Total posts: 1,971
-->
@WyIted
One of the symptoms of TDS is an inability to discern when Trump is being facetious. That said, I don’t get his exhortation to Christians to vote “just this once,” as if Christians are stereotypically reluctant to vote (?)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Do you have some video examples of Shapiro and Peterson exhibiting what you describe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
*waving of the hand*
Harris was never a “border czar.”
Biden was as sharp as ever until his shockingly swift mental decline.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That is a monumental attempt at some Jedi mindshit there! Thing is, it doesn’t really work in this galaxy…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
- The intersectionality of her sex and racial heritage would make her a historic president
- She will bring balance to the SCOTUS
- She is for a menstruating person’s right to choose
- She wants to lower firearm fatalities via stricter gun laws
- She wants corporations and the more fortunate to pay their fair share
- She is for racial equity/DEI/reparations
- She is for affordable education, healthcare and childcare
- She announces her pronouns so one doesn’t have to ask or ASSume
- She inspires young women everywhere that through hard work and perseverance, they, too, can sleep their way to the top.
- Gotta love that laugh!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
If you recall, there was going to be a Disinformation Governance Board headed by a Nina Jankowicz a couple years ago to answer those very questions and concerns. But after much criticism, controversy, and a disturbing sense that the novel “1984” was getting too real, the whole idea was canned…
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What is inexplicable (without a deep state) is why the demented fascist figurehead won a primary and a flock of "journalistic" organizations did their very best to hide and confuse the facts up until total defeat was looming over them.
The DNC/MSM seemed quite content with propping up a figurehead as long as that figurehead was compliant and could be re-elected. Once failure with the latter was virtually assured… well, we are still witnessing how that plan B or lack thereof is turning out…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Kamala will be unburdened by what has been,
That’s what she said:
Created:
The video isn't Trump;
It isn’t?? Dang, I thought Trump was finally busting out some legit moves instead of his usual which looks as though he’s jerking off two guys at once:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I wasn’t able to hear his entire rewritten speech, but the difference between Trump before and after the shooting appears to be the bandage…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
There are simply too many inaccuracies in your posts to address them all adequately. Chief among them is that you conflate the concept of gender with gender stereotypes, gender roles, gender norms, and gender traits (where “gender” is the modifier of the concept in question rather than the concept itself). You simply (and erroneously) put all those various concepts under the umbrella of “gender.” Furthermore, you conflate the concept of “gender traits” with certain activities which various societies have separated according to gender (or sex). Now, for that lie down…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tidycraft
Feel free to continue the convo you were having with HB, as I was just butting in…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
That isn't up for dispute.
Well, there it is, then. You are so completely convinced of how factually right you are that it isn’t up for debate. This proves that further conversation on this matter with you is futile. It’s actually a relief, as I might actually need to lie down for a bit after reading your latest responses… like yeesh…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So there being someone, somewhere in the world talking about a thing isn't saying alot.
Here’s another:
And there’s more, but I don’t wish to Gish gallop. The push toward sex as a social construct IS a thing. It is inherent in progressivism to keep the goalposts moving further down the track as goals are achieved. Knowing this, I’ll make a fairly easy prediction: if “gender is a social construct” ideology gains widespread acceptance in western societies, and it seems to be on its way, the next goal will be “BOTH gender and sex are social constructs.” Then the redundancy of that nomenclature will become evident, and the ideology will simply become “sex is a social construct.”
Gender is the cultural perception we have of people.
So, “dude looks like a lady”— actually MAKES that person a woman?
You can see proof of this because there are people who don't fully fall into the definition of male or female. There are people who are both, or neither. But we only have 2 genders that society recognizes. This proves that gender and sex differ.
Ah, yes, the old “use the exception to disprove the rule” gambit. How many arms and legs do humans have? Two of each? Well, there are babies born with one arm or one leg. Do they then cease to be human?
no, there was not.
From Wikipedia:
“The term gender had been associated with grammar for most of history and only started to move towards it being a malleable cultural construct in the 1950s and 1960s.[24]”
You perceive there being only 2 sexes and 2 genders. Therefore you assume
Please, take caution in assuming what I perceive or… assume. I perceive three sexes: male, female, and intersex. However, intersex is a rarity, an aberration, akin to being born with one arm. Again, what I am saying is that claiming that gender and sex are completely distinct is an opinion, a school of thought, not necessarily a fact as you declare without doubt. There is another school of thought: that gender and sex are synonymous, if not EXACTLY the same, exact thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
perhaps you didn't notice that message was a reply to someone else. So obviously the reply was talking about this conversation. IE neither he nor I were discussing biology, we were discussing gender. So you bringing up someone completely separate and saying "that guy's talking about biology" is a little strange.
Point taken. YOU were not talking about biology. What I was seeking to introduce is the fact that there are people in the transgender movement who do, indeed, argue that biology is very much a part of the debate, and this fact does not seem to be generally acknowledged.
what factual claims have I made that are not factual?
That sex and gender are two different things. That is an opinion rather than a fact. There was a time in society when sex and gender were synonymous words and this view was devoid of controversy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Well, you asked, “Who’s talking about biology?” I answered that a particular biologist IS bringing biology into the “social construct” argument.
Perhaps you need to clarify your point in rhetorically asking (as if the answer were “absolutely no one”) “Who’s talking about biology?”
Edit: alright, to get straight to my point: you are establishing certain concepts and claims as factual when they are not necessarily factual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
who is talking about biology?
Apparently, this biologist is:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Nay.
“Stochastic terrorism” is an academic term designed to curb free speech a la “hate speech” laws and is ripe for abuse. “Incitement to terrorism” already covers what needs to be covered.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I told you we were the only pilots on this site.
I beg to differ, Professor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Yes, Carlson would be an exciting choice— and yet another blunder (assuming he would even accept the position).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Who would be an “exciting” choice?
Sarah Palin was chosen out of a need for excitement, and the choice was one of political history’s great blunders…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You could simply bump your last thread on this subject, also titled “What is a republican?”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
If demonstrating it worked than Ross Perot would have became president
If announcing one’s IQ were truly persuasive and not merely douchebaggery, then Ross Perot could have submitted his test results to the American people and presumably have simply swooped into the presidency.
There’s a quote I like which I’ll loosely quote from memory, “The trouble with the world is that the foolish are cocksure while the wise are full of doubt.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
That sounds like midwit cope TBH. While true that it's nothing to brag about because you didn't earn it, but nobody really brags about their IQ. They just get frustrated with midwits and just gently inform them of their superiority.
“Midwit cope”? As quoted directly from the late Stephen Hawking? You are entitled to that opinion, of course. As for superiority, whatever meaning that may take on depending on the situation, it is FAR more persuasive and admirable to demonstrate it rather than merely claim it.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Yeah, talk about mythmaking. It is such a potentially lionizing moment that it invites all sorts of conspiracy theorizing in order to discredit the optics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
If he was close to 21, the math might work out. The point still stands that official party affiliation is hardly conclusive to someone’s true political inclinations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
he donated 15$ to a democrat PAC on the day Biden was sworn in.
Cite? I ask because a minor is not allowed to donate to a PAC.
Edit: the age math would be close, but possible, I guess!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
(Whom does this sound like?):
Remember that Hitler also survived an assassination attempt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
Thankfully, he's fine.
Good on you for genuinely expressing this. It is a sentiment which is in doubtful supply in these troubled times…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok. So if other candidates are a distant second choice or worse, voters can choose to override RCV given enough numbers by only selecting one candidate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It looks as though selecting a 2nd choice robs your first choice of its power. Knowing this, what is to stop voters from only putting down a first choice?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Hope you had a great 4th!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
It strikes me as another version of “Today is a brand new day.” I think it contradicts her promotion of equity, though, which is a concept very much “burdened by what has been.”
Created:
-->
@Tidycraft
Maybe so. It’s just that “deny” really needs to be in there twice. It could be the 6 D’s perhaps…
Created:
-->
@Double_R
A meaningless question
It was a, uh… rhetorical question. That you dismiss it as “meaningless” is, yet again, you adhering to your “5 D’s of debate.”
then spare me your opinion of me, it couldn't be any more worthless.
Yet you insist on posting to me unsolicited.
It's clear which one of us is close minded on this subject.
“No one cares.” <— Your words, not mine, Lex.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Note that you haven't even attempted to provide a single rational substantive defense of your position or scrutiny of mine with regards to what the ruling says or how it applies, only characterizations and insinuations.
Ah, yes… the “5 D’s” of your debate playbook: deny, dismiss, distrust, discredit, and deny. If understanding this decision is a 12 story building (in fairness, it isn’t exactly EASY to comprehend properly, as are most such cases) one cannot even get you into the front door without you kicking and screaming in protest. Your opinion of this ruling is mirrored, almost verbatim, in an egregious Vox article:
(Not to accuse you of getting your opinion straight from this article originally, just that every left leaning media outlet seems to embrace Sotomayor’s embarrassing take)
If the extremely detailed and authoritative opinion of the Chief Justice failed to lead you to understanding, what hope does a layperson you have already decided to dismiss have? Seriously, dude…
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Yeah, it’s truly a shame seeing as how genuinely open and curious you are regarding these sorts of things…
(And again, THAT was sarcasm)
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If Trump should get re-elected, basically one of two things will happen:
A. You will be a prisoner in your own mind, trapped in the nightmare that is your paranoia, enabled by your feeble but stubborn understanding of this ruling.
B. You will eventually realize you were wrong about this.
Who am I kidding? It’s definitely going to be A…
A. You will be a prisoner in your own mind, trapped in the nightmare that is your paranoia, enabled by your feeble but stubborn understanding of this ruling.
B. You will eventually realize you were wrong about this.
Who am I kidding? It’s definitely going to be A…
I will leave you to waste someone else’s time with your prevarications.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
No one cares.
Good to know you speak for everyone… everyone that matters, I guess. If YOU don’t care, why did you posit your doomsday scenario fever dream as an example of what could very well happen? You’re all over the place on this, but I don’t wonder why.
I don't know why you think I'm not following what you're saying, I've addressed this twice already.
Well, you have just now registered understanding of what I’m talking about. Second, when I asked “Do you understand?” your answer was “No.”
What we care about is what this will mean for everyone else.
Well then, you should have come up with a hypothetical earlier to match your true concern here instead of wasting my time. As things stand now, your understanding of this ruling is severely limited (as is left leaning media’s representation of the ruling— coincidence?) to that of Justice Sotomayor, who gave basically a “the sky is falling!”, unprofessional dissent written at the undergraduate level. Chief Justice Roberts could barely disguise his incredulity in his response to her dissent. Sotomayor’s writing and jurisprudence has always been at the undergraduate student level, but the unhinged aspect is presumably because Biden’s reelection prospects are faltering.
Nope— no partisan blinders going on around here! (Now, THAT is sarcasm)
Nope— no partisan blinders going on around here! (Now, THAT is sarcasm)
Created:
-->
@thett3
Exactly! THANK YOU. Geesh… someone gets it…
The chief justice even called out her hysteria in the majority opinion.
Justice Roberts— who I guess qualifies as MAGA now?— was barely able to disguise his incredulity in his response to the hysteric claims of Justice Sotomayor. I guess Biden’s debate performance has fried her already delicate circuits…
Created:
-->
@Double_R
No, because what you're saying seems to defy basic English. Immunity by definition means the immunized person cannot be prosecuted, therefore the only way to violate this is to prosecute them.
*facepalm* That is what I’m saying!! Dang, man…
Try and follow this:
If Trump… were to prosecute Biden and his administration… as you just imagined that happening… in your post addressed to me… that would violate Biden’s entitlement to the immunity that SCOTUS just ruled in favor of.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
In other words, the scenario you describe would be a violation of executive immunity, not a fulfillment of it. Do you understand what I am saying?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
shows how unserious you are to talk to.
Yet you insist on initiating conversation with me regardless.
Clearly, you haven't bothered to absorb a word I've said.
Back atcha, Lex.
Again, no one cares about this including MAGA
*sigh* I am asking this in the context of the very nightmare scenario you conjured up! Please read it again because I don’t know how to simplify the concept further.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Wow… how melodramatic. In your own words: “Republican fantasies about prosecuting Joe Biden have always been ridiculous…” Perhaps that doesn’t apply to Democrat nightmares about Republican persecution somehow…
Well, at the very least, what about Biden’s ability to claim immunity to such prosecution? And anyone operating under Biden’s authority in a legitimately Constitutional capacity? (Which is what I have been trying to point out all along— as I said “perhaps futile”)
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Trump can do whatever he wants, and the rest of us can do nothing about it.
Can you give a hypothetical example of how your claim could play out?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The idea that democrats should be breathing some sigh of relief from this is silly.
Well, when you characterize the Politico quote in that sarcastic manner, it does sound a bit silly. The search for a publication you are able to respect whose substance supports what I am saying goes on…
Trump can do whatever he wants, and the rest of us can do nothing about it.
Ah, just like what Vox says. Unsurprisingly, THAT is a publication you can respect. But you have already conceded that a Seal team assassination hypothetical (which falls under the scope of “can do whatever”) is a bit dramatic even for you. Why the dramatic conclusion now?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
“The decision to bless nearly all official presidential conduct as immune from prosecutorial scrutiny also has ramifications for Biden. Republicans have repeatedly suggested that their allies in government should consider charging Biden with crimes for actions ranging from his handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal to the flow of migrants over the southern border. Those policy considerations would be clearly beyond the reach of prosecutors under the Supreme Court’s analysis.”
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I guess we are lucky the Supreme Court doesn't have those partisan blinders on... right?
Only time will tell.
Created: