real-life effects of made-up facts

414 views
Skip to first unread message

jillery

unread,
Sep 1, 2021, 2:10:06 PMSep 1
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

<https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/freshman-gop-congressman-under-fire-for-bloodshed-remarks/vi-AANX77B>

<https://tinyurl.com/6sx2v5uu>


Citing "continuing rigged elections", a pseudo-skeptic PRATT, newly
elected Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) says he's willing to use lethal
force against other Americans in order to enforce what he thinks
qualifies as "fair elections", echoing sentiments of other Republican
politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Josh Hawley. Considering
that Trump described his first election, the one he legally won, as
"rigged", and the continuing Arizona audit scam, it remains unclear
what metrics these paper patriots would use to objectively identify a
fair election.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

Glenn

unread,
Sep 2, 2021, 11:45:06 AMSep 2
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 11:10:06 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> <https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/freshman-gop-congressman-under-fire-for-bloodshed-remarks/vi-AANX77B>
>
> <https://tinyurl.com/6sx2v5uu>
>
>
> Citing "continuing rigged elections", a pseudo-skeptic PRATT, newly
> elected Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) says he's willing to use lethal
> force against other Americans in order to enforce what he thinks
> qualifies as "fair elections",

Probably a lie.

>echoing sentiments of other Republican
> politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Josh Hawley.

Most likely more lies.

> Considering
> that Trump described his first election, the one he legally won, as
> "rigged",

Support that claim.

>and the continuing Arizona audit scam, it remains unclear
> what metrics these paper patriots would use to objectively identify a
> fair election.
>
"Paper patriots" from CNN is hilarious.

Martin Harran

unread,
Sep 2, 2021, 1:00:06 PMSep 2
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 08:43:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 11:10:06 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> <https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/freshman-gop-congressman-under-fire-for-bloodshed-remarks/vi-AANX77B>
>>
>> <https://tinyurl.com/6sx2v5uu>
>>
>>
>> Citing "continuing rigged elections", a pseudo-skeptic PRATT, newly
>> elected Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) says he's willing to use lethal
>> force against other Americans in order to enforce what he thinks
>> qualifies as "fair elections",
>
>Probably a lie.
>
>>echoing sentiments of other Republican
>> politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Josh Hawley.
>
>Most likely more lies.
>
>> Considering
>> that Trump described his first election, the one he legally won, as
>> "rigged",
>
>Support that claim.

Far be it from me to support Jillery, but ....

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37673797

An earlier tweet said: "The [2016] election is absolutely being rigged
by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary - but
also at many polling places - SAD."

jillery

unread,
Sep 2, 2021, 1:05:06 PMSep 2
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 08:43:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 11:10:06 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> <https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/freshman-gop-congressman-under-fire-for-bloodshed-remarks/vi-AANX77B>
>>
>> <https://tinyurl.com/6sx2v5uu>
>>
>>
>> Citing "continuing rigged elections", a pseudo-skeptic PRATT, newly
>> elected Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) says he's willing to use lethal
>> force against other Americans in order to enforce what he thinks
>> qualifies as "fair elections",
>
>Probably a lie.


Your "probably" is a willfully stupid equivocation. Or do you think
the cited video is "rigged" as well?


>>echoing sentiments of other Republican
>> politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Josh Hawley.
>
>Most likely more lies.


Most definitely willfully stupid equivocation.


>> Considering
>> that Trump described his first election, the one he legally won, as
>> "rigged",
>
>Support that claim.


Do you deny it? If not, your demand is just mindless noise.


>>and the continuing Arizona audit scam, it remains unclear
>> what metrics these paper patriots would use to objectively identify a
>> fair election.
>>
>"Paper patriots" from CNN is hilarious.


Not from CNN, but from me, to describe those who hide behind words of
patriotism even as they work to destroy what they claim to support.

Zen Cycle

unread,
Sep 2, 2021, 2:55:06 PMSep 2
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Hawthorns comments were widely reported and there were calls to have him censured. Greene and Hawley have made similar calls to violence, again, widely reported and condemned. Trump did in fact claim the election he was was rigged because he lost the popular vote - even Harran showed that reference. Seriously, are you some sort of masochist that enjoys being proven wrong and ridiculed? Let me guess, sparky, you're the one in high school that had a habit of walking around with a "kick me" sign taped to your back.

Glenn

unread,
Sep 2, 2021, 3:00:06 PMSep 2
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 10:00:06 AM UTC-7, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 08:43:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 11:10:06 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> <https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/freshman-gop-congressman-under-fire-for-bloodshed-remarks/vi-AANX77B>
> >>
> >> <https://tinyurl.com/6sx2v5uu>
> >>
> >>
> >> Citing "continuing rigged elections", a pseudo-skeptic PRATT, newly
> >> elected Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) says he's willing to use lethal
> >> force against other Americans in order to enforce what he thinks
> >> qualifies as "fair elections",
> >
> >Probably a lie.
> >
> >>echoing sentiments of other Republican
> >> politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Josh Hawley.
> >
> >Most likely more lies.
> >
> >> Considering
> >> that Trump described his first election, the one he legally won, as
> >> "rigged",
> >
> >Support that claim.
> Far be it from me to support Jillery, but ....
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37673797
>
> An earlier tweet said: "The [2016] election is absolutely being rigged
> by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary - but
> also at many polling places - SAD."


So he claimed HIS election was rigged?

Martin Harran

unread,
Sep 2, 2021, 5:15:06 PMSep 2
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 11:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
Now you're just being silly …. oops, forget the "now" part, silliness
is normal behaviour for you.

Martin Harran

unread,
Sep 2, 2021, 5:30:06 PMSep 2
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 11:50:33 -0700 (PDT), Zen Cycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 11:45:06 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 11:10:06 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> > <https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/freshman-gop-congressman-under-fire-for-bloodshed-remarks/vi-AANX77B>
>> >
>> > <https://tinyurl.com/6sx2v5uu>
>> >
>> >
>> > Citing "continuing rigged elections", a pseudo-skeptic PRATT, newly
>> > elected Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) says he's willing to use lethal
>> > force against other Americans in order to enforce what he thinks
>> > qualifies as "fair elections",
>> Probably a lie.
>> >echoing sentiments of other Republican
>> > politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Josh Hawley.
>> Most likely more lies.
>> > Considering
>> > that Trump described his first election, the one he legally won, as
>> > "rigged",
>> Support that claim.
>> >and the continuing Arizona audit scam, it remains unclear
>> > what metrics these paper patriots would use to objectively identify a
>> > fair election.
>> >
>> "Paper patriots" from CNN is hilarious.
>
>Hawthorns comments were widely reported and there were calls to have him censured. Greene and Hawley have made similar calls to violence, again, widely reported and condemned. Trump did in fact claim the election he was was rigged because he lost the popular vote - even Harran showed that reference.

Why the "even"?

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Sep 2, 2021, 9:20:06 PMSep 2
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 08:43:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 11:10:06 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>>> <https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/freshman-gop-congressman-under-fire-for-bloodshed-remarks/vi-AANX77B>
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://tinyurl.com/6sx2v5uu>
>>>
>>>
>>> Citing "continuing rigged elections", a pseudo-skeptic PRATT, newly
>>> elected Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) says he's willing to use lethal
>>> force against other Americans in order to enforce what he thinks
>>> qualifies as "fair elections",
>>
>> Probably a lie.
>
>
> Your "probably" is a willfully stupid equivocation. Or do you think
> the cited video is "rigged" as well?
>
>
>>> echoing sentiments of other Republican
>>> politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Josh Hawley.
>>
>> Most likely more lies.
>
>
> Most definitely willfully stupid equivocation.
>
Or just plain stupid that can’t be fixed (cite expert Ron White). If he
looks up to MTG you just know what low caliber nitwit he is.
>
>>> Considering
>>> that Trump described his first election, the one he legally won, as
>>> "rigged",
>>
>> Support that claim.
>
>
> Do you deny it? If not, your demand is just mindless noise.
>
That’s his modus operandi. Worthless troll he is.
>
>>> and the continuing Arizona audit scam, it remains unclear
>>> what metrics these paper patriots would use to objectively identify a
>>> fair election.
>>>
>> "Paper patriots" from CNN is hilarious.
>
>
> Not from CNN, but from me, to describe those who hide behind words of
> patriotism even as they work to destroy what they claim to support.
>
What’s hilarious is these paper spit ball “patriots” with their love it as
I do or leave mentality. Make me leave asshole! Buncha unhinged morons
masturbating into 20 gauge shotgun barrels enticed by a glossy centerfold
of Trump eating ketchup steak.

You can spot them miles away with their black smoke belching rusted dually
pickups and red hats. Often with a big yellow Gadsden flag saying “Don’t
Tell Me Not to Take Horse Dewormer” on the rear window.

https://i.redd.it/h9gfizkcqjj71.jpg



jillery

unread,
Sep 2, 2021, 9:50:06 PMSep 2
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 11:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>So he claimed HIS election was rigged?


Yes, he aka Donald Trump claimed his first election aka the one in
2016 was rigged. You must enjoy proving you have no idea what you're
talking about, you do it so often.

jillery

unread,
Sep 2, 2021, 10:05:06 PMSep 2
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
My impression is this is another one of Harran's trolls. Don't bite.


>>Seriously, are you some sort of masochist that enjoys being proven wrong and ridiculed? Let me guess, sparky, you're the one in high school that had a habit of walking around with a "kick me" sign taped to your back.

Zen Cycle

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 5:40:06 AMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I live in massachusetts in a town that borders new hampshire. The gadsden flag is plentiful in NH, often decorating the overabundance of rusted pick-ups. New hampshire is a purple state that now leans blue with a full democrat representation in washington but republican majorities in the state legislature. They have a republican governor, but Biden won the 2020 election by 11%. Still, any trip through the state would give the impression that it was a northern version of alabama. Not only are there still vast number of trump flags flown on private property - in some case above the american flag - there is a home not far from here with a sign on the front lawn featuring a picture of trump with that smug grin and a caption "Miss me yet?".

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 7:50:06 AMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
Isn't that illegal?

> - there is a home not far from here with a sign on the front lawn
> featuring a picture of trump with that smug grin and a caption "Miss me
> yet?".


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

Zen Cycle

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 9:45:06 AMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Yes, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/7 Line (c)

But Remember we're talking about trump supporters here, the same people that think:
- taking a de-worming medication is protection against covid
- the assault on the capitol on jan 6 was a constitutional act
- there was a pizza shop in washington DC that was a front for a child prostitution ring being run by democrats

Wolffan

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 11:00:06 AMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 2021 Sep 03, Zen Cycle wrote
(in article<94b9dd70-2a08-49a6...@googlegroups.com>):
The ring was run by Hilary. And was in the basement of the pizza shop. Oh.
Wait. Hilary has never set foot in the building, and said building doesn’t
have a basement.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-man-with-assault-rifle-dc-comet-pizza-
victim-of-fake-sex-trafficking-story/

Fake news, no doubt.

Martin Harran

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 11:30:06 AMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Kind of reminds me of Ian Paisley when he was first elected Member of
the European Parliament in 1979. On arrival at the parliament, he
interrupted the opening proceedings to complain that the Union Jacki
outside was being flown upside down. None of the other British MEPs
had even noticed it, lol.

Zen Cycle

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 11:40:06 AMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
It gets worse, the q-anon folk now have "proof" that the CDC is creating concentration camps for unvaccinated people that will separate families by age and gender.

https://www.rawstory.com/south-carolina-parent-tells-school-board-cdc-using-to-develop-nazi-style-concentration-camps/

not really...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/11/politics/candace-owens-cdc-guidance-camps-fact-check/index.html

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 12:40:06 PMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Zen Cycle <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 7:50:06 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-03 09:38:39 +0000, Zen Cycle said:
>>>
>>> Not only are there still vast number of trump flags flown on
>>> private property - in some case above the american flag
>> Isn't that illegal?
>
> Yes, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/7 Line (c)
>
I’d assume such things are binding on various government entities, but on
private citizens?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code

“This is a U.S. federal law, but only suggests voluntary customs for
handling of the American flag and was never intended to be enforceable.
This is a U.S. federal law, but only suggests voluntary customs for
handling of the American flag and was never intended to be enforceable.[1]
The code uses non-binding language like "should" and "custom" throughout
and does not prescribe any penalties for failure to follow the guidelines.”

And: “Separately, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1968 (amended
in 1989) (18 U.S.C. § 700), a since struck-down criminal statute, which
prohibits mutilating, defacing, defiling or burning the flag. Although it
remains part of codified federal law, it is not enforceable due to the
Supreme Court of the United States finding it unconstitutional in United
States v. Eichman.[2]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eichman

“Holding
The government's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol did not
outweigh the individual right to disparage that symbol through expressive
conduct.”

>
> But Remember we're talking about trump supporters here, the same people that think:
> - taking a de-worming medication is protection against covid
> - the assault on the capitol on jan 6 was a constitutional act
> - there was a pizza shop in washington DC that was a front for a child
> prostitution ring being run by democrats
>
I see people wearing dingy US flag shorts. Is farting desecration then?



Bob Casanova

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 1:15:06 PMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 06:41:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Zen Cycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com>:

>... the same people that think:
>- taking a de-worming medication is protection against covid
>
I assume you include the NIH among "those people"?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Burkhard

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 1:15:06 PMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Zen Cycle <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 7:50:06 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On 2021-09-03 09:38:39 +0000, Zen Cycle said:
>>>>
>>>> Not only are there still vast number of trump flags flown on
>>>> private property - in some case above the american flag
>>> Isn't that illegal?
>>
>> Yes, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/7 Line (c)
>>
> I’d assume such things are binding on various government entities, but on
> private citizens?

Yup. Would be a bit odd if burning the flag were constitutionally
protected speech (Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)) but flying it
in odd ways wasn't.

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 2:30:06 PMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 1:15:06 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 06:41:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Zen Cycle
> <funkma...@hotmail.com>:
>
> >... the same people that think:
> >- taking a de-worming medication is protection against covid
> >
> I assume you include the NIH among "those people"?
>
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/

Huh? The paper was a Bangladeshi study funded by a Bangladeshi pharmaceutical company. Just because you can find it in PubMed (a library site run by NIH) does not mean NIH endorses the conclusions of the study.

Zen Cycle

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 2:40:06 PMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 1:15:06 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 06:41:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Zen Cycle
> <funkma...@hotmail.com>:
>
> >... the same people that think:
> >- taking a de-worming medication is protection against covid
> >
> I assume you include the NIH among "those people"?
>
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
> >
> --
The fact that research was published in pubmed doesn't mean the NIH condones the treatment. Did you actually read the paper bob? First off, it's used as a therapeutic, not a prophylactic. Second, it's use for COVID isn't condoned by any medical agency, especially not the NIH.

Zen Cycle

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 2:45:06 PMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I guess it depends on who dealt it....

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 2:55:06 PMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Also, if you read the paper itself, it's clear that it's not very strong evidence of anything. The ivermectin group cleared virus faster than the placebo group, but the ivermectin+doxycycline was no different than placebo. So unless there's a drug interaction that blunts the effectiveness of ivermectin, the most likely explanation is that, regardless of their p-value, there's no real effect of ivermectin on covid.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 3:05:06 PMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:26:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 1:15:06 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 06:41:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Zen Cycle
>> <funkma...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> >... the same people that think:
>> >- taking a de-worming medication is protection against covid
>> >
>> I assume you include the NIH among "those people"?
>>
>> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
>
>Huh? The paper was a Bangladeshi study funded by a Bangladeshi pharmaceutical company. Just because you can find it in PubMed (a library site run by NIH) does not mean NIH endorses the conclusions of the study.
>> >
There were multiple studies referenced at the bottom, but I
suppose none of them are valid because...reasons?

OK.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 3:05:06 PMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:51:44 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:
Preconceptions are a wonderful thing, and so handy for
denial of inconvenient data.

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 3:35:06 PMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Don't take my word for it.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/

If ivermectin really works, there'll be good data to support it. Right now, there isn't. In fact, that probably means that any effect is relatively small, even if it subsequently turns out to be real.

Wishful thinking is a wonderful thing, and so handy for seeing what one wants to be true in any data set.

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 3:45:06 PMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 3:05:06 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:26:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
> <broger...@gmail.com>:
> >On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 1:15:06 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 06:41:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Zen Cycle
> >> <funkma...@hotmail.com>:
> >>
> >> >... the same people that think:
> >> >- taking a de-worming medication is protection against covid
> >> >
> >> I assume you include the NIH among "those people"?
> >>
> >> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
> >
> >Huh? The paper was a Bangladeshi study funded by a Bangladeshi pharmaceutical company. Just because you can find it in PubMed (a library site run by NIH) does not mean NIH endorses the conclusions of the study.
> >> >
> There were multiple studies referenced at the bottom, but I
> suppose none of them are valid because...reasons?
>
> OK.
Did you actually read any of those links? They are to study protocols for studies currently underway or to reviews of the reasons why ivermectin might work. They are not clinical trials of ivermectin for either treatment or prevention.

People are doing such studies. The results so far are not terribly impressive. And the only large study that showed a major impact has been found to contain made-up data.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

None of that means that ivermectin has no effect, but the effect does not seem to be large, even if it eventually turns out to be real.

jillery

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 5:00:06 PMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Also:

<https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19>

<https://tinyurl.com/r4kdub9f>


As ZenCycle pointed out, even if Ivermectin worked as a prescriptive,
it is not a preventive, and so *not* a replacement for vaccines.

Also, a lot of people are taking animal Ivermectin, which contains
inert ingredients not tested on humans. And the dose is way too large
for humans.

Also, Ivermectin has known serious side-effects and drug interactions.
Considering that one anti-vaxxer argument was that the vaccines don't
have full FDA approval (now some do), and aren't fully tested, not
sure how it makes sense to anybody to use instead a drug *not* FDA
approved for use on Covid-19, and *not* fully tested for that purpose.
The mind boggles at the willful stupidity of pseudo-skeptics just to
make a political point. Every person who dies of Covid-19 and refused
to wear a mask and refused to get vaccinated deserves a Darwin Award.

Glenn

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 7:10:06 PMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Damned lucky Hillary doesn't drive a truck, then.

"Hillary Clinton Maintains 2016 Election ‘Was Not On the Level’: ‘We Still Don’t Know What Really Happened’"

https://www.yahoo.com/now/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANcAf0zkQcOIo_OvYdDmy-MmxWcLk8xGUbl7egW75H16I4gnw9Sy25mmmtzQIXFwUMKenYna7TKKXd_JNab3YvsnFNtFkRM9wZH1dQzJ3nKYGW6tTYlxtxo0YhK_9I4RH1RA4DwkToRzlKJQNQ7YgCATMVtP8mHmpuX3_EE_qAmW

"Elizabeth Warren agrees Democratic race 'rigged' for Clinton"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41850798

So *the* election was rigged. But it is highly doubtful and unintuitive to assume Trump claimed *his* election was rigged.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Sep 3, 2021, 10:50:06 PMSep 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 12:41:39 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 3:05:06 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:26:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
>> <broger...@gmail.com>:
>> >On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 1:15:06 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 06:41:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Zen Cycle
>> >> <funkma...@hotmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >... the same people that think:
>> >> >- taking a de-worming medication is protection against covid
>> >> >
>> >> I assume you include the NIH among "those people"?
>> >>
>> >> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
>> >
>> >Huh? The paper was a Bangladeshi study funded by a Bangladeshi pharmaceutical company. Just because you can find it in PubMed (a library site run by NIH) does not mean NIH endorses the conclusions of the study.
>> >> >
>> There were multiple studies referenced at the bottom, but I
>> suppose none of them are valid because...reasons?
>>
>> OK.
>Did you actually read any of those links? They are to study protocols for studies currently underway or to reviews of the reasons why ivermectin might work. They are not clinical trials of ivermectin for either treatment or prevention.
>
I didn't say they were. But arbitrary rejection of a
potential treatment because of essentially nothing but
dislike for whoever proposed it does no one any good.
>
>People are doing such studies. The results so far are not terribly impressive. And the only large study that showed a major impact has been found to contain made-up data.
>
>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w
>
>None of that means that ivermectin has no effect, but the effect does not seem to be large, even if it eventually turns out to be real.
>
It isn't that it's real or not, it's the *extremely*
non-scientific position that it's "settled science"
(especially after the past 18 months of constantly-changing
"facts"), which can be seen in various other subjects.
Science is *never* "settled"; it's always subject to
modification. Some subjects, such as the existence of
evolution, are as close to "settled" as it's possible to be,
but neither treatments for viral diseases, nor the causes of
climate change (which has been a constant for several
billion years) falls in that category. No, I'm not some sort
of Luddite "denialist", but I know how science works, and
dogmatic acceptance of the pronouncements of self-styled
"experts, no matter how well-credentialed, isn't it.

Glenn

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 12:30:06 AMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Pure horseshit.

> but neither treatments for viral diseases, nor the causes of
> climate change (which has been a constant for several
> billion years) falls in that category. No, I'm not some sort
> of Luddite "denialist", but I know how science works, and
> dogmatic acceptance of the pronouncements of self-styled
> "experts, no matter how well-credentialed, isn't it.
> >
That's you with "the existence of evolution".

jillery

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 2:05:06 AMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 21:29:02 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
Your knee-jerk overreaction keeps you from recognizing that Casanova
is on the wrong side about Ivermectin. When he implies that others
claim the efficacy of Ivermectin is "settled science" and "arbitrarily
rejected", he argues strawmen and makes up crap nobody said. Casanova
has turned to the Dark Side.

The bottom line here is that a number of people, who chose to not wear
masks, and chose to not get vaccinated, because of their dislike for
the people who propose these things, instead chose to take Ivermectin,
often in a form designed for horses and other large animals, despite
the fact Ivermectin is not FDA-approved to treat Covid-19, and despite
the fact there is no good evidence of its efficacy against Covid-19,
and despite the documented dangers of its use by humans. This is
drinking disinfectant level stupid.

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 3:25:06 AMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
It’s possible Glenn is on the right side of this narrowly construed.
Unfortunately he comes across as someone who itched his head with a nail or
staple gun repeatedly so we may never know.

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 6:05:06 AMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 10:50:06 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 12:41:39 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
> <broger...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 3:05:06 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:26:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
> >> <broger...@gmail.com>:
> >> >On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 1:15:06 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 06:41:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Zen Cycle
> >> >> <funkma...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >... the same people that think:
> >> >> >- taking a de-worming medication is protection against covid
> >> >> >
> >> >> I assume you include the NIH among "those people"?
> >> >>
> >> >> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
> >> >
> >> >Huh? The paper was a Bangladeshi study funded by a Bangladeshi pharmaceutical company. Just because you can find it in PubMed (a library site run by NIH) does not mean NIH endorses the conclusions of the study.
> >> >> >
> >> There were multiple studies referenced at the bottom, but I
> >> suppose none of them are valid because...reasons?
> >>
> >> OK.
> >Did you actually read any of those links? They are to study protocols for studies currently underway or to reviews of the reasons why ivermectin might work. They are not clinical trials of ivermectin for either treatment or prevention.
> >
> I didn't say they were. But arbitrary rejection of a
> potential treatment because of essentially nothing but
> dislike for whoever proposed it does no one any good.

Who dislikes it? It would be great is an already approved drug turned out to be effective against covid. What's not to like? The problem is that, just as in the case of chloroquine, it's getting hyped way beyond any available clinical evidence. Critiquing a weak study that seems to satisfy what you wish to be true (ie that there's an already approved drug that will work) but that shows only a marginal effect and not very careful statistics is not wishing away "inconvenient data," it's just doing science carefully.
> >
> >People are doing such studies. The results so far are not terribly impressive. And the only large study that showed a major impact has been found to contain made-up data.
> >
> >https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w
> >
> >None of that means that ivermectin has no effect, but the effect does not seem to be large, even if it eventually turns out to be real.
> >
> It isn't that it's real or not, it's the *extremely*
> non-scientific position that it's "settled science"
> (especially after the past 18 months of constantly-changing
> "facts"), which can be seen in various other subjects.

Who claimed it was "settled science" that ivermectin doesn't work? The claim I've seen is that there's inadequate evidence to recommend its use yet. And I agree. Studies are ongoing. The results will show whatever they will show - I suspect they will show only a small effect, if any, because the smaller studies done so far should have picked up a large effect if there was one, but you have to wait and see.

John Thompson

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 11:20:06 AMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 9/3/21 12:13 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 06:41:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Zen Cycle
> <funkma...@hotmail.com>:
>
>> ... the same people that think:
>> - taking a de-worming medication is protection against covid
>>
> I assume you include the NIH among "those people"?
>
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/

As the article you cited notes, "Larger trials will be needed to confirm
these preliminary findings."


--
John D Thompson
jo...@os2.dhs.org

jillery

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 11:30:06 AMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
To the best of my recollection, and from a quick text search of
Glenn's recent posts, he hasn't posted anything about Ivermectin.
Although my impression is Glenn tends to follow the styles and
conclusions of pseudo-skeptics, he also tends to oblige readers to
guess his intent, whereupon Glenn declares "I didn't say that", and
spams a contrary tack for the sake of it.

In general, it's wise to avoid putting words in other peoples' mouths.

Glenn

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 12:10:07 PMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
So you make a habit of it.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 12:40:06 PMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 04 Sep 2021 02:22:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
Maybe it "feels so good when he stops"...

Bob Casanova

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 12:40:06 PMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 04 Sep 2021 02:00:39 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
Since I said none of that, perhaps I'm not the only one
"making up crap".
>
>The bottom line here is that a number of people, who chose to not wear
>masks, and chose to not get vaccinated, because of their dislike for
>the people who propose these things, instead chose to take Ivermectin,
>often in a form designed for horses and other large animals, despite
>the fact Ivermectin is not FDA-approved to treat Covid-19, and despite
>the fact there is no good evidence of its efficacy against Covid-19,
>and despite the documented dangers of its use by humans. This is
>drinking disinfectant level stupid.
>
And again, I said nothing about *anything* beyond
referencing studies about Ivermection. The delusions of
others are irrelevant.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 1:00:06 PMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 03:00:44 -0700 (PDT), the following
Ummm, I didn't say "dislike it"; I said "dislike whoever".
>
> The problem is that, just as in the case of chloroquine, it's getting hyped way beyond any available clinical evidence. Critiquing a weak study that seems to satisfy what you wish to be true (ie that there's an already approved drug that will work) but that shows only a marginal effect and not very careful statistics is not wishing away "inconvenient data," it's just doing science carefully.
>> >
As noted, there were several papers cited in that article. I
guess all of them could be based on vapor, but I tend to
doubt it.
>
>> >People are doing such studies. The results so far are not terribly impressive. And the only large study that showed a major impact has been found to contain made-up data.
>> >
Indeed they are, and no, they're not (terribly impressive).
But they do tend to show some beneficial effect, and not
just the completely dismissive "... the same people that
think "taking a de-worming medication is protection against
covid", as the post to which I replied commented.
>
>> >https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w
>> >
>> >None of that means that ivermectin has no effect, but the effect does not seem to be large, even if it eventually turns out to be real.
>> >
>> It isn't that it's real or not, it's the *extremely*
>> non-scientific position that it's "settled science"
>> (especially after the past 18 months of constantly-changing
>> "facts"), which can be seen in various other subjects.
>
>Who claimed it was "settled science" that ivermectin doesn't work? The claim I've seen is that there's inadequate evidence to recommend its use yet. And I agree. Studies are ongoing. The results will show whatever they will show - I suspect they will show only a small effect, if any, because the smaller studies done so far should have picked up a large effect if there was one, but you have to wait and see.
>
If you expect a "miracle drug" effect you're bound to be
disappointed, as disappointed as those who expect to be able
to "defeat" Covid by making it disappear. From what I've
read it seems to be following the usual path for such viral
diseases, and becoming both more contagious *and* less
lethal with each new variant; exactly what should be
expected. "Virgin field" epidemics are one thing;
long-established endemic diseases, such as the "common cold"
and seasonal flu, are quite another. And I'd expect the
current one to follow that same path over the next few
years.
>
>> Science is *never* "settled"; it's always subject to
>> modification. Some subjects, such as the existence of
>> evolution, are as close to "settled" as it's possible to be,
>> but neither treatments for viral diseases, nor the causes of
>> climate change (which has been a constant for several
>> billion years) falls in that category. No, I'm not some sort
>> of Luddite "denialist", but I know how science works, and
>> dogmatic acceptance of the pronouncements of self-styled
>> "experts, no matter how well-credentialed, isn't it.
>> >
Perhaps you disagree with this?

Glenn

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 1:10:06 PMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
To whom?

Glenn

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 1:20:06 PMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

"A consensus on climate change and its human cause exists. Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that human activities are the primary cause of the observed climate-warming trend over the past century."
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Climate Change is about as "settled" as anything can be in science. And humans haven't been around for several billion years. You're a denier!

jillery

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 1:25:06 PMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 09:06:49 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>So you make a habit of it.


Liar

Glenn

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 1:55:06 PMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 10:25:06 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 09:06:49 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:

"In general, it's wise to avoid putting words in other peoples' mouths."

> >So you make a habit of it.

> Liar
> --
Snipping the context of my claim and calling me a liar is essentially "putting words in other peoples' mouths".

jillery

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 2:30:06 PMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 10:07:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:


Piggybacking to Bob Casanova:
To refresh your convenient amnesia from the quoted text above:
**************************
>> >>> It isn't that it's real or not, it's the *extremely*
>> >>> non-scientific position that it's "settled science"
***************************


*and*


***************************
>> >>> I didn't say they were. But arbitrary rejection of a
>> >>> potential treatment because of essentially nothing but
>> >>> dislike for whoever proposed it does no one any good.
**************************

As others pointed out, nobody in this topic claimed it's settled
science or arbitrarily rejected it. And you cited nobody from
anywhere who did.

And just in case you deny you wrote the above, I went through the
trouble to download the post where you did exactly that:
**************************
From: Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
Subject: Re: real-life effects of made-up facts
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2021 19:45:28 -0700
Message-ID: <sqm5jg5f20jmri5sn...@4ax.com>
***************************

So you, Bob Casanova, wrote what you claim you didn't write, and what
I claimed you did write.

And your "perhaps" above is an asinine innuendo trivially proved
false. That's another tactic of the Dark Side.

The only reason I make a point of this is because this country lost a
golden opportunity to avoid the Delta variant and the current 4th
pandemic wave from it, because of false claims about Covid-19 continue
to keep too many people unvaccinated and unmasked.

Until there are enough studies done to show that Ivermectin is AT
LEAST AS safe and effective as the vaccines so many people claim
aren't tested enough, for you or anyone else to say, suggest, imply,
hint.... whatever... that Ivermectin is a legitimate treatment
arbitrarily rejected for "reasons", is an irresponsible and outright
lie. This pandemic has already cost too much money and lives to
continue to play around with made-up crap like you posted.


>> >The bottom line here is that a number of people, who chose to not wear
>> >masks, and chose to not get vaccinated, because of their dislike for
>> >the people who propose these things, instead chose to take Ivermectin,
>> >often in a form designed for horses and other large animals, despite
>> >the fact Ivermectin is not FDA-approved to treat Covid-19, and despite
>> >the fact there is no good evidence of its efficacy against Covid-19,
>> >and despite the documented dangers of its use by humans. This is
>> >drinking disinfectant level stupid.
>> >
>> And again, I said nothing about *anything* beyond
>> referencing studies about Ivermection. The delusions of
>> others are irrelevant.


"Perhaps" you should stop digging.

jillery

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 2:35:06 PMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 10:51:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 10:25:06 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 09:06:49 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>
>"In general, it's wise to avoid putting words in other peoples' mouths."
>
>> >So you make a habit of it.
>
>> Liar
>> --
>Snipping the context of my claim and calling me a liar is essentially "putting words in other peoples' mouths".


You provided no context for your "claim".
Your "essentially" is mindless noise.
Keep on proving my point for me, liar.

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 2:35:06 PMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Go look at them. They are papers reporting the design of planned future studies, and reviews giving the rationale for trying ivermectin as an anti-covid drug, not much in the way of actual clinical trial results. And in an earlier post here I gave you a link to a meta analysis of trials on ivermectin completed so far - the conclusion was, in essence, yes they are mostly vapor (ie very weak, or weak evidence of benefit).
> >
> >> >People are doing such studies. The results so far are not terribly impressive. And the only large study that showed a major impact has been found to contain made-up data.
> >> >
> Indeed they are, and no, they're not (terribly impressive).
> But they do tend to show some beneficial effect, and not
> just the completely dismissive "... the same people that
> think "taking a de-worming medication is protection against
> covid", as the post to which I replied commented.

> >
> >> >https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w
> >> >
> >> >None of that means that ivermectin has no effect, but the effect does not seem to be large, even if it eventually turns out to be real.
> >> >
> >> It isn't that it's real or not, it's the *extremely*
> >> non-scientific position that it's "settled science"
> >> (especially after the past 18 months of constantly-changing
> >> "facts"), which can be seen in various other subjects.
> >
> >Who claimed it was "settled science" that ivermectin doesn't work? The claim I've seen is that there's inadequate evidence to recommend its use yet. And I agree. Studies are ongoing. The results will show whatever they will show - I suspect they will show only a small effect, if any, because the smaller studies done so far should have picked up a large effect if there was one, but you have to wait and see.
> >
> If you expect a "miracle drug" effect you're bound to be
> disappointed, as disappointed as those who expect to be able
> to "defeat" Covid by making it disappear. From what I've
> read it seems to be following the usual path for such viral
> diseases, and becoming both more contagious *and* less
> lethal with each new variant; exactly what should be
> expected.

I'm not so sure about that. The most recent variants, like delta, are indeed more contagious, but they also seem to be more lethal, at least in the unvaccinated.

> "Virgin field" epidemics are one thing;
> long-established endemic diseases, such as the "common cold"
> and seasonal flu, are quite another. And I'd expect the
> current one to follow that same path over the next few
> years.
> >
> >> Science is *never* "settled"; it's always subject to
> >> modification. Some subjects, such as the existence of
> >> evolution, are as close to "settled" as it's possible to be,
> >> but neither treatments for viral diseases, nor the causes of
> >> climate change (which has been a constant for several
> >> billion years) falls in that category. No, I'm not some sort
> >> of Luddite "denialist", but I know how science works, and
> >> dogmatic acceptance of the pronouncements of self-styled
> >> "experts, no matter how well-credentialed, isn't it.
> >> >
> Perhaps you disagree with this?

With what? I agree with the general principle that some scientific claims are so well established that to doubt them is perverse, e.g. the ToE or, in my view AGW, and others which are not settled at all, and lots which are in between.

I think that outside areas where I have some expertise myself, I, like most everybody, am forced to rely upon the expertise of others - though I do require that it's not only they themselves who claim their expertise and that rather than making dogmatic pronouncements, they be able to explain their reasoning. Otherwise you end up with "Why should I believe Dr. X who claims Y is true, when I read somewhere on the internet that Y is a hoax."

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 5:10:06 PMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 02:50:06 UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 11:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >So he claimed HIS election was rigged?
> Yes, he aka Donald Trump claimed his first election aka the one in
> 2016 was rigged. You must enjoy proving you have no idea what you're
> talking about, you do it so often.

I mean, Hillary Clinton got most votes but she lost,
but apparently that's normal.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 5:20:06 PMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 14:06:44 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:
She didn't get the most votes of the ones that count. Per
the Constitution (try reading it), the president is elected
by the Electoral College, not by popular vote, and, again
per the Constitution, the states decide how their electoral
votes are cast, via the elected state legislatures.

William Hyde

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 5:50:06 PMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 5:20:06 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 14:06:44 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com>:
> >On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 02:50:06 UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 11:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >So he claimed HIS election was rigged?
> >> Yes, he aka Donald Trump claimed his first election aka the one in
> >> 2016 was rigged. You must enjoy proving you have no idea what you're
> >> talking about, you do it so often.
> >
> >I mean, Hillary Clinton got most votes but she lost,
> >but apparently that's normal.
> >
> She didn't get the most votes of the ones that count. Per
> the Constitution (try reading it), the president is elected
> by the Electoral College, not by popular vote, and, again
> per the Constitution, the states decide how their electoral
> votes are cast, via the elected state legislatures.

It is not unknown even in un- Gerrymandered parliamentary elections that the party with the most votes does not have the most seats. The conservatives under Churchill won in 1951, despite getting about three percent less than Labour (in fact the Labour vote total in this election was not surpassed until 1992, by any party).

In the most recent Canadian general election, the conservatives also won the vote total, but would up with less seats than the Liberals.

William Hyde

Bob Casanova

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 7:40:06 PMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 14:48:58 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by William Hyde
<wthyd...@gmail.com>:
Cool. None of that has any bearing on what I posted
regarding the US Constitution, but it's interesting. To
reiterate, the vote for president in the US is *not*
determined by the popular vote overall. And that's a
feature, not a bug.

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 8:40:06 PMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
It was a feature once, anyway, when election by the popular vote would have resulted in the abolition of slavery, and a system was needed that would entice the enslaving states to ratify the Constitution. Nowadays it looks like a feature only to the party who wins the Presidential election while losing the popular vote. If Democratic candidates had won the electoral vote and lost the popular vote every time they won the presidential election in the last few decades, Republicans would not look on the Electoral College as "a feature, not a bug," instead they'd be complaining about how a liberal minority of voters was setting policy for an electorate, the majority of which voted against those policies.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Sep 4, 2021, 10:10:06 PMSep 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 17:38:30 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:
Thanks for your input.

jillery

unread,
Sep 5, 2021, 2:20:06 AMSep 5
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
If your "that's" refers to the candidate with the most popular votes
isn't necessarily the winner, then no, it isn't normal, but it has
happened before, and is expected to happen on occasion.

Burkhard

unread,
Sep 5, 2021, 4:45:06 AMSep 5
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 14:06:44 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 02:50:06 UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 11:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> So he claimed HIS election was rigged?
>>> Yes, he aka Donald Trump claimed his first election aka the one in
>>> 2016 was rigged. You must enjoy proving you have no idea what you're
>>> talking about, you do it so often.
>>
>> I mean, Hillary Clinton got most votes but she lost,
>> but apparently that's normal.
>
>
> If your "that's" refers to the candidate with the most popular votes
> isn't necessarily the winner, then no, it isn't normal, but it has
> happened before, and is expected to happen on occasion.
>
I looked it up, and it was more rare than I thought - apparently only
Rutherford Hayes Benjamin Harrison, George W Bush and Donald Trump

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Sep 5, 2021, 4:45:07 AMSep 5
to talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
Yes, that can happen in fair elections, but it's not the same as
deliberately manipulating the boundaries to ensure an unfair result.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

Zen Cycle

unread,
Sep 5, 2021, 8:00:06 AMSep 5