Total posts: 8,696
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
SECOND REQUEST: (please answer as directly as you are able)
oromagi: Please show some evidence for your claim that I failed to recognize CHAZ as "a rebel army under the control of Maxine Waters and AOC?"
- Your reply should include at least one link to a post I made backing up your false claim.
- Of course, you won't be able to find any because I had to look up what a CHAZ was.
- Further non-sequiturs will be ignored.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
On the OP "Atheism is simply "a lack of belief" I think I made my point quite clearly in my vote on that debate in mid-June - that the definition of ATHEISM means more than simply "a lack of belief" and ought to continue to do so.
3RU7AL concedes as much in POST#45. He says he conceded the point earlier but I find no evidence to support that claim.
I was definitely done by POST#74 when I complained about endless repetition of the same arguments.
All other posts are merely noting misunderstandings and offering corrections in the spirit of 3RU7AL's OP request that we "point out any errors you may find."
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In that case what are your rational grounds in failing to recognize the CHAZ as a rebel army under the control of Maxine Waters and AOC?
Please show some evidence for your claim that I failed to recognize CHAZ as "a rebel army under the control of Maxine Waters and AOC?"
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Burr was looking to form an army as we use the phrase for 'military conquest.Trump, you call anyone who supports him in a group part of his personal 'army.Then shy away from the military definition of the word,Yet 'attempt to nudge people's thoughts in the direction of the military definition.
I agree that WashPo and Burr's treason trial are using different senses of the word ARMY. As far as I can tell, Trump's army was larger, better equipped, and killed more people than Burr's army- although roughly the same amount of drinking was involved.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Washpo today:
"Trump has marshaled his army of supporters to declare, in knee-jerk fashion, any legal scrutiny of him a deep-state operation."
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Just to bring it back to our subject.
The point is that Manafort now says that every claim made about him in the Steele Dossier and the Mueller Report is actually true and that all those many, many Republicans that have been swearing up and down for the last six years that those claims made about Manafort were fake news and lies were all either wrong or themselves lying.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
NATO is not leftist news but NATO defines Jan 6 as an attempted coup
In fact, the national security of most EU nations reported it as a coup
Liz Cheney is not leftist news but Cheney defines Jan 6 as an attempted coup
Yale History Professor Timothy Snyder is not leftist news but says history will judge Jan 6 a coup
The Right Honorable David O Carter referred the Eastman Memo to Congress as a "memo for a coup"
The Brookings Institute, etc..
some call it a self-coup or just an attempt to overthrow the US govt or seditious conspiracy but those are all the same thing.
an ARMY is "a large number of people or things, typically formed or organized for a particular purpose."
Created:
Posted in:
What Does It Mean When Someone Says 'That's Just Semantics'?
By: Michelle Konstantinovsky
According to Merriam-Webster, the word "semantics" means: "The historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development." Got that? No wonder it's so misunderstood....
Sometime in the late 19th century, people began using the word "semantics" to allude to "semiotics," a philosophical theory covering the relationship between signs and the things they reference — most notably, words and their intended meanings. Sometime after that, people began arguing over what "semantics" itself actually means (ironic, don't you think?).
These days, you're likely to hear someone accuse a debate partner of "just arguing semantics," which, if you think about it, means their debate partner is "just arguing about meaning," which you would think is, like, the point of arguing in the first place? But in our modern vernacular, the phrase has somehow become shorthand to insinuate the speaker has argued something trivial or unimportant. At its core, that's not what "semantics" is meant to represent at all. Or is it? We asked an array of language experts to help us get to the bottom of the word's origin, its current adaptation, and whether saying someone's argument is "just semantics" is a legit criticism or just a major cop-out.
What Experts Say About Semantics
Jenny Lederer, assistant professor and linguistics advisor in the Department of English Language and Literature at San Francisco State University: "Semantics is the study of meaning in context; it's the investigation of how words, phrases and sentences evoke concepts and ideas in our minds. As we learn language, we attach meanings to words by learning what objects and concepts each word refers to.
"'It's just semantics' is a common retort people use when arguing their point. What they mean is that their argument or opinion is more valid than the other person's. It's a way to be dismissive of language itself as carrier for ideas. It implies that ideas and arguments can be separated from the words and phrases used to encode those ideas. The irony, of course, is that the words and phrases we use are the ideas. There is no way to communicate a complex argument or message without language. Language and thought are completely interconnected. In fact, words shape concepts and can lead to drastically different understandings of the same thing. For example, inheritance taxes can be called 'death taxes' or 'estate taxes.' These two political phrases frame the same tax law in drastically different ways. Semantics really matters."
Robert Henderson, Associate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona: "Semantics is the study of meaning very broadly. We have semantics for human languages, but also for logics, or computer languages. In the case of human languages, to have a semantics for a language is to be able to assign a meaning to every word in that language, and then to compute the meanings of sentences based on the meanings of those words and how they are put together.
"The phrase, 'that's just semantics,' is thus a little confusing. People seem to use it when they want to say that the disagreement they're currently having is due to word choice and not due to a substantive disagreement. But that is not semantics at all. That would be, like, lexicography. The reason this phrase has nothing to do with actual semantics is that if we were having an argument that boiled down to 'just semantics,' then we would be having an argument about what words mean. But that is not insubstantial at all! In fact, it is incredibly important for us to figure out what the various parties to an argument actually mean if we hope to resolve it. So, what is going on here? I think that it seems that in popular parlance, people use 'semantics' to mean something like 'nitpicky distinctions.' That is, in the popular use, when I dive into the semantics of what you're saying, I'm closely parsing every little thing. Thus, if we are having an argument and it's 'just semantics,' then what you're saying is that we're having an argument over fine, nitpicky details that don't matter. I don't like this use because I'm a semanticist, and that is not what I do at all. I do logic, actually. But, what can you do? People will speak the way people speak."
Dylan Bumford, assistant professor in the Department of Linguistics at UCLA: "There are various technical notions that go by the name 'semantics.' Mostly, they are trying to characterize the ways that linguistic forms (like logical formulas, or computer programs or sentences in English) are, or ought to be, associated with the things they describe. In logic, this often takes the form of rules that match formulas with mathematical structures. In computer science, programs may be associated with procedures for transforming machine states. In philosophy and linguistics, you might find English expressions matched up with specific objects and scenes, or at least representations of these. Outside of these research fields, my sense is that people use the word 'semantics' to describe very fine distinctions between different categories, especially if those distinctions are so subtle as to be irrelevant. In this sense, 'semantics' would be something like the art of making annoyingly precise or pedantic linguistic choices.
"I take it when most people describe an argument as a 'matter of semantics,' they mean that the two sides are effectively saying the same thing, or that the difference between them is negligible; the positions differ only in the words that are used (to some, this would make it a matter of syntax, not semantics; but of course, to others, that very difference might be a matter of semantics). Sometimes, though, discussions really are about the meanings of words. If two people agree on all the facts — they know who did what to who, and what happened when, etc. — but they still disagree on whether a certain sentence is true, they may be having a genuine debate about semantics, about what objects or situations should be associated with various expressions. For instance, if we disagree about whether Donald Trump withheld military aid in an effort to persuade the Ukrainian prime minister to launch an investigation into Trump's political opponents, we are having a substantive disagreement about what actually happened, about what the world is like. But if we agree that he did this, yet nevertheless disagree about whether such an action constituted a 'quid pro quo' or 'high crime,' we might instead be having a debate about semantics. As should be clear though, in this sense, semantic disputes can indeed be very big deals!"
Shane Steinert-Threlkeld, assistant professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Washington: "Semantics is the scientific study of meaning as expressed in language. Usually, this means doing things like explaining formally under what conditions sentences in natural languages are true or false, or when one sentence implies or presupposes another. The methods can also be applied to formal languages like programming languages, where one would explain, for example, how a computer program will behave.
"Indeed, a difference in a debate that came down to 'just semantics' would be a pretty big deal, since it means that we're using expressions in different ways. There seems to be a use of the phrase that means something more like 'this dispute is merely verbal: we actually agree, but we appear to disagree because we are using certain terms in slightly different ways.' I'm not sure that 'just semantics' is a particularly apt way of expressing that thought, but it's one that some people seem to use."
Toshiyuki Ogihara, professor and graduate program coordinator in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Washington: "In most cases, when people say that it is just semantics, they mean that two expressions refer to the 'same situation' or 'same thing' but their connotations are different."
So, In the End ...
In the end, it seems that when something is "just a matter of semantics," it's usually wording that potentially matters a lot, despite the somewhat casual connotation of the phrase. Words carry meaning, and thankfully, we're living in a time in which our society is starting to take that notion seriously (case in point: preferred gender pronouns are finally becoming the norm). And while people have always and will always disagree over perspectives and world views, simply writing off semantics as a somehow nit-picky or superficial concept isn's really a constructive way to move the conversation forward. Instead, acknowledging that the things we say and the things we mean are undeniably interwoven and powerful might be a better jumping off point for deep (and not so deep) discussions.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Unfortunately you have no rational grounds on which to do so. The army, pathetic as it was, and the intent to separate from the US Constitution are well documented facts.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Trump hasn't looked to form an army and plan to separate part of the USA from itself though?
That's precisely what Jan 6th was.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
-->@oromagiTrump has only 'joked about shooting someone,Burr went the whole way, and found he 'did in fact lose all the voters,(Joke)I'd have to read up on the Burr conspiracy to have an opinion on it.
Burr only chatted with England, nothing as material as what Trump's given Russia.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants..."
- Remember that Jefferson supported the death sentence for his old friend Aaron Burr for colluding with England about creating a new nation in California, called him the prime mover in the conspiracy and guilty beyond question. Certainly, Trump has gone further than Burr did by any measure.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing."
What prosecution from endorsing the US Constitution might General Flynn reasonably fear and yet be innocent? US Generals swear an oath to uphold the US Constitution, he collects his substantial pension from US taxpayers predicated on his keeping of that oath. If a former Director of National Security is unwilling to uphold Democracy, we can't really let him hang around dangling secrets for enemies of democracies and we can't let him flee to another country because he knows too many secrets. Maximum Security or death are really the only options possible while preserving national security.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
For example, suppose Trump sold information to Russia because he thought it would weaken his opponent,
He wouldn't really be 'serving Russia, he'd be using Russia to his own ends.
Well but that's so fucking treasonous and illegal that now Russia has major shit on Trump and can get him to do stuff out of fear of being exposed.
For example,
- Trump demanding the identity of the US spy in Putin's inner circle
- ignoring Russian hacking
- lifting Russian sanctions
- giving Russia's spy chief classified intelligence while giving him a tour of the Oval Office
- trying to end NATO
- supporting Brexit
- proposing joint intelligence Ops with Russia
- ordering the CIA to share intel with Russia
- thanking Putin for expelling US diplomats
- refusing to criticize Russia's invasion of Ukraine
- appealing for Russia's return to the G7
- expressing no interest in a Russian attack on US forces in Syria
- suppressing any US response to Russia placing bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan, then calling it a hoax
- abandoning US allies fighting vs Russia in Syria
- Pulling out of Syria
- Ordering US troops out of Germany
- Halting US aid to Ukraine
- Buying a bunch of unneeded medical supplies from Russia for COVID
- etc.
Trump was so terrified of the shit Putin had on him that he obviously did pretty much whatever that dictator told him to do, if when it actively harmed US interests.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
MIchael Flynn was and remains a Russian spy in the most traditional sense:
Let's remember when Liz Cheney asks Flynn directly;
Cheney: Do you believe in the peaceful transition of power in the United States of America?
(i.e.the core principle of the US Constitution)
Flynn: I take the Fifth
Taking the fifth means that I refuse to answer on the grounds that any answer is likely to reveal a crime which the government many not compel under the 5A.
A US General and former NSA director is asked under oath whether the US should be a democracy and he is forced to admit that if he answers honestly he would expose his own crimes.
Created:
-->@oromagiWhat does it mean to register as a foreign agent?
A travel agent plans your vacation for you for money
A talent agent find and books your gigs for money
A foreign agent performs services for foreign governments for money.
Does it mean the person is saying that they are a spy?
In the US, all foreign agents are required to report their activities and income within 10 days. Anybody not reporting services they do for foreign governments or the money foreign governments give them is committing a felony under US espionage law. Anybody giving foreign governments or companies information kept secret in the US (not just govt but corporate secrets, clandestine observation of people, etc) is spying. Certainly, giving and receiving information on US politics, candidates emails, etc is very much spying in the classical sense.
When Manafort says that he gave Russian Intel information on how "vulnerable" Clinton was , that is classic spying and treason in the death penalty sense. Clinton was the front runner for President at the time- an American citizen giving Putin dirt on how to beat her is betraying his country for money, no doubt.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
-->@oromagiI don't think Paul Manafort qualifies as a Russian 'Agent?
Absolutely 100%.
A foreign agent is any person or entity actively carrying out the interests of a foreign country while located in another host country, generally outside the protections offered to those working in their official capacity for a diplomatic mission.
Manafort spent ten years in Ukraine running presidential campaigns for Russian puppet candidates, Yanukovich particularly (you know, the guy that poisoned his opposition in one campaign and jailed his opposition in the next?). His constant companion and translator was Konstantin Kilimnik, who the CIA later revealed to be GRU (Russian Intel). In Dec 2015, Manafort was $19 million in debt to some Ukrainian mobsters.
In February, Manafort offered to work for Trump for free!
Trump made Manafort his campaign manager at the end of March and five days later, Manafort went back to Kilimnik with Trump's campaign outline (think Russia's massive Facebook disinformation campaign) and collected Putin's "peace plan" for Ukraine which outlined the invasion of the Donbass, etc. Manafort's debts were wiped out and a Russian Oligarch gave Manafort a new "loan" of $10 million- so $30 million value total. The following day, Fancy Bear (GRU) began a major hacking campaign vs. US assets, esp. Cruz and Clinton's campaign, stealing opposition research, emails, giving Assange the emails that formed the basis for Pizzagate, QAnon later on, etc. Once Trump won the nomination he decided to that rather than write a new Republican Party platform he would adopt Mitt Romney's plan for America except that all the parts about sanctions against Russia for invading Crimea and all the parts about supporting democracy in Ukraine were removed. Considering Putin was losing millions each day, I'm sure he considered $30 million a super cheap price to change the Republican position on Ukraine .
In 2017, Manafort registered as a foreign agent to avoid pending felony charges.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
-->@oromagiUnfortunately I'm lazy,But the gist is some guy gave the Russians poll numbers?Unfortunately I'm also ignorant,I understand Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - Wikipedia,"The couple were convicted of providing top-secret information about radar, sonar, jet propulsion engines and valuable nuclear weapon designs"Being a big deal, poll numbers though, I don't much care about?
Khrushchev said that the Rosenbergs helped Russia get the atomic bomb. Daniel Patrick Moynihan estimates that those spies accelerated the Russian nuclear program by about 20%. That's the nukes that Russia gave to China, that China gave to North Korea, etc.
Yes having a Presidential campaign manager openly admit to being a Russian agent is a big deal. Certainly, many important claims in the Steele Dossier and the Mueller Report that every Republican has denied under oath and called fake news for 6 years is now casually admitted to be true. I guess at some point its safe to stop worrying whether the cuckold might object.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i seenow anyone who is "anti-war" is de facto "pro-russia"
- I would hardly call objecting to Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine "anti-war. Quite the opposite.
isn't that like calling the hippies "pro-viet-cong"
- More like if Roger Stone had taken $30 million from Saudi Arabia and the Saudis gave Stone a "peace plan" that involved Saudi Arabia invading a big chunk of Israel and kicking out the Jews and then Trump soon after removed all statements of US support for Israel and the "peace plan" was enacted and when the FBI Investigated called it all a witch hunt and fake news and when Stone is convicted pardons him and when Saudi Arabia moves to take over Israel altogether blames the opposition and then Stone admits everything 6 years later, confident that Trump's followers won't understand what's happened.
Created:
^^^^^
^^^^^
By JOSH MEYER
11/08/2017 05:03 AM EST
11/08/2017 05:03 AM EST
Created:
Russia investigators probe 2016 GOP platform fight
U.S. investigators are focusing on an enduring mystery of the 2016 election: whether Trump campaign officials made the Republican Party platform more friendly to Russia as part of some broader effort to collude with the Kremlin, according to congressional records and people familiar with the probes.
Congressional investigators have interviewed ex-Donald Trump aides and advisers including J.D. Gordon, the national security policy representative at last year’s GOP convention, about the campaign’s push to remove proposed language from the 2016 Republican platform that called for giving weapons to Ukraine. People involved with crafting the platform also were expecting interest from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, such as witness interviews or producing documents, some of those sources said.
The Trump campaign’s position in the platform fight was seen at the time as making the official GOP stance friendlier toward Russia because the proposed language they defeated would have endorsed sending weapons to aid the Ukrainian government’s fight against pro-Russian separatists in the eastern part of the country. Many leading Republicans backed the idea, so the platform fight came as a surprise.
Now that year-old debate is getting fresh scrutiny from the ongoing investigations into how Moscow meddled in the 2016 election and whether any Trump aides were involved, including then-convention manager Paul Manafort. The president has repeatedly denied any collusion, calling the investigations a “witch hunt.”
Gordon, who has been a senior national security adviser or spokesman to four GOP presidential candidates since 2012, has largely escaped the harsh spotlight on some other Trump campaign officials. But while he has not been accused of wrongdoing, he has been questioned, in part, because of his role in the platform fight and his job overseeing two campaign volunteers, Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, who communicated with Russian officials or operatives last year.
Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about his interactions with Russian-linked intermediaries, and he is now cooperating with Mueller’s probe. Two other senior campaign officials who were involved in the convention, Manafort and Rick Gates, were indicted last week by the special counsel on various charges stemming from their overseas lobbying work before they joined Trump’s campaign.
Manafort, who remains under active investigation in the broader collusion probes, also sent an email days before the platform debate to a longtime aide with ties to Russian intelligence, offering private briefings about the campaign to a top Vladimir Putin associate and Russian oligarch he owed millions of dollars. The month before, Manafort, Donald Trump Jr. and Trump senior adviser Jared Kushner met at Trump Tower with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer who had promised dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Investigators are focusing, in part, on whether those activities were part of any choreographed effort by the campaign to forge closer ties to Russia or to exchange promises — such as dropping U.S. sanctions, if elected — in return for help defeating Clinton. Lawmakers continue to ask about the 2016 platform fight as part of that probe, and Page, a campaign foreign policy adviser, faced questions on the subject when he appeared before House investigators last week.
Gordon told POLITICO in a series of exchanges that he wasn’t involved in any wrongdoing and that he wasn’t aware of any suspect activities by Manafort or other campaign officials or advisers. He said investigators were probing other people involved in pushing the platform change that the Trump campaign opposed, though he would not identify them.
“Investigators are rightly looking into whether or not crimes were committed by individuals connected to Ukraine, including possible FARA violations and other illegal activities,” Gordon wrote, referring to the Foreign Agents Registration Act. “I applaud them for conducting a thorough investigation as there are clearly two sides to the GOP Platform controversy.”
Gordon said it would be up to Mueller to reveal whether the special counsel’s office had reached out to him or interviewed him, and he declined to provide specifics of his talks with congressional investigators except to say that they covered a range of topics. He agreed to speak on the record to POLITICO only via text message exchanges, given what he said was the sensitivity of the investigations and efforts by some Trump opponents to thrust him into the middle of them.
The “stakes are too high for error. Prison, impeachment proceedings, lawsuits,” he wrote in one text message.
“Impeachment of a President at stake,” he wrote in another. “Would prefer people stop trying to use my head as a battering ram.”
“It seems that I needed to do this and I was advised to do it,” said Denman, who said she proposed the pro-Ukraine amendment because she thought it was in line with the GOP position and in favor of “people fighting for their freedom.”
“I was told why I should not discuss anything further,” she added. “I know I’m not being very helpful, but I’m locked down.”
Denman is not suspected of any wrongdoing, according to people familiar with her situation, but she likely will be asked to provide documents and testimony in the coming weeks to help investigators lock down the details of what happened behind the scenes during the week before the convention in which the platform was hammered out.
“I represent Diana, and I’m not commenting,” said Robert N. “Bob” Driscoll, her lawyer. A former deputy assistant attorney general, Driscoll lists as some of his specialties representing clients involved in congressional and Department of Justice investigations.
Details of the amendment fight remain in dispute. Denman said that after her proposal was offered, Gordon intervened to lobby members of the GOP foreign policy platform committee, with help from other Trump campaign officials. Gordon has denied that, but he acknowledged asking the subcommittee to table the amendment until the end of the deliberations so he could alert campaign officials.
The amendment was tabled, and the language for the official party platform ultimately was changed to offer “appropriate assistance” to Ukraine, which Gordon said reflected the original draft language.
One of the things investigators want to know is who Gordon was consulting with, and why, during the extended period when the campaign was fighting the proposed change.
Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence panel, queried Page about the platform change during a seven-hour interview with the committee last week, according to a transcript released on Monday.
Schiff asked Page who he had communicated with about the platform change, referring him to an email he sent to Gordon, other campaign advisers and at least one campaign official that said, “As for the Ukraine amendment, excellent work.”
“Does it refresh your recollection at all about what other interactions you may have had with the campaign about the amendment?” Schiff asked, according to the transcript.
“No,” Page replied. “This … is my only interaction that I vaguely recall. And this expresses my personal opinion. And that’s all that was.”
Schiff also asked Page, “Did you ever communicate with Paul Manafort about the Ukraine amendment?”
“Absolutely not,” Page replied.
The Senate Intelligence Committee also has been looking at the platform issue as part of its broader probe, and has “interviewed every person involved in the drafting of the campaign platform,” Sen. Richard Burr, the committee chairman, said at a briefing last month.
Based on “feedback … from the individuals who were in the room making the decision,” Burr said, the committee had tentatively concluded that Trump campaign staff were “attempting to implement what they believed to be guidance to be strong, to be a strong ally in Ukraine but also leave the door open for better relations with Russia.”
But, he added, the matter was “not closed, open for the continuation.”
Created:
(But it's totally fine because he only did it for the money)
Paul Manafort told Insider he gave Trump data to Russians to lay the groundwork for future business deals
Camila DeChalus
- Paul Manafort denies that he shared polling data with Russians to help Trump win in 2016.
- Manafort says that he shared the information to lay the groundwork for future business deals.
- Manafort has previously failed to recall certain details about him sharing data with his associate.
Donald Trump's 2016 campaign chairman Paul Manafort told Insider in an exclusive interview that he shared campaign polling data with a suspected Russian intelligence officer to lay out the groundwork for future business dealings for himself and not to help Trump get elected.
"It was meant to show how Clinton was vulnerable," he told Insider.
He was trying to leverage his connections with Trump to get more money from "pro-Russia oligarchs," Manafort added.
Manafort acknowledged he was aware that he shared confidential polling data from the Trump campaign with Konstantin Kilimnik, a business associate with suspected ties to Russian intelligence. In 2021, the Treasury Department found that Kilimnik then shared data deemed as "sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy" with Russian spies. The Department then sanctioned Kilimnik for this transaction.
Manafort pushed back on the claim that the information was sensitive and told Insider that the data he shared with the business associate "was a combination of public information."
Manafort previously denied that he shared information with Kilimnik during Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential elections. He told Insider that he failed to recall sharing data with Kilimnik during Mueller's investigation because his memory began to deteriorate due to the conditions of his detainment.
Manafort's interview with Insider comes after he spent nearly two years in prison on various charges, including tax fraud and witness tampering, a result of Mueller's investigation.
Trump pardoned Manafort in 2020.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Recall that this particular conversation began when you decided to chime in on my use of the word "semantics" to rant about how what I actually was talking about was a "semantic argument".
- I beg your pardon but 3RU7AL made this topic explicitly about semantics with the OP specifically addressed to my arguments. (i.e. "Where is the value that performatively similar ideologies must be condensed under the same name?" This conversation began in mid-June with your semantic argument that we eliminate the several most strict, semantically coherent, dictionary definitions of the word ATHEIST and make it only so ATHIEST is only understood by it broadest sense, the same thing as AGNOSTIC, with no interest in the semantic losses inherent to those more strict definitions.
- "(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself"
As if it was ever unclear to anyone what the term "that's just semantics" means.
- POST#7 "that deliberately obscures any clear notion of semantic intent"
- POST#35 "the most precise definition of AGNOSTICISM already occupies the precise semantic grounds that 3RU7AL is trying to redefine as ATHEISM"
- POST#62 " That is semantically coherent but Double_R argued for its exclusion"
- POST#78 "The influx of neologisms will have uprooted the necessity of strict measures, not to mention, we are discussing semantics. I believe that logically coherent concepts are important for argument"
- So- clearly Athias understands the meaning of SEMANTICS
- POST#91 "the original intent of the word has been trampled. That's a shame and an essential semantic distinction lost. "
- POST#118 "My contention is with the formal reasoning and semantics."
- POST#138 "It's not worth getting into the semantic debate here, define them however you want."
- Oops. In an argument all about a semantic distinction, you say you don't want' to get into semantics. Seems like you don't understand the context of this topic.
- POST#164 "if you don't see how every single conversation you've ever had is "just a semantic game" then i have no idea what you think language is"
- So- clearly 3RU7AL does not understand the meaning of SEMANTICS and he clearly has a different, wrong definition of the word than you do when you reply:
- POST#169 "Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not."
- Which is not what SEMANTICS is even a little bit.
Then when I pointed out to you that everyone (except you apparently) knows what the term means
- We don't have to leave this forum topic to see that you and 3RU7AL both have very different, very incorrect definitions of the word and so you have no hope of understanding one another because you aren't talking about the same idea when you use that word.
you went on another rant about how I'm using argumentum ad populum.
- Well, first I corrected your bad information about what SEMANTIC and SEMANTIC ARGUMENT mean.
- You replied by mocking me (Drax) and demonstrating that you don't understand how figurative language works, either.
- I corrected your bad information about what FIGURATIVE and LITERAL mean
- You replied, "I've never heard of situation where everyone reading it didn't know what that meant."
- Again, you need only read this forum topic for examples
The only thing that matters in conversation is that the two people speaking understand what the other is trying to say. If I have explained to you what I mean when I use a specific term then that's all you need to understand my point.
- And I side with Socrates, Voltaire, Durant, and Dawkins when they advise that you are quite wrong to think so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
"Going along with the crowd" is what you are doing every time you post a dictionary definition to argue what the meaning of the word is.
Because how you ever win an argument if the same word meant the same thing from one post to another?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
A lot of your debate tactics are sophomoric.
Agreed, in fact I've never studied or participated in any kind of formal debating. I'm just sort of winging it.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
FYI-
I'd be happy to re-issue this debate if you're interested:
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
- The Texas GOP did not exclude machine guns from their statement:
- Whereas all gun control is a violation of the Second Amendment and our God given rights
- Are Federal restrictions on machine guns an infringement on the Constitutional right to bear arms?
- Courts Rule States Did Not Follow Their Own Election Laws In 2020 (thefederalist.com)
- This one requires membership
- Last Minute Election Rule Changes Raise Big Questions - The American Conservative
- No specific complaints here.
- Since you trust Robert W. Merry as source here, be sure to trust him when he says two weeks later:
- It’s time for conservatives to dump Trump. He’s a loser and a disgraceful one at that.
- And on Jan 8th
- Trump fanned the flames and incited the ghastly attack, and for that he will be forever tarred with history’s brush of opprobrium. His presidential identity will begin and end with this travesty
- U.S. Election 2020: Last Minute Rule Changes Responsible For Election Confusion, Chaos and Low Public Confidence in Results | Capitalism Review
- A Supreme Court decision from Oct 26th, 2020 is not evidence of election fraud
- I agree with majority here, that state legislatures, not judges write the election rules.
- That court ordered extension for collecting mail-in ballots was ruled out before the election and so is not an example of election fraud.
- The irony of Gorsuch calling an April court ruling a "last minute rule change just before the election" on the same day that Amy Coney Barrett was sworn into the SCOTUS is only lost on Republicans.
- No evidence supports Trump's claim. (RE: Election of 2020)
- We now have testimony under oath from reliable Conservatives swearing that Giuliani was admitting internally that it was all bullshit ( ‘We’ve got lots of theories, we just don’t have the evidence,’”) just weeks after the election.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@TWS1405
don't let oro pretend they are the one true arbiter of debateart culture
Definitely not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
This dynamic drives my reasoning for making CONSPIRACY THEORIES a separate category from politics or current events.
I think you make a mistake to use the label conservative to define the Republican Party. Those few sincere Conservatives remaining in the Republican Party are in agreement with your concern- Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, for example). The genius of Cambridge Analytica's use of Facebook to promote Cruz and Trump in 2015 and 2016 was that it didn't approach people by political affiliation but sent out feelers looking for positive responses to obvious disinformation, conspiracy theories, and racist points of views and then targeted and synthesized those tendencies with increasingly less subtle suggestions that voting for Trump was an expression of solidarity with all those wide-ranging even ideologically inconsistent radicalisms.
Republican's recent treatment of Rusty Bowers is illustrative. Bowers is a traditionally Conservative Republican- a deeply Christian rancher and construction worker, a reluctant politician who ends up leading the AZ House of Representatives. Ideologically, he has never strayed from the Republican Party but his Christianity prevented him promoting Trump's lie. For that infraction alone, the refusal to kowtow to a single autocratic personality, Bower is censured and tossed out AZ politics (to his great relief, apparently). Trump doesn't just reject Conservatism, he is actively purging the honest Conservatives from the Party. The Republican Party is increasingly defining themselves as, first and foremost, adherents to a single man's lies.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
and here I was thinking I was just a crank
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
OK, so you're reduced to "I'm rubber, you're glue" great.
Why is TWS1405 so resilient [sic] to fact-based truth regarding his false claims that he's an "an excellent researcher/investigator?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
In all my years of debating and reading other people's arguments, any time I have ever heard someone respond to an argument by saying "that's just semantics", I've never heard of situation where everyone reading it didn't know what that meant.Yet according to you, when you hear that what you actually heard was "that's just [the study of the meaning of words]".Language is about more than just definitions. There is this thing we call context. I suggest you spend some time learning how it works.
Argumentum ad Populum is the logical fallacy that the fact that many or most people accept something as true should serve as evidence that the claim is true. A lot of people believe X, therefore X must be true.
Literally is literally the most misused word in the English language, demonstrating that the majority of Americans don't understand the distinction between literal and figurative language. Just because everybody's wrong about it doesn't change the importance of that distinction to reasoned thought.
Most Americans don't understand that the US Constitution is an inherently Liberal project or that Liberalism and Conservatism are not opposing points of view.
Most people don't understand the Left/Right distinction is a Human Rights vs Property Rights distinction, by definition.
Most people think that you can have Socialism without Democracy or that the USSR and China are/were Socialist states when, by definition, that economic state is dependent on the capacity of the people to freely apply their will to the means of production.
In this very forum you have argued that Atheism is a lack of belief in God when the originally intended definitional distinction was that Atheism asserts that there is no God while Agnosticism asserts that Atheism can't justify that assertion with any more confidence than Theism. Interested parties like atheism.org deliberately muddy up that distinction in order to increase their apparent numbers but saying that atheism now seems to mean the same thing as agnosticism deliberately tramples on that essential academic, theological distinction.
At the dawn of Philosophy Socrates declared: "The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms."
At the dawn of the Enlightenment Voltaire declared: “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.”
Will Durant argued in "The Story of Philosophy that , "the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to the strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task."
Most people think they have a pretty good grasp on the essential political, religious, social concepts of our time but most people get their definitions from biased sources: political and religious leaders, commercial and corporate interests, national and economic interests etc. People hate dictionaries and encyclopedias precisely because those more objective efforts increasingly clash with the biased definitions of people's interest groups.
The problem with just going along with the crowd, context as you wrongly label it, is that actual meanings of words get trampled.
When everybody says "oh that's just semantics" disconnected from any dictionary meaning, their expression is likewise without meaning and it is very likely that the writer and reader have two different understandings of what's being said- an ambiguity that obscures truth-finding, a disconnect that denies consensus.
Pretty quickly the actual meaning of "The study of meaning" becomes lost, and the important distinction of "a semantic argument" meaning that the claimant is depending on an invented definition also becomes lost and we are left with an empty shell of a word that just translates as just another "doubleplusungood." We kill our language, its meaning and the ideas and knowledge contained in those distinctive meanings by conforming our usage to the badly misinformed users of social media.
As Richard Dawkins tweeted last year, "Existing words change meaning by gradual evolution. Or a redefinition or refinement is proposed & voluntarily adopted. Fine.
Not fine is when a word with a long-established common usage is bossily redefined, & adoption of the new meaning imposed by law or social bullying."
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
-->@oromagiWell, I am new here. I do not know all your rules and/or expectations. Also, this is the forum and not a formal debate.It was a link with info that established the opposite of what another was claiming.
- More expectations than rules. This is isn't facebook and twitter: we're trying to maintain some semblance of intellectual integrity here.
- Isn't this the same dude who bragged in POST#53 of this same forum topic:
- "I am an excellent researcher/investigator. I know my facts. And I never post anything anywhere that I cannot back up with facts. I do NOT cherry pick data. I do not draw broad conclusions either. " and
- Doesn't you shitposting Dr. "Black Atlantis" effectively disprove these earlier claims of yours?
You also took it to another level by claiming I was promoting him, personally, and demanded more than what was necessary (ie., red herring fallacy). That's on you. Not me.
- PROMOTION is defined as "Dissemination of information in order to increase its popularity." Linking to anything as a source of information is PROMOTION by the dictionary definition. The fact that you don't know what that word means is on you, not me.
I regret nothing. Never have, never will.
- false
- WIKIPEDIA:
- REMORSE is a distressing emotion experienced by an individual who regrets actions which they have done in the past..... A person who is incapable of feeling remorse is often diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, as characterized in the DSM IV-TR.
You definitely come off as a sanctimonious snob.
- SANCTIMONIOUS is "Making a show of being better than others"
- Anybody who has ever read my profile page knows that I concede sanctimoniousness
- a SNOB is "one who blatantly imitates, fawningly admires, or vulgarly seeks association with those regarded as social superiors"
- A good example of snobbery is "All I have plainly tried to do is dispel the fake narrative that whites and cops are the problem in society, not blacks (or other persons of color). " or
- "Black culture is the problem that fuels crime, abuse, rape, murder, poor parenting, drug use, gangs, so on and so forth."
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
-->@oromagiciting one link does not equal "promoting" anything.
The legitimate debaters on this site stand by the sources they link to. If the reliability of their sources is challenged, they either present countervailing evidence of reliability or retract the source as unreliable.
Are you standing by Dr. Clyde Winters as a reliable source of anthropological evidence on Sumer or do you now regret your hasty propagation of an obvious self-publishin' bullshitter?
Shall we think of you as one of those guys who just believes the first thing on google that reinforces his bias or somebody who looks into the quality of data before distributing that data as fact?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
The Hunter Biden laptop claims are particularly egregious. It was disproving GP's laptop claims in Nov 2020 that triggered GP to block me and request safe space protections from me.
It never occurs to Trump's true believers to wonder how "new evidence" keeps getting "discovered" on a single laptop hard drive as if nobody has bothered to read it before or to discount any evidence that has the original file size, creation date, etc deliberately trashed or to express any skepticism regarding any evidence that spent 18 months in the custody of a guy under investigation for working with Russian intel as well as ineptly orchestrating the attempted overthrow of that same subject's govt just last year.
There's no rational check on these guys- they're just told to believe some shit so they must believe it until they are told not to.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Since you promote Dr. Clyde Winters' expertise on the subject, we should assume you also accept his expert opinions that black Africans were the first to settle China, North and South American and the lost continent of Atlantis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
-->@oromagiYou are conflating the term SEMANTICS with the term SEMANTIC ARGUMENT- not the same thing.Rocket: "his people are completely literal, it's going to go over his head"Drax: "nothing goes over my head, my reflexes are too fast"That's all I could think about as I read this post.
The language of logic and reason often comes across like this because logical thinking tends to avoid the deliberate ambiguities of figurative speech.
For this reason, Vulcans and Robots are generally depicted with the same lack of understanding of figurative speech- they are only thinking logically.
Kirk: “If we play our cards right, we may be able to find out when those whales are being released.”
Spock: “How will playing cards help?”
Spock: “How will playing cards help?”
O'Brien: "We'll all be burning the midnight oil on this one."
Data: "That would be extremely inadvisable."
So...what you are now claiming is that when you said
Language is using words to communicate ideas. Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.
That was not meant to be read literally, but figuratively. You don't actually mean "Language is using words to communicate ideas" but rather that sentence is used metaphorically to suggest some alternative meaning.
You say we ought not take you literally when you argue:
An example of this is someone claiming January 6th is a conspiracy theory while ignoring the fact that the connotations (aka ideas) behind the term "conspiracy theory" communicate something that is not present with regards to January 6th.
because you mean something totally different. Honestly, I don't see any use of the 23 types of figures of speech (methaphor, simile, synedoche, etc) at play in either of these sentences.
Please identify the figures of speech here and explain what you really meant when wrote these words. I don't think your attempt at colorful, evocative language here succeeded in getting your point across.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
>@3RU7ALand if you don't see how every single conversation you've ever had is "just a semantic game" then i have no idea what you think language isLanguage is using words to communicate ideas.Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.
You are conflating the term SEMANTICS with the term SEMANTIC ARGUMENT- not the same thing. SEMANTICS is the study of the meaning of words. Everybody should study the meaning of words. A SEMANTIC ARGUMENT is a kind of special pleading, "a form of argumentation in which a proponent modifies the meaning of a term, or introduces a new meaning, in order to support his or her persuasive goal."
Saying "oh I don't mind white people....its honkies I can't stand" is an example of a semantic argument. Semantically, the set of all white people equals the set of all honkies but the speaker is making a special (usually less then well defined) distinction to try to score a rhetorical point (usually erroneously). We see a lot of merely semantic arguments on this site because DARTers are absolute shit at defining their terms up front using legitimate sources and often even have the temerity to complain about debaters who do.
An example of this is someone claiming January 6th is a conspiracy theory while ignoring the fact that the connotations (aka ideas) behind the term "conspiracy theory" communicate something that is not present with regards to January 6th. In other words it's an attempt to use language in such a way as to smuggle in ideas that could not be supported if argued directly.
A CONSPIRACY is "The act of two or more persons, called conspirators, working secretly to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations."
A CONSPIRACY THEORY is "A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are and/or were secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases, the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events. "
There's no room left for doubting that many Republicans worked and planned in secret to overthrow Biden after he won the election- thousands of conspirators have confirmed under oath that there was a CONSPIRACY. There are also many unanswered questions about that day that encourage many hypotheses alleging coordination between various groups and individuals- was Trump giving/receiving information to/from the Proud Boys that day, for example. That the inept coup of Jan 6 was a CONSPIRACY of dunces is no longer in question. That Ray Epps was a secret agent encouraging the coup at the behest of the FBI is a CONSPIRACY THEORY lacking any evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
The "victims" of systemic racism are the ones committing 52% of all violent crime in this country. Who is more affected??
Third, they create a specific villain, target them, and then attack them through scapegoating, smearing, and intimidation.
Created:
Posted in:
First, Republicans use any means necessary to achieve power and promote their unpopular, extremist, counter-majoritarian agenda.Second, they create and promote disinformation and lies to frighten their base and Jedi mind-trick them into believing they are being oppressed by the actual victims.Third, they create a specific villain, target them, and then attack them through scapegoating, smearing, and intimidation.Fourth, they never apologize or back down once their lie is exposed, but instead, they double down, and in times of doubt, always pivot towards racism and fear-mongering.
1. Failed Coup
2. "it was ANTIFA and BLM"
3. Ray Epps
4. Sooner kill Liz Cheney than apologize
1. Failed Election
2. "Stop the Steal!"
3. Dominion Voting Systems
4. Sooner kill the Vice President than apologize
1. Trump-Zelensky Phone Call
2. "Ukraine is hiding Hillary's deleted emails"
3. Hunter Biden's laptop
4. Sooner kill John Bolton than apologize
1. Russian Collusion
2. Pizzagate/QAnon
3. Podesta/Strzok/Page
4. Sooner kill the FBI than apologize
1. Birthergate
2. "Where's the Birth Certificate?"
3. Hillary Clinton
4. Sooner kill John McCain than apologize
1. Iraq War
2. "WMDs"
3. Scooter Libby/Plame/Wilson
4. Sooner kill Colin Powell than apologize
1. etc.
2. etc.
3. etc.
4. etc.
Created:
Posted in:
TODAY's COURTROOM UPDATE:
- Jones' lawyer demands all copies of emails, texts destroyed. Motion denied.
- Sandy Hook lawyer describes texts between Roger Stone and Jones as "intimate"
- Confirms Jan 6 committee has requested all communications over last 2 years
- Jones was in illegal possession of some Sandy Hook parents' medical records.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Great stuff about such immoral humans on Earth.
I'd advocate that you not judge all Earthlings by the least of us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The estimated net worth of Xi Jinping is $1.2 billion dollars.
All on a salary of $20,000 per year? That is one penny-pinching mofo right there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Almost all bribing occurs at the city or district or county level, and if so they are expelled from job, put into prison, etc.It is so unlikely for a corrupt official to be in the actual charge it is outside regular consideration. Xi and the Chinese leaders are just a little to authoritarian to some but in the big picture you have a far bigger chance of winning the election by sheer family wealth alone in the US than in China.
A NEW BOOK EXPOSES CHINA's HIDDEN CORRUPTION
Aadil Brar@The Print
"In the world of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), there are winners and losers, and the roulette of corruption is endemic within the party.
Xi’s sister Qi Qiaoqiao and her husband Deng Jiagui are the owners of Beijing Central People’s Trust Real Estate Development Corporation Ltd. The couple’s real estate business has grown by leaps and bounds as they have been given best land by local government officials to seek favour from Xi Jinping. Deng Jiagui, Xi’s brother-in-law, was mentioned in International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ)’s 2014 report on offshore accounts of Chinese elites.
According to real estate registration, Xi’s family owns a million-dollar property at the Braemar Hill Garden in Hong Kong, registered under sister Qi’s name.
In 2012, Bloomberg revealed that Xi’s extended family had total assets worth $376 million, which included 18% stake in the provincial state-owned Jiangxi Rare Earth and Rare Metals Tungsten Group. But none of these assets were traced directly to Xi Jinping or his wife, Peng Liyuan.
In 2014, The New York Times reported, citing Chinese records, that Xi Jinping had forced his extended family into selling their assets. Xi’s sister and brother-in-law moved their assets into Qinchuan Dadi Investment Company but didn’t sell most of their valuable assets.
The party is also waging a campaign against celebrities with foreign citizenship, but Xi’s own family is said to have multiple foreign permanent residency and passport holders.
Qi and Deng are said to hold Canadian permanent residencies. Xi Jinping’s daughter Xi Mingzhe, who is reportedly pursuing a graduate degree at Harvard University, is said to hold a US green card.
Xi’s own murky business dealings are shrouded in mystery, even as other members of the Politburo Standing Committee have their fair share of a questionable past.
Han Zheng was promoted as party secretary of Shanghai, after a scandal brought down Chen Liangyu. A few months into the office, the party discovered that Han Zheng had stashed $20 million in an Australian bank, according to Desmond Shum’s book, Red Roulette: An Insider’s Story of Wealth, Power, Corruption, and Vengeance in Today’s China.
The book reveals the intertwined relationship between corruption and high politics in China. Shum and his wife Whitney Duan championed the guanxi model of using personal relations to seek access and business contracts.
The party tried to avoid another scandal by replacing Han with Xi Jinping. Han managed to evade any action and rose to the rank of Politburo’s Standing Committee member – a post he still holds. Han grew close to Xi Jinping after serving as his deputy in Shanghai.
In 2012, New York Times correspondent David Barboza broke an exclusive story on former Chinese premier Wen Jiabao’s family wealth totaling $2.7 billion, allegedly concealed under the name of Wen’s mother, Yang Zhiyun.
Shum disputes Barboza’s claims about him and his wife making a fortune from relations with Wen Jiabao’s family, especially from the purchase of state-owned company Ping An’s shares in Hong Kong listing. Shum claims Jiabao Wen wasn’t aware of his family’s business dealings and had expressed outrage when the scandal broke in 2012.
Another party leader who came into focus for his family’s business dealing is Li Zhanshu.
Li Zhanshu and his business dealings are said to have played a crucial role in pushing the Hong Kong National Security Law across the line. He “oversaw the swift passage of the new national security law for Hong Kong that handed the party a powerful new weapon to quash dissent,” reported The New York Times.
“In China, officials never reveal their ambitions in public. Biding one’s time is a key tenant of Sun Tzu’s Art of War,” Shum writes in his book about the strategy adopted by ambitious leaders like Xi Jinping.
Maintaining a level of secrecy around one’s business dealings and ambitions is considered virtuous among Chinese leaders.
That’s the code Bo Xilai broke when he staked his name to the title of next General Secretary of CCP from 2007 onwards. Both Bo and Xi are sons of the two “immortals” of Communist Party, a term used for veteran leaders who fought alongside Mao Zedong against the nationalist forces of Chiang Kai-Shek.
Bo marshalled the Chongqing model to battle growing corruption when he served as the municipality’s party secretary.
But Bo’s fortune turned for the worse following a scandal involving the death of British citizen Neil Heywood. Bo was sentenced to life in prison. Wen Jiabao supported Xi Jinping and made way for his rise to power.
Bo’s flamboyant mingling with the media was starkly different from Xi’s careful behind-the-scenes political jockeying that made the latter the current top leader of China.
Anti-corruption campaign was Xi’s preferred tool – with help from Zhao Leji – to dismantle any opposition.
“As Xi’s corruption campaign played out, I finally concluded that it was more about burying potential rivals than about stamping out malfeasance. Xi had already played a role in locking up his fellow princeling, Bo Xilai. He followed that by jailing Bo’s ally on the Standing Committee of the Politburo, Zhou Yongkang,” Shum writes in Red Roulette.
The tight control over media and dwindling access of foreign journalists to Chinese leaders has made it difficult to report on corruption at the highest levels of the party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Darters in the west, what do you see wrong with it?So, the foundational levels, the councils in districts, cities, and counties, will be elected by citizens themselves. Then, the candidates of the level above, such as larger cities, will be voted amongst the foundation level councils, in which the council members vote and the people with the most votes gets to participate in the higher-leveled councils. The provincial council is voted amongst the council members in all the cities(admistrative area, like the US's counties, a county in China is a part of a city-level admistrative area) within it, and the National People's Congress is voted amongst the provinces the same way.Pretty much all the people that are being chosen are supposed to be elected from the people themselves at one point in their life but the decision on the tippy top will be handled by the governments at every level, which they are more qualified to make decisions like this than the people all across China which they probably don't work their entire life to be a governmental official. This is different from "democratic" mass ballots from all the people that exist, in which sometimes they don't know what they want or they don't know whatever they want actually means. Swaying the public does not work because the professionals decide on it.So, what do you think is wrong about it?
The problem with this system is that it suppresses innovation, competition, dynamic change.
While the first level of councilpeople elevated from among the people are likely to be be representative and innovative thinkers, the only way they can "climb the ladder" (and so acquire real power to effective positive policy change) is to please the group above them who must in turn please the group above them, etc. No such group of decision-makers is likely to promote people not of their party or who don't represent their racial or religious preferences or who represent radical change that might threaten their own power bases or who are so persuasive or talented that they might outcompete incumbents for promotion to the next rung of the ladder. Therefore, each higher group will mostly choose like-minded people of similar political and social outlook for elevation and prefer people who are satisfied with the status quo and prefer people who are perceptibly less impressive, talented, intelligent than themselves to minimize competition for elevation.
Very quickly your form of government will suffer profound stagnation since the path to power only rewards conformists, conservatives, traditionalists. What you are describing is really how most aristocracies and corporate hierarchies develop and look at how quickly after the innovations of the first revolutionary generation those methods of promotion generally push stagnation to the top and threaten the stability of the whole enterprise.
What's needed is peaceful, loyal, but aggressive competition between a few different factions with very different outlooks but the same final goal. Too many factions and consensus becomes impossible. Less than two factions, and you're back to stagnation The people need to retain the possibility of shaking up the power structure from bottom to top according to the level of prosperity and the urgency of crisis. Only then can the underlying enterprise enjoy long term stability through dynamic, peaceful transfer of decision-making authority.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I bet this nutter loved Trumpet
Well that would be a powerful understatement.
Let's recall that
- Roger Stone was Alex Jones' employee in 2014-15 before Trump announced his run for presidency
- Jerome Coursi, PERSON#1 in Mueller's conviction of Roger Stone over the release of the hacked DNC emails, was also a long time employee
- InfoWars was the first major media outlet to go all in for Trump, who appeared on Jones show to promise he would not let Jones down.
- Trump distanced himself from Jones after Jones publicly criticized Trump's airstrikes in Syria but we now know that all seems to have been forgiven in time for Jones to have been a key player in the Jan 6 coup attempt.
- Jones was Trump's principle source of finance for the Stop the Steal rally on the Ellipse on Jan 6, who obtained the money from Publix heiress and InfoWars superfan Julie Fancelli- writing a $650,000 check for the Stop the Steal rally and the robocall campaigns leading up to Jan 6th, a $200,000 check to Jones for his trouble as well as paying for rooms at the Willard Hotel War Room where Giuliani, Bannon, Jones, Stone, Flynn, Eastman, Epshteyn and some 20 others met to strategize during the days leading up to Jan 6th.
- Joe Biggs, Proud Boys leader and still current InfoWars employee is being held without bail on charges of Conspiracy to overthrow the US government after leading the team of Proud Boys who punched the first breaches in the Capitol on Jan 6th. using shields taken from police they had just assaulted on the steps below.
- Jones connects Trump to the money, the planners and the best prepared operatives on Jan 6th.
- And now at least some of his texts and emails from that time have "accidently" dropped into the public record?
- Could be interesting.
- Jones' ex-wife also testified to the Jan 6 Committee two weeks ago after declaring she had "relevant insider information" on Jones' activities that day.
Alex Jones' media company files for bankruptcy during defamation damages trial
- Well, all three of Jones' current bankruptcies are likely to be dismissed after today's revelation that he has significantly perjured himself regarding the extent of his income and wealth.
Created:
Posted in:
JAN 6 COMMITEE PREPARES to SUBPOENA ALEX JONES' TEXTS, EMAILS
Jones’ lawyers in a Sandy Hook defamation case fumbled three years worth of texts and emails. The committee would like to know more about any contacts with Donald Trump’s team regarding the Jan. 6 Capitol attack
ADAM RAWNSLEY and ASAWIN [email protected]
The January 6th House committee is preparing to request the trove of Alex Jones’s text messages and emails revealed Wednesday in a defamation lawsuit filed by victims of the Sandy Hook massacre, Rolling Stone has learned.
On Wednesday, Sandy Hook victims’ attorney Mark Bankston told Jones that his attorney had mistakenly sent Bankston three years worth of the conspiracy theorist’s emails and text messages copied from his phone.
Now — a source familiar with the matter and another person briefed on it tell Rolling Stone — the January 6th committee is preparing to request that data from the plaintiff attorneys in order to aid its investigation of the insurrection. These internal deliberations among the committee, which is probing former President Donald Trump’s role in causing the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot, began within minutes of the lawyer’s revelation being heard on the trial’s livestream on Wednesday afternoon.
Jones has already featured prominently in the panel’s investigation for his role in whipping up public support for the insurrection and for his close ties to alleged conspirator Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers militia. Jones frequently hosted Rhodes as a guest on his InfoWars channel and his militia provided security for the Texas-based conspiracist.
The committee initially subpoenaed Jones in November 2021 and asked for him to turn over documents and participate in a deposition. Jones, according to a letter sent by the committee, was initially told by the White House on January 3, 2021 that he was “to lead a march to the Capitol, where President Trump would meet” with protesters.
It’s unclear what, specifically, the committee will be looking for in Jones communications but attorneys for the Sandy Hook plaintiffs have accused the InfoWars host of intentionally withholding relevant communications about the Sandy Hook shooting and lying about having conducted a search for them. A committee spokesman declined to comment.
The documents were turned over after Jones’ attorney “did not take any steps to identify it as privileged or protected in any way and as of two days ago it fell free and clear into my possession,” Bankston told Jones in court Wednesday. “That is how I know you lied to me.”
Created:
Posted in:
ALEX JONES CONCEDES SANDY HOOK ATTACK was '100% REAL'
By JIM VERTUNO@APNews
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones testified Wednesday that he now understands he was irresponsible to declare the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre a hoax, and he now believes it was “100% real.”
Speaking a day after the parents of a 6-year-old boy who was killed in the 2012 attack testified about the suffering, death threats and harassment they’ve endured because of what Jones has trumpeted on his media platforms, the Infowars host told a Texas courtroom that he definitely thinks the attack happened.
“Especially since I’ve met the parents. It’s 100% real,” Jones said before the jury began determining how much he and his media company, Free Speech Systems, owe for defaming Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis. Their son Jesse Lewis was among the 20 students and six educators who were killed in the attack in Newtown, Connecticut.
Heslin and Lewis said Tuesday that an apology wouldn’t suffice and that Jones needed to be held accountable for repeatedly spreading falsehoods about the attack, which was the deadliest school shooting in American history. They are seeking at least $150 million from the trial, which is in its second week.
Jones — who has portrayed the lawsuit against him as an attack on his First Amendment rights — told the jury that any compensation above $2 million “will sink us,” but added: “I think it’s appropriate for whatever you decide what you want to do.”
The jury began deliberating after Jones finished testifying and lawyers wrapped up their cases.
During closing arguments, Jones’ attorney Andino Reynal said the plaintiffs didn’t prove that Jones’ actions and words caused actual harm, and that the trial lacked evidence of the harassment, anguish and character defamation that the parents claimed. He asked the jurors to award the parents $8 — one dollar for each of the compensation charges they are considering.
“Alex Jones may not be to our particular taste, but millions of Americans tune in to be informed, to be entertained, to have their voices heard,” Reynal said. “Speak the truth in your verdict. For them. And for all Americans.”
Jones was the only person who testified in his own defense. His attorney asked him if he now understands it was “absolutely irresponsible” to push the false claims that the massacre didn’t happen and no one died.
Jones said he does, but added, “They (the media) won’t let me take it back.”
He also complained that he’s been “typecast as someone that runs around talking about Sandy Hook, makes money off Sandy Hook, is obsessed by Sandy Hook.”
Under a withering cross-examination from attorney Mark Bankston, Jones acknowledged his history of raising conspiracy claims regarding other mass tragedies, from the Oklahoma City and Boston Marathon bombings to the mass shootings in Las Vegas and Parkland, Florida.
Bankston then went after Jones’ credibility, showing an Infowars video clip from last week when a host — not Jones — claimed the trial was rigged and featured a photo of the judge in flames. Then came another clip of Jones asking if the jury was selected from a group of people “who don’t know what planet” they live on. Jones said he didn’t mean that part literally.
Bankston said Jones hadn’t complied with court orders to provide text messages and emails for pretrial evidence gathering. Jones said, “I don’t use email,” then was showed one gathered from another source that came from his email address. He replied: “I must have dictated that.”
At one point, Bankston informed Jones that his attorneys had mistakenly sent Bankston the last two years’ worth of texts from Jones’ cellphone.
The attorney also showed the court an email from an Infowars business officer informing Jones that the company had earned $800,000 gross in selling its products in a single day, which would amount to nearly $300 million in a year. Jones said that was the company’s best day in sales.
Jones’ testimony came a day after Heslin and Lewis told the courtroom in Austin, where Jones and his companies are based, that Jones and the false hoax claims he and Infowars pushed made their lives a “living hell” of death threats, online abuse and harassment.
They led a day of charged testimony Tuesday that included the judge scolding the bombastic Jones for not being truthful with some of what he said under oath.
In a gripping exchange, Lewis spoke directly to Jones, who was sitting about 10 feet away. Earlier that day, Jones was on his broadcast program telling his audience that Heslin is “slow” and being manipulated by bad people.
At one point, Lewis asked Jones: “Do you think I’m an actor?”
“No, I don’t think you’re an actor,” Jones responded before the judge admonished him to be quiet until called to testify.
Heslin told the jury about holding his son with a bullet hole through his head, even describing the extent of the damage to his son’s body. A key segment of the case is a 2017 Infowars broadcast that said Heslin didn’t hold his son.
The jury was shown a school picture of a smiling Jesse taken two weeks before he was killed. The parents didn’t receive the photo until after the shooting. They described how Jesse was known for telling classmates to “run!” which likely saved lives.
Jones initially took the stand later Tuesday. At one point the judge sent the jury out of the courtroom and strongly scolded Jones for telling the jury he had complied with pretrial evidence gathering even though he didn’t and that he is bankrupt, which has not been determined. The plaintiffs’ attorneys were furious about Jones mentioning he is bankrupt, which they worry will taint the jury’s decisions about damages.
“This is not your show,” Judge Maya Guerra Gamble told Jones. “Your beliefs do not make something true. You are under oath.”
Courts in Texas and Connecticut have already found Jones liable for defamation for his portrayal of the Sandy Hook massacre as a hoax involving actors aimed at increasing gun control.
At stake in the Texas trial is how much Jones will pay. The jurors will consider damages in two phases. Once they determine whether Jones should pay the parents compensation for defamation and emotional distress, they must then decide if he must also pay punitive damages. That portion will involve a separate mini-trial involving Jones and financial experts testifying about his and his company’s net worth.
Jones has already tried to protect Free Speech Systems financially. The company, which is Infowars’ parent company, filed for federal bankruptcy protection last week. Sandy Hook families have separately sued Jones over his financial claims, arguing that the company is trying to protect millions owned by Jones and his family through shell entities.
Created:
Posted in:
ALEX JONES LEARNS on WITNESS STAND THAT LAWYER SENT his TEXT MESSAGES to RIVAL ATTORNEYS
Dylan Stableford@yahoo!news
While being cross-examined at his defamation trial in Austin, Texas, on Wednesday, Alex Jones was informed that his attorneys accidentally sent two years of text messages from his cellphone to the lawyer for the Sandy Hook parents suing him — and then failed to note that the messages were protected under attorney-client privilege.
Mark Bankston, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, presented a text message about Sandy Hook that Bankston said came from Jones’s cellphone.
“Do you know where I got this?” Bankston asked Jones.
“No,” Jones replied.
Bankston explained: “Twelve days ago, your attorneys messed up and sent me an entire digital copy of your entire cellphone with every text message that you’ve sent for the past two years — and when informed, did not take any steps to identify it as privileged or protected.”
In a pretrial deposition, Jones had testified under oath that he had searched his phone for text messages about Sandy Hook in preparation for the trial and found none.
“That is how I know you lied to me when you said you didn’t have any text messages about Sandy Hook,” Bankston told Jones. “Did you know this?”
Jones said he did not, and that he had given his phone to his attorneys.
"I guess this is your 'Perry Mason' moment," he added.
"You know what perjury is, right?" Bankston asked.
“Yes, I do,” Jones replied. “I mean, I’m not a tech guy.”
The dramatic exchange came during cross-examination of Jones on the second day of his testimony.
Earlier Wednesday, Jones sought to portray himself as a victim who had been “typecast” for claiming that the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., was staged.
Jones, the only witness called by his defense team, began by complaining about media outlets that refuse to report that he now believes that the massacre, which left 20 children and six educators dead, actually happened.
“It's 100% real,” Jones said under direct questioning from his lawyer F. Andino Reynal.
The concession came a day after Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, the parents of Jesse Lewis, a 6-year-old boy killed at Sandy Hook, told the jury that false claims that the attack did not occur have made their lives a “living hell.”
Heslin and Lewis are suing Jones and his media company Free Speech Systems for $150 million for the harassment they've received as a result of the unfounded conspiracy theory spread by Jones and his guests on Infowars, a far-right website that hosts talk shows and other content.
Jones was asked by Reynal to explain what he now thinks about the massacre in Newtown.
“I think Sandy Hook happened. I think it was a terrible event,” he said, before adding: “I think it was a cover-up. The FBI knew it was going to happen.”
Under cross-examination, Bankston peppered Jones with questions about statements that have been made on Infowars during the trial, including the suggestion that Judge Maya Guerra Gamble is rigging the proceedings with an actual script, and that Gamble is somehow involved in a pedophilia ring.
Bankston asked Jones if such statements were evidence that he is taking the trial seriously.
“I think this is serious as cancer,” Jones replied.
Bankston also asked Jones about other mass tragedies that he has claimed were "false flag" events, including the mass shootings in Las Vegas, Parkland, Fla., and Sutherland Springs, Texas, and the Boston Marathon bombings.
As was the case during Jones's testimony on Tuesday, Gamble repeatedly reminded him to answer only the questions he was asked.
“This is not your show,” the judge said.
Created: