Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Thank You...
#21
(01-17-2021, 08:05 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: Similar to the supreme court, evidence was actually not examined pretty much across the board. 
Cases were dismissed and not taken to trial for various reasons having nothing to do with alleged evidence much of which would require trials to investigate.   

Without trials, public trials and investigation, how could anything at all definitive be said about evidence?

Judges hear evidence in hearings before trials take place in order to determine if there is a case to be tried. These cases never made it to trial because there was not enough evidence to justify even having a case.
[-] The following 1 user Likes fifteenth's post:
  • Jannemann2


#22
(01-18-2021, 05:36 PM)fifteenth Wrote: Judges hear evidence in hearings before trials take place in order to determine if there is a case to be tried. These cases never made it to trial because there was not enough evidence to justify even having a case.

I see, so the other what seems like almost half of the population should trust this because judges said so?  

1) You do understand that public trials of evidence have long been understood as essential for the vetting of facts and truthfulness right? 

2) You do understand that evidence can take considerable time (and money) to properly examine in real trials right? 

3) Just to consider the problem with the position you just stated. Imagine that millions of dollars and hours are spent gathering evidence for something like detailed forensic audits of machines that were used.   

Are you saying that a judge in a court can simply look that evidence over and tell millions of people that its not 'justifiable' evidence? 

Just to be clear, I haven't taken any position on the politics of the matter or taken any side.  That's something that might be discussed back in the days where the 1st amendment was enforced.  I'm simply addressing the original point of how what seems like 1/2 the population could be deceived evidently by one man.


#23
(01-19-2021, 08:57 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: I see, so the other what seems like almost half of the population should trust this because judges said so?  

1) You do understand that public trials of evidence have long been understood as essential for the vetting of facts and truthfulness right? 

2) You do understand that evidence can take considerable time (and money) to properly examine in real trials right? 

3) Just to consider the problem with the position you just stated. Imagine that millions of dollars and hours are spent gathering evidence for something like detailed forensic audits of machines that were used.   

Are you saying that a judge in a court can simply look that evidence over and tell millions of people that its not 'justifiable' evidence? 

Just to be clear, I haven't taken any position on the politics of the matter or taken any side.  That's something that might be discussed back in the days where the 1st amendment was enforced.  I'm simply addressing the original point of how what seems like 1/2 the population could be deceived evidently by one man.

Judges make mistakes. I don't believe, in this instance, that dozens of judges made the same mistake. You can read what the judges said and wrote. In several instances the judges spoke of the scarcity of evidence brought,  not as you say, the abundance of evidence. Many layers were rebuked by judges for wasting the court's time with a lack of evidence. 

I don't understand your first amendment comment. 

And regarding half the country being deceived: it's saddening and frightening. But I think they've been primed to be deceived by Trump because Trump has been telling them they can't trust our institutions for years, Republicans have been sowing seeds of that mistrust for decades in exchange for votes, and the right (voters) hates the left so much that they'll believe almost anything right leaning websites tell them (see QAnon)


#24
(01-19-2021, 10:15 PM)fifteenth Wrote: Judges make mistakes. I don't believe, in this instance, that dozens of judges made the same mistake. You can read what the judges said and wrote. In several instances the judges spoke of the scarcity of evidence brought,  not as you say, the abundance of evidence. Many layers were rebuked by judges for wasting the court's time with a lack of evidence. 

I don't understand your first amendment comment. 

And regarding half the country being deceived: it's saddening and frightening. But I think they've been primed to be deceived by Trump because Trump has been telling them they can't trust our institutions for years, Republicans have been sowing seeds of that mistrust for decades in exchange for votes, and the right (voters) hates the left so much that they'll believe almost anything right leaning websites tell them (see QAnon)

When did I say anything about 
Quote:not as you say, the abundance of evidence.



Are you reading into my statements something other than what I actually said? 

If you impugn millions your fellow citizens motives I guess you assume there's no real rationale to their thinking.  That can't really be rationally debated.  You've read their hearts and minds, and I guess you're pretty sure about what their motives are and how they developed.  Its a little like asking 'how often do you beat your wife'? 

On the other hand with a comparatively tiny amount of judges you're saying its mildly possible a few could make a mistake as though they could have no other motive but those that are pure.  Uh. Ok.  

You do also realize that many of those judges didn't examine evidence at all, no matter what or who was brought to them, right?
  They were dismissed based on legal arguments like timing and standing, such as the Supreme Court's dismissal of the case from Texas and 20+ other states.  The rulings had nothing at all do with examining evidence. You knew that right? 

You already said you haven't actually examined the evidence yourself and that you essentially simply trust and put your faith in the judges, whatever they say is enough I guess.  Ok then, that's good enough for you, but maybe millions of other would have like to seen what was presented to those judges for themselves? Maybe some of them actually did their own research?  Maybe? 

You never really addressed my point at all about the need to examine and vet potential evidence with an appropriate amount of time and effort and to do it publicly. You're evidently satisfied to have certain individuals do it privately, write up some explanation for you to read then have you simply trust them.  I guess that works if you're already predisposed to a position anyway. 

Again, I haven't argued the actual politics here nor did I bring up specific evidences one way or the other.  I've really just argued about proven principals of evidence and investigation, principals now getting corrupted, badly.   I was interested in your thinking as to why you think so many might feel and think radically differently.  You gave me your position I suppose. Thanks.  Sad


#25
Sounds like you have a problem with the courts, not with me. I haven't tried to judge anyone's hearts and minds. That's nonsense. If someone believes the QAnon silliness, then I don't need to know the hearts and minds of the those people to say that they're decieved. 

Similarly, if dozens of judges independently hold hearings for potential cases about election fraud in order to determine if there is enough evidence to have a trial (which is standard practice in a court of law) and then decide that there is not enough evidence, then I believe those judges, and my belief is strengthened by the fact that dozens of them are saying the same thing. And if some of those hearings ended with cases thrown out for procedural reasons, then shame on those lawyers for not being able to navigate the rules of their own profession. I do not think I'm going out on much of a limb at all if I use what actual judges have written and said to help me sort through what I think about voter fraud claims. I'm comfortable with the reasonableness of that approach. 

Not sure this has been productive. You ask questions. I answer. You send disapproving frowny face. Sounds like you don't really need my thougts anway.


#26
(01-20-2021, 09:56 AM)fifteenth Wrote: Sounds like you have a problem with the courts, not with me. I haven't tried to judge anyone's hearts and minds. That's nonsense.

I'm simply pointing out that the reasons you gave for tens of millions of your fellow citizens being deceived didn't even allow for the possibility that at least a percentage of them might have had rational motivations too.  You were completely dismissive in your characterization. That led me to more of a sad face than disapproving. It's just sad in my view.  Throwing out something like a group labeled extremist as if that was representative of what motivated 74 million voters is disingenuous. 
Quote:the right (voters) hates the left so much that they'll believe almost anything

and yes, I do appreciate your thoughts even if we may not agree.  That's the beauty of open public discourse versus suppression.  We can disagree and hopefully understand others better, even if we don't approve.


#27
(01-20-2021, 12:47 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: I'm simply pointing out that the reasons you gave for tens of millions of your fellow citizens being deceived didn't even allow for the possibility that at least a percentage of them might have had rational motivations too.  You were completely dismissive in your characterization. That led me to more of a sad face than disapproving. It's just sad in my view.  Throwing out something like a group labeled extremist as if that was representative of what motivated 74 million voters is disingenuous. 


Are you saddened by my speculation about how people have been decieved? I never called anyone an extremist. And I wasn't attempting to make an exhaustive list of possible motives. 

If your whole point about asking me questions about the motives of people who believe the conspiricy theories was to coach me up, and you're not satisfied with my responses to your socratic method, then just dispense with the questioning and tell me what you think the motives are. I feel like you're doing some kind of bait and switch. I was forthright. If you want a diologue, then respond in kind.


#28
(01-20-2021, 01:44 PM)fifteenth Wrote: Are you saddened by my speculation about how people have been decieved? I never called anyone an extremist. And I wasn't attempting to make an exhaustive list of possible motives. 

If your whole point about asking me questions about the motives of people who believe the conspiricy theories was to coach me up, and you're not satisfied with my responses to your socratic method, then just dispense with the questioning and tell me what you think the motives are. I feel like you're doing some kind of bait and switch. I was forthright. If you want a diologue, then respond in kind.

I was actually glad to see that you at least seemed to be maybe asking a logical question about why some 74 million American citizens were deceived by as you said, by one man.  

It was the fact that you at least raised the question that prompted me to post. I'm not characterizing anything as conspiracy theories either. That in and of itself is too pejorative when we are simply discussing the general notion of dismissing evidence without examining it or investigating it at any level of detail.  You explained to me that if there enough judges that generally seem to agree on something, then you simply trust the judges. Conversely then the oddity that you raised , as to why or how this happened, must lie within the 74 million.

Many among the 74 million in fact are also judges and legal professionals but nevertheless, Ok, the judges agree.  

I'm satisfied with your answers, even if saddened by them.  That's why I said thanks. 
My intention was not, is not to defend or debate the specifics.  Quite frankly I think we have crossed a line and a divide exists in this country now where open and rational debate on some topics is no longer possible nor encouraged.  In fact if the wrong views are publicly perceived now on a range of matters it could result in real harm.  That is sad, maybe even seriously worrisome but factual. 

I'm not interested in endorsing any party here so I'm not going to speculate on motives or debate even possible evidence much of which most in the public may not have any knowledge of at all  and may not care to know anyway.  What would be the point or what good could come of it?   

My only intention 15th, with my comments on your comments, was to imply that its possible that 74 million people might not be completely baseless in their concerns any more than 81 million people would be with opposing concerns.  Perhaps give all of fellow citizens a little more benefit of the doubt and allow that all sides may have reasons that should not be easily disparaged.


#29
(01-20-2021, 03:55 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: My only intention 15th, with my comments on your comments, was to imply that its possible that 74 million people might not be completely baseless in their concerns any more than 81 million people would be with opposing concerns.  Perhaps give all of fellow citizens a little more benefit of the doubt and allow that all sides may have reasons that should not be easily disparaged.


Fair enough. Full disclosure is that I have to live that "benefit of the doubt" that you're talking about. Most of my interpersonal relationships (and literally, my closest relationship) are with people that either buy the election fraud stuff, because of their mistrust of the media and the left, or don't want to talk about politics at the moment because they don't want to enter into the divisiveness of the current situation. If I spoke harshly or insenitively about these things I'd hurt the people I'm closest to. 

Also, I'm well aquainted with why many of the politically conservative folks in our country believe, speak and vote the way they do. I'm in that world. I'm an outlier in that world. But I'm not an outlier because I'm a "liberal" or "democrat". I'm neither. I'm not attracted to the game of reductionism that political parties have to play in order to court voters. Once upon a time I was so dissolusioned with the whole game that I didn't vote much. Now I only vote on the races that I have time to research for myself (which doesn't mean gathering up all the rep or dem flyers and believing them). In 2020 my votes probably went about 50/50 republican/democrat, with one vote for an independant I liked in a local election. I didn't vote on all the races because I ran out of time doing my research. I have to say that the direction of the political right, which seems to be embracing the reductionist caricature of itself (reemember, I live in their world), had me primed for voting for more democrats, but as I did my research, I found many democrats I couldn't vote for because they've skewed so far into the more radical and fringe portions of their agenda. I chose not to vote in some races because I couldn't support either candidate.

I just want you to know where I'm coming from when I speculate about what Trump and voter fraud supporters are going through. I don't get my stuff from youtube. I've been saying that Christians don't need to be seeking power through politics and creating enemies out of neighbors since the 1990s. That's not the way Jesus did things. I've been saying that the Christians need to get out of the culture war since the 90s. Complete and total mistrust of U.S. institutions and Christian flags (why the heck is there a Christian flag, anyway?) being raised at an insurrection are the logical outcome of the direction that this evangelical/republican alliance has been going for some time. The rhetorical seeds that grew this plant have been sown for decades.


#30
The deep seeded rhetoric for both parties has gotten so out of hand it’s a wonder why we as a people haven’t figured out how to teach these politicians “No more” by voting away from what has worked for them for so long.
[-] The following 2 users Like ItsGoTime's post:
  • Dahlsim, fifteenth
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


#31
(01-21-2021, 11:59 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: The deep seeded rhetoric for both parties has gotten so out of hand it’s a wonder why we as a people haven’t figured out how to teach these politicians “No more” by voting away from what has worked for them for so long.


The deck is stacked against "we the people". House and Senate reform is needed deeply, but the people who do the reform have an incentive to never actually do it. I don't understand how Mitch Mcconnell, Nancy Pelosi and many others from both parties can be in politics for nearly half a century and become richer than 99.99% of Americans. 

That just reeks of corruption.
14x All-Star, 12x all-NBA, 1x MVP, 1x Finals MVP, 1 NBA Championship: Dirk Nowitzki, the man, the myth, the legend.


#32
(01-21-2021, 01:16 PM)SleepingHero Wrote: The deck is stacked against "we the people".


I agree to some extent. But it's complicated. In many ways, the politicians (collectively) are the monster that "we the people" created.


#33
(01-21-2021, 11:59 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: The deep seeded rhetoric for both parties has gotten so out of hand it’s a wonder why we as a people haven’t figured out how to teach these politicians “No more” by voting away from what has worked for them for so long.

We have to know who to hold accountable and for what to hold them accountable for in order to say "no more" to the right political leaders. 
This is why I referenced the virtual death of the 1st amendment that I've seen this year for the 1st time in my lifetime.  Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and government petition were all virtually obliterated in 2020 helped in justification by the pandemic crisis.   

Most of the safeguards built into the constitutional and representative system of government in the USA have completely broken down now.  If you're familiar with the concept of the 4th estate then you remember the critical role of a truly free and independent media in maintaining power to the people.  

In simplest terms people cannot control politicians if they don't know about things.  How can you hold a politician accountable for what you don't know?  Once the vast majority of the communication media abandoned the idea of maintaining objectivity and decided to essentially take a side in politics, we the people lost much our ability to know things and judge what politicians should be held accountable and what they should be held accountable know.  We only knew what the "News" reported to us if not for that other mass communication media that arose, THE INTERNET.  

What we saw this time however is that the means of peer to peer, person to person communication on the Internet also became and active and non-objective participant in discussion, from the top down.  Once the Tech giants that control the vast amount of internet communication took sides, we the people now have very limited ability to access the facts on critical matters without it being filtered and controlled. 

The last remaining safeguards for check and balance such as the Supreme Court are next on the firing squad.


#34
Censor wars? 
[font=Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif, NotoColorEmoji, "apple color emoji", "windows emoji", "windows symbol"]North Idaho internet provider continues to censor Facebook, Twitter for customers who request it  [/font][font=Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif, NotoColorEmoji, "apple color emoji", "windows emoji", "windows symbol"]https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/idaho-internet-provider-blocks-facebook-and-twitter/293-867cc22b-fb90-4142-a296-8d800d2a03fb[/font]


#35
folks want to stop misinformation peddlers like Trump and QAnon. My suggestion to folks who want to not be deceived would be to stop getting news from social media. We know that Facebook intentionally creates echo chambers. If you know that, then you can choose to stay in your echo chamber and be self deceived or you can get out of social media and find better news sources.


#36
At this point in time for me, it’s a matter of, are they re-running for office? If the answer is “yes”, I will vote for the other guy regardless of party. Sure if everyone did it this way some really good politicians would get voted out. But it would shake things up in a way that I would hope would make them more about “For the people” than what we have right now. It has been sickening to think about the last 2 presidential elections and the candidates who were given to us to vote on. Someone is laughing at us for how dumb we are as a whole!
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


#37
IGT, why do career politicians bother you so much? Trump, a non career politician has made the career guys look great imo. Jimmy Carter, Clinton, Bush and Obama have been great ambassadors for our country post office. So far, Biden as completely outclassed his predecessor. All these guys look great next to Trump.


#38
I know people don't come here for politics. I get that. Historical I've been fairly apolitical. But I'm starting to think that talking about this stuff is important. But we need conversations that are different from what we've become accustomed to.

Wouldn't be cool if we could have political conversations more like we discuss the Mavs? We have the One Big party, and the Two Big party. We have the Net Rating Party and the Watch The Game Party. But we don't start different forums and only talk to the folks that think like us! We stick it out with each other, hash it out, respect each other, and keep talking Mavs.

I think Kam got surprised a couple years ago when I called him a friend. I consider Dahl a brother. IGT and I have helped each other understand one another more, recently, which is really cool.

Political talk can be like that!

Would love to hear what everyone at mavsforum thinks about this stuff. Would love to have conversations involving wildly different ideas, done respectfully.


#39
(01-22-2021, 08:21 PM)fifteenth Wrote: IGT, why do career politicians bother you so much? Trump, a non career politician has made the career guys look great imo. Jimmy Carter, Clinton,  Bush and Obama have been great ambassadors for our country post office. So far, Biden as completely outclassed his predecessor.  All these guys look great next to Trump.
To me, it's not about being a career politician, it's about being tired of the status quo. When you hear stories about noone wanting to run against a politician because they know they will lose. Human nature sets in with those people cause there is no repercussion to their actions. This is in no way about Trump, as I hated him as much as most. It just seems there is no accountability with so many of these people that I'm tired of hearing about it and want to see change. 


I've never been into politics more than I have the last 8 or so years. I miss my ignorant bliss!
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Thank You...00