The Trump Presidency

[pjdude1219]

Sorry, but where do you see me defending democracy? I'm libertarian.

holy shit a liberterain who finely admitted their not for freedom but autocracy 2020 sure is a hell of a drug.

Whatever, if progressives were ever were forced to choose between socialism and democracy it would not be democracy they choose.

no they choose democracy. unlike your sociopathic ideology socialism and democracy aren't mutually incapitable

And even if correct it would not matter in both cases.

why do you hate freedom?

Once there are some remains of democracy, once there are some sort of elections, one can legitimately defend such elections against fraud without in any way contradicting oneself.

im sorry could you try to make sense you b grade product of a russian troll farm.

 

[iceaura]

I have often enough called you a liar and challenged to support your claim about me with a quote, and you were never able to do this.

I make claims about your posts, and I quote your posts when I make them.

I see no reason to read the Mueller report because I have seen no information that this report contains something interesting for me

. Exactly as I described your self-justification for posting in ignorance. Notice how I quoted your post.

- - Of course, as long as I don't question those results of climate scientists which are not interesting for me, I don't have to know those papers. - - - Whenever you think some claim I made about reality is wrong, think about who has the burden of proof and behave accordingly.

For example:
You make claims about the findings of climate researchers, even after posting justifications for the fact that you don't know what those findings are - I just proved that (again, as often before) by quoting you doing it.

The possibility that {de Soto's} viewpoint and analysis has not convinced me does not exist?

It does - I stand corrected.
Your posts indicate that you don't know what his viewpoint and analysis is. I admit that my inferring you hadn't read his stuff was careless - especially with the results of your reading of my own posts in front of me.

the last change was the replacement of a highly politicized left-wing court by a highly politicized right-wing court,

There has been no leftwing Court in the US, and the immediately preceding Courts - before Reagan - were not nearly as overtly politicized (back then professionally partisan corporate lawyers without judicial or courtroom experience were seldom appointed to the Supreme Court ). Your claim is false.
Notice that I quoted your claim, and did not omit any relevant evidence or argument - you included none, as always.
(Your claim of a formerly leftwing court is another of those factual errors that point directly to your source - there is only one source for the silly notion that the US had a "highly politicized leftwing court" before the recent Republican appointments).

I have not said envy is relevant to {Piketty's} analysis.

It is relevant to your claims about his analysis - it is central to your recently posted justification for not reading his analysis, and therefore not knowing what it is or whether it is correct. (Earlier you posted that you hadn't read his stuff because he sometimes used tax receipt data in his analyses. )

I can give you the source for my using "envy" in a quite explicit way

Your source for your dismissal of Piketty by invoking envy like that is US rightwing corporate authoritarian media feeds. Schoek's 1969 writings do not dismiss Piketty's 21st Century analysis of economic inequality on such grounds, nor could any approach based on envy (or any other mood).

I have not made such claims for climate research. - -

As noted and supported by multiple quotes in earlier threads, you most certainly have - including claims about its funding and its findings and the political pressures on it. You have claimed that when done by vulnerable graduate students it follows "mainstream fads", for example - I just quoted you making that claim again - and that these "mainstream fads" are alarmist, biased against good effects (often omitting them altogether) and exaggerated in their presentations of bad ones, and so forth. You have even made claims about the reasoning employed in these research reports you have not read - such as claiming that projections of effects beyond the immediate small warming from the extra CO2 are speculative or otherwise unreliable and unsupported, claiming that beneficial organisms and beneficial effects are under-reported and under-researched compared with harmful ones, and so forth. You have linked to websites in which you have posted essays that include claims about how AGW can be ameliorated or reversed by setting off nuclear explosions in desert areas, you have posted claims of how farmers and other afflicted people can adapt to what the researchers predict of AGW in various ways, how the research shows that there is an ideal global "temperature" that is higher than the current one and AGW is approaching it, that a given mean or median sea level rise as reported by researchers can be countered by an equal raising of dikes and levees and sea-walls in places like Bangladesh, that there is no place on earth where high temperatures in themselves harm agricultural productivity, that the findings and predictions of AGW researchers as reported in the media and by the IPCC are of extremes and maximum possible consequences, and so forth.
All of these are claims about what the researchers have found

(I have made general claims that the actual situation with young scientists in extreme job insecurity forces them to follow mainstream fads. Which is something completely different.)

You made all these claims without ever having read the research reports or the analyses published. You have repeated those claims here after refusing to read research reports provided for you, by me. And you have been consistently wrong, always in the same way - your false claims and errors of reasoning are always - every time you post on the topic - identical to those found in the media feeds from the US fascist movement's propaganda operations, often to the inclusion of specific vocabulary and particular expressions of those errors of reasoning.

That's how your source was identified, if you recall: common errors, common falsehoods -> common source. Correct and accurate common claims can emerge independently from the common reality, there being only one; common specific errors and falsehoods require coordination. You are being coordinated - with or without your consent.

 

[Tiassa]

#trumpswindle | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

There is something in the tale that is part of a larger question than just this political situation, or the Beltway. It is an attitude that permeates beyond institutions, paints how much of proverbial Main Street, and reeks in the basement lairs and living room command posts of net-maddened geniuses from sea to shining sea, and beyond.

… the GOP offensive against Raffensperger has only intensified, with the president spending much of the weekend berating the Georgian via Twitter for being insufficiently loyal. But more importantly, the Republican campaign against one of their own may not be limited to strange rhetoric. The Washington Post reported overnight that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) spoke to Raffensperger and questioned the validity of legally cast absentee ballots.

In the interview, Raffensperger also said he spoke on Friday to Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has echoed Trump's unfounded claims about voting irregularities. In their conversation, Graham questioned Raffensperger about the state's signature-matching law and whether political bias could have prompted poll workers to accept ballots with nonmatching signatures, according to Raffensperger. Graham also asked whether Raffensperger had the power to toss all mail ballots in counties found to have higher rates of nonmatching signatures, Raffensperger said.​

The article added that the Georgia secretary of state was "stunned that Graham appeared to suggest that he find a way to toss legally cast ballots."

For his part, Graham concedes that he had a conversation with Raffensperger about ballots, but the senator denied that he suggested throwing out legally cast ballots, calling the allegation "ridiculous." The sycophantic White House ally went on to tell reporters, "If he feels threatened by that conversation, he's got a problem."

(Benen↱)​

The idea ought to be pretty straightforward: "If he feels threatened by that conversation," said Sen. Graham, "he's got a problem."

Former U.S. Attorney Andrew Weissman disagrees; the NBC News pundit refused to mince words when he tweeted↱, "This is what we in the legal world call a felony." Conservative radio host and NBC News pundit, meanwhile, tweeted↱ that he does "not believe for one second that [Sen. Graham] asked GA Sec State to toss legal ballots." His reasoning is that Graham "is a solid lawyer and a rule of law conservative". The whole point was to insult Raffensperger, though: "He's also canny, funny, very smart, but perhaps assumed his interlocutor was the same. Nonsense."

It is an interesting contrast: Accusation of felony, to the one, from a former U.S. Attorney; and an argument of innocence because one wouldn't do that and is just too smart for the guy in charge of elections in Georgia to understand, to the other, from a career conservative political advocate.

We might note that Hewitt's defense of Graham, while hardly definitive, does seem to overlook an obvious question. "Why is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee calling Georgia's Secretary of State to discuss mechanics of an ongoing ballot count?" asks Walter Shaub↱, former director of the Office of Government Ethics. "Such a call would be implicitly coercive in the best case, even without Graham's alleged suggestion about throwing out lawful votes."

Another way to look at it is to set aside the pundits and twittery, and ask the question this way: Why is a U.S. Senator from South Carolina calling the Georgia Secretary of State in order to discuss throwing out larger batches of ballots, including those that have no reason for exclusion?

Or, observing the language of what comes to us, "asked whether Raffensperger had the power to toss all mail ballots in counties found to have higher rates of nonmatching signatures": Why is the U.S. Senator from South Carolina calling the Georgia Secretary of State in order to discuss throwing out properly cast ballots?

Both the legal and political assessments require resolution of this point. But it also represents an occurrence of something I sometimes describe as conservatives being unable to discern basic differences. And this time it's such an easy joke we can drag JFK into it for questions of why or why not. Lindsey Graham is not new. He's not a freshman backbencher; he knows how to hold a subcommitte chair. He cannot excuse himself this way. His pretense of, What, who, me? I'm just this guy, y'know? doesn't work. Let's not put words in his mouth, because it's true he certainly didn't come right out and say, "It's not like I have any authority, or even prestige by which I might reach the top election official in another state to ask him about throwing out ballots B through Z just because he can construe a suggestion that there might be a problem with ballot A." He didn't come right out and say, "I'm just this guy, you know, just exercising my constitutional rights as a voter and American citizen." It's true, Sen. Graham never came out and said those things. Still, in discerning basic differences, the idea that Lindsey Graham, twenty-seven years in politics, twenty-five in Congress, and approaching eighteen of those years in the U.S. Senate, cannot comprehend the basic facts underlying Shaub's assessment derived from fairly straightforward and routine legal advice, then what is the problem? After all, isn't Graham a "solid lawyer"? A "very smart" and "canny" "rule of law conservative"?

Benen observes:

… it's especially important that a core truth is not in dispute: Lindsey Graham called Georgia's secretary of state—during a statewide recount—to discuss the state's system of counting absentee ballots. We know this for certain because it's the one thing the senator and Raffensperger agree on: the call about ballots happened.​

Why did Graham do this? To propose, Why not? is insufficient; the basic advice of an ethics lawyer would not be foreign to Sen. Graham, a "solid lawyer" with a quarter-century in Congress including three terms in the Senate, who also spent a good deal of that time whining about other people's ethics.

The confidence of Graham's cluelessness is extraordinary, his lack of subtlety demonstrative of the abasement required to support such depravity as the Trump administration.

†​

There is a question of inevitability, but, really, it is no comfort. That is, if we suggest that someone would eventually have tried so transparent a ruse as the Trump administration and Beltway Republicans have put on, the point does not change the fact that it is actually happening. There are also questions about the ruses of, well, at least the whole twenty-first century, for conservatives, but neither are conservatives and Republicans themselves the whole of the question.

In the human world of, Why not? it can be somewhat unsettling to attempt enumeration of the obvious reasons why not, because in part people are very easily swayed in their own contexts of why and why not. Transparent ruses of fresh-faced, clueless innocence are cheap comedic fodder, even as cynical virtue signaling in old crime dramas and gangster tales. And, sure, that reads like an easy setup, but the punch lines aren't funny.

Compared to certain traditional presuppositions saying why not have sex with obliged subordinates, or pretend something was a business expense, sure there is a long history of people justifying themselves by asking why they wouldn't: What do you mean, why did I do that? Why wouldn't I? Nonetheless, the absolute stupidity Sen. Graham expects us to award° him in the moment is unbelievable. And while it might seem inevitable that someone, someday, might try such a ruse, Beltway Republicans of former years would have resented the merest whiff of a shadow of a rumor of such dereliction.
____________________

Notes:

° Assign? Attribute? How does it work that he needs us to believe he is this stupid? How does it work out that he needs us to spot him stupid points? How does it come to be that he needs us to reward his dishonesty by presuming he really is that stupid?​

@AWeissman. "This is what we in the legal world call a felony." Twitter. 16 November 2020. Twitter.com. 17 November 2020. https://bit.ly/3kH4LvL

@hughhewitt. "I do not believe for one second that @LindseyGrahamSC asked GA Sec State to toss legal ballots. Graham leads @SenateJudiciary, is a solid lawyer and a rule of law conservative. He's also canny, funny, very smart, but perhaps assumed his interlocutor was the same. Nonsense." Twitter. 17 November 2020. Twitter.com. 17 November 2020. https://bit.ly/3f7YCYa

@waltshaub. "Why is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee calling Georgia's Secretary of State to discuss mechanics of an ongoing ballot count? Such a call would be implicitly coercive in the best case, even without Graham's alleged suggestion about throwing out lawful votes." Twitter. 16 November 2020. Twitter.com. 16 November 2020. https://bit.ly/3lGP0Gz

Benen, Steve. "Did Lindsey Graham push Georgia to throw out legally cast ballots?" msnbc. 17 November 2020. msnbc.com. 17 November 2020. https://on.msnbc.com/2UCkcuI

 

[Seattle]

Well found(at the time it might have sounded a bit of a stretch but it sure rings true today)

No, it wasn't much of a stretch then either. Think...Archie Bunker

 

[Schmelzer]

holy shit a liberterain who finely admitted their not for freedom but autocracy 2020 sure is a hell of a drug.

You have not understood. I'm for freedom. Freedom is impossible if the world will be ruled by the US (or whatever other single power). That's why I'm against the US, as the only power now with the aim of worldwide rulership, against the unipolar world. So, for freedom worldwide it is necessary to weaken the US as much as possible. This is my starting point. I evaluate what harms the US rule worldwide in the most serious way and support this.

I like freedom, therefore I hate the US state. Blame yourself, you elected governments like Obama who paid terrorists headcutting children in Syria and did not even stop paying them after this was known. Blame yourself that you (my guess is a large majority in this forum) elected now one of those responsible for paying those "US paid freedom fighters", the vice president at that time, instead of Trump who at least started no new wars.

Democracy and freedom are quite different things, and quite obviously in conflict. The majorities don't like freedom as well as dictators don't like freedom. The question if autocracy or democracy gives more freedom is a pragmatical one. Sometimes democracy is preferable - this was the case in communism, the failure of communism 1989 was a really big gain for freedom, I have fought for freedom at that time and supported therefore supported democracy against communism. Today the situation is less clear.

That's how your source was identified, if you recall: common errors, common falsehoods -> common source.

This method works only with real errors. Not if disagreement with your ideology already counts as "error". Then "common errors" may be in reality simply common truths.

I make claims about your posts, and I quote your posts when I make them.

If you make claims about the post you immediately answer. The service which is provided automatically. Whenever you make claims about what I have written in the past, you never quote anything supporting this.

Exactly as I described your self-justification for posting in ignorance. Notice how I quoted your post.

Only the part contained in the last post. Nothing proving that my refusal to read that report has anything to do with some "posting in ignorance". This would require quoting the post where I posted something which was ignoring something written in the report, and the post where I was informed that what I have written is wrong, why it is wrong, with reference to the report.

For example:
You make claims about the findings of climate researchers, even after posting justifications for the fact that you don't know what those findings are - I just proved that (again, as often before) by quoting you doing it.

There is no such animal like "the findings of climate researchers". Particular researchers find particular things. Therefore I make no claims about those "the findings", but make claims about particular results where I have seen the evidence and can cite the relevant research. (An exception will be those mainstream claims which I do not question, where I can even use Wikipedia for reference.)

There has been no leftwing Court in the US, and the immediately preceding Courts - before Reagan - were not nearly as overtly politicized (back then professionally partisan corporate lawyers without judicial or courtroom experience were seldom appointed to the Supreme Court ). Your claim is false.
Notice that I quoted your claim, and did not omit any relevant evidence or argument - you included none, as always.

You quote me only if the quoted claim is immediately in the post you answer (possibly with some rare exceptions, but I don't remember one). I don't include evidence if I think there will be no disagreement. You have disagreed, so now is my turn to present evidence or take the claim back, ok?
The claim you have questioned with "There has been no leftwing Court in the US" was my characterization of Ginsburg as "a highly politicized left-wing court".
In this case, my picture of Ginsburg being left-wing has been based on the popular picture of the "Notorious RBG". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg#In_popular_culture
Sorry if pictures like that given there, with RBG together with a black fist symbol together, created the impression of RBG being left-wing.
(Your claim of a formerly leftwing court is another of those factual errors that point directly to your source - there is only one source for the silly notion that the US had a "highly politicized leftwing court" before the recent Republican appointments).
[/QUOTE]
I would guess that evil source has photoshopped that picture
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/2018_Women's_March_in_Missoula,_Montana_69.jpg/220px-2018_Women's_March_in_Missoula,_Montana_69.jpg

It is relevant to your claims about his analysis - it is central to your recently posted justification for not reading his analysis, and therefore not knowing what it is or whether it is correct. (Earlier you posted that you hadn't read his stuff because he sometimes used tax receipt data in his analyses. )

Another lie about me. Quote me, liar.

Your source for your dismissal of Piketty by invoking envy like that is US rightwing corporate authoritarian media feeds. Schoek's 1969 writings do not dismiss Piketty's 21st Century analysis of economic inequality on such grounds, nor could any approach based on envy (or any other mood).

Except that I have not dismissed Piketty's analysis here in this way, but simply explained that it is not interesting for me. You have created, in your fantasy, a dismissal, maybe based on some real US rightwing guy who has done this, maybe that is pure fantasy on your side too (which is more plausible).

In that old discussion, see http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...r-more-worse-news.105212/page-88#post-3372495 I have criticized Piketty for other reasons.

 

[Schmelzer]

As noted and supported by multiple quotes in earlier threads, you most certainly have - including claims about its funding and its findings and the political pressures on it.

Another lie about me. Quote me, liar.

You have claimed that when done by vulnerable graduate students it follows "mainstream fads", for example - I just quoted you making that claim again - and that these "mainstream fads" are alarmist,

Young scientists will follow mainstream fads, yes, and this is a general statement, for all sciences where young scientists have extreme job insecurity. But I have not claimed that the mainstream of climate research is alarmist.

... biased against good effects (often omitting them altogether) and exaggerated in their presentations of bad ones, and so forth.

Of course, there is a focus of interest on bad effects - this is natural and reasonable. Not only scientists, but reasonable persons in general will have some focus of interest for potentially harmful things. So, even if there is such a bias, it is not problematic. What is problematic is what the mass media do - they intentionally present only the negative effects.

You have even made claims about the reasoning employed in these research reports you have not read - such as claiming that projections of effects beyond the immediate small warming from the extra CO2 are speculative or otherwise unreliable and unsupported, claiming that beneficial organisms and beneficial effects are under-reported and under-researched compared with harmful ones, and so forth. You have linked to websites in which you have posted essays that include claims about how AGW can be ameliorated or reversed by setting off nuclear explosions in desert areas, you have posted claims of how farmers and other afflicted people can adapt to what the researchers predict of AGW in various ways, how the research shows that there is an ideal global "temperature" that is higher than the current one and AGW is approaching it, that a given mean or median sea level rise as reported by researchers can be countered by an equal raising of dikes and levees and sea-walls in places like Bangladesh, that there is no place on earth where high temperatures in themselves harm agricultural productivity, that the findings and predictions of AGW researchers as reported in the media and by the IPCC are of extremes and maximum possible consequences, and so forth.
All of these are claims about what the researchers have found
You made all these claims without ever having read the research reports or the analyses published.
You have repeated those claims here after refusing to read research reports provided for you, by me.

This website is my own: https//ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/.
You lie that "All of these are claims about what the researchers have found". No. Some of the claims are justified differently. In particular, by common sense considerations, or by rough expectations of costs for some imaginable countermeasures.
Whenever I have claim that something has been found by researchers, you will see explicit quotes from a scientific source with reference to that source. The claim that I have not read research reports which I have explicitly quoted is obvious nonsense.
The few sources you have provided in that discussion I have read, and I have read even some sources referenced by these sources, and even quoted them. Here you seem to believe your own "have not read" fantasies about sources I have explicitly quoted in such a way that it is distorted in your memory even toward a "refusing to read".

And you have been consistently wrong, always in the same way - your false claims and errors of reasoning are always - every time you post on the topic - identical to those found in the media feeds from the US fascist movement's propaganda operations, often to the inclusion of specific vocabulary and particular expressions of those errors of reasoning.

Of course, I, intentionally and deliberately, don't follow PC prescriptions. I hate Orwellian distortions of our language, and I will not use such distorted language. Beyond the shared use of normal, undistorted by PC, language (which I would guess I indeed share with what you name "US fascist movement's propaganda"), you have yet to provide evidence.

But that would be too much. To quote me together with that evil fascist source using "specific vocabulary" and "particular expressions", and this, moreover, in a case where this "specific vocabulary" is not standard non-PC common or scientific language, and, moreover, the consideration contains a common error of reasoning - no, you even lie and refuse to provide evidence if all you would need is to find a quote of me in this forum, which has a search function for this. So you will repeat this type of lie many many times following Goebbels' strategy, and never support this with evidence.

 

[river]

trump should be charged with treason . trump has not and continues to not protect the the American people . And Military Personal ,.

Treason . BY any Standards of Treason .

trump is a Psychopath . He Kills People without remorse .

 

[arfa brane]

After appearing at the Tomb of the Unknown Loser, Trump went on to a ceremony at the Bunch of Suckers Memorial.

 

[pjdude1219]

You have not understood.

no i did.

I'm for freedom.

no you are not. if you gave a shit about freedom you wouldn't be a libertarian.

Freedom is impossible if the world will be ruled by the US (or whatever other single power). That's why I'm against the US, as the only power now with the aim of worldwide rulership, against the unipolar world. So, for freedom worldwide it is necessary to weaken the US as much as possible. This is my starting point. I evaluate what harms the US rule worldwide in the most serious way and support this.

so you hate america and are working backwards from there got it. still doesn't change the fact you are against freedom

I like freedom, therefore I hate the US state.

that makes no sense.

Blame yourself, you elected governments like Obama who paid terrorists headcutting children in Syria and did not even stop paying them after this was known.

your conspiracy theories are not fact.

Blame yourself that you (my guess is a large majority in this forum) elected now one of those responsible for paying those "US paid freedom fighters", the vice president at that time, instead of Trump who at least started no new wars.

the only reason trump didn't start a new war is for the grace of god Iran at least is run by a gibbering babboon like trump and is capable of restraint.

Democracy and freedom are quite different things, and quite obviously in conflict.

no they aren't. they fact the block autocrats and their lackeys from dominating people doesn't make them anti freedom it makes them pro freedom.

The majorities don't like freedom as well as dictators don't like freedom.

majorities like freedom just find. not everyone subscribes to your childish and sociopathic ideology that trys to rewrite history to suit its own ends. that you redefine freedom to take away what normal people understand to be freedom doesn't mean only you like freedom. it means your ideology is bullshit.

The question if autocracy or democracy gives more freedom is a pragmatical one.

no it isn't.

Sometimes democracy is preferable - this was the case in communism, the failure of communism 1989 was a really big gain for freedom, I have fought for freedom at that time and supported therefore supported democracy against communism. Today the situation is less clear.

democracy supports freedom unless fascist like you try and topple it.

 

[Saint]

What is biden's number of vote?

 

[Schmelzer]

While I have yet to find a serious Russian analytic who thinks that the US election was honest, most of them (among them two of my favorites) give Trump no chance to win the fight. I think this will be a quite popular position around the non-Western world. Here, of course, there is the general problem that it is one thing to see that there has been fraud simply based on common sense, and another thing to be able to prove this in court. Even if the court would be really neutral and honestly trying to find the truth, it could happen that the proves are not strong enough for a court.

But the non-Western public opinion will, in this case, prefer another explanation: That the court system in the US is corrupt as well. What the media have presented about Barrett and Ginsburg shows the world that US courts are highly politicized at least on the top level. And the situation looks like that whatever the various court decisions, the loser will blame the courts for the decision being wrong. Trump himself has already done such things, so for this side it is predictable. Biden will have no problem winning the lower court decisions. But imagine Trump wins the final Supreme Court decisions - blaming the court will be the predictable reaction of the Dems too. So, worldwide the reputation of the US court system will be damaged too.

no i did. no you are not. if you gave a shit about freedom you wouldn't be a libertarian.

Means, you simply think libertarians in general are against freedom? Of course, the name can be misleading, with the US liberals supporting islamist terror groups being the best example, But, given that libertarians in their ideology value freedom as the most important thing, it makes not much sense to claim that they are against freedom. They may err, similar to the communists who thought about building a communist paradise and ended up building slavery, or the Americans thinking about democracy and ending in oligarchy, similarly libertarians could end in something horrible honestly believing they build a free society (which I think is what follows from left-wing libertarianism). But this does not mean they are against freedom. They would err in this case about the methods to reach it.

your conspiracy theories are not fact.

That's established fact, completely officially acknowledged by the US after the video of headcutting a 12yo boy by a US paid group appeared. The US refused to stop to pay this group even after this. https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/761248812254031872

no they aren't. they fact the block autocrats and their lackeys from dominating people doesn't make them anti freedom it makes them pro freedom.

Except that they don't block them. They did not block Hitler, as well as many other autocrats. Say, all those named "autoritarians" by the EU (in Poland, Hungary, Belarus, Russia) have majorities supporting them.

Using bad words is not an argument, except in kindergarten (ok, and US forums).

 

[Quantum Quack]

Using bad words is not an argument, except in kindergarten (ok, and US forums).

Just a thought...
Are there any Russian forums where freedom of speech is encouraged?
Love to go visit if there is or are such a beast(s)...

 

[river]

Just a thought...
Are there any Russian forums where freedom of speech is encouraged?
Love to go visit if there is or are such a beast(s)...

Indeed .

 

[Beer w/Straw]

While I have yet to find a serious Russian analytic who thinks that the US election was honest, most of them (among them two of my favorites) give Trump no chance to win the fight.

Is that just saying you don't believe the electoral college over the popular vote is unfair?

 

[Tiassa]

So, Giuliani sweated his hair color, and Powell accused the late Hugo Chavez (d. 2013) of rigging the 2020 election.

Hey, remember the joke about booking the wrong Four Seasons? Turns out being stuck between a crematorium and a porn store really wasn't the, uh ... er ... ah ... y'know, this is Dimension Trump, so, yeah, actually, sounds about right.

It's not even noon on the west coast.

 

[pjdude1219]

Means, you simply think libertarians in general are against freedom?

i don't think they are. i know they are.

Of course, the name can be misleading, with the US liberals supporting islamist terror groups being the best example,

again your strawmen and conspiracy theories aren't fact.

But, given that libertarians in their ideology value freedom as the most important thing, it makes not much sense to claim that they are against freedom.

they only value freedom as they define it not according to how its conventionally defined. most people don't view the libertarian conception of freedom as anything of the sort.

But this does not mean they are against freedom. They would err in this case about the methods to reach it.

again the fact the actively oppose freedom is why they are against freedom.

That's established fact, completely officially acknowledged by the US after the video of headcutting a 12yo boy by a US paid group appeared. The US refused to stop to pay this group even after this. https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/761248812254031872

random twitter posts aren't fact.

Except that they don't block them. They did not block Hitler, as well as many other autocrats.

so world war 2 didn't happen?

Say, all those named "autoritarians" by the EU (in Poland, Hungary, Belarus, Russia) have majorities supporting them.

poland current government won 51% of the vote in a 2 person runoff which artificially creates a majority win for the winner. he got 40 some percent in the first round. orbon in hungary was relected with a shade under 45% of the vote so not a majority. no one considers the belarussian election wins after the first to have happened in free or fair elections and as for russian its ruled by putins cult of personality and is not a free country. considering how often putins political opposition are murdered its suspect. so only 1 of those had a majority election in a fair free election which was manufactured by the political system. 0-4 good job.

Using bad words is not an argument, except in kindergarten (ok, and US forums).

none of my arguments hinged on "bad" words so as usual you use strawmen and straight up lies to push your crack pot ideology.

 

[Saint]

Have Biden won the election?

 

[Schmelzer]

Just a thought...
Are there any Russian forums where freedom of speech is encouraged?
Love to go visit if there is or are such a beast(s)...

LOL, for Russians there is no point and no necessity to "encourage" freedom to speech. For a male Russian, his everyday speech is by tradition "forbidden" speech. "Forbidden" in the sense that it is not allowed in a civilized environment, and in particular if women are present. Other languages have typically a few bad words, like in the US the f-word, which are often used in particular by lower class people, but the Russian мат (mat) is something quite special and different, namely an almost complete separate language. If you have, say, an English text and want to censor the bad words, you will often here a *beep* but there will be no problem understanding the meaning of what has been said, and the *beep* can be simply backtranslated into the f-word. If you would try to censor with such a *beep* Russian vulgar language, you would here a permanent *beeeeeeeeep* interrupted by a few words like I, you, and, or, with, no, so, and other words necessary for connection, but one would be unable to understand the meaning.

So, a Russian forum, if it does not want to degenerate immediately into permanent flamewars of the lowest possible cultural level, has to censor at least this sort of speech.

In other words, in Russia it is not the state or ideology but culture which leads to censorship in forums, About the freedom of speech in political questions - it is also not something Russians care about, they take this freedom as given. There is a joke, I have heard it at Breshnev time, about lovers of risky fun in different countries. Americans make a car race - 10 cars, one with the brakes cut, nobody knows which - they like risk. French take 10 prostitutes, one with syphilis, nobody knows which - they like risk. Russians make political jokes. Ten Russians, one of them a KGB snitch, nobody knows who - they like risk. There is a lot of truth in this joke - I have heard it in some round of 10 and did not know if among them was some KGB snitch. We have talked and joked about politics without caring at all. A Russian has always his own, personal position, which always in some essential way differs from the political position of the leadership even if he, overall, is communist, or, today, a pro-Putin patriot. Say, one of my friends at that time was communist, but Stalinist, and despised the actual leaders.

Conformism with the leadership you will find in Germany, as the typical mindset, but not in Russia. In Germany, it could be necessary to encourage freedom of speech. In Russia, you would have to start a serious fight to suppress it, which even the communists have lost, else you have it.

And not even opposition forum will "encourage" some "freedom of speech", they will have enough of it automatically.

they only value freedom as they define it not according to how its conventionally defined. most people don't view the libertarian conception of freedom as anything of the sort. again the fact the actively oppose freedom is why they are against freedom.

Of course, you also value freedom as you define it. So this is zero information. That the majority thinks differently is a well-known triviality, libertarians have indeed not yet won elections. As long as you don't provide details, some non-trivial information, say, describe the differences in some more detail, you have simply stated your disagreement with libertarians and not shown anything.

random twitter posts aren't fact.

Answers given in press conferences are facts. The headcutting video itself is a fact, the murdered boy is known by name, the place is known, the gang has made and distributed the video itself, being proud of it.

so world war 2 didn't happen?

??????? Hitler was democratically elected. The war started many years later.

poland current government won 51% of the vote in a 2 person runoff which artificially creates a majority win for the winner. he got 40 some percent in the first round. orbon in hungary was relected with a shade under 45% of the vote so not a majority. no one considers the belarussian election wins after the first to have happened in free or fair elections and as for russian its ruled by putins cult of personality and is not a free country.

The point being? A thin majority is a majority too, and coalitions to gain majorities are common and standard in democracies. Even the opposition group which has tried to prove that the election in Belarus was falsified only claimed that Lukashenko has got something order of 55% or so instead of the claimed 80%, proving falsification but not that there was no majority behind Lukashenko. And in the past, the public support for Lukashenko was much greater - those who have memories of the time before Lukashenko support him strongly, he has essentially stopped mafia rule. And blaming a "cult of personality" does not help you much - my claim was that those named autocrats can easily get democratically elected.

And, given the actual situation in the US, with claims of the elections being stolen and with horrible facts about how easy it is to manipulate US elections, with riots before the elections, and a highly politicized court system, and the mass media as well as the asocial media supporting one side much more strongly than the media in Russia supporting Putin, you would better care about your own country instead of criticizing others. Only Belarus has standards comparable to US, all the other cases (Poland, Russia, Hungary) have much higher standards.

none of my arguments hinged on "bad" words

Formally correct - you have not given any arguments, so indeed none of these hinged on whatever. The same now - against libertarianism the number of arguments was zero here too. (Your arguments in this post were only repetition of Western propaganda against authoritarian leaders, and even they did not really question the fact that they have been democratically elected.)

 

[Saint]

Trump will come back on 2024 and win again.

 

[Quantum Quack]

LOL, for Russians there is no point and no necessity to "encourage" freedom to speech. For a male Russian, his everyday speech is by tradition "forbidden" speech. "Forbidden" in the sense that it is not allowed in a civilized environment, and in particular if women are present. Other languages have typically a few bad words, like in the US the f-word, which are often used in particular by lower class people, but the Russian мат (mat) is something quite special and different, namely an almost complete separate language. If you have, say, an English text and want to censor the bad words, you will often here a *beep* but there will be no problem understanding the meaning of what has been said, and the *beep* can be simply backtranslated into the f-word. If you would try to censor with such a *beep* Russian vulgar language, you would here a permanent *beeeeeeeeep* interrupted by a few words like I, you, and, or, with, no, so, and other words necessary for connection, but one would be unable to understand the meaning.

So, a Russian forum, if it does not want to degenerate immediately into permanent flamewars of the lowest possible cultural level, has to censor at least this sort of speech.

In other words, in Russia it is not the state or ideology but culture which leads to censorship in forums, About the freedom of speech in political questions - it is also not something Russians care about, they take this freedom as given. There is a joke, I have heard it at Breshnev time, about lovers of risky fun in different countries. Americans make a car race - 10 cars, one with the brakes cut, nobody knows which - they like risk. French take 10 prostitutes, one with syphilis, nobody knows which - they like risk. Russians make political jokes. Ten Russians, one of them a KGB snitch, nobody knows who - they like risk. There is a lot of truth in this joke - I have heard it in some round of 10 and did not know if among them was some KGB snitch. We have talked and joked about politics without caring at all. A Russian has always his own, personal position, which always in some essential way differs from the political position of the leadership even if he, overall, is communist, or, today, a pro-Putin patriot. Say, one of my friends at that time was communist, but Stalinist, and despised the actual leaders.

Conformism with the leadership you will find in Germany, as the typical mindset, but not in Russia. In Germany, it could be necessary to encourage freedom of speech. In Russia, you would have to start a serious fight to suppress it, which even the communists have lost, else you have it.

And not even opposition forum will "encourage" some "freedom of speech", they will have enough of it automatically.

So after writing 500 or so words the answer is no...there are no pubic online forums that you can link to that offer uncensored poitical opinions? ok.
I get it... thanks..