Recent Posts

1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Tom Bishop on Today at 01:59:31 PM »
Do they want to train and equip the prison guards to provide secret service level security? That is the only way your argument makes sense that they are genuine in this.

The answer is no. They do not want guarantee Trump the same level of security.

Why should they?
If someone ends up in prison then they lose certain rights. Which is something I imagine you generally support. Unless it affects your cult leader.

It’s all moot anyway. There’s no way Trump will end up in prison

This is incorrect in regards to political power. Someone who is in prison can be elected President. They don't lose that right to be elected, or their powers.

Major presidential candidates have been given Secret Service protection to safeguard elections, and as a matter of law:

https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-2024

Quote
Who Receives Protection?

The Secret Service does not determine who qualifies for protection, nor is the Secret Service empowered to independently initiate candidate protection.

Under 18 U.S.C.' 3056(a)(7), "[m]ajor Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates," as identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, are eligible for Secret Service protection.

Title 18 U.S.C.' 3056(a)(7) authorizes the U.S. Secret Service to provide protection for major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates:

- Protection is authorized by the DHS Secretary after consultation with the Congressional Advisory Committee;

- The Congressional Advisory Committee includes: Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and one additional member selected by the others;

- Protection under these guidelines should only be granted within one year prior to the general election. Protection more than one year prior to the general election should only be granted in extraordinary, case by case circumstances in consultation with the committee, based on threat assessment and other factors.

The laws above say that major presidential candidates should be receiving Secret Service protection.

Makes sense.  Would you want Joe Biden to have SS protection in Jail?  How would that even work?

Political assassinations have more effect than the benefit of a single party. No, I wouldn't want Joe Biden in his role of US President to be in a jail without Secret Service protection.

Friend of yours, Tom?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68858408

Looks like a disgruntled Bernie Bro.

2

As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane.

Where do you come up with the idea the source of the light used in the video is on a scale of 1:1 to the map?
3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Lord Dave on Today at 08:13:40 AM »
Apparently the Congressional Left has gone from opposing gay marriage and upholding and respecting religious tenets to trying to get their opponent murdered.



https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook-pm/2024/04/19/will-dems-bailout-of-johnson-turn-bitter-00132333

Makes sense.  Would you want Joe Biden to have SS protection in Jail?  How would that even work?
4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by AATW on Today at 05:43:14 AM »
Do they want to train and equip the prison guards to provide secret service level security? That is the only way your argument makes sense that they are genuine in this.

The answer is no. They do not want guarantee Trump the same level of security.

Why should they?
If someone ends up in prison then they lose certain rights. Which is something I imagine you generally support. Unless it affects your cult leader.

It’s all moot anyway. There’s no way Trump will end up in prison
5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by AATW on Today at 05:39:17 AM »
6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Tom Bishop on Today at 03:14:34 AM »
Do they want to train and equip the prison guards to provide secret service level security? That is the only way your argument makes sense that they are genuine in this.

The answer is no. They do not want guarantee Trump the same level of security.

You can read their fact sheet on the bill here: https://democrats-homeland.house.gov/download/disgraced-former-protectees-act-factsheet
7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by honk on Today at 02:46:53 AM »
As the snipped article explains concisely, this is meant to resolve the fact that the Secret Service can hardly be expected to protect someone serving a prison term. If Trump does end up having to serve time, then something will have to be done about his Secret Service protection. Trump is not going to be strolling around the prison yard flanked by Secret Service agents. That's not a thing that any prison would ever allow.
8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Tom Bishop on Today at 02:21:14 AM »
Apparently the Congressional Left has gone from opposing gay marriage and upholding and respecting religious tenets to trying to get their opponent murdered.



https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook-pm/2024/04/19/will-dems-bailout-of-johnson-turn-bitter-00132333
9
As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane.
And what about these factors, in your opinion, makes the depiction "highly inaccurate"? Please highlight a specific contradiction with what's observed under FET. So far, you have suggested that a scaled-down model of FET that makes reasonable adjustments for the consequences of scaling down would be "like" someone creating a scaled-down model of RET that fails to make the same adjustments. At face value, your argument disproves itself - it proposes the same things as the problem and as the solution.

So, I am offering you a chance to fix the errors in your argumentation. It's possible that you have a point there somewhere, but that you've obfuscated it with your inadequate presentation.

Do not simply repeat your incomplete argument - I've read it the first time. Instead, fill the gaps and make yourself clear.


We may be crossing wires and apologize if it's coming across as trying to obfuscate.

I have been referring to the Model Setup as being "highly inaccurate".
I noticed that you are questioning me about the Depiction as being "highly inaccurate".

It could very well be that light patterns do behave as Depicted in the YouTube video. Regardless, I was only referring to the need for a better model setup, where Earth's atmosphere is not represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and the Sun was more accurately represented in scale as per FET.
 
In my own example, it could very well be that rocket engines perform and "push" in a vacuum. I would also be referring to the need for a better model setup, if someone were to try and represent the vacuum of space using air (i.e. launching a model rocket in their backyard).

This site has been better than most all of the nonsense Facebook sites I've seen where debate doesn't even seem to occur; I don't want to get kicked off of TFES. Am only trying to understand and have good spirited debate. 

10
As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane.
And what about these factors, in your opinion, makes the depiction "highly inaccurate"? Please highlight a specific contradiction with what's observed under FET. So far, you have suggested that a scaled-down model of FET that makes reasonable adjustments for the consequences of scaling down would be "like" someone creating a scaled-down model of RET that fails to make the same adjustments. At face value, your argument disproves itself - it proposes the same things as the problem and as the solution.

So, I am offering you a chance to fix the errors in your argumentation. It's possible that you have a point there somewhere, but that you've obfuscated it with your inadequate presentation.

Do not simply repeat your incomplete argument - I've read it the first time. Instead, fill the gaps and make yourself clear.