Total posts: 5,890
-->
@Sam_Flynn
14/3:No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress,or elector of President and Vice-President,or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress,or as an officer of the United States,
- Officer of the United States - definition
- An officer of the United States is a functionary of the executive or judicial branches of the federal government of the United States to whom is delegated some part of the country's sovereign power. The term officer of the United States is not a title, but a term of classification for a certain type of official
or as a member of any State legislature,or as an executive or judicial officer of any State,No, I do not, and it is patently clear that the Office of the President is not even mentioned in 14/3. This is an established observable legal fact.
The office of the presidency isn't specifically mentioned because it falls under the term "civil office". Civil is just another word for pubic, which means government.
The objection you are bringing up is not new. As the Colorado SC points out on page 77 of their ruling, this was already debated and resolved as the 14 amendment was being written:
"140 The importance of the inclusive language—“any officer, civil or military”— was the subject of a colloquy in the debates around adopting the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator Reverdy Johnson worried that the final version of Section Three did not include the office of the Presidency. He stated, “[T]his amendment does not go far enough” because past rebels “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2899 (1866). So, he asked, “why did you omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation.” Id. Senator Lot Morrill fielded this objection. He replied, “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’” Id. This answer satisfied Senator Johnson, who stated, “Perhaps I am wrong as to the exclusion from the Presidency; no doubt I am; but I was misled by noticing the specific exclusion in the case of Senators and Representation"
"shall have engaged in" =/= giving aid and comfort. There is an "OR" separating those legal criteria (clauses).
I don't know what your point is here. The "or" in that sentence means either action suffices as a disqualification. Trump arguably committed both which is why I mentioned both of them.
While the giving aid and comfort part is in my opinion a tougher case (but still obvious) Trump's actions (or lack there of) towards the rioters seals the first condition. The only argument one could make regarding the first is that even though the rioters thought they were there because they believed president called upon them to be there, it was all just a misunderstanding and therefore not his fault.
If Trump came out immediately denouncing the mob, telling them to leave and called the national guard, none of this would be happening. Instead he say around for 3 hours watching the riots on television and only told them to leave because everyone around him (even Fox news hosts) was pleading with him to stop it. This erases any doubt as to what his intentions were.
If the Justices want to redeem themselves in the eyes of America, they will uphold the law
Agreed
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I was using college ID's as an example to explain to you what voter suppression is.But it's not a big problem like what the radical left makes it seem like.
Which is again, irrelevant to the conversation. We were talking about what voter suppression means, I was just using an example. You focused on your attitude towards that one example, not the topic.
New York city policy on local elections has nothing to do with voter fraud or the lack of evidence thereof.Moving the goalposts I see.
No, I'm sticking to the topic of conversation. We were talking about voter fraud, not NYC election policy.
Political ideologies are not defined in terms of absolutes.Why wouldn't they be?
Because then we would need a new label for every single deviation, which would number in the hundreds or even thousands.
The point of a political label is to provide a general idea of what someone believes, not to answer single every question one might have on what some individual believes.
If the left can be socially authoritarian on guns, why can't they also be socially authoritarian on like abortion?Previously, you were arguing political ideologies were defined in absolutes (on social issues, you argued the left believed in liberty whereas the right believed in theocracy).
This is what I mean when I say you don't pay attention, you have to go out of your way to come away with this interpretation of of what I said.
First of all the left does not contrast with authoritarianism, it contrasts with the right. On any given issue you can be on the left or be on the right, but it's not just either/or, it's a scale. Authoritarian contrasts with libertarian. Libertarian means socially left while economically right, authoritarian means socially right while economically left.
Absolutes had nothing to with with my descriptions, I was speaking in generalizations. Someone could easily be on the political left on every issue but be a 2nd amendment absolutist. Tommi Lauren is as right wing as they come on every issue, yet she is pro choice. No one would argue this makes her a leftist or even a libertarian, she is clearly a right winger regardless.
Again, labels are just basic descriptions, they're not supposed to tell you where any individual stands on every issue. If you want to know what someone believes on every issue, ask them.
If one is really scared of COVID, they can have the bread and milk shipped to their house.
Another example of searching for any out you can find rather than addressing the point.
First of all, shipping food to your house is more expensive, not everyone has that option. Second, and again, that was just one example. I could have easily used going to work, or how about casting your ballot if you live in a state that doesn't let you vote by mail?
Plus, STI's are not going to shut down the country.Neither should COVID
If you don't value the hundreds of thousands of lives that could have been saved had we done things differently then I guess not.
Curious... Suppose COVID mutated and became 5x more contagious with a death rate of 35%. Would you then support lock downs and vaccine mandates?
But you are sticking to your party and you are doing whatever mental gymnastics are needed to defend your party, including dropping points like when I claimed the democrats and republicans don't consistently stand for anything.
It's only gymnastics to you because you're the one doing the twisting. Half of the things you respond to I didn't say.
I don't recall dropping any relevant points, if I did feel free to bring them back up and I would be glad to address it and explain why I didn't the first time of done so intentionally.
I have no interest in defending any viewpoint I don't agree with, so showing me an example of wine democrat who said some thing that conflicts with another thing they said is useless and I'd have no reason to respond to it.
Created:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
And there is one clear Office or Position that isn't even mentioned in 14/3, the Office of the President.
So you believe the office of the United States Presidency is not an office under the United States, is that correct?
There was no insurrection on J6, and Trump had no hand/play/shall have engaged in (physically) during the riot of J6.
The person who incites and then gives comfort to those who physically engaged, is by definition engaging in it.
SCOTUS will overturn Colorado, thereby quashing any other state's stupid attempt to kick Trump off the ballot.
Probably. After all a third of the court was appointed by Trump himself. This doesn't mean it's right.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You haven't provided a single serious response to anything I've said, at this point you've made it clear that you're just arguing to argue, and you've also demonstrated everything I've pointed out about you. You have a need to feel above everyone else, so you twist and turn everything those with clearly defined viewpoints say in order to avoid confronting them for what they are. You really need to spend some time reflecting on that, but you won't.
If college ID's are banned, then many college students will find themselves without the ID necessary to vote, meaning they will now have to spend their own time and money to get what they need.Voting with Student ID in 2023: The State of the Law & Pending Legislation - Voting Rights Lab states that just 5 states in...
Irrelevant.
I was using college ID's as an example to explain to you what voter suppression is. Arguing that college ID laws are only used in 5 states has nothing to do with the conversation.
There is no evidence whatsoever that illegal immigrants are flocking to the polls
Irrelevant.
New York city policy on local elections has nothing to do with voter fraud or the lack of evidence thereof.
The idea that libetarians are, "Fiscally conservative, socially left" is incorrect.
Political ideologies are not defined in terms of absolutes. This is another thing you love to do, find small and insignificant exceptions to argue that the greater point is wrong. This is what arguing just to argue looks like, it's just not serious.
"Freedom for all unless it endangers public health/saftey (my party decides when saftey outweighs freedom and vice versa)". Got it!
This is just stupid.
The party in power gets to decide, that's why we have elections.
"Public health doesn't matter if it's a situation you chose to put yourself into (so that applies to lockdowns and mask mandates as well, right?)"I'm starting to learn a lot!
No, you're definitely not.
Catching an STI because you chose to have unprotected sex is not the same thing as catching a virus because you needed bread and milk. Plus, STI's are not going to shut down the country.
Following facts, logic and evidence is not treating scientists likes religion.So you will believe the scientists no matter what?
No genius.
Following facts, logic and evidence =/= believing scientists no matter what.
so it's no wonder you constantly and consistently strawman everyone else.Not on pourpose
It is clearly on purpose. If not directly, then you are at the least purposefully refusing to reflect on it.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Advocates against Voter ID law requirements cite that blacks can't get IDs (which they easily can).
I don't know what advocates you are referring to, I've never heard anyone claim "blacks can't get ID's". You seem fundamentally confused about what voter suppression is. As I already explained, it's not about disqualifying any individual from voting. It's about making it harder to vote, and to do so in such a way that the natural outcome will favor one political party.
Before I used the example of banning college ID's, your response was to argue that college students are not banned from voting which again, misses the entire point. We're not talking about individuals, we're talking about statistics. If college ID's are banned, then many college students will find themselves without the ID necessary to vote, meaning they will now have to spend their own time and money to get what they need. Some will, many won't. The impact of this decision is that less college students will vote. And since this is a reliable constituency for democrats, this will hurt the Democratic candidates chances.
Do you understand?
Advocates for Voter ID laws merely don't want undocumented immigrants voting.
Complete and utter bullshit.
There is no evidence whatsoever that illegal immigrants are flocking to the polls, and there has never been despite decades of searching for it. Voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem, meanwhile the impacts of these laws is tangible, measurable and objective.
When one continues to support laws that cannot be demonstrated to solve any problem while demonstrably creating a problem on the back end of it, it becomes clear what the real motives are.
Political positions are not a matter of randomness which we can evaluate via statistical probabilities, they are the result of how we see the world.They kinda are.
Proving my point yet again.
There are multiple flaws with this argument:a. There are 8 combinations of beliefs based on the 3 issues you stated. They are:
I have no idea what your point here is.
2nd thing, you claim leftism is:Letting and supporting people living their lives how they see fit.
I didn't say that. Please pay attention.
I said if you hold that particular view/value, *then* you will likely *be on the left* on all three of those issues. It wasn't a definition of leftism.
You also seem to misunderstand libertarianism. Libertarians are leftists when it comes to social policy and are on the political right when it comes to economic policy.
It would then be an arbitrary combination of "public health/safety" and, "freedom". The right does the same thing. A time when they support "public health" is banning gay sex because it has the potential to spread STIs
These are not the same thing. I supported vaccine mandates because we were dealing with a highly contagious disease, so your refusal to get yourself vaccinated (based on the available data at that time) endangers all of us. The freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else's nose.
Banning gay sex had absolutely nothing to do with any of that. First of all there is nothing about the fact that it's two men or two women which increases the spread of STI's, that's just bigotry plain and simple. But more importantly, you have to choose to have sex and you have to choose to do so unprotected. You can't catch an STI on line at the grocery store.
They are not the same.
If you really believe that political ideology is caused by what is on someone's tongue
I didn't say that, I was talking about a correlation as a very interesting and unexpected contributing factor. Unsurprisingly, you ignored the point and focused only on the part you could pull out of my example to make it sound as absurd as you could. You seem to have a penchant for doing that, so it's no wonder you constantly and consistently strawman everyone else.
Sometimes it's better to not treat scientists like a religion that can't be questioned no matter what. Sometimes common sense makes more sense.
Following facts, logic and evidence is not treating scientists likes religion. You really love strawmanning people.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's a lot more complicated than "is" and there is no indication that you or many others can handle "is".
It has nothing to do with being able to handle what is, it's about recognizing the absurdity of what is, to which you do not seem to.
A) You call the judges that ruled against Trump "insurrectionists". Whatever your position on the issue is, there is objectively a major split amongst judges and constitutional scholars on this issue. You are clearly not arguing in good faith when you say this, because you're not stupid enough to believe a complex legal ruling by a judge qualifies as an insurrection.
B) No, they won't convict him of anything. The evidence against him is overwhelming, that's why he is on trial. But clearly facts and the rule of law don't matter to you or you wouldn't be so willing to dismiss such an obvious case.
C) No, it's not the only possible response, just the one you would like to see. Republicans could, you know, accept the idea that those who broke the law should be investigated and prosecuted, not just when their name is Hunter Biden.
The things "is" this way is because people like you want it to be.
four [examples of dead voters] is still greater than one [report studying dead voters and concluding that it's statistically non existent].
You can't possibly believe this is clever to keep repeating.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
A) the insurrectionist so called judges will just order the election procedures rigged in other ways, you know like reading comprehension tests for blacks except somehow it just becomes very very hard for rural citizens to voteB) They'll convict Trump of anything they have to in DCC) The only possible response from the right-tribe will be to start convicting left-tribe candidates of insurrection in Texas, Florida, and West Virginia.
Do facts and logic factor anywhere in your analysis of how the system should work, or do you think convictions are nothing more than a tool for one political side to rule by force over the other?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
There is no communist party in the USThere is. Its just called the Democratic party.I mean, think about it, regulated economy, free healthcare, wealth redistribution?
Do you know what communism is?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
No one is litigating whether Trump supporters can voteRoosevelt's quote was:They are truly un-American and don’t deserve the right to vote.
This is a debate site, not a court of law.
I don't think the GOP has done this. Enough blacks and browns vote (and they vote very blue) to where the GOP isn't taking away huge numbers of people's right to vote. Like, you are black. I would assume you had an easy time voting (many blacks in all states had no problem voting).
Well I'm not black, first of all, that's really my picture in my avatar ; )
But more importantly, the fact that most blacks didn't have a problem voting is irrelevant to the issue. Voter suppression doesn't mean no one in a particular group can vote, it means that the laws will have a disproportionate impact, which was intended. If I pass a new voter ID law that says college ID's are invalid while hunting licenses are fine, we don't need a ferensic study to know that less college kids will vote while more hunters will, and we know which party that is going to help.
Advocates for these laws love to pretend that the way to examine them is by looking at how it impacts the individual, as if relatively rare cases shouldn't count in our analysis. That's flagrantly disingenuous, the relatively rare cases are the point. Many elections come down to less than 3% of the vote, so if your law results in stopping 3% of the opposition from voting that can swing the entire election.
But because of parties, it seems pretty much everyone either has less than 10 heads or more than 68 heads. A head= a left wing belief, a tail= right wing belief.This is because of the desire to fit into a political group and people are too afraid to come to their own conclusions.
No, it's not, at least not for many if not most.
Political positions are not a matter of randomness which we can evaluate via statistical probabilities, they are the result of how we see the world. Abortion, gay marriage & transgender rights for example are not random unconnected issues. If you believe in letting and supporting people living their lives how they see fit, you're going to be on the left on all of them. If your views are based deeply in religion, you're probably going to be on the right on all of them. Your statical application analysis suggests everyone should have at least one of these which they deviate from the norm if they're thinking for themselves, but that's just a fundamental misunderstanding about what these issues are about and how we come to them.
The fact is that our brains work a certain way which tends to shape our political views. Studies have been done on this, which is why I talk about right wingers and fear. There's a clear link there, in one study they actually traced it back to the level of disgust they felt when viewing certain images, which upon further study was traced back to the size of the papillae on their tongues.
Our views are not accident and they're not random. If you have a strong set of core beliefs, certain views will follow from them. Since core beliefs tend to be very simple, there really aren't that many different coherent sets of beliefs any individual can hold, so most people tend to fit into certain political groups. When someone doesn't, when their views are all over the place and they are constantly criticizing both sides, that suggests to me that their only real core value is "being different" as a way to make themselves feel like they are better than everyone else.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
As it stands now,you can be either in Communist partyeither in right wing party.
There is no communist party in the US
I am confused as to why people have to always go to extreme.
The problem is gerrymandering. There's pretty much no such thing as a swing district anymore, so the only way to get elected to office is to appease the extreme factions of your base.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is a contradictory statement; you basically said, "I am against taking Trump off the ballot, but I also believe that because of the constitution and something Trump did, Trump needs to be taken off the ballot".
When I said I am against taking him off the ballot I was expressing a sentiment, not a legal analysis. According to the constitution, I believe he is ineligible and therefore, any court ruling is forced to put the constitution above sentiment and rule accordingly. That's the entire point of having a constitutione and rule of law.
I think Trump supporters should be allowed to vote. Disagreeing with that is against the first amendment.
This conversation has nothing to do with the first amendment.
No one is litigating whether Trump supporters can vote, we're litigating who is allowed to be on the ballot. The constitution also says you cannot be president if you're under 35. No one in their right mind would argue our rights are being somehow deprived because Kylie Jenner can't run.
I understand Trump did Jan 6 and it was horrible and all of that, but I would rather give Trump a trial as to if he violated the constitution or not enough to be banned from running
Due process is likely to be where this gets hung up, after all who gets to decide whether he committed insurrection?
But the constitution doesn't provide that mechanism, so the apparent answer is that it's self executing, meaning it will be up to the justices. Again, if I want to run but I'm only 33 there will be no trial before the judges decide I'm ineligible. Same if I were a naturalized citizen. If the intent was for a trial to be the arbiter it would have been included, the same way it is included in any other law. If I commit a felony I lose my right to vote, the law specifically says "upon conviction" or something to that effect. It's a basic qualifier.
Moreover, even if we agreed on that idea that there has to be a trial, there isn't enough time remaining to properly conduct one. Primary voting starts in like 3 months. You might say tough luck to those who filed the lawsuit but that's not how constitutional eligibility works, you're either eligible or you're not. It's not "you're eligible unless your challengers file a lawsuit on time".
Define voter suppression.
Passing laws with the knowledge and intention that such laws will negatively effect a particular segment of the population's ability to vote more so than others as a means of assuring a favorable outcome.
The left only thinks there is voter suppression when a right winger gets power in a blue area or when right wingers in an area that seems to be turning from red to blue are worried they would lose power.
This is just silly. Again, voter suppression is tangible, measurable, and objective. You're just talking nonsense.
No; I see both sides and I'm not in an echo chamber. But you follow whatever left wing media tells you to believe even if it doesn't make sense.
The reason it doesn't make sense is because you strawman it and then falsely equivocate it with the right does. You also love to write off things I and others say as merely a product of "what we were told to believe" even as we sit here and go further detail than anything the media has provided. Such dismissal wreaks of projection, and your inability to properly represent the left demonstrates the bias I talked about before.
Because if you agree with the left wing media between 25% and 75% of the time, you are able to do that. Anything outside of that range, and you are a partisan hack.
Exactly - in your mind the question isn't what you think is right and allow your position on each issue to stand alone on its own merit, you believe there is a certain percentage of agreement with each side you need to hit in order to maintain your status as being above partisanship.
This is exactly the both sides bias I described.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, nothing in the Constitution says if you feel a guy is an insurrectionist...
Why do you bother responding when nothing you say is done in good faith?
Nothing I argued had anything to do with "feeling" like someone is an insurrectionist. This is why we have facts and why we use logic to connect them in order to reach a conclusion. Do you understand what anything I just said means?
then you can deny the public a chance to even write him in and vote for him.
Now that part is exactly what the constitution says. Do you believe in the constitution?
Trump has only seen gains in the polls the more legal action is taken against him
Because MAGA is a cult.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Nice way to expand voting rights; by not letting people that disagree with you on Trump vote.
I am against taking Trump off the ballot, but I also believe we need to follow the constitution, which clearly says Trump can't run.
So since you take issue with the ruling, what part do you disagree with? That Trump engaged in inserection, that the constitution bars him from running, or that we should follow the constitution?
The GOP tried to impeach Biden because they didn't like how he was running the country.
Actually, they're trying to impeach him because they believe it will make it seem like since both presidents were impeached they're the same. It's all about the election, just like Benghazi.
When the right loses, they say it's rigged. When the left loses, they claim it's voter suppression.
Voter suppression isn't debatable. The impacts of the laws republicans have pushed are tangible, measurable, and objective. Claims of election rigging are entirely made up.
And even setting that aside, there is a big difference between Person A won because they played dirty vs Person A didn't win.
You love to do the "both sides" thing. Has it ever occurred to you that in your need to feel above the Frey that you are every bit as biased towards equivocating as those you criticize?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What about Sarcasm? What if left wing bumper stickers said, "Let Mark Zuckerburg keep his hard earned money! God bless Big Tech (aka the free market)!". That's simple, and it's edgy/funny, which right wingers are good at making edgy jokes based on policy.
Not everyone is going to see the sarcasm, plus even once they do, the message is pointing to allowing billionaires to keep their money as a way to point out that the tax system is unfair. That's fine, but again, it doesn't compete with the emotions invoked by the idea of having to hand over your hard earned money to the evil greedy government.
And whatever your justification is for these fears, it's fine. You can have these fears. But both the left and the right have certain things they are afraid of (and fear is ok).
Strawman response. I never argued the politics of fear was exclusive to the right. I pointed out fear is central to right wing ideology which is not the case on the left.
And there is nothing wrong or moral about optimism, whether or not you are optimistic is your choice. But optimism isn't exclusively left wing.
Again, you're having a conversation with yourself.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Seems a bit long and convoluted, not sure the message would get through.
There's always talk about how left wing marketing sucks. I don't disagree that the left could do a better job but there are two things to recognize...
First is that most left wing views are based on far more nuance than their right wing alternatives. Take tax policy for example, any educated and honest individual recognizes that taxation is a necessary burden on any society that cares about maintaining it's functionality. But good luck putting that on a bumper sticker the next time we debate our budget. Compare that to "get your government hands off my hard earned money!". Right wing arguments are almost in every instance overly simplistic notions that appeal to our basic emotional instincts, so they're just easier to sell.
The second point is a bit of an extension of the first, which is that naturally, those advocating for left wing views cater to a very different audience. Right wing rhetoric centers almost entirely on fear; fear of the other, fear of the big bad government coming for your rights, etc. While left wing audiences care more about optimism. Unfortunately the former is much easier to sell and also much easier to bullshit your way through. It's just the way we're wired.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Oh, it absolutely is. It just doesn't apply to the people you think it does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You and I both know a DC jury would never acquit Trump supporters. You’re welcome to be delusional, but that’s just the fact in a 92-5 area.
Whether a jury is biased is irrelevant to the facts showing the defendant to be guilty. Trump supporters love to pretend there's no such thing as reality, it's all just my opinion vs yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
We sure love [finding someone to vilify so we don't have to face the reality that the facts and evidence tell the opposite story from what we want to believe]
Fixed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I take it you would support a federal inheritance tax?
Absolutely, I would tax the hell out of estates after about $10 million. It's insane that people who work for a living have to pay 20-25 percent of the income they worked for but people who literally did nothing can get millions handed down to them and pay nothing.
It also helps to ensure the meritocracy the political right loves to boast about.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
He claims Democrats did the same thing in the past without being able to give any specifics.
If republicans didn't have false equivalences they would have nothing.
It really is remarkable though when you think about it. How many times are we going to see republicans scream from the mountaintops about something they allege democrats did, only to do the very same thing but worse and then justify it on the basis that the democrats did it too?
It is just another demonstration of the obvious. If "but the Dems did it" qualifies to you as a valid reason to do something, then you never actually cared about the principal you espoused on in the first place. That's today's republican party, nothing they rave about can be taken seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Do you think it's a good idea in principle? In practice?
As far as I am aware, the proposal pertains only to estates. Currently there is a a write off referred to as the "stepped up basis". If I buy an empty lot for $100k and then sell it for $1 million, I have to pay a capital gains tax on that $900k profit. But if I die and my airs sell it for $1 million, they pay nothing. So my death essentially wipes out my tax liability.
I heard Biden talk about this while he was campaigning and I think that makes a lot of sense. If they're talking about doing it outside estates I'd have to look closer at it.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
Thoughts?
Electors presents a needlessly complicated aspect to elections and leaves room for all kinds of shananigans. Rank choice voting is by far the best solution, it just seems that the electorate is not sophisticated enough to handle it.
Honestly I find any talk about amending the constitution to make voting more fair to be a futile effort. People who hold political power are not going to vote themselves out of it, but that's what it would take in almost any case.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
People care about election officials preserving the integrity of elections to not count 21 percent of admittedly illegal votes.
This is so incredibly stupid. Once again, the law is not intended to stop grandads with Parkinsons from voting. Democracy means everyone gets a say. Laws like this are put in the books as a way of holding people accountable who commit actual wrongdoing, no prosecutor in their right mind would charge someone for this and no individual with two brain cells to rub together would actually believe our system of voting is flawed because of it.
As I've pointed out before, the guy who pushes an old lady out of the way from an oncoming bus and the guy who pushes an old lady into one... Both pushed an old lady. That doesn't mean they are the same. Learn to tell different things apart from each other.
Point me to the policy changes that will prevent this from happening again.
They're isn't one because this isn't a problem today needs fixing. If anything, the problem here is that it is illegal to help someone fill out a ballot who can't do it for themselves. I'm assuming that's the case anyway, otherwise even in technical grounds your claim is complete bullshit.
Not everything is about Trump
And for the third time, neither was my post. Learn to read.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
My concern is the manipulation of MSM where they claimed "NO ELECTION FRAUD"Illegal votes that were then counted were in fact: fraudulent votes
What IWR said. Me filling out my granddad's ballot because he has Parkinsons and can't write is not election fraud and certainly does not deserve airtime on CBS.
This is a deliberate undermining of the credibility of institutions
The undermining of our intuitions cones from propaganda like this and people like you buying right into it as you clearly have.
Not everything is about Trump.
Neither was my comment if you had actually bothered to read and think about what I said instead of skimming for trigger words you thought gave you permission to dismiss the message.
Trump was an example demonstrating the hypocrisy of those making these claims.
Hypocrisy of what? Read the damn comment and find out.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Guess this survey jives with the reason for the passionate denials. A guilty conscience is a terrible thing.
Do you enjoy being manipulated by right wing propaganda?
"21% of Likely U.S. voters who voted by absentee or mail-in ballot in the 2020 election say they filled out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member"
This is where the headline comes from. This is your one-in-five. So the argument is as follows:
P1: It is illegal to fill out someone else's ballot
P2: One in five mail in ballots were filled out by someone else
C: One in five cheated
All it takes is a person with an IQ above room temperature and 4 seconds of critical thought to recognize how stupid this argument is. First of all, if someone needs a mail in ballot, there is a relatively high chance it's because they're elderly or disabled, which means there is a good chance they would not be able to fill out their own ballot so of course they might ask a friend or family to do it for them. Illegal? Maybe. Cheating? No.
But here is the strongest point the article makes:
Furthermore, 17% of mail-in voters say that in the 2020 election, they cast a ballot in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident.
Again, illegal? Yes. Cheating? No. This would be cheating if they also filled out a ballot in another state, but that is fairly easy to catch and they do catch people doing it all the time.
It is also important to remember that 2020 saw some of the highest levels of displacement in our nation's history along with administrative delays all resulting from the pandemic. If you move and there's not enough time to get registered in your new state there is no reason you should not be allowed to vote. The point of democracy is that everyone gets a say. This is a problem with the system that needs to be corrected, not a reason to get rid of it.
But this is yet another game the political right loves to play; search for some technical violation in as many ballots as they can find and then pretend a technical violation = cheating.
What shows this argument to be not only ridiculous but also disingenuous is that everytime Trump gets indicted these same people often argue it was just a "process crime", the logic being that it was just a technical violation where no harm was done so there's no legitimate reason to prosecute him. Setting aside the absurdity of that portrayal of his actions, it's hilarious how when it concerns Trump it's fine, but when it concerns a fundamental constitutional right we need to get rid of it ASAP.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just adding it to the neverending list of "things that are unique to Trump only"
Another strawman used as an excuse to maintain a position you can't defend.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Tempted as I am to swap stories and lessons learned about how we each touch our penis's, I think I'll pass.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Also noted: As usual, you ignore 90% of everything I said to cherry pick one single sentence and can't even be bothered to type actual words.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you under the impression that a single thing about this video has anything to with what I just explained?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, Trump literally called fascists "vermin"Your fake outrage over context needs to be channeled toward MSM that removed all context from that word in a sentence.
Again, context matters. Not just the context you find convenient, which BTW was crafted by Trump just so that people like you could parrot his nonsense which is exactly what you're doing here.
First of all, there is only one fascist movement in the United States, and Trump is leading it. This is part of Trump's game: accuse the other side of doing everything you're actually trying to do, that way people get confused and disillusioned with politics causing them to throw their hands up and walk away, thereby paving the way for you to accomplish the very thing you pretend to be fighting against. This is a tired old tactic that fascists have been using for centuries.
Second, if you take the entire picture into account, Trump is clearly talking about the people he views as his political advasaries, which is clearly the democrats. This is the other game Trump plays which you eat up; brand your political advasaries as evil and launch vauge attacks against them on that basis. Then, when they take issue with your attacks it becomes a silly little game of 'heads I win tails you lose',
- they either respond by arguing that they are not what you allege, thereby putting themselves on the defense (which is always politically toxic) against your meritless attacks
- Or they attack you for what you were obviously doing, at which point you get to pretend their objections are really admissions that your branding of them is accurate
It never ceases to amaze me how perfectly you carry water for such an obvious conman. The democrats are not Marxists, communists, or fascists, but that's what Trump has been calling them for years. So when he attacks Marxists, communists and fascists, he is in fact talking about the democrats regardless of how stupid of a label that is to apply to them. Everyone in the crowd knew this, please stop pretending you didn't.
I don't watch Fox. Don't care about their well-funded narrative artwork
The people you keep posting as support for your claims are making all of the same fallacious arguments as Fox news. Doesn't matter whether you watch them, you are in fact getting much of your wory view from them or at the very least from the same people they are.
I care about what that girl said in her clip, like most other sane Americans. The one you hand-waved away as nonsense.
I didn't waive away her concerns, you continue to lie because you know you have no leg to stand on.
I waived away the conclusion you say you reached from her video that you wouldn't bother to share, but insinuate that it is Biden's fault Chipotle is expensive. We've beaten that argument to death. You will continue to pretend that Biden and Biden alone is responsible for all of our inflation for passing a bill which wasn't paid for even though we've been doing it repeatedly for decades, and you make that case while disregarding the real world circumstances of his decisions as if he is solely responsible for the state of the economy he inherited.
Our discussion here will continue to go no where because all you do is throw stones while offering absolutely nothing as an alternative.
logical questions need to be addressed
Responded to this in detail and you have been engaging in that particular conversation ever since. I don't know why you keep repeating this post as if we aren't way down that road already.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, because anyone, not just Trump, using the word Vermin is the most evil person you can imagine. That's totally sane and not nonsense. And if it's exclusive to only Trump out of 8 billion people, that's also sane and not nonsense.
In my last post I laid out in detail Trump's history including many of the things he has done, the context in which the word vermin was used and how the context of the entire situation is what made it relevant to our current state of politics. Your response is to continue as if I didn't say any of the things I said, that Trump didn't do any of the things he did, pretend we're still talking about the usage of a single word in isolation, and insinuate that because of your made up scenario, it's me who can't see straight.
Trump derangement syndrome means exactly what you think it does, it does not apply to the people you think it does.
Here's a basic lesson in communication and critical thinking. When someone says or does something, as thinking agents we do two things; first we assess it, then we note it for future assessment. When it comes to assessing someone's words or actions the way we do that is by looking at previous examples of things they have said and done, and then putting all together to paint a clear picture of what the latest example means.
So when Joe Biden falls off a bike, or repeatedly falls as he walks up the stairs, in isolation these instances mean absolutely nothing. However when combined with your typical Fox news supercut of every gaffe he's ever made, a picture can be painted that these instances are part of a bigger problem. An example of how this works is to take a look at how much time has been spent on right wing media airing Biden's falls, while of course completely ignoring when Tommy Tuberville took a tumble about a week or so ago. You see, he doesn't come with the same cognitive baggage built over previous examples, so with him the same exact thing is not an issue.
So now that I've taught you the very basics of how assessing people works, would you like to reply to my previous post while taking your newfound wisdom into account?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The data I posted included the Iraq war. I don't feel the need to entertain your paranoid projections about partisanship since you know I am not a Republican.
The video you posted in support of your claims is entirely partisan, and you have nothing to offer this website except right wing criticisms of the left. It isn't paranoia, it's an observation, and quite an obvious one at that.
All she did was complain that her Chipotle bowl was expensive. No shit. So what? What exactly is that proving?It's this kind of dismissive hand-waving in the spirit of Marie Antoinette that will be the tragedy of the Democrat party.
Dismissive hand waiving? You called the video persuasive, didn't bother to explain what it was persuasive of, then when challenged to explain your comment accuse me of dismissiveness. That's absurd.
Do you have an answer to my question or not? Please stop with the silly little postering, this is a debate website not a political campaign.
This is a great example of the media not asking relevant questions anymore that the public demands from a free press.
This is an example of the Trump effect; where politicians have learned that instead of addressing questions which are absolutely relevant they can instead just attack the media and people like you will cheer them on. I remember a time when answering questions was expected.
In Trump we have an individual who has already tried to overturn an election to stay in power, incited a violent riot against the US Capitol, refused to lift a finger to stop the riot for 3 hours while watching the entire thing on TV, promised to be his supporters "retribution", mused openly about jailing his political opponents, fawns over every dictator on the planet while attacking every Democraticly elected leader, and said out loud in front of an entire crowd that he planned to "be a dictator on day one".
And when this very man now running again for president stands up in front of a crowd and uses the word "vermin" to describe his political opposition, the exact same language used by Hitler and Mussolini for clear and obvious reasons, it is relevant to the decision we will soon have in front of us whether this kind of language is acceptable and how we should view the use of this language given the context of our political climate.
But what does Ramaswamy do? Pretend that it's just a word and therefore not relevant to anything. As if the words a politician speaks just don't matter. As if the ideas politicians communicate to us is done by some other means without using words.
It's just plain stupid, and it's incredibly scary to think so many out there really are buying this nonsense.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's fine. You can explain your own reasons for why Biden is losing in every swing state according to the CNN poll, making it impossible to win.
Because of people like you listening to people like this. It's not hard.
Personally, his opening 14 second clip with the girl in it was pretty persuasive.
Persuasive of what? Are you serious?
All she did was complain that her Chipotle bowl was expensive. No shit. So what? What exactly is that proving?
You of course neglected to mention the part where the government prints money to fund the payments to the military industrial complex. That makes what Pool says less insane.
No, it doesn't. The government prints money when it spends more than it takes in. It doesn't matter where the spending goes, which is why it's so silly and dishonest to single out one peice of one category of the budget and pretend that one peice is somehow impacting inflation more than the rest of it.
the actual costs of Obama's wars plus Biden's wars is pretty high if you add it all up.
Can you, without showing yourself to be a complete partisan hack, explain what Obama's wars and Biden's wars mean and why neither Trump nor Bush is included in your overview?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you deny a cult of personality exists around Biden?
Absolutely
I'd like to see that argument.
Not my burden. You are the one asserting it, so make your case. I would absolutely argue MAGA is a cult because it is and therefore I can show how.
But again, your claim so you first.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why do you keep posting this guy? Do you seriously get your information from him?
I watched about half this video before deciding it was too stupid to continue. He actually sat there explaining that the reason why inflation is so high is because of Obama and Biden's military spending which is why we should all vote for Trump, cause according to him, everyone else wants war while Trump wants peace.
He of course neglected to mention that Trump blew up the military budget even higher than the Pentagon asked for, this after Obama dramatically decreased military spending.
It's just a flat out lie, and is that much more remarkable given the fact that he's acknowledging that inflation is caused by printing money which is caused by ruining federal deficits and acknowledging that Trump blew up our deficits as well, yet still pretends Trump is the anti inflation president.
The dishonesty and stupidity of this show is breathtaking, why do you listen to him?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So funny the Biden cult…
"I know you are but what am I?" worked in third grade.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
And you still haven't learned what China, Japan, and India did to stop inflation, apparently.
Already addressed your comments on this. Learn how to read.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
2 dollar gasoline doesn't care about skin color. Neither will the votes against Biden care about the skin color. womp womp.2/5 for racebaiting though.
It was a nod to the stupidity of your post 63.
But once again you ignore the substance of everything I said in order to cherry pick the one thing you thought you could take a shot at. Why do you bother?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There was a clear difference in monetary policy between the countries that had 8% inflation in 2021 and the policies of countries that experienced 3%
It's not nearly as clear as you make it sound. The countries who decided to pass stimulus measures were almost entirely wealthier nation's who had very high rates of imports vs experts, so the level to which fiscal policy itself was responsible is much more difficult to assess because it was all intertwined. The federal reserve estimates the stimulus impacts as being responsible for 2.5% of our inflation, and that's all three of them. Hardly the narrative you're desperately trying to craft.
Again, the claim is not that the stimulus payments did nothing, it's that with "Biden's" stimulus payments in particular, you're talking about a piece of a piece of the story, yet you pretend that's the entire story. It's the dishonesty that is noteworthy here.
Let's look at the charts. When Biden passed his 3rd round, inflation was climbing slowly. So Biden KNEW there was an inflation problem, yet spent the money anyway. The result was an immediate spike to 8% inflation over the following months.
Again, you tell half the story and ignore the half that is inconvenient to you.
Biden took office just as the vaccines came out correlating precisely with a sharp drop in cases and by extension a reopening of many businesses that were shut down or severely impacted by people staying home. It ALL happened in the recovery phase of the pandemic and it all contributed to inflation, not just the one piece of a piece that you want to focus on.
Was Trump bad? Yeah. Was Biden a lot worse? Absolutely.
Out of those two choices, remind me again which one had the federal reserve change it's entire printing system in order to put his signature on the checks so he could take full credit, and thereby delaying payment to millions of Americans as a result?
You can have a legitimate disagreement with the third stimulus, you cannot pretend Trump would not have eagerly done the exact same thing.
Inevitable? Wow. And this is why people dream to make America great again, when the government didn't spike prices up by printing money as a fix for a supply/demand market correction.
Pretty sure the America you and all your white friends remember is not one that was recovering from a once in a century pandemic.
Again, only half the story matters to you, because criticizing Biden is the only point here.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not going to sit here and debate with you what "global" meansThen why claim it?
Because it's common sense so I figured we could have a real conversation about it, but as usual, you will challenge even the simplest things to prevent having to address being wrong.
Again, of you actually go back and read my post, this had nothing to do with any of the substantive points I made. I talked about how the decision to inject more money into the economy was not an isolated decision, so criticizing it is such is brazenly dishonest. Had Biden not done that the recession would have only been prolonged, which would have resulted in the need to print more money anyway so the inflationary impact of that decision (however impactful it was) was inevitable regardless of what he did.
I also talked about how even if I grant you that US government spending was in fact the catalyst, that all you guys want to point to is the third stimulus payment and not the first two, which is again, brazenly dishonest. You also disregard the fact that the prior administration blew up the deficit worse that any administration before them, so putting this all on Biden is just plain stupid.
But yeah, let's sit here and debate what global means.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nope, seems like you are cherry-picking USA and EU inflation rates and then claiming it's a "global" problem...
This is just stupid. I'm not going to sit here and debate with you what "global" means. The following 3 paragraphs contained the substance of my post, so not surprisingly you ignored them and only responded to the one part you think you got me on. Another demonstration of how unserious you are to talk to.
Created:
Curious to know what podcasts you guys listen to and if anyone has any good recommendations for a podcast that typically has people of opposing views discuss their differences. I've come across a lot of good conversations discussing religion, but rarely see good discussions about politics. It's one of the reasons I like to watch Bill Maher, he's one of the few that welcome opposing viewpoints and isn't afraid to challenge people. Was also a fan of Chris Cuomo interviews. Podcasts tend to be better for general discission, just haven't came across very many.
So any recommendations? Feel free to drop some links.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you not realize that inflation was a global problem,It wasn't.
Yes, it was.
The fact that you can cherry pick a list of countries that weren't as badly affected does not mean it wasn't a global issue.
I think he was saying it was unnecessary, and exacerbated and prolonged the inflation.I am sure you will have to agree with that.
Whether it was necessary is entirely subjective. What is undeniable is that our economy was still not nearly recovered, so if he didn't that would have prolonged the recession further, which you guys would then be criticizing him for.
It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. Just like how you and ILP5 are hitting him here for not doing enough to stop companies from setting their own prices, meanwhile if he did more you guys would be screaming from the mountaintops that he's destroying the country with big government socialism. These aren't serious critiques, it's a game where you find any excuse to trash him.
Regarding the inflation, I don't deny that the stimulus payments contributed, but first off its miniscule compared to the impact of the supply chain disruptions, second it's absurd to suggest only the third one contributed and not the first two. And if you are really hanging your hat on this idea that inflation is entirely about government injecting money we don't have into the economy, then you have to blame Trump even moreso since he blew up the deficit more than any president before him. Inflation hit us hard before any of Biden's policies had any chance to have a meaningful impact, ignoring that and blaming Biden regardless is flagrant partisan hackery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
What would you consider to be proof?How does proof and evidence coincide if evidence is a part of the play?
Again, proof is the totality of what is needed for one to accept a proposition. Evidence is any part that leads in that direction.
Let's go back to my example. 2am text messages is evidence of infedelity, but not proof. It's evidence because the simplest explanation for it (applying Occam's razor in isolation) is infedelity, but there are still plausible alternative explanations so I don't consider it strong enough to convince any reasonable person.
If however we add; a dick pick found in her photos, a credit card bill from a fancy restaurant (on a night she said she was working late), and a co-worker spilling the beans saying that the two have been up to something... Then while each of these would be insufficient alone to convince a reasonable person, combined it defies credulity to think it's all just a misunderstanding. So each peice alone is evidence, combined it's proof.
What are your standards for evidence for any conversation?
Occam's razor. If the simplest explanation is X, then whatever it is that requires an explanation is evidence for X.
What are your standards for the God conversation?
Same. The central problem with trying to prove a god is that things that don't exist cannot be asserted as the cause for something else, so in order for something to be a candidate explanation it has to first be shown to exist.
God arguments work in reverse of this. Take the complexity of the human body for example; god proponents argue that God is the best explanation for it, thereby claiming it evidence for his existence. But this is fallacious. His existence would need to have been proven already in order for him to be invoked as a candidate, you can't prove he exists by assuming it.
I find that every argument for a god suffers from this fundamental problem, but this is the issue with trying to prove the existence of something that is definitionally beyond our reach. It's a contradiction at the outset, so any argument built on it is doomed from the start.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Under Biden is when inflation skyrocketed — primarily due to the third stimulus bill that wasn’t needed, and other insane spending Democrats did with their trifecta.
Do you not realize that inflation was a global problem, or are you really suggesting that Biden's spending in the US caused it globally?
But setting that aside, I find it quite amusing how we passed 3 rounds of stimulus, 2 under Trump and 1 under Biden, and yet you've managed to convince yourself that the one under Biden is what caused the inflation while the 2 under Trump had nothing to do with it.
It says there has to be collusion. Two companies raising prices because they can isn't illegal. Even if those raises are price gouging.“Price fixing is an agreement (written, verbal, or inferred from conduct)”
So if a political candidate's campaign chairman gave polling data to a foreign government operative while that foreign government was actively working to get that candidate elected, would you consider that this conduct infers collusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
Hey Rough Rider.
Nice guess, that's where it came from.
There does not appear to be a concensus on what counts as evidence as well.Some want to be like Thomas (touch the wounds) but others look at logic (reasoning existence).
Technically, since evidence is generally defined as "that which can make a person believe a given proposition", anything can count as evidence as long as the person believes. So the question isn't about whether something "is" evidence but rather what is our standard for what qualifies as evidence.
If you're not following the basic principals of logic on that then as far as I'm concerned your conception of the word evidence is entirely meaningless.
My standard of evidence is that in order for something to qualify it must be logically valid. For example: Suppose the claim is that my spouse is cheating on me. If I pull up my phone bill and I see multiple text messages between her and a co-worker, that's not evidence because co-workers sometimes need to communicate so there are other explanations for it that are just as plausible. However, if those text messages are being exchanged at 2am, that's different because at that point a working relationship is clearly a less plausible explanation.
This isn't to confuse evidence with proof. I define proof as that which results in belief, so to me proof is the entire case (or as much of it as is needed) whereas evidence is just a peice of what is needed. Evidence just leads you in that direction, doesn't necessarily get you to the finish line.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you agree with my OP. Fill the jails. That's how you save democracy.
Jailing people who violate the law and doing so proportionally to the seriousness of their crimes is an obvious peice of how we protect a democracy. This however, has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said here.
As usual, you spout a bunch of nonsense, post a nonsense video to "support" it and then when challenged, change the subject.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Anything can be defined as an attempted overthrow of the government in the eyes of an elected official.
Correct, anything can be defined that way. This is why in this country we value (or at least we used to) the idea of applying critical thinking to situations like this so that we can tell different things apart from each other.
You're the type of person who would watch a man push an old lady into oncoming traffic and watch another man push an old lady out of the way of oncoming traffic and conclude that they're both the same, because they both push old ladies.
The way we tell whether either is an attempt to overthrow the government is by looking into the circumstances, their motivations, and supporting evidence. We don't just define it and pretend it's one person's word vs another's.
This is third grade level stuff.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Painstakingly watched both of these videos. You know what was remarkably absent from both of them?
EVIDENCE. As in facts, logic, the connecting of the dots to explain why any reasonable person should share their conclusion that this is political corruption as opposed to a proper application of the law.
I've noticed you frequently post videos like this as support for your claims. Why? Do you actually listen to these people? Is this where are you getting your information from? Cause if so, that makes a lot of sense.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It never ceases to amaze me how Biden is both the evil mastermind behind the plot to throw all of his political enemies in jail, and also doesn't know what day it is.
Created: