United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

[Bear Ribs]

I 'll answer your begged questions
1)no, that's why we have appeals and then no system is perfect but on average the correct answer is arrived at
2) I would say it's more that some questions are so ill founded that they can not be addresses with any level of seriousness
3)it's possible but we do maintain and update things,

That's not what begging the question is. Begging the question requires circular reasoning that isn't supported. What I did was provide support with examples ahead of time, literally the polar opposite of begging the question.

So based on your answers:

1) I find this answer reasonable, but it does in fact open up the question of how much the courts can be trusted in this specific situation. "On average right" is a terrible way to try to figure out "in this situation right." A doctor whose advice kills his patients 40% of the time and heals them 60% is "On average right" but I wouldn't go to him for treatment.

2) This is a poor answer. That's not what lack of standing is. Further, it leads to the greater question, based on your answer can we conclude that you think any questioning of the election is so ill-founded that the courts cannot address it with any level of seriousness?

3) This is irrelevant to the situation at hand. "We might change the rules later" has no bearing on whether this specific situation was fairly judged or not.

All three of your answers suggest that you're committing an Appeal to Authority fallacy, in this case "Trust the Courts" when you can't establish why the courts are trustworthy.

I mean, they aren't blockading if you're fine with the clinic hiring bully boys to shove them aside. I would guess you aren't, but maybe I'm wrong?

As for the one elderly woman in particular, there's a difference between out on bail and in a different country on bail. Are you suggesting she was denied bail? I didn't think that was the case but I would be inclined to agree with your outrage if she was. Or are you saying that the guy who ran over that kid (I assume you mean) in fact fled the jurisdiction?

You were literally presented with proof they didn't blocking the entrance and agreed that was the case in your post 7,699 of this thread.

 

[strunkenwhite]

You were literally presented with proof they didn't blocking the entrance and agreed that was the case in your post 7,699 of this thread.

I watched that video, but I don't have enough context to say it proves they never blocked the entrance. And I didn't agree with it: when I said that if it was true that they didn't block it changes things, I didn't mean to imply that it was true.

But no, I don't believe 11 elderly people can blockade anything, thats just an excuse to violate their 1st amendment rights because of their political beliefs.

Well this is just clearly false. If it requires force to get past them how is it not a blockade? Age does not prevent human bodies from obstructing an entrance.

 

[Ixian]

I watched that video, but I don't have enough context to say it proves they never blocked the entrance. And I didn't agree with it: when I said that if it was true that they didn't block it changes things, I didn't mean to imply that it was true.

Well this is just clearly false. If it requires force to get past them how is it not a blockade? Age does not prevent human bodies from obstructing an entrance.

Yes, I'm sure those dastardly *checks notes* senior citizens were absolutely terrorizing the establishment where they murder people.

No crimes were committed, nothing was blockaded, and I'd put forward that elderly infirm people are in fact incapable of blocking anyone younger than themselves. You can't call it a blockade when literally any person under 60 could easily get past them.

This is political persecution pure and simple.

 

[Bear Ribs]

I watched that video, but I don't have enough context to say it proves they never blocked the entrance. And I didn't agree with it: when I said that if it was true that they didn't block it changes things, I didn't mean to imply that it was true.

You were also shown that the charges said they blocked a section of sidewalk, not the entrance. If they blocked the entrance, why only sidewalk claims against them? I will grant, your answer was wishy-washy enough for you to claim you didn't actually agree.

Well this is just clearly false. If it requires force to get past them how is it not a blockade? Age does not prevent human bodies from obstructing an entrance.

This is the kind of claim you should have no problem presenting evidence for, given the whole thing was live-streamed. Go ahead and put up your proof, please.

 

[mrttao]

are you interested in a point by point refutation of this? or is this too important to your self image ?

... so... where is the point by point refutation you are promising me?

you just linked to a youtube video of kangaroo court of political prisoners.
it is not a point by point refutation of what I said.

I made points, go ahead and refute them. one at a time.
Also, my self image? Projecting a bit hard there.

 

[LordsFire]

Something that can be proven in a court of law is generally the bed rock in public matters of finding fact

...I literally linked you to articles where courts ruled that various election-runners violated the law in how they ran the election.

You're either willfully blind, or just lying.

 

[Typhonis]

...I literally linked you to articles where courts ruled that various election-runners violated the law in how they ran the election.

You're either willfully blind, or just lying.

There is a third option, he's deliberately trolling you.

 

[Terthna]

Dude's a willfully ignorant goalposts shifter. Don't waste your time.

Sometimes, asking questions is the only way to get people like that to actually think about what they're saying. Barring that, their answers usually end up proving the depths of their ignorance.

 

[Ixian]

to quote Bill Barr, thats bullshit, well that and a poor understanding of how elections are held
are you interested in a point by point refutation of this? or is this too important to your self image ?
give it a watch, I'm reviewing it the whole thing to see if I can give you time stamps

Why would I care about the preening kangaroo court of an illegitimate government?

 

[Bear Ribs]

Why would I care about the preening kangaroo court of an illegitimate government?

Let him present his point-by-point rebuttal, I'm interested to see what it says. I'm not going to watch an over-24-hour-long video and parse the whole thing myself but if he has the timestamps I'll take a look.

 

[mrttao]

Something that can be proven in a court of law is generally the bed rock in public matters of finding fact

does this mean you are pro slavery?

after all, USA courts have historically ruled that slavery is legal, that sanctuary states have no right to deprive slave owners of their slaves, and that slaves have no right to sue over illegal enslavement because slaves do not have the citizen right to sue people.

Supreme Court rules in Dred Scott case

The U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery. In 1834, Dred Scott, an enslaved man, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820...

www.history.com

During the trial, the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Southern majority responded by ruling on March 6, 1857, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Three of the Southern justices also held that African Americans who were enslaved or whose ancestors were enslaved were not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court.

there were also some lower courts who went back and forth on the issue

Or maybe, just maybe... the courts are not the supreme source of all Truth, Justice, and Morality. Rather courts are enforces for the current's regime's policy.

If I see something with my own eyes. And the court says "do not trust your lying eyes. believe us instead". then that court is clearly lying to me.

 

[strunkenwhite]

This is the kind of claim you should have no problem presenting evidence for, given the whole thing was live-streamed. Go ahead and put up your proof, please.

Here, I was responding to "But no, I don't believe 11 elderly people can blockade anything, thats just an excuse to violate their 1st amendment rights because of their political beliefs." which I took to be a categorical statement about what elderly people are capable of doing in general. (You can see Ixian's response.) I take the position that if it requires force to get past then it definitely counts as a blockade. I believe elderly folks are able to constitute a human wall as well as anyone else, if perhaps a frailer one.

 

[Bear Ribs]

well do you have a personal list you'd like addressed or should I just dig into the other persons? most of the election was covered on just day 2 which is about 2 and half hours of tape and I've provided a link above, maybe just listen to it as a pod cast?

His is fine, I'm not very invested in election fraud in the first place, I mostly wanted to look at the burden of proof that is "well a court said so" and point out how bad a standard of evidence that is.

 

[LordsFire]

I did looked thru a few of those links and in them I found none that I was not aware of when they were news the 1st go round, in fact none of them have ever amounted to anything once they were investigated, Lawyers who pushed those cases with such faulty foundations have seen censure for wasting the courts time

This one:

Courts Rule States Did Not Follow Their Own Election Laws In 2020

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin violated their own laws in 2020, emphasizing the necessity of the rule of law in elections.

thefederalist.com

This one right here.

"Court rules."

Not 'Case thrown out of court.'

'Court Rules.'

Read.

 

[mrttao]

so you refuse that evidence?

what is wrong with your brain?
I made points, you claimed to have provided a point by point rebuttal when all you did was link to 2 hour 24 minutes video of a kangaroo court.

I asked you to WRITE DOWN THE FUCKING RESPONSES.
And you grandstand with "so you refuse the evidence".
No, I am asking you to use your fingers and type an actual reply.

looking

what does this even mean? you keep on appending the word "looking" at the end of each time you quote me...
looking where? what?

and learn to use a quote box. and put your replies in a new line instead of appending them at the end without even a space.

Anyways. it doesn't help that embedding is not working on this site for my browser. so if you want me to be able to see the link please put it inside code brackets

edit: alright. I spend the effort to manually extracted the link and adjusting it manually to work. and started watching from the timestamp. 5 minutes later I am not even seeing a single one of my points addressed.

instead it starts with some guy declaring "trump lost and they refused to accept the democratic results" and then continues on to claim "democrats just vote a lot more by mail in votes therefore there was a red mirage".

So... this answers literally none of my actual points. democrats voting more by mail has nothing to do with the specific examples I gave.

If the video eventually tries to address anything I have said then it takes a while to do so...

So, you falsely claim to have made a point by point rebuttal. but all you did was linked to a 2 hour 24 minute video. and couldn't even be arsed to get proper timestamps for your so called rebuttals.

does this mean you are pro slavery?

no

we are making progress. you finally admitted you were wrong earlier when you said courts are the source of truth and morality?

Or are you engaging in double think? Because from the rest of your posts you clearly still hold this view... so... doublethink.

5) this is actually about 60% true there were a lot of bullshit claims in a l attempt to flood the zone with spurious legal claims, this is also addressed in day two

double facepalm. none of the dismissal examples I gave were "bullshit claims".
they were bullshit dismissals by corrupt judges.
the dismissal reasons explicitly contradict each other too.

"you are not allowed to sue until date X. case dismissed"
"you have should sued before date X. now it is too late. case dimissed"
this together just means "you are not allowed to sue ever".

"Y can't sue. only X can"
"X can't sue. only Y can"
this together means "literally nobody can sue ever".

Those are not "judges dismissing bullshit claims". It is judges dismissing valid claims with bullshit reasons.

This is exactly like when the supreme court justices said the slaves can not sue for wrongful enslavement because they are slaves. It is circular logic / catch 22. A clear case of politically motivated judicial abuse.

 

[mrttao]

the states had a vaild argument they lost

A case being dismissed for lack of standing is not a "they lost the case". Losing requires being allowed to actually compete. You do not "lose" a competition in which you were not allowed to participate at all.

Also you previously stated you oppose the supreme court's pro slavery rulings. Thus affirming that the courts are not the source of truth, justice, and morality.

Were you lying and are in fact pro slavery?
Or will you finally admit that court decision != fact?

I guess not. clearly you are absolutely committed to the doublethink.

I key'd this to when Barr breaks down why the remedy for this may not have been to your liking

assuming you didn't change the timestamp from the last time you posted it. then the video is timestamped to a politician saying trump voters are upset that they lost. which is a great threat to our democracy.

That is it... that is your sole retort? that some scumbag corrupt politician said "nah nah nah you lost I win"? He is not even proclaiming any facts or evidence at the keyed spot. just a declaration of "you lose"
And you can't even say it yourself, you need to point to some Authority to say it for you?

 

[Captain X]

Probably someone gave him this particular talking point and that's why he's so reluctant to give it up. I suppose it sounded reasonable (and simple) enough as an excuse to "explain" why Trump lost "fair and square" to him, but he hasn't really put much thought into it beyond that.

 

[Typhonis]

Shouldn't this debate be in the Trump election thread?

 

[mrttao]

did you try the link in the last post?

you literally quoted me saying "assuming you did not change the timestamp from the last time you posted it". as well as "youtube embedding does not work for me on this site. you need to post it inside code brackets".

any way 1 hr 23minutes it's bill barr explaining if a given case of vote harvesting was found to be in error after the vote was made it wouldn't invalidate those votes cast, it would just open them up to being challenged vote by vote in court, which trump did not try to do

1. Bill Barr is a liar.
When democrats tried to use mail in ballot voter fraud to attempt to steal the re-election from lincoln (yes, the one who freed the slaves). he just rounded up the conspirators and hung them. that is the remedy for high treason. and an established precedence on how to deal with it.

2. "if we get caught cheating, it does not invalidate the cheating votes. instead you must go through insane implausible red tape. suing separately for each individual false vote" is the most bullshit politispeak I have heard in a long while.

3. source: bill barr's ass. It is barr's imagination that you are only allowed to sue for each false vote individually. This is called case consolidation. And you don't even need to consolidate each ballot. You would look to consolidate the case of different USPS workers who were each individually backdating votes. while a single one of them backdating 10k votes would not need consolidation for each of the 10k votes to be part of one case. similarly to how if you rob someone of 10,000 dollars you do not need to trial each dollar individually.

4. Even if we take barr's claim as true, and there really is a law on the books somewhere that says that in case of blatant voter fraud the only recourse is to challenge each individual fraudulent vote one by one... it still fails to answer any of the points I or other's raised.

You are way too invested in this talking point that you completely ignore whether or not is actually a rebuttal to something or not.

You claimed there was no fraud.
I gave you several examples of proof that fraud occured.

your grand rebuttal is...
> here is a politician
> he says they filed the case incorrectly.
> therefore the case was dismissed (even though actual dismissal reasons given by the judges were different)
> if it was dismissed on a technicality it means trump lost the court case
> if trump lost the court case it means no fraud occured.
> if no fraud occurred all video proof you show is just optical illusions.

This chain of logic is frankly insane. and calling it a rebuttal of evidence of fraud occurring is just clown logic.

 

[LordsFire]

the states had a vaild argument they lost it but it was a totally sound ground to act from, and they lost whats the problem?

...This doesn't even respond to my point.

Are you even reading my posts?