And that Houseman is why no one takes you seriously or believes what you say, because you truly believe that the weather is partisan.
Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
I truly believe that if lying about the weather is the baseline for what makes a party irredeemable, then any other lie of greater import than the weather, which is something every political party, and probably every human has done at some point, also makes you irredeemable. Simple.
That's not what anyone was implying. What people are implying is that if you're willing to lie about the weather from yesterday or the size of your crowd, you'll lie about anything. Thus, you're not credible.
Yes, they're both the bad guys, why are you dedicating so much time and effort to caring which bad guy won an election and whether or not it was rigged? It's been rigged for a very long time now.
That seems strange. So, the less important and impactful the lie is, the less credible you are. The more important and impactful the lie is, the more credible you are.
Lie about embezzling funds? Free pass. Lie about what happened to the candy on the desk? You're a pathological liar.
Because it's fun.
I hear that China was desperate though. Why did the entire apparatus of the Left appear to go into over-drive to beat Trump in 2020? Why not just see Trump as an anomaly, continue to boil the frog slowly and wait him out for 4 years? It is argued, because China doesn't have 4 years. They're starting to experience some economic pains now.
ITMT: My missus thinks we just got a $2K stimulus. I thought Trump relented and we're getting $600. Any news on that? Regardless of who wins by January 7, and I think it will be Biden, is this the last we can expect?
Its not China that didn't have 4 years. Its America. When a demagogue is assaulting your democracy and has already made great progress then you cannot effort to give him four more years to finish the job. Trump not becoming the American Orban hinges on him not getting the time to become one. There are also things like global warming or wealth inequality that needed to have been addressed decades ago but wouldn't even be items of consideration for four long years if Trump won.
If anything China would have benefited from four more years of Trump. Maybe they would have taken an economic hit, but it would also have ensured their greatest obstacle was plunged into chaos and incompetence domestically, while internationally isolating itself and creating a power vacuum China could easily fill.
Trump did indeed relent. But now the House has passed a motion to increase the direct payments to 2k. It now depends on the Senate.
China likes predictability and Trump makes politics via moodswings.
But overall i don't think the Trump presidency was actually bad for China. Before he became president, there were a couple of initiatives in the works for the US and the EU to pressure China via the WHO on a lot of issues like dumping, intellectual property, human rights etc. But Trump attackes the EU and China at the same time and basically dismantled the WHO while giving China lots of publicity for being treated unfairly.
I also haven't China seen as particularly active in the election this time.
I'm sorry, but I've said these arguments before, and I'm just really bored with them.
There is no evidence of substantial fraud in major national US elections in recent history. Trump made claims of fraud in 2016, raised a commission which found nothing, he and his party did nothing relevant or thorough to prevent fraud, and then in the lead up to 2020 claimed there will be mass fraud again. Now, challenged to prove it after the election, again they have presented nothing substantial to defend their allegations. I am happy for them to continue investigating responsibly, and I am happy for a commission to review election procedure across the country. I am fed up, however, with the hysteria and bullshit over a million nothingburgers, which is just a farcical PR campaign to soothe the ego of a bad loser president, fuel the angst of his bad loser supporters, and to try to delegitimise the incoming president.
Wife says she received a text saying the $ is on the way. If so, I'm thinking it is $600 and maybe if the Senate passes this thing, the balance will come? Really not sure.
ITMT: I'm reviewing to see if a President Biden be able to revive the Paris Climate Accords or the Iran Nuclear deals.
EDIT:
Climate Accords, check. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/20/biden-to-rejoin-paris-climate-accord-heres-what-happens-next-.html
Iran Deal: they're trying: https://nypost.com/2020/12/24/group-of-house-democrats-urges-joe-biden-to-rejoin-iran-nuclear-deal/
Last edited:
There is a difference between Trump and Republicans. However, some Republicans will follow Trump's lies, either because they're paid to (like WH staff) or because they just take his word for it. And then some other Republicans will lie because their political careers depend on being popular, and if enough Republican voters believe a lie, they'll go along with it to keep their jobs. In that way a lie, even an obvious one, can stretch a very long way, and why I would prefer senior politicians with a relatively high respect for the truth.
Trump is one of the biggest liars on the planet. If you'd care to read, he's always been a compulsive liar, long before he was a politician. He lies and cheats as easily as most people breathe. But lying about trivial things does matter. Who bothers lying about trivial things - what's the point? I think it very much says something about someone's character. What precisely drives them to do so might vary, but in many of those situations, it means they are very likely to lie about important things, too. And let's bear in mind just how brazenly Trump lies. He will lie to you about what you can plainly see with your own eyes.
From here we might move on to Adolf Hitler (genuinely, without a Godwin!), and the concept of the "Big Lie" from Mein Kampf:
All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
Here Hitler nails down two important things. Firstly, that many people are motivated by emotion, not reason: they'll believe shit because they want to, not because it is the most likely answer by evidence. Secondly, that most people are not experienced in dealing with someone who is prepared to lie blatantly and forcefully, because so few do lie so grotesquely. Rather than dismiss such lies, instead they start doubting themselves or finding excuses.
For instance, you trying to explain away Trump lying about the weather and the size of the crowd - maybe he was mistaken, rose-tinted spectacles, etc. You can't quite comprehend how anyone could lie like that, so obviously and confidently in contravention of the evidence, it does not compute. So you grope around for any reason other than the fact he's just straight up lied to you. And congratulations, that demonstrates why expert liars do it: because to at least some degree, it works.
Last edited:
What Agema said ^^^
Biden and the democrats aren't going to do anything about either of those.
I would concur with the Financial Times on this issue:
US energy: ‘the more ambitious Biden tries to be, the more likely he is to fail’
Elected on a promise of a $2tn green energy plan, the US president-elect’s ambitions could be curtailed by political reality
www.ft.com
I think Biden has clearly stated his willingness, but if tries to really push, there's a solid brick wall of Republican legislators awaiting him who'd kill it just for the sake of gratuitous obstruction, even if they weren't in the pockets of the oil industry.
Perhaps but there is at least a fighting chance with the Democrats while Republicans are fiercely opposed to even the suggestion of looking into these matters. At least democrats face some pressure to actually look into it.
Its a grim future either way but I'd rather have a fighting chance then none at all.
I would concur with the Financial Times on this issue:
US energy: ‘the more ambitious Biden tries to be, the more likely he is to fail’
Elected on a promise of a $2tn green energy plan, the US president-elect’s ambitions could be curtailed by political reality
I think Biden has clearly stated his willingness, but if tries to really push, there's a solid brick wall of Republican legislators awaiting him who'd kill it just for the sake of gratuitous obstruction, even if they weren't in the pockets of the oil industry.
Anything Biden and the democrats pass will be standards that the companies are either already at or already moving towards. They're not going to enact any regulations that companies would be uncomfortable with. With regards to energy, the republicans are fine with fossil fuels still, the democrats "want" stuff like solar and wind that keeps fossil fuels "locked in", yet nuclear is by far the best option.
Our 2 current parties is basically the tagline for Aliens Vs Predator
You might be right, seeing as I only started paying attention in November, and had previously filtered out everything I could in order to avoid politics or words from politicians before that.
The thing is, I don't trust the media to tell me what is true and what is false. I didn't trust the media in 2015 when they painted Trump as the world's worst human being, and I certainly don't trust them now. I saw it as an attack, as propaganda, as trying to influence the populace into believing what they want them to believe.
I was sick of 24/7 Trump coverage, and Trump headlines being on the news every day, so I started filtering it out.
I am not a republican or a democrat, so I have very little bias when it comes to one party or one candidate over another. What I did notice, however, was hate, the likes of which I had never seen for any other candidate previously.
I think you have fallen for that hate. You have fallen for the propaganda. It is not genuine, but manufactured elsewhere. If Obama had been the target of a 5 year propaganda campaign and attacked by the mainstream media, you would likely be saying the same things about him as you are about Trump.
Yeah, if there's one thing that can be said of Houseman, it's that he took the result of the 2020 Presidential Election in his stride.
And have you considered that Trump might have been intensely deserving of all that hate? Trump might be more hated than many other candidates. But how many other politicians are openly corrupt businessmen? How many gloat about grabbing woman's by the pussies, set up fake universities to scam students out of their money, host fraudulent charities, got in trouble with trying to block black tenants, have tax payers directly fund their golf activities or try to blackmail an allied country to intervene in the election?
Trump was uniquely awful and never did anything to hide his many bad qualities. So why wouldn't he be more hated then ''any other candidate previously''
Though personally I'd say Hillary Clinton was more hated then any other candidate. Unlike Trump she wasn't hated for what she did but for what she was and unlike Trump the years of slander eventually destroyed her career in the most humiliating way imaginable.
And what if the media painting Trump as the worst human being is directly followed up by Trump proudly proving he is indeed the worst human being? What if all the warnings about him came true and what if Trump proudly puts all his awful traits on display for the whole world to see? What then? Do we dismiss it all just because the media says it?
It is not the media's job to hate. It is their job to be unbiased and report facts. By clearly choosing sides, they have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to carry out their task, and should not be listened to.
I'd put forth that Trump isn't, the media just uniquely hates him. It's not like you've ever met him before, or anything. Everything you think of him is thanks to the media. They've painted a picture for you, and you have it hung up on your wall.
Yeah, what if? I haven't see him prove that to me, though, like I said, I only just started to pay attention.
- Status