Joe Biden, dementia, and the 25th amendment

@hightor,

There is another problem with this intellectual lockstep.

It means that in every argument you start with the conclusion, and then you find facts to support it. It is the opposite of the way things should be (where you start with facts and then reach a conclusion).

I consider myself a fact-based liberal. There is some argument among you folks about whether I am a "liberal" or not, and I suppose it doesn't matter enough to even argue.

Facts come before political ideology and on any issue, I can tell you a factual way that will change my mind.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

There is another problem with this intellectual lockstep.
It means that in every argument you start with the conclusion, and then you find facts to support it. It is the opposite of the way things should be (where you start with facts and then reach a conclusion).

As long as those facts are ultimately sound, that shouldn't be a problem.

maxdancona wrote:

I consider myself a fact-based liberal.

Every time I present facts that establish that you are wrong, you flee the discussion.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

1. Hightor's facts are ultimately sound. Just ask him.

2. I "flee" the discussion when you start getting silly. You often lapse into insisting that your opinions are facts and ranting about how intelligent you are. It is boring (and I am here to amuse myself).

I have told you what you need to do for me to accept your "facts" (that is, you have to tell me how it is testable; what evidence would get you to change your mind). Your bluster is boring, and since there is no way to change your mind, me sticking around is meaningless.

Either be amusing, or give me some testable facts so we can have an interesting discussion and I will generally stick around.

When you bore me, I move on.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

2. I "flee" the discussion when you start getting silly. You often lapse into insisting that your opinions are facts

I do no such thing. When I claim something is a fact, it is a fact, and I am able to back that up with cites if necessary.

maxdancona wrote:

and ranting about how intelligent you are.

While there are rare exceptions (I'm not ashamed of my mind and don't try to hide it), when I discuss my intelligence it is almost always because someone else brought up the subject.

maxdancona wrote:

I have told you what you need to do for me to accept your "facts" (that is, you have to tell me how it is testable; what evidence would get you to change your mind).

If you wish to challenge my facts, you have every right to try to do so. But it is not my job to challenge my own facts for you.

maxdancona wrote:

Your bluster is boring, and since there is no way to change your mind, me sticking around is meaningless.

There is a way to change my mind. You can come up with a compelling argument that I am wrong.

But coming up with your arguments is your job. You shouldn't ask me to help you come up with your arguments. I don't ask you to help me come up with my arguments.

maxdancona wrote:

Either be amusing, or give me some testable facts so we can have an interesting discussion and I will generally stick around.

All factual claims are testable. Every time someone claims that something is a fact, it's a testable fact.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Everything you are saying is in lock-step agreement with someone solidly on the political left.

No. Saying, "No political figure really represents my political views on the subject," or describing myself as an "incrementalist" is hardly being in "lock step" with anyone. In most of my political discussions on this board everything I are say is in contradiction to or critical of arguments which are solidly on the political right.

I post to oppose what rightists say, not to push my personal beliefs.

Quote:

It would be interesting if you would take a position out of your ideological bubble.

It would be more interesting if you didn't enclose everyone in an imagined ideological bubble in the first place. I don't raise that many issues myself and concentrate on criticizing the rhetoric used by those I disagree with.

Quote:

If your opinions are a near carbon copy of every other "progressive" (...)

...they're not.

Quote:

and every conservative has the same thoughts as every other conservative (...)

...they don't .

Quote:

...it makes the world boring.

Political discussion can become boring, it's true. But political positions shouldn't be discarded based on how much they enliven a discussion.

Quote:

It means that in every argument you start with the conclusion, and then you find facts to support it.

If you could provide an example of this behavior it would be helpful. I usually start by critiquing opinions I don't agree with. And conspiracy theories.

Quote:

Hightor's facts are ultimately sound.

Plenty of arguments are based on finding problems with the facts and conclusions drawn by others. One can often refute a "factual" argument by pointing out problems with the way facts are being interpreted and employed.

0 Replies

@longjon,

We should not enact the 25th amendment. Even though it's available.

This sets bad precedent. During Trump's administration, they brought out the shrinks to try to declare Trump "unfit". He very clearly wasn't, even if he did things liberals hate. He could remember what country he was in, what the topic for state of the union address was going to be, and what he promised months ago. Joe Biden can't remember breakfast one hour ago.

Suck it up. You guys elected Joe Biden because you wanted a radical government under Kamala Harris, and to trick some of the liberals into thinking they were voting for someone more moderate than Trump. It's a total puppet show, and everyone knows it. But short of how actually dumping him off a cliff (foul play, she'll get arrested), nope sorry, Biden has to do things.

But fine, let's say you do decide to carry out this precedent. What happens? Kamala backstabs Biden. Pelosi backstabs Kamala. And so on.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_line_of_succession

Because most of these are highly ambitious Democrats, this will likely go down the list. Read up on the War of the Roses. If you set a precedent for easy replacement, government becomes unstable.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

During Trump's administration, they brought out the shrinks to try to declare Trump "unfit".

Who's "they"? You do realize that it doesn't matter what "they" say, right? "They" don't get to trigger the amendment, the V.P. and the Cabinet do.

Quote:

Joe Biden can't remember breakfast one hour ago.

That seems rather specious, just political gossip not based on evidence. Why bother?

Quote:

You guys elected Joe Biden because you wanted a radical government under Kamala Harris.

Oh, come on. Biden was elected because people were sick of Trump. If I wanted a radical government under Kamala Harris, 1) she'd actually have to be radical, and 2) she'd have to win the nomination. As you recall, she dropped out of the primaries early on because she wasn't that popular.

Quote:

It's a total puppet show, and everyone knows it.

That's simply more political gossip with no evidence to back it up. Everyone doesn't "know" that but, yes, there are stupid people out there who repeat it, and some who might actually believe it.

Quote:

But fine, let's say you do decide to carry out this precedent.

But the 25th Amendment has been the law of the land for over fifty years. Why haven't other "highly ambitious" politicians availed themselves of this opportunity?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Oralloy, this is getting tiresome... but I will say it one more time.

For any individual claim you present as a fact, you need to be able to provide a specific piece of evidence that will get you to change your mind.

That is my request.

For example ... when you make a ridiculous claim like "All BLM supporters want police officers to be shot", and insist that this is a fact.

Mathematically, if I could provide a single person who supported BLM and didn't want to police officers to be shot... then this would disprove your ridiculous statement.

But you get locked into these little tautological thought loops where you keep repeating what you think is supporting evidence and refusing to consider any contradictory evidence.

So that is why, if you want me to take your so-called "facts" seriously I want you to start defining how they can be tested (and disproven).

You have every right to refuse to do this. But I have every right to not respond. When you keep on insisting your silly hyperpartisan dictates are "facts", it makes any discussion with you boring to me.

Any time you bore me, I go away. Sorry, that's just how with Max works.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Mathematically, if I could provide a single person who supported BLM and didn't want to police officers to be shot... then this would disprove your ridiculous statement.

That is incorrect. It would merely establish that the supporter in question is a deeply confused person who supports a cause that he disagrees with.

maxdancona wrote:

So that is why, if you want me to take your so-called "facts" seriously I want you to start defining how they can be tested (and disproven).

If you want to disprove my claim, the way for you to do it is to prove that BLM do not protest (or demand punishment for) any of the following deaths:

Trayvon Martin
Michael Brown
Eric Garner
Philando Castile
Terence Crutcher
Tamir Rice

Alternatively, you can prove that the each of those deaths were the result of unjustified acts.

Or you could do a little of both: prove that BLM have never protested some of those deaths, and prove that the others are the result of unjustified acts.

Note: I can't say unjustified shooting because one of them wasn't a shooting.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

As I said... I consider this to be illogical

In order to prove that I want to shoot cops, you give a list of people who didn't shoot cops. Your argument seems to be shooting cops is wrong, these people are wrong, therefore these people want to shoot cops.

This argument bores me, it isn't even worth disputing (I have given you this much time as a courtesy...).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

As I said... I consider this to be illogical

Feel free to try to point out flaws in my logic.

maxdancona wrote:

In order to prove that I want to shoot cops,

I am not trying to prove that you want to shoot cops. Where did you get the absurd idea that I'm trying to prove that?

maxdancona wrote:

Your argument seems to be shooting cops is wrong, these people are wrong, therefore these people want to shoot cops.

No. My argument is that BLM tries to prevent police officers and white people from defending themselves when black people murder them, therefore their goal is to prevent police officers and white people from defending themselves when black people murder them.

maxdancona wrote:

This argument bores me, it isn't even worth disputing (I have given you this much time as a courtesy...).

Is this where you run away from the thread instead of addressing the facts?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Is this where you run away from the thread instead of addressing the facts?

Yes. Yes it is.

0 Replies

https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/211320897_10221108502605718_2308593738002611340_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=hvicZ5z96kQAX_8cwIg&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=29cf86e4547a3c392c6d45aaa3691552&oe=60E8441F

0 Replies

Joe Biden, dementia, and the 25th amendment

Quick Links

My Account

able2know