jtxxwl2
Why do you think that's implausible? What evidence of election fraud would you expect to be left behind that would be difficult to dispose of?
>is allowed to stand by corrupt institutions despite being widely decried.
By whom?
>If it were, you'd expect there to be examples of cases undetectable in the short-run but later discovered.
Why would that be expected? Many crimes are much harder to prove if the perpetrator is not caught in the act. Why would you not expect election fraud to be among them?
No, that's not what happened. People who believed the odds of the courts ruling in favor of Trump made the payout worth it gave their money to people who believed the odds of that not happening made the payout for that scenario worth it.
Of course, courts only have access to the evidence which is given to them by either side, so really we only know that the evidence Trump's legal team was able to get its hands on on short notice was not sufficient to convince the court to take the very significant step of overturning election results. We do not know who "actually" got more legitimate votes.
And also kinda like how Kim Jong Un might be the preferred candidate of 100% of North Koreans, and we'll never really know for sure, but most people conclude that he is almost certainly not.
I was talking about hard evidence specifically -- think a smoking gun with the suspect's fingerprints on it. According to what I have been lead to believe, if election fraud happened in the US, sufficient evidence of said fraud would be discovered and presented to American courts, though that is not the case in other countries.
Therefore if I have not been mislead, when a person considers whether there was election fraud in the US, they should only consider whether sufficient evidence has been presented to courts or to the media, not whether there exist other lesser forms of evidence.
Have I been mislead? If it is possible to carry out election rigging conspiracies in the US, then how can we be so confident that no such conspiracies were carried out by people that viciously hate the former president? Surely if it is possible for conspirators to get away with it in other countries, and there is no magical means of preventing it here, then it's possible for them to get away with it here as well. They have courts and investigations and evidence in other countries as well, and that has seemingly not prevented election rigging there.
Based on this statement, I am guessing you are an American, and are therefore accustomed to all relevant hard evidence always being available. What you may not know is that in the rest of the world, sometimes some hard evidence is not available, so those people have adapted other mechanisms for forming beliefs about what is true. One such mechanism is the use of reason to draw inferences from other relevant facts.
For instance, in those countries, if a man who has professed a strong desire for wealth is tasked with guarding a large pile of money, and the money disappears, people in those countries will infer that the man likely took the money, even if no one saw him take it and the money is not later found in his possession.
This is even more relevant outside of the US. In the US vote rigging conspiracies are impossible for some inexplicable reason, perhaps related to magical soil, but outside of the US they are a real concern.
So make it easier for people to control their own behavior, if you want to make a dent in the problem. Teach them how to be in good shape by actually making them do it as adolescents. Teenagers are already required to participate in gym class. Why don't we change gym class so that it actually does something for them?
>and putting things in scarier packaging will not solve that problem.
Do you think that the labeling on a package is irrelevant? Then why do companies spend so much money designing it? Why are they all bright flashy colors, rather than black, white, and grey?
>Why would we restrict our charity to this country?
Because this is where we live, and where our families live, and the quality of their lives is most dependent on what happens to the people here.
>Let's solve real problems, which mostly exist in other countries. Unrestricted access to soda and Twinkies is not a real problem.
70% of the country being overweight is a real problem.
>In addition, prohibition does not work.
I said nothing about prohibition. Having to ask the cashier to go get you your case of Pepsi is not the same as banning the sale of Pepsi.
How about devoting multiple hours of every school day in high school to getting students into great shape, so they don't start off their adult lives overweight?
There are many, many things we could easily do, but the people who run our civilization do not want them to be done. Those same people are the ones that are gaining more and more power over the people, by the way, as a consequence of the concentration of wealth.
What water scarcity problem is currently causing problems for 70% of the country?
I don't really care whom you blame, I care about the results. Our society could do much more to stop people from being fat and unhealthy, yet 70% of the country is overweight, and more people have chronic health problems than don't.
>How should I know how people's unborn children feel about a society which doesn't exist yet?
I'm not asking how the unborn children feel, I'm asking whether the existing people would want to be born into the civilization which they expect that their grandchildren and great-grandchildren will inherit.
I believe the applause was entirely on the basis of the oratorical trouncing he gave to Buckley, who was the wrong person to be on that stage, and as a result of the fact that they were already sympathetic to his point of view. What impact would Baldwin's presentation have had on a group of British aristocrats 200 years earlier, who were making fortunes by financing slave ship voyages?
Would they have been convinced that the cruel behavior of some sheriff toward a black woman was evidence that treating Africans differently from Europeans was poisonous to their minds?
I would be shocked if that was actually the first time they learned that being a member of a conquered or enslaved people was really not very nice in a variety of different ways. Maybe they did not know about some of the particular ways in which it is bad, but these are as you noted young members of the elite class in a rapidly decolonializing empire. I would expect them to know the ethical debate over imperialism like the back of their hand, and would expect them to generally be unfavorable toward it.
These people knew about the history of slavery, not just in Europe and the Americas, but about, for instance, slavery in the middle east, where, despite bringing in huge numbers of African slaves, there are virtually no descendants of African slaves today, due to the customary treatment of slaves there.
As for whether Jefferson's ideals are a sham, clearly they are to some degree. Maybe the people who signed that document believed all men are created equal, and believed that applied also to their slaves, but if they did believe that, they clearly did not see much of a problem with ignoring their inalienable rights. This contradiction has been discussed since before the ink was dry, and is quite well known. They were not laying out a carefully reasoned philosophical treatise, they were trying to rally their own side in a political debate.
An ignorant person could believe that American ideals mean that American society was built for all Americans equally, but the audience members were not ignorant people. So I don't know, you tell me what you think they learned, and why you think they gave a standing ovation.
Well, why would you expect anything else?
If on the one hand they view the descendants of the slaves as being inherently inferior, then certainly they are not going to view them as part of their civilization or want them to integrate. This is an easy thing to think, given they had recently ruled over their ancestors.
If on the other hand they believe the other group is fundamentally equal to them, and only in a temporarily inferior position due to circumstances neither group controlled, consider that the dominant group had just used their power over the other group to brutally exploit them. They have only to ask themselves how they'd behave if someone had done that to them to think that it may not be in their interest to let the other group in to the club where its members will have some power over them.
That is where the "special effort" comes in to play. The dominant group must first be convinced that their former slaves are not fundamentally inferior to them. Then on top of that, they have to be convinced that, even though they treated their own group preferentially to the detriment of the other group, the other group will not treat itself preferentially to the dominant group's detriment, or at least not badly enough to outweigh other concerns (or perhaps that they deserve such treatment).
In regard to South America and the Caribbean, while Europeans ruled those areas, they did not really colonize them in the same way that they colonized the US. European involvement in South America and the Caribbean was mostly limited to wealthy plantation owners, whereas the southern US had significant numbers of people not personally involved with slavery.
This seems like a pretty obvious and unsurprising consequence of descending from people that were only brought into that civilization to provide slave labor. How many civilizations have made special effort to reshape their culture for the benefit of the descendants of their slaves? I think anyone that appears "mesmerized" by hearing that probably has not thought very much about the topic, or is putting on a show.
If said leadership wanted people that would take the clear and simple steps needed to solve the obesity crisis to be in charge of that problem, then the obesity crisis would have been solved. The obesity crisis has not been solved, so we can only conclude that the leadership does not want the right people to be involved. Yet presumably we should also believe that said leadership has our best interests in mind now that there's a new virus going around, when they have already irrefutably demonstrated that they don't?
And that is in large part thanks to the government and its public health experts, who we are now, I guess, supposed to believe have our interests in mind, even though, by letting 40% of the population become obese, when there are plain and simple steps they could have taken to prevent it, they have irrefutably demonstrated they do not actually care about the health of the population.
I do not even think an argument can be made that their failure is due to incompetence.
Have there been any long term double blind studies (e.g. 20+ years) to actually verify that this is the case? Or is this all based on the current models of how vaccines and their components behave in the body and what effects they have?