He is gravitated to make America for the people, of the people and by the people. America has been controlled and managed by the wealthy people
Trump is a billionaire who appointed about 13 billionaires into his cabinet, no other administration ever had more than one, if even that.
Tell me more about how he’s taking America back from the wealthy.
It’s not a disagreement, it’s a fact. You either acknowledge it or you do not.
You have to agree with something if you want to have a position
A is either true or its negation is true. That is correct.
You fail to amount for the third position - neutral. That is not a position of not thinking, it is a position that entails the recognition that neither A or its negation have been demonstrated.
A jury convenes for 10 straight days. After combing through all of the evidence 3 times over, the jury decides that while the defendant’s innocence has not been proven, neither has his guilt. They correctly return a verdict of “not guilty”. They didn’t get there because they weren’t thinking.
Critical thinking 101 - F
“I do not agree” =/= “I agree with the negation”.
Logic 101 - F
things can come into existence out of nothing. Do you disagree?
I do not agree. Demonstrate this.
Sounds like another unproved claim.
So is 2+2=4
Is it worse to commit suicide or jerk off?
Apparently both will keep you out of heaven, so they’re equal.
Murder is so bad that you can't even consent to it. That's not true for sex.
All you’ve proven is that it’s illegal, not that it’s worse. The latter is a moral judgement which your analysis fails to address.
The resolution is negated.
Divine being which comes into existence out of nothing" - must exist logically
Uh, yeah, because you defined it that way.
In this statement you’re using the word “comes”, as in the action of it coming into existence, as already a given. But that act is the very thing at issue here, so all you’re doing is assuming the very thing you’re claiming to have proven. That’s not how proof works.
I’m sure you’ll find a way to pretend that very simple concept isn’t what it is, so I’ll go ahead and try the same point another way:
to say that "a divine being which comes into existence out of nothing" doesnt exist is a logical contradiction.
Correct. Now you’d like to know why, delete “out of nothing” because that’s irrelevant. What you are left with is “A being which comes into existence doesn’t exist”.
If you’re going to assert the being exists, of course it’s a contradiction to turn right around and claim it doesn’t.
All of this is just word play. None of this informs us as to what is actually true about the world.
Your only argument could be that something cannot come from nothing, but that is unproved rule. Also, a divine being capable of overcoming such rule even from position of non-existance would still be capable of overcoming it.
Not if you believe in logic since a non-existent being holding any kind of power is a logical contradiction, but we’ve already been through this before. You do not believe in logic, so this conversation goes no where.
P1. Divine being which comes into existence out of nothing will come into existence out of nothing even if such divine being didnt exist before.
This is a tautology. In order for something to come into existence, it, by definition, couldn’t have existed before.
And by tautology, that makes it meaningless. All you’ve accomplished so far is to establish what “coming into existence” means conceptually.
P2. If such divine being will come into existence out of nothing, such being exists
Your first premise only established that coming into existence means it didn’t exist before. But here you tried to smuggle in that such being “will” come into existence out of nothing… that’s totally made up. You haven’t justified that anything will happen, you just asserted it.
Moreover, your argument does not address the fundamental issue of how we got to divinity in the first place. If it is possible for anything to pop into existence out of nothing then there’s no reason the universe could not have done the same, which negates the necessity of a God, which makes it’s assumption irrational.
Irrational is the opposite of proof.
I'll bet all the Southern Historians rated Lincoln the worst president ever in 1865. Give Trump 100 years, and he will be number one.
The Trump era will be studied extensively for generations to come. Trump gets away with what he does because people are pissed about their personal situations and feel like their government is not hearing them, to them Trump is their way of giving government the middle finger.
Once the passions of the moment subside, Trump’s utter ignorance, his narcissism, childishness, fascism, corruption, on and on and on… will become crystal clear and no serious person will look at him without shaking their head in disbelief that that really happened.
Rex, I suggest you re-read the Constitution.
They weren’t his words, they were mine. He was quoting them to raise objections (with false equivalences I would argue).
You may have the opinion that by signing EO's, the President [whoever he is] may violate the Constitution, but until a court determines that outcome, it remains personal opinion only, and until a court has a case before it to adjudicate, it cannot declare such
An executive order isn’t an opinion, its direction given to the rest of the executive branch, in the case I was referring to that direction was to blatantly violate the constitution. And no we don’t need a Supreme Court case to adjudicate cause they already did.
All of these are way more dangerous than anything Trump has done.
This is exactly why I asked you to pick *one* of your examples to defend as being functionally equivalent to what Trump is doing, because it’s pointless to try and address every one of them at the same time. Every single example you laid out is a false equivalence.
Again, pick one and we can dig further.
The 'imperial presidency' is a longstanding political trend, and I'd agree it's worrying, but Trump is not a unique iteration of it.
He absolutely is. What I will say about your examples is that every single one of them is a matter of executives overstepping their institutional authority in order to advance some questionable political agenda. That is qualitatively different from what Trump is doing.
Jailing political opponents because they’re political opponents isn’t a policy goal. Deploying the U.S. military against peaceful citizens isn’t a policy goal. Trying to overturn an election you lost isn’t a policy goal. These aren’t abuses of power for an agenda, they’re abuses of power for self-preservation.
The problem isn’t that Trump is expanding presidential authority, it’s that he’s warping it into a tool of personal loyalty. We’ve never had a president who demanded personal fealty from officials, filled key posts with blatantly unqualified sycophants, overtly used the justice system to punish his critics, pardoned those who committed crimes in his name and for his benefit, or openly mused about using the DOJ to enrich himself.
None of this is normal, and none of this aligns with the imperial presidency issue you raised. Calling Bush or Obama tyrants was hyperbole. Trump is what those cries pretended to warn about. He’s turned this story into the boy who cried wolf, and you’re the villager.
Wow, you can’t even prove that 2+2=4. Sad.
Did Congress declare war against the Southern States? Against Native Americans? Korea? Vietnam? Cambodia? Laos? Iraq? Iran... Yet we have hade military conflict in all of them, and more.
When your argument fails, just move the goal posts…
So now we’ve abandoned the position that the constitution expressly grants the president the power to utilize the military to enforce civilian law at his unquestionable discretion and moved to “it’s ok cause that’s what everyone else did”. Ok.
Your argument still fails. The inserrection act clearly covered state succession, the rest were nearly all foreign conflicts. We’ve never before seen a president use the military against US citizens simply because he can, which is essentially Trump’s justification other than him claiming cities like Portland are “on fire” which is just psychotically delusional.
Was the life of those presidents endangered by opposition rhetoric to the point of actual assassination attempts?
Wow. So we’re now back to the classic MAGA retort where half the country is responsible for the actions of two deranged republicans, and not even the Republican half.
This is what having no argument looks like. Pathetic.
BTW, Lincoln was assassinated, in case you forgot.
BTW BTW, thanks for yet another example of a strictly MAGA talking point coming from the guy who swears he’s not MAGA.
Show numbers that there are more athiests than thiests
Why would I need to show you numbers to substantiate a claim I never made?
Are you even reading my posts, or just rehearsing your prejudices? If you wanted to chat with Christopher Hitchens I’m sorry to disappoint you, you tagged the wrong person.
Its more an extraordinary claim to disbelieve in a God than it is to believe it.
There are plenty of people who believe in a God as well as plenty who don’t. Neither of these are extraordinary.
Great, another unproved claim.
Prove that 2+2=4. I’ll wait.
Article 2 grants the president the power to command the military. That only specifies who the military answers to, not what the military can be used for. This is a massive category error.
The limits of what a president can do with the military are codified into law (the Posse Commotitus act and the insurrection act come to mind) but you don’t need to know that to know your interpretation is wrong; the constitution expressly grants the sole power to declare war to Congress. If the intent was to give plenary authority to the President, the framers would not have done that.
Moreover, this interpretation flies in the face of everything the constitution sought to guard against. What the framers feared was a tyrant, granting the president the legal authority to use the military against US citizens is the exact opposite of everything that motivated the American revolution in the first place.
—> and the default position being that we believe what people tell us regarding their own mental state unless we have reason not to
Good luck proving that.
It’s logic 101 genius. There are only two possibilities; we accept what people tell us unless given a reason not to, or we accept what people tell us only when it is proven.
The first puts us in line with reality far more often than not, the latter leads to a state of complete absurdity where you would hold basically no understanding of the world because if you can’t accept basic assertions people make, even about their own mental state, then essentially nothing could be proven unless you witness it yourself. Your entire model of the world falls apart because the overwhelming majority of what we understand about the world apart from our direct experiences comes from what other people tell us.
It’s not whataboutism, it’s what we’re actually talking about.
The OP argued that the mere existence of atheism needs to be proven, I demonstrated why it doesn’t or to the extent it does, it has already been. You came back with the objection that my solution was subjective, which is apparently supposed to be problematic.
But it’s not, you seem to have missed the point that we’re talking about a logical principal and how we apply that principle to the real world. The fact that everyone’s subjective experiences are unique to themselves is irrelevant because our experiences on basic levels overlap significantly. And even if they didn’t, all that would do is make it more difficult for us to understand where each other are coming from, doesn’t change that we’re still applying that principle to figure out what we believe to be true.
Your other part, talking about atheism being statistically less than theism is also irrelevant to the conversation. We’re not talking about how prevalent atheism is, we’re talking about whether it exists and how we could know.
Your concept of what is extraordinary is subjective, as is your subjective concept of what is mundane.
It is also subjective to say that it is wrong to steal, that doesn’t stop us from putting thieves in jail.
We will always bring different life experiences to the table, that doesn’t mean we don’t live in the same planet and share 98% of basic beliefs about human nature and the world we live in.
If someone says “I went to the grocery store yesterday”, we don’t need to debate whether that is an extraordinary claim, of course it isn’t.
If someone says “I went to the grocery store and ran into Taylor swift in the frozen section”, we would all agree that’s a fairly extraordinary claim and would expect some form of evidence before accepting it as true.
If someone says “I bought a Time Machine and travelled back to see the dinosaurs”, no one in their right mind would believe that without extraordinary evidence.
The fact that there are some grey areas in between doesn’t change the fact that we all utilize this principle in our daily lives. The only hurdle objectivity poses is just how much of our basic understanding of the world will align, the rest is what conversation and evidence is for.
Would you like to pick just one of your false equivalences so you can explain how what you allege is even in par with what Trump is doing? Or would you rather just hide behind a collection of vague photos that might imply some sort of wrongdoing if you don’t look that hard?
all you did was point out other unprovable claims
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the default position being that we believe what people tell us regarding their own mental state unless we have reason not to… those aren’t unprovable claims, they’re basic principals of logic and reasoning.
To disregard them is to disregard logic itself, which you have shown more than a willingness to do, making any further attempt to reason with you pointless.
Anyone can sit there and go “nuh uh!”. It’s not impressive nor is it virtuous.
So much for proving that atheism exists.
If by “prove” you mean “provide a valid and sound justification”, that I did, perhaps you should read it.
If by “prove” you mean “convince me”, then no thanks. There’s nothing more pointless than trying to prove something to someone who has decided ahead of time that they will not be convinced.
So I ask here, can anyone prove to me that atheism exists?
It’s not our job to.
The way this works is that the burden of proof falls onto the person who makes the claim. Any claim. In this case the claim is “I am an atheist”, which simply means, “I do not believe in a god”.
So the next question is, what amount of evidence would satisfy that claim?
To figure this out we apply a very basic principle of reason: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In other words, the more out of the ordinary a claim is the more evidence one would need to justify it.
”I do not believe in a god” is by no means an extraordinary claim, in fact a statement by an individual regarding what they believe is one of the most mundane claims anyone could possibly make.
In addition, there is also a “default position” principle involved here; you either accept the claim until proven otherwise, or reject the claim until proven. In this case, rejecting someone’s stated beliefs until proven puts you in a situation where essentially nothing can be believed and you accept nothing about what anyone believes. That leads to absurdity.
Therefore, absent any evidence to the contrary, the only rationally defensible position is to accept the claim until you have a reason not to.
Burden satisfied. You’re welcome.
Oh lol. Never heard the term “Indie” before, thought you were telling us you’re from India, wondering why you thought that was relevant.
Not that this is any better. Trying to make the case that you’re neither a Democrat or Republican by telling us you’re neither a Democrat or Republican isn’t exactly convincing. Why instead of ignoring everything I and others have said and printing you’re engaging don’t you point us to posts you’ve written that sides otherwise?
Then you don't read everything, do you?
That’s why I specifically pointed to everything “I’ve ever read”. Obviously I haven’t read everything you’ve written here or on DART. You’re just not that special.
You mean, like working in the Bobby Kennedy campaign for president? Both, as it happens. I voted for Clinton in '96 rather than Dole.
I don’t care about your history, I care about your arguments. And every argument I’ve ever seen you write says you’re at the very least, MAGA aligned.
I am Indie. Get it?
Yeah, I get that your race/ethnicity is irrelevant. There are black women who voted for Trump. There are trans people who voted for Trump. Hell, there are black trans women who voted for Trump. You’re not special.
And I have always voted the man, not the party.
Who did you vote for in 2024?
People are not protesting because we already have a king, they’re protesting because Trump wants to be one and is actively pushing his administration in that direction.
Signing executive orders that blatantly violate the constitution, signaling that he might not follow SCOTUS orders, federalizing troops and sending them into US cities over the objections of those states governors and mayors, flagrantly weaponizing the DOJ against his political opponents while pardoning not only his allies but people who committed political violence on his behalf, threatening to withhold funding against his political opponents if they don’t do his bidding, threatening universities and law firms that do not acquiesce to his political agenda, taking away due process from millions of person’s in this country, etc.
These tactics are nothing new, every fascist dictator who came to power over the past century or more did most or all of the same things. Recognizing that and protesting against it doesn’t mean one thinks the wannabe king is all powerful.
You ignore that I am not the political right; you just accuse. Sorry, invalid accusation here; I'm an indie, my friend.
Not on the political right? Is that a joke?
Everything I've ever seen you post aligns with MAGA, which is far right. To argue you’re not MAGA is already a stretch, but not on the right? That’s ridiculous.
Why can't you ignore him?
Because he's the president of the united states'and is singlehandedly destroying every political norm and law that has held our country together and made us the global superpower it is.
I was able to totally ignore Biden during much of his admin.
Biden wasn't flooding American streets with the military, or posting AI videos of himself taking a dump in half the country. If you're not embarrassed by this guy there is genuinely something wrong with you.
That aside, the idea that the political right ignored him is laughably ridiculous. He's all you guys talked about, playing every video of him stumbling or misspeaking on a loop. Well, when you weren't busy searching for the rest of Hunter's laptop.
I think you dont understand. the goal isnt to reduce government spending to zero. Just to reduce it.
Then fire one federal worker and voila... Mission accomplished.
If there is no one to pay for services or deliver them, then services arent payed for.
Not the way it works. The services aren't happening but the thing the services were slated to be distributed are still owed. Take social security for example - not having employees to disperse the checks doesn't mean America saves on social security payments, it just means the recipients have to wait longer to get them.
Now, if you say we should do non profitable things, then that just reduces profit and slows down economy and buisnesses
Again, the government isn't a business. You really just don't get it.
There is no profit in educating children in poor neighborhoods, yet no one in their right mind would argue it is not beneficial for society to do so.
Again, the entire point of government is to solve the problems the private sector can't or won't. The private sector is not going to invest in things that the contributing individuals will not benefit from personally. That means every venture which doesn't yield a reasonable ROI will not happen. And that means no one would be investing in the things our economy will need to grow in the first place.
People have no obligation to give you free stuff
This conversation has nothing to do with "free stuff". We're talking about what is good for society and why only government can and will fill that role.
If they worked properly and made savings, they could afford everything. If they chose to be wasteful and lazy, I dont see why you would want to reward or encourage that.
Being poor =/= being wasteful or lazy. Many people end up there because of unwise choices they made, bad investments, bad fortune, etc. One of the biggest dividing lines in politics is in the way the political right see's money as a true measurement of an individual's efforts and abilities. That's not the way the real world works.
But whatever your views are on individual poor people and whether it is right to subsidize their lifestyles in any way with other people's tax dollars, that is hardly the point. Again, we're talking about what is good for society. Every society will have poor people, the question is what do we do about it?
To do nothing means the homeless population will skyrocket, along with crime. In a purely capitalistic society these people will just fall out of the system, which means less contributors and less consumers. Eventually, the poor population will become so numerous our system itself will fall apart.
That's why we prop up people who are struggling. It's not about giving things away, it's about creating a society where everyone is incentivized to contribute and given the means to be able to do so.
Government doesnt build roads. Private workers build roads. Government just takes money from people and gives it to private workers so they build roads.
Yeah, that's called government spending. If the government wasn't paying the tab, you think someone else will?
So if you say people wouldn't want to pay for roads otherwise, you are conceding that such service by government is unwanted.
Roads are unwanted. Wow Lucy, great point.
Whether something is wanted and whether something is profitable are two different things.
