What's up your ass? Nazi facebook got shunned and grandpa hitler wannabe got kicked off social media?

Hey, look,




I'm sorry you got duped.
But that doesn't give anyone the right to do what they did.
LETS BE CLEAR
People forced their way into the capitol building through violence. They hung up a noose https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/noose-hung-outside-capitol/ and when inside the building they were chanting 'FIGHT FOR TRUMP FIGHT FOR TRUMP FIGHT FOR TRUMP' until the president tweeted about Mike Pence's disloyalty, then they started with "WHERE IS PENCE, WHERE IS PENCE?

If you know anyone who was at the rally and stormed the capitol, please contact the FBI
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/washingtondc/news/press-releases/fbi-seeking-information-related-to-violent-activity-at-the-us-capitol-bu
ilding
https://preview.tinyurl.com/yyq8xcba (link is too long)

They are wanted as person's of interest, suspected of terrorism.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-rioters-prison-trump-executive-order-federal (link is too long) copy+paste

$50k for anyone associated with the pipe bombs https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/08/954845870/u-s-capitol-flag-will-fly-at-half-staff-fbi-issues-rew
ard-over-pipe-bombs


------------##########------------
------------##########------------
Look, I believe that you believe what you're saying, okay?

Let me make one last red rover talk with you, maybe you'll come on back to reality.
------------##########------------
------------##########------------


Here's the argument for Georgia, laid out in point by point sections


1.--------------------------------
Do you know any Trump supporters who don't trust the election?

From 2018 so before the current bullshit; though it's worth pointing out that Trump also claims that the 2016 election that he fucking won was a fraud.

"Results from a new Grinnell College National Poll give insights into which citizens lack confidence in the November 2018 election. As it turns out, white conservatives, despite accusations of election fraud from President Trump and several outspoken conservative leaders, are neither the only groups concerned about the accuracy of the 2018 vote count nor the groups most concerned. The poll’s results also uncover how a lack of confidence in the vote count is linked with voter turnout "
https://bit.ly/2VooAMS

I would argue that's contributed to a suppression of turnout. See also # 10 on my list here.


2.--------------------------------

https://apps.npr.org/elections20-interactive/#/house

The democrats lost a chunk of seats in the house of reps.
Flip flip flip flip flip flip
All that, all the Democrat plot to steal the election? That's some 7d chess right there. Secret dem plot = elect republicans. (it's the same ticket as the presidential vote) Can't trust people who voted Republican? Is that it? Throw those votes out?


3.-------------------------------
Arguing a that a technicality should disqualify votes doesn't mean that Americans' vote count is inaccurate. And if those votes' certification is invalid, why did Republican senators and Congress people from those states take their offices on Jan 2nd?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They are voted in on the same ballot that the vote for president is cast on. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
If they genuinely think and believe it was a scam, why did they show up to Washington and take office on the basis of so-called fraudulent ballots? If those ballots are frauds, what are those Republicans doing seated in those congressional seats?

Also, if that rule change is so bad, and absentee ballots are so fraudulent and can't be trusted, why did the Republican party in that state send a absentee ballot to every Republican who voted in the last election? You'd have to throw out ~700,000 republican votes as well. Don't their votes count?


4.-------------------------------

Mitt Romney is an absolute asshole and he supports policy i strongly disagree with, but at least he's honest and seems to speak with an appeal to integrity. I think I saw his outrage at his own party spilling out of his head during the objection hearing.

But he's been an R his whole life? Cant be trusted?

Mitch McConnel is like a RPG character that someone dumped all the skill points into "fuck these rules, I'm getting my way" He will do anything, cast off nearly any rule to advance republican politics. He is against this. No one, only one man can be trusted ???

Mike pence is the most republican motherfucker around, and he does not endorse this, which party are you with?



5.------------------------------

The senators objecting were right the cases didn't progress to a hearing, and were all "without standing" or were unable to even make a claim, with Rudy going into court and when the judge flatly asks him if he's suing for fraud,
'is this a fraud case ? '

>>>>>>>>>>>>>RUDY - "NO"
"No we do not"
( O_O) ?

The judge explains that maybe he did allege fraud at some point, but not in the paper work he filed currently in front of the judge. (EVEN JUDGE JUDY DON'T ALLOW THAT SHIT)

WOULD YOU LIKE THE AUDIO OF THAT?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4925496/user-clip-alleging-fraud

Finally, after some linguistic dancing, the judge revisits the topic, bookending that clip. ”Does the Amended complaint include fraud with particularity ?"

>>>>>>>>>>>>RUDY - "NO YOUR HONOR"



6.-------------------------------------------

So all of my
X Y Z cant be trusted?
Add McConnel and Pence



7.------------------------------------------

Maybe you are taking trump literally, not seriously? You're supposed to do "seriously, not literally" i've heard. Maybe he seriously won the election...
...but not literally, actually, or in-fact.



8.------------------------------------------

So only one man can be trusted? Only one man with the power? He used to hint at not conceding, now he's hinting at no more elections.

is that the way of a democracy or a republic? NO MORE ELECTIONS, THEY CANT BE TRUSTED UNLESS I WIN
???What good are elections? Why would we need those? They're all stolen anyway right ?



9.------------------------------------------

The states that made a difference and flipped from red to blue. Red, they were already red. Red as in Republicans won previous elections there and we're in charge of the local government and election boards in each case.
REPUBLICANS CERTIFIED EACH OF THOSE STATES.
HENCE THE FLIPPING,
THEY CERTIFIED IN DECEMBER,
BEFORE THEIR REPLACEMENTS ARRIVED.


10.-----------------------------------------

Democrats have been doing the work of flipping Georgia for 30 years, for democrats, that's how they flipped the state.

[The Daily] The Georgia Runoffs, Part 1: ‘We Are Black Diamonds.’ #theDaily
https://podcastaddict.com/episode/117319937 via @PodcastAddict

They interview Stacy Abraham's here^ and she speaks at length about the decades long process to flip Georgia, and all the fundraising they did during that time

There is also a sister episode where republican campaign officials are interviewed and they discuss how they are not prepared in Georgia because they thought that state was a lock, still they could have pulled it off, but voter turnout was being suppressed because people were being told it was a fraud. There is a telling moment where the two R senators up for election in Georgia are on stage but the crowd just keeps chanting TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP to the point that they are unable to speak to the crowd
[The Daily] The Georgia Runoffs, Part 2: ‘I Have Zero Confidence in My Vote’ #theDaily
https://podcastaddict.com/episode/117362059 via @PodcastAddict

>>>>>>>>>>>Notable,
the interviewer tries and tries but can't find a republican who will say they have confidence in their vote at the Georgia rally.


>>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<<
"To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th."

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2021

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Come on.

Stop.

It's over.

You're defending people who planted pipe bombs in the capitol building of the United States of America.

It doesn't matter how you cut it, that!

THAT!

Is NOT right.








Edit: And we're actually a mixture of both a republic and a democracy. There are regular instances on the people voting on laws directly.

Whatever happens, I hope Republicans keep doing what they're doing, because they are losing every election since trump and then some ...shithead.

Look, nobody has done more for incoherent nonsense than Donald Trump. And if you look - with the exception of Abraham Lincoln - possible exception, but the exception of Abraham Lincoln, nobody has done what he has done.

Let me try stepping back to basics then. In English speaking North America, Do you believe the two statements are true?
1. The title/deity "Satan" is widely understood to refer to the Abrahamic Satan.
2. "Satanism" is widely understood to refer to the worship of that same Abrahamic Satan.

That mission/purpose is clear enough, the miscommunication is in calling that 'Satanism'. To repeat myself, "Satanism" has been well understood to mean the worship of the Abrahamic center of all evil Satan. Calling your movement 'Satanism', and then clarifying that you neither believe in nor worship that Satan and your movement is an entirely separate and distinct secular one is deliberate bad communication.

It's like going around calling my group a antivaxxers, but then clarifying we don't actually oppose vaccinations, we are just against the high profit margins of pharma corps.

When words already have strong definitions deliberately failing to use them and choosing your own new definition isn't clever, it's just bad communication.

Is this the wrong place to point out a pet peeve with groups like 'secular' Satanists? The origin of the idea of Satan is clearly rooted in Abrahamic religion, and as the embodiment of all things evil. When I see self identifying Satanists upset that people presume that Satanism is the worship of the Abrahamic Satan, I lack any sympathy. The name, language and definitions already have existed for a long time, namely:
Satan: The embodiment of evil in Abrahamic religion
Satanism: The worship of the above

Defining your world view as a secular atheist and then labeling that as 'Satanism' is just deliberately communicating badly. I can understand the angle where people want to use it to provoke, but at some point you've gotta step back and acknowledge that yes you were just miscommunicating things badly to draw attention to something.

Jesus did make claims to divinity. Here are a few examples;

John 8:58

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am

In this scripture He claims to pre-exist Abraham and the wording He is using in the greek means basically that He had always existed, that He was eternal. Only God is eternal.

Here is another scripture where He is making Himself equal with God:

John 5:16-18

For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. 17But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”

18For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

In this scripture He is claiming to be God:

John 10:27-33

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than allc ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”

31Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

I love that eyebrow kick when he calls Abraham Lincoln a war criminal lol.

We need comedy shows at every rally.

I would rather debate Abraham Lincoln than Jon Stewart.

Abraham AND Glenn????


AHHHHHHH!!!!!

Somewhat disappointed that he didn't include my personal favorite argument against Pascal's Wager: conflicting faiths.

Instead of a 4-cell chart (2x2 from believe/don't believe and god exists/doesn't), the chart should arguably be a LOT bigger. Plenty of individual branches of Christianity will tell you that *their* specific brand is the only one that will get you into heaven. And that's just relatively minor distinctions -- different sorts of Protestants, or Protestants vs Catholics, etc. We haven't even got to Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam -- all of which fall under the "Abrahamic" umbrella -- but very few Christian faiths think that Jews or Muslims are just as eligible to enter heaven as they are (or vice-versa). From there you can get to things as disparate as Hindu vs Ancient Egyptian vs Zoroastrianism, and everything else.

With that sort of chart, it is just as easy to say that choosing to believe in the *wrong* god could possibly be associated with a more negative outcome than washing your hands of it and going Atheist. Maybe I chose to believe in Ra the Sun God when Zeus ends up being the one true deity. Come to find that Zeus, as it turns out, tolerates people who don't believe in him as long as they don't believe in one of his competitors (like Ra). Therefore I get a lightning bolt to the keyster and a trip to Hades while my nonbeliever buddy gets a ticket to Elysium.

Of course it's all a load of bollocks, but if your argument is a load of bollocks (like Pascal's wager) you don't get to complain when somebody flips it on its head and uses it to argue the exact opposite...

I quite enjoyed the talk, with the minor quibble that his example about WWII bombers was really referencing the work of Abraham Wald (who was US based by then) and the study was by the US Center for Naval Analyses rather than being British.

Warning, this is long. It's a general reply to bob, but really it's a rant about the reality of this country, origins, issue, and where we are headed... Like they say in Horace and Pete, at this point we just might deserve a president like Trump (especially because we are stupid enough to vote for HIM, and for so many Senators AND Congressmen like him or even far worse)...

Reply to bob at the top...


I hate to tell you, but "SHALL", according to the times in which the founding fathers wrote this IS indeed the utmost highest form of that period meaning that you "HAVE TO" do something.

Go ahead and let your own party change what grammar and vocabulary meant from that period--or simply not have enough brains to know what it really means (though most of us know by now their assistants have let them know what it means, they just refuse to believe reality and instead insert their own collective psychotic delusion).

Typically when it says SHALL (BTW, NOT doing that job should be getting them in HUGE amounts of trouble as well), they should be doing everything they can TO nominate a new judge into the open position in their next open session (not a session one year away, so Trump or Hillary has to do it).

If they want to complain about the nominee they CAN, just while they are under scrutiny to go up for the vote. But, they simply are NOT supposed to do nothing and furthermore say they WON'T do anything...

I'll have to look up what the penalty is for not doing this, but it could be a full "boot" from their job. Simply what has been referred to by Republicans in the past as Impeachment. But, then the Senate has to start that (I'm not sure if anyone else can; hence, this is why I said I'd try to see if there is anything else that can be done)

I believe they can also do it at the state level... BUT ALL of this requires for our government officials to do their fucking jobs! PLUS, the citizens that voted them in to give a shit!
----------


We REALLY, REALLY, do not deserve a country like this...it is BARELY alive and well. We are just a few presidential terms away (plus senators and congressmen) before we grind to a complete halt.

Then we can finally watch everything implode on CNN and FOX while REAL extremists take over and then the real fun starts. True extremists taking control with minimal bloodshed and shouting matches, civil war with outcomes that grant us either the NEO-United States (the U.S.A. V:2.0, which might be good), to the Neo-Confederacy (since that is what it all amounts to on the FAR right's spectrum). OR we simply just dissolve and become something entirely new.

Hey, bob did you know that your party used to be JUST like the Democrats of Lincoln's age. The Republican's were more like the Democrat's of our age. Weird right. THAT conservative party died out with Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party; then all of the citizens decided that they simply liked the name "Republican" more (since they'd always voted for that name, right...it'd be weird to change it). That is where the Republican's became a FAR different party than they had been (though they still had a few more GREAT leaders before their schism drove them all, sadly, into madness ). The "Democrat's", they thought slavery was just peachy at first, and now they vote for gay-rights. NEITHER party remembers it's roots and the citizens of the United States have had their idiotic teachers and parents tell them all sorts of stories about how great either party WAS, but never telling them what they are like NOW. We all need to vote for our president, nowadays, without even LOOKING at their part's affiliation. It doesn't do any of us any good. Because none of them have ANY real lineage or links to the old presidents of these United States--they're full of shit.

Just remember, Republicans and their party were formed basically to try and abolish slavery--now they are more likely to put it back into action; a complete reversal of their direction, progressive and liberal!

Democrats tried to keep things the same as it was and to even expand slavery--now they want to allow marijuana to be legal, allow gays to have rights, and essentially pick up many progressive and liberal causes... They too have utterly reversed the direction they were at and taking during Abraham Lincoln's time. Conservative on many topics and wanting to expand the states' rights and abilities. Now they are the ones that would abolish slavery and even have Lincoln on their ticket if he ran...

Our parties in these United States are abysmal, a joke, a farce, and shouldn't even be used... The Founding Fathers would be dismayed over so many issues it wouldn't be even funny. They would more than likely throw OUT the Constitution and start a new draft, simply due to the amount of changes we've made in the WRONG direction and the fact that they weren't able to see the future far enough ahead to imagine gigantic empires made only of Business (with a mere handful of people, not hundreds, thousands, and many more like it was in their times) and how News would become so powerful it is essentially as powerful as the president of the United States--and if watched by enough people it is even FAR more powerful than him/her (like in Russia; The Internet being the ONE thing the Founding Fathers would pat our country on the back over and it's what can restore balance to the people who watch or only can gain information from these entities; a new type of "University" where anything can be shared; truth and facts obtained at every man's fingertips nearly instantly at any point on this planet; it IS the world's greatest WONDER ever made).

Lastly, they would absolutely abhor our parties and how they are used--internally and externally (how our politicians...how all the issues interconnect together; all politicians that receive outside money, they would likely want to have them all impeached, same with those that USE the media; they would HATE parties--but they know they'll always exist, you just have to get rid of the things that LET parties abuse we the people and also the government, and those things are: money and media...).


/length

Historically Islam didn't really engage in forced conversions, partly because under both the Caliphate and the Ottoman empire the tax break given to Muslims would've been problematic if given to the entire population (this tax break is the flip side of the "extort money" that you refer to).

Also speaking historically, Jews were much safer in Muslim lands than Christian since Christians tended to massacre them on a fairly regular basis until 1945 and despite what you've heard most Muslims are fairly tolerant. The same applies to minority Christian sects, the Nestorians for instance had to flee to Persia in 489 AD, and I seem to recall another minority group who fled England to Holland and then to the Americas (perhaps you've heard of them?).

I used to think that Buddhists and Hindus were more tolerant than the Abrahamic religions, but unfortunately I've since learned that I only thought so due to ignorance.

@SDGundamX

We can criticise religion generally - for it's falsehood, for it's stultifying effect on the mind, for the shadow the faithful cast over an enlightened world.

We can criticise religions individually - for the divine exhortations to genocide in each of the abrahamic canons, for the promise of infinite torture by a benevolent god in both christianity and islam, for their arbitrary or bigoted taboos, and particularly of the newer creeds - islam, mormonism, scientology - for what we know to be the bad character of their founders.

And, as you say, we can criticise the behaviours of individual believers, communities or sects - catholicism on condoms and the spread of aids, genital mutilation in africa (which you're quite right to point out has cultural roots that pre-date islam, though it would be disingenuous to claim religion has no reinforcing or propagating effect on that practice).

I wholly disagree that this last is the only or most meaningful critique to offer of religion. There are fundamental tenets of these ideologies on which all their denominations, however fractured, can be said to agree.

Allow these people their diversity, their specificity and their subtle variation of interpretation and you're in danger of chasing a thousand little fish at once, in a thousand different directions, while the religious school as a whole shifts, shimmers, dazzles and slips away. I prefer to play the dolphin pack: surrounding, corralling, squeezing and finally devouring the enemy entire.

Nah. He was being politic, just as Abraham Lincoln was, and just as George W was when he lied to the American people to get us to invade a sovereign nation. They all thought they were doing the right thing.

Two out of three ain't bad.