-->
@Novice_II
If you continue to condescend me this disrespectfully, I will just block you, doing it back only is limited fun.
There is no compromising with MAGA Republicans. They are today’s slave holders
Posts
Total:
151
-->
@SkepticalOne
I agree 100 percent.
Yet another whiny conspiracy theory thread from you know who (JarHead)!!
Running out of tinfoil are ya!?!
-->
@TWS1405
He's got November anxiety, cut him some slack.
-->
@Greyparrot
@Double_R
do you actually believe there is an equivalence between Clinton's position on Trump's victory vs what Trump still peddles to this day?
Politifact rates a claim of equivalence as “half true”:
“PolitiFact VA: Democrats questioned validity of 2016 election, but not how votes were counted”
-->
@cristo71
Politifact rates a claim of equivalence as “half true”:
Translated for bias, we can safely say that is mostly true.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
endless anti-white government policiesI knew you were a neo-Nazi
It's not like he was trying to hide it.
-->
@Greyparrot
@cristo71
do you actually believe there is an equivalence between Clinton's position on Trump's victory vs what Trump still peddles to this day?Politifact rates a claim of equivalence as “half true”:“PolitiFact VA: Democrats questioned validity of 2016 election, but not how votes were counted”
The claim Politifact was specifically referring to was Glenn Younkin stating that the democrats said the 2016 election was stolen. It's half true only because the word "stolen" can be used in completely different ways.
The democrats used it to refer to the fact that Trump won with the assistance of a foreign adversary, something every republican used to believe was a bad thing until it was no longer politically convenient for them. Now they no longer care. He also won with the assistance of the FBI, something republicans clearly know is wrong as they rant about it everytime there's a new investigation into Trump (even though he clearly violated the law).
In other words, democrats are pointing to things that are objectively real and factual, and characterizing it's impact.
Trump and the Republicans are just making shit up, pretending not that the American people were wrongfully manipulated into voting for Biden, but that the American people actually voted for Trump but some grand multi-state conspiracy installed the loser into the White House.
These are completely different things.
-->
@Double_R
democrats are pointing to things that are objectively real and factual
So you do believe Hillary's big lie.
It's not like you are trying to hide it.
-->
@RationalMadman
First, I don't want you to think I am being condescending to you, but I am not fully sure what you mean by that in specific. I was just hoping you would provide an argument for your claim, and from my view, it seems like you are dodging the question.
I have done what you asked in a less robotic and idiotic way than asked to format it.
- I am not sure what you mean by this either. I have no idea what "less robotic," or "less idiotic," could mean. If you are stating that you have provided an example of a circular set of proportions (A is true because of B : B is true because of A), then this is just factually incorrect. If you believe you have, can you quote the specific set of propositions from any of your previous messages that form the logical circularity?
- Let me make what I want clear: I want you to provide the argument for the claim you made, and currently, you have not given any reason for use to believe that there is any logically circular set of propositions, talk less of drawing a comparison to the left wing.
- When I ask you to offer a concession here, I am not trying to be rude, I am just asking you to be honest/in good faith because it does not seem as if you have an argument for this claim.
-->
@Novice_II
- Let me make what I want clear: I want you to provide the argument for the claim you made, and currently, you have not given any reason for use to believe that there is any logically circular set of propositions, talk less of drawing a comparison to the left wing.
Okay, what is the circularity within the conservative position on abortion, that makes use of more logical circularity when placed proportional to the left wing abortion position.So, let's even begin at the cases such as rape, mother-may-die and down's syndrome baby.I think the down's syndrome scenario has the biggest argument to make on the pro-life case but I would like to say that the fact many struggle to even justify it in cases of rape and parent dying show that there is no real understanding of 'weighing' value going on, it's about an irrational absolute.This absolute is indeed irrational because we all know that once you are born the right wing couldn't give the slightest shit about you. They won't help a poor family plagued with 10 kids because they couldn't abort and couldn't regularly afford contraception. They won't help out the parents if addicted to get off the drugs or out of the situation they're in if they own loan sharks etc while funding their addiction. The entire cycle is vicious and said parents or older siblings may have to become gangsters to fund their family as the shitty jobs don't pay enough for them to help their younger siblings get through university/college or even have a shot at thing. These gangsters will be shot without hesitation by conservative cops, especially if they aren't white.What starts happening in a right-wing society is always a severe divide and alienation of the poor and needy. This makes more poor and more needy people until absolute poverty in slums/ghettos/favelas etc is achieved and is seen in any continent be it south america, africa, middle east (which is also in)... asia etc where capitalist shitholes form and it's 'every man for himself' vibes. These same selfish cunts will then go to church, mosque, temple, synagogue etc and pay that establishment to stay put and make it specially exempt from tax but to a beggar they'd give nothing and that's fine because there shouldn't need to be many beggars in an optimal left-wing society but there exists no optimal right-wing society.So you see, if we really look into the right-wing mentality what they want is solely to blackmail mothers to produce the offspring and not give a damn about the offspring once it exists. They want barely any maternity leave if the corporation wants it (and no place want sto pay a minimum wage earner maternity leave). The entire right-wing society would be absolute apex hell for the born offspring, it is so ironic actually.Their brain can't even process that; that by killing one fetus and saving it from a shit life, maybe that poor parent has enough to give their other offspring a semi-decent one and even one more will break the bank and ruin the equilibrium. Then the right-wing blame blame blame but they rarely ever can do two essential thing their religions always say to do; forgive and help.It's all well and good saying 'omg it's a formed fetus SAVE IT' but these same nutjobs would ideally ban contraception, ban homosexuality and make us all think of sex as a thing for reproduction. Every single ejaculation from a wet dream or masturbation is a 'lost shot at a life' you barely ever will produce the same 2 sperm of DNA mixture and the egg of the woman you have sex with is almost never ever going to be that exact mix for the rest of her life. To truly not waste potential life away you'd have to have sex with women every moment you had a good cumshot in you or, as a woman, take dick every time after your deliveries have happened and the cycle after the next period commences (but towards 14 days into it, not immediately).Clearly, this is stupid and even the right wing dont believe that. Nobody wants to force us to use all sperm and all eggs to make life, it's okay to waste potential life away if it's not the right time to have them for the parents, especially the mother who has to host the being for 9 months. That's also not caring for the being that will be born relatively unwanted and under-cared for.What I'm typing isn't even half of the hypocrisy and stupidity involved with a wing that would happily send children to war and engage aggressively with everyone being armed and firing guns at will ready to shoot the other before they can shoot (in term sof America's right wing).The right-wing's logic for abortion is:OMG IT'S ALIVE AHHHHHH OHHHH NOOOO IT'S ALIVE END OF DISCUSSIONS IT'S ALIVE AND IT'S HUMAN!!!Then they eat their nice steak for dinner, or hell lamb or veal which is an infant of its species and maybe some nice eggs too and say 'hip hip hooray!'The same stunted logic leads them to oppose euthanasia. The point is they couldn't give a shit about making life better, they just want to force the life to occur, which is clearly ridiculous logical reasoning.the left wing rarely support abortion in the third trimester and if in the second maximum to the fourth month. They see a time gap to allow the mother to know she's ready to raise it as they know the foster care system is relatively crap and very few want to adopt. They also know that at present the right-wing have made life too shit for lower in come households to cope with too many offspring.
-->
@RationalMadman
Okay, so, I don't understand why you are being evasive. What is the circularity here? The question is: what set of propositions from the dichotomy "A is true because of B : B is true because of A"? Nothing in your post mentions this which is why I called it a ramble previously. It is a wall of text that does not even answer the question.
- Do you know what logical circularity means? I don't even know if you are on the same page as me.
-->
@Novice_II
Either or both of us has/have a significant cognitive deficit here, not sure which. To me, I gave a solid answer, to you, I did not.
To me, the stunted logical reasoning paths that the right wing reach their abortion stance was displayed in 1080p, to you it is very low-res.
One or both of us has/have a big issue with our comprehension ability or cognitive reasoning capacity.
-->
@Double_R
Clearly, even when a third party analysis illustrates the oversimplification in your opinions, you are unable to yield even an inch. Not that I’m surprised. Hope springs eternal, I guess…
Many can see how institutions such as the media, academia, and multinational corporations all assisted in putting a decrepit person in power in 2020. You and your ilk speak as though Russian influence in our elections originated in 2016 and ended shortly thereafter. It’s a joke…
-->
@RationalMadman
But hold on, this is just a dodge from the question, I am not asking you about the logical reasoning paths, I am asking you to demonstrate the logical circularity, I don't understand why you keep avoiding the question. The question is:
- What set of propositions from the dichotomy "A is true because of B : B is true because of A"? So far, I am not seeing an answer. Can you just answer the question directly?
It is starting to seem like you don't actually have an argument for your claim, from my view.
-->
@Greyparrot
democrats are pointing to things that are objectively real and factualSo you do believe Hillary's big lie.
Do you believe Russia interfered inn the 2020 election? Yes or no?
Do you believe it is ok for the US to allow a foreign advasary to interfere in our elections? Yes or No?
Somehow I suspect you will avoid answering these questions directly and reply with ones of your usual stupid one liners.
-->
@cristo71
Many can see how institutions such as the media, academia, and multinational corporations all assisted in putting a decrepit person in power in 2020. You and your ilk speak as though Russian influence in our elections originated in 2016 and ended shortly thereafter. It’s a joke…
The media, academia, and corporations are not foreign advasaries. Do you seriously think there is no difference?
This really is an absurd conversation to have, it used to be beyond obvious to everyone. And you can have your own opinions about it all you want, but you cannot pretend that all of the same people on TV pretending there's nothing wrong with it now didn't recognize this as an issue before Trump.
As far as me personally, I am not so much bothered by the fact that Trump won in part because of the help he got from the Russians, and I'm not actually one claiming that makes Trump an illegitimate president even though I do push back against the idiots who pretend that there is an equivalence between that and and Trump running around claiming he actually won. My issue is the fact that Trump made the help he got from them central to his campaign. He's the one who called for them to hack our institutions, and then when they did he coordinated his message around everything they were releasing. He wasn't trying to hide it.
US presidents are supposed to protect the country against foreign threats. Trump has made clear from day one that the only thing he cares about protecting is his own self interest, and he will burn this country down if he thinks that is what's best for him.
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you believe Russia interfered inn the 2016 election? Yes or no?
Fixed
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe Russia interfered inn the 2016 election? Yes or no?Do you believe it is ok for the US to allow a foreign adversary to interfere in our elections? Yes or No?Somehow I suspect you will avoid answering these questions directly and reply with ones of your usual stupid one liners.
I think you know I have told you before that: yes, Russia spent around 100,000 dollars to influence the 2016 election to try to fight against Hillary's warhawk agenda. Did that make the election illegitimate? I really hope you do not believe that. I think in your reply to Cristo that you probably don't really think that.
Is it OK for the US to allow a foreign adversary to interfere in foreign elections? Of course not, but we also should not allow politicians a blank check to incite countries to interfere with our elections by interfering in theirs. There is a consequence for supporting warhawks like Bush and Hillary, and seemingly now the person controlling the Biden administration....and that consequence is war.
I think you know I have told you before that: yes, Russia spent around 100,000 dollars to influence the 2016 election
That’s a lie. They spent millions on social media ads alone. They also funneled 35 million through the NRA.
“A notorious Russian "troll factory" had a $1.25 million budget in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election to interfere in the US political system, according to charges filed by the Department of Justice”
“In January 2018, McClatchyDC reported that Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation is pursuing allegations that Torshin has links to Russian organized crime, and laundered money from the Russian government to the NRA to benefit Trump's campaign.[6] Torshin is also the subject of a probe by the Federal Bureau of Investigation into whether the Russian government attempted to illegally funnel money to the NRA in order to help Trump win the presidency.[6][21][22] On May 16, 2018, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report[23] stating it had obtained "a number of documents that suggest the Kremlin used the National Rifle Association as a means of accessing and assisting Mr. Trump and his campaign" through Torshin and Butina, and that "The Kremlin may also have used the NRA to secretly fund Mr. Trump's campaign."
The media, academia, and corporations are not foreign adversaries. Do you seriously think there is no difference?
Debatable. Many people living in America in academia, and therefore, also the media are in fact, foreign nationals.
Today's companies are also heavily dependent on foreign investors as well. See Nike for example on how it would be motivated to elect a "pro Chinese" president. And let's not even begin to talk about Soros or Gates both of who are heavily influenced by foreign nations.
The meddling of Russia should be the very least of your concerns.
I think I read somewhere that pharmaceutical ads finance up to 70% of most media outlets.... and you are concerned about Russia? Still?
It's like complaining about the song choice while the Titanic goes down...
The meddling of Russia should be the very least of your concerns.
So you think American corporations shouldn’t be allowed to advertise on TV because that somehow gives them control on what is reported.
So how would broadcasters make money? Are you advocating for socialism? Because your statements sound anti-free market/capitalism.
Do you want China funding the companies that fund US media? yes or no?
-->
@Double_R
Just one of an endless page of examples I could list here.
-->
@Double_R
The media, academia, and corporations are not foreign advasaries. Do you seriously think there is no difference?
Even after I pointed it out, you still speak as if foreign interference began and concluded in 2016. You also speak as if foreign influence is limited to Russia. The news for you is that it isn’t limited to 2016 nor limited to Russia. I expect foreign powers to wish chaos on the US. It is that much more alarming when our own institutions sow chaos, whether intentional or not. Self destruction is still destruction. That said, none of these entities actually cast any of the votes.
There is a thread on here where a poster endorses radical leftist movements precisely because they will allegedly lead to low birth rates and the eventual weakening of the West and its global influence.
This really is an absurd conversation to have, it used to be beyond obvious to everyone. And you can have your own opinions about it all you want, but you cannot pretend that all of the same people on TV pretending there's nothing wrong with it now didn't recognize this as an issue before Trump.
I don’t really know what “it” is in this entire paragraph. If “it” is Russian influence in our elections, I have never denied it, so this paragraph makes no sense.
As far as me personally, I am not so much bothered by the fact that Trump won in part because of the help he got from the Russians, and I'm not actually one claiming that makes Trump an illegitimate president even though I do push back against the idiots who pretend that there is an equivalence between that and and Trump running around claiming he actually won. My issue is the fact that Trump made the help he got from them central to his campaign. He's the one who called for them to hack our institutions, and then when they did he coordinated his message around everything they were releasing. He wasn't trying to hide it.
Well dang, the DOJ really should launch an investigation into such an unwholesome relationship.
FYI, I’m not actually one claiming that the votes were miscounted in 2020, and that seems to be the only substantive difference between the election concerns of 2016 and 2020, as my first post here pointed out.
US presidents are supposed to protect the country against foreign threats. Trump has made clear from day one that the only thing he cares about protecting is his own self interest, and he will burn this country down if he thinks that is what's best for him.
Right; things are muuuch better now…
I think you know I have told you before that: yes, Russia spent around 100,000 dollars to influence the 2016 election to try to fight against Hillary's warhawk agenda.@IwantRooseveltagainThe meddling of Russia should be the very least of your concerns.I think I read somewhere that pharmaceutical ads finance up to 70% of most media outlets.... and you are concerned about Russia? Still?
You make it sound as if Russia was just buying TV ads and donating to republican campaigns. Whatever amount of resources they spent in 2016 (I suspect way more that $100k) was spent illegally hacking US institutions and spreading intentionally and blatantly false stories through fake social media accounts on Facebook and Twitter, among other tactics.
This is what the term "fake news" actually meant before Trump hijacked it for his own political gain. The term came from the intelligence community to describe stories that were purely made up by fascist governments to keep it's target audience believing whatever they wanted them to believe.
So not only is there already a big difference in the the "how", but the real difference is in the "why". Russia isn't trying to weigh in in order to get the candidate whom they believe will be most economically favorable to them. They picked Trump because he was uniquely suited to advance their ultimate goal; to destroy the US from within.
That is what Russia, or more accurately Putin is after. The US just by the sheer example of our success as a democratic society threatens Putin's power and by extension, his life. He wants this country to burn so he chose the man he thought would actually accomplish that goal, and it's worked wonders. What you and all your little cohorts here should really be asking yourselves is why you don't find it odd that his vision aligns with yours.
Did that make the election illegitimate?
Like I said, it doesn't in my view, or at least I wouldn't go that far to say that. But that doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable basis on which to make that claim. Legitimacy is a product of doing things in a way that all parties understand at the outset is acceptable. Not all rules are written, and in fact in politics most rules actually aren't. We operate largely on an honor system, but Trump has no concept of honor whatsoever, so he exploited it and burned that system to the ground and brought the whole republican party with him.
So while I would say it was naive of anyone to expect better from him being that he made his contempt for simple things like integrity and dignity clear, the fact that we as a society didn't see better or just didn't care is our fault. We get the president we deserve.
All of this however is again, night and day difference from there factually bullshit claim that Trump won the election. So yet again, there is no equivalence here.
This is what the term "fake news" actually meant before Trump hijacked it for his own political gain.
How do you feel about Chinese funded companies paying for ad time on news networks? Do you see how bad that could be for American citizens?
We are talking about a hell of a lot more influence than a few million dollars here.
Whatever your sources are feeding you as "misinformation" is likely exactly in line with Chinese interests.
He wants this country to burn
Well I guess that's mission accomplished, But I think he actually wants more than that.
-->
@cristo71
Even after I pointed it out, you still speak as if foreign interference began and concluded in 2016. You also speak as if foreign influence is limited to Russia. The news for you is that it isn’t limited to 2016 nor limited to Russia. I expect foreign powers to wish chaos on the US. It is that much more alarming when our own institutions sow chaos, whether intentional or not. Self destruction is still destruction. That said, none of these entities actually cast any of the votes.
Name anther election in which Russia tried to help a specific candidate.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
@#88
Oh please, it's common of nations to influence other nations futures,
Though the methods, degrees, vary,
As of course some methods lead to outrage,
But even just a head of state expressing approval of a candidate has an effect.
Specific example though?
"Adlai Stevenson II had been the Democratic Party presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, and the Soviets offered him propaganda support if he would run again for president in 1960, but Stevenson declined to run again.[142] Instead, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev backed John F. Kennedy in that very close election, against Richard Nixon with whom Krushchev had clashed in the 1959 Kitchen Debate."
. . .
Not that I'm saying it's not something to be leery of,
But so many on the Left act as though a number of recent events are unheard of, or of Earth shattering importance.
-->
@Lemming
Specific example though?
"Adlai Stevenson II had been the Democratic Party presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, and the Soviets offered him propaganda support if he would run again for president in 1960, but Stevenson declined to run again.[142] Instead, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev backed John F. Kennedy in that very close election, against Richard Nixon with whom Krushchev had clashed in the 1959 Kitchen Debate."
Ok, assuming what you said is true, you had to back 70 years. And Stevenson didn’t run. Then you claim Russia (or only Khrushchev) backed Kennedy.
What did the Russians do to help Kennedy. Did they have a meeting with his campaign manager at the compound in Hyannisport?
You are not making a good case here.