Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Who gets to make the final decision with where their money goes? The owner of the money. But there is a consistent exception to deadbeat parents, whether they are deadbeat dads or females that get abortions.
You are badly jumbling up this whole process.
The abortion debate is not about whether a fetus has a right to life, we generally all agree that it does. The debate is about whether the fetus’s right to life outweighs the mothers right to her own body. Pro lifers say it does, pro choicers say it doesn’t.
The financial desires of the father has no place in this debate.
If the mother decides her body can be used to carry the fetus to term, no one else has the right to come along and say that fetus doesn’t get to live.
Once that child is brought into the world, that’s when we start the conversation as to who is financially responsible for it.
The right to bodily autonomy matters as much as the right to fiscal autonomy.
That’s absurd. Stealing money out of one’s bank account is not the same thing as stealing one’s left hand.
Fair point, but the rate surrogates charge is a good indicator of how much we expect a female to sacrifice for her kids.
No, it’s not. Surrogates are those who have stepped forward to accept the lowest bid. The reason more females are not surrogates is because they are not willing to allow their bodies to be used for the low price of the market.
This is all irrelevant anyway, see my first point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Projection? And just what exactly do you think I am projecting?
For starters, that my interest is in painting you some kind of way. As if I’m not the one who’s been arguing the case while you have consistently responded by talking about me instead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
commonly used as a pejorative, ad hominem attack and rush-to-disqualify
If I called someone a conspiracy theorist as a means of not having to engage in their arguments you might have a point. That’s not what I have done and if you’ve paid attention to anything I’ve said (which seems obvious by now you have not) you would know that.
Let’s recap;
I’ve explained to you the difference between the term in the technical sense vs the colloquial sense.
I’ve explained what each of these entail in detail and why the latter is not worthy of being taken seriously.
I’ve explained how each of the individuals I’ve accused of meeting the colloquial definition did so by breaking down their arguments in detail.
I’ve challenged you multiple times to explain to me how anything I’ve argued meets my own colloquial definition. You have provided nothing.
If you still don’t understand by this point it’s because you choose not to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I already went through this in the other thread. Did you read it?
The point of everything I said was that there is a big difference in what meets the technical definition of a conspiracy theory vs what people are actually talking about when they use the term in the colloquial sense.
Technically, any two people who commit a crime together is a conspiracy, so technically, anyone who makes the case for their guilt is engaging in a conspiracy theory.
But if you tell someone they are a conspiracy theorist that is not what any normal person understands the term to mean in our society.
As I already went through, conspiracy theories in the colloquial sense are epitomized by certain errors of logic and futilely invalid processes of thinking; the expansion of the theory to include all evidence presented against it, the usage of argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity fallacies, the usage of the absence of evidence as evidence, and the refusal to provide a clear narrative instead pretending they’re “just asking questions” when it is clear they are making strong insinuations.
That’s what the term “conspiracy theorist” points to. So unless you can show me how I’m guilty of these fallacies you can stop arguing that there is some validity to acting is if a standard police investigation is the same thing. It’s not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
That's not society's fault. That is biology's fault. Just like how biology punishes those with one leg. We don't let him get away with abandoning his kids despite the fact that he only has one leg.
What are you talking about? That part was about who gets to make the final decision as to whether the fetus is carried to term. The answer: the person whose body the fetus resides in. There is nothing “unfair” about that, it’s common sense.
I think you have lost this discussion by advocating for female supremacy.
What a ridiculous statement.
The circumstances for men and women are entirely different, so they’re not going to get the same treatment. This has nothing to do with supremacy, it has to do with reasonable application of basic principals, bodily autonomy for one.
Also, the 9 months of pain a pregnency is worth is about $25,000 (the rate surrogates charge).
The fact that surrogates charge $25k for the use of their bodies is completely irrelevant. You don’t get to tell someone what the right to their own body is worth.
And you accuse me of supremacy? Wow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump never made a campaign promise to end oil.
Oil has not ended genius.
The fact that your best example of how Biden messed up the entire global gas supply are remarks he made as a candidate says a lot. The least you could do is repeat ILP5 and coals talking points, but you’re not even serious enough to do that.
Fact checked TRUE. Mexico has cheaper gas in 2022 and more expensive gas than the USA in 2020.
The way you measure whether our gas prices are a product of our own policies vs a global condition is not to cherry pick one nation and pretend no other countries exist.
This is kindergarten stuff.
The government injected trillions of dollars without lifting hardly any of the federal regulations on supply, especially oil. Now we have too many dollars chasing too little supply.
And Trump’s name was literally printed on the checks you are referencing.
The Buck has to stop somewhere even if you think it can't.
Then Trump is responsible for the lockdowns and economic collapse of 2020
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You own these gas prices all of you Biden voters, you did this!!Well Americans do you regret voting on personalities instead of their policies. You may not like Trump as a person, but you don't need too. Emotion needs to be kept out of these decisions. Approach it like a business decision.
First of all, the irony of the party of family values who spent 4 years attacking Obama for everything from a Tan Suit to ordering fancy mustard on his hot dog now claiming personality doesn’t matter when Trump comes along never ceases to amaze me.
But more importantly, your posts have been too ridiculous to really focus on this, but there is no reason to believe Trump would have made any significant difference in anything you’re claiming. Gas prices is a global phenomenon. That’s a fact. And we know why it’s a fact, just like inflation; it’s the result of economic displacement resulting from COVID. Every serious analyst knows this.
All you do is sit there and go “dUh gas prices were low with Trump and high with Biden, so it’s all Biden’s fault!”
So no, this is not as you falsely portray a decision on emotion vs business. Biden voters recognize that Trump benefited from a prosperous period created for him. Biden inherited the mess of COVID, which no president is responsible for or could have prevented. Correlation does not = causation.
Understanding the real world is a nuanced task. If you’re not willing or not able to look at things in any level them take a seat, this is above your pay grade.
Created:
-->
@Alfresco
Regardless of 'conspiracy theory' conveying a very clear message in your own head, where does it end, objectively?
At which point is a topic religion vs philosophy? Politics vs world events? There is no objective way to delineate it. I’m just talking about what will actually happen.
The fact that there is no clear line hasn’t stopped many film makers from creating series based on conspiracy theories. If you want to know what people tend to think of when they think of them just Google some of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's unusual because out of the thousands of people he was the only one recorded doing it without being arrested.
Ok… so what?
Is the argument here that if thousands of people on a crowd get arrested, whoever didn’t must be a fed?
Rules for thee and not for me.
I explained what the “rules” are in another thread which I was referencing. I would invite you to read and absorb it so you can learn something and actually understand what those whom you disagree with are saying but clearly, all you’re interested in are your one liners to own the libs in front of your friends. Or at least to convince yourself that this is what you’re accomplishing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
A "narrative" is an interpretation of reality that is cast in the light most favorable to how you'd like for reality to have been.
There is no reputable source anywhere that defines the word narrative in such a way. This is yet another example of you making up words so that you can straw man me.
Narrative: “a spoken or written account of connected events; a story”
-Google/Oxford
Just because people use narratives to convey messages that are deceitful or exaggerated does not mean deceitfulness or exaggeration are elements of the term.
to the extent that you are not only unwilling, but demonstrably unable to contend with the fact that a timestamped video from the capital obviates your claims as to the sequence of events on January 6th.
Complete nonsense. The events in your video occurred at 2:34. My timeline showed that congress was evacuated at 2:24. There is nothing inconsistent about my timeline and your video. This was already explained to you in post 392. You had no response to offer.
If you’re not going to respond to my points refuting what you just said, you don’t get to pretend your points obliterated mine.
You respond with wild accusations that directing your attention to what all can see with their own eyes somehow makes me a conspiracy theorist.
No, I have asked you repeatedly to tell us what you’re insinuating based on your “evidence” and you refuse to do so, so I explained how what you are doing mirrors what conspiracy theorists do precisely.
You are readily aware of the fact that I'm not even a Republican, and certainly not a "MAGA" type. And yet, you act as if I'm marching on Charlottesville --- which is beginning to piss me off to the extent I'm going to become far more dismissive of anything you say moving forward.
I couldn’t care less who you voted for, what “type” you are, or whether you marched in Charlottesville. And I certainly couldn’t care less how pissed of you’re getting. What I care about are your arguments. If it bothers you so much to be compared to conspiracy theorists, then stop doing the same things they are known for doing.
Perhaps if you focus on the points being made and stop taking everything I say so damn personally we could have a productive discussion. If I thought you were such a whacked out conspiracy theorist I wouldn’t bother. I point out the similarities because I think you are better then that and assume you think so too, so the fact that you are doing all of the same things they are should make you think. Instead all you do is respond by attacking me, so as far as I am concerned your assessment of me is all projection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
aren't you the "conspiracy theorist" here ?are you not claiming that there was a well coordinated CONSPIRACY to "overthrow the government of the united states" ?
I assume you are responding in large part to the arguments I made in the conspiracy thread. In that thread I made clear that the technical usage of the term points to something that is not inherently fallacious whereas the colloquial usage does, and I made clear the logical fallacies that embody the colloquial usage of the conspiracy theorist label. So to apply that label to me without being able to point out where I am making those same errors proves my point.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
so, you want to sample-bias the topic to ONLY include unfalsifiable and or widely ridiculed hypotheses ?
Im arguing against the idea being proposed. How did you get from that to me advocating for the most absurd version of it?
I’m saying that I don’t think a website based in the idea of rational dialog should be promoting inherently irrational dialog. You can play the semantic game all day, but when people hear the term “conspiracy theory” the idea it conveys is very clear regardless of what technical definition one can point to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
When you want to fight about narratives, you've lost the argument.This isn't about narratives. It's about what happened
A narrative is literally one’s description of what happened. I’m asking you for yours since you continue to push this.
But I’m not surprised at your half baked attempt to make it look like I’m the one who’s not worth the discussion here. This is what conspiracy theorists do and why the term conspiracy theorist is used as a pejorative; you start by “just asking questions” and then when pushed into explaining what you think it all adds up to refuse to offer anything. That’s because saying it out loud not only shows that your evidence doesn’t amount to anything that is both coherent and worthy of attention, it also shows that you aren’t actually having a good faith conversation. Anyone interested in reality would care about what their own evidence amounts to, not dismiss requests for a narrative as somehow different from a request for you to explain what you think happened.
Created:
Posted in:
I’m only asking why. I believe it’s because he’s a fed and that seems to be the only reasonable explanation of why he hasn’t been arrested.
These two sentences contradict each other. Just asking questions means you haven’t drawn any conclusion or at least are not insinuating one. But you are as your second sentence makes clear. It’s the latter I am pushing back against, because at least so far you have provided no valid evidence for that. This is the text book example of an argument from ignorance.
You have yet to provide an alternate explanation; instead, you just say it’s not true.
I’ve never said or implied anything like that. A not guilty verdict is not as assertion of innocence.
I’ve made no argument regarding the truth value of your claims. I’m simply asking you to substantiate them. Those are not the same thing.
Calling for people to storm the Capitol is a stupid thing that he shouldn’t be charged for. Wow. Talk about ignoring actual incitement.
Incitement does not mean Person A said X and Person B committed X. That’s correlation. Incitement requires causation. Can you point to one person who on January 6th stormed the Capitol because Ray Epps told them so? No, of course you can’t, because Ray Epps was just some dude in a crowd already riled up by Trump.
Someone who verbally word for word said storm the Capitol shouldn’t be charged but a man who said peacefully and patriotically should be banned from office and put into jail.
I love how you continue to pretend “peacefully and patriotically” was the only thing Trump said on January 6th and did in the events leading up to it.
As if he is speech was not an hour long and as if it did not include telling the crowd their voice was stolen from them and they need to fight like hell to get it back, two things that directly contradict the idea of a peaceful protest.
As if his speech did not follow other speeches where the crowd was told “today is the day we start talking down names and kicking ass” and “let’s have trial by combat”.
As if Trump did not walk into January 6th already aware that the crowd he summoned via his public announcement on Twitter was not a serious threat to the US Capitol.
As if he had not spent the prior two months setting the stage for this very outcome.
And as if he did not spend the three hours while this was going on and the country watched on in horror, sitting around the White House gleeful about what was going on. To this day he is still claiming the group that invaded the Capitol did so “because they are smart”. In other words: storming the Capitol is exactly what they were supposed to do.
That is why Trump should be in jail. Not because of the one liner you continue to cherry pick out of a months long effort to set this whole thing up.
Created:
-->
@Alfresco
When I talk about the colloquial conspiracy theory I am referring to the classic examples (JFK assasination, 9/11 was an inside job, UFO’s, etc.). That is what people think of and that’s where the idea gets it’s appeal.
But then you talk about the technical definition and that makes it sound more reasonable, but if we accept that as the idea of the section being proposed then it loses its appeal. That’s why I’m saying you’re trying to have it both ways. You can’t use the appeal of the colloquial conspiracy theory to push for a forum that’s based in something entirely different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Occam's razor suggests he was working with the FBI to be absolved of recorded instigation of a riot.
You mean after January 6th? Because there would be nothing unusual about that. People get off or at least get lighter sentences for to their cooperation all the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I would love for you to explain what an alternative explanation for is non-arrest is. Especially considering it’s been more than a year.
I don’t need one because I’m not alleging or insinuating anything here. You are, that’s why I’m asking you.
As far as I can see he’s just some dude doing stupid things. Not everyone who commits a crime gets arrested even when at times it seems obvious (like Trump cheating on his taxes). Sometimes the law is complicated. Failure to gather the evidence required is not evidence of innocence.
Created:
-->
@Alfresco
It should treat the term 'conspiracy' in a formal sense (as opposed to colloquial) to begin with.
If all we’re talking about are instances where two or more individuals conspire to commit a crime then there is nothing there worthy of its own debate forum.
You can’t have it both ways. The idea gets its appeal from promoting discussion on conspiracy theories in the colloquial sense. You can’t use that to push for it and then claim that’s not what’s being promoted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
We all know he would’ve been arrested by now if he worked for who you think he worked for.
I don’t have any beliefs on who he was working for, in fact the idea that he was working for anyone is itself silly. You have no evidence, all you have is your own credulity. And while you dismiss basic presumptions, you are unwilling to dismiss far more complex and nonsensical ones.
Provide an actual narrative; who he was working for what what the plan was. Then we can discuss further after a basic lesson on Occam’s Razor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's how much in the toilet Biden took the country.
You really do believe the US is the only country on earth don’t you?
Call it a lesson for people ignoring a presidential candidate when they promise to end the economy.
Another example of why you are not worth being taken seriously.
Biden did not say he was going to end the economy, that’s just plain stupid.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Used as a pejorative, because that’s the connotation the term “conspiracy theorist” conjures. The fact that people called them this is irrelevant to whether they fit the term as it is generally understood and more importantly, whether their discoveries were the result of the same logical fallacies we see from these groups.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
All great questions for the Nov J6 hearings.
No, they’re actually silly questions intended to show just how ridiculous this all is. The question of who he was working for and what was his purpose is only asked to get you to start thinking, once that happens the absurdity of this becomes obvious.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Religions are also inherently illogical but the RELIGION forum is the most popular topic
While I believe all religions are fallacious, I wouldn’t claim all religion is inherently illogical.
Religion is the result of believing in a deity, there is nothing about that which necessitates any kind of logical framework in which the belief must be based upon.
Conspiracy theories are essentially identified by the characteristics of its illogical framework. The immediate dismissal of any evidence contradicting the theory as part of the conspiracy, the absence of evidence serving as evidence, or my favorite; “I’m just asking questions” which negates the notion that a conspiracy is even being alleged.
Conspiracy theorists would point out that the definition of a conspiracy is simply two or more people conspiring to commit a crime, which happens all the time. But that’s just a distraction, no one would call that a conspiracy theory, that’s just not the way we speak. And more importantly that’s not what the section would actually be promoting. It’s just a way for conspiracy theorists to try and gain credibility by invoking something totally different from what they are proposing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
In the context of species reproduction, fairness is a pointless concept.
Yeah, that was my point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Since Double R missed it, I'll just spell this one out . . . .
So let’s summarize…
Federal enforcement hates Trump, some dude was seen instigating Trump supporters prior to the riots, the crowd called that dude a fed, and everybody besides that dude got charged.
And from all this, you gathered what? That he was a plant for what purpose exactly?
Was he there to push Trump supporters into attacking the US Capitol? If so, on whose behalf and for what purpose?
Was he there as an intelligence gathering assignment to see how dangerous the threat was? If so then why does anyone care about this?
Is there some other conspiracy theory I’m missing?
And lastly, I once heard someone say that the president is in charge and thus is always responsible. I wonder where that fits into your narrative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Whatever it takes to fix the fuckup Biden did. At least we agree.
We agree that you’re for socialism now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You really thought that was a clever comeback didn't you?
BTW, Trump still thinks clean coal is when they take it out and scrub it with a brush.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Fixing the problem... With socialism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So where are the goddamn USA subsidies? People are fkn hurting.
So you're for socialism now. Will make note of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, the country is fucked because people don't care about your 1st world problems anymore.
My first world problem is that my child's future is fucked because half the country believes a man who thinks clean coal is when you take it out and scrub it with a brush is the solution to their problems.
Created:
-->
@Alfresco
There's nothing wrong with pointing out inconsistencies in a given theory, but inconsistencies = inconsistencies, not conspiracy.
If you want answers, then by all means advocate for them. But when not having answers is your argument for having answers (it's a conspiracy) you are committing really basic logical fallacies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
No! It was wrong to blame Trump for anything that went wrong but it makes sense to blame Biden for everything that is wrong.
Never ceases to amaze me that we lived through 4 years of a president who notoriously blamed everyone and everything for everything bad that ever happened ("the buck stops with everybody"), yet here we are watching the same people who supported him blaming Biden for literally everything going on in the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Depends on what you are looking at.
If you're looking at the deep divisions within the country where a majority of americans for the first time in over a generation think US elections are rigged and political violence may be necessary - in other words we are less likely than more to be a democracy by the time or kids are old enough to vote - that's almost exclusively on Donald J Trump.
If you're talking about inflation and gas prices, those are global issues resulting from the massive global disruption of COVID so it makes very little if any difference who the president is with regards to that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nevin Valev, owner of GlobalPetrolPrices, says several factors influence the differences between countries, mainly whether countries produce oil and the amount of taxes they charge.65 countries have cheaper gas than the USA right now. (even Mexico for fucks sake)...USA's high prices higher relative to 65 other countries are not a "Global problem" as you mindlessly keep repeating.
That's news to the rest of the world.
This is why you are not a serious person to talk to.
"At $5.037 per gallon (as of June 6), gas is cheaper than in over 90 countries including Norway and China, and more expensive than in over 70 others"
"There are several gas price factors pushing costs up globally for gas and other commodities, including supply and demand related to the war in Ukraine, economic sanctions on Russia, and the continued impact of the pandemic. Given that all those factors appear fairly entrenched, it’s unlikely that gas prices will decline significantly any time soon, particularly as seasonal demand rises moving into summer."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Meanwhile, Fed Ray Epps' actions speak for themselves
So what exactly is the insinuation here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why does this matter at all
Because it's people like you and examples like this that show why this country is so fucked. This is really simple, really basic stuff. If you can't figure this out there's not really a point to discussing the stuff that's actually complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
This makes no sense. Let’s assume that Trump thought the people at the rally would listen to him when he said “be peaceful.”
No, let's not, because he didn't. We've been through this already, everyone in the crowd knew what that was. No one actually thought that's what he wanted because he purposefully made that blatantly obvious. It was a one liner planted into an hour long speech so that partisan hacks could later point to it and say "look, he said peaceful".
The fact that you continue to hang onto this excuse is astonishing. Aren't you one if the ones who repeated the now common known phrase from 2016 "the media took Trump literally but not seriously, his supporters took him seriously but not literally"? When Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall everyone knew it was BS. When Trump said he'd wipe out the national debt over 8 years everyone knew it was BS. But suddenly, a months long effort to rile up his supporters culminates with an hour long speech about how we have to "fight like hell or we're not going to have a country anymore" but when he says "peacefully"... Now all of a sudden he's being literal??? It's the stupidest excuse I've heard.
The man spent months telling his supporters their voice was stolen by people who do not care what they want, and the message you claim Trump was sending is that they need to fight back with their voices. I mean seriously, you don't actually believe this.
And of course you dodged the actual question so I'll repeat... If our intelligence knew that the rally posed such a threat to the US Capitol, why did Trump decide to hold the rally anyway? How Pelosi's inaction a bigger concern to you than Trump's actions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
That’s not fair. If the woman wants the kid and the man doesn’t, he has to be a father against his will, but if the male wants the kid and the female doesn’t, the female is allowed to be a deadbeat parent?
You know what else isn't fair? The fact that men will never have to worry about experiencing labor or have their bodies used as a cacoon for 9 months while their organs are shoved to the side and their rib cages expanded from within.
The idea that we should ensure men and women are treated equally despite those realities is patently absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
Something I thought about and just couldn't help but put out there to watch you two either ignore or apply more mental gymnastics to avoid actually answering...
Since the intelligence that the J6 rally was a threat to the US Capitol was so clear that Nancy Pelosi's failure to properly beef up security is itself worthy of investigation... How do you explain Trump's decision to go ahead and not only speak at that rally, but then tell everyone to march on down to the Capitol?
And because I know the stupid response I'm going to get; "but he told them to make their voices heard peacefully...", I'll just point out that you can't have it both ways. Trump either thought they would listen to him or he didn't. If he didn't, then your excuse falls apart on it's face. If he did, which is the only way this one sentence exculpates him, then you cannot possibly put forward any excuse for why Trump waited 3 hours after the Capitol was breached to finally tell these people to go home.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If Trump had won in 2020, would gas be around $2? Yes or No?It would probs be around 3.50
Back up this statement with actual facts. I'll wait.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I'll admit that I don't think of the tactical examples given as "thought-terminating clichés"
It may not be a cliche so to speak, so in that sense it's not the same as "fake news", but it is the same thing in every way that matters. It's a phrase designed to get their sympathizers to reject the alternative position without thought. Devasting findings released by the J6 committee? Nope, it's a partisan committee! Evidence rejected. Damning case to impeach the president? Nope, it's a partisan witch-hunt!
In many ways those examples are worse because they are carefully crafted strategies to manipulate the public, and they work. Just look at how ILP5 can't address a single fact brought up except to pretend were debating whether to criminally convict.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You should hold the female to the same standard. If a guy isn’t allowed to ditch the zygote he chose to create, then neither is the female.
It has nothing to do with standards. The woman gets to choose because it's her body. If she ditches the zygote, they're both off the hook. If she doesn't, they're both responsible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Presidents do not control gas prices. To claim gas would be $2 right now if Trump won is just plain stupid.Then why did Biden make a campaign promise to END oil?
If Trump had won in 2020, would gas be around $2? Yes or No?
The fact that right wingers are still talking about this man as if he were some god despite being an unstable narcissist is the point and problem.I literally know no people that do this lol! Sometimes you remind me of Don Quixote with these pointless threads.
Trump supporters literally drape themselves in Trump flags. But ok bro.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If there was proper representation thousands of other people could’ve believed it, but Pelosi allowed this talking point to get up.
Kevin McCarthy handed Pelosi 7 picks, 5 of them were accepted. McCarthy still had well over a hundred other GOP members to pick from. He chose to pull them all out. Why is that so difficult for you? Why is Nancy Pelosi responsible for Kevin McCarthy's decision to not participate at all?
Let's try and make this a little simpler.
P1: Kevin McCarthy had multiple members which he could have chosen to put on the committee who could have cross examined witnesses
P2: Kevin McCarthy made the decision to not put any of those members onto the committee
C: The fact that none of Kevin McCarthy's picks are able to cross examination witnesses was a decision made by Kevin McCarthy
Nancy Pelosi has absolutely nothing to do with the above, and your constant whataboutisms continue to demonstrate the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing given what the committee has revealed. Which brings me to my second point:
P1: You continue to justify your lack of concern over any of the J6 committee's finding by citing a lack of cross examination
P2: The lack of cross examination was a choice made by Kevin McCarthy (see conclusion above)
P3: Kevin McCarthy understood ahead of time that leaving none of his choices on the committee to be able to cross examine would allow the committee to be attacked as purely partisan, which many GOP supporters would accept as justification to not consider the committee's findings.
C: Your justification for not accepting the committee's findings regardless of what they were was decided ahead of time by Kevin McCarthy. Aka, you have been successfully manipulated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
There are many examples of using "thought terminating cliches" on the Left. Such as calling someone a racist, transphobe, white supremacist, white nationalist, xenophobe, sexist, or far-right. After you hear that someone is one of these awful things, you don't have to hear them out and engage with anything they say because they are bad- therefore everything they think is bad.
Agreed. This is a major is a problem on the left
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Still not a crime, and in a Democracy, people can vote for Unstable Narcissists if they know it means 2 dollar gasoline.
So much said in so few words.
No one cares that it's not illegal, that's not what were talking about and you know that.
Presidents do not control gas prices. To claim gas would be $2 right now if Trump won is just plain stupid.
The fact that right wingers are still talking about this man as if he were some god despite being an unstable narcissist is the point and problem. The fact that you can talk about it so freely is quite remarkable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The main reason why the finding of the J6 committee don’t concern me is because it lacks any semblance of cross examination.
Exactly. This is the whole point of the thread.
The reason there is no cross examination is because McCarthy decided to pull all of his members out. You can sit here all day long justifying it by quoting rules, precedent, etc., that's still what happened. So when he did that, no investigation into Trump was possible in your mind. No matter what the committee found it would be considered illigitimate to you and the millions of there just like you. Hence the strategy, and it clearly worked.
The findings of the committee either could have had an impact on you, or there was never a chance they would have. If it's the latter then you're BSing - legitimacy has nothing to do with it, you dismiss the findings because you're a pure partisan. If it's the former then you have been successfully manipulated by Kevin McCarthy. One or the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The most incredible thing to me is that literally Trump's entire defense rests on him being a narcissistic psychopathProbably because the J6 findings only proved that instead of criminal conduct.
lol thank you.
20 pages into the J6 thread and here one of you finally admits the point I was making the entire time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If Pelosi had allowed Jordan and Banks on the committee, there wouldn’t be people crying out about the lack of proper cross-ex or illegitimacy.
Whether it was right or appropriate for Pelosi to deny Jordan and Banks from being on the committee is a different conversation and perhaps reasonable people can disagree. The fact of the matter still remains that it was the republicans who chose to pull the test if their members and are now using the fact that they have none of their members on the committee as an excuse to disregard everything the committee has found.
The point I am making is that every time someone like yourself refuses to acknowledge the actual case being presented on the basis that the committee is partisan you are falling right into their manipulation tactics that could be seen a mile away. It's all about ensuring you stay on their side of the issue without ever having to actually think. Hence the term "thought terminating cliche".
Created:
Posted in:
Something I’ve noticed that seems to be taking over American politics is the strategy of invoking thought terminating cliches as a way of manipulating the public. The most obvious example of this is “fake news”, whereby with one phrase that can be applied to any scenario, absolves the listener of any responsibility to hear the message and apply actual thought.
We see this again in the J6 hearings where Kevin McCarthy planted at least one poison pill in his selections and then used the rejection of that pill to pull everyone out and claim this is a purely partisan committee. So now every witness who testifies, every video produced, every revelation can now be dismissed as a product of pure partisanship. Right wing networks do not even cover it, using this as an excuse.
The same happened during the Trump impeachments where republicans would band together and all vote against it, then claim it should be dismissed outright because of the partisan split they created.
I’m wondering if anyone here either disagrees that this is a major factor in why we live in two completely different universes with regards to our news and information, and I'm also interested to see if anyone can think of examples of this on the left.
Created: