The primary issue was a belief that Trump had been elected, that evil forces had interfered with the election, and that Mike Pence was committing treason. — frank

Ask yourself what's so appealing about this that it attracts white supremacists in droves?

I suggest that this was the excuse and the racists heard the racism Trump stands for loud and clear and wanted 4 more years of that, willing to believe the lies because it was convenient to get what they wanted. Or are we back to the other side being too stupid to figure out the truth for themselves?

Again I respect your point of view and I guess you are not of these kind of people but if you say that easy argument of “they are taking our money in south while we are working in north” is so convincing in your population it disappoints a lot coming from countries with better universities, welfare State, modernism, open minded. — javi2541997

I don't think the majority thinks this way but enough do, that it's a political consideration. Especially if you're on the Conservative side of the spectrum and your main challenger is euro-sceptic. So it's the 20% of voters, the xenophobists, that were pleased by what they heard, there was another 20% that criticised them for it and the rest doesn't care enough.

As to better education... I had an Italian roommate once who could tell me things about early Dutch history I never learned. Dutch law is basically still roman law. Etc. Etc.

If, hypothetically, the first "Individual" to appear, it drove the stake into the ground and said: -This is mine. This is not the creation of the State, but of private property. The State arises from the perversed perception of this same individual, who, instead of inspiring other individuals to achieve their own successes like him, and encourage them, he establishes that "whoever lives and has lived in this land, now will have to pay tribute to me", simply because he "can" do it, because he now has political power; he "murdered" the individual power of his peers. — Gus Lamarch

I'm still not clear on what makes a state a state because I reject the notion that it necessarily must be through fear. The reality is that specialisation allows a community to be more prosperous. It makes no sense for individuals to be successful like "him" because they have different strength. Just like in a family, where the parents lead they can do so through fear or through inspiration, but the latter does not mean children get to do whatever they want - but, OK, those are dependent relationships so the analogy only goes so far.

In a small community though, not everyone is found to be a subsistence farmer. You want better huts but your neighbour is better at building them, so you barter. In a large enough community, the neighbour will become a builder as a result of his aptitude. Where did people bring their disputes? A man or woman was considered wise and they brought them their problems. And here emerges sovereignty, someone's word becomes law. And someone breaks the law and the community as a whole enforces it and if the community is large enough, some burly types are part time enforcers. But this is all on the basis of cooperation and economic specialisation. For the community to function the basic rules need to be enforced but this is only a threat to those that would break the rules otherwise. Most people adhere to the rules, accept the various roles (not a typo) within the community as an expression of beeps aptitudes.

In a healthy community, these rules and roles then serve the community and it's just to enforce them. If they don't serve the community, they ought to be disobeyed. In one oppression is justified in the other it isn't.

Weren't the first states sustained through "fear"? — Gus Lamarch

Let me ask this differently. What distinguishes a non-nomadic tribe from a State? Or a reclusive family staking out a claim of land? An individual doing this? And why do you assume fear is the driving factor instead of (the need for) cooperation behind the ordering of societies? Fear is merely a tool and a pretty useless one compared to inspiration.

The European Union is an economic prison created by a State larger than the States that compose the European nations.

Initially it was a relationship of interdependence and unity thanks to the great destruction of both World Wars, however, over the course of 70 years, without a new purpose, this institution would meet its end. The point is that this same institution, already established, generated a lot of profit for the elites, and therefore, a new objective had to be be created. This same objective that currently imprisoned and made dependent the nations that decided to be part of it.

Therefore, my previous argument that "a State that is sustained by some characteristic of society, tends to eternalize that same characteristic", is correct, since the current economies are no longer concerned with the development of the economy, but with the establishment of the economy.

"The State does not need anymore that you have economic independence and economic prosperity to establish itself, on the contrary, it needs you to become poor and depend on it so that it stabilizes." — Gus Lamarch

The EU was always about economic harmonisation and therefore integration. I don't think it's radically different than any other modern government in that it favours the wealthy over the poor (or capital over workers). When has a system of government not done that? Marx and other structuralist interpretations of the State often highlight this and I'm missing it from your assessments. I think you're reducing too far. There's certainly an element of repression in every society and I don't think societies can function completely without it because basic rules need to be respected (for instance, human rights).

I remember the Dutch primer minister said about my country (Spain) we are citizens who waste the money in women and wine. It is completely a lie. Nevertheless, that is the economic trap. Sometimes I think norths European countries want the south to be poorer just to get more benefit and zero competition. This is why I do not understand how Greece and Spain are the countries which have mora labour hours despite they have the lowest income (?) interesting. — javi2541997

Yes, this plays into stereotypes Dutch people (and Swedish, Austrian and Danish) have of southern european countries like Spain, Italy and Greece. You're lazy, and we're hard working. These politicians need to play for their local audience more than they do for the EU as they are elected by Dutch people. And so they take a strict stance to be seen as being critical of the EU, meanwhile working behind the scenes to reach a compromise. It's not pretty when you're on the receiving end.

- You focus on the argument that "concepts as abstractions have not yet been conceived" to support your argument directed against me and not my idea.

What you forget is that, in practice, these concepts have been projected by humanity for more than 5,000 years.

Honestly, your total bias in the detail of concepts being only metaphysics has already become almost religious rhetoric. — Gus Lamarch

It's important for me to understand what you mean since you make grand statements which aren't at all clear. So if these ancient civilisations fall within the meaning of a State, where do you draw the line? We had earlier settlements than that, that exercised some control over a geographic area? Were those states too?

Because I think that's where you run into trouble, because either you accept those as a "State" avant la lettre or you have to explain where the cut-off is and why that isn't arbitrary. And you run into trouble, because we know that the earliest settlements ("States") were certainly not predicated on fear to create order - I still disagree this is the case, considering the many and varied roles government plays in our lives. There's oppression (penalties, stratification, standardasation) but also positive liberty (opportunities, welfare, etc.).

One of the reasons I thought you were talking about modern states is precisely due to the use of "fear", which is reminiscent of Max Weber's definition that the State has a monopoly on violence. I'm probably more of a pluralist, in that individuals and groups vie for political power but similarly think the structure of modern government is conveniently beneficial to favour capitalist production - in other words, it's not just political but also economic power that shape the State and the government/State isn't an unbiased participant in the socio-economic fabric.

The point being that to apply the word "state" to these ancient governments, when you clearly meant it in the modern sense, is wrong because they are not what we understand states in the modern sense to be. Your example of the Greek empire is telling, because the Greek poleis continued to exist and had their own governments. So the suggestion that I don't know my history, meh, I shrug.

If your point was related to these ancient governments as well, then for the life of me I don't understand the individualistic bent of your post because that's even later. Edit: indivualism I mean, that's 17th century.

The "state" is a 15th century concept.

Recalled my earlier prediction:

I had to think about this. A part of this also has to do with the face of war in these times. If we're talking about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria then I think the first two are now low intensity conflicts (LICs) and the latter fluctuate between war and LICs with many non-state actors involved.

We see that since Obama, US presidents are capable of initiating LICs or involving themselves in existing LICs (for Trump see Yemen and Iran) without any congressional oversight. Presumably, Biden will use this option as well and will have the support of the neocons and thereby won't be challenged when doing so despite the War Powers Resolution. In a way, this seems to be answering to the fact that enemies tend to be non-state actors more regularly than State actors.

My guess is, increase of LICs in relation to the fight against terrorism and geopolitical theatres that require some measure of control because of real politik considerations.

I don't expect more convential wars because I'm not convinced that US military capabilities or budget can be stretched to support another (decades?) long occupation or at least, I don't think there's political appetite for it. Another reason I'd expect de-escalation with Iran. — Benkei

Athens was a polis. Equating that with a city state is false on several levels, which you'd know, if you knew your history.

I wasn't aware the US was at war with Syria.

Visa's transactions use less energy, yes, but Visa is piggybacking on the existence of a secure reserve currency. — csalisbury

That doesn't speak well for bitcoin at all. Despite the huge system surrounding it, and the multitude of use cases supported by the existing system, VISA still uses less energy.

Throughout the recorded history of mankind, the concept of "Government" had only been functionally expressed through its establishment through the "State", which creates order through the use of fear. — Gus Lamarch

Athens had a democratic form of government. Athens wasn't a state.

The claim order is created through fear is just... silly. In fact, fear creates instability, if you have to worry or fear about crime, health the economy etc. civil unrest increases. The order governments create principally reduces these fears, good government more so than others.

For the rest, individualism is overrated and a poor description of the human condition.

Oh, I know the difference between proof of stake and proof of work. Ethereum, Algorand and Primecoin aren't bitcoins though. I was only referencing bitcoin specifically (not even its forks like bitcoin cash or bitcoin gold).

It's indeed not true for every cryptocurrency but I'm not familiar with any fork of BTC that has resolved the energy drain issue.

Primecoins are an answer to one of the criticisms of bitcoin, which is that mining is a huge waste of electricity and computing power. But if you can have the miners do useful computations as their "proof of work," as it's called, then the economics make more sense.
— fishfry

That IS cool because it's one of my biggest gripes. — Benkei

For everyone thinking how cool it has been making a quick buck out of bitcoin, bitcoin is now using more electricity than the entire Netherlands combined.

Some more perspective: you can power 100,000 visa transactions with the energy used for one bitcoin transaction.

See, I'd believe that if your point had been that he had the wrong data set but your argument was the source was biased. So wriggle on little worm.

Now you're just being a disagreeable. There was a discussion about the facts Michael used and you tried to waylay it with a subcategory of crimes, which is not possible because it's comparing apples with pears. Turned out both apples and pears were rotten any ways. That's the only point I made. The rest of your discussion with him doesn't interest me.

Looking at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_officials_convicted_of_corruption_offenses
There are more Democrats than Republicans. — Harry Hindu

This is a specific sub category of crimes so a different dataset.

Edit: @Michael this is interesting which suggests Democrats are more corrupt and both your statistics suck. http://memepoliceman.com/are-republicans-more-corrupt-than-democrats/

Wtf are "misinformed" votes? Biden got more votes than Hillary. Period.

It's kind of funny how some people miss the forest for the trees. Two independent law enforcement sources claimed Sicknick was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. He died later on. I don't know what NYT originally reported but the cause of death might be different than what was expected, he still died following the riot. Possibly a cause unrelated to the riot at this point in time. And in this a grand conspiracy is intuited. Meanwhile the straight line from Trump's actions and words for months (even years, see his 2016 performances to understand what being weak and tough mean) and the end result is a fabrication in such a person's mind. :zip:

For "bring the calvary" to be a thing, you would expect some use. The only use we've seen is when people meant cavalry. It's not a thing among right wing Christians either and since it refers to crucifixation, it doesn't help either way. But sure, kid yourself to continue to believe in the fantasy. She's not Snoop Dogg to get away with making shit up, fo sizzle.

Lee, who should know what he said, said it was false. They tried to submit circumstantial CNN reports as evidence instead of witnesses. This is what we get: lies. — NOS4A2

And you know Lee isn't lying because? The statements were stricken from the records because the issue isn't relevant. Again, did Trump call during the riot to ask senators to delay the vote?

Judge, jury and witness. I get to watch as a self-described lawyer dismisses that as if it happens everyday. — NOS4A2

You claimed it was unconstitutional, it isn't. This is just whining that the rules aren't the way you want them to be. There's no judge in any case, there's someone who will preside over the trial.

What I find underwhelming about the whole process is that even when a majority has already voted the impeachment was constitutional this is still going to influence the vote on his guilt, while these two things are entirely separate questions.

Edit: meaning the acquittal is certain.

It is a kangaroo court in that respect because almost nobody in politics is committed to principles, only to outcomes.

with regards to the tweet, did or did she not tweet what she tweeted? The little blue verification badge doesn't change content. But yes, let's get hung up on what something looks like instead of what it is. Just a silly diversion which, in light of all the other evidence, we can simply ignore.

There were no lies told. On the basis of the available reporting something was stated about Lee. Lee objected and it was stricken. Whether it's true or false is still entirely unclear. CNN hasn't adjusted its reporting and Lee claims it's false. I don't have the information to tell who's wrong. The real point there is whether Trump called, or tried to call, senators to delay the vote during the riot. Did he?

"When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside"

Who is presiding? — NOS4A2

Who is President now?

So, you have nothing. Meanwhile, check out Michael's posts.

Some proof of those claims would be nice.

Traders can make money either way. Insane amounts of money are made when markets are volatile. — BitconnectCarlos

Fixed it. :wink:

He's a free speech absolutist.

The last post by Relativist in relation to the post I reacted to.

Maybe you should pay a bit more attention to who says what.

No and don't know.

was removed.

When poker players are betting on what they are holding, they are all willing, and getting what they want, at that time. They all think it's win-win, until "later" when it's decided who really wins. That "later" is when some don't get what they want. How is this different from trading? — Metaphysician Undercover

A poker player takes willing risks but they don't want to lose. A trade consists of a buyer and seller who want to trade and for a price they both want - otherwise no trade. Nobody is losing here.

That looks.... worryingly unsustainable.

Yet tell that to someone that has to sell when they have gotten a margin call. — ssu

Don't trade on margin then, which is basically borrowing money. People who complain about margin calls or close outs shouldn't be trading at margin anyways. Comes with the territory.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/08/us-ice-immigration-customs-enforcement-haiti-deportations

What? The? Hell?

First off, how can a judge order the executive branch to continue to deport people based on a statute that hasn't been used for decades? But even then, doesn't the executive branch have discretion how and when it can exercise its powers, including not doing anything? It's not as if every crime is investigated and prosecuted either.

It's not even comparable with a poker game. With a trade there's a willing buyer and a willing seller who trade precisely because they are getting out of the trade what they want. It's win-win. It's no different from me buying dinner and a restaurant selling it to me,except this time I'm buying a share.

I wouldn't say "hell bent", but I do need some sort of an argument from you, to change my preconceived conclusion. I really haven't seen much from you as an argument. And I'm not even trying to change your preconceived idea, just laying out some opinions. — Metaphysician Undercover

There's no argument to be had where I'm still trying to explain the basics and you aren't interested to even listen.

This story is quite enlightening and getting a lot of traction. It turns out that there was a vast anti-Trump conspiracy to rig the election. — NOS4A2

The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. — Time

The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding. — Time

I suppose it's anti Trump to insist on fair elections... :rofl:

The person buying higher, could have bought lower, directly from the CME, so how is the trader not screwing that person? — Metaphysician Undercover

Uh... In your milk example you were perfectly fine paying more and not having to travel further. Now someone offers it to you locally cheaper and you're complaining it's not as cheap as it is somewhere else despite it being cheaper than it was? It seems to me you have a judgment ready and are hell bent on ensuring that you reach that preconceived conclusion.

I don't care if you want to represent trading as a "natural" part of the market, we can represent greed and its associated activities of hoarding, stockpiling, monopolizing, and all sorts of other things which are morally wrong as "natural" too. The question is whether we ought to put modern day "trading" into this category of morally wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think if you postpone your moral indignation for a moment you'll realise your analysis goes only skin deep, which is why you're stuck at blaming traders. There are structural problems how our markets operate. You complain about the players and miss what's actually going on.

The rest of your post just reflects how your preconceived judgment colours everything you say, leading to statements that are just plain false. Traders are not en masse engaged in market manipulation. This is just silly talk.

Personally, I'm out of patience trying to explain basic aspects of how stock markets work to you. I'm open for direct questions if you want to learn something from someone who's worked for governments and private firms in both stocks and bonds.

was? You optimist, you! :cry:

What? The traders don't make any money from the market, they actually add money to the market? — Metaphysician Undercover

They add transaction volume (eg. more money is exchanged then before because they enter the market with their own money. That doesn't mean they're giving it away. It's like poker, the initial pot gets bigger), which means exchanges, brokers, custodians, clearing houses etc. all make extra money. They can pay for those costs from the profits they make from their trading activities.

I still don't see any reference to traders making any money. All I see is this. — Metaphysician Undercover

Buy low, sell high. That's implicit in arbitrage.

See, you portray the traders as interfering with natural market trends, to heroically create equality in prices to ensure that no one get's unlucky in the market. — Metaphysician Undercover

The idea markets become less natural because more buyers and sellers (eg. Traders) enter it is something I don't even understand how you got there to begin with so I don't know how to reply to it.

But let's go back. What exactly is your problem with some finding out he can buy low in one market and sell higher in another? There's a willing seller in the first and a willing buyer in the second. Who's being hurt here exactly? This is all a trader does.

The point being McCreary really was there, which was what was being discussed in the tweet you shared. As the Statement of Fact states:

Finally, one of the co-workers who positively identified MCCREARY in the picture above also provided the following additional photograph, which this person received from another of MCCREARY’s co-workers, and identified McCreary as the individual wearing black eyeglasses and a blue surgical mask standing immediately behind and to the right of Chansley. — Statement of Fact

That's the fact, they can't then include the original image because that would be lying.

We also know the only reason you shared that tweet was to suggest there was some buffoonery from Biden to fit whatever warped worldview you're trying to maintain.