Independence

[Bond]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPD_LoQHBu0

Fixed hopefully. I think I just deleted a character at the end by accident.

Bond. James Bond. I've bowed out of political discussions for the time being. Just wanted to say you are a welcome sight on these threads. I always appreciate your commentary!

J to the G

Jersey I hope you've retired to chill and are living the best life.

[Jersey Girl]

Bond. James Bond. I've bowed out of political discussions for the time being. Just wanted to say you are a welcome sight on these threads. I always appreciate your commentary!

J to the G

Jersey I hope you've retired to chill and are living the best life.

Thanks, Bond!

[Marcus]

Wow, ceeboo. I just read through this thread. Does this cute little gif and the previous one that you also put into a canpakes quote box represent you?

On a side note, it's quite disingenuous to replace another poster's words with a gif. Have the guts to just call it your own work. Here's canpakes' actual post:

Weird. You’re doing it again.

I’m not sure if this last part of your post is verbatim from some other site, or are your own words:

Yes, you read that right: 52% of Democrats (a MAJORITY!) just told you they can’t bring themselves to say that killing an opposing party’s presidential candidate is morally wrong.

… but, either way, those words indicate only one of two things: either extreme dishonesty, or an inability to comprehend the English language.

At least two other people here have noticed the same problem.

Don’t bother pretending to clutch pearls over my comment. You might instead try to explain why that statement doesn’t indicate either extreme dishonesty, or an inability to comprehend the English language, especially given that no one seems to be buying what you’re trying to sell.

No one. Agreed.

[Some Schmo]

TDS is part of the BS story Trump voters tell themselves to justify their incredibly horrible judgment of character.

TDS is as real as real gets. People who are suffering with TDS can't see that they have it (That's one of the side effects of TDS). I have spoken to people who are never-Trumpers, and who will be voting for Harris, that absolutely understand and recognize how real TDS is.

This is the kind of crap that makes it impossible to take you seriously. It's nonsense, and if you were honest with yourself, you'd admit it. But you aren't, so you won't.

I have spoken to people who are never-Trumpers... So? This is your evidence for a made up disease?

You tolerate only thoughts that make you comfortable, and that makes it easy for you to lie to yourself.

[canpakes]

TDS is as real as real gets. People who are suffering with TDS can't see that they have it (That's one of the side effects of TDS). I have spoken to people who are never-Trumpers, and who will be voting for Harris, that absolutely understand and recognize how real TDS is.

This is the kind of crap that makes it impossible to take you seriously. It's nonsense, and if you were honest with yourself, you'd admit it. But you aren't, so you won't.

I have spoken to people who are never-Trumpers... So? This is your evidence for a made up disease?

You tolerate only thoughts that make you comfortable, and that makes it easy for you to lie to yourself.

MAGA voter: “Hey, fren … I know that Trump has been found liable of sexual assault, been found guilty of fraud, has filed for bankruptcy multiple times, has punted over a billion dollars worth of his past tax liabilities on to the Joe and Jane Six Packs of America to cover, has admitted to cheating on all of his wives, had largely ignored one of his children until it was convenient to acknowledge her, had to settle a housing discrimination case for one of his properties after being dragged into court for it, had to settle a court case alleging fraudulent practices at ‘Trump University’, was a known friend of that Epstein fellow for decades and has been the subject of rape allegations (including of minors) in conjunction with that friendship, screwed a pornstar while his wife was at home tending to her first child and tried to bury the story via illegal payments, has a reputation for non-payment or abuse of many tradesmen or subcontractors who’ve done work for him, praises international dictators and seems slavishly obsequious to Russia’s Putin, has bragged that he would have no problem with Russia killing off citizens of other countries and taking their land if they don’t ’pay up’ to NATO, seems devoid of compassion or humility, is unable to be truthful about most anything - even about stupid minor things -, egged on a crowd of folks to attack the Capitol on J6 on the premise that the election was ‘stolen’, spends inordinate amounts of time each day tweeting out insults at people and punching down on anyone that he thinks he can get away with bullying, has called political opponents vermin and claimed that immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country, and has spent the last 4 years spreading lies about election fraud and doing his best to undermine democratic institutions, but won’t you vote for him? Because Haitians are eating eveyone’s pets.”

Ordinary person: “Um, no. He sounds unfit for the job and seems like a threat to democracy, too.”

MAGA voter: ”You’re dErAnGeD ..!!1!”


(Ceeboo, feel free to suggest what might be inaccurate here …)

[Moksha]

Trump derangement syndrome only makes sense as an increasingly troublesome malady that Trump is experiencing.

[honorentheos]

I revisited this thread this morning. It's bizarre. Trump Derangement Syndrome gets claimed when someone views Trump as more than merely a political opponent with different but potentially valid views. Manetho laid out why Trump isn't being treated as a political rival but rather a threat to democracy. And the retort? Nuh uh.

I'm curious, are Trump supporters incapable of engaging the criticisms of their views? Because I've yet to meet one that is capable of doing more than regurgitate talk radio points like they were citing scripture, chapter and verse. So criticism of a point isn't addressed but dismissed. The orthodoxy has become gospel...

Perhaps the limitation that we all face (only written words on a screen) is to blame, but that seemed like you were making a demand of me. Did that come across the way it seemed?

Yes.

In recent years, I've developed a fascination with moments in history where authority is up for grabs. Laws are fiction. Authority is fiction. There is no mind control that says a sergeant must obey a general, a general must obey the president, or an entire massive legal system must obey Supreme Court rulings. But by and large, we all behave as if there is no other way to function except according to the laws. We may think a particular law or authority figure is stupid, but we still treat those laws and those figures as if their words matter, because the alternative is chaos. But sometimes societies lose all confidence in the laws and authority figures. The rules disappear.

Some of those moments in history can even be uplifting. When Soviet hard-liners launched a coup against President Gorbachev in August 1991, the coup was defeated, but it was obvious that Gorbachev could no longer control the country, and for the next few months he was largely irrelevant. People stopped believing in the fiction that Gorbachev must be listened to. The rules ceased to exist, and three subordinate leaders decided to make up their own rules. The leader of the seceding state of Belarus (Stanislav Shushkevich), the leader of the Russian SFSR (Boris Yeltsin), and the leader of the Ukrainian SSR (Leonid Kravchuk) all got together at a hunting lodge and threw together a document called the "Belovezha Accords" announcing that the Soviet Union no longer existed. They didn't have any legal authority to do that, but hardly anyone cared, and the Soviet Union dissolved peacefully by the end of the year.

But most of the time, the people who take power in moments of crisis end up being the people with the guns. Two years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, Yeltsin illegally tried to dissolve the Duma. In response, the Duma impeached Yeltsin and declared the vice-president, Alexander Rutskoy, was now the acting president. Yeltsin ignored the law, and for ten days there was street fighting in Moscow between supporters of Yeltsin and the parliament, which ended when the army came in on Yeltsin's side. Similar situations in other countries can escalate into outright civil war.

The United States has never experienced a moment quite like this. Even when slave states seceded during the Civil War in response to the election of Abraham Lincoln, they never argued that Lincoln was not the legal president, only that they had the right to secede, a question that the Constitution never addresses. For the past 236 years, the president has always been the person chosen by a majority of the Electoral College, or, if there is no majority, the person elected by a majority of the state delegations in the House of Representatives. (The latter situation has only happened twice, 224 and 200 years ago.) Moreover, our military, unlike most militaries in the world, is deeply acculturated not to get involved in the nation's internal politics. It follows the law and the elected civilian leaders. Because of this exceptional degree of stability, Americans often don't appreciate how fragile law and authority actually are. Under the right conditions, they can all go out the window.

In 2020, the Electoral College unambiguously chose Joe Biden as president of the United States. The formal tallying of the electoral votes, in the presence of Congress and the vice-president, has always been thought of as a mere formality, albeit one required by the Constitution. But it was the final chance for the "Stop the Steal" movement to derail the election process. One of the foremost members of that movement, John Eastman, had a legal scheme for the vice-president to throw out the electoral votes from states that Trump and his supporters claimed had voted fraudulently. The idea was that without these votes, there would be no Electoral College majority, throwing the election into the House of Representatives. Although the recently inaugurated 117th Congress had a Democratic majority in the House, most state delegations were majority Republican. In a presidential election, the House votes in state-by-state blocs, so if all House Republicans stuck by Trump, he would be reelected president.

A lot of the rioters in the January 6 attack were clueless and simply ended up wandering the halls of the Capitol, but several groups among them were much more organized. They wanted to reach the House and Senate chambers and make throw out the votes. This goal was made even more clear when Trump Tweeted that Vice-President Pence had betrayed him by refusing to throw out the votes. If they reached their destination, they would have either inflicted physical violence on Congress or, using the threat of such violence, force them to reject the votes.

What then? The House might have voted in Trump as Eastman and company wanted. But everyone knew the Electoral College chose Biden, and it was clear to most of the nation that those Electoral College delegations had been lawfully selected by their states, because Biden won a majority of the votes in those states. The Electoral Count Act didn't say Congress or the vice-president even has the authority to throw out electoral votes, and even if it had, would a congressional vote taken under duress be legally binding? Would the Supreme Court have to intervene? And if there was a split among the nation's civilian leaders, which way would the military have jumped?

There was no legal ambiguity about who should have been inaugurated as president on January 20, 2021. There was no moment when authority was up for grabs. But the January 6 attackers were trying to create such a moment in the hope that it would break their way. You can post all the cutesy contrarian bulls*** you want, but January 6 was an attempt to create society-wide chaos. And you should damn well have to face what that actually means.

[IWMP]

Coming soon - October 2024

January 6: The Most Deadliest Day (Trailer)

https://youtu.be/u6HnqV6jzTU?si=FW8RGyQkDWA7tnD2

how can something as stupid as this get made by human beings?

Is it not a joke? I don't understand what's going on in this thread.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I revisited this thread this morning. It's bizarre. Trump Derangement Syndrome gets claimed when someone views Trump as more than merely a political opponent with different but potentially valid views. Manetho laid out why Trump isn't being treated as a political rival but rather a threat to democracy. And the retort? Nuh uh.

I'm curious, are Trump supporters incapable of engaging the criticisms of their views? Because I've yet to meet one that is capable of doing more than regurgitate talk radio points like they were citing scripture, chapter and verse. So criticism of a point isn't addressed but dismissed. The orthodoxy has become gospel...

Yes.

In recent years, I've developed a fascination with moments in history where authority is up for grabs. Laws are fiction. Authority is fiction. There is no mind control that says a sergeant must obey a general, a general must obey the president, or an entire massive legal system must obey Supreme Court rulings. But by and large, we all behave as if there is no other way to function except according to the laws. We may think a particular law or authority figure is stupid, but we still treat those laws and those figures as if their words matter, because the alternative is chaos. But sometimes societies lose all confidence in the laws and authority figures. The rules disappear.

Some of those moments in history can even be uplifting. When Soviet hard-liners launched a coup against President Gorbachev in August 1991, the coup was defeated, but it was obvious that Gorbachev could no longer control the country, and for the next few months he was largely irrelevant. People stopped believing in the fiction that Gorbachev must be listened to. The rules ceased to exist, and three subordinate leaders decided to make up their own rules. The leader of the seceding state of Belarus (Stanislav Shushkevich), the leader of the Russian SFSR (Boris Yeltsin), and the leader of the Ukrainian SSR (Leonid Kravchuk) all got together at a hunting lodge and threw together a document called the "Belovezha Accords" announcing that the Soviet Union no longer existed. They didn't have any legal authority to do that, but hardly anyone cared, and the Soviet Union dissolved peacefully by the end of the year.

But most of the time, the people who take power in moments of crisis end up being the people with the guns. Two years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, Yeltsin illegally tried to dissolve the Duma. In response, the Duma impeached Yeltsin and declared the vice-president, Alexander Rutskoy, was now the acting president. Yeltsin ignored the law, and for ten days there was street fighting in Moscow between supporters of Yeltsin and the parliament, which ended when the army came in on Yeltsin's side. Similar situations in other countries can escalate into outright civil war.

The United States has never experienced a moment quite like this. Even when slave states seceded during the Civil War in response to the election of Abraham Lincoln, they never argued that Lincoln was not the legal president, only that they had the right to secede, a question that the Constitution never addresses. For the past 236 years, the president has always been the person chosen by a majority of the Electoral College, or, if there is no majority, the person elected by a majority of the state delegations in the House of Representatives. (The latter situation has only happened twice, 224 and 200 years ago.) Moreover, our military, unlike most militaries in the world, is deeply acculturated not to get involved in the nation's internal politics. It follows the law and the elected civilian leaders. Because of this exceptional degree of stability, Americans often don't appreciate how fragile law and authority actually are. Under the right conditions, they can all go out the window.

In 2020, the Electoral College unambiguously chose Joe Biden as president of the United States. The formal tallying of the electoral votes, in the presence of Congress and the vice-president, has always been thought of as a mere formality, albeit one required by the Constitution. But it was the final chance for the "Stop the Steal" movement to derail the election process. One of the foremost members of that movement, John Eastman, had a legal scheme for the vice-president to throw out the electoral votes from states that Trump and his supporters claimed had voted fraudulently. The idea was that without these votes, there would be no Electoral College majority, throwing the election into the House of Representatives. Although the recently inaugurated 117th Congress had a Democratic majority in the House, most state delegations were majority Republican. In a presidential election, the House votes in state-by-state blocs, so if all House Republicans stuck by Trump, he would be reelected president.

A lot of the rioters in the January 6 attack were clueless and simply ended up wandering the halls of the Capitol, but several groups among them were much more organized. They wanted to reach the House and Senate chambers and make throw out the votes. This goal was made even more clear when Trump Tweeted that Vice-President Pence had betrayed him by refusing to throw out the votes. If they reached their destination, they would have either inflicted physical violence on Congress or, using the threat of such violence, force them to reject the votes.

What then? The House might have voted in Trump as Eastman and company wanted. But everyone knew the Electoral College chose Biden, and it was clear to most of the nation that those Electoral College delegations had been lawfully selected by their states, because Biden won a majority of the votes in those states. The Electoral Count Act didn't say Congress or the vice-president even has the authority to throw out electoral votes, and even if it had, would a congressional vote taken under duress be legally binding? Would the Supreme Court have to intervene? And if there was a split among the nation's civilian leaders, which way would the military have jumped?

There was no legal ambiguity about who should have been inaugurated as president on January 20, 2021. There was no moment when authority was up for grabs. But the January 6 attackers were trying to create such a moment in the hope that it would break their way. You can post all the cutesy contrarian bulls*** you want, but January 6 was an attempt to create society-wide chaos. And you should damn well have to face what that actually means.

They ain’t reading ‘all that’. This has been my chief complaint for years now; you see it with various posters here linking crap they either didn’t read or couldn’t comprehend because they don’t understand the formal language being used. Or worse, they just skim over thoughtfully crafted posts.

If you really want to see an exercise of every logical fallacy you see here, just follow a Reddit exchange. It’s like the conversations here, but they’re reduced to its essence and juiced up by a factor of ten by the stoopids. If one ever wonders why a man like Dump can get 70 million votes, well, just look at social media. This country is powered by Brawndo the Thirst Mutilator, and don’t bother me man, cuz I’m ‘baitin’ over here.

- Doc

[Chap]

They ain’t reading ‘all that’. This has been my chief complaint for years now; you see it with various posters here linking crap they either didn’t read or couldn’t comprehend because they don’t understand the formal language being used. Or worse, they just skim over thoughtfully crafted posts.

Yup. The points made in the Manetho post were crystal clear. I have seen none of them refuted.

As you say, language above a certain level of complexity is simply not understood by many people. This creates a dangerous situation where any position not capable of being reduced to instantly appealing slogans or anger-inducing imagery has no chance of winning votes from large parts of the voting population.