Messages

1

General Comments / Re: Trump looses again

« on: Today at 05:10:28 PM »

Meanwhile, other Trump supporters are threatening the judge who supposedly signed off on the search warrant of Mar-a-Lago.

2

General Comments / Re: Trump looses again

« on: August 09, 2022, 10:27:41 AM »

Well, it didn't take long for Trump to become a martyr to some.

Trump supporters are calling for civil war.

MAGA, QAnon, and far-right message boards and Telegram channels lit up Monday night with calls for a violent response to what some extremists see as a political attack directed by the Biden administration.

The posts on these pro-Trump forums tonight are as violent as I’ve seen them since before January 6th. Maybe even more so.

3

General Comments / Re: More evidence on how shady Trump is

« on: August 06, 2022, 01:32:04 PM »

It was Ivana's wish, which Trump agreed to.

Why do you say that?  What is your source?

I tried looking for one, and all I found was this Intelligencer article, which had some strong points about why it probably wasn't her wish:

If Trump National Golf Club Bedminster held a special place in Ivana’s heart, there’s no record of it. Donald bought the property in 2002, a full decade after their divorce was finalized. While Ivana maintained a friendship with her ex-husband through her final days, and her daughter, Ivanka, was married at the club, it does not appear that Ivana ever publicly praised the property.

Why spend eternity at a golf course bought a decade after you divorced the bum?  It doesn't make sense.

I need more evidence than some Trump's word that Ivanka wanted a golf course to be her final resting place.

4

General Comments / Re: Trump looses again

« on: August 06, 2022, 12:18:41 PM »

Monumentally, Liz sided with Dems and other Never-Trumpers to impeach him for issues that have since been proved to be in error. Downright lies, when what Trump had said was proved correct.

I don't know how you can say that the impeachments have be "proved to be in error."

There is sworn testimony that the Ukrainian officials were told that they had to start an investigation on Biden to get a White House visit and their much-needed weapons.

And after all the Republican testimony to the Jan. 6th Commission, how can anyone state at this time that he absolutely did not try to incite an insurrection?  A march he planned and wanted to attend; that he knew had armed individuals; and did nothing to stop it once it turned into a riot that threatened the life of his own Vice-President?  This is what you consider to be proven to be in error?? 

You live in your own little world, William.

You really should watch other networks than CNN or MSNBC. Those testimonies were shown to be wrong.

Excuse me?  How can a testimony that said, "I told them this," can be shown to be wrong?    How can you say the special ambassador appointed by Trump to represent him in Ukraine was lying?  Do you even know what you're talking about?

Trump talked about Hunter and Joe blackmailing the Ukraine, which was proved to be accurate. We all saw Joe bragging about doing it. We recently saw Joe bend over backwards to avoid offending those that gave his crime family so much illegal graft.[/quote[

So this justifies him withholding weapons needed to prevent Russia from invading?   

[quote[Everything you just quoted about what Trump knew and did alá J6 is moot. The J6 commission put on an embedded agent in the Proud Boys who said nobody was armed. It is Pelosi who is avoiding being investigated. She is responsible for her people murdering an unarmed woman, and for denying the offered military to support the half-strength Capital security. Trump was home watching the protest on a station that did not show the supposed break-ins nor any violence. That was confirmed - but the J6 presentation missed it.

Confirmed by whom?  When?  What about the testimony of those Republicans who were in the White House with him begging him to take action?  Was Trump also deaf at the time?  Or couldn't he even hear the Senators and Representatives he called during that time who might have mentioned they were evacuating?  Or Hannity telling him to call the mob off?

How much of the actual testimony have you heard yourself?  Or are you getting it filtered by others?

5

General Comments / Re: Alex Jones, scumbag

« on: August 05, 2022, 06:07:55 PM »

I don't think the jury likes Alex Jones, either.

$45.2 million in punitive damages.

6

General Comments / Re: What are some things that Biden gets right?

« on: August 05, 2022, 02:28:22 PM »

The law of God, as seen in the Bible, is clear about what is moral and immoral. And since even people who have never encountered the law know generally what is moral and immoral

So you are happy with the entirety of Leviticus as a description of good & bad?

Its a position certainly.

Leviticus is primarily a cut and paste from many religions that predated Judaism. Most were matriarchal, but the laundry lists of accepted wisdom was passed down long before the Bible.

Interesting.  How does this relate to those who insist that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God?

7

General Comments / Re: The Biden Economy

« on: August 05, 2022, 01:57:25 PM »

But, we know it's Biden energy policies that is driving inflation in the country, because there is no inflation problem in any other country in the world. So it has to be something we are doing domestically.

Oh, wait... 

Tell me you don't understand the oil market without telling me you don't understand the oil market.

Well, that is easy to rebut:

What the heck are you saying?? 

I understand the oil market as well as you, maybe better!  So if you got any complaints, spell them out.  Don't sit there like some bloated Buddha and proclaim I don't know the subject without giving even a hint to what you're talking about!  Or is this your level of debate:  "Nah, nah, nah!  You don't know nothing.  Ha!  Ha! Blurrrrrp!"?

Grow up, show some respect, and explain yourself.  Or just go away and play with those who would appreciate your level of "debate." 

8

General Comments / Re: Trump looses again

« on: August 05, 2022, 01:07:20 PM »

Monumentally, Liz sided with Dems and other Never-Trumpers to impeach him for issues that have since been proved to be in error. Downright lies, when what Trump had said was proved correct.

I don't know how you can say that the impeachments have be "proved to be in error."

There is sworn testimony that the Ukrainian officials were told that they had to start an investigation on Biden to get a White House visit and their much-needed weapons.

And after all the Republican testimony to the Jan. 6th Commission, how can anyone state at this time that he absolutely did not try to incite an insurrection?  A march he planned and wanted to attend; that he knew had armed individuals; and did nothing to stop it once it turned into a riot that threatened the life of his own Vice-President?  This is what you consider to be proven to be in error?? 

You live in your own little world, William.

9

General Comments / Re: Alex Jones, scumbag

« on: August 05, 2022, 11:01:35 AM »

Those emails are a gift that keep on giving.

As summarized at Electoral-vote.com in their This Week in Schadenfreude section, there are a few other things those emails may have revealed.

First, some of the things we already know:

Jones turned the complete contents of his cell phone over to his defense team. And the defense team turned them over to the plaintiffs... without redacting or withholding any of them. The plaintiffs know all. And once the gaffe was revealed, Judge Maya Guerra Gamble refused to declare a mistrial or to seal the contents of the phone. We are assuming that she ruled on the merits, but it surely didn't help Jones' case that he's been going on air and slamming her as an idiot while the hearings are still underway. In any case, Gamble said there might have been time for such considerations if Jones hadn't disrespected the trial process and dragged his feet on discovery, but now he must reap what he sowed. Reading between the lines, it sure looks like the plaintiffs aren't the only ones in the courtroom who hate Jones. The judge and his own attorneys apparently hate him, as well.

And it still gets better. Everyone who's been looking at Jones, and hitting a brick wall, now wants a copy of the treasure trove. That includes the Dept. of Justice and the 1/6 Committee. And the plaintiffs' attorney is delighted to send it to them. He specifically told the judge he would do so unless she put a stop to it. She issued no such order.

(Emphasis mine.)

So it looks like the emails may have already been distributed, regardless of any possible lawsuits about attorney incompetence.

And then there is the other stuff...

There appear to be other... goodies on the phone that could prove embarrassing or incriminating. For example, there have been allusions during the current proceedings to "intimate messages" between Jones and Roger Stone. Who knows what exactly that means, but we could totally see them being gay for each other. In a much more criminal direction, a filing in one of the other Sandy Hook cases—those plaintiffs' lawyers already got their USB sticks with all the text messages—asserts that child porn has been found on the phone.

And who knows what else may be in those emails? 

In case you are interested, the site has links in each paragraph to the article each was based on.

10

General Comments / Re: What are some things that Biden gets right?

« on: August 04, 2022, 04:09:53 PM »

The law of God, as seen in the Bible, is clear about what is moral and immoral. And since even people who have never encountered the law know generally what is moral and immoral, we can assume that the Bible is simply describing a law that exists already in the human heart, rather than arbitrarily saying "this is good" or "this is bad."

Just because some of "the law" agrees with what we instinctually know does not imply that all of "the law" does.

Because, instinctually, I know that some of the Old Testament laws are just plain silly.

11

General Comments / Re: GOP nutbag of the week

« on: August 04, 2022, 03:49:30 PM »

It would be far more convincing if Hawley were dealing with the world as it is, and not as he wishes it was. 

Alliances work, especially NATO.  Isolationism doesn't, not in a world where international trade (esp. oil) is a necessity for every country, including ours.  The fact that he can't see that shows he is living in a fantasy world.

12

General Comments / Re: Alex Jones, scumbag

« on: August 04, 2022, 03:44:57 PM »

The Jan 6th committee has already expressed an interest in Jones' communications.

I wonder if one of the attorneys submitted the emails as evidence?  Wouldn't that make it part of the trial, which is "public" information?  Which would mean that the January 6th Committee would only have to file a request to the court to get them, right?

13

General Comments / Re: Climate alarmists are wrong.

« on: August 02, 2022, 03:02:13 PM »

And let's not forget ocean acidification, from the higher levels of CO2 mixing with the ocean waters to produce carbonic acid.

And why does the temperature of the oceans keep getting hotter?

And why is it that there are vineyards in England now producing high-quality wines, something that has never happened before because the temperatures in England are too cold for high-quality wines?

...89% of the stations used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to calculate average U.S. temperatures failed to meet the National Weather Service’s (NWS) siting standards, which stipulate stations must be 30 meters (100 feet) or more away from any artificial or radiating reflecting heat source.

Even if that is true, why do those "artificial or radiating reflecting heat source(s)" keep getting hotter??  You'd think that most of such sources (concrete, metal, stone, etc.) would at best increase the readings for the temperature, like adding 1/10 of a degree or something.  But the readings keep increasing over the years.  So how is that the temperatures keep increasing at about the same rate as other temperature stations around them?  How is it that these "artificial sources" first add 1/10 degree, then 2/10 degree 10 years later, then 3/10 degree 20 years later, at about the same rate as all the other "artificial sources" around them?

Of course, you don't know and won't find out.  You have your authority, and you believe whatever he says.  "He said it; I believe it; that settles it."  Don't ask questions, don't doubt, thinking for yourself and asking questions only leads you to error.  Just believe.  Right? 

14

General Comments / Re: conspiracy detector

« on: July 28, 2022, 01:51:10 PM »

Thanks! Got it. I owe you one favor.

Here's the deal.

There is a global conspiracy run by misogynists to enslave women.

That has caused all of the conflict in the world today. Yes, all of it.

Peace has come though. I have struck a bargain with "the women".

The deal is: all men will be disenfranchised. Men can serve in elected office, but they cannot vote. Women will elect who they want to elect.

any questions so far?

Ah, how are you going to sell this to the misogynists' conspiracy?  If they don't like women in general, how will you get them to agree to let women run the world? 

15

General Comments / Re: Trump looses again

« on: July 26, 2022, 07:42:45 PM »

BTW, do YOU realize the link you poste exxonerates Trump and calls the FBI dirty? Here's a pullquote:

...As the FBI concluded its Russia investigation, specifically into former president Donald Trump, you can find an electronic document that spells out just how wide a net it gave its agents to find evidence relevant to a crime committed by a president.

As a result, this leeway was largely attributed to Igor Danchenko, the Russian-born US resident, who played a key role in the development of Christopher Steele’s dossier in the 2016 election season. Steele’s London-based research project, now widely viewed as a hoax, was funded by Democrats. It was used for months by the anti-Trump forces under the direction of Rep. Adam Schiff of California, in order to sabotage, harass, and disorient the presidential administration.

Uh, who's post? 

16

General Comments / Re: Trump looses again

« on: July 26, 2022, 06:34:58 PM »

And speaking of opinion pieces, the editors of The New York Post, one of the most conservative papers in the U.S. today, had this to say in an editorial last week:

There has been much debate over whether Trump’s rally speech on Jan. 6, 2021, constituted “incitement.” That’s somewhat of a red herring. What matters more — and has become crystal clear in recent days — is that Trump didn’t lift a finger to stop the violence that followed.

And he was the only person who could stop what was happening. He was the only one the crowd was listening to. It was incitement by silence.

Trump only wanted one thing during that infamous afternoon: to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to decertify the election of Joe Biden.

He thought the violence of his loyal followers would make Pence crack, or delay the vote altogether.

To his eternal shame, as appalled aides implored him to publicly call on his followers to go home, he instead further fanned the flames by tweeting: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.”

His only focus was to find any means — damn the consequences — to block the peaceful transfer of power.

There is no other explanation, just as there is no defense, for his refusal to stop the violence.

It’s up to the Justice Department to decide if this is a crime. But as a matter of principle, as a matter of character, Trump has proven himself unworthy to be this country’s chief executive again.

This is the editorial board of The New York Post.

This week it was the Wall Street Journal's turn.

No matter your views of the Jan. 6 special committee, the facts it is laying out in hearings are sobering. The most horrifying to date came Thursday in a hearing on President Trump's conduct as the riot raged and he sat watching TV, posting inflammatory tweets and refusing to send help... Mr. Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution, and he had a duty as Commander in Chief to protect the Capitol from a mob attacking it in his name. He refused. He didn't call the military to send help. He didn't call [Mike] ]Pence to check on the safety of his loyal VP. Instead he fed the mob's anger and let the riot play out.

(Per Electoral-Vote.com, since I don't have a subscription, either. )

When two of the most influential conservative newspapers in the country--both of whom endorsed Trump in the last election, IIRC--now say (or imply) he is unfit for office, that definitely counts as a loss.

I guess the Jan. 6 Commission has had some effect.

17

General Comments / Re: Trump looses again

« on: July 26, 2022, 05:57:27 PM »

This week we can focus on the many actions against Huawei Technologies under Trump, and how the Biden decisions to earn his graft from China to allow their espionage is another on-going Biden in-your-face failure. Since Biden was paid for his China actions, this may well be treason:

https://republicbrief.com/shocking-fbi-probe-finds-us-nukes-compromised-by-china-trump-warned-about-this/

Mike Pompeo said: "FBI investigations confirm what we knew in Trump Admin: the CCP uses Huawei equipment to conduct espionage, even disrupt essential national security operations."

Let's all go look at the MSM's revelation of all the national security threats created from this. It should be everywhere, neh?

Blah, blah, blah.  You do realize that Pompeo was quoting a CNN report on Huawei equipment, right?  If it weren't for CNN, you wouldn't even know about this!

Which also means that the security threat is mainly Pompeo's opinion, at this time.

Which doesn't mean it may not be a concern, but you're expecting responsible news sources to jump to conclusions like you're fly-by-night sources (such as the opinion article you linked to).

And so far I haven't found any direct link between Biden and Huawei, except for a Chinese investment firm that has some stock in Huawei that Hunter Biden has some money in.  So where is the "graft" coming from?

You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.  Find more dirt first.

18

General Comments / Re: The Biden Economy

« on: July 22, 2022, 07:31:21 PM »

But, we know it's Biden energy policies that is driving inflation in the country, because there is no inflation problem in any other country in the world. So it has to be something we are doing domestically.

Oh, wait... 

19

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe

« on: July 22, 2022, 07:08:14 PM »

And he doesn't use much ketchup, so it wouldn't have made much of a mess. 

20

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: July 22, 2022, 07:02:56 PM »

If only that 10 year old girl could learn the benefits of having a child. They could share the bus to school together, or even day care.

If only illegal aliens that rape children could be kept out of the US. But that's not convenient for you, is it?

That's the Republican answer to all the problems they are creating, isn't it?  Stop all crime.

If all crime stopped, there wouldn't be a need for gun control.  If we cure all insanity, there wouldn't be a need to keep guns away from crazy people.  If there were no rapes and pushy boyfriends and medical problems with pregnancies, there wouldn't be a need for abortions.

But you guys can't wait, can you?  You first have to repeal all gun control measures and ban all abortions in a world where there are criminals and crazy shooters and rapists and ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages and then blame all the pain, misery and deaths that you cause with your brainless laws on these problems that no one can completely solve--not even you guys.

Here's a brilliant idea--why don't you ban all these things after you've created your fantasy world, and NOT while there are 10-year-old girls who get pregnant from men who are BOTH legal and illegal residents.

...Instead of trying to distract from the REAL problem--that Republicans want to require 10-year-old girls to have their rapist's babies, regardless of where their rapist comes from.

21

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe

« on: July 22, 2022, 03:57:10 PM »

According to Forbes in 2021, Joe Biden's net worth is about $8 million, which includes $2.5 million in pensions and real estate.

Which isn't really that much.  A modest house in Los Angeles is worth about a million dollars these days, and I know lower-middle class people with $1 million in their 401k.  I would classify him at upper-middle class at best, as far as net assets are concerned.

The same Forbes article estimates Donald Trump's net worth at $2400 million. So he's a pauper compared to Trump.

If you doubt Biden's numbers, you can review his 2021 tax return, which he released.  If you want to review the tax return of "the most transparent President ever," you can go jump in a lake. He won't show you anything. 

22

General Comments / Re: The Biden Economy

« on: July 20, 2022, 04:22:22 PM »

America was a net oil exporter during the Trump years. It was cheap enough to drill this that it was competitive on the world market and I know for certain that we are able to produce it more cheaply than Russia.

Sure, once Trump negotiated cuts in oil production which led to an increase in oil prices and eventually led to the current high prices.

But, of course, history has nothing to do with the current situation.  At least, anything that Trump might have done.

23

General Comments / Re: The Biden Economy

« on: July 20, 2022, 02:35:18 PM »

And Wayward, there's exactly zero reason to believe that wages agreed between consenting adults are not reasonable.  Government interference in that -absent an abusive situation, which doesn't exist here- literally by definition results in excessive wages.  With 100% certainty that causes transactions that both parties would find mutually beneficial not to occur and that is a net loss to society.

Then why are there poor people who are working?

If both parties found it mutually beneficial, then wouldn't the worker get enough to live reasonably?  At least not be on welfare to make ends meet, as many Walmart workers do?  Enough for housing and for food enough for their families?  Can anyone do that on $10/hr for a childcare job in any major city?

The fact that one side has to compromise in order to have an inadequate wage for a decent style of living shows that both sides obviously do not find the agreement "mutually beneficial." 

24

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission

« on: July 20, 2022, 12:57:54 AM »

And why were they at half-staff, William, when Trump had planned for all these people to march to the Capitol after his rally?  How many people did the permit for the march say would show up? 

25

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: July 19, 2022, 05:16:42 PM »

And it just keeps on going:

A woman in Texas had an ultrasound at 9 weeks that showed her fetus has no heartbeat.  So she asked for the dead fetus to be removed.  Then the problems began.

Her doctor refused.  That procedure, called a D&C, is the same procedure used to remove a living fetus.

"He said, "Because of the new law that passed, you're going to have to get another ultrasound for me to do anything for you.""

Overwhelmed emotionally and physically--"The pain would get so severe it would be hard to walk"--she went to get another invasive ultrasound at another imaging center...

"Even after that second ultrasound, would you're obstetrician give you that surgical procedure?"

"No. No."

She had to get another ultrasound showing her dead fetus.

"You had to go walking around carrying a dead fetus?" ...

"When a woman is walking around with a dead fetus, what is the danger to her?"

"She can develop an infection that can make her sterile..."

Or even worse.  "When the baby dies inside, the baby starts to release parts of its tissue which can get into the mother's blood supply, which can cause organ failure, which can cause death."

In Texas and in other states, a doctor who does the right thing and removes a dead fetus can be vulnerable to an expensive lawsuit.

"Any private citizen can walk into a court and say, "Dr. Smith performed an abortion.""

Citizens are incentivized to bring such cases.  They can win more than $10,000.  And even if the doctor can prove that the fetus was dead, the doctor still has to be responsible for his own legal fees.

"They are going to lose even if they win.  And that's the chilling effect.  They face the specter of endless, ruinous litigation that they can't stop, can't avoid, can't pre-empt."

It took her two weeks before she could get the D&C.

So healthy mothers who want a child may (and probably will soon) end up dying because doctors are worried that some brain-dead person thinks he can make a quick $10,000 suing the doctor for an abortion.  So a doctor has to decide between doing a simply procedure to save a mother's life and possibly being sued to bankrupcy, or...not.

Because some brain-deads out there--like like the Idaho GOP--think we should stop all abortions, regardless of the cost. 

26

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: July 15, 2022, 01:06:15 PM »

An MSNBC story that more fully documents the initial reaction of denial and doubling-down by the Right.

27

General Comments / Re: The Biden Economy

« on: July 14, 2022, 11:47:00 PM »

What would you consider to be an "excess wage" to a childcare provider? 

Everything I've heard was that they have been underpaid for years now.

28

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: July 14, 2022, 06:54:53 PM »

Well, we're off and running.

I believe President Biden mentioned a 10-year-old rape victim who was denied an abortion in Ohio.

At first, there was denial.  "it was all made-up."

Then they caught the guy who raped her.  The AG, who denied they even had such a case, now is crowing about catching him.

But, of course, she was able to get an abortion in Indiana.  So Indiana's Republican reaction?

Write a law requiring 10-year-olds to have their rapist's baby.  "She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child."  You can't explain to most 10-year-olds the benefit of going to sleep on time. 

This also completely ignores the fact that it is life-threatening to make a child that young have a baby.  (This article has nothing to do with the current situation, since is bemoaning a similar situation from 2015--in Paraguay.)

Not to be outdone, the Indiana AG is going after the one truly guilty person he can:  the doctor who performed the abortion.

Because, after all, when Republicans see a bunch of 5th graders playing in the school yard, they naturally think, "Oh, they'd all make fine mothers!" 

29

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission

« on: July 14, 2022, 12:05:21 PM »

So your position is that trump was right, again, and the jan 6 committee is fulll of *censored*, again. Don’t worry, you’ll forget soon.

Actually, if you paid close attention to the committee hearings (like you should have to the video), you would have noticed that the committee is doing an excellent job of laying out  compelling evidence that Trump really did try to nullify the election, and with it, your vote.  Not to mention an insurgency to stop our government from working.

Seriously, it is now obvious that Trump planned for the people at the Jan. 6 rally to march to the Capitol.  So why didn't he get a permit for it?  Perhaps because such a permit would have altered the Capitol police that a large crowd would come, and they would have then planned for crowd control--putting up more secure barriers, increasing the number of police present, etc.  They would have been far more prepared.  Wasn't Trump worried about the possible outcome of a large, roused-up crowd, some of whom were armed, approaching the Capitol without adequate planning?  Or was that part of his plan?

There has been quite a bit of testimony that shows that it was part of his plan.

Pay attention to what people are testifying, under oath, about what was happening in the White House, instead of looking at second-hand reports from biased sources.

30

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission

« on: July 13, 2022, 11:49:37 PM »

So let me get this straight.  You are saying that the computer repair man has signed the chain of custody form--a civilian who has no training or knowledge of chain of custody rules, and who is not part of law enforcement?  He's the first one who signed it?

OK, maybe.  But not being a sworn official, how do you know he isn't lying when he says that nothing had been added to the files?

Oh, yeah, we have to assume he isn't lying.  We have to assume he never put anything on the computer after he broke into it (even though a computer expert said that no one broke into the computer).  We have to assume neither he nor anyone else copied information from the computer or possibly downloaded info into the computer before it was handed over to the authorities.  But the authorities don't know that for a fact.

Here's some breaking news from April 12, 2022:

When the New York Post first reported in October 2020 that it had obtained the contents of a laptop computer allegedly owned by Joe Biden’s son Hunter, there was an immediate roadblock faced by any other news outlet that hoped to corroborate the reporting, as many did: The newspaper wasn’t sharing what it obtained. ...

Now, a new voice has joined those raising questions about the validity of the material that’s alleged to have been on Hunter Biden’s laptop: the guy who recovered that data in the first place.

Last month, The Washington Post was able to publish a report based on a copy of material that we obtained from a Republican activist named Jack Maxey who’d gotten it from Giuliani. We had multiple experts examine the contents of a hard drive that purported to contain the laptop’s contents, validating tens of thousands of emails as likely to be legitimate. But an enormous amount of the material on the drive couldn’t be validated as legitimate, in part because of the game of telephone that the material had undergone by the time it reached us. ...

One expert likened it to a crime scene that was littered with fast-food wrappers thanks to the first police who’d arrived on the scene. That’s meant as an indictment, but it’s also generous. The first people on the scene weren’t police, in this case; they were (to extend the analogy) people aiming to obtain an indictment against a particular person.

There is still an unlittered crime scene out there. The owner of the store where Hunter Biden allegedly dropped the laptop off for repairs three years ago turned the computer over to the FBI when issued a subpoena to do so. In an interview with the right-wing media outlet “Real America’s Voice,” the owner, John Paul Mac Isaac, explained how relieved he was when the FBI came to get the laptop.

“I thought everything was great when they took it," he said, “because that was what I wanted the whole time was just to get this stuff out of my shop, have the FBI — have a paper trail that afforded me some protection, both physically and legally.”

This was a theme of the interview, as it has been with past interviews with Mac Isaac: his insistences that he thought he was somehow in danger for having the laptop in his possession. If you’re wondering how he then was able to pass the material to Giuliani, the answer is that he nonetheless kept a copy of the material from the laptop “in case he was ever thrown under the bus as a result of what he knew,” his attorney told The Washington Post. In this particular tale, this is low on the scale of things that don’t entirely make sense.

It’s important to explain how Mac Isaac created the backup in the first place. The laptop he obtained repeatedly shut down as he tried to recover its data. So, instead of simply copying the entire hard drive to another device, he did so piecemeal, copying individual files and folders one at a time. In doing so, he claims that he saw material that he found alarming.

“I saw some content that was disturbing and then also raised some red flags,” Mac Isaac explained to “Real America’s Voice.” Later asked to explain what had alarmed him, he said that he saw “criminality … related to foreign business dealings, to potential money laundering and, more importantly, national security issues and concerns.” That, he explained, was “what caused me to do a deep dive into the laptop once it became my property.”

Here, again, the timeline is iffy. Delaware law indicates that he could assume ownership of the laptop after a year. But he obtained the laptop in April 2019 (at the same time that conservative media was beginning to focus on Hunter Biden’s relationship with a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma) and gave it to the FBI that December. He said that he was alarmed by the failure of the laptop to come up during Trump’s first impeachment investigation. That effort ended in February 2020, before a year had passed.

What Mac Isaac said next, though, is what was most noteworthy. When he did his “deep dive,” he said, he “saw a lot of photos” — but “did not see a lot of photos that are being reported to [have been] seen.”

“I do know that there have been multiple attempts over the past year-and-a-half to insert questionable material into the laptop as in, not physically, but passing off this misinformation or disinformation as coming from the laptop,” he said. “And that is a major concern of mine because I have fought tooth and nail to protect the integrity of this drive and to jeopardize that is going to mean that everything that I sacrificed will be for nothing.”

In other words, Mac Isaac says that he has seen claims about what the laptop contains that don’t actually reflect what he saw on the laptop at the outset. Or, presumably, sees now, as one of the few people that might still have an unlittered copy of its contents.

(Bold emphasis mine.)

So the contents of the laptop are from a copy that he made from the laptop.  So if he wanted to, he could have added content to it, and even the original hard drive (although it would have been difficult).

But more than that, much of what the media is reporting (especially the conservative media that you believe) is stuff that has been added to copies of his original copy. 

But it still comes down to how trustworthy is Mr. Mac Issac.  A man who felt compelled to give Rudy Guilliani, Donald Trump's personal lawyer and opponent of Joseph Biden for the presidency, a copy of Hunter Biden's files.  Obviously a man who won't let his political leanings influence his judgement on who has a right to see Hunter's material.  (Not!)

Tell me, William:  if the first person in the chain of custody provided a copy (or a sample, in your case) to one side of a litigation over the arson, who would that person be perceived?  Would revealing it make anyone question whether he was biased, and perhaps question his testimony in court?

I am not saying the Mr. Mac Issac did or did not add anything to the files he provided to the FBI.  He may very well be perfectly honest.  But I am saying it is not beyond a reasonable doubt that Mac Issac could have tampered with the files that he had.  And certainly, with even Mac Issac saying there is a lot of misinformation out there about what is on the laptop, that what you say is on there is may be doubtful, too.

31

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission

« on: July 13, 2022, 06:09:07 PM »

Strange you should say that, Crunch.  Did you actually look at the video in the article?

Did you notice that there is a luggage rack on it?  That it isn't very long.  That there is no plate of metal between the front door and the back door of the vehicle?
 That it is, in fact, a Suburban (or something similar), and does not look anything like The Beast?

I must admit I missed that sentence.  But while that may be "a" Presidential limo, anyone can see that it is definitely not the Cadilliac limousine they call "The Beast."

Alas, Trump is correct (gag!) in calling Miss Hutchinson, and his supporters who said it was The Beast, liars. 

Of course, Miss Hutchinson can be excused since she heard it second-hand, and may have misunderstood certain details.   Like you did.

32

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission

« on: July 13, 2022, 01:34:09 PM »

Oh, and just as a point of fact, anyone who said that Donald Trump couldn't have tried to grab the steering wheel to go to the "rally" on January 6 because you couldn't reach it in The Beast:  your objection is now officially irrelevant.  Trump wasn't riding in The Beast on January 6.

Donald Trump said so.

...now they're just going with this HOAX, which is as true as me trying to strangle a Secret Service Agent from behind in, she said, 'the Beast (I wasn't even in the Beast)!

33

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission

« on: July 13, 2022, 01:12:49 PM »

Just the fact that a guy running a repair shop started snooping in a customer’s data.

Wait a minute.  The repairman knew what was on the laptop?

How did he know that?  Wasn't the laptop password protected?  How did he get pass the password?

And if it wasn't (or he had the password), how do we know he couldn't have added files without detection?

The Washington Examiner expert said that the computer wasn't hacked, but if the repairman had the password, he wouldn't have needed to hack it.  And how could expert know who added files?  Even determining when would be tricky if the data records were manipulated.

If the repairman could review the files, he had access, which means he (or someone else) could have added files.

The chain of custody makes admittance of the laptop a done fact.

You don't understand chain of custody, do you, William?

Chain of custody starts when an object is taken into custody by the authorities: the police, the FBI, etc.  The chain is them making sure no one else has a chance to taint the evidence until it is analyzed, by documenting each person who has access to it and making sure they are authorized and trustworthy.

The repair guy was in no way, shape or form a trusted, authorized official.

Anyone who had it before the police gained custody is not part of the chain of custody.

34

General Comments / Re: Musk and Twitter

« on: July 12, 2022, 11:17:35 PM »

Naw.  He'll negotiate it down to a few hundred-million, and Twitter will agree to save court costs and court time. 

35

General Comments / Re: GOP nutbag of the week

« on: July 11, 2022, 07:51:34 PM »

Georgia U.S. Senate candidate Herschel Walker boldly steps up to be this week's leading contender.

The Green New Deal, you know climate change. I’m going to help you with that real quickly… We, in America, have some of the cleanest air and cleanest water of anywhere in the world. So what we do is, we gonna put, from the Green New Deal, millions and billions of dollars cleaning our good air up. ...  Since we don’t control the air, our good air decided to float over to China’s bad air. So when China gets our good air, their bad air got to move. So it moves over to our good air space. Then now we got we to clean that back up.

Where do they find these ignoramuses? 

36

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission

« on: July 11, 2022, 05:32:12 PM »

...those selfies he made of himself using drugs and having sex with underage girls were not doctored by anyone...

How do you know this?   And please don't quote those lying websites like the one that said that the Arizona election was tainted because the audit could not find the identity of 86,391 voters.

Those eMails you agreed are real, also named the President as the "Big Guy" who got a cut of all the illegal money coming into the Biden Crime Family from Russia and China and other places surely have blackmail on the entire Biden family.

Really?  How do you know this?

Any other father would have moved Heaven and Earth to protect his children and mitigate the drug abuse and criminal violations.

Don't talk about things you are totally ignorant of.  Have you ever had a child with a drug abuse problem?

Instead Joe Biden wired Hunter the money to pay the Russian slave sex traffickers Hunter needed to pay for his blackmail category sex adventures. Hunter seemed to have an obsession with making selfies of his crimes. He made a video of himself negotiating with a drug dealer to lower the price of his drug purchase because he wanted to subtract the weight of the baggies from the total price of the drugs. Dan Bongino enumerated the unFatherly enabling of a drug-addicted sex-fiend.

How do you know this?  How do you know this? How do you know this?  How do you know this?

You are the victim of being fed headlines by complicit media apologists.

And if you can't figure out that Trump is a liar, when he has blatantly lied to your face so many times, you wouldn't know a lie if it had just emptied your bank account.    So stop lecturing us for being gullible and manipulated by the media.  You have been so manipulated you don't know right from wrong anymore. 

And remember one other little thing.  No matter how guilty Hunter Biden is, no matter how many crimes he actually committed, no matter if President Biden actually helped his son cover-up the crimes or participated in the crimes, none of these things mean that Trump isn't guilty of crimes himself.  They have nothing to do with each other.  Joseph Biden could be the worst criminal President in the history of our country, but that doesn't mean Donald Trump wasn't the second worst, and shouldn't be punished for his crimes, too.  Or are you using the old Whataboutism argument that, since your guy wasn't prosecuted for raping your sister, my guy shouldn't be prosecuted, either?

37

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: July 01, 2022, 03:22:01 PM »

Once we fully revert back to the States' control of abortion, such treatment can go forward legally and save the lives like Houshmand. It is not medical ethics that point to solutions. The two points will always coexist: Is it okay to kill an unborn child to possibly save a mother, or not?

I don't see how States' control can change things for the better.

Otherwise, the only way to scientifically decide man or woman is simple: XX or XY.

So you believe that women who were born with penises should be required to use women's dressing rooms?  I didn't realize you were such a liberal! 

Or are you suggesting we should create a third sex, based on the science?  Which rest rooms should they use? 

38

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: July 01, 2022, 03:16:58 PM »

The general argument being made is bad, anyhow. You can't have a piecemeal approach to good policy. Pretending for the moment that "protecting the fetus" was a generally accepted good starting place, that can't exist in a vacuum. If people use bad reasoning or immoral logic in other aspects of their approach to a pregnant women it doesn't say anything about the starting place. If people say "no abortion" and simultaneously throw young pregnant women under the bus and offer no services to single mothers, this isn't a commentary on abortion but rather on other matters. In the case of doctors there is plenty of room for improper decision-making even if (according to the premise) it is correct to protect the fetus if possible. I too would be dismayed at the idea of a doctor withholding necessary treatment because he decides personally that he just doesn't want the woman to have it. That doesn't mean I have to be pro-choice as a result.

It does not address the first principle of "protecting the fetus," or more to the point, "the fetus is a human life."  But it does address the first principle, "the mother has control of her own body."

By making it illegal for a mother to abort a fetus without permission (i.e. except in certain circumstances) means that the mother no longer has control of her own body.  Which means doctors can refuse to perform certain diagnosis which may harm the fetus or certain treatments that may harm the fetus, but which the mother requires.  The mother can no longer decide what is best for her; she must have agreement from the doctor and the state.  And either may arbitrarily deny her of what's best for her.

And while the state does have an interest in preserving human life, does it have such an interest when it robs the rights of its citizens to control their own bodies, or even their own health and life?

39

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: July 01, 2022, 12:47:30 PM »

In one case you're talking about a doctor who was frankly the wrong doctor for this person, although I'm not entirely happy about the marketplace argument in medical matters. The bakery analogy doesn't hold water when comparing to a time sensitive emergency, which to me is more an issue of the general problems in the U.S. medical system. In principle a doctor acting on his conscience is not the same at all as the state banning something.

Except it wasn't only one doctor.

Her ophthalmologist suspected a stroke in her optic nerve and told her the condition can be caused by pregnancy, but Houshmand was stuck in a Catch-22: The pregnancy was now also preventing treatment. Doctors told her that she needed steroids and blood thinners and a specific type of MRI that could make sure there wasn’t something even more serious happening. But she couldn’t get any of those things because they could endanger her fetus.

Houshmand decided she wanted an abortion. She wasn’t willing to risk losing eyesight and continuing to be in pain, vomiting over and over, with no solution … not for an eight-week pregnancy. But her doctors couldn’t help her — abortion wasn’t even an option they brought up. Houshmand had to find a private clinic that could treat her on her own. After the abortion she found out the truth: She had a life-threatening infection in her optic nerve.

As long as she was pregnant, none of the doctors Houshmand encountered would do the things that needed to happen to diagnose her — or treat her.

She saw multiple doctors, not just one who had a problem with her pregnancy.  And it was because the procedures to diagnose and treat her could endanger the fetus.

Which is the Catch-22: you can't know if the illness is serious enough to kill the fetus until it is diagnosed, but you can't diagnose the illness without killing the fetus.  You either have to risk killing the fetus or wait until the illness is so serious that it is obvious the mother will die--at which point it may be too late to save the mother (and often the fetus).

So the only way to know if the illness is serious enough to kill the fetus is to kill the fetus.  But it isn't medically necessary at that point, because no one knows if it is that serious.  So it is an illegal abortion, and the doctor should go to jail.

So the doctor has a choice of killing the fetus but saving the mother--and possibly going to jail (in some cases possibly for life)--or risk the life of both by holding off as long as he can--and possibly getting a malpractice suit (with a good chance of beating it).

Which do you think most doctors will do most of the time?

Of course, the mother could choose to terminate the pregnancy herself.  Except that now she can't in many states because there is no exception for "mother believes it is medically necessary."

The mother doesn't get to make her own medical decisions.  Only the doctors can do that.  And the doctors are incentivized not to make the decision that might cost the fetus' life, because the penalties for making the wrong decision are much worse in that case, even though it will cost of life of the mother and sometimes the fetus in a number of such cases.

And it is pretty common for sick pregnant people to end up squeezed in that vise, said Dr. Lisa Harris, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan who specializes in treating pregnant patients with complex medical problems. While she can remember cases where death was certain if an abortion couldn’t be performed — a patient with heart and lung failure, for example — they only come up maybe once a year in her work. But patients like Houshmand happen all the time, she said. “Maybe it’s a 30 or 50 percent chance that someone might die. And they might not die immediately. Maybe it would be in the next week or month, or even year or beyond.”

40

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: June 30, 2022, 06:53:06 PM »

The argument is that these things were happening when abortions were legal and doctors did not face severe criminal penalties for unnecessary abortions.  Now that they could be sent to prison for the rest of their lives if they guessed wrong about the health of the mother will only make matters worse.

And tell me--would you really be OK if your mother or sister or wife or daughter died because her doctor refused to treat her, or even diagnose her, because he was "following his conscience" and thought her fetus was worth more than her life?? Don't you think she should have some say in the matter?  In fact, a very, very large say?

41

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: June 30, 2022, 05:29:16 PM »

Here's another example of what happens when a person is not in control of her own body:

Layla Houshmand was eight weeks pregnant in the spring of 2021 when she woke up to find her field of vision smeared with a hazy sheen, like Vaseline rubbed on the lens of a camera. She was already worried about her own health. She’d spent the day before nursing herself through the pain of a migraine. But now the headache was worse and her vision was blurring and Houshmand was even more scared. Then the vomiting began. Nothing would stay down. During one 90-minute appointment with an ophthalmologist, she remembered vomiting 20 times.

Something was clearly going horribly wrong with Houshmand’s body. Her ophthalmologist suspected a stroke in her optic nerve and told her the condition can be caused by pregnancy, but Houshmand was stuck in a Catch-22: The pregnancy was now also preventing treatment. Doctors told her that she needed steroids and blood thinners and a specific type of MRI that could make sure there wasn’t something even more serious happening. But she couldn’t get any of those things because they could endanger her fetus.

Houshmand decided she wanted an abortion. She wasn’t willing to risk losing eyesight and continuing to be in pain, vomiting over and over, with no solution … not for an eight-week pregnancy. But her doctors couldn’t help her — abortion wasn’t even an option they brought up. Houshmand had to find a private clinic that could treat her on her own. After the abortion she found out the truth: She had a life-threatening infection in her optic nerve.

As long as she was pregnant, none of the doctors Houshmand encountered would do the things that needed to happen to diagnose her — or treat her. Without an abortion, she was just a sick pregnant woman, rather than a woman who needed an abortion to save her life.

... Some, like Houshmand, will be people who are seeking abortion because of the way a pregnancy is affecting their health. In theory, this shouldn’t be a problem, thanks to exceptions for the life of the mother that are common, even in the strictest abortion bans. But the medical professionals, legal experts and researchers we spoke to said those exceptions are usually vague, creating an environment where patients have to meet some unspoken and arbitrary criteria to get treatment.

When it’s not clear what is legal, patients are often treated as though nothing is. It can be hard to prove your medical emergency is enough of an emergency to get an abortion in a doctor’s office or hospital, or to get Medicaid and other insurers to pay for it. Uncertainty breeds fear and stigma for doctors, who might delay treatment so they can evaluate just how close a person is to dying. In some situations, patients are simply shuttled from one facility to the next like a hot potato until they find a place willing to offer care.

There are a lot of unknowns about what will happen in the wake of the Dobbs decision. But doctors say they do know at least one thing: Overturning Roe v. Wade will lead to more situations where the health and safety of a pregnant person comes second to doctors’ own risks and fears. They know this because it’s already been happening for years. ...

Houshmand felt trapped between the parts of the medical system that were ideologically opposed to her choice, and the parts that were too afraid of controversy to help her.

And it is pretty common for sick pregnant people to end up squeezed in that vise, said Dr. Lisa Harris, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan who specializes in treating pregnant patients with complex medical problems. While she can remember cases where death was certain if an abortion couldn’t be performed — a patient with heart and lung failure, for example — they only come up maybe once a year in her work. But patients like Houshmand happen all the time, she said. “Maybe it’s a 30 or 50 percent chance that someone might die. And they might not die immediately. Maybe it would be in the next week or month, or even year or beyond.”

Abortion bans and abortion restrictions nearly all contain exceptions that allow abortion to save the life of the mother, and, in some cases, preserve her health as well. But every law and statute that contains this exception is written a little differently, and most of them are ambiguous about what constitutes “life-threatening” and how that should be determined.

The whole article is quite enlightening.

This is how anti-abortion legislation is going to cost people's lives. Not through callous disregard of obvious, certain death, but borderline cases where maybe only 30 percent of the patients will die.  But once you start applying this for thousands of patients, you're talking about hundreds of deaths.  Hundreds of certain deaths.

Remember the costs, and pray that your loved-ones won't have to pay them someday.

42

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission

« on: June 29, 2022, 06:12:48 PM »

Whether Trump could have reached the steering wheel is not that important to me.  She related a story she heard from someone else; if the details are wrong, it doesn't matter that much.

What matters is that Trump wanted very much to follow the crowd to the Capitol.  A crowd that was riled-up by Trump to believe that the election had been stolen.  That Trump told that the transfer of power could be stopped.  That Trump was told that members of which were armed.  That Trump sent to the Capitol and told to "fight like hell."

These facts have been attested to by multiple witnesses.

He wanted to be there when an angry crowd, some of whom he thought were armed (and some were), reached the Capitol.  He wanted to be there to see what they would do.  What anyone in that situation, with that information, would expect them to do--storm the Capitol, to attempt to stop the transfer of power. 

Which they did. 

Whether he was in the Beast, or another SUV, or just yelled and screamed, he wanted to be there because he wanted to see his supporters try to stop Congress from doing their Constitutional duty.  He wanted to see them try to keep him in power.

It's sedition, pure and simple.  The President tried to stop Congress from doing it's business.  He tried to overthrow Congress.

That's what is important.

43

General Comments / Re: GOP nutbag of the week

« on: June 28, 2022, 03:20:48 PM »

You don't know for sure whether women who're raped can get pregnant from that rape?

I don't know for sure if extreme stress alters the % chance a pregnancy can occur, no. Wasn't that the question?

Not from what I read in that small snippet.

"Shuts down" mean total closure.  A factory that "shuts down" has no workers nor output.  A person who "shuts down" is unresponsive.  That is how I understand the phrase.

Tom is right.  The statement she was agreed with was that a raped woman could not get pregnant.

44

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission

« on: June 28, 2022, 02:29:35 PM »

I'm trying to imagine what would have happened if Trump's driver and security had allowed him to go to the Capitol with the mob.

The protesters would probably have still attacked it (since the Proud Boys apparently had already decided to do so).

Would security still have tried to stop them?  Or would the Capitol police have stepped back and let them in?  Would they have grabbed Pence and Pelosi--and then what?  With Trump standing in the background watching it all? 

That would have been a coup, obvious to everyone.  By the President of the United States of America, standing with them and egging them on. 

We were saved by his limo driver...

45

General Comments / Re: SOP

« on: June 28, 2022, 10:39:01 AM »

Hey, do you have Soros' phone number?  I haven't been getting my Liberal Activist Payments lately, and I'm starting to get mad. 

46

General Comments / Re: SOP

« on: June 27, 2022, 05:57:37 PM »

Everyone ready for this weekend’s nights of rage from the left? I wonder which city will be the first to peacefully burn?

Well, you called it, Crunch.  Just look at this footage I found of rioters in Portland from Fox News.

Compare it to footage of the protest from January 6.

As anyone can see, the pro-abortionists are much more violent and destructive than the Right has ever been.  It's going to be a long, bloody summer, isn't it? 

#1, your links are reversed. #2,

Whoopsie! I must have been tired and mixed them up.  I guess my conclusions should be reversed, too.

... there is no equivalence between footage of damage done versus a montage of events as they happened with people in it. To draw your conclusion, you'd have to take footage of the capitol grounds on Jan 7th, and show that the broken windows were worse than the graffiti. Or you'd have to show the people in Portland as they were tagging the building from the most violent available perspective and show that they were less violent.

Of course, choosing Portland really is cherry picking anyway, especially your choice of event.

My problem was that that Fox News clip was about all I could find. 

With cell phones and the Conservative Media chomping at the bit, I was expecting footage at least as violent as the George Floyd riots, but all I found was that silly panning shot of graffiti.     Was I looking in the wrong places?  Was Fox sleeping on the job?  Or was there simply very little actual violence this last weekend, with no buildings burned, few windows smashed, and no extreme acts worse than writing on the wall?

I fear that things are going to get bad, but I don't think it will be from riots and such.  I believe it will come from clashes between those defending a woman's right to control her own body and those defending the right of a fetus to live, with some instances of one side or the other forcing their beliefs on the general public.  Both sides feel they are in the right and won't compromise.  After all, the most reasonable compromise (fetus' right can override the woman's right at point of viability--i.e. when there is a good chance it can survive on it's own) just got struck down by the SCOTUS.

The rage from the left comes as a response to violence against people.  This will be a slow burn and will build over time, especially as the Right tries to further their position and try to pass a Federal law banning abortions, against the will of the majority of the American people.

47

General Comments / Re: SOP

« on: June 27, 2022, 01:37:55 AM »

Everyone ready for this weekend’s nights of rage from the left? I wonder which city will be the first to peacefully burn?

Well, you called it, Crunch.  Just look at this footage I found of rioters in Portland from Fox News.

Compare it to footage of the protest from January 6.

As anyone can see, the pro-abortionists are much more violent and destructive than the Right has ever been.  It's going to be a long, bloody summer, isn't it? 

48

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...

« on: June 24, 2022, 02:08:01 PM »

When the lives of yourself and those you love are on the line, "letting it go" is not an option.  Because how do you "let go" the preventable death of a loved one?

Obviously, what we need is a Constitutional Amendment to clarify the restrictions on possessing a firearm.

Which means, of course, that a lot, lot more people have to die before we can get to that place.     (Stock market tip: invest in funeral homes.)

But when it's your life on the line, there is no justification to "let go."  You go down swinging because you have nothing to lose.

49

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...

« on: June 24, 2022, 01:26:15 PM »

Time for those who wanted reform to recognize they have lost and to let it go...

Are you saying that people who have loved ones who are killed should "let it go?"  That those who are might not have been killed if some stricter laws were passed should say, "Oh well, too bad, so sad.  The 2nd Amendment is so much more important than my child's life.  It's all for the best in the end"?

I don't think that is an option.

50

General Comments / Re: God Exists

« on: June 17, 2022, 06:18:56 PM »

If the estimated matter to dark matter ratio (6 dark matter to 1 regular matter) were reversed I would agree. But the evidence for extra gravity coming from a distribution of "stuff" we can't see is pretty vast at this point. The universe is big with a lot of stuff, but that's one massive accounting error.

One thing not being accounted for is spacetime itself. What is it? It can't be actually nothing, even though aether theory was discarded in the early 20th century. The accelerating expansion of the universe requires an explanation, and thus far none is even being entertained as a mainstream idea. Part of the behavior of macro systems (galactic or supercluster level) is going to ride on the nature of the medium the matter inhabits. But that's just one theory. It can have to do with entanglement; it can have to do with quantum effects we haven't measured yet; it can have to do with the vacuum catastrophe. It can be anything really.

You have to remember that the aether was the supposed medium that light travelled through, like water is the medium that ocean waves travel through.

And that the Michelson-Morley experiment was very accurate--more accurate than any measuring device at the time.  Because it didn't actually measure anything, but rather the difference between the distances that light had to travel, as measured by the frequency of the light itself.

The fact that it has been measured repeatedly, with greater accuracy over time, to levels most other experiments only dream of, and is only of the bases of General Relativity, means that it is very, very unlikely it is there.