Total posts: 5,890
-->
@TWS1405_2
I have the academic and professional training/experience that equips me with the requisite knowledge, intellect and experience with the subject matter.
Then you should be able to refute what I said with reasoned argument as opposed to your typical childish insults followed by you declaring victory and running away. Yet here we are.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
trump wasn't charged with insurrection or riotings or anything related to initiating an armed rebellion cause most or a lot of people including me, which includes those in authority, dont think trump was responsible for the attack.
I can understand the argument that Trump's actions do not amount to him being held legally responsible for January 6th, but to argue he shouldn't be regarded as responsible in any rational sense is in my view, not defensible. Everyone including Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, and pretty much every single person who attacked the Capitol understood this very well on January 6th even if many pretend not to now
I would love to hear more about what you mean here and why you hold that position.
so if trump isn't responsible for armed rebellion, and the unarmed rebellion that i thought could disqualify trump doesn't fit the definition... the trump shouldn't be disqualified.
This is one of the reasons TWS it's just plain wrong. What he's trying to do is assert that the definition here is extremely, ludacrisly strict, and then disqualify January 6th on a technicality. That's not how it works.
The 14th amendment, like all constitutional amendments, are left fairly vague. The idea is that they are the basis upon which our laws are based, so they are supposed to be vague enough for judges to be able to use reasonable descretion to be able to tell what the intention behind it was and whether the laws enforcing these amendments are constitutionally valid.
Nothing about the 14th amendment as written requires arms to be a part of the rebellion or defines which arms qualify. Furthermore, if we really want to go down this rabbit hole we would have to go beyond whether the rebellion was armed and determine just how armed it was. Exactly how many weapons have to be present to qualify? Does bear mace count? Flag poles? The capitol police's own weapons the rioters stole from them? How do you quantify any of this? Or if we take the position that arms are required and arms = guns, how many guns present are required? Is it a rebellion if at least one guy in the crowd had a gun but not a rebellion if he didn't? What about two guys? Three? It's an absurd notion that a constitutional amendment would rely on such specifics without any hint of it's criteria.
To make sense out of this we have to look at the reason the amendment was passed; it was intended to stop Americans who rebelled against the US government by joining the confederacy during the civil war. The idea being that someone who actually tried to nullify the US Constitution through an attack on the government shouldn't be able to run for office. Under that lense it's very easy to see why the framers of this amendment wouldn't have gotten so specific on the criteria.
Now with all this said, I actually do not believe the legality of this proposition would or even should hold up legally (perhaps if TWS cared about having a normal conversation we would have gotten to that). While I most definitely think the amendment rightfully applies to Trump, the issue I have is that we haven't put in place a mechanism for enforcing it. Something like this can't just be left up to individuals who read the constitution and agree with me, that's extremely undemocratic and it's too late in the game to make up the rules now. Because of this I predict it will go up to the supreme court and fail on those grounds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you think Trump is responsible for every global environmental disaster?
No, he's responsible for setting us back in our efforts to gain control of an international slow boiling crisis. I have not seen any serious person on the left argue what you took away from this episode of the View.
I liked the headline and thought this might be an interesting thread, must say I'm feeling a little disappointed there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Americans often forget that non-Americans exist too.
Absolutely true. We act as if the president of the US is actually the president of Earth, especially on the political right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Don't have a favorite and there is no politician I "look up to", but to name a few that I like: AOC (whom I've voted for twice), Bernie, Adam Schiff, and Jaime Raskin come to mind...
If I had to pick a republican Romney, and I guess Chris Christy.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
that's a great point if it's true. sounds like you r right that trump shouldn't be disqualified.
Take note of the past few pages. Notice how when he gets challenged, about 80% of what he comes back with are just childish insults, and notice how many arguments he doesn't address at all.
He doesn't know what he's talking about.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
lol
You claim I am incapable of admitting myself to be wrong, yet here you are posting the same nonsense that was just refuted as if nothing happened at all.
Apparently you think calling someone an "intellectual cowardice denialist" qualifies as an argument.
The projection here is astounding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Wow, you presented an actual argument in some of your posts, taking a break from your usual all caps insults. Congratulations.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I ignored nothing. You simply do not know how to read legal statutes, Constitutional, federal, state or otherwise correctly. Which is exactly why I said to the author of this thread how/why everyone gets this topic wrong. Plain readings of the law never work. Period.
It was your definition. You do not have to be a law professor or constitutional scholar to recognize basic plain English.
- Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
"Taking up arms traitorously against the government" - aside from the definition of arms (which I challenged you on and you made absolutely no effort to refute) you do not need a law degree to understand what this means. Those who literally attacked the US capitol certainly qualify.
"and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense" - "more correct" is again, basic English. It means the following is a clearer way of communicating the previous point (not a different point).
"rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued." - signifies... As in "means". "Forcible opposition" - literally what happened on January 6th. "To the laws and process lawfully issued" - as in the process of certifying the results of the presidential election.
Again, this was your definition, and it fits January 6th like a glove. There is no 1700's lingo that changes anything in this definition.
No, it is to YOU who does not understand the point of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, you ignoramus.What fucking part of this did you fail to utterly NOT comprehend:"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to itssettled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted,applies onlyto the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility withus. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their owngovernment." 8
Let's start with a reminder of the language in the 14th amendment in question here;
"shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof".
Note the word "or". So unless that means something different in the constitution, these are two different things, both of which qualify on their own. The part I just addressed was the former, this next part of yours addresses the latter, so they have nothing to do with each other.
But let's address it anyway, my other points notwithstanding.
The 14th amendment was drafted after the civil war, almost 100 years after the constitution. So the meaning of the term "enemies" at that point in time is not particularly relevant here. We just went through a situation where we learned that our enemies could be domestic as well. And let me reiterate what you ignored yet again...
The entire point of this amendment was to stop americans who engaged in rebellion from holding office in our government. If that was the entire point and entire reason this amendment was drafted, it is absurd to then suggest the amendment does not apply to americans who engaged in rebellion. Read this paragraph a few more times if you need to.
More intellectual cowardice denialism with fallacious retorts. Pure fucking childish ignorance. You're definitely not smarter than a fifth grader.
Yeah. So this is sadly representative of the rest of your post. The only two substantive things you provided in your entire response are addressed above. Let's see if you actually know what you're talking about and can show me where I'm wrong, or if you're just going to continue with your pointless childish insults that only make you look dumber and even more unserious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Others, like me, have proven you wrong but your intellectual cowardice and cognitive dissonance just won't let you admit that fact. You are a denialist on the Dunning-Kruger level. Period.
Why are you so concerned with whether I admit that I'm wrong? Again, this is a debate site. Leave your argument here so that everyone reading can be amazed by your intellect and learn something. I wonder why you won't.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
JFC, this subject was already covered and I shut it down with actual legal facts and proper analysis of the 14th Section 3. Again…
Third key term, and its legal definition thereof is, "insurrection": A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
- Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
You are presenting a legal argument that your own definitions do not support.
First, you seem to be relying on the idea that arms = guns, which is not true. Arms simply means weapons, and the rioters who broke into the capitol carried all kinds of weapons from mace, flag poles, hell even the riot shields they stole from the capitol police.
Second and more importantly, you ignored the second part of your own definition of rebellion which specified it's main qualifier ("perhaps a more correct sense") as a "forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued". That couldn't describe what occurred on January 6th any more perfectly.
Moreover, you seem to not understand the entire point of the 14th amendment - it was passed in the aftermath of the civil war. It's entire point at conception was to stop Americans who tried to overthrow our constitution for running for office. That's literally what Trump did, so the argument that it couldn't apply to him because the rioters were not a foreign power is absurd on its face.
More importantly, the United States Government via the F.B.I.emphatically declared that J6 was NOT an insurrection.
"Or rebellion..."
Nor was President Donald J. Trump charged with inciting a riotand/or directly engaging in said riot
There is nothing about the 14th amendment requiring this.
that was facilitated by FBI agents placed within the J6 crowd and Capitol Police who aided in the breach of the Capitol.
Cause when all else fails, go full blown Alex Jones on us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
There is an obvious reason why very people like you let alone like engaging with you on DART. Need a reminder? Here’s a hint: the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
Sophistry... Yeah, I get that alot and it amuses me every time. If someone has an argument to show why my position is wrong, one would think, if there's anywhere it would be challenged, it would be on a debate site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Oh my fucking GOD!!!!You actually do read the sources people post here.Good thing I was sitting down, I might have fell over otherwise.
I read sources when they are used appropriately - as support for an argument. In this case you wrote your own argument down via a string of sentences that contained premises and logic which connected to a conclusion. The source contained support for those premises, so I was able to see where your information is coming from and determine whether your premises should be accepted. That's how it works.
I've been explaining this to you for months now, and for months you've ignored every word I've said. Start paying attention and you'll be more connected to reality with less fall over incidents occurring. Don't want to see you getting hurt.
PS. I have neither the time or energy to go through and fact check each “false or misleading statement” (not necessarily [a] lie) to ensure contextual accuracy of either candidate when both have been proven pathological liars.
I was under no impression that you would recognize your own source contradicted your claim and change your position, I have seen you in action well enough to know that the source is only credible to you if it tells you what you want to hear.
That aside, we don't need the Washington Post to explain to us what a pathological liar Trump is. We're talking about a guy who continues to brag about acing a "cognitive exam" which was actually a test for dementia. A guy who actually called a press conference to show everyone he was right about the path of a hurricane by drawing over it with a sharpie. And let's not forget his healthcare plan that is coming in two weeks.
The guy lies about everything, even completely unnecessary things that do nothing for himself politically (Michigan's man of the year... WTF?). This is pathological. There is not one single lie you can show of Biden that comes anywhere near this. And if you really want, let's pull up a transcript of any Trump interview and just count how many lies he tells within one paragraph. It's astonishing.
The two don't compare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Redpilled
Trump may have added more to the national debt, but its apples to oranges because he was trying to deal with a pandemic.
When Biden took office we were still dealing with and eventually recovering from the pandemic, as was the rest of world. Why does Trump get a pass on that but not Biden?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
WAPO asserts Joe Biden made 511 “false and misleading claims” during his first 100 days. Just by using that, no less than 5 a day X 365 X 50 = 91,250 “false and misleading claims” spun every day for 50 years.
Read your own source. 511 is how many false or misleading claims Trump made in his first 100 days, for Biden that number is 78.
And then consider that Trump's pace picked up considerably as his presidency went on...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you had to steelman Trump, what truthful things would you claim Trump said that were not self deprecating?
Can't think of any specifics at the moment, when someone speaks the words coming out of their mouths are supposed to be true so that's kind of an odd request. He's telling the truth when he says his name is Donald Trump.
I'll give you this, Trump is emotionally honest in the sense that he says what he feels (although this too is debatable). I think that's why people think of him as some sort of beacon of honesty. But everytime the man speaks off the cuff nearly everything he says is a lie. It's something I've never seen in any human being before, ever. Biden we've seen before, Trump is different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
No, Biden is works. He’s been lying his entire political career, Trump was in politics for barely six-seven years. No comparison. Biden wins the award 🥇 for being the worst pathological liar than 45.
You're right, 30k lies over 6-7 years is no comparison to Biden's... what... thousand lies (?) Over 50.
Donald Trump tells multiple lies within one sentence. Pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth is made up on the spot. The guy can't even tell the truth about the crowd size or weather at his innaguration, or even how many stories are in his building. That is pathological. Not Biden's false story on the campaign trail.
Every politician lies, Trump is something we've never seen before. Comparing the two is ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What do you guys think?
Late night comedy satarizes what people are dealing with in their daily lives. Politics used to be an afterthought for most people. Enter the 24 hour news cycle, social media, and a president who built his entire political career off of whatever will sell... The turn late night comedy has taken is not surprising in the least.
Focusing so heavily on Donald Trump is not good overall for the industry - alienating half of your viewers is obviously not a good business model. But when politics has become so outsized in the daily lives of all of us, that doesn't leave a whole lot of space for everything else. To talk about politics is to alienate viewers, to not talk about politics is to ignore the elephant in the room, and in Trump it's a particularly big one. Not a whole lot of good options here.
And no, it's not TDS to laugh at a man so objectively buffoonish. Trump is comedy gold to anyone who doesn't go to bed at night draped in a Trump flag.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's all that's relevant when you display so openly that evidence doesn't move you. You don't care about statistics, you don't care about sources.
lol
So the playbook is complete; make up an argument, pretend the thing you made up is what I argued, caricature me based on your made up argument, use your caricature of me as an excuse to walk away from the conversation.
4 dead voters does not justify your claim that thousands of ballots were cast in the name of dead people. You know this.
Good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Rumors from the underground suggest a new round of Covid and mandates will be in time for 2024.
I really don't understand the hysteria here. No one on the left is pushing for mandates, and this notion some are pedaling that this is some plot to impact the election is ridiculous. People are over COVID, no one's is going to vote for Biden because their local restaurant closed.
The only explanation for why this is news is because right propaganda outlets are trying to scare the bejesus out of their viewers, regardless of whether the implications makes any sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If the findings were supposed to be representative of anything they can only be representative of 4/5 dead voter claims being cases of fraud; something I am not dismissing but you are.
The findings are representative of the fact that a republican lead investigation into an alleged dead voter phenomenon which swung the election to the democrats came up almost entirely empty and shared that fact publicly.
Your response was to disregard the entire point, prop up the 5 examples that were given, 4 of which were only given to illustrate how much of a non-issue this is, and argue as if you are working with a sample representative of the phenomenon.
Again, the 4 examples were provided because they were the only 4 examples found. To use that as the basis supporting the claim is cherry picking on steroids. You know this.
your claim was that all of the evidence had been debunked (implying every example)
There is nothing about the statement "all of the evidence has been debunked" that necessitates "there was never a single example of a dead voter". Classic strawman.
To debunk an argument/evidence is to show that it is not valid. Propping up the only 4 examples of dead voters that were found in a statewide investigation is not a valid point to support the claim that thousands of dead people voted. It in fact supports the opposite.
Officials saying "we looked into it" cannot be fact checked even to the point of knowing what the hell that meant.
Let's apply Occam's razor. You're asserting thousands of 'votes were cast in the name of dead people'. So when the officials in charge of ensuring this doesn't happen tell you they investigated it and found next to nothing, is it most likely that;
A) They looked into the claims and found nothing
B) They didn't bother to look into them and just said they did
C) They looked into them, found significant examples and then covered it all up
Acceptable results per example would be of the form "Living voter with same name and address as deceased voter found", "death certificate or funeral record was forged", "fraud confirmed, no suspect", "fraud confirmed, charges pending case#"That would be the bare minimum to expect from an true democracy.
It's not the responsibility of the state to debunk your conspiracy theories, especially when the evidence you are providing for them came from the states own investigation.
You didn't get question 4 right. Try again without the lies.
It's easy to point to hypocrisy when you give yourself the luxury of interpreting one's point however you want.
I ignored everything you had to say about me and my "dishonesty" because it's all irrelevant to the topic. We can talk about your claim that thousands of votes were cast in the name of dead people or we can talk about how allegedly dishonest I am. Your choice, and I'm not interested in the latter so if you want to stand on your ultimatum I'm fine with that, it just goes to show that you don't believe your own nonsense and know you can't support your claims.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'd like to hear from Democrats on this site if they agree with the Democrats polled by Newsweek.
I see no reason to believe the survey is real. As HB pointed out earlier, the link to the survey just takes you to the pollster's website. Apparently Newsweek's strategy is to assume it's readers won't be interested in learning anything more about it.
Also as HB pointed out, even if the survey is real, how the question was asked matters which is probably why they don't want it's readers to look at it. I might actually be in agreement if the question is framed in terms of the effect these investigations will have on the election. But that's not what Newsweek is implying. Clearly, they're trying to delagitimize the indictments themselves as political. That's nonsense.
Trump is being indicted because he committed very serious crimes and the authorities are treating him exactly as they're supposed to. The fact that these indictments and eventual trial may shape the outcome of a presidential election is extremely unfortunate, the fault for that however lies not in those enforcing the nation's laws but rather the one who decided not only to break them but to burn the country down as his defense strategy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The concept of theft is built on the concept of property.There are multiple concepts of property that contradict each other. Thats why property is always theft.
You cannot build a coherent concept off of a contradiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Q4: Is blatant hypocrisy to say "Here's just one example you will claim is meaningless. I could provide literally hundreds more but that would be a monumental waste of time as you've already demonstrated" and then to claim four examples are meaningless?
Absent any further context, the above as written would be hypocritical. The issue is that you are egregiously leaving out a key piece of this conversation.
Let's back up, and in an effort to be as charitable as possible, let me start by doing my best to steelman your argument on this particular point.
You have so far argued that 4 examples is greater than 1 and also argued that 1 out of 5 is not an overwhelming majority. The latter was in the context of the 4 examples of dead voters being compared to the one example of a legitimate voter, so I will presume that the one legitimate voter is also your understanding of the 1 example in the 4 > 1 point.
So with that interpretation, you are misrepresenting what I've argued. My one example (that I predicted you were going to and in fact did ignore) was not the one example of a legitimate voter. My one example was the state elections board investigation itself.
Recall the claim: Thousands of dead people voted.
My Rebuttal: this claim has already been investigated and failed to produce any valid evidence sufficient to justify this claim.
Your evidence/rebuttal: 'here are 4 examples of dead voters'
So your first problem is math. In a state where 5 million votes were cast, 4 examples of dead voters does not give rational justification to assert that this is a serious issue. This is statistics 101.
Your second problem I find even more egregious: you are guilty of the exact same hypocrisy you accuse me of. You did not examine these 4 ballots. You did not interview the 4 family members caught of submitting fraudulent ballots. You accept these 4 examples as legitimate for no other reason other than that you were told about them.
But the same people who told you about them are also telling you that they investigated this and found that nearly everyone alleged to have been dead is still alive. Yet you disregard those findings outright.
So when the information you were being fed aligned with what you wanted to hear, you accept it. When it didn't, you closed your eyes and plugged your ears.
So once again. You claimed thousands of dead people voted. Do you have evidence to rationally justify this claim? YES OR NO?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
It’s as if you blame the video for being dishonest. “It wasn’t the journalists saying whipping occurred, it wasn’t the VP. It was the video’s fault! Blame the video!”
This is just stupid.
At no point did I suggest or imply anything so ridiculous. I talked about how logic is the tool we have to assess what we believe occurred based on the evidence, and it's not infallible. I talked about how irrelevant it is to harp on which actual tool they used compared to their conduct, and how the words used to describe their conduct was appropriate in the sense of communication. You have disregarded all of that so you can write an entire post about me, all so you can pump your chest about dishonest I'm being.
But I'm the one not worthy of intellectual conversation. You can't be serious.
An honest person might reassess, recalibrate, and think “Gee, I was a bit eager to believe that law enforcement was involved in slave era type brutality. Maybe the media is helping to create and exploit preconceived notions in their audience.”No, your response is “I believe my lying eyes! Police whipping black people was a perfectly valid interpretation… at the time!”
An honest person is one who is willing to expand their viewpoint by considering additional evidence and adjust their position appropriately. That's exactly what I did. A dishonest person is one who would watch that happen and then shift the focus to strawmaning something else in order to maintain their original assertion.
You act as if you've had anything enlightening to say in this thread. "The media uses sensationalized headlines to capture attention!" No shit. "The media uses preconceived notions in their audience to prop up a story!" Every political story is based on some preconceived notion.
Not a damn thing you've criticized the main stream media for is anything I've denied. You're having a whole debate in your head.
The question I've been interested in discussing is whether this amounts to dishonest journalism, a conversation you clearly have no interest in despite your willingness to write paragraph after paragraph of my perceived sophistry and dishonesty.
So since I'm known for parting shots, I'll just leave you to keep arguing with your imaginary foe. Perhaps you'll write an entire paragraph about that one next.
Good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This is like arguing that 4 strands of hey is greater than 1 entire hey stack, because 4 > 1.No it's like saying 4 stalks of hay are more than one stalk.
Ok, let's try this.
I argue that the 2022 election in Florida was rigged. Ron Desantis lost the race to Charlie Christ but republicans cheated.
My case for this is that in Florida, thousands of ballots were cast in the name of dead people. I have a list of 10,000 examples of dead voters, and that's just from my findings by sifting through public records.
The state of Florida went through my list and found that almost every single one of my examples are of people who are still alive, but did confirm that 5 of them appear to have been fraudulent.
Based on these premises...
Q1: Do we now accept that the 2022 Florida election was rigged?
Q2: Do we still maintain that thousands of dead people voted in Florida?
Q3: Are my 5 legitimate examples of dead voters more meaningful than the investigation which not only uncovered them, but also proved that the vast majority of alleged dead voters is false?
You provided, YOUR SOURCE4/ 5million URRRRRH fake, that assumes your source infallibly discovered the truth behind every apparent dead voter. FALSE
Q4: Did my source provide credible information? YES or NO?
Q5: If no, then on what basis do you accept that the 4 examples you pulled from my source are themselves credible?
Bonus Question: Since it was your claim that thousands of dead people voted, do you have any actual evidence of your own, or were you just pulling that out of your ass?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Unsurprisingly, you are framing this in two opposing ways simultaneously, depending upon which is more convenient at a point in time. You claim to accept the findings of the investigation which concluded that no whipping occurred. You also claim that video evidence shows whipping occurring.
This is why I've been asking... What is the point you are trying to make with this example?
You've answered it to a certain extent but not to the point where a meaningful dialog can be had, hence the seemingly contradictory statements. But depending on the actual topic, both are correct.
If the point is merely that story X was reported and story X turned out to be false, then the former is what I accept and the conversation stops there. No reason to talk about what the video purports to show.
If the topic is about journalistic integrity and whether that was exercised here, the former is irrelevant and the latter becomes a valid point.
The difference between these two statements is about what point in time we are pointing to. In the immediate aftermath of the video's surfacing we did not have the benefit of an internal investigation which included analyzing other angles that ICE was able to later attain nor interviews with the agents or other witness statements. We had the video, that's it. So the media did what it's supposed to do, report.
Journalists are not omniscient, they are human beings just like the rest of us who can be wrong. But getting things wrong from time to time does not justify a full hand waiving away of everything that follows. Last week my weather app said it was going to rain and it didn't, doesn't mean I stop using it.
This is why I pressed you on this over and over again. If your whole point is that the story turned out to be false, then this conversation was meaningless from the start and I apologize for jumping into it. But if we're talking about journalistic integrity then what matters is whether there was any intent to deceive. Evidence for that in my view is absent for reasons I've already argued.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Good show ADOL!!!!Oh look D_R, another intelligent person like myself calling out your bullshit hypocritical denialist double speak.
Please tell me what part of;
4 confirmed dead people voting > an entire statewide investigation finding only 4 dead voters
Did you find convincing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
YOU SAID:Here's just one example you will claim is meaningless.Now you claim four examples are meaningless.
This is like arguing that 4 strands of hey is greater than 1 entire hey stack, because 4 > 1.
The number of examples provided is no where near as important as the quality or weight of those examples. This is basic common sense.
Moreover, by comparing your "examples" to mine, you are engaging in an egregious category error. The 4 examples you gave were literally a subset of my one example.
What I provided was a report about an entire investigation that proved the overwhelming majority of these allegations is false. That is a meaningful rebuttal.
What you provided are the literal 4 examples found in a system where about 5 million votes were cast of dead voters, all four of them cast by family members carrying out their loved ones wishes, not part of some nefarious scheme. That is not meaningful given the claim.
Do you understand why finding only 4 examples of dead voters in a state where about 5 million votes were cast works against your claim? Do you understand basic math and statistics?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
If the various media headlines said, “Border patrol agents twirl [or wave] their reins at migrants” then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. No, media felt the need to evoke American slave era imagery instead. That is clickbait and provocative rhetoric rather than good reporting. We are at an impasse.
Yes, we are at an impasse, because your reason for objecting to the reporting here really just comes down to insulting everyone who took issue with what they saw with their own eyes.
I agree with you that the word "whip" was probably used because it garners more attention, but it garners more attention because as I already explained, there is a colloquial usage of the word that fits here to describe the conduct of the agents in question. People know what "agents whipping migrants" would look like, and it's exactly what the video appears to show. The purpose of language is to communicate, using a term most people don't understand is not communicating. You can call that click bait, but calling that a lie is nonsense.
Throughout our entire conversation, not once have I bothered to Google "split reins", I have never heard of them before this thread. Yet also take note that I continue to use the word because I couldn't care less what the tool they are using was called, the word being used is not why the story mattered.
You insult anyone who was bothered by this by pretending people didn't see the video with their own eyes and reach their own conclusions about the agents behaviour. As if someone just said "whip" and everyone lost their mind as they waited to be told what to feel next. That's just plain stupid.
It doesn't matter where their outage is coming from or whether you consider it valid, the fact that people are triggered by certain images is a separate issue from whether media outlets are being deceptive via their techinally incorrect usage of a single word. In this case they weren't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
do you believe the elections in Stalin's Russia were legitimate? YES or NO?Your question was whether I thought it was comparable, the answer was: YES.Was it legitimate? NO
Please explain in detail how you arrived at this conclusion without trusting what others told you.
So, once again: they put the lie in the headline, they put the propaganda in the first couple paragraphs, and then; to cover their ass they put the facts at the end (where no sheep read to), but hey not everyone does that anymore either...So... William Nelson died before the election. He was a dead voter. Dead voter confirmed...Dead voter confirmed.... fraud confirmed....Dead voter confirmed...Fraud confirmed...Dead voter confirmed.... fraud confirmed....You may now proceed to the sheeplike and obtuse pretense of being unaware of the fundamental theorem of statistics by saying something like "but four examples don't make up for 18,000 votes!".
It never ceases to amaze me how election deniers think showing a handful of examples of fraud disproves the narrative that this was a fair and secure election. I also find it amusing how unsophisticated your views are that you really think this gives reason for you to keep believing "sheeple like me" aren't reading the entire article... As if the handful of examples the article found prove your point. It doesn't. At all. That's why they included it.
There will always be some examples of the extraordinary given enough opportunities, so extremely rare occurrences become statistical certainties with a high enough denominator. A national election where close to 200 million ballots were cast certainly qualifies.
You pretend to know something about statistics but appear ignorant on how the law of large numbers works.
The claim is not nor has it ever been that fraud in US elections is totally nonexistent. The claim is that it is no where near widespread enough to conceivably alter the results. The tiny handful of examples found in an election seperated by 12k votes - considered a nailbiter - only supports that assertion.
The ballots are real, the fraud is that the same people fill out multiple ballots.
Prove it. Justify this claim with actual evidence and data, then perhaps we can see which one of us is just mindlessly parroting what the propagandists told us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
So here it is, a distilled, only slightly humorized summary of this discussion along with supporting source posts
You forgot to mention "heavily cherry picked".
You conveniently left out that part where I acknowledged that the correction which came later on was most likely accurate, or how I repeatedly asked you to explain what your point was to which you had no answer except to keep going right back to this techinal falsehood within the story, and how I stopped responding to you altogether because it was obvious you weren't interested in a meaningful conversation - until you started to pretend that the tool the agents were using was the point.
From the very start of our conversation it has been obvious to anyone with an IQ above temperature that whether they were using whips, split reins, ropes, or an oversize Twizzler... None of that was the point for myself or anyone else who took issue with this story. "Whipping" is an often used colloquialism, most people have never used or even seen an actual whip in real life let alone understand how one works, instead the term is often used to describe that type of motion regardless of the tool being used so the idea that people were "lied to" by the use of this term is just plain stupid.
But congratulations I guess... you really owned the lib on that one.
So now, finally, would you like to explain what your point is on this? What is it that you think is the take away here?
Invoking the historical imagery of an “agent of white supremacy” using a whip on a defenseless black person is surely intended to evoke a visceral response and sense of outrage
It wasn't invoked genius, it's what the video showed. You don't have to agree with why people were upset about it but stop pretending it was because of people being "lied to" about which tool was being used.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Could it perhaps be something a bit more simple: The propagandist you trust told you it was rigged?
BTW... You never did answer my question; do you believe the elections in Stalin's Russia were legitimate? YES or NO?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
We have every logical reason to accept that the system works and no reason to reject it.You have precisely one reason: Trust
...
We would have confirmed cases of dead people voting in the tens of thousandsThere were lists thousands long.
So to be clear, when I trust qualified experts and people who are speaking from positions of trust in which the words they speak could end their careers or land them in jail... I'm being a mindless sheep.
But when you trust internet conspiracy theorists compiling data from their moms basement... That means you are thinking for yourself.
Again, you haven't done any of the research yourself. You didn't go out and interview anyone, you didn't hold up the ballots to the light or search them for traces of bamboo. You are just sitting there from your phone or PC just like every one of us relying on your own ability to put 2 and 2 together, and every piece of data you are using to reach your conclusions came from someone else - that you trust.
So you're worldview comes from those you trust just like everyone else, the difference is that you seem to think you are better than everyone because you trust people who don't know what they're talking about rather than those who do, or because you think it's fashionable to just reject all knowledge altogether. There's nothing rational about that.
If we're really trying to make progress the next natural step in this conversation would be to discuss things like what makes someone credible, but you have disregarded that conversation every time it's come up. I am curious as to why.
I have never seen those lists debunked
Yes you have, you just hand waive them away every time because they are not trustworthy to you since no one is unless they're reporting from their moms basement.
Here's just one example you will claim is meaningless. I could provide literally hundreds more but that would be a monumental waste of time as you've already demonstrated:
We have one side claiming without any evidence that there is fraudThere is plenty of evidence. Undeniable evidence that the system is secure (which is sufficient) and circumstantial evidence that fraudulent ballots were cast. Since the system was insecure circumstantial evidence is the only evidence that would exist.
The possibility of fraud is not sufficient for anything, and your circumstantial evidence had all been debunked.
Do you have any examples you'd like to provide?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Back to where it started then. My original claim of a media false claim:“9. ICE whipping migrants”Your response:There were instances of this. How heavily it was reported compared to how often it was happening I don't know.Since then, it has just been backpedaling and goalpost adjustment attempts on your part rather than good faith retraction.
I stated in plain English that I accept no migrants were whipped. You apparently didn't accept it because you didn't like the tone. That's your problem, not mine.
The conversation actually began when IWR asked you for examples of major stories that "turned out to be false". Rather than question whether he was seriously implying that main stream media is never wrong about anything, an obviously ridiculous claim, you decided to pounce on the techinal victory by setting out to prove some stories can on fact be wrong.
I pointed out Roosevelt's response to you about those stories not being lies to make the point that we are having two different conversations. What IWR and myself were both defending was that notion that main stream media outlets exercise journalistic integrity when reporting as compared to their right wing propaganda counterparts like News Max or OANN. That would have been a conversation actually worth having.
But you had your victory points, so congratulations.
So no, I'm not backpedaling, I'm defending the same position I began the conversation with, which had absolutely nothing to do with whether the agents used whips or split reins, nor did it even have anything to do with whether the agents tools actually made contact with the migrants bodies. My position was about journalistic integrity. If you care to have that conversation then feel free to reply. Otherwise I couldn't care less about your little gotcha scorecard, especially coming from someone who loves to pretend I'm the one who is intellectually dishonest and not intellectually curious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No one who "believed" the story gave a rats ass whether the agents were carrying whips, split reins, or oversized Twizzlers.Absurd, dismissed.
I accept your concession.
We do not assume fraud at the outset.Then you must believe Stalin was elected with an overwhelming majority.
Key words: "at the outset"
Do you believe that our election system is comparable to Stalin's Russia? Yes or No?
The idea that we should require the same standards to accept a ballot as we would evidence in court is patently absurd. Our entire democratic system would collapse....and yet that is precisely what many laws implied was necessary.
I was talking about each individual ballot. But your point is taken. So now... Can you please explain, since the standards here are so high, what the problem is?
What is relevant is only this: You claim to submit to the authority of democracy, so does the opposing tribe. The obvious choice going forward is catering to the most paranoid until the overwhelming majority once again believe they are living in a democracy.
Wrong. You do not cater to the paranoid, you cater to reality. That requires adhering to facts, logic, and following the very laws and systems designed to ensure an accurate result.
The solution to our problems as a society is not to allow the paranoid to dictate how society will operate. That's ridiculous. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe the paranoid are acting in good faith, so catering to them would be futile even if your premise was accepted.
The most likely reason to resist adoption of secure systems going forward is the knowledge of and consent to fraud and that is exactly how it will be taken.
No one is resisting secure elections, that's hoarseshit. We have one side claiming without any evidence that there is fraud, and the other side correctly pointing out that the burden of proof is on the side claiming fraud.
Our elections contain multiple safeguards as you already acknowledged. And while any individual ballot can be fraudulent, if fraud were anywhere near as rampant as would be needed to swing our elections there would be evidence of it. We would have confirmed cases of dead people voting in the tens of thousands, not just internet conspiracy theories. We would have thousands of people showing up as having cast a ballot in multiple states, not just internet conspiracy theories. The counts would not make sense, yet they do. We have every logical reason to accept that the system works and no reason to reject it.
Refusing to cater to those who don't know what they are talking about is not evidence of consent to fraud no matter how fervently you convince yourself otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I don’t confuse your weak sauce backpedaling for you never having made the claim as you seem to wish.
With every interaction you continue to show more and more that your allegations of me being closed minded and uninterested in a productive rational dialog are pure projection.
Once again, the story here was not about which tool the agents were using. The only people who care about that are the people searching for any factual inaccuracy they can find as an excuse to label the story propaganda and shut off all thinking thereafter.
The story was about the conduct of the agents. You can watch that video and take no issue with it all you want, that doesn't mean it didn't resonate with many people and no one who watched the video and took issue with it would have changed their minds if someone came along and said "duh those aren't whips those are split reins".
This is like reading a headline "woman is crushed when a man stomped over her with his boots" and then claiming the story is propaganda because the man was wearing loafers. It's just plain stupid.
So you can think my "backpedaling" is weak all you want, all you're demonstrating is an unwillingness to understand alternative viewpoints and to address other people's criticisms for what they actually are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You're waffling instead of admitting that they ran a false story about whips and millions of people believed it
The story wasn't about whips. I already explained that. No one who "believed" the story gave a rats ass whether the agents were carrying whips, split reins, or oversized Twizzlers. That wasn't what the story was about.
This is like when someone says the earth is round and you come along saying "no, it's an oblate spheroid". Please stop being that guy.
A techinal inaccuracy and a false story are two very different things.
This is like when someone says the earth is round and you come along saying "no, it's an oblate spheroid". Please stop being that guy.
A techinal inaccuracy and a false story are two very different things.
That's what I said, that the only reason you have to claim accuracy would be the assertions of people who you think would be in the position to know and whom you trust to tell the truth.
This is why in logic we have a philosophic burden of proof. Naturally, because you have no evidence of fraud, your tactic is to try and reverse the burden into "proving innocence". That is not how it works. We do not assume fraud at the outset. Fraud is the thing that if asserted, needs evidentiary support.
Disagreeing with our system of voting is perfectly fine. We can debate that. But within the system we have, the results were clear.
You love to pretend that you are above everyone else because as you argue, the rest of us are just believing what were told, ironically unaware that every argument you make relies on information you were told. You are no different than anyone else, the only difference is that you seem to think credibility is determined by opposing the masses. It's not.
Disagreeing with our system of voting is perfectly fine. We can debate that. But within the system we have, the results were clear.
You love to pretend that you are above everyone else because as you argue, the rest of us are just believing what were told, ironically unaware that every argument you make relies on information you were told. You are no different than anyone else, the only difference is that you seem to think credibility is determined by opposing the masses. It's not.
This sums it up:
If it's susceptible to fraud and fraud cannot be ruled out in a timely manner (or in this case at all) it must be treated as fraudulent just as a bank which can't be audited, a scientific paper whose data cannot be reproduced, or evidence in a court case with no chain of custody.
If I show up at a polling station with my ID, sign the form and cast a ballot, fraud cannot be ruled out. I could very easily have used a fake ID and looked at the signature beforehand. Does this mean we get rid of in person voting as well?
This is a deeply flawed comparison. Running a bank, producing a scientific paper, or admitting evidence into a court case are not constitutionally guaranteed rights. In those cases, just like any other including voting, we set up rules/standards based entirely on the specifics of what the goal is.
This is a deeply flawed comparison. Running a bank, producing a scientific paper, or admitting evidence into a court case are not constitutionally guaranteed rights. In those cases, just like any other including voting, we set up rules/standards based entirely on the specifics of what the goal is.
A democracy does not work unless everyone has an opportunity to participate. The idea that we should require the same standards to accept a ballot as we would evidence in court is patently absurd. Our entire democratic system would collapse. Moreover, you pretend as if anyone could just fill out a mail in ballot and there are no checks and balances to ensure its integrity. That's total nonsense.
So no, none of these examples are analogous and your requirement that fraud be "ruled out" before we accept a ballot is untenable. Again, if you are alleging fraud, provide the evidence. That's how it works. That's how it should work. That's how it will always work.
It's also a clue that thousands of people needed to repeatedly certify election results (by law).
This is called a safeguard.
I have question; do you believe the 2020 election in Florida should be accepted as the accurate results?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
“How do you substantiate your belief that there were, in fact, whips involved?”Your lack of an answer leads me to conclude that some video footage provided sufficient evidence in your view of the presence of whips and the inexcusable whipping of people. Your standard of evidence, and that of the journalists involved as well as the Whitehouse, for what constitutes an act of an agent of the federal government whipping defenseless people seems to be rather low— too low to be consistent with reality, as it turned out.
So to recap; you began with a loaded question. Then you took my lack of an answer as evidence that your loaded question was based on truth, then used your fallacious conclusion to criticize my standards.
Your question was posed in post 108. In the very next post (109) to ADreamOfLiberty I began by addressing that very concept. If you want to know my answer feel free to go back and read it.
The reason I stopped responding to you is because it became clear that you were not interested in a substantive conversation on this topic. You were focused on catching IWR in a "gotcha" rather than addressing the actual question he was raising about journalistic integrity. Instead you focused on stories that turned out to be wrong because those are the words he used, a meaningless conversation to have by way of anecdotes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Can you give me details on Trump's response to hurricane Maria?
See post 5. Replace Biden with Trump, and replace Hawaii with Puerto Rico.
I don't follow Trump at all.
Yeah. That's kind of my point.
I'm all for having an honest conversation about Biden's handling of Hawaii, but if you have nothing to say about Maria or don't even know anything about Trump's handling of it, then you don't really care about this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No it's not, I consider that proven already. The notion that they were hired, paid huge amounts for significant periods of time, and delivered nothing but hot air is absurd enough to be beyond the scope of something I could prove online.
The fact that these individuals sat on a board of directors because of their connections doesn't in any way whatsoever prove some sort of improper link between themselves and the people they were connected to. Under qualified people sit on boards all the time, it's one of the most do nothing overpaid positions on earth which is exactly what makes it ripe for this kind of thing.
Hunter served on the board of Amtrak for 5 years prior to Burisma. Was he qualified for that? Does this prove Biden's involvement there as well? What about the guy who appointed HB to the board, what does this say about him?
Board positions are not "deliver or else" kind of jobs.
but I thought Biden didn't have any power, it was all Obama?
Power and influence are not the same thing.
Moreover, I never said Biden had "no" power, I said he didn't have the power to halt foreign aid. That's the kind of decision that goes straight to the president. Everyone knows this.
The message saying that he had to give half his salary seems to be evidence. As is "10% for the big guy". As is the shared bank account. As is the evidence that Hunter was paying for maintenance of Joe's property.
The property maintenance emails were sent in 2010, 4 years before Hunter joined Burisma. There is also no context to any of this, so we have no idea why he was doing whatever he was doing. This is a classic argument from ignorance.
The 10% for the big guy remark I've already debunked. Joe was never part of the deal and was never involved in any discussion about it. You're using one person's idea which was rejected as evidence of someone else's involvement. That does not logically follow.
The text is not evidence of any kind that the two were involved in business dealings. Again, we have no idea what the backstory is here and when it comes to family there are always odd things going on from an outsiders perspective. This is yet another argument from ignorance.
All you have is mere speculation, and much of it does not support the conclusion even if accepted as true.
If it was secret from the government then Vindman wouldn't have been listening in.
Not the fact that Rudy was involved, I'm talking about his day to day involvement and his overall objective. The testimonies of Fiona Hill, Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondland made it clear that Rudy was acting on his own and not reporting to or even coordinating with the state department which was frustrating state department employees.
So again, if Donald Trump was acting as our virtuous leader on behalf of the American people he would not have decided to use some backdoor channel while not telling anyone else what he was doing or what the plan was.
- Once the hold became public he immediately released the aid without the investigation and denied the allegations
I see you skipped over this one which I would argue was the most important point. If Trump was acting on behalf of the American people in demanding the investigation he would not have relented without it.
The fact that he relented as soon as word about what he was doing became public and then denied having done it made his corrupt intentions beyond obvious.
His own officials testified that the goal was not an actual investigation, but rather an announcement of one.I don't think there was such a thing as "his own officials".
I accept your concession on this point, which again, objectively shows that he wasn't acting in the American people's best interests. There's a word for that, it's called corruption.
Zelensky claimed there was no quid pro quo
Of course he did, he would have been an idiot to say anything else. He was desperate for the US's help and he, like everyone, knew that when you cross Trump he puts a target on your back. The worst thing he could have possibly be done for himself and his country was to get himself involved in a political firestorm in the US.
This is common sense.
We do of course know that Zelensky with his back to the wall and desperate for Trump's help was in fact planning to go on CNN to make a major announcement. That announcement was all of a sudden cancelled once news of all of this broke. I wonder what that was about.
Also one of Zelensky's officials interviewed in 2021 by Chris Cuomo and told the whole story of how Zelensky and others reacted to being extorted by Trump. This was obvious to all of them.
Trump claims he did not hold up aid in connection to the request for an investigation.
So to be clear, are you saying that someone accused of acting corruptly saying that they did no such thing, is in fact evidence of their innocence? Please clarify.
Everything that points to impropriety rests on the notion that government bureaucrats can be trusted
No, it doesn't. It rests among many other things, on an understanding of human nature, namely that people will generally act within their own best interests. This is why we have a system of holding people accountable for things like committing fraud and lying under oath.
It also rests on a basic application of logic and critical thinking to avoid committing fallacies. One such fallacy would be to group people into categories so that you can claim one person doing something improper gives you rational justification to assume other people in the same category should also need assumed to be acting improperly. That's not how reasonable people evaluate one's credibility.
Reasonable people know from the transcript of the call that there was nothing to whisteblow about.
Reasonable people understand what the word "though" means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So this won't cause Biden any problems?
Exactly what problems do you believe this example should cause for Biden?
Also, for the sake of testing your intellectual honesty in this conversation, what is your characterization of Trump's handling of hurricane Maria?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The video shows a clip of Biden nodding off during a Maui victim meeting, which includes children.
Or can the crony corporate media partners in the government successfully spin this away yet again?
I'm sure once the footage of Biden talking about how Hawii is "surrounded by big water, like ocean water", throwing paper towels into the crowd, bragging about how only 16 or 17 people have died when it was actually about 3,000, puts out a tweet about how Hawaiians are to blame for their own slow response, and then especially after an inspector generals report shows that Biden purposefully blocked federal aid all goes viral... people will realize what an embarrassment he is.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
LOL!!! It is a factually accurate statement! Nature only intended for two genders/sexes in order for the respective species that need procreation in order to continue to exist and evolve. Anything else is pure fantasy and wishful thinking (fallacy)!!!
I wasn't aware that nature had intentions. Perhaps you can elaborate on what it's intentions are and how you know...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I provided 11 examples, the list; the immediate context was going into the details of one of those examples. In that immediate context you start denying there is a wider pattern as a way to excuse the specific example.I could give the 11 examples again, you would say "nah uh none of those are examples, for instance [starts talking about specific example]" I point out how the specific example is misinformation/false by the standards applied to narratives promoted by the propagandist and you'll go "oh there is no pattern though"It's a big circle and I'm not following you around it.
Nonsense. I didn't back out of our conversation on the specific example you picked. In post 109 I began by responding directly to your comments on that example. You then went down another path with another comment that I also responded to:
The news report following this claims ICE agents whipped migrants.Yes, and since they keep lying and using egregious double standards it is not reasonable to believe news reports
So I pointed out that you haven't provided a single example to back up this statement (because we are still discussing it) so you were begging the question here, something I've noticed you do frequently.
So no, I'm not the one ducking and dodging here. You completely dropped the discussion on the one example and then went on to pretendI was the ones who did so. The dishonesty is almost impressive.
people who counted the ballots -> couldn't possibly identify which ones were fraudulentthe supervisors they worked under -> couldn't possibly identify which ones were fraudulentthe officials they reported to -> could only check with the people who counted the ballotsthe officials tasked with verifying their results -> could only check with the officials the ballot counters were reporting to (or the machines that counted the ballots and had no way of detecting fraudulent ones) and thus could not possibly fulfill their task
So in other words... You accept that the election not being stolen is not just a claim that came from a few officials at the top telling us so.
Nobody needs a governor to cheat when there is mass mail in votes with signatures being the only verification of identity that can't be dumped from a voter roll database.
So what exactly is the argument that the election was stolen? All I've gathered from you so far is that mail in ballots were susceptible to fraud, therefore they were fraudulent, therefore Trump really won.
Does that sum it up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You mean like when they act like every election lawsuit was frivolous because one or two asserted some falsehoods?
No, they act like every election lawsuit was frivolous because they were all based on the idea that the election was stolen, which there is no evidence for and the people filling these lawsuits know that.
You have yet to show any example of wide spread lying or egregious double standards within MSM.Back to the scope switching fallacy huh?
Responding to your assertion that the media lies and uses egregious double standards by pointing out that you have provided no examples of it - is not a scope switching fallacy.
If you aren't prepared to stand by your points then don't make them.
When there was a list you said "focus on one" when I focused on one, you said "it's not widespread".
Again, it was a response to your assertion of wide spread lying and double standards.
Beyond that, the reason I ask you to focus on one is because then you get to pick the best example. If your best example fails under focused scrutiny, it stands to reason that the rest will likely fail. It's a basic test of whether your claim has any validity. If you stand by your claims one would figure you would welcome that.
The credibility of a news report is not determined by the mere fact that it is a news report, it's determined by the credibility of its sources and the validity of its cumulative picture. You have to think in order to figure that out, not just shut your brain down and not allow any new information in because you don't like where it's coming from or what it concludes.Bla bla bla, excuses for fake news.
I know, those dang excuses about how we have to apply critical thinking. What a nuisance.
Except if your a left-tibe news source claiming migrants were whipped. Then it's on everyone to prove that no migrant was ever whipped. Your words:"In other words, we now know ICE didn't whip any migrants because ICE told us so"
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim to provide evidence for their claim. The evidence of migrants being whipped (or whatever you prefer to call it) was provided. Once that burden had been meet, it now shifts back to you to explain why the evidence is either invalid or not strong enough to justify a "preponderance of the evidence" conclusion.
This is basic stuff, and is how all claims (left tribe or right tribe) are justified while removing bias as much reasonably possible. Your inability to understand how this works is not an argument for hypocrisy.
I also find it telling that you keep pointing out my sentence while cutting off the part where I explained that in spite of this, I accept ICE's findings. Next time, read the entire exchange.
Conspiracy size as small as one. Doesn't fail any test.
There is no universe in which one person can pull off a nation wide conspiracy in a system that is compartmentalized by design. You are just showing yourself to be unserious.
The claims of security are (in your own phrasing): We now know the elections were secure because election officials told us so
Because the election officials in every state along with the people who counted the ballots, the supervisors they worked under, the officials they reported to, the officials tasked with verifying their results, the officials tasked with investigating allegations of fraud, the judges tasked with hearing the challenges, the secretaries of state responsible for the outcome, and the governors who signed off on them - who in many if not most cases were republicans who would have been acting against their own interests to do so fraudulently... Told us so. And because the alternative would have required a significant number of them to be involved in a fraud conspiracy against their own interests.
Google Occam's razor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I do know that the propaganda department of the deep state showed video of split reins spinning, called them whips, and millions of left-tribe sheep believe them as they always do. That's the point.
The reason the story gained traction on the left had nothing to do with whether they were whips or split reins, it gained traction because of the conduct of the ice agents.
This is yet another example of political pundits seizing on any factual inaccuracy they can find within a story in order to pretend the entire story and everything about it that actually matters should be disregarded. It's a tired dishonest tactic.
Yes, and since they keep lying and using egregious double standards it is not reasonable to believe news reports
You have yet to show any example of wide spread lying or egregious double standards within MSM. You just assert it followed by using bad examples like this to back it up.
Moreover, your logic here is does not follow. The credibility of a news report is not determined by the mere fact that it is a news report, it's determined by the credibility of its sources and the validity of its cumulative picture. You have to think in order to figure that out, not just shut your brain down and not allow any new information in because you don't like where it's coming from or what it concludes.
Lack of evidence is literally the only reason to deny the claims of election fraud and it's hasn't stopped a single left-tribe pundit, propagandist, or government official from calling the election fraud claims "false" or "debunked".
It's called the burden of proof. If you're claiming the election was stolen, the burden is on you to prove it. In the absence of such evidence we are logically forced to take the default position, that the election results as counted and verified by all of the states is accurate.
That's not a hypothetical, that is the entire basis for claiming the election was secure. The people who would be held responsible if it wasn't assured us it was.
The basis is because the alternative is to assert a massive nationwide conspiracy that to this day has evaded all detection. That fails the basic Occam's razor test.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
See posts 11-13, 74, 95, and 98If you fail to see any point here, what compels you to participate?
I guess I was giving you too much credit by assuming you took the time to recall and post all of those examples as a way of saying something more than 'Sometimes journalists get things wrong'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
See previous post to Cristo71. If you want to discuss this pick one, and be sure to tell me what point you think your example proves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
*SMH* I was actually hoping that this would at least be one area of common ground because this one is just patently false
Ok, so at the time a video surfaces showing ICE agents chasing migrants with whips, twirling them around as they threaten to whip them, and in at least one instance shows an ICE agent swinging it by a migrants head as that migrant whips (no pun intended) his head back and falls to the ground. The news report following this claims ICE agents whipped migrants.
Fast forward a few weeks or months and some of those very agents were disciplined for their behavior, but according to an internal investigation, they found that no migrants were actually whipped. In other words, we now know ICE didn't whip any migrants because ICE told us so (I somehow doubt you would ever accept that from the Biden administration).
But ok, being that I am actually intellectually honest (unlike those who tend to accuse me otherwise) I would accept the reports findings as the best explanation. So now what? What's the takeaway here?
Created: