The Frankish Reich

There we go. It's the "everbody knows" explanation. This is just as silly as the other side saying Russian collusion/Russian-funded misinformation was the cause of Trump's 2016 victory. It was "rigged" in some abstract way that doesn't correspond with anyone's definition of what "rigged" means. In other words, Russian misinformation/Mainstream Media misinformation caused people to cast votes in a certain way, as if voters are mere automatons.

^ a friendly reminder. So ... rigged, but not by hack/fix of voting machines, and not by voter fraud. Just ... rigged. If I seem to be having trouble understanding, maybe these two quotes are the reasons why. Did you have some kind of epiphany between 6 hours ago and 13 minutes ago?

No. It's because you believe - without evidence - that there was voter fraud sufficient to change the results of the 2020 presidential election. A belief that is not supported by evidence is on the order of a religious belief, an article of faith, not of logic. You may support DeSantis, but that's not the point here. If you believe Trump does, in fact, talk nonsense for no reason, then at some point you have to admit that your belief that voter fraud turned the election is predicated on precisely that same nonsense.

Thank you for agreeing that TRUMP JUST SPOUTS BS AND YOU EAT IT UP WILLINGLY. B-Man, you read all the pro-MAGA Twitter feeds. Please point me to the one that includes the video Trump referenced, you know, the one where someone voted 28 times in 28 different polling stations, casting 7 ballots in each one. When you do that, I will happily admit I'm wrong, and I will happily stop "bothering" all of you.

And still not what any conservative philosopher would recognize as conservatism. You have described hardcore libertarianism, an outgrowth of classic liberalism.

To un-hijack the topic - it's crime. There was a point in my life - maybe the late 80s/early 90s? - when it would have been fair to call me a pretty hardcore libertarian. As such, I was skeptical of the police state. I don't know if I said it, but I certainly nodded in approval when people said things like this: "we can't arrest our way out of this." You know what? We can arrest our way out of this, or at least out of the worst of it. Almost all western U.S. cities are plagued by a horrific drug epidemic; some eastern cities too. We have the laws on the books. California? It's even a crime to "use or be under the influence of" an illicit drug. And it's a more serious crime to possess an illicit drug, and a really serious crime to sell an illicit drug. I'm not thrilled about the prospects of mass incarceration, but it did help bring about the end of the crack epidemic, and I see no reason why it wouldn't do the same thing for the even more destructive fentanyl (and associated methamphetamine) epidemic. Because what we're doing now sure as hell ain't working. Libertarian? Of course not. I've seen too much to be a purist anymore.

exacerbated I hear skool performance is down in Orlando? EDIT: I know, I know, prolly spell check. Just too easy ... sorry.

So there is no video of someone voting 28 times at 28 different locations, casting 7 ballots each time? You mean Trump made it up? And even though, when given a national cable TV platform, the only evidence he could come up with regarding election fraud was something he made up? And you still "believe" there was election fraud? When Biden says Beau died in Iraq, you say this is evidence of senility. Maybe so. So what is this evidence of? Senility? Being a compulsive liar? Being a snake oil salesman with a line of gullible buyers, a line you are proud to stand in?

There actually is an irrational hatred of cyclists in some people. I bike to work in good weather. It's about a half hour each way. I get in an hour total of a workout during what otherwise would be a sedentary car commute while enjoying some beautiful summer/spring/fall scenery. Most drivers are fine with sharing the road. I get a lot of "go ahead" waves from people who get that stopping/starting on a bike is a lot tougher than in a car. But some are just a-holes. In Colorado it is legal for a cyclist to stop briefly at a red light, check for traffic, and then go. I get people yelling out of windows at me, like it bothers them that they have to wait out the light while I can just treat it like a stop sign. The reason we do this: we want to get the hell out of your way. If I'm on the shoulder next to a line of cars and I can just go before the light turns, I can avoid that uncertainty about how to space yourself in a line of cars. They can see me, I know where they are, I won't get in their way, they won't run into me by making a sudden right turn into a street or a driveway, etc. So is there a "hatred of bikers?" Yes, among some people. Go ahead and hate on the spandexed groups who take a perverse joy in causing traffic jams. But that's not me or most cyclists - just let me get the hell outta your way and we can both arrive safely.

Oh, I've tried to get people to think about such things in this thread, the point at which the state should be allowed to override parental decisions. Take a look. You'll see no attempt by the "it's a transurrection!" posters to think that through.

That will be some railroad. He should put Gavin Newsom in charge of the project.

And this is from the man who was at one time on the same offense as Kyle Orton?

So there's no pee tape. Agreed. Where's the "person votes in 28 separate voting booths, casting 7 ballots in each one" tape? Do you agree there's no such thing?

I asked a specific question: where is the video Trump referred to in his CNN Town Hall? The one where voters are voting in 28 different voting booths, casting 7 ballots each time? No "straw man" unless that's the new term for the Orange Man. (You mean it doesn't exist, but still you believe?)

A telling choice of words. You don't believe that election machines were rigged or hacked. You presumably don't believe this because there was no evidence to support it, and because, in fact, the claim was litigated right up to the trial date, and the evidence brought forward in discovery simply failed to support any such belief. You believe that the election was "rigged" because: - "rigged" is necessarily an amorphous term, meaning whatever you want it to mean - you simply can't believe (as apparently Trump can't believe, or pretends that he can't believe) that he lost to this 80 year old who didn't hold glorious campaign rallies like Trump, and besides, pretty much everyone you know voted for Trump. There is an arguable point about voter fraud and mail-in/drop-off ballots aiding Biden more than Trump, but again ... no proof of that. It's a belief, or more accurately a feeling. So on that point, quote this from Trump's CNN Town Hall: TRUMP: We have elections that were horrible. If you look at what happened in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, if you look at what happened in Detroit, Michigan, if you look at what happened in Atlanta, millions of votes, and all you have to do is take a look at government cameras. You will see them, people going to 28 different voting booths to vote, to put in seven ballots apiece. I mean, and they’re all on camera. So I ask: show me the evidence of this. Apparently there is video evidence of people "going to 28 different voting booths to vote, to put in seven ballots apiece." Seems pretty damning. Trump mentioned it in his Town Hall after a year and a half of his (and his supporters') intensive investigation. Show me the evidence. (Not conjecture about how they could have done this, or how some clerk in Atlanta moved a box containing ballots around ... evidence of THIS specific example of clear voter fraud.) One person, 28 different "voting booths," 7 ballots in each one. Show me. EDIT: John 20:29.

You haven't addressed the lack of internal logic in Tucker's Ep. 3 that I pointed out. You've instead reverted to the old conspiracy theories: they were out to get JFK, they are out to get Trump. Trust no one. X files crap. I pointed out that Tucker makes various unsupported assumptions: We overclassify, most classified documents don't really include information that would be gravely damaging to national security, hence we can assume that the classified documents "found" in Trump's Private Collection would not be gravely damaging to national security, hence this prosecution isn't based on the purpose of the Espionage Act (protection of national security information), hence we may assume it is being done for political reasons only. You have been seduced by Tucker's wiles. A man crush is not an argument. Here we go again. Because, as Trump says, "everybody knows." They just know. No evidence, they just know. His own AG says there's no evidence, but still ... they just know.

Oh, sorry. It isn't just Oliver Stone. It's also a former heroin addict British comedian attempting to resurrect a career by doing righty conspiracy commentary. It's also a crackpot nephew of JFK who thinks Sirhan Sirhan - ON VIDEO, SHOOTING HIS FATHER - isn't the "real assassin." And now it's Tucker Carlson, a man who "hates Trump passionately," attempting to salvage his reputation by kissing Trump ass for 10 minutes at a time, three times a week. And of course it's Trump, the biggest ass kisser of all time, sucking up to Clintons and every other evil deep stater for years, until suddenly becoming the 21st century Lyndon LaRouche. EDIT: what about the UFOs? When will we be hearing about that conspiracy? You may not be Q Anon, but you speak with a heavy Q Anon accent

Well, o.k. then, Oliver Stone.

Fret? I don't think that word means what you think it means. I am not "worried or anxious" about Tucker's shtick. I am pointing out that it follows a formula that appeals to people who aren't interested in (or lack the capacity to) analyzing the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind it. And citing a comedian saying "c'mon, surely some conspiracy theories are true!" isn't the most compelling rebuttal ...

Well, no. Or not to the same extent. The mainstream media has its issues. And the second Twitter thing I picked on here—anecdote as somehow meaningful without further research—is one of them. But the first one — a preposterous take on how federal enforcement works — would thankfully never make it past an editor at the NYT, Wash Post, WSJ. See what I said there? An editor. That’s the difference.

Just to point out some particularly stupid takes people have reposted here. This one is so jarringly dumb that I can't imagine even a wingnut "news" source posting it. "The National Archives has no enforcement authority, so how did this wind up as a DOJ case?" Well, it wound up as a DOJ case BECAUSE THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES HAS NO INDEPENDENT PROSECUTION OR ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY. That is precisely why the DOJ is called "the nation's law firm." Government agencies refer matters for civil/criminal enforcement to DOJ all the time. That's what DOJ does. Maybe think a little bit before posting those "ooh, look, they're really out on a limb here" comments? Another one, too pointless to bother linking to (again; you can see it in the postings here if you want to make yourself just a bit stupider): "My (presumably) old father has never been a registered member of a political party, but now the Democrats' behavior has finally made him register as a Republican." Look at this: https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx And tell me whether there's any discernible trend toward one party or the other over the last couple years. It fluctuates within a few percentage points. The poster (and reposter) may find daddy's registration to be an incredibly pivotal and telling event. It isn't. So there you have it: Twitter makes you dumber. First through a gross misunderstanding (deliberate? ignorance?) of how federal law enforcement works. Second through meaningless anecdote.

Species-ist. Groundhogs are important to me.

Just make sure Diggs is limited to one hotel suite. And that Josh only goes to bars with male bartenders. You know, to facilitate team bonding.

The NBA isn't the NFL, but there's still something about what happened in the NBA playoffs this year: the two longest-tenured coaches in the league squared off in the finals. Continuity matters. Having a consistent plan matters. Even if the Bills fail to advance this year (and based on prior years, "advance" really means "makes the Super Bowl"), it would be a mistake to fire Beane and/or McDermott. But history suggests that would probably be the outcome, since coaches typically don't get multiple chances to make that next step forward.

What I'm seeing is Teddy wants to be Attorney General. Or maybe even VP.