Total posts: 4,833
-->
@n8nrgim
Do u honestly look at trump voters and think they are just as smart and educated? I mean even if they r not formally educated, they could still be just as educated.
I have no way to know their average "smartness". Intelligence is not precisely defined for all the importance we place on it.
There are some tests that are repeatable (like IQ) but nobody is willing to put their lives in the hands of someone else just because they solved some mini-puzzles faster.
Much like racial categorization that which we can quantify is of insignificant merit compared to character, morals, and (true) education. A 'stupid' man with good ethics and a lot of experience is better to associate with than a nazi 'genius' who will lie to you to get you to do what he wants.
There are definitely idiots and geniuses in every political/philosophical camp, and I explain that by saying that epistemology doesn't require a lot of intelligence nor does intelligence guarantee any particular epistemology. The fact that both the people who invented calculus (independently) were theists is one of thousands of examples.
There are errors which people will not recognize as errors because they don't equally apply rationality to all propositions. Also a broken clock is right twice a day, and those who automatically mistrust any message that is pushed too fervently tend to be right more than they are wrong simply because of the nature of propaganda.
Thus you have times in history where idiots and geniuses tend to be on one side while people of average intelligence/education are on another.
I believe we in one of those times though it is not as pronounced as some make it out to be. That is I think that fools and wise men are over represented in the right-tribe. The wise men see through the propaganda. The fools don't, but they can read body language and are sensitive to people trying to take advantage of their lack of perception (from hard experience).
As I said, I don't think colleges today are oriented towards idiots or geniuses. They are indoctrination machines geared to instill a certain world view into people who are smart enough to think they understand the explanations but not so 'smart/wise' as to critically examine 'experts' and 'official narratives'.
Again this is a sharp contrast to the real academic tradition (since Socrates) of lighting any argument on fire with questions and peering in every crevice looking for a contradiction. Real experts debate. Real teachers try to create real experts by inviting and encouraging arguments and counter-arguments.
This creates people who know how to use whatever intelligence they have. That's not how universities (or public schools) are generally operating now and it shows in ever decreasing standards for grades.
I think u r good at giving opposing theories but r lacking the common sense part, the sniff test so to speak.
That's what those 'low-education' Trump voters say about the other side too.
Now when people say "common sense" they could be talking about obvious appeals to absurdity, or they could be talking about their gut feelings.
When you say "sniff test" it sounds like you're talking about your gut. Your gut doesn't beat theirs. If you choose to follow it regardless of my "opposing theories" I can't stop you, just like I can't stop the religious.
Faith, "sniff tests", these things are not arguments and do not yield to rationality.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
it has to do with more than the fact that 'they were indoctrinated' at school.
How do you know?
if you are a highly educated high information trump voter, do you admit that you are an outlier?
I think there are two kinds of people who don't go to college:
A) People too stupid (or willfully unapplied) to make it in a strenuous learning environment
B) People smart enough to realize that they'd be paying people to grade them while they learn nothing of value
There weren't many of (B) when universities taught almost exclusively useful or wisdom-ingraining things but there were always some who made better use of their time. Things change.
There was a time when universities taught to question claimed authorities, but not to hate them. Now they teach to not question claimed authorities and instead hate those of perceived power.
This creates a bizarre mindset where the founts of truth are seen as sacred and harmless (media, academia, government bureaucrats), while people and movements those entities attack are seen as oppressors.
What does not seem to occur to the typical college "educated" left-triber is that any entity with that kind of blind loyalty is in the possession of the most profound power.
if not, how do you weasel out of reaching my conclusion?
Well... here is something that might be considered part of a real education: To have a conclusion you need an argument. To have an argument you need two premises that interface to create an inference in support of the conclusion.
You merely asserted there were no other explanations for a correlation and then asserted the correlation was due to a certain cause.
I would suggest that you should do a more detailed analysis breaking down degree field and year when degree was earned. I think you would find that hard science degrees awarded before 2000 are far less correlated than the bulk.
Also consider this: At a certain level of awareness and intelligence a person does not answer questions which he or she knows will be used against him. I've never answered a political poll about education, if such data has been collected from me it was without express consent (shared from some third party like an employer).
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Can you imagine any situation in your life where you felt you could trust someone without question because the law compelled them?
No, but I know of more than a couple examples where government regulations have created a false sense of security and actually increased the prevalence, damage, and inability to cure of fraud.
The best example is probably building codes. They are often overly complicated and litigious and if you read the whole book you'll realize that quite a lot is allowed if it makes sense, but people don't think outside the box so they just do things one standard way.
So they serve to constrain people to making the same mistakes and being sub-optimal in many situations, but they also give license to shoddy work since low-ethics contractors often develop relationships with inspectors (who are not above signing off without thorough inspections regardless).
People have this notion that if they hire a professional the law constrains them to do the work correctly, but in practice (personally witnessed and talked to many contractor types who confirm) there is no repercussions to failing to meet code or meeting code in some way that is absurd, unsafe, or bound to fail.
For instance I once lived in a county where all electrical installations and modifications required inspection. Do you know how many times that I know of that an electrician pulled a permit (which is required to get an inspector to show up) without being specifically requested to do so?
0
Never
They break the law constantly.
Now of course good work still gets done, but that's because some people still have professional pride, honor, and of course rational self-interest (they want referrals and you can still be sued).
I was told by an inspector that a neighbor was complaining about bushes and therefore a completely unrelated thing needed to be changed and I pointed out that no construction crew has ever done that for residential properties. He admitted to me that everyone breaks that law.
These are the kinds of life experiences that profoundly confirm the abstract theories and observations of (genuine) liberals like John Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and Thomas Sowell.
Tax evaluations of property value and speed limits are a perfect example of laws designed to be broken. They exist only to make examples of enemies of the state at the discretion of the state. Such laws are the vehicle of corruption, which is why I don't really care if Trump broke a law if it is such a law just as I don't care if MLK technically broke some law such law: https://www.blackhistory.com/2019/11/martin-luther-king-jr-was-arrested-29-times-crimes.html
Here is how you can identify these kinds of laws: If a god was tasked with enforcing the law, a god who saw everything and followed the letter of the law precisely, would more than 50% of the population support its repeal?
If the answer is "Yes" then it's a law designed to be broken. It's probably victimless and stupid besides. It almost certainly has no moral foundation.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
How do you know you're about to have a civil war with fascists? They can't remember the difference between accusations and crimes.There is no crime here.Yeah, that's why he has 91 felony indictments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
There is no such thing as a voting system where fraud could not existWithout extremely unlikely premises, yes there is. They had one in Athens, read about it."Voting was done by raising hands and the winner was determined by nine “presidents” (proedroi). Athenians were very careful to avoid any possibility of cheating the system."There is no way you're being serious.
There were much more complicated systems than that. History.com is also an untrustworthy source. I saw them try to imply that since the native American population is (in their view, but not in a reasonable view) lower now than some guys estimate for pre-contact that means (Now - Then) = Number of people violently killed in a genocide.
That's first and last nail when it comes to the credibility of a publisher.
Also, it's not really possible to cheat by raising of the hands. Somebody in a crowded Agora is going to see if you raise two hands and it's obvious when a raised hand is a mirror of the other.
You: you signed a contract and therefore owe me money!Me: No, I didn't.You: Prove it!Me: NoPOP QUIZ: Now what?Now I apply your standard of evidence and say that since you have not proven there was any fraud there was no fraud and all assertions which would be true but for fraud are true. One of those assertions is that you owe me money.I had no responsibility to prove the absence of a contract so I didn't have to do a damn thing.
So you can assert fraud without a burden of proof?
Our position, for hundred's of years now is that our elections are trustworthy and as we have learned more about how to further secure them we have done so....you do not understand the burden of proof or the basic idea that fraud is not the default position.
If you were alive in 1800 "our position" would be monotheisem (for over a thousand years). If the consensus of previous generations is the default then monotheism would be the default.
You also claimed that ignorance is not "a conclusion". If it's not a conclusion, it must be the default.
How can ignorance of god(s) existence be both a default and not a default?
(Are you seriously still this ignorant on how the burden of proof works?)
I am an agnostic. Ignorance is still, by definition, not a conclusion.What definition of "conclusion" precludes it?/Phenomenon X can only be observed by observing correlated phenomenon B, but it does not necessarily produce correlated phenomenon B/Phenomenon B is not present//Therefore we cannot know whether phenomenon X is occurringThe last statement is both a conclusion, and an assertion of ignorance.You're asserting two sperate things as if they are one. They're not. You can conclude that you are ignorant. The conclusion is in regards to your own state of mind. Your ignorance is in regards to the issue at hand.
You did not address the counter example. I will proceed as if ignorance can be a conclusion.
This conversation goes back to you demanding that I produce an audit. I then asked you what conclusion you can draw from me (personally) not providing you an audit, and then had to explain to you why the answer was 'nothing'.
The answer was not "nothing". It was that you did not prove there were audits.
If there were audits there would be evidence of a certain kind produced. That evidence cannot be presented upon request. It is no different from claiming god has a certain nature and then failing to find evidence which that nature would produce.
The difference is that religious types know the game too well and make excuses (which fail none the less). All you've done is say "Well god does perform miracles upon request." and then going quiet when asked to find one of these miracles.
The default position is that something is not true, did not happen, does not exist. <- the epistemological premise which informs the actual burden of proof
The default is that audits did not occur, and that if they did occur their secret results fail to serve the purpose of an audit (establishing trust).
So the fact that we are both just as ignorant about what such an audit would or has produced as we were at the outset of this conversation does not help this conversation at all. Our state of ignorance is not the topic of this thread.
Stop galloping. You made a general epistemological statement: "Ignorance is still, by definition, not a conclusion." You have failed to justify this assertion and did not address a generalized counter-example.
Audits were not directly the context of this chain it was:
Claiming victory because I can't prove there is no fraud is by definition an argument from ignorance.Which is entirely valid when ignorance is the conclusion.Ignorance is by definition, not a conclusion.
Since a doctor should absolutely not hide anything about someone's medical state from the person in question any refusal to reveal any information is suspicious.The situation you describe is suspicious because you defined it as being suspicious.
That sounds like something a ten year old would say. I did not define "suspicious" I gave an example illustrating what makes something suspicious. Drink some coffee.
If someone is "hiding" something from you, they're by definition doing it to conceal the truth.
Correct. Which is suspicious when you are entitled to the truth and not suspicious when you aren't.
The question here is whether one's withholding of the facts is being done to conceal the truth or for other legitimate reasons, such as for example the protection of rights.
If there were legitimate reasons to hide the information that outweighed the legitimate reasons to not hide the information, why did so many states (yes fewer now but that is besides the point) create laws which mandate publication?
"Our position, for hundred's of years now is that our elections are trustworthy"
Things change. The reason they are hiding the information now is because for the first time citizen audits were actually happening. Citizen audits were the reason they were public before.
An analogy would be this: The 1st amendment + civil rights act has always made it explicitly legal for a black man to make a speech in a public park. Suddenly (for whatever reason) a black man actually does make a speech in a public park. Just as suddenly the mayor and council start trying to pass laws against public speaking.
Rights are so easy to respect when no one is exercising them aren't they?
you call it "unconscionable" but the fact is that it is this information that legislators around the country have made public on purpose to fight fraud that is now being hidden.And you don't think this national frenzy Trump created by declaring every democratic area of the country a cesspool of cheating and the resulting harassment faced by election workers might have something to do with a change in the behavior of election officials?
You don't think a stock market crash would have something to do with banks refusing to allow withdrawals?
Of course it's related, but that doesn't mean we're not being screwed or that the bank/government has the moral/legal right to screw us.
It was my pleasure and duty as an election worker to explain every security measure I was made aware of to anyone who asked. The large majority of the witness/whistleblowers for the 2020 election were election workers.
I was fulfilling my oath to conduct a real election. If I hid anything that was not required by reason and law to be hidden I would have violated that oath.
people wouldn't need to do their own 'amateur' audits if official audits had been doneDefine "audit", specifically. Explain exactly what actions you expect should have been taken that weren't and what specific data you expected to be released that wasn't.
Assuming the gaps in election strategy are a constant (could not be fixed) the only way to generate fuzzy quantification of the amount of mail ballot fraud would be a statistically significant canvas.
That means tens of thousands of in-person interviews, two people at least, with body cams, going to addresses where ballots were sent and confirming identities, ballot requests, and ballot returns.
All camera footage should be publicly available along with queryable answers to the questions.
If it's not illegal to knock on a door and ask someone to vote, it certainly isn't illegal to watch footage of someone answering as to whether they voted.
All statistics on ballot counts should also be available and specifically if anyone claimed to have not sent in a ballot at a polling place that should be added to the canvas database. If they chose to try and vote provisionally that should be counted (PBPF).
With a statistically significant sample, the audit would then apply one of the fundamental theorems of statistics: The ratios in the sample population apply to the total population. That is if you knock on 10,000 doors and 500 people said they did not send in mail ballots when mail ballots were received you infer that the total number of fraudulent mail ballots is (500/10,000) * total number of mail ballots. That inference is what the audit would publish and if that number is on the same order of magnitude as the margin of victory then the audit would conclude the election was irreparably tainted and must be redone (with vulnerabilities fixed).
The above is a subset of what a legitimate audit would publish.
What would you know of their best interests?I know that republican officials who support Trump have no interest in covering up a nationwide effort by democrats to cheat to elect Joe Biden.
The notion that you can divine the interests and beliefs of a person because of a party affiliation statement is hilariously naive. For instance I was a registered democrat when I worked as an election judge. A huge number of jobs required "partisan oversight", so I was paired with a registered republican judge to sign off on things.
You don't know who was "back east" but I can tell you one thing: I don't give a shit what party they claim to belong to. There are stupid people who think blindly trusting so called elections is necessary and patriotic and there are cynical people who don't know if there is a lot of cheating but know that it put them in power so they don't want to change the dynamic.
There is also the little problem of the people who would be blamed being the people whose duty it was presumed to be to audit the on-goings. The good old "The government has investigated itself and found that it did nothing wrong". That applies to so called right-wing officials just as much as anyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It never ceases to amuse me how you really think what is or isn't legal is up to you, not the legal system, to determineWhat is the point of having a Congress or electing judges if the people have no say in what should be legal?
It's deeper than that. What is the point of writing laws if the words don't mean something constant?
Judges are a necessary evil" in a way. If they could be replaced by an unfailing AI (which keeps a perfectly consistent interpretation not writes laws) would be better.
It's a lot like that question the appeals court asked the Trump lawyer "So if POTUS killed half of congress with seal team 6 he would be immune from prosecution?"
The answer was "Until he was impeached and convicted in the senate, yes" (but they lied about that answer).
It's part of a class of "what if" which you can generalize to this: What if they pretend the law is something different? What if they say the 2nd amendment is about having the front two limbs? What if they say "freedom of the press" means squeezing lemons? What if they say the sky isn't blue?
The social contract is clearly and irrevocably this: Where a reasonable person would concede that the other's interpretation doesn't require cult-like delusion or dishonesty it is agreed to let designated people resolve the conflict in interpretation.
It is most certainly not and never was "Whatever a judge/jury says, they must be right"
The universe won't stop a judge/jury from declaring the sky orange. When they do, that does not mean rational free men have to start thinking the sky is orange. It means that the corruption of the courts that allowed such a declaration is in breach of the social contract.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
There is no such thing as a voting system where fraud could not exist
Without extremely unlikely premises, yes there is. They had one in Athens, read about it.
Are you seriously still this ignorant on how the burden of proof works?You are the one claiming I committed fraud by denying that you signed a contract; so the burden of proof is on you to show it.Translation: "yes, I am still deeply ignorant on how the burden of proof works"Here's an illustration since this is so complicated for you:You: you signed a contract and therefore owe me money!Me: No, I didn't.You: Prove it!Me: NoPOP QUIZ: Now what?
Now I apply your standard of evidence and say that since you have not proven there was any fraud there was no fraud and all assertions which would be true but for fraud are true. One of those assertions is that you owe me money.
Ignorance is by definition, not a conclusion.Tell it to the agnostics.I am an agnostic. Ignorance is still, by definition, not a conclusion.
What definition of "conclusion" precludes it?
/Phenomenon X can only be observed by observing correlated phenomenon B, but it does not necessarily produce correlated phenomenon B
/Phenomenon B is not present
//Therefore we cannot know whether phenomenon X is occurring
The last statement is both a conclusion, and an assertion of ignorance.
if you think something should be released which isn't that's a perfectly (potentially) reasonable debate to have.
Then by all means explain why something so basic that it would be on the front page of any honest and well executed audit seems to be nowhere?
That is still irrelevant to the question of whether their decision to not release it is suspicious.
It most certainly is not. If a doctor runs a test on you, and then claims everything is fine, but refuses to give you the test results the question of whether a doctor should reveal test results is a prerequisite and indicator as to whether it is suspicious when they refuse.
Since a doctor should absolutely not hide anything about someone's medical state from the person in question any refusal to reveal any information is suspicious.
Just because YOU don't typically ask to see test results and the people around you don't doesn't mean it isn't suspicious as hell if they are refused or hidden.
It never ceases to amuse me how you really think what is or isn't legal is up to you, not the legal system, to determine.
Your gaslighting never ceases to amaze me (not true actually). You haven't kept yourself out of legal questions and you never will because this is a shallow excuse you don't even believe.
If information on voters was released and people were using it to perform their own amateur audits, I don't find it surprising in the least that this would be pulled back immediately. One of the core principals in our electoral system is the right to privacy, and I can only imagine the morons out there harassing people to accuse them of committing fraud or even asking them to verify their voting activities by complete strangers. The idea that our information would be put out there, especially in this country filled with MAGA lunatics is unconscionable.
I thought everybody knew it wouldn't be released? But no, you didn't know it, you call it "unconscionable" but the fact is that it is this information that legislators around the country have made public on purpose to fight fraud that is now being hidden.
So no, there was no such expectation; and people wouldn't need to do their own 'amateur' audits if official audits had been done and official audits wouldn't be necessary if reprehensible people had not destroyed our democracy by instituting changes that opened massive opportunity for undetected and unquantifiable fraud.
and rejecting that those corrupt people are banding together to engage in massive criminal conspiracy against many of the groups own personal best interests
What would you know of their best interests? Are you admitting that apathy towards election integrity is a criminal conspiracy?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Did you respond to any of that? No, of course you didn't.
There isn't really a complicated response to patronizing and clearly irrelevant sophistry.
You don't control language, and you certainly don't get to have it mean different things depending on your biases. You're in the cult world of your own making. For you up is down, black is white, triangles have four sides, and saying "X didn't actually win" (when X was declared to have won by every official body) is not denying (purported) election results.
I'll keep repeatedly quoting you as many times as is necessary to make sure that no one serious mistakes you for a serious person.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
One can hope. Either they'll need to continue on the exponential collapse path or they don't. Either way things will change.
The real question is whether the rest of us will be able to prevent the federal government from being used (as it currently is) to steal from productive areas to prop up the collapse.
I don't just mean direct taxation and aid, I mean the inflation -> federal spending -> Just so happens to make a bunch of people in urban areas richer
Apparently there are already 13 congressional seats be assigned to represent people who can't legally vote. I'm sure the deep state doesn't care how bad these cities get so long as they are big on the census and they can win those "elections". The more sane people who flee the easier it will be to win since they can just cut the illegals off if they actually did try to vote against the deep state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The fact that there could be widespread voter fraud is irrelevant.
To people who don't believe in democracy.
First of all, you are the one claiming I committed fraud by denying that you signed a contract; so the burden of proof is on you to show it.Are you seriously still this ignorant on how the burden of proof works?
You are the one claiming I committed fraud by denying that you signed a contract; so the burden of proof is on you to show it.
Claiming victory because I can't prove there is no fraud is by definition an argument from ignorance.Which is entirely valid when ignorance is the conclusion.Ignorance is by definition, not a conclusion.
Tell it to the agnostics.
Yes, but you don't seem to have bothered to ask yourself why.
It doesn't matter.
Releasing for pubic consumption every piece of data on voters, including who voted, who didn't, or whatever other data you seem to think you're entitled to is not the industry norm nor is it the law in any state in the nation.
How about releasing (or even counting) PBPF?
Also it's not an industry, it's our democracy (or was). If beating up blacks was the "industry norm" for police that would not mean it's legal or legitimate policing.
the fact is that we know before a single vote has been cast that the data you are suggesting be released is not going to be released, ever
And yet some useful information was released before the election through public APIs which were quickly shut down as soon as whoever ran those things realized they were being used for citizen audits. That's how the original lists of dead voters were compiled.
That wasn't a mistake, it was public records; now hidden behind endless legal contests (illegally).
So there is nothing at all suspicious when you later ask for it and don't get it.
There is something very suspicious about hiding it when it's being used for auditing and pretending that it wasn't a public record when you literally hired a team of software developers to make it public.
To argue that the latter implies deception is to argue that the policies, procedures, and law itself was designed to be deceitful. That's absurd.
It is not absurd to argue the law is wrong, but the law is being broken by the election officials in this case. In fact they're using absurd interpretations of the law to charge people trying to do audits with the very crimes they are guilty of (tampering with election equipment for example).
Well first off two wrongs don't make a right so you're wrong either way.
A double standard is wrong regardless, so I'm right either way (with either rigorous or lax levels of proof).
Second, I have never claimed her case was proven
Then admit it's an anecdote and therefore "does not actually matter".
Wow, there are corrupt people out there. Ground breaking.
Yet a rejected theory every time you decry the possibility of a conspiracy of any size.
Created:
[Double_R] But in cult world where up is down, black is white and triangles have four sides...
....this is anything more than pathetic denial:
[Double_R] Please find one example of democrats "denying election results""I think he is an illegitimate president that didn't really win.""You are absolutely right" - Kamela Harris"Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016, he lost the election." - Jimmy Carter[Double_R] Just because someone uses the same words didn't mean they're saying the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It would take 4.5 minutes to read my post and confirm it. You don't need to look at all Arizona law. The claim is that the change made murdering migrants legal. All you have to look at is the change.If the change cannot possibly make murder legal, then you know you have spread misinformation.I hope you are correct.
Stop gaslighting. Read the amendment.
Many people are very worried about movers (who tend to be left wing) moving to states and turning them blue. Conservatives tend to stay where they live; liberals are more likely to move around.
That has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, that amendment, or your lack of a leg to stand on pronouncing others "unconvincable"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You are claiming there is massive widespread voter fraud
I am claiming that there could be, and that the evidence which would theoretically be apparent to joe public is evident. If there isn't enough to impress you that is because the lack of election integrity takes the very form of non-auditability (and also what audits could be done were not).
You are giving license and trust to people dealing in a curtained off alley and that is not democracy.
First of all, you are the one claiming there is fraud so the burden of proof is on you to show it.
First of all, you are the one claiming I committed fraud by denying that you signed a contract; so the burden of proof is on you to show it.
See:
[ADOL] It would be fraud if I lied about a contractual obligation wouldn't it?[Double_R] Yes
Claiming victory because I can't prove there is no fraud is by definition an argument from ignorance.
Which is entirely valid when ignorance is the conclusion.
Second, it's not an appeal to faith, it's a basic application of Occam's razor. The state of Georgia claims they audited the results. Therefore one of two things are true: they either audited the results or they lied. If they lied, that means hundreds if not thousands of election workers would have to be complicit in this lie. The latter requires an insane amount of assumptions while the former does not, therefore the former is by far the more reasonable presumption.
Hardly, since they can simply recount (as was mandated in a few cases) and call that "an audit". While it's a good thing to do, it is not a substantive audit.
They did not do what they could do and what they could do was already insufficient.
By playing such dishonest word games they need involve no one in any conspiracy.
On the other hand the notion that they performed an audit and have nothing but a "no we checked" to show for it requires believers to be a drooling idiots. Denial is one thing, but if you ask for a receipt and they look under the counter and say "Oh yea, there a receipt" and you say "well give me a copy!" and they say "uh trust us" then deception is the more reasonable assumption.
When the lady claimed she never voted before Trump, you trusted her.
I considered her motivations and her duties. She was sharing what she could possibly know. If she had said she saw evidence that people voted in her name, but refused to show it I would give her the same credulity I give to your rumored claims of substantive audits.
It's not a data point until we know what happened, until then it's just a claim.Like EJC's accusation of rape.A claim for which EJC brought the claim and was rightfully saddled with the burden to prove, and according to the jury satisfied that burden. That's how it works.
According to reason she proved nothing. If a decades old claim is proof, then wide spread election fraud has been proven 50,000 times in the last year.
If you really think they're all engaging in some grand conspiracy to cover up the democrats stealing our elections there is no logic or reason that will ever get through to you.You may want to listen to the Kari Lake recording again. There are people "back east" who make people worried about car bombs.Nothing about Kari Lake's recordings in any way support your stolen election narrative.
It supports the dangerous corruption narrative, and the people who are dangerously corrupt have everything to gain by egregious apathy in this matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It would take 4.5 minutes to read my post and confirm it. You don't need to look at all Arizona law. The claim is that the change made murdering migrants legal. All you have to look at is the change.I'm just not sure at this point if Kyle Kulinski was telling the truth or not.
If the change cannot possibly make murder legal, then you know you have spread misinformation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
But there is no changing your mind, so why should I bother even commenting?
You won't admit to spreading misinformation, even when your error is explained in detail. That makes you a lair. Stop projecting and look in the mirror. That's where the problem is.
and I'm willing to deviate from any party
You fill a shopping cart with a variety of rotten foods then you have a diversity of rubbish. That's your expressed beliefs and concepts.
Your lack of loyalty to parties counts for NOTHING.
But you got a party to stick too, so there is no changing your mind.
There is clearly no changing your mind, even the most obvious facts which would embarrass any honest person into a retraction have no effect on you.
Clearly party loyalty isn't the only thing that can make one hopelessly irrational.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
What's ignorant is pretending that the principal which makes a speeding ticket a legitimate and enforceable punishment in response to unacceptable conduct suddenly doesn't apply when we're talking about Donald Trump.
What is ignorant is pretending you can't use traffic tickets to harass someone to the point of being driven out of a city. You certainly can.
Especially if the judge doesn't care about the facts and opts for the maximum fine every time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Naming your assertions something you think is noble doesn't give you the right to do anything.
Created:
-->
@Amber
I think the jewish space lasers are far more effective than the giant vacuum maid; but these technological wonders are nothing compared to the power of the schwartz.
Created:
You're going through the list of worst war crimes and saying you support them? Is that it? Saving fascist Italy for last?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
That's 1.922 trillion reasons the deep state is fighting till the last gasp.In 2020, Neta Crawford, chair of the political science department at Boston University, in her Costs of War Project, estimated the long term cost of the Iraq War for the United States at $1.922 trillion.
That's 247 million dollars per lost solider BTW. You don't see that ratio in any war in history. Not even close.
This was a money laundering operation, not a war.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I have no idea who Taylor Swift is besides the vague notion she has broken up with many people and sings songs about it.
Liberals are good. People the media calls liberal probably aren't liberal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well that's what happens when you tell people they aren't allowed to shoot. Kinda like Jan 6 except this time the feds are waiting to help the violent mob breaking down barricades rather than hand out draconian punishments with political confessions being the only escape.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
You are jealous of Trump. Half of your avatars are Trump. You constantly talk about his wife.Trump loves you.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
You'd think banks and bonding companies would want the man "on the verge of becoming the most powerful man in the world" to owe them, and yet, no lender thinks he is good for it.
No you wouldn't. I wouldn't lend him a dime if I knew he was going to put it into the hands of the traitor-state of New York.
They would hide it away and do their best to make it unrecoverable for years. No sane business wants to be anywhere near this soon-to-be gun fight. Those are very unpredictable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Or... You could recognize that there are more potential explanations than "they were trying to commit fraud" or "someone else was trying to commit fraud".There are no other explanations.Exactly, which is why no one takes election deniers seriously.
Non-responsive.
You accused me of not thinking fraud is a serious thing.
You said you would expect more serious examples. I asked what would make the examples more serious. The remainder of your evasive sophistry on this point is ignored.
You claim there was an audit. Show me the audit.Ask the pro Trump republican officials who performed it.You have failed to produce an audit.Right, so let's test those logic skills of yours. Double_R on debateart failed to produce an audit performed by the state of Georgia. Therefore... [?]
Therefore Double_R on debateart trusts there are audits, but cannot find them or trusts there are audits but has not even looked.
Therefore Double_R on debateart is appealing to faith and loses the argument.
Funny how you can't produce that number, almost as if it hasn't been published because no substantive audits were done.Right, no substantive audits were done, so the audits that election officials said were done, and that hundred's if not thousands of election workers took part in, is all a massive multi state conspiracy performed largely by pro Trump republicans in order to hide the cheating the democrats did to boot Trump out of office and install Joe Biden.
You still have not produced a substantive audit.
Just know that this is why no one takes election deniers seriously and never will.
Then there is nothing to worry about is there.
It would be fraud if I lied about a contractual obligation wouldn't it?YesTherefore there is a dichotomy: Either I just committed fraud, or you signed a contract.However since we know you have the burden of proof to show I committed fraud...No, I don't have that burden because I'm not making that allegation.
Denying you owe the money is making that allegation.
Denying election results is making the allegation of fraud.
In this hypothetical, you are claiming I owe you money and you are seeking to be made whole. Because you are the one bringing the allegation and because you are the one seeking for others to take action on your behalf, that places the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders.
I see, so the burden of proof for a claimed contract is on the party seeking action from others?
How did you infer that the impersonator didn't attempt to vote in an election with Trump?Because then the lady would have likely been told at least one of those times that she already voted.
How do you know that she wasn't told of the conflict for 2020 general? She wouldn't be sitting down reviewing records if she had no clue.
now it is, by definition, an anecdoteNo it is not. It's a data point. Data points like these have been compiled but people like you alternate between dismissing the whole because you don't trust the individual examples to dismissing the example because you don't trust the whole.It's not a data point until we know what happened, until then it's just a claim.
Like EJC's accusation of rape.
so of course I would discard them.
You discard claims because you think other people take claims too seriously. Interesting epistemology you got there.
which is where we will just part ways.
Oh we parted ways a while back, when you realized you had not way to quantify the amount of mail fraud. You're just fighting a rear guard action so you can tell yourself you didn't lose.
If you really think they're all engaging in some grand conspiracy to cover up the democrats stealing our elections there is no logic or reason that will ever get through to you.
You may want to listen to the Kari Lake recording again. There are people "back east" who make people worried about car bombs.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Unless it benefits Leticia James somehow.Period. "No harm no foul" is not a thing.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Projecting again Double_R, it's not healthy.
Created:
[FishChaser] ILikePie needs to be punched in his face, but you need to change your mindset for your own good.
I reported that as advocacy to physically attack site members.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
People like Double R will tell you to your face that "high crimes and misdemeanors" are "whatever congress says they are" and AOC must believe that because she voted for an impeachment which was not connect to any existing legislation.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I liked the part where AOC claimed RICO is not a crime....
Right after this she said that "impeachment 101, the majority... must accuse the president high crime, a specific high crime or misdemeanors" <- ROLL ON FLOOR LAUGHING
Well I've got an important message for you GP from Double_R:
Please find one example of democrats "denying election results""I think he is an illegitimate president that didn't really win.""You are absolutely right" - Kamela Harris"Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016, he lost the election." - Jimmy CarterJust because someone uses the same words didn't mean they're saying the same thing.
So you see when AOC says those things that would have cancelled Trump's impeachments and the Georgia case, you're just confused because those words don't mean anything that might be damaging to the left-tribe agenda.
No you may not ask questions.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It's a competition between propaganda sources not actual war crimes.Israel has killed much more more women and children in few months than Russia did in two years.
I am very certain that targeting civilians is completely unacceptable in both the Russian and Israeli armed forces.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
then I wouldn't think Trump was racist off this quote.
"Mexican" isn't a race.
A randomly selected undocumented immigrant is a r*pist or similar.
You said "Mexicans"
Not "undocumented immigrants" (AKA criminal aliens).
Here is a mind blowing fact: Most Mexicans are in Mexico. Just living, not trying to violate US immigration law. Mexicans and "undocumented immigrants" are two different things with a small intersection.
If Trump said 99% of "undocumented immigrants" were "rapists" that would apply to less than 1/50 Mexicans (that's an extremely safe upper limit).
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I doubt a significant amount of the production is from slavery.With this as precedent, if child porn made up some, but not a significant amount of the porn some dude hypothetically watched, then it would be deemed ok if you were being ideologically consistent.
Chocolate made from slavery is indistinguishable to the reseller and end consumer from chocolate made without slavery.
To the degree that is true of underage porn I do not condemn porn consumers for not boycotting porn entirely because a small minority of non-obvious instances are slightly underage.
Child labor and child porn are two different things with potentially very different psychological and social implications.How?
For one the urge (especially in males) to be productive manifests well before the urge to mate. Ten year olds can definitely want to work and can get all the natural satisfaction from achieving something.
Apprenticeships and teen labor is not necessarily a hardship as even in rich countries where it is definitely not necessary some do it for the sake of satisfaction or acquiring non-essential goods.
so we would have to ban a bunch of products made with child laborNo, we would just ban child labor and products imported from child labor.How are the bolded words different in this context?
maybe they aren't, but you clearly indicated in the OP that all chocolate would be a problem as opposed to only the chocolate from companies known to enslave people.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
But beyond that... What exactly is the point here? Does anyone here care about James? It's she ruining for president?
Does anyone care about the rule of law?
No, you ask about who is running for president all but admitting to what we all knew already.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@7000series
Humanity isn't going to die unless the entire biosphere dies.This is not true.A global famine would wipe out humanity, but it would not wipe all life from the face of the Earth.
There is no realistic scenario where everyone dies from hunger or disease.
There are 8 billion of us and if all but 500,000 die that isn't even close to the worst bottleneck our species has faced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
He said 3500 ADKnowing what catastrophe that is will greatly affect what is leftIt will be a big red giant. You are welcome
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FishChaser
Absolutely correct.Might makes possible to get your way. This has nothing to do with being right in either a moral or factual sense.
Hard to believe that came out of the same account which was talking about slicing up internal organs for sexual purposes.
Created:
Posted in:
Well he's got to at least threaten supreme court justices with military force to measure up to Lincoln.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
A) Just because something can be produced using slavery, doesn't mean it has to. Neither cotton nor chocolate require slavery or child slavery.But the way it is currently being obtained is using slavery, so treat it as that.
I doubt a significant amount of the production is from slavery.
Or you just make them obsolete and you cause them to go back to their families.
If they could stay with their families without working they would already be doing that.
Either child exploitation is okay (so child porn is allowed)
Child labor and child porn are two different things with potentially very different psychological and social implications.
so we would have to ban a bunch of products made with child labor
No, we would just ban child labor and products imported from child labor.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
It's going to be hilarious to see if anyone is stupid enough to buy stolen goods when the owner is on the verge of becoming the most powerful man in the world (not that he knew how to wield that power last time but still).
Tim Pool thinks they'll convert them into migrant housing, I agree. I also prepare the popcorn because that would mean they're using it to further a criminal conspiracy. That way we can lock them up for the rest of their lives ONTOP of making Trump whole again at the expense of the TDS NY population.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@7000series
A) Humanity isn't going to die unless the entire biosphere dies.
B) The only way the entire biosphere can die is by a catastrophe of such incredible rarity that it hasn't happened for over a billion years
C) Knowing what catastrophe that is will greatly affect what is left
The least likely to damage records that I can think of is near luminal heavy particle radiation penetrating down to the ocean depths. Transistor latch based storage would be unreliable after that. Secondary photon production would also destroy film.
Bulk physical iteration storage would be all that would be left: so books, CDs, inscriptions on stone.
Some libraries are very well built, their rooves could conceivably last for a 1500 years without leaking.
CDs are are resistant to most chemical attack and could persist for tens of thousands of years in a dark wet place. So I guess it depends on how much stuff is on CDs. We can count on a lot of songs and enough old encyclopedias to decipher every language and the outline of our history.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You probably intentionally chose to spread a lie in the first place. How could I possibly fix the error in your character that causes you to lie and not care about it even when exposed?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
There is a sliver of a point in implying that the intersection of sex and minors deserves more careful analysis than is typical but "what is typical" is a profoundly low bar being best described as an instant frothing rage.
The first thirty seconds of actually thinking reveals obvious absurdities in your analysis and claims.
A) Just because something can be produced using slavery, doesn't mean it has to. Neither cotton nor chocolate require slavery or child slavery.
A.1) This is the vegan fallacy: because some cows are mistreated dairy as a concept is evil
B) Your exaggerated definitions of slavery are disingenuous. Perhaps no child should be in the position where working is the only way to survive BUT that does not mean working is then "slavery". Slavery is when other human beings don't give you a choice. Not when physics doesn't give you a choice.
B.1) If children are not actually being enslaved, but sustaining themselves by producing something I pay for; and I stop paying for it... then rather than saving them I'll be condemning them to death.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
They hate him because he called most Mexicans R words and drug dealers.
You can't possibly win. Admit defeat, or rather just ignore that you are the conduit of misinformation again. I'm thinking there should be a compilation if you're just going to keep doing the same thing without taking responsibility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Well I could assume you're they were all lying when I saw their faces and emotions, or I could assume your blind trust in tens of thousands of people who you don't know is warranted.Or... You could recognize that there are more potential explanations than "they were trying to commit fraud" or "someone else was trying to commit fraud".
There are no other explanations. It's fraud or lying. Ballots don't accidentally get sent in under another person's name. If such a thing could happen that would prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is no election integrity (see thread title.)
If you don't know what makes fraud "serious" then your previously attempted point is void.Another example of how disingenuous you are. Nothing I've said implied in any way that "fraud" is not serious.
You lie:
If the kind of fraud you are claiming may be happening was actually happening, you would have far more serious examples to talk about.
If you didn't have strawman arguments you'd have no arguments at all.
You should stop lying.
You claim there was an audit. Show me the audit.Ask the pro Trump republican officials who performed it.
You have failed to produce an audit.
If they really did audits and didn't hide data then we would have a number for that.Funny how every state, including those run by republicans all hide the data showing massive fraud which swings elections towards the democrats.
Funny how you can't produce that number, almost as if it hasn't been published because no substantive audits were done.
That's not a problem with the system, that's a you problem.Jan 6, an enormous spike in support for secession, Trump getting railroaded leading to a complete collapse of trust in the federal and opposition state legal systems; and the very real probability of Trump getting back in come 2024 says it's a "us" problem.Oh it's definitely an us problem
Then I look forward to you no longer trying to evade the debate because you don't give a shit what pro-democracy citizens think.
We have no bodies for these elections because they ARE UNAUDITABLE.In person fraud cannot be audited either yet you have so issue with that, so what is your point?There are two options: invulnerability or auditability. The first is better, but the latter is tolerable so long as the response to discovered fraud is a new election.Vulnerabilities for in-person voting are just as much of a problem as any other vulnerability, but there is reason to believe the scope of such fraud is limited because there exists risks of being recognized.And yet it's still UNAUDITABLE
Non-responsive.
You lost any basis to talk about constitutional rights when you discarded the 2nd amendment.Strawman then deflect, same ole...
Non-responsive.
when fraud can change the outcome it's not democracy anymore. So no, your priorities are wrong. There is no balance. Fraud must be eliminated as a factor so that democracy exists, and any proposal for convenience must not change that fact.Fraud can still be committed via in person voting, yet you are fine with it.
Strawman, you should stop lying.
You don't get to tell people mail in ballots are rigged and then point to the fact that people believe you as a valid reason to now have to get rid of them.Sure I can, if they can be rigged.Mail in ballots can also be rigged, yet you are fine with them.
Strawman, you should stop lying.
He wasn't talking about fraud
He was talking about election results. Specifically: denying them
HINT: you won't find it because I've never made that argument
HINT: Same here
Google philosophic burden of proof.Google appeal to ignorance and then think about what the original positive claim must be.A default position is not a positive claim.
I should hope not, but you apparently think I should accept a positive claim as a default position.
It would be fraud if I lied about a contractual obligation wouldn't it?Yes
Therefore there is a dichotomy: Either I just committed fraud, or you signed a contract.
However since we know you have the burden of proof to show I committed fraud, I can't have a burden of proof to disprove fraud.
All that is left to you is to stew in impotence because apparently I don't have to prove my claims to be non-fraudulent and fruad is the only way they could be false.
What was the claim?Start at the top...
Non-responsive.
What it means is you have decided that only when it comes to mail in ballots, you (personally) must have names, addresses, photographs, video footage of everyone's houses in order to accept them but don't demand anything close to that before accepting in person ballots.
You didn't ask for a number of in-person fraudulent votes.
No one cares about your unreasonable demands and misplaced burden of proof. Prove your claims or go home.
Here and I thought we agreed it was a "us" problem. Forgot about that quick, you also forgot you owe me money. You haven't proven fraud yet.
People like Double_R would call this "anecdotal" and suggest that you assume these people are lyingNo, people like Double_R would recognize that this isn't even anecdotal because we don't know anything about it.
- Who are these people?
- How do we know they are properly verifying the record?
- Has any of those been looked into?
Looking into things is treason and will get you locked up if you haven't heard.
so this impersonator came out for every election... Except when Trump was on the ballot? Sounds like an ass backwards operative.
How did you infer that the impersonator didn't attempt to vote in an election with Trump?
Yes, now it is, by definition, an anecdote
No it is not. It's a data point. Data points like these have been compiled but people like you alternate between dismissing the whole because you don't trust the individual examples to dismissing the example because you don't trust the whole.
Lose every point and attempt to escape it by appealing to the broader context. In the broader context you claim that you win because of the specifics in narrower contexts. This is also what you did in regards to the Ukraine Biden corruption debate and the previous election fraud debate.
In other words a gish gallop.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You are lying. Again.They hate him because he called most Mexicans R words and drug dealers.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
That's rape.Strange that the pseudo-jury disagreed.they did not. That's why trump was found liable.
(That's you losing, you just lost the debate, AGAIN)
Created:
It's like the BLM examples. If they can't find a real racist cop killing and they can't find an honest prosecutor that means there aren't many to choose from.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Whether or not they admit it to themselves I don't know or care, same with the TDS pseudo-courts that started this fight. Too crazy to know better while stabbing you, or evil enough to stab you are both 'stabbing you'.I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here other than "trump=good so courts that punish his crimes are bad".
More like: There are no crimes, courts delete themselves in the insane desire to make up crimes ignoring all precedent, constitutional rights, due process, English common law, and sane interpretation of legal statutes.
Now that the american justice system is a battleground I don't care about precedent. I care about counter-attacks.
When you say "you can't just silence journalist over defamation" all I see is somebody pointing at a British heavy bomber in 1941 and saying "you can't just drop bombs out of planes, they're for moving passengers and cargo! Someone might get hurt."
Yes, someone might get hurt; and yes this is not the way planes ought to be used; but they started it.
Trump committed what any rational person would describe as a rape.
Say the democracy trashing dangerously deranged soon to be owners of a mountain of regrets...
That is a fact.
Biden raped your mom. That is a fact.
Like if you got convicted of battery and I said "he beat a guy up"
No, more like I wasn't convicted of anything because it was a civil case. Also there was a line item that say "battery" and the jury said "He didn't do it". Also there isn't a shred of evidence.
and you sue me because you weren't charged with "beating a guy up".
Except I was charged with battery, and found not to be liable. And you knew it. You just don't care what the legal definition of battery is and decided that chewing gum now meant "beating up a guy"
Trump inserted part of his anatomy inside a woman against her will.
Say the democracy trashing dangerously deranged soon to be owners of a mountain of regrets...
That's rape.
Strange that the pseudo-jury disagreed.
And since this action is a legal fact, there is no grounds to sue someone for saying so.
Legal grounds, like evidence, are now obsolete.
Soon all facts will be "legal" facts as it becomes clear that authority of partisan juries is simply another weapon in the culture war.
you keep pretending like the right doesn't have to follow the law anymore because of the left.
You and a whole lot of other people haven't realized that you can't just ignore the law to dominate your political opponents and expect them to not (eventually) do the same.
But it's trump who constantly breaks the law.
Say the democracy trashing dangerously deranged soon to be owners of a mountain of regrets...
The thing you're pissed about is the law actually being enforced.
Oh boy, now I see the light. You've convinced me any the other 90 million. Impressive.
Some might have expected you to actually have to win one of the many debates on legal theory that you've lost to me and others, but no; you just had to assert your conclusion one more time and that was the straw that broke the camels back.
In DC or New York maybe.This is in Florida.and? he has no case.
Cases are no longer necessary. Only rage and fear.
It is extremely hard to ever successfully sue a journalist for defamation against a public figure.
It was extremely hard when people were taking things like the 1st amendment seriously. Now attacking the credibility of someone who accuses you of a crime is defamation. It's a whole new world and the only question is who is pretending it isn't and how fast you can find the ones who have adapted to the new reality.
Something that was stated outright in a legal decision of a court of law.
A pseudo-judge contradicting his pseudo-jury who didn't care about evidence acting under a law which amounts to a bill of attainder.
He will lose.
Then it's time to find an even more prejudiced jury/judge pool.
Created:
Posted in:
An example of the kind of things I heard as an election judge: https://twitter.com/i/status/1770499421479784544
People like Double_R would call this "anecdotal" and suggest that you assume these people are lying since no one would be dishonest enough to impersonate someone else for "just one vote". <- can you spot the contradiction?
Created: