Sociopath Community

Spatial's Proof: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Inquirer said: 

Sven said: 

His political opponents did this to themselves. Trump is just pointing it out and asked for an investigation.

No Trump crimes were identified during the impeachment. This is purely an ethics argument in opinion only.

In what way exactly did they do this to themselves?

Do you think a president should be allowed to push a foreign government to specifically investigate a person of interest to him without any actual proof of wrongdoing?

 I posted proof and explained Biden's wrong doing Inq.

That is Joe Biden's quid pro quo with Ukraine, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. For more information read my other post.

Something the mainstream media is not covering is Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani going after the Democrats over this.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if Rudy got assassinated. 

Why did Trump request Ukraine's new leader an investigation into Biden ? Rudy being his lawyer, he knows what they've done and he's gathering as much information about it as he can before the execution. Some democrats are afraid, and the most bitter of them are probably guilty as sin.

His other post: 

Spatial Mind said: 

FOTS said: 

Regardless of innocence, this sets a dangerous precedent. Impeachment will forever be a broken system and expect every president from here on out to be impeached. 

Only if the conditions are set. Last time the Democrats got the house majority and not even a year went by before they sought to impeach the President.

Fortunately the Senate is a Republican majority giving the Republicans final say in the event the Dems submit the articles of impeachment. Dems would get denied and they know this, which is why Pelosi is fishing for terms before submitting it. For Democrats it's a stalemate until further notice. Trump will have impeachment lingering over his head but it's not happening. As you said earlier, Trump is not impeached.

I think more voters from now on will secure their votes by participating in House and Senate voting. 

It's still broken in the sense that can even happen, plus the Dems pretty much are insisting that a presidential candidate is immune to investigating with this stunt.

And by the way, the burden of proof is placed on the acuser and they have not brought up sufficient evidence that Trump offered a quid pro quo deal. 

 Some of those Democrats are guilty of worse, and that's coming to light very soon. It will be found that the Democrats were trying to prevent their own demise.

He talks about more of his views on earlier posts as well, but I assume he must have meant these ones based on his linking us page five. 

Turncoat said: 

Inquirer said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Secondly I was talking to Inq, I mentioned the Joe Biden scandal that I showed him a year ago, with proof. Now you're asking me to post proof along side the false narritive that I'm saying taxes are bad.

Why won't you give us an estimate for what you think a good tax rate for the rich is?

Because he doesn't know, and would rather not spend the time learning it. 

He keeps claiming "it's so simple" as a way to avoid having to explain it, not to get us off of his back, but because that's all he needs to believe it himself. The dissonance being experienced here is between what it takes for him to believe something versus the common man. 

You never showed proof of a Joe Biden scandal. You showed Biden say a thing that could just as easily have been in reference to something benign as something corrupt/malicious. It wasn't the smoking gun you wanted it to be.

Spatial doesn't need the things that fit his narrative to be proven to him, it should just be "understood" as "common sense" or else it must be brainwashing. 

You're taking advantage of Inq, TC. I'm sure he'll settle for all of your theories. 

.

.

.

When you have a divided nation, yes there is brainwashing. Tonights violence will be a byproduct of the mainstream media's bias. For years they lied to the masses, day and night teaching hatred through ridicule. No one wants to be out of their comfort zone, and it's so bad the truth is scoffed at and discarded, UNTIL, the programmer announces it to the programmed.

Many don't know the policies of either side. 

The Biden voter cast their vote based on hatred, and nothing else. It's about voting out Trump, because they think he's a Nazi, Xenophobe, sexist, white supremacist.

A vote for Biden is a vote for Antifa, BLM, tax hikes, American's job's going back overseas to slave laborers, demolish 4 million buildings and rebuild them, which is incredibly expensive. American's wealth will be sucked dry, China will once again become the #1 economy ( As it did under Obama ) and the US will have no chance at recovering. Biden will get his kickbacks from China if he gets into office. AFTER he packs the court ( He'd do it quick cause he doesn't have much time left to live ). Black guy gets shot after charging 2 pleading police officers with a knife. Black people go crazy. Biden will never denounce their behavior because their ignorant vote is more important to him, and it is.

A vote for Trump at first was a vote for something new. Now It's a vote by people who think for themselves and looked into what's been done. The Trump voter doesn't followed The Tonight Show or Cardi B's opinion. There will be a greater turnout of voters on tonight's election, for Trump, because of Trump's merits. Merits, the typical brainwashed citizen wasn't informed about by their trusted sources.

Here comes the bigger landslide.

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

Inquirer said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Secondly I was talking to Inq, I mentioned the Joe Biden scandal that I showed him a year ago, with proof. Now you're asking me to post proof along side the false narritive that I'm saying taxes are bad.

Why won't you give us an estimate for what you think a good tax rate for the rich is?

Because he doesn't know, and would rather not spend the time learning it. 

He keeps claiming "it's so simple" as a way to avoid having to explain it, not to get us off of his back, but because that's all he needs to believe it himself. The dissonance being experienced here is between what it takes for him to believe something versus the common man. 

You never showed proof of a Joe Biden scandal. You showed Biden say a thing that could just as easily have been in reference to something benign as something corrupt/malicious. It wasn't the smoking gun you wanted it to be.

Spatial doesn't need the things that fit his narrative to be proven to him, it should just be "understood" as "common sense" or else it must be brainwashing. 

You're taking advantage of Inq, TC. I'm sure he'll settle for all of your theories. 

It's being directed at you though, not him. It's about you. 

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

Inquirer said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Secondly I was talking to Inq, I mentioned the Joe Biden scandal that I showed him a year ago, with proof. Now you're asking me to post proof along side the false narritive that I'm saying taxes are bad.

Why won't you give us an estimate for what you think a good tax rate for the rich is?

Because he doesn't know, and would rather not spend the time learning it. 

He keeps claiming "it's so simple" as a way to avoid having to explain it, not to get us off of his back, but because that's all he needs to believe it himself. The dissonance being experienced here is between what it takes for him to believe something versus the common man. 

You never showed proof of a Joe Biden scandal. You showed Biden say a thing that could just as easily have been in reference to something benign as something corrupt/malicious. It wasn't the smoking gun you wanted it to be.

Spatial doesn't need the things that fit his narrative to be proven to him, it should just be "understood" as "common sense" or else it must be brainwashing. 

You're taking advantage of Inq, TC. I'm sure he'll settle for all of your theories. 

It's being directed at you though, not him. It's about you. 

 Well yes. 

What I'm saying is, you're filling his head.

No, I'm trying to address your bad strategies. This is simply the portion you're choosing to focus on so that the content itself doesn't have to be further addressed. 

It's not "filling people's heads with bad ideas" if I'm stating what you're truthfully doing, it's merely you attempting to redirect the focus. 

Inquirer:
Tony, how can you be so sure the Russia interference was a hoax but also believe Biden is definitely bought by the Chinese?

Spatial Mind:
What Trump is doing is heroic

Inquirer:
Lol okay.

Spatial Mind:
That's a good question Inq
It's also a long answer

Inquirer:
How long?

Spatial Mind:
It starts off with seeing the establishment's bias attacks on Trump
Paragraphs long I suppose
You don't believe the establishment exists, I do, and we're seeing it's ugly head right now
So it's easier for me to see Inq
The FBI already reported how there was no* Russian collusion, and how the Dossier leads back to the Hillary campaign
We see Twitter and Facebook censoring the Biden scandar

Inquirer:
That's not what they reported though.
But why do you trust the FBI if you think the establishment lies?

Tryptamine:
The people who were claiming there was collusion got fired, to be fair

Spatial Mind:
FBI is being caught up in this
Trump already slammed James Comey
There was no evidence
Trump was a very popular man. As soon as he said he was running, in came the sudden hatred
That is the establishment activating their assets
Trump is taking abuse like a tank, and still he moves forward
Most people would have already shattered under all of this
He is a hero

Tryptamine:
The questions asked to him by the same media companies as opposed to what they ask Biden
Nothing remotely the same in nature

Spatial Mind:
THey asking* Biden about his Ice cream lol
It is the establishment. Kennedy warned us about

Inquirer:
I mean, there can be Russian interference without collusion. Do you believe the Russians interfered at all?

Spatial Mind:
Nope
Hillary was the first to announce the Russian collusion during the 2nd debate I think
The Clintons are criminals
No joke

Inquirer:
But all US intelligence agencies have concluded there was Russian interference.

Spatial Mind:
They did not Inq

Inquirer:
The Republican led Intelligence committee concluded the same thing.

Spatial Mind:
sigh. Show us

Inquirer:
"The Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Trump, which included assistance from some members of Trump's own advisers."

Tryptamine:
That's a committee report

Inquirer:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/senate-intelligence-russian-interference-report.html
Yes.

Tryptamine:
Not quite the same thing as an official bureau statement on a matter

Spatial Mind:
Here Inq https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woGyMvqLV5o
John Ratcliffe
Director of National Intelligence

Tryptamine:
My take is that there was a vested interest in the investigation
It came to no conclusion, other than a result of nothing
This was an ongoing attempt at impeachment

Inquirer:
"A report issued by high-ranking American intelligence officials in January of 2017 concluded that Russian operatives reporting to Putin interfered in the 2016 presidential election in favor of Trump."
"It was drafted and compiled by the CIA, the FBI and the National Security Agency."

Tryptamine:
Now, it can be claimed that Trump stacked it by firing some people
But the end-conclusion was a dead-end, as there was no impeachment
I don't know where the truth begins and ends with those people, I just know what happened

Inquirer:
Tony, that video talks about Hunter Biden. Not Russian interference.

Spatial Mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kh3ngzbUeA

Inquirer:
There's a difference between Russian interference and Trump colluding with the Russians.

Spatial Mind:
There is no evidence of Russian collusion

Inquirer:
You guys seem to mix them up.

Tryptamine:
How's Sweden doing with Covid

Inquirer:
That's RT, first of all, and secondly the host points out "it's important to be clear here that we don't really know what he's referring to".
You can't link me comments made from that are incredibly open to interpretation and claim they're some kind of evidence.

---

12 minute recess as Spatial catches his breath during Inq and Tryp's talk about Sweden, masks, social distancing, and the former SC senate. 

---

Spatial Mind:
Inq
THat clip on the RT video, that's real footage of Van Jones called the investigation a Nothing Burger
The footage is originally from Project Veritas
Is there any evidence of Russian collusion ? No it's all based on hearsay
Just like the Impeachment hearings

Inquirer:
The RT video shows a reporter saying "the Russia thing" is a nothing burger. It does not explain what is meant by "the Russia thing", nor why his opinion is such a big deal.

Spatial Mind:
My BPD friend worked her way up in politics, she worked with Justin Trudeau
Not anymore. I wonder why lol
She can get her foot into any door
Until her mask slips

Tryptamine:
BPD people would actually probably be really good at promotion

Spatial Mind:
She's dangerous

Tryptamine:
Exactly

Spatial Mind:
Something must have been going on behind the scenes cause she never wanted to tell me she was into politics until she made it

It trails off here as Spatial talks of money, how he's better than his former friends, a BPD person who is totally not his ex, and comments like the following: 

Next time make my name in red, and Inq blue.

Spatial Mind said: 

Next time make my name in red, and Inq blue.

I was going with avatar colors for this one. 

Inquirer said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Inquirer said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

I will say this topic is more contentious than a lot of people lead on, and I mean it as a scientific topic purely.

Contentious in what way?

The inference one should make from the fact that anthropological climate change is, imo, factually real. 

For instance, I suggesting reading into the debate between Dr.Karoly and Dr.Happer, both respected scientists in this realm of study, whom disagree on the effects of climate change. I have found many respectable physicists, chemists, and climatologists in both camps so it's really an interesting debate. Both do not deny the reality of climate change, they merely disagree about the inferences one can make about that reality.

I checked their debate (plus a bunch of other things Happer has said) and I am not sure I'd use the word "merely" lol. He seems to believe more CO2 is almost solely a good thing for humanity because we can never release enough to actually go beyond 2C. That's not a conservative take on established climate consensus, it's basically a denial of it. He also strikes me as disingenuous in how he presents data and highlights "gotchas", like claiming the IPCC purposely hid the Medieval Warm Period from their later reports or that 'Climategate' proves scientists are part of a conspiracy. Here's a list of 'myths' Happer has argued and here's an article of his with commentary from someone who disagrees with him. 

It was interesting reading the debate on whether a CO2 increase below 2C would be beneficial though. If not for the feedback loops and the continued greenhouse gas emission buildup we might actually want a slightly higher CO2 level in the atmosphere.

It is a conservative view though, scientifically it is. Socially it is not but I put very little weight in social views as it relates to  scientific topics. When we start making statements about 'deniers' 'denier thinking', 'conspiracy' and the like we are entering a social discussion which is not at all scientific. I refrain from this form of thinking as it's practically useless in discerning objective material truth. I don't find arguments valid or invalid based on the basis of consensus but rather on the reasons and rigor in which it stands. 

I am already aware of the links you've posted and previously read through them, neither were convincing arguing against his points and skepticalsceince as the project it is is honestly a joke. 

Individuals such as Happer and Dyson know this area of study well, they have seen the same data as everyone else and understand it well along with what may be inferred from it. These are two physicists that revolutionized their own sciences, Dyson in mathematics and QM and Happer in optics, so they are more than capable of rigorous inference - but that's just it isn't it those inferences must be rigorous. 

They question the fundamental assumptions that all climatology as it is currently practiced is built on. They start with 'What are the models capable of telling us?" , "what is the quality of the data", 'what can I infer", instead of "what is the consensus". Happer and Dyson have a strong leg to stand on because they are attacking the foundational assumptions that most climatologists take as given. Arguing the assumptions and their validity is what's key here and those assumptions are a contentious topic, insanely contentious but also rewarding if one is interested in modeling and the nature of quantity. 

I think I'll make a thread on this soon when I'm less busy. 

Climatology is an interesting debate.