Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
But Merry Christmas to you as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Why anyone would reject this free gift is remarkable. And yet, the irrationality of refusing such a gift seems to be one of the banes of this world.
Not everyone has the ability to convince themselves that something is true without evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Nope.My argument is that a girl who involves herself in sex, has agreed to the possibility of getting pregnant. Therefore, it is still her body/her choice, because she can choose whether to have sex or not.
All you did was restate your position without any regard to the problems I just pointed out.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Again, science is a method. It doesn't make mistakes because it doesn't think or make decisions, the people practicing it do.
If your point from the start was that both are run by people, you could have started off with that. Not much room to disagree there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
If there is a point you wish to make feel free to make it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Much of the evidence for the first is public informationIf it IS public information, then why didn't you link to it?
Because I'm tired of playing this little game with you where I provide a link and you ignore the content and instead attack the source, even though the content is not even being disputed and I could have linked you to a dozen other sources saying the same thing.
If you actually care about discussing this issue, feel free to participate. If all you want to do instead is play these little cognitive games where you ask me to do all the work and then pretend my refusal substantiates your position, play out with someone else.
Thus far all I've seen are baseless allegations from you. I am willing to look at whatever CREDIBLE evidence, meaning primary source material, you can supplant. Until then, I feel ai shouldn't respond to your questions.
Again, the things I listed are public statements that Trump made in front of crowds, at rallies on video that you can easily pull up if you wanted to see them. No one, not Trump, not his campaign, not his pundits, no one is disputing that he said them, so I'm not playing this game with you.
I don't see how the fact Trump may not have even said it is irrelevant. Why should I waste my time on that?
Because once again, I'm not asking you about his quote, I'm asking you about your own insinuation that you made in response to it. My question is essentially do you believe what you type? For you to pretend that that is some kind of trick question says a lot about your position.
Organizing a fake electors plot is certainly illegalA what? What even IS a fake electors plot?
That's where you organize a bunch of people in states Trump lost to file forged documents pretending to be official state documents. That's illegal.
Are you insinuating that Trump rigged the electoral college and still managed to LOSE the election? For real?
No, not for real.
I'm insinuating that he tried to steal the election and failed. Same thing everyone has been saying for 2 years.
This is a link to a letter from Jim Jordan and James Comer demanding documents from the FBI.Well, let's put our thinking caps on here... if they are asking for documents... then THE DOCUMENTS EXIST.
So if I demand the documents on the alien reptile people who replaced everyone in our government, I suppose those must exist as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
This doesn't correlate at all to my example.This is in fact a red herring.
It correlates exactly. Your argument is that a girl who gets pregnant has agreed to the "possibility" of getting pregnant, therefore she is no longer entitled to the right to her own body so long as it interferes with the rights of the fetus.
That's the exact same point I used to draw my conclusion. If someone gets into a car accident, well they too are guilty of agreeing to the possibility that put them in the situation they were in now needing medical attention, and because of that they don't have the right to trample over someone else.
Same exact argument.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Scientists can hold dogmatic beliefs, and many do. The difference is that the moment one engages in dogmatism, they are by definition, no longer practicing science.Yeah, it's like when a christian says that if a believer is a sinner then he's not a true christian.
You're focusing on the flaws within people, and then arguing that because you can find flawed people in any area of life, that these areas are the same. That's not how it works.
Dogmatism is definitionally contradictory to science, yet it is required by religion. They're not remotely the same.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
So, do you think there is no dogmatism in science?
Scientists can hold dogmatic beliefs, and many do. The difference is that the moment one engages in dogmatism, they are by definition, no longer practicing science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
I believe nobody has been able to verify the quote. Which is why I said it was "alleged."
The accuracy of the quote is irrelevant to the question I asked you.
Trump was quoted as saying that he wanted to fire "rogue government employees" who are "undermining democracy". You responded by asking what's wrong with that. The very clear implication of your question is that we should be taking Trump at his word that his real interest is to for these people in order to protect our democracy.
My question was: Do you actually believe that? Do you really believe this man's concern here is that he wants to preserve the right of the American people to choose their own elected leaders? That if the people decide on Joe Biden, that Trump will fight for their right to do so even if that means booting him out of office?
I have been asking, for more than a week now, for the actual transcripts or videos where he says the stuff you claim he says.
No one in politics is disputing any of the things he said, because he said almost all of them publicly in front of crowds of people and each of these has been reported on extensively.
If you haven't seen them it's because you don't want them, in which case I have no interest in doing your work for you. Google "Trump threat execute general" and you will be bombarded with dozens upon dozens upon dozens of articles and videos showing him saying exactly what I said he said. Same thing with the vermin comments. Same thing with all of them.
I have a hard enough time believing you haven't heard of this by now (although I suppose those right wing echochambers do a good job of sheilding it's viewers), but to argue you can't find it is not a claim to be taken seriously.
He tried to steal the electoral vote and that failed, he refused to let Biden's transition team in to prepare to take over, and he left Washington before the inauguration because his attempt to stay in power failed. He didn't transfer it over, we took it back.What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Much of the evidence for the first is public information, Jack Smith has the rest so we'll all be updated on that in March.
The second is again, pubic knowledge. You can Google that if you actually wanted the information, somehow I suspect you couldn't care less.
The third is really just common sense but that presumes you accept basic undisputed public knowledge which you tend not to do.
All he did was file lawsuits and make phone calls. Nothing more. Nothing less. The same thing Bush and Hillary did. There's nothing illegal about sticking up for your rights
Organizing a fake electors plot is certainly illegal.
The rest is not illegal. Trump doesn't have to concede and impress upon his voters to accept the will of the people. He doesn't have to respect the process, he doesn't have to let the next administration prepare so they can be able to do their jobs on day 1, he doesn't have to attend the inauguration in a show of solidarity and respect for the constitution and the American experiment. There is a reason however that literally every single president before him did so. That's what presidents who value democracy do, which was my point.
The part about the FBI covering up his son's activities is complete bullshit.You keep telling yourself that...
This is a link to a letter from Jim Jordan and James Comer demanding documents from the FBI. Not a single thing about this confirms anything you just claimed.
as if Trump hasn't obviously committed serious crimes.Thank you for clearing that up. I guess we don't need a legal system since we have your armchair opinion.
This isn't a court of law, it's a debate site. You know that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If an individual is scared of the possibility of getting pregnant, then they shouldn’t involve themselves in sexual relations, because no matter how much protection you give yourself, having sexual relations is by definition is consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. Just as you would get into your car, but you don’t want to crash, when you enter that car, you are consenting to the possibility of getting into a wreck.
Then when a doctor has to choose between treating a patient who walks in with the flu vs a patient who arrives in a stretcher in critical condition resulting from a car accident, the doctor should ignore the critical patient. After all, it was their choice to get in that car, so why should the flu patient have to pay for that choice?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ah, more rules for thee but not for me...
Could you please point to the part of my post that remotely resembles this?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Good, we can now have voter ID since fraud exists and it is no longer a left-wing conspiracy.
lol. Republicans pass voter ID legislation as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, so to fix that they go out and commit voter fraud to justify it. Yeah, sounds about right.
If we're actually being serious there are over 300 million people in this country, no one is claiming there isn't a single case anywhere of voter fraud. That's obvious to any serious person. The claim is that it's nothing more than a handful of isolated instances that have no real chance of changing the results anywhere and therefore does not justify passing legislation that we know will disinfranchise millions of people who...
in a completely unrelated development that I'm sure know one advocating for this legislation is aware of...
happen to mostly be younger voters and people of color who tend to vote for democrats. Gee, I wonder why republicans care so much about this [non]issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Exactly. Not a real threat.
Trump himself is not the issue, it's the people following him.
I've made this point repeatedly and you repeatedly ignore it, as you will yet again.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I'm sure we can find plenty of anecdotal examples of this, but anyone who actually believes in science understands that in science there is no figurehead. The only one's who achieve the status where they can legitimately think of themselves as an authority are after they have proven their abilities through demonstrated results, and even then their authority status is contingent on their ability to continue demonstrating said results.
Religion doesn't have anything like this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
First I didn't say he did exist and not exist, I said he could, as in it's within his capabilities.Yes? Your point with this statement, if you could elaborate?
My point was to clarify what your position amounts to.
Second, existence isn't limited to the natural world.Prove it without accidentally proving the existence of God.
It's a definition, there's nothing to prove. Moreover, you believe God exists and that God is not part of the natural world so it's a definition you clearly agree with, so why are you asking me to prove it?
You say he can't exist within the natural world because he's infinite and the natural world is finite. In other words, he can't exist in the natural world because that would be a logical contradiction.Imagine you create a jar. You can't fit inside the jar, but you can affect what's inside it.
Yes, and logic still applies inside the jar and outside of it, and I didn't create that.
Also, what is the contradiction?
The contradiction is that you're claiming God is both subject to logic and not subject to logic.
You're arguing he is it's author and seem to have no response when I explain that your position amounts to him being capable of existing and not existing at the same time, but then you argue he cannot exist within the natural world because he's infinite and the natural world is finite.
The reason that last sentence qualifies as a reason is because it's a logical contradiction for something infinite to exist within a finite space. So in the former example you're arguing he is not subject to logic and in the latter example you're arguing that he is. You need to pick one before we can continue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Define, "have being."
To exist in a tangible form.
You can conceptually have logic without God, you cannot conceptually have God without logic.IFF the argument is that God isn't the origin and source of all existence, and thereby the origin and source of logic.
It doesn't matter what the argument is. Making a different argument doesn't change the point I just made.
Again, God cannot be the origin of existence because in order for him to bring existence about he would have had to first... exist.
The only way to counter that point is to argue that God could have brought existence about without existing... Which disqualifies your argument on its face from any rational consideration.
An essence which has no description without you. We created the nomenclature "two." We created and standardized a consistent logic to determine that which we see is "two." Without us, it's nothing.
You're still talking about words. Two rocks in one corner and two rocks in another corner still equals 4 rocks regardless of whether they're are any humans around to count them.
Long before life existed on earth there were two rocks on some hill and two rocks on another, those rocks still totaled 4 even if there were no humans around to recognize it.There's no way you can confirm this in a manner that controls for our existence independently.
This sounds very much like the "were you there?" response. Seriously?
Why are you affirming a silly proposition such as that which has no mass, volume, weight, or density can be "observed"?
Red had no mass, weight, or volume. Are you suggesting red cannot be observed?
"Controlled" doesn't necessarily carry an "emotional connotation" since it requires no agent. And the consequence is identical, which is the reason the description of the term includes both "someone" and "something." Aren't you employing a "silly" semantic tactic?
No, I'm describing one.
Connotations are real things that influence how people will absorb a point being made. Every dishonest actor; politicians, used car salesmen, etc. understand this full well and master the art of using them to achieve their goals. Take my point or leave it, not interested in debating that part any further.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
In the case of the evolution theory, I've always said that it has flaws, then it needs to be observed. The problem is that scientists get really stubborn about it because they think the creationism theory necessarily indicates that there is a God behind the creation.
Most scientists get stubborn about evolutionary theory because the people who challenge it in favor of creationism tend to have no idea what they're talking about. It's not the same thing as devotion to one's faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think it's very short sighted to refuse to entertain this as a real possibility that Trump is indeed, incompetent.
Do you seriously think Trump being incompetent means he can't also be maliciously negligent? Do you not understand that these aren't mutually exclusive things?
Your theory of Trump, the mastermind fascist magically getting superpowers in 2024 that he never had in 2016 is a real head-scratcher.
You're inability to understand really basic arguments is the head scratcher here. I've already explained how 2016 is different today 2024, and it has nothing to do with superpowers. Learn to read.
I think Trump is going to do what he did in 2016
Right, cause I'm sure those 2 impeachments, 4 indictments, and him as a clinical narcissist losing the election will have no impact on his approach to governing, just as it didn't with Putin and Hitler.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
On the other hand, we have the atheists who are not that different totheir counterparts the religious people. Their God is the human science, theirbible is the scientific books/papers and their saints are the scientists. Iunderstand that science has methods and procedures scientists have to stick to,but I am referring to the attitude most of the scientists hold with controversialsubjects like this one, regarding it with disdain as if they were the owners ofthe truth.
This is like comparing two different types of jurors: the juror who vehemently combs through the evidence and connects the dots before reaching a conclusion, and the juror who says "I get a bad feeling about that guy, he's obviously guilty".
Science and religion are not opposing methods for understanding what is true about the world. Science is a method, religion is the absence of one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I take it you agreed with my other statements then
No, I just didn't have the time to sit here and address every single thing you said over the past few days. If there's something you'd like to hear my response to feel free to ask again.
Also, still waiting on your expanded fascist list so we can collect all the checkboxes unique to Trump "the competent."
Here's a nice little package to start with
but there is absolutely no way you are stupid enough to believe this.So it takes an educated person to declare Trump a competent person, another weird take, but OK.
Again, this is what makes me think you aren't being serious at all. You just make shit up, and then repeat it no matter how many times I explain how your statement has nothing to do with anything I've said.
What I said you could not possibly be stupid enough to believe (it's only 2 posts up) is that Trump's decision to do nothing while the US Capitol was under attack is not incompetence. Do you understand this? Do you know what competence means? Do you understand the difference between someone who does not have the ability to properly do a job vs someone who doesn't care?
I think you do, which begs the question; why then would you say something so ignorant? It seems to me that you would rather keep going with a terrible argument than to just recognize you were wrong there and adjust.
And as far as this whole competence thing, I've explained this repeatedly as well. You seem stuck on this idea that Trump is incompetent, therefore there's no way he'll accomplish what I am suggesting. Yet you disregard that the hardest part of what I argue he's trying to do has already been accomplished.
He's already divided the country beyond hope. He's already amassed a cult following willing to rewrite their own understanding of what the constitution and rule of law in this country should look like. He's already convinced them that every attempt to hold him accountable for his own actions is actually a conspiracy against him and by extension, a conspiracy against them. This is what fascism seeks to accomplish because once that's done, it's no longer the US vs Trump, it's now the US vs Trump's following.
And his following is already at it. It's not him screening Trump loyalists for government jobs, that's the heritage foundation. It's not him who will be finding ways to pretend these agencies are in line with the constitution as they steamroll over it, those will be the people they pick. And again, who's going to stop them? Congressional republicans? Is Trump really going to get into office and say 'thanks, but this time around I think I'll go with establishment figures to run my government'? No seriously, is that what you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The fact that he spent the next three hours watching it on TV doing absolutely nothing and wondering why the rest of the people around him were not excited about it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that this was intentional.Ridiculous assertion. Occam's Razor suggests it's most likely incompetence.
I really try to be cordial here, but there is absolutely no way you are stupid enough to believe this.
Someone sitting around for 3 hours doing nothing about an ongoing atrocity that it was directly his job to stop is not incompetence. If you actually think that you don't speak English.
People who use inflammatory words are not necessarily Fascists. Just because you check one out of 100 boxes does not make you a Fascist. It's weird to see you harp on this one checkbox.
It's weird how you keep responding to arguments no one in this thread is making. Some people apparently love having whole conversations with themselves.
Again... No one is claiming Trump is a fascist because he used an inflammatory word. Fascism includes an array of tactics used to manipulate the populace into setting aside their convictions for a representative government. Language that dehumanizes your opponents is just one of those tactics. I focus on it not because this one checkbox makes or breaks the assertion, but because it's such a simple one for any reasonable person to agree with. Yet here we are.
Same with you. I thought Trump was an idiot, and now all of a sudden he is a magical competent person? Weird take, but ok
Again, there is no way you are being serious here. I've already explained to you numerous times that this has nothing to do with Trump's competence. Are you even trying to pay attention, or is this just an attempt to troll?
So the Democrats usurped power from Trump, as in an insurrection? Weird take but ok.
No genius, not the democrats, the people. We, the people, took power back because that's who it belongs to in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
They are objectively political prisoners, is he wrong?
Yes. They are being prosecuted for committing crimes, objectively.
He has only called for the release of those who did nothing wrong, who were the majority
Of course he is. Notice how he doesn't provide any examples, where he would actually be forced to talk about the facts and the law and apply it to the individual circumstances. That's what someone who actually believes what they are saying would do.
Trump isn't calling for the release of anyone because he thinks they're being wronged, he's playing into this fact free narrative he's been concocting where the political left is at war with MAGA and is conspiring to use political power to persecute them. It's complete bullshit, but when your audience relies on vague generalizations that feel good while ignoring logic this is what works politically
He has (correctly) noted how harsh the sentences are some for some of these prisoners as well as the fact that some are being locked up without a charge.
Being locked up without charge... You mean the same issue democrats have been talking about for decades now? Glad to see you are now an advocate for bail reform.
Few cops were actually attacked at the US Capitol
140 Capitol police officers were injured including one who lost a finger and one who lost an eye.
and again those who actually entered the building and committed the acts of "violence" by which there were barely any, were the very small minority that attended the rally.
So you mean it was mostly peaceful?
Don't act like the left doesn't support cops when it helps them either. All of a sudden they love the capitol police.
The left does not campaign on backing the blue.
Because it didn't come across as that. You are reading way too much into my good friend.I am sorry you dont get trump humor. Not my fault
It never ceases to amaze me, and I've seen this quite a few times in this thread, how that everytime Trump is called out for saying something terrible you guys ask for specific quotes, and without him explicitly and literally saying what we took out of it then he didn't say it. But yet, everytime he says something explicit and literal you guys all of a sudden recognize that he speaks in a certain kind of code that has to be deciphered.
Moreover, we warn you guys that his words are being taken literally by some and we warn about what will happen, then when what we warned about comes to pass you still pretend it's not his fault. As if it wasn't clearly obvious what would result from his words. The denialism is astounding.
Yes, his words absolutely did come across that way. I'm sorry if you didn't bother to watch it or don't understand how English and basic communication works. When your political opponent is violently attacked by a supporter of yours and you decide to joke about it... You are sending a clear message to your supporters that attacking your opponents is ok. That's common sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Trump's (alleged) quote:We need to make it much easier to fire rogue bureaucrats who are deliberately undermining democracy or at a minimum just want to keep their jobs,Assuming this is the actual quote, since your source doesn't actually link to a transcript or video of the speech, what do you have against firing rogue bureaucrats who arw delibrrately undermining democracy? Would you rather have corrupt bureaucrats instead of honest ones?
I think this right here cuts to the heart not only of why I started this thread but also why I am so fascinated with this entire Trump phenomenon. Please answer me this one question fully and sincerely... Do you actually believe what you are clearly implying here - that when Trump says he wants to get rid of the beurocrats undermining democracy that this is actually his goal and by democracy, he's talking about the he same thing the founding fathers envisioned?
Once again, can you actually provide the original quotes with the source for these claims? I haven't heard about any of this at all, and I've been closely following the news all this week.
All of these came out of his own mouth either at his rallies or on his truth social. It's very easy to Google.
No. Fascists and authoritarians don't decline to investigate their political rivals when given the chance like what Trump did with Hillary.
Do you seriously think this 2x impeached 4x indicted 1x booted out of office former president is the same person who took office in 2016?
Fascists don't always start off that way or don't always succeed. Both Hitler and Putin failed their first time around and they learned their lessons. Trump most certainly will not be taking office the second time with the same attitude and he's made that clear out of his own mouth. To believe the first term is a road map on what to expect for the second demonstrates that you aren't paying attention at all.
Fascists and authoritarians also don't concede after losing elections and transfer power over... because they rig the elections so they can't lose in the first place.
He tried to steal the first election, he failed because the beurocrats in key positions all throughout our country including those who fervently supported him chose democracy. Those are the same people he realizes now he has to get rid of.
Conceded the election? It's that a joke? He is still screaming from the mountaintops that he didn't lose.
Transferred power over? My god you can't actually believe that. He tried to steal the electoral vote and that failed, he refused to let Biden's transition team in to prepare to take over, and he left Washington before the inauguration because his attempt to stay in power failed. He didn't transfer it over, we took it back.
I know you didn't want to make this about Biden so I'll be extremely brief here, but Biden has investigated and charged the opposition, has grestly increased the regulatory scope of the government, and has literally used the FBI to track down his personal effects like his daughter's journal and to cover up his son's illegal drug usage and working as a foreign agent.
The regulations part is largely irrelevant. I find the diary allegations silly as a basis for comparison here even if that's fully accurate which I doubt. The part about the FBI covering up his son's activities is complete bullshit. The republicans have been turning over every rock they can find on that and still have came up with nothing.
But worst of all is the charge that he's "investigating his political opposition", as if Trump hasn't obviously committed serious crimes. The idea that Trump could never be investigated without it being for political reasons is a ridiculous 'heads I win tails you lose' defense.
Beyond that, there isn't even any evidence Biden has had anything to do with this at all. He has kept a long distance from Garland because he actually believes in the rule of law which means allowing the attorney general to act independently. And Garland did nothing on any of these charges until the J6 committee forced his hand. If not for them then by all appearances nothing here would have ever happened. And even then this is was put in the hands of a special counsel so he's literally two layers removed from this.
Moreover... I thought Biden was a puppet who didn't know what day it is? But suddenly he's the mastermind behind this entire plot? I really wish you guys would come together and get the narrative straight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
How is he fascist?
Tired of explaining it.
Keep in mind, the question I asked in the op was whether he was a fascist or an authoritarian. Fascism is worse, and while I fully believe he is a fascist I also knew that those who replied defending Trump would skip right passed that and pretend the technical qualifications of fascism was the point of this thread, it wasn't. The point is to understand whether you guys really think this man cares about protecting democracy and the rule of law.
I could find countless of examples of multiple presidents, and other calling each other many names.
No one is arguing he's a fascist because he calls people names. The word vermin not only had a survivor definition that is very different from other political attacks, it also comes with a heavy historical connotation. There is a reason Hitler used the same language to describe the Jews.
Moreover, you guys on the right love to pretend everything he does is in isolation, which is brazenly dishonest. Calling his political opponents vermin is just one example in an array of fascist tactics he uses. Evaluate it as such. The only reason I focus so heavily in it is because it's simple, there's no reason we should be arguing over whether that's acceptable political discourse and if it were from anyone but Trump we wouldn't be.
You mean all the corruption that is in the federal government right now?Yes, he is going to fire all of them.And that is a smart idea.
Let me guess... The deep state?
You think it's smart to fire every employee within the federal government who actually knows what they're doing - people who have served through democratic and republican administrations and replace them with people who's only real qualifications is that they are loyal to president Trump? Please explain that.
And no, they won't be people loyal to him. They will be people loyal to the government.
That's not what they're being screened for.
calling for the execution of a top general over charges of not obeying his presidential willShow me.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/trump-milley-execution-incitement-violence/675435/
encouraging police to shoot shoplifters on the spot, not to mention January 6thAgain, example.
Also, January 6th? Really? Thats the best you've got?How about the countless other protests at an in the capital just recently, held by democrats.
The false equivalences to J6 are so tiredsome.
J6 was not historically bad because a bunch of protesters got out of control and broke stuff. It was bad because it was the culmination of a months long effort of the sitting president of the United States to overturn an election to stay in power. None of the other examples you have are anything close to that.
And like I explained already, if Trump immediately called on these people to get out of the capitol and sent in the national guard we would not be having this conversation. The fact that he spent the next three hours watching it on TV doing absolutely nothing and wondering why the rest of the people around him were not excited about it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that this was intentional.
Also, not to mention the prosecution to hold Trump accountable for that was thrown out, because of the absurdity of that claim.
The trial starts in March. What are you talking about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Ok J6 was condemned by every major right wing figure as well, so what is your point?
Are you being serious? There are certainly some prominent right wing figures that openly condemn January 6th (just spare a moment for how ridiculous it is that that is a statement deserving of having to give them credit), but even if every other right wing figure condemned it you know who hasn't? The only one that really matters, the standard bearer and clear leader of the party.
I'm sure you will no doubt search the archives and dig up some quote that he said at some point condemning it but that's because he talks out of both sides of his mouth on every issue. If you look at what he has advocated for it becomes blatantly obvious how he feels about it. He's called them political prisoners, called for their immediate release, rants at every political rally about how unfairly their being treated, and is campaigning on pardoning them. Do not pretend Trump (the actual subject of this thread) does in fact condemn what they did.
If you want to talk about fascism, historically fascists were not fans of the police and you only have to look at the beer hall putsch to see that. In fact it is ONLY cuckservatives who brag about their love of pigs.
Fascists love police when they're on their side and hate them when they're not. That fits Trump and his supporters precisely.
When the BLM riots were going on, the right loved the police.
When they were defending the US Capitol, they were a bunch of scumbags.
It has nothing to do with ideology, it's about power, plain and simple.
The Smiths was ONE example of the various approvals that leftists took of a very coherent attack by a group on Thacthers life.
It's a terrible example. It's happened almost 40 years ago, centers around a foreign audience, and the catalysts were a band with no clear political ideology. You label them and the people who supported this as leftists with no tie to left wing ideology other than that they opposed her, and most importantly, this example has no tie to fascism. Fascism is in part about using violence to achieve a political end. What was the end game here? What was the strategy?
This is entirely irrelevant, and yet another example of justifying one's worldview by latching onto anything one can find with similarities and just ignoring the key differences in order to claim two different things are the same.
Trump was just pointing out pelosis hyprocritical stance on walls because one random luny broke in.
Right, Trump was talking about walls and immigration, and it just didn't occur to him that joking about his political opponent's spouse having his head smashed in with a hammer by one of his own supporters might come across as a nod to other supporters that he's ok with that sort of thing.
And we'll also ignore the fact that the joke came at the end of his little comedy bit where he began by questioning what was going on been those two and jokingly acknowledging that he should stop because his words will be perceived as inappropriate.
Cause you know, I'm sure you really, sincerely, actually believe that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I've heard that argument before...something about the ends justifying the means?
*Sigh*
No, not even close.
The argument is that if you bother to read/listen to his entire point in context, you easily recognize that it was a poor choice if words, not a call for violence.
The same logic applies to Trump's January 6th speech where he said to "peacefully" march down to the capitol.
The through line is that context in language does matter, it is a very important part of how we communicate with other people. In the first example, the traditional usage of the word "eliminate" is the part that doesn't fit with the rest. In Trump's case, "peacefully" does not fit with the rest of his speech. When a small peice of someone's statement/speech doesn't fit, the rational reaction and simplest explanation is that the person speaking used a poor choice of words in that instance (intentionally or not).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So why did he walk away in 2020? I don't think he magically became any different up to now, so there's no reason to predict anything different.
I have explained this multiple times already, you clearly don't pay attention but what the hell I'll waste my fingers yet again...
He walked away in 2020 because he failed to gain the support of the institutions that would be tasked with removing him. These institutions include the secret service, the DOJ, the military, etc. What will be different in a second Trump term is that he will only install loyalists to lead these agencies from the start and purge them of any staffers who do not share that sentiment.
And this isn't hyperbole or made up. The heritage foundation is already putting together a database of Trump loyalists to choose for government positions and Jenna Ellis has already shared under oath that Trump's plan was to stay in power regardless of what happened. He didn't leave because that was the right thing to do, he left because he lost the battle to stay in power. But he learned from his mistakes, just as Hitler and Putin did their first times around. You act as if those is unprecedented or even unusual in recent human history, it's not. Anyone who understands basic political science and history understand all of this.
Trump dealing with fake charges started in 2016, not 2020, so it's not like that changed either.
There were never any serious fake charges, that's just another bullshit right wing lie that you repeat over and over again because you can't defend it with actual logic and facts.
Created:
Posted in:
Rep Goldman just went on Jen Psaki's MSNBC radical far-left fascist propaganda show and stated "Trump has to be eliminated"
This is such a perfect example of how right wingers are just intellectually incapable of understanding the world around them, because the world is complex and they just can't handle that complexity. That's why everything is a false equivalence with these people.
For him to say Trump needs to be eliminated is horrific language and he absolutely should apologize for that and clarify his statement. But also, anyone who was actually paying attention to what he was saying understood that he did not mean that in the way it sounded by playing that one soundbite.
Everything that came before that talked about how dangerous Trump's rhetoric is, how unfit he is and cannot be allowed to hold public office again. Right before he used the word eliminated he stuttered because he was clearly searching for a word to finish his thought, and he chose a very bad one.
But what is really hilarious is what Rubin did immediately after playing that clip... He immediately says "did I hear that last part right because there was a lot of talking before that and I feel asleep for a minute".
lol WTF???
Thank you Dave Rubin for demonstrating the point I've been making for years. Trump supporters defend Trump because they don't pay attention. They aren't interested in any nuance whatsoever, all they do is zero in on the parts that sound good to them and disregard the rest. And here's another funny part that came about a minute later... "But why the harsh words, why would Mr Goldman over there be so upset about Donald Trump and want to eliminate him? Well I'm starting to think it's because [insert caricature here]"
The answer to his question was in the part right before the"eliminated" verbage was used. If he actually wanted the answer her could have, you know, not fallen asleep.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you deny the MSNBC attempt at hyperbole? It seems to mirror your sentiments here, so I thought you would confirm it.
I think they're being hyperbolic in the sense that I don't believe Trump if he wins will actually accomplish the things they are suggesting. And I also don't think Trump or his supporters for the most part (because some actually are) are planning to take things to the level MSNBC are suggesting. But what people like you need to realize are the kinds of people we are dealing with, Trump in particular.
Trump does not have limits and he doesn't have principals. He is a clinical narcissist so everything he believes and every viewpoint he holds and will continue to develop will always include himself at the absolute center. So in order to see where this is going you need to play it out.
Here's a simple example; if Trump wins in 2024 and stays healthy... Do you seriously believe he will walk away in 2028? I'll give you a hint: No, he won't.
There are two reasons he won't; first is self preservation. Again, he's a narcissist. So every legal charge against him is never his fault, it's always the result of a grand conspiracy against him and the evil forces opposing him will always be there. So he will claim they're going to do it again (which they almost definitely will because a second term Trump will disregard the constitution and commit all kinds of crimes while in office) so leaving office will assure him that he'll spend whatever life he has left in jail.
Second is because he's a narcissist, so he didn't really lose in 2020 because that's not possible. So since he was cheated he'll claim without any logic and his supporters will believe him because they don't apply logic - that the constitution limits presidents to two terms consecutively. He'll convince even those supporters who don't buy that argument that it's ok because you know, they stole 2020 so all of this means nothing anyway, we're just getting even.
Tell me I'm wrong here, and if you do, tell me where. Explain what part I just described is not only beyond Trump's limits, but is also inconsistent with everything he has said and done to this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
No. Vermin are diseases infested pests that need to be exterminated. Using that language to describe others is to suggest they are subhuman and therefore undeserving of rights.I think fascists (in terms of those who support the ideology) are deeply misguided and dangerous to the rest of us. The antedote against that is education. Fascists only enjoy the power the rest of us give them through our own ignorance and manipulability.That’s all I needed. Have a nice day!
I would say this response is all anyone needs to see everything I'm talking about. The level of dismissiveness and hypocrisy in this exchange alone is breathtaking.
Fascism is, as I have described throughout this thread, fundamentally about manipulating large groups of people to think of our system of our governance as something that doesn't need to treat everyone equally and give everyone equal say. You actually sit here claiming that Trump and by extension his supporters (whom you are clearly one of) are not fascists, and yet when I express that the people who wittingly or unwittingly support this ideology (that would be you, btw) are still deserving of rights and are to be treated like human beings... That was just too much for you so you felt the need to end the conversation there and ignore everything I said in that part and elsewhere.
Wow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Straight up hyperbole and panic.
Is this where you be getting your news from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No.I believe he is a comedian, who accidentally did a good job in office, but shouldn't be put back.
Saying he's a comedian doesn't negate that he's a fascist. Fascists are often very charasmatic, it's nearly impossible to get large groups of people to hand power over to you without that.
Any thoughts on the examples/questions I brought up in the op?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It represents, as you put it, a subtle desentisization into political violence.
Yes, it does. And the reaction the rest of us including the left had to it demonstrates that the left is not ok with it, so to use it as an argument that the left embraces political violence is just plain wrong.
The left cemented themselves as the catalysts of American political violence with the BLM riots anyway.
The BLM riots were condemned widely by the overwhelming majority of prominent left wing figures and people who identify as left leaning, so pretending this tells you what the lefts values are is ridiculous.
Moreover, this is still an apples to oranges comparison. To the extent that "the left" had a target when it came to these it was specifically directed at the police, not political opposition. That matters here because we're talking about fascism which this has absolutely nothing to do with.
Meanwhile you freak out when some deranged lunatic attacked a representatives husband and Trump commented on the fact that he didn't succeed.
So your analogous example to a former president and current clear frontrunner for the nomination joking about a political opponent's spouse being smashed in the head with a hammer by one of his own supporters... Is an almost 40 year old example of a rock band joking about an assassination attempt in another country? Are you really being serious?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I started to reply to your last post in typical one for one fashion but quickly realized we'd be here all day because each sentence you wrote warranted an entire paragraph response. Since this thread is about whether Trump is a fascist I decided to focus in on a few key points and set aside all of your whataboutisms, false equivalences, or flat out lies including Maxine Waters, Kamala Harris, George Floyd rioters, parents at school board meetings, "Putting grandparents in jail", etc. etc. etc.
If you want, feel free to pick just one of them and I'll happily address it in detail. But for the sake of space and time I can't address every single one.
let’s analyze the quote by Trump in the first place: “We will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin.”By disagreeing with this, you are in favor of let’s see: communism, Marxism, FASCISM, and radical left thugs.Where is “political opponents” mentioned anywhere in this quote?
This is the game that Trump plays; he constantly and consistently attacks democrats as being every single one of those things and then when someone points out that he's talking about democrats, he and his mouthpieces pretend that he's either not talking about them, or for us to say he is is an admission that democrats are communists, marxists, and thugs. Heads I win tails you lose.
It's just silly and it really makes you look disingenuous to pretend you just presented a valid defense.
So no, I don't support communists, Marxists, or thugs. I also think you know damn well he is in fact talking about those he and his supporters see as their political opposition. And also, even if that were who he's talking about that doesn't justify calling them vermin. That is again, obvious fascistic language.
Trump did not tell them to enter the Capitol building. Please find me the quote that says he did.
Another example of the same game. It never ceases to amaze me how Trump supporters will be the first to defend his outrageous statements by arguing that he doesn't speak literally and that you need to read between the lines to understand him, and then when we do exactly that they argue that we can't accuse him of saying anything unless we can find the literal quote.
What Trump did was call on all of his supporters to come down to the capitol so he could tell them their voice was stolen and now the people who are actively stealing their voice are inside the Capitol, so march down there and "fight like hell". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read between those lines and figure out what he wanted.
People like you will no doubt defend him by saying "look, he said peacefully!", but you know that defense is nonsense because it doesn't fit with anything else. Your argument is essentially that he told them to march down to the capitol so they can make their voices heard to the very people who stole them because they don't give a shit about what you have to say. That's absurd. And you know who else knows it's absurd? The J6 defendants who have all said they were there because Trump told them to be.
But still, even then Trump could have had an out on that point. If, as soon as the rioting started Trump did what any president would have done; called in the national guard and immediately called on his supporters to leave the Capitol - we could have written all of this off as irresponsibility. But what did he do instead? He spent 3 hours watching the riots on television wondering why his staff was not gitty about what was happening while even Hannity and Tucker Carlson couldn't get him to say anything publicly. You have no defense against that because their isn't one, you cannot honestly argue that he didn't want exactly what was happening.
Paul Pelosi’s attacker has a history of changing affiliations. We’re only talking about him cause his victim is famous
No, we're talking about him because he was bashed in the head with a hammer by a Trump supporter and Trump has repeatedly used that fact as a punchline for jokes at his political rallies. It's another blatant example of fascism at work, the goal is to normalize violence and signal to your supporters that it's ok to attack the "other side". If Trump believed what you profess to believe - that political violence is not acceptable, he would not be standing on stage joking about it. That's common sense and the people at his rallies understand that full well.
Also, saying he has a history of changing affiliations is meaningless at best and at worst disingenuous. He was a leftist until he became radicalized by Donald Trump. That's not a reason to dismiss him as an example, it's a reason for us all to be that much more concerned about the real world effects Trump's rhetoric is having on people regardless of whether they're misunderstanding him. For things like this to happen and Trump's response is to joke about it and turn up the volume instead of turning it down and vehemently condemning it, is yet another demonstration that this is exactly what he wants to happen.
Cause media, believe it or not, is not the arbitrator of truth. Neither you, nor I have the full information. The only people that do are the prosecutors and defense. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
No one here has claimed the media is the arbiter of truth, that we have all of the information, or even that the case has reached the point where a jury has what it needs to declare Trump guilty in a court of law. All of these are red herrings, and I think you know that full well because if we shifted the discussion to Hunter Biden, suddenly I doubt you would have any issue weighing in on whether you think he is guilty or not.
You are the one arguing that Biden is on par with Trump when it comes to fascism because he is "jailing his political opponent". Yet everything we do know about these trials tells us Trump is guilty or at the very least that these are legitimate charges to be adjudicated. Much of the evidence against Trump is public record so to argue as if you don't have an opinion on it is not credible.
Simple yes or no question: do you think fascists are vermin?
No. Vermin are diseases infested pests that need to be exterminated. Using that language to describe others is to suggest they are subhuman and therefore undeserving of rights.
I think fascists (in terms of those who support the ideology) are deeply misguided and dangerous to the rest of us. The antedote against that is education. Fascists only enjoy the power the rest of us give them through our own ignorance and manipulability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It doesn't matter what I think. The American public overwhelmingly disagrees with the 24/7 propaganda machine narrative. You really have had to screw up pretty badly as a president to have that happen. The public overwhelmingly believes the current administration operates under a "rules for thee and not for me" scheme.
So in other words, it doesn't matter what reality says, what matters is what people think about it.
Well politically you are certainly correct, but this isn't a campaign, it's a debate site so what you think about it is kind of the point.
That's fine though, if I were trying to defend the indefensible I guess I would do the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The polls reflect the failure of the propaganda machine, and that scares you, because you believe the country would be better off back in the hands of the elite oligarchy than some elected Orangeman.
Again, not a single attempt to argue a single fact or make a rational case of any kind. Just more bluster in an attempt to bulldoze your viewpoint over mine, and then laughably pretend I'm the one who's either in denial or arguing dishonestly.
Go ahead, make the case that Trump is innocent or at least that any rational observer should see this as some kind of political persecution. I'll wait.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The age of "rules for thee but not for me" is coming to a close as most people are absolutely fed up with the hypocrisy. If any of your charges had any merit, it would be done from a place of objective fairness, not what we have currently.
It is being done from a place of objective fairness, that's how a court of law works. If Trump was being treated unfairly then he would have a factual or a legal argument to stand on. He doesn't, that's why all he can do is what he always does anytime he's accused by anyone of any kind of wrongdoing no matter how obvious - pound the table and decry himself as the victim of a grand conspiracy with not even an attempt to rationally support it. That should make you think, but it won't.
The polls against Biden reflect this, and you know it.
The polls reflect the effectiveness of the 24 hour propaganda machine that Nixon never had. Again, if there was a logical, factual case to be made here people like yourself would be focusing on that instead of these empty rhetorical epithets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
This is your tactics of fascism being used by the political left example? An example of one comedian who went way too far with a joke, caught severe public backlash from every corner of our society, got fired from CNN, got her comedy tour cancelled, faced federal investigations and has had to apologize vehemently for all of it? Some violent political movement that left is.
Was she killed by a member of the political opposition for political reasons?Nearly, yes
Ok, now show me the prominent left wing figures who joked about it, and the crowd of supporters who laughed along with them.
Disrespect aids in that goal because those who dont benefit the people should be disrespected
I asked how disrespecting your political opposition aids in getting things accomplished for the people you represent, not for your opinion on whether you think others should be disrespected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Here’s my answer: political violence is not okay. There are crazy people in the world. There will always be crazy people in the world. I don’t blame Bernie Sanders for the dude that shot Steve Scalise; however, you’re more than happy to blame Donald Trump for the attack on Paul Pelosi (for your own political gain).
The reason you don't blame Bernie Sanders for the shooting of Steve Scalise is because you recognize how patently absurd that would be. Nothing about Bernie or his rhetoric suggests in any way that he would have wanted that, meanwhile the effects of Trump's rhetoric has had a tangible and unmistakable effect on public sentiment towards political violence.
It is not a coincidence that support for political violence is at a generational high at the same time we have a president who reminisces about the good old days when the political hecklers would be carried out in a stretcher and refers to his political opposition as vermin. It's not a coincidence that the first time we've ever had a president refuse to concede defeat and leave peacefully is also the first time we have ever seen the US capitol overtaken by mob rioters and Congress being forced to evacuate instead of certifying an election.
Nearly every single J6 rioter has admitted they were there because they thought Trump told them to be there, the guy who mailed the pipe bombs was specifically targeting the people Trump was attacking, and the guy who attacked Paul Pelosi did so because he was radicalized by Trump rhetoric. People like you would pretend it's all just coincidence, but anyone who's ever studied the impact of political rhetoric saw all of those coming and warned us all for years. Trump not only ignored all of that, he's only turned it up higher. To say he's not doing this intentionally defies all credibility.
And if everything I've said was just TLDR for you, Google stochastic terrorism. It's not that complicated.
Lemme put it this way: even if Trump is a closeted fascist, Joe Biden is an open fascist and therefore I’d like to take my chances with Trump
The false equivalences from Trump supporters is incredibly tiring.
First of all, I think you know Trump is guilty of at the very least some of the charges against him, unless you really think lying to the FBI about the nuclear documents you're hiding next to your toilet is legal. If you want to know why a top presidential candidate is being charged, look at that candidates actions, then ask yourself why the candidate isn't even attempting to argue the facts or the law in court.
But setting that aside... Open fascist? If you know anything about how fascism actually works you would know that Joe Biden is the opposite of that in every way. You're clearly not being serious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
B) Do you acknowledge that this is a tactic used by nearly every fascist throughout history?Yes as well as a tactic used by the so called "defenders of democracy"
Provide one example
Loads of people make fun of magaret thatchers death day.
Was she killed by a member of the political opposition for political reasons?
Politics doesn't need to respectful and I am sick and tired of hearing from people that it does. Politics is nasty for a reason.
Do you think the job of a politician is to get things accomplished for the good of the people they represent, or do you have done other idea of what they should set out to accomplish?
If it's the latter, please explain how disrespect aids in that goal.
If it's the former, please explain what we're missing.
Created:
Posted in:
Just pointing out for the record that we're 4 pages in and not one individual who disagrees with me has even attempted to argue Trump is not a fascist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Far left radicals are vermin
Another demonstration of how fascistic propaganda works.
I don't care what name you call a person who attacks far-left radicals.
That's because you don't understand fascism and/or the psychology behind it. The way you treat your political opposition matters, and every presidential candidate all the way up until Donald Trump understood that or at the very least cared about the consequences. That's a big part of how the country was held together for all these years.
The Democrat party deserves every ounce of vitriol it has earned through the deliberate harboring and coddling of far-left thugs the past decade while the country goes to hell. I don't really care who does it, but it needs to be called out, and it needs to be done so constructive progress can happen instead of the current mindless chaos of change and regression.
Right, and I suppose telling your supporters that the political opposition are vermin who need to be wiped out is a great way to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I don't see any differences.
That's the problem
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
All your complaints and accusations of "whataboutism" can't save you from the glaring hypocrisy and foolish hyperbole. You don't get to apply a double standard and then claim Trump is for double standards..
This is exactly what was describing to n8nrgim - how the political right maintains ridiculous positions by not understanding anything and then using their own ignorance to falsely equivocate what the other side does with what they're doing/excusing.
Case and point:
Your definition of a fascist would make Hillary a fascist for declaring half of Trump supporters depolorables and Biden for declaring half the country "ultra-Maga'And here you are screaming at the sky at the word "vermin" because MSM told you to do so, so you never questioned why.
Name calling isn't what makes someone a fascist.
Calling someone deplorable is an attack on one's character. Calling someone vermin is likening them to pests that are filthy, diseases ridden, and need to be exterminated. The latter is the kind of language used by someone priming his base to see the other side as less than human so that they can get away with stripping them of their rights or engaging in violence against them.
You know who else understood this? People like Hitler and Mussolini, which is exactly why they used this language. So even if basic English wasn't enough for you to understand the difference here, try history.
And no one ever said this is why Trump is a fascist. It's another one of those nonsense tactics the right uses to shrug off reality - assess every action in isolation, then claim the action itself is not enough to cause serious alarm. Of course it's not, you need to look at the entire picture.
Political name calling isn't Fascism! (but jailing your opponents is one of the many uncheckable boxes)
Once again, Trump was indicted because he committed obvious and serious crimes. That's called the rule of law.
Another thing about the rule of law is that it revolves around facts and logic, not personal attacks. Take a good look at Trump vs the prosecution. See if you can tell which side is which.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
OK I googled fascism, now what?
Now read it and take note of the differences between the tactics used and anything the left has engaged in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
In his first term he surrounded himself with people who would constantly reign him in.You are giving Trump a lot of credit here by assuming he did that on purpose.
I never suggested he did that on purpose, I argued that he surrounded himself with people who had experience in government, a natural thing for someone who gets elected with absolutely no government experience. The problem for him was that people who have experience in government tend to know how it works and value it's basic principals. That's where they clashed with Trump.
And of course, according to the article I assume you read, he would have to be successful thousands of times without fail because of the Hydra nature of today's government. Nobody can do this, least of all Trump. Not without an actual ARMED insurrection.
Uh, yeah. And guess who will have ultimate control over the arms?
The hard part about taking over a government is getting the enough people to declare allegiance to you over the state as well as enough people to be apathetic enough about it to let it slide. Trump already has that. his following is a cult, and loyalty to him will be the lone qualification this time around. The heritage foundation is recruiting thousands of people to install into civil service positions all throughout the government, and Trump will appoint the people he wished her appointed the first time to lead them. The republican party has also completely stepped to the side, they refuse to stand up against anything he says or does. It's not difficult to see where this is going.
You (of all people) seem to have this unshakable confidence in our institutions to stop him, while showing little consideration for the fact that the institutions are only as good as the people running them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Your side doesn’t get to lecture about political violence lol. It’s not unique to the right.
So no answers, just a whataboutism. How surprising.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
The question is calling the kettle black. Trump wont be able to run for President, the "fascists" will make sure the "fascist" cant run for President.
Do yourself and Google fascism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No but I wish he was.
Then same questions for you as I asked ILP5 (post 57). Maybe you'll be honest enough to answer them.
Created: