patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,194,789 comments by 13,937 users - 6DOF, clambo, goofus, mell, Patrick, RayAmerica, RedStar, stereotomy, Tenpoundbass, WookieMan online now
Can anyone find some Democrats willing to debate on patrick.net?
invite response
2022 Nov 10, 3:00pm 86,189 views 699 comments
« First « Previous Comments 524 - 563 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
524
stereotomy
2022 Nov 25, 9:33am
stereotomy
2022 Nov 25, 9:33am
richwicks says
DeficitHawk says
The medical examiner was explicit on the death certificate and in testimony.
DeficitHawk
Can you show us the death certificate?
Here is George Floyd's autopsy results:
https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/ExhibitMtD08282020.pdf
An important part of that is:
Now I read that as:
Autopsy pe...
I read the PDF report. It doesn't take too long. The fact that DH couldn't be bothered to do so, and was more concerned with digging up "counter-evidence," demonstrates to me that he is not acting in good faith. richwicks is justified in his frustration with DH. Richwicks did a great job of putting up a real document which spoke to the moment, before it became political theater. It's clear from the documents how the incident was slowly twisted into an unjustified murder charge.
Bravo @richwicks!
525
DeficitHawk
2022 Nov 25, 7:09pm
stereotomy says
Oh I read this document. But it does not contain the death certificate, official cause of death, or an opinion from the medical examiner on the cause of death. These are notes taken before the medical examiner had reached a conclusion, so he had not given an opinion yet.
The question I am trying to address is "What is the official cause of death?" in response to patricks question above. I am not trying to be pedantic, but I am trying to address a specific matter of fact so that we can agree on facts.
The only opinions on cause of death in that document are from 2nd opinion doctors (not the medical examiner), and both of them said it was neck compression, but they are not the medical examiner and they dont determine the official cause of death. So even though I read that document, I did not see how it addresses the question I am trying to answer.
I think you are conflating a hypothesis that you have with facts. I think you have a hypothesis that the medical examiner would have concluded that it was a drug overdose, but that someone intervened and pressured him to say it was neck compression. Its fine for you to have that hypothesis... and if you bring factual evidence for it, you may convince people. Maybe your hypothesis is that the 2nd opinion doctors swayed the opinion of the ME. Maybe its true. I dont know, I havent seen any facts or evidence to establish this, other than that the ME said under oath that no one pressured him. But maybe your hypothesis is that statement under oath was a lie due to still more pressure? I dont know. Your speculation is just that... speculation.
But your hypothesis is NOT a statement of fact. The fact remains, the official cause of death was "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual restraint and neck compression"
IF you havent noticed, I am pretty much a stickler for separating facts from speculation during debate. When I bring facts, and people deny facts, call the facts 'Goebbles propaganda', and substitute speculation, I am unimpressed.
The fact that DH couldn't be bothered to do so, and was more concerned with digging up "counter-evidence,"
Oh I read this document. But it does not contain the death certificate, official cause of death, or an opinion from the medical examiner on the cause of death. These are notes taken before the medical examiner had reached a conclusion, so he had not given an opinion yet.
The question I am trying to address is "What is the official cause of death?" in response to patricks question above. I am not trying to be pedantic, but I am trying to address a specific matter of fact so that we can agree on facts.
The only opinions on cause of death in that document are from 2nd opinion doctors (not the medical examiner), and both of them said it was neck compression, but they are not the medical examiner and they dont determine the official cause of death. So even though I read that document, I did not see how it addresses the question I am trying to answer.
I think you are conflating a hypothesis that you have with facts. I think you have a hypothesis that the medical examiner would have concluded that it was a drug overdose, but that someone intervened and pressured him to say it was neck compression. Its fine for you to have that hypothesis... and if you bring factual evidence for it, you may convince people. Maybe your hypothesis is that the 2nd opinion doctors swayed the opinion of the ME. Maybe its true. I dont know, I havent seen any facts or evidence to establish this, other than that the ME said under oath that no one pressured him. But maybe your hypothesis is that statement under oath was a lie due to still more pressure? I dont know. Your speculation is just that... speculation.
But your hypothesis is NOT a statement of fact. The fact remains, the official cause of death was "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual restraint and neck compression"
IF you havent noticed, I am pretty much a stickler for separating facts from speculation during debate. When I bring facts, and people deny facts, call the facts 'Goebbles propaganda', and substitute speculation, I am unimpressed.
526
richwicks
2022 Nov 25, 7:16pm
richwicks
2022 Nov 25, 7:16pm
Onvacation says
DID they?
This was a NEWS report, where's the original document?
I cannot stress to people how often, and BLATANTLY our "mainstream media" lies. They could have entirely constructed it. I know this seems unimaginable but:
Where is the original document? Must be on a *.gov document, if it's real. Must be in the court case, if it's real..
We just went though 3 years of bullshit about covid deaths - what part of that was real? Our media ceaselessly promoted it. They are propagandists, not reporters.
DeficitHawk says
OK, you didnt answer my question about the death certificate. Please answer my question above about the death certificate.
They found the right doctor to write what they wanted on a piece of paper. That does not mean that Floyd didn't die from being a drug addled thug.
Kind of like when they had to get Epstein's lawyer to sign off on the search warrant at Mara Lago.
Paper just lies there and lets you put anything on it.
DID they?
This was a NEWS report, where's the original document?
I cannot stress to people how often, and BLATANTLY our "mainstream media" lies. They could have entirely constructed it. I know this seems unimaginable but:
Where is the original document? Must be on a *.gov document, if it's real. Must be in the court case, if it's real..
We just went though 3 years of bullshit about covid deaths - what part of that was real? Our media ceaselessly promoted it. They are propagandists, not reporters.
527
DeficitHawk
2022 Nov 25, 8:26pm
mell says
Oh you bet I would. I agree 100%. I want the police to do their work. i want the police to arrest criminals. Honestly, even besides violent crime I want police to deal with nonviolent and nuisance crime with more priority. I'm pro cop. I have met all the officers who patrol my neighborhood and gone out to thank them, and tell them about goings-on in my neighborhood. I'll be honest, if I thought my family was threatened, I wouldnt really be checking whether the procedure was standard or not, as long as it ended the threat to my family.
BUT:
mell says
This I dont agree. The police chief says what he did was NOT per training or policy.. he should have released the neck hold after the resistance stopped.
Here is what the Chief of Police said in testimony:
"There is an initial reasonableness in trying to get him under control in the first few seconds," Arradondo said, "but once there was no longer any resistance, and clearly when Mr. Floyd was no longer responsive and even motionless, to continue to apply that level of force to a person proned out, handcuffed behind their back – that in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy, is not part of our training and is certainly not part of our ethics or our values."
(Here is my Goebbels propaganda link... https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-over-killing-of-george-floyd/2021/04/05/984412060/watch-live-derek-chauvin-trial-enters-second-week-of-testimony)
If a violent thug threatened you/your family by roaming around nearby infused with drugs and committing crimes you'd be all for standard police procedure to put him into custody.
Oh you bet I would. I agree 100%. I want the police to do their work. i want the police to arrest criminals. Honestly, even besides violent crime I want police to deal with nonviolent and nuisance crime with more priority. I'm pro cop. I have met all the officers who patrol my neighborhood and gone out to thank them, and tell them about goings-on in my neighborhood. I'll be honest, if I thought my family was threatened, I wouldnt really be checking whether the procedure was standard or not, as long as it ended the threat to my family.
BUT:
mell says
That's all Chauvin did. The neck restraint practice may or may not have needed reform, but that is not relevant to that specific case after the fact.
This I dont agree. The police chief says what he did was NOT per training or policy.. he should have released the neck hold after the resistance stopped.
Here is what the Chief of Police said in testimony:
"There is an initial reasonableness in trying to get him under control in the first few seconds," Arradondo said, "but once there was no longer any resistance, and clearly when Mr. Floyd was no longer responsive and even motionless, to continue to apply that level of force to a person proned out, handcuffed behind their back – that in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy, is not part of our training and is certainly not part of our ethics or our values."
(Here is my Goebbels propaganda link... https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-over-killing-of-george-floyd/2021/04/05/984412060/watch-live-derek-chauvin-trial-enters-second-week-of-testimony)
528
Onvacation
2022 Nov 25, 9:49pm
Onvacation
2022 Nov 25, 9:49pm
Onvacation says
Seems like a violation of the constitution and a dangerous precedent by a corrupt government. What do you think?
@DeficitHawk
Do you think it was right for the FBI to raid Mara Lago?
Seems like a violation of the constitution and a dangerous precedent by a corrupt government. What do you think?
529
Ceffer
2022 Nov 25, 10:10pm
Ceffer
2022 Nov 25, 10:10pm
Onvacation says
I think it was more something that just isn't done in the politer traditional relationship of political rivals. The fact that they did it also set precedent that Trump can do the same to Obama, Bush and Clinton if and when he is back in office with his hands on the reins. One might even speculate that Trump set them up to do it for just that reason.
dangerous precedent by a corrupt government
I think it was more something that just isn't done in the politer traditional relationship of political rivals. The fact that they did it also set precedent that Trump can do the same to Obama, Bush and Clinton if and when he is back in office with his hands on the reins. One might even speculate that Trump set them up to do it for just that reason.
530
mell
2022 Nov 25, 10:19pm
DeficitHawk says
There is plenty of footage suggesting Chauvin was on Floyd's back or shoulder rather than on his neck for most of the time, but that was conveniently ignored by the lamestream media aka goebbels propaganda. Arredondo obviously threw Chauvin under the bus to escape the woke mob and sentencing himself. Chauvin could have acted better and responded sooner to Floyd's drug induced struggle/passing out, but the sentence was purely politically motivated and a travesty, a shameful kangaroo court
mell says
If a violent thug threatened you/your family by roaming around nearby infused with drugs and committing crimes you'd be all for standard police procedure to put him into custody.
Oh you bet I would. I agree 100%. I want the police to do their work. i want the police to arrest criminals. Honestly, even besides violent crime I want police to deal with nonviolent and nuisance crime with more priority. I'm pro cop. I have met all the officers who patrol my neighborhood and gone out to thank them, and tell them about goings-on in my neighborhood. I'll be honest, if I thought my family was threatened, I wouldnt really be checking whether the procedure was standard or not, as long as it ended the threat to my family.
BUT:
mell says
That's all Chauvin did. The neck restraint practice may or m...
There is plenty of footage suggesting Chauvin was on Floyd's back or shoulder rather than on his neck for most of the time, but that was conveniently ignored by the lamestream media aka goebbels propaganda. Arredondo obviously threw Chauvin under the bus to escape the woke mob and sentencing himself. Chauvin could have acted better and responded sooner to Floyd's drug induced struggle/passing out, but the sentence was purely politically motivated and a travesty, a shameful kangaroo court
531
DeficitHawk
2022 Nov 25, 10:32pm
Onvacation says
To be honest, I havent dug into this one and I dont know what info/evidence the FBI had that lead to the decision to do the raid. So I havent formed an opinion.
I will say, there are always two things you want to be simultaneously true, but they are in tension with each other...
1) No one should be above the law, and even politicians and powerful people should be held accountable for crimes
2) We should not have a clown show system of government in which sitting political leaders leverage law enforcement to undermine political adversaries.
So, I would not want to see Biden driving intervention in the FBI to cause them to investigate Trump if the were not otherwise planning to. That I would disapprove of (for violating 2). At the same time, I wouldnt want to say they cant investigate because of 1.
Whether the judgement of the FBI on the data they had was good or not, honestly I dont have enough info to form an informed opinion.
Onvacation says
DeficitHawk
Do you think it was right for the FBI to raid Mara Lago?
Seems like a violation of the constitution and a dangerous precedent by a corrupt government. What do you think?
To be honest, I havent dug into this one and I dont know what info/evidence the FBI had that lead to the decision to do the raid. So I havent formed an opinion.
I will say, there are always two things you want to be simultaneously true, but they are in tension with each other...
1) No one should be above the law, and even politicians and powerful people should be held accountable for crimes
2) We should not have a clown show system of government in which sitting political leaders leverage law enforcement to undermine political adversaries.
So, I would not want to see Biden driving intervention in the FBI to cause them to investigate Trump if the were not otherwise planning to. That I would disapprove of (for violating 2). At the same time, I wouldnt want to say they cant investigate because of 1.
Whether the judgement of the FBI on the data they had was good or not, honestly I dont have enough info to form an informed opinion.
533
Onvacation
2022 Nov 26, 1:06am
Onvacation
2022 Nov 26, 1:06am
DeficitHawk says
What is the worst thing you honestly think Trump has done?
honestly I dont have enough info to form an informed opinion.
What is the worst thing you honestly think Trump has done?
534
DeficitHawk
2022 Nov 26, 8:12am
Onvacation says
By far, the worst thing he has done is to refuse to concede the 2020 election, and promote conspiracy theories of fraud.
What is the worst thing you honestly think Trump has done?
By far, the worst thing he has done is to refuse to concede the 2020 election, and promote conspiracy theories of fraud.
535
Onvacation
2022 Nov 26, 9:09am
Onvacation
2022 Nov 26, 9:09am
DeficitHawk says
Like those who think Oswald didn't kill JFK or those who don't believe the official story of the WTC towers' destruction? Conspiracy theories?
What is the next worse thing Trump has done?
conspiracy theories
Like those who think Oswald didn't kill JFK or those who don't believe the official story of the WTC towers' destruction? Conspiracy theories?
What is the next worse thing Trump has done?
536
DeficitHawk
2022 Nov 26, 10:03am
cisTits says
Pennsylvania supreme court didnt seem to agree... To paraphrase this ruling, it said "You guys passed this act allowing mail in ballots and were super happy with it in the last election, but then turned around and challenged it when you found out you lost this election like a bunch of whining babies!"
https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20210603/222013-file-10781.pdf
EVERY mail in ballot in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania was illegal.
Pennsylvania supreme court didnt seem to agree... To paraphrase this ruling, it said "You guys passed this act allowing mail in ballots and were super happy with it in the last election, but then turned around and challenged it when you found out you lost this election like a bunch of whining babies!"
https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20210603/222013-file-10781.pdf
537
FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden
2022 Nov 26, 10:23am
i found some democrats, but 41% already suicided. mystery!!
538
DeficitHawk
2022 Nov 26, 11:00am
cisTits says
Of course I read it. Its more than procedural. Its not about filing deadlines or procedures...it is about the timing of the motion making it clear that the plaintiffs only brought the case because they were losing the election. They were fine with the law and the voting methods in the prior election, and they had passed the bill themselves with republican majorities! No one had any concerns about it until they used it as an excuse to challenge an election that had already happened, and they only did so because they were losing.
I do agree it doesn't address the constitutionally question. It says "you are so transparent in your whining babylike efforts to overturn this election... you dont get to challenge the constitutionality of a bill you had no problem when you win, but only challenge AFTER THE FACT when you loose..." Same as I paraphrased above.
Even a trump appointed conservatives majority US supreme court wouldnt touch this one!
That is a procedural ruling, not one on the merits of the case.
Of course I read it. Its more than procedural. Its not about filing deadlines or procedures...it is about the timing of the motion making it clear that the plaintiffs only brought the case because they were losing the election. They were fine with the law and the voting methods in the prior election, and they had passed the bill themselves with republican majorities! No one had any concerns about it until they used it as an excuse to challenge an election that had already happened, and they only did so because they were losing.
I do agree it doesn't address the constitutionally question. It says "you are so transparent in your whining babylike efforts to overturn this election... you dont get to challenge the constitutionality of a bill you had no problem when you win, but only challenge AFTER THE FACT when you loose..." Same as I paraphrased above.
Even a trump appointed conservatives majority US supreme court wouldnt touch this one!
539
DeficitHawk
2022 Nov 26, 11:15am
Onvacation says
There are lots of reasons I dont like Trump related to his leadership style and rhetoric.
My overriding distaste for him is the tendency to appoint/promote/support individuals due to their loyalty to him, rather than their competence, and then drop support for them and attack/undermine them if they stop being loyal to him. I think that's a slippery slope towards authoritarian leadership. His treatment of Pence is a good example of this. So on the whole thats one major beef I have, and it is probably the 2nd worst thing.
The Zelensky / Ukraine extortion to drive an investigation of his political rival was pretty bad and he got impeached for it, but I'd say its down the list of worst things in my opinion.
If Biden did stuff like that (like if he twisted arms for the FBI to investigate Trump when they independently didnt intend to), I'd vote for someone else, with the exception if he was running against Trump again, since Trump definitely did it.
Of course, I live in california, so my vote for president doesnt really matter.
What is the next worse thing Trump has done?
There are lots of reasons I dont like Trump related to his leadership style and rhetoric.
My overriding distaste for him is the tendency to appoint/promote/support individuals due to their loyalty to him, rather than their competence, and then drop support for them and attack/undermine them if they stop being loyal to him. I think that's a slippery slope towards authoritarian leadership. His treatment of Pence is a good example of this. So on the whole thats one major beef I have, and it is probably the 2nd worst thing.
The Zelensky / Ukraine extortion to drive an investigation of his political rival was pretty bad and he got impeached for it, but I'd say its down the list of worst things in my opinion.
If Biden did stuff like that (like if he twisted arms for the FBI to investigate Trump when they independently didnt intend to), I'd vote for someone else, with the exception if he was running against Trump again, since Trump definitely did it.
Of course, I live in california, so my vote for president doesnt really matter.
540
mell
2022 Nov 26, 11:18am
DeficitHawk says
You're talking about the biden corruption here, nothing to do with Trump
The Zelensky / Ukraine extortion to drive an investigation of his political rival was pretty bad and he got impeached for it, but I'd say its down the list of worst things in my opinion.
You're talking about the biden corruption here, nothing to do with Trump
541
DeficitHawk
2022 Nov 26, 11:28am
DeficitHawk says
Actually I should correct my own paraphrase.. I dont think this ruling prevents the plaintiffs from challenging the constitutionally of the bill, but just prevents them from throwing out the ballets of the election already held as a remedy.
Maybe someone with more legal knowledge than me can clarify.
"you are so transparent in your whining babylike efforts to overturn this election... you dont get to challenge the constitutionality of a bill you had no problem when you win, but only challenge AFTER THE FACT when you loose..."
Actually I should correct my own paraphrase.. I dont think this ruling prevents the plaintiffs from challenging the constitutionally of the bill, but just prevents them from throwing out the ballets of the election already held as a remedy.
Maybe someone with more legal knowledge than me can clarify.
542
keeprubbersidedown
2022 Nov 26, 11:29am
DeficitHawk says
This I find pretty funny in that nobody is above the law. My question is should Biden be investigated / prosecuted now? Certainly there is evidence that Trump was right about Ukraine and so much more. And then should Biden be doing the same to Trump now? He is.
Onvacation says
What is the next worse thing Trump has done?
There are lots of reasons I dont like Trump related to his leadership style and rhetoric.
My overriding distaste for him is the tendency to appoint/promote/support individuals due to their loyalty to him, rather than their competence, and then drop support for them and attack/undermine them if they stop being loyal to him. I think that's a slippery slope towards authoritarian leadership. His treatment of Pence is a good example of this. So on the whole thats one major beef I have, and it is probably the 2nd worst thing.
The Zelensky / Ukraine extortion to drive an investigation of his political rival was pretty bad and he got impeached for it, but I'd say its down the list of worst things in my opinion.
If Biden did stuff like that (like if he twisted arms for the FBI to investigate Trump whe...
This I find pretty funny in that nobody is above the law. My question is should Biden be investigated / prosecuted now? Certainly there is evidence that Trump was right about Ukraine and so much more. And then should Biden be doing the same to Trump now? He is.
543
DeficitHawk
2022 Nov 26, 11:30am
mell says
No, was Trump who interfered with the disbursement of funds with the intent of triggering an investigation of his political rival.
That would be like if Biden called the FBI and said "We're shutting down the FBI's funding unless you raid Mar a Lago"
I dont think Biden did this... but if he did, I'd think it was very wrong.
You're talking about the biden corruption here, nothing to do with Trump
No, was Trump who interfered with the disbursement of funds with the intent of triggering an investigation of his political rival.
That would be like if Biden called the FBI and said "We're shutting down the FBI's funding unless you raid Mar a Lago"
I dont think Biden did this... but if he did, I'd think it was very wrong.
544
DeficitHawk
2022 Nov 26, 11:39am
keeprubbersidedown says
Share it then. Facts and evidence of crimes, not speculation please.
keeprubbersidedown says
It would concern me greatly if he was as I mentioned above, but I have seen no evidence for this.. Please share facts and evidence. Not speculation.
Certainly there is evidence that Trump was right about Ukraine and so much more
Share it then. Facts and evidence of crimes, not speculation please.
keeprubbersidedown says
And then should Biden be doing the same to Trump now? He is.
It would concern me greatly if he was as I mentioned above, but I have seen no evidence for this.. Please share facts and evidence. Not speculation.
545
richwicks
2022 Nov 26, 12:06pm
richwicks
2022 Nov 26, 12:06pm
DeficitHawk says
Do you think a woman that slept her way to the top, that lied about being black, put Jamal Trulove into prison for a murder he didn't commit, put pot smokers into jail, and is a pot smoker herself was picked as VP due to competence, or loyalty?
She knows she'd never be in that position if she wasn't absolutely loyal. You know it too.
My overriding distaste for him is the tendency to appoint/promote/support individuals due to their loyalty to him, rather than their competence,
Do you think a woman that slept her way to the top, that lied about being black, put Jamal Trulove into prison for a murder he didn't commit, put pot smokers into jail, and is a pot smoker herself was picked as VP due to competence, or loyalty?
She knows she'd never be in that position if she wasn't absolutely loyal. You know it too.
546
DeficitHawk
2022 Nov 26, 12:09pm
Onvacation says
I wanted to follow up on this comment. I've seen this sentiment expressed by a few people on this site, and I dont agree with it. Actually I have a much lower opinion of the level of intellectual honesty happening on this site than you do.
First... its not democrats you cant find... its anyone who grounds themselves on facts and tries to debate from them, rather than hinging debate on speculation and tribal beliefs. There are not many moderates from either party. This site is dominated by a particular cross section of of the right wing who conform to a specific tribal belief system, and bounce largely conforming opinions around in this echo chamber. All while claiming the high-ground of 'independent thought' and maintaining such an opinion of themselves... Talk about cognitive dissonance! Actually all you are doing is comparing facts, information, and analysis against the narrative construct of your tribe and attacking anything that doesnt match!
I know I was criticized for making monty python references above.... but, still, the mantra of this echo chamber is: "Yes, we are all individuals!" but actually the level of conformity in tribal beliefs here is ASTOUNDING!.
Tribalism is not a compliment. Left and Right both have this tendency.
For example, above, we debated on a 3 court cases that were highly controversial. There is absolutely a tribal belief system at work on both sides of this.
Lefty tribe members think:
1) Floyd (Jury was RIGHT)
2) Rittenhouse (Jury was WRONG)
3) Arbury (Jury was RIGHT)
Right winger tribe members think:
1) Floyd (Jury was WRONG)
2) Rittenhouse (Jury was RIGHT)
3) Arbury (Jury was WRONG)
There are 3 cases here, with 2 outcomes possible for each... thats 8 possible opinion sets. But the two tribes simplify into only 2 opinion sets.
Is there anyone here on this site (besides myself) that does not fall neatly within one tribe or the other with respect to these three cases?
It's good that you are digging down into the "facts". Many who claim to be Democrats or progressives eventually leave this site because the cognitive dissonance is too great.
I wanted to follow up on this comment. I've seen this sentiment expressed by a few people on this site, and I dont agree with it. Actually I have a much lower opinion of the level of intellectual honesty happening on this site than you do.
First... its not democrats you cant find... its anyone who grounds themselves on facts and tries to debate from them, rather than hinging debate on speculation and tribal beliefs. There are not many moderates from either party. This site is dominated by a particular cross section of of the right wing who conform to a specific tribal belief system, and bounce largely conforming opinions around in this echo chamber. All while claiming the high-ground of 'independent thought' and maintaining such an opinion of themselves... Talk about cognitive dissonance! Actually all you are doing is comparing facts, information, and analysis against the narrative construct of your tribe and attacking anything that doesnt match!
I know I was criticized for making monty python references above.... but, still, the mantra of this echo chamber is: "Yes, we are all individuals!" but actually the level of conformity in tribal beliefs here is ASTOUNDING!.
Tribalism is not a compliment. Left and Right both have this tendency.
For example, above, we debated on a 3 court cases that were highly controversial. There is absolutely a tribal belief system at work on both sides of this.
Lefty tribe members think:
1) Floyd (Jury was RIGHT)
2) Rittenhouse (Jury was WRONG)
3) Arbury (Jury was RIGHT)
Right winger tribe members think:
1) Floyd (Jury was WRONG)
2) Rittenhouse (Jury was RIGHT)
3) Arbury (Jury was WRONG)
There are 3 cases here, with 2 outcomes possible for each... thats 8 possible opinion sets. But the two tribes simplify into only 2 opinion sets.
Is there anyone here on this site (besides myself) that does not fall neatly within one tribe or the other with respect to these three cases?
547
Onvacation
2022 Nov 26, 12:58pm
Onvacation
2022 Nov 26, 12:58pm
DeficitHawk says
Trump was asking about Biden extorting Ukraine as Biden himself recounted here:
original link
Do you think Biden should be investigated for this obvious extortion?
No, was Trump who interfered with the disbursement of funds with the intent of triggering an investigation of his political rival.
Trump was asking about Biden extorting Ukraine as Biden himself recounted here:
original link
Do you think Biden should be investigated for this obvious extortion?
548
Onvacation
2022 Nov 26, 1:03pm
Onvacation
2022 Nov 26, 1:03pm
DeficitHawk says
And since we have you here, what is your opinion of Hunter Biden's laptop?
(besides myself)
And since we have you here, what is your opinion of Hunter Biden's laptop?
549
keeprubbersidedown
2022 Nov 26, 1:42pm
DeficitHawk says
Your not serious right.... Have you heard of Hunter laptop? Burisma? Bobulinski?
Biden withheld funds to force the oust of a person who was looking into corruption.
mell says
You're talking about the biden corruption here, nothing to do with Trump
No, was Trump who interfered with the disbursement of funds with the intent of triggering an investigation of his political rival.
That would be like if Biden called the FBI and said "We're shutting down the FBI's funding unless you raid Mar a Lago"
I dont think Biden did this... but if he did, I'd think it was very wrong.
Your not serious right.... Have you heard of Hunter laptop? Burisma? Bobulinski?
Biden withheld funds to force the oust of a person who was looking into corruption.
550
DeficitHawk
2022 Nov 26, 1:55pm
keeprubbersidedown says
If you have facts and evidence that establish a crime, I'd gladly look at it and offer an opinion.
Names of controversies are not facts or crimes.
Your not serious right.... Have you heard of Hunter laptop? Burisma? Bobulinski?
If you have facts and evidence that establish a crime, I'd gladly look at it and offer an opinion.
Names of controversies are not facts or crimes.
551
DeficitHawk
2022 Nov 26, 1:58pm
Onvacation says
Ovacation, I do want an answer to my question. Maybe you can say for yourself, why do you think that so many people fall into one of two tribes with their opinions on these cases? Do you?DeficitHawk says
Do you agree that tribalism is at work here? or maybe you only think tribalism affects others, but certainly not your tribe?
DeficitHawk says
(besides myself)
Ovacation, I do want an answer to my question. Maybe you can say for yourself, why do you think that so many people fall into one of two tribes with their opinions on these cases? Do you?DeficitHawk says
Lefty tribe members think:
1) Floyd (Jury was RIGHT)
2) Rittenhouse (Jury was WRONG)
3) Arbury (Jury was RIGHT)
Right winger tribe members think:
1) Floyd (Jury was WRONG)
2) Rittenhouse (Jury was RIGHT)
3) Arbury (Jury was WRONG)
There are 3 cases here, with 2 outcomes possible for each... thats 8 possible opinion sets. But the two tribes simplify into only 2 opinion sets.
Do you agree that tribalism is at work here? or maybe you only think tribalism affects others, but certainly not your tribe?
552
mell
2022 Nov 26, 2:06pm
DeficitHawk says
Those are facts and evidence that cannot get any clearer! Including a star witness who can corroborate and prove everything. But corrupt leftoid government simply isn't prosecuting itself, only its political enemies.
keeprubbersidedown says
Your not serious right.... Have you heard of Hunter laptop? Burisma? Bobulinski?
If you have facts and evidence that establish a crime, I'd gladly look at it and offer an opinion.
Names of controversies are not facts or crimes.
Those are facts and evidence that cannot get any clearer! Including a star witness who can corroborate and prove everything. But corrupt leftoid government simply isn't prosecuting itself, only its political enemies.
553
DeficitHawk
2022 Nov 26, 2:18pm
mell says
Really? He just literally typed "Burisma". That's not evidence of a crime.
I think the pres has a druggie son... I bet you could find some evidence that his druggie son committed some crimes related to drugs along with other indiscretions. And thats a pretty good reason not to elect his son.
But what is the criminal allegation against the president? Just saying the name of a controversy is not the same thing as providing evidence of a crime. It reminds me of 'Benghazi'... what was the crime there either? Like I said, if you show me evidence of a crime, I'll look at it and give you my opinion. But don't just handwave and say the names of controversies.
Those are facts and evidence that cannot get any clearer!
Really? He just literally typed "Burisma". That's not evidence of a crime.
I think the pres has a druggie son... I bet you could find some evidence that his druggie son committed some crimes related to drugs along with other indiscretions. And thats a pretty good reason not to elect his son.
But what is the criminal allegation against the president? Just saying the name of a controversy is not the same thing as providing evidence of a crime. It reminds me of 'Benghazi'... what was the crime there either? Like I said, if you show me evidence of a crime, I'll look at it and give you my opinion. But don't just handwave and say the names of controversies.
554
richwicks
2022 Nov 26, 2:41pm
richwicks
2022 Nov 26, 2:41pm
DeficitHawk says
Joe Biden is on video stating he would with-hold funds from Ukraine unless Victor Solkin, who was investigating Burisma, who his son was on the BOD of Burisma of, was fired.
Why?
Trump went through an impeachment for ASKING about that.
Here's the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG0nAT9xOHk
It's right in front of you, but our "news" media ignores it. This is because our "news" media is propaganda. We don't have a free press.
The allegation is that his crack head fuck up son was on the BOD of Burisma, in order to funnel funds to Biden, that his crackhead fuck son was just a conduit for bribes, which seems quite probable given that a CRACKHEAD that had no fucking experience in energy was "working" for Burisma after the United States overthrew Ukraine in 2014.
But investigations into this, leads to impeachment of our president. Can't talk about it, and our "news" won't mention it.
But what is the criminal allegation against the president?
Joe Biden is on video stating he would with-hold funds from Ukraine unless Victor Solkin, who was investigating Burisma, who his son was on the BOD of Burisma of, was fired.
Why?
Trump went through an impeachment for ASKING about that.
Here's the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG0nAT9xOHk
It's right in front of you, but our "news" media ignores it. This is because our "news" media is propaganda. We don't have a free press.
The allegation is that his crack head fuck up son was on the BOD of Burisma, in order to funnel funds to Biden, that his crackhead fuck son was just a conduit for bribes, which seems quite probable given that a CRACKHEAD that had no fucking experience in energy was "working" for Burisma after the United States overthrew Ukraine in 2014.
But investigations into this, leads to impeachment of our president. Can't talk about it, and our "news" won't mention it.
555
Onvacation
2022 Nov 26, 4:38pm
Onvacation
2022 Nov 26, 4:38pm
DeficitHawk says
Why do you want to classify people? And why don't you think you fit in either of your categories?
Like I said before, I don't think any of those three cases should have went to trial.
You have layed out the basis of your philosophy with your "people fall into one of two tribes" statement.
I am neither lefty or right wing. Just like you.
I reject the premise of your question.
why do you think that so many people fall into one of two tribes with their opinions on these cases?
Why do you want to classify people? And why don't you think you fit in either of your categories?
Like I said before, I don't think any of those three cases should have went to trial.
You have layed out the basis of your philosophy with your "people fall into one of two tribes" statement.
I am neither lefty or right wing. Just like you.
I reject the premise of your question.
557
DeficitHawk
2022 Nov 26, 6:05pm
Onvacation says
Yes.
I'm not sure we've been introduced. I'm the democrat referenced in the thread title, here willing to debate. I have voted for the democratic presidential candidate in every contest since (and including) Al Gore.
Did you vote for Hillary?
Yes.
I'm not sure we've been introduced. I'm the democrat referenced in the thread title, here willing to debate. I have voted for the democratic presidential candidate in every contest since (and including) Al Gore.
558
DeficitHawk
2022 Nov 26, 6:09pm
In truth, I am a moderate democrat, I tend to vote democrat but will split tickets. I have voted for democrats for president in all recent elections, but that is not true for all state and local elections. I am not registered with either party. I would consider voting for a moderate republican presidential candidate, but have never done so.
559
DeficitHawk
2022 Nov 26, 6:35pm
cisTits says
They passed a law allowing mail in ballots with republican majority.... then they had an election with mail in ballots... no one complained. Then they had a second election, where the republicans didnt like the outcome... then and only then did the republicans come an challenge the law that they had passed themselves, and requested to THROW OUT THE ELCTION RESULT where they had lost as a remedy!
Its outrageous! The court, rightfully, said 'Piss off'.
They were only challenging the law and asking for this remedy because they lost the election. The 'timing' is referring to this prejudicial timing of bringing the case only after the election is lost, with an ask to overturn the election. Its the legal principle of laches... You cant wait for the outcome of the election, and then if you lose challenge the principles of the election and ask to alter the result! The intentionally delayed timing of the motion makes it clear they are trying to manipulate the process to achieve a preferred outcome of the election. They were rightfully called out on this, and the case was thrown out WITH PREJUDICE . (I.e. court really was offended that the case was brought, and gave them an extra FU preventing them from trying to bring another case like it)
Court was right here. US supreme court also declined to intervene or overturn, rightfully.
Bullshit. THAT was the reason they gave.
They passed a law allowing mail in ballots with republican majority.... then they had an election with mail in ballots... no one complained. Then they had a second election, where the republicans didnt like the outcome... then and only then did the republicans come an challenge the law that they had passed themselves, and requested to THROW OUT THE ELCTION RESULT where they had lost as a remedy!
Its outrageous! The court, rightfully, said 'Piss off'.
They were only challenging the law and asking for this remedy because they lost the election. The 'timing' is referring to this prejudicial timing of bringing the case only after the election is lost, with an ask to overturn the election. Its the legal principle of laches... You cant wait for the outcome of the election, and then if you lose challenge the principles of the election and ask to alter the result! The intentionally delayed timing of the motion makes it clear they are trying to manipulate the process to achieve a preferred outcome of the election. They were rightfully called out on this, and the case was thrown out WITH PREJUDICE . (I.e. court really was offended that the case was brought, and gave them an extra FU preventing them from trying to bring another case like it)
Court was right here. US supreme court also declined to intervene or overturn, rightfully.
560
keeprubbersidedown
2022 Nov 27, 5:23am
DeficitHawk says
You really can’t be serious. In Benghazi people died number 1 and govt incompetence had a lot to do with it.
There is plenty of evidence which you brushed aside as controversies like “Benghazi”…. Let me ask you, should house republicans investigate Joe Biden and his crooked dealings?
mell says
Those are facts and evidence that cannot get any clearer!
Really? He just literally typed "Burisma". That's not evidence of a crime.
I think the pres has a druggie son... I bet you could find some evidence that his druggie son committed some crimes related to drugs along with other indiscretions. And thats a pretty good reason not to elect his son.
But what is the criminal allegation against the president? Just saying the name of a controversy is not the same thing as providing evidence of a crime. It reminds me of 'Benghazi'... what was the crime there either? Like I said, if you show me evidence of a crime, I'll look at it and give you my opinion. But don't just handwave and say the names of controversies.
You really can’t be serious. In Benghazi people died number 1 and govt incompetence had a lot to do with it.
There is plenty of evidence which you brushed aside as controversies like “Benghazi”…. Let me ask you, should house republicans investigate Joe Biden and his crooked dealings?
561
WookieMan
2022 Nov 27, 6:23am
WookieMan
2022 Nov 27, 6:23am
DeficitHawk says
So why didn't you vote for Trump? His policies were left of center generally. Don't say it was because his personality. Everything he did for the most part made Democrats lives better while they bitched about it the whole way.
Hilary only won the popular (which doesn't matter) because of CA, NY and IL. She would have started a new war. She would have shoved green BS down our throats. Would have appointed crazy people to SCOTUS that were qualifies based on their skin color and not merit just to check a box that she's better Democrat. I voted for Obama in '08 (McCain was a loser). Anyone that witnessed those 4 years should NEVER have voted for him again. Hurts to say, but Romney would have been better in '12. It took all of two years for Trump to amp up Obama's shit economy of 8 years. Biden has destroyed it and more in even faster time.
Also your vote locally doesn't matter to me. I likely don't live in your state so who cares? Local and state elections tend to be less partisan, they just have to pick a party as independents and other parties just don't get the attention on the ballot. So voting a straight D or R ballot wouldn't make sense anyway.
In truth, I am a moderate democrat
So why didn't you vote for Trump? His policies were left of center generally. Don't say it was because his personality. Everything he did for the most part made Democrats lives better while they bitched about it the whole way.
Hilary only won the popular (which doesn't matter) because of CA, NY and IL. She would have started a new war. She would have shoved green BS down our throats. Would have appointed crazy people to SCOTUS that were qualifies based on their skin color and not merit just to check a box that she's better Democrat. I voted for Obama in '08 (McCain was a loser). Anyone that witnessed those 4 years should NEVER have voted for him again. Hurts to say, but Romney would have been better in '12. It took all of two years for Trump to amp up Obama's shit economy of 8 years. Biden has destroyed it and more in even faster time.
Also your vote locally doesn't matter to me. I likely don't live in your state so who cares? Local and state elections tend to be less partisan, they just have to pick a party as independents and other parties just don't get the attention on the ballot. So voting a straight D or R ballot wouldn't make sense anyway.
562
Onvacation
2022 Nov 27, 9:32am
Onvacation
2022 Nov 27, 9:32am
DeficitHawk says
OK
The Hunter laptop shows evidence that Hunter was trading on his fathers name and Joe, the big guy, was getting a cut of the action.
What do you think about that?
Like I said, if you show me evidence of a crime, I'll look at it and give you my opinion. But don't just handwave and say the names of controversies.
OK
The Hunter laptop shows evidence that Hunter was trading on his fathers name and Joe, the big guy, was getting a cut of the action.
What do you think about that?
563
richwicks
2022 Nov 27, 10:54am
richwicks
2022 Nov 27, 10:54am
Onvacation says
You voted for a woman that is most responsible for returning slavery to Libya.
Either you are profoundly ignorant, or you have very low morality.
DeficitHawk says
It reminds me of 'Benghazi'
Did you vote for Hillary?
You voted for a woman that is most responsible for returning slavery to Libya.
Either you are profoundly ignorant, or you have very low morality.
« First « Previous Comments 524 - 563 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
By polite, I mean refraining from attacking the person in either direction, but sticking to points of argument instead. So no "You are a (whatever)" will not be allowed. The only appropriate use of "you" will be "Here you said..."
I just ran into an old guy in a cafe who pointed in the newspaper to the governor results in California, which added up to 110%. I said, "well, that's California" and so he accused me of being an "election denier". I asked if he'd seen "2000 Mules" and he said he hadn't "because it's been debunked". Uh, it's the same people who committed the election fraud who are claiming that "2000 Mules" was debunked.
Nor had he heard what was on Hunter's laptop, since he watches only corporate news.
I think I might have made a dent in his wall of denial, and I'd like to try with others.