little2add Posted August 25, 2023 Share Posted August 25, 2023 (edited) President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. won by less than 12,000 votes or a razor-thin 0.24% difference in the state of Georgia. the final recount of results put President-elect Joe Biden at 49.5% to Trump's 49.26%. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for Trump to question the vote tally. It is also outrageous to charge his defense lawyers with the crime for defending, etc. Edited August 25, 2023 by little2add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted August 25, 2023 Author Share Posted August 25, 2023 (edited) 17 hours ago, Nunsuch said: Good grief. How the heck did I (or any of my colleagues) "buy" my credentials? Do you have any idea what is involved in earning (yes--earning) a PhD? And tenure at an R-1? Do you really think that substantive credentials are somehow a matter of luck or random chance? Why do you think I was talking about you? Please stop taking general arguments personally. I don't know any of your colleagues. I'm speaking generally. And, to answer your question, of course I don't think that credentials have anything to do with luck or random chance. I didn't imply or suggest otherwise. On the contrary, I implied something far more sinister. Generally speaking, I would say the vast majority of those with advanced degrees, whether or not they earned them, believe they did earn them. If you want evidence that many people truly didn't earn their degrees, I point you to the very recent Supreme Court ruling that finally squashed the institutional racism called "Affirmative Action", as well as the public response by certain ivy league universities that they will ignore the Supreme Court ruling and continue pushing forward certain groups of people, based on nothing but the color of their skin, rather than their academic caliber, or whether they have earned it. There are many more examples I could offer as evidence, and will if you ask. 17 hours ago, Nunsuch said: I do NOT believe that "['who'] is speaking" is more important than what they are saying. Thank God! Your explicitly-declared judgement of my level of expertise based not what I've posted, but the sources of what I've posted, strongly suggested otherwise. I'm glad we've gotten past that. 17 hours ago, Nunsuch said: But there need to be actual criteria for assessing the substance of what they are [arguing]. This is called testing a hypothesis, and supplying evidence. Agreed, but that has nothing to do with either expertise (which matters a great deal) or credentials (which matters to a far lesser extent). That's just called the scientific method. 17 hours ago, Nunsuch said: There ARE such things as facts, and reality. Very much agreed. (I don't know why you think I might believe otherwise). Sadly the FACT is that the world of academia is literally hell-bent on pushing so much that is outside of both facts and reality that it's very difficult to see in it anything not of satan. With the recent ruling in Canada on Dr. Jordan Peterson basically stripping him (and his colleagues) of his right to free speech as a professor, and the current tendency of the education system, from the earliest elementary grades through the highest university PhDs, to enforce not just compelled speech, but compelled lies regarding a person's biological sex, and many other immoral and unethical practices, it's a wonder anyone can see anything of true value in academia in the West. Edited August 25, 2023 by fides' Jack grammar and clarification Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nunsuch Posted August 25, 2023 Share Posted August 25, 2023 3 hours ago, little2add said: President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. won by less than 12,000 votes or a razor-thin 0.24% difference in the state of Georgia. the final recount of results put President-elect Joe Biden at 49.5% to Trump's 49.26%. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for Trump to question the vote tally. It is also outrageous to charge his defense lawyers with the crime for defending, etc. No one is challenging his right to question the vote tally. There were both machine and hand recounts after the narrow victory. Biden's margin increased after them. The point here is not his right to challenge. It is how he did it, and that he never accepted the validity of the recounts, conducted under official (and Republican) auspices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted August 25, 2023 Author Share Posted August 25, 2023 3 minutes ago, Nunsuch said: and that he never accepted the validity of the recounts Nor do hundreds of millions of Americans, and for very reasonable reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nunsuch Posted August 25, 2023 Share Posted August 25, 2023 35 minutes ago, fides' Jack said: Why do you think I was talking about you? Please stop taking general arguments personally. I don't know any of your colleagues. I'm speaking generally. And, to answer your question, of course I don't think that credentials have anything to do with luck or random chance. I didn't imply or suggest otherwise. On the contrary, I implied something far more sinister. Generally speaking, I would say the vast majority of those with advanced degrees, whether or not they earned them, believe they did earn them. If you want evidence that many people truly didn't earn their degrees, I point you to the very recent Supreme Court ruling that finally squashed the institutional racism called "Affirmative Action", as well as the public response by certain ivy league universities that they will ignore the Supreme Court ruling and continue pushing forward certain groups of people, based on nothing but the color of their skin, rather than their academic caliber, or whether they have earned it. I'm speaking generally, too. And affirmative action has to do with admission, not awarding of degrees. So those who graduate DID actually earn their degrees. Also, NO affirmative action program was every based on "NOTHING BUT the color of their skin." Race/ethnicity was ONE factor included in admissions, but AA candidates also had to meet other criteria for admission. I've sat on a number of college and graduate admissions committees--have you? I actually know from experience how these things work. You also might want to learn the distinction between racism and prejudice. One is structural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted August 25, 2023 Author Share Posted August 25, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, Nunsuch said: And affirmative action has to do with admission, not awarding of degrees It's both, actually, as I understand it. I believe most people are aware of how it impacts admissions. These public universities get government funding not strictly based on minority representation in admissions, but also minority representation in graduation rates. It has been in the best interest, financially, for public institutions to make sure minorities graduate. Are you saying it has never happened even once that a board member went to speak to a professor and encouraged them to go easy on a student so they could graduate, based on government funding for affirmative action? That's never happened even once? It also certainly has to do with scholarships. A person who works and pays his own way through college certainly "earned it" far more than a person who's daddy paid their way or another student who didn't have to pay because of his/her skin color. Also, just based on admissions alone, how many students could have done the work but were denied the possibility because they were denied admission? Admissions count toward "earning it", too. 2 hours ago, Nunsuch said: Also, NO affirmative action program was [ever] based on "NOTHING BUT the color of their skin." Race/ethnicity was ONE factor included in admissions, but AA candidates also had to meet other criteria for admission. Technically true, but it very quickly became predominantly a racist policy: "In the United States, affirmative action by executive order originally meant selection without regard to race but preferential treatment was widely used in college admissions, as upheld in the 2003 Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger, until 2023, when this was overturned in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.[7]" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action]. So it was at least a racist policy for the last 20+ years, while preferential treatment has been given solely based on skin color. That is, by any definition, active racism. 2 hours ago, Nunsuch said: You also might want to learn the distinction between racism and prejudice. One is structural. They are both structural. Racism is a type of prejudice. Not all prejudices are bad, but racism certainly is. 2 hours ago, Nunsuch said: I've sat on a number of college and graduate admissions committees--have you? I actually know from experience how these things work. Sounds like you've got a great handle on how admissions work - I'm sure far better than I. Have you also sat on finance boards and scholarship boards and government funding boards? Edited August 25, 2023 by fides' Jack clarification Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted August 25, 2023 Share Posted August 25, 2023 (edited) 5 hours ago, Nunsuch said: he never accepted the validity of the recounts, conducted under official (and Republican) auspices. True, Then PresidentTrump he did not agree, verbally. However he did reluctantly except the final tally, under protest. also his conversation with the Georgia governor was recorded for all the world to hear not clandestine (like some of the shady goings on in Ukraine and the Biden family, being reported in the news and some very credible whistleblowers). As was legal and his right under the law! Edited August 25, 2023 by little2add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted August 25, 2023 Share Posted August 25, 2023 On 8/21/2023 at 10:36 PM, fides' Jack said: I wouldn't trust a mechanic to perform surgery anywhere on my body, nor a surgeon to work on my car. I wouldn't mind having a surgeon work on my car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted August 26, 2023 Author Share Posted August 26, 2023 3 hours ago, dUSt said: I wouldn't mind having a surgeon work on my car. Ok. Fair point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted August 27, 2023 Share Posted August 27, 2023 On 8/11/2023 at 4:42 PM, fides' Jack said: Al Gore, Stacey Abrams, Hillary Clinton all stated the election was stolen! No-one raised a eyebrow President Trump stated the election was stolen. Trump is facing 13 separate counts in Georgia, including a racketeering charge and several fraud and false statement counts. What's the Dif? why is Trump guilty until proven innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nunsuch Posted August 27, 2023 Share Posted August 27, 2023 6 hours ago, little2add said: Al Gore, Stacey Abrams, Hillary Clinton all stated the election was stolen! No-one raised a eyebrow President Trump stated the election was stolen. Trump is facing 13 separate counts in Georgia, including a racketeering charge and several fraud and false statement counts. What's the Dif? why is Trump guilty until proven innocent? Al Gore conceded the election after Bush v Gore was decided in 2000, and even presided (as VP) over the counting of the electoral votes without protest. THAT is at least one significant difference. Please cite a source for your claim that he "stated the election" (which?) was stolen. Hillary Clinton also conceded in 2016. Donald Trump didn't even have the decency that has been exercised by literally every other outgoing president to attend the inaugural of his successor. And NO ONE is saying that Trump is "guilty until proven innocent," while Trump repeatedly called for people to "Lock her (Hillary) up," despite not even an indictment. Those are at least a few "diffs." Sheesh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted August 27, 2023 Share Posted August 27, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, Nunsuch said: Please cite a source for your claim https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/666812854/the-florida-recount-of-2000-a-nightmare-that-goes-on-haunting 2 hours ago, Nunsuch said: Hillary Clinton https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-2016-election/index.html don't forget Stacy https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/28/magazine/stacey-abrams-election-georgia.html 2 hours ago, Nunsuch said: NO ONE is saying that Trump is "guilty just about anyone and everybody, . except for the 740,000,000+ certified or 46.9% voters in the last election, that is. https://www.cookpolitical.com/2020-national-popular-vote-tracker. IE: The Mueller investigation cost a total of almost $32 million through the course of the probe, according to newly released figures from the Justice Department. - all for nothing the Mueller investigation was Trump'ed up, so to speak. IE: https://www.npr.org/2022/03/24/1088443399/ex-prosecutor-says-donald-trump-is-guilty-of-numerous-felony-violations Edited August 27, 2023 by little2add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nunsuch Posted August 27, 2023 Share Posted August 27, 2023 It's really too bad that you don't know that the sources you are providing do not actually make the points you allege that they do. Sad. I will simply address one of these points. The Florida recount remains controversial even among those who supported Bush. How do I know this? Because one of my closest friends actually worked not only for Bush and his brother Governor Bush, but also was a close adviser to Katherine Harris through the whole process. For the record, he speaks annually in my class on the Modern Presidency. But to say that there was controversy, which is undeniable by those on both sides, is NOT the same as saying that Al Gore did not concede or preside appropriately over the counting of the electoral votes. For what he ACTUALLY said, see his concession speech. [Again, Trump never made one, is still ranting, and refused to participate in a peaceful transfer of power and instead ran away. The is the ONLY former president to do so.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted August 28, 2023 Share Posted August 28, 2023 2 hours ago, Nunsuch said: Sad. 🥰 2 hours ago, Nunsuch said: The Florida recount remains controversial Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted August 28, 2023 Share Posted August 28, 2023 (edited) On 8/27/2023 at 6:33 PM, Nunsuch said: Trump never made one, is still ranting so what? if ranting was illegal most of the Democratic Party would be in jail. its not illegal to rant The United States ultimately upheld its long tradition of the peaceful transfer of power on Jan. 20, 2021, and Biden began governing immediately with a substantial foundation of planning and personnel in place. This was in large measure due to months of preparation taken well in advance of the election, including contingency planning and the tireless efforts of many career agency executives, dedicated public servants within the Trump White House, and a Biden-Harris transition team that succeeded in building an impressive, well-resourced and organized transition Edited August 28, 2023 by little2add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now