The Next President is...

[Lord Ratner]

9 minutes ago, slackline said:

Except for the volumes of fact based data and evidence proving that there are significant problems with the way policing is handled for one color vs another.  Latest example is the largely white people mob that violently stormed the Capitol (one cop even died from the blue lives matter crowd) and then we're allowed to leave vs the way many of the protests from this summer were handled.  But I guess that's also just the media spinning it.

 Where were the volumes of facts and data evidencing the election fraud?   So cool, keep believing that...

I was specific in what I said. Election fraud and the systemic persecution of black people in the new millennium were both false narratives. 

 

19 unarmed black people were shot by police in 2019. Are you going to pretend like that was the narrative this summer? I can spend the time quoting the many public leftists who fanned the flames with a false premise, but maybe we're just misunderstanding each other's point?

 

If you think the protests over the summer were based on reality, spend the time and read the opposing side, you don't need me to Google it for you. Heather MacDonald has five great work on the subject. If you've done that and still buy the vision of a racist america in 2020, we'll just be stuck in different realities.

Edited January 8, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[slackline]

1 minute ago, Lord Ratner said:

I was specific in what I said. Quote your data. 

 

19 unarmed black people were shot by police in 2019. Are you going to pretend like that was the narrative this summer? I can spend the time quoting the many public leftists who fanned the flames with a false premise, but maybe we're just misunderstanding each other's point?

 

If you think the protests over the summer were based on reality, spend the time and read the opposing side, you don't need me to Google it for you. Heather MacDonald has five great work on the subject. If you've done that and still buy the vision of a racist america in 2020, we'll just be stuck in different realities.

You were involved in many of the discussions involving this topic, so I know you've seen the data that has been posted on this forum ad nauseum, so I'm not going to waste my time reposting it all.  

You must not have read my post if you're still saying I'm buying a vision of a racist America. I don't.  I do, however, think there are problems that need to be addressed.  Very credible sources from both sides of the aisle have been posted and disregarded by people in here.  

I've read the opposing side. There's a few black people siding with you claiming, "I overcame, so can anyone." That's not wrong, anyone can, but it ignores the unique challenges POC face.  The rest of the evidence posted by the other side is a bunch of white people refusing to admit their could possibly be a problem.  

I'm not claiming America is racist.  It's more progressive and forward thinking than most countries. We're called out for stuff by countries that are way worse than us.  I lived on the French economy for 3 years.  Waaaaay more racist!  This is the best country in the world, hands down!  I'm just saying we could be better.

[Lord Ratner]

1 minute ago, slackline said:

You were involved in many of the discussions involving this topic, so I know you've seen the data that has been posted on this forum ad nauseum, so I'm not going to waste my time reposting it all.  

You must not have read my post if you're still saying I'm buying a vision of a racist America. I don't.  I do, however, think there are problems that need to be addressed.  Very credible sources from both sides of the aisle have been posted and disregarded by people in here.  

I've read the opposing side. There's a few black people siding with you claiming, "I overcame, so can anyone." That's not wrong, anyone can, but it ignores the unique challenges POC face.  The rest of the evidence posted by the other side is a bunch of white people refusing to admit their could possibly be a problem.  

I'm not claiming America is racist.  It's more progressive and forward thinking than most countries. We're called out for stuff by countries that are way worse than us.  I lived on the French economy for 3 years.  Waaaaay more racist!  This is the best country in the world, hands down!  I'm just saying we could be better.

Exactly dude, that's a realistic view. Do you really think that's the narrative espoused by the left (political class, not voters)? You think your view led to riots?

[slackline]

13 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Exactly dude, that's a realistic view. Do you really think that's the narrative espoused by the left (political class, not voters)? You think your view led to riots?

I think my view led to protests, riots no.  The extremists and opportunists took advantage.  It is deplorable they did it.  I'll even agree with you that some leaders on the left were pushing that narrative, but most weren't.  On the right, most were pushing Trump's narrative.  That's a problem.

[jazzdude]

It's called critical thinking.  It needs to be taught by parents and teachers.  We need to realize it's impossible to mask our biases, but do our best to try.  

I agree with your intent, but actually putting it in practice is what's difficult, if not impossible.

One challenge is you can have two critical thinkers arrive to vastly different conclusions based on the same information, both with sound logical arguments that bring them to their conclusion. So who is right, or who has arrived at the "truth"?

Another challenge is how much of our lives and decisions are actually reasoned, conscious, deliberate decisions?

For example, if I see a stranger that looks different than me, talks different, behaves different than what I'm used to or have been exposed to in a positive manner, I may get uncomfortable, fearful, aggressive (flight or fight response), or just curious. That can lead to knee-jerk actions or judgements. Maybe it's right and justified, maybe it's not. But that initial response happens without conscious thought. Sometimes you can override the initial instinct with a conscious decision. And sure, you could train/condition out that response, but at the risk of turning into an easily clubbed baby seal due to a lack of a fear or flight/fight response to a real threat you don't recognize as dangerous. Or you can argue that my realist views on the world are incorrect. Or you could take time to understand the stranger and their differences, but that takes time and energy to do, and we only have so much time and energy in a day.

There's also a motion that a lot of what we consider a conscious actions really aren't: it's our body making an reflexive reaction to the world, and our brain rationalizing the action afterwards to explain the reflex.

But there are people who know how to exploit people's fears to motivate them to take action. The most successful ones also know how to take that fear and build a convincing or appealing story to explain the fear and actions that should be taken to address the fear. That story doesn't even need to be true or reasonable, just convincing and/or appealing. That story builds a narrative for the action, and can become ingrained so that it's not critically analyzed by it's believers.

For example, Flat Earthers. Generally, it seems they are just distrustful of "the man," and have latched onto the narrative that the earth is flat based on what they can observe, and there's a conspiracy behind the shape of the earth. This is despite the scientific and observable facts that show the Earth is not flat. I'm sure everyone in this board (except the herk guys, sorry) have seen at least some curvature of the Earth up at cruise. But if you've ever had the displeasure of interacting with a flat Earther trying to convince you the world is flat, they think you're in on the conspiracy. They double down on their belief despite the vast information out there contrary to their belief, that had existed in some form since ancient Greece. But arguably, they are thinking critically based on what they can observe themselves, since they don't trust the observations of others. Though I find it funny when they derive an experiment to prove the Earth is flat, only to find that the earth has curvature. So why do they stay? A sense of belonging, or not wanting to admit they were duped (pride) might be a few reasons.

[slackline]

7 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

I agree with your intent, but actually putting it in practice is what's difficult, if not impossible.

One challenge is you can have two critical thinkers arrive to vastly different conclusions based on the same information, both with sound logical arguments that bring them to their conclusion. So who is right, or who has arrived at the "truth"?

Another challenge is how much of our lives and decisions are actually reasoned, conscious, deliberate decisions?

For example, if I see a stranger that looks different than me, talks different, behaves different than what I'm used to or have been exposed to in a positive manner, I may get uncomfortable, fearful, aggressive (flight or fight response), or just curious. That can lead to knee-jerk actions or judgements. Maybe it's right and justified, maybe it's not. But that initial response happens without conscious thought. Sometimes you can override the initial instinct with a conscious decision. And sure, you could train/condition out that response, but at the risk of turning into an easily clubbed baby seal due to a lack of a fear or flight/fight response to a real threat you don't recognize as dangerous. Or you can argue that my realist views on the world are incorrect. Or you could take time to understand the stranger and their differences, but that takes time and energy to do, and we only have so much time and energy in a day.

There's also a motion that a lot of what we consider a conscious actions really aren't: it's our body making an reflexive reaction to the world, and our brain rationalizing the action afterwards to explain the reflex.

But there are people who know how to exploit people's fears to motivate them to take action. The most successful ones also know how to take that fear and build a convincing or appealing story to explain the fear and actions that should be taken to address the fear. That story doesn't even need to be true or reasonable, just convincing and/or appealing. That story builds a narrative for the action, and can become ingrained so that it's not critically analyzed by it's believers.

For example, Flat Earthers. Generally, it seems they are just distrustful of "the man," and have latched onto the narrative that the earth is flat based on what they can observe, and there's a conspiracy behind the shape of the earth. This is despite the scientific and observable facts that show the Earth is not flat. I'm sure everyone in this board (except the herk guys, sorry) have seen at least some curvature of the Earth up at cruise. But if you've ever had the displeasure of interacting with a flat Earther trying to convince you the world is flat, they think you're in on the conspiracy. They double down on their belief despite the vast information out there contrary to their belief, that had existed in some form since ancient Greece. But arguably, they are thinking critically based on what they can observe themselves, since they don't trust the observations of others. Though I find it funny when they derive an experiment to prove the Earth is flat, only to find that the earth has curvature. So why do they stay? A sense of belonging, or not wanting to admit they were duped (pride) might be a few reasons.

 

I guess that's all true or possible, but I'd rather disagree with someone, like Lord Ratner for example, who's come to their conclusion based on reason and logic vs someone buying every talking point on Fox News or MSNBC simply because it's being said.

We have to try, can't just say it's too difficult and not try.

[ViperMan]

6 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I generally agree with the above.  The 5 points above would equally apply to Trump at the start of his term.  In 2016, Trump won by the same electoral margin as Biden (and lost the popular vote, although officially that's not applicable)  Thus, Trump should have followed the same principles.  He didn't. Far from it. 

Totally agree.

I wish Trump had been more mature during his tenure. I wish the media realized what/who they were dealing with and hadn't stooped to his level, but they did, and honestly, they do bear some of the responsibility for the current state of affairs.

In terms of the election being close, sorry, I was specifically referring to Georgia's Senate run-off, and the fact that it's now a 50/50 split. Trump wasn't really close in the presidential election. I give as much credence to voter fraud this time around as I did last time, which is to say, not much. I guess I should clarify: it happens, but not to a level that affects the outcome of elections (IMO, at least). Trump running with the trope that there was massive fraud that prevented his re-election is unironically pretty funny.

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

I was specific in what I said. Election fraud and the systemic persecution of black people in the new millennium were both false narratives. 

19 unarmed black people were shot by police in 2019. Are you going to pretend like that was the narrative this summer? I can spend the time quoting the many public leftists who fanned the flames with a false premise, but maybe we're just misunderstanding each other's point?

If you think the protests over the summer were based on reality, spend the time and read the opposing side, you don't need me to Google it for you. Heather MacDonald has five great work on the subject. If you've done that and still buy the vision of a racist america in 2020, we'll just be stuck in different realities.

☝️ Reality.

Expect the more the left embraces, develops, and pushes a false reality, the further the polarization will become in our country.

What should happen is a frank, cultural discussion about what are, and are not the US's remaining racial challenges that need to be rectified. Systemic police violence against group 'X' is not on that list.

Unfortunately, what is on the table is demonstrably BS. Half of what's out there is information shaped to fit a narrative designed to drive policy decisions and law-making to serve a few of the chosen. The other half is desperately trying to maintain a grasp of reality.

[FLEA]

When discussing liberal media bias, most people are getting at this: 

 

The following data is sourced from OpenSecrets which gathers data based on political donations made by employees of said industries. Anytime a political donation of more than $100 is made the person must include their employer along with other information on the donation. OpenSecrets is a non-partisan group that gathers and evaluates data based on where people come from who donate. The most concerning thing about the above chart is that the quad on the far left, deals business in information. It includes Hollywood, social media, search engines, educational institutions, etc... You are never going to convince conservatives that these people present unbiased information because they are the same people that are donating billions of dollars each year to the democratic caucuses. 

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by FLEA

[jazzdude]

I guess that's all true or possible, but I'd rather disagree with someone, like Lord Ratner for example, who's come to their conclusion based on reason and logic vs someone buying every talking point on Fox News or MSNBC simply because it's being said.
We have to try, can't just say it's too difficult and not try.

I agree with you on 100% here (so please don't take my reply as chucking spears in disagreement, more meant in the spirit of debate). Even if it's not perfect or fully realizable, it's still worth striving towards. But it's a very challenging problem, especially since humans aren't always rational, even if they want to be.

There's one big assumption though to make it work: all of this is built on mutual respect for each other, and that's something that we unfortunately seem to have lost in our society in favor of defending whatever tribe we have decided to affiliate with. And unfortunately, it's hard to make laws that define mutual respect without some jerk finding a loophole and requiring more laws.

[Pooter]

Twitter just permanently suspended trumps account. 
 

Good move in my opinion. He's been using the platform irresponsibly for years and now has strayed into blatant violations of the terms of service.

[17D_guy]

41 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Twitter just permanently suspended trumps account. 
 

Good move in my opinion. He's been using the platform irresponsibly for years and now has strayed into blatant violations of the terms of service.

Flynn and Sid Powell as well. Imagine Linn is up soon as well.

 

Apple also I told Parler to start getting rid of the calls to violence or they're out the app store.

[Prosuper]

I believe we will see mass voter non participation in future elections. I'm 58 and finally understand that both political parties are clubs for the sole purpose of getting the made guys elected. It was never about public service, since the Biden's are now in power the big money donors will call all the shots to include military contractors. Those of you still in Afghanistan or on the hook for it, we will be probably be staying now.  Back to the status quo , business as usual.

[Homestar]

8 minutes ago, Prosuper said:

we will be probably be staying now. 

We’re staying either way. What are you talking about?

Edited January 9, 2021 by Homestar

[JQuintana]

1 hour ago, Prosuper said:

I believe we will see mass voter non participation in future elections. I'm 58 and finally understand that both political parties are clubs for the sole purpose of getting the made guys elected. It was never about public service, since the Biden's are now in power the big money donors will call all the shots to include military contractors. Those of you still in Afghanistan or on the hook for it, we will be probably be staying now.  Back to the status quo , business as usual.

I suppose the Koch brothers don't count as big money donors.  Cool.

[Swamp Yankee]

5 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Totally agree.

I wish Trump had been more mature during his tenure. I wish the media realized what/who they were dealing with and hadn't stooped to his level, but they did, and honestly, they do bear some of the responsibility for the current state of affairs.

In terms of the election being close, sorry, I was specifically referring to Georgia's Senate run-off, and the fact that it's now a 50/50 split. Trump wasn't really close in the presidential election. I give as much credence to voter fraud this time around as I did last time, which is to say, not much. I guess I should clarify: it happens, but not to a level that affects the outcome of elections (IMO, at least). Trump running with the trope that there was massive fraud that prevented his re-election is unironically pretty funny.

Got it.  Yeah, the Georgia Senate races were very close and a bit of a surprise.  Also, in general I don't think it's healthy for one party to have all of Congress and the executive.  Unfortunately, that's the only way to get legislation passed since the art of compromise is gone.  The result of each side demonizing the other. (Republican = Racist and Democrat = Communist). 

Edited January 9, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[Prosuper]

4 hours ago, JQuintana said:

I suppose the Koch brothers don't count as big money donors.  Cool.

Well since one them died and the other one is a never Trumper, Billionaires hate grass root politicians from both parties. As soon as we get used we live in a oligarchy and stop giving a damn the scotch will taste better. Biden will screw over the progressives and dance to what ever Wall street wants.

[17D_guy]

Twitter's reasoning if you want it - https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html

 

And a great video from Parlor about some supporters, and why it's important to not have insane leaders who suggest crazy things - https://twitter.com/parlertakes/status/1347680738586447872?s=20

Edited January 9, 2021 by 17D_guy

[17D_guy]

Just now, Prosuper said:

Well since one them died and the other one is a never Trumper, Billionaires hate grass root politicians from both parties. As soon as we get used we live in a oligarchy and stop giving a damn the scotch will taste better. Biden will screw over the progressives and dance to what ever Wall street wants.

And...they didn't when Trump was in office?

[Prosuper]

3 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

And...they didn't when Trump was in office

Both parties are corrupt, our govt is bought and paid for and they don't give a shit about you.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

Twitter's reasoning if you want it - https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html

 

And a great video from Parlor about some supporters, and why it's important to not have insane leaders who suggest crazy things - https://twitter.com/parlertakes/status/1347680738586447872?s=20

Twitter's reasoning isn't really robust. The unfortunate thing is Trump's persona is so toxic now, no one will be able to call them out on this. But honestly, there reasoning is practically non-existent. Unless we are going to start censoring every politician that says their "voters have a voice." 

I'm honestly frustrated with this. I've been searching the internet for his remarks before the riots to figure out what was so inciting and I cannot find it anywhere. It has already been removed from social media and most news networks wont reprint it. So I have to take their word for it that he directed a group of radicals to storm the capital building. 

[jazzdude]

Twitter's reasoning isn't really robust. 

Twitter can censor anyone using their platform for pretty much any reason they want (outside protected classes defined by law). They are a private business, not a government service, and as such, they have zero duty to uphold free speech. They also have the right to moderate content if they choose (though no duty to do so either), and to set the rules for people, including politicians, who want to use their service.

That being said, as a US company, they have tried to hold up American ideals for free speech to a "reasonable" degree, because it generally is good business to do so in the US, to provide them access to a wider market ($$$), and because moderating every tweet is not really practical. For the latter point, it's why their enforcement of their rules is retroactive and based on others flashing/reporting tweets. Calls for them to suspend President Trump's twitter account have been going on for years, and until this week, twitter tolerated Trump on their platform despite believing he was breaking their rules/standards, purely because he was the President.

[jazzdude]

Curious about the baseops opinion on this one:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/an-air-force-combat-veteran-breached-the-senate

Synopsis is a retired AF Lt Col participated in storming the Capitol building (flexi-cuff guy in the photos from 6 Jan).

What should happen to him now that he's been identified as participating?

Seems to be precedent to court martial him should the DoD decide to pursue it, but would that be the right answer?
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/02/25/military-retirees-can-still-be-court-martialed-supreme-court-affirms/

[Guest nsplayr]

6 hours ago, FLEA said:

I've been searching the internet for his remarks before the riots to figure out what was so inciting and I cannot find it anywhere. It has already been removed from social media and most news networks wont reprint it. So I have to take their word for it that he directed a group of radicals to storm the capital building. 

LMGTFY: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-told-supporters-stormed-capitol-hill/story?id=75110558

Feel free to read the entire transcript but you can also Ctrl+F "Capitol" to speed things up. Some quotes:

Quote

Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we're going to walk down and I'll be there with you. We're going to walk down--

We're going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol--

And we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.

Fun fact: he was very much *not* there with them. Safe & sound in the WH after "leading" his supporters into a lawless and dangerous insurrection.

Quote

So we are going to--we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give--the Democrats are hopeless, they are never voting for anything, not even one vote but we are going to try--give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help, we're try--going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.

Very direct and explicit instructions for the assembled people to march down to the Capitol.

Now there's not like some movie-plot quote where he says, "...and when you get there I want you to break in, kill a cop and injure several more, halt the workings of the legislative branch of government and also maybe attempt to murder most of the direct line of succession!"

But ya know...some of these folks are not our best and brightest and that's exactly what they did. I mean technically the match is what lights the gasoline on fire, but you don't get a free pass if you're the person holding the match & opening your hand to let it fall. You don't get to blame gravity here.

Edited January 9, 2021 by nsplayr

[Sua Sponte]

8 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Curious about the baseops opinion on this one:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/an-air-force-combat-veteran-breached-the-senate

Synopsis is a retired AF Lt Col participated in storming the Capitol building (flexi-cuff guy in the photos from 6 Jan).

What should happen to him now that he's been identified as participating?

Seems to be precedent to court martial him should the DoD decide to pursue it, but would that be the right answer?
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/02/25/military-retirees-can-still-be-court-martialed-supreme-court-affirms/

Until the government appeals this ruling, which they will, military retiree can’t be court martialed for crimes they committed after retiring.

https://www.caaflog.org/home/dc-district-court-holds-that-court-martial-jurisdiction-over-retirees-is-unconstitutional