The Politics Megathread
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
- Status
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- May 23, 2019
- Messages
- 2,982
The problem with the current system is the fact they are both the same at their core.
It's driving me up the wall trying to remember the details, but according to Glenn Beck while he was still on the regular broadcast radio chronicled the origins of the Progressive Liberal movement, and how one of it's founders stated plainly that the goal was to have 2 parties with the same goals and agendas so regardless of who the citizens voted for the big government juggernaut would continue to plod along or sprint toward the movement's ultimate goal of a socialist utopia without capitalism, and individualism.
Thats why Trump as a outsider was such a threat to the Demorats, and the never Trump elected Republicrats, lobbiests, and powerbrockers that wanted the healthcare, infrastructure, and economy to fail so they could just sweep the USA into the globalist government dustbin England just escaped.
It's driving me up the wall trying to remember the details, but according to Glenn Beck while he was still on the regular broadcast radio chronicled the origins of the Progressive Liberal movement, and how one of it's founders stated plainly that the goal was to have 2 parties with the same goals and agendas so regardless of who the citizens voted for the big government juggernaut would continue to plod along or sprint toward the movement's ultimate goal of a socialist utopia without capitalism, and individualism.
Thats why Trump as a outsider was such a threat to the Demorats, and the never Trump elected Republicrats, lobbiests, and powerbrockers that wanted the healthcare, infrastructure, and economy to fail so they could just sweep the USA into the globalist government dustbin England just escaped.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2019
- Messages
- 2,961
You know, I have better things to do then to debate this same shit over and over again; this has been the Nth time it's brought up and we're looping. I need to move on, the country needs to move on, the World needs to move on. Cheeto Jesus is moving out soon and with that all the fucks I can give are gone. If this is the hill you want to die on then so be it, you can keep it because the oil rig has dried out. If you feel this strongly about it you are free to protest on the streets, just do it peacefully.
So I'm leaving this copy-paste here and then hit the books because quite frankly I'm tired of pushing them aside, I don't want to get sent to the pillbox.
So I'm leaving this copy-paste here and then hit the books because quite frankly I'm tired of pushing them aside, I don't want to get sent to the pillbox.
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2019
- Messages
- 940
@Tamerlane
For the Republicans it'll mainly be for either supporting cool but excessively expensive military projects or pushing the US towards active hoarding of oil via invasions.
The logic of hoarding foreign oil is banking on the fact the world might run out of oil before a renewable source of energy is made more economical than oil.
Obviously self-destructive because wars are fought over resources once they become scarce. We have targets on us from all over the planet and I'm sure that will be the perfect excuse for an active anti-American sentiment to emerge globally.
For the Democrats it'll predominantly be pseudo-reenactments of The War on Drugs but with different types of focus.
A lot of the violent lone wolfs like Dylan Roof were groomed online by the FBI. Why? An "in plain sight public enemy" for the American public is needed for the FBI to ask for more money or to justify their budget.
It's also a method of divide and conquer that has plausible deniability by creating a scapegoat to distract from criticism. This one is also self-destructive because it further breeds anti-government sentiments for anyone who has a functioning brain.
Create problems to offer your solution. Kind of like buying and selling cocaine and then punishing the people you sold it to.
These'll always exist within one of the parties at any given moment, just in a different form of expression.
For the Republicans it'll mainly be for either supporting cool but excessively expensive military projects or pushing the US towards active hoarding of oil via invasions.
The logic of hoarding foreign oil is banking on the fact the world might run out of oil before a renewable source of energy is made more economical than oil.
Obviously self-destructive because wars are fought over resources once they become scarce. We have targets on us from all over the planet and I'm sure that will be the perfect excuse for an active anti-American sentiment to emerge globally.
For the Democrats it'll predominantly be pseudo-reenactments of The War on Drugs but with different types of focus.
A lot of the violent lone wolfs like Dylan Roof were groomed online by the FBI. Why? An "in plain sight public enemy" for the American public is needed for the FBI to ask for more money or to justify their budget.
It's also a method of divide and conquer that has plausible deniability by creating a scapegoat to distract from criticism. This one is also self-destructive because it further breeds anti-government sentiments for anyone who has a functioning brain.
Create problems to offer your solution. Kind of like buying and selling cocaine and then punishing the people you sold it to.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,557
Whilst I respect your decision to bow out, I feel the fact that I still don't know what your standard of what counts as "evidence" is and that most of your arguments rely on appeals to authority rather than to actual evidence leaves me wanting, especially as an empiricist. It makes it seem to me as if you've bought into the media narrative and wanted to cling to it rather than allow the evidence to sway you simply because it would support a candidate you do not like personally.
I would much rather believe that the election was legitimate, that I can trust the results and that they accurately reflect reality, but I can't because I have a set of principles as an empiricist that means I value truth and where the evidence I have leads me. That means that I may have to defend people I don't like or that causes me to change my position if the information I have contradicts what those who have authority say, even if it causes me emotional discomfort or distress.
Now to address your quote because it seems like a strawman to me.
Saying "I don't trust the results because of these inconsistencies or factors" is not saying "I do not trust the voters to choose the president."
There's an apocryphal parallelism that has been attributed to many people, yet as an aphorism it holds true: "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
Hell, Thomas Nast pointed this out with the Boss Tweed scandal way back in the Gilded Age.
When you have CCTV footage of Poll Workers doing dubious shit, video evidence of poll workers doing dubious shit, affidavits and video evidence of Republican Poll workers not being let in, being kicked out for raising concerns, and not being let in, as well as being outnumbered or not being able to meaningfully observe ballots, again with video evidence, then it is fair to doubt the poll workers.
We have forensic audits of Atrium county that _v2_[redacted].pdf]confirms the machines had dubious results with an almost 70% adjudication rate, along with bipartisan condemnation BEFORE the election and various security concerns, there is very good reason to doubt what is meant to be an adding machine's ability to perform it's god damn job.
The media has always been dubious at best and the journalists who are concerned about the truth are in the minority. The vast majority of corporations are basically propaganda networks at this point because of their ties to big business and the status quo. They want their guys in office because they have ties to them.
The 4th estate is a dubious actor at this point, and it's as plain as day that a media who has been lying non-stop and defaming Trump with little-to-no-evidence would continue their pattern of behavior into the present. Even if they were truthful about this, it would be the boy who cried wolf.
When you don't rule on the merits of a case that concern the majority of the nation, and throw it out on procedure, it leaves everyone unsatisfied and feeling bereft of justice.
The courts have a duty to provide a legal means by which the people can address their concerns, but when they get political, they do things for the sake of their own careers and their own agendas. It is not a surprise that lower courts in their jurisdiction would probably have biases in favor of their local government and any corruption would likely affect them.
The Texas case being thrown out of the Supreme Court is perhaps the worst thing that could have happened, as it means the there's no means by which we can hold improper states accountable for unethical or dubious election processes, and so they can violate their constitution, the law and whatever else they wish with no means for other members of the union to call them out for unscrupulous behavior. By that means, the Supreme Court not only abandoned their duty to uphold the constitution and to provide a means to hold power to account, but if the reports of what transpired are to be believed, they did it out of cowardice. They are responsible not only for the storming of the capitol and the mass wave of censorship and suppression of rights that followed, but any civil tension and unrest that comes of it as well because of their sworn duty to resolve conflicts between the states in a peaceful means, especially and almost half the union believed what happened warranted a trial.
Trump is not correct on everything, but just because he says something that aligns with reality does not mean that we're going off of his instructions to believe it on his word alone, though I am sure there are people who may fall into that position just from fanaticism, you can still stumble upon the truth.
Just because Trump says something is true does not mean it is true or false, just as if he says something is false that does not mean it is true or false. It all depends on what the evidence says.
It's weird guilt by association to assume just because you believe what someone else believes that you're in lock-step or even agree with them on most things.
It seems to me that you're framing it like this because it removes the context of the argument and the reasoning behind it, and therefore it sounds stupid because that's the framing by which you choose to do so with the language and diction you used in the point, and not by the actual reasoning behind it.
It sounds stupid, not because it IS stupid, but because your biases want to frame the case as stupid so you don't have to actually address the point being made, and so end up constructing a framing that makes the idea seem ridiculous. It's a literal appeal to ridicule.
@EOTFOFYL
I guess we're quite literally in an "End of Turn, Fact or Fiction, you lose" situation, though who's saying it remains to be decided.
I would much rather believe that the election was legitimate, that I can trust the results and that they accurately reflect reality, but I can't because I have a set of principles as an empiricist that means I value truth and where the evidence I have leads me. That means that I may have to defend people I don't like or that causes me to change my position if the information I have contradicts what those who have authority say, even if it causes me emotional discomfort or distress.
Now to address your quote because it seems like a strawman to me.
No, the argument is that the voters have lost their franchise and power due to all the fraud. Trusting voters and trusting the votes are not synonymous, especially when you have significant reason to doubt their authenticity.
Saying "I don't trust the results because of these inconsistencies or factors" is not saying "I do not trust the voters to choose the president."
There's an apocryphal parallelism that has been attributed to many people, yet as an aphorism it holds true: "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
Hell, Thomas Nast pointed this out with the Boss Tweed scandal way back in the Gilded Age.
When you have CCTV footage of Poll Workers doing dubious shit, video evidence of poll workers doing dubious shit, affidavits and video evidence of Republican Poll workers not being let in, being kicked out for raising concerns, and not being let in, as well as being outnumbered or not being able to meaningfully observe ballots, again with video evidence, then it is fair to doubt the poll workers.
We have forensic audits of Atrium county that _v2_[redacted].pdf]confirms the machines had dubious results with an almost 70% adjudication rate, along with bipartisan condemnation BEFORE the election and various security concerns, there is very good reason to doubt what is meant to be an adding machine's ability to perform it's god damn job.
The media has always been dubious at best and the journalists who are concerned about the truth are in the minority. The vast majority of corporations are basically propaganda networks at this point because of their ties to big business and the status quo. They want their guys in office because they have ties to them.
The 4th estate is a dubious actor at this point, and it's as plain as day that a media who has been lying non-stop and defaming Trump with little-to-no-evidence would continue their pattern of behavior into the present. Even if they were truthful about this, it would be the boy who cried wolf.
When you don't rule on the merits of a case that concern the majority of the nation, and throw it out on procedure, it leaves everyone unsatisfied and feeling bereft of justice.
The courts have a duty to provide a legal means by which the people can address their concerns, but when they get political, they do things for the sake of their own careers and their own agendas. It is not a surprise that lower courts in their jurisdiction would probably have biases in favor of their local government and any corruption would likely affect them.
The Texas case being thrown out of the Supreme Court is perhaps the worst thing that could have happened, as it means the there's no means by which we can hold improper states accountable for unethical or dubious election processes, and so they can violate their constitution, the law and whatever else they wish with no means for other members of the union to call them out for unscrupulous behavior. By that means, the Supreme Court not only abandoned their duty to uphold the constitution and to provide a means to hold power to account, but if the reports of what transpired are to be believed, they did it out of cowardice. They are responsible not only for the storming of the capitol and the mass wave of censorship and suppression of rights that followed, but any civil tension and unrest that comes of it as well because of their sworn duty to resolve conflicts between the states in a peaceful means, especially and almost half the union believed what happened warranted a trial.
Trump is not correct on everything, but just because he says something that aligns with reality does not mean that we're going off of his instructions to believe it on his word alone, though I am sure there are people who may fall into that position just from fanaticism, you can still stumble upon the truth.
Just because Trump says something is true does not mean it is true or false, just as if he says something is false that does not mean it is true or false. It all depends on what the evidence says.
It's weird guilt by association to assume just because you believe what someone else believes that you're in lock-step or even agree with them on most things.
It seems to me that you're framing it like this because it removes the context of the argument and the reasoning behind it, and therefore it sounds stupid because that's the framing by which you choose to do so with the language and diction you used in the point, and not by the actual reasoning behind it.
It sounds stupid, not because it IS stupid, but because your biases want to frame the case as stupid so you don't have to actually address the point being made, and so end up constructing a framing that makes the idea seem ridiculous. It's a literal appeal to ridicule.
@EOTFOFYL
I guess we're quite literally in an "End of Turn, Fact or Fiction, you lose" situation, though who's saying it remains to be decided.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2018
- Messages
- 72
@ivegotnolife look up Hegel’s Dialectic—he may not be the exact person you’re trying to remember, but his dialectic is exactly what you’re talking about: the illusion of choice bc they need the consent of the ppl, so you create 2 parties who pretend to war with one another but the same shit happens no matter who’s in office.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,557
I think you've confused "appeal to authority" with "appeal to false authority."
An appeal to false authority is when the argument relies on someone who's credentials are irrelevant. For instance, if Galileo argued for the heliocentric model, but the pope said that it's geocentric because that is what is said in the bible, then it would be an appeal to false authority.
An appeal to authority is a bit more complicated, as it requires the crux of the argument be made from the ethos of the speaker rather than any evidence itself. Even if someone has relevant credentials, and is credible, they still must prove that the evidence they are citing is legitimate with proper methodology and methods just like everyone else. You can't just trust someone at their word and it must align with all the evidence that has been seen.
For instance, if you say that the Emperor has no clothes on, but the royal Esquire of the Body says he's wearing invisible clothes, that does not mean that he is correct merely because it's his job to determine what the king is wearing.
To reiterate, I'm an empiricist and specifically a Popperian in regards to my epistemological beliefs, meaning I focus on falsifiable, predictable claims based on empirical evidence and data, and so far, all the evidence in the form of affidavits and statistical data has been able to accurately predict what evidence we will find, such as the CCTV footage from Fulton county. Gabriel Sterling and the Georgia Secretary of State saying they've disproven it based on flimsy reasoning when the affidavits we have contradict their story and the video evidence seems to align with the affidavits, timeline and statistics, indicates that Sterling's claims such as that they never asked the observers to leave when we see it happen in the video, or the statements we have from the affidavits about backfilling contradicting his argument that the scanning of ballots multiple times would lead to a bunch of empty votes with no paper work indicates to me that he does not have all his facts straight or that he cannot be trusted strictly on the grounds of his authority.
@Halo
@Tamerlane No, I'm not.
Your example is silly. We're not talking about a specific authority, but essentially every judge and legal specialist who expressed their views on this matter. As people with no legal knowledge, it's reasonable for us to rely on their expertise as long as we believe in their good will, honesty and professionalism.
With that in mind, when a guy on the internet is trying to convince us in multiple conspiracies spanning across several different states and the federal government, you have to understand our skepticism.
Now, back to clowning around and shitposting.
Your example is silly. We're not talking about a specific authority, but essentially every judge and legal specialist who expressed their views on this matter. As people with no legal knowledge, it's reasonable for us to rely on their expertise as long as we believe in their good will, honesty and professionalism.
With that in mind, when a guy on the internet is trying to convince us in multiple conspiracies spanning across several different states and the federal government, you have to understand our skepticism.
Now, back to clowning around and shitposting.
Group Leader
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2019
- Messages
- 6,827
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,557
Judges are arbiters of what can be adjudicated, not what is necessarily true of correct, and even then, throwing out a case when it is not on the merits does not dictate what is true. Courts make mistakes all the time, and when there's a consistent pattern of throwing cases out on technicalities it seems like the courts really just don't want to touch such a politically sensitive issue, rather than ruling on an evidentiary basis.
Plus this argument ignores that I am not making a legal argument, but an empirical one based on the evidence. It's interesting how your argument flipped from the broad category of "authorities" to specifically "judges," who have a job not expressly concerned with what is true but what is within the legal framework.
I disagree with your framing. I'm not alleging conspiracy because that bring with it the connotation that it entails a lot of centralization and collusion that may not necessarily be true. It is likely decentralized and many people came to the conclusion to do this independently of one another.
It's fine to be skeptical as long as you're being intellectually consistent, and I tend to be skeptical myself, trying to falsify claims, hence why I expressly mentioned that I lean toward Popper's philosophy. It seems to me that you're not applying your skepticism indiscriminately, and holding truth to power and being skeptical of authorities.
@Halo
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,557
I actually don't know what they're referring to here, but I'd be curious what you take umbrage with, specifically, as I base my views on freedom mostly with the Enlightenment and the Founding Fathers, so I don't know what would be so controversial.
@Chrona
I'm curious as well as I like to think I'm well informed on the subject and am trying to present my points in a fair way, as well as trying to be cordial and trying not to be particularly obstinate or quippy with my points, but trying to be as specific as possible and base as much as what I am saying in the actual evidence, itself what the evidence presents.
I think the fact EOTFOFYL refused to look at the "hereistheevidence.com" link and to investigate any of the claims indicates to me that it doesn't really matter what I say, it won't really change their mind regardless of how concrete the evidence is.
@Tamerlane
He doesn't care if it is real or not Tamerlane, he's already taken the stance that doing anything about it as an average citizen is out of line, real or imagined. Either denying the possibility on nihilistic lines (it's not my place to do so) or political lines (to even admit that the grievances of the opposite group might be credible will damage the team I hate least.)
I can only take the evidence EOTFOFYL has clearly stated even if there was actual evidence of such fraud he himself would do nothing. If the evidence were real, it's the courts job to deal with it, and thus he wouldn't care because, and I quote
If the evidence isn't real, then it's only frustrating to watch people who are very obviously stupid, but simultaneously have the same voting power as him, while not being able to discern the fact he might find this undesirable situation to be in.
He doesn't care if it is real or not Tamerlane, he's already taken the stance that doing anything about it as an average citizen is out of line, real or imagined. Either denying the possibility on nihilistic lines (it's not my place to do so) or political lines (to even admit that the grievances of the opposite group might be credible will damage the team I hate least.)
https://www.businessinsider.com/rudy-giuliani-is-working-on-trumps-impeachment-defense-abc-news-2021-1
https://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-wont-be-trump-impeachment-lawyer-because-hes-a-witness-2021-1
I wonder if he still can request for a trial by combat though.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2019
- Messages
- 2,961
Before:
After:
He might just lose his BAR long before that though.
Some hotsauce:
https://youtu.be/Xnd2ZnRT-u4
https://youtu.be/OBWfv05jIHs
https://youtu.be/6Yn-Gx3MEVQ
https://youtu.be/DYVFiwLf_1I
https://youtu.be/rTK3elQozuU
https://youtu.be/0aYsi_shc20
https://youtu.be/CWA9Ezn1XPA
@Chrona
After:
He might just lose his BAR long before that though.
Some hotsauce:
https://youtu.be/Xnd2ZnRT-u4
https://youtu.be/OBWfv05jIHs
https://youtu.be/6Yn-Gx3MEVQ
https://youtu.be/DYVFiwLf_1I
https://youtu.be/rTK3elQozuU
https://youtu.be/0aYsi_shc20
https://youtu.be/CWA9Ezn1XPA
@Chrona
Whatever that action could be I can tell you what it won't be. I might not be sane but at least I know better than to challenge a gun; can't outsmart bullets.
- Status
Similar threads
