Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Aris Katsaris

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Well it's one thing to have a situation in which all qualified potential hires are considered regardless of their gender or race and then the women win out. It's quite another what Biden appears to be doing which is to completely disqualify people based specifically on their race and gender.

So, should I assume you were upset at Trump when he said that he'd choose a woman to replace Ginsburg in the Supreme Court, and he said "I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men."?

I'm assuming that was okay because, see, instead of Trump putting it forward as being done in the interests of minority representation and social justice and the good of the nation, he spoke of it instead as his personal privilege to put types of people that he personally likes more than types of people that he personally dislikes, right? In the same sense it'd be similarly okay if he said the SC court should be a redhead woman with big breasts because he likes redhead women with big breasts more than small-breasted brunette women.

So, if Biden had instead actually literally said: "I think all my press corps should be black women, because black women are awesome and white men suck balls", that'd be good and okay, right?

See, if we are discussing a population of 350 millions, the *direct* effect of whether 7 women will be chosen for the press corps or not is trivial on gender equality in the nation -- it's literally parts per million. The actual effect that matters is the indirect one: the various groups of the nation feeling represented in government. White men have the presidency, and the vast majorities in the Senate and Congress. You'll survive having other groups be overrepresented in one minor, and largely trivial thing, the press corps.

When you have racial and gender conflict, and a group feeling oppressed, a wise statesman takes steps in helping them not feel that.

2
Quote
White men need not apply.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but the President himself will be a white man.
(As is the current president. And as were 43 of the 44 presidents before him.)

But your reaction certainly showcases how much Trump voters *do* understand the value of minority representation -- the actual problem is that Trump voters only care about minority representation when it concerns their own particular minority, rather than about minorities in general.

Your particular minority (white men) will indeed be underrepresented in Biden's press team -- but you're being a bit selective here, aren't you? White men are currently extremely overrepresented everywhere else in American politics (including Congress & the Supreme Court), so I think your particular minority can manage having just an underrepresentation in Biden's press team.

3
One video I recently watched (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG8RxXCxuPg) says that Trump is facing prosecution for state crimes (e.g. bank fraud and/or tax fraud, depending on whether he was overestimating the value of his property to get loans or underestimating the value of his property for tax purposes -- or both) -- and that's the reason he's in a real pickle, because only federal crimes can be pardoned.

He needed to keep the presidency to avoid prosecution for another 4 years...

4
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 27, 2020, 09:28:03 PM »
Cherry, three years ago, Maduro was accusing Smartmatic of being the stooge of USA, when it said that the Venezuelan elections were rigged, and that the results the company had disagreed than the ones claimed by the Venezuelan regime.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/03/venezuela-president-says-smartmatic-bowing-to-us-in-turnout-claims

Now Trump is accusing the same company of supposedly conspring with Venezuela, that Venezuela 3 years ago accused of conspiring with Trump. Or... not the same company, but rather a different company that they try to argue is related, because they somehow want to bring Venezuela into this?

Except, you know, in the Venezuela case we have the company disagreeing with the Venezuelan authorities' tally, and now we have the company agreeing with every state authority's tally, and merely disagreeing with Trump who can guess what the right number of votes must have been based not on any tally or anythjng, but based on his gut feeling.

5
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 27, 2020, 08:20:53 PM »
All the logic in this election points to Trump winning by a landslide. Obama, beloved by his Democrat voters, couldn't whip up 65 million votes, even with his popularity and enthusiasm. 

It's almost as if more people vote when you allow and encourage mail-in voting.

Also people were not enthusiastic for Biden, but they were VERY enthusiastic against Trump. Indeed  I assure you people on the 'left' hate Trump much more than they loved Obama.

Also let me note as an example that the New Hampshire 2020 Democratic primaries, had about 20% more votes than the equivalent 2016 primaries of the same state.

So if I add 20% to the votes Hillary got in 2016 in New Hampshire (about 350,000), it turns I get a number (about 420,000) that's very close to the votes that Biden got in 2020 in new Hampshire. (about 425,000)

Gee, it looks as if the election results do make sense, if you take into account how much more invested Democrats were in defeating Trump than they were in 2016.

---

You are no longer speaking about the supposed raids on the supposed servers in Frankfurt and Spain?

Well I'm sure Trump has all the proof he needs from those raids, so I wish you the best of luck in bringing that evidence to the Supreme Court.

How much would you bet that the Supreme Court will grant Trump his win, and at what odds would you be willing to make a bet?

6
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 27, 2020, 02:22:02 PM »
I really want to see what'll happen when the cases go to Supreme Court, and what Trump's three picks will do. I expect and hope they'll all side with the other judges, and it'll be a 9-0 blowout (or 8-0 if there's a recusal), but it'll be fun to see.

7
And hear that clearly, because it's an important point that puts to lie the idea that they really want every vote counted.  There is zero interest on the left in discovering fraud for the purpose of election integrity.  Now if they'd lost?  You'd never hear the end of it, they're still claiming that Bush "stole" his election and that Trump was illegitimate in his first term.

The more hilarious side of it is they're also complaining about Trump not pursuing claims of election fraud in states he won. Well hey, if they think voter fraud is going to be so easy to demonstrate in the states Trump won, sounds like a good project for some Democrat activists to get cracking on that. At least the Republican controlled states are interested in protecting the integrity of their elections, they'd likely welcome the audit more warmly than the Dems are.

Who is "they" who are complaining or who think there was voter fraud in the states Trump won, any famous names one would recognize among the Democrats? Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Obama, anyone else well known?

Or are you using the words of some random unknown people in the internet to compare with the unsubstantiated accusations by Trump and his close allies?

8
You are illogical and erroneous where you claim that I can tell him he has no evidence.  I have no basis for that claim (neither do you).

Ah, you can tell me that *I* have no basis for *my* claim, but I'm illogical and erroneous if I say he has no basis for *his* claim.

I do wonder how you are able to doublethink like that.

Quote
Interestingly illogical, but as you're stating an opinion about what a sane person ought to know I'll write it off as an opinion.

Write off all the opinions you like, my opinions tend to get verified by reality.  Like... still no Kraken? Still no courts overthrowing the certified results of all the states and giving 410 electors to Trump. Means I got verified, and wmLambert hasn't? That's the ultimate judge of sanity, that my understanding of the world matches reality, and hardcore Trumpists' reality doesn't?

Let's remember how supposedly coronavirus was no worse than the flu?

Let's remember than just one month before the election or so, wmLambert was claiming that the Democrats had given up on Biden, and were searching for a replacement. I offered him a bet, and kept making the conditions more and more favourable for him (to the point he'd just have to admit he was wrong if Biden was on the ticket after all, while I'd give him a large sum of money if he didn't), but he failed to accept it.

Let's remember Birthergate, pushed by Trump himself, and let's remember Pizzagate, pushed by Michael Flynn (whom btw Trump just pardoned), and more recently the cult of Qanon which worships Trump as a fighter against the leftist Satanist cabal, and imagines that every typo he makes on tweets is a secret coded message.

Like there's a parallel reality of cultlike delusions Trumpists live in, and you think the problem is I have no basis to claim that *they* have no basis for what they claim.

9
Quote
How on earth would I be able to decisively state that such raids didn't happen?

Well, you could tell him that he has absolutely zero evidence that this fiction happened, and that it's extremely implausible for the reasons you already described in your comment (and several more besides).

It was frustrating how in the threads he spewed such nonsense there wasn't a a single Trump-voter that would tell him "Dude, no, what you're describing is insane, and you have no valid reason to believe it happened". Not you, not cherry, not noel, not anyone. Only the people who opposed Trump would do so.

And yes, we're all talking about the same metaphorical Kraken that Sidney Powell has also been talking about. Thankfully wmLambert's delusion hasn't reached the point of a literal Kraken. But the metaphorical Kraken is also not going to happen, and by this point every sane person ought know it.

More proof of Democrat projection. Sidney Powell release the Kraken: https://twitter.com/i/status/1327379704014393344

BTW, you do know that President Trump, in 2018, put in place an order creating a national emergency concerned with foreign election involvement, and Dominion, being a Canadian firm, fits the particulars.

Imagine the pleasure Trump would get should the U.S. government seize all assets from the Clinton's, Soros, Pelosi, Schiff, Schummer, etc. Dorsey and Zuckerberg as well. National Emergency, remember?

The seizure of the servers in Spain and Frankfort showed Trump winning 410 electoral votes - a landslide.

If you want to become welathy, invest in orange jumpsuits.

States can certify all they want. These lawsuits will decertify them.

10
Is there something in particular you think he's being delusional about that is either illogical or harmful?  Happy to take it up if I agree.

He insists there were CIA raids on Frankfurt servers that proved Trump won by 410 votes. He keeps telling people to await for the Kraken to be released.

Do you believe in either of these?

If not, will you tell him so, because so far it's only been opponents of Trump who tell him such raids didn't happen, and there's no Kraken to be released?

11
General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: November 25, 2020, 12:30:44 AM »
Whatever was ever happening in Libya over the years, it was not at war in any sense of the term prior to Europe + USA annihilating it.

There was a month and a half of civil war BEFORE any Western military involvement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_Civil_War_before_military_intervention

Nor was Syria "at war" with any recognized government prior to the attempt to knock them over.

"With any recognized government?" That's your issue, whether the people they were at war with was a "recognized government" or not?

Or you don't seem to think that civil wars can happen without America's involvement?

Are you blaming United States for the entirety of Arab Spring? Both the Libyan and Syrian civil war arose from the protests that began there. In both cases the USA gave support to the protesters against the regime -- *once* the civil war had started.

I mean the USA/Europe were probably wrong to get involved, yes, but they didn't start the wars.

12
General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: November 24, 2020, 08:08:55 PM »
Quote
Trump started no new wars

Neither did Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. (They didn't start the war in Kosovo or Libya, wars were already taking place there)

Unless I'm forgetting something, the only living US president who started a war has been George W. Bush.

Quote
under his Presidency our military casualty numbers were very low.

Though my understanding is that under his presidency the military casualty numbers were higher than they were in 2011 and 2012 (Obama's last two years). And of course the reason the casualty numbers in Obama's earlier years were high, was that he had inherited the Iraq war from George W. Bush.

Or to put it differently, it's Obama that brought the casualty numbers low from Bush's peak, Trump merely didn't raise them back up.

13
Trump's legal score  1-36.   Maybe he should consider a new legal team. One that knows the law.  Oh, yeah, then they would not be filing these trivial suits.

Is there a site or something that tracks the progress of each of these and remaining lawsuits, btw?

14
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 24, 2020, 05:35:42 PM »
Overly optimistic. He'll probably run again on 2024 and stoking the flames up to that point.

15
Lol, DonaldD, as always, you provide nothing of substance and a whole lot of partisan falsity.  It's a narrative the media and the DNC like to share that Barr is a partisan hack, but they know it's not true, it's just passed along to fool the naive and excite the base.

Biden knows Barr is harmless, and that it would look like some kind of enormous concession to the "Trump" supporters to keep him in place.  But Biden would have to be serious about the DOJ being a non-partisan organization to do it, and he's not remotely interested in that result.

I've no opinion on Barr, as I've not looked into him but "The Caesar's wife must not only be honorable, but also look it."

If Barr is currently believed to be a partisan hack, he'd be a bad choice even if the accusation is false.

16
I like these delusional trolling threads.

Have you ever not spoken a word against wmLambert's delusions, even though as a Trump supporter you might be one of the people here in a position to shake him back to sanity?

Unlike you I read the Mueller report, there's no crime there

I admit I've not read the report.
However neither have you, at best you've read the redacted report.

Redacted report

Page 5
Quote
Around the same time, candidate Trump announced that he hoped Russia would recover emails described as missing from a private server used by Clinton when she was Secretary of State (he later said he was speaking sarcastically) REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED. Wikileaks began releasing Podesta's stolen emails on October 7, 2016, less than one hour after a U.S. media outlet released video considered damaging to candidate Trump.

Do you know if there's anything incriminating in the REDACTED part? Nah, you don't. And so many many pages with redacted material on them.


Page 9:
Quote
The investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false statements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period, pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about, inter alia, the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow project

Gee, there seems to be actual crimes here, and even people pleading guilty to them.


17
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 23, 2020, 11:01:56 AM »
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/22/joe-biden-won-illegal-votes-thousands-noncitizens-/

"Based in New Jersey, Just Facts concluded that thousands of “extra” noncitizen votes went to Mr. Biden, enough to flip Arizona (plus 51,081) and Georgia (plus 54,950), but not sufficient to flip the election.

“This is just one kind of fraud,” Mr. Agresti told The Washington Times. “It’s a sizable number, which is the point. It also decimates the predominant narrative that there is no evidence of large-scale fraud in U.S. elections.”

Is evidence of this possible? Since votes cannot be matched to people after the fact, how could anyone ever prove this?

I don't think they could prove it after the fact, even if it happened, no.

The guy only does guesswork statistics. Basically he says:
- There's X number of illegal immigrants in each state
- Based on studies, he says there's Y% probability of them registering to vote illegally.
- Based on polling, he says there's Z% probability of them voting Democrat.
- so, largely based on polling, he concludes by multiplying x * y% * z% to get how many votes he calculates were cast illegally for Biden.

But polling and guesswork is not good evidence. There's like a 4% people who respond "Yes" to the question if they've ever been decapitated, because people don't understand the question, or like to joke with the pollster, or simply press the wrong button in phone surveys.

So if someone has polled noncitizens and concluded e.g. 4% people of noncitizens vote, the actual number could be as low to 1% or 0%, and the other people just didn't get the question (they might have thought it meant *would* you register to vote if it was legal, or they meant that they'd voted in their home countries, or something else altogether) or pressed the wrong button or something.

There's another point that would hugely inflate the numbers he calculated -- there's a study about noncitizens registering to vote illegally, but that's often done accidentally, while they're applying for something else (like a driving licence). So if he concludes that y% of noncitizens vote, just because y% of noncitizens *registered* to vote, that would be a *massive* overestimation on his part.

Anyway, no actual evidence he gives about the current election, just a calculation from past studies about how many votes may be getting cast illegally.

18
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 22, 2020, 03:54:41 PM »
By that standard a law could be passed requiring everyone in America to get a Covid-19 vaccine. Hundreds of thousands of lives would be saved. We could get back to normal tout suite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.

--

Now I don't know about the *federal government*, but given the above SC decision, state governments certainly can pass such laws.

Quote
I could agree with some serious protesting if Trump went to the Supreme Court with that and managed to steal Pennsylvania, maybe even the Presidency.

Even if Trump somehow took Pennsylvania, that would of course not be nearly sufficient for him to reach the number of necessary electors. He'd need to find ways to take several more states, and he's not been having any luck so far.

19
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 21, 2020, 07:09:05 PM »
More proof of Democrat projection. Sidney Powell release the Kraken: https://twitter.com/i/status/1327379704014393344

BTW, you do know that President Trump, in 2018, put in place an order creating a national emergency concerned with foreign election involvement, and Dominion, being a Canadian firm, fits the particulars.

Imagine the pleasure Trump would get should the U.S. government seize all assets from the Clinton's, Soros, Pelosi, Schiff, Schummer, etc. Dorsey and Zuckerberg as well. National Emergency, remember?

The seizure of the servers in Spain and Frankfort showed Trump winning 410 electoral votes - a landslide.

If you want to become welathy, invest in orange jumpsuits.

States can certify all they want. These lawsuits will decertify them.

You live in a parallel reality, mate.

There's been no seizures of servers in Spain, Frankfurt, etc. Not even Trump claims any such happened. You keep repeating random fictions you've heard by random people on the internet.

Seriati, cherry, noel, everyone else here who voted for Trump, can you please speak to this guy a few words, just to try to break him out of his insanity? You know he won't listen to anyone who opposes Trump, but perhaps other Trump supporters might save the guy from his spiral down into insanity, if you spoke to him.

Or do you guys agree with what he's saying?

20
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 21, 2020, 12:30:37 PM »
Yeah, I also think there isn't enough anywhere near enough evidence to convict Trump of crimes at this point in a court of law.

To condemn him morally yes, oh he's definitely guilty as hell.

But there's not enough evidence to actually convict him legally here.

21
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 21, 2020, 09:39:54 AM »
We've entered a new age in politics.

The age of by any means necessary.

Do you realize how much like a criminal you sound like? The excuse of "everyone does it" is what every criminal says to himself, as the only way to justify what is otherwise unjustifiable. Because it's literally the worst possible excuse, and almost always it's self-deceit meant to pacify your conscience.

Note, that the people on the 'other side' here, never once claimed that investigating Trump's Russian collusion was actually a case of "by any means necessary", or that it was supposedly justified because Republicans supposedly did it first with Bill Clinton. (I had actually forgotten about Bill Clinton's impeachment, until DonaldD remind me about it just now). Shame on them if they ever did (which I don't expect them to have done). Same way that shame on you right now.

Btw, in case you're too stupid to realize it, "by any means necessary" also implies assassinations and civil war. Be very careful about what you wish for. You are so gloriously happy that you'll have 50 million Americans, many of them armed to the teeth, thinking they're living in a dictatorship, and which would be their moral duty to overthrow, by any means necessary.

22
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 20, 2020, 08:18:23 PM »
How could Trump win? Well if his good buddy Amy over at the Supreme Court pulls some strings or something and gets tens of thousands of Biden votes thrown out I guess that would do it.

Didn't she say something about recusal if any election issue comes before the court?

Possible 4-4 rulings incoming, in which case, the lower court ruling stands.

Call me naive but I'd be hoping for a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling here. Or 8-0 if there's a recusal. There's hopefully a difference between "conservative judge" and "wants to overthrow democracy".

A split SC on a case like this would be horrific.

23
20th of January is still two months away, the list of Trump's crimes will have significantly increased by that time.

24
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 19, 2020, 08:11:59 PM »
Is "both sides" your eternal excuse, cherry?

Quote
https://anncoulter.com/2020/11/18/gee-why-cant-trump-accept-defeat-like-the-democrats/

"In 1980, Democratic President Jimmy Carter lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan, 489-49 in the Electoral College. So naturally, Democrats concluded that Reagan had committed treason in order to steal the election, to wit: His campaign had conspired with Iranian ayatollahs to prevent 52 American hostages from being released until after the election."

You've not learned to parse things properly, have you, and read properly what they're telling you and what they're not telling you? Look at the weak-ass "Democrats" there. How many Democrats out of the millions of Democrats in America? One of them, two, ten? No name you'd actually recognize, that's why Ann Coulter uses the weak-ass "Democrats concluded", without giving details. And look at what dates she gives for when it was actually reported by the media, when the theory stopped being obscure.... The first one non-obscure one was in 1987, seven years after the election, and AFTER the Iran-Contra scandal was exposed.

Changes your narrative, eh? Instead of 'two sides of the same coin', what we have instead when we see the details is "Reagan won, and though the hostages were released within minutes of his inauguration, no noteworthy Democrat suggested collusion with the enemy, certainly nobody in Jimmy Carter's campaign, and such a conspiracy theory only gained prominence seven years later after another scandal relating to collaboration between Iran and the Reagan administration was discovered".

25
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 19, 2020, 06:36:08 PM »
As to the courts, I doubt anyone thinks they've been bribed.  They think they're partisans.  It doesn't take a phd in rocket science to match up the President that appointed a judge with the direction of the decisions they make.

When the Supreme Court also turns Trump's claims down, even though there's a conservative majority and Trump appointed 3 of the 9 judges... then I'm guessing you'll hear claims they've been bought by the Democrats, and Trump lamenting the backstabbing SC judges.

Quote
So far Biden is playing it right and even Trump's supporters are beginning to doubt him.  The media's selective reporting scam works or we wouldn't even be having this discussion.  I saw some pretty interesting statistics that show up to a third of Biden voters were unaware of the connections of Joe and Hunter to China, or in fact of the whole Hunter problem and that if they had known it may have resulted in up to a 15% change in votes.  That's stunning.  Imagine what would have happened if 2-3 of those Covid vaccines had been announced as 90%+ successful in mid October.

Does it not bother you at all that apparently it took suppressing the truth, lying about the candidate and lying about his policies to win the election for Biden?  If there's fraud on top of that election interference, it's just a stunning pile of dung at the end of the day.  If Biden had better policies he should have been able to win on them.

This extends the discussion to a far far wider topic than the topic currently at issue, that would take volumes of discussion. But in brief: I don't have rose-tinted glasses about democracy, nor about the population always being an *informed* population.

But even uninformed, the population must decide. You may hate it about how not enough people knew about Hunter/Biden and his dealings with China or whatever, or that the media didn't report it in the way you feel they should. I may likewise hate that e.g. Trump pretends to be a Christian, and thus gets the faithful Christian vote, even though he isn't. You may think "If only the media told them about Hunter Biden", and I may likewise think "If all those Christians only realized Trump doesn't give a crap about God".

That all in all, well I won't call it a wash -- but it's unpredictable in which direction the vote would go if every voter was perfectly informed about everything.

26
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 19, 2020, 05:33:43 PM »
The people who still believe, or say they believe, that this election was stolen will be just like the ones who still believe that Trump colluded with Russia and stole the 2016 election.

Some will actually believe it and others will just say they believe it because it serves their purposes.

I mean we still have people who say that the Supreme Court stole the election from Gore and handed it to Bush. And this is how many years later?

That's just the way the game is played now.

So basically, you were being dishonest when you were saying "it will help legitimize Biden's presidency" -- you never actually believed that. In fact you are indeed seeking the opposite, out of revenge for Democrats' (supposedly) doing the same to you.

The difference about Gore's election is that the facts are not actually in doubt. We know what happened. We know it was a few hundreds votes apart in Florida, we know the Supreme Court stopped the recount. People can argue about whether they were right or wrong to do so, but the facts aren't really in doubt. And nobody AFAIK is actually claiming fraud there, certainly I don't remember Gore asserting fraud.

The difference with the Trump investigation, is that the Russians actually *censored*ing interfered in the election, and Trump's campaign did communicate with the Russians. You know what the equivalent would have to be now, if you want to draw actual parallels? Imagine if some leftist country, say Venezuela, had been proven to have helped commit millions of votes worth of fraud in favour of Democrats, imagine that it was known that Venezuela had been in communication with the Democrats -- and the only question was whether there was enough proof that they'd actually colluded on that crime. *That'd* be the equivalent now, of what the Russian collusion case was 4 years ago.

But under Trump's psychopathic lying, we don't actually need a crime to have taken place at all! Instead he has people believing that there's millions of votes that got switched. That's what Trump claims, that's what his naive fans believe are the facts of the matter. They think *those* are the facts. He doesn't speak about fear of fraud, or worries about fraud, or the need to investigate in case there was such -- he speaks it as a fact that there has been massive fraud, he has fired people who've insisted otherwise.

Your hypocritical obsession about what Democrats have or haven't done in the past is disgusting. YOU are the people who can't *censored*ing have it both ways. You can't have spent decades whining that Gore wanted a recount in Florida, and now thinking it perfectly proper when Trump wants to disenfranchise million of voters. You can't complain that HOW DARE THEY INVESTIGATE AN ACTUAL CRIME (Russian interference in USA election) which btw, HAS INFACT BEEN PROVEN IT INDEED HAPPENED, and now you think it perfectly fine for Trump to open his mouth and accuse everyone of everything without a shred of evidence.

At least the Trumpist idiots *believe* what he's saying -- you don't believe it and you're still justifying it with self-serving excuses. Shame on you.

27
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 19, 2020, 04:29:58 PM »
Most of this is just to cross every t and dot every i and will end up helping legitimize Biden's victory

I don't know if you're so much in denial about human psychology, or whether you yourself don't believe what you're saying.

The vast majority of people who currently believe Trump in his claims of Biden being elected fraudulently will NEVER believe otherwise, no matter how many investigations and court decisions. And the longer this nonsense goes on, the more they'll be stubborn in their beliefs, having sunk too many costs, declared their belief too strongly and too repeatedly to back down.

If an investigation decides otherwise, they'll say the investigation was fraudulent.
If a court decides otherwise, they'll say the court was bought.

The alternative would be to say that they were wrong -- and not just on a matter of fact, but also on a matter of ethics, by accusing people of a horrible crime with absolutely zero evidence.

The majority of people don't change their minds, once made. And the more irrational their belief, the most unlikely they're to change it, because they'll have to admit they shouldn't have held that belief in the first place.

What you're saying about how it'll help "legitimize Biden's victory" goes against human psychology.

But we can make a bet if you want. Whether 6 months from now, after all the courts have concluded, and Biden is president, whether someone like wmLambert will concede that Biden was legitimately elected and that there was no significant amounts of fraud, at least not anywhere enough to affect the outcome.

28
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 19, 2020, 12:04:46 AM »
Sad thing is I'm giving it about 50/50 odds that Trump will also soon start tweeting he won 410 electoral votes, based on this non-existent raid on the non-existent Frankfurt offices.

He'll then fire any official who insists that there was no such raid on offices, or indeed any offices in Frankfurt.

29
General Comments / Re: Lame Duck Actions
« on: November 18, 2020, 11:23:14 AM »
Who called it for Biden?
Absolutely everyone honest and anyone who even remotely cares about appearing to be honest.

Did you make that same question when the election was called for Trump in 2016? Or is this just hypocritical nonsense?

Quote
Sure, anyone can call an election for anyone. Some random guy on a wilderness mountaintop can call the election if he wants to and scream the winner into the wind. But does it really mean anything? No, not really. Exactly the same as the people these news stories are referring to but won't name when they say the election has been called for Biden. If they were named then it would be obvious that they have no more authority to call it than than the stray cat grandma feeds in the winter.

Who declared the earth to not be flat? Do they have legal authority to declare the earth non-flat? Well, until we get some official declaration, we must pretend the earth's shape is in a position of uncertainty. /s

30
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 17, 2020, 10:34:56 PM »
Michigan just announced the numbers of votes is not correct, s it will probably go to the Republican lawmakers to pick the electors.

And you people wonder why I compare Trumpists to flat-earthers.

31
General Comments / Re: Lame Duck Actions
« on: November 17, 2020, 10:28:31 PM »
Hillary conceded, there was no dispute about who won.
Legally that gave a green light for starting the transition. Not that stopped Obama from pulling dirty tricks right up to the 20th of January.

Dishonest. Whether a candidate concedes or not doesn't legally affect whether they won or lost at all.

And lots of chutzpah speaking about Obama dirty tricks while defending Trump's shenanigans. Shame on you.

32
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: November 17, 2020, 06:26:56 PM »
If a person is being mugged in an alley, and cries for help from a passing policeman, is he seeking an 'entitlement' from the government?

Yes, he is. But I do find it odd that you'd think the policeman is the only person who might respond to the call for help.

They already have the natural right to defend themselves. They don't have a "natural right" to be defended by others. Thankfully enlightened societies don't hold to "every man for themselves" on things like this, and it may not even be the police who intervene on their behalf.

Don't annoy me by putting words in my mouth, I never said I "think the policeman is the only person who might respond to the call for help." If I give you an example of something, and ask you your opinion, does that somehow mean I don't believe different examples can happen? Don't do this thing, okay?

But if you want to know, the reason I gave that particular hypothetical example about the policeman, was so I could figure out whether the police is also part of the entitlement system that "needs to be dismantled", i.e. whether you therefore also share in the anarchist desire to 'abolish the police'.

Anyway, I am not a libertarian (nor an anarchist), and generally don't share your view on 'natural rights' vs 'entitlements', and don't see much value in that categorization. The categorization of rights in accordance to the model of the layers of Freedom/Equality/Solidarity makes better sense to me.

33
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 17, 2020, 06:09:46 PM »
Post-Soviet Russia is in no position to "sweep the board" against even the more anemic NATO forces in Europe before the US could get a response in place.

Russia could invade and occupy the Baltics easily, if they were left to their own defenses. Probably the entirety of Poland too.

And under Trump, well, I considered it highly doubtable that Trump would do a military response at all to such an action by Russia, before a new status quo was in place, and it became too difficult to reverse it.

34
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: November 17, 2020, 09:43:30 AM »
As a dog whistle the crying out for 'FREEDOM' is quite effective. When used in such a manner you usually don't have to look very deep to find that someone is attempting to create boundaries/laws to limit a some groups rights, often even those who will be doing the fighting and dying to this 'FREEDOM' only they will never see it that way until its to late.

When you say rights, I'm left to wonder if you don't mean "entitlements" instead. You might want to say they're the same thing, but they're not when approached from the perspective of Natural Rights.

Where for the purpose of Natural Rights, an entitlement is "the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment" due to (insert reason here).

For this purpose do you use 'privileges' and 'special treatment' as something that's applicable even when these 'privileges' and this 'special treatment' is given to everyone?

Because that tends to be the opposite of what 'privileges' and 'special treatment' means in normal conversation. If ones says "every child has the right to an education", that's different than saying "the children of aristocrats have the right to an education". One would normally think that 'privileges' and 'special treatment' are about the latter sentence, not about the former.

Similarly if one says "Every accused person has the right to a trial by a jury of their peers" vs if one says "Every accused nobleman has the right to a speedy trial by a jury of his peers"

The latter is 'special treatment' and a 'privilege', on account of their birth, but applying the same words to the former, sounds a bit strange.

Quote
Healthcare is an entitlement, not a natural right.

"Government assistance" in basically anything is an entitlement, not a natural right.

If a person is being mugged in an alley, and cries for help from a passing policeman, is he seeking an 'entitlement' from the government?

35
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 16, 2020, 10:40:53 AM »
it definitely would have added to the discussion if you had informed me that Greece functions as a safe training, propaganda, and terrorist gateway into Europe.

The article you yourself link says there's no islamist radicalization happening in Greece. Future terrorists had travelled through it, sure. The same way I've travelled through Switzerland when taking a flight to the UK and back. Doesn't actually mean anything.

You "translate" this into how supposedly Greece functions as a "safe training, propaganda, and terrorist gateway into Europe." Because... um, reasons. No evidence that training is taking place here. No evidence that islamist propaganda is taking place here (there's lts of christianist far-right propaganda, of course). But "terrorist gateway", because um, we have airports I guess, and people use airplanes when travelling from country to country. Sure.

In the meantime you of course ignore the actual crime of Greece, how it provided a safe harbour and training and propaganda of far-right Christian terrorists and mass-murderers who contributed to the genocide in Srebenica against muslims. Which I'd mentioned already, and I'd informed you of it already, but you didn't give a *censored* about that one, you instead argued that I didn't inform you of fictional non-existent islamist training, whatever?

Even if I didn't have memory of your past tactics, would I need any other reason than the one you've just provided, to believe you an evil liar?

You're not trying to convince, you're trying to blatantly misinform people too lazy to actually check out what your link is saying.

You're a habitual liar, trying to spread bigotry with every single lie -- same way that Trump is a habitual liar trying to spread bigotry with every lie.

Once again I'm telling you: If you're even pretending to be honest, you ought be much more worried about Christian terrorists in Greece. You know, those ones who actually *censored*ing exist.

And btw your understanding of the Anglo-French conflict is just as prejudiced and nonsensical as of the Greek-Turkish conflict.

36
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 16, 2020, 08:14:56 AM »
Yours, noel, is exactly the monomaniacal racist obsession, plus the dishonest failure to hear anything that the other person is saying that I fully expect from a Trump supporter.

From your fake pretense to supposedly care about what the Greek-Turkey conflict is about, to deliberately trying to twist it that it's about immigrants and a supposed cultural conflict, even when I'm telling you it's not, because that's just what your particular brand of Trumpist evil demands. Oh, man, Syrian jihadists! What would you do without Syrian jihadists. Well, Greece and Turkey would still be fighting, since Syrian jihadists would not even be a footnote in a 100-page volume about the Greece-Turkey conflict, but you don't care about that. You'll focus on "Syrian jihadists", because that's what your prejudice demands.

Your comparisons between Turkey and Persia (please do include the Trojans too next time) are still absurd, whether you try to put it in cultural, ethnic or racial terms. If you were both sane and honest you could have tried geography instead, and seen why a sea-based military power makes sense to hold power in the islands and hellenic peninsula, while a land-based military power makes sense to hold power in Anatolia itself - but you wouldn't do that, because that wouldn't allow you to be *censored*ty towards people based on their ancestry, which is your endgoal here, not achieving actual understanding.

37
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 16, 2020, 12:49:13 AM »
Aris,

“You maliciously refuse to listen.”

Now that is a novel form of malice. Possibly there is a deficiency in your responses?

No, there wasn't.

You're so ignorant of Greece-Turkey history that you were confusing Turks and Persians, and then you had the audacity of trying to teach me lessons about what the conflict really is about, rather than hearing me. *censored* off, you ignorant bigoted *censored*.

And btw, Greece has never had a single incident of Islamist terrorism (despite having about a million muslim immigrants since the early 1990s), we have had a LOT of Christian genocidal mass-murderers though. Enough of them that they participated in the Serb-bosnian genocide at Srebnenica, and became 3rd national party for a time, before getting thrown into jail very recently for being a criminal gang.

And those same neonazis (literal worshippers of Adolf Hitler) also heartily supported Trump btw.

That will, of course, not give you pause. Nor will you wonder why neonazis across the world loved Trump.

38
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 15, 2020, 11:39:10 PM »
No, I'm not enabling your derail anymore.

You maliciously refuse to listen.

39
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 15, 2020, 08:09:20 PM »
Quote
“Turkey claims Greece violates the religious and ethnic rights of the Turkish minority in Western Thrace. Greece refuses to recognize the minority as "Turkish" at all, and instead calls it a "muslim" minority.[/u]

These are basically the "permanent" issues. You could inflate this count by listing incidental issues like Greece accusing Turkey weaponising the movement of refugees towards Greece, or Turkey accusing Greece of assisting Kurdish terrorists, or various other accusations over the years, but those aren't really ‘disputes’ and ‘conflicts’ in the sense that the above bulletpoints are.”

How is any of this Eastern/Western cultural divide, especially if you mean Turkey representing the East and Greece the West?

I mean the *minority* thing is a case where it's Greece that fails to uphold the Western norms of recognizing ethnic minorities, and instead does a thing where it does an "Eastern" thing and treats religion as the identifying mark of a community, rather accepting their own ethnic self-identification.

Not to mention that even if I gave you that point (which I really *censored*ing DON'T) you really focused on one of the 7 bullet points, and you then pretended that all seven bullet points are about your stupid nonsensical East/West cultural divide.

Quote
Are you capable of any other criteria of analysis?

The moment you stop showing your bigoted prejudices. You asked what the Greece/Turkey conflict was about, and then you failed to listen a single word I said, because your head is filled with prejudice and bigotry. Stop listening to the echoes inside your head, and actually *censored*ing read what other people are saying for once.

40
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 15, 2020, 06:28:41 PM »
Quote
True, but “catastrophic“ for who?

For the UK, mate.

In November 2015 the british pound was worth up to 1.42 euro -- 5 years later, November 2020 it's now worth 1.12 euro. That's a fall of more than 20% of their currency's value.

And the full consequences of brexit haven't even been seen yet, as UK is still in the customs union until end of the current year.

Quote
Johnson placed a 100% ban on Huawei from the U.K.’s 5G infrastructure in July. Downing Street has also worked with Australia, Canada, and the U. S. to impose sanctions on China for its imposition of the new security law in Hong Kong.

You said that UK has a "strong ally" in America, and you instead gave me examples of UK being an ally of America. I'm asking about the different direction, what has the United States done for the UK?

Quote
The single obstacle to that trade agreement, which Britain vitally needs, is now gone.

The EU is gone, and UK still has no trade deal with the USA. What's the hold up?

Quote
At the root of this, and your bullet points, seem to be the classical East/West cultural divide. Is that a fair conclusion?

No. Not a single issue I mentioned is about the 'classical East/West cultural divide', or indeed about culture at all. It's almost all about resources, borderlines, militaries. I wonder how the f*ck in h*ll you came to a conclusion that it's supposedly about "the classical East/West cultural divide".

Frankly I think your prejudice is showing.

41
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 15, 2020, 02:31:47 PM »
Aris,

“More like 500 or 600. I suppose you would say ‘100‘ years only if you count Turkey from the time of the formation of the modern Turkish state, but obviously the Turkish nation significantly preexisted that one, as the leaders of the Ottoman empire.”

I entertained a 2,500 year conflict if Darius was used as the starting point, but Persia’s incorporation of ancient Turkey was punctuated by occupation of Byzantines in the west, and Seljuks in the east. So, what is the conflict about?

Persians aren't Turks. Persians are currently the majority of the Iranian nation.
Persia didn't incorporate "ancient Turkey" since Turkey wasn't around at that time, and the Turkish people hadn't migrated there yet -- you mean ancient Anatolia (which is a geographic term).

Quote
So, what is the conflict about?

Not really the thread for it, but sure whatever, let me give it to you in bulletpoints.

I count 6 or 7 major issues, depending on whether you count the naval/airspace issues as one or two.
- Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus (and expulsion of Greek Cypriots), after the Greek military junta attempted a coup in Cyprus in 1974. Turkey argues the presence of its troops there are necessary to protect the Turkish Cypriot population.
- Turkey has declared a casus belli if Greece expand its naval borders in the Aegean to 12 miles. as would be Greece's right by International Maritime Law (which Turkey refuses to recognize)
- Greece currently claims 10 n.m of airspace, while only 6 n.ms of naval space. Turkey acknowledges only 6 n.m of Greek airspace, same as with the naval space.
- Turkey argues that none of Greece's islands have the right to EEZ, and that Greece's EEZ can only extend from the continental parts of Greece. Greece argues that all of Greece's islands deserve full EEZ rights, even the smallest and furthest one (Kastelorizo) (which would severely limit Turkey's EEZ in the Eastern Mediterannean).
- Turkey disputes the actual ownership of certain small uninhabited islands like Imia (Kardak)
- Turkey claims Greece violates the religious and ethnic rights of the Turkish minority in Western Thrace. Greece refuses to recognize the minority as "Turkish" at all, and instead calls it a "muslim" minority.
- Turkey demands the demilitarization of certain Greek islands in the Aegean, as was promised in certain treaties of the 1920s and 1930s (I think). Greece refuses to comply.

These are basically the "permanent" issues. You could inflate this count by listing incidental issues like Greece accusing Turkey weaponising the movement of refugees towards Greece, or Turkey accusing Greece of assisting Kurdish terrorists, or various other accusations over the years, but those aren't really "disputes" and "conflicts" in the sense that the above bulletpoints are.

Quote
Britain has a strong ally in America. That was a choice which the British made democratically.

Nobody's disputing that it was a choice the British made democratically, but catastrophic choices can also be made democratically. "Has a strong ally in America"? Not under Trump, no. What makes you think it? Haven't the UK and USA failed so far to make a post-Brexit trade deal either? In what way is the USA and UK allies, during the Trump administration?

42
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 15, 2020, 11:53:20 AM »
I really don’t understand what it is between the Greeks, and Turks, but that conflict has lasted for about 100 years.

More like 500 or 600. I suppose you would say "100 years" only if you count Turkey from the time of the formation of the modern Turkish state, but obviously the Turkish nation significantly preexisted that one, as the leaders of the Ottoman empire.

Quote
visited that school about ten years ago. In a middle to upper middle class neighborhood that was 95% Caucasian, it is now 5% Caucasian, 44% Latino, 39% Asian, 20% Black, and 5% Pacific Islander. 78% of the student body are from an “economically disadvantaged” household, as determined by student eligibility for California's Reduced-price meal program. Academic achievement is reflected in the change, as is on campus violence.

As long as you don't pretend it's not a racial thing, that's my point: That Republicans don't want Puerto Rico joining because they're Hispanics.

Of course the thing about Puerto Rico is that it's currently not independent. Democracy demands that either it fully participates in American democracy or it becomes independent. Half-way solutions are undemocratic.

Quote
Do you seriously believe that “0” cases of voter fraud have been uncovered?

If it wasn't zero, I'm sure we'd have heard Trump tweeting about it already.

“You seriously, honestly, think that Trump believes what he is saying?“

Yes, and I am surprised that you do not. With his sense of self, how could he not believe what he is saying?

So you think him a person prone to delusions, not just lies, and you still voted for him?

I mean "often delusional" may be the one thing that's worse and more dangerous for his position than "habitual liar".

Quote
“Trump doesn't give a fart about the truth. See ‘Birthergate’ and every other conspiracy theory he's been willing to spew.“

He thought that Ted Cruz’s father was a communist Castro disciple too, because he saw it in the Enquirer.

Why are you assuming Trump really thought it, instead of just pretending to?

Quote
“You're rejecting a democratic result, just because you don't like it, and allegations of fraud are bull*censored* that you yourselves don't believe in.”

Wow, you are strangely invested in America for someone who despises half of its citizens.

Nah, Trump only got 70 million votes. That's like what only 1/5th of American citizens? I'm pretty sure I'd despise equivalent numbers of humanity everywhere.

And up to Trump's presidency, America and its president was the "leader of the free world". Sometimes (e.g. under G.W. Bush) it was the moronic brainless leader of the free world, but the leader of the free world nonetheless.

With Trump, America lost its leadership and became a rogue nation.

Have you noticed that even Trump's supporters don't call the US president the leader of the free world anymore? Not when he's the ally of people like Putin, and he instead acts as the ambassador of his wishes to G7 instead. Not when he's pulling out of major treaties, not when he's treating all its former allies as enemies instead.

Right now the free world is leaderless -- the USA a rogue nation under Trump, UK isolated after the catastrophic Brexit, EU slow-moving and disunited without the institutions yet in place (or likely ever) to hold a united front.

And taking advantage of America's Trump-instigated absense, the imperialist ambitions of nations like Russia, China, Turkey are rising, threatening all their neighbours with war.

43
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 15, 2020, 12:50:56 AM »
It seems like fair play would demand that Democrats at least wait until Dec. 13th before they demand Trump's concession.

2000 was a difference of less than a thousand votes in a single state, where btw Jeb Bush was governor.

Trump now has to overturn probably fifty thousand votes across three or four states.

Strange how you have to go back to 2000. Why not look to 2016, where the electoral outcome was same as now, 306 to 232? Isn't that a fairer comparison?

Somehow Hillary Clinton conceded on the day immediately followjng the election. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/donald-trump-won-now-what.html
"Hillary Clinton publicly conceded the election to Donald J. Trump on Wednesday, acknowledging the pain of the defeat in remarks in New York while calling on her supporters to accept that he would be president and give him a chance to lead with an open mind."

 "According to the authors of Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign, by late Tuesday night the White House had concluded that Trump would win the election. Obama's political director David Simas called Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook to persuade Clinton to concede the election, with no success. Obama then called Clinton directly, citing the importance of continuity of government, to ask her to publicly acknowledge that Trump had won"

But you know, that's the difference between responsible adults, and irresponsible manchildren,

Quote
Would you be in favor of naturalizing Turks on a massive scale?

The equivalent of Hispanics for America are probably Albanian immigrants for Greece, and yes I'd be overjoyed if many many more of them were allowed to vote.

I also supported the Annan plan for Cyprus, which would have brought together the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities again.

By your comparison between Greece and Turkey, I guess you are implying that Puerto Rico is a great military threat to the United States, with many times the military might of the United States, and thus you are worried about giving it any more leverage over you, because you are worried it'll use such leverage to conquer your land and annex your territories.

44
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 14, 2020, 09:20:27 PM »
Quote
“Why's he making all those fraud claims and statements about him winning?“

Because he believes what he is saying.

You seriously, honestly, think that Trump believes what he is saying?

Trump doesn't give a fart about the truth. See "Birthergate" and every other conspiracy theory he's been willing to spew.

Quote
The reason that “every election” has not needed the same treatment, is that there has been a qualitative change in what Democrats are willing to do to acquire, and maintain, power.

LOL. So much for other people supposedly doing circular reasoning. You're not saying an investigation is always needed, you're saying an investigation is needed because you decided that the Democrats are evil.

Well, I've decided then that Trump and every *censored* who voted for him is evil and suspect of voting fraud, as evidenced by how Trump admires president-for-life Putin, as evidenced by how Trump urged his voters to vote twice, as evidenced by how he said he would seek a third term as president, even though that was blatantly unconstitutional.

Trump has repeatedly proven that he'd do anything to get and maintain powers, and that he admires other people (again like Putin) who would do anything to get and maintain power -- while he's supported by blatantly neo-fascist groups who hate democracy and all it stands for.

As evidenced by the fact that you *censored* don't accept a clear democratic win by his opponent either. You're rejecting a democratic result, just because you don't like it, and allegations of fraud are bull*censored* that you yourselves don't believe in.

Quote
I would say that there was a 100% chance of voter fraud. It apparently was not enough.

Or maybe it was, and Trump became an illegitimate president because of it.

Quote
If you follow American politics very closely, you will note that Republicans have always been the primary advocates of voting security.

Nah, Republicans tend to be in favour of fewer people of color voting. They claim "security" in order to make people go through hoops before they can vote, in hopes that they won't vote at all.

I mean, you guys have really not made it a secret that you really don't want Puerto Rico becoming a state. Are you gonna claim that has anything to do with security? It has everything to do with preventing Hispanics from voting, as they mostly tend to vote Democrat.

Quote
If any court determines there was “no fraud”, I then know that court is full of crap.

"No evidence of fraud" or "No discernible fraud" if you want to be nitpicky. What if the court decides that?

45
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 14, 2020, 06:20:04 PM »
You are diving into the circular argument again. Investigation is how voter fraud is determined.

So if there has to be investigation before you conclude if there's voter fraud or not, why aren't you asking for an "investigation" on all 50 states in every elections?

Was there such an investigation in 2016? If not, are you saying that there's a 50% probability that Trump became president in 2016 due to voter fraud? If not 50%, what probability do you assign to Trump having been elected president in 2016 due to voter fraud?

Quote
Here we go again; you do not get to determine that.

Yet somehow it's fine for Trump to determine there's lots and lots of evidence?

By this point we've seen the 'evidence' that the Trump campaign had: every informed individual can determine it. And every single court that has seen the so-callled evidence, has rejected the allegations of fraud.

Quote
That is the difference between us, I want the fraud uncovered, and terminated.

And if the investigation determines there's been no fraud, I'm sure you'll say Trump owes Biden & the Democrats an apology for insisting there was. /s

46
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 13, 2020, 12:16:03 PM »
No matter how innocent you claim to be, any Democrat apologist in this forum must admit it is the Democrats who have tried to steak this election.

No, it's the Republican president who asked people to vote twice.

This video gives a collection of all the lawsuits made and the 'evidence' that the Trump team has shown:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6pI3-nWmSQ

Case after case, each one gets dismissed with each judge saying the equivalent of "No evidence has been shown that there was any illegality".

At this point, all the Trumpers have to go on, is their assumption stated in advance, that they can only lose if there's fraud. That's the only evidence they have: They lost, therefore it must be fraud.

47
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 13, 2020, 08:55:43 AM »
Yes, let me also mention the possibility that you'll commit rape and murder.

Your outrage over the Russian investigation is also quite amusing. A crime that actually happened, and the only issue was how many were involved - and in the end people couldn't prove Trump was involved, and so you argue they should be ashamed to ever investigate the person who benefitted from the crime at all. It's actually sane and not at all shameful to investigate the person who benefits from the crime.

Not sure what the heck you're talking about.  Mueller reached the actual conclusion that there was no evidence that any American colluded with Russia

No. There was lots and lots of evidence. The report concludes there wasn't *sufficient* evidence to conclude collusion, it doesn't say there wasn't any evidence at all.

And the report does conclude that crimes did happen -- that the Russian government violated US criminal law. It describes "ten episodes where Trump may have obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected". The report says the Russian interference was "welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts".

Your constant outrage that the investigation even happened is absurd.
Do keep in mind btw, that Trump has 'redacted' parts of the report, claiming 'executive privilege'.

Quote
Mueller wasn't even able to find that the Russians even had an influence on the election.

AFAIK the Mueller report is an investigation on the crimes that happened, not a sociological investigation about how much their campaign of interference affected the voting population. So "it wasn't even able to find" -- how would you have expected to be able to find such?

Quote
And as for the impeachment, that should have gone ahead, Trump was clearly asking for a quid-pro-quo, using the power of the state to get a foreign power to give him political ammo against his political opponents in the USA.

Quote
Trump was asking?  Do you have some proof of that?

I saw the actual transcript of the Trump call.
Quote
ZELENSKY: I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We. are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. Specifically, we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United· States for defense purposes.

TRUMP: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your weal thy people. ... The server, they say Ukraine has it.
[...]The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.

It's clearly quid-pro-quo. He's asking for a favour regarding a Ukraine-rather-than-Russia-did-it conspiracy theory, and then asks ammo about Biden's son.

This is undeniably quid-pro-quo. Trump couldn't make it more explicit unless he had actually used the words "quid pro quo". The guy speaks about defense contracts, Trump responds "we need a favour though" about something utterly unrelated except in how it's about criminal investigations about him and his opponents.

Quote
Are you going to hold to this position if Joe Biden tries to investigate Trump's "crimes" by asking our foreign allies about interactions they had with him?

If Biden says that he "needs a favour though" about his political opponents or about his son or Trump's sons, when the other countries are discussing defense arrangements with the United States, yes I will.

48
Relevant earlier discussion: http://www.ornery.org/forum/index.php/topic,786.msg46861.html#msg46861
comment by cherry:
Quote
"Enrique Tarrio insists that the Proud Boys aren’t White supremacists, and he would be in a position to know. For one, he’s the international chairman. For another, he’s Black."

Anyone not for open borders is a racist. In fact, they are a white supremacist. What if they are black, Latino, or both? Doesn't matter. Still a white supremacist. Like the Jews who worked with Hitler who were still Nazis I guess. Maybe Enrique Tarrio was made an honorary white or something.

That seems to be the tact the left is taking.

I agreed with him that perhaps the Proud Boys are not white supremacist, *just* neo-fascist -- but thankfully just a few comments later, noel (unintentionally) helped convince me of the opposite:
http://www.ornery.org/forum/index.php/topic,786.msg46865.html#msg46865
Quote
I think you just helped convince me of the reverse - no, you should listen more to Europeans fearing fascism in America, because of our experience with fascism, and I should similarly trust more the opinion of Americans, about the Proud Boys being white supremacists, since after all it's Americans who have the experience of white supremacist groups.

--

So, thank you noel. It turned out indeed that a token black chairman doesn't preclude an organization from being white supremacist, and I should have listened from the start to the progressives in the United States that identified them as such.

49
General Comments / Re: CS Lewis - Man or Rabbit?
« on: November 11, 2020, 03:38:54 PM »
Quote
Funny you should say that, because as it happens I've always wondered why people pose the problem of evil as a proof of atheism at all. Like, it seems to employ so many premises that are unstated, have preconceived points of view baked in; and to the extent that even some religious people have an issue with the problem of evil (i.e. evil bothers them) it strikes me as just being a weird position to take. Formally it does have to be answered...but informally it always felt to me like "I don't like aspects of the universe so therefore there is no God." It's like...almost a totally aesthetic argument! And of course it assumes that one's present judgement is up to the task of assessing the quality of all of creation, or something like that. I mean I do think about these things too, it's just I guess I find it interesting that this is one of the chief arguments I hear against a God.

You can either ask us to use our reason to determine whether this universe was created intelligently by a moral agent, or you can ask us to abandon reason altogether.

The universe I see around me shows no evidence of being designed by a moral agent. It shows vast, profound, amorality. (It's not *cruelly* designed either... it just looks... not designed at all.)

You can argue "Oh, but a mere human is not wise enough to determine this.", well then too bad: human wisdom is all I have. God, if he exists, may feel to contact me personally, and after demonstrating his greater wisdom or intellect (perhaps by beating me in a game of chess), can perhaps tell me, "okay, Aris, I'm sorry to say this you're not smart and wise enough to understand my reasons, and for reasons that are again beyond your wisdom and understanding I won't be using my powers to expand your wisdom and understanding".

And perhaps I'll believe him or perhaps I won't.

However, right now, that's not what's happening -- you're not actually using some higher wisdom than mine, but rather asking that I abandon the wisdom I have. You want evidence for the lack of God, but when given evidence you say "Well, perhaps God wanted to make it look like the universe was not designed by an intelligence at all, but rather by random unthinking physical forces)

Well, yes, that's true. If a God wanted to, they could create a universe that looked like no moral agent designed it. Would you admit that the universe *looks* as if no moral agent designed it, even if you believe one did?

If you believe in an all-good creator of the universe, why do you do so, other than it's what your religion tells you to believe?

Quote
I guess you're aware that this is circular? Rephrased, what you're saying is "I have an objection Y to the idea of X, and since X is inconsistent with Y therefore X is probably incorrect." All that does is say a priori that Y (your objection) is accurate, therefore anything it is meant to disprove is already disproven just by virtue of it being easier to retain Y.

You're being overly verbose again, to distract from simple things.

All I'm saying is that "Your version of God doesn't exist" is the simplest possible explanation to the "problem of evil".

Why don't you accept it as explanation? Why do you need volumes to find a *different* explanation? Only because you *want to*?

Quote
Just for clarity, though, you are aware that the Christians believe that God in fact did not create a world with evil in it, that this was introduced later on through a human act of will?

Yes, yes, Adam and Eve ate a piece of fruit, and this broke the harmony between humanity and God, and thus we have tsunamis and cancer.

I am quite aware of all that bull*censored*.

Though you're forgetting the serpent, which was evil already, I suppose evil was introduced in the world twice, first by Lucifer's act of will and secondly by Adam & Eve's act of will.

Still doesn't actually serve as a reasonable explanation.

50
General Comments / Re: CS Lewis - Man or Rabbit?
« on: November 11, 2020, 12:59:59 PM »
Here you are bringing up the problem of evil, which while not at all an outlandish argument, is one that has been well-addressed by religious thought for centuries. I don't mean to just shoot down your point of view, but it's one where if one wished one could find a treasure trove of explanations about why this point does not undermine the monotheistic one. Of course that doesn't mean it proves their side either! Just that the problem of evil does not appear to present a chink in the armor of Christian metaphysics. In fact you might even say it's a feature, not a bug.

You keep speaking known things, as if any of us were somehow unaware of them.
I know it's the "problem of evil".
I know it has been "addressed" by religious thought for centuries.
I know there's a treasure trove of justifications and excuses about it.

The problem nonetheless still stands, and the explanations/excuses provided are woefully insufficient.

More to the point, even if they were somehow insufficient -- the problem wouldn't arise at all if you don't assume an omnipotent omnibenevolent god. You only have the "problem of evil", if the existence of such a god is the premise you can't allow yourself to do away with.

Between tomes of explanations vs the simple one-sentence explanation of "There is no god, or else he doesn't care about us." -- the latter wins by virtue of simplicity.

EDIT: Btw, my favourite excuse for the problem of evil is probably this one: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/03/15/answer-to-job/

which I think was more formally stated 5 years earlier by a Christian philosopher at : https://people.ryerson.ca/kraay/Documents/2010PS.pdf (though I've only skimmed this, so am not quite sure if it's the exact same argument)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5