This isn't over.

hanimmal said:
Anything Trump does is a troll at the end of the day.



For the last 4 years it has been nonstop thin ice because of him, I didn't ever think these last couple months would be any different.

This is why I kept saying that I understood what Comey did. I think he was even surprised by Trump's shamelessness at spewing nonsense. As were a lot of people. Unless you have experienced the idiocy of trolls. Then it was not very surprising at all.

screen-shot-2020-08-19-at-11-50-10-am-png.4658317


But it doesn't mean that at the end of the day, they are any different. It might be utterly destructive to our republic if this happens, but it doesn't mean they are not the same principle and should be treated with anything but any other troll should be treated.

I have no doubt that Trump is trying everything he can to illegally keep power. He has continuously broken our laws the last 4 years.

But I am equally sure that his secondary plan is to make it look like he can steal the election. That perception is where the real danger lies, because his cultists are fricken nuts.


Ahmen to that. This was always a need to win big scenario for Biden. Fortunately for the world, that is exactly what Biden had done.


Sure they could, he could be in court trying to get millions of votes in a couple cities thrown out. Instead of focusing on minority cities, he would be targeting New York and cities in California. I don't think it would make any real difference when it comes to nonsensical election lawsuits.
Click to expand...

this is so true. but where the crazy persons says 'you made me do it'..
 
TrippleDip said:
This is what I meant by the above post. You claim people are averse to "socialism", but really people are averse to having what they worked for taken from them and given to people who do not contribute. This seems like a fair position and if you called it what it was it would be a lot clearer.

Now if you want to talk about different types of social safety nets we can talk about the pros and cons of individual plans and look at how people favour them and why, then we can come to a *compromise* that is the best for everyone.

Personally I really like us unemployment (have to pay x to get y back later), and healthcare (save 20k in taxes yearly and get to choose what type of coverage you want, the more valuable you make yourself to an employer the more benefits they will give you, which seems more fair socially than a bum getting the same treatment as a doctor tbh)



Liberal
Meaning free
Meaning free to speak what you want (even hate speech), free to own guns, free to keep your private possessions to yourself (eg no taxes), and freedom to self associate (freedom to hate certain races if you want to)

That liberal democracy?
Click to expand...
By bum, who do you envision? The people afflicted now? Your view point is transactional, not much different than Trump's. What about the value of living in a society not full of desperate people? How would you redistribute the wealth that technology has concentrated in the top 1%. How about the examples of other countries who have health care and the fact it costs 1/3 as much?

We are moving into a future where white collar, retail and service jobs are disappearing and manufacturing will be automated for the most part. Jobs like long haul truckers will disappear and electric vehicles will require a fraction of the auto mechanics, only the wheels rotate. Jobs like actors could be at risk with the creation of beautiful people and personalities artificially for movies and TV's, even the creative arts will be affected. We are in the early stages of this now and this is one of the factors in the problems America is facing, meaningful well paying jobs for men with low education and skills.

Rights are not absolute and come with responsibilities, it was established in American law over 100 years ago that you cannot shout FIRE in a crowded theater. Likewise the second amendment was created to draft you and your gun into the service of the community, if you didn't want to fight for your community, they would take your gun and give it to someone who would.

The US constitution is the quintessential liberal document, if it ain't illegal it is legal, no one's permission is required, that is liberalism. It also leads to equality for all, white, black and brown, freedom under the law and protected from the majority by the constitution that judges interpret. Broadcast and the internet are not included in free speech however, if they are regulated by the FCC and law, laws can be changed and modified by congress, there is a formula for changing the constitution too.
 
Last edited:
TrippleDip said:
This is what I meant by the above post. You claim people are averse to "socialism", but really people are averse to having what they worked for taken from them and given to people who do not contribute. This seems like a fair position and if you called it what it was it would be a lot clearer.

Now if you want to talk about different types of social safety nets we can talk about the pros and cons of individual plans and look at how people favour them and why, then we can come to a *compromise* that is the best for everyone.

Personally I really like us unemployment (have to pay x to get y back later), and healthcare (save 20k in taxes yearly and get to choose what type of coverage you want, the more valuable you make yourself to an employer the more benefits they will give you, which seems more fair socially than a bum getting the same treatment as a doctor tbh)



Liberal
Meaning free
Meaning free to speak what you want (even hate speech), free to own guns, free to keep your private possessions to yourself (eg no taxes), and freedom to self associate (freedom to hate certain races if you want to)

That liberal democracy?
Click to expand...
The main point is you conduct your social fights inside the law and constitution, but it depends on good will on both sides. One side is lead by a man with no good will or integrity and supported by almost half the population who would rather burn the shining city on the hill to the fucking ground, rather than share it. They fuck themselves and others by being tools of the rich, the only thing Trump and the republicans did was give them a trillion dollar break for good and you increased tax bills in Joe's first year of office. They turned themselves into suckers and losers, how many need economic relief right now? How many are dying of covid cursing the medical staff that it's all a hoax or flu?

What are Donald and the republicans going to do for them anyway? No platform except the iron whim of Donald, no plan for covid, no plan for helping people, no plan for anything other than getting off the hook for crimes.

They were gonna get the brown folks somehow and trigger the libs is as far as I can figure.
 
TrippleDip said:
I think there is an ongoing war against the proper use of precise language. People:

1) don't want to put their ideas forth where they can be challenged - hence hiding behind "fighting racism" (meaningless phrase) rather than simply give the concrete belief of what should come from their choice of action and explain *why* they think that choice of action is right.

Eg. Different groups have different ways that they want to effect the world, but their mission statements are always leave you wondering what their actual position is.

2) people don't want to have to attack other's arguments directly so they use mushy meaningless words like racist which are supposed to illicit an *emotional* response and to which you are not supposed to be able to defend against - how can you defend yourself against charges if the charges themselves are not defined.

3) I think that proper use of precise language at a young age is one of the building blocks for being able to effect the change you want in the world, to be able to become a doer rather than follower. To writ, how can you change the world if you can't begin to describe what's wrong and how you will fix it.

"Ending racism" for example is not a goal, there's no specific end game and no route to get there. Reducing economic or educational disparities are goals however and people can disagree on how to get there and can weigh the various merits of different choices.

Before I go further, I want to say this is decidedly non partisan. Even though I picked racism as an example this could apply to anything and these are tools used by anyone that wants power over another.

And so to answer your question - yes, because you cannot argue with someone who doesn't actually want to get anywhere with their arguments (beyond some undefined thing is bad or good). Many (maybe even most) don't even know how to describe what they want and how to get it, and so there's nothing to do but get the same repeated insults thrown at you with no explanation of how they even fit.
Click to expand...
^^That right there is a false argument. You made up your own definition of racism and then knocked down people who oppose racism and racists.

Too funny that you claimed to be for the use of precise language and then butchered the language in order to push a false premise.
 
DIY-HP-LED said:
The US constitution is the quintessential liberal document, if it ain't illegal it is legal, no one's permission is required, that is liberalism. It also leads to equality for all, white, black and brown, freedom under the law and protected from the majority by the constitution that judges interpret. Broadcast and the internet are not included in free speech however, if they are regulated by the FCC and law, laws can be changed and modified by congress, there is a formula for changing the constitution too.
Click to expand...
Let me start by saying I really liked that. Maybe you're not as left as I thought. Anyways,

DIY-HP-LED said:
By bum, who do you envision? The people afflicted now? Your view point is transactional, not much different than Trump's. What about the value of living in a society not full of desperate people? How would you redistribute the wealth that technology has concentrated in the top 1%. How about the examples of other countries who have health care and the fact it costs 1/3 as much?
Click to expand...
By bum I mean someone resigned to never improve and who has never really contributed to the economy/society. Value of less desperate people faces the law of diminishing returns. What's desperate, got a tv cellphone and internet but are still "poor"? Simply put, I think there will always be some desperate people and we just need to decide how many desperate people vs the cost to us.

Yes my point of view is transactional and I don't see anything wrong with that. I only do things that have some sort of benefit and I try to avoid things that hurt me. Don't you?

I wouldn't redistribute the wealth. The bottom will just have to make their own. Not sarcasm. It's not like the top 1% have more time or their food tastes objectively better or something like that. I don't really care how someone else lives their life as long as the situation here on the ground keeps improving (and it is). People can live the good life without everyone driving ferraris, and that wouldn't even be possible anyway. Talking about taking that away from them with no tangible benefits to ourselves seems a lot like childish jealousy.

Lastly healthcare doesn't need to be so expensive. A free market would solve that p. quick, and indeed it has with doctors in asia and mexico. Getting taxed 60% of your income isn't very cheap either, idk how much goes to healthcare but from everyone it must add up to some ridiculous sum.

DIY-HP-LED said:
this is one of the factors in the problems America is facing, meaningful well paying jobs for men with low education and skills.
Click to expand...
Yep. People better make value for themselves then (art, youtube, mcing, talking). I really like the idea of workfare. Perform service work in your neighbourhood for money. It will never be cheaper for the government to maintain robots to clean parks, and maintain cities AND give money to people to do nothing when they can just pay the people to do the job the robot was for.
 
UncleBuck said:
hey loser
what's up?
just kidding
fuck you, loser
Click to expand...
Lol tks. were you banned for the election or smth? Didn't see any of your posts.

Fogdog said:
^^That right there is a false argument. You made up your own definition of racism and then knocked down people who oppose racism and racists.

Too funny that you claimed to be for the use of precise language and then butchered the language in order to push a false premise
Click to expand...
So I was trying to find the post you wrote in another thread to respond because you had a really good argument and I wanted to think about it. I'll get to it.. once I find it again.

Anyways, I meant more it's like blm claims to be fighting racism, but it's meaningless unless /they/ define racism and give specific goals and metrics that measure racism. Which would be great - it would mean we could have a dialog and find common ground, come to a compromise, talk about whether those metrics really measure racism and propose improved metrics, apply reasoning and the scientific method to improving peoples lives in an open an honest manner.

It's no wonder they don't (give concrete goals and reliable metrics) because much of their position is indefensible (don't arrest black people even if they commit crime, don't question what a person of colour has to say because their skin makes their words valuable somehow, don't shoot black people even if they have a gun and could shoot you, etc) not to mention their business model relies on ever more "racism" not less. They're not in the business of solving problems, they are media and exist to propagandise.

Ps: the post had nothing to do with racism. It was just an example of how people use language to avoid talking specifics and how that can benefit them if they don't have a logically sound position. You could replace racists with leftists, conservatives, maybe even vegans in that post (also in the blm example above) and it would make no difference to the point.

Eg vegans want to end "suffering".. Ok, meaning what exactly. Can you argue against "ending suffering"? Nope.
 
Last edited:
smokinrav said:
Well, you got a serious and accurate reply. Don't be a dick.
Click to expand...

You deserve another chance. Perhaps my original question could have used more specificity.

Where does a President get the power to issue an executive order which either creates legislation or cancels it ?
 
'I buy that COVID was a factor in polls underestimating' GOP: Nate Silver
FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver discusses the accuracy of polls in the 2020 election on "This Week."
 
And just when I was getting numb I LOL at this once I saw it. It is too bad, I knew she would have been shot down in her latest statements.

Giuliani distances Trump campaign from attorney Sidney Powell
The Trump campaign on Sunday sought to distance itself from attorney Sidney Powell after she made a series of increasingly convoluted and baseless allegations of widespread nationwide election fraud.

Powell, who also represents former national security adviser Michael Flynn, had appeared with campaign lawyers at press events as recently as last week.

In a brief statement released Sunday afternoon, President Trump's lead attorney Rudy Giuliani and senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis said that Powell "is not a member of the Trump Legal Team."

"She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity," the former New York City mayor added.

Powell appeared alongside Giuliani and other members of the campaign's legal team at a number of press conferences over the past month — including one on Thursday — detailing the campaign's so far unsuccessful efforts to halt or overturn the certification of election results in several key battleground states that were called by media outlets for President-elect Joe Biden.

Trump himself also referred to Powell as a member of his legal team in tweets as recently as Nov. 14.

A request for comment from the Trump campaign regarding when Powell's relationship with the campaign ended or what prompted her exit was not immediately returned.

thehill.com

Giuliani distances Trump campaign from attorney Sidney Powell

The Trump campaign on Sunday sought to distance itself from attorney Sidney Powell after she made a series of increasingly convoluted and baseless allegations of widespread nationwide ele…
thehill.com thehill.com
 
The site seems to be down now, Sidney decided to get in on the action.

Screen-Shot-2020-11-14-at-5.05.51-AM-834x500.png

MISSION
To protect and defend the lawful votes of American citizens, ensure election integrity, educate the world on what it means to be a constitutional Republic, and pursue legal action to preserve the vision of our Founders and to maintain this great Republic.
Sidney Powell -
https://twitter.com/x/status/1326291952552316929
Attorney Sidney Powell needs your immediate support to halt the certification of ballots in Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. To contact Sidney Powell directly, please visit her website: https://www.sidneypowell.com Millions of dollars must be raised to defend the Republic as these lawsuits continue to be filed to ensure victory. In Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court recognized that once vested in the people, the right to vote is fundamental, and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight of each vote. This fundamental right to equal weight was not defended or actualized in this election. There is evidence of ballots being discarded, hundreds of thousands of ballots appearing out of thin air, ballot harvesting, and a lower standard of verification for some mail-in ballots. This is voter fraud and has infringed upon Americans’ sacred right to vote and for their votes to carry equal weight. The case will seek to block the certification of the election results so that justice can be done. We need to stop the steal in its tracks. The future of our Republic is at stake. The left, the media, and a complicit Republican Establishment are attempting to steal this election through a staggering voter fraud operation. The time to fight is now! “A Republic…if you can keep it.” - Benjamin Franklin
 
TrippleDip said:
Lol tks. were you banned for the election or smth? Didn't see any of your posts.


So I was trying to find the post you wrote in another thread to respond because you had a really good argument and I wanted to think about it. I'll get to it.. once I find it again.

Anyways, I meant more it's like blm claims to be fighting racism, but it's meaningless unless /they/ define racism and give specific goals and metrics that measure racism. Which would be great - it would mean we could have a dialog and find common ground, come to a compromise, talk about whether those metrics really measure racism and propose improved metrics, apply reasoning and the scientific method to improving peoples lives in an open an honest manner.

It's no wonder they don't (give concrete goals and reliable metrics) because much of their position is indefensible (don't arrest black people even if they commit crime, don't question what a person of colour has to say because their skin makes their words valuable somehow, don't shoot black people even if they have a gun and could shoot you, etc) not to mention their business model relies on ever more "racism" not less. They're not in the business of solving problems, they are media and exist to propagandise.

Ps: the post had nothing to do with racism. It was just an example of how people use language to avoid talking specifics and how that can benefit them if they don't have a logically sound position. You could replace racists with leftists, conservatives, maybe even vegans in that post (also in the blm example above) and it would make no difference to the point.

Eg vegans want to end "suffering".. Ok, meaning what exactly. Can you argue against "ending suffering"? Nope.
Click to expand...
Your argument is a complete pile of steaming bullshit. Cant fight for the end of racism because it’s not defined to your liking? The fight against racism included all of the things you mentioned but it’s not a worthy fight if each of the actual different sub issues are not defined? Why must the fight contain what you think are definitions of racism when different people have a different reason for maintaining the fight? Your ideal that BLM is for treating blacks any different from anyone else shows your ignorance of the actual issues and shows that you are the exact thing they fighting against.
 
TrippleDip said:
Lol tks. were you banned for the election or smth? Didn't see any of your posts.


So I was trying to find the post you wrote in another thread to respond because you had a really good argument and I wanted to think about it. I'll get to it.. once I find it again.

Anyways, I meant more it's like blm claims to be fighting racism, but it's meaningless unless /they/ define racism and give specific goals and metrics that measure racism. Which would be great - it would mean we could have a dialog and find common ground, come to a compromise, talk about whether those metrics really measure racism and propose improved metrics, apply reasoning and the scientific method to improving peoples lives in an open an honest manner.

It's no wonder they don't (give concrete goals and reliable metrics) because much of their position is indefensible (don't arrest black people even if they commit crime, don't question what a person of colour has to say because their skin makes their words valuable somehow, don't shoot black people even if they have a gun and could shoot you, etc) not to mention their business model relies on ever more "racism" not less. They're not in the business of solving problems, they are media and exist to propagandise.

Ps: the post had nothing to do with racism. It was just an example of how people use language to avoid talking specifics and how that can benefit them if they don't have a logically sound position. You could replace racists with leftists, conservatives, maybe even vegans in that post (also in the blm example above) and it would make no difference to the point.

Eg vegans want to end "suffering".. Ok, meaning what exactly. Can you argue against "ending suffering"? Nope.
Click to expand...
A false argument is made when the person making the argument first misstates the opponent's meaning. After that they claim the opponent is either lying or stupid or diminishes them in some way.

Just like you did right there.
 
printer said:
And just when I was getting numb I LOL at this once I saw it. It is too bad, I knew she would have been shot down in her latest statements.

Giuliani distances Trump campaign from attorney Sidney Powell
The Trump campaign on Sunday sought to distance itself from attorney Sidney Powell after she made a series of increasingly convoluted and baseless allegations of widespread nationwide election fraud.

Powell, who also represents former national security adviser Michael Flynn, had appeared with campaign lawyers at press events as recently as last week.

In a brief statement released Sunday afternoon, President Trump's lead attorney Rudy Giuliani and senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis said that Powell "is not a member of the Trump Legal Team."

"She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity," the former New York City mayor added.

Powell appeared alongside Giuliani and other members of the campaign's legal team at a number of press conferences over the past month — including one on Thursday — detailing the campaign's so far unsuccessful efforts to halt or overturn the certification of election results in several key battleground states that were called by media outlets for President-elect Joe Biden.

Trump himself also referred to Powell as a member of his legal team in tweets as recently as Nov. 14.

A request for comment from the Trump campaign regarding when Powell's relationship with the campaign ended or what prompted her exit was not immediately returned.

thehill.com

Giuliani distances Trump campaign from attorney Sidney Powell

The Trump campaign on Sunday sought to distance itself from attorney Sidney Powell after she made a series of increasingly convoluted and baseless allegations of widespread nationwide ele…
thehill.com thehill.com
Click to expand...
I wonder whose fire hose she was drinking evidence from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top