Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Let’s see. Border security. Gun rights. Lower taxes. All of which are based on facts. Not emotion.
None of which are based on facts.
Border security is a catch all for “keep the scary dirty brown people out”.
Gun rights is all about fighting back against government tyranny, which is what you get after a combination of conspiracy theories and Bruce Willis movies. It’s not a logically driven position.
And lower taxes is all about “I don’t want to pay taxes”. It has nothing to do with logic, otherwise we would be having a conversation about where the money should actually be going. The right never wants to talk about that part. And besides, look around. No one cares about tax policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Everyone uses some combination of logic and emotions, it’s impossible not to. What I’m talking about is the predominance level on each side and how the left is far more based in logic than the right.
So what does this mean and how do we evaluate it? Well we can start be recognizing that logic is a process. It’s based on validity, not desires. So a logically driven person is one with a greater capacity to accept truths that are inconvenient and adjust to them. Like, say, climate change, or the question of who won the last election. It’s not a coincidence that the left overwhelmingly embraces the findings of science no matter how glim, while the right seems to always be on the opposite side of every major issue science has already settled on.
Religion is another indicator since even most religious people will credit “faith” as their reason for believing (the opposite of logic). So which side do we tend to find the evangelicals? Of course, the right. And a quality I’ve observed which I believe follows from this is the need for a deity like figure to appeal to; a person whom the party faithful can pledge their unwavering support. We see this on the right (it’s Trump right now, it was Reagan before). We don’t see this on the left. Obama is the closest thing you could point to, but no serious contingent on the left is pledging to support “the principals of Barack Obama”. The left does not need a figurehead, only the right does this.
And then there’s policy. Whatever you think of the left’s ideas, if you’re competing on the left you have to spell them out and explain them in detail in order to be taken seriously. What happened when Elizabeth Warren was found to not have a plan on a major legislative issue? Her poll numbers sank overnight. On the right, all you need is slogans, and they don’t have to be factual or make sense. “Ban the teaching of CRT!”. Ok, but what is CRT? No one knows. It’s just a vague notion of race that makes them uncomfortable. Just like gender pronouns, which helps drive many right wing voters to the polls despite there being no plausible legislative resolution. It’s purely a cultural issue, just like cancel culture and “free speech”. The issues of the day on the political right.
Even advertising companies are well aware of this. The ads run on Fox News are literally catered to people who are more easily manipulable, that’s why you see all the 1-800-CALL-NOW commercials there.
This isn’t close.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
See the difference? The difference is treason vs. patriotism. Unsurprising that GP can't tell that difference.
The guy who pushed an old lady to the ground for fun and the guy who pushed an old lady to the ground to get her out of the way of an oncoming bus are the same, because they both pushed an old lady to the ground.
Right wing logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Respecting the struggle that many people spend their entire lives dealing with and showing that respect by allowing them to identify based on how they see themselves and live is not what any reasonable person would categorize as an emotionally driven position. It’s logic 101; respect your fellow citizen and we will all be better off. An emotionally driven response would be to harbor such animosity towards this group that this becomes an animating factor for an entire political party, driving its voters to the polls.
Do you seriously want to debate which side is more emotionally driven? What is the Republican Party platform again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Again, you continue to refer to his mental state as the thing that is holding you back from accepting his guilt but I have explained at least twice already why this argument is a non sequitor. Do you have any response to it, or are you just going to keep pretending I never explained it?
Again, even accepting as our premise that Trump believes he won the state of Georgia changes nothing, he is still guilty of committing election fraud. The specific law I cited was providing a false number. The number Trump attempted to coerce the Secretary of State to “recalculate” to was 11,780 more votes than he had. That is a false number. Trump had no basis for it other than because it would have given him the victory.
This isn’t just some technicality. This is literally what the law was designed to stop from happening. Our elections are not subject to the ego driven intuitions of the candidates. They’re subject to the actual counting of actual votes to determine who actually won. We have our processes in place for a reason, Trump’s attempt to coerce the GA Sec of State into providing a false number contradicts the very reason why we have election laws.
This argument reminds me of the saying “framing a guilty man”, which is of course a crime and it’s a crime for good reason. It doesn’t matter what you believe the outcome should be. The outcome is determined by our systems, that’s why we have laws protecting them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
i just dont think you have presented good enough arguments to make the case in this situation.
You asked for the law Trump violated which I provided. I assume you have no argument that his actions were not in violation of the law otherwise you would have offered them. Instead, you have gone down this path of 'we don't know what he was thinking therefore we can't prosecute him'. I already explained why this is a bogus argument to begin with and you have no response to that either.
The phone call *alone* tells us everything we need to know about his mindset. He literally told us, out loud, in his own words, what he wanted. There is no reasonable case to be made that his intentions were anything else. And the more you look around at what he was doing before, during, and after the election, it only becomes more and more obvious.
I mean, my God, what else could Trump have done to make his intentions clear that he didn't already try? He spent months before the election telling us the only way he could lose if it were stolen. Not a single vote had even been cast. He declared victory before the counts were even in and told the states to stop counting. He filled 60 lawsuits to stop the state certifications. He called local election officials in multiple states pressuring them to declare him the victor. He put together a fake electors scheme and told his VP to stop the certification. He tried to get the DOJ and HOS to seize voting machines around the country. And when it all failed he assembled the Mob outside the Capitol and unleashed them on Congress while watching the whole thing on TV for 3 hours before finally caving to his advisors and telling them to go home. You can't seriously be this blind to claim we don't know his mindset.
How about this, instead of just sitting back with your eyes closed and you're ears plugged screaming lalala... offer a counter argument. Ignorance is not a legal defense. Trump did not have to know that what he was doing was illegal to be prosecuted and it doesn't matter if he believed he really won. All we need to know is that he knew what he was trying to accomplish and took actions to make it happen, which he did and he did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@16kadams
Are you denying that politicians actually say stuff like that?
Doom and gloom speak is politics 101 so of course politicians paint a dim portrait of our future, but no one except for some fringe lunatic you can find on Google (cause in a country of 300 million people there will always be some lunatic who meets your search), is claiming the human race will be extinct in 8 years. It's just another caricature of the left.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
The law u cited says trump had to acted willfully. That's a term of art and I could be wrong but I would assume it's like the word intentionally, which is famous for how hard it us to divine what's in someone's head. I don't know how familiar u r wit the jargon but this is a mens rea
What you're doing here is very common among Trump defenders and should once again, make you think about the weakness of your argument. And that is that you are simultaneously appealing to a false legal standard (beyond a shadow of a doubt) while offering an unfalsifiable proposition as your defense (that his mental state was not in violation of the law). If these two points were a valid defense then no crime involving the defendants state of mind could ever be prosecuted.
Fortunately that's not how the law actually works. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, and we don't need to *know* the defendant's state of mind, we just have to be able to infer it from the evidence such that it meats the legal standard.
On that note, there is no case to be made here. Again, you're arguing that the man is so mentality deficient that he is unfit to stand trial. As insane and even sick in the head as he is, there is no evidence that his mental state meets that threshold. The fact that he is to this day speaking at public events and doing nationally televised interviews continuing those very same efforts undercuts all of that. If he is fit to lead half the country down this rabbit hole then he is certainly fit to stand trial and be held accountable for his actions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So we can call every politician out who says so as a bullshit con artist and also anti-science.
If there actually were any, then sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I think its very reasonable to speculate that trump sincerely thinks he won the election.
I already explained this. The assumption that Trump believes he won the election changes nothing. The specific part of the law he violated was submitting or coercing someone else into submitting a false number. 11,780 is a false number. It was made clear that this number was based entirely on the fact that this is how many votes Trump needed to win. That's as clear an example of a corrupt act as one could ever concoct.
If Trump had said "here are 12,341 specific votes that I am contesting and I want you to look into them and toss them out" then you might have a case, but he couldn't even do that. He just pointed to vague irregularities and made clear he only cared about those priorities *to the point* where the outcome would be changed. There is no argument to make here that this was anything other than a corrupt act.
His thought might be due to mental disorder but its a realistic scenario. U assume trumps thoughts r rational... That seems like less of a reasonable view than my position
It's quite remarkable that in your attempt to excuse away his behavior you went down this path. You should really think about what that says regarding the weakness of the argument you're trying to make.
If a man is not capable of thinking rationally he shouldn't have accepted the nuclear codes. The idea that we would put a man in charge of our military and all of our government institutions and then let him get away with blatantly breaking the law because he's not capable of making his own decisions is patently absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What "Climate scientist" says all human life is going to end in 8 years? Lol.
No serious climate scientist is saying that. It is, as usual, another caricature of yours.
Let's take a gander at those "findings"
Sure. We can start with...
The Earth has had more CO2 in the atmosphere and has been warmer before (google Permian age). Polarcaps have melted many times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Please explain how this quality differs from any other political system run by humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Earth has had more CO2 in the atmosphere and has been warmer before (google Permian age). Polarcaps have melted many times.
It never ceases to amaze me listening to people use information they learned from climate scientists to argue against the findings of climate scientists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Pull up the donor lists.
So in other words, the dictator is not people, it's money.
Please explain how this quality differs from any other political system run by humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And who exactly are these dictators? Names please.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I have never heard anyone seriously push for voting by phone. More importantly, I have never argued that anything like it would be a good idea, so as usual, you are having a conversation with yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
My point here being: “natural” is not a very useful or informative descriptor.
Nearly every description in the English language has multiple uses and interpretations, that doesn’t make them useless. Words are just tools for conveying ideas and concepts, if it did the job that’s all we need, if it didn’t then try another one.
To answer your question, I do not consider a beaver damn natural because it was constructed by a thinking agent. Some might disagree. That’s not really important because in the context it’s most often used, it merely contrasts with the human process of altering the chemical makeup of substances in ways that are harmful to the human body.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Explain what? Your ridiculous strawman? Read the post and try again. It’s only 2 sentences. You can do it, I believe in you.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why upend it to invite more fraud though?
No one is talking about “inviting more fraud”, that’s the political right’s cartoonish characterization of it. But the reason to expand or at the very least protect the rights within the current system is because that is kind of what makes a democracy work.
The fact that there's almost no data on the success rates and the "gotaways" means someone has a vested interest right now in gaming the current system, so we don't have any room to make the future system less secure through more central planning incompetence under the lie that there are no downsides to making elections as easy as possible.
In other words, it’s all theoretical. Maybe some more people out there will try and cheat so let’s make sure we stop any possibility of that happening even if it means tens or even hundreds of thousands of Americans will get pushed out of the system. Because you know, values.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Generally speaking you only want people who are going to spend a significant amount of time studying policies and political philosophy to vote.
Serious question…
Do you believe a company should be allowed to require its shareholders to pass a test before allowing them to vote on the board of directors election?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The database contains 1,300 instances of voter fraud going all the way back to 1982.
In a country of over 300 million.
Is this is what we’re supposed to be upending our election system over?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
People are now voting to take away the rights of others. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep, voting for what's for dinner.
That’s the whole point of a constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
The dictator in this scenario would enforce a philosophy of negative rights, therefore maximizing freedom,
You don’t seem to understand how dictatorships work.
The main difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is its source of power. In a democracy, the power comes from the perceived legitimacy of the governing authority, which requires consent of the governed. A dictatorship does not have that consent, it instead governs by force which is only effective as long as the society it governs fears the authority.
There is no real world scenario where any governing authority would not only rise to power but maintain power without consent or fear. A dictatorship by definition is not governing with consent, and it is not plausible in any sense that it could instill and maintain fear amongst the populace while invoking a philosophy of respecting everyone’s rights. This idea is pure fantasy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I already went through this. Are you going to respond to anything I say, or just keep pretending I never said it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you don't own solar panels or wind turbines, don't advocate for them as public policy. If you don't own clean energy sources, then you don't think climate change is a big enough deal to make sacrifices on YOUR END.
I’m pretty sure I just explained all of this. Let me try this, again.
Your argument is analogous to conservatives who tell liberals if they want to pay higher taxes they are free to write a check to the government themselves. This is of course stupid because it misses the entire point;
We live in a society where everyone is trying to get ahead and everyone benefits from the collective good. Therefore, it is inherently unfair for any one individual to sacrifice their personal well being for a society where other individuals refuse to do the same.
Are you ok with chipping in for a pizza, only to have people you don’t know and didn’t put in any of their own money come along and grab a few slices? Are you ok taking a road trip where you and one other person split the gas bill while others who came along for the ride don’t chip in a cent? Imagine you’re at a diner with a group of friends who all ate but none of them wants to pay the bill, then when you get upset they tell you “if paying the bill matters so much to you then you can pay it”. You would instantly understand how simple this is.
Specifically regarding solar panels and wind turbines, I have no idea whether they are economically beneficial to the individual, but that is completely irrelevant. Provided they are produced at home, the jobs they would create combined with the benefits of not having to send our money to other countries to power our society benefits us all. That is how you decide what public policy should be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Most people who believe in climate change don't put their money where their mouth is (otherwise they would buy solar panels or wind turbines).
I believe in climate change. I’m not buying solar panels or wind turbines.
There is a big difference between recognizing what is best for society vs what is best for the individual. I vote for politicians who push policies that will benefit society, because then we all have to chip in. I’m not putting my money in the bucket for you to take advantage of it while I grow poorer.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Id say most don’t understand how logic works, cause if they did the scientific method would come to them naturally, and with that a better understanding of why the world works the way it does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
All you do is make bold pronouncements with nothing to back it up. Again, the charge that someone is not thinking for themself is unfalsifiable, so if you understand anything about how logic and reason works you would know that this means it’s also logically unsupportable, aka a definitionaly irrational claim.
The vaccine thing is a good example of where there are probably plenty of mindless bots within our society. On the right you have people who’ve never had a problem with vaccines before, which are vaccinated for polio, measles, and like 10 other diseases, suddenly anti vax apparently because Trump said so. But your portrayal of what happened on the left goes to show that you don’t pay attention and you don’t care about what actually did happen.
The left wing flirt with anti vax views was fueled by fears that Trump was going to insert himself into the approval process and thereby politicize it so we could have a vaccine before the election. But he didn’t, so once we could all see that the system worked as it was supposed to our concerns went away. To say that “we” would have been anti vax if Trump was for it goes to show how little you understand any of the BS you are talking about with regards to what others are thinking. At least I’m open minded to someone explaining to me why they’re anti-vax now when they never were before, you just proclaim people don’t think for themselves which beyond being an objectively irrational generalization, is also completely and utterly pointless and counterproductive to the idea of having intelligent conversation.
I just realize that most people take their marching orders from left wing or right-wing YouTubers and websites.
No, you have causation backwards. Most people watch YouTube and frequent their websites because these sites tell them what they want to hear and/or already believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Whether or not one is a conspiracy theorist should have NO impact on their stance on abortion or their stance on the death penalty.
Please go back to my post and read it again, because you clearly did not absorb a word of it. The conspiracy theorist thing was an example, it had nothing to do with the larger point.
Your entire thesis seems to be “I think for myself and I’m split on the issues, therefore anyone who thinks for themself must be split in these issues”. This is nonsense, and you have shown nothing to back it up.
I don’t control what anyone else thinks and what anyone else is labeling “left” or “right”. The fact that my beliefs align overwhelmingly with what society has labeled “left” has no bearing on my opinions. Again, people who think similarly are going to agree on most issues, so this is much more easily explained as having two different mind types that are predominant in society rather than the world being populated by a mass of mindless bots awaiting instructions. Only a narcissist would look at the latter and think that makes more sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Solaris1
No, I’m saying that if one has to appeal to God’s omniscience then their argument is clearly not valid.Can you explain why, it seems you have asserted this.
Because God’s omniscience wouldn’t need to be appealed to if the argument made sense, we would just stop there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Every time you argue with yourself about the gop and Trump, I find it hilarious, so I say nothing to stop you from continuing.
You’re full of it.
I know it’s fashionable to claim you’re against everyone, I’m sure you get a high out of pretending you’re better than everyone else because you can sit back all day and go “dUh your worship DC” instead of advocating for an actual vision for the country. But your allegiance is made clear, just go through your comment history. Trump brings the country to the literal brink of a civil war and you don’t say a word, ever. But let gas prices raise during a period where a democrat is in office then all of a sudden you’re so concerned about the party in power, so much so that you forgot about the fact that the president has nothing to do with gas prices.
It’s transparent that you really aren’t here for intelligent productive conversation. You’re here to throw stones while pretending you don’t have a house to throw them back at.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Democrats: No! I only don't want the undocumented in MY county. I want them in yours though.
Is this supposed to be satire or do you actually believe your own caricatures?
The left wing resistance to deportation is mostly about empathy for people who have built a life for themselves being torn apart from it. You can rationalize it all day long, that doesn’t change the pain it causes.
The rise is left wing passion for this topic is not out of no where, it’s a reaction to the right wing’s increase of bigotry and racism being not only tolerated but featured amongst party and group affiliated leaders.
The left wing’s (hypothetical) reaction to this idea is not about what the desires are regarding undocumented immigrants, it’s a reaction to the fact that this idea is just plain stupid. You don’t pick up groups of people and dump them in US cities or other areas in the US. Our politics may be intensely divided, that doesn’t mean we literally divide the country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If someone was thinking for themselves, then they would get roughly the same number of heads and tails (or democrat and republican beliefs).
And what are you basing this on? Cause it sounds like you’re pulling it out of your @$$
First of all, the fact that these two belief sets are so predominant in our society suggests a much deeper cause. My assessment is that the two sides think completely differently, left wingers being more practical and logical, right wingers being more emotionally driven. I’m sure many would disagree with that assessment, but however you would characterize it the point is that our beliefs do not live in a vacuum so the way we approach one issue will be the same for nearly all issues. This is why when someone for example buys into one conspiracy they’re more likely to believe others.
There is nothing about common belief sets that on its own suggests people are not thinking for themselves.
Second, the idea that they should be about even does nothing to make your point. If everyone was split 50/50 you would be calling that evidence of people not thinking for themselves. Anyone who takes contrary positions to be contrary is doing the same thing by letting others dictate where they land on any given issue.
This whole charge of not thinking for oneself is pointless without specific and valid evidence. Beyond being insulting, dismissive, and smug, it’s an unfalsifiable charge and accomplishes nothing except to deflect from the issue. If someone is defending a position they have no argument for them we should just focus on that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Solaris1
Are you saying we can know the mind of a literal God?
No, I’m saying that if one has to appeal to God’s omniscience then their argument is clearly not valid.
Again, I’m not weighing in on the actual question of God’s existence, that’s what most theists do not seem to understand. This is about logic. 1+1+1 does not equal 4.
If God is all powerful, then he controls everything including his own circumstances, thus he could never be put in a situation where he had to do anything. So if he for example created a literal place of torment and torture (hell), then he did that by choice because that is what he desired.
But no being that is anything recognizable as good would ever think to torture its own creations for all eternity for the crime of disobeying them or not believing they exist.
This is why, given the contents of the Bible, one of those two options must be true. He either desired these things making him a moral monster, or he did not and they happened anyway, making him impotent. There’s no third option except cognitive dissonance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That a few elites in DC were inconvenienced while Juanita scrubbed their walls matters to the 5 percenters says it all to me.
The fact that this is your characterization of it shows that you are a blatant hypocrite and political hack. If it were BLM storming the Capitol to stop congress from certifying Trump you’d be ready to grab your AK47 and drive to DC yourself. You know that, everyone knows that, but it was Biden so who the hell cares? Let’s just pretend this was all about Juanita and those leftists are just delusional. Your mind is warped.
The other 95% will look for solutions to real problems
Remind me what’s in the GOP platform again?
since Biden won't as those real problems (like being abandoned in Afghanistan,
You don’t give a shit about what’s going on in Afghanistan
getting fired from their jobs by the president,
The Supreme Court already struck this down so why are you still talking about it?
having the president remove their kids from school
Completely made up
school indoctrinated racebaiting,
Completely made up
inflation
A global problem brought in by Covid
dying overseas
What?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Think for yourself!
How exactly do you tell when someone is not thinking for themself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh no! mean feces!
That pretty much says all anyone needs to know about you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The 95 percenters still remember a real world where the only actual problem was an Orangeman saying mean things.
Ah yes, the good old days when the President of the United States used to threaten nuclear war on Twitter and lead the country through a pandemic by pretending it was all a hoax perpetrated by the evil Dems while hundreds of thousands of Americans died.
And then there was that time when Congress had to evacuate the US Capitol because it was ceased by Trump supporters as they spread their feces all over the walls.
The man left the country on the literal brink of a civil war fueled by his own ego driven lie about our election, but yeah, nothing happened there…
According to the 5 percenters, nothing bad is his fault. That's not a massive revelation. It's common sense.
Whether something is his fault depends on the issue and what his involvement on that issue was. Take gas prices for example; no involvement, no realistic solution, therefore not his fault. This is how logic works, I invite you to apply it sometime and present a real argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You don't have to be watching Chuck Todd or Fox to notice Gasoline isn't 2 dollars a gallon anymore.
And you also don’t have to be an economist to know not only that presidents have almost nothing to do with gas prices, but also that gas prices are a product of supply and demand which tanked in Trumps last year and rose significantly in Biden’s first.
But why concern yourself with reality when you can just blame Biden?
I suspect the 5 percenters are watching neither network, and Like Biden, live in their own worlds far from us. A world where, as Biden says, he is overperforming.
Or, maybe they’re just not watching right wing propaganda networks who tell their viewers stupid things, like it’s Biden’s fault that gas prices rose.
The 95 percenters still remember a real world where the only actual problem was an Orangeman saying mean things.
As if the previous 4 years including 2020 didn’t happen.
Confirmation bias personified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
The crime was his attempt to get Raffensberger to submit false numbers on his behalf. There is no legal argument that he did not do this. Why? Because in the call he made it blatantly clear (as if it were not already obvious enough) that the 11,780 votes he wanted him to recalculate to was “one more than we have”. In other words, recalculate to give me enough votes to win the state.
The defense against this would be to show where exactly this number comes from, which specific votes he was contesting. He didn’t. Every reference to votes he claimed should be recalculated were based on vague notions of fraud somewhere in Fulton Country or some other liberal county. In other words, even if he believed he won the election the number he was asking Raffensberger to recalculate to still had no factual basis, as in made up – aka false.
Regarding his state of mind, we absolutely do know what this was about. Trump did not pick up that call because he was a concerned US citizen trying to voice his concerns in an attempt to protect our elections. He was calling because he wanted to be declared president and didn’t care what had to be done to make that happen. The man declared the election stolen before a vote had ever been cast, he had been building this for months and we saw it in every way from that to his actions on election day to calling elections officials in multiple states to his fake electors scam and on and on.
The idea that we don’t know his state of mind isn’t an argument, it’s an admission of willful ignorance. The law doesn’t say we must know his state of mind beyond a shadow of a doubt, it’s beyond a reasonable doubt. And there is no reasonable case to be made that this was anything other than a crime.
The defense against this would be to show where exactly this number comes from, which specific votes he was contesting. He didn’t. Every reference to votes he claimed should be recalculated were based on vague notions of fraud somewhere in Fulton Country or some other liberal county. In other words, even if he believed he won the election the number he was asking Raffensberger to recalculate to still had no factual basis, as in made up – aka false.
Regarding his state of mind, we absolutely do know what this was about. Trump did not pick up that call because he was a concerned US citizen trying to voice his concerns in an attempt to protect our elections. He was calling because he wanted to be declared president and didn’t care what had to be done to make that happen. The man declared the election stolen before a vote had ever been cast, he had been building this for months and we saw it in every way from that to his actions on election day to calling elections officials in multiple states to his fake electors scam and on and on.
The idea that we don’t know his state of mind isn’t an argument, it’s an admission of willful ignorance. The law doesn’t say we must know his state of mind beyond a shadow of a doubt, it’s beyond a reasonable doubt. And there is no reasonable case to be made that this was anything other than a crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Solaris1
The problem of evil is an argument against the existence of a God. Therefore, it sets out to prove a God does not exist.
The idea of this argument is not to prove the non existence of god, it’s proponents overwhelmingly understand that that could never be proven.
What the argument does is refute the claim of god’s existence, assuming that Gods goodness is being asserted as a quality. And it certainly does just that. There is no logical way to square God being all powerful, all good or even anything remotely resembling good, and all of the stuff in the Bible.
The point is that in the end were left with one of two logical possibilities; God does not exist, or God is a moral monster. The idea that God is still good somehow but we just can’t see it is absurd. You’re free to adopt that position all you want, but it is at that point where you must admit that your position is not based in reason.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
What’s part of ‘atheists use Santa Clause to test the logic of your argument’ do you not understand?
I’m not being facetious and that’s not rhetorical. I’m genuinely asking you, because I’ve already explained how everything you are attaching to the myth of Santa Clause is completely irrelevant to a conversation about logic and you come right back with everything I just explained is not relevant. What part do you not understand? Please let me know so I can better explain it.
Created:
"Sure, why not" is tantamount to a "yes."
Thank you for that.
So being that I am talking to a grown up who believes in the tooth fairy, I see no reason to continue. Have a good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, pretending as of I have not already clarified that the question asked whether one thinks Biden is doing better than they thought he would. As in a question where the result is relative only to ones initial expectations, which amongst any large group would be expected to be all over the place. Confirmation bias personified.
But more importantly, where one falls on their assessment of Joe Biden is overwhelmingly dependent on what information they are being fed. Since Biden became president he signed another round of Covid stimulus, got vaccines distributed everyone who wants one, and passed a huge bipartisan Infrastructure deal. Whatever you think about those accomplishments (and no I really don’t give a shit what you think about them) if that’s what you know about Biden then it’s easy to see why someone would think he was doing better than they originally thought. Sorry, but not everyone gets their new from Tucker Carlson.
Now contrast that with Trump. No matter what news you are being fed, you can’t erase to complete idiocy and buffoonery that comes out of this man’s mouth every time he speaks. Just the other day in an interview Sean Hannity made reference to the analogy “bashing your head against the wall” and this idiot thought he was talking about the southern border. And that’s no where near an anomaly. It’s literally Every. Time. He. Talks. You can even see the painful look on his interviewers faces trying desperately to tee him one right over the plate.
Yet despite how blatantly stupid this man is, not to mention how vile, childish, ignorant, petulant, and on and on… millions of Americans still look at this man and say “yeah, I want that guy to be president”.
If you actually cared about mass delusion and mental disfunction, that is what you would be looking at.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well what exactly do you think I'm leaving around the house and telling my kids the gods left there for him cuz I'd really like to know.
What are you talking about? None of this has anything to do with what I wrote. Did you read it? Do you have a response to it?
To answer your question, I have no opinion on what you are leaving around the house. We haven’t discussed anything of the sort. Focus.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Is there a reason you won’t answer with a simple yes or a no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Everything I just said and that is where your mind leapt to? I should be surprised, but of course I’m not.
Chuck Todd’s assessment of a poll on Biden has nothing to do with this conversation, but of course that’s all you want to talk about because you’re obsessed with Biden’s poll numbers.
The 5% number you keep referencing are those who think Biden is doing a better job than expected. That is a useless question for determining ones popularity. But it sounds terrible so of course your confirmation bias will hold into it for dear life.
I haven’t said anything in this thread and probably not even anything on this site regarding my thoughts on Biden’s performance, so claiming I am of the 5% is yet another example of your confirmation bias leading to completely baseless claims (which is just a fancy way of saying your claims are bullshit).
Let me know when you want to have a serious conversation about reality.
Created:
Posted in:
“So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more then we have… there’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated” - Donald Trump to the Georgia Secretary of State
Georgia Code TITLE 21 - CHAPTER 2 - Article 15 - § 21-2-562 - Fraudulent entries(a) Any person who willfully:(1) Inserts or permits to be inserted any fictitious name, false figure, false statement, or other fraudulent entry on or in any registration card, electors list, voter's certificate, affidavit, tally paper, general or duplicate return sheet, statement, certificate, oath, voucher, account, ballot, or other record or document authorized or required to be made, used, signed, returned, or preserved for any public purpose in connection with any primary or election;shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years or to pay a fine not to exceed $100,000.00, or both.
Georgia Code Title 21 - Chapter 2 - Article 15 - § 21-2-604 - Criminal solicitation to commit election fraud(a) (1) A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony under this article, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.(b) (1) A person convicted of the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years.
Is that clear enough for you?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Why do people always ask theist if they believe in the tooth fairy and Santa.
Because that’s how you test the logic of someone’s argument/position. If the argument that you are presenting in support of a god also works when applied to Santa and/or the tooth fairy then one of the following must be true:
1. You also believe in Santa and/or the tooth fairy
2. Your argument is invalid, or at the very least you don’t actually accept it
Created:
-->
@Athias
I don't "believe in" the tooth fairy--i.e. subscribe to the ideas and values associated with the tooth fairy; I acknowledge the tooth fairy's existence.
Ok let me rephrase for clarity…
Do you believe that there exists a being who goes around here on actual planet earth where the human race resides and replaces children’s teeth left under their pillows with money?
Created: