If President Trump wins re-election in 2020, will his enemies accept the results? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

If President Trump wins re-election in 2020, will his enemies accept the results?

yes, they will
8
36%
No, they will not
14
64%
#14995870
@Victoribus Spolia , you said;

Victoribus Spolia wrote:The left first discarded manners, then it discarded morals, then it discarded nature, and now its abandoning even sportsmanship.

They are now just debased overgrown children who are perpetually mad because successful people won't share and white people won't die.


This is an example of the kind of thing that eventually happens to overgrown and evil children;

2 Kings chapter 2, verses 23-25

23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25 And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.


Good stuff, and I mean that sincerely :)
Last edited by annatar1914 on 26 Mar 2019 03:58, edited 1 time in total.
#14995880
SolarCross wrote: The fact is being insulting functions as an invitation to fight potentially to the death or serious injury. As a matter of course wise people try to avoid unnecessary fights and so wise people choose to be polite over being insulting for the most part.


The most famous student of offensive language, Professor Reinhold (Rey) Aman, said exactly the opposite.
According to him, insults are a substitute for physical fights. Verbal aggression instead of physical aggression.
I corresponded with Rey for many years, in different languages (he spoke nine), sadly he passed away earlier this month at the age of 82.
http://languagehat.com/remembering-reinhold-aman/
#14995935
@SSDR if you write @ when you write a message, it will automatically pull-up everyone who has posted in this thread for you to select from. When you click on that person then the @Victoribus Spolia mention will actually notify me that you have responded.

Once again, I can't reply to things you write if you don't actually tag me.

SSDR wrote:There is no scientific proof that manners are needed to ensure the survival of humanity.


First, science can't prove anything as true, as the scientific method, induction, and empirical attempts to determine causes are all always fallacious, logically speaking. Logic is my standard.

Thus, even if there were scientific evidence to support my point, I would reject it even if it supported my conclusion.

SSDR wrote: If someone really gets hurt due to some people lacking respectful manners, it is because they were raised or conditioned to actually think that they need manners to be truly happy, which is NOT true.


Actually one could make an argument for a praxeological necessity for manners in a state of nature as the basis for maintaining contractual standards regarding trade. In the absence of a state, people who are considered rude could lose and often would lose trading partners and be at real risk of starvation etc.

SSDR wrote:Morals are used to keep people from revolting against the rich.


Morals are inferred from plain reason, I challenged you to debate this and even linked the threads where my arguments are presented.

The challenge is still there for you.

SSDR wrote: You don't like the industrial revolution? You wanna live in poverty?


Not really, and I do want to live off the fruit of my own labor and be dependent on no one else. This would on paper make look like someone who voluntarily chose poverty, but thats ok. my happiness does not come from money or my standard of living.

This is the great irony of communists, for a lot that hates money etc, they are often the most materialistic of hedonists.

SSDR wrote:Sportsmanship? What are we in? A fucking monastery?


:eh:

I didn't know that was a stereotype regarding monasteries, that they are good sports.

Either that or you just made up something that didn't make any sense. I am assuming the latter.

Also, I noticed in another thread that you advocated for the disarming of the populace (including the proletariat).

That being the case, I take back my previous compliment to you that you were a consistent Marxist. You are not.

Marxism has historically taught that the workers should be armed in the event of overthrowing the bourgeois.

Likewise, I saw in another thread where you said you think smoking pot leads to decadent degeneracy, but abolishing the family and morals (as you advocate) doesn't? :lol:

I am starting to think that even if you accepted my challenge to debate my metaphysical and moral arguments, you would not be qualified to handle the task.
#14996005
@Victoribus Spolia So I just fucking press the "Usermention"button?

Science is logic. Religion is not. Is it really logical that a baby was born to a mother who has never been fucked?

Under most circumstances, the scientific method is not fallacious. That doesn't even make any sense.

You want to live on the fruit of your own fucking labour? So you don't want to live in a house that was built by OTHER construction workers? You don't want to drive a car that was built by OTHER assembly line workers? You don't want to use utilities that were mined by OTHER mine/coal workers? You think that everything should be locally made? To keep the family institution forced together?

You don't want to depend on no one else? Don't you depend on your family? Yet you're using family values to make it appear that it is not "no one else" because family is "more than that." If you got into a car accident and you need surgery, you don't want a surgeon to operate on you?

Happiness does not come from money at all. I never said that. But what you said makes you sound like you support poverty. :|

I am a hedonist. And I am against poverty. I hate money because money makes people corrupt. It makes people fake. It controls society in a fake manner. In a socialist economy, you don't need money because currency doesn't exist!

In a socialist economy, why would the general populace need guns? More guns means more crime.

Family and morals are oppressive. Marijuana is social decay. There is a difference between progress and social decay.

Handle what task? There is no task to handle. You have no proof otherwise.
#14996013
SSDR wrote:@SolarCross, It depends on what kind of morals you're promoting or defending. The left is far more scientific than Christian fundamentalists because Christian fundamentals deny science due to its secular atmosphere. And your first paragraph really has nothing to do with anything.


I used to believe (without evidence!) that Christian fundamentalists were the very bottom of the logic heap but then I discovered pofo and communism whereupon I realised that there were Lovecraftian depths far, far, far below that. The left just use science as a smokescreen when they can use it to attack Christians but in truth they really hate it.
#14996018
Victoribus Spolia wrote:First, science can't prove anything as true, as the scientific method, induction, and empirical attempts to determine causes are all always fallacious, logically speaking. Logic is my standard.

Thus, even if there were scientific evidence to support my point, I would reject it even if it supported my conclusion.

That's overstating things. Science uses math and logic to prove its theorems. Since the universal set contains propositions that can neither be proven nor disproven, the universal set itself cannot be proven or disproven. Consequently, there is an inherent level of uncertainty--even with logic.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:This is the great irony of communists, for a lot that hates money etc, they are often the most materialistic of hedonists.

That's an excellent point. Communists/socialists seem to have an inherent an unbounded sense of greed.

SSDR wrote:Science is logic. Religion is not. Is it really logical that a baby was born to a mother who has never been fucked?

Science is not logic. Science is testing out a hypothesis via empirical observation, with a predisposition toward skepticism. The hypothesis may involve logic, but science should not be confused with formal logic. It's a stronger statement to say that math is logic.

SSDR wrote:In a socialist economy, you don't need money because currency doesn't exist!

By that definition, a socialist economy doesn't exist.

SSDR wrote:In a socialist economy, why would the general populace need guns? More guns means more crime.

If corruption is a function of currency, and there is no currency in a socialist economy, it would stand to reason that crime wouldn't exist. So you should be able to trust the socialist citizen with a firearm.

Hong Wu wrote:They are already working on producing new hoaxes, such as investigating Trump's inaugural committee.

They clearly have no policy positions to run on beyond the "green new deal," which is just gut wrenching poverty with a veneer of nobility. It's startling how vacuous they have become.
#14996020
blackjack21 wrote:


They clearly have no policy positions to run on beyond the "green new deal," which is just gut wrenching poverty with a veneer of nobility. It's startling how vacuous they have become.


When your life, and not merely the collective you identify with, is just a mass of ''feels'', of competing disordered passions and half-baked notions of ''justice'' which translate into wealth and freedom without duties and obligations to society, the political ideology of such people is bound to be an insane and primitive one.

Too lazy to truly work and too clever by far to starve or otherwise do themselves in, such a Mob is to be feared but little. They are not a People but a Population, and are easily cowed by strong and resolute leaders of a country.
#14996023
No, his enemies will not accept the results.
What worries me is that the polarisation might last for a long time to come.
I foresee that Republicans will not accept a Democratic President either.
It is going to be obstruction all the way, investigations, hoaxes, smears and insults.
As a result very little necessary work and development will be possible... health care, infrastructure, immigration, climate change, nothing will be solved.
No respect, no cooperation.
Will this go on for a generation, or longer ?
#14996027
SSDR wrote:@SolarCross, You believe that because that's how you were raised! You're using fascism to cope with deteriorating capitalism, and don't know it because you're lacking real consciousness!

I wasn't raised at all really, I am practically an orphan, contrary to your onanistic delusions I have been obliged to create my world view entirely on my own. Also who the fuck is a fascist? Not me, in fact you are far closer to an actual fascist than me, but what do you care ya fucking robot.
#14996030
SSDR wrote:I am a robot? You can't prove that you fucking neoliberal conservative.

You can't prove any of your random assertions. You don't even seem to be aware of the meaning of anything you say. Where is the "scientific proof" that I am:

1. a fascist
2. lacking consciousness

Eh? You crazy fuck!
Last edited by SolarCross on 27 Mar 2019 01:38, edited 1 time in total.

https://twitter.com/CIJ_ICJ/status/177337636136248[…]

I was actually unaware :lol: Before he was […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession Why sexual v[…]

Indeed. It is strange, but they're all over the in[…]