I'm not having a substantive debate here — AmadeusD

As usual.

it isn't about those claims anyway — AmadeusD

It’s exactly about those stupid claims. Both about voter fraud — which is so small it’s practically nonexistent — and about “

allowing people to vote with no check on whether they are eligible — AmadeusD

— which are both exceedingly stupid. And being used to justify stupid new regulations.

Which is why you should stick to fluff that has no way of being verified. This actually can be.

It’s a stupid solution in search of a problem.

For anyone truly interested in facts, not just vibes and intuition:

Most states already require ID at the polls. 14 states do not. All states are required to confirm eligibility and citizenship, usually through registration — drivers license or social security number the most common ways; of course address is confirmed too. The ones that don’t require ID at the polling place require an affidavit and/or signature and are checked against voter rolls.

Here in New Hampshire, you used to be able to register same day as Election Day with an affidavit, but now they require an ID or birth certificate as well —even though there were never issues with the old way. Courtesy of a republican legislature and Governor. Both idiotic.

And, of course, voter fraud is virtually nonexistent. It’s about as common as winning the megabucks.

So, again: just making it even more cumbersome to vote for the stupidest of pretexts, all so that the republicans can skim a few thousand votes away from democrats— as the populations most affected are mostly democratic voters.

But whatever— they’re so hated they’ll lose anyway. Still funny to watch the apologists get so easily riled up about absolutely nothing though. See also trans people, boys in girls’ bathrooms/sports, the abortion of babies in the 3rd trimester, mandating EVs, immigration, the canceling of Christmas, the eating of dogs and cats, etc etc. Stupid myths that Fox News conjures out of thin air.

Every vote counts:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/terrebonne-tatiana-auguste-supreme-court-result-9.7088850

I'm ready for a new government now.

Both about voter fraud — Mikie

Well, I'm telling you, point blank, it wasn't. You came into it late, and I am telling you that wasn't what was being discussed.

which are both exceedingly stupid. And being used to justify stupid new regulations. — Mikie

There is no end to your inabilities.

interested in facts — Mikie

Hehe.

Well, I'm telling you, point blank, it wasn't. — AmadeusD

You are such a bore. I never said that’s what you were discussing. But since you do exactly what you childishly, and tiresomely, accuse others of doing — namely, completely misreading, I’ll break it down:

It’s exactly about those stupid claims. Both about voter fraud — which is so small it’s practically nonexistent — and about “ allowing people to vote with no check on whether they are eligible
— AmadeusD
— which are both exceedingly stupid. And being used to justify stupid new regulations. — Mikie

So I’ll help you: this entire discussion was about both voter fraud (which Nos and others were discussing) and apparently your own peculiar, and stupid, claim — which I quoted directly and you deliberately left out, about checking on eligibility.

So try reading better. I’ll repeat: that claim that you made, is completely stupid and baseless. Understand?

This entire “debate” — the one you joined in on and know nothing about, as usual — was about voter ID, and is usually justified by claims of voter fraud. So you’re wrong about “it not being about that,” but that doesn’t mean you claimed anything about voter fraud. You’re making another claim. And, as I said before, both are stupid. Yours is just more stupid. And I went through in detail why that’s the case.

So next time, don’t do this usual game of making a baseless claim and then running away after you’re called out by claiming you’re a victim. Your claim about “ allowing people to vote with no check on whether they are eligible” is wrong. Period. Be a man and admit it.

I think it might be best that if you see yourself having typed out more than 50 words you just put it in you drafts :lol: You do not seem capable of reading clearly, understanding context, understanding that your vitriol is boring and unhelpful or many other things that make you a precisely unproductive and combative member of this forum who rarely wades into substantive philosophical discussion. You may be incapable of understanding, But i've actively tried to come to terms with you several times. You want the drama. That's shit.

Take care Mikie. Let's hope hte new site has a block function

There is a rage growing in women.
— Questioner

Speak for yourself, Questioner.

ancient instincts awake
— Questioner

To attend protests? LOL. — AmadeusD

I am specifically talking about the highest reaches of government covering up for the rape and murder of girls

Translation: another stupid statement by you which you’re not man enough to admit is completely baseless. When confronted, play victim and run away. For the umpteenth time. Boring indeed.

Anyway, for everyone else, this statement:

The point is that allowing people to vote with no check on whether they are eligible is stupid. — AmadeusD

Is completely untrue, as shown — substantively (thus ignored by Risible, whose arena is feelings) — here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1041116

Also laughable that this was claimed:

I have seen evidence which would support that claim. — AmadeusD

Yet never given. What a shocker. But please go on lecturing people about “substantive” posts and their lack of “understanding,” wondering why so many people can’t stand you.

Projection is usually confession. Risible is actually terrible at reading comprehension. Hence the constant accusing others of it.

Flawed ‘Epstein Files’ disclosures undermine accountability for grave crimes against women and girls: UN experts
^{— UN · Feb 16, 2026}
Epstein files: ‘No one is too wealthy or too powerful to be above the law’; rights experts demand accountability
^{— Vibhu Mishra · UN · Feb 17, 2026}

The White House hasn't dealt with this crap appropriately.

The White House hasn't dealt with this crap appropriately. — jorndoe

You mean to tell me that the evil empire lacks the common decency to investigate and persecute itself?

What an absolute shocker! :scream:

It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

Epstein Files Reveal Scope of Ghislaine Maxwell’s Role in Clinton Circle

Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime companion, Ghislaine Maxwell, played a substantial role in supporting the creation of the Clinton Global Initiative, one of President Bill Clinton’s signature post-White House endeavors, new documents released by the Justice Department show.

Ms. Maxwell took part in budget discussions related to the first Clinton Global Initiative conference; talked through challenges about it with both Clinton aides and Publicis Groupe, the company that produced the inaugural event; and arranged to wire $1 million to pay Publicis for its work on “the Clinton project,” according to emails in the massive cache of documents collected as part of the government’s investigations of Mr. Epstein.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/08/us/politics/epstein-clintons-maxwell.html

It’s the gift that keeps on giving. — NOS4A2

How can you characterize anything to do with the Epstein files as a gift? That's sick.

I just find it hilarious that it exonerated those who you hated, but exposed those who you support.

I just find it hilarious that it exonerated those who you hated, but exposed those who you support. — NOS4A2

You don't get it. My only feeling from it all is great sorrow for the suffering so many girls went through

it is not about a contest between political sides.

You don't get it. My only feeling from it all is great sorrow for the suffering so many girls went through

One way to help is to point to those involved in his orbit, like the Clintons. You could also point out that Epstein was coaching a congresswoman in a House Oversight Committee hearing, Stacey Plaskett, proving his influence on the highest seats of power.

One way to help is to point to those involved in his orbit, like the Clintons. You could also point out that Epstein was coaching a congresswoman in a House Oversight Committee hearing, Stacey Plaskett, proving his influence on the highest seats of power. — NOS4A2

Yes, fine, get them all, but I don't understand getting pleasure from it

I don't understand how one cannot be pleased at this kind of disclosure.

I'm thinking Trump is liable.

Chlorine Dioxide, Raw Camel Milk: The FDA No Longer Warns Against These and Other Ineffective Autism Treatments
^{— Megan O’Matz · ProPublica · Feb 18, 2026}

Anyone else?

+ arranged nice teen company for the ex-President.



Correction! Oh no, what am I saying?

Maxwell and Epstein never trafficked any girls to anybody else but just to Jeffrey himself. There were no client list (or clients). No underage girls were trafficked to any US Presidents or billionaires etc. That's according to director Kash Patel, on whose judgement, conclusions and glorious leadership of the FBI @NOS4A2 firmly believes in! The awesome new heights in law enforcement that the FBI has reached under the brilliant supervision and leadership of director Kash Patel is something to marvel at. Perhaps only the stellar work that attorney general Pam Bondi has made in the Justice Department comes close to this awesome service for the Republic. :wink:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zOihCl93GkE



So why are we talking about Jeffrey Epstein? If someone like Jeffrey E has pictures like this one of the British ambassador to the US, it's totally normal in Washington circles, right?



So why is @NOS4A2 talking about Epstein? President Trump has made it clear that the case should be closed and the nation should move on.

I don't understand how one cannot be pleased at this kind of disclosure. — NOS4A2

I think her point, and it's a decent one, is that this whole situation sucks. It's not exactly good that there's a load of pedophiles and enablers in the US government. Having them convicted is justice, but it's indicative of the exact problem we shouldn't be happy about. It's more that the whole thing is morbid, rather than its bad they get dealt with, i think.

That said, I can understand how Questioner comes across as someone who might think its sad Clinton got caught, in the sense that its damning to the social divide one lives under the impression of.

:snicker:

First it was "Ep-who?" or something.
Then "No such dossier".
Then "Hoax".
Then "Deep state Biden conspiracy" or something.
Then "Fabrication by Obama".
Then more misdirection.
Then... (add/swap/repeat whatever)

All this from government officials in-the-know, paid employees of the US people, lying to everyone.
I'm thinking more than a slap over the wrist is warranted.
Credibility is gone.
Well, at least the Kremlin and Beijing (and @NOS4A2) are cheering at the chaos, I'm sure.

Was trying to make sense of this, but gave up:

Trump claims leaders call him ‘The President of Europe’ (Aug 26, 2025)
Trump thrashes European leaders in wide-ranging interview: ‘I think they’re weak’ (Dec 9, 2025)
Trump claims Europeans say he could ‘lead them’ (Dec 12, 2025)

I can understand how Questioner comes across as someone who might think its sad Clinton got caught, — AmadeusD

A totally unfounded assumption, and I take offense to it

A totally unfounded assumption, and I take offense to it — Questioner

I made no assumption. I described how you can come across. You do come across that way. Not comment on what you actually think. If that's uncomfortable, that's okay. You can behave differently to stop that impression if you want. I'm not complaining about it, anyway.

Please read more clearly before getting your pants in a twist :) Offense is taken, not given.

I think her point, and it's a decent one, is that this whole situation sucks. — AmadeusD

You were right when you said this. There is no positive side to girls getting raped and murdered.

Questioner comes across as someone who might think its sad Clinton got caught, — AmadeusD

You were wrong when you said this. Turns my stomach to think that anyone might think I have any empathy for any sexual predator. My concern is wholly focused on the victims.

Besides, i don't give a shit about Clinton. Don't know where you got that idea.

You were right when you said this. — Questioner

Yes, that seemed the basis of what you were saying. I think NOS4A2 is quite quick to create schadenfreude, in his view.

You were wrong when you said this. — Questioner

Mate, you are not reading clearly and I have requested that you do read more clearly. Please do so, to avoid these situations. I said nothing about what you think, feel or care about. Point blank, period. I said you come across this way. If you feel I said anything but this, please quote it. I will apologise.

And you do. There is no argument, because this is a subjective opinion of mine wholly divorced from whatever you actually think. You come across this way. If you don't want to, alter your posting style.

Don't know where you got that idea. — Questioner

I quite literally did not suggest you did. If you do not like how I see your posts, that's not actually for me to do anything about.

Mate, you are not reading clearly and I have requested that you do read more clearly. Please do so, to avoid these situations. I said nothing about what you think, feel or care about. Point blank, period. I said you come across this way. — AmadeusD

But I didn't. I asked you to quit with the judgments. Your incorrect speculations are not appreciated.

Just keeps getting better...

Who Is Doug Wilson? Pentagon Defends Pastor Who Led Christian Prayer Service
^{— Nick Mordowanec · Military.com · Feb 18, 2026}

What the fvck are those people doing at the Pentagon?
Isn't their church good enough for their rituals?