|
While I don't think the OP is approaching this issue the best way, I think he has a point in at least one way. Without some sort of system of feedback how exactly do user know how to improve their behavior to be more in line with forum rules and general social norms for the community? Of course they could read old threads, but the fact that the target subject matter is spread all over hell as previous precedent setting incidents makes that very difficult.
I think some kind of pull down menu for the mod to select a small handful of reasons for a post deletion for example would be useful and be a minimal amount of disruption of the mods time. You could have options like "SPAM" "POOR QUALITY" "OFF TOPIC" "OTHER" and perhaps an optional note field, and just set "OTHER" to default and let the mods use it if they think feedback would be productive.
Specific features aside, I have been pointing out for a long time that the unofficial nature of all these arbitrarily enforced rules around here not just for the forum itself, but the overall community enforced rules, leads to a lot of unnecessary conflict and confusion that could be prevented with some simple standards, disclosure, and feedback mechanisms.
|
|
|
|
I've answered your question about why I can't produce the subpoenas. Why can't you just answer mine? I didn't ask you a question about subpoenas, I asked you to provide the subpoenas, which you can't. Why would I participate in your diversion from this fact? |
|
|
|
You don't owe me an explanation but it sure would help you to not look like a dishonest dick if you provided one. The difference between me and you is I am unable to provide a copy of the subpoena whereas you are unwilling to answer the question of why you still believe subpoenas received by Pompeo and Giuliani don't exist. How could the subpoenas not exist if they acknowledged receiving them? https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/DD4fN7I.pngRight, either I answer you or I am a dishonest dick. Very persuasive Nutilduhhh. The burden of proof of proving the premise that the subpoenas existed is yours, anything else is just your attempt at shifting that burden away from yourself. |
|
|
|
My understanding is that many lobbyists (if not nearly all of them) meet the definition of a "foreign agent" but have not registered as such.
The "how" Russia interfered with the 2016 election is an unproven allegation, and more importantly an unchallenged allegation. The Russian interference was also only looked into with regards to how it benefited Trump, and potential Russian interference that potentially helped Clinton was not looked into, even though the Steele "report" is prima-face evidence of foreign interference that benefited Clinton.
According to the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign via Carter Page, many foreign governments have attempted to interfere with our elections for generations, so to say that "Russia interfered with our election" without additional context is dishonest. The intent of the Russian interference was not even to benefit Trump, it was to sow discord within the US. And what a wonderful job they are doing carrying out Putin's wishes as puppets engaging in sowing division and discord. |
|
|
|
Its just a question. I'm not asking you to prove anything. I just want to know what your rationale here is. You insist the subpoenas don't exist. Pompeo and Giuliani - the people who received them - confirm that they do. Why do you still believe they don't exist? I already answered the question in the way I want to.
Which was no answer at all, because you're a coward. I don't care what you want to know. I don't owe you an explanation to you and your missing evidence designed to distract from your own inability to prove your premise. You can't provide the subpoena, so clearly you are a coward. |
|
|
|
What the fuck are you talking about, "in the exact way I demand"? Why can't you just answer the question? Why do you think Pompeo and Giuliani are lying or mistaken about having received a suboena? https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/DD4fN7I.pngYou can answer it in any way you want to, so long as you provide an answer. Obviously you insist that the subpoenas don't exist, so what exactly are Pompeo and Giuliani referring to when they use the word "subpoena"? Don't be a coward and worm your way out of this. Just explain your rationale here. Why should I answer a question designed to shift the burden of proof from you to me? I already answered the question in the way I want to. Obviously you insist the subpoenas exist, but you are just a coward and worming your way out of documenting that supposed fact. Man using personal attacks and assumptions makes debate way easier. A lot more fantasy based, but way easier. |
|
|
|
Wait...
So now there's an actual "Ukraine Scandal?"
I learned something today.
Have they decided what is in the box labeled Ukraine Scandal?
Let's keep this as a serious discussion thread. I'd like to respond to you seriously, but it's clear your questions aren't serious. Please don't take this as an attack on you, it's nothing personal, but knock it off with the passive aggressive/bad faith arguments. There are plenty of other threads for that. If you have a point to make, just make it. Yeah! Keep it serious! By the way disagreeing with things I believe I don't consider to be at all serious, so you better watch it and get in line or I will be forced to use my totalitarian censorshi... I mean moderating a serious discussion abilities. I don't mean silent in the sense that they keep all their views to themselves, I say silent in the sense that they keep to themselves. They're not going to be out in the streets protesting, they're not going to be on social media talking about things, they're not those types of people. They're going to impose their will at the 2020 pres election.
Also in regards to the polling shift : We're not going to know if this is a temporary bump until a few weeks / months from now. It could normalize if nothing comes out of this or the GOP is able to spin it well.
We'll see. Why would they be silent? Oh right the left are violent lunatics who attack, harass, and assault people who don't think like they do and agree with their beliefs. It is intolerance of intolerance though, so its ok. |
|
|
|
Substantiation of my premise has been presented to you a hundred times. You have ignored all evidence in order to continue sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and shouting "Show me the subpoenas!" like a toddler. This doesn't make you correct. It makes you a fool. Why do you think Pompeo and Giuliani are lying or mistaken about having received a suboena? If you know better than them, and us, explain the situation to us. https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/DD4fN7I.pngOr, just dodge the question again if you are a coward. Either answer your question in exactly the way you demand or I am a coward. Interesting false choice fallacy. "All evidence" consists of "some popele said". Some people also said other things conflicting with the things you want to believe. This is why what people think and say alone is not considered a standard of evidence. I don't need to explain around your inability to meet the burden of proof of your premise the subpoenas existed. |
|
|
|
Would vote "i have no idea" if I could.
I mean this is the most logical choice. None of us truly have no idea if Trump is going to be reelected because anything could fucking happen at this point. All of the current candidates are so old it wouldn't be surprising if someone dropped dead, dropped out due to health reasons, or finding dirt on Trump, finding dirt on Biden etc. This is literally the weirdest timeline of politics which is possible, and we have the ability to live through it and see what's going on. This is great, literally can't wait until Dem primary stuff starts. Pretty boring just seeing BS polls, annoying impeachment stuff, and no REAL races. Its easy to feel like a winner when you don't put down any stakes eh? |
|
|
|
I think these are pretty insane to look at for a second. 45 percent of Americans (which is a large portion of Americans) think that the Impeachment inquiry should end right now. That's pretty much all the support that a President needs to win the electoral college in the modern time. This is without a doubt why Trump thinks he's going to be able to win with just his base, some Republicans, and a couple indys to win.
Yes I do know there is the other half -- the 55 percent of Americans that think this should proceed. But I EXPECTED the 'should this proceed' question to be at least 70-30 and maybe support for impeachment to be around the ballpark of 50-50. But this is pretty crazy to truly look at.
Shows that there is truly a silent portion of the population that does support this President, and doesn't really care about the wrongs he commits. We'll see in the coming days, weeks, months if that is going to hold.
Either that or they don't see any evidence of wrong doing, and see the left flailing frantically to try to create a scandal before 2020 because it is their only hope. |
|
|
|
I mean, I'm just saying other peoples opinions should be respected when discussing politics. Even if you disagree.
I can provide plenty of facts though, if that's what you're interested in.
For example:
- I didn't say what you just quoted me as saying.
- The House said they sent subpoenas to Rudy and Pompeo before Oct 31st.
- The current month is November.
- Rudy and Pompeo confirmed they received the subpoenas.
- Trump was elected president over 3 years ago.
- The 2020 Summer Olympics will be in Tokyo.
- Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Papadopolous are all convicted felons.
- Hillary has no criminal record - not even an indictment (!)
^^^Theses are all facts....right? I don't care what you claim to respect or agree with, nor do I care about all your off topic bullshit distractions from the FACT that you can't provide the subpoenas. |
|
|
|
Has anyone figured out what the charges for impeachment might be? For a long time it was supposed to be Russia Collusion, but I heard that was gone. Then I heard it was going to be Tit-For-Tat, but that's been not mentioned for some time now.
It's pretty clear they are primarily trying to impeach him for abusing his power to influence the election. Are you really only paying attention to media sources that point out why he shouldn't be impeached? They will probably tack on a couple obstruction articles for ordering everyone he can to not cooperate and also attacking the witness on twitter last week mid-testimony. Oh is it clear? Because to me it is clear they are pushing removal and resistance first then manufacturing evidence to support these actions later. This is all about butthurt over losing in 2016. The left are tyrants that cant tolerate a peaceful handover of power. They must be in charge at all times, and if they can't be they will stomp their feet, scream, and burn it all down. Why would anyone cooperate with this? Obstruction of what cupcake? You mean like obstruction of the Russia investigation that also never happened? |
|
|
|
Oh no, words, opinions, and assumptions.
If you aren't interested in other people words, opinions, and assumptions the P&S forum is a waste of your time. edit: unless you're just here to troll Since we are speaking for each other now. I am a new breed of crypto-fascist that fronts with a humanist exterior. I am interested in facts and proof. You can't provide that. |
|
|
|
Good thing you unilaterally get to declare yourself correct, substantiating your premise is for chumps amirite?
Its been presented to you a hundred times. You've ignored it every time. Nobody else believes the subpoenas don't exist except for you. Feel free to repeat you idiotic counterargument yet again if you insist. "it" has been presented? The subpoenas? Oh no, words, opinions, and assumptions. |
|
|
|
I don't care if everyone on Earth agrees on something, that is not evidence of it's veracity.
In this case, it certainly is. Your entire charade is based out of your pathological inability to admit that you are wrong. I know enough about constitutional law to know there is no due process here.
And with that sentence you reveal that you know nothing. Stop pawning off your burden of proof on 3rd parties.
I don't have a burden of proof. As I knew before we started this whole saga, you will never admit when you are wrong. Its just been fun watching you squirm under the crushing weight of your own ego and ignorance. What you've proven to me here beyond a reasonable doubt is that you're an arrogant hack. Frankly I don't give 2 shits what you believe. No, it is not, not in any case. That is a logical fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagonhttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authorityCrushing weight huh? That sounds ominous. So you are arguing a premise, but the burden of proof is not yours... interesting... https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proofGood thing you unilaterally get to declare yourself correct, substantiating your premise is for chumps amirite? |
|
|
|
It's not just "a large number of people" who disagree with you, its everyone. You are saying everyone is wrong on the subject except for you, including the people who received the subpoenas and their lawyers.
You know nothing about constitutional law, yet here you are saying you know better than the lawyers practicing it. You are an arrogant fool. I don't care if everyone on Earth agrees on something, that is not evidence of it's veracity. I know enough about constitutional law to know there is no due process here. Stop pawning off your burden of proof on 3rd parties. |
|
|
|
No, that's not reasonable given the fact that the people who received said subpoenas have acknowledged their existence. They aren't Democrats, they aren't liberal media, they aren't me or TwitchySeal. They are extremely loyal employees of the president. And here you are, fighting their words because they aren't in line with your incorrect belief that the subpoenas don't exist. We already told you 20 times: we can't produce the subpoenas because they are not online. https://www.justsecurity.org/67076/public-document-clearinghouse-ukraine-impeachment-inquiry/There is a copy of the subpoena for DoD employee Laura Cooper, probably because she agreed to it and gave testimony already: https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ukraine-clearinghouse-2019.10.23.Cooper-subpoena.pdfJon Sale, counsel for Giuliani, knows this subject far better than you or any of us, and in his response to congress he acknowledges Giuliani's receipt of a subpoena: https://i.imgur.com/DD4fN7I.pngHe's not making half-assed arguments about "due process" or questioning the fact that the subpoena exists. And his word trumps yours on this issue every day of the week. People make assumptions. People are mistaken. People lie. The fact that a small number, or a large number of people think or say something does not constitute evidence of anything other than thoughts and ideas. I am not fighting anything. I am calling out the fact that you have the burden of proof of proving these subpoenas even existed, and you can not meet this burden of proof. People talking and thinking things is not meeting your burden of proof. Actually the words of others are absolutely a 'standard of evidence'. In fact, believe it or not, subpoenas are often used to get people to say words that are then used to as evidence. It's true that people talk about lots of things that don't exist, so you should consider the credibility of the person speaking as well as what they are saying.
If, for example, the Secretary of State says he received a subpoena, and he had no motive to lie about receiving that subpoena, then it should definitely be taken into consideration when considering whether or not the subpoena actually exists.
Arbitrarily designating individuals to be approved sources of truth is not a logical argument, it is a logical fallacy. The fact is you cant produce the subpoenas. |
|
|
|
herp derp retarded people throwing retarded ideas out. derp herp.
If yall could actually have an actual conversation with you know, sourced information from reality instead of shit out of your assholes, you wouldn't have your comments deleted.
But instead, shit from assholes = required to post. And then whine when other people remove the shit.
inb4 this post is removed too.
Why would anyone delete this golden evidence of the kind of mind that justifies totalitarian censorship? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
