It’s this sort of aggressive, straw-manning oversimplification of important issues and unprovoked, unnecessary, and unproductive ad hom attacks that leads me to not discuss these things with you anymore, Zeitreise.
I think given the subject matter on this board, you realize that not every woman chooses to have sex when they get pregnant. And not every woman who chooses to have sex chooses to get pregnant.
A man who sabotages the condom can make that choice for her, for instance.
It’s also worth noting that if a woman can’t get an abortion, that allows rapists an enormous amount of power over their victims, if they’re willing to go to jail for it.
“Sure, I’m going to jail. But nobody was having sex with me. Now, my genes are going to be passed on by Natalie Portman. I’m okay with it.”
Sure, we could allow abortions in the case of rape, but why? If we’re prioritizing the life above all else, the fetus didn’t commit the rape. So I can’t think of a logical reason to allow rape victims to get abortions under a purely pro-life approach.
I’m not going to sit here and defend abortion, because I don’t believe in abortion. But let’s not oversimplify the pro-choice position here. It’s about far more than sluts being slutty.
You and I probably agree philosophically on abortion, but I disagree with the attributions you make to liberals as to why they are pro-choice, and I think that will result in you underestimating the number of people willing to vote against you.
Which, of course, would then result in you assuming you have far more support for your position than you do, which means that voter fraud seems a more likely reason for you to lose on an issue than being outvoted.
The fact is that conservatives are absolutely right that abortion is a right-to-life issue.
And the fact is that liberals are absolutely right that abortion is a women’s rights issue.
And the two sides are rarely arguing the same point, or acknowledging the other side’s point, which is why this issue is ongoing.
I agree with conservatives that abortion kills people. I am not a fan of that. But I also can’t fathom how we can possibly have a free society when a man can decide the entire future for a woman just by impregnating her with a baby she isn’t allowed to take any action to remove from her life. Whether it’s common or not, it’s a knife that hangs over the head of every woman in this country, and I don’t see how they can ever be equal citizens when abortion is illegal.
I’ve spent time pissing off liberals by insisting that pro-lifers have other motivations than enslaving women. I think it would behoove you to make similar appraisals about liberals in this case if you have any genuine interest in resolving this problem in this country.
See, this is why I try not to speculate on elections too far out. A Republican wave was likely for the midterms, but now Democrats got handed an issue that is guaranteed to increase voter turnout.
It was going to come up before the election either way, but now it’s probably going to be the issue that defines the election cycle from the beginning.
Let’s see what happens.
I will look closely. Help me out.
Is there evidence that the work Trump began on constructing the Southern border wall has been ongoing, contrary to Biden's executive order?
Yeah, seems right to me.
I actually agree completely.
Anyone who knows much about Einstein, the man, will readily agree he was kind of a dick.
But yes, scientists build on each other's work. That's literally the entire point of science. Someone proposes an idea, it gets torn to shreds, and if it's still standing, it's considered a strong enough idea to use as a foundation for new ones.
And you are correct that physics is an attempt to DESCRIBE reality, not DEFINE reality. Defining reality is sort of the idealistic goal that lends us the motivation to describe it using math.
And as anathema as it is to say around here, this extends to ALL science, not just the "harmless" ones. This includes, say, the appropriate medical response to a virus that we haven't encountered before. This includes, say, mathematical models predicting climate change.
Science is an attempt to describe and predict. When people assume it's an attempt to define reality, they hold it to a standard that every scientist will inevitably fail. That doesn't mean science is failing. It just means the people who are making the judgments are expecting certainty the scientific process never was designed to prove. It's a definitional straw-man argument.
It'd have to be some damn good proof that comes out, because if the Great Awakening results in every politician being arrested except a curious group that has never said anything bad about Trump, the first thing, and the VERY first thing that people think is going to be, "Trump is using a rogue, treasonous paramilitary group to conduct a coup against the country and leave only loyalists in power."
I mean, yeah, in that situation, I could definitely see elections being postponed, but that's because we'd be in the middle of a civil war. And I thought the point of Q is to avoid that.
Hopefully, the White Hats realize it would be a REALLY good idea to wake everyone up long before the arrests start happening, because if they decide to wait until everyone is in handcuffs, there is effectively no chance of regaining control over the messaging. At that point, anything that gets released, regardless of its veracity, is considered wartime propaganda.
Again, whether it is or isn't is besides the point. The point is that when people see everyone but a single political philosophy being removed by force from the government, even if Trump claims to be operating under some sort of devolution power, it would be foolish to assume non-Trump-loving Americans are going to sit around and patiently read Q posts.
All that being said, it would be nice to have a date to look forward to, so if it's in only a few months, at least we have that.
I got downvoted pretty hard for pointing out earlier that Musk does not take control just because everyone agrees he's buying it. Companies like Twitter take a lot of legal legwork to transfer from one party to another. We're probably looking at months before a true transfer of power occurs.
In the meantime, expect to see pretty erratic behavior by Twitter as it tries to reconcile the vision of the incoming leadership with the fact that the incoming leadership is not officially the leadership yet.
It's important to remember that a research site doesn't exist for the benefit of researchers, but for those who benefit from the research.
Some of those people will be researchers. But not everyone. Perhaps not even most.
Most people who use research are not contributing to research. They just want to know what the research is currently suggesting is true.
And that's fine. Doing hardcore research is a full-time job. Some people have other things to do, but still want to know the truth about things. They'll want to see what the research is saying, not necessarily have to do the research themselves.
And again, that's fine. Researchers work to benefit those who need the research, not just other researchers.
There's little point in making it more difficult for people to figure out the truth just because someone doesn't feel like doing a quick intro to the research they're presenting.
The video is thirty minutes long. That is quite a bit of time to dedicate for those with families and jobs and lives.
And we don’t even know what we’re committing a half-hour of a valuable time to.
A synopsis to at least explain the basics of the argument isn’t a big ask. Academics have to do it using abstracts. If this is a research website, then it’s a good practice to adopt.
No, I am fairly certain I remember reading about this a couple of years ago, as well.
There's nothing in this article that suggests any information directly related to Elon backing out of the deal.
It's only providing reasons why, based on his established past behavior, there are reasons he might choose not to go forward.
This is just someone speculating into a news feed.
It's not "increasingly unlikely" that Musk will buy Twitter. Nothing has happened that would change it. It's as likely that Musk will buy Twitter as it has been since the news came out that he was going to do it.
If he was going to back out, he'd be paying a billion dollars (at least) just to advertise to the world that he could have bought Twitter, if he wanted to.
There is a mismatch between the post and your source.
Okay, that's fine, but I'm just pointing out that until Musk actually has his own people in, the original Twitter rules probably still stand, because the same people who owned it this morning still own it now.
It goes further than that, I think.
Durham is not allowed to argue that the collusion claim was false.
He can only argue that specific points made Sussman were false, and he can present evidence that proves the lie and that Sussman knowingly lied.
This is largely what I expected. Contrary to the interpretation of Q's stance about a small trial having enormous impact through tangential evidence being revealed, most court systems will keep the evidence very focused and their rulings narrow.
Durham is only allowed to present arguments and evidence that counters Sussman's specific claims, and nothing more. If he wants to prove that the collusion claim was a conspiratorial lie, then he won't be allowed to do it during the Sussman trial.
Hold your horses, friend. I'm fairly certain all that has happened today is everyone has officially said yes to the sale.
That doesn't mean the sale has actually occurred on paper yet. I find it unlikely that Musk will have that sort of power over Twitter until the deal closes, and that likely won't happen until the sale has been lawyered over for a while.
...and did she succeed in drawing attention to former Chief Justice John Marshall?
Sure, but I don't think anyone around here is going to agree on who is certifiably a legitimate Q insider.
Which is why I asked. Because anyone who has looked at Q stuff for more than an hour knows what the "trigger phrase" is.
It's easy to find, and it's obvious that every Q person is listening for it.
So, what people would be legitimate to you?
What if his first tweet after the sale is confirmed is Q55?
That's a good question.
What happens if Elon Musk, a billionaire corporate giant and confirmed internet troll, buys Twitter, and then Tweets the following himself:
"My fellow Americans, the Storm is upon us......."
I'm sure people around here will care, but I'm curious whether it'll be a good kind of caring.
Alright, fair point. It's not something I know enough about to contest easily. Maybe Biden went overboard in the number. I'm not certain, so I can defer to you.
But it seems that the worst case scenario is that he exaggerated, and I think we've both probably cast a vote for someone known to exaggerate their promises in favor of forward momentum.
So, just so you know, the White House doesn't really own the paintings it displays. They are usually on loan from museums or private collectors, and each President can switch out art as they choose.
https://www.mutualart.com/Article/When-President-Becomes-Curator--Art-in-t/86F59468A17EFA5D
This particular painting DID hang in the White House until 2014. It belonged to a private collector and was on loan.
In 2015, the painting was bought from that collector, so it was moved from the White House to the new owners and placed in the Minnesota Marine Art Museum.
https://www.startribune.com/washington-crossing-the-delaware-lands-in-winona-museum/297329091/
And now it's being sold again.
In other words, this has really nothing to do with politics, or Biden, or Q, or anything else. Just art collectors selling a painting that had once been on loan to the White House.
I appreciate what you wrote, and found some good insight there. Thank you.
You can’t prove a negative. This is a well known component of logic.
To prove that something can’t be true, you would be claiming to have a perfect knowledge of truth.
Which is why the burden is ALWAYS on the person making the claim to back it up. Every time.