I'm sorry for using force on you. Did I harm you or did I just make you feel threatened that harm would happen? — flannel jesus

I didn't feel threatened, I just wanted to discuss your obsession with the mail-in vote system. I think you would be very happy working in a post office, and counting votes.

Regarding rejected votes due to human errors in mail-in voting, as well as mail-in votes lost in the mail, both would seems to favor Republicans. — praxis

One of the main interesting things about this amazing debate we are having, is that you folks are given for granted that I root for Republicans when I am not even American. Speaking frankly, yes, I am right wing (if my attitude has not already proved it). On the other hand, that statistic proves it all. 58 % is a big percentage of mail-in votes. Why did they have such confidence in this system when it is clear that it is flawed? A lot of unknowns remain. I appreciate your effort in showing the evidence, but the system is still opaque to me. It is not only about who is benefited by this, I am talking about a guaranteed system. Maybe I look like a stubborn in my opposition to mail-in votes, but at least you would agree with me that it is not a perfect system which we should believe in blindly.

Conspiracy theories? Just because we show a system which lacks guarantees? I never thought that being sceptic would be a big deal.

If someone forcing you to believe that? By what means are they forcing you to believe that? — flannel jesus

In particular, you are one of the obsessed supporters of mail voting systems. Whenever I made a counter-argument, you quickly answered: How can you not believe in this system? It is perfect ans they do not rig results!!!1!1!1!1!.

I understand your point, and I partially agree with. Again, the core of our debate is whether the use of mail voting can lead to fraud or not. I still defend yes, it can be election fraud on this, why? These are my arguments:

The system is trusted by post officers. I don't have anything against them, and they have all my respect. But you know, people can make mistakes too. If you are not the one who deposit the ballot in the box, you are acting blindly, and you have to believe in the system a lot. It could happen that those post officers are forced to switch the numbers of ballots or fake them.
Evidence: https://www.msn.com/es-es/noticias/espana/un-juzgado-abre-una-investigaci%C3%B3n-ante-los-indicios-de-compra-de-votos-por-correo-en-melilla/ar-AA1bnnbm

Rejected for arriving late or other human errors which complicate the counting. Hundreds of thousands of ballots go uncounted each year because people make mistakes, such as forgetting to sign the form or sending it in too late. Evidence: Source, NPR survey of individual Secretary of State and state election offices Credit: Ruth Talbot and Elena Moore/NPR. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/13/889751095/signed-sealed-undelivered-thousands-of-mail-in-ballots-rejected-for-tardiness

:up:

Good points :up: But our economic collapse comes from the left wing, because when the right wing rules, Spain can be a better place for investments.

From what I know of Spanish history I would expect socialism to be less popular there than in the States. Actually I have that backwards, Franco was conservative. — praxis

It is less popular, no doubts. But they win because they are covered by separatists and nationalists from Catalonia and the Basque Country. At the end of the day, it has more value for a few voters of Barcelona or Bilbao than the rest of the nation. I am not living under a democracy and I have already accepted it...

Those are good points, Baden, and I partially agree. Your arguments can only be applied to democracies which work well or at least better than other countries. I have no doubt that it can work in the UK or Ireland, because I guess there is a bit of corruption in public administration if we compare it amongst other nations.

On the other hand, it is true that I am not providing enough evidence that the mail voting system could be a fraud, and I understand the criticism in my argumentation. Nonetheless, this is not correlated to the fact that I have to believe in such a system blindly. That's what I am complaining about. Some users see this system as purely perfect. Well, we are in a philosophical forum, and we have the right to debate and doubt.

My intention is not to support Trump or just to "flex" and act as an internet troll. I just wanted to make counterarguments and doubt everything. Why do I have to believe in the mail voting system? Why do I have to condemn Trump when an American court hasn't condemned him yet? Etc. Who am I to do so?

It’s amazing people can be such complete dupes. — Mikie

You are allowed to insult me because you are a moderator. If I were the one who disrespects you, I would be banned instantly. Ah, the hypocrisy man. As a good socialist.

Socialists are usually accused of having too much confidence in the state and left to their own devices they’d walk wide-eyed into an Orwellian dystopia. — praxis

Interesting. Here the opposite happens. Most of the leftists are divided and do not take part in the elections. But, paradoxically, when the participation is low, they win. Because the right wing didn’t have a good plan to move the voters or people in general (when they are larger in numbers statistically)

Nah, you are not silly. It is just curious how the mail-in ballots and the lack of participation always benefit the left.

He voted by mail before he was president. — flannel jesus

Exactly. Before everything went twisted, you have answered to yourself.

You have to convince me that they favour widening the vote and not restricting it. — unenlightened

Statistically speaking, the right wing has two good elements to win the elections but - for whatever reason - are not used sometimes:
1) an united block. The left tends to be divided in different sections, at least in Europe.
2) the "mob" (as flannel jesus says) tend to be more active in the right, because, believe it or not, these voters tend to have more confidence in the state. Meanwhile, leftists just do not go to vote because it is an act "against the system".

So, if we let the people go to vote with confidence, they probably would end up voting for the right wing. But, if the environment is twisted and the people are not sure of what is going on, they vote for the left. I mean, people vote left because they are fearful. Just check the results. When the percentage of voters is small, people go and vote for socialism. Paradoxically, they think that voting left provides a secured position to their rights, which it is the opposite.

If making it easier to vote were good for conservatives, why in the world did Donald trump talk so much smack on mail in voting? Shouldn't he be a big fan? — flannel jesus

He was asking for a more regulated and guaranteed mail voting system, because he suspected why Biden was obsessed with using this method. Wouldn't you be worried if a candidate decides to "overreacting" on a voting system? Yet, there were errors in the counting, and the votes needed to be counted again. This makes less confidence.

Did you know Donald trump himself does mail in voting? — flannel jesus

President's security service. Does this ring a bell to you?

It literally isn't, because citizens tend to be more leftist than conservatives statistically. But literally provide any evidence of what you say, — unenlightened

Not really, at least not in the Mediterranean nations, or old East European countries, such as Poland, Serbia, Hungary, etc. Here is the evidence you are asking for:

Spain: https://www.socialeurope.eu/is-spain-on-the-right-track
Greece: https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/greece/
Italy: https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/italy/
Poland: https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/poland/ (67 % are conservatives! )
Hungary: Hungary Is the Most Right-Wing Nation in Europe
Serbia: Together, these right-leaning parties won more than 77 per cent of the popular vote (https://balkaninsight.com/2020/08/04/serbias-right-wing-shift-risks-fuelling-extremism/)

Conservatives don't want it to be easy for people to vote. — flannel jesus

It is literally the contrary. When people have more access to voting, the number of votes turns right because the citizens tend to be more conservative than leftists statistically.

On election night, I had some money placed on the result. When the vote count paused, I jotted down the interim count numbers for the key states. Below are the numbers when the count stopped and then the final result... — yebiga

Something like the same occurred in Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia... — yebiga

Amazing! And thank you for showing your evidences and proofs.

I experienced the same issue in the elections of my country regarding mail voting. The country I live in is poorer and less democratic than yours, but it is interesting how the socialists used the same pattern.

As much as I could find out reliable data because this is controlled by the government, the count numbers go as follows:

The socialists asked the people in the July 2023 elections to put into practice the voting system. 2,622,808 mail-in ballots were accepted. Surprise! 53.6 % of those mail ballots favoured the leftists, who will set up the government in November.

Sadly, our political system doesn't allow the most voted list to rule on. The conservatives "won" the number of poll ballots (eight million) but due to the mail ballots, the socialists ended up receiving more seats than expected. Suspicious, opaque, cheating, etc. I know that there are many differences in the voting system between the U.S. and Spain, but I see that the mail system only favoured one party in both cases. :chin:

I agree. But I complain about how some consider some media more reliable than another, when all of them are part of the same problem.

They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation [the censorship of Hunter Biden’s laptop] — NOS4A2

That rings a bell! Oh yes, I debated it with @flannel jesus a few hours ago, but it seems that if the media manipulate us to not focusing on Baden's shit, it is acceptable.

The purpose of the modern press is to propagandize us, not inform us. No? — Merkwurdichliebe

I cannot see otherwise. At least, I cannot find a real press where the news is told objectively. It is clear that they are aware of their power of information and how quickly it is shared around the world. All filtrated information tends to be biassed.

How do you figure? — flannel jesus

It is just my own opinion.

You might argue that he didn't want what happened at January 6 to happen, but he certainly didn't even do the bare minimum to stop it. Not so much as a tweet. — flannel jesus

How can we stop a mob at all? We are already used to the flammable Trump's vocabulary, and how quickly it spreads amongst the people. His personality is high, and when he says any statement he will not go back. The sympathisers took his words or message so feverishly.

to tell the truth, my philosohical method is to apply the facetious to the presuppositions of my interlocutor, whom I take full responsibility for - in the endeavor of honestly and criticallly questioning one's own presuppositions. — Merkwurdichliebe

Good method! I like it. :up:

I agree.

You agree with me in admitting that the press will manipulate us one side or the other. It is just my personal opinion, but if the press were not that biassed, maybe the capitol accident would not have happened. This scenario was completely out of Trump's hands and maybe he didn't even expect such action from his sympathisers. I think, thinking otherwise is twisted. Some people would be happy if Trump continued on this path, because he is in the middle of a hurricane. Maybe the press is manipulating us to speak and debate on the 2020 issue instead of the Afghanistan crisis. Maybe...

You can't do that without consuming media. You don't have access to the raw data, you only have access to information filtered through previous information sources - IE media. You cannot "figure out" what happens without consuming media. — flannel jesus

Well, I think that's sad and non democratic. Since each piece of information is filtered into the press and media, we (the "consumers") will receive a biased information and not the real facts. I wonder, would we know all the truth of Trump's case one day? We have the right to doubt on the information provided by the press and media, and we should not believe in them blindly.

If one media outlet is saying he's done criminal things, and the other media outlet is saying he hasn't done criminal things, one of those is probably being more objective than the other. — flannel jesus

Oh, really? :roll: I only see biassed and bipartisan interests here...

You're assuming it's everyone else that's been manipulated and not you, but you've been consuming media too, — flannel jesus

I do not consume media. I just try to figure out what happens by myself, only if I am capable of doing so. But, one of my main purposes, is to get away from the media as much as I can. It is obvious that journalists are not the ones who are there to tell the truth, are they anyway? I am learning more on this forum than anywhere else.

Can you imagine a world where that's the case? — flannel jesus

Absolutely. But I do not know any. Can you please tell me one press which acts objectively?

It really doesn't matter much what the media did — flannel jesus

Why not? I see double standards here. You are complaining about Trump's behaviour in the 2020 election, but you see OK how the media try to manipulate us... This is a contradiction, don't you think?

Isn't that a good thing, after all, the media always tells the truth and is looking out for the best interests of the people? — Merkwurdichliebe

I hope you are talking ironically. It is a fact that Trump was already sentenced by the media, but now we have to see what will happen when he faces the trial.

I hate judges and lawyers. I despise the whole profession and the system upon which it is maintained. I don’t even like the US constitution. The only thing that would affect my own beliefs would be the evidence. — NOS4A2

I understand your scepticism, but the evidence you are looking for needs to be proven in court. It is just my own belief, but a court room should be the only place where the evidence is the object of debate and contradiction. I mean, it is not a TV show or plot. If we allow people to interpret the evidence freely, we have the risk of never knowing the truth. In this case, we need an order and that's why people go to court. Whether the system could be flawed or not. Better this than nothing, don't you think?

Do you think there's any possibility that you've fallen for a big lie? — flannel jesus

We have to be careful in not jumping at such affirmations too quickly. If someone is opposed to Woke culture, he is already a liar and doesn't live in the real world. Who is the liar and the truth seeker here? Please, we have to let the judges do their job and stay away from the media and journalists more often.

Is a pack of wolves hunting and killing a bison beautiful or not beautiful? — Agree-to-Disagree

I think @simplyG is referring to aesthetics, and not subjectiveness.

Perhaps it is like sexual preferences, some people are attracted to the god narrative and others are not. — Tom Storm

:up:

I'm saying bad choices are bad and that not being able to tell the difference is ignorance rather than bad. If something evil is performed deliberately and the person performing knows it's a bad thing to do then there is not contravention of free will taking place, it's the privilege of having free will — simplyG

I understand your point, but how can we distinguish between good and bad actions? Whatever is ethical for me and you, it could be unethical for others, and so on. If I didn't understand you wrong, I think you believe that most of our decisions depend on the blurred line of "good and evil".
Nonetheless, it is obvious that sometimes we have to make bad decisions, whether we want to or not. There is not an established principle that always making "good" decisions will lead you to a happy ending. These concepts, "goo"d and "bad", are free interpreted to people...

Additionally man COULD actually BE perfect but free will leads him astray from the path of god and thus committing evil. — simplyG

Stunning. How do you define "perfect"? Because definitions and concepts go a priori to becoming a good citizen afterwards. I wholeheartedly want to know it, because I am realising that I am approaching evil, instead of celibacy. According to your basis, free will always pushes us to commit sins. Only in a predetermined life would we all be perfect then?

So he fired them and hired lawyers who were telling him what he wanted to hear. — flannel jesus

I clearly understand what you are complaining about, and I am aware of the context. Nonetheless, you are mixing up many things regarding lawyer's work, and that is seen in the phrase I quoted from you. It doesn't matter if Trump hired those lawyers before or after the rigged elections. Here the key is how effective the lawyers should be (that's why you pay a lot of money to them) when you need their help.

On the other hand, I doubt that Trump wasted thousands of dollars just to hear "what he wants to". He is not stupid, and maybe he is not the type of politician you like, but it is obvious that he will not waste his money on useless lawyers (before the election issue or afterwards). The aim of the lawyers is to try to get what Trump is looking for. Again, this is why you pay them. If the lawyers do not want to help Trump out, they are fired. Simple.

He has the idea that the elections were stolen. Now, he is searching lawyers to help him in court to go in that path or strategy. And again, whether Trump conspired or not, the final decision is on the judges.

If someone says he is lying, prove it with the defence of your lawyer. As well as Trump needs to prove that the elections were rigged.

The job of a criminal lawyer in the US is to demonstrate to the jury (or judge if the defendant so chooses) that - based on the evidence presented in the trial by both sides -that the prosecution has not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. If the lawyer thinks the prosecution has not presented sufficient evidence, then the lawyer does not have to do a thing except convince the judge or jury (in summation) that there is insufficient evidence. — EricH

Perfectly explained, and that's what Donald J. Trump is asking for from their lawyers. A group of legal experts to help him to convince the jury that he is innocent. Why is this evil? If I were Trump's lawyer, I would give my best to represent him in court because that is why he hired me in the first place. Whether Trump is condemned or not, it is upon the jury/judge's final decision.

(we'll applaud you but fuck your raise after we've cut your budget in the past 2 decades) — Benkei

:up: :clap:

Waiting lists are the longest ever in the Netherlands. — Benkei

Here too. The waiting list for whatever takes more than one year. My father needs to check his prostate periodically, and the last check was in July 2022. We have been waiting for the next check since then. Luckily, we can have an appointment with the doc in December 2023 or February 2024. :roll:

He fired the lawyers because they were telling the emperor he had no clothes. — flannel jesus

He fired them because they were not willing to do their job.

Instead, he respected the lawyers he could find who were taking him the election WAS rigged.

He fired the lawyers because they weren't telling him what he had already decided must be true. — flannel jesus

If I were Donald Trump, I would have fired those lawyers as well. What is the point of paying an amount of dollars to lawyers who will not follow up your strategic defence plan? Whether Trump lies or not, it is obvious that he will not hire lawyers who would not represent him effectively.

Vaping
Harmful and dangerous
First and second-hand
Money making
Lung destroying
Air polluting
The planet
Toxic waste
Why? — Amity

It is the first thing that came to my mind when I thought about annoyances. But, I didn't want to post it because my intention was not to disrespect the smokers of this forum (if there are actually any). It is literally a waste of money and toxicity for the environment. You know, it is bollocks how the state makes advertisements against smoke addiction, but at the end of the day they collect a lot of money in taxes thanks to all sold cigarette packages.

My mother is a smoker. I always give my best to help her to get rid of smoking. It is not an easy task. We have already reduced the consumption of packages and she "only" smokes half of the cigarette. I will be pushing forward until she definitely stops smoking.

Was it Socrates who said, "Unexamined life is not worth living.", and "the ultimate goal of human existence is not just to live but to live a good, meaningful and virtuous life."? — Corvus

Yes, exactly. It was Socrates who said it. The dictum is recorded in Plato's Apology.

Depressive realism is a psychological term describing the tendency of people with depression to have a more accurate assessment and perception of reality than those without depression. While people without depression tend to overestimate their successes, capabilities, and control over the world around them, people with depression generally have a more realistic view. — Arlin Cuncic, Very Well Mind

So, depressed people have a clearer perception of reality than most of us, and they are more "prepared" for tragic events than the overall. Oh, come on... why is depression the main cause of suicide then? :roll:

Suicide is the main unnatural cause of death in Spain, with 3,941 cases accounted for in 2020. That means that on average 11 people take their own lives every day in Spain. Statistics show that 5.8 percent of the Spanish population has anxiety, and a similar percentage suffer from depression. On top of that, at least 1 million Spaniards have a “serious mental health disorder” and only half receive treatment.

Suicide.

And imagine other countries such as Japan or South Korea...

We all die and that is strangely satisfying for me :) — I like sushi

Interesting way of thinking. The fact that death is something that will happen for granted, makes me feel more motivated. Even death has a bit of romantic vibes. If we were all immortal, we wouldn't be motivated to do anything at all. :chin: