Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
After seeing the topic and then making the wise decision to not bother reading comments whining about how it is all so unfair or whatever they blather on about I decided I just want you to tell us about your hate for Biden instead.
No, I won’t come back to even read replies here or waste my time with this, but you and others seem very upset and probably need this safe space to vent.
So the beth din of crown heigh (heights maybe?) is now made up of medical experts and not rabbonim?
Interesting. Was not aware of that.
If you have some time, I have some tax questions I want you to run by them as well. I mean, why stop at medicine?
Who called who names during COVID?
I seem to remember anti-vaxxers saying downright insulting and demeaning things about everyone who dared tried to explain why they should take the vax.
But seems like the normal people have mostly moved on and have chosen to forget the vile words the anti-vaxxers used to describe them.
On the other hand those whose lives are sheker, the low IQ uneducated fools, who suddenly decided they are medical experts are still angry. One has to wonder why, but the answers seem apparent. You know you have no idea what you are talking about and that makes you frustrated. Like a baby trying to communicate but does not know the words. So you get angry at anyone that dares tell you what is right in life. I get it. It is sad. You need mental health counseling most likely.
From the depths of my heart, refuah shelemiah.Not even sure what this thread is about but see someone praising some Fox News personality for speaking some truth… Just want to point out that Fox News has been outed as not caring about truth only about views. They will literally say anything to get you to watch even if internally they all admit it is outright lies. That you should even suggest anything out from them can be assumed to be truthful without fact-checking everything properly is so incredibly naïve.
https://cdn .journals.aps.org/files/styleguide-pr.pdf
Page 21, little e says multiplication is higher order than division.
“The Feynman Lectures on Physics” also use this convention.
Bottom line is it is simply a convention and as long as both writer and reader know which system is being used it is fundamentally correct. Of course, if you work in an industry where a certain convention is expected and varying from it can have consequences, then you may have no choice but to follow those rules to avoid violating professional standards.
GadolHatora – Numerous people, including politicians and business people have been put in jail on that penal code section so calling it weak is somewhat disingenuous if not ignorant. Trump is in serious legal jeopardy here with potential jail time.
Reading the comments here amaze me how convoluted people are in their thinking.
Very simply… mathematical formulas have to follow “grammar” rules that the person writing and the person reading both agree on or understand.
So 8/2(2+2) depending on which system of “grammar” you are using will get you one of two results.
1. Following the system where multiplication is deemed a higher order operation than division:
(8)/(2(2+2)) = 12. Following the system where multiplication and division are deemed equal in order of operations you just compute left to right with this result:
(8/2)(2+2) = 16Neither answer is more correct or better, they just reflect a different set of rules for parsing the equation.
For those not sure that this is fair… Look up John Edwards. 10 years ago, John Edwards, a Democrat, had his Presidential campaign undermined for such behavior and then faced criminal charges in North Carolina over this.
Trump and his cronies can stop whining about how unfair this all is. He has avoided responsibility for so many things he has done. He has been treated with kid gloves and has numerous people supporting him not facing consequences because of politics.
I am not even suggesting that what we know about these charges is that big of a deal or he should sit prison for them, but for those crying over this, seriously move on. It is not like he is the first person to ever be indicted. If you want to cry, maybe cry for all the small businesses he has stiffed over the years when he filed for bankruptcy. Guess plating his faucets with gold was more important than being decent.
Avram in MD –
the word “mabul” was in quotes (single quotes) because it was a hebrew word. If you look I put “environmentalists” in double quotes to give emphasis to that word. The single quotes was to indicate the change in language. Hope that makes sense.
As to the rest there are a lot of points that can be made in favor or against various things but my main point was that perhaps most of the legislation that passes that aligns with what the environmentalists want actually passes due to practical benefits and not because of environmentalists.
I find this whole conversation funny as frankly many of the ideas “environmentalists” want to enact are beneficial regardless of whether climate change is or is not an issue.
What type of lunatic do you have to be to not want us to move off fossil fuels? The streets of our cities will be quieter and the air cleaner. The amount of respiratory related issues will decline. Many in the frum community have lost their marbles and are terrified over a vaccine, but breathing in partially combusted hydrocarbons that were buried at least since the ‘mabul’ is fine with them.
As to garbage… Where does all that garbage we produce go? It is not an easy job transporting it. If we can figure out a better way to handle garbage, such as better recycling and the like, it would save places like NYC lots of money. And for those who think you can just throw garbage in massive heaps with no consequence, clearly you have no idea what type of gasses this dumps exhaust and how they can impact groundwater. So as much as you think “environmentalists” are what is driving these things, you are clearly ignorant of the practical needs here as well.
As to plastics, etc… Have you considered the impact on water and fish populations? Perhaps environmentalists raised these issues first, but it is the practical reality that these resources need to be better managed to avoid shortages in the long-run that drives lots of the actual legislation.
FYI, you should all research some history about access to clean water in NYC. There were bodies of water used for drinking that were also used for various waste products with the end result is you had people getting sick. Issues like this led to development of water resources and served as a warning that you can’t simply ignore problems and hope they will go away themselves.
Unfortunately I wonder if we are steps away from Trump openly declaring that it is all the Jews fault and Jared manipulated his daughter and stole her from him… People here were so in love with MAGA and Trump that for years they insulted and cursed out those of us who were warning about him but maybe now they are waking up to a reality where the limits on acceptable behavior has been demolished.
@common saychel – Your list of people killed is 100% correct but my comment implicitly included at least 3 out of 4 of those names. Is your point to deflect from the facts that may contravene the narrative being spun here or do you have some critical insight that I missed?
Seems this topic has garnered a following of people who just look to throw out definitions that suit their agenda than any meaningful discussion… Typical of conversations in the coffee room unfortunately.
So how about try to minimize opinion and consider each group with an open mind.
A study in 2020 identified 893 terrorism incidents in the US since 1994. In that period no deaths linked to antifa were identified yet 329 murders by white extremists or other right-wing extremists were identified.
I can agree that Antifa represents an extreme left-wing view that poses a threat and can become violent but the facts don’t easily get me to equating them with right wing extremists.
Also, consider Antifa is not a hierarchal organization whereas as right-wing extremists are hierarchal. When I think of the Nazis as the model of the most dangerous grouping, hierarchy and strict organization were key elements. Weakly organized groups while they can be chaotic and cause lots of damage are not likely an existential threat.
But lets move on to BLM. Best I can tell in total about 25 deaths are related to the BLM protests, but most of the deaths were of black people and not police or white people. Given the size of the demonstrations and the few deaths compared against the hundreds of deaths noted above, suggesting BLM is a bigger threat is just odd.
So instead you have to revert to claims about how the left loves BLM or Antifa and the right is against White Supremacists… but if indeed White Supremacists are engaging in regular murder and BLM and Antifa are not how can you equate the two. Do we see the Democrats celebrating groups like the Black Hebrews which are very dangerous?
As to Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and others who have said antisemitic things, yes, I don’t think anyone here likes that but best I can tell at least in recent history (yes, I am aware of Al Sharpton and the Crown Heights riots and he deserves to rot in hell for his incitement) they have not said things worse than those on the right whose words you choose to shovel under the carpet… Such as MTG with her Jewish Space Lasers.
Of course, make sure you note the US is roughly 14% black versus about 60% white. The assumption that an economically disadvantaged group making up 14% of the population is better positioned to determine the future direction of this country than the 60% white majority is an astounding claim that requires much consideration. A look at the House of Reps shows maybe 15% of the members are black. In the Senate currently I think there are 3 out of 50 senators. The facts just don’t support the conclusion that black people have much power.
So go scare yourselves about the left all you want, but don’t ignore the facts in the process.
Does anyone here understand statistics?
Because saying an event that did happen is statistically impossible to happen just means your statistician does not know how to do math. This is not something subject to debate as we are talking about objective meaning of terms.
@Lostspark – so you are complaining about high gas prices and then say if they go down nothing of substance will be addressed… But is not gas prices going down something of substance? If not, then why are you whining in the first place?
Amazing how right before Rosh Hashana that people are finding ways to support using destitute people for a political stunt. It is literally irrelevant your specific position on immigration but what DeSantis did was complete and utter despicable behavior. The people he flew were not even in Florida.
As to being successful? If you define successful as getting the Trump crowd excited then yes, you were successful. On the other hand you are disgusting by far the majority of American’s with such behavior. Real success might involve actually revamping the immigration system but Republicans have consistently opposed any and all such legislation.
AAQ – I presented enough data already. Everyone is welcome to form their own conclusions. Ultimately, what matters is how a court will see all this and not who shouts louder here.
ujm – all you have done is disagree with everyone you want to without presenting any data to make your case. If you convinced yourself then great. I see no point in further arguing the point.
What does supporting or not supporting immigration have to do with being opposed to a political stunt that is trying to make a point by hurting people who have nothing? Sending them to places without notice or any coordination with the people there and seemingly under false pretenses is just plain and simple evil. Frankly, NYC’s food establishments have plenty of demand for illegals as well as numerous farms in conservative areas who are all dependent on illegals so not necessarily that big of a deal to figure out what to do with them, but treating people like this is just plain evil.
ujm –
You are seemingly convinced that chassidic schools in NYC that teach no secular education, if you pull a list of graduates and families from that school you will not find heavy reliance on welfare. Yet, Public Data indicates that Williamsburg and Borough Park are near the top recipients for Food Stamps.
But believe what you will.
ujm – you don’t make a whole lot of sense. I looked at public data. If there is cash income not included in that but reported to the IRS… Yeah ok. I don’t have time for such mental gymnastics.
And nothing you said changes the evidence of high reliance on welfare by communities that also teach very little secular education. How will you show self-sufficiency when welfare reliance is high? Comparing to minority groups in public schools, even if those groups are worse, maybe sounds good as a talking point, but I don’t think gets you around this issue that the State has a vested interest anytime you can’t clearly show self-sufficiency. The Amish met a very difficult standard here that I don’t think various communities affected by these new laws can come close to meeting.
ujm
“Fourthly, we both know that there’s more cash income not reflected in the statistics.”
The point I have tried to make again and again is that this all goes back to welfare. Reduce reliance on welfare and the SC will not tolerate the State interfering as was the case with Yoder. If the above point you claim is true, then the fraudulent reliance on welfare in such a case reflects poor education in being part of the larger society and would support fare worse intrusion by the State into our education.
And despite all your contentions about the Yoder case the self-sufficiency of the Amish community is a key element as the court balanced the state’s interests versus religious rights. Because they were self-sufficient as evidenced by rejecting welfare the state could not make a good enough argument that they had a strong enough interest to outweigh the religious rights. Had they not been self-sufficient (e.g. heavy reliance on welfare) hard to imagine the outcome would be the same.
AAQ –
It is a fair point about the age but don’t think it will make places like KJ or NS equivalent to Brooklyn. Maybe the Bronx, but you are now comparing to the poorest borough.
End of the day, there is still high reliance on welfare and if the thinking is that they have a good showing under Yoder, I doubt that to be the case.
ujm:
1. I have heard of various laws that give such power to the State to refuse welfare in such cases.
2. NS was an example I provided to you. In court the state can easily subpoena data for any school that would try to bring a case under the Yoder standard.
3. The Yeshiva’s try to compare their outcome to the black community in public school, just going with the standard that those arguing Yeshiva’s with no secular education are doing fine. Why not compare to non-Jewish private schools run by the diocese instead?
4. You say the SC case does not refer to welfare…. yet, below is a quote where the SC in its decision distinctly notes the rejection of welfare in determining the Amish’s self-sufficiency, which is key to the case.
“Whatever their idiosyncrasies as seen by the majority, this record strongly shows that the Amish community has been a highly successful social unit within our society, even if apart from the conventional ‘mainstream.’ Its members are productive and very law-abiding members of society; they reject public welfare in any of its usual modern forms. The Congress itself recognized their self-sufficiency by authorizing exemption of such groups as the Amish from the obligation to pay social security taxes”
5. You make some claims about poverty levels strictly being dependent on family size… Ok. Sounds good in your head but where you can pull actual data from shows your claims are not based in reality. New Square Median Household Income is $24,164, for the Bronx that number is $41,895 and for Brooklyn that number is $63,973.
But let’s look at per capita income… NS is $8,702, Bronx is $22,749 and Brooklyn is $36,295… But family size… Well NS average family size is 5.26 vs the Bronx being 2.71 and Brooklyn being 2.61 so average family income in NS is $45,773, the Bronx $61,650 and Brooklyn $94,730.
So when you look at the data the numbers for NS are not great… Kiryas Joel has per capita income of $9,119 with an average family size of 5.6 which gets average family income to $51,066 which is still less than the Bronx or Brooklyn.
So no, these Jewish families are not making more money. They are making less (or are you saying they are under-reporting income and committing welfare fraud? Shame on you for even suggesting that). But you say there are no statistics to prove any of this, well I would disagree.
In any case the burden will be on Yeshiva’s here to show they are putting out a self-sufficient community to meet the Yoder standard and not the other way around. But in case you think it is the other way around the publicly available data, no matter how you cut it strongly indicates the places with the least secular education are associated with very low income levels and high reliance on welfare.
mentsch 1 – Jail is an extreme option. Most likely if the State wants to win this they would pursue monetary penalties as well as possibly pulling welfare from parents of truant children. Really don’t think many parents would hold out against such threats (also makes the antisemitism charges moot).
ujm – Few issues with your statement. (1) data exists for places like New Square showing heavy reliance on public welfare. So regardless whether you compare to black people in public school or not it does not change that there is heavy reliance on welfare. (2) comparing a “successful” community to an economically disadvantaged one with unstable households, maybe sounds good in your mind but doubt will convince others. Or is your argument that our communities are failures as well but just not as big as a failure as say the black one in public schools? Neither argument is very convincing to your cause. (3) The Amish rejected all forms of public welfare. It is a very different standard as to what you suggest. It would be very easy in court to prove reliance on welfare. Just get a list of families and compare that to welfare rolls. (4) as mentioned before, I would not assume how these justices view this as the idea of not providing a basic secular education and reliance on welfare does not align with their lives. Brett Kavanaugh went to Georgetown Prep and then Yale, Gorsuch went to Georgetown Prep followed by Columbia, Barrett also went to top-notch schools with highly ranked secular education. As religious as they are their way of religious life and education is nothing like what goes on in the Yeshiva’s with no secular education.
Not enrolling in a school that provides required education would probably be guaranteed wins for the State if they pursue truancy charges and penalties (monetary and jail time) against parents.
Unfortunately this whole issue came to a head and is likely unwinnable because there are communities that rely heavily on welfare and also provide no secular education. The Amish case does not help here. As much as the Supreme Court supports freedom of religion and all that, understand that these are people that do not come from backgrounds where reliance on welfare is looked favorable on.
So Coffee Addict is equating upset Hillary supporters saying Trump is “not my President” with an active campaign to undermine the result of a fair and free election which included acts of political violence.
But since Coffee Addict is offended… I suggest Coffee Addict spend some time reviewing the numerous outrages Trump and his MAGA Republican supporters have engaged in the last several years. Cry me a river.
Biden was asked who he was referring to when he said MAGA Republicans and he responded those who would overturn free elections and would threaten or use political violence. He specifically said that he was not referring to those who just voted for Trump.
Coffee Addict, Syag, and others here; if you are offended by Biden calling those people out please just get up and say it outright that you too, hate American Democracy. No need for all this outrage and pontificating.
And please give it a break with misrepresenting everything. It just makes you seem unable to think for yourself.
coffee addict – your logic does not make sense.
What does making unfounded accusations have to do with enforcing a warrant? Or are you referring to Trump slinging mud at others and presenting no evidence to support his claims? At least in terms of the warrant, Trump in his own legal filings admitted to keeping top secret info that he previously said he did not have.
Why would you call for a full investigation to clear someone’s name from unfounded accusations?
Rather any decent person would demand those making such unfounded accusations present their evidence.
Also, Hunter is not the President nor as far as I can tell (I am sure Tucker and some here will say otherwise… but unfounded accusations should require the accuser to present evidence, not someone else to debunk it) is anything related to the President under investigation so who really cares? Frankly, Joe Biden should simply follow Donald Trump’s precedent and issue a pardon, regardless of the close connection here. That would put the whole issue to rest and Trump supporters should be on board with that. Joe Biden can even call it a witch hunt and complain no President was ever treated as bad as he was. Doing that should really get support from Trump fans because they love that type of talk.
My bad.
Must have misread your comment.
Wait one second… rereading it, seems you have no idea what you wrote and did not bother actually reading my comment.
Funny times.
😂
Hmmm…. “When democrats do something you pretend it never happened”
Is that a suggestion that Democrats connected with the Obama or Biden admins committed crimes equivalent to Trump and his associates and due to the “deep state” or whatever you want to call it they got off?
Because if so, I completely disagree with your conjecture. Your imagination of equivalent or worse crimes committed does not actually equal equivalent or worse crimes committed.
Seems many Trump supporters here make a similar mistake, being that if they decide they want to believe something it must be true. Guess this is “your truth.”
Would be of benefit if you actually took a deep breath, considered the facts out there (not just what Trump or his champions told you), and tried to form independent conclusions.
You do know what Trump said… He said in very strong terms that he would enforce all the laws regarding confidential information and how no one is above the law. Only with Trump supporters do you get to get away with being such a hypocrite.
Interesting… I thought with Trump the fix to all the problems was there… One year after he is out of office and the same fools championing Trump are nervous about living in America. Those of us who warned about the destabilization Trump would bring were shouted down and cursed at. Guess maybe time to look in the mirror and realize it was just 4 years of bullying and you really did not have the answers. Maybe DeSantis can save you all.
Not here to argue whether he should be guilty or not or whether the protests caused damage or not, but take this another way… Imagine Jewish people were protesting something and a kid with swastikas showed up with an AR15 or maybe some kids with Hama flags with AR15s. How difficult would it be to trigger a conflict and then say they were afraid for their lives.
So whether Rittenhouse is technically innocent or not, the idea that people here are supportive of a 17 year old kid with an AR15 at such a protest is pretty disturbing to me.
Look up herd immunity. Making false claims about what vaccines can and should do is just dumb and delusional.
Bigger question is it it muttar to be online.
Philosopher – the amount of things you say that are just wrong are simply disturbing.
Very few Jews had the ability to leave Europe. Where could they have gone? The US, Palestine, and other places were all blocked off to but a few.
Your comparing things to a fantasy about what people had the ability to do to make your point that it was somehow all voluntary and that is what is going on today, is simply intellectual dishonest.
How about a different viewpoint. We can have vaccine mandates and restrictions due to COVID without it taking away rights that result in genocide. The very nature of society is giving up some level of personal freedom so we can live together. You want to make slippery slope arguments, then why not say that laws that make drunk driving illegal is risking going full Nazi. There always has to be a balance and suggesting that any specific restriction you don’t like is somehow dangerous is simply disingenuous. Rather, I would suggest the question is, as it pretty much always has been, what as a society do we accept or not. I am fine with vaccine mandates for one.
We are just at the start of a large generation of Kollel families marrying off their oldest children, while the older generation is moving into retirement.
No idea if the current system holds up or not, but to say that this has worked for 60 years is to ignore the significant differences now.
Also saying it works… Well, if the system did not rely on public welfare I would feel much better about it. It would take a blind person to not see how this is a source of strife in Israel and not wonder if this will ever translate to problems here. We already had in NY a push for interference with religious education. Do these things get any better as this system keeps on growing and growing?
tvp – you want a simple answer when the whole issue is extremely complex. You hope people make decisions based on what they believe is the best info they have.
The answers to your questions are obvious, but because the issues are complex you will have no shortage of responses. So I will offer an answer, but don’t expect me to spend days arguing it back and forth.
Your question:
“Being that the vaccine is B”H very effective, why should someone who’s not vaccinated have to wear a mask?”
1. it is a definite that people unvaccinated can spread this virus easily. With the Delta variant they can spread it to vaccinated people as well. Maybe they should wear a mask to not spread it.
2. unvaccinated people are more likely to get very sick from getting the virus so they should wear a mask to hopefully reduce the risk of them both getting it and spreading it to other unvaccinated people, so as to minimize the cost to society of hospitalizing people.
3. From a societal standpoint reducing transmission of the virus until everyone can get vaccinated, including kids, might be a good idea as it may help reduce further mutations.
So I have given some simple answers. Naturally, you can respond that vaccinated people spread the virus as well. Perhaps this is true, but I think it makes more sense that the virus is found in higher numbers in the throat and chest of unvaccinated people which makes them much more likely to spread it than vaccinated people. But let’s say that vaccinated people and unvaccinated people spread it the same, then you would be correct that for that reason there is perhaps little to argue only one group should wear masks.
There is plenty more to be said on both sides here, but you can be realistic and realize that knowledge of these things is not perfect so we have people that spend their lives studying this stuff and we hope they can provide guidance based on their best knowledge. For an Orthodox person this is not unlike when we deal in our lives with difficult questions in halacha, where there are serious disputes and real-world consequences. What most of us do is try to seek out the best experts in that area of Halacha and when we get an answer we accept that whether it is the answer we wanted it is the answer we will live by.
Feel free to respond, but like I said, I have little interest in pointless debate. You asked a simple question you got some reasons. They are not perfect but you will never find perfect answers. Ultimately societies have to have a way of making decisions that may or may not be popular with various individuals or groups. Perhaps politics plays some role in influencing decisions, but that goes both ways. People can scream that it is 1984 or whatever, it does not change that governments have a role to perform and decisions need to be made. I would think in another year or two this will pretty much all be over. At worst perhaps a vaccine mandate. I for one, support vaccine mandates. I see plenty here see vaccine mandates as government infringement on their rights or worse. If that makes me a fascist, communist, who wants to murder babies in the eyes of those who are opposed to vaccines, oh well… as a Jew I am used to many people having an irrational hatred of me already.
You sound very dramatic. Sure there are overreactions and whatnot, but as a frum Jew, who lives their lives with many D’Rabbonim and Chumrhas (e.g. Gebrukts, Kitniyos, etc) kind of funny to criticize some doctors for being nervous about this virus.
In any case, other than the hypocrisy you exhibit, you clearly don’t understand the science as you are saying things that don’t make sense. Perhaps that is why you think everyone is overreacting and being completely irrational, because you just have no clue what you are talking about. Your question sounds like it is coming from the second son.
AAQ – We have gone from fraud to complaints about media bias. Discussions about media bias are not going to get us anywhere. I assume you primarily see bias by what you call the Mainstream Media. On the other hand, in cable news, Fox has the highest number of viewers. Fox has a massive amount of “entertainment” programming where hosts like Carlson have been on record (in lawsuits) defending themselves from being held to the same standards as news reporters or the like. There is no attempt to even hide the bias.
In any case the topic was election fraud and we were last talking about how changes to election laws will restore the integrity (assuming that is even needed in the first place) of our elections. My question still stands, how do the law changes affect the ability for one side or the other to make the fraud claims that were made? They don’t. When you had someone saying before the election if he loses it is fraud and you had millions believing that claim, there is nothing to fix with changing election laws. The fix is telling people to stop making claims without any objective criteria or evidence to go by.
AAQ:
Changes made for the Pandemic – many of these changes were made in Republican controlled states. To suggest they were intended to benefit the Democrats does not seem right.
No clue what you mean by polls that were claimed to be suppression, so can not respond to that.
Pfizer, Hunter, etc… You can believe what you want. It is a clear fact that in 2016, Comey put out info on the investigation of Hillary. It is a clear fact, that Trump wanted Ukraine to announce they were investigating Biden. Seems clear to me that Trump believed he benefitted from that story with Hillary in 2016 and was hoping for an investigation announcement to help him in 2020. Trump also paid to suppress stories that could hurt him in 2016 and people got in serious trouble over this. So if you want to suggest any of this is fraud or unfairness, well look at 2016, where the FBI itself put out info that interfered with the election in favor of Trump.
TVP – trusting CyberNinjas on anything they say without vetting their claims extensively is ridiculous. They either have deliberately lied about the election process or they are clueless about it and should not be auditing here. They also have asked for inappropriate things to conduct an audit. So basically, I see no need to respond in detail as there is nothing substantive put out by them that anyone should trust in the first place.
AAQ – how can you have an election that is seen less fraudulent, when the people promoting fraud, before the election said that if Trump loses it must be fraud (Those were essentially Trump’s own words). There is nothing that can be done to prevent anyone from jumping to conclusions.
In fact, virtually all the fraud claims being made are not fixed via any of the voter laws being made. How does a law that restricts voting, change claims that fake ballots are showing up afterwards? How does it change claims that dead people or people not living in the State voted, when in fact those making the claims either did not understand the data they were looking at or they were just making stuff up? How will any voter ID law, affect technical issues with votes being posted online? Clearly, people have no problem making ignorant claims that are nonsensical and have been debunked, yet they still repeat them, so why would a law change make a difference?
Whether I am for or against stricter voting laws is irrelevant here, because until you or anyone can show how those voting laws address the voting fraud claims it is not going to solve anything. There is a reason why many assume those voting laws are just designed to make it more difficult for certain people to vote and not to deal with voting fraud concerns.
Why would anyone entertain notions of mass fraud without evidence, just because Syag wants Democrats to entertain that possibility? Maybe we should entertain notions that Republicans tried committing mass fraud and just were not caught. No one ruled that out either. You are promoting baseless conspiracy… But of course you don’t say the election was stolen, rather you will just suggest that people entertain conspiracy. You are just being duplicitous.
Health – sorry, I believe I responded to your comments in the past but you tend to just go on a rant about the next thing the moment your point is undermined. I see no point in arguing with you.
Apparently in Georgia the auditors could not find anything because they did not have the “admin” passwords. Guess not having the necessary access to change the data that they are auditing is making their life difficult (fyi, auditors should almost never have access to admin credentials on production systems, it would make the audit less than meaningless as you would have to then audit the auditors to make sure they did not change data). Imagine if the police could legally plant evidence, how easy it would be to lock people up.
Next?
Oh, as to Syag, my statements were very clear, no deception involved. Your intent was clear, to hold those saying no election fraud (or evidence of widescale fraud) to a different standard than those claiming fraud. That is dishonest. All the emojis don’t change that. No evidence of widescale fraud, makes this whole ongoing discussion with people pushing this fraud lie, kind of despicable. How dishonest do you have to be to keep on pushing this?
“but I believe that messing with the human body on a cell level verses targeting a specific disease already in the body or strengthening the immune system through regular vaccines, are completely different things”
Checked the yud gimmel ikkarim and this was not one of them. Every day our understanding of the body, including the cells increases. Sounds like you can accept that there is chachma ba’goyim or you can stick your head in the dirt and be ignorant. Maybe instead of calling yourself philosopher, which implies positions based on thought, not belief, you should change your name to something more appropriate.
As to the rest of what you said, you mischaracterize what I said, what you said, and just a generally large load of nonsense that I don’t have the interest to respond to.
Sad… Point out the logical inconsistency of demanding one standard from the other side and not holding yourself to that standard as well and it naturally reverts to being insulted. Fine, get it, you don’t want to be bothered with logic, you would rather spend your days reaffirming your biases. This is not an argument but rather a pathetic rehashing of lies with you and others promoting these lies sitting there like little kids with your finger in your ears and waggling your tongue saying don’t confuse us with the facts.
It is pathetic…
Barr says a statement that is bounded by the rules of logic and people here need to point out that he only said he has seen no evidence of widespread fraud. If he said there was no widespread fraud, that would be a logically impossible statement to make as you cannot prove a negative. What he said is the highest assurance you can ever really give about something.
Can you prove there are no unicorns? Or can you only say that you have not seen evidence of unicorns. This is pretty basic.
On the other hand, you all get worked up about people claiming there is fraud, despite lack of evidence. If there was evidence, then Barr’s statement would be wrong. So which is it? Is Barr lying or telling the truth? If he did not see this evidence, then chances are you and no one making these claims has seen this evidence either. Meaning the claims about widescale fraud are logically flawed. To expect Barr to make a similarly logically flawed statement is ridiculous. His words, completely undermine any such claim of widescale fraud because you cannot make that claim without evidence, of which there is none that has held up under any level of scrutiny.
If you jump to conclusions without evidence, you are just a liar. You can say, there might have been fraud or you believe there is fraud, but can’t prove it, but be honest that it is based on your own suspicions and you lack the evidence.
As to the constant claims of evidence of fraud, one after another they have all be shown to not be evidence of fraud. Yet, you come up with one after another. You even rehash disproven ones once your short-term memory forgot the explanation why it is not evidence of fraud. There comes a point where responding to nonsense is pointless. Rather, it should simply be stated, all of you making these claims about widescale fraud are liars. You are acting in a contemptible manner. You would pursue lies that divide people and lead to strife. God hates lies and yet you are engaging in them day in and day out. We are in July and you still are pursuing these lies. How about give it a rest and move on with your lives rather than acting contemptibly by continuing with these lies.
This stuff with Biden is tangential to the issue of children taking the vaccine. Don’t want to be involved in a whole political back and forth on this, so will leave it be. Regarding the vaccine, seems we can pretty much agree on that at least.
AAQ – Your criticism of my Trump dig is valid. I could not help it, given the pedestal so many in the Fum Velt put Donald Trump on (can’t tell you how many times I have heard people praise Trump as the best President America ever had). The fact is he was supportive and advocated that people take the vaccine, which I would think undermines the fear so many have that there is some secret agenda here that has an objective other than sincerely trying to help people.
I should have left out the messiah part. Added nothing to my point, which I think we are overall in agreement with.
As to Biden… well the US is nuts and too many people scared of vaccines on both the right and the left (The Washington Post had a few articles about how many black people are not getting the vaccine). The US is much more of a decentralized society/government than most of the world and it gets reflected in things that are left to personal choice. To force vaccines is often left up to individual States, not the Federal government, and given the crazy divides in this country, if Biden said do one thing there would be a bunch of governors that automatically would say otherwise. I generally refrain from blaming people for things they have little agency over.