1981

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: January 06, 2021, 09:58:13 AM »

Can you find one source claiming his rallies were comprised of paid actors for me, please? It just feels to me like you are talking shit about Trump because you dislike him, but have absolutely no substance to back that up in this instance.

Trump is obviously going to have a big numbers at his rallies.
A LOT of people really, really like him.

...but a LOT of other people really, really don't like him.

He's more divisive than Thatcher, and that's saying something. So of course Trump's hysterical fans are going to pack out his rallies, some of them act like he's the second coming.
Biden is more middle of the road. People will vote for him because they like him or, more likely, because he isn't Trump. But he doesn't invoke the strong passions that Trump does.

Is there any evidence that rally attendance has any correlation with voter turnout or election results?
This is another "statistical anomaly" which isn't one because like all these "anomalies" it starts with a false premise - that rally turnout and voter turnout are correlated.
Is that true? And even if it is, the pandemic was clearly a factor last year which is a confounding factor.

1982

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 05, 2021, 07:11:55 PM »

So now the best Tom can say about Trump is that he hasn’t committed a crime?
Well that’s a ringing endorsement.

1983

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Obama, Clinton, and Biden Committed Treason

« on: January 05, 2021, 09:11:53 AM »

QFS blockchain encryption codes

If every ballot was watermarked, Biden choo choo train is a world of hurt. Peeps going to jail. Trump out smarted the losers with da sting.

This has aged well.

1984

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 04, 2021, 09:44:18 PM »

Wow, they have Trump on tape saying everything he has been saying in public on camera for the last two months.

He certainly repeats all the conspiracy theories which he’s been told over and over again aren’t true.

I don’t think he’s ever tried to coerce someone to “find votes” to flip a State he lost in public. That’s new and probably criminal.

1985

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 04, 2021, 06:41:43 PM »

I was reminded the other day of when Trump and Kim Jong Un were conducting international diplomacy via a Twitter flame war.
Good times.

Two toddlers with nuclear weapons.
Shudder.

1986

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 04, 2021, 04:59:02 PM »

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

If you wanna read it instead of listen.
My god, its damning.

I don't know how you have a sensible conversation with Trump about stuff like this.
In the middle of a ramble about it all Trump says:

"...The other thing, dead people. So dead people voted and I think the number is close to 5,000 people. And they went to obituaries. They went to all sorts of methods to come up with an accurate number and a minimum is close to about 5,000 voters..."

When he can get a word in edgeways Raffensperger responds:

"Well Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong. We talked to the congressmen and they were surprised. But they — I guess there was a person Mr. Braynard who came to these meetings and presented data and he said that there was dead people, I believe it was upward of 5,000. The actual number were two. Two. Two people that were dead that voted. So that's wrong. There were two."

Not long later Trump says

"In one state we have a tremendous amount of dead people. So I don't know — I'm sure we do in Georgia, too. I'm sure we do in Georgia too."

So...what do you do with that? Trump makes an accusation without presenting any evidence, he just states it.
It's responded to, he's told it was looked into and found do be false and he just repeats the claim not long later as though if you repeat a false claim often enough it becomes true. Unfortunately if Trump repeats stuff like this it becomes true in the minds of many of his supporters. All a bit depressing.

1987

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 03, 2021, 11:00:33 PM »

This Trump audio is so depressing to listen to.
Trump mentions 5000 dead people voting - he's told that the investigation into that showed that only 2 dead people were found to have voted.
His response is "I think there were"
Trump talks about votes being put through machines 3 times. He's told that audits shown that isn't the case.
He just repeats the claim.
He talks about people who moved out of Georgia who voted. He's told that the investigation into that showed that those were people who moved out of Georgia and then back in - and that all happened years ago, they didn't move back in just before the election so they could vote.
His only response is an argument from personal incredulity.
And so on.

Facts just bounce off him.

1988

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 03, 2021, 10:47:02 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/audio-trumps-full-jan-2-call-with-ga-secretary-of-state/2021/01/03/3f9426f4-7937-4718-8a8e-9d6052001991_video.html?utm_source=reddit.com

The entire audio here with a few bleeps to redact names.

Ok. So far, he won because
1) Lots of conspiracy theories which have been proven false.
2) Lots of people attend his rallies.

Checks out.

1989

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 03, 2021, 10:07:40 PM »

There isn't anything wrong with what Trump said in the audio.

Imagine my surprise that you say this.
I wonder how you'd react to audio of a Democrat calling someone and asking them to "find" enough votes to help them win in a State they lost.
Well, I don't wonder, because I know how you'd react.
It's so weird that you wrote stuff above which indicates you are self-aware enough to know you have bias and yet continue to display it in every post. Unless, as I suggested, you are writing things you don't believe just for the sake of argument.

He is putting him on notice because he isn't doing enough.

Enough about what? No credible evidence of fraud has been presented.
They've had 2 months and 60 court cases to do so.

1990

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 03, 2021, 08:59:50 AM »

Everyone is sending a non-impartial message whenever they report or say anything. It can't be escaped, and can't be denied. Bias exists, and is inherent in everything we say and everything we read.

Right. Weirdly, I basically agree with you.

So...if you’re aware of this then why do you constantly cherry pick sources which back up what you want to believe and ignore or dismiss all the ones that don’t?

Are you trolling? Deluded? Just debating from what you know is an impossible position as intellectual exercise?

The way to counter bias is to be aware of it and to read a range of sources on a story. Consider the bias of those sources, look at whether they are original sources - often a news source will spin or quote only part of what someone said out of context to make it say what they want, so try and find the full original quote.

You seem to be aware of bias but also a hopeless victim of it. But maybe you’re a bit more knowing than you come across.

1991

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 02, 2021, 09:54:39 PM »

I don't know where you get your news ... CNN, MSNBC but if they suddenly started endorsing the Republicans, you'd stop watching.

That’s a strange statement when you know I’m not American. I have no party affiliation in US politics. I don’t really have one in British politics. I’ve voted for different parties over time. I don’t want my news source to endorse any party or politician. I just want them to tell me what’s going on and I’ll make my own decisions. Of course any news source has some bias as we all do, but what would make me stop watching a news network is if I felt that they were being very pro or anti any particular party. I just want the news, not spin
A lot of people it seems want the reverse.

Why are you surprised when people stop watching Fox when it changes its loyalties?
The should never have called Arizona so early ... it was a lack of loyalty.

Fox haven’t changed their loyalties. It’s Trump who has stepped up his level of delusion to a level where even Fox won’t follow.
It’s not “loyalty” to repeat Trump’s lies or to call the election result in a State. It’s just living in the real world rather than in the fantasy one which Trump and so many of his supporters live in.

1992

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 02, 2021, 05:02:09 PM »

I saw that late last night...what an absolute mess. Of course Pence stole the election from Trump, that's in his best interest as a VP looking for a second term.

Scary the things that can be just shouted on twitter and believed by millions.

It’s all a bit depressing.
It’s interesting that people who have spent the last 4 years hanging on Fox’s every word are now deserting it in droves. Simply because even Fox aren’t crazy enough to buy into Trump’s demonstrably false bullshit.
So they scurry off to places like NewsMax and OANN who will tell them what they want to hear. Increasingly it seems people don’t want to be told the truth, they just want to listen to “news” networks which reaffirm their worldview. Everything else becomes “fake news”. Trump is certainly not solely responsible for this but boy has he fanned the flames.

1993

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 31, 2020, 03:48:38 PM »

Evidence has been provided against you

It has.

And it has all been found to be false, unreliable or irrelevant. Which is why all 50 states certified their results, the electoral college voted for Biden and in a few weeks he will be inaugurated President.
I know that upsets you, but that is the reality.

It was the most secure election in US history, according to the outgoing President.

Your continued inability to answer why the Presidential election was stolen but the Senate one, on the same ballots, was not is noted.

1994

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 31, 2020, 03:04:45 PM »

A quote from someone who says that they didn't see something isn't positive evidence in your favor.

Well, not just someone.
The AG and the head of cyber security.
And Donald Trump called it the most secure election in US history.

I don’t need to provide any positive evidence.
You are the claimant.
You are claiming fraud but have provided no credible evidence. Not because I say so, because all the people I’ve mentioned say so.

now you have more evidence against you.

And yet, despite all this “evidence” all 50 States have certified their election results, the Electoral College has voted and in a few weeks Biden is going to be inaugurated.
I’m sorry that upsets you, but there it is.

Why did the Democrats steal the Presidential Election and not the Senate one on the same ballots? The fact you have no answer to this shows the embarrassing weakness of your position.

1995

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 31, 2020, 08:20:51 AM »

It is possible to have contradictory machine audits to show that the machines are legitimate. It is also possible to have contradicting studies invoking Benford's law, showing that the election was legitimate across the entirety of the election. It is possible to show that there are statistical elements in your favor. Yet you have presented none of that.

You are lying. As you would say, scroll up.

You have been shown details of machine audits.
You have been shown details of signature audits.
You have been shown results of hand recounts which affirmed the initial results.
You have been shown videos of judges dismissing the “evidence” as unreliable.
You have been shown a video explaining why Benford’s law isn’t the smoking gun you think it is.
You have been shown a video explaining why the “statistical anomalies” are bogus (TL;DR, they’re based on false assumptions, if you start that way you will draw a false conclusion).

Your entire response has been to desperately shout that everyone who has disagreeable evidence with you is wrong or lying. That is a pretty pathetic position to be in, fyi.

There has been plenty of evidence regarding fraud presented, and based on this evidence judges have agreed with fraud claims and have granted machine audits which have turned up further evidence against you. Yet you have presented nothing to counter it.

Bill Barr disagrees with you.
So does the head of cyber security.
So do a lot of Republican senators and election officials.
So does Donald Trump actually - he called it “the most secure election in US history”.

And despite all this “evidence” all 50 States have certified their election results, the Electoral College has voted and in a few weeks Biden is going to be inaugurated.

Why did the Democrats steal the Presidential Election and not the Senate one on the same ballots? The fact you have no answer to this shows the embarrassing weakness of your position.

1996

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 30, 2020, 10:02:49 AM »

desperately shouting that everyone who has disagreeable evidence with you is wrong or lying. That is a pretty pathetic position to be in, fyi.

Umm. You know that the above entirely sums up your FE belief, right?

People calling you out on your previous “hot takes” is entirely valid and your dodging of questions about them is telling. You have no credibility because you have spent the last nearly 2 months now flailing around hopping from one conspiracy theory to the next, hanging on Trump’s every embarrassing word and desperately Googling to find increasingly extreme sources which back up your views. (I don’t actually believe they are your views, but I’ll play along). Remember how you said the Supreme Court would decide the election? You said how good it was that Trump and his sycophants kept losing in court because it cleared the way to the SCOTUS. You laughed when all the States piled in on Texas’s desperate gambit and naively thought that because Trump had appointed 3 of the judges that they would overturn the election. To the surprise of no one (except you, possibly), it didn’t go that way.

You’ve got excited about various “statistical anomalies” but failed to engage when they have been taken apart. The fact that all you could do was discuss the qualifications of the person rather than engage in their argument shows the weakness of your position.

No one has to prove that there was no systematic fraud, it is up to Trump et al to prove there was. The fact that they’ve lost every court case (bar one, which was nothing to do with fraud) shows the weakness of their evidence. Remember Powell’s nonsense about evidence “coming in through a fire hose”. To the surprise of no one (except you, possibly), the Kraken washed up dead on the shore.

Bill Barr said there’s no evidence of systemic fraud. The head of cyber security said the same. Many Republican judges and senators have called Trump out on his bullshit.
Trump himself said it was the most secure election in history. Amazingly, he managed to claim the Democrats stole the election in the same Tweet.

Finally, why would the Democrats steal the Presidential election but not the Senate one which was on the same ballots? That’s another question you continue to dodge.

1997

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 24, 2020, 10:21:29 AM »

I understand why they are.  A large part (75%) of their voters think the election was rigged for Biden.  That he cheated.  If they don't make a show of trying, that 75% will turn on them and what happens is almost always revolution.

They only believe that because Trump keeps saying it. He has an almost cult-like following who hang on his every word. It's really weird, I don't think I've seen a political leader like it before.

If Trump was a grown up and magnanimously accepted the election result (you know, like every other candidate does - with the possible exception of Gore but that election was genuinely close and he did in the end concede the point when the SCOTUS ruled against him) then they would too, or most of them. And this is where what Trump's doing is dangerous. Usually the concession speech is where the defeated candidate "stands down" their supporters and urges them to get behind the new President. Sure, it's not the person they wanted but they're going to be the President anyway so you might as well root for them. That hasn't happened so it leaves the country more divided than ever and you have a significant percentage of the population who now believe the election has been stolen from them and "their guy" is the rightful President. No amount of failed law suits, debunked "evidence" or Republicans conceding the point will sway them, as Tom is showing.
So when Republicans call Trump's bullshit out they become "RINO"s, and this is how it works. All Republicans know it was stolen. Not that guy? Well, he's obviously not a real Republican then.
It's pretty dangerous stuff.
And let's be clear - Trump is not doing this because he really believes he won. Part of him probably does because he's a narcissist who cannot bear the thought that he lost an election. But part of him definitely knows he lost and is simply doing this to raise money to pay off campaign debt or to position himself for another run in 2024 or whatever else he has planned after this. It's sad how many people are falling for it and don't care what damage it's doing to the country.

1998

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 24, 2020, 08:14:18 AM »

Right. And this is the exact point.
People hang on the every word of this YouTube channel which keeps on posting videos with titles including the words “HUGE!!!” or “BOMBSHELL!!!”.

And it’s not that everything the videos say is untrue, it’s just that they’re not significant.

Yes, Texas did go to the Supreme Court. Yes, a lot of other States did go #MeToo. But it wasn’t HUGE. It wasn’t a BOMBSHELL. Plenty of people tried to tell Tom that it was going nowhere. But no, his cherry picked “expert” said what he wanted to hear and that was good enough for him. And how did that turn out?

Surely at some point people have to realise that this dude is full of shit. Biden is President Elect, within a month he will be President. That’s what is happening in the real world. Living in a fantasy world and pretending it’s not happening isn’t going to change that.

1999

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 23, 2020, 09:28:54 PM »

J-Man. Explain why the Presidential election was “stolen” but the Senate one - where the Republicans actually did pretty well - was not.
Why steal one part and the completely hobble yourself by losing ground in the Senate thus limiting the effect a Democrat President can actually have.
They were on the same ballots so why not rig both parts?

2000

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 23, 2020, 08:55:50 PM »

Nope. It happened. The Georgia State Senate Judiciary committee recommended the decertification of the electors in Georgia.

J-Man posted a second source on the topic.

Yes. A second source which he has consistently referenced over the last month and has consistently been unreliable.

And even if “it” happened, what is the significance? You have spent the last month getting excited about one thing or another - probably because you’re being fed nonsense from YouTube channels like this.

Remember how you said it was a good thing they kept losing in the lower courts because it gave Trump a route to the SCOTUS?

Remember how excited you got about Texas taking the case to the SCOTUS? You excitedly chuckled about how many other States joined. People kept trying to tell you it was going nowhere but you kept citing cherry picked  “experts” who backed up your views.
How did that go?

How long are you going to keep flailing around like this?