US Capitol rioters await Trump pardons

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Absolutely. Except that I would rephrase it as believing something you know is true even though "objectively" speaking you can't, couldn't, know it's true. Subjective truth comes from the fact that you and I, every normal person, possesses the divine spirit, until they trade it in for belief in objectivity. It's money, so to say, to say that the epistemological reorientation whereby subjectivity is traded for belief in so-called objectivity, is the true root of all evil.

In light of this thread, the sad thing is that people on the left orient to subjective truth more willingly than people on the right. But since they misinterpret their subjective truths for being objective, they're often weaker than those on the right, who though they don't get subjective truth as correct as the left, at least orient better to the fact that no truth is truly objective.



John

And now, thank you, I know everything I need to know about you.

 

[Revoltingest]

As noted earlier in the thread, the courts weren't willing to entertain a case that would require a duly elected President of the United States, Joe Biden, to be removed from office. In other words, the cases were all thrown out because the courts were abiding by the fact that Joe Biden won the election. They simply weren't willing to entertain the possibility a court case would have to overturn the election.

Trump's lawyers presented no evidence in any
of their suits. The suits were "entertained".

Trump is immortal.

Oh, really?

Which leads me to answer a question you ask later in the message. Yes I love President Trump. Absolutely.

That would explain the judgement.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Trump's lawyers presented no evidence in any
of their suits. The suits were "entertained".

It's like these MAGA folks have buried their heads in the sand these past four years.

Giuliani told Arizona official ‘We just don’t have the evidence’ of voter fraud

Former Trump lawyer acknowledged his efforts to overturn the election were based on mere ‘theories’, officials recall

www.theguardian.com

Sidney Powell’s legal defense: ‘Reasonable people’ wouldn’t believe her election fraud claims

Lawyers for the Trump ally claim she was just sharing an opinion when she said the election was stolen using machines built to rig races for Hugo Chavez.

www.nbcnews.com

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3977965-second-trump-hired-firm-found-2020-fraud-claims-were-all-false/

Cyber Ninjas, company that led Arizona GOP election 'audit,' is shutting down

Arizona election officials this week released a report rebutting almost every claim by Cyber Ninjas in its ballot review.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[John D. Brey]

And now, thank you, I know everything I need to know about you.

So, oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween,​

tread on in utter ignorance, of what each other mean,​

and prate about the elephant, not one of them has seen!​

​

John Godfrey Saxe.​

John

 

[Heyo]

So, oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween,​

tread on in utter ignorance, of what each other mean,​

and prate about the elephant, not one of them has seen!​

​

John Godfrey Saxe.​

John

I want to join @Evangelicalhumanist in thanking you. Your honesty has given me much insight into the psychology of the US right.

 

[John D. Brey]

I want to join @Evangelicalhumanist in thanking you. Your honesty has given me much insight into the psychology of the US right.

I'm pretty sure the thank you from @Evangelicalhumanist was seething with sanctified sarcasm, and maybe yours more so. But it is interesting to see just how different our ways of thinking are. I remember when Pennsylvania's Senator, Fetterman, was speaking of how Trump voters in Pennsylvania absolutely love Trump. He said it was really something to see, and he wished he could understand the phenomenon. He (Fetterman) came across so authentic it gave me great respect for him. I realized he and I really are brothers. We're just conceived from different epistemological mothers.



John

 

[Heyo]

I'm pretty sure the thank you from @Evangelicalhumanist was seething with sanctified sarcasm, and maybe yours more so.

Oh no, it was sincere. It isn't easy to get answers from Trump supporters, and yours were not only on topic, but also, as I believe, honest. I'm now more convinced than ever that you are delusional.

But it is interesting to see just how different our ways of thinking are. I remember when Pennsylvania's Senator, Fetterman, was speaking of how Trump voters in Pennsylvania absolutely love Trump. He said it was really something to see, and he wished he could understand the phenomenon. He (Fetterman) came across so authentic it gave me great respect for him. I realized he and I really are brothers. We're just conceived from different epistemological mothers.

Love? It's more like worship. And epistemology, you believe what Trump says, that's your epistemology.
You see, we are far from being brothers, but that doesn't hold me from thanking you, when you do partake in honest conversation.

 

[John D. Brey]

I'm now more convinced than ever that you are delusional.

One of the weaknesses of a forum like this, where there's no face-to-face communication, is the fact that, as the language experts tell us, something like 75% of communicative clarity comes from non-verbal queues. If you said the statement above to my face, not only could I slug you in the face (I'm being facetious), but I would be better able to ascertain (from non-verbal queues) how much of your statement is meant to be derogatory, versus how much of it is merely a thoughtful evaluation of the circumstances from your perspective?

In the context of how you stated it, which is all I have to go on, it wasn't meant as derogatory, even though the use of the word "delusional" carries some derogatory baggage with it.

If I assume you used the word "delusional," devoid of any derogatory baggage, then I'd point out that yes, I very well may be delusional. But that might be just as true of you too. Which is why I, in the lingo of Jay Z, came to the fork in the road and went straight. Rather than taking sides, mine, naturally, I entered a discussion of epistemology, in order to better ascertain, or at least argue, whether I exhibit tell-tale signs of delusion, or whether you and Evangelicalhumanist do?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Love? It's more like worship.

Danica Patrick did it for the love of her country​

Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Danica Patrick worked her tail off for Donald J. Trump for free. While insufferable Hollywood types like Beyonce and Oprah were paid upwards of $1 million (!!!!!!) to speak at her rallies, Trump paid Danica Patrick exactly zero dollars.​

​

She did it because she loved her country and she believed in what Trump was doing. And guess what, Dems? Get your notebooks out and pencils ready, because that's lesson No. 1 from this ***-beating.​

​

Stop paying people to talk on your behalf. Either people love you enough and believe in you enough to do it for free, or they don't really like you at all. That's the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans right now. Right there.​

​

Outkick.​

​

John

 

[Revoltingest]

One of the weaknesses of a forum like this, where there's no face-to-face communication, is the fact that, as the language experts tell us, something like 75% of communicative clarity comes from non-verbal queues.

I see this as an advantage.
I don't pre-judge people who look dumb.

 

[Heyo]

One of the weaknesses of a forum like this, where there's no face-to-face communication, is the fact that, as the language experts tell us, something like 75% of communicative clarity comes from non-verbal queues. If you said the statement above to my face, not only could I slug you in the face (I'm being facetious), but I would be better able to ascertain (from non-verbal queues) how much of your statement is meant to be derogatory, versus how much of it is merely a thoughtful evaluation of the circumstances from your perspective?

In the context of how you stated it, which is all I have to go on, it wasn't meant as derogatory, even though the use of the word "delusional" carries some derogatory baggage with it.

If I assume you used the word "delusional," devoid of any derogatory baggage, then I'd point out that yes, I very well may be delusional. But that might be just as true of you too. Which is why I, in the lingo of Jay Z, came to the fork in the road and went straight. Rather than taking sides, mine, naturally, I entered a discussion of epistemology, in order to better ascertain, or at least argue, whether I exhibit tell-tale signs of delusion, or whether you and Evangelicalhumanist do?



John

I use "delusional" in the clinical sense, not derogatory. And I understand that I seem delusional to Trump supporters.
As I already pointed out, we have reached a point in the debate where we don't disagree about the evaluation of reality, but reality itself. And that is exactly why one of us must be delusional. One of us has "a false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence".
Kellyanne Conway created this age when she said that Trump presented "alternative facts" about his inauguration crowd. That was the moment when Trumpists learned that they could simply deny reality without loosing credibility (among themselves). That was the big schism in epistemology. For one group, the source of information was the consensus of reputable news agencies, for the other it was the Word of Trump™.