|
Post by logicalfallacy on Jan 13, 2021 23:19:42 GMT
Potentially there will be an ongoing problem.
On the issue of evidence of massive widespread (benefiting Democrats only??) fraud and the insistence that there was widespread fraud, and that there is some sort of cover up or that it wasn't allowed to be played out in the courts reminds me of the creationist vs evolution saga.
I'm not sure how many cases there were, but there were a bucket load. Most of them were rejected. Why? Insufficient evidence to warrant the claim. Like creationism then fraud claim has been rejected by multiple courts, yet like creationists people keep proclaiming that there is evidence of fraud. At some point you have to say enough is enough.
|
|
|
Post by logicalfallacy on Jan 13, 2021 23:30:54 GMT
yeshuapantera Over on Ex-C you started a topic on the D-K effect and Midnite put what I thought was a very interesting point to you that has to do with this current political discussion. You politely declined to answer citing Ex-C "No politics" rule. Can you please respond to the question I've quoted below because I'm interested in your response given your position of the religious regarding the D-K effect: "Do you think the D-K effect describes people who are certain the 2020 election was 'stolen' despite the lack of evidence in 50+ lawsuits? Or Qanon and other conspiracy followers?" (Midniterider)
|
|
|
Post by Midnight Rider on Jan 13, 2021 23:50:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Midnight Rider on Jan 14, 2021 0:27:39 GMT
Potentially there will be an ongoing problem. On the issue of evidence of massive widespread (benefiting Democrats only??) fraud and the insistence that there was widespread fraud, and that there is some sort of cover up or that it wasn't allowed to be played out in the courts reminds me of the creationist vs evolution saga. I'm not sure how many cases there were, but there were a bucket load. Most of them were rejected. Why? Insufficient evidence to warrant the claim. Like creationism then fraud claim has been rejected by multiple courts, yet like creationists people keep proclaiming that there is evidence of fraud. At some point you have to say enough is enough. Florduh now and again will say something like "People have been trying to prove the existence of Jesus for 2000 years...why dont they just give up?" I do the same thing with souls and some of the paranormal nonsense I really really really really wish were true. There just isn't any solid evidence for it. It's ok for me to believe it but to try and get those who deal in facts to buy it...doesnt work. (sorry I edited your posted by mistake , instead of quoting it - fixed)
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 14, 2021 1:51:19 GMT
This is what a coup looks like?
Peace, peace, peace. No violence, no law breaking, no lawlessness of any kind. Beefed up security. And we all need to move on and calm down.
|
|
|
Post by disillusioned on Jan 14, 2021 2:06:18 GMT
Well, well, well. We certainly have cone a long way from "You're very special, and we love you", haven't we?
A week late, after an impeachment. Were I a more cynical person, I might say that this is what a failed coup looks like, when its leader realizes he might actually face some consequences. But I'll play along and just call this progress of a kind.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 14, 2021 2:13:16 GMT
yeshuapantera Over on Ex-C you started a topic on the D-K effect and Midnite put what I thought was a very interesting point to you that has to do with this current political discussion. You politely declined to answer citing Ex-C "No politics" rule. Can you please respond to the question I've quoted below because I'm interested in your response given your position of the religious regarding the D-K effect: "Do you think the D-K effect describes people who are certain the 2020 election was 'stolen' despite the lack of evidence in 50+ lawsuits? Or Qanon and other conspiracy followers?" (Midniterider) I answered that question, indirectly, in the same thread. I made it about cheating wives or cheating anything. The D-K effect is about thinking that you know so much more than you do know. I'll explain again another way. If some one is cheating, and there's witnesses and all sorts of evidence, but they proclaim, "no I wasn't cheating," does that settle the issue? Doesn't mean that we "know" that they weren't cheating because they said they weren't cheating? If not, what else do we have to do to try and gain the sort of "knowledge" that would confirm whether or not the person was cheating? I went on to point that without rigorous investigation, as opposed to hand wave dismissal, no such knowledge of the truth can be gained. This situation of the election isn't any different. There's hundreds of signed affidavits behind these claims. Talking about people feeding ballots into machines over and over again multiple times. Truck drivers who drove truck loads of ballots over state lines. There's the video footage of pulling out ballots from under a table and counting after poll watchers were gone. And there's also people claiming that none of this ever happened, or what you see isn't actually what it looks like. I know that that's what I can expect from a liar or cheater caught lying or cheating. Left wing media and personalities actively denying allegations, doesn't mean the allegations are false, either. So: 1) At the end of the day, we can not "know" if these allegations are true or false unless we somehow rigorously investigate them. 2) The allegations were not rigorously investigated. 3) Therefore we have no way of "knowing" the truth about the allegations. On the D-K effect chart, someone who thinks that they do know the truth without rigorous investigation represents the D-K effect spike. The entire time I've been saying that we need rigorous investigation to find out what's actually true. And that I'm locked in to this thing and following it through to the end. We were stopped from continuing discussion. And now here we are following through with what we started. And pressing forward. No one has changed their minds at this point. But I think we've all allowed a few concessions here and there on some of the smaller points made.
|
|
|
Post by Midnight Rider on Jan 14, 2021 2:33:24 GMT
Last minute or two of the Jan 6 speech: "And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore." .... Today: "No true supporter (or scotsman) of mine...."
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 14, 2021 2:38:29 GMT
Well, well, well. We certainly have cone a long way from "You're very special, and we love you", haven't we? A week late, after an impeachment. Were I a more cynical person, I might say that this is what a failed coup looks like, when its leader realizes he might actually face some consequences. But I'll play along and just call this progress of a kind. And if I were cynical, I might say that this is what sinking argument looks like. Hahahahaha!!! Seriously though, even though it seemed to you as though Trump was trying to take over government with an insurrection, that's not even how it works here. The senate and house were not going to overturn the election. Storming the capital building while they were in process of counting the electoral votes, doesn't really do anything. And it didn't do anything. They just took a break, cleaned out out the "Selfie Insurrection," and went right back to certifying the election. There's no avenue to a coup through any of this. Unless, maybe, they went and blew up all of the representatives and went french revolution on the capitol. And Trump came in with the military on his side, not against him, and instated himself as dictator or Caesar of the US. This wasn't anything remotely close. You may need to better define this coup plan that you're so sure of. How exactly was it going to work? You told me that he doesn't have the military and cited it. The selfie guys couldn't take the US military, could they?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 14, 2021 2:48:44 GMT
Last minute or two of the Jan 6 speech: "And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore." .... "No true supporter (or scotsman) of mine...." I'm just wondering if you realize, setting aside your personal dislike of Trump, that none of this was ever given in a context outside of legal, constitutional oriented discourse? Fight with guns and knives, or fight through legal protest and the courts (which is what they have doing all along)?
|
|
|
Post by disillusioned on Jan 14, 2021 2:55:19 GMT
Well, well, well. We certainly have cone a long way from "You're very special, and we love you", haven't we? A week late, after an impeachment. Were I a more cynical person, I might say that this is what a failed coup looks like, when its leader realizes he might actually face some consequences. But I'll play along and just call this progress of a kind. And if I were cynical, I might say that this is what sinking argument looks like. Hahahahaha!!! Seriously though, even though it seemed to you as though Trump was trying to take over government with an insurrection, that's not even how it works here. The senate and house were not going to overturn the election. Storming the capital building while they were in process of counting the electoral votes, doesn't really do anything. And it didn't do anything. They just took a break, cleaned out out the "Selfie Insurrection," and went right back to certifying the election. There's no avenue to a coup through any of this. Unless, maybe, they went and blew up all of the representatives and went french revolution on the capitol. And Trump came in with the military on his side, not against him, and instated himself as dictator or Caesar of the US. This wasn't anything remotely close. You may need to better define this coup plan that you're so sure of. How exactly was it going to work? You told me that he doesn't have the military and cited it. The selfie guys couldn't take the US military, could they? A coup attempt is an attempt to overthrow a legitimate government. That's all. It is unquestionable, in my opinion, that Trump has been trying to do this since the election. The violence a week ago was just the tip of the iceberg, as I've already asserted. A coup attempt which was always destined to fail is still a coup attempt. Just a bad one. I honestly don't care if you agree or not here. So let's just leave the coup question aside and move on. Any way you slice it, this video by Trump is way too little, way too late.
|
|
|
Post by logicalfallacy on Jan 14, 2021 2:56:31 GMT
This is what a coup looks like? This my friend is what having your lawyers sit you down and explain just how deep in the shit you could be if you don't get this message out now. And by "this message", and the other one I've heard (That for the first time made him sound like an actual President) I mean ones someone else has written. These messages are not Trump. Trump is what you see off the cuff "we will fight, I won, there was massive fraud, the election was stolen, we will march" THIS message is scripted by the smart people behind the scenes who realize how bad this looks for the President, and the GOP. You do not say to a mob "we will march with you, we will fight" and then turn around a few days later and decry it, and expect people to believe that the written speech is actually you. I mean the double speak and delusion and lack of situation awareness in this video edition.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/donald-trump-capitol-mob/index.htmlI can't find the one beforehand where he says we will fight and march. While searching I found this quote " “All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical Democrats,”"Do you believe that the election was "stolen" by "radical democrats"? Are democrats the only radicals? We are back to our logical problem - this entire case relies on only one side doing the fraud, in a country where both have the opportunity. It's not Russia or Iran. Both sides can and do play dirty. Also there was a beautiful no true scotsman in that video - did you spot it? It should be included in a course of logical fallacies.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 14, 2021 3:26:28 GMT
He means that this apparently coordinated effort across many battleground states, in wake of attempts to get him out of office, set out to apply as many election fraud techniques as possible to try and make for certain, this time, that they DO get him out of office. Big Tech pouring money into the DNC side. The mainstream media projecting Biden wins ahead of the election. All of the swing states with hundred to thousands of eye witness affidavits alleging misconduct and illegal votes in DNC run areas. Mrs. Kraken and her dominion voting machine allegations, with votes switched. It's coming from a wide variety of anti-Trump efforts by liberal media, Big Tech, democrat run precincts in highly populated cities and counties, etc., etc.
What's pretty obvious to me is that the people (democrats, some radical left) who have been transparently sworn to force him out of office by any means, were finally able to force him out of office by any means.
I say that the smart money says that yes, they most likely did do that. And have gotten away with it this time.
I think that a demand for transparency in the future will be a positive coming from all of this. Regardless of either side, it's not transparent as it is. They're going to have to tighten up the voting systems nationwide if they expect all of these people to start believing in election integrity.
|
|
|
Post by Midnight Rider on Jan 14, 2021 3:48:06 GMT
" Storming the capital building while they were in process of counting the electoral votes, doesn't really do anything. And it didn't do anything. They just took a break, cleaned out out the "Selfie Insurrection," and went right back to certifying the election. There's no avenue to a coup through any of this. " I think you're trying to sanitize what happened on Jan 6. Yes, true, there was a laughable bunch of Selfie dorks there (and I did laugh at them...lots) . But the more serious aspect is 5 people are dead, 14 cops went to the hospital, broken windows, vandalism, lawmakers in fear and security evacuating them. .... Insurrection is the word used in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which Impeachment 2.0 is using. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385This US Code just calls it "Advocating Overthrow of the Government." I googled coup and got this US Code...shrugs. I dont know if the word coup d'etat is used in laws. shrugs. .... www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384The Selfie people and other silly people stealing shit could possibly be tried for this code called Seditious Conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by Midnight Rider on Jan 14, 2021 4:10:12 GMT
Last minute or two of the Jan 6 speech: "And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore." .... "No true supporter (or scotsman) of mine...." I'm just wondering if you realize, setting aside your personal dislike of Trump, that none of this was ever given in a context outside of legal, constitutional oriented discourse? Fight with guns and knives, or fight through legal protest and the courts (which is what they have doing all along)? I understand the word fight has a variety of meanings. It could mean harm someone, or strive hard for something. I'm not sure what was on Trump's mind during his last ditch effort to stay in power. One thing I've noticed over the last 4 years is Trump wont just do something like say, "Go scare the fuck out my enemies in the capitol now, k?" He is kind of ambiguous about stuff. He doesnt say "You better change the vote count in Georgia so I win!!!!" , he says, "I ummm need you to find me about 12,000 more votes." He does stuff in a way that enables him to avoid blame or culpability. I think there's only point to this impeachment. To make sure he doesnt come back to American government. Other than that it's kind of late in the game. ....... I do understand that Democrats will do whatever they can to get rid of a Republican president. I do understand that Republicans will do whatever they can to get rid of a Democrat president. Both sides have some nasty ass people. Both sides play dirty pool. No doubt. ....... It looks like 10 GOP lawmakers signed onto this one.... ....... So hey, we know we disagree about the election, so let's do something alternately productive and maybe start a Unity thread. What can Republicans and Democrats do to work together to build strength ?
|
|