Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65708
|
Posted: April 04 2024 at 00:12 |
There are Democrats and Independents who will be voting for Biden as they likely would in any election, but the fanatics in the U.S. are almost entirely on the Right. As far as a criminal past, Trump makes Biden look like Mr. Rogers.
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21644
|
Posted: April 04 2024 at 00:02 |
Atavachron wrote:
^ There are no 'fanatical Biden supporters', that's why Trump has a chance to win.
|
Seriously? This of course depends on how we define "fanatical supporter", since I guess you would concede that there are Biden supporters.
In this case, by "fanatical" I mean for example people who would vote for Biden just to prevent Trump from winning, and/or are willing to overlook his criminal past as well as generally being unfit for office. Under this definition I would speculate that there are quite a few fanatical Biden supporters.
EDIT: Remember that I don't support either of the two (douche vs. turd), so you could just swap Trump and Biden and the definition would be equally valid.
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - April 04 2024 at 00:06
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21644
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 23:37 |
^ And incidentally, the topic of masks is a good example for how "the system", through massive gaslighting, creates confusion and chaos to distract people from the important things that are happening simultaneously. Assuming that masks don't actually work (which, as the article above reminds us, has always been the scientific consensus before the pandemic), getting people riled up to either support masks (and attack the evil mask deniers), or fight masks (and the "sheep" wearing them), it's just yet another circus (as in bread and circuses), while governments around the world are changing legislation to move us further away from liberty and closer towards an authoritarian society, including censorship and also giving more and more power to openly undemocratic organisations, like the WHO and (in Europe) the EU commission. Which takes us back to the "teetering democracy".
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - April 03 2024 at 23:47
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21644
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 23:30 |
Hugh Manatee wrote:
My understanding is that most conspiracy theorists have an emotional investment in their chosen theory, and emotion is very hard to shift with logic.
|
It's a general problem with beliefs. We get emotionally invested in them, and the more invested we are, the more we will defend the belief even (far) beyond the actual facts. We will ignore inconvenient facts that disprove the theory, and we will focus on arguments that support the theory.
One good example is the topic of masks for COVID:
I don't even want to talk about that topic itself, it merely serves as a good example of a topic where people on both sides of the argument usually get VERY emotional in discussing it, because everyone is heavily invested.
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - April 03 2024 at 23:46
|
 |
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65708
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 23:25 |
^ There are no 'fanatical Biden supporters', that's why Trump has a chance to win.
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21644
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 23:23 |
SteveG wrote:
The relevance was the possibility of the rich in political power. It was a conspiracy theory that can't be proven. Is that what's bothering you? |
How was/is that a conspiracy theory? I think that most people would agree that there is that kind of corruption in politics. Some would limit it to the opposite camp (e.g. hardcore Trump supporters would only see the corruption with the democrats, fanatical Biden supporters would see it only with Trump etc.), but I think that many would agree that the corruption is systemic.
|
 |
Hugh Manatee
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 07 2021
Location: The Barricades
Status: Offline
Points: 1587
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 19:48 |
My understanding is that most conspiracy theorists have an emotional investment in their chosen theory, and emotion is very hard to shift with logic.
|
I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas
|
 |
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20617
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 14:08 |
^ More likely his own opinion.
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21644
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 13:16 |
^ the point being?
|
 |
Valdez1
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 07 2024
Location: Walla Walla Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 351
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 11:30 |
" It's douche vs. turd... Neither stands for Democracy. "
I'm making a T-shirt with THIS Regalia's quote on it. 
|
 |
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20617
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 11:11 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
SteveG wrote:
Let's use an example. Donald Trump was recently bailed out of paying a bond in excess of 175 million dollars, in a NYC court case that ruled against him, by a billionaire as Trump couldn't come up with the money himself. That's an exuberant amount of money "lent" by the billionaire as the chances of paying back the debt, even without interest, is slim to none. It's fair to assume that such an action would be devoid of some future lobbying, either political or in some way financial.
Is there any president for that action? Yes of course. But it need not be done as any back room deal as it's commonly done in the open with business lobbyists supporting politicians and their causes, so why not a back room deal?
Now, this is all an example. I don't know who this billionaire is, so I reserve judgement. But this example is based on rational and compelling arguments. But none of this is a known fact, so I would caution anyone taking it as fact until this argument is proven concretely. That's something conspiracy theorists seldom do. The argument becomes a fact with no evidence to support it.
|
Let's not forget that the whole court case was arguably silly in the first place. I fail to see the relevance of the example. It's douche vs. turd. Neither stands for democracy, it's two sides of the same (rotten) coin. |
The relevance was the possibility of the rich in political power. It was a conspiracy theory that can't be proven. Is that what's bothering you?
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21644
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 08:28 |
SteveG wrote:
Let's use an example. Donald Trump was recently bailed out of paying a bond in excess of 175 million dollars, in a NYC court case that ruled against him, by a billionaire as Trump couldn't come up with the money himself. That's an exuberant amount of money "lent" by the billionaire as the chances of paying back the debt, even without interest, is slim to none. It's fair to assume that such an action would be devoid of some future lobbying, either political or in some way financial.
Is there any president for that action? Yes of course. But it need not be done as any back room deal as it's commonly done in the open with business lobbyists supporting politicians and their causes, so why not a back room deal?
Now, this is all an example. I don't know who this billionaire is, so I reserve judgement. But this example is based on rational and compelling arguments. But none of this is a known fact, so I would caution anyone taking it as fact until this argument is proven concretely. That's something conspiracy theorists seldom do. The argument becomes a fact with no evidence to support it.
|
Let's not forget that the whole court case was arguably silly in the first place. I fail to see the relevance of the example. It's douche vs. turd. Neither stands for democracy, it's two sides of the same (rotten) coin.
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21644
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 08:01 |
Lewian wrote:
The thing with discussing "conspiracy theories" and how "conspiracy theorists" argue is that it distracts from whatever topic the "conspiracy theory" is about, here democracy and its problems.
You've got to give it to siLLy puPPy that at least from time to time he puts his cards on the table so that it is possible to see what his actual "theory" is, and whether it holds water (even though of course where the stuff he posts doesn't hold water it's always "far more complicated and far more research is needed to understand it all").
Now when I look at this:
The world is ruled by a small number of extremely wealthy people |
- assuming that this is your view (in case it's not maybe better say that it's not and what it is instead rather than saying that "your words are twisted") - I have the following questions, given that we have elections and what happens in a democracy in some way depends on who is elected: |
It is my suspicion, meaning that I am not asserting that this is the case, nor am I saying that I can prove it.
Lewian wrote:
1. Can you name some of these people (I call them "rulers" in the following)? |
No. Since they prefer to rule by proxy, it is prudent for them to keep a low profile. Let's put it this way, repeating an earlier question: To whom do the USA owe $35 trillion? It's these people I'm referring to.
Lewian wrote:
2. Does "the world" governed by the "rulers" include countries such as China or Russia? |
Unclear. Probably. Either they're in on it (and their rulers are either in league with the "rulers" or they've struck deals with them), or they're at war with them.
Lewian wrote:
3. How do the "rulers" make sure that democracies (read "democracy" with quotes if you must  ) don't do things against the "rulers'" will? Are the people that stand in elections with chances of winning personally controlled by the "rulers" and conscious of it, or are they rather just tolerated because they can't do dangerous stuff anyway, or are they somehow influenced without knowing, or are the elections rigged so that people who would want to act against the "rulers" don't stand a chance? |
Corruption. Lobbyism. Call it what you will.
Lewian wrote:
4. Regarding the many things about which the candidates of a democratic election differ, (a) don't the "rulers" care because what is at stake in elections won't touch their interests anyway (how can they make this sure?), or (b) will they actively stop anything that goes against their interests that an elected government might want to do, or (c) will they make sure that nobody is elected who'd do such a thing? (How?) |
See previous answer.
Lewian wrote:
5. To what extent do the "rulers" control information, and how? Why doesn't it bother the "rulers" that whoever is interested in delegitimising democracy these days can find information all over the place? |
We discussed this: "the system" does not care about dissent as long as it does not destabilise it.
Lewian wrote:
6. Would the "rulers" be happy to see democracy defended, and if so, why do they allow it to be "teetering", in order to go back to the original topic of this thread? |
See previous answer.
Will respond in more detail later ...
|
 |
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20617
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 06:23 |
mathman0806 wrote:
SteveG wrote:
Let's use an example. Donald Trump was recently bailed out of paying a bond in excess of 175 million dollars, in a NYC court case that ruled against him, by a billionaire as Trump couldn't come up with the money himself. That's an exuberant amount of money "lent" by the billionaire as the chances of paying back the debt, even without interest, is slime to none. |
Great typo. Or was it intentional? |
Probably a Freudian slip!  Thanks, I will correct it.
Edited by SteveG - April 03 2024 at 06:25
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
 |
mathman0806
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 06 2014
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6842
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 06:17 |
SteveG wrote:
Let's use an example. Donald Trump was recently bailed out of paying a bond in excess of 175 million dollars, in a NYC court case that ruled against him, by a billionaire as Trump couldn't come up with the money himself. That's an exuberant amount of money "lent" by the billionaire as the chances of paying back the debt, even without interest, is slime to none. |
Great typo. Or was it intentional?
|
 |
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20617
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 05:40 |
Lewian wrote:
The thing with discussing "conspiracy theories" and how "conspiracy theorists" argue is that it distracts from whatever topic the "conspiracy theory" is about, here democracy and its problems.
You've got to give it to siLLy puPPy that at least from time to time he puts his cards on the table so that it is possible to see what his actual "theory" is, and whether it holds water (even though of course where the stuff he posts doesn't hold water it's always "far more complicated and far more research is needed to understand it all").
Now when I look at this:
The world is ruled by a small number of extremely wealthy people |
- assuming that this is your view (in case it's not maybe better say that it's not and what it is instead rather than saying that "your words are twisted") - I have the following questions, given that we have elections and what happens in a democracy in some way depends on who is elected:
1. Can you name some of these people (I call them "rulers" in the following)?
2. Does "the world" governed by the "rulers" include countries such as China or Russia?
3. How do the "rulers" make sure that democracies (read "democracy" with quotes if you must  ) don't do things against the "rulers'" will? Are the people that stand in elections with chances of winning personally controlled by the "rulers" and conscious of it, or are they rather just tolerated because they can't do dangerous stuff anyway, or are they somehow influenced without knowing, or are the elections rigged so that people who would want to act against the "rulers" don't stand a chance?
4. Regarding the many things about which the candidates of a democratic election differ, (a) don't the "rulers" care because what is at stake in elections won't touch their interests anyway (how can they make this sure?), or (b) will they actively stop anything that goes against their interests that an elected government might want to do, or (c) will they make sure that nobody is elected who'd do such a thing? (How?)
5. To what extent do the "rulers" control information, and how? Why doesn't it bother the "rulers" that whoever is interested in delegitimising democracy these days can find information all over the place?
6. Would the "rulers" be happy to see democracy defended, and if so, why do they allow it to be "teetering", in order to go back to the original topic of this thread? |
Let's streamline your arguments or opinions and say that what we consider to be the Free World is ruled by the small minority of rich people. That the rich are a small minority is a statistical fact and need not be debated here.
Let's use an example. Donald Trump was recently bailed out of paying a bond in excess of 175 million dollars, in a NYC court case that ruled against him, by a billionaire as Trump couldn't come up with the money himself. That's an exuberant amount of money "lent" by the billionaire as the chances of paying back the debt, even without interest, is slim to none. It's fair to assume that such an action would be devoid of some future lobbying, either political or in some way financial.
Is there any president for that action? Yes of course. But it need not be done as any back room deal as it's commonly done in the open with business lobbyists supporting politicians and their causes, so why not a back room deal?
Now, this is all an example. I don't know who this billionaire is, so I reserve judgement. But this example is based on rational and compelling arguments. But none of this is a known fact, so I would caution anyone taking it as fact until this argument is proven concretely. That's something conspiracy theorists seldom do. The argument becomes a fact with no evidence to support it.
Edited by SteveG - April 03 2024 at 06:27
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
 |
Lewian
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 15223
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 04:15 |
The thing with discussing "conspiracy theories" and how "conspiracy theorists" argue is that it distracts from whatever topic the "conspiracy theory" is about, here democracy and its problems.
You've got to give it to siLLy puPPy that at least from time to time he puts his cards on the table so that it is possible to see what his actual "theory" is, and whether it holds water (even though of course where the stuff he posts doesn't hold water it's always "far more complicated and far more research is needed to understand it all").
Now when I look at this:
The world is ruled by a small number of extremely wealthy people |
- assuming that this is your view (in case it's not maybe better say that it's not and what it is instead rather than saying that "your words are twisted") - I have the following questions, given that we have elections and what happens in a democracy in some way depends on who is elected:
1. Can you name some of these people (I call them "rulers" in the following)?
2. Does "the world" governed by the "rulers" include countries such as China or Russia?
3. How do the "rulers" make sure that democracies (read "democracy" with quotes if you must  ) don't do things against the "rulers'" will? Are the people that stand in elections with chances of winning personally controlled by the "rulers" and conscious of it, or are they rather just tolerated because they can't do dangerous stuff anyway, or are they somehow influenced without knowing, or are the elections rigged so that people who would want to act against the "rulers" don't stand a chance?
4. Regarding the many things about which the candidates of a democratic election differ, (a) don't the "rulers" care because what is at stake in elections won't touch their interests anyway (how can they make this sure?), or (b) will they actively stop anything that goes against their interests that an elected government might want to do, or (c) will they make sure that nobody is elected who'd do such a thing? (How?)
5. To what extent do the "rulers" control information, and how? Why doesn't it bother the "rulers" that whoever is interested in delegitimising democracy these days can find information all over the place?
6. Would the "rulers" be happy to see democracy defended, and if so, why do they allow it to be "teetering", in order to go back to the original topic of this thread?
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21644
|
Posted: April 02 2024 at 15:13 |
^ It's generally wise to try to assume as little as possible about what others think.
|
 |
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65708
|
Posted: April 02 2024 at 14:57 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
^ No, conspiracy theorists are attracted to the plausibility of a conspiracy. Nothing wrong with that any more than being attracted to the non-conspiracy narrative. What's important is knowing what things are conspiracy and what aren't. No easy task. |
So conspiracy theorists are sometimes right, and sometimes wrong? That was kind of my point, since it was suggested that they're never right. |
Well sure because sometimes conspiracies are real. It's incorrect to assume that someone who is generally non-Conspiracy is simply ignorant of that, or of the fact that certain specific conspiracies may exist. In fact it's often because they've traveled that long road, been sown that deep ravine, and realized there are superior & more accurate ways of perceiving things.
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21644
|
Posted: April 02 2024 at 14:55 |
^ Agreed!
|
 |
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.