Total posts: 4,222
-->
@n8nrgmi
it's very rare to see someone as brainwashed as u r
it's oddly impressive though. He can read the words that show that no supreme court justice agreed with texas' case, and still convince himself of the exact opposite. I think even George Orwell would be impressed by his level of doublethink. He can hold two completely contrary ideas in his head and "know" they are both true.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
He is entitled to free speech.
if he were standing on a street corner, then you would be absolutely right. he has the right to do shit like that. A website is not a street corner. It is owned and managed by the site's owner. That owner can put limits on what you can say on their website. So no, he is not entitled to free speech.
I think what is holding black people back isn’t genetics or systemic racism, but instead it is the single motherhood epidemic that is infecting ALL racial groups, but especially the black ethnic group. If single motherhood didn’t exist, then racial equality in America would exist more in statistics.
if that were true, then black children from homes with two parents would succeed at the same rate as any other group. But that isn't what happens. We have lots of studies showing that certain groups get discriminated against. If you have a name that doesn't sound like it is a a white person's name you are much less likely to get a job interview, for example. And that has absolutely nothing to do with single mothers. It has to do with racism.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Please stop being stupid. I did not say I believed it. I said I did not know if it was true, and I had no reason as yet to believe or deny it.
and yet you insist on spreading this conspiracy theory on the internet. That is the problem. You heard a thing that has no basis in reality as far as you know and you are proceeding to spread it. Shit like that is why so many people think there was fraud in the election, even though no one can find any evidence.
I made it extra ridiculous to highlight how stupid this is.No, you simply exposed your partisanship. Your TDS.
lol, i showed how foolish you were being, so that somehow has something to do with me hating trump? this has nothing to do with trump. this is about you spreading rumors on the internet.
Now you're assigning me intent. Did you think Kavenaugh was guilty? On what evidence? Get away from me you befuddled partisan hack. The police state you wish us to live in will be met by logic and resistance
lol, i didn't realize that expecting people to stick to reality was a "police state". Clearly people spreading baseless conspiracy theories online is the only way to be free. This is just pathetic.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Please stop being stupid. I did not say I believed it. I said I did not know if it was true, and I had no reason as yet to believe or deny it.
of course you have reason not to believe it. It is an internet rumor with no evidence. Never believe internet rumors with no evidence.
And the CJ just talking to another SCOTUS member is hardly like Trump killing and eating a baby.
I made it extra ridiculous to highlight how stupid this is. it is some a random rumor on the internet that you have no reason to believe is true. you choose to believe it because you want to.
I do. And millions of others do too. It was possible for cases concerning the election to reach the supreme court. Some have.
like what exactly? What kind of case could possibly make a difference that could be heart by the supreme court?
Are you trying to be stupid? You asked me " who cares?" I said I care, and you conclude I'm "bent out of shape"?
I said who cares about something extremely stupid (ie a human being having an opinion) and you said you do. So yeah, that is extremely stupid. Of course he has an opinion. if he didn't, he wouldn't be human. So basically, you are saying if he is human, you are going to be upset...
I heard this. I don't know if its true or not. I have no reason to believe it and I currently have no reason to doubt it. So I seek information.
that is what research is for. You are just spreading rumors on the internet. which is exactly how you heard about this in the 1st place.
But in your partisan mind, I'm already killing and eating babies! I'm here asking if there is any evidence, and you are rabid.
all i'm doing is pointing out your actions so you can take a look at what you are doing. You are spreading rumors on the internet that, as far as you know, have no basis in fact.
I have only asked a question. If you think questions should not be asked until a story is validated, then you ARE a fascist.
so if i start asking people if they have evidence about how trump eats babies, that is totally ok right? I can start spreading rumors like that as long as i frame it as a question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
How long would you think it would take to pay down the national debt to say 5 trillion dollars if you didn't run a deficit (balanced budget spend what you take in) and devote only 1% of that to paying down the debt? Mind you govt cant even balance the budget and adds a minimum of 2 trillion each year in debt.
I don't pretend to be an economics professor. What is the point to this line of questioning? Do you think we should just cut all social spending and devote it to the debt? Should we just write off the debt and refuse to repay it? What exactly is your point?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
yeah, that is pretty much what I was trying to get at. Emotions overriding logic is something that happens to most people. It is certainly not specific to trump. So coining a term to try to paint any criticism of trump as "derangement" is just a cheap political ploy.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
i am the king of evidence
yes your majesty. You can be king of the evidence and the leprechauns and the mermaids. And any other fictional things you want. Since you seem to really believe in these delusions you keep repeating.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
It's a very similar condition to BDS.
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions? In what ways are those similar?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
humans are emotional creatures. It is entirely possible for our emotions to override our reason. So from that limited perspective, yes it is a thing. An example of it is all the people who honestly believed that trump was agent of the russian government as some sort of Manchurian candidate. There was evidence trump was corrupt, that he had ties to the russians and that he had lied about it. But it is a really big leap from there to manchurian candidate.
But it is just as much, if not much more, of an issue on the republican side. They are so emotionally invested in trump as some sort of savior that they simply wave away anything he says or does. Literally nothing matters to them as long as trump says it. That is much more dangerous in my opinion. We are seeing it right now. There is absolutely no evidence of fraud. Countless lawsuits and investigations have been done and no one can provide any evidence. But the TDS republicans simply choose to believe it because they want to. They need to believe that trump won. They can't emotionally handle the fact that he lost, so they simply reject reality.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
-->@HB - I have no interest in engaging your TDS. I'm just asking questions. But I can see now how the MSM can think repressing a story is justified.
ok, so what if I just said, "I heard someone watched trump kill and eat a baby. I don't have any proof, but I think he did". Would that be reasonable? no. there is no reason to believe something like that without evidence. That is essentially what you are doing. Spreading rumor and conspiracy theories online with no evidence that anything happened.
I do. And millions of others do too. It was possible for cases concerning the election to reach the supreme court. Some have.\
guess what, he has an opinion. Everyone does. Maybe he would prefer Biden, maybe he would prefer trump. It is one of those two things. So if you get bent out of shape because of that fact, then you are an idiot.
This is misleading. The Supreme Court isn't part of the election process, but can make rulings on whether those processes adhere to the constitution.
not really, no. The states have the constitutionally protected right to do their election however they want. There is absolutely nothing SCOTUS can do about that.
I heard this. I don't know if its true or not. I have no reason to believe it and I currently have no reason to doubt it. So I seek information.
having no information confirming it happened is a reason to doubt it. You are basically saying you have reason to doubt it, but choose not to.
Only in your fevered mind. I did not "engage with it as if it was a credible report." Unless you mean I should not have asked a question. If that is what you mean, I reject that as fascist. It is better to ask, and asking need not be censored.
lol sure. because anyone who expects there to be a shred of evidence for things, must be fascist. My god republicans are terrified of facts.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
What doesn't make any sense? That the Chief Justice would have an opinion on Trump? That he would be speaking to another justice about the election? You're acting as if I have offered this as an official ruling of the Supreme Court.
Let me be more specific. If he was just giving his opinion that he would prefer trump not win, then who cares? everyone has an opinion. Therefore the conspiracy theory is meaningless. If the point is that he was trying to do something to stop trump winning, then it makes no sense because he isn't part of the election process.
I did not "put stock" in it, and I have no reason to discount it right now either.
of course you do. There is no evidence any such thing happened. You don't have evidence mermaids aren't real, do you assume that they do?
The story is still hard to get but it seems that people claimed to hear liberal justices shouting about why they should not take Trumps case.
your story is changing from a call a month before the election, to a discussion about a legal case recently. You can't even keep your nonsense straight.
And finally that the Chief justice intimidated Alito and Thomas into agreeing to refuse the case.
what are you talking about? the only disagreement Alito and Thomas had is over a specific legal doctrine. They believe that if one state sues another then the Supreme court must take up the case no matter how bonkers the case is. The rest of the court disagreed. They did not say that Texas' case had merit, only that the court should listen to the bullshit before tossing them out.
I have no proof of any of it, but with the MSM burying some stories, that this one in not being reported does not necessarily mean it isn't true.
that 1st part is the critical bit. You have no evidence anything happened, but choose to engage with it as if it was a credible report. That is a problem.
Roberts used fear mongering to influence other justices decision in case.
lol, basically every lawyer in the country knows that case had no merit for lots of different reasons.
Here is a link to a lawyer breaking down exactly why that lawsuit could never have gone anywhere. There is no reason for anyone to use "fear". The lawsuit was completely stupid on the face of it for half a dozen reasons. I mean, they actually admitted in the brief that the reason they didn't sue before the election was because they didn't know how the election was going to turn out. That is openly admitting that they are only suing because they lost the election.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Calm down leftie. I was asking if anyone had heard anything like that, not advancing it as proof.
So you have no evidence that anything of the sort has ever happened? That is the definition of a conspiracy theory.
It's starting to trend on twitter. I think it was recorded earlier this year before the election. I just thought someone here might have heard of it.
sounds like more right wing insanity. I mean, the Supreme court has nothing to do with elections, so it doesn't even make any sense. Why would you put any stock in this at all without hard evidence?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
inam king of evidence
lol, so you cannot provide a single shred of evidence, but are kind of evidence? This would be funny if it weren't so sad. I think you might actually believe the complete nonsense you are spewing. That's very sad for you that you are that delusional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
What are your thoughts on the national debt? Not sourced thoughts, your thoughts?
When the economy is going well, we should avoid raising it, if not pay it down. But that's sort of the wrong question. It isn't what to do about the debt, it is how do we increase government revenue to get a handle on the debt.
The republican strategy of cutting taxes every chance they get is the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
If you are at all interested in the debt this country has accumulated you would do your own home work. Your goal is to dismiss the sources, not discuss the topic. Or you cant discuss it because you don't understand it and need me to provide the information so you can make a coherent educated response.
You made a claim. When asked for your source you didn't respond. When asked again, you went on a weird rant about how you shouldn't have to provide a source. Do you not see how weak that looks?
you are obviously just making stuff up if you can't provide a source for your claims. Why should anyone engage with you if you are just going to make stuff up and then cry about it when someone asks you where you are getting your information?
But it makes more sense your love of trump. He also loves to make shit up and then cry and play the victim when people point out his lies.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Has anyone heard about the recorded phone call between the chief justice and another member of SCOTUS about how to keep Trump from winning the election?
no, and on the face of it, that doesn't even make sense. The Supreme court has no bearing on the election. Each state can run their elections how they want, that is in the constitution. Any cases of fraud or objections to voting laws would be handled by lower courts.
So the supreme court is pretty irrelevant where elections are concerned. So please tell us more about this alleged phone call that makes no sense.
Created:
In case anyone is interested, here is an interesting video breaking down the texas lawsuit and why it was always doomed for many, many reasons. Basically, it had no legal merit at all and was just a political stunt
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
evidence has gone ignored
i think you will find it is impossible to ignore something that never existed in the first place. Since the "evidence" isn't real, how can I ignore it? Am I ignoring unicorns and dragons too?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Yes, 24 trillion dollars of baseless nonsense.
you were asked for a source for your claims. You have now responded multiple times but still not provided a single source. This typically means you either made up your claims or your source is very weak. Either provide a source for the figures you keep spouting, or people will just assume you are a liar.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
i think I have gotten the best of this conversation
lol you make baseless claims. I ask for evidence. You lie and say you already provided it.
If you think that is getting the best of the conversation then you REALLY don't belong on a debating website. Maybe you should find a safe space where your crazy conspiracy theories can just be reflected back at you.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
already provided
lol, if you had it would probably be alot easier to just post it as I requested than to just keep repeating that you did. But since we both know you are lying and have no evidence, we both know why you can't do that.
it's sad you feel the need to keep saying it though. At some point don't you just get tired of lying? I mean you just look dumber every time you do it. Everyone can see you don't have any evidence. So just repeating that you do is just childish and dumb. But that is exactly what trump is doing, so you aren't alone.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
i did provide evidence
if that evidence exists, then post it here. but we both know you can't because it doesn't exist.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
i provided evidence
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the lie. it's still a lie. Although I can understand your confusion. Trump just repeats the same lies and you and the other cultists just believe them. Unfortunately for you, i'm not a cultist. Chanting the lies over and over does not convince me. Evidence does.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
i provided all I needed to
Well, you provided nothing. since you obviously don't require any facts or information to believe whatever fantasy trump feeds you, then I guess you are right. You have provided nothing and that is all the information you require to believe what you are told to.
Created:
I think the official count of the lawsuits by trump and his allies is 1 success, 58 thrown out. And trump's own justice department has announced that both they and the FBI have investigated and could not find any evidence of widespread fraud.
I can't believe anyone still believes this nonsense.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
nonitsnnot sad that I provided evidennc
you didn't provide evidence. but seem to cling to the lie that you did.
If you have already provided it, then it should be easy for you so send the links again. I'm guessing you don't really have any though. They are probably the same bullshit that has been floating around for weeks. Like that video of a guy burning random paper in the woods saying it was votes for trump. Or the guy being refused entry to a polling place screaming about how he had a right to be there, but conspicuously didn't provide any evidence he had a right to be there.
I'm pretty sure these videos (which by the way are 100% not evidence of anything) are what you think your evidence is. And that is sad.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
two justice on the supreme court said they would have took the case instead of throwing it out. but they also said they wouldn't have let trump win. it was a technical point regarding the standing to sue, in the case.
Interesting. However Dr.Franklin's statement is still a a lie. they didn't "side with trump". They just said they would have heard the case. Alito appears to have confirmed he would not have done what the lawsuit wanted.
“I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief,” Justice Alito wrote, “and I express no view on any other issue.”
however, Alito still appears to be wrong though. Each state has the right to make their own election laws. Texas has no standing to sue regarding the election laws of other states. If someone wanted to sue about those laws, they would need to do it in the state they had an issue with. Which trump did, over and over. And they all got thrown out.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the boy who cried source, I gave you my evidence now it’s time for you to provide any input in this conversation as you haven’t at all ever on this website
you have provided literally no evidence. why do you keep pretending like you did? everyone here knows you didn't. This is sad.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i see that there is a dissimiliarty in that a single gathering can kill a lot of people, but the bottom line is that the life time risk for everyone is worse with driving than it is with the virus.
no, you haven't shown that at all. Your stat compares the lifetime odds of dying in a car crash to the odds of dying from a single event (contracting covid). if you wanted to compare numbers you would need to compare the odds of dying in a specific trip to dying of covid. which would be something like .0000001% to .7%.
even if everyone at a party got in contact with the virus, their odds dont suddenly go up. that is, they all still have a .7 percent chance of dying if they catch it.]
not true. The .7% includes the healthiest of people and children in it. IE the people least at risk of dying. If you gave covid to your grandma she has a much much higher chance of dying.
additionally, if you passed it to that many people around the same time other people did the same (IE christmas) then you are significantly increasing the odds the hospital gets overrun and alot more people die.
so basically, if there was no chance of a vaccine, i think socieity would just shift its expectations....
if there was no chance that there would ever be a vaccine, you are probably right. With no possible solution to the problem one of 2 things would happen. Eventually millions would die and we would reach herd immunity. Or society would permanently change how we do things. IE social distancing, masks etc would be mandated forever.
luckily we don't need to find out because there is a vaccine.
it will assume everyone must accept a one percent ish chance of dying if they are going to socialize much at all, just as we accept a lifetime one percent chance of death from driving if you drive much at all.
you keep ignoring the critical point. alot of Hospitals are basically at maximum capacity right now. they can't cope if things keep getting worse. and things are still getting worse. that .7% assumes there is enough doctors, beds and ventilators for everyone. We are very close to point where that is no longer the case in alot of parts of world. and once we are past that point the mortality rate could easily double, or more.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
How many kids out of 47 million died from Covid?
you are correct the children appear to be much less likely to be affected. But i said "Most people are at risk from covid", and that statement is still true.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not finding any specific reference to "racism" in the CoC. [LINK]
I'm not a mod, so I'm not going to get into that with you. if you want to debate that link the mod that banned him.
but he was a racist asshole spreading bullshit white supremacism nonsense. We are better off being rid of him.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
there were 2 on scotus and 3 on Wisconsin just off the top of my head
who specifically? and please provide a source to where they said they believed there was any supporting evidence for trump's lies about fraud. I'm guessing you will refuse to do so because you are making this up.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
whereas almost everyone including kids (who have near no risk of covid)
this is a wildly untrue statement. Most people are at risk from covid. Especially if there is a surge in cases which overtaxes the medical system. At that point alot more otherwise healthy people would die from it.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
point nine percent is greater than point seven percent, so driving is overall on average more dangerous than the virus.
no. .9% is spread over an entire lifetime. the .7% is for a single event. They are not remotely comparable stats.
now, to your point... if a person can catch it several times, that does change everything, cause then their risk jumps by a lot, but it sounds like the science on this point isn't very conclusive so we cant say one way or the other on this point. i would concede my analogy fails if the science was as you say.
there are documented cases of people catching the virus multiple times. So it is certain that it is possible to catch it multiple times. how likely that is remains to be seen.
But ultimate, the main flaw in the comparison is the scale. IE a drive is a risk primarily just to you. A party is a risk to everyone there, as well as any other friends, colleagues or family members they come into contact with in the days or even weeks following the party. A party can easily cause an outbreak among dozens or even hundreds of people. A few of those parties in a small area and suddenly the hospital can be overrun and alot of people can die.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the only way my analogy can work, is if we assume a hypothetical that experts dont think a vaccine is possible. in that case, your lifetime risk is safer in driving to socialize than it is from your lifetime risk of the virus in socializing... for the average person.
again, no. because a car crash is a one off event. The people who are harmed in it are the only people who are harmed. You catching covid is not a one off event because you can then spread it. And the people you spread it to can spread it. etc. A car crash might kill a few people. A party could potentially kill dozens.
Also, you seem to be assuming it is a single event. IE you get covid, you live, and so it's over. The evidence suggests you can get covid more than once. So you could get it, survive, then die from it next month when you catch it again.
Car crashes and the spread of a virus are simply not very comparable events.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Saying that someone is racist because they believe that whites are smarter than blacks is like saying someone is sexist because they believe men are physically stronger than women. If it’s true, then it’s not racist or sexist to say either claim. It would be a fact at that point.
your statement is essentially "saying something that is the textbook definition of racism isn't racism". That is just stupid on the face of it. Saying one race is superior to another is racism. End of story. attempts to justify it only make you look more racist.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i will concede that given the vaccine is imminent, maybe everyone should be extra safe in the mean time. but i still maintain that if the vaccine was uncertain, and for some average people in average situations, it's not so far fetched to think we could still socialize with healthy people.
that depends on how much you value seeing your family. Is it worth millions of dead people? Is it worth the death toll of 9/11 (or worse) every single day? because that is where we are right now. with christmas gatherings on top of this, it is likely to spike even higher.
i messed up my question to you.... i should have asked, shouldn't the average person in an average situation stop driving to socialize even when the pandemic is over? based on your logic.
no. because the stats you supplied are entirely inconsistent. IE you have .9% chance of dying of a car crash over like 75 years. You have a .7% chance of dying of covid by next month if you catch it. and considerably higher than .7% if people stop taking safety precautions (like avoiding gatherings) and the healthcare system gets overrun by cases.
Whether or not you go to a family gathering in an average year is unlikely to kill anyone. And even if it did, the affect it would have would be minor (obviously not to your direct family, but to society as a whole). Going to a family gathering now is likely to contribute to a global crisis and make it much worse. Your actions could help to drive the crisis to a breaking point. Which is extremely irresponsible.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
one you said that a person could be permenately damaged by by the virus. that's true, but it is also true with driving. so this point is a wash, it's a moot point in trying to differentiate my analogy.
no, i meant that your stat comparing deaths is misleading. it makes it sounds like 99% of people who get covid are fine, when that is absolutely not the case.
two you said hospitals might be overstaffed.
I think you misunderstood. I mentioned if the hospital was fully staffed in reference to the doctors or nurses being sick. The main point was that if there are too many cases, then the hospitals can no longer handle the volume of cases. At that point the mortality rate spikes as there aren't enough beds or ventilators to go around.
i can see you are extra cautious, so i'll change the question to you.... why should the average person stop socializing with healthy people when all things are considered?
a) because they could die.
b) because they could kill the people they care about
c) because they are contributing to a national crisis that could potentially kill millions.
The better question is: is it worth seeing your family when there is the very real chance you could kill them while also contributing to the deaths of lots of other people?
the risk from dying from a car accident is spread out over a lifetime.
wait your stat is a lifetime? You are comparing apples to oranges then. You are comparing someone's changes with surviving a specific event (getting covid) with someone's chances of dying of something over the course of decades. Those are extremely different things.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I read the decision and his post and I don’t think saying black people are biologically inferior to white people is hate speech or ban worthy.
saying that one race is superior to another is the textbook example of racism. It is not possible to be more racist than that. He believed that black people were genetically inferior to white people. There is no constructive conversation possible with someone like that.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i googled the stats. you have a .9% chance of dying in a car. you have a .7% chance of dying from the coronavirus, and that's assuming you catch it.
assuming your stat is accurate (which i didn't double check), this is only true under the best case scenario. IE if your hospital is fully staffed and has sufficient beds and medicine to help you. If hospitals get overrun with cases, if the nurses and doctors are sick themselves, if the hospital runs out of ventilators etc, then the mortality rate spikes.
additionally, this stat doesn't reflect the full picture. lots of people who don't die of covid can still have long lasting or even permanent damage done by the virus.
So for the purposes of your stat it is either die or you don't. But in the real world it is much more complicated than that.
so basically, if you think about it, if you dont want to live in fear, you might as well socialize with your healthy friends and family
this is an extremely irresponsible way of looking at it. healthy people can die of Covid. Healthy people can be permanently injured by covid. And if lots and lots of otherwise healthy people spread the virus, then hospitals get overrun and the rate of these things happening spikes.
if you disagree with this approach, why dont you stop socializing with your friends and family due to the car ride involved too?
two things really
1) the risks of driving are largely under my own control. If I obey speed limits, i don't drive drunk, drive safely etc, the odds of me dying are pretty low. I can choose to drive safely and the increase my odds of being safe. Even if you take all safety precautions, you can still spread covid at a family gathering. You will not be able to control the risks. IE someone coughs before handing something at dinner, then you touch your face and now you have covid.
2) my choosing to drive to see my family, isn't going to kill anyone else. Unless I am driving recklessly, the odds of my choosing to visit my family hurting anyone is very low. With covid, you could be sick and not even know it. And you could easily spread that virus to your family and kill them. Or get the virus from your family and spread it to others, killing them. And by spreading covid at your family gathering you are increasing pressure on the healthcare system increasing the odds that more people will die or be permanently damaged by the virus.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
they were many judges that sided with trump, just not enough
which judges exactly? Because they have lost dozens of lawsuits. Virtually all of them in fact. So where are these supposed judges?
whats happening is a operation by Democrat cities that haven’t been republican since the 50’s to steal the election'
umm, you are describing an election. The cities voted for Biden. This is how elections work. Voting is not "stealing" an election.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
you have ignored all evidence
there is no evidence. why do you keep saying I am ignoring something that doesn't exist? if there were evidence then there wouldn't be more than 50 lawsuits that have been tossed out. If there was evidence, then trump's hand picked appointee to run the justice department wouldn't be confirming that they investigated and there was no evidence of fraud.
What warped reality do you live in that you can just keep repeating the same obvious lies over and over and over and never really question anything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I thought that argument would be tried. It's an easy assumption, but, unfortunately, it won't wash. 2016 had very careful instructions sent to every registered voter in 2016, and yet, the 2016 error rate was 7x the 2020 error rate.
ok, but as you said, it was the 1st time PA had done mail in ballots. no one was familiar with the process. And most people don't fully read things that are mailed to them. This time, mail in balloting had already been done before. Also, the information wasn't just on some written thing most people wouldn't fully read. It was everywhere. You could see videos showing exactly how to do it on every media platform. Those 2 factors seem to easily explain a significantly improved success rate. If you believe there is another explanation, please provide evidence for it.
However, the mail-in ballots resulted in a much larger spread for BidenNope. Blatantly wrong. Not an assumption. We have the numbers available to anyone who wants to see them Look. I did.
Your response doesn't seem to be connected to what I said. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
far more republicans refuse to take covid-19 seriously or even believe it exists.nope. Lame excuse. You've ignored that that pattern of voting for Biden vs Trump includes the fact that mail-in republican votes has 21% of republicans voting for Biden, compared to 5% with in-person voting. You really believe that difference is real? Just because of mail-in v. in person? Pardon my laugh machine.
that would also make perfect sense. The chunk of the republican party that actually takes covid seriously would be much more likely to vote against trump given his colossal failure at handling the covid crisis. Since mail in ballots in most cycles are older people and in this cycle it is also alot more people who take covid seriously, those groups have excellent reason to vote against trump.
why would I want to look up your sources?I predicted ypu would not want to do that. But I also invited you to look it yourself. You have not. That's on you.
ok, but nothing you have said is suspicious. It is all perfectly logical. That's like you telling me that the sun is yellow and then expecting me to check your sources. Why would I? I know the sun is yellow. You have thrown out stats and seem to think they are evidence of something, but so far they are all perfectly reasonable and in line with the expected trends.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
what? prison is the rehab center. You don't get released from prison and sent somewhere else.Are you not aware of what a rehab centre is?
yes, are you? Do you think prisoners are sent there once their prison sentence is served?
So if it was your parent's corpse of which were burnt to crisps by Brandon, what reaction would you have? Do you think Brandon "waking up" to his crime is enough?
I'm sure that in that scenario I would be very emotionally involved in the outcome. Which is exactly why family members of victims do not get a say in the punishment of criminals. That is how you get systems based on revenge, not justice.
Do you think Brandon "waking up" to his crime is enough?
no, that is what a prison sentence is for.
If a killer instantly and genuinely regrets burning two people, do you think it is reasonable that they don't go to prison at all as their mind is already cleansed?
I never said they shouldn't go to prison. They obviously need to be punished for their crime. Both to ensure they have learned their lesson and to ensure others don't believe they can get away with committing a similar offense. However executions do not help with that.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
if voter fraud is widespread, ie. it happens every day, then it becomes systemic. The two are intertwined.Well said.
A) you edited what I said, just for reference.
B) ok.... but voter fraud isn't widespread. In fact no one can find any evidence it happened all. So it very obviously isn't systemic. You now agree that trump is a liar and he lost the election?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
What makes this conspiracy particularly troubling for Democrats to explain is why, with all the troubles of PA’s novice effort, their percentage of erroneous, discarded ballots dropped significantly from 2016, which was in the 20th percentile of erroneous ballot discards, whereas 2020, with a 100-fold increase in mail-in ballots, the erroneous, discarded ballots dropped to just 3% of the total number of ballots cast. Explain that phenomenon, Democrats. It also baffles statistical probability.
there was record levels of information available about how to vote by mail correctly. There was tons of information being shared all over the place, youtube, facebook etc about how to vote correctly. Hell, Stephen Colbert had a repeating whole segment of his show about how mail in balloting worked in each state. You are surprised that with so much easy to access information about how to do it correctly that more people did it correctly?
However, the mail-in ballots resulted in a much larger spread for Biden wherein we are expected to believe that 21% of registered Republicans switched their vote to Biden, and only 79% voted for Trump.
why would you assume that? there are large numbers of independent voters. many of whom voted for trump in 2016. Less of them did this time. As well as a statistically significant of republicans that actually care about republican values (which trump very obviously doesn't)
Statistically, the comparison of same-day/absentee to mail-in is, as well, baffling to statistical probability.
no, not really. The republican get out the vote effort focused heavily on in-person voting. Democrats focused more on mail in balloting. Additionally, far more republicans refuse to take covid-19 seriously or even believe it exists. Therefore they were more likely to show up in person. Whereas democrats are far more likely to accept science and realize Covid is real and dangerous. So more republicans showed up in person and more democrats voted by mail.
Are we beginning to see a trend?
not really, no. All you've shown is that people were better informed and that republicans deny covid is dangerous. Which is pretty well established fact.
I am purposely leaving off my researched sources.
ok, but the stats you've posted don't really mean anything. so why would I want to look up your sources?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
The point of criminal justice is that it serves justice through punishment. It is nothing to do with the offender being rehabilitated, it is about them being punished. Rehabilitation comes afterwards, when you are sent to a rehab centre.
what? prison is the rehab center. You don't get released from prison and sent somewhere else.
Nevertheless, this isn't the point of this forum. What do you think about the case of Brandon.
I think the death penalty is pointless. I don't think it should even exist. so obviously I don't think Brandon should have been executed.
But assuming I did think execution had a purpose, I still don't think it makes sense in this case. Executions are meant to be used on people whose crimes are so heinous and they so unredeemable that society has no choice but to execute them. Brandon didn't kill anyone. He committed a serious crime to be sure. He needed to go to prison quite obviously. But he never killed anyone. And by all accounts did reform in prison. So why what purpose did executing him serve?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
i never denied punishment is part of it's purpose. But your comments seem to imply that you think it is the primary purpose of the justice system. In order to reform someone and to prevent them or others from committing crimes, punishment is necessary. But the primary goal isn't the punishment itself. It is to prevent the criminal activity and to protect the innocent. So if you are focusing on hurting people as the goal of the justice system, you have missed the point.
punishment is not the goal.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
there are blatant cases of racismyou misspelled systemic.
if racism is widespread, ie. it happens every day, then it becomes systemic. The two are intertwined.
But all of this aside, you are trying to change the topic. Trump lost. He obviously lost. Trump and his cultists are grasping at straws to try to explain away his defeat. They have no evidence that any significant amount of fraud happened, let alone enough to change the outcome.
I'm guessing you know that but don't want to admit it. So you are now attempting to change the subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
Criminal justice is about punishing.
this seems to be the central part of your confusion. You think the point of the justice system is just to hurt someone who has done something wrong. That is a fundamental misunderstanding. So you can't understand why showing mercy or clemency could possibly be justified because, to you, hurting them is the point. So to stop hurting someone is antithetical to what you are looking to achieve.
Created: