"The Sweep and Force of Section Three" - disqualifies Mr.Trump from holding office again

What good are third parties that produce mini demagogue, such as the one-time hero Ralph Nader - - who’s, so far as I’m concerned is as morally culpable, in what happen afterwards, as is Dick Cheney, and the Bush dolt.

So the idealists got Cheney & Bush instead, rather than a thinking man like Al Gore. Bet he wouldn’t have ignored his National Security advisors - the rest is history. Bet he wouldn’t have totally ignored the coming global warming reality, instead peddle to the metal. Our children will weep are our …

I know, don’t feed the trolls, but once in a while facts need to be brought to the table.

1 Like

I agree, my posts are mainly designed to inform the casual reader, rather than the conspiracy theorists.

Why people believe in conspiracy theories

These aren’t the only conspiracy theories making inroads right now. A September Pew Research Center survey found that more than half of Americans have heard at least a little about QAnon, the complicated web of pro-Trump conspiracy theories that originated on the message board 4chan.

In November, two candidates who voiced support for QAnon theories were elected to Congress. So how do conspiracy theories like these get started and why do they persist?

The dangerous irony is that QAnon is actually conspiring to spread disinformation to the general public, even resorting to accusing the democratic status quo as a “deep state” conspiracy that needs to be “torn down”.

Speak about duplicity.

1 Like

Do you know that there is a conspiracy theory that the term conspiracy theory was created by the CIA to discredit people with conspiracy theories?

Do your own research.

The truth is out there.

Also, people who say scientific papers and peer review are the standard for establishing facts, do not accept the scientic papers that are peer reviewed concerning how you reach people who don’t accept facts.

The data is more recent and further studies are needed, but results are so far consistent.

Let us not forget, there is a
huge difference between Geophysical Sciences and Psychological Sciences.

And in the end there needs to be a fundamental choice people make,
Is honest understanding, more important than my ego.

Or is it a case of,
What I believe is supreme and damned the person who tries to dissuade me."
“How dare anyone “attack” my beliefs.”

Much more to be said on this topic, . . .

Why does that matter? Psychology covers the belief mechanisms, how we form worldviews, but the views part, well that’s everything, science or not. Why would you treat someone as anything but a human who has flaws and an imperfect mind just because the topic is Geophysical Science?

Yipes that went south.

But the subject matter is on an entirely different level from the straightforward subject that the geophysical science study.

Geophysical forces have no consciousness, they don’t play tricks, they can truly be predictable, given a simple enough question and in-depth enough information.

The human subject has consciousness and emotions and needs and desires and is self-centered, self-serving (a requirement of survival, the extent of the self-centeredness … is where things get real complicated and unpredictable in a real hurry.

You aren’t actually telling me that I should think there aren’t profoundly important differences,
in the conclusion we can take from a geophysical study, compared to a psychological study??

That’s a good question.
I have no idea what it means, or what it’s asking.
We don’t study people via geology, or climatology or such.
I was talking about the general reliability of studies originating from the respective science.

I’m talking about the psychology of belief in fake science. It doesn’t matter if it’s AGW or flat earth. Studies show that you can’t break through that using facts alone. You have to find a connection, some meaning, some motivation, their history, then you can talk science.

I’m surprised you are having so much trouble with this. I’ll link the studies in the Issues section thread I started. Meanwhile, look at what “loveis notenough” is doing. He gave me a bunch of links on Ukraine, and he’s sure I don’t know what’s in them because I have come to different conclusions.

It must be a first for CFI. The moderator of all people complaining that a poster has provided links !! This was after disclosing that he hasnt heard chomskys reasons for saying Russian was provoked.!

Criticised for not providing links and then criticised for providing links!
What is the world coming to ?..

What do you fear most?”
"I fear that love is not enough "


I’m not complaining. I’m discussing how providing links is not an automatic road to understanding. You have difficulty parsing out sentences lovey. Either that or you know exactly what I meant, and you are just trolling. Either way, it’s a waste of my time to attempt to engage in discussions with you.

You ask for his reasons, i gave you his reasons. Discuss

What do you fear most?”
"I fear that love is not enough "


You don’t discuss. You accuse. You twist words.

We’re letting rule violations go a little longer than usual, but we are discussing them amongst the staff. Be clear, as a moderator, I think you have violated many rules repeatedly.

1 Like

Read what Lausten wrote:

Can you recognize how that is quite different from what you are implying with your clipped quote?

It’s almost like someone could think you’re just playing games, and not actually thinking about the substance of any of this.


And with some that appears to be plain impossible.
So does that mean we’re suppose to stop talking science and facts?

I have answered that question so many times. And I’m discussing it right now. It’s almost like you are playing games with me.

No I’m not, I’m as irritated as you are, as I’m trying to figure out what’s going on here.

What am I being smacked for?

For saying you don’t feed the trolls, then saying you are going to feed the trolls by bringing in facts as if that’s what’s needed here. Did you check out any of the links I provided in the “Issues” thread? It’s about how to interact with the unreasonable. The science on this is getting better. There’s an interview with a woman on John Stewart’s new show, that I want to add. but I did about 5 projects today so I can go relax with friends tomorrow, so that’s not a priority.

My paver project is at a place I can stop worrying about it for a while. I’m kinda proud of it.
Making a Home - Journal (weebly.com)

I have, but I don’t think you want me discussing it, so perhaps well circle back around when emotions have cooled.

As for projects, I hear you bro. I imagine you’re a bit like me, always ‘happy’ to help and then wondering WTH, in for a nickel, in for a dollar. But, then once it’s done, it’s done, and it’s time to jump to the next and I wonder what happen to all the hopeful plans I had for my own projects. Today’s it’s on to prepping our kitchen for painting before my babe gets back home from a visit with the kiddo’s.

Very nicely done.

Puts my efforts to shame.

Although, I collected all those rocks myself, so have a story to two on that, especially my trophy slab, she’s a beaut, oh and getting her to the truck, an old man’s hurrah story, but I’ll spare you.

Hope you have a nice relaxing day, you deserve it.

1 Like

The emotions are running high between you and a couple of new members. I’m presenting scientific studies about emotions. Which has some irony to it. To come to any understanding, something else has to happen so the person accepts the studies I’m presenting as valid and pertinent. The links do cover that, but it’s not easy. It takes constant reminders to yourself about the data and logic, which is exactly what the scientific methods are designed to do. It takes remembering that we are all flawed, that is; us, not just the others (see, scientific methods).

There’s a religious echo here, about original sin, and some higher power. So you have to know when to stop, when to say, “this is the best we can do as far as human understanding goes. We are imperfect.” And, more important maybe, add back on that we have tools for seeing into our flawed systems and senses. Learn them, use them, don’t get cocky because you know a couple of them.

Yeah, there is that.

Not sure, what does that gets us?

Oh yeah,I remember the past half century of climate science crazy making - splendid - look at what that’s achieved for humanity.

I mean look around at how people act and talk, there are shockingly many people who, really, really “believe” nothing has changed within our physical planet’s global heat and distribution engine, and the future is simply going to look pretty much exactly like it looks in their rear view mirrors, and the pox on anyone who says differently.

It’s gotta be, we believe so hard. Well, the pox on me.

Heck, I dare say, faith in Mr.trump stolen election fraud, is a direct outcome of our society’s increasingly general slovenly disregard for scientific factual honesty these days. Profits (& lower taxes) trumps all! (appeasing the masters, that hold the gold and make the rules.)

So to heck with it, who am I to think that destroying our society’s life support systems is a bad thing. That’s simply my own biased opinion.


But, I’m not here to discuss that dead horse. I want to get back to this thread, “The Sweep and Force of Section Three” - disqualifies Mr.Trump from holding office again..

Harry Litman offers an interesting update about ways this could fly, and ways it could be a still birth. I’ve gotten to trust Mr. Litman appraisal, whatever that’s worth, and it seemed worth adding to this thread.

Aug 21, 2023 - Talking Feds with Harry Litman - 12:14 min
The 14th Amendment disqualifies from office public officials who “engaged in insurrection.” Prominent law professors argue that this automatically applies to Trump as he leads the polls among Republican candidates in his campaign for 2024.

It’s weird that I need to explain probability to you. Usually, the problem is someone who sees there is a 1% chance they are right and tries to tell me that my 99% chance I’m right equal to that. They say it’s all opinion, that no one knows, and if I give them evidence that starts to convince them, they will attack all of science back to the 15th century. But you, you take the 99% chance and claim it is 100% and tell anyone who disagrees with you that they are evil and destroying the planet. It doesn’t help.

Bertrand Russell talked about how the person who has science on their side shouldn’t have to get angry or use any other words other than logical and reasonable ones. Part of how I got out of religion is that I watched the atheists stay perfectly calm while the zealots were yelling about how non-believers just want to sin and can’t accept a higher power. What I’m saying above is, the higher power we have is the power of calculations and experiments and their results. I don’t need to do all of those, and many of them I can’t do, but I don’t simply believe in them either. I know how I could obtain that higher power and be a scientist of whatever discipline. I also know how to check the political power that comes with knowledge, so I’m not fooled by bad science or by the priests.

You ignore most of what I just said and say things like

As if your emotional response will override their emotional fear of authorities, distrust in science, and belief in conspiracies by the rich and powerful. It wasn’t that long ago that all of those things were normal. Kings did whatever they wanted and said it was God’s will or the Royal Sorcerer said it was true. Being poor and ignorant (and I mean uninformed and uneducated, not stupid) is frightening and emotional responses are exactly what science predicts. Believing that everyone in the world should just catch up to the logic and reasoning of people who have degrees, have read lots of books, had a relatively peaceful life, and used their time wisely, is not logical.

You won the game CC, you have land and grandchildren. It’s our responsibility to figure out how to make the world better.