Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The rioters weren’t taking their cues from anyone else, they were taking them from Trump. We know because they told us so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Well prove to me he did. He didn't I can tell you that.
Proving it to you requires the willingness on your part to accept basic logic and reason over your preferred narrative. That’s not likely which is of no fault to anyone other than yourself.
The case however is quite simple. Trump spent months before the election telling his followers the election was going to be stolen, then on election night before the votes had been even counted declared victory. He then spent the following months amplifying every conspiracy theory under the sun continuing to rally his supporters until January 6th where he invited all of his followers to March onto the capital to “fight like hell, or you’re not going to have a country anymore”.
This is where the MAGA cultists jump in; “but he said March peacefully!” which is of course complete bullshit. They showed up because they were pissed and ready to cause a ruckus. No one in their right mind heard that one sentence and thought “oh, I guess we’re not supposed to actually fight”. Trump understood this very well, which is why he said it, because he knew his followers would point to that one sentence to claim innocence. It’s called a false exculpatory, and it’s a classic tactic used by the mob to confuse the jury.
It’s also absurd to tell people that their voice has been stolen from them by people who don’t care about them, and the remedy to that is to yell really loud.
And if you need more evidence that the crowd was taking their cues from Trump just watch all of the video footage of the rioters themselves telling police officers that they were there on behalf of Trump and reading Trump’s tweets with a blowhorn to an animated crowd reacting to it.
At the end of the day you have the choice to ignore all of this no matter how obvious it is. And if that’s the case here’s one final thought experiment… imagine if in early November 2020 Trump had done what every losing presidential candidate before him did; concede the election, congratulated his opponent, and orchestrated an orderly transition. Just imagine. Do you seriously believe January 6th would have still happened?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Biden has ruined the economy, causing food prices, and gas prices to skyrocket.
So is it just coincidence that global food and gas costs skyrocketed during the same time period? Please enlighten me.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You realize the opposite holds true right? How can you quantify how Biden brought prices down?
I’m not the one claiming Biden’s policies have made any significant impact
I know how the futures market operates. It’s basic financial market movement tbh. Any and all information is reflected in the market if you’re a believer in the EMH.
We’re not talking about whether his policies theoretically made some impact in some way. Your claim Is that his policies are largely responsible for the prices we see today, which means that his actions or inactions are primarily driving the market. Oil is a huge global industry, yet all you can point to are insignificant changes that hardly make any difference.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
His policies were responsible for the high gas prices because he severely constricted oil supply.
Yes, I understand you believe that, even though you cannot quantify the impacts of a single policy you are claiming is responsible.
But that was all besides the point which I made clear and you ignored. Here, I’ll give it another try…
Therefore we agree that any yo-yo who comes around saying they disapprove of Biden merely because gas prices are high is expressing an opinion based in pure ignorance, and given that the vast majority of people don’t know anything about what influences gas prices, this accurately describes a significant portion of his disapproval with the American people.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I’m not having it both ways if you actually read what I said lol.
I’m not accusing you of making that argument. We’ve talked about this a dozen times already, I know what you have to say. I’m just trying to get you to acknowledge, as you just did, that just because Biden is president does not mean he is responsible for high gas prices.
Therefore we agree that any yo-yo who comes around saying they disapprove of Biden merely because gas prices are high is expressing an opinion based in pure ignorance, and given that the vast majority of people don’t know anything about what influences gas prices, this accurately describes a significant portion of his disapproval with the American people.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
If the president is responsible for the rise in gas prices - because he’s the president - then he’s also responsible for the reduction in gas prices.
You don’t get to have it both ways, blame him with no explanation necessary when prices go up but when they go down dismiss it with specifics.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Wait so now Russia isn’t causing inflation and higher gas prices? What gives
You tell us.
The president is either responsible for gas prices or he isn’t. Which one is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Taking what you said, and thinking about it, my evidence and claims have only disproven the scientists that claim thing just came to be.
This is nothing but a strawman.
Scientists are not claiming the universe popped into existence from nothing or “just came to be”. Once again, Big Bang cosmology *begins* at the point of the Big Bang because that is as far back as we have been able to scientifically prove. There is no consensus regarding what or even if anything preceded it.
One of the many differences between science and religion is that science is perfectly comfortable with “I don’t know” as an answer.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
A scientist insisted Wednesday that Dr. Anthony Fauci is hiding the truth about the U.S. funding of research that could shed light on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic during the first hearing on the matter.
It never ceases to amaze me how obsessed the political right is with finding out the true origins of COVID and insist that this is of such grave importance that we should all be joining in the search for the “truth”, while downplaying COVID as a hoax or essentially just the flu.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
We hear from scientists that the singularity, means something that popped into existence from nothing.
That’s not what scientists say. Big Bang cosmology *begins* at the point of the Big Bang. It does not go any further because we do not know of its origins or whether the term “before the Big Bang” is even a coherent phrase since time itself may have come into existence at the point of the Big Bang which is is the case, there would be no such thing as “before”.
Secondly, when physicists talk about nothing they are not using the same definition you and every other laymen are using. Nothing in this sense refers to the absence of identifiable properties, but the absence of identifiable properties does not necessarily mean the absence of all properties.
The big bang defiantly did happen, but God is the one who ignited the match.
This is a bald assertion which you have not justified, and I would go even further to say you cannot possibly justify.
If you have all the parts of a watch in a box, and they aren't put together, you could shake that box forever, but you would never get a watch. Now the human brain for example is way more advanced than a watch, so do you really think that life was just created like that, all shaken up?
No one is claiming that this is how a brain or any other form of life came to be. Please study the theory of evolution. At least familiarize yourself with the basics before using such an uninformed analogy.
Now scientist nowadays say well, life actually comes from random chemicals and elements. Yet every biological experiment we have done with chemicals and elements, has not produced life or any actual signs of life at all.
Google the Miller–Urey experiment
So, if life didn't arise from non-living chemicals, then how did life arise? The only explanation is a supernatural being.
That’s not an explanation.
Things that do not exist cannot be rationally asserted as the cause for something else. Therefore, before you can assert X as the explanation you have to first demonstrate that X exists.
If some things are objectively morally wrong, and some things are objectively morally right, then there must be a God.
There is no such thing as objective morality in an absolute sense.
We humans have the nature to reason, and to wonder why things exist, why we exist, and that's why we have science. Why are we the only species that does this?
Questions are not arguments. Google argument from ignorance fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You sound like a demagogue cultist with that kind of logic.
That’s often the result when you engage in conversations that take place entirely in your head.
I didn’t decry CNN as right wing, I referenced stories such as this one that once they break, take over right wing media in a desperate attempt to find something to slam Joe Biden about.
Funny how you ignored every other substantive point I made in favor of the made up theatrics, but not surprising.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Biden tries to mend fences with ally Saudi Arabia
Another one of these stupid stories right wing media pretends is a big deal when it’s just mundane nonsense.
Bin Salmon is now the prime minister so the Biden administration determined that like every other prime minister on earth, they have to deal with him as such.
This is common sense and the article suggests this is probably why he was appointed PM in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This isn't about me. Polls across America have Congress below 20 percent approval.
That’s because voters hate the institution, not the people they voted for. The only poll that matters is the ballot box.
If the voters try to promote a candidate that votes differently than the status quo oligarchy, the lobbyists make sure that candidate never gets past the primaries.
It’s not up to the lobbyists whether that candidate gets past the primaries, the voters decided that. That’s why we have primary elections.
You’re talking about influence, which is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact that the voters can often be easily manipulated is their own fault. We get the government we deserve, if you care so much about representation than kick your fellow citizens in the tail to make better choices. If that doesn’t work then guess what… that’s democracy telling you that you don’t always get what you want.
Again, until you can show that the people with actual power were not chosen by the voters at the ballot box you have no argument here. It’s just you throwing a temper tantrum because democracy doesn’t always result in what you want.
It's all the illusion of choice, and people are not going to support this much longer.
They don’t have to, they can vote out their representatives and vote for ones that will actually represent them.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Secondly, facts support a premise, they are not the premises.
Again, and this is elementary level epistemology; an argument is made up of two ingredients, premises and logic. The result of those two things is the conclusion.
Facts themselves are categorically different from logic, so they are not logic. That only leaves premises for them to fall under.
A premise is a thing you accept as true which forms the basis of the argument. That is where facts come in.
In order for facts to support a premise you need to use logic to connect the dots to your premise. In other words, it’s an argument onto itself, the conclusion of which you are accepting as the premise of your next argument.
So going back to our disagreement, you argued; “Uh, last I checked everyone IS presumed INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers”. You completely failed to recognize that your statement, which is factually accurate, does not address (aka failure in logic) the point I was making. Not only does my argument take this into account, but I went into detail to explain *why* you are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and how that does not relate to the topic at hand.
So are you going to actually read what I wrote, or do you just want to continue throwing childish insults?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A failing democracy will inevitably result in autocracy. Is that what you prefer?We are already there.
Autocracy doesn’t mean “a government heavily influenced by lobbyists”. Try again. And until you can show that the people who actually have the power to vote for and/or sign bills into law are not the individuals whom a majority of voters chose at the ballot box your entire point here is just a nonsense attempt to dress up democracy as something nefarious because people don’t vote the way you want them to.
I really don't understand your point. If the goal of Democracy is to give power to the majority of the people, then why is power wielded by representatives of a minority of people, no matter what party?
Because the people keep rewarding them by voting for them.
If more people cared about and focused on the things that concern you, things would be different. But that’s what living in a democracy means, you don’t always get your issues addressed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This version aint worth saving, the one where general elections give the illusion of choice while the real deals are done with ultra rich lobbies and what is essentially a uniparty.
A failing democracy will inevitably result in autocracy. Is that what you prefer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Mitch McConnel is one of the most despised people in the Senate, yet is set to repeat as Senate leader.Why?
Because it’s easy to be liked when you don’t have any power.
When you preside over a divided institution the opposing side will hate you no matter what you do and every decision you make to appease your side will inevitably piss off some portion of them that wanted you to do things differently.
The problem isn’t democracy, it’s human nature.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I did my life wrong
Youth is wasted on the young
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
If your retort wasn’t about any alleged inaccuracies of my comment, then it stands to reason any rebuttal of yours wouldn’t even be on point.
Your post does not need to contain factual inaccuracies to be wrong.
Every argument has two parts; facts (aka premises) and logic. I’m explaining to you that the logic of your argument is fallacious. That part clearly went over your head.
So fuck off, ignoramus. You’re not worth my time. Childish turd that you are.
Someone is a little sensitive about being proven wrong.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
This is what we be talking about when we say MAGA is a cult. Even in a situation where the AG does the exact thing he’s supposed to do to minimize political influence over investigations, all Trump has to do is lie and say this is the politicization of the DOJ and MAGA follows him right off the reality cliff.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
So Garland blatantly stated he did it because Biden said he intended to.
Just in case it hasn’t been answered clear enough…
What Biden stated is that he intends to run for president. This puts Merrick Garland in a position where he technically reports to Biden, who is running for president, while investigating Trump, who is running against him. This can give the appearance that Garland is using the justice department to go after Biden’s political rivals, so Garland decided to take the investigations that are already ongoing and essentially remove himself from them by delegating all of the decision making to a third party.
That’s not a banana republic, that’s the exact opposite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
I think it's far more reasonable to believe the 99%+ chance explanations for the Covid outbreak being a planned lab leak, rather than the 1 in a quadrillion/quintillion chance it naturally occurred.[No response from Double R]You completely dropped this. You've conceded that your case is conspiratorial, in regard to a natural origin for Covid, whilst my lab leak case is the 99+% likely one.
I didn’t drop anything. To the extent this qualifies as an argument, it was the same point I already responded to recycled. But even that’s being generous, all you did was state your opinion, which is the very thing we’re disagreeing on.
Your statement is also fallacious, you’re just making up numbers. There is no way to deduce the probability of your explanation being correct because that’s not how probabilities work. Probability is a forward looking concept, using it to look backwards is meaningless because some result necessarily occurred and that result is always going to be astronomically unlikely within any given context. I’ve already explained this to you.
The response to Covid came 3 months BEFORE Covid. That's what the document shows. They're making vaccines BEFORE the Covid outbreak.
That’s not what the document shows. Did you even read it?
The EO created a task force to study current vaccine development methods and find ways to improve its productiveness so we can be better prepared for the eventual global outbreak. The order to the task force was for them to come up with a 5 year plan to accomplish this.
By 2014, the NIH was granting funding to studying coronavirus "UNDERSTANDING THE RISK OF BAT CORONAVIRUS EMERGENCE" (yes, it is literally titled that, even back in 2014)
There is nothing suspicious about a health agency funding the study of a disease type that has the potential to spur a global pandemic. This is common sense.
And yes, it is titled that way. Just because you never heard of a coronavirus till 2020 and just because you were unaware of how they are believed to come into existence doesn’t mean the scientists who study this stuff for a living didn’t.
How are we meant to believe that Covid-19 sprung out of nowhere, when there was funding towards virus optimization half-a-decade before its release?
You are moving the goal posts.
Your claim is that the pandemic was planned. That necessarily means it was created and unleashed intentionally. Even if I granted you that the virus was created in a lab, that still does not justify your claim.
I’m not going to go back and forth with you on the lab funding and optimization part. When I agreed to engage with you on this I asked you for one premise to discuss, you provided the executive order that’s that’s the one point I’m discussing with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Trump GOP votes policy over emotion.
If that were the case then the Trump GOP wouldn’t have nominated Hershel Walker, the most incoherent mess of a senate candidate we’ve ever seen. What are his policies? Besides banning abortion despite his history of aborting babies.
Trump voters love to pretend they are on some kind of policy high ground, too good for the “emotional stuff”. That is of course complete bullshit. Trump ascended to the top of the republican ticket well before he even knew what his policies were. If his voters cared so much about policy, they wouldn’t flock to his rallies to watch him ramble on and on about all of his grievances and non flushing toilets. His speeches are the most substantively vapid spectacles our generation has seen, a babbling incoherent mess that draws large crowds only because of its cult like atmosphere. They are the most policy absent political event in the country.
The whole “we don’t care about emotional stuff, we care about policy” retort is a psychological defense. There is no way to excuse voting for someone so flagrantly unqualified for office in literally every way a human being could be unqualified, so you just pretend that qualifications don’t matter. That’s the true danger of Donald Trump, his very presence warps the minds of millions of Americans to the point where there may not be coming back from it. “TDS” is a phrase born out of projection.
When Bill Clinton lied about a blow job that was too much to bear, meanwhile Trump tries to extort a foreign nation into investigating his political opponent and leads the first non peaceful transfer of power since the civil war, but that’s aye ok. It’s truly sickening.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
my reply stands factually accurate. Yours does not.
My criticism of your post wasn’t about its factual inaccuracy, you would know this if you ever bothered to read it. Clearly you didn’t.
Until you read it and address what was actually said, your posts are meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s the 10% that truly matters. Where’s the team player mentality?
The team she plays for are the people of Wyoming, not the MAGA cult. That’s how politics is supposed to work.
And I said well over 90%, it’s actually 93%. The point here is that it’s silly to claim Cheney and Trump are so different on policy given the actual record, which refutes your whole point there.
I purposefully ignored it. As I’ve told you before, we won’t be seeing eye to eye on a vast majority of things, and so I didn’t want to waste your time, nor my time
I wouldn’t consider it a waste to time to observe the mental gymnastics one has to play to pretend Trump is a normal human being, but like I said, I expected as much,
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Show me a single instance where the FBI said Trump is behind January 6th. You won't find one because it is a conspiracy theory being peddled by the Democrat Party based on disinformation.
No, we won’t Because that’s not how the FBI works. They don’t make proclamations of what someone was responsible for. They’re a law enforcement agency, they either bring charges or they don’t, and given that this is an ongoing investigation, they’re not going to comment on it. This is really basic stuff.
Conspiracy is to collude with someone. It is the same thing. Look up the definitions of the two. It's easy to do:
You’ve ignored every single thing I have said so that you can defeat an argument no one has made.
Conspiracy in this context is a legal term, which means it is adjudicated via the justice system. The justice system doesn’t determine whether it is reasonable to believe any given conclusion, it determines whether there is evidence obtained and validated in accordance with the law to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt. That is a massive bar to clear by design, failure to clear that bar does not constitute exoneration as you have claimed. This is common sense.
Collusion is a colloquial term. That’s the conversation that reasonable citizens engage in to determine what is reasonable and how that impacts our public trust.
These two things are not the same.
Moreover, Mueller blatantly stated there was no evidence of conspiracy:So stop spreading disinformation
Telling me to stop spreading disinformation while literally spreading disinformation. The irony of this statement is breathtaking.
The link you provided and the narrative within it was entirely a concoction of William Barr, the man Trump hand picked for the role specifically to fend off the report, that did not come from Robert Mueller.
Here is what Robert Mueller actually said out of his actual mouth;
“The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed, We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”
This is the very thing I have been explaining to you.
And again, I already listed the facts that indisputably show some level of collusion on the part of the Trump campaign. Not surprisingly, you ignored that whole part so that you can quote right wing propaganda. You have been manipulated, the sooner you admit that the sooner you can wake up to reality.
And 800 arrests later with 40 charged for conspiracy, they have not been able to establish a link to President Trump
The link was made by his public actions genius. Again, I already explained all of this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
No offense, but this is honestly why the opinion of a Democrat on this matter is pretty laughable. Liz Cheney is the epitome of the pro-war, Bush Republican model that Mitch and Ryan follow to this day. They don’t have the interest of voters. Hell they don’t even act like they have the best interest of the voters.
And yet she voted with Trump well over 90% of the time and even more so than most republicans in congress. I thought you were against arguments based on emotion?
I also noticed you ignored the rest of my post, but that’s fine, I wasn’t expecting much else.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Uh, last I checked everyone IS presumed INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers.Public opinion, especially the emotively driven ignorant kind, is not a jury of one's peers.
I addressed all of this in the post I linked you to. Read it and respond. Or… you can keep having a discussion in your own head.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Right now you are claiming that the FBI is likely engaging in disinformation and lying to the general public about a former President. You are claiming, without evidence, that the FBI conducted a faulty investigation.
My claim is that you have blatantly misrepresented what the FBI found and said, and that you continue to pretend the elephant you are leaning on is not in the room. The rest of it you made up entirely which I’ve noticed is kind of a theme of yours. I’m going to explain it to you again. Read my words this time. Take them in. Absorb what I’m actually talking about.
Then reply.
Did the FBI not declare there was no evidence Trump colluded with Russia?
The FBI did not even investigate whether Trump colluded with Russia because collusion isn’t a legal term. The legal term relevant here is conspiracy, which would require Trump and the Russians to explicitly coordinate with each other. No one is even accusing him of that.
The FBI found no evidence of the latter, so given that no one is even claiming it happened, is not an exoneration of anything. It’s just a strawman Fox News talking point that people like you can be manipulated easily by, and have clearly been.
Moreover, you’re claiming that the FBI absolved Trump, as of they found that he was innocent. Not only is this fallacious in theory because the lack of evidence does not prove innocence, but Robert Mueller made absolutely clear that this idea is complete nonsense when he stated;
“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,”
Specifically with regards to “collusion”, here is just a snippet of the long list of facts that are not even in dispute;
- Trump’s team enthusiastically accepted a meeting that was represented to them as having dirt on Hillary Clinton “as part of Russia’s support for Mr. Trump.
- Trumps campaign chairman gave their internal polling data to the Russians
- Russia hacked Clinton and DNC servers on behalf of Trump, and did so immediately after Trump called on them to do so
- The Trump team had and extremely unusual number of contacts with Russians, and most of those contacts were illegally undisclosed
- The Trump team had a chain of contacts through Wikileaks that lead directly to the information stolen by Russian hackers and the campaign coordinated activities around the information they were told would be released
Like I said, none of these facts are even in dispute, and putting just these facts together already tells us that the Trump team did in fact collude on some level with the Russian government. It’s just a question as to how far this went, but we don’t know in large part because Trump obstructed the investigation (that’s also in the report).
Did the FBI not declare there was no evidence Trump and his officials were behind January 6th?
No, they didn’t. The investigation is still ongoing.
This claim is however especially absurd because the evidence is all done in public in plain sight. No one is claiming Trump and his team put together a game plan on how the rioters would break down barricades and get to the chambers of congress. The claim is that Trump spent months riling up his supporters and then assembled them at the Capitol where he watched in glee at what they were doing. And he did. That again, is not disputable. And that’s before we even get to the January 6th committee which has already laid all of this out in great detail.
They even had to dispell the myth that Trump was selling secrets and had nuclear codes.
No one is claiming to have any evidence that Trump was selling nuclear secrets, and certainly no one has proven this didn’t happen. This “myth” is born from the fact that no one in Trump’s circle has even attempted to provide a reasonable explanation as to why Trump stole the documents and then tried to hide them from the national archives. In the absence of an explanation some speculation here is warranted, and the selling of these secrets is certainly reasonable.
But speculation is not a claim, so this is yet another example of right wing propaganda at work. The playbook is simple; find something that someone on the left just trough out there, pretend that this was a bold claim being made, associate everyone on the left with this “bold claim” that was made, then because there is no hard evidence on it, pretend it has been proven false, then pretend that this proves “the left” is lying to you about this. It’s amazingly stupid, but it clearly works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
From a policy standpoint, Trump is a million times better from any Democrat. I think your argument revolves around an emotional argument and personality differences, which is fine. But at the end of the day, does the media and Democrats’ opinion about you matter?
We are on opposite ends when it comes to policy, so that’s not really relevant here. If I were offerred Liz Cheney right now, who has voted with Trump something like 95% of the time and believes nearly all of the same things politically vs taking a chance on Biden vs Trump with 2:1 odds favoring Biden, I would take Cheney right now.
You are to trying to excuse away Trump’s unprecedented danger and incompetence as merely an emotional argument and personality differences. It is so much worse then that, and I think you know that.
Trump has very serious psychological issues. He is a malignant narcissist, a pathological liar, has the maturity of a 13 year old, he is petulant, ignorant, and vile. Simply put, he is the worst kind of person imaginable to hold the presidency. I know you will just hand waive this away as partisan nonsense, but actual psychologists and qualified professionals have been telling us this for years.
If Trump gets re-elected, it will in his mind validate every malicious thing he has done and he will double, triple, and quadruple down on all of it as a result.
He will fire every competent head of every US agency he controls, and replace them with sycophants whose only qualification will be their unflinching loyalty to Donald J Trump (not the US constitution).
He will act on every impulse that all of the adults got him to steer clear of the first time around (like pulling out of NATO).
He will ensure that the justice department is used to go after all of his political opponents (like he did by getting the IRS to audit James Comey and Andrew McCabe)
He will do everything in his power (which will include no checks because he fired them all) to ensure elections around the country are fixed and essentially wipe out democracy in America.
He will continue to lead his followers (which includes a dangerously close number of people to half the country) down the path of anti-critical thinking with his absurd conspiracy theories and outright rejection of the very concept of truth itself
He will continue to encourage racism and bigotry resulting in even greater spikes in hate crimes from what we saw in his first term.
There is a reason former Trump aid after former Trump aid has turned on him and many have written books telling us how horrific his presidency really was. His own daughter has said she will not be a part of a second Trump administration and his own Vice President wants nothing to do with him. Not to mention the fact that everyone around him has had to hire a lawyer of their own. He is a toxic cancer on everything people like you pretend to care about.
There is no other politician in America this dangerous. Historians understand this, which is why they have for years placed Trump almost at the bottom of every presidential rankings that have came out since his election. Trump vs anyone alive today is not even a contest to any rationally thinking person who cares about America.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Can you name a single crime Trump was indicted before a grand jury for?
Just went into great detail explaining how you cannot apply the same standards of a court room to a general conversation about whether Trump is guilty. You are more than welcome to read and respond to it.
Even the FBI didn't find anything on him. On anything. He's been absolved from January 6th, from Russiagate
He has not been absolved from Russia-gate. I literally just explained this to you in the post you were responding to. Is there any reason you chose to ignore it while recycling the same tired talking points?
He was also not absolved from January 6th. The committee hearings made that very clear, assuming you actually watched any of it. Somehow I suspect you didn’t and have no idea what they revealed.
All you do is lie and pretend things that happened didn’t and that things which were said weren’t. Your refusal to look reality in its face and deal with it for what it is makes clear why you believe the things you do.
What is your justification for believing that it is not bullshit?
Critical thinking, and the consumption of more than just right wing propaganda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
America voted loud and clear for a recession, increased global conflicts, and climate change lockdowns on the economy.
No, they didn’t. The rest of the country isn’t stupid enough to think that Biden is responsible for global inflation and a global rise in gas prices.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
ALL the charges levied against Trump have been proven FALSE! Russia-gate. Grab them by the pussy (hyperbole). The ugly woman claiming Trump raped her. It's all bullshit. Until a smoking gun is actually found, I call bullshit on ALL OF IT!!!
The fact that you can point to something and call it bullshit does not make it bullshit.
Your statement here is a very basic failure of critical thinking. You can’t in any practical sense, prove a negative. You can’t prove Trump didn’t collude with Russia, you can’t prove he didn’t rape his accusers, or whatever you are claiming he didn’t do with regards to grabbing women’s pussies.
What we can do is rationally scrutinize the evidence in support of each claim and determine whether it is reasonable to believe.
“Russia-gate” is a completely meaningless term as it can mean anything to anyone. The game Trump sycophants love to play here is to take it to its most extreme version by pretending it’s the charge that Trump and Putin sat around in meetings with their top advisers planning each step of the campaign and checking in with each other for their progress. What Trump is actually being accused of is calling for Russian help, welcoming that help once recognizing they were intervening on his behalf, and planning his campaign around the help he expected to receive. All of those things have been proven.
What’s even more absurd, is that the author of the report you use to claim his innocence was proven has said unequivocally that he was not found innocent.
The rape case is verbal diarrhea spewing out of your mouth. It was an allegation made from years ago, there is hardly anything even in theory that supports a claim of Trump’s innocence and given the number of accusers and things Trump himself has said and done over the years, there is no reasonable basis to disregard it.
Do you believe Trump is guilty of committing a crime with regards to his handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and subsequent investigation into it? Yes or No?Nope. Every President before him, he himself, and anyone after him have the exact same legal authority to declare, whenever they declare, that any government document is declassified and becomes their own possession for Presidential historical purposes (e.g., shit that goes into their personal Presidential Library).
You clearly do not understand how any of this works. Oromagi already explained it so I won’t repeat, but to summarize, no he doesn’t just get to declassify documents by thinking about it, and the fact that his lawyers haven’t even tried to make this claim in court should tell you something.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Of all the characters in play, absolutely none of them asserting their claims of criminality upon Trump, personally, lack logic and reason and are too full of irrational emotions/feelings.
I think you misspoke, but as I understand your point here; the individuals asserting that Trump is guilty lack logic and are emotional.
If that’s your point it is completely irrelevant to everything I have said and pointless. The reasonableness of concluding Trump’s guilt or innocence is in no way connected to who asserts it.
Do you believe Trump is guilty of committing a crime with regards to his handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and subsequent investigation into it? Yes or No?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Will you please kindly fuck off with the Trump TDS shit when responding to me
No. Respectfully, I won’t because it is absolutely appropriate in this case. If you don’t bother reading the threads you decide to chime in on that’s not on me. Pay attention.
The conversation was between myself and TWS discussing how we should assess the allegations against Trump. My position was that we assess them through reason and common sense taking the most plausible conclusion, you took issue with that and instead defended a disingenuously high bar before accepting Trump’s guilt. Regardless of how you feel about him, that in this case, means you are in the position of defending him with this disingenuous argument, so I characterized your position as such.
Elections are not held in place of the courtsThey most certainly are. Elections can lead to the repealing or creation of laws that make pending or expected court cases irrelevant
We’re talking about assessing whether Trump committed crimes, not how we can retroactively make him innocent by gaining power.
Let me know when you’d like to come back to the conversation.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
so the same standards cannot be applied to bothWhich is why we have elections when we can't wait for the courts.
Elections are not held in place of the courts. As I just explained, these two systems are in place to settle two entirely different types of dispute.
The justice system settles whether an individual shall retain access to his/her freedom.
Elections settle whether an individual shall be entrusted with the authority to make crucially important decisions that will shape our society.
These are not the same thing and thus require entirely different processes to determine the outcome.
This isn’t complicated, unless you want it to be. Clearly you do, but I don’t really blame you. Defending Donald Trump is the most absurd and incoherent thing any individual can attempt to do, so you clearly have no other card to play other than pretending you don’t understand the difference here or why it matters.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Just because a handful of TDS clowns “feel” like someone committed a crime without actually knowing it for an actual [FACT], just does NOT hold up in court or reality either.
You clearly didn’t absorb a word I said.
This has nothing to do with mere feelings. It’s about applying logic and reason to determine what is most reasonable to believe.
Logic doesn’t deal in certainty, so alluding to it (i.e.“knowing it for an actual fact”) is disingenuous and a distraction. But you know this already. Like I said, this is the only card you have to play.
Try again.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
But nihilism isn’t an emotional appeal fallacy it’s the complete opposite of emotional
You are clearly trolling by this point, no one is this stupid.
I never called nihilism an appeal to emotion fallacy. In fact I just explained how appeal to emotion fallacies work. You clearly didn’t read it.
If you want to keep discussing any of this send me a debate challenge. I’m tired of talking to the wall.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you trust the legal process?
Not sure exactly what you mean by that, but yes I do. It’s not always going to get it right but it’s about the best system we can have.
I’m also not sure what any of this has to do with the conversation. As I already explained, the considerations of the justice system are entirely different from the considerations of the court of public opinion, so the same standards cannot be applied to both.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
you can make these claims like everyone else who dislikes trump (TDS), but until he sees the inside of a courtroom and stand before a trier of fact, it’s all whiny bitchy nonsense (TDS)!!
The justice system is designed to take away one’s freedom. We place a very high value on our freedom, so this act requires clearance of the highest bar there is; proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court of public opinion is where we deliberate what is reasonable so that we can determine whether any individual is worthy of the trust we place in them to make the most important decisions within our society.
It’s always telling when republicans try to defend the obvious and grotesque behavior of the MAGA leader by trying to impose the standards of our justice system onto the court of public opinion. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize that Trump is guilty of various crimes. But when one is emotionally invested in refusing to accept it, this is the only card left to play.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
And I can claim “ice cream is delicious” is a fact. That doesn’t make it so.
I’m getting pretty tired of trying to teach you third grade concepts. I suggest you spend some time reading to try and figure this stuff out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
So your best single piece of evidence is a 2019 EO ordering a task force to study how to improve upon flu vaccines. Let’s examine this “evidence”, starting with some context;
Over the prior 15 years we have seen outbreaks of SARS, Mers, and Ebola. All of which heightened the international community’s awareness and concern for an outbreak that could be far more dangerous. In 2014 Obama said the following in a speech in Maryland:
“There may and likely will come a time in which we have both an airborne disease that is deadly, and in order for us to deal with that effectively we have to put in place an infrastructure, not just here at home but globally, that allows us to see it quickly, isolate it quickly, respond to it quickly, so that if and when a new strain of flu like the Spanish flu crops up five years from now or a decade from now, we’ve made the investment and we’re further along to be able to catch it.”
In 2015 Obama would create a pandemic response team to deal with such a threat of it came to pass. When Obama left the White House in 2017 he left Trump a playbook on how to continue dealing with this threat.
Then two years later, Trump signes an EO ordering the formation of a task force to study this very same issue.
So let’s stop here… what is the best explanation so far? Does any of this seem unusual or suspicious? No, this is frankly common sense. Trump is the president, preparing for such eventualities is literally his job and he has every reason to be concerned about this.
But despite this, you hear about this EO and you think this is evidence that COVID 19 was planned.
So at minimum, when you make this allegation, you’re saying that President Trump and his administration was part of the planning process. This plan then would have also had to include China since that’s where it originated. So the US and China came together to plan a virus that would cripple the entire world, mind you in an election year when everything to that point was going great for Trump economically, and the pay off was… what exactly?
This is just one of the many hurdles your claim needs to settle before it can be reasonably considered serious.
In order for this to qualify as evidence it needs to first lack any reasonable explanation. It doesn’t, it’s common sense that our government would have been taking steps to prepare for such an event. It also needs to provide answers to basic questions. It doesn’t, it only creates a far more insane narrative to explain.
This is the opposite of evidence.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
the "Democracy Democrats" raise dead people to vote
No, they don’t. This is a complete lie that has been debunked over and over again.
allow candidates who are controlled by the mob to run for office.
One of the oldest conspiracy theories in the book; the unfalsifiable “person A is being controlled by nefarious group B”. Never any evidence for this claim, almost never even an attempt to identify who nefarious group B is. Just a wild assertion made up out of thin air.
the "Democracy Democrats" magically added absentee 400,000 ballots in Pennsylvania the night of the election
Yes, that’s what happens when you count ballots… the number gets added to the total. It’s not magic, just math.
If you’re complaining about the fact that the ballots didn’t get counted until election night you can thank Pennsylvania state republican legislators for that one since they mandated by law that mail in ballots not be touched until election night.
elected hyper-partison wack jobs who have known ties to the WEF's young global leaders
Please explain how having tie to the world economic forum is indicative of election rigging.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Imagine if a cashier took days to give you change, your boss waiting months to give you a paycheck....
Do you seriously think these examples are analogous?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Oh I fully support them counting beforehand; that’s exactly what Florida does. As long as we limit arrival to Election Day.
Great, glad to hear that we’re on the same page here.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
That’s not an assertion of fact, it’s an assertion of one’s values (or lack thereof).
Why is this so complicated for you?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
This pretty much describes all news reported by human beingsCorrect.
Then your claim is unremarkable and unworthy of serious critique.
One day I hope to start a news company that randomly picks articles to write using a random number generator and then have them just dryly state the facts in an unbiased way. Maybe give full context to things. So just do an aggressive deep dive into every event reported and only wait until after like 3 months of investigation to report the findings
I hope for your sake that this is not serious.
News is by definition… new. If you’re waiting 3 months to investigate it you’re not producing news, your producing special reports.
As desirable as it may seem, having a computer pick random stories to report on is not a way to stay in business. You need stories people care to hear about to get views, so unless you’re a billionaire starting a company as a thing to play with, this idea will certainly fail.
But more importantly, none of this addresses your central issue. A computer picking the story does not rid the report of bias. Nothing can. Even focusing on nothing but facts still involves bias because you have to decide what facts are relevant to the story you’re telling the audience, and you have nothing but your preexisting world view to determine that. Therefore what you’re proposing by your purported standards is still fake news.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Nihilism isn’t a truth claim so this makes absolutely no sense.And you’re saying this based off what?
The definition of nihilism genius.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
99% of the votes should be counted by Election Night. Period.
Why? For your personal convenience because you’re too impatient to wait for the results?
But since you feel that way, I look forward to your advocacy in the future with regards to states whose republicans legislators refuse to allow any mail in ballots received before Election Day be processed and instead sit on them which is why it takes so long to count them.
Created: