Total posts: 1,065
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
@Wylted
@whiteflame
@oromagi
I mean... Mikal was #1 even after leaving the site for 5 straight years. He also destroyed bluesteel on gun rights. So I would argue he was the best debater on the site by far.
But on this site, (barring myself as a vote), I think Oromagi deserves his number 1 spot on the leaderboards. He is a great debater.
Also, I am pretty sure Wylted on here is the same Wylted on DDO. Unless he specifically stated otherwise. And Wylted had a higher ranking on DDO than whiteflame.
Oromagi, on here, reminds me a lot of Mikal, tbh. Their debating styles are very similar, which makes me wonder if he is Mikal just trolling us on liberal views to see if he can defend a position he doesn't actually believe.
But, honestly, this is like comparing apples and oranges. Yes, there were leaderboards on DDO and are on here and, yes, there was a debate voting system on there and is on here here, but the systems were differently weighted, iirc, and they also had a different calculation for the elo ranking.
So idk if it is a direct comparison anyways.
Just looking stylistically and based on the percentage of debates won and lost, I would argue oromagi and mikal (IF they are different people) are the two best debaters.
And, MAAAAANNN would I love to see a debate between the two of them. Once again assuming they are different people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
are you a member of a culture ?
Going back to our previous conversation about this. I don't think I am an active "member" of any cult(ure).
It is impossible for humans to be infallible. So I think everyone believes things that a patently false. Does that make one a member of a "cult(ure)?"
I don't think so. At least not an active member in any way.
But I'm also going off these definitions:
Member: one of the individuals composing a group [1]
Cult: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious (see SPURIOUS sense 2) [2]
Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith [3]
Active: engaged in full-time service especially in the armed forces [4]
So, I would say that I am not an active member of a "cult(ure)."
But, this also means evolution, scientism, environmentalism, republicanism, democratism, etc. are all cults.
One could argue Voluntaryism is a cult. I would respond that, ultimately, I accept the teachings of the Bible above voluntaryism and that voluntaryist thought is largely undefined. It is centered around just one idea: voluntary participation in anything and zero coercion in society.
If agreeing with that puts me in a cult, then, once again, I argue I agree with it until it disagrees with the Bible.
SOURCES:
Created:
The shift to all-electric vehicles could create over 150,000 jobs by 2030—if policymakers make smart investments to secure U.S. leadership in the auto sector
Press Releases
September 22, 2021
A new EPI report lays out the stakes for workers in how policymakers manage the coming shift to battery electric vehicles (BEVs).
If BEVs rise to 50% of domestic auto sales by 2030, 150,000 jobs in the auto industry could be created with policy measures to shore up U.S. market share and domestic content in BEV production. Key policies include making strategic investments in technology, building up advanced manufacturing capacity, and crafting better trade agreements with more reliable enforcement measures.
But nearly 75,000 jobs could be lost instead if—thanks to policy inaction—the batteries and drivetrains powering the BEVs continue to be produced abroad and U.S. producers make no gains in the share of overall car sales.
For the auto sector to be a hub of good jobs in the U.S. economy, policymakers will need to pass measures to invest in technology and to invest in workers, including strong labor standards and affirmative efforts to encourage unionization. Wages in the auto sector continue to be higher than in the rest of the economy, but this relative pay premium is driven by the unionized segment of the sector, and the unionization rate in autos has declined in recent decades.
“If the shift to electric vehicles is accompanied by strategic investments in technology alongside measures to strengthen bargaining power for workers, then the number and quality of jobs will rise together with electric vehicle production,” said Josh Bivens, director of research at EPI and co-author of the report. “Without these policy efforts, however, employment could instead decline and job quality continue to march downward.”
Black workers, and workers with less than a bachelor’s degree, likely have the most to gain from policy action to boost U.S. competitiveness in electric vehicle production—and the most to lose from inaction. That is because Black workers and workers without a four-year college degree make up a disproportionate share of auto parts and assembly employment. Concretely, Black workers account for 12.5% of workers economywide, but 16.6% of workers in the auto sector. Workers without a four-year degree account for 62.2% of workers economywide but 74.6% in the auto sector. The disproportionate share of Black workers in the auto sector is almost entirely driven by the unionized segments of the sector. . .
Source:
Created:
Is the Inflation Reduction Act Really a Climate Policy Game-Changer?
James E. Hanley
August 16, 2022
Supporters of the Inflation Reduction Act are touting it as a game-changer on climate politics. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman – who may be a bit given to hyperbole where partisan politics is involved – has even suggested the Democrats may have just saved civilization itself. Conversely some leftist critics of the bill argue it will do little to combat climate change because it also mandates oil leasing on federal lands, meaning continued use of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. So what is it? Game changer or failed opportunity? Or, to adopt the weak student’s favorite thesis statement, is it a bit of both?
At the risk of being the weak student, I argue that it is a bit of both. Politically, by being the first successful bill that is explicitly aimed at targeting climate change – even if the Democrats had to hide that with a disingenuous name – it may be a game-changer. For the first time the U.S. has taken legislative action that, at least for now, commits it to active policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as opposed to just stated goals. Whether these policies will survive the 2024 presidential and congressional elections is unknowable, of course. Potentially this all gets repealed within a few years, forcing Democrats to start from scratch. But if not, it sets the stage for marginal enhancements in the future, just as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were successively strengthened in years following their original passage.
But on the actual policy level, the gains appear to be much more marginal than revolutionary. That’s not because of the oil lease mandates, but because of the marginal nature of the policies themselves.
Renewable Energy Investments
Much has been made of the expected great effect of production and investment tax credits on solar and wind power. But these are not new, they are extensions of existing tax credits that were due to expire this year. The investment tax credits, for example, have been extended to projects whose construction begins before January 1, 2025, and it is reasonable to assume they will yet again be extended after that, at least if Democrats control the government after the 2024 elections, or whenever they again do.
Solar power is still bogged down with supply chain issues and a federal investigation into alleged Chinese dumping. Not surprisingly, federal policy is at war with itself. We want more solar as fast as we can possibly install it, but we also want to design our foreign and economic policy around limiting Chinese, and promoting domestic, production.
In addition, installing more solar has limited value unless and until we can expand transmission lines to move it from where it’s produced to where it’s needed. Every model you may have seen that argues the U.S. can advance to 85 percent or more of renewables penetration in our energy supply is built on the assumption that this vast increase in our trans-continental transmission capability is built out. But that’s primarily under the control of states and communities. There is no unitary national policy or authority managing it.
The act grants $10 billion to the development of infrastructure for clean tech manufacturing, including wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles. This is likely to be most heavily fought over by Atlantic Coast states, as they are the most advanced in developing offshore wind. But this is not the game-changer it might appear to be. It’s actually just federal money substituting for state and private funds that are effectively already committed. Federal subsidies don’t always make things happen that otherwise wouldn’t; sometimes they just appear to.
The act extends investment and production tax credits for renewable energy. But these credits have been repeatedly extended. They are the subsidy that never ends, despite claims that wind and solar are now cost-competitive with fossil fuel electricity production. So this is perhaps the single most predictable element of the bill. The most substantive change here is that to get the full amount of the subsidies (30 percent for investment tax credits, and $0.015 per kilowatt hour for production tax credits), firms must pay so-called prevailing wages. If anything, that added labor cost constrains renewables development at the margin by increasing its cost.
Zero-emission Vehicle Subsidies
The subsidies for electric vehicles also are a continuation of past policy, rather than a substantively new policy, although this time it includes a tax credit for used zero-emission vehicles. But they come with new limitations that may hinder their effectiveness. In an effort to minimize the extent to which such subsidies have been a gift to the well-to-do, there are both income limits and limits on the cost of electric vehicles to which the subsidies can be applied. But these are still expensive cars, so to the extent the subsidy increases purchases instead of subsidizing purchases that would have happened anyway, they will be at the margin of those who were close to considering one anyway.
Worse, the subsidies will apply only to vehicles with batteries mostly built or assembled in the U.S. and with critical battery materials extracted or processed in North America or other countries with which the U.S. has a free trade agreement. The tax credit is split into two halves, with one half applying to each of those categories.
The assembly requirement begins at 50 percent and increases to 100 percent after 2028. The critical materials requirement starts at 40 percent and increases annually up to 80 percent after 2026. Most materials are mined outside the U.S. (and the Biden administration has made it difficult to open mines domestically), and China is the leading processor. It is questionable whether supply chains can adapt on such a rapid schedule.
By mixing social, economic, and foreign policy together, Congress likely has limited the effect of the continued subsidy on ZEV sales. . .
Source:
CC BY 4.0:
Created:
Electric Vehicles: A Primer on Technology and Selected Policy Issues
Congressional Research Service
December 3, 2019 – February 14, 2020
Section: Emissions and Electric Vehicle Charging
Emissions and Electric Vehicle Charging
On average, a fleet of EVs could reduce air emissions compared to a fleet of ICEVs, but the extent of the reduction and any associated benefits depend on a variety of factors, in particular when, where, and how plug-in EVs are driven and charged. These emissions include greenhouse gases and other pollutants that contribute to smog and other air quality problems.47 Transportation emissions can be divided into upstream emissions and downstream emissions. Upstream emissions are associated with the processes of fuel extraction and production, including the production of gasoline and diesel for combustion in ICEVs, and the generation of electricity for charging plug-in EVs. Downstream emissions are emitted while the car is in use, including those emitted from the tailpipe or from evaporation during fueling. PHEVs operating on electricity and AEVs produce few downstream emissions, but they are not emissions free. Determining the emissions from charging a plug-in EV relative to an ICEV depends largely on the sources of the electricity used to charge the vehicle. Research has also shown that emissions are further impacted by charging and usage patterns as well as the efficiency of an individual vehicle.48
Electricity generation in the United States produced more greenhouse gases and other pollutants than any other sector between 1990 and 2017.49 Nationally, as fuel sources have changed—decreased use of coal and increased use of natural gas and other lower-emission or renewable sources—and energy efficiency has increased, greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation have declined by 4.8% since 1990, even as demand for electricity has increased over the same period.50 However, national averages obscure regional variation in potential emissions from the mix of fuel sources used for electricity generation (Figure 8).
[Figure 8. Regional Variation in Electricity Generation Sources
Shares of Primary Electricity Sources Nationally and in Select States] (AVAILABLE IN CRS REPORT LINK BELOW)
Source: Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, "Emissions from Hybrid and Plug-In Electric Vehicles," interactive figure, accessed January 29, 2020, https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html.
Notes: Average energy sources in 2018. States selected to highlight regional variability compared to national average. Lower-emission fuels include nuclear, hydropower, wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal.
For plug-in EVs, per-mile emissions attributed to upstream sources vary geographically. An AEV would be expected to produce fewer emissions on average if charged in the state of Washington where 70% of electricity is produced with hydropower than if charged in Hawaii where 69% of electricity is produced with oil.51 Additionally, sources for electricity may change over time, resulting in changing emissions for PHEVs and AEVs—new and otherwise.
Emissions attributed to upstream sources also depend on the time of day and year when charging takes place. Typically, electrical power systems leverage different electricity generation units to meet electricity demand, shifting electricity generation sources throughout the day or year as demand changes.52 An increase in electricity demand from charging EVs may require additional generation which may use sources with greater or fewer emissions.
Source:
Created:
Electric Cars Are Not “Zero-Emission Vehicles”
By James Agresti
September 2, 2022
While praising California’s decision to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035, Governor Gavin Newsom declared that this will require “100% of new car sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles” like “electric cars.” In reality, electric cars emit substantial amounts of pollutants and may be more harmful to the environment than conventional cars.
Toxic Pollution
The notion that electric vehicles are “zero-emission” is rooted in a deceptive narrative that ignores all pollutants which don’t come out of a tailpipe. Assessing the environmental impacts of energy technologies requires measuring all forms of pollution they emit over their entire lives, not a narrow slice of them. To do this, researchers perform “life cycle assessments” or LCAs. As explained by the Environmental Protection Agency, LCAs allow for:
the estimation of the cumulative environmental impacts resulting from all stages in the product life cycle, often including impacts not considered in more traditional analyses (e.g., raw material extraction, material transportation, ultimate product disposal, etc.). By including the impacts throughout the product life cycle, LCA provides a comprehensive view of the environmental aspects of the product or process and a more accurate picture of the true environmental trade-offs in product and process selection.
LCAs are subject to multiple levels of uncertainty, but an assessment published by the Journal of Cleaner Production in 2021 shatters the notion that electric cars are cleaner than conventional ones, much less “zero emission.” The LCA found that manufacturing, charging, operating, and disposing of electric vehicles produces more of every major category of pollutants than conventional cars. This includes:
an increase in fine particulate matter formation (26%), human carcinogenic (20%) and non-carcinogenic toxicity (61%), terrestrial ecotoxicity (31%), freshwater ecotoxicity (39%), and marine ecotoxicity (41%) relative to petrol vehicles.
Foreshadowing that result, a 2018 report by the European Environment Agency warned that studies on the “human toxicity impacts” of electric vehicles were “limited” and that electric cars “could be responsible for greater negative impacts” than conventional cars. . .
Click "source" to read the rest of the article, as republishing entire articles violates copyright laws and does not fall under "fair use."
Source:
Created:
Coming from the man who follows ice cream trucks during public speaking events and shakes hands with invisible people... and yet, according to mainstream Democrats, people who voted for Trump, not the current President, are the biggest threat to Democracy. . .
At any point in this Presidency, we literally have to worry about Biden accidentally pressing the nuclear button accidentally, but, you know, it's people who want a free and fair election who are the real threats to Democracy.
I wonder if mainstream Democrats ever step back for a minute and think about what they say before they say it.
FWIW, I know many mainstream republicans don't. But I honestly don't think mainstream Democrats do either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I'm sorry to hear about your family member and your friend's wife.
Suicide is no joke. Neither is shooting someone you're married to.
Do you think these experiences have shaped your gun beliefs?
Created:
Posted in:
I stopped watching Biden's speeches when he couldn't string sentences together and chased ice cream trucks.
That man is clearly not running anything. So why listen to his speeches?
The WEF made their agenda for America clear in 2020. And it involves electric cars, banning gasoline, bulldozing homes and replacing them with apartments, and banning beef and chicken while replacing it with cockroach and cricket paste and soy patties.
As George Carlin put it, the politicians are puppets of the real owners of this country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Look it appears there is more to this topic for you than mere public policy and what is best for citizens.
I am willing to hear your experiences with guns if you'd like to talk about them. No trolling. No kritik bullshit. I'll just discuss and stuff.
But bringing up two YouTube videos as evidence that all guns are more dangerous than all knives and having a gun is inherently more dangerous than having a knife is a grave misstep in logic.
The whole/parts fallacy, circular reasoning, and ad hominem are what I am seeing here.
A sniper rifle, for instance, could be a very deadly weapon that can be used to kill many, but, to properly use one, a person would have to go through years of training and practice.
A knife is silent, easy to use, and very effective for mass murders because people won't know what happened until at least 3 or 4 people are stabbed. With very little practice, a stabber can kill 5 or 10 people with a single knife before anyone notices, unlike with guns.
And this is just for a concealed pocket knife. Imagine if someone had one of those ninjutsu swords. . .
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
If you really worked in Law Enforcement, then you should have known that other states and cities don't work just like yours. At least, all my friends in Law Enforcement know that.
Also, those responses are old and I already debunked them lol.
I just don't understand why you are so hellbent on believing something that the FBI, themselves, doesn't even believe about the data the put out.
You keep talking about how 10% of the days is irrelevant. But, honestly, that makes you sound really stupid.
I'm willing to bet that if we decided to remove 10% of the votes in the 2020 election because they are "insignificant" you would argue left and right that those votes matter.
But, suddenly, 12% of missing data from crimes statistics and, because it may make black people look just as innocent as all other races, you are arguing it is "insignificant data."
Mo data is insignificant, especially when it is 12% of all the data. For fuck sake, black people are 12% of the population. A statistic you love to cite when claiming they are supposedly "more violent" than everyone else.
If we are removing data because we don't think it is significant, why don't we just remove the 12% of black people from the population and then argue black people commit no crimes.
Do you see how dumb that sounds?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Ironically, Northern Virginia is actually the area that contributes to the rest of Virginia's infrastructure through both State and Federal taxes. Instead of their tax dollars going to them it goes to places they don't live.
Kinda like how Federal Infrastructure spending works for the most part. . .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I said they are "just as dangerous" not more dangerous.
And it is not a childish fantasy. It is fact.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Truth does NOT equal racism.
Yeah but... like... what you're posting isn't the truth though, as I systematically showed the last time.
More than 80-90% of LEAs report data to the FBI.
It was 88%, so my "more than 1 in 10 comment" is factually accurate.
There is a standard definition of racial classifications. It's the same as used by the US Census Bureau.
Not true. Every police department uses their own classifications because the state and local police departments are STATE AND COUNTY AND CITY RUN AND ENFORCE STATE AND COUNTY AND CITY RULES. You would know this if you went to a college that actually taught good criminal justice.
But, just because you will simply say I'm wrong, I will quote Cliffsnotes' website on Criminal Justice to drive the point home that basic aspects of criminal justice are completely lost on you:
An advantage of the UCR is that it includes homicides in its calculation of the violent crime rate (which the NCVS by its nature cannot). The main disadvantage of the UCR is that much crime is never reported to the police and never shows up in the UCR. Thus, UCR estimates of the volume and rates of crime are always lower than the actual frequencies of such occurrences because crime is subject to both nonreporting by citizens and nonrecording by the police. Trends in official statistics may be the result of changes in public reporting and police recording practices, not of actual changes in the amount of crime. [1]
You keep claiming I'm wrong but you seem to be so pigheaded to realize that the UCR is not what you think it is. It is missing roughly 10% of the recorded data of crimes themselves, and the police regularly change their reporting practices at their department levels.
This is basic Criminal Justice stuff. If Cliffsnotes talks about it, then certainly your Criminal Justice textbooks did.
This was why the FBI states that the UCR is not comprehensive and should NOT be used for comprehensive analyses on crime. Because they, the FBI, who MAKES THE UCR, know it is by no means an accurate representation of true crime. It is just partial data on crime in general.
But, ya know. Keep saying black people are responsible for violent crime. Even though that is not provable currently based on the current data we have, knowing its limitations and such.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Your living in imaginary child's fantasy land.
I'll overlook your childish grammar mistake and simply reply with:
There are those who can discuss facts and data and analyze things with their brains, and others who are too childish to think without schoolyard insults.
I've chosen to be an adult. What will you choose?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
outdated water infrastructure in mostly black neighborhoods.
This is really sad. But it also misses that outdated water structure is a problem in many ethnically diverse regions as well.
In many parts of Virginia, such as Virginia Beach, [1] the public water system has toxic chemicals and compounds in it. The average salary in Virginia Beach is $69,332 [2]
Additionally, Northern Virginia's drinking water has toxic amounts of PFAS, or forever chemicals. [3] Northern Virginia is one of the richest metropolitan areas in the country. [4]
America, as a country, simply has outdated infrastructure.
No amount of government spending will fix it, because most of the reason the water treatment systems become outdated is due to horrible maintenance, not bad equipment. A person can make pure water using a pot and stove. The government can do it too. They just choose methods that produce toxic water treatment.
And this isn't just my opinion. This is even the opinion of the Congressional Research Service:
Additionally, recent economic research suggests that during an economic expansion, with a relatively strong labor market, infrastructure investments are unlikely to have any sustained impact on the unemployment rate. During a recession, the same investment is likely to reduce the unemployment rate to some degree. [5]
Investing in infrastructure does not make much of a difference to most people's economic well-being because government corruption keeps it from paying off (pun not intended).
SOURCES:
Created:
I thought it was apparent from the last time you posted this sort of racist drivel that the FBI crime stats are missing more than 1 in 10 police departments reporting their data and that there is no standard definition of race when applied to these unverified, unanalysed statistics. Each police department defines race differently.
I also thought it was apparent from the last time you posted that even the FBI themselves said their data does not support crime ranking of any kind because it is incomplete data that does not take into account sociological conditions and other factors that influence crime.
Created:
Posted in:
that could be read as a collective right, or an individual right.
As per procon.org, which lists their meticulous and thorough citation work in the references section of the article:
A 1792 federal law required that every man eligible for militia service own a gun and ammunition suitable for military service, report for frequent inspection of their guns, and register his gun ownership on public records. [101] Many Americans owned hunting rifles or pistols instead of proper military guns, and even though the penalty fines were high (over $9,000 in 2014 dollars), they were levied inconsistently and the public largely ignored the law. [1]
Furthermore, the National Constitution Center, which is one of the preeminent organizations for constitutional study, write in their commentaries on the 2nd Amendment:
Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training. [2]
Moreover, the Library of Congress's Annotated Constitution states:
Historical surveys of the Second Amendment often trace its roots, at least in part, through the English Bill of Rights of 1689,1 which declared that subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law.2 That provision grew out of friction over the English Crown’s efforts to use loyal militias to control and disarm dissidents and enhance the Crown’s standing army, among other things, prior to the Glorious Revolution that supplanted King James II in favor of William and Mary.3The early American experience with militias and military authority would inform what would become the Second Amendment as well. In Founding-era America, citizen militias drawn from the local community existed to provide for the common defense, and standing armies of professional soldiers were viewed by some with suspicion.4 The Declaration of Independence listed as greivances against King George III that he had affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power and had kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.5 [3]
So as can be seen through America's history, the 2nd Amendment was understood as an individual right of ownership when the 2nd Amendment was written. So much so, that the Federal Government passed a law requiring every American citizen to own a military-grade weapon so they could be furnished for a standing army at a moment's notice.
SOURCES:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
No idea. And I don't want to find out lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Knives are just as dangerous as guns. That is my point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Have you heard of ninjas?
They used to kill hundreds in a single night using a sword and homemade bombs.
The amount of chemicals sitting in a cabinet can be combined to make worse weapons than a gun could ever be.
And knife massacres are a real thing in the U.K.
The average mass shooting, according to the CRS study linked above, kills 4 people. There are many knife massacres that have killed more people than that. Wikipedia lists 2 of them, some of the worst in history, on their article on mass stabbings, [1]
I wanted to find a comprehensive list, but nobody actually has a comprehensive list of knife stabbings even though they happen very frequently, but there are many that were more than 4 deaths, the average for a mass shooting.
In fact, in the last few weeks alone in the U.S. there have been 5 or 6 mass stabbings. [2]
Furthermore, in many countries where guns wre banned, knives become a weapon of choice for homicides. [3]
So should knives me banned too because they make it "easy to kill people"? Or maybe the absence of people arming themselves might have something to do with it.
SOURCES:
Created:
Tbh, OP's point are why I never understood moral atheists.
Why is humanism true? Why is it even worth pursuing when the whole world is full of people who will screw you over for an extra $0.50/hr.?
Without belief in any sort of religious system, what is the point of humanism? What does it actually give the atheist?
Ironically, the fact many atheists gravitate toward humanism (a system that tries to place intrinsic value onto other people and tells people to treat others the way they would want to be treated) shows how, even people who are as anti-God as possible still have an inbred idea of morality and right and wrong, and they are restless to figure out how to live right, even when there is no reason to.
This proves anecdotally what the Bible says in Romans 1:21:
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings and their senseless hearts were darkened. [1]
And in futility they are now living the way Romans 2 describes them:
For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus.
Imagine that. People who don't believe there's a god begin becoming living, breathing evidence of the truth of a religious text.
SOURCES:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
As humans evolve their views in religion grow more sophisticated.
Have they though? People replaced the priest with Dr. Fauci and the religious book with the government mandates.
They have not changed remotely in the 6,000 years of human "evolution." If anything genetic research indicates that the average human from 6,000 years ago would have an equivalent IQ of 145 today. [1]
Of course, this is assuming genetics drives intelligence. Which is a whole debate in and of itself.
But the point is we are not more intelligent now nor have we even really evolved at all in thousands of years, since the earliest records of humans (which happen to coincide with the tools that these archaeologists keep finding) we keep seeing the same levels of intelligence.
But anyways. Religious views have largely remained the same. People worshipped government in Ancient Egypt, and they worship it today. They worshipped polytheism back then, and they worship that today. Black and white magic was commonly practiced in ancient Rome, and it is commonly practiced today.
For example Jesus was a liar and lunatic to the Jews of his generation. They demanded Jesus be crucified. The Romans crucified Jesus.But several centuries later Jesus from a dead crucified liar and lunatic evolved to be the God of the Roman Catholic Church and all of Christianity.
He still is considered a liar and a lunatic to the Jews of this generation. The Christians never considered him dead because 500 people saw him ascend into heaven after talking with them.
There is also the whole empty tomb thing. We haven't found His body. They never found it. And they never will find it. Because He rose from the dead.
Created:
But I'll try anyways:
The number of oil rigs in the U.S. plummeted on January of 2020, following when we shut down the whole economy for COVID lockdowns. [1]
Even currently, we are now just getting back to what they were at in January of 2020.
So Trump screwed this one up by shutting down the whole economy, but as we can see from the data, Biden did absolutely nothing to unscrew us when he came back, since the rig counts are moving at the same pace as when they were reopening when Trump left.
So, as far as gas is concerned, Biden has failed. Though it remains to be seen what will happen with the new permits the BLM issued. Hopefully they will actually become oil drilling centers.
Now, as for saying Trump screwed up with the USMCA vs. NAFTA.
Here is a summary of the differences between NAFTA and the USMCA agreement from the International Trade Administration:
According to them:
All products that have zero tariffs under NAFTA will remain at zero under USMCA.Canada will provide new and expanded access (via Tariff Rate Quotas) for U.S. exports of several dairy categories, including:
- Milk
- Cheese
- Cream
- Skim milk powder
- Condensed milk
- Yogurt
Canada will also eliminate its tariffs on whey and margarine. [2]
So, no. We did not "put so many trade sanctions on Mexico." In fact, we even alleviated some we had from Canada, which makes our produced is more competitive over there, thus strengthening our economy.
But even for cars, which the liberal media said Trump completely screwed up with the USMCA, here is what the same source states:
NAFTA’s automotive rules of origin are outdated, permit ‘free riding’ by countries outside of North America, and have discouraged auto manufacturing and investment in the United States. The USMCA includes upgraded rules of origin for automobiles and automotive parts that promote reshoring of vehicle and parts production and incentivize new investments in the U.S. automotive sector.
- Increased Regional Value Content (RVC) requirements;
- New requirements for vehicle producers’ procurement of North American-sourced steel and aluminum;
- Eliminates loopholes that undermine RVC thresholds;
- Introduces a first-of-its-kind Labor Value Content (LVC) rule;
- Reduces the administrative burden on vehicle and parts producers. [3]
So while it was more restrictive on Mexico, it actually incentivized investment into the AMERICAN auto industry and made our cars MORE COMPETITIVE.
They explain:
The USMCA includes many innovative provisions designed to incentivize new U.S. investments in the automotive sector, to promote additional purchases of U.S.-produced auto parts, to advance U.S. leadership in automotive R&D, to support additional high-paying U.S. jobs in the automotive sector, and to encourage automakers and suppliers to locate future production of electric and autonomous vehicles in the United States. [3]
So, if anything, the USMCA actually strengthened our economy and did not contribute to our current economic slump. The slump would have been significantly worse if we stayed with NAFTA, according to the International Trade Administration.
Granted, I will state that these are government explainer sources and some of the information could be wrong, but you can pore through the rather hefty document yourself which they also make available on their website.
Additionally, the International Trade Association is tasked with creating "prosperity by strengthening the international competitiveness of U.S. industry, promoting trade and investment, and ensuring fair trade and compliance with trade laws and agreements." [4]
So they are the government department responsible for making sure our trade agreements are being followed, which means it is part of their job to explain these trade agreements properly. Will it be perfect? I am not claiming it is. But what I AM claiming is that their summary carries significantly more weight than some random reporter at a news agency because it is written by the people who will be enforcing it.
SOURCES:
Created:
Or maybe if we didn't decide to stop investing in oil and gas and if we didn't decide to increase taxes and shut down the economy for 2 years and give trillions of dollars to billionaires while taxing the upper middle class and middle class more, then maybe we could have avoided this slump.
Also, FWIW, Trump was the person who instituted NAFTA, which strengthened trade agreements with Mexico and got us energy independent.
Also, it was BIDEN, not Trump, who disrupted America's progress on oil.
But I shouldn't even bother trying because I can literally hand over the NAFTA agreement paperwork but some journalist over at WaPo can just misconstrue it and that is all you'll probably believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Idk if I agree. Just because someone believes something, that does not mean they are part of a cult. But I WOULD argue that most people are probably a member of a cult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Evolution and science can only explain how the universe was created.
Science, yes. Macroevolution, no.
Created:
Posted in:
Without tribal elements nobody would have any need to help anyone else. So when someone is in hard times, nobody will do anything to help them because they don't see them as a member of any sort of community.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Interesting post, but I think this guy is in a cult of no work.
He assumes that "a job" means that work is bad, which is stupid. Humans are literally built for work. We do work all the time. We just don't necessarily do work that gives us money all the time.
He also argues that the far-left and far-right are not brainwashed. I argue this isn't the case. Socialists, for instance, keep wanting to try a failed political ideology because it sounds good to them. Anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, want to create a world where there is absolutely no oversight of anything. They think the free market will magically work out ownership of nukes, people collectively banning together and controlling the resources, and that everyone will just magically adhere to the non-aggression policy and go to some sort of arbitration rather than engage in shootouts in the streets.
Both of those are also types of brainwashing.
Voluntaryists, on the other hand, don't try to tell people what type of government structure they should have. They only argue that, whatever government structure it is, it should be voluntary participation. Someone is free to leave just as soon as join without any punishment. But if they choose not to leave, then they must adhere to the government or society they joined.
Created:
Posted in:
I mean, this whole argument assumes macroevolution is actually real.
The scientists over at scienceagainstevolution.org have some pretty convincing arguments that it isn't. Mainly that the earth cannot possibly be older than 2 billion years [1] [2] due to u238 decay times and the fact that uniformitarian dating methods are significantly flawed and based on a logical fallacy. [3]
But, assuming the shaky premise that macroevolution exists, the argument is that religion was a mechanism that survived because it made people more altruistic and therefore less likely to kill each other because they feared retribution for their actions.
Look at the world around you for a minute and ask yourself, do these people seem like kind, altruistic, loving individuals who will have my back and work collaboratively with me to advance the greater good? I'm sure that your answer will undoubtedly be "no effing way."
There is mounds of psychological research that proves that people, even many of those who are "religious," are selfish, pathological liars who cannot engage in basic empathy unless someone in authority forces them to with threat of punishment. In fact, the main reason most governments exist is because people got together and determined it was in their selfish best interest to have a third party to govern them because they knew they were completely incapable of governing themselves and being altruistic. And these same people then turn around and allow their governments to steal from them, control their every move, and send them off to die in a foreign war somewhere.
And you think that religion somehow was an evolutionary gene that regulated all this hatred, selfishness, and mass killing? Have you even read the history of the Catholic Church, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, basically any society that worshipped the emperor or ruler as a god or regent of God and therefore just let them do whatever it is they wanted?
And you think this somehow was an evolutionary advantage?
IMHO, we are designed to worship because the world runs best when we worship and follow God. Not just some random god that a person made up last week, but The God. The one who actually changes our nature into altruistic, good people by making us new and giving us a new nature filled with love for each other. Man's natural impulses, even including religion, are selfish, hateful, lustful, and violent. Man is in need of a new nature.
SOURCES:
Created:
Revised Real GDP Posts Smaller Decline, Real Private Domestic Demand Increases
Robert Hughes – August 25, 2022 CC BY 4.0
(NOTE: CHARTS ARE IN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE LINKED BELOW)
Revised data show real gross domestic product fell at a 0.6 percent annualized rate in the second quarter versus a 1.6 percent rate of decline in the first quarter (see first chart). The advance estimate had shown a 0.9 percent decline. Over the past four quarters, real gross domestic product is up 1.7 percent.
Real final sales to private domestic purchasers, a key measure of private domestic demand, have shown greater resilience. Revised estimates show it rose 0.2 percent in the second quarter following a 3.0 percent pace of increase in the first quarter (see first chart). Over the last four quarters, real final sales to private domestic purchasers are up 1.8 percent.
Declines were widespread in the second quarter. Among the components, real consumer spending overall rose at a 1.5 percent annualized rate versus a 1.0 percent gain in the advance estimate, and down from a 1.8 percent pace in the first quarter. That is the slowest pace since the lockdown recession. Real consumer spending contributed a total of 0.99 percentage points to real GDP growth. Consumer services led the growth in overall consumer spending, posting a 3.6 percent annualized rate, adding 1.56 percentage points to total growth. Durable-goods spending fell at a 0.1 percent pace, subtracting 0.01 percentage points while nondurable-goods spending fell at a -3.7 percent pace, subtracting 0.56 percentage points (see second and third charts). Within consumer services, growth was broadly strong, led by food services and accommodation (12.4 percent), recreation (6.8 percent), and other services (5.5 percent growth rate).
Business fixed investment was unchanged in the second quarter of 2022 after a 10.0 jump in the first quarter. Intellectual-property investment rose at a 10.0 percent pace, adding 0.51 points to growth while business equipment investment fell at a -2.7 percent pace, subtracting 0.15 percentage points, and spending on business structures fell at a 13.2 percent rate, the fifth decline in a row, and subtracting 0.36 percentage points from final growth.
Residential investment, or housing, fell at a 16.2 percent annual rate in the second quarter compared to a 0.4 annualized gain in the prior quarter. The drop in the second quarter subtracted 0.83 percentage points (see second and third charts).
Businesses added to inventory at an $83.9 billion annual rate (in real terms) in the second quarter versus accumulation at a $188.5 billion rate in the second quarter. The slower accumulation reduced second-quarter growth by a very sizable 1.83 percentage points (see third chart). The inventory accumulation helped boost the real nonfarm inventory to real final sales of goods and structures ratio to 4.06 from 4.0 in the first quarter; the ratio hit a low of 3.75 in the second quarter of 2021. The latest result is still below the 4.3 average for the 16 years through 2019 but suggests further progress towards a more favorable supply/demand balance (see fourth chart).
Exports rose at a 17.06 percent pace while imports rose at a 2.8 percent rate. Since imports count as a negative in the calculation of gross domestic product, a gain in imports is a negative for GDP growth, subtracting 0.45 percentage points in the second quarter. The rise in exports added 1.88 percentage points. Net trade, as used in the calculation of gross domestic product, contributed 1.42 percentage points to overall growth.
Government spending fell at a 1.8 percent annualized rate in the second quarter compared to a 2.9 percent pace of decline in the first quarter, subtracting 0.32 percentage points from growth.
Consumer price measures showed another rise in the second quarter. The personal-consumption price index rose at a 7.1 percent annualized rate, matching the first quarter. From a year ago, the index is up 6.5 percent. However, excluding the volatile food and energy categories, the core PCE (personal consumption expenditures) index rose at a 4.4 percent pace versus a 5.2 percent increase in the first quarter and is the slowest pace of rise since the first quarter of 2021 (see fifth chart). From a year ago, the core PCE index is up 4.8 percent.
Lingering materials shortages, labor constraints, and logistical problems are sustaining upward pressure on prices, though progress is being made on improving the supply-demand balance. Upward price pressures have resulted in an intensifying Fed policy tightening cycle, raising the risk of a policy mistake. In addition, fallout from the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues to impact global supply chains. The economic outlook remains highly uncertain. Caution is warranted.
SOURCE:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
FWIW, I think that liberals and conservatives alike are brainwashed by cult propaganda techniques. I used to be a die-hard paleoconservative until I started hanging around anarcho-capitalists. I am not an an-cap. I'm a voluntaryist, but the point is that I was so brainwashed that I would automatically dismiss anything that sounded like liberal-speak from even being considered in my mind and I would automatically ignore anyone who cited WaPo or NY Times as a source on principle that it was 100% anti-Trump.
Most of the liberals I run into do the same thing. They also will shut off their brains the second someone says "capitalism" or "free market" or "constitutional rights" or "Trump."
This is due to thought-stopping, [1] which is used by both the Left and the Right. It is a cult propaganda technique that was discovered by Steve Hassan. [2] Honestly, if you read Hassan's BITE model [2] and then take a hard look at the way the news and political discourse in America is, you'll notice a lot of similarities on both sides of the isle.
Nowadays, I try to do my best to give the other side a shot if they can bring up primary sources, because I know both sides are regularly engaging in cult propaganda techniques to brainwash their supporters. But if a news article cannot actually cite any evidence I can look at, then I simply stop reading altogether because, you know, how can I possibly know if it is true or not?
On the left, I would have to say the most factual outlet is probably Mother Jones. Now, I don't like 99% of what Mother Jones puts out, but most of the time they actually cite their sources and do some real research. They often cite sources with horrible methodology or blatant cherry-picking, but they are citing sources nonetheless. On the right, The Epoch Times has been extremely thorough on their source materials. They will almost always link to the original source they are reporting on. Once again, the source will often have a bias, but they cite sources nonetheless.
Some website I generally avoid are CNN, AP, Fox News, NY Times, WaPo, OANN, Newsmax, and most other mainstream news websites, because most of the articles fail basic tests of evidence. Or if they do cite evidence, it is often a single source that is extremely biased (but once again this doesn't mean the source is wrong), or an anonymous source, which can't be verified.
SOURCES:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
So people suspected of violence due to mental instability, or prior acts of agression or threats towards others --- a developed pattern of this type of behavior--- are not part of you concern?
My first question would be, why does owning a gun inherently mean a person will use it improperly? All acts of aggression are not the same. Rape is a form of violence, and rape is committed without weapons all the time. Virtually every crime out there is successfully completed without weapons regularly. They are also completed WITH weapons regularly. So it isn't the owning of the weapon that causes a crime. It is the mindset of wanting to commit a crime.
Additionally, why do you believe some people should not have a right to self defense because of their previous decisions which they have paid their societal dues for? That is unfair to the people who agreed to the social contract, served their time, and are now released. Should only certain people be given the right to life (essentially, because if you determine who is and is not allowed to defend themselves then you determine who is and is not allowed to be alive) based on previous actions? What if the assault charge was unfounded and the person was framed? Should that person be barred from a gun for the rest of their lives? What about if the developed pattern was 20 years ago and the person has not committed an aggressive act ever since? Or what if they renounced their prior life and joined the foreign legion? Should they own a gun then? What if they became a soldier? Should they have access to a gun then?
Also, who is to say the government will properly use the mental illness category? It is already apparent they have abused drug laws, background checks, search warrants, and other such laws put in place "for people's safety." Who is to say that Conservatism or Liberalism will not be classified a mental disorder and therefore a reason not to own a gun? We already have seen published journal articles and serious works by psychologists making arguments that both conservatism and liberalism are mental disorders for reasons described in those papers. [1] [2] What if the government latches onto this and says "All Conservatives (or Liberals) are mentally unfit for gun ownership?"
Now, in cases where a person makes documented threats? Nah fam. Threats are actual evidence of probable harm to someone. If a person threatens violence onto someone else, that is a violation of the voluntaryist code, that all civic life is free of coercion. It also violates the social contract as laid out in 1776, that a person is free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Threats are obviously a hindrance to this social contract.
on their premise, and pointed at their neighbor
Once again, it is the "pointed at their neighbor" part that makes this an illegal act. Pointing a weapon at someone is a threat of violence. However, mere ownership of the weapon is not. If a person owns a tank but does not point it facing anyone, then where is the threat to violence? Why do we suddenly assume a person who owns a weapon will go on a killing spree? The ownership of the weapon does not change the person's intentions. Now, if they begin pointing their weapons at people and being dicks with their weapons, then that is threatening people and therefore a justifiable reason for their weapons to be taken away, because they have initiated threats against people or at minimum displayed gross negligence with their weapons that could involuntarily harm someone else.
SOURCES:
SOURCES:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I did answer most of them, in the text I posted. Lol
To answer those 3 specifically:
10: because without any laws, and having a federal government, they will invent reasons to take them. So we need amendments to protect them.
11: I am completely for it. Having a gun doesnt mean a person will use it violently. Bad actors, as has been proven every single year, will use illegal weapons for bad reasons anyways. So why not level the playing field?
12: This I'm against. Because without consequences for actions, most people will just commit the actions.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Quit appealing to authority and actually put forward evidence. If your news sources cited mostly primary sources I wouldn't have asked for primary sources now would I have?
It isn't difficult to find a court proceeding. Just use Google it takes 5 minutes. It also isnt difficult to find intelligence reports and the like.
In fact, I'll even help you out and give you the directory for the Federal Government: https://www.usa.gov/
That will have virtually every link you need to find whatever government documents you need to have evidence.
Until then, I am not dodging. The sources I have cited thus far have cited the law, links to the primary sources, and more.
From what I could tell, your sources did not do that.
If you want to prove things about Flynn, then a great place to start would be the intelligence reports and investigations claiming the things about him (the primary sources) or the publicly available court proceedings (which likely have all that stuff in them).
What did you learn in college? Did they not teach you about the difference between primary and secondary sources? Did they not explain to you that Wikipedia, academic commentaries, and other encyclopedias are tertiary sources and the news is considered a secondary source?
Is this not taught in College anymore?
Actually, come to think of it, I first learned that in my freshman year of high school.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
First off, thank you for providing a primary source. That is amazing of you and I like that I can look something up that is the original source of the info rather than an opinion by a news agency or a lawyer or something of that nature.
So 18 U.S. Code § 798 says:
(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— [1]
This says nothing about the President's ability to declassify information. Nor does it talk about the President's ability to classify information. It is simply talking about information that is classified.
The current interpretation as per the U.S. Supreme Court in 1988 is that the President, by nature of his being the Commander in Chief, can declassify whatever he wants.
This law was passed in 1951, [1] the SCOTUS ruling was 1988. And, according to the Constitution, the current interpretation stands until a new one overturns it or a new Constitutional Amendment is written to clarify the President's abilities to classify and declassify information. At least as I understand the situation.
SOURCES:
Created:
-->
@oromagi
The reason I am asking for original sources is because, without them, whatever you or the news claims is not proven.
You could be completely right. Or you could be completely wrong.
But either way, without actual evidence this is impossible to determine.
So that is why I keep asking for it.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Do you, like, have a pathological aversion to original sources? Like? Am I debating a bot account right now?
All those articles did not give any ORIGINAL sources. They all, therefore, do not count as original sources.
I asked for primary sources. I think you need a refresher course in such a thing. Unless you can tell me which people were coted who had firsthand experience in the topic, then the news articles you sent me are not actually proving anything.
It's very simple, Oromagi. The burden of proof demands actual sources, not claims by news outlets, but actual evidence.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Probably because you rely on information from Epoch Times, Christian Headlines, NY Post, etc.
Actually I took classes on American government when I was in college and I have read and studied multiple founding documents (back to that primary source thing). I've read large portions of the Federalist Papers, anti-federalist papers, supreme court rulings, speeches from the time, and portions of the Constitutional Convention. So much so that I used to debate my college professors about our Constitution and hold my ground against people who had doctorates in the subject.
For the most part I do not even read The Epoch Times anymore because they have become so disgustingly pro-Trump that it is hard to look at them the same way anymore.
I cited the Christian Headlines article because the person links and block quotes the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers. In other words, he actually makes a rational claim using primary source documents for his arguments. Not anonymous sources, lawyers, and other secondary sources, which can be used to make any bullshit flavor-of-the-month claim.
You start with Trump's claims and work your way towards confirming information rather than vice-versa.
Not true. 90% of the time I start with the Media's claims and then go out and find the original source and read what it says for myself, using all the proper tools available, including specialized dictionaries and encyclopedias when necessary.
I don't rely on the New York Times to do my thinking for me. I think for myself.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I have yet to see a primary source or an eyewitness account of your claims... the burden of proof doesn't go away because you want it to.
The New York Times is a newspaper. Unless an actual Trump staffer or anyone else who actually witnessed anything writes an article in it, or they republish blockquotes from a linked primary source, or they publish a primary source document themselves, then it does not count as a primary source. Like... at all.
Likewise for anything else you want to use that pathologically incorrect paper as an argument for. Unless you can furnish a REAL document, to use your own favorite standard of evidence. . . "What can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
The NY Times could be completely right. They could also be completely wrong. But it doesn't matter. Because if they cannot furnish any real proof of their reporting, then the burden of proof is not on me, but on the NY Times.
All newspapers and news websites are held to the same standard. Doesnt matter if the Associated Press reports something. If they cannot furnish evidence, then how do I know if it is true? I can't without going out of my way to do the work for them and find the original document.
I actually did quite a bit of that when I ran a news website for a bit. A good portion of my job was spent finding primary sources and looking at them because the press would report something in lockstep and not provide a source.
So I would find the source, read it myself, and then republish an article linking the source, quoting the source, and, in SO MANY INSTANCES, fact checking the media. Didn't matter which media it was, for the most part. I had to do their job for them because they would consistently fail to hold their articles to any standard of proof.
In fact I worked as a journalist for many years in various capacities from editor in chief to blogger to standard journalist. I am not some yokel who doesnt know anything about news. I could write manuals on how to write the news properly. I also have read some of them.
So when I ask for a primary source, please realize it is because, as a member of the news ecosystem for many years, I know just how inaccurate and downright pathologically false it can be from witnessing it myself firsthand.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Primary source documents please. Not media accounts and anonymous sources, actual eyewitness accounts and documentation from Trump himself.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
How is it that you and I studied the same document and arrived at vastly different conclusions on it? Was it different colleges? Different source material?
If the President is in control of the Executive Branch, then he can't obstruct justice. He also technically can't be prosecuted against by his own Branch unless he specifically allows it.
This was why Congress was given sole power of impeachment. Because the President is in charge of the Executive Branch.
But this is also why the Judicial Branch was set up. This way neither Congress nor the President could take total control of the criminal justice system.
Our Country is also not a democracy. It is a Republic. [1] It has very little democracy in it whatsoever. We do not vote in the Supreme Court Justices. We do not vote in the President's cabinet. We do not vote in the various departments the President makes. We do not vote in most of the Congressmen who are even in there. At most, only 3 offices are actually decided via democracy individually by all of us. Each state's 2 Senate seats, and one Congressional Representative for each district. We do not vote on every law. We do not vote on all 435 members of Congress, and we technically don't even vote for the President. Electors, who are decided by the states, do that. It is a Republic. Not a Democracy.
Also, there is nobody in the Pentagon who has a higher clearance level than the President. This was established in Department of Navy v. Egan in 1983. The President has the highest clearance level there is by nature of him controlling the Executive Branch.
BUT... he also doesn't actually have a security clearance in the official sense, [2] because he can give them out to whomever he wants and also can control what is and is not classified, there is no reason to give him a clearance he doesn't need and controls the dispersion of anyways.
But, point being, the President has access to all the classified intelligence he wants to by nature of being President. He can also revoke anyone's clearance at any time, even top members of the Pentagon, if he so chooses.
Our Constitution was founded based on the idea of Separation of Powers by Montesquieu. So, theoretically, Congress could sue the President and the President could sue Congress. But, believe it or not, the President DOES have the power to pardon himself of everything except impeachment. So even if the DOJ somehow managed to charge him of a crime, he could just pardon himself. This is specifically why impeachment is not a legal doctrine but a Congressional proceeding. Because if it was a legal doctrine then the President could simply pardon himself from impeachment as head of the Executive Branch.
The idea of the President pardoning himself was debated extensively at the Constitutional Convention and the conclusion was the Executive Branch would simply wait until after the President is impeached to then bring charges against the individual. [3]
SOURCES:
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I think 2020 was the day it happened!
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
As far as what Oromagi said, what was the original source? Because from what I understand Flynn lied to Trump and that was why Trump ousted him. Flynn also received money from Russia, like tens of thousands of dollars in money from Russia. It could have been Trump had no idea this happened, or he knew and didn't care. Who knows. I need the original source.
Created:
Well, so far as I know, the law states that if the president opens his mouth and says "I am declassifying this," or if he brings up classified material in conversation with anyone at all, it is officially declassified. This system is based off a 1983 Supreme Court ruling in Department of Navy v. Egan.
Here is a politifact article on it:
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
if it's illegal what trump did with the classified material, and if the material is critical to national security, then of course he should go to jail for it.
Declassified material is not a national security threat. There is reportedly eyewitness testimony and other physical documents such as emails that show he declassified everything he took with him before his term was completed. Until those emails are made public, we only have the eyewitness testimony of his staffers. Which means all we can do is pick a side. Nothing more. Nothing less. Either his staffers are lying, or they are telling the truth. We can't know for sure until the documents surface.
he also tried to get georgia election officials to invent votes that didn't exist to over turn the election- i dont think he should go to jail for that, but i would understand if someone thought he should.
Sigh. This is why I largely stopped reading the news and now only skim the topics and go to the original source. Here is the whole, unedited phone call recording:
In the recording, Trump talks about how ballots of his were deleted or destroyed. He tells the people of Georgia to find the destroyed ballots. He does not tell them to create fake ballots. It is a 1 hour phone call. The news literally spliced together snippets of it to create a narrative.
To be honest with you, considering 90% of the intelligence reports surrounding the 2020 election are still classified, and the fact that the WEF openly took credit for swinging Georgia in Biden's direction with a hub they had there for the sole purpose of registering voters likely to vote Democrat and also deliver ballots for people, and also reportedly having connections to the Georgia government officials, it would not surprise me in the slightest if Trump was going off of an intelligence report he received that claimed there could be destroyed ballots in Georgia. Just saying.
Doesn't mean that was the case. I am just saying we can't just claim Trump did things he didn't do because we don't like him and someone else said he did it. We need to go based off primary sources and the facts. And, with all that we DON'T know about the 2020 election because it is classified or simply uninvestigated, or just locked away in a server or room somewhere, we can't claim there was no election fraud in Georgia. What we CAN claim is that Trump believed there was and told Georgia to find the destroyed ballots.
i heard from a credible source, though i dont know for sure it's true, that he knowingly put a spy into our government, michael flynn. i dont know if that's prison material, but it might be depending on the specifics.
And this credible source is?
Created:
Can anyone actually list a single crime worthy of imprisonment that Trump did where there is conclusive evidence he did it?
He didn't collude with Russia. He didn't use the FBI as his own arm of enforcement. He didn't commit war crimes. He didn't use the DOJ to prosecute political opponents.
What DID he do that makes him an evil criminal worthy of prison?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
The answer to many of those questions are in the sources I cited in the initial posts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think we are working under different definitions of meaning.
When I say meaning, I mean definition 4b in Merriam Websters:
the logical denotation or extension of a word or phrase [1]
Whereas I think you mean 4a:
the logical connotation of a word or phrase [1]
Hume's Guillotine does NOT claim there are no denotations. It claims that we can't call connotations denotations. At least as I understand Hume's Guillotine.
All I'm saying is, if objects hold inherent qualities about them, then we can define those qualities and therefore have meanings (in the 4b sense).
Actually... I realize I was using the wrong word this whole time!!! Whenever I said "qualify" I meant "qualitate." I can see how the conversation went this direction now lol.
One such way of definition is through empirical analysis. But qualitative research provides connotations which can then be fact checked with denotations (e.g. syllogistically looking at the connotation to see if it is logical). Qualitation is not the same as quantification (solely definitions), qualitation is always speculative and guesswork. It is a form of inductive reasoning. [2] But using syllogisms and term logic, one can arrive at meanings and new truths about the life, assuming the premises are true.
SOURCES:
Created: