definition be completely static, which is to say change is definitionally excluded. Creation by definition requires a state where something goes from not existing in it's described form to existing in it's described form. That's a change, which contradicts the notion of a timeless existence.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I don't advocate for the position that God does not exist, but I do find the arguments for his nonexistence to be far stronger than any argument for God's existence.
In cases where God is clearly defined in a meaningful way, there are always contradictions that disqualify the proposition from logical consideration. But to argue his nonexistence in a more vague way is less clear cut.
In this case, the problem of who created God is for me the strongest against. My version of it is as follows;
In order for a creator to create something, it must be more complex than it's creation. Therefore God must be more complex than the cosmos.
Occam's razor dictates that the simplest explanation is most likely correct, or more specifically, the most reasonable to believe.
God therefore adds to the complexity, making him less reasonable to believe than the alternative that he exists as the creator of the cosmos.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I can use logos from either major party in the US to get them to advocate a position they don't believe it.
No, you cannot. Everything about this post is ridiculous, and it's frankly amusing that you believe you've cracked some kind of code while showing yourself to be remarkably ignorant about what motivates various political ideologies. It takes an understanding of complexity, nuance, and recognizing how to balance competing values when deciding an issue that you seem to lack.
I'm not going to respond to these because I'll be here all day. If you want, feel free to pick just one and I'll be happy to break it down and educate you on what you don't understand about left wing viewpoints.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You envision a world where a bill is brought to the floor and everyone just votes on whether they like it.That should be the world we live in.
No, it shouldn't. That doesn't even make any sense. Who gets to be the one writing the bill? What if nearly everyone is on board with it but most are objecting to one small peice of it that could be improved?
You are only looking at the voting portion of the process, not the creation. Bills are complicated and come with a lot of moving parts. The entire point of having a Congress is for lawmakers to figure out how those parts should work together, that involves negotiation and a lot of reimagining things.
The issue in Congress is not the process, it's the incentive structure.
The democrats are collectivist is what you are saying; they focus on what's good for collective American society over the individual. Banning abortion is a collectivist idea. So is building the wall. So is not funding Ukraine (or Israel).Collectivism is nationalism.
There is absolutely nothing about banning abortion that makes it a collectivist idea by this definition, nor building a wall, nor funding Ukraine. I don't understand why these ideas are so complicated for you.
The question that matters in any instance is whether granting rights to an individual takes away some right or negatively impacts the well being of others, and balancing that appropriately. Abortion has no societal application in the sense that nothing about my rights or well being is impacted by someone else's decision to get an abortion. That's a private decision fort that individual.
Nothing about the legalization of gay marriage impedes on my rights or well being as a straight man.
Legalizing the carrying of automatic weapons in public by anyone, does impede on my rights/well being sad an individual because it makes me less safe everytime I leave my house since the potential of my life to be ended at any moment objectively increases.
Building a wall? Not applicable to this concept.
Funding for Ukraine? Not applicable to this concept.
Economic policy? Absolutely applies. Without a society we would not have an economy, and we would not haber a prosperous economy without an environment suited for it. The only entity that has the means to create and maintain that environment for everyone (society) is the government, therefore I generally support more government intervention in the economy.
So here's a crazy idea, instead of looking for gotchas to make it seem like I'm just believing whatever I'm told and showcasing your remarkable ignorance of alternative viewpoints in the process, the next time something I'm saying doesn't make sense - how about asking more questions and listening to the answers rather than strawmanning everything I just said?
But if collectivism is the goal of democrats, it means if even one undocumented immigrant commits a murder, it means every single undocumented immigrant needs to be put through more tough measures.
Does not logically follow. There is nothing about the immigration status of the murderer that makes their actions any more or less harmful to society. It's just an excuse for bigots to be bigoted.
If there was a pattern showing that crime is disproportionally committed by illegals them you would have a case, but the reality is the opposite.
Just like the notion that we are less safe because an unvaccinated person comes through and might kill a vaccinated and boosted person by giving them COVID is comparably silly.
No genius, it doesn't. Again, (in cases where the data supports it) an unvaccinated person is more likely to both carry and to spread the virus. That's the entire point of vaccines and is the literal definition of less safe.
There is nothing about being an illegal immigrant that makes you more likely to commit crimes, in fact, once again, the data says the exact opposite.
Is it ok to make your kid homeless because you decided to not take care of them?
That's why we have adoption
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
If your enemy is ruining your life, is the only thing stopping you from murdering them that it's against the law? If you feel there is a deeper truth involved stopping you, what is that basis?
It's not a deeper truth, it's basic human empathy and compassion. Death is the ultimate penalty, hard for any normal person to imagine someone being such a great enemy to them that it would genuinely make them want to kill them.
I don't get what puzzles theists so much about this. If you really believe that the only thing stopping you from murdering other people is the fear you have over god's retribution, then you are only acting in your own perceived self interest. That's not morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
That's surprising. I thought you would have hat at least 68 left beliefs.I was wrong.I guess based on this sample size, you do come to your own conclusions even if I don't agree 100%.I need to repeat this experiment on a lot of people though to see if the results are an anomaly or reflective of society trends.Tagged people can see that this is a concession on my end.
Always good to see when someone is willing to concede on a point, but this isn't really a concession. Your viewpoint is that you can ask someone a bunch of questions, and based on how many of their answers are statistically left vs right determine whether they are thinking for themselves. You haven't budged on that, only who falls into your statistical model.
Do you know what correlation/causation fallacy is? Have you ever thought that maybe the reason why our two political parties are so prominent is because they reflect the voters and not the other way around?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
There shouldn't be teams; it should be 535 independents in DC and when one representative comes up with a bill, the politicians then vote on the bill through their own lens rather than their party's lens.
This isn't real life and it will never be because it does not take into account basic human nature. It doesn't matter of you abolish political parties, people will always have aligned interests and will benefit by working together with those who share their interests. That's how political parties started in the first place.
You envision a world where a bill is brought to the floor and everyone just votes on whether they like it. You completely disregard that someone had to write that bill, and there will always be a line where the bill's passage comes down to a relatively small portion of the representatives. That gives those representatives the power to influence what goes into that bill, and if there's one thing you can count on, when someone finds themselves with power they're going to use it.
If the political parties are going to generalize (democrats backing social libertarianism on abortion and immigration but not on vaccine mandates or gun control and vice versa for the GOP), then the democrats aren't as socially libertarian as they claim to be. And there is nothing wrong with that; but just be honest.
Democrats are not competing for some social libertarian label. You are making that up entirely and then acting like others are not being honest by not admitting to the thing you made up.
Democrats have made their positions clear and I already gave you some insight into what ties left wing viewpoints together.
800K abortions per year (assuming a zygote is a human being) is a Seattle sized population.
The number of individuals impacted is completely irrelevant to the point I made.
Your decision to not get vaccinated (if the science sport supports it) endangers the people around you because you have made yourself a more likely vector for the virus to spread to others.You can say the same thing about immigration; by letting people come into the country unvetted; you are putting people in danger by exposing them to a very small chance that they will get murdered by an undocumented immigrant
Well first of all, this is objectively backwards since illegal immigrants are less likely to commit any kind of crime than American born citizens. That means statistically, the more illegal immigrants become a part of the population the more the crime rate goes down.
But more importantly, this is again irrelevant to the point I just made. Illegal immigration is not analogous to vaccine mandates. This notion of us being less safe because an illegal immigrant came through and might kill someone is just silly. If you get into a car there is now a chance you might run someone over that wasn't the case before, that doesn't make it meaningful for me to accuse you of endangering people's lives everytime you go to work.
Which option do you pick?
Neither really. I believe bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life up until the point of viability but I am generally not supportive of banning abortion at any stage because the only purpose that's supposed to serve is practically nonexistent, meanwhile the repercussions of it are real and serious.
Yes. People's freedom to earn $80*10^6 at the cost of one person's life is morally justified. But $8*10^12 vs 100*10^6 lives (when those 100*10^6 lives would end producing $8*10^12 a year in a world where COVID doesn't exist) would be justified.
Gibberish
That's because COVID had a 99.9% survival rate
You do not need to be in the 0.1% to know that the thousands of people filling up your local hospital waiting rooms as well as the refrigerator trucks being used to store dead bodies because the morgues are full are real.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Question: If you think people are trying to undermine trust in the election system do you:A) Make absolutely sure to follow all election laws and procedures, cut no corners, provide full transparency, and reiterate that auditable elections are a shared goal
This is exactly what happened.
B) Gaslight anyone who doubts the election, call the traitors, lock them up under bizarre interpretations of law, inform media companies that you would prefer if they censor counter-narratives, and every single fucking time someone finds an inconsistency in publicly available data immediately remove that information from public view.
Can you provide one single example of any of these and explain how the person who did it is part of the nationwide conspiracy to overturn Biden's victory?
But you believe in the rule of law...I believe in justice, which law may not be
So no, you do not believe in the rule of law. Thank you for being clear.
YOU GAVE a sample size of 5 and 80% of it is fraud.
Do you even know what sample size is?
If there was such a review, why isn't there a list of thousands of explanations? I have not seen it, and the simplest explanation is that I have not seen it because it was not published because:A) They didn't do it.B) They did it, and the results showed significant fraud which was suppressed
The simplest explanation is that they recognize it's not the government's burden to refute your conspiracy theories. Never before has any state audit ever released a thousands name long list to show the public all of the voters they verified. The idea of them doing that at all is absurd, worse is a the idea that they hid everything in a massive statewide conspiracy by republicans to elect a democrat.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The fact that you don't see a battle is what makes you a failure.
I didn't say I don't see a battle, we're just fighting very different battles. You're fighting a battle against imaginary tyranny, I'm fighting against the BS being peddled everyday that makes people like you think you're fighting a battle against tyranny.
Question: If your goal is to destroy a country's democracy and rule of law, how do you accomplish that?
Answer: By making the people of that country believe their democracy and rule of law is already destroyed. If you can accomplish that then they will justify destroying for you as a patriotic attempt to save it.
This is of course logically absurd and self defeating. You cannot save an ideal by imposing it's antithesis. But regardless, this strategy does in fact work, fascists have used it for over a century. One would just think people would get tired of the same bullshit over and over again. When Trump lost Iowa in 2016 he said that contest was rigged. Heading into the general in 2016 he said that contest was going to be rigged. Of course he won so it was right, but then loses in 2020 and... That one was rigged. And now 2024 is going to be rigged. It's so childishly obvious what he's doing, but yet here we are.
The location of the trial should be determined by the proper legal process, just like the trial in Florida with a Trump appointed judge.It is unacceptable for accusation relating to federal crimes and against nationwide political leaders to be decided by a tiny brainwashed minority that happens to live in a federal district.Whatever legal process leads to that state of affairs is by this argument improper.
But you believe in the rule of law...
You have actually managed to convince yourself that you caught me being dishonestIt wasn't hard.
When one does not have to restrain themselves to reality, of course not...
The title of the article is a lie "voters", plural; only one example was given. 5 total cases examined, 4 fraudulent ballots; one "alive and well".4 > 11 < Thousands
Complete bullshit. The article states:
"Election investigators found just four absentee ballots in the 2020 presidential election from voters who had died, all of them returned by relatives."
The article then goes on to talk about the findings of the investigation. I don't know why this needs to be explained to you, but when a state audits it's own election it doesn't look at 5 ballots and call it a day, it looks at all of them or at the very least a significant amount. You trying to pretend that the article says they looked only at 5 examples and found 4 instances had to be the stupidest argument you've ever made here.
But what's worse is that you not only pretend that's what the article says, but you pretend that's the point I was making as you keep on repeating your stupid 4 > 1 quip that you seem to think is clever.
As you would be completely cognizant of if you were the least bit honest, the "1" example I was talking about from the very beginning was the review that the state of Georgia performed and then reported to the public which the AJC was describing. What's amazing here is that you didn't just prove my point by dismissing the entire point the article was making, but you also engaged in the most egregious rewrite of an article to suit your own narrative I have ever seen. It's no wonder you believe the things you do, even the evidence against your proposition qualifies to you as evidence for it.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Then where is your evidence of widespread voter suppression?
All you have to do is use Google. Here, I'll start. First search result...
Because then we would need a new label for every single deviation, which would number in the hundreds or even thousands.It would be millions. That's why political parties should be abolished
This makes absolutely no sense. Political parties exist because getting things done requires finding like minded people to team up with, not because people are supposed to agree on every issue. The system is flawed and needs reform, but not because of this.
Libertarian means socially left while economically right, authoritarian means socially right while economically left.This isn't accurate. Libertarians disagree with the left on many social issues and they even disagree with the republicans on many economic issues. For authoritarians, it's similar.
It's as of you are incapable of understanding the concept of a generalization. Here, maybe this will help:
1. Abortion2. Vaccine mandates3. Immigration policy4. Gun policyThere is nothing consistent about over 100 million voters wanting the government out of issues 1 and 3 while having the government involved with 2 and 4 (or vice versa) except that they are following party orders!
Well, first of all no one is saying they want the government out of immigration policy, that's not even a coherent statement.
But more importantly, your claim is just nonsense. Immigration is an entirely different type of issue so let's set that to the side, the philosophy behind almost every left wing viewpoint is that we value the concept of society. Your right to carry around a loaded firearm makes everyone else around you objectively less safe because you could at any instance decide to end the life of anyone around you. Your decision to not get vaccinated (if the science sport supports it) endangers the people around you because you have made yourself a more likely vector for the virus to spread to others. Like I've said plenty of times, the freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else's nose. That's the reality of sharing a society with other people.
Abortion is entirely different from this. In this issue we have two lives essentially battling for one body, no one else is impacted so government really doesn't have a role to play here because the well being of society at large is not at stake. We can sit and go back and forth on this issue all day long but what I always point out is that where one ultimately lands on abortion will depend on whether they see a fetus as a person. I don't, so arguments relying on that premise don't resonate with me.
There is nothing incoherent nor complicated about my position on these three issues. To say the only thing that explains why so many millions of people land on the same three can only be explained by people "following their party's orders" is ridiculous and demonstrates that you do not understand the positions you are criticizing. It's also a complete inversion of correlation/causation. The far simpler explanation is that the party is reflecting it's voters, that's literally how the system is designed. "You're only believing what you're told" is not an intelligent conclusion, it's an excuse to disregard a person's arguments because you don't understand them or just can't handle disagreement.
I could have easily used going to workYou can work remotely if you want, with a few exceptions, but those exceptions are
Again, completely ignoring the topic so you can try and poke holes in the example.
I mean, I don't really value the lives of strangers enough to sacrifice for them and the people that get angry at me for that have not thought that statement through.
If you don't care about the lives of your fellow citizens then there's nothing to talk about here.
But if you need a selfish reason to care then think about the situation where the rules are reversed and you're the one susseptible to this. If you will only respond to your own self interest, I would argue everyone working together as a team to ensure everyone's survival gives you the best chance at survival.
If human life was priceless and the government believed that human life was priceless, they could force every household in the US to adopt as many starving children as they could if it saves just one life.
Yet another strawman. No one is claiming in any serious context that any random individual's life is literally priceless. Everything we do is a balance between protecting our lives while protecting the quality of our lives. Sacrificing everything to save one person throws that balance completely out of whack.
35% death rate among non elderly people; yeah I would support lockdowns
Then it's not a question of whether we believe in lockdowns, only a matter of at what point do they outweigh personal freedom.
A vaccine mandate wouldn't be necessary as virtually everybody would willingly get vaccinated if the odds of death were 35%.
No, everyone most certainly wouldn't. Facts do not always matter, especially once something becomes politicized. Even as COVID was ripping through red counties and killing people by the thousands, many still didn't even believe COVID was real.
I quote you every time
Quoting me is irrelevant if you interpret what I said wrong.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This is a propaganda war and the adoption of weaponized lawfare and terms like 'insurrection' is necessary.
When people are bombing you calling it a financial audit, then it doesn't matter what a financial audit is. You need to start bombing back.
This is exactly why MAGA is so destructive to the country.
But at least you admit that you are using nonsense terms like inserectionists and bs legal arguments not because you believe them or because they make sense, but because you see yourself as being engaged in some kind of battle.
What a concept, I'm sure that will work out just fine. Let's do it in West Virginia. All juries are trustworthy right?
The location of the trial should be determined by the proper legal process, just like the trial in Florida with a Trump appointed judge.
No, I wanted secure elections. Then none of this would have happened.
The elections were secure. According to Trump's own cyber security chief they were the most secure in our history.
This isn't happening because of wrongdoing by anyone involved in our elections. It's happening because people like yourself cannot accept the reality that Trump lost, and because the market for this denial is so large we have entire news networks capitalizing on it.
The truth need not be witty. Every time you lie about it is another reminder that you should not be treated as a good-faith debater.
Reality really just doesn't matter to you.
As a reminder, here is the post where this whole thing began - with me giving you one example of a study done debunking the ridiculous narrative that thousands of dead people voted, and mentioning that I could provide hundreds more examples. You then pretended that the 4 dead voters they did find outweighed the entire study from which those 4 dead voters were found.
It is you who is lying and demonstrating yourself to be a dishonest debater everytime you bring this up. At best we could agree that there was some exaggeration on my part and misunderstanding on yours as to what I meant, but that ship has long sailed as I have explained it to you multiple times already. You have actually managed to convince yourself that you caught me being dishonest and that's too valuable to let go, so facts be damned.
Created: