Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On October 26 2024 22:16 maybenexttime wrote: Why are you even bothering with clowns like oBlade? He's not posting in good faith. He's trying to derail the thread. Whenever his nonsense gets debunked, he fails to acknowledge it and moves to another nonsense talking point.
I've stopped reading oBlade posts/discussions for largely this reason.
If it ever came down to some level of accountability, I might re-engage. I appreciate how clearly oBlade writes, but the actual content of the messages is just bullshit.
On October 26 2024 22:11 Sadist wrote: Oblade can you please stay on the opinion topic? Can we acknowledge that you cannot have an opinion on something that is a verifiable fact? I understand you may have some heartburn over this because there are instances in things like science or other fields where things once thought true but later proved false or incorrect. But this is not one of those instances.
I explained this in the rape rate analogy. Do you think having an opinion on the rape rate being higher than reported is an act of lying?
You cannot know that in a deductive sense, meaning with true/false certainty, without infeasible effort, you can only have levels of confidence or doubt.
On October 26 2024 22:11 Sadist wrote: What Trump said is verifiably not true about 2020 or democrats. Infact, the opposite has more evidence for being true, that republicans and trump voters are more likely to commit voter fraud.
1) "More likely" - so conceivably rampant, and more rampant? 2) That's terrible - could you cite the origins of most fraud so we know how to address it?
"They raped someone" is not an opinion on the rape rate being higher than reported. It's a direct accusation of rape. In the case of Trump it's an accusation of cheating without evidence, hence slander. If you openly accuse someone of rape and you provide no evidence for it, that's slander. If you openly accuse someone of election fraud without providing evidence, that's slander.
On October 26 2024 22:11 Sadist wrote: Oblade can you please stay on the opinion topic? Can we acknowledge that you cannot have an opinion on something that is a verifiable fact? I understand you may have some heartburn over this because there are instances in things like science or other fields where things once thought true but later proved false or incorrect. But this is not one of those instances.
I explained this in the rape rate analogy. Do you think having an opinion on the rape rate being higher than reported is an act of lying?
You cannot know that in a deductive sense, meaning with true/false certainty, without infeasible effort, you can only have levels of confidence or doubt.
On October 26 2024 22:11 Sadist wrote: What Trump said is verifiably not true about 2020 or democrats. Infact, the opposite has more evidence for being true, that republicans and trump voters are more likely to commit voter fraud.
1) "More likely" - so conceivably rampant, and more rampant? 2) That's terrible - could you cite the origins of most fraud so we know how to address it?
Oblade you are comparing apples and oranges with the rape thing. I dont understand why you are hung up on that.
Voter fraud today is not rampant. I said republicans are more likely to commit voter fraud basef on the fact that they are predominantly the ones doing it and being convicted of it. Its still incredibly small and a non significant variable in elections right now. Do you realize how many audits have happened? Do you not think if there was wide spread democrat cheating it would be found out? We dont live in a fascist state yet, if it was happening it would come out. If you wanna say its happening in Iran or Russia or North Korea it would be plausible.
On October 26 2024 22:11 Sadist wrote: Oblade can you please stay on the opinion topic? Can we acknowledge that you cannot have an opinion on something that is a verifiable fact? I understand you may have some heartburn over this because there are instances in things like science or other fields where things once thought true but later proved false or incorrect. But this is not one of those instances.
I explained this in the rape rate analogy. Do you think having an opinion on the rape rate being higher than reported is an act of lying?
You cannot know that in a deductive sense, meaning with true/false certainty, without infeasible effort, you can only have levels of confidence or doubt.
On October 26 2024 22:11 Sadist wrote: What Trump said is verifiably not true about 2020 or democrats. Infact, the opposite has more evidence for being true, that republicans and trump voters are more likely to commit voter fraud.
1) "More likely" - so conceivably rampant, and more rampant? 2) That's terrible - could you cite the origins of most fraud so we know how to address it?
There is a veritable boatload of data and anecdotal account that the rape rate is higher than generally reported.
As to exactly to what degree, well projections vary. I may consider someone’s position to be broadly correct or wrong in this domain depending on what it is.
For it to be a lie, and actually equivalent to this latest Trump outburst, would be if somebody claimed a specific body or institution was deliberately deflating those numbers, or inflating them for some kind of personal or institutional gain, with no concrete evidence to back that up and continually repeating said claim even when presented with refutations.
That his Tweet reads like ‘Chat GPT, raise concerns of election fraud in the style of a demagogue’ is another additional layer to worry about here.
Trump is not Literally HitlerTM, but that supposed centrist types don’t recognise the playbook (or alternatively, don’t care) is also exactly how fascists often find themselves in power.
Reported crime rates are almost necessarily lower bounds.
On October 26 2024 22:45 Magic Powers wrote: "They raped someone" is not an opinion on the rape rate being higher than reported. It's a direct accusation of rape. In the case of Trump it's an accusation of cheating without evidence, hence slander. If you openly accuse someone of rape and you provide no evidence for it, that's slander. If you openly accuse someone of election fraud without providing evidence, that's slander.
Useless tangent.
The fact whether something is or isn't slander doesn't mean it's not an opinion. An ant is an insect, that doesn't mean it's not also an animal. It can be both.
If you had a statement that someone committed rape and you knew they had committed rape, that would be a fact. If you had a statement that someone committed rape and you knew they hadn't, that would be a lie. If you had a statement that someone committed rape and you didn't know if they did or not, but thought they did, that would be an opinion. The latter two cases, if you express them publicly, could also be slander.
If I say Magic Powers read the newspaper, and I know you didn't, it's a lie. If I say Magic Powers read the newspaper, and I know you did, it's a fact. If I said you read the newspaper, and I don't know if you did or not, but I thought you did, that's an opinion.
Slander is the latter two cases plus the fact that the claim is harmful or intended to destroy your image, which reading the newspaper wouldn't, albeit depending on the publication.
Slander is slander because of the harm it causes, and the fact that it is either known to be a lie, or it's unproven. If it's not proven, that makes it not a fact - which leaves it being an opinion, does it not...?
People are allowed to have those - opinions - and you can call them stupid, or wrong, and say there's no evidence for them to your heart's desire, but I personally don't see the point in dragging oBlade to one of Drumpf's Truth's and say "explain this bullshit you dipshit, this lie is your fault."
On October 26 2024 22:11 Sadist wrote: Oblade can you please stay on the opinion topic? Can we acknowledge that you cannot have an opinion on something that is a verifiable fact? I understand you may have some heartburn over this because there are instances in things like science or other fields where things once thought true but later proved false or incorrect. But this is not one of those instances.
I explained this in the rape rate analogy. Do you think having an opinion on the rape rate being higher than reported is an act of lying?
You cannot know that in a deductive sense, meaning with true/false certainty, without infeasible effort, you can only have levels of confidence or doubt.
On October 26 2024 22:11 Sadist wrote: What Trump said is verifiably not true about 2020 or democrats. Infact, the opposite has more evidence for being true, that republicans and trump voters are more likely to commit voter fraud.
1) "More likely" - so conceivably rampant, and more rampant? 2) That's terrible - could you cite the origins of most fraud so we know how to address it?
Oblade you are comparing apples and oranges with the rape thing. I dont understand why you are hung up on that.
Voter fraud today is not rampant. I said republicans are more likely to commit voter fraud basef on the fact that they are predominantly the ones doing it and being convicted of it.
It is an analogy, which inherently contains elements of distinction, but we will have to agree to disagree on whether the main point is the same or not.
You haven't shown comparative cross-party fraud likelihood, by the way - you just linked an MSNBC article saying essentially Republicans commit fraud too, and then you editorialized the words "if not most," which wasn't in the material. If you could show this more it might help us all understand the provable mechanics of voter fraud.
On October 26 2024 22:56 Sadist wrote: Its still incredibly small and a non significant variable in elections right now. Do you realize how many audits have happened? Do you not think if there was wide spread democrat cheating it would be found out? We dont live in a fascist state yet, if it was happening it would come out.
It should have been found out, yes. I hope it would have been found out. Nonetheless, I don't know there was or wasn't widespread fraud - "cheating" as it were - though for "skullduggery" my opinion is the tech and intel collusion was definitely there.
The last point is a circular argument -> If it was happening, it would come out; it didn't come out, therefore it's not happening. Without getting into the details of reasoning, that doesn't make sense and resorting to it has actually made me momentarily less confident in elections.
I'm waiting for the evidence, oBlade. You're wasting time responding to other things because you don't have any evidence.
And no, you're wrong. Trump did directly accuse Democrats. He didn't say they may've done it, he didn't say he doesn't know whether or not they did it. He said they did. That's not an opinion, that's an accusation.
Do you believe there's a greater than 50% chance Trump would have been the actual winner of the 2020 election if not for voter fraud?
If no I guess you can add your rough % estimate of how likely it is that the election was actually stolen from him. Not 'how likely it was that some instances of fraud happened', but 'how likely it is that those instances of fraud moved the election from a Trump victory to a Biden victory'. Because right now I'm just seeing you try to defend Trump without actually committing to the lie you're trying to exonerate him from and I'm not sure whether you believe it yourself and if you don't, then I'm not sure why you're engaged in this whole discussion.
On October 26 2024 14:02 Taelshin wrote: @Nettles yeah im aobut 2 hrs in I expected Rogan to go a bit harder. Tbh this is going well for trump though this format suits his long rambly ways they even joked about it. If Kamala was capable of this kind of a discussion she really should have, I doubt she is.
I told ya'll Joe Rogan is center right. Why would he go harder on a far-right president?
Couldn't say for sure unless Kamala also went on and you could compare the treatment between them, but likely he would also treat Kamala with respect.He did go after Trump a bit harder on the debt/deficit issue and the answer Trump gave was pretty lousy, didn't make much sense.
Anyway seems to me the electorate is moving right, what other explanation for Kamala deciding now to build a border wall if she is re-elected.Such a dramatic shift there no? It's good to learn from mistakes i guess.
Now that there is actually a large spike of illegal border crossings (which is entirely unrelated to US policy), Kamala obviously supports strengthening the border - not because she flip-flopped, but because now there's actually a problem to talk about. A real problem, not a fake problem made up by lying Trump and his supporters. Now it's actually fair to talk of a sort of border crisis.
In truth, before and after Trump became president, illegal border crossings to the US were at a low point. Democrats were completely right and Trump was lying his ass off
More came because Biden was seen as weak on immigration, he cancelled the wall on day 1 when he signed all those executive orders.You can find numerous examples of Harris stating how bad the wall was, not hard.
Trump has stated this campaign that he will kick millions of illegals out of the country.If that happens the number coming will drop, because there is no point coming if there is a far higher chance of being deported.
On October 26 2024 22:11 Sadist wrote: Oblade can you please stay on the opinion topic? Can we acknowledge that you cannot have an opinion on something that is a verifiable fact? I understand you may have some heartburn over this because there are instances in things like science or other fields where things once thought true but later proved false or incorrect. But this is not one of those instances.
I explained this in the rape rate analogy. Do you think having an opinion on the rape rate being higher than reported is an act of lying?
Difference is a rape rate is at least 1. At least one person's life has been irreparably damaged for every rapist. Thousands of acts of voter fraud can be committed and not change the outcome of an election. To use it as as an example is foolishness at best.
On October 26 2024 14:02 Taelshin wrote: @Nettles yeah im aobut 2 hrs in I expected Rogan to go a bit harder. Tbh this is going well for trump though this format suits his long rambly ways they even joked about it. If Kamala was capable of this kind of a discussion she really should have, I doubt she is.
I told ya'll Joe Rogan is center right. Why would he go harder on a far-right president?
Couldn't say for sure unless Kamala also went on and you could compare the treatment between them, but likely he would also treat Kamala with respect.He did go after Trump a bit harder on the debt/deficit issue and the answer Trump gave was pretty lousy, didn't make much sense.
Anyway seems to me the electorate is moving right, what other explanation for Kamala deciding now to build a border wall if she is re-elected.Such a dramatic shift there no? It's good to learn from mistakes i guess.
Now that there is actually a large spike of illegal border crossings (which is entirely unrelated to US policy), Kamala obviously supports strengthening the border - not because she flip-flopped, but because now there's actually a problem to talk about. A real problem, not a fake problem made up by lying Trump and his supporters. Now it's actually fair to talk of a sort of border crisis.
In truth, before and after Trump became president, illegal border crossings to the US were at a low point. Democrats were completely right and Trump was lying his ass off
More came because Biden was seen as weak on immigration, he cancelled the wall on day 1 when he signed all those executive orders.You can find numerous examples of Harris stating how bad the wall was, not hard.
Trump has stated this campaign that he will kick millions of illegals out of the country.If that happens the number coming will drop, because there is no point coming if there is a far higher chance of being deported.
The wall didn't suddenly magically disappear in 2020. Whatever was built during Trump's term was still there afterwards. So that can't possibly have resulted in the sudden spike of border crossings. The spike is absolutely massive and it coincides perfectly with the pandemic, not with the wall, not with anything before the wall, and not with any rhetoric from any president.
The initial decline of border crossings started in roughly 2005 - or 2000 depending on where you start counting - and continued until 2011, after which it leveled out. During Trump's presidency it stayed level. In 2019 there was the first spike, and in 2021 another spike lasting until today.
There's literally no correlation to the wall or to any presidential rhetoric.
Look at reasons for increased immigration in changes within the US rather then the immigrants country of origin feels like trying to find justifications for your already established opinion rather then an actual search for the real reason.
On October 26 2024 14:02 Taelshin wrote: @Nettles yeah im aobut 2 hrs in I expected Rogan to go a bit harder. Tbh this is going well for trump though this format suits his long rambly ways they even joked about it. If Kamala was capable of this kind of a discussion she really should have, I doubt she is.
I told ya'll Joe Rogan is center right. Why would he go harder on a far-right president?
Couldn't say for sure unless Kamala also went on and you could compare the treatment between them, but likely he would also treat Kamala with respect.He did go after Trump a bit harder on the debt/deficit issue and the answer Trump gave was pretty lousy, didn't make much sense.
Anyway seems to me the electorate is moving right, what other explanation for Kamala deciding now to build a border wall if she is re-elected.Such a dramatic shift there no? It's good to learn from mistakes i guess.
When Trump, before and during his presidency, made the border situation out to be a crisis, there was no crisis. He lied. Feel free to look it up, illegal border crossings were at a low point in and before 2020. The situation got worse only after Biden became president, which means it's not the result of Biden's policies. Migration can't spike so rapidly from US border policies, it spiked due to problems in the origin countries. More likely it was because of the economic fallout from the pandemic. And also, Harris wasn't even in charge of border policy to begin with. Republicans framed it that way because they always do this. They always attribute blame to the wrong person as long as it hurts Democrats. Truth goes out the window.
Now that there is actually a large spike of illegal border crossings (which is entirely unrelated to US policy), Kamala obviously supports strengthening the border - not because she flip-flopped, but because now there's actually a problem to talk about. A real problem, not a fake problem made up by lying Trump and his supporters. Now it's actually fair to talk of a sort of border crisis.
In truth, before and after Trump became president, illegal border crossings to the US were at a low point. Democrats were completely right and Trump was lying his ass off.
I found an article explaining this. Feel free to fact check the claims made in it. The outlet has a strong left-wing bias, but they generally adhere to high factuality.
The idea that the surge in border crossings had nothing to do with Biden and he was just the victim of unfortunate timing is laughable. Obviously you've provided no evidence for this theory other than "migration can't spike so rapidly from US border policies."
I've previously mentioned in this thread that migrants at the border celebrated Biden's victory in November 2020. Why were they celebrating? Probably because before he was elected he called for migrants to "surge" the border and bragged that America could take in another 2 million people easily. He also killed "Remain in Mexico" and put in a 100 day moratorium on deportations as soon as he got into office, as well as overturning a bunch of other executive orders Trump put in place to reduce border crossings.
It's not exactly some mystery. We saw it happening in real time. Here's an NPR article from January 18 2020, just before Biden was inaugurated, that mentioned a several thousand strong caravan of migrants headed to the United States
Another migrant, Miguel Angel, tells AFP he's heading north now because he believes U.S. immigration policy will change once Joe Biden takes office as president.
"I have hope and faith in God, and in the good person that the United States has chosen," he says.
"Biden is a good person and isn't the same as the administration that's just ended."
Denying Biden's role in this is just willful ignorance at this point.
Could one of the many reasons why immigration increased under Biden be that the American economy was recovering and there were significantly more jobs being created and available under Biden than under Trump?
I would imagine that the United States under a Democratic presidency is more attractive to immigrants (both legal and illegal) than under a Republican presidency for a variety of reasons, such as better American economies and less xenophobia.
On October 26 2024 22:16 maybenexttime wrote: Why are you even bothering with clowns like oBlade? He's not posting in good faith. He's trying to derail the thread. Whenever his nonsense gets debunked, he fails to acknowledge it and moves to another nonsense talking point.
I've stopped reading oBlade posts/discussions for largely this reason.
If it ever came down to some level of accountability, I might re-engage. I appreciate how clearly oBlade writes, but the actual content of the messages is just bullshit.
Same for me. People need to recognize that they will never get oBlade to admit that he is wrong, you will never get him to admit that Trump is wrong in anything, and you will never get him to admit that you maneuvered him into a corner.
There are always so many people pouncing at him when he spouts his newest BS that he can choose the people who are easiest to reply to, ignoring those that he doesn't have a good answer for. Or just change the topic again and again.
Maybe it would help if the people who want to debate against oBlade would elect one representative that speaks for all of them, so they get a more coherent discussion, instead of everyone trying to get a jab in, but i really doubt it. There is no good-faith discussion to be had there. And generally, what people are doing right now really isn't working, and just leads to the thread being kinda stupid.
Yes, oBlade parrots insane MAGA talking points. Yes, they are full of logical errors and just general insanity, that is how MAGA works. But you still don't have to reply to that.
On October 26 2024 14:02 Taelshin wrote: @Nettles yeah im aobut 2 hrs in I expected Rogan to go a bit harder. Tbh this is going well for trump though this format suits his long rambly ways they even joked about it. If Kamala was capable of this kind of a discussion she really should have, I doubt she is.
I told ya'll Joe Rogan is center right. Why would he go harder on a far-right president?
Couldn't say for sure unless Kamala also went on and you could compare the treatment between them, but likely he would also treat Kamala with respect.He did go after Trump a bit harder on the debt/deficit issue and the answer Trump gave was pretty lousy, didn't make much sense.
Anyway seems to me the electorate is moving right, what other explanation for Kamala deciding now to build a border wall if she is re-elected.Such a dramatic shift there no? It's good to learn from mistakes i guess.
When Trump, before and during his presidency, made the border situation out to be a crisis, there was no crisis. He lied. Feel free to look it up, illegal border crossings were at a low point in and before 2020. The situation got worse only after Biden became president, which means it's not the result of Biden's policies. Migration can't spike so rapidly from US border policies, it spiked due to problems in the origin countries. More likely it was because of the economic fallout from the pandemic. And also, Harris wasn't even in charge of border policy to begin with. Republicans framed it that way because they always do this. They always attribute blame to the wrong person as long as it hurts Democrats. Truth goes out the window.
Now that there is actually a large spike of illegal border crossings (which is entirely unrelated to US policy), Kamala obviously supports strengthening the border - not because she flip-flopped, but because now there's actually a problem to talk about. A real problem, not a fake problem made up by lying Trump and his supporters. Now it's actually fair to talk of a sort of border crisis.
In truth, before and after Trump became president, illegal border crossings to the US were at a low point. Democrats were completely right and Trump was lying his ass off.
I found an article explaining this. Feel free to fact check the claims made in it. The outlet has a strong left-wing bias, but they generally adhere to high factuality.
The idea that the surge in border crossings had nothing to do with Biden and he was just the victim of unfortunate timing is laughable. Obviously you've provided no evidence for this theory other than "migration can't spike so rapidly from US border policies."
I've previously mentioned in this thread that migrants at the border celebrated Biden's victory in November 2020. Why were they celebrating? Probably because before he was elected he called for migrants to "surge" the border and bragged that America could take in another 2 million people easily. He also killed "Remain in Mexico" and put in a 100 day moratorium on deportations as soon as he got into office, as well as overturning a bunch of other executive orders Trump put in place to reduce border crossings.
It's not exactly some mystery. We saw it happening in real time. Here's an NPR article from January 18 2020, just before Biden was inaugurated, that mentioned a several thousand strong caravan of migrants headed to the United States
Another migrant, Miguel Angel, tells AFP he's heading north now because he believes U.S. immigration policy will change once Joe Biden takes office as president.
"I have hope and faith in God, and in the good person that the United States has chosen," he says.
"Biden is a good person and isn't the same as the administration that's just ended."
Denying Biden's role in this is just willful ignorance at this point.
You're providing evidence that one person expresses the desire to go to the US because of US policy. That is not at all evidence that five times more people than before want to go to the US because of that same policy. The first and foremost reason why people move is money. A more lucrative job for example, or a business opportunity. That's been the number one reason for a very long time. Migration to the US experienced a shift during the pandemic, people didn't just come from the same usual countries as before, they came from more different countries. This is explained in the article. The reason isn't in Biden's policy, the reason is in the origin countries. The sudden spike in migration starting 2019 is absolutely gigantic. The US hasn't seen such a drastic shift in decades. Biden's policy cannot explain that. The pandemic however absolutely can. It crushed many people financially and they wanted to find a better place.
Most importantly, I'm describing illegal border crossings, not lawful migration. Illegal border crossings quintupled during the pandemic. Don't conflate these two things.
On October 26 2024 22:11 Sadist wrote: Oblade can you please stay on the opinion topic? Can we acknowledge that you cannot have an opinion on something that is a verifiable fact? I understand you may have some heartburn over this because there are instances in things like science or other fields where things once thought true but later proved false or incorrect. But this is not one of those instances.
I explained this in the rape rate analogy. Do you think having an opinion on the rape rate being higher than reported is an act of lying?
Difference is a rape rate is at least 1. At least one person's life has been irreparably damaged for every rapist. Thousands of acts of voter fraud can be committed and not change the outcome of an election. To use it as as an example is foolishness at best.
That has absolutely nothing to do with his argument. You can just as easily substitute jaywalking for his argument and it would be unchanged.
I agree with Simberto, it would be better if 1 person was elected a representative instead of everyone trying to get a jab in.
oBlade is simply offering the George Costanza defense for Trump
It would be very easy to counter this by instead of arguing Trump lied or we can factually know exactly how much voter fraud there is, people instead said "there's no evidence for widespread voter fraud so either Trump is lying or he has faulty beliefs."
On October 26 2024 22:11 Sadist wrote: Oblade can you please stay on the opinion topic? Can we acknowledge that you cannot have an opinion on something that is a verifiable fact? I understand you may have some heartburn over this because there are instances in things like science or other fields where things once thought true but later proved false or incorrect. But this is not one of those instances.
I explained this in the rape rate analogy. Do you think having an opinion on the rape rate being higher than reported is an act of lying?
Difference is a rape rate is at least 1. At least one person's life has been irreparably damaged for every rapist. Thousands of acts of voter fraud can be committed and not change the outcome of an election. To use it as as an example is foolishness at best.
That has absolutely nothing to do with his argument. You can just as easily substitute jaywalking for his argument and it would be unchanged.
I agree with Simberto, it would be better if 1 person was elected a representative instead of everyone trying to get a jab in.
oBlade is simply offering the George Costanza defense for Trump
It would be very easy to counter this by instead of arguing Trump lied or we can factually know exactly how much voter fraud there is, people instead said "there's no evidence for widespread voter fraud so either Trump is lying or he has faulty beliefs."
EPT
