Colorado Supreme Court rules that Trump is an insurrectionist! Not qualified to run

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 135
#121
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,287
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Then where is your evidence of widespread voter suppression?
All you have to do is use Google. Here, I'll start. First search result...

Because then we would need a new label for every single deviation, which would number in the hundreds or even thousands.
It would be millions.  That's why political parties should be abolished
This makes absolutely no sense. Political parties exist because getting things done requires finding like minded people to team up with, not because people are supposed to agree on every issue. The system is flawed and needs reform, but not because of this.

Libertarian means socially left while economically right, authoritarian means socially right while economically left.
This isn't accurate.  Libertarians disagree with the left on many social issues and they even disagree with the republicans on many economic issues.  For authoritarians, it's similar.
It's as of you are incapable of understanding the concept of a generalization. Here, maybe this will help: 

1. Abortion
2. Vaccine mandates
3. Immigration policy
4. Gun policy

There is nothing consistent about over 100 million voters wanting the government out of issues 1 and 3 while having the government involved with 2 and 4 (or vice versa) except that they are following party orders!
Well, first of all no one is saying they want the government out of immigration policy, that's not even a coherent statement.

But more importantly, your claim is just nonsense. Immigration is an entirely different type of issue so let's set that to the side, the philosophy behind almost every left wing viewpoint is that we value the concept of society. Your right to carry around a loaded firearm makes everyone else around you objectively less safe because you could at any instance decide to end the life of anyone around you. Your decision to not get vaccinated (if the science sport supports it) endangers the people around you because you have made yourself a more likely vector for the virus to spread to others. Like I've said plenty of times, the freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else's nose. That's the reality of sharing a society with other people.

Abortion is entirely different from this. In this issue we have two lives essentially battling for one body, no one else is impacted so government really doesn't have a role to play here because the well being of society at large is not at stake. We can sit and go back and forth on this issue all day long but what I always point out is that where one ultimately lands on abortion will depend on whether they see a fetus as a person. I don't, so arguments relying on that premise don't resonate with me.

There is nothing incoherent nor complicated about my position on these three issues. To say the only thing that explains why so many millions of people land on the same three can only be explained by people "following their party's orders" is ridiculous and demonstrates that you do not understand the positions you are criticizing. It's also a complete inversion of correlation/causation. The far simpler explanation is that the party is reflecting it's voters, that's literally how the system is designed. "You're only believing what you're told" is not an intelligent conclusion, it's an excuse to disregard a person's arguments because you don't understand them or just can't handle disagreement.

I could have easily used going to work
You can work remotely if you want, with a few exceptions, but those exceptions are
Again, completely ignoring the topic so you can try and poke holes in the example.

I mean, I don't really value the lives of strangers enough to sacrifice for them and the people that get angry at me for that have not thought that statement through.
If you don't care about the lives of your fellow citizens then there's nothing to talk about here.

But if you need a selfish reason to care then think about the situation where the rules are reversed and you're the one susseptible to this. If you will only respond to your own self interest, I would argue everyone working together as a team to ensure everyone's survival gives you the best chance at survival.

If human life was priceless and the government believed that human life was priceless, they could force every household in the US to adopt as many starving children as they could if it saves just one life.
Yet another strawman. No one is claiming in any serious context that any random individual's life is literally priceless. Everything we do is a balance between protecting our lives while protecting the quality of our lives. Sacrificing everything to save one person throws that balance completely out of whack.

35% death rate among non elderly people; yeah I would support lockdowns
Then it's not a question of whether we believe in lockdowns, only a matter of at what point do they outweigh personal freedom.

A vaccine mandate wouldn't be necessary as virtually everybody would willingly get vaccinated if the odds of death were 35%. 
No, everyone most certainly wouldn't. Facts do not always matter, especially once something becomes politicized. Even as COVID was ripping through red counties and killing people by the thousands, many still didn't even believe COVID was real.

I quote you every time
Quoting me is irrelevant if you interpret what I said wrong.


#122
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,287
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The fact that you don't see a battle is what makes you a failure. 
I didn't say I don't see a battle, we're just fighting very different battles. You're fighting a battle against imaginary tyranny, I'm fighting against the BS being peddled everyday that makes people like you think you're fighting a battle against tyranny.

Question: If your goal is to destroy a country's democracy and rule of law, how do you accomplish that?

Answer: By making the people of that country believe their democracy and rule of law is already destroyed. If you can accomplish that then they will justify destroying for you as a patriotic attempt to save it.

This is of course logically absurd and self defeating. You cannot save an ideal by imposing it's antithesis. But regardless, this strategy does in fact work, fascists have used it for over a century. One would just think people would get tired of the same bullshit over and over again. When Trump lost Iowa in 2016 he said that contest was rigged. Heading into the general in 2016 he said that contest was going to be rigged. Of course he won so it was right, but then loses in 2020 and... That one was rigged. And now 2024 is going to be rigged. It's so childishly obvious what he's doing, but yet here we are.

The location of the trial should be determined by the proper legal process, just like the trial in Florida with a Trump appointed judge. 
It is unacceptable for accusation relating to federal crimes and against nationwide political leaders to be decided by a tiny brainwashed minority that happens to live in a federal district.

Whatever legal process leads to that state of affairs is by this argument improper.
But you believe in the rule of law...

You have actually managed to convince yourself that you caught me being dishonest
It wasn't hard.
When one does not have to restrain themselves to reality, of course not...

The title of the article is a lie "voters", plural; only one example was given. 5 total cases examined, 4 fraudulent ballots; one "alive and well".

4 > 1

1 <  Thousands
Complete bullshit. The article states:

"Election investigators found just four absentee ballots in the 2020 presidential election from voters who had died, all of them returned by relatives."

The article then goes on to talk about the findings of the investigation. I don't know why this needs to be explained to you, but when a state audits it's own election it doesn't look at 5 ballots and call it a day, it looks at all of them or at the very least a significant amount. You trying to pretend that the article says they looked only at 5 examples and found 4 instances had to be the stupidest argument you've ever made here.

But what's worse is that you not only pretend that's what the article says, but you pretend that's the point I was making as you keep on repeating your stupid 4 > 1 quip that you seem to think is clever.

As you would be completely cognizant of if you were the least bit honest, the "1" example I was talking about from the very beginning was the review that the state of Georgia performed and then reported to the public which the AJC was describing. What's amazing here is that you didn't just prove my point by dismissing the entire point the article was making, but you also engaged in the most egregious rewrite of an article to suit your own narrative I have ever seen. It's no wonder you believe the things you do, even the evidence against your proposition qualifies to you as evidence for it.
#123
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,187
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Question: If your goal is to destroy a country's democracy and rule of law, how do you accomplish that?

Answer: By making the people of that country believe their democracy and rule of law is already destroyed. If you can accomplish that then they will justify destroying for you as a patriotic attempt to save it.
Question: If you think people are trying to undermine trust in the election system do you:
A) Make absolutely sure to follow all election laws and procedures, cut no corners, provide full transparency, and reiterate that auditable elections are a shared goal
B) Gaslight anyone who doubts the election, call the traitors, lock them up under bizarre interpretations of law, inform media companies that you would prefer if they censor counter-narratives, and every single fucking time someone finds an inconsistency in publicly available data immediately remove that information from public view.

I didn't think elections were stolen until (B) occurred. Now it's far too late to expect trust from me or anyone else who has been paying attention.


But you believe in the rule of law...
I believe in justice, which law may not be; but I understand why people abide by a system so long as it is fair and allows progress without violence. When the system becomes a weapon that can no longer be said. The question is when is violence against the state justified, and when they don't care about equitable application of the laws that is an instant: NOW


Complete bullshit.
Entirely true.


The article states:

"Election investigators found just four absentee ballots in the 2020 presidential election from voters who had died, all of them returned by relatives."
An assertion isn't an example of anything but an assertion. There were 5 examples in the article, that assertion of someone else's assertion was not one of them.


but when a state audits it's own election it doesn't look at 5 ballots and call it a day, it looks at all of them or at the very least a significant amount
Maybe, but like I originally said; I've never seen those lists debunked and I am sure if they could they would.

Hint for those looking for concrete examples to support your thesis. If you have thousands of instances fitting your theory and four that don't, it does not make sense to use those four that contradict your thesis.


You trying to pretend that the article says they looked only at 5 examples and found 4 instances had to be the stupidest argument you've ever made here.
I have no idea what they looked at beyond those 5 examples. Thus I have not seen lists of thousands debunked. YOU GAVE a sample size of 5 and 80% of it is fraud. Only absolute idiots would fail to notice that that examples given do not support the title or assertions of the state, but then that is probably the target audience.


you pretend that's the point I was making
The record is clear. Almost nothing could convince me or any objective observer that you didn't just google for an article, read the headline, send it; and then do exactly what you predicted I would do; namely ignore the examples.


the "1" example I was talking about from the very beginning was the review that the state of Georgia performed
If there was such a review, why isn't there a list of thousands of explanations? I have not seen it, and the simplest explanation is that I have not seen it because it was not published because:
A) They didn't do it.
B) They did it, and the results showed significant fraud which was suppressed

Now if the "one example" you were talking about was some kind of audit of thousands of questionable mail-in-ballots, then why did you say you could find hundreds of others? Are you claiming you can find hundreds of audits? Because right now your count is zero. (rumors of audits are not do not qualify as audits, audits have published results that can be reviewed by the public)


and then reported to the public which the AJC was describing
Ohhhh realllly. Why not link to that then?


even the evidence against your proposition qualifies to you as evidence for it.
I'm not the one who posted four examples of mail-in-ballot fraud and acted like it proved the election was secure.
#124
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
All you have to do is use Google. Here, I'll start. First search result...
The source claimed that non-whites were more likely to not have Voter ID.  This could be because non whites are more likely to not be Citizens, and non citizens don't have ID.  One of the links they listed said the difference was only by about 1.7% points (so non white people in the US are less than 2% points more likely to not be Citizens than white people) and plenty of non-whites vote in elections.  They tend to have lower turnout because non whites I think tend to care less about politics than white people (and this is fine).

But if a non white (or white) person is a citizen who didn't have their right to vote taken away due to felony offense, they are allowed to vote.

Political parties exist because getting things done requires finding like minded people to team up with
There shouldn't be teams; it should be 535 independents in DC and when one representative comes up with a bill, the politicians then vote on the bill through their own lens rather than their party's lens.

It's as of you are incapable of understanding the concept of a generalization. Here, maybe this will help: 
If the political parties are going to generalize (democrats backing social libertarianism on abortion and immigration but not on vaccine mandates or gun control and vice versa for the GOP), then the democrats aren't as socially libertarian as they claim to be.  And there is nothing wrong with that; but just be honest.

I don't trust the political compass test for where people stand on certain ideologies; I trust ontheissues.org (OTI) more for where a politician generally stands.

The political compass test claims Biden is right wing; OTI claims he's left wing.

On the issues shows their work for how they arrive at their conclusions; the political compass test does not.

I therefore trust OTI over the political compass test, but I really don't even trust the OTI because guns are a social issue and OTI treats them like an economic issue because the republicans and the libertarians agree on that issue.

the philosophy behind almost every left wing viewpoint is that we value the concept of society. Your right to carry around a loaded firearm makes everyone else around you objectively less safe because you could at any instance decide to end the life of anyone around you. 
Oh yeah; it's really dangerous to live in gun friendly areas like Vermont:


Vermont had constitutional carry before any other state did.

I dare the left wing media to trash Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine (blue states with decent gun laws).  If they get good enough at it; they may give the GOP 11 more electoral votes and 5 to 6 senators.

Your decision to not get vaccinated (if the science sport supports it) endangers the people around you because you have made yourself a more likely vector for the virus to spread to others.
You can say the same thing about immigration; by letting people come into the country unvetted; you are putting people in danger by exposing them to a very small chance that they will get murdered by an undocumented immigrant (at this time in society, the undocumented are killing more people than the unvaccinated in the US).  

Now, I want to abolish ICE; 100%.  But freedom is dangerous, but I prefer it to the alternative if the rate of death from exercising freedom is small.

 In this issue we have two lives essentially battling for one body, no one else is impacted so government really doesn't have a role to play here because the well being of society at large is not at stake.
800K abortions per year (assuming a zygote is a human being) is a Seattle sized population.

is that where one ultimately lands on abortion will depend on whether they see a fetus as a person. I don't, so arguments relying on that premise don't resonate with me.
You have 2 possibilities.  They are:

1. I do not believe bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life; my only argument for being pro choice is I don't believe a zygote is a human being but I think abortion should be banned beyond the point when I think a zygote is a human being.
2. Whether a pregnancy contains a human being is irrelevent; I am a bodily autonomy absolutist for pregnency, so I support legalized abortion up until the moment of birth because I believe in, "my body, my choice".  

Which option do you pick?

If you believe #2, then this argument can be used to justify legalizing stealing money from someone to use tobacco.  Using tobacco is bodily autonomy, but stealing money from others to fund your tobacco adddiction harms them by them losing $5 against their will.

I'm pretty sure the life of a baby is worth more than $5.

 Everything we do is a balance between protecting our lives while protecting the quality of our lives.
Yes.  So a lockdown that cost $8*10^12 in order to save 100*10^3 lives ($80*10^6/life) (COVID killed 1*10^6 people, but since 90% of them were elderly people that can quarantine on their own without economic consequence, they have other ways to survive; like this woman I know who's 92 takes Quarantine rules very seriously even in 2023 and she doesn't force it on anyone else, so that's fine and practical for people that are scared of COVID to do) just doesn't seem justified to me.

Then it's not a question of whether we believe in lockdowns, only a matter of at what point do they outweigh personal freedom.
Yes.  People's freedom to earn $80*10^6 at the cost of one person's life is morally justified.  But $8*10^12 vs 100*10^6 lives (when those 100*10^6 lives would end producing $8*10^12 a year in a world where COVID doesn't exist) would be justified.

No, everyone most certainly wouldn't. Facts do not always matter, especially once something becomes politicized. Even as COVID was ripping through red counties and killing people by the thousands, many still didn't even believe COVID was real.
That's because COVID had a 99.9% survival rate (and many people didn't get vaccinated because they assumed they had natural immunity because many people that got COVID had natural immunity).  If COVID was like the Bubonic Plague, then anti vaxxers (with respect to COVID) would be about as common as Russian Roulette Players (defined as playing Russian Roulette at least once in their lives).


#125
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,287
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Question: If you think people are trying to undermine trust in the election system do you:
A) Make absolutely sure to follow all election laws and procedures, cut no corners, provide full transparency, and reiterate that auditable elections are a shared goal
This is exactly what happened.

B) Gaslight anyone who doubts the election, call the traitors, lock them up under bizarre interpretations of law, inform media companies that you would prefer if they censor counter-narratives, and every single fucking time someone finds an inconsistency in publicly available data immediately remove that information from public view.
Can you provide one single example of any of these and explain how the person who did it is part of the nationwide conspiracy to overturn Biden's victory?

But you believe in the rule of law...
I believe in justice, which law may not be
So no, you do not believe in the rule of law. Thank you for being clear.

YOU GAVE a sample size of 5 and 80% of it is fraud.
Do you even know what sample size is?

If there was such a review, why isn't there a list of thousands of explanations? I have not seen it, and the simplest explanation is that I have not seen it because it was not published because:
A) They didn't do it.
B) They did it, and the results showed significant fraud which was suppressed
The simplest explanation is that they recognize it's not the government's burden to refute your conspiracy theories. Never before has any state audit ever released a thousands name long list to show the public all of the voters they verified. The idea of them doing that at all is absurd, worse is a the idea that they hid everything in a massive statewide conspiracy by republicans to elect a democrat.
#126
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,287
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
There shouldn't be teams; it should be 535 independents in DC and when one representative comes up with a bill, the politicians then vote on the bill through their own lens rather than their party's lens.
This isn't real life and it will never be because it does not take into account basic human nature. It doesn't matter of you abolish political parties, people will always have aligned interests and will benefit by working together with those who share their interests. That's how political parties started in the first place.

You envision a world where a bill is brought to the floor and everyone just votes on whether they like it. You completely disregard that someone had to write that bill, and there will always be a line where the bill's passage comes down to a relatively small portion of the  representatives. That gives those representatives the power to influence what goes into that bill, and if there's one thing you can count on, when someone finds themselves with power they're going to use it.

If the political parties are going to generalize (democrats backing social libertarianism on abortion and immigration but not on vaccine mandates or gun control and vice versa for the GOP), then the democrats aren't as socially libertarian as they claim to be.  And there is nothing wrong with that; but just be honest.
Democrats are not competing for some social libertarian label. You are making that up entirely and then acting like others are not being honest by not admitting to the thing you made up.

Democrats have made their positions clear and I already gave you some insight into what ties left wing viewpoints together.

800K abortions per year (assuming a zygote is a human being) is a Seattle sized population.
The number of individuals impacted is completely irrelevant to the point I made.

Your decision to not get vaccinated (if the science sport supports it) endangers the people around you because you have made yourself a more likely vector for the virus to spread to others.
You can say the same thing about immigration; by letting people come into the country unvetted; you are putting people in danger by exposing them to a very small chance that they will get murdered by an undocumented immigrant
Well first of all, this is objectively backwards since illegal immigrants are less likely to commit any kind of crime than American born citizens. That means statistically, the more illegal immigrants become a part of the population the more the crime rate goes down.

But more importantly, this is again irrelevant to the point I just made. Illegal immigration is not analogous to vaccine mandates. This notion of us being less safe because an illegal immigrant came through and might kill someone is just silly. If you get into a car there is now a chance you might run someone over that wasn't the case before, that doesn't make it meaningful for me to accuse you of endangering people's lives everytime you go to work.

Which option do you pick?
Neither really. I believe bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life up until the point of viability but I am generally not supportive of banning abortion at any stage because the only purpose that's supposed to serve is practically nonexistent, meanwhile the repercussions of it are real and serious.

Yes.  People's freedom to earn $80*10^6 at the cost of one person's life is morally justified.  But $8*10^12 vs 100*10^6 lives (when those 100*10^6 lives would end producing $8*10^12 a year in a world where COVID doesn't exist) would be justified.
Gibberish

That's because COVID had a 99.9% survival rate
You do not need to be in the 0.1% to know that the thousands of people filling up your local hospital waiting rooms as well as the refrigerator trucks being used to store dead bodies because the morgues are full are real.
#127
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
This isn't real life and it will never be because it does not take into account basic human nature.
It's because people are subject to peer pressure, and it's not good to have peer pressure.

You envision a world where a bill is brought to the floor and everyone just votes on whether they like it.
That should be the world we live in.

Democrats have made their positions clear and I already gave you some insight into what ties left wing viewpoints together.
The democrats are collectivist is what you are saying; they focus on what's good for collective American society over the individual.  Banning abortion is a collectivist idea.  So is building the wall.  So is not funding Ukraine (or Israel).

Collectivism is nationalism.

The number of individuals impacted is completely irrelevant to the point I made.
The unborn are part of society.

Well first of all, this is objectively backwards since illegal immigrants are less likely to commit any kind of crime than American born citizens. That means statistically, the more illegal immigrants become a part of the population the more the crime rate goes down.
That might be true (I've seen conflicting reports).  But if collectivism is the goal of democrats, it means if even one undocumented immigrant commits a murder, it means every single undocumented immigrant needs to be put through more tough measures.

 This notion of us being less safe because an illegal immigrant came through and might kill someone is just silly.
Just like the notion that we are less safe because an unvaccinated person comes through and might kill a vaccinated and boosted person by giving them COVID is comparably silly.

But keep on cheering for your party!


  I believe bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life up until the point of viability
Viability is when the kid can survive on their own (which doesn't happen until the kid is about 18 years after birth).  After birth, they depend on the parent's fiscal autonomy to stay alive; before then, it's bodily autonomy. 

Is it ok to make your kid homeless because you decided to not take care of them? 

Yes.  People's freedom to earn $80*10^6 at the cost of one person's life is morally justified.  But $8*10^12 vs 100*10^6 lives (when those 100*10^6 lives would end producing $8*10^12 a year in a world where COVID doesn't exist) would be justified.
Gibberish
How is it gibberish?  I try and write in terms of modified scientific notation because otherwise numbers can take up a lot of space.

You do not need to be in the 0.1% to know that the thousands of people filling up your local hospital waiting rooms as well as the refrigerator trucks being used to store dead bodies because the morgues are full are real.
Alright; well 1 person dying  in order to preserve $80 million of economic growth is an acceptable sacrifice as economic freedom means some people will die.  But I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful control, and that mentality made America the greatest country God ever created!

I care more about my money than your life and you care more about your money than my life.  Otherwise, you would have no problem donating all of your money to help homeless people.

Economic freedom means some people will have to die.  Cut the losses!
#128
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,287
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
You envision a world where a bill is brought to the floor and everyone just votes on whether they like it.
That should be the world we live in.
No, it shouldn't. That doesn't even make any sense. Who gets to be the one writing the bill? What if nearly everyone is on board with it but most are objecting to one small peice of it that could be improved?

You are only looking at the voting portion of the process, not the creation. Bills are complicated and come with a lot of moving parts. The entire point of having a Congress is for lawmakers to figure out how those parts should work together, that involves negotiation and a lot of reimagining things.

The issue in Congress is not the process, it's the incentive structure.

The democrats are collectivist is what you are saying; they focus on what's good for collective American society over the individual.  Banning abortion is a collectivist idea.  So is building the wall.  So is not funding Ukraine (or Israel).

Collectivism is nationalism.
There is absolutely nothing about banning abortion that makes it a collectivist idea by this definition, nor building a wall, nor funding Ukraine. I don't understand why these ideas are so complicated for you.

The question that matters in any instance is whether granting rights to an individual takes away some right or negatively impacts the well being of others, and balancing that appropriately. Abortion has no societal application in the sense that nothing about my rights or well being is impacted by someone else's decision to get an abortion. That's a private decision fort that individual.

Nothing about the legalization of gay marriage impedes on my rights or well being as a straight man.

Legalizing the carrying of automatic weapons in public by anyone, does impede on my rights/well being sad an individual because it makes me less safe everytime I leave my house since the potential of my life to be ended at any moment objectively increases.

Building a wall? Not applicable to this concept.

Funding for Ukraine? Not applicable to this concept.

Economic policy? Absolutely applies. Without a society we would not have an economy, and we would not haber a prosperous economy without an environment suited for it. The only entity that has the means to create and maintain that environment for everyone (society) is the government, therefore I generally support more government intervention in the economy.

So here's a crazy idea, instead of looking for gotchas to make it seem like I'm just believing whatever I'm told and showcasing your remarkable ignorance of alternative viewpoints in the process, the next time something I'm saying doesn't make sense - how about asking more questions and listening to the answers rather than strawmanning everything I just said?

But if collectivism is the goal of democrats, it means if even one undocumented immigrant commits a murder, it means every single undocumented immigrant needs to be put through more tough measures.
Does not logically follow. There is nothing about the immigration status of the murderer that makes their actions any more or less harmful to society. It's just an excuse for bigots to be bigoted.

If there was a pattern showing that crime is disproportionally committed by illegals them you would have a case, but the reality is the opposite.

Just like the notion that we are less safe because an unvaccinated person comes through and might kill a vaccinated and boosted person by giving them COVID is comparably silly.
No genius, it doesn't. Again, (in cases where the data supports it) an unvaccinated person is more likely to both carry and to spread the virus. That's the entire point of vaccines and is the literal definition of less safe.

There is nothing about being an illegal immigrant that makes you more likely to commit crimes, in fact, once again, the data says the exact opposite.

Is it ok to make your kid homeless because you decided to not take care of them? 
That's why we have adoption

#129
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
Who gets to be the one writing the bill?
The person who is the 1st person that wants the bill to be passed.

 What if nearly everyone is on board with it but most are objecting to one small piece of it that could be improved?
Then whatever that one small part is, remove it, get the rest of the bill passed, and then make a separate bill addressing that one part that then the representatives argue over if it should be included or not.

There is absolutely nothing about banning abortion that makes it a collectivist idea by this definition
It's good for society if abortion is banned because the unborn are a chunk of society comparable in size to transgenders (if the unborn get classified as people).   

 nor building a wall
The wall could be argued to be good for the American Citizen.

nor funding Ukraine
Giving money to Ukraine is like giving money to Kuwait to fight off Iraqi Imperialism; it's not America first; it's interventionist.

Nothing about the legalization of gay marriage impedes on my rights or well being as a straight man.
Gay marriage?  No.  But premarital sex (whether done by gays or straights) makes life harder for those that wait until marriage (whether queer or non-queer) because more premarital sex leads to way more STIs being spread which then leads to higher health costs through tax dollars that would be paid for by the virgins until marriage to pay for the lifestyle choice of those who did not choose to wait until marriage.

I'm LGBT, but I'm waiting until marriage because I think with my head, not with my dick.

Legalizing the carrying of automatic weapons in public by anyone, does impede on my rights/well being sad an individual because it makes me less safe everytime I leave my house since the potential of my life to be ended at any moment objectively increases.
If the left wing media believes this (where you get all your opinions from), why don't they criticize Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine for having constitutional carry?  If constitutional carry made life so dangerous, then surely Vermont would be a bloodbath.  I don't think it is.  But if the left wants to trash Northern New England, I'm happy for the right to accept their electoral votes.

There is nothing about the immigration status of the murderer that makes their actions any more or less harmful to society. It's just an excuse for bigots to be bigoted.
It is just as much of an excuse for bigots to be bigoted (with the undocumented community) as it does for mass shootings to be an excuse to be bigoted towards the AR 15 owning community.

But your party owns your fucking mind, so no matter what argument I make, I won't change your mind because you are in a cult (just like 100% of socialists).

If there was a pattern showing that crime is disproportionally committed by illegals them you would have a case, but the reality is the opposite.
The undocumented are either more or less likely to commit murder than the native born (I've seen contradicting numbers on it).  Lets say hypothetically, they were 5x as likely to commit murder.  Doesn't matter; people are individuals. That would mean if .1% of the US population committed murder, then .5% of the undocumented would commit murder.  

But the 99.5% shouldn't be getting a murder charge for a crime they didn't commit and shouldn't be punished with tough on the border policies for murders they did not commit.  People are individuals.

The same applies for gun owners.

But your party's media will tell you the opposite and you believe the party's media over a consistent standard.

No genius, it doesn't. Again, (in cases where the data supports it) an unvaccinated person is more likely to both carry and to spread the virus. That's the entire point of vaccines and is the literal definition of less safe.
The unvaccinated are more likely to carry the virus, but it's such a nominal difference in percentage that it's just being very melodramatic.

That's why we have adoption
If a pro lifer said that in the context of the abortion debate, you would be saying, "BUt THe FoStEr SysTEM is MeSSEd uP!".

But I guess it works with the belief that fiscal autonomy isn't as important as the right to life.
#130
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,287
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
There is absolutely nothing about banning abortion that makes it a collectivist idea by this definition
It's good for society if abortion is banned because the unborn are a chunk of society comparable in size to transgenders (if the unborn get classified as people).
The collectivist notion I described has nothing to do with whether the result will be better for society, it is about how we approach issues in the first place. More specifically, it's about how we figure out who's problem it is to solve and what are the limitations to solve it.

This is really simple so let's try it this way: Does your decision to [insert issue here] directly impact the people you share in this society with?

Get an abortion? No
Marry someone of the opposite sex? No
Carry around a loaded firearm? Yes
Buy/sell stocks? Yes
Smoke weed? No
Have sex for money? No
Use speech to defame others or foment violence? Yes

Notice how in every "No" above liberals are against government involvement while for every "Yes" above liberals support government intervention. That's what I'm talking about.

And take note that immigration has no place in the above conversation. Like I said, it's an entirely different issue.

If constitutional carry made life so dangerous, then surely Vermont would be a bloodbath.
"A 2022 analysis found that states with permitless carry laws saw a 22 percent increase in gun homicide for the three years following the law's passage."

First search result on Google.

It is just as much of an excuse for bigots to be bigoted (with the undocumented community) as it does for mass shootings to be an excuse to be bigoted towards the AR 15 owning community.
No one is being "bigoted" against AR-15 owners, we're pushing back against the legal sale of AR15's. Please stop responding just to respond and think about the point beforehand, thanks. 

But the 99.5% shouldn't be getting a murder charge for a crime they didn't commit and shouldn't be punished with tough on the border policies for murders they did not commit.  People are individuals.

The same applies for gun owners.

But your party's media will tell you the opposite and you believe the party's media over a consistent standard.
If you would stop and pay attention instead of searching for a way to feed your obsession with thinking you're better than everyone else because you "think for yourself" you would recognize the constancies. 

This is one of the most basic concepts in law and in any setting where there is an authority of any kind making rules/policies; when something is causing a problem, solving that problem often requires banning a product or action for everyone. 2A advocates are the ones being inconsistent because they understand and accept this reality in every other instance except for when it comes to guns.

Why is heroin illegal? Because some people get addicted to it. Doesn't that mean we're punishing those who don't?

Why do we not permit 18 year olds to drink? Because many 18 year olds are not mature and responsible enough. Doesn't that mean we're punishing those who are?

Why don't we allow foreign born citizens to run for president? Because that creates a greater threat of them having dual allegences. Doesn't that mean we're punishing every foreign born citizen?

Literally every law, rule, or policy banning something takes away some right for everyone on the basis of the fact that some people abuse it. Only when we're talking about guns does that all of a sudden become "punishment".

The unvaccinated are more likely to carry the virus, but it's such a nominal difference in percentage that it's just being very melodramatic.
Irrelevant to the conversation. We're talking about the principal of the mandates, not the effectiveness.

But your party owns your fucking mind, so no matter what argument I make, I won't change your mind because you are in a cult (just like 100% of socialists).
Ok, now this is just plain stupid.

First of all, do you even know what cult is? Hint: At minimum it requires a figurehead. "The democrats" is not a figurehead.

Second, throughout this conversation and others you constantly demonstrate that you have no understanding of alternative viewpoints, no ability to decipher complex and nuanced arguments, and ultimately show that your only interest is being right for the sake of being right by repeatedly responding without a hint of thought behind the words you write. You haven't provided a single point worthy of anything but a deep sighed dismissal, so you have no business crticizing me or anyone else as to whether you believe we're "thinking for ourselves".

Third, even if your obsession with identifying as an independent thinker does not allow you to consider the possibility that you are actually talking to a real person, there is still a basic concept in conversation that if you're going to engage in it that you respect the other person by acknowledging their arguments as their own. You can make whatever assessment about me you want after the fact, but to do so within the conversation is disrespectful and ultimately a waste of time. Then next time you do that you are demonstrating your inability to see past your own nose and so this conversation will abruptly end.
#131
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
Does your decision to [insert issue here] directly impact the people you share in this society with?

Get an abortion? No
Marry someone of the opposite sex? No
Carry around a loaded firearm? Yes
Buy/sell stocks? Yes
Smoke weed? No
Have sex for money? No
Use speech to defame others or foment violence? Yes

Notice how in every "No" above liberals are against government involvement while for every "Yes" above liberals support government intervention. That's what I'm talking about.
I can think of some exceptions to that:

Does your decision to [insert issue here] directly impact the people you share in this society with?
 
 Smoke tobacco?  No
Do vape?  No
The left is more anti tobacco and vape legalization than the conservatives.  If you believe the answer to the questions is, "Yes", how is this any different from weed?  

Weed, tobacco, and vape all directly impact the people I share a society with about equally.

I also think that the question:

Does your decision to [insert issue here] directly impact the people you share in this society with?
Should get modified to:

Does your decision to [insert issue here] directly impact the people you share in this society with to a significant extent relative to the upsides of having this freedom?
Driving cars directly impacts the people I share this society with.  30,000 car accidents happen a year and cars pollute, impacting climate change.  Does this mean we should mandate remote working when applicable?  The liberals don't agree with this, because 30K car deaths a year isn't significant enough to ban cars when driving to work (when remote working is an option for many).

"A 2022 analysis found that states with permitless carry laws saw a 22 percent increase in gun homicide for the three years following the law's passage."
It's possible that could be because the US homicide rate in general went up by about that percentage.

No one is being "bigoted" against AR-15 owners, we're pushing back against the legal sale of AR15's. 
Bigoted definition:

unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group:
AR 15 owners are a group, and not letting them have what they want because of homicide the vast majority aren't responsible for is bigoted.  But the left can be bigoted to whoever they want.

Why is heroin illegal? Because some people get addicted to it. Doesn't that mean we're punishing those who don't?
So then regulate heroin.  Lets just say dudes like this should be allowed to use heroin:


Why do we not permit 18 year olds to drink? Because many 18 year olds are not mature and responsible enough. Doesn't that mean we're punishing those who are?
In order to be allowed to drink alcohol, you need to be financially independent, have parental consent, or have it be for medical use.  In Belgium, their age is 16.

Why don't we allow foreign born citizens to run for president?
I don't agree with that either.  Who would you rather have be president:
1. Donald Trump (someone you disagree with that is born in the US).
2. Cenk Uygur (someone you agree with that was born somewhere else).

If you agree with this law, it means you would prefer Trump.

For a conservative, I could ask an alternate question.  Who would a conservative rather have as POTUS:

1. AOC (someone they disagree with that is born in the US).
2. Elon Musk (someone they agree with that was born somewhere else).

The right prefers Musk to AOC.

Nobody has a principled stance against immigrants being allowed to run for POTUS if it's an immigrant they agree with vs a native born that they don't agree with.

 We're talking about the principal of the mandates, not the effectiveness.
There are 4 groups of people when it comes to the COVID vaccination.

1. Group 1.  They will get vaccinated as soon as they are able too.
2. Group 2.  They are the, "wait and see" group.

Everyone in group 1 or group 2 is fully vaccinated by choice.  Everyone not fully vaccinated is either in group 3 or group 4.
3. Group 3.  They will only get vaccinated if there is a mandate.
4. Group 4. They won't get vaccinated no matter what.

Groups 1 and 2 will get vaccinated whether there is a mandate; Group 4 will not get vaccinated whether there is a mandate or not.  Really, the only annexable group is group 3.

But in order to vaccinate group 3, you have to fire group 4.

I believe out of the unvaccinated population, between 25 and 50% of the unvaccinated population is in group 4.

I don't want to fire group 4 to give group 3 shots.

First of all, do you even know what cult is? Hint: At minimum it requires a figurehead. "The democrats" is not a figurehead.
MAGA is a cult, and so is Bernie or Bust.

Then next time you do that you are demonstrating your inability to see past your own nose and so this conversation will abruptly end.
Every conversation you have with a hardcore MAGA person (not me, but a hardcore MAGA person) you won't change their mind and they won't change yours (because you are both in equal and opposite cults).

I'm the one trying to get people out of cults.  You will never be able to change a MAGA person's mind on abortion (because their party tells them to be anti-abortion) just like they won't be able to change your mind on abortion (because your party tells them to be pro-Roe V Wade).

You need to know how other people think.
#132
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
This is really simple so let's try it this way: Does your decision to [insert issue here] directly impact the people you share in this society with?

Get an abortion? No
Marry someone of the opposite sex? No
Carry around a loaded firearm? Yes
Buy/sell stocks? Yes
Smoke weed? No
Have sex for money? No
Use speech to defame others or foment violence? Yes

Notice how in every "No" above liberals are against government involvement while for every "Yes" above liberals support government intervention. That's what I'm talking about.
Conservatives use the same logos to justify all of their beliefs.  They just think every question you answer no, they answer yes, and vice versa.

The no/yes combination is very arbitrary.  Libertarians have a lot of no answers; statists have a lot of yes answers.

#133
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,287
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
The left is more anti tobacco and vape legalization than the conservatives.  If you believe the answer to the questions is, "Yes", how is this any different from weed?
Tobacco and vaping are obscure political issues and I have no idea where you are getting that anti-tobacco is a left wing position. You are really grasping for straws.

Driving cars directly impacts the people I share this society with.  30,000 car accidents happen a year and cars pollute, impacting climate change.  Does this mean we should mandate remote working when applicable?
There is no political divide in the country as to whether people should be allowed to drive cars. The fact that these kinds of ridiculous examples are the best you can do should make you rethink your position.

AR 15 owners are a group, and not letting them have what they want because of homicide the vast majority aren't responsible for is bigoted.  But the left can be bigoted to whoever they want.
AR15 owners are not a group in any political sense of the word.

I just finished explaining to you how this happens in every area of life anywhere there is an authority in position to set laws/rules/policy. You didn't read a single word I wrote on this. Not repeating it.

Why is heroin illegal? Because some people get addicted to it. Doesn't that mean we're punishing those who don't?
So then regulate heroin.  Lets just say dudes like this should be allowed to use heroin:


Why do we not permit 18 year olds to drink? Because many 18 year olds are not mature and responsible enough. Doesn't that mean we're punishing those who are?
In order to be allowed to drink alcohol, you need to be financially independent, have parental consent, or have it be for medical use.  In Belgium, their age is 16.

Why don't we allow foreign born citizens to run for president?
I don't agree with that either.
Yet another example of how you do not pay attention to the conversation and instead focus entirely on triggers you think you can respond to.

All three of these were nothing more than examples explaining how rule making works. Your response is to talk about whether you agree with them. Whether you agree with them is completely and utterly irrelevant to the conversation.

MAGA is a cult, and so is Bernie or Bust.
Then talk to a Bernie or Bust supporter

I'm the one trying to get people out of cults.
No, you're not. All you're trying to do is get people to move from their sacred unchallengable ideology to your sacred unchallengable ideology. The difference is that at least their sacred unchallengable ideology has a purpose beyond making them feel above everyone else.

Conservatives use the same logos to justify all of their beliefs.
And they're wrong, that's why I'm not a conservative.

#134
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
 I have no idea where you are getting that anti-tobacco is a left wing position.
One in Four Americans Support Total Smoking Ban (gallup.com) states that democrats are more likely to advocate banning smoking than republicans.  Young people are less likely to agree with a smoking ban, but it's because young people tend to be more libertarian than old people (1 in 5 Millennials describe themselves as libertarian | YouGov).

There is no political divide in the country as to whether people should be allowed to drive cars. 
So you would only advocate a car ban if other left wingers were advocating a car ban?  Alright.

Everyone follows the herd to some extent, but it's better to not look at issues through a partisan lens.

AR15 owners are not a group in any political sense of the word.
Um... yes they are.  But they are a right wing group, so they don't get treated as a group the same way blacks and Hispanics do.

Then talk to a Bernie or Bust supporter
Well, I'm doing that (I'm assuming you are a Bernie or Bust supporter).

 The difference is that at least their sacred unchallengable ideology has a purpose beyond making them feel above everyone else.
I don't think I'm above everyone else.  I'm trying to break up the cults.

Conservatives use the same logos to justify all of their beliefs.
And they're wrong, that's why I'm not a conservative.
On some issues, maybe, on most maybe, but 100% of issues?  Now you are just being a partisan hack.

If a Neo Nazi says women should be allowed to vote, it doesn't matter if a Nazi says it.  Women should still be allowed the right to vote.  You don't have to vote for the Nazi if they say that, but give credit where it's due while realizing that they are a Nazi and what they believe that caused them to be a Nazi to begin with.

7 days later

#135
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,187
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R

[Double_R] and then reported to the public which the AJC was describing
[ADOL] Ohhhh realllly. Why not link to that then?
[Double_R] Never before has any state audit ever released a thousands name long list to show the public all of the voters they verified.
Again you prove yourself too dishonest to waste time with.