Breaking News, Politics version

[Xan]

...at least the kind of people who are rationally minded, non-superstitious, and nongullible enough to presumably be willing to question the evidence for any kind of God are probably also not as easily susceptible to believe any cockamamie "Stop The Steal" or QAnon conspiracy type BS and to act on said nonsense.

Even if that were true, a lot of those same people are apparently susceptible to believe in the media's incessant propaganda about systemic racism and white supremacy and act on said nonsense by rioting in various cities across the US. Many, if not most, Antifa scum are self-avowed atheists.

In other words, propaganda can work disturbingly well on both theists and atheists.

Atheists are just as "religious" as theists. Their "religion" just happens to be whatever set of ideals they passionately pour themselves into and vigorously defend.

Don't forget how in touch with the science of biology it is to believe in however many dozens of "genders"!

[vnatale]

It's over. Trump is done. I think he's sealed his fate. There will be no 2024 run. At this point, he may not even make it as president to Jan 20, 2021.

I think Trump has an even stronger chance of not only running in 2024 but of actually winning in 2024. Polarization of the populace works both ways.

Based on what I've been reading over at r/conservative Trump is done and this is going to hurt the GOP. Many on this forum belong to a radical minority (I think you are aware of this). The opinions expressed here by many are some of the most extreme I have seen expressed anywhere. From everything I have read online and conversations I've had with conservative friends and family this was a wake up call. Completely agree with Corto.

Underscored by what I received (below) from a conservative friend today who voted for Trump both in 2016 and 2020. Would never, ever vote for the Democratic candidate.

Vinny


Well, the President in 24 hours has gone from a possible Republican candidate in 2024 to someone who has no chance to be considered in 2024 as a serious candidate.

I’d said that if he was to be a successful President, he would need to listen to his advisors around him and just not surround himself with yes men.

And, somehow, turn down his rhetoric and tweets.

Well, nothing has changed – not suprising.

Regrettably, whatever good he accomplished as President will be forgotten.

He will be compared to the last days of Nixon, a disgraced former President.

And he has no one to blame but himself; for the election loss to a weak candidate and all that has happened since.

[SomeDude]

It's over. Trump is done. I think he's sealed his fate. There will be no 2024 run. At this point, he may not even make it as president to Jan 20, 2021.

I think Trump has an even stronger chance of not only running in 2024 but of actually winning in 2024. Polarization of the populace works both ways.

TF.....do you expect the dominion voting machines to become sentient and fix themselves??????

[Cortopassi]

One of the most amazing things to me is the apparent omnipotence of the dems or the new world order, or whatever or whoever some believe is behind all this.

They’ve manipulated multiple state elections to get Biden a win. They apparently control the judiciary at all levels to prevent fraud cases from being heard. They can time a riot to the minute to prevent the real evidence of the election from coming out.

If they are this powerful, maybe they should run the world! Or they probably already are.

And Trump, simply Trump is the focus for all their efforts?

Or, is it the old Occam's razor thing, that the simplest explanation is the right one? And that explanation remains that Trump lost because he lost people like me through his actions, exaggerations and flat out lying.

[D1984]

...at least the kind of people who are rationally minded, non-superstitious, and nongullible enough to presumably be willing to question the evidence for any kind of God are probably also not as easily susceptible to believe any cockamamie "Stop The Steal" or QAnon conspiracy type BS and to act on said nonsense.

Even if that were true, a lot of those same people are apparently susceptible to believe in the media's incessant propaganda about systemic racism and white supremacy and act on said nonsense by rioting in various cities across the US. Many, if not most, Antifa scum are self-avowed atheists.

In other words, propaganda can work disturbingly well on both theists and atheists.

Atheists are just as "religious" as theists. Their "religion" just happens to be whatever set of ideals they passionately pour themselves into and vigorously defend.

Are you saying systemic racism doesn't exist at all? That there are zero disadvantages black people in America face that white people don't?

You won't get any defense of rioters (whether Antifa, QAnon/hardcore Trumpist, for some other political reason, or just plain out to smash windows and steal things to get free stuff and don't care much about the politics of any of it, etc) but I don't see how any reasonable person could say that black people today face no more disadvantages on average than white people....for instance, how else can you explain the results of the study that found that black people without a criminal record were less likely to be called back for job interviews than equally qualified white people WITH a criminal record?

Now, about religion correlating with a greater willingness to believe in right-wing conspiracy theories (and for that matter to be credulous and gullible and believe in things that are not likely to be true in general) vs a majority of "Antifa" types being atheists: I can at least come up with a plausible theory of why someone who believed every word of the Bible was literally true would be more likely to fall for a conspiracy theory; namely, that to believe pretty much any religious book is literally true word-for-word requires abandonment of reason, serious willingness to suspend disbelief, a mind that naturally gravitates toward simplistic solutions, a willingness to believe something because another member of your in-group (especially if that member of your in group was someone in authority or a person that one felt one could trust) told you it was true, an unwillingness to examine evidence if it disagrees with one's preconceptions, being ready to take something on faith and or revelation without actually examining much/all/any of the actual evidence, belief in a strong "us vs them" and/or "us against the world" viewpoint, etc. If someone will believe in something religious that is absurd, they are probably at least somewhat likely to be the type of person who would believe in a conspiracy theory with no real factual evidence that it was true.

What similar set of traits exactly would lead the type of person who was likely to become an atheist to be also be the kind of person who be more likley to want to be a member of an antifa-type group than would a non-atheist? I'm not trying to be snarky or dismissive...this is a serious question; pretty much all of the other atheists I have known are either:

Moderate libertarians

Hardcore libertarian types (albeit not as far as say, Libertarian666 or tomfoolery....I'm talking about the kind of folks, say, who think driver's licenses are unconstitutional, who are against any form of gun control, and who think that most of what government does could be done by the private sector but don't think all government is immoral and want to abolish it outright)

Left-wingers of various stripes (albeit no actual Communists or Anarcho-communists)

FWIW only one atheist I know was a conservative but he was more of the traditional mainline Bush/McCain/Dole/Reagan type.

And finally, on to what you said about religion...I'm glad you put it in quotation marks because your definition of "religion" was so overly broad as to render the term all but meaningless. According to the dictionary, religion is a belief in, acknowledgment of, reverence for, worship of, obedience to, or belief in a god, gods, or other superhuman or supernatural power or force. This is what most people mean when they use the word religion. Atheism isn't really a belief IN anything....it's simply the lack of belief in a supreme being (and presumably as well a lack of any belief the supernatural of any kind). The most succinct (and wry) explanation of this I ever heard was "atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color"! I guess you could say an atheist's belief system is indeed atheism (so perhaps "belief system" would be a better description than simply saying "religion" ), but IMO calling atheism an actual religion is a stretch.

[Maddy]

On Dan Bongino's show today, Dan had a montage of recorded clips from the very same politicians who are ready to lynch Trump and his supporters for yesterday's rush on the capitol building. Only they're commenting, in those clips, on the entirely lawless, unprecedentedly violent political protests and "occupations" sponsored by the Progressive Left that were allowed to continue unimpeded and with the blessing of law enforcement over the course of the last year. One after another, they were heard making every excuse under the sun for the violent protesters' behavior, fanning the flames, overtly calling for more. I think anybody that has anything to say about yesterday's comparably mild display of civil disobedience should have to explain why there are two different sets of rules for liberals and conservatives when it comes to political protest.

[D1984]

One of the most amazing things to me is the apparent omnipotence of the dems or the new world order, or whatever or whoever some believe is behind all this.

They’ve manipulated multiple state elections to get Biden a win. They apparently control the judiciary at all levels to prevent fraud cases from being heard. They can time a riot to the minute to prevent the real evidence of the election from coming out.

If they are this powerful, maybe they should run the world! Or they probably already are.

And Trump, simply Trump is the focus for all their efforts?

Or, is it the old Occam's razor thing, that the simplest explanation is the right one? And that explanation remains that Trump lost because he lost people like me through his actions, exaggerations and flat out lying.

And yet despite the supposed ostensible omnipotence of the Democrats/the "Deep State"/the NWO/The System/etc they somehow couldn't manage to get the Dem candidate any more than 306 EVs, couldn't manage to keep the Democrats from losing seats in the House, and they let the Dems lose almost every swing Senate race and only barely be saved by winning the Georgia runoffs.....curiouser and curiouser.

I've come to the unfortunate conclusion that you just can't reason with conspiracy theorists; any absolutely plausible/credible explanations you give them (even with plenty of evidence to back it up) is just more proof that either: A. The conspiracy is real (and they will just give you plenty of evidentially vacuous "facts" to "debunk" what you just told/showed them), and/or B. That you are in on it to somehow and just trying to throw them off the trail. It It doesn't matter whether it's belief that we never landed on the moon, Princess Di didn't really die back in that car crash, JFK wasn't killed by just Oswald, 9/11 was an inside job, The US didn't really get Bin Laden back in 2011, "chemtrails" are part of a secret government program, Dubya had the levees in New Orleans dynamited and it wasn't really just Katrina that caused them to fail, that vaccines cause autism, a belief in QAnon, the belief that millions of illegal immigrants voted in Cali and New York and that's why Trump didn't get the popular vote in those states, etc.....trying to logically reason with someone whose beliefs are so impervious to reason is next to useless.

Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts in order to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language in order to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.Propaganda is often associated with material which is prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies, religious organizations, the media, and individuals also produce propaganda.

Pandering is the act of expressing one's views in accordance with the likes of a group to which one is attempting to appeal. The term is most notably associated with politics. In pandering, the views one is expressing are merely for the purpose of drawing support up to and including votes and do not necessarily reflect one's personal values.

it doesn't take a conspiracy for people with power money or an agenda to get them to act in concert, they just need to have the same underling goals ... power, money, control, ideological fervor

we have had a uni-party for a long time now, if you still think there is an opposition to some (insert politician, ideology, media, big business that you dislike here X ) or believe (insert politician, ideology, media, big business that are on your side here X ) you don't understand the words defined above or how much they are swaying your view to achieve power, money, control, ideological fervor ....at your expense.....

[vnatale]

One of the most amazing things to me is the apparent omnipotence of the dems or the new world order, or whatever or whoever some believe is behind all this.

They’ve manipulated multiple state elections to get Biden a win. They apparently control the judiciary at all levels to prevent fraud cases from being heard. They can time a riot to the minute to prevent the real evidence of the election from coming out.

If they are this powerful, maybe they should run the world! Or they probably already are.

And Trump, simply Trump is the focus for all their efforts?

Or, is it the old Occam's razor thing, that the simplest explanation is the right one? And that explanation remains that Trump lost because he lost people like me through his actions, exaggerations and flat out lying.

And yet despite the supposed ostensible omnipotence of the Democrats/the "Deep State"/the NWO/The System/etc they somehow couldn't manage to get the Dem candidate any more than 306 EVs, couldn't manage to keep the Democrats from losing seats in the House, and they let the Dems lose almost every swing Senate race and only barely be saved by winning the Georgia runoffs.....curiouser and curiouser.

I've come to the unfortunate conclusion that you just can't reason with conspiracy theorists; any absolutely plausible/credible explanations you give them (even with plenty of evidence to back it up) is just more proof that either: A. The conspiracy is real (and they will just give you plenty of evidentially vacuous "facts" to "debunk" what you just told/showed them), and/or B. That you are in on it to somehow and just trying to throw them off the trail. It It doesn't matter whether it's belief that we never landed on the moon, Princess Di didn't really die back in that car crash, JFK wasn't killed by just Oswald, 9/11 was an inside job, The US didn't really get Bin Laden back in 2011, "chemtrails" are part of a secret government program, Dubya had the levees in New Orleans dynamited and it wasn't really just Katrina that caused them to fail, that vaccines cause autism, a belief in QAnon, the belief that millions of illegal immigrants voted in Cali and New York and that's why Trump didn't get the popular vote in those states, etc.....trying to logically reason with someone whose beliefs are so impervious to reason is next to useless.

Piggybacking on what Cortopassi had written.....extremely well stated! Thank you!

Some of the conspiracies I read being espoused are on the level of then having to believe the only people NOT involved in the Kennedy assassination were you and me!

This morning I had my own personal epiphany regarding who does have the power in our country.

I constantly reject the "they" who are all in conspiracy with one another.

instead I view is as being like Afghanistan where the various warlords are constantly fighting one another to have power over certain sections of the country.

Afghanistan is now purportedly democratic but whichever warlord is in control in a given area has a heavy influence on life in the area they control in spite of there also being elected officials. Therefore, there is a "they" in the lives of those living in Afghanistan but the warlords are certainly not conspiring among one another. It is the opposite. They are in opposition to one another in their desire to get as much power and control for themselves only.

I fully believe that in our country the power resides in the mega-corporations. Through various means they get our politicians to do things certain ways that will maximally benefit them. But, again, as in the above. these corporations are NOT conspiring with one other because they are also in competition with one another. They are each trying their best to get things a certain way to maximally benefit them, to the detriment of other corporations trying to do the same.

I fully believe it is as simple as that.

I also fully subscribe to what Cortopassi stated above: the "old Occam's razor thing".

I believe for one to believe in this all encompassing "they" is indicative of oneself having a victim mentality. I've always taken full responsibility for my life, thinking my actions dictate the good and bad in my life, and, thus, have never taken the victim's route of blaming it the "they".

[Mark Leavy]

I also fully subscribe to what Cortopassi stated above: the "old Occam's razor thing".

The modern, heavily corrupted and distorted interpretation of Occam's razor is ridiculous.
The simplest answer is always the one most aligned with your own priors.

Even if you go back and read William of Okham's original treatises on logic, he was a bit of a pisser. A cafe pontificator.

Not saying your conjectures are wrong, just your reasoning.

[vnatale]

This shows two views of the woman who was shot and then who subsequently died:

https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-sh ... -719093899

It's a tragedy that she ended up dead or even had any harm done to her.

However, with her being a 14 year Air Force veteran I have to question her possession of any form of common sense.

From a complete non-veteran such as myself I'd never...

1) Not think that an action such as hers would not be met with lethal force, that those on the other side of the door possessed weapons that could either harm or kill me.

2) Be the first one in

3) Go in with absolutely no body protection

What else did I leave out?

I find her 100% responsible for what happened to her and believe the shooter to have behaved appropriately. He had no idea what she possessed or what was behind her and what they possessed.

Black people have certainly either been shot or killed in some other way while presenting far less danger to those around them than she could have represented.

[SomeDude]

I think anybody that has anything to say about yesterday's comparably mild display of civil disobedience should have to explain why there are two different sets of rules for liberals and conservatives when it comes to political protest.

Below is i think a fair comparison of the two.

Please note that while the antagonist in the cartoon is depicted as an angry black woman, the majority of the BLM "protestors" were in fact pasty white vegans (no offense Vinny) and large blue haired white women so please have a sense of humor here.

[vnatale]

I also fully subscribe to what Cortopassi stated above: the "old Occam's razor thing".

The modern, heavily corrupted and distorted interpretation of Occam's razor is ridiculous.
The simplest answer is always the one most aligned with your own priors.

Even if you go back and read William of Okham's original treatises on logic, he was a bit of a pisser. A cafe pontificator.

Not saying your conjectures are wrong, just your reasoning.

I trust what you say in your first two paragraphs and will take it under advisement for any future times I elect to cite Occam's razor.

Can you further elaborate on your third paragraph, please?

Thanks

[vnatale]

I think anybody that has anything to say about yesterday's comparably mild display of civil disobedience should have to explain why there are two different sets of rules for liberals and conservatives when it comes to political protest.

Below is i think a fair comparison of the two.

Please note that while the antagonist in the cartoon is depicted as an angry black woman, the majority of the BLM "protestors" were in fact pasty white vegans (no offense Vinny) and large blue haired white women so please have a sense of humor here.

NO offense taken because that does not describe me!

I get out in the sun as much possible. So much so that one-time in the 80s while at a doctor's visit I asked my doctor if I had to worry about getting too much sun. I'll never forget his reply of: "Not for a swarthy individual such as yourself".

As a genetically 100% Southern Italian I get quite dark from all that sun. So dark that my skin becomes darker than some of the more pale Afro-Americans.

Vinny 9:52

[Mark Leavy]

I trust what you say in your first two paragraphs and will take it under advisement for any future times I elect to cite Occam's razor.

Can you further elaborate on your third paragraph, please?

Thanks

I support the conclusions that you came to, my swarthy friend. But it reduces your credibility when you fall back on clichés as if they support your thesis. No issue. We all do it at times.

...
I fully believe that in our country the power resides in the mega-corporations. Through various means they get our politicians to do things certain ways that will maximally benefit them. But, again, as in the above. these corporations are NOT conspiring with one other because they are also in competition with one another. They are each trying their best to get things a certain way to maximally benefit them, to the detriment of other corporations trying to do the same.
...

I agree with all of that. It stands on its own.

[doodle]

Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts in order to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language in order to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.Propaganda is often associated with material which is prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies, religious organizations, the media, and individuals also produce propaganda.

Pandering is the act of expressing one's views in accordance with the likes of a group to which one is attempting to appeal. The term is most notably associated with politics. In pandering, the views one is expressing are merely for the purpose of drawing support up to and including votes and do not necessarily reflect one's personal values.

it doesn't take a conspiracy for people with power money or an agenda to get them to act in concert, they just need to have the same underling goals ... power, money, control, ideological fervor

See, when I look at Trump I see another member of the elite class consumed by power, money, control, and ideological fervor. I'm not sure why he is supposed to save America from those underlying goals when those seem to be exactly the goals that drive him.

the big lie has been told often enough... so you believe it... no fixing that...
but look at the republicans (and the dems and the media and big tech etc etc etc) and how they are playing the game, they all know what side their bread is buttered on, and are keeping that side up... if trump is a power mad money hungry control freak ---- HE IS THE MOST UNSUCCESSFUL ONE EVER---

oh well... nothing we can do about any of it now.. the dystopian future you dream of, and support, is on its way..
.. congratulations ..

[vnatale]

I trust what you say in your first two paragraphs and will take it under advisement for any future times I elect to cite Occam's razor.

Can you further elaborate on your third paragraph, please?

Thanks

I support the conclusions that you came to. But it reduces your credibility when you fall back on clichés as if they support your thesis. No issue. We all do it at times.

Thanks for the further explanation. Quite helpful. We shall see if I can retain it. You have my full permission to give me a "slap on the wrists" any future time you catch me again doing it!

Thanks again.

Vinny 10:54

[moda0306]

I think anybody that has anything to say about yesterday's comparably mild display of civil disobedience should have to explain why there are two different sets of rules for liberals and conservatives when it comes to political protest.

Below is i think a fair comparison of the two.

Please note that while the antagonist in the cartoon is depicted as an angry black woman, the majority of the BLM "protestors" were in fact pasty white vegans (no offense Vinny) and large blue haired white women so please have a sense of humor here.

Yeah that's a real fair comparison, since we saw Capitol police mostly playing patty cake with the Proud Boys, while all summer we were met with a deluge of police abuses.

FTP.

[dualstow]

Does anyone know how many arrests were made?
Seems like not many. I honestly don’t know.

68

[vnatale]

Does anyone know how many arrests were made?
Seems like not many. I honestly don’t know.

68

40+ police injured in this "mostly peaceful" riot?

Also, if a black person had been so proudly sitting in Nancy Pelosi's chair do you think he would NOT have been arrested as the actual guy who did that has not been arrested and who is bragging about sitting in that chair and not being arrested?

[dualstow]

Yep

[Mountaineer]

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2021/0 ... -226425637

Excerpt:
“Certain basic religious convictions once transcended our partisan political divides and formed a shared framework for interpreting and adjudicating our political disputes. Our politics played out under the aegis of these shared, fundamental commitments – moral commitments, yes, but more importantly, metaphysical commitments. Politics was not what bound us together most deeply, so our political disputes – even at their most violent – could be judged against some higher, shared point of reference.”

[flyingpylon]

Does anyone know how many arrests were made?
Seems like not many. I honestly don’t know.

68

40+ police injured in this "mostly peaceful" riot?

Also, if a black person had been so proudly sitting in Nancy Pelosi's chair do you think he would NOT have been arrested as the actual guy who did that has not been arrested and who is bragging about sitting in that chair and not being arrested?

Vinny, this is the second time you have brought up race. Is it your position that the Capitol Police are racist?

Other than hypotheticals, what evidence do you have to support that?

[vnatale]

Is anyone able to provide to us here today's Wall Street Journal's editorial which calls for Trump to resign?

Thanks

[dualstow]

Is anyone able to provide to us here today's Wall Street Journal's editorial which calls for Trump to resign?
...

I’ll supply 3 paragraphs:

But impeachment so late in the term won’t be easy or without rancor. It would further enrage Mr. Trump’s supporters in a way that won’t help Mr. Biden govern, much less heal partisan divisions. It would pour political fuel on Wednesday’s dying embers.

All the more so because Democrats aren’t likely to behave responsibly or with restraint. They are already stumping for impeachment articles that include a litany of anti-Trump grievances over four years. Mrs. Pelosi’s ultimatum Thursday that Mr. Pence trigger the 25th Amendment or she’ll impeach also won’t attract GOP votes.

Democrats would have more impeachment credibility now if they hadn’t abused the process in 2019. A parade of impeachers that includes Russian-collusion promoters Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler would repel more Americans than it would persuade. The mission would look like political revenge, not constitutional enforcement—and Mr. Trump would play it as such until his last breath. Mr. Biden could gain much goodwill if he called off the impeachers in the name of stepping back from annihilationist polItics.

[Xan]

I believe the conclusion is that it isn't worth it to try to force him out, and that he should (but probably won't) resign on his own.