Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
We're going to have a civil war, those of us paying attention know it.
If there weren't nuclear weapons everywhere it might be the signal for Russia or CCP to try to take over the world; but they can't. France and UK alone can defend Europe (assuming EU globalist overreach doesn't turn Europe against itself).
I guess the vulnerable ones are Japan, Korea, and South America.
They'll have to attach to India to get a nuclear umbrella.
Created:
Posted in:
Well this proves she's in on it.
Someone in the jury is going to have to be willing to disobey the ridiculous instructions she will no doubt issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It never ceases to amaze me how election deniers think showing a handful of examples of fraud disproves the narrative that this was a fair and secure election.
It was your source
YOU SAID:
Here's just one example you will claim is meaningless.
Now you claim four examples are meaningless.
You said
your circumstantial evidence had all been debunked.
and now you fall back to "only a few examples, doesn't add up"; but even I didn't predict how savagely you would contradict yourself.
Get THE FUCK out of here with your dishonesty.
I'm done with you until you can admit your hypocrisy here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
We would have confirmed cases of dead people voting in the tens of thousandsThere were lists thousands long.So to be clear, when I trust qualified experts and people who are speaking from positions of trust in which the words they speak could end their careers or land them in jail... I'm being a mindless sheep.
You're right that the words they speak could land them in jail, if they had doubts and voiced them they might be in Big Fani's (or similar) sights right now.
What makes you a sheep is that you wait for CNN to tell you who the experts are, that you assume anyone who makes it into government is an expert (unless they're too loyal to Trump), and that you suddenly lose all your worldy savy when contemplating the motivations people might have to go along with state propaganda regardless of the facts. I know you have the ability because you were able to comprehend that Shokin might have personal motivations for making a claim.
But when you trust internet conspiracy theorists compiling data from their moms basement... That means you are thinking for yourself.
Compiling from county level public APIs that can be spot checked (which I did)... Yes.
Again, you haven't done any of the research yourself.
I did enough to confirm the technique and confirm some examples.
You didn't go out and interview anyone
I sort of did, I was an election judge to meet the people involved and interface with the voters.
you didn't hold up the ballots to the light or search them for traces of bamboo
The ballots are real, the fraud is that the same people fill out multiple ballots. That's why printing enough for everyone on the voter registry and sending them out blindly helps fraud.
You are just sitting there from your phone or PC just like every one of us relying on your own ability to put 2 and 2 together, and every piece of data you are using to reach your conclusions came from someone else - that you trust.
Except that if the data sources I used were untrustworthy (Google maps, cameras, county APIs, court discovery, testimony of election officials), I'm still right.
If I were to move on to areas requiring trust I 2000 mules comes in.
So you're worldview comes from those you trust just like everyone else, the difference is that you seem to think you are better than everyone because you trust people who don't know what they're talking about rather than those who do,
Begging the question aren't you? If the sources I trusted (hypothetically) didn't know what they were talking about in my opinion I wouldn't really trust them. Rather it's that you trust your sources and I trust mine. There is no way to resolve the issue. This is what appeals to authority always come to, that's why I don't use them; or at least I don't use them as anything but correlated evidence.
or because you think it's fashionable to just reject all knowledge altogether.
That's just pure strawman.
If we're really trying to make progress the next natural step in this conversation would be to discuss things like what makes someone credible, but you have disregarded that conversation every time it's come up. I am curious as to why.
Is this a joke? Have I not ranted not less than five times at great length on this site about this very issue?
The only measure of credibility is rational confirmation (looking at the argument). Rational confirmation renders authority irrelevant. Authority/credibility is only relevant when a large number of assertions can be confirmed but not the particular one in question.
So if weathermen predict the weather accurately (within certain margins of error) for the past 300 days, but it's too complicated to understand their science; there is utility in trusting them about tomorrow.
If however, you went on a debate site being clueless about the science of weather and you tried to argue you would fail because debate is where proxies are insufficient and true reasoning belongs.
If you want to talk about the credibility of the government by past objectively verified correctness in the midst of controversy, weathermen will seem prophets by comparison.
I have never seen those lists debunkedYes you have
lol, what did you say "I accept your concession"
Here's just one example you will claim is meaningless. I could provide literally hundreds more but that would be a monumental waste of time as you've already demonstrated:
Honestly, this example couldn't have been more on point seeing as we were just discussing how the propagandist indoctrinate sheep like yourself. How you refuse to see the pattern. How you continue to trust even as example after example is debunked. "Oh I never said there was whipping, nobody cared if there was whipping" ROFL! That's why the headlines were "migrants whipped" right?
So, once again: they put the lie in the headline, they put the propaganda in the first couple paragraphs, and then; to cover their ass they put the facts at the end (where no sheep read to), but hey not everyone does that anymore either.
In one case, a 74-year-old widow submitted an absentee ballot on behalf of her husband, William Nelson, after he died in September 2020.
“He was going to vote Republican, and she said, ‘Well, I’m going to cancel your ballot because I’m voting Democrat.’ It was kind of a joke between them,” Barry Bishop, an attorney for Sharon Nelson of Canton, told the State Election Board. “She received the absentee ballot and carried out his wishes. ... She now realizes that was not the thing to do.”
Georgia election officials said there need to be consequences, even for a mistake.
So... William Nelson died before the election. He was a dead voter. Dead voter confirmed...
In another case, a ballot was submitted for deceased Augusta voter Leon Rowe. Investigators found that the signature on his absentee ballot envelope matched the handwriting of his mother, Alline Rowe, who died in October 2020.
Dead voter confirmed.... fraud confirmed....
Earlier in the year, the State Election Board found evidence that Sherry Cook of Trion had submitted an absentee ballot for her husband, Donald Cook, who died several months before the election.
Dead voter confirmed...
Cook told investigators that she and her daughter had returned the ballot after Donald Cook signed it before he died, but investigators said that was impossible because the ballot wasn’t issued until after his death.
Fraud confirmed...
The board also moved forward with a case in which the widow of Herman Robert Jackson of Covington, Glynda Jackson, told investigators she filled out his ballot because she knew how he wanted to vote.
Dead voter confirmed.... fraud confirmed....
“What I tell people is what really happened in Georgia, because we proved that none of that was what happened,” Raffensperger said.
"Trust me"
1 false positive, that's all you need to know about sheep; move along.
Next, the attorney general’s office will further investigate the cases of ballots cast in the names of deceased voters.
... but I thought "we" proved that none of that was what happened already?
[Double_R] The possibility of fraud is not sufficient for anything
vs
[Double_R] No one is resisting secure elections, that's hoarseshit.
and your circumstantial evidence had all been debunked.
lol, yea I can see that rofl "Here are all some examples, one wasn't correct; Brad says it's fine"
Do you have any examples you'd like to provide?
I think you did a fine job. You may now proceed to the sheeplike and obtuse pretense of being unaware of the fundamental theorem of statistics by saying something like "but four examples don't make up for 18,000 votes!".
Could it perhaps be something a bit more simple: The propagandist you trust told you it was rigged?BTW... You never did answer my question; do you believe the elections in Stalin's Russia were legitimate? YES or NO?
Your question was whether I thought it was comparable, the answer was: YES.
Was it legitimate? NO
It must not be treated as accurate so long as significant fraud was possible. To call it legitimate is to treat it as accurate. There is circumstantial evidence that significant fraud occurred compounding the illegitimacy with the very real probability it was stolen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't think anyone is going to stop murders, even racially motivated murders; but stopping the double standards and enforcing transparency through universal access to information could certainly allow the culture to heal the wounds the race baiters are making.
Created:
Double R is the only left who even tries. I am wasting 45 seconds every day by checking this website.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
The result of long careful thought is that if the crypto fascists want it, the free people of mi- earth don't want it.I'm so glad the Deep State is finally starting to get scared.Took the words right out of my mouth. Now I can vote for him without any hesitation.Now you can vote for him without any thinking, why think when QAnon can think for you.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Seriously, it would be surreal if the yankees elect Biden as president again. Lol.
It was unreal the first time.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
That may be a joke, but I'm still going to rub it in your face because that is what your level of maturity deserves.Are you angry Chris Christie lost?I think he will be the Republican candidate. Everyone else will be in jail or have fled to Russia.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm so glad the Deep State is finally starting to get scared.
Took the words right out of my mouth. Now I can vote for him without any hesitation.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The FBI declined to comment.
Shocking.
What do you guys think? Fishy or Legit?
Let me see if I can capture the vibe of DoubeR:
Everybody in the world from the smallest rodent to the most vain kardashian wanted this meeting to occur.
Of course it was suggested that the mostly peaceful insurrectionist Donald J Trump should be charged at a particular time. This was in the national interests of the USA and all in the line of duty.
If it just so happens that charges and indictments are announced one day after new Biden corruption evidence comes out? Well that's not a conspiracy because conspiracies don't exist (unless they're right-wing conspiracies).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
We do not assume fraud at the outset.Then you must believe Stalin was elected with an overwhelming majority.Key words: "at the outset"
Oh, what convinced you? What was that key piece of evidence that finally proved fraud?
Did they turn over all their ballots for your inspection? Did you verify signatures?
Could it perhaps be something a bit more simple: The propagandist you trust told you it was rigged?
Do you believe that our election system is comparable to Stalin's Russia? Yes or No?
Everything is comparable, as for similarity: getting there
The idea that we should require the same standards to accept a ballot as we would evidence in court is patently absurd. Our entire democratic system would collapse....and yet that is precisely what many laws implied was necessary.I was talking about each individual ballot.
If they were stored or transported individually they would have to be accounted for in the same way.
But your point is taken. So now... Can you please explain, since the standards here are so high, what the problem is?
The standards set by law were high. New laws with lower standards or new policies which circumvented the old carefully thought out safeguards were used for the 2020 "election". In the worst cases the law was violated with the help of friendly lawsuits or mere fiat. Hence the use of the past tense.
What is relevant is only this: You claim to submit to the authority of democracy, so does the opposing tribe. The obvious choice going forward is catering to the most paranoid until the overwhelming majority once again believe they are living in a democracy.Wrong. You do not cater to the paranoid, you cater to reality.
Reality is that if a rational person can doubt the accuracy of an election it is not a democracy, or at least not one that will last for long.
That's ridiculous. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe the paranoid are acting in good faith, so catering to them would be futile even if your premise was accepted.
It doesn't matter. If there are 30 million people in this country who are trying to secede and using the claim of election fraud for their excuse while election fraud is entirely plausible then the only way to expose them as liars is to secure the system.
The most likely reason to resist adoption of secure systems going forward is the knowledge of and consent to fraud and that is exactly how it will be taken.No one is resisting secure elections, that's hoarseshit.
Good, then next time you have a political discussion with someone in real life or online you'll say "biometric blockchain voting" as your #1 issue.
After all, it's the only way to save the republic and none of the other issues are going to matter much in a civil war.
We have one side claiming without any evidence that there is fraud
There is plenty of evidence. Undeniable evidence that the system is secure (which is sufficient) and circumstantial evidence that fraudulent ballots were cast. Since the system was insecure circumstantial evidence is the only evidence that would exist. It is the side claiming the election was illegitimate that has more evidence than they need to make such a claim.
the other side correctly pointing out that the burden of proof is on the side claiming fraud.
That's not correct it's treasonous. The burden is on the state, and it should be met automatically and unfailingly.
Our elections contain multiple safeguards as you already acknowledged.
Some consider having a complicated password to be a safeguard but it turns out to be completely irrelevant to avoid dictionary words or birthdays if you write it down on a stick note and affix it to the monitor.
if fraud were anywhere near as rampant as would be needed to swing our elections there would be evidence of it
There is, the left-tribe and the normies simply refuse to use statistics to estimate the scale.
We would have confirmed cases of dead people voting in the tens of thousands
There were lists thousands long. I have never seen those lists debunked, rather the public APIs which allowed those lists to be compiled were shut down (for some reason mmm). Search engines suppressed results leading to those lists.
The lists were scanned by both sides. A few living people were found, false positives. A few dead people were found (death certificates confirmed by address) confirming that the lists were not entirely false.
Since the data source has been cut off further investigations are impossible. Such seditious conspiracies against democracy as that which resulted in the data being cut off constitute a third category of evidence.
The counts would not make sense, yet they do.
There were numerous statistical anomalies and near contradictory turn out percentages. Explain what you mean.
We have every logical reason to accept that the system works and no reason to reject it.
You have precisely one reason: Trust
I am the one with multiple reasons to doubt, and that is because I understand how the system works.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
This is literally about someone's mass. It is the most spamy of the spam. It is pure irrelevant gossip. You may need to go on the stack of people I don't respond to if you can't even admit that.Racists and Trumpers think any post that doesn't complement racism or Trump is spam.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well it goes without saying that you can't hear what people are saying and you can't see their expressions and that was annoying as hell but it's not honest to call that an "adverse health effect".Masks severely handicap us in our most fundamental way of communicating—our emotional expressions (51–53), something that is as relevant in health diagnoses (54) as it is in regular life. For instance, a randomized clinical trial has shown that health care professionals wearing masks have a significant and negative impact on the patient's perceived empathy and diminish positive effects of relational continuity (55).A recent study also showed that each type of mask caused a low-pass filter effect, attenuating higher frequencies (2,000–7,000 Hz) in the speaker's voice by 3–4 dB (medical mask) and nearly 12 dB for the N95 mask (respirator/FFP) (56). In addition to this, masks significantly prevent binding mechanisms through which de-synchronized auditory and motor signals from language are usually fused into conscious workspace—a phenomenon known as the McGurk effect (57).Also, a review notably supports the idea that panic-prone individuals may be at higher risk of respiratory discomfort when wearing RPDs, thereby reducing their tolerance for these devices (58).
That's out of the handbook of the people calling climate change or racism health emergencies. Raw power grab which only serves to destroy medical authority.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I already explained that. No one who "believed" the story gave a rats ass whether the agents were carrying whips, split reins, or oversized Twizzlers.
Absurd, dismissed.
Naturally, because you have no evidence of fraud, your tactic is to try and reverse the burden into "proving innocence". That is not how it works.
It is when there is a duty to maintain integrity.
We do not assume fraud at the outset.
Then you must believe Stalin was elected with an overwhelming majority.
Disagreeing with our system of voting is perfectly fine. We can debate that. But within the system we have, the results were clear.
The system changed from a democracy to not-a-democracy removing the last battered excuse to obey or respect it. You might be able to argue that it was never a democracy, which still leaves us with: zero loyalty owed, 100% hypocrisy from the "our democracy" gang.
You love to pretend that you are above everyone else because as you argue, the rest of us are just believing what were told, ironically unaware that every argument you make relies on information you were told. You are no different than anyone else, the only difference is that you seem to think credibility is determined by opposing the masses. It's not.
Speak for yourself, not others. The difference isn't that I don't need information, it's that I integrate. That means I evaluate correlated probabilities to choose which side of a contradiction to disbelieve.
This sums it up:If it's susceptible to fraud and fraud cannot be ruled out in a timely manner (or in this case at all) it must be treated as fraudulent just as a bank which can't be audited, a scientific paper whose data cannot be reproduced, or evidence in a court case with no chain of custody.If I show up at a polling station with my ID
You don't need ID to vote in person. A hundred times I've told this to people, but they keep bringing in the ID because it makes sense that you do. (in my state which is typical)
sign the form and cast a ballot
There is no signature checking for in person voting. (in my state which is typical)
sign the form and cast a ballot, fraud cannot be ruled out.
The the chances of discovering/preventing the fraud scales by a characteristic factor times the quantity of attempted fraud for every possible system and sophistication of cheaters. It just so happens that this factor is an order of magnitude larger for mass mail in balloting (as practiced).
Does this mean we get rid of in person voting as well?
Whenever "this" = a mechanism for cheating it means a system needs to be introduced that either detects and quantifies it or prevents it. It's not in-person-voting that is intrinsically secure. In person voting as practiced before the covid friendly lawsuits and panic was inherently more secure than the mass mailed ballots as practiced.
I'm sure there is some way to use mail in a remote voting system that is secure but it's been stupid since the first SSL certificate was issued.
This is a deeply flawed comparison. Running a bank, producing a scientific paper, or admitting evidence into a court case are not constitutionally guaranteed rights.
and therefore even more trust is required? I could buy that argument.
The idea that we should require the same standards to accept a ballot as we would evidence in court is patently absurd. Our entire democratic system would collapse.
...and yet that is precisely what many laws implied was necessary. Ballot boxes are locked and signed for at every stage. Witnesses are needed (and must sign) every time the box is opened, which means at every counting.
Why didn't democracy collapse under those rules?
Moreover, you pretend as if anyone could just fill out a mail in ballot and there are no checks and balances to ensure its integrity. That's total nonsense.
I pretend no such thing. A single leak could be shared anonymously allowing an unlimited number of single man cells to work on inside information. Those one man cells have essentially no vulnerable surface in stark contrast to attempting to impersonate someone at a polling station.
This is obvious. If you are a teen trying to get alcohol every time someone asks for ID is a risk. Do it enough and you will be caught. If you could mail order alcohol then even including a copy of photo ID would be meaningless as there would be no face to check it against. Even if the order is refused no risk was incurred and one can attempt limited only by one's spare time.
That's how it works. That's how it should work. That's how it will always work.
Political power issues from the barrel of a gun. That is how it will always work. If enough people (or AI) controlling gun barrels stop trusting a system, that system will no longer matter. That is how it will always work.
Nothing is guaranteed to be rational, but in order to be blameless of violence one should care about how it should work, and best way to minimize the fallout of a breach of trust is to minimize the trust required and the consequences of breaches.
Therefore transparency is of enormous value and the burden of proof for critical social structures must default against abuse. Hence (again): Innocent until proven guilty, entrusted valuables are stolen until proven otherwise, ballots are fraudulent until proven otherwise, scientific claims are false until proven otherwise, etc... etc...
It's also a clue that thousands of people needed to repeatedly certify election results (by law).This is called a safeguard.
They call the 2nd amendment a safeguard too. In the end it doesn't matter if you want to trust insecure so called elections. Social contracts are negotiated. Whether you consider it necessary or not is irrelevant. Whether you think it's epistemologically appropriate to assume Stalin and Putin are wildly popular because nobody has absolute proof that millions of ballots were fraudulent is irrelevant.
What is relevant is only this: You claim to submit to the authority of democracy, so does the opposing tribe. The obvious choice going forward is catering to the most paranoid until the overwhelming majority once again believe they are living in a democracy. The most likely reason to resist adoption of secure systems going forward is the knowledge of and consent to fraud and that is exactly how it will be taken.
I have question; do you believe the 2020 election in Florida should be accepted as the accurate results?
Since it wasn't a locus of investigation or reports of fraud I have not looked into the details of their procedures. It is possible they used mechanisms which limited the potential scale of mail ballot fraud.
It doesn't matter if I accept the results of one state or another. Enough are in doubt that the federal result is in doubt. When Trump says it was stolen from him, it is not a baseless claim. Biden could (and probably would have) claimed the same thing. There is no possible mechanism to recover an accurate result and therefore there is no remedy but a secure election.
At the time I would have supported a military lockdown for the purpose of conducting an immediate true election by mass canvas using the entire reserve and national guard force randomly mixed, accompanied by partisan judges, and recording every interaction.
Now that we've lived in a fake democracy long enough for more fake elections to loom the solution is simply to convert the next fake election into a true election. I'm not holding my breath, but that is what it would take to not immediately jump on the first realistic opportunity to destroy the federal government by force.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Research shows that under most circumstances, mask wearing has no significant adverse health effects on the people who wear themDo you really agree with this CDC claim?
I have no reason to doubt or agree with that claim.
I am a little worried when the science being broadcast comes exclusively from Pfizer board members...
Science moves in mysterious ways. If you want science to forgive you, become dependent on expensive drugs to suppress your worry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Masks are primarily intended to stop people from spreading droplets that contain the virus
That's what I just said isn't it? (it is)
"We should only trust science when it agrees with us." - Ancient MAGA poverbs, 2020, Donald Trump
I am the science - Fauci
Sunlight does that Korea. Try to keep up.Sunlight? Let me guess, also rub some dirt in it and it goes away."It will go away" - Trump
Oh well, you can take the bus. I'm not slowing down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well fart smell is fully dissolved organic gasses. Anything that passes air would pass fart smell and free floating viral particles. < edit, this is false activated charcoal matrices and selective osmosis filters can filter these things; such items are not in medical masks
However covid was apparently not really free floating (that's the theory), meaning not airborne.
I do think someone else's underwear protects you from droplets of explosive farting (it's a good thing I'm not eating right now)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You were more coherent arguing for pedophilia, are you trying to see how well you can simulate TDS?That would be moving the goal posts from you. The claim isn't that Trump came up with the cure for all viruses in that briefing, it's that he didn't tell people to inject bleach.No. The goalpost is Trump's stupidity regarding Covid. You might live in some fantasy world where you decide other people's goalposts. How naughty. Also, are 330,000 dead Americans also a hoax? Trump said they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Can you change the meaning of this too, or is MAGA world in trouble again? Imagine having a president who thinks that you dont need to wear the only thing that can protect you at the time.
Masks don't protect you, the only theory that ever held any water was that they protected other people because droplets hit the fabric and were caught.
If there are droplets in the air already then they are on your clothes, your skin, your eyes, etc... etc... infection from that point is inevitable.
If a masked guy walks by an unmasked guy with covid the masked guy still gets infected.
If an unmasked guy walks past a masked guy with covid (under ideal conditions where the mask is snug and dry) he might not get covid.
Do you understand? Putting on masks is something you do for others when you're infectious.
That's the inverse of a partially effective vaccine (like they all were). Those vaccines may have kept you out of the hospital, but they didn't stop you from spreading covid.
Guess what really stops you from spreading covid? Not coming near people when you have covid. If anyone was taking it as seriously as they pretended to (and knew what they were doing) there would be only one mandate: quarantine.
Then it would be 2 weeks top STOP the spread.
How many people would have chosen 1 month of full quarantine over that torturous sprawling mess of multiple years of useless half measures and government overreach.
Of course if they had stopped covid with a quarantine, then they wouldn't need emergency covid ballot mailers... can't have that.
Well, its true that Trump might not know that the disinfectant talks about liquid specifically
It doesn't, in the same presentation the guy referred to radiation as a disinfectant.
Also, you again ignored how UV light is harmful for humans.
That would be moving the goal posts from you. The claim isn't that Trump came up with the cure for all viruses in that briefing, it's that he didn't tell people to inject bleach.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Alrighty then, let's go through this again. Remind me to save this to my files I've done this like three times already (different forums).
During this briefing a presenter was talking about factors like radiation, humidity, temperature, and finally chemical disinfectants.
It's a very coherent presentation which gives the reasonably intelligent and scientifically literate listener an excellent basis to gauge the approximate time various locations and circumstances would remain infectious after someone had spewed their filthy covid particles in that area.
For example, based on the findings presented people who were sent out to wipe down shopping carts which had been sitting in 30C full sunlight for hours were truly wasting their time. Similarly those who tried to disinfect the inside of car which had a greenhouse effect rocking 40C for half an hour were also wasting their time.
He was not talking about a treatment for blood (that was a real theory as you said). He talked about UV damaging viral particles on surfaces and suspended in air. Specifically sunlight was tested.
Here is him bringing up the slide about chemical disinfectants.
Now he continues talking about the other factors for a bit, but you can clearly see the slide is about bleach and isopropyl. Then he moves into "we're also testing disinfectants, readily available... we've test bleach, we've tested isopropyl alcohol"
This is the context Trump's comments were in. Now if he heard before this briefing about the UV blood idea that would explain why he's conflating it, but the presenter was not talking about any treatments what so ever. He was only talking about destroying viral particles on surfaces and suspended in air.
You should keep listening, a reporter asks if Trump was suggesting what they would go on to claim he was suggesting and the presenter said "No that's not what I'm talking about" (paraphrasing).
Trump then 'clarifies' that "It wouldn't be through injection. We're talking about almost a cleaning.. sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't work; but it certainly has a big effect, if it's on a stationary object". He then swipes his hands like he's wiping something down.
Therefore if Trump did ever mean "inject bleach" he caught the mistake 5 minutes later.
Here is where he asked them to follow up on "light and heat" (not bleach): https://youtu.be/RLW_NKYUXEs?t=3051
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You completely dropped the discussion on the one example
Nope that was you, see the above cristo question. You're waffling instead of admitting that they ran a false story about whips and millions of people believed it and there was obviously no system for verification, fact checking, or retraction.
If you did admit that it would be evidence that the secure and reliable source of information you believe in might just be an illusion.
So in other words... You accept that the election not being stolen is not just a claim that came from a few officials at the top telling us so.
It comes from millions of people, probably on the order of 150 million. All similarly unable to substantiate their claims because the system is unverifiable. Most of those think they know this because election officials would know, but they don't because they can't.
That's what I said, that the only reason you have to claim accuracy would be the assertions of people who you think would be in the position to know and whom you trust to tell the truth.
Nobody needs a governor to cheat when there is mass mail in votes with signatures being the only verification of identity that can't be dumped from a voter roll database.So what exactly is the argument that the election was stolen? All I've gathered from you so far is that mail in ballots were susceptible to fraud, therefore they were fraudulent, therefore Trump really won.Does that sum it up?
No. This sums it up:
If it's susceptible to fraud and fraud cannot be ruled out in a timely manner (or in this case at all) it must be treated as fraudulent just as a bank which can't be audited, a scientific paper whose data cannot be reproduced, or evidence in a court case with no chain of custody.
This can be derived from the claimed implicit social contract and the implicit requirements for all social conventions where trust is indispensable. It's also a clue that thousands of people needed to repeatedly certify election results (by law).
To inane sheeple such procedures are to give election officials busy work. However I have a theory that it's part of a grand conspiracy by various legislatures and constitutional thinkers to enforce their notion that not just any national ritual constitutes an election; it needs to be provable as the accurate will of the people and when it isn't there are those who are to be held liable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You're not one to talk about vocabulary Korea. You've said sillier things on this forum and you have unlimited time to read and understand context and you can use google.Trump thought that this "disinfectant" was some kind of new chemical or substance that had been found. He did not realize it was a test of commonly available cleaning solutions.Yeah, they should have used simple words so Trump can understand. Disinfectant sure is a very big word so Trump couldnt understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump thought that this "disinfectant" was some kind of new chemical or substance that had been found.I don't think so. He was clearly talking about UV as a way to fight Covid before he asked the question with the word injection in it. He probably didn't know the proper term for inserting UV devices into the trachea.
It was two different subjects. One was about the possibility of a form blood UV exposure and the other was a daily briefing where somebody discussing the effectiveness of dilute disinfectants on covid viral particles left on a surface.
Trump responded to the disinfectant asking about whether it would be useful internally, the presenter said nothing about it.
The whole thing was silly wrapped in silly. Of course disinfectants destroy covid viral particles, we've used these chemicals for a hundred years because bacteria and viruses don't survive them but you know government. They'll state the obvious if it makes them look less useless than they are.
I'm sure every 2-3 hours of Biden is just as cringe, but his handlers know to keep him locked up when not reading from a teleprompter and the propagandist would never pounce on something so obviously trivial.
Every other politician is the same with a few exceptions like Rand Paul.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is silly, I saw this briefing live. Trump was tired and was trying to act interested and engaged despite that. For this exchange he said some stupid things just like 200 million other americans when missing context or talking about science they don't understand.
Trump thought that this "disinfectant" was some kind of new chemical or substance that had been found. He did not realize it was a test of commonly available cleaning solutions. He did not think "bleach" should be injected, swallowed, poured into lungs or what not
He took blackbox "X" and just inserted it into his question because "X" killed covid and covid BAD.
This is super simple to understand. Blindingly obvious when you watch the full clip. Only someone suffering from TDS could believe anything else. If I don't address anyone but Greyparrot it's because other parties to this conversation have TDS and therefore aren't actually interested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Trump did say they should try injecting alcohol.No, he said they should try injecting bleach.
He said neither.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Doesn't really follow, the election isn't this winter it's next. Maybe they're getting people used to it so they never have to secure elections. I hardly see why they need an excuse to permit cheating at this point, they can just throw anyone who complains into prison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I haven't a great deal of confidence in the public nor that the will of the public translates to "election" results; but it really does not take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that Hunter is selling us foreign policy when he doesn't have anything else to sell and every other fact that you encounter when looking into it confirms it.The only fact that truly matters is the public's collective nose regarding the BS surrounding Biden, and what is reflected in the popular polls.Biden is but a domino starting a chain reaction of everyone who participated in said BS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WillyB
But it’s good to see Messi enjoying football again, even as an English fan as I’d rather him have come to the Premier League
Well with football fun is related to success.
If you're stressed you don't play well, if you don't play well you lose more games and you get even more stressed.
It's a team sport, far more teamy than most uniquely British or American games. The press, the fans, the owners obsess over celebrities but mangers, coaches, and players know that two weak links break the chain and a tactically creative pass is worth more than the difference between the best striker and the 10th best.
Wherever Messi goes people expect him to obliterate the opposition and win championships. In other words he's on teams where everyone is on edge, every fan ready to turn on him (and the other stars), every coach one loss away from being sacked (see I know UK English too).
Every time he went to play for Argentina was the same dynamic magnified. Throw together a bunch of stars, they have no time to build chemistry as a team and then people can't understand why their linear addition predictions don't come to fruition.
Again, I think the players know this better than anyone and the ones who love them game value being on a team with good chemistry and attitude over just about anything else. They may take offers and stay places for money, but their heart is in the game not the bank.
When Messi shows up on the worst team in the USA there is no pressure, no drama (You've got to believe every original member are worshiping him), and let's be honest a lower level of skill. There is no where to go but up and no expectation but improvement. It won't last forever, nothing does; but he'll get to feel the love of the game until its time for him to retire with his millions and think about what he'll do with the rest of his life (probably coach).
Another obvious factor that I haven't seen remarked upon is that Miami is a city where you can easily get by with just Spanish. Obviously Barcelona is similar but I'd be willing to bet Paris, Arabia, or UK aren't like that and maybe in Paris it annoyed Messi & kin. (Hec the French wouldn't used Spanish even if they knew it)
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
Well, since RM asked to be banned after hearing my answer to him on Discord, I guess he wasn’t satisfied with what I had to say. Still, I’ll post it here.
Discord... as in an audio conversation?
That has got to be some of the most awkward shit.
something we still have not verified
You banned lancelot on a suspicion?
The cringe of RM acting like the irrelevant logic defying polls that lead to his name being on an irrelevant leaderboard were some kind of severe personal injury can only be surpassed by the idea that his grievance in these 'vote bombs' was enough to cause some kind of fuzzy-logic kinda-maybe-guilty temp ban of lancelot.
I assumed you had evidence, I won't make such an assumption again.
P.S. I just signed up to just plain politics. It's a horror show. They don't even pretend to listen to each other or make arguments. It's just 95% pre-civil-war posturing.
Conclusion: This has not been a good day for my faith in humanity, plans to escape to the hills have increasing in priority
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Benefiting from a corrupt system and facilitating it are not the same thing.
In this subcategory it is because there was nothing to sell but what was illegal to sell.
You are trying to hold private citizens cashing in on their family connections accountable on the same level as public officials entrusted by the people to act on their behalf.
Lol, not that's been a consistent strawman of the left-tribe from day one. "oh you're so obsessed with Hunter", "Fathers aren't responsible for the crimes of their children", "the poor kid is struggling with addiction!!!"
I do not care one tiny little smidgen if Hunter Biden is ever punished in any way. In fact I feel sorry for him. I think it's another chip in clown world piggy bank that the only thing he is being charged with are victimless crimes that would not even be crimes if the 2nd amendment was taken seriously and liberty was being protected.
No, I am trying to hold public officials entrusted by the people to act on their behalf (and whom have sworn to do so) accountable. The people on that board with connections to foreign political entities as their only possible contribution are facilitating corruption FOR those public officials.
You are also begging the question by asserting that these board members were offering actual services from western governments. That’s the very allegation you’re trying to prove here.
No it's not, I consider that proven already. The notion that they were hired, paid huge amounts for significant periods of time, and delivered nothing but hot air is absurd enough to be beyond the scope of something I could prove online.
In other words if your understanding of social dynamics is so naive or limited to find that plausible there is no inductive argument I can use to alleviate your ignorance and these things aren't subject to deductive arguments in the first place (at least not until psycho history is invented).
Moreover, the fact that his dad was heavily involved in the country is the very thing that gave his last name such value.You are acting as if Hunter threw a dart at a map and it just so happened to land on his dad’s “territory”. That’s not at all what happened.
... but I thought Biden didn't have any power, it was all Obama? What's more EVERYBODY knows this because it's in the public US constitution right? So if everybody knows Biden has no power what possible value would a connection to Biden have to them?
It is the unique property of truth that no matter how wide the context there are no contradictions. Your excuses are narrow and are colliding now with other excuses on top of the facts.
So... are you saying Joe Biden wasn't financially involved with Hunter?I’m saying there is no evidence of this.
The message saying that he had to give half his salary seems to be evidence. As is "10% for the big guy". As is the shared bank account. As is the evidence that Hunter was paying for maintenance of Joe's property.
When it comes to the motivation for this move, again among many other points, we have the following
- This scheme was carried out by his personal attorney in secret. If it were a legitimate operation he would have used the many resources he had at the state department and elsewhere
If it was secret from the government then Vindman wouldn't have been listening in.
His own officials testified that the goal was not an actual investigation, but rather an announcement of one.
I don't think there was such a thing as "his own officials".
There is no way you can seriously argue that these are the actions of a president using his power on behalf of the people he was elected to serve.
What you will take seriously is after all you have not taken seriously is inconsequential.
Exposing the corruption of public officials of the USA is a legitimate interest of a free people, and especially important to any chances of restoring this republic.
Officials claim they held aid, officials claim they let aid through, Zelensky claimed there was no quid pro quo, Trump claims he did not hold up aid in connection to the request for an investigation.
Everything that points to impropriety rests on the notion that government bureaucrats can be trusted. I do not trust them. They lie too many times. Vindman for example lied when he said that the contents of the phone call worried him enough to be a 'whistleblower'. If he had claimed to know about the rest of this secret mumbo jumbo Trump denies I would not be so certain; but he denied that he knew.
Reasonable people know from the transcript of the call that there was nothing to whisteblow about. Therefore reasonable people know that Vindman was told to whistleblow about it. Therefore we know there was a conspiracy. The flip flopping of other people who testified lends further support.
Again I remind you, I do not care what you take seriously since you have proven yourself constitutionally incapable of admitting the possibility that conspiracies against DJT exist.
But as I have explained:
- Shokin was not just one guy, he was the guy responsible for stopping the corruption you fully acknowledge was rampant
As I said circumstantial evidence requires the ability to evaluate the probability of coincidence and relate it to all other probabilities. Nothing will change the fact that you have displayed thusfar either incredible bias or profound inability in evaluating relative probabilities.
That's not something I can prove, you can't prove that someone's probability is wrong without statistically significant datasets.
However, it just so happens that more evidence just keeps coming out. Since we first sparred on this issue many new facts and evidence has come to light; none of it phasing you in the slightest it seems.
Mere hours before I read your statement above I listened to this:
I believed you said something to the effect of "everyone in the world wanted Shokin gone because he was failing" (on top of the above statement).
P.S. That first email is 5 or 6 days after the US ambassador started whining about Shokin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WillyB
I don't think Messi & pal is here to get paid. There was still plenty of money left in Europe. I think he came here to have fun and win. They are vicious over there. You miss one pass and they start gathering firewood and a stake.
Created:
-->
@Athias
You were asking for a literal definition? Okay....I'm suggesting that the hypocrisy is in condemning welfare and then participating and enabling the welfare system.
Without a more specific definition I have only the one I understand as standard. Under that definition "partipating" and "enabling" have some relevent differences.
A slave participates in slavery when he works. He does not enable slavery by accepting goods and services from his or her master. If anything he or she enables it by working at all.
No one forced Rand to sign upGood. We can abandon this "partially coerced" platitude.
No, it was her labor which was partially coerced.
True hypocrisy for a slave (who claimed all humans deserved to be free) would be owning a slave.Exactly; hence the reason your analogy doesn't suffice.
My analogy doesn't fail just because it fails to mirror your claim.
It is my position that there is very little a slave can do to be a hypocrite even if he has a principle of emancipation. Working doesn't make him a hypocrite, nor does receiving benefits. Even loyalty doesn't make him a hypocrite. Helping to prolong or begin the enslavement of others is about it.
I disagree. If you extend that logic then voting is legitimizing/enabling the practice.Yes, it very much is. What is voting if not enabling the majority to coerce the labor and resources of dissenters through taxation?
Well at least you're consistent in your error. Accepting welfare doesn't support the system, and neither does voting for liberty.
The only question you need to ask to know this is: What would happen if I didn't participate?
Welfare: The exact same thing except you would suffer and someone else would get your stolen value, stabilizing the government by increasing support from those who benefited from what was stolen from you.
Voting: The exact same thing, except there would not even be the awareness of a counter-force in the population making it all the easier to ridicule and isolate true liberals as "fringe" and "crazy".
they're going to have to continue to tax--namely the members of the labor force whose generations follow yours.
They're going to do that anyway. Also they don't "have" to do that in order to repay the value they stole. They could just give back exactly the value they stole. Until such time as exact value is recovered that is a morally identical situation.
It's a pyramid scheme.
That is also a good analogy.
In a pyramid scheme the money stolen from newer victims is used to pay the dividends of the older victims. In the end there is a deficit because the scammers "profit" is that which they steal for themselves. For the government it's a combination of corrupt enrichment, pure waste, and wealth redistribution.
You are admitting that paying the "investment" money to the pyramid scheme is coerced and unavoidable, but that somehow if one can refuse to be paid dividends then one has a moral duty to do so.
This is false in this example too. If you didn't accept dividends would that weaken the pyramid scheme by one iota? No, it would prolong it as it allows the conmen to continue paying other victims for longer delaying the moment of discovery (which is analogous to revolution for the government).
Any value what so ever that can be recovered from the conmen should be recovered. If you recover more than you originally invested then you have a moral duty to distribute it to other victims.
It's that simple, and I continue to see no reason to doubt this analysis.
Boycotting social security payments would eliminate the pretext for a social security (payroll) tax.
Yet we know millions upon millions of families "boycott" public school. Do the collectivist care one bit? Do they ever say something like "Well people who aren't using the public school system shouldn't have to pay"
No, they don't think like that. Therefore if we can get school vouchers, we are morally entitled to use them.
Of course it's absurd. Because the analogy itself is absurd. Nowhere in that analogy have you created a sufficient equivalence with that which was stolen from you (taxes) and that which you allege is supposedly returned to you (social security benefits.)
If the plantation farms cotton, then butter and sugar aren't what were produced. It doesn't matter if it's the same value. Even if it did money is fungible so it is for all intents and purposes the same thing.
The reason slavery as an analogy doesn't work is that when we consider what's being stolen, there's no equivalence or return for "self-ownership."
More than one thing can be stolen at a time. If labor producing cotton is stolen and bartered (through any number of intermediaries) for butter and sugar then receiving butter and sugar qualifies as recovering a part of that which was stolen.
What if the slave master decides to provide the emancipated slave, not with slaves, but with money he/she got from selling off other slaves? Would that make it "less hypocritical"? Or what if the slave is still a slave, and the master decides to provide said slave with the aforementioned? Is that not hypocritical?
It would only be hypocritical if refusing the benefit would prevent the further abuse.
So if the master offers a deal where the slave could choose between receiving the revenue of selling off other slaves or setting them free; then choosing the money is hypocrisy (assuming emaciation principle).
For welfare that would be the realistic expectation that not signing up would prevent further theft.
Created:
Posted in:
New terms do more often than not mean: nothing
They don't last long.
It's really bad in IT. I think there are professional term inventors so there can be something to agitate over to management.
I ask a few pointed questions: So what [New Term] means is that the software should work and not be buggy? Why didn't we think of this before?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
On the penalty shot (at the end) in his first game I said "That's a long way, he won't make it."
He did. He looks like he's having fun.
We may need to invade UAE to get Xavi so that we can create our FCB mark 2.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, even after they literally shot cannons at each other they expected deescalation.
The American revolutionaries did a similar thing after bunker hill, sending envoys like "Hey I know we just had an open freaking battle, but isn't this a great time to meet our demands and find a way forward?"
Then you have people like Tim Pool saying about Jan 6 "It hurt our cause, it didn't help; violence always harms the cause" while FLRW types do the hunger games noble impression and Pool's audience is screaming "better war than submission"
Three different periods, three times basic human nature is misunderstood.
The proud and the self-righteous will always choose war over submission. Violence will always bring escalation until the point of breaking morale (after all the horrors of war are wrought).
Those who would prevent war must resolve the underlying dispute. Instead they laugh and say "bring it, we'll drone strike you it will be so easy."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yea, that's what they just can't wrap their head around. It's because their echo chamber is so complete that they have "otherized" and "dehumanized" the right tribe completely.
A Maggot? A trumpet? Those live out there far away in some racist town in the hills. They're poor. They're stupid. They have nothing to do with the american I know.
Where have we seen this before? Oh yes: "The Yankee army is filled up with the scum of creation and ours with the best blood of the grand old Southland." - Actual confederate soldier explaining why being out numbered wasn't an issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
I hope you don't think I click on your videos right? You haven't the credibility with me to warrant that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
lol IWRA has identified the fake news site lol, good job IWRA, you're a genius.
I'll have you know BabylonBee is fake news you can trust: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45fV2vnTogo
TL;DR: It's funny because the kernel of truth (in case you didn't know how comedy works)
But beyond blathering, I don't think so, people who are afraid of everything would throw a comedy of a civil war.
If you knew anything about war you would know that people are much more dangerous when they are afraid of everything. Fear makes you good tactician. Fear doesn't mean surrender.
We won't even have to use the thing they are the most terrified of, gasp, black people!
I marched with black people on Jan 6 pal and I'm bisexual. As in the first civil war you delude yourself about the nature of the enemy. That is why these things happen when so many can see them coming, the human capacity for self-delusion is infinite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Anytime a politician says “this is a threat to our democracy,” what he’s really saying is “this is a threat to my bank account and my position of power.”
And the cherry on top is that apparently what is a threat to said bank account and position of power... is people saying there is a threat to democracy. It's more than coincidence. Hilary wipes her data, they blame Trump for wiping data. Biden extorts Ukraine, they blame Trump for extorting Ukraine. They undermine democracy, they blame Trump for undermining democracy.
If it wasn't for the fact that all of the left-tribe abuses came first you might think that Trump is just accusing them of everything he did.
When asked how they managed to track down every Trump voter in the state, officials said it only required them to hack into the electronic voting machines to access voter data and create a list of who everyone in the state voted for. "Being able to hack into these machines and manipulate data is an important part of keeping our elections free and fair," Willis explained.
Oh Babylon Bee, I should remember not to read you while drinking a beverage.
Apparently they're already onto Joe's alt account:
I do look forward to DoubleR trying to evade this one. "huh just one email, Robert L Peters could be anyone, whoever he was he was acting in the best interests of the state department and just about everyone in the entire world. Everybody wanted him to forward Hunter that stuff."
"Do you really think Obama didn't already know everything about Robert L Peters before he was conceived? Obama sees the same intelligence reports as God."
Ok time to go to sleep.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
We're gonna have to wait for our John Brown.D John Trump?
If he died trying to publish government secrets I will take back everything mean I've ever said about him and use as song about him as our civil war anthem.
There's a lot of people (Democrats) that thought eliminating Brown and his insurrection would bring unity. How wrong could they have been?
They were pretty wrong. It was a Chinese finger trap then and its the same now.
Tangent: when I really want to piss off a marine (from a safe distance of more than 1 km), I remind him that they killed John Brown. (If they're army it's sand creek and wounded knee)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
For a civil war people would have to turn off the TV, log off the internet, quit whining, get off the couch, and take action.
I did, I went to protest on Jan 6.
It should go without saying that I was not convinced there will be no civil war lol
Created:
Posted in:
I just realized you capitalized the"Task Force". Holy shit, it's a proper noun. The 10 of us (5 mostly) are going to have a Task Force among us.
Created:
Posted in:
In that case I will follow the golden rule, and assume I already know everything I need to know about you.I have no such expectations.If people wish to investigate, I simply explain how it can be done, but it's not a requirement.But you asked a specific question, so you got a specific answer. If you want more info, you need to ask for more info.
Created:
Posted in:
So it was the safest and most secure debate poll in history? That's good :pWeren't you thrown out for a conspiracy to cheat the debate poll?No, that was a frame-job committed by the person who got me banned.
Strange how you expect others to look into issues deeper and not simply declare "that's all you need to know about him", but don't act that way yourself.
Reforming involves making said individuals of the thread mods.
It seems fairly clear that if the site owner wanted mods to be selected by vote he would have mods selected by vote. This "fake it till you make it" stuff is unlikely to convince him.
You listed four people, that's like a third of the active user base.
There is nothing wrong with this site except the sporadic and inequitable attempts to reinterpret very imperfect rules and the ever present implication that a debate poll determines the winner of the debate.
oromagi probably got sour that his mod ship wasn't appreciated and is doing something more useful with his time, perhaps laying on grass and watching clouds.
Maybe before you go creating a police force you should fix the problem that the law book is unclear, then mods would have less room for inequitable treatment and more protection from criticism.
Created: