Total posts: 4,833
There is no answer, you are a human slot machine, your opinions cannot be explained rationally.
Created:
Posted in:
There is no point engaging with any assertion he makes, he is unwilling to retract or support specific debunked statements.
He is obsessed with definitions of right and left that he engineers on the fly from pure whim.
The words "moderate" and "common sense" have no coherent meaning (in his mind) that can be engaged with any he uses them only to present the facade of personal authority.
Created:
[TheUnderdog] This was so you can murder undocumented immigrants who are walking on your property for a few seconds.
This is a malicious lie. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10579/posts/427868
[TheUnderdog] I trust Kulinski over partisan hacks like yourself (and I agree with the right on many issues; so I'm not a partisan hack).
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you authority based epistemology. He's trusting his experts. That's his excuse for being crazy wrong.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Doubling down on crazy. You can leave any time the sanity gets too annoying.Well to you, left wing and crazy are synonymous and there are a lot of people that think Arizona is trying to legalize murdering undocumented immigrants, so keep on calling half the country crazy and see how irrelevant you become.
If half the country can look at a long standing self-defense law and call is license to murder migrants there is no hope, war is the only outcome, and we'll win because we know how read plain text (among other things).
My hope is that half the country is not like that, rather they are being deceived by people like Kyle Kulinski and yourself. That more and more of them will wake up, and since they are sheeple once they sense a shift in the currents the crazy will be reduced to yourself and those like you.
Note I want to differentiate Kyle Kulinski and you. Kyle clearly has a duty as someone with a considerable audience to do due diligence, he's hurting American society and there is no excuse for it BUT I don't know for a fact that he's read the original law or the modification. If he has, then he is as bad as you.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The bill is designed so you can murder undocumented immigrants.
Doubling down on crazy. You can leave any time the sanity gets too annoying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
You knew someone for 18 years and you didn't shed a tear? It makes me think you're lying or a sociopath.
Maybe there are a lot of people who are sociopaths to people outside their species. Would explain where all those wretchedly mistreated animal rescues come from.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Just so you know I'm at the point that I'm just going to stop reading threads you create. You keep doing the same insane things. You setup an absurd definition, then you equivocate that definition based on the words (no seriously look up the equivocation fallacy), then you ask profoundly stupid questions about why people who don't give a shit about your absurd definition don't politically align with the contradictory worldview you've setup.
It's like the same bullshit that happens when people go "Nazis can't be socialists because they fought communists" except 10x worse because there isn't even an appreciable number of people who accept your definitions for words.
Communism - The free speech opposite of the first amendment.
Said nobody.
At least when you say nazis are socialists or communists are socialist, there were millions of people who called themselves both nazis and socialists and both communists and socialists AND STILL they killed each other by the millions.
Your concept of the world is utterly useless because you (apparently) continue to believe in this thing "the universal right-left paradigm"
There is no "eternal right" there is no "eternal left" there is no assignment of philosophy or belief that will EVER allow you to understand the world as the interplay of only two worldviews.
The number of sides = 2 comes from one place and one place alone: strength in numbers. Two is the minimum number of sides to fight so when every alliance that can be formed (and still fight) there are two sides left.
That's it.
You may as well be asking of Genghis Khan was right or left wing. ENOUGH! It's just a seating arrangement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
laws for Roman soldiers and said there was a law that they could only allow the occupied people to carry a coat 1 mile so that is why Jesus told the jews for them to carry it 2 miles and practically everything in th sermon on the mount saw Correlation with Roman laws that applied to soldiers.
... but as TIK would ask: Is that really the case?
Romans were pretty good at writing down laws, and if they didn't how does this guy know about this law (because it's not in the bible)?
I've never heard of it nor can I find an mention of original sources. The search engines all just lead back to this claim. I suspect this stuff about hitting with the back of the hand is also made up.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What if he steals from his family to send the $100?You can't steal from your own family. You can steal from people in your family; but not the family it's self.
Well a person who supports stealing from the American public is stealing from each person in America to varying degrees.
But I'm not crazy enough to back anti-free speech Russia.
You are crazy enough to think switching "Lodging AND residence" to "Lodging OR residence" is a "law to kill migrants"
A person as crazy as you cannot be trusted about something far more complicated like assessing the true degree to which speech is free in a country, nor can you be trusted to tell the difference between "backing Russia" and believing Russia was provoked by anti-democratic coups caused by the US deep state.
If you can't live with people who demand virtue for loyaltyI don't care who my neighbors are if they are harmless.
How nice, in that case they may simply decline your offer to pack because they're staying right where they are.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
inherently offends you and I'll help you pack. It also means you aren't America First, but Russia first.
You don't get to choose what offends people.
If a husband wants to donate $100 to charity and spend $40K on his family, does that mean he doesn't put his family first? No.
What if he steals from his family to send the $100?
I have a message for those who would clutch pearls over a lack of blind "nationalistic" loyalty to a narrative promulgated by a giant thieving government and its unofficial propaganda arm:
You don't get to define what it means to be a good american.
There is a document that explains why this government exists, the problem it is supposed to solve, and the reasons governments deserve to die.
Understanding the truth behind that document is what makes a person a good citizen of any land. If you can't live with people who demand virtue for loyalty then I'll help you pack. I hear there is a part of Korea that is perfect for you.
Created:
Posted in:
I find Wylted's claims to be highly suspect. I've seen many people try to twist scripture for their ends before and there is always this tension that is the absurdity of introducing heretofore unconsidered context and ignoring context within the text.
I've even done some twisting myself as a teach exercise (to show people what it looks like).
Even if the book contradicts itself, obviously came from a multitude of human writers with considerably different contexts and philosophies; there is a "best interpretation" and it compounds to absurdity of believing that an all powerful god is communicating through such a medium to then twist it further.
From the beginning Jesus admonitions and his behavior on the hill of olives has been interpreted by the vast majority of Christians as call to pacifism.
They were much closer to the context, if "turn your cheek" meant "entrap people into violence" we would know. Also, turn your cheek meaning don't retaliate; kill them with kindness fits in perfectly with healing the attacker's ear, telling Peter that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword, telling people to respond to theft with charity, Romans 12:19.
In the old testament, the only time god apparently directs human beings to be violent to human beings (and meant it) is in the conquest of Israel. All other times he does the deed himself after giving opportunities to avert it.
The message is clear: be a pacifist, die with courage, you'll be laughing in paradise; and that is exactly the kind of person early Christians venerated as saints.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If you've been reading Rand you need to keep reading because rights don't contradictI only read 1 page of Atlas Shrugged and some of her quotes which say what I said.
So you understand the philosophy like yoga cat ladies understand Buddhism. Got it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think this is Tim Pool at his craziest.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If you've been reading Rand you need to keep reading because rights don't contradict.It shouldnt be violated to uphold someone else's rights.
Created:
Posted in:
Even Stephen A Smith starts to see what's going on in terms of objectively predictable outcomes rather than delusions about what is fair or owed.
At 6:00
When the legal system is utilized this way, and people see you get away with trying to cause all of this ruckus towards him as opposed to simply beating him at the polls; that gives them additional fodder to question the legal system; And once they do that it gives them significant license to be lawless, and to engage in lawlessness. Which will explain some of the mayhem and nonsense we've seen in the streets of America.
This is common sense, it is historical fact.
Laws, if they have any authority at all, derive that authority from a social contract. Contracts can be broken.
When I say things like "pseudo judges" certain posters give the impression of "just because you disagree doesn't mean they're not real"
There is a difference between disagreement and perceiving a breach of the social contract. The interpretations of law implied by the relevant rulings are so far outside any rational interpretation as to be immediately apparent as lies.
Now you can ignore one guy on the internet, you can ignore millions of people on the internet, but there are tens of millions of people in the real world. Your neighbors. "Some judge agrees with me" is not going to cut it.
Some breakups are inevitable, but it hurts a lot more if you ignore it until it's too late.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Same way someone can like a taste they don't want to like, or dislike a smell they want to smell.Yet, you don't articulate how someone can be attracted to someone they don't want to be attracted too.
The chemicals in your brain don't necessarily make us fall in love with trees. Or with footballs. Or with the rock that is outside.
There is this thing called the subconscious. Perceptions and concepts beyond our conscious control can exhibit considerable complexity just like conscious versions.
Our chemicals don't have to rule us.
You are incorrect to divide all mental observables into choices and "chemicals". A better word would be instincts, and no they don't have to rule us but nobody is saying they have to. You are pretending sexual orientation doesn't exist by apparently defining it as "that which need not rule us".
If chemicals (still bad word) do not rule us, they still exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The point being that even the authors of the report you are citing to support your case agree with me.
Well one, and that only proves he is a CNN puppet like every other ancient democrat. It doesn't change what the report found.
I did not rely on the assertions of the report at all, I was merely pointing out you're misrepresenting history.
Did you even read the report?
Part of it. Long before now.
The main concern they had with mail in balloting wasn't even the threat of fraud, it was the concern that many of these ballots are being filled out in the presence of others which they argued that could result in ballots being heavily influenced.
Also a concern (and it did identify the identity theft issue), and there is evidence that people were paid for "blank check" ballot mailers in 2020 and 2022.
The reason this doesn't happen for in-person-polls is that you can pay people whatever you want, but when they go into the booths you can't look over their shoulders to see if they delivered on what you paid for. That's also why secret voting dissuades intimidation and threats, you can just say "Oh yea I vote Biden, I'm black don't worry" and vote for Trump anyway.
A mailed ballot, that's free in the wild; people can snap photos or show the ballot filled out before they mail it as proof. (again this was alleged, with evidence, in Arizona)
So again, this tells me everything I need to know.
You need to know a lot more than you currently appear to know.
a misrepresentation of a 20 year old report.
What misrepresentation? The fact that the report discussed more than susceptibility to fraud does not mean it did not discuss susceptibility to fraud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It wasn't a fraudulent ballot, it was a clerical error.Alright, assume one of those seven people who told me they didn't send in a mail ballot had never tried to vote in person. Would the fraudulent ballots have counted?Another perfect example of the problem here.You have no idea what the actual story is with any of these claims, yet you already assume the ballot supposedly received in their name was fraudulent.
There is no doubt that it is fraudulent. If they sent it in and then tried to vote in person that is an attempt to commit election fraud. If someone else sent in a ballot in their name... that's fraud.
It was fraud that was prevented from affecting the ballot total, which is not the problem.
If one of those 7 people didn't show up to vote then there would be one less dispute to investigate.
That's true, undetected fraud is really easy on the election workers. You can take a break, get some coffee, talk about sports instead of going through all that provisional ballot mess (which really takes a while, like 25 minutes per ballot).
Let's streamline things further by not even checking if they sent in a ballot. You really are making GP a prophet in this thread.
I'm going to assume you would eventually admit (after wasting a lot of time) "There would be undetected fraud" and move on to the next question:
If we did not know that the ballot was fraudulent until they showed up, how do we know how many other ballots are fraudulent?
The story keeps changing. Are you claiming the roommate sent in the mail ballot under a name not her own?I'm saying that the example provided doesn't even qualify as an anecdotal example of fraud.
I'm saying if you say that you're ignoring evidence, which means you claiming "there is no evidence" really doesn't hit that hard since you can't recognize evidence.
If the kind of fraud you are claiming may be happening was actually happening, you would have far more serious examples to talk about.How does a lot of small scale fraud get any "more serious" than lots of examples of small scale fraud and the certain knowledge that discovered examples are the result of extreme filter?Because what actually matters is data, not anecdotes.
You have failed to answer the question. Here it is again:
How does a lot of small scale fraud get any "more serious" than lots of examples of small scale fraud and the certain knowledge that discovered examples are the result of extreme filter?
I am just as convinced by your anecdotes of alleged voter fraud as you would be convinced that the police are mistreating black people if I provided you as bunch of videos of it happening.
Well that should be very convinced because videos of mistreatment are proof of mistreatment. In fact if you went farther and said the system is failing to remedy or prevent police misconduct I would also agree with that.
To put me in the same position you hold on elections I would have to claim police misconduct almost never happens and we don't need police body cams (which would allow us to quantify and remedy it when it happens) because it almost never happens.
That is very very far from my position on police or elections. They are both high-trust institutions and anyone who even hints at opposing any possible measure to improve or maintain trust is attacking the stability of our society and probably secretly in favor of abuses.
If you had been paying attention I said there is a myth of racist cops. That is a totally different matter from establishing trust. That's like saying "They're cheating in the elections because they are evil and want satan to rule the Earth"
If police beat someone up it's most likely because they're petty tyrants with no emotional regulation. If left-tribers cheat in an election it's probably because they think they're saving American democracy from an imminent fascist dictatorship (which is peak irony).
alleged voter fraud
Let's not forget you provided for examples of confirmed voter fraud and there are plenty more.
if what you suspect to be happening was actually happening then the system would be inundated with examples of mail in ballots being wrongly cast.
You're making more than one assumption there.
Let's call "Mail ballot target inaccuracy" = MBTI = the ratio of persons (or former persons) whose name was used on a fraudulent ballot envelope who did try to vote in person or by mail divided by those who didn't.
If MBTI was 100% then everyone whose identity was stolen for mail ballot fraud would try to vote and have the double balloting investigated (in theory). If every single one of them insisted on going on to fill out a provisional ballot lets say that is "fraud challenging ratio" (FCR) = 1.0. In that case the number of provisional ballots issued for potential fraud (PBPF) would be approximately equal to the number of fraudulent ballots.
Number of mail ballot frauds from stolen identity = MBF_SI
MBF_SI * MBTI* FCR = PBPF
You are assuming MBTI* FCR is close to one and therefore PBPF is close to MBF_SI, insignificant number of PBPF means there was insignificant MBF_SI.
let's assume those investigations are real and they actually use the correct ballot in the end. In that the fraudulent swing (FS) due to MBF_SI is MBF_SI - PBPF.
If MBF_SI ~= PBPF then FS ~= 0
First of all there were real audits and real investigations then PBPF would be a number you can look up. What is it? You say we would be inundated with them so were we?
I don't know. All I can find publicly is the admission that there were a hell of a lot of provisional ballots to count.
If PBPF = 10,000 and the margin of victory (MV) is 11,000 (sound familiar?) then what does MBTI* FCR need to be in order to make the result fraudulent?
FS >= MV
MBF_SI - PBPF >= MV
(PBPF/MBTI* FCR) - PBPF >= MV
PBPF( 1/(MBTI* FCR) - 1 ) >= MV
1/(MBTI* FCR) - 1 >= MV/PBPF
1/(MBTI* FCR) >= MV/PBPF + 1
1/(MV/PBPF + 1) >= MBTI* FCR
MBTI* FCR <= 1/(11,000/10,000+ 1)
MBTI* FCR <= 0.47
That means that if half of the people whose identities were stolen didn't vote, and that out of those who tried 6% didn't correct it (out of disgust or apathy) then the fraudulent count would be greater than the margin of victory.
The PBPF I personally saw was (again) ~6%. These swing states were decided by margins much smaller than that. More than a few within 2%. If PBPF is three times as a large as the margin of victory then only 25% of people whose identities were stolen need to try to vote and challenge the fraudulent ballot.
Based on simple statistics if I was trying to cheat I think I could get a MBTI < 10%. The easiest group to target would be people who had moved to a different address, such a list can be compiled by cross referencing address forwarding with voter rolls. It goes without saying that if you fraudulently register as them, they are very unlikely to vote (having not even registered).
We quantify the fraud the same way we quantify anything else which we don't have precise numbers for; we estimate based on known examples.
I hope no one pays you to do any statistics.
Statistics revolves around the ratio between the sample and the sample space. If you can't quantify the sample space you can't do statistics.
Observe: How many planets in the galaxy currently have life on them, we have an example, extrapolate
Here is another example that the mathematically illiterate put out from time to time: Only 15% of rapes are actually reported to the police. How do you know about the ones not reported to police?
The answer? A survey. Usually anonymous. You can't do statistics about a crime that can't be confirmed in any meaningful sense except by conviction.
It's different for murder. You can count the number of murdered bodies (assuming the ones which were never found are negligible). If you get 50 convictions and there are a 100 murdered bodies you can now do statistics: Only 50% of murders are solved.
We have no bodies for these elections because they ARE UNAUDITABLE.
There is no way to quantify the exact number of people who would have voted but didn't because of twelve hour lines, that doesn't mean we cannot make reasonable estimates.
Yes, we can make reasonable estimates. My reasonable estimate is MBTI < 10%, FCR ~ 6/7
Quantifying voters who have been practically disenfranchised is not difficult to quantify at all and plenty of studies have done on this. If you pass a new voter ID law that requires particular ID types, you can easily see how many people don't have that ID and follow up to see how many of them ended up without it.
You mean didn't get it for the election? That doesn't prove "disenfranchisement" since an equally valid explanation is that they just didn't give a shit.
If you started from an election system where you have to hop over a ballot touch screen in front of your door everyday or else you voted for someone; and go to something sane; the "voter turnout" will go down. Not because voting is now too hard, but because people who didn't give a shit were doing it.
If you get rid of mail in ballots you can easily find out how many people were unable to cast ballots as a result.
I would ask how, but I really don't care. Remote voting isn't a problem that is impossible to solve and I don't care about banning it. I only care about the slim chance to prevent the ascendant digital fascist state via democracy.
A measure as simple as requiring a phone number (not some throwaway dark web number) and then texting each person who purportedly sent in a mail-in-ballot to confirm that they did indeed do such a thing before counting the ballot would have created a level of auditability which would have severely limited those reasonable estimates about potential fraud.
Alleged voter fraud is entirely different, because you have no evidence that the thing you're alleging to be happening is actually happening.
Other than the evidence you've chosen to ignore, yes.
It's a solution in search of a problem.
Trust is a problem, and I think it's going to be harder to ignore that one as time goes on.
Bitcoin is a trustworthy system. That is an objective fact (until the questionable prediction of RSA cracking comes to pass).Some may not believe it is trustworthySo we agree that people believing a system to be untrustworthy doesn't make it untrustworthy. Glad to hear it.
It was never contested... I said the perception of untrustworthiness is a problem in of itself and the single indispensable mitigation of that problem is to be in fact trustworthy.
You have a hypothesis: Everyone who doubts elections does so out of blind worship of Donald Trump.Wrong. My hypothesis, along with this entire conversation, has nothing to do with the individual. This is all about looking at the big picture, and the fact of the matter is that what public officials say, particularly when that official is the president of the United States, and especially when that President has the kind of devoted following Donald Trump has - tells the public that the election results cannot be trusted, it would be absurd to expect any other result than for the public trust in elections to take a significant hit.
So when Nancy Pelosi and Maxene Waters doubts elections public trust also takes a hit. Ceded.
There is a reason why conceding the race and congratulating your opponent has always been a proud and sacred tradition in American politics. It's because everyone including and since the founding fathers understood this "hypothesis" as nothing less than common sense.
Well except for the confederacy, the contingent election after that, Al Gore, and Stacey Abrams.
Because you have chosen to believe that, you don't think having secure elections would make a difference in public trust.I've never suggested we should strive for anything other than secure elections, my point is that they are secure by any reasonable assessment.
If they were secure then I could not present a fraud strategy, ask what the maximum possible extent of its practice is, and the answer is "shut up insurrectionist, we have your name now".
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Without any evidence beyond the word of one person.nope, there was other evidence.
but you can't get into all that
Evidence included testimony from two friends Carroll spoke to after the incident
Eye witness testimony to the claims of one person. I too am a witness to Carroll's accusations. That is not evidence.
a photograph of Carroll with Trump in 1987
In a coat line
footage from the Trump Access Hollywood tape
Where he did not confess to sexually assaulting anyone.
and his October 2022 deposition.
Where he did not confess to sexually assaulting anyone.
If the objective contents of precedent and law don't matter then:you can choose to pretend the results of the trial don't matter.
It matters to anyone sane in New York, the implication is: Run, run for your lives
but he is a rapist.
You defame him again, you're not one to complain about the law it seems
That is an established fact.
To you and other traitors to the rule of law.
He also has to pay almost 100 million for lying about it.
We will see.
So he is a rapist. That is a legal fact.You're now liable for defamation. As a legal fact.nope.
Yep
A jury found that he sexually assaulted her and penetrated her.
A fake jury full of deranged people who are a danger to themselves and others couldn't bring themselves to assert that he raped her.
That is rape. Him being a rapist is a legal fact.
To you and other traitors to the rule of law.
Therefore it cannot be defamatory to say. In fact, him saying otherwise is defamatory.
"Him saying otherwise is defamatory" @Double_R you need to school your fellow fascist, he admitted the part you were trying to hide.
There is no evidence that fraud played any part in the results of the election
Excluding the evidence you ignore... which is all of it...
despite years and years of investigations looking for said evidence.
There were no effective investigations, no effective investigations were possible, and potentially useful investigations were prevented by access denial and evidence destruction.
Pretending that the evidence is just invisible is just the childish desires of trump's cultists.
Well you owe me 50 billion dollars. I have a contract you signed to that effect. Now if you can produce evidence that I don't have that contract or that you didn't sign it that would be one thing... but you just asserting the evidence of my fraud is invisible that's cult behavior.
I acknowledge I framed that sentence poorly.
Fine, then the next step after you admit there is evidence of fraud is your presumption that you can quantify the amount of fraud based on the quantity of evidenced fraud.
Submit your reasoning.
Why would I pat myself on the head because of your ignorance?you pat yourself on the head because you are wrong, but managed to point to a single poorly phrased sentence to try to claim some sort of moral victory.
I'm right, you made a statement that was easily disproved, then you shifted the goalposts. You'll keep shifting the goal posts the whole way if you keep engaging with the issue, but at some point you will read the writing on the wall and quit.
Fraud played no part in determining the outcome of the election. that was my point. Your rebuttal did not disprove my point, but you will pat yourself on the head for it anyway even though you know that is what i was saying and that all the evidence says I am right.The evidence that you won't bother going into.You're expecting me to prove a negative?
You claimed there was "evidence" saying "I am right" and the assertion was "Fraud played no part in determining the outcome of the election."
If "Fraud played no part in determining the outcome of the election." is a negative assertion and there can be no evidence for negative assertions (not true) then you falsely claimed the evidence says you are right.
If fraud never happened (on a scale to affect the outcome) then how would I prove it didn't happen?
I don't think you can, I don't think you could even if you had a team of 500 foresnic investigators and all the data/evidence the government hid or destroyed.
That's why I'm right.
You are pretending an event occurred and then putting the onus on me to prove your make believe isn't real.
The pretend event was a real election, and I am skeptical as I should be; as you would be if it didn't go your way and your media showed you all the circumstantial evidence I have seen.
Everyone can see Biden won the election.
In that case Jan 6 would have been a fantasy riot.
Republicans have spent like 3 years trying to find evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome and have failed miserably.
Those who tried have accumulated as much evidence as could be expected to be found when the people who control the evidence and the data fought in court till the cows came home to hide it (and succeeded in 95% of the cases).
If trump wants people to believe fraud changed the election he needs to show evidence of that.
There is circumstantial evidence that indicates fraud actually occurred and incontrovertible evidence that it could have occurred (through vulnerabilities opened by so called "lockdown" policy changes, many of which were and are still in place and illegal).
People already believe, and if the polls and surveys are any indicator more people believe than did in 2020.
The evidence that there wasn't fraud affecting the outcome is that there is no evidence that any such thing occurred.
I think Double_R thinks a lot like you, but he's just better at debating and he stops himself before he admits these things.
To you elections are legitimate until proven otherwise. So tell me, what is your evidence that Putin wasn't legitimately elected?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
nope. the available evidence convinced a jury of his peers that he most likely raped a woman.The available evidence was "I say so"you clearly don't care what the evidence was so I won't bother going into it.
What a surprise.
The relevant fact is that a jury of his peers confirmed he did it.
Without any evidence beyond the word of one person.
So as a matter of law, trump is guilty
If the objective contents of precedent and law don't matter then:
So he is a rapist. That is a legal fact.
You're now liable for defamation. As a legal fact.
You are technically right, but your argument is still completely wrong.
I'm the dumb one huh
Fraud played no part in determining the outcome of the election.
Another legal fact? No, an assumption made by frightened bigoted fools.
that was my point.
No, your point was there was no evidence of fraud and you were 100% certain:
Feel free to show me evidence of fraud. I am 100% certain that you can't.
You were 100% wrong.
but you will pat yourself on the head for it anyway
Why would I pat myself on the head because of your ignorance?
even though you know that is what i was saying and that all the evidence says I am right.
The evidence that you won't bother going into.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You did. It's misinformation.This is misinformation, debunked at my inconvenience:It's what I heard from somewhere else and I think I posted the video.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
But I think an idea must have at least 10% national support (or a more extreme stance) in order for there to be books about it allowed on the library
Congrats now you are a book banner.
Except it's a government library so fewer books is a smaller government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
But yeah; ban porn books in school and let LGBT activism books be present in schools because it's free speech. Problem solved.
Free speech does not apply to curriculum which are by definition curated.
You can preach from the bible and nobody can stop you because that's free speech. That doesn't mean you can use public funds to assign children bible reading assignments.
Banning sexually explicit material from school libraries and curriculum is just the absolute most basic level of regulation (along with banning teaching naziasm as a good thing).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If underage homosexual rape depictions in school libraries is free speech, then the mirrored position for "actual nazis" would be to have nazi propaganda cartoons in schools.The left doesn't want to promote porn books in schools.
Well then they won't have a problem with banning depictions of underage anal sex in schools....
BUT THEY DO and [censored for politeness] like you give them cover by believing and spreading whatever they tell you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I can infer that you are no longer someone who can be reasoned with from unmitigated absurdityHow do you come to that conclusion?
Already explained.
the fact that you continue to refuse to take responsibility for spreading egregious misinformation.How is this misinformation?
This is misinformation, debunked at my inconvenience:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
If that was true then the nazis were not objectively wrong.Saving is in the eye of the savior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I recommend you read Ebuc's post
ebuc is insane.
and RM's lack of posting.
I'll learn a lot from that.
I can assume they believe that all conservative speech is hate speech and therefore want to censor it.
I can infer that you are no longer someone who can be reasoned with from unmitigated absurdity such as that statement, the OP, and the fact that you continue to refuse to take responsibility for spreading egregious misinformation.
Created:
Posted in:
What a freakin thread...
It would lead to some important conclusions if people were interested. Hint: The nazis were not sociopaths, they thought they were saving the world.
Delusion, not emotion is the root of evil.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Yep he did. He very clearly indicated that sexual orientation is fluid.
A change doesn't mean a choice.
Eczema is fluid, but that doesn't mean people choose to have more or less.
We choose whom we want to be attracted to.
"want to be"
and
"are"
Are not the same.
We live in a world where we want to do our own thing and decide our own outcomes.
A useful premise, but not one that helps you conclude everything about ourselves or our world is a choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Things like, what is the proper default position
The government has a duty to have elections, elections must be legitimate which means either auditable or invulnerable (preferably both).
where does the burden of proof lie
The government.
how do we go about establishing a case for widespread fraud
If you can't make a system invulnerable it at least needs to be auditable. If the answer to the above question is *shrug* that means it wasn't auditable.
what is the ultimate goal here
Managed Democracy! (watching too many helldiver memes)
Democracy.
and where does the balance been ballot count integrity and voter accessibility lie?
Make election day a paid national holiday, when it becomes so troublesome that 1% of the population can't vote with a full day off its not accessible enough. Choosing to go to the beach instead of voting does not mean it's not accessible enough.
If it's not accessible enough, the solution is to make it accessible; not to reduce integrity. Invulnerability may be sacrificed but the cost is providing of auditability of the affected totals.
We can take risks, but only if we can quantify the damage.
Neither have any of these people running around claiming the fraud swung the election, at least not to my knowledge. I'd love for you to prove me wrong.
We don't need to. The inability of anyone to put error bars on it means we win the debate.
If the fraud were enough we would have better examples to talk about
Why?
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.
I think that just about sums up your whole ethos. Double standards of behavior protected by double standards of logic and evidence. I'm saving this one.
Do you understand how communication and context actually works?
Context is back to save the day huh? Your excuses here can't be taken seriously, and I won't dignify them by doing so. They have denied elections. Their reasons and theories can't change that.
The latter is a rejection of reality based on allegations of a massive nationwide conspiracy.
Does it have to be a massive nationwide conspiracy to steal an election?
The idea that it's outcome swinging accuracy is your conspiracy claim. There is no evidence for that.There need only be evidence that the process could have allowed it. There is.The process when someone shows up to vote is to have their ID checked. But the poll worker could very well have invited his friends to come in and pretend to be other people, making the ID check irrelevant. This could happen, therefore ID checks are irrelevant.You mean name and address checks? Why would that make them irrelevant?That just means cameras should be running in poll locations and there should be a rule that people are randomly distributed to different poll book operators.Because they can be susceptible to fraud. That's your standard isn't it?
Full context restored.
I'm not sure what you mean by "irrelevant".
It sounds like you're saying unnecessary or pointless, which is quite different from 'insufficient in isolation'. It would definitely be a problem to hand out pollbooks (they verify names and addresses exist in the voter registry) and let people come back in a week with a bunch of ballots and names they claimed to have collected them from.
People with the name and address of someone they know is registered to vote can pretend to be that person at a polling station since photo IDs are not required (being racist and all, blacks can't find the MVA). However a risk exists because you show your face. If there are cameras you could be seen entering multiple poll locations. People could remember your face. In practice has become a small risk in recent years since auditing elections is now considered treasonous behavior.
That certainly doesn't mean checks are irrelevant, it means we need better checks.
They are validated by the fact that the individual submitting the ballot is a real, legal, registered voter, whose signature matchesMatches a voter registry database (maybe, lots of iffyness there), but if the voter registration was done by the fraudster?Then I guess we no longer trust voter registration either.
Not if you are reasonable. It should have been obvious to you when there are actual human beings who object when somebody tries to remove the dead voters from the voter rolls.
You think there aren't a lot of cases of identity theft? https://bjs.ojp.gov/press-release/victims-identity-theft-20219%... in one year? That sounds high even to me. 22% over their lifetime sounds right.No one is going through the trouble of stealing your identity and ending up in jail just so they can cast a single fraudulent ballot in your name.
Nobody is ending up in jail because there is no way to trace the fraudulent ballot to the fraudster (if they know what they are doing), and especially nobody is going to jail because that kind of investigation would be branded racist anti-democratic voter-suppression, something only an Ultra-MAGA traitor could even conceive of.
Which is back to the point of this thread.
This is another major part of the conversation we haven't even gotten to yet - the risk vs the reward. In all seriousness, why do you think anyone would risk jail time to cast one ballot that won't make any difference at all?
Mail in balloting as practiced in 2020 and 2022 removes all the risk. That's why its susceptible to fraud.
There is no reason that they can only send in one fraudulent ballots, they're only physically limited by the number of ballots they can collect from defunct or rarely used addresses during the period when mail ballots are sent out which is often 30-45 days before the election.
The only information they are limited by is PII to register unlikely voters or existing registered voters who are unlikely to vote (sometimes because they are as dead as a door knob, or have moved away).
Identifying existing but unlikely voter registrations could be as simple as checking social media to see if they mention political topics or have tweet about having voted last election.
A teenager with python could write the code to choose likely candidates, anyone with a couple thousand dollars can get huge lists of basic PII (such as social security and drivers license number) which are sold on the dark web.
Most states (and as far as I know all swing states) allow you to register to vote with a single button through a web interface providing only your driver's license or social security number.
Even if all of these guesses and plans come to nothing there is no significant risk. The information they receive can't be traced to them. They are choosing where to pickup the ballots (or which mailboxes to raid) which means unless there were cameras on every place ballots are delivered to it's simply a matter of choosing safe targets to physically be at.
Similarly mail pickup is not traceable. Despite all of that there are still people who object to having cameras watching ballot drop boxes. As if that woefully insufficient measure to prevent the most idiotic of cheaters was too much democracy for them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-eNJIafS48
Democrats are allowed to question elections though, so that time a new election was ordered.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I don't think the OP was referring to sexual abuse. The conversation just turned that way thanks to the ever pure thoughts of FishChaser and Wylted.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
That is earned not given, and guess how you earn it.
By not being abusive?
Created:
-->
@Amber
Eventually.If that wasn't an inside joke you should report it.Would it even do any good?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Homosexuality and pedophilia are sexual attractions.However, they are not a choice.Person cannot choose what to be attracted to.Sexual orientation according to Kinsey is a fluid situation. The foremost authority on sexuality - at least his studies declares that every person is on this line and can be as fluid about their attraction as they like to be.
I don't think Kinsey said what you think he said. Also the guy has baggage. I have heard (but not confirmed) that shared ideas with people who conducted what almost anyone would call very unethical experiments with minors under their care.
That doesn't mean his surveys are useless data, but you should always be suspicious of turning the opinions of so called experts into "facts", especially when they have skeletons in the closet.
I chose to be attracted to my wife. And I have intentionally chosen not to be attracted to anyone else. But what is attraction?
Probably not what you're talking about. What you describe is merely mental discipline. You're allowing the part of your sexuality you find healthy to dominate.
If I see these people and all I do is think about how I can have sex with them? Is that attraction?
No, that is sexual compulsion; and that is what it looks like when someone has no mental discipline.
Does having sex with someone - or wanting to have sex with someone make it attraction?
Attraction, as defined by our lauded and ever so scientific Kinsey, is when you have an arousal response due to stimuli. This can be 'objectively' measured by sensors attached to the right places.
You can fool the sensors if you focus on something other than the stimuli, but if you have to focus you know you're cancelling something deeper than your conscious choice. That is sexual orientation.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
That does not mean women physically abusing men doesn't happen. It definitely does, but in the vast majority of such cases it's because she can attack him and he won't counter attack.Thats a lie.In majority of cases, women abuse their children because children are weaker.
If I meant to say "men and boys" I would have said "men and boys" or "males"
Men are adult male humans.
Created:
-->
@Amber
If that wasn't an inside joke you should report it.
Created:
-->
@Mall
because men are biologically biased to be much stronger.Why is it more believable for a man to abuse a woman?
If a woman trained hard and practiced mixed martial arts she would stand a chance against a couch potato, but that's unusual.
That does not mean women physically abusing men doesn't happen. It definitely does, but in the vast majority of such cases it's because she can attack him and he won't counter attack. Some people just won't defend themselves or leave the relationship. Broken fight or flight, or some kind of unhealthy emotional dependence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Answer the question in (B)B) If she had not tried to vote, would the fraudulent ballot have counted?It wasn't a fraudulent ballot, it was a clerical error.
Alright, assume one of those seven people who told me they didn't send in a mail ballot had never tried to vote in person. Would the fraudulent ballots have counted?
Her roommate was a registered voter, so if she didn't go to vote her roommate's vote would have just been counted under a different name making absolutely no difference.
The story keeps changing. Are you claiming the roommate sent in the mail ballot under a name not her own?
Moreover, the error was captured, investigated, and explained.
You ever heard of this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
If the kind of fraud you are claiming may be happening was actually happening, you would have far more serious examples to talk about.
How does a lot of small scale fraud get any "more serious" than lots of examples of small scale fraud and the certain knowledge that discovered examples are the result of extreme filter?
Fraud is fraud, like the four examples of dead voters you so helpfully provided before.
Mail in ballots have to be sealed. You can't open them or alter the ballot without destroying them. That's what stops the fraud.Why would the ballot need to be altered in all cases of fraud?It doesn't, you talked about chain of custody so I figured you were pointing to the chain.
It was an example of a social requirement for providing high trust - via a system which proves accuracy by disproving corruption.
Of course chain of custody is also a requirement for paper ballots, and in some cases that chain was apparently broken; but that doesn't require alteration of ballots. They send them out blank, they have many extras.
And if it is the case that thousands upon thousands of ballots (which is what would be needed to alter election results) were being unknowingly filled out by the wrong people we would know this because that would wreak havoc on the system when those voters who never casted a ballot start coming out in droves to find out where it went.
You are being unclear.
"voters who never casted a ballot start coming out in droves to find out where it went."
I'm assuming you mean the people whose name is on the mail-in-form? Why would they go looking to "find out where it went"?
What is "it"? The ballot? They don't know there is a ballot in their name unless they decide to vote. The way they would find out is exactly the scenario I described witnessing: They show up, are told a ballot was mailed to them and sometimes received from them, and then they deny it and are offered the provisional ballot.
The only question is how high our standards need to be>= the standard before laws to prevent fraud were illegally nullified and ignoredSomeone should have challenged that in court
They did, many times; pseudo-judges hid under their bed. Real judges were quickly overruled by pseudo-judges.
Measures taken that might have prevented maybe a dozen fraudulent ballots (if any at all)How did you come up with errors bars that small?Because of it were significantly higher than that we wouldn't be sitting here watching a YouTube video on the story of one voter who had her ballot mixed up with her roommate due to a clerical error that was caught and rectified.
Why?
They are sent to registered voters who requested them and returned with a verified signature. That's enough proof.
That is an assumption.
An election that effectively disenfranchises voters at a rate which swings the outcome is no more legitimate than an election that is swung due to fraudulent/illegal ballots.
It is a false premise that a secure system must "disenfranchise" anyone. As Greyparrot pointed out and you implied the hoops you have to go through to return a mail ballot as practiced in the 2020 election could well have dissuaded people to vote. Seems like it's the worst of both worlds in that case.
There are huge social, moral, and practical difference between voting being annoying and fraud.
Social: Cheating infuriates people and removes their notion that there is a valid social construct. People being lazy about voting doesn't, or doesn't without severe indoctrination.
Moral: Election fraud is equivalent to political coups in the same way financial fraud is equivalent to theft. An annoying voting system may have victims but it doesn't have an agenda.
Practical: People who don't wish to inconvenience themselves don't care about political questions enough. People who will cheat in elections care about political questions way too much (from the viewpoint of a democratic system).
If annoyance is the cost of accuracy (it isn't to the degree you are pretending), then it's better to have the people who believe in the system and care about the system control the outcome rather than the whims of people who would rather watch netflix and the people who hold other voters in contempt.
The most important difference though is this: When your system is vulnerable to fraud and unauditable you can't quantity the fraud. So the very premise that you can relax safeguards until the number of ballots prevented by annoyance is roughly equal to the number of fraudulent ballots cannot be evaluated. All you are doing is blindly allowing fraud and hoping it's not swinging elections more than the so called "disenfranchised" would.
The difference is that there is no evidence nor reason to believe fraud is taking place anywhere near the scale of the impact many of these laws are having on civic participation.
You continue to make assertions you can't possibly support as to scale.
In 2020 if you wanted to vote in many of the precincts around Atlanta you had to wait on line for about 12 hours. How many people were unable or reasonably unwilling to do that?
Lots, probably leaning right-tribe too.
Now is the solution for everyone to write their votes on a scrap of paper and pass it forward in the line or is it more along the lines of the nation that landed on the moon to figure out how to run an election without fraud and 12 hour lines?
You are the one using your own lack of trust in our elections as proof that our elections are untrustworthy.
That is a strawman. I have defined an election as a procedure for reliably evaluating the will of the people accurately. A procedure which may be accurate but there is no way to tell is therefore a fake election since it is not reliably accurate. It is an election in the same way reading tea leaves is an election.
No, I'm not. Your claim is that people will trust the system and my point is that people will always find a way to declare any system that doesn't benefit them as untrustworthy.
...and people will find a way to decide that a certain food is unhealthy, but some foods are unhealthy and the fact that there will always be doubters doesn't entitle food producers to poison the food.
Bitcoin is a trustworthy system. That is an objective fact (until the questionable prediction of RSA cracking comes to pass).
Some may not believe it is trustworthy, but I can guarantee you that way way more people would think it was untrustworthy if it was untrustworthy.
I pointed out that people don't trust crypto currencies because most people aren't interested in studying blockchain technology just as most people (even many of the people screaming the loudest about voter fraud) have no idea how the process actually works or what safeguards exist to prevent/minimize fraud.
I have studied blockchain technology and I know how the elections are actually run (in theory).
I trust the blockchain. I do not trust the so called elections.
Now you can assume I represent a very small number of people, and that the vast majority would not care about the facts; but that just means the collapse of the system is inevitable. You're committing suicide because you think you'd probably die soon anyway. You respond to the risk of people not trusting election by making certain they will not trust elections.
You also assume people like me have no effect on ignorant skeptics. That is unlikely. During and after the 2020 election I explained to many people why some theories of election fraud were impossible or incoherent while those clueless (possibly planted) hacks exemplified by Sidney Powell and Lin Wood did the opposite.
More than a few conceded my points.
You have a hypothesis: Everyone who doubts elections does so out of blind worship of Donald Trump.
Because you have chosen to believe that, you don't think having secure elections would make a difference in public trust.
You are missing three very important points:
1.) You should care if the system is secure, regardless of what other think; unless you don't believe in democracy
2.) Your hypothesis is wrong. If such blind trust of DJT existed then MAGA would love vaccines which DJT refuses to disown and continues to claim credit for.
3.) Your tribe can still lose elections, and when they do they will doubt much as they have already done. So long as elections aren't secure (real) the skepticism is a ratchet. Not everyone is capable of forgetting that they doubted elections only four years previous. I guarantee that if DJT (apparently) wins 2024 MAGA might quiet down about election integrity but they won't forget. They'll mock left-tribers for changing their tune (and they will change their tune) on election integrity but ultimately they will agree the system needs to be convenient and secure. What happens when a left-triber wins 2028?
You're thinking like a conman. Honest people know the first step to convincing someone your product is genuine is to have a genuine product. You only care about perception and thereby dismiss (at your own peril) the intelligence of everyone else.
Actually there are commission reports headed by ex presidents that say mail ballots are susceptible to fraud.
The point being?
Jimmy Carter was one of the two I cited for election denial you know.
"That makes doubly tragic that a report that once sought to improve the public’s faith in American democracy is now mainly used to dispel it."
rofl, back when they cared about such things. Turns out just arresting people for doubting elections works too (or so they think).
The report's purpose was to improve the accuracy of elections and as a secondary consequence of such improvement the public's faith would be improved.
The writer, Matt Ford, thinks like you: Focusing on confidence rather than substance, assuming that if a report identifies the danger of fraud the only possible purpose would be to convince people it was impossible (somehow?).
Again, the mindset of a con(fidence)man.
If no one cared before 2020 it's probably because the absolute number of mail-ballots didn't so universally swing outcomes.Elections are decided by the choices the voters made, not by the method for which they made them.
Sometimes, sometimes they are also decided by who counts the ballots - Stalin (paraphrasing)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Take signatures for instance. Nobody serious actually uses them for identity verification anymore. They died when handwriting became a lost art. When you sign something they don't check it, they just want it because it has value for legal precedent; your final act of consent.That may be true, but it's just as easy to reject a ballot you don't like just because you decided the signatures do not match up perfectly. How would a person know they were getting disenfranchised? They wouldn't.
I was addressing the notion that signature matching is a legitimate method of authentication in general. No major private entity really believes that.
In the scenario you're talking about, a rejection due to signature, many election boards claim they will notify the voter and if there was time they would be sent another ballot so they could try again.
Created:
-->
@FishChaser
I'm going to cut your anus in half with a pair of scissors then turn your cunt inside out to use as a dildo to fuck myself in the ass with.
The inside jokes these days are getting wild.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Any perception that can be used in an argument for a conclusion is evidence for that conclusion.what is your view of NDEs, the afterlife, and whether there is evidence for the afterlife?
NDEs are therefore evidence of an afterlife, but there are other explanations for them that make fewer assumptions and have much more explicate power.
For instance we know physical truama, toxins, and biochemical imbalances can cause hallucinations and delusions.
The brain is clearly an intricate machine that is kept functioning by many control systems. When different disturbances are capable of producing the same types of errors we can see that the failure modes of the brain very often involve memories of falsehoods being 'written'. There is obviously a lot of simulation going on, what we call understanding, concepts, perception, and emotion are all subject to generation without external stimulation.
In other words, when we have an unrepeatable perception; especially when our brain is probably being disrupted (like from near death) the simplest explanation is that conditions were created similar to all of those other disturbances that we know produce hallucinations.
If these NDEs have a common theme that is easily explained by common brain structure and common beliefs. Rather than saying it confirms our religions, it is more likely that our religions and our near death delusions both come from the same subconscious structures.
Although many people laugh at them, I have considerably more respect for the people who break out EM equipment to find ghosts than the people who use prayers that have so often proved in vain.
If there is life without the body, it is a phenomenon; there is no such thing as a 'non-physical' phenomenon. There are only rules which aren't known yet, because if there were no rules then there could be no predictions and without prediction there are no theories.
Life after death is a theory, and one of the first rules it seems is that you have to be alive, and then you have to be dead. Unless you want to start believing meteors have souls too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Did they put up cardboard to block observation of counting? Did a water-main suddenly break? Did a bunch of election workers come forward to blow the whistle?This is exactly what I am talking about.
Suspicious behavior?
My guess is you're talking about one instance in one location in which cardboard was put up and which there was either an explanation given or an investigation done that found no wrongdoing.
because that's all it takes for you
Hur can come along and say "Look those election workers had bad memories, they didn't know what they were doing"
What I do know is that water mains break and that the absence of an explanation does not justify conspiracy allegations.
I mean just because the Polish attack a German radio tower doesn't mean there is a conspiracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
The SS investigated that should be enough for anyone. I guess some people just choose not to accept proof.
I am unaware of any that were found to have any merit
rofl "found to have merit", I decided they had merit. What only left-tribers trying to frame Trump with paid for dossiers are allowed to believe witnesses?
Didn't you mock me for doubting the word of the replacement of Shokin?
were supported by evidence.
The whistleblowers were blowing the whistle on people hiding evidence.
What evidence supported EJC?
These along with every other anecdote I've seen fail to establish any link to a greater plot and fail to establish the scale of suspicious activity that would warrant a rejection of the results anywhere.
To you, but you have already decided the so called election was the safest and most secure in history, you have chosen to not accept proof so no proof is needed. It's just a question of what standards.
If there actually was fraud sufficient to alter election outcomes nationwide we would see a lot more than this.
We saw a lot. You have no basis to claim there would be more, you have made no quantitative analysis I'm quite sure.
It's amazing how much you guys love false equivalences.
It's amazing how many counter examples you will ignore to protect your double standards.
The video didn't play
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
and explain how it is analogous to the right's full blown nationwide conspiracy they are alleging. I'll wait.
Same: Denying the election was legitimate, saying the results were the inverse of what was announced at the counting of the electors
Different: Right-tribe had a theory that involved fraud actually occurring, left tribe (as usual) doesn't need to explain anything to anybody because they have people like you and Underdog as their base. People who do not care about double standards and who go so far as to deny that there is such a thing as proof in order to excuse their chosen agenda.
Returning to the original context, you said "the left actually believes in democracy." because there was no controversy over Florida's voting system.
You have been disproved. The left accepts election results when they agree with them.
The right believe in democracy more than the left because the right wants to secure the elections, the left just wants to deny them. It's a Solomon test and the left tribe fails.
The idea that it's outcome swinging accuracy is your conspiracy claim. There is no evidence for that.There need only be evidence that the process could have allowed it. There is.The process when someone shows up to vote is to have their ID checked.
Not in most swing states.
But the poll worker could very well have invited his friends to come in and pretend to be other people, making the ID check irrelevant. This could happen, therefore ID checks are irrelevant.
You mean name and address checks? Why would that make them irrelevant?
That just means cameras should be running in poll locations and there should be a rule that people are randomly distributed to different poll book operators.
The fact that something could happen is not reason to suspect it is happening.
As has already been explained to you, the fact that something could be happening is reason to prevent it from happening or make it detectable by audit. The motive is there. If the opportunity is there and the consequences are grave there is a problem.
You need more than that.
Nothing could convince you. You have chosen to be skeptical.
Until you take that burden seriously, you relieve the rest of us of the burden of taking your suspicions seriously.
The rest of me may outnumber the rest of you, and we definitely out gun you.
Now if it means you get to keep living in a first world country, maybe you can roll your eyes and support election integrity regardless of whether you think it is necessary (due to the angelic honour of political fanatics and all).
They are validated by the fact that the individual submitting the ballot is a real, legal, registered voter, whose signature matches
Matches a voter registry database (maybe, lots of iffyness there), but if the voter registration was done by the fraudster?
the process is validated by the remarkable lack of issues we are having with regards to claims of identity theft that would be occurring en masse
You think there aren't a lot of cases of identity theft? https://bjs.ojp.gov/press-release/victims-identity-theft-2021
9%... in one year? That sounds high even to me. 22% over their lifetime sounds right.
Identity theft isn't always catastrophic. Many banks react quickly and any serious credit requires things that mail in ballots don't, like phone calls and in person meetings.
I've borrowed some significant money in my life and nobody has ever offered more than $5000 without a handshake and some eye contact.
Besides which you're assuming that the people who stole and distributed voter registry databases also tried to sell them, but in all likelihood most of the basic info is already in dark web databases and the juicy bits that let you request a mail-in-ballot are useless except for cheating in an election.
Take signatures for instance. Nobody serious actually uses them for identity verification anymore. They died when handwriting became a lost art. When you sign something they don't check it, they just want it because it has value for legal precedent; your final act of consent.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
There is only one god, and Best.Korea is his prophet.Thats a lie. God said that gay is wrong.
Created:
-->
@FishChaser
even retards with empathy know this is true
Emotion is an unreliable guide to truth.
Created:
Nothing can prove that God isnt real, because proof isnt real because God is real.
Now wouldn't it be nice of Brother.D could have said it so succinctly?
Double_R should maybe be a part of this discussion, just recently he was alluding to proof not being real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
It doesn’t have to be in DC, but that is where it would be. Delaware?
McLean, Virginia
Anywhere has got better chances than DC. Even the 'republicans' there are TDS. 100% swamp monsters.
If Biden were to be indicted and then acquitted, he would come out smelling like a rose essentially.
That's true of all these cases including the ones against Trump, but they're doing it anyway because they want to capture low-information voters with "91 indictments" (even though it's not really working).
You're talking about it as if it was pure political maneuver, but I guess I was just pointing out why it must be pure political maneuver because "rule of law" doesn't look like "Yea he did it, but I'm not even gona try to charge him."
Created:
-->
@Mall
Some believe love is love whether you are an adult or child.
I so despise that phrase and all others with the root message of: Stop thinking, that can get you into trouble you know!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
It wouldn't have to be in DC. It could be where the documents were, or where they were moved from, or wherever the ghostwriter received them.
In a non-political case any prosecutor who claims the elements of the crime were met would at least try. It doesn't cost them anything personally and might work.
It is extremely unusual to claim the elements of the crime are present but no charges will be brought because of jury nullification. Even if they believe that they would claim some other excuse. This is basically just admitting to corruption, which maybe was the real message he was trying to send: They're threatening me.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
What worries me about this thread is that you are putting "homosexuality" and "pedophilia" together.
Yes, he's doing that on purpose to confuse the moral pre-calculations people have.
It invites the emotions of pedo-hate and homo-tolerance to fight which short circuit the emotional response and causes them to engage rational faculties. There are a lot of manipulative tactics like that which are good at changing minds but hinder debate (which is strictly changing minds via reason).
P.S. the dishonest part is not making an explicit comparison, pretending as if he's against both for some ridiculous reason like an evil god told him so.
Created: