Total posts: 4,833
-->
@Greyparrot
@TWS1405_2
Grey parrot is batting 100 for spotting useless ad hominems. Maybe he should be the mod.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
They aren't mutually exclusive.Cheaper to just buy a bicycle
Also, no country was ever able to do what you are suggesting. Hell, USA cant even fix regular roads.
When you steal money and reward failure making PB&J sandwiches may prove to be too great a challenge.
I've crashed a motorcycle at 30 mph and had only one broken bone, you're exaggerating.I said in case of cars.
It should be obvious motorcycles are more dangerous at any given speed.
To put it simply, some people will die due to cars going over 15 mph even if computer guided.
Ah yes I remember you've made this moral error before. If even one person will die then no action can be taken, even if taking the action would save or create more life.
Also, computers tend to fail. Sensors stop working. Breaks stop working.
Welcome to engineering.
Things happen.
Welcome to life.
Created:
-->
@jamgiller
Do you think the 2020 election was stolen
Yes
and what evidence do you have, if so?
1.) Motive (Novel)
A.) TDS as exemplified by Sam Harris https://youtu.be/SehSueDi7js?t=506, there are millions like him. "That's a left wing conspiracy to deny the presidency, but I think it was warranted".
B.) Conspiracies to censor and create opportunity for fraud are proudly exposed after the fact https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
2.) Means & Opportunity (Novel)
See post #9 of this thread: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9073/posts/379840, I can expand on this if you have questions
3.) Circumstantial statistical evidence (Novel)
A.) Unprecedented signature acceptance rates
B.) 2000 Mule analysis (GPS appears to show mules making repeated routes from community centers to drop boxes)
C.) Near proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) of specific instances of untracable fraud found by public information of voter registration and ballot return, for example: https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2022/02/shocking-evidence-of-widespread-fraud-in-wisconsins-voter-database/
Specific individuals who voted twice using multiple voter ID numbers Voters registered without a first name Voters registered without a last name Voters registered without a street address Voters registered with phony addresses 26 voters registered at one two-bedroom apartment 290 voters registered at a 16-apartment building in La Crosse 19 voters registered at a newer single-family home in Outagamie County 359 voters registered at an address that hasn’t existed for 10 years in Kenosha County 625,000 dead voters on the rolls 4,300 voters with a “99999” zip code 670,000 inactive voters in Milwaukee 264,000 voters in Milwaukee with a 1918 registration date 20,000 voters with undeliverable mailing addresses in Milwaukee 3,400 FIDO (Fast Identity Online) keys that provide user access to the database have been distributed throughout the state
Statistics can be used to estimate how much fraud was going on by assuming certain detection rates, but even more important is the fact that there were not systems in place already to catch these clear and obvious signs of fraud. While the incompetence of government is often stunning, the inability to correlate death certificates with voter roles would be so incompetent that subversion is a better explanation, similar to the claim that voter ID is unacceptable because racial minorities can't figure out how to get an ID.
Note that in all three components I wrote "Novel" meaning this is a new factor in the 2020 election. This depth of propaganda fueled hatred for a candidate is new. The mass mail in ballots are new. The statistical indicators are new.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Shouldn't you deny inappropriately touching your cat?
That would be giving you and any other saboteur the power to steer the conversation to constant denials of baseless and fallacious accusations.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Not exactly a resounding PR success for veganism is it.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Well dedicated bike lanes make them much easier to use.I like it more when there's less cars on the roads,
People build roads based on the vehicles that are popular, so it's a floating equilibrium system. You just have to slowly move towards the new ideal in baby steps.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
No. The main, unresolvable problem for self-driving cars is speed. Any speed faster than 15 miles per hour guarantees traffic deaths in case of cars.
I've crashed a motorcycle at 30 mph and had only one broken bone, you're exaggerating. The death rate upon impact must be multiplied by the impact rate and that later factor is what computers can (and should have by now) reduced to statistical impossibility.
Also nobody who uses a bicycle for real transit is satisfied with 15 mph, they get the gears and go 30 whenever they can.
They want cars that go 40 miles per hour and more. With such speed, breaking path is simply too long for a car to stop in time.
With tunnels, elevated express ways, or caged in ground level roads: computer controlled cars should be allowed to go 350 km/h.
Computers can maintain braking distance and plan merges where it is maintained.
Every once in a while a car will have a catastrophic failure that kills the people inside but pileups can be eliminated.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Same here.Reported for ad hom insults.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
and tell us we can't comprehend
Well you're right there, I should have said "choose not to"
[IwantRooseveltagain] Trump caused the inflation with the “biggest tax cut ever”
Tax cuts cannot cause inflation. Inflation is increase of money supply relative to the total production. There is only one possible cause: printing too much money.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Many European cities are already like that. They were laid out in times where people walked and their public transit fills the gap.
Planning societies and technology around periodic civil war may seem justified on review of history, but there isn't much that can't be destroyed by humans trying to destroy it so it's a pointless endeavor.
A car may help you stay independent of the timetables of government travesties like public transit in the USA but it's hardly independent of a complex energy infrastructure. A bicycle is a much better machine in that regard, and much easier to repair. They'll be the vehicle of choice in post-apocalypse or enemy interruption of logistics.
Also as soon as people start writing some reliable software (opposite of neural nets) with reliable sensors the road kill issue will be solved. Trains also kill anything in their path, they just have fewer paths so they kill less.
The tradeoff between trains and cars is that train wheels are rigid and cause less rolling friction and the longer they are the less proportional air resistance. I think we could benefit from way more trains, but some car like vehicles will always be necessary for flexibility and deep rural areas (like even if a kilometer long driveway could be cheaper as a rail people will still want to go to any point in their property with something strong).
Created:
-->
@jamgiller
No votes, make a thread or better use the one that I've already linked to in this thread: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9073-if-you-believe-the-2020-election-was-rigged-im-calling-your-bluff?page=1&post_number=9
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is all strengthening his chances, they must know this.I still don't get it. Even if they can't prove insurrection in court, wouldn't they at least charge him so he loses the election?
They're not doing this for the reasons that seem obvious.
Created:
-->
@jamgiller
The attack on the Capitol was unprecedented
It is precedented by a hundred other attacks against perceived oppressors in dozens of other lands and centuries.
The fact that people compared it to 9/11 and not the storming of the bastile is proof of their narrow minded naivety.
Sane people have learned from the history of negligible voter fraud in US elections to understand that the last election wasn't stolen.
Sanity is defined by rationality, and the belief you describe is not rational.
Your level of paranoia about the Democratic party is not preventing the violation of rights.
The deep state, not the democratic party. That's just a club.
And that is something you would have to convince me of.
I don't care about your misinformed opinions about the indictment.
The feeling is mutual. Make an argument if you want to debate.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Jan 6 proved that conclusively. If you go up against the deep state, don't go in with selfies and shaman horns.
Indeed.
When antifa engaged in insurrection in Seattle they had the forethought to wear black block, and if they hadn't they probably wouldn't have been charged.
As in all wars without veterans and in unprecedented strategic situations the first moves can seem very stupid in retrospect. Humans learn though, and they don't surrender unless overwhelmed with despair or are given an escape path.
Created:
-->
@jamgiller
I don't like trite answers with no roots in reason or principle to be utilized.We left the topic of 1930s Europe already, buddy. You asked, in very general terms:How can we know how much paranoia is ideal?You just don't like people bringing up Jan 6.
I'll answer for me and you can keep hiding under a rock.
The ideal level of paranoia is the amount that prevents great violation of rights than it causes.
Reason is man's only means of knowledge. We know what to fear by reason, and when the evidence of history both ancient and contemporary is rationally analyzed patterns of behavior both individual and collective emerge.
One of those patterns is that censorship is never done by people who can win the argument. Another is that when a series of so called coincidences always serve the interests of a particular community it's probably because of a conspiracy.
Want an example? The removal of native Americans. You know they never just said "Well we want this land so get out", always there was some series of events; some complicated story that ends in war that ends in land annexation.
The vast majority of the left-tribe now takes for granted this is a conspiracy, that is they have a conspiracy theory... and in this case they are right because logic rules other possibilities to be unlikely due to the number of simultaneous coincidences.
The conspiracy looks like this: Never waste a crises, use any excuse, distract from your crimes and emphasize the enemy's, never give up what you've taken.
Conspiracies don't have to be complicated. The truth of them often leak out all over the place. Hitler basically outlined his plan in a public book, and people still didn't believe.
You told me it must be terrifying to believe in all the conspiracies I do. Yes, the world is terrifying; and one of the most terrifying things about it is that people like you (for some reason I cannot comprehend) cannot learn from history. You put a barrier up in your mind between the past and present, thinking that somehow the forces which shaped history are no longer present.
Conspiracy has been ever present in our past. To believe it no longer exists is a terrifying act of voluntary ignorance.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There isn't right-tribe terrorism, but they need there to be right tribe terrorism in order to justify the transition into a police state
So they manufacture terrorists to justify the transformation
...and the irony of it all is that because of their acts of injustice there should be armed resistance against them, I guess they know that which is why they're trying to get ahead of it. Regardless after beating the hope out of enough people someone is going to hit back and then they'll wildly shout "see see, we told you they were violent!"
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
You the FBIs story on the data Hilary destroyed was: "It's illegal to do what she did, but she didn't mean any harm"you make the claim that criminal intent isn't a thing here, but i've heard several credible sources that say it is.
When a deep stater is the subject the baseless assertion that no criminal intent existed is enough to excuse you from laws that have no intent clause.
Created:
-->
@jamgiller
That's a very specific standard, hardly useful for 1930s European Jews. Try it again, more abstract this time.For example, it's too much when it leads a group of people to attack the Capitol because they have a conspiracy theory of a stolen election.
Created:
Posted in:
1628 days later... this thread is approaching mummy territory.
Created:
I think the title of this thread is widely applicable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
That's what I keep telling Double_R.then why are you here? This is a debate website. you obviously either have no opinion of your own or lack the capacity to argue it. If you just want to give links to other people's opinions then you might be more at home on some right wing echo chamber.
Created:
-->
@jamgiller
There's also such a thing as being too paranoid for anyone's good.
How can we know how much paranoia is ideal?
Created:
-->
@jamgiller
I don't think your conspiracies about the Democratic party stealing an election are comparable to any experience in 1930s Europe.
I compared reactions to conspiracies. My point stands, there is such a thing as being insufficiently paranoid for your own good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Trump took far more documents with no warning or coordination with the agencies than we've ever seen.
So you've been told.
Not to mention the fact that he took home top secret nuclear documents.
Doubt it.
There is nothing remotely suspicious about the fact that NARA noticed them missing and asked for them back.
To you, but you don't find Hunter Biden on the Burisma board suspicious sooo....
Moreover, this is completely irrelevant. Even if the government didn't ask other presidents for their records back, that doesn't make it legal for Trump to lie to investigators and defy a federal subpoena.
Yea I've seen what "lying" means when the DOJ is running a hit. Flynn "lied" by saying X and then saying "I don't remember" the next time a similar question was asked.
You can't possibly believe Trump is sitting around cataloging documents and writing letters to NARA. Some low level lawyers were doing it, in contact with the FBI. They made a good faith effort, and then they were given an offer they can't refuse.
Speaking of that and long standing legal traditions that are absolute abominations the idea that you can extort testimony by offering to withhold charges will rightly be looked upon in the future as similar to trial by combat.
Sure you can get mafia with it, you can also get Mother Theresa.
Now please do something incredibly ironic like saying "oh that's just a conspiracy theory" when you just claimed:
Let me repeat; Where Trump crossed over into illegality is when he was notified that they needed to be given back and lied to federal investigators before hiding the very same documents from them.
That's a conspiracy theory you know. A theory that there was a conspiracy....
They are still facts.
They are assertions that neither of us has any way to verify.
Biden didn't do any of this, which completely refutes your argument.
No it doesn't because nobody tried to do it to Biden. I'm sure Biden could be railroaded just like anyone else.
BS. You don't know what he took. If you did it wasn't very sensitive information was it?We know what he was charged for.
Like I said, you don't know what he took.
you still have no actual reason to deny those charges
I have the same reason that leads one to suspect Bill Cosby is a rapist. When you tell me to trust the gestapo goons who have left a trail of banana republic style hits behind them I decline to believe you.
In other words: The boy has cried wolf 70 times and been lying 69.
If you have any evidence that Hilary ordered her server to be deleted to evade federal investigators, you know
I forgot you need to prove intent with deep staters. Duh only independents like Trump are presumed malicious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Neither will they.Still can't quite get to grips with the penis vagina thing.
Created:
-->
@jamgiller
It must be terrifying to believe in all the conspiracies that you do. I feel bad for you.
Fear has a purpose. A little more openness to conspiracy theories would have served the Jews of Europe very well in 1930.
Created:
That's not a difference before the recount.Your opinion about differences is irrelevant if you cannot point to relevant differences.lol i explicitly described the differences. In hawaii they had different counts.
I'll respond to the rest when you admit this, one point at a time with no red herrings.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Double R things anything you say in public can't be a confession (like extorting the firing of a certain Ukrainian prosecutor), disagree?No government in the world that wanted to live would fail to jail the king of the coup. Trump committed his crimes in the open, we have him on tape, we have him on video, he openly brags about his crimes
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The alternate slate of electors filled out the paperwork and sent it to congress before the litigation came to a conclusion. Are you claiming that was illegal?I'm saying the two cases are extremely different and the comparison is weak.
Your opinion about differences is irrelevant if you cannot point to relevant differences.
Now answer the question: If they signed the certification before the litigation was complete were they fake electors trying to steal an election (and somehow breaking the law) ?
It is a legal fact that their claims were baseless.
Facts trump "legal facts", and "legal facts" trump your false assumptions about the conclusion of unrelated courts.
They were no more fake than the democrat electors from Hawaii.not true. Because in Hawaii the count showed the democrats had one.
Not when they signed and sent the votes.
There was absolutely no evidence of fraud.
Yes there was.
With an phony election system I feel justified in armed counterattacks against anyone who dares to cloak themselves in the US constitution until such time as democracy is restored.let me get this straight. All available evidence says biden won the election fairly, but you feel justified in using violence in overturning that because you have no evidence of fraud....
You aren't even constructing this strawman out of view. I'm watching you stuff the shirt.
If Trump had tried to stay in office without a true election that would be exactly as treasonousyou are literally describing what trump did. He lost an election, then tried to coerce the states to send fake electors that would say he won when he had no evidence of any fraud.
The situation between dueling electors (none of which were or could be legitimate) would have given official justification for holding an emergency true election. Also:
He lost an election
He did not.
He did try to stay in office after losing a true election.
It was not a true election.
he had no evidence of any fraud.
He did have evidence of fraud. Anyone who isn't burying their head does.
There is both evidence of fraudwhat evidence
For example:
And:
- Specific individuals who voted twice using multiple voter ID numbers
- Voters registered without a first name
- Voters registered without a last name
- Voters registered without a street address
- Voters registered with phony addresses
- 26 voters registered at one two-bedroom apartment
- 290 voters registered at a 16-apartment building in La Crosse
- 19 voters registered at a newer single-family home in Outagamie County
- 359 voters registered at an address that hasn’t existed for 10 years in Kenosha County
- 625,000 dead voters on the rolls
- 4,300 voters with a “99999” zip code
- 670,000 inactive voters in Milwaukee
- 264,000 voters in Milwaukee with a 1918 registration date
- 20,000 voters with undeliverable mailing addresses in Milwaukee
- 3,400 FIDO (Fast Identity Online) keys that provide user access to the database have been distributed throughout the state
Time and again I get into the weeds, I go through basic statistical projection, and in the end the fraud denier just falls back on "well it doesn't add up to X needed to change the outcome"
If you're planning to say something so fucking stupid (due to it being a complete strawman), please save me the effort.
there were tons of court cases.
There were some.
tons of investigations.
Far fewer than court cases, and most I heard of found the expected evidentiary pattern for mass fraud.
No one has provided any evidence of fraud.
As long as you dismiss every individual case as isolated that is and when confronted by the general argument: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9073-if-you-believe-the-2020-election-was-rigged-im-calling-your-bluff?page=1&post_number=9 you'll dismiss it because there are no examples I guess?
If the so called election was conducted in the same manner and I saw the same evidence of fraud then I would not say Trump won because that would be impossible to know.all elections are run the same way.
What a fascinating theory. Did you know that Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Kim Jung Il were all elected just as legitimately as Biden? That's how it works apparently. They all run the same way.
So you are saying trump didn't win in 2016 and has never been president?
You're repeating yourself ignoring my answer:
By your logic, trump's victory in 2016 was fraudulent too. By your logic, trump's victory in 2016 was fraudulent too.There was not mass (often unsolicited) mail in voting in 2016. So no it wouldn't. Also the right tribe in 2016 didn't have the equivalent of TDS. Even now they haven't risen to that level.
Do you think Trump is the first one to point out that mass mail in voting circumvents several critical components in the fraud prevention strategy?of course not. Lots of losers and crazy people point to that to explain why they are losers and it isn't their fault.
Such as Jimmy Carter and :
ORGANIZED BY
Center for Democracy and Election Management
American University
SUPPORTED BY
Carnegie Corporation of New York
The Ford Foundation
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
Omidyar Network
RESEARCH BY
Electionline.org/The Pew Charitable Trusts
Vote by mail is, however, likely to increasethe risks of fraud and of contestedelections in other states, where thepopulation is more mobile, where there issome history of troubled elections, orwhere the safeguards for ballot integrityare weaker.
What a bunch of crazy people... don't they know actually thinking things through is dangerous to the interests of the deep state?
Mail in voting has been used for a very long time and no significant fraud has been found.
and it won't ever be if the only mechanism of detecting fraud is the cheaters confess en masse.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Under the circumstances of the Hawaii case, the court-ordered recount created reasonable uncertainty surrounding the vote total, giving the Kennedy electors a justifiable basis for their production of a Kennedy certificate
Was there a court ordered recount when they mailed the state votes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
They're still stuck on that? Wow.
Created:
-->
@jamgiller
If telling a judge that their authority is arbitrary and they're abusing it regardless won cases I would be a very effective lawyer.if you think it's so clear that Trump is innocent, either don't worry about it or offer your legal services to the former President. I'm sure that would be an honor for you.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Not before the electors filled out the documents. Was it illegal from the time they filled out the documents until the court ruling? Until the recount?I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to. The info I found says that before the deadline on december 13th, tabulation errors were found and recounts had shown both the democrats and republicans winning the state. There was ongoing litigation to confirm which count was correct.
The alternate slate of electors filled out the paperwork and sent it to congress before the litigation came to a conclusion. Are you claiming that was illegal?
There was no such thing in the last election. There was baseless allegations that were getting thrown out of court because they had absolutely no evidence.
So whether it is illegal or not depends on your false assumptions about what is baseless?
There was no evidence to suggest that the count was wrong in any of the states they tried to arrange fake electors for.
They were no more fake than the democrat electors from Hawaii.
There was just as much evidence as could be expected given the likely mechanism of fraud exposed by the illegal changes to election procedure:soo, 0?
> 0
With absolutely no evidence, you feel it is justified to try to send fake electors so that the loser becomes the winner?
With an phony election system I feel justified in armed counterattacks against anyone who dares to cloak themselves in the US constitution until such time as democracy is restored.
Sending alternate slates of electors or rejecting them (as Pence was asked to do) is to me is less than the least that should have been done.
If Trump had tried to stay in office without a true election that would be exactly as treasonous as what the deep state and fanatical left-tribe did to "win" 2020. Then he should have been shot as the deep state currently deserves to be shot.
so your argument is, there is no evidence of fraud, but we should assume there was fraud?
My claim is that regardless of whether there is evidence of fraud, if the procedure/system is such that fraud would not leave evidence the result must be treated as fraudulent.
This is true in any structure or procedure where trust and verifiability is intrinsic to the inclusion of the consumer.
This is true in science: If a scientist makes a claim, says it's based on data, but refuses to provide experimental procedures and the raw data his conclusion must be treated as fraudulent. Repeatability of observation is intrinsic to the scientific process, and even the slightest hint that the observations cannot be repeated and the 'scientist' is trying to hide this fact is enough to place the whole outside of the realm of science.
This is true in banking: If you deposit money to an investment bank, then when you try to withdraw they claim they invested and lost it; they owe you a fully auditable record of what they did with your money. A bank that cannot be audited must be treated no differently from a scam.
So too in elections: Either fraud must be ruled out by systematic design or the results must be verifiable after the fact (preferably both). If the election can be stolen without leaving proof (evidence) behind it must be treated as fraudulent. It is not sufficient and never has been to write down totals in a dark back rooms and declare yourself a democracy.
There is no evidence of fraud and you want to use the lack of evidence of fraud, as evidence of fraud.
There is both evidence of fraud and proof that the procedure was systematically unable to rule out outcome changing fraud. The inability to rule out significant fraud is sufficient. The treason is amplified and made even more outrageous by the fact that there is evidence of fraud.
Let me put it this way, would you be making the same arguments if trump won? I mean, the same system would have been used so trump's victory would be the same chance of fraud?
If the so called election was conducted in the same manner and I saw the same evidence of fraud then I would not say Trump won because that would be impossible to know.
Would I and so many others learned how the elections are actually carried out had Trump not warned about mass mail in ballots? Probably not.
Do you think Trump is the first one to point out that mass mail in voting circumvents several critical components in the fraud prevention strategy? If you do you're very wrong.
Someone considerably more intelligent than Trump saw this coming. He was convinced and sounded the alarm.
By your logic, trump's victory in 2016 was fraudulent too. By your logic, trump's victory in 2016 was fraudulent too.
There was not mass (often unsolicited) mail in voting in 2016. So no it wouldn't. Also the right tribe in 2016 didn't have the equivalent of TDS. Even now they haven't risen to that level.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I've already explained to you in great detail that the mere keeping of the documents is not what Trump is being charged for
The sophistry of charging is uninteresting to me. The essential truth is that the deep state asked Trump for documents where no other official has ever been asked. When Trump delegated it to his lawyers and the FBI they falsely called that "obstruction of justice", stole the documents, then charged him because they "had" to steal the documents.
so not only is your premise entirely false but you admit that you do not care about facts or logic.
Only after you admitted that you beat your wife.
Biden was found to have had 20 documents marked classified. Trump had 325 including some marked top secret. Yet you paint Biden as a guy with a stapler down his pants and Trump with a few paper clips.
Biden had documents in multiple locations for far longer and never had the unilateral authority to declassify, and was never asked to inventory what he took, nor was he swatted after his lawyers and the FBI supposedly made a mistake. Those are the differences that justify "stapler"
The intellectual dishonesty of that comparison is beyond words.
"you admit that you do not care about facts or logic." - You
The documents Trump took were far more numerous and far more serious
BS. You don't know what he took. If you did it wasn't very sensitive information was it?
Trump committed crimes. Biden didn't.
Facts and logic disagree.
Now they say, you can't obstruct an investigation unless a crime is found. Such an absurd notion if accepted would upend or entire justice system.
Whatever would be upended by that principle should be upended and should never have been allowed to become normal in the first place.
So if for example, my cell phone records are subpoenaed and I know they will prove a crime, I can just delete them. No crime proven so no obstruction.
So in your example you committed a crime and this is somehow supposed to illustrate why obstruction should be a crime regardless of whether you did anything immoral?
What about Hilary's servers and blackberries?
You are essentially advocating for the legalization of the cover up.
If it wasn't de facto legal already Hilary would be in jail.
This is a perfect example of why Donald Trump is so dangerous. This is something no one would have argued before, but suddenly Trump puts it out there, his pundits who know better repeat it, and before you know half the country believes it.
Actually the right to remain silent was argued long before Trump. That was considered obstruction of justice in most place before the revolution and still is in some legal traditions.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Then they're doing a great job disguising him as an outsider.Kennedy is certainly that.
Of course the fact that so many people like me throw their support in negative correlation to the propaganda machine's apparent choice makes us vulnerable to manipulation; but it's the best strategy available regardless.
Created:
To echo Churchill, if the the propaganda machine suggested satan was racist; I would consider it a point in his favor.[IwantRooseveltagain] RFK is a nut. I’m not at all surprised that you or other libertarians think he’s great.
I have no certain allies, but I have a certain enemy.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Was it illegal in the 1960 election when Hawaii's democrat electors were sent?because a recount found the original results to be incorrect.
Not before the electors filled out the documents. Was it illegal from the time they filled out the documents until the court ruling? Until the recount?
If the judge had ruled otherwise would the democratic electors then be criminals?
There was never any evidence presented that the results in these states were incorrect, much less a recount.
There was just as much evidence as could be expected given the likely mechanism of fraud exposed by the illegal changes to election procedure: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9073-if-you-believe-the-2020-election-was-rigged-im-calling-your-bluff?page=1&post_number=9
There is a strict process for how elections work.Yes but all rules are irrelevant if you say the word "covid emergency".you didn't make any sort of argument here. Just a vague, meaningless statement.
The meaning was pointing out hypocrisy. Whatever (probably insufficient) strictness existed in election procedure was swept aside in the name of covid lockdowns.
The PA mass mail in votes were unconstitutional, but the judges in PA didn't care. That means the PA electors were illegal, no?Please be more specific. I'm not sure what you are referring to. could you provide a reference?
Article VIIELECTIONSQualifications of ElectorsSection 1Every citizen twenty-one years of age, possessing the following qualifications, shall be entitled to vote at all elections subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact. 1. He or she shall have been a citizen of the United States at least one month. 2. He or she shall have resided in the State ninety (90) days immediately preceding the election. 3. He or she shall have resided in the election district where he or she shall offer to vote at least sixty (60) days immediately preceding the election, except that if qualified to vote in an election district prior to removal of residence, he or she may, if a resident of Pennsylvania, vote in the election district from which he or she removed his or her residence within sixty (60) days preceding the election.
A judgement: https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/244MD21_1-28-22.pdf?cb=1 (for reference only, judges are far from infallible)
[PA supreme court] To “offer to vote” by ballot, is to present oneself, with proper
qualifications, at the time and place appointed, and to make
manual delivery of the ballot to the officers appointed by law to
receive it. The ballot cannot be sent by mail or express, nor can
it be cast outside of all Pennsylvania election districts and
certified into the county where the voter has his domicil. We
cannot be persuaded that the constitution ever contemplated any
such mode of voting, and we have abundant reason for thinking
that to permit it would break down all the safeguards of honest
suffrage. The constitution meant, rather, that the voter, in
propria persona, should offer his vote in an appropriate election
district, in order that his neighbours might be at hand to establish
his right to vote if it were challenged, or to challenge if it were
doubtful.
We also know that trump and his team hired people to try to find evidence of fraud and the report they got back said there wasn't any. So he knew there wasn't any fraud, and apparently that can be proven.It most certainly cannot because the reason the sham election was a sham is because fraud can't be ruled out. It was a systematic failure that no private investigator could overcome.Fraud can never be 100% ruled out.
By sufficient forethought and architecture it can be rendered conditional upon a conspiracy size of similar magnitude as the entire body politic.
An extreme example is cryptocurrency where fraud is possible only if every single participant (miner) participates in the fraud.
Security doesn't require technology either. Look up the Athenian voting laws. It was complicated but if you think it through it rules out any realistic possibility of fraud and all it took was pottery and people.
Since no one has perfect knowledge, there is always some tiny chance that there is some secret fraud we don't know about.
The chance is far from tiny and statistically significant evidence means we do have rough estimates for the quantity of fraud in these cases.
But they went to court with their allegations and could not find or produce any evidence of fraud.
Many who know the elections were fake would respond with "no one looked at the merits" which is indeed true, but I will not respond that way because that is not epistemologicaly correct.
The epistemologicaly correct answer is: It doesn't matter what the courts decided. What matters is what logic operating on available evidence says and where the rational political theory places the burden of proof. Thus I say:
There is and was evidence of fraud. That is above an beyond what is required to call the election fake since a lack of verifiability in many contexts must be treated no differently from fraud.
This has been the most reviewed and examined election in history and no one has managed to find any fraud.
Yes they have. I have personally (not original discovery, following up on publicly available information).
What can't be done is prove quantity, trace perpetrators, or determine the accurate results. Those are false goalposts, and all rational people who value democracy reject their imposition. The system was left vulnerable intentionally so that the guilty could not be found and the level of canvass required to quantify the fraud would never be undertaken.
Created:
Your ignorance is a choice remember?[IwantRooseveltagain] And I seriously doubt you have a working knowledge of the Pennsylvania Constitution and what it says about voting.
As irrelevant as if the US supreme court ruled that the right to be secure in one's possessions (4th amendment) meant abortion is unconstitutional.[IwantRooseveltagain] You can’t even get history correct. Abortion rights were guaranteed in Roe v Wade under privacy
It's impossible to reach your potential as a homo sapiens sapien if you refuse to use your imagination.
Imagine for instance that Roe v Wade was overturned because it was a ridiculous interpretation? Now imagine that what a bunch of people in black robes happen to want to believe has no bearing on what the document says.
[IwantRooseveltagain] Fraud can be ruled outFraud was ruled out
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
That statistic is almost certainly a lie and I don't think Trump is the current president I think there was no legitimate election in 2020 and 2022.So you are in the 70 percent of Republicans that think Trump is the current President?
Non-election doesn't mean default to Trump. (it means American democracy is over and collapse or empire is right around the corner unless elections resume)
Created:
[IwantRooseveltagain] The Pennsylvania legislature agreed to the new vote by mail system.
Assuming that's true (which is only for the sake of argument), a constitution must be amended by process. The legislature can't simply pass laws that violate the constitution.
Last month the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the changes passed by the legislature.
As irrelevant as if the US supreme court ruled that the right to be secure in one's possessions (4th amendment) meant abortion is unconstitutional.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
2) the fake electors are illegal no matter what trump's mental state is.
Was it illegal in the 1960 election when Hawaii's democrat electors were sent?
There is a strict process for how elections work.
Yes but all rules are irrelevant if you say the word "covid emergency".
Trying to bypass it and add fake electors to illegally hold onto power is illegal, even if you think you are doing the right thing.
The PA mass mail in votes were unconstitutional, but the judges in PA didn't care. That means the PA electors were illegal, no?
We also know that trump and his team hired people to try to find evidence of fraud and the report they got back said there wasn't any. So he knew there wasn't any fraud, and apparently that can be proven.
It most certainly cannot because the reason the sham election was a sham is because fraud can't be ruled out. It was a systematic failure that no private investigator could overcome.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
In fact Kennedy, old and boring and conditioned back in the 60's and 70's.So hardly progressive.
Policy is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is transparency vs deep state.
RFK is potentially even better than Trump in that axis. It's possible JFK was as well, luckily they turned him into a martyr. If they tried again that would be pouring C4 onto the fire.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Don't forget to send Trump money so he can pay his lawyers. Isn't it terrible to be poor
Why would I help pay for his lawyers when they're sending the lawyers to the gulag too? (IwantRooseveltagain is right about that).
What he needs is bullets and a clue what kind of war he's in, but he's a weak old man so that wouldn't help either. I'm going to outlive him, but this illusion of a united nation may not.
Created:
Posted in:
You have no way of knowing that.[IwantRooseveltagain] Which other elections were stolen in this country?
I have no way of knowing that... but it's more probable that those that weren't conducted with mass mail in ballots with flawed authentication schemes were accurate than those which were.
So in the later category is 2020 and 2022, and the former is every other election. There was that time they choose the president by committee though after the civil war, that was definitely not democracy, not constitutional, and far more insurrectiony than anything done on Jan 6.
What a coincidence the first one happened when a grifter like Trump lost.
Not a coincidence, they told you that Trump was a dangerous grifter for the same reason they destroyed American democracy: Trump was a danger to the income and agenda of the deep state / military industrial complex
Common cause explains correlation.
Now all his lawyers are losing their licenses for the fraud they participated in.
When they start to come for the lawyers you know civil war is not far off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The law doesn't go after people nearly as hard for making a mistake, and for good reason. This is like arguing that the guy who stuffs a bunch of items down his pants, gets to the door and sets of the alarm, then takes off when security tries to stop him should be treated the same as the guy who gets to his car, realizes he had an item in his cart that was not paid for, then goes back inside to give it back.
No, this is like one guy getting arrested for having company paper clips in his pockets vs someone who had an entire stapler down his pants but was never even questioned because he was a 'friend' of the police chief.
And if you think the answer to any of these questions is yes, does anyone, anywhere, have any evidence of this?The answer is: I don't care.Well I hate to break it to you but the DOJ does.
No it does not, the evidence on that is clear.
It's kind of the defining trait of a just system, which judging by your response you really don't seem to care about, which is kind of an odd thing considering that your entire point here seems to be railing against the DOJ for being unjust.
The defining trait of a just system is not the obtuse and irrelevant questions regarding whether some people reacted differently to unequal interpretation of the law.
There must be an underlying crime, "resisting arrest" is not sufficient when the arrest would have been unjustified if it had not been resisted. All that nonsense you just spouted when the propaganda is cut away comes down to this simple fact: Trump didn't think he had to turn over the documents and was resisting with lawyers. He was right to resist. Whatever he did in such resistance does not justify the prosecution nor does it move the needle one micron towards away from the obvious double standard.
Trump was the only one who resisted this absurd persecution because he was the only one who was the target of persecution.
Oh, so your theory is that these so called differences are why one was charged but not the other.They're not "so called" differences, they're the literal charges against Trump which Biden has not committed.
You're pretty good at keeping the false front going, but the freudian slips keep convicting you.
You don't commit charges, you commit crimes. Prosecutors bring charges, but in your mind charges are as good as crimes; at least until the right-tribe figures out the legal system is now a legitimate battleground; you'll probably sing a different tune once they realize that.
Well, in your theory; what is the explanation for why nobody asked for Biden's documentsCould be a number of reasons. For one Biden was found to have about a dozen or so, Trump had over a hundred. Trump also had top secret nuclear documents, Biden's were no where near that serious.
Your misinformation is showing.
So despite me listing numerous obvious differences between the two scenarios, and you having no response to them except hypothetical examples where you believe Biden would have done the same thing, you still maintain that Trump's charges are the product of weaponized double standards by the DOJ and not
The only difference that matters to me is that Trump keeping his own documents is treated as a crime when Trump does it and not when Biden does.
...because the actions of these two men were polar opposites in almost every way that matters.
You're right about that. Biden is a loyal ally of the deep state, Trump isn't. That's the only way that matters now.
But like you suggested, who cares about evidence right?
Certainly not the FBI or Merrick Garland. Hec they don't care about laws or evidence. Double whamy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
How does one treat the property owned by multiple persons at the same time?
The moral (and sometimes legal) concept used for joint ownership is a corporation.
Whether or not any existing legal system fails to implement this protocol it is necessary: The formation of the collective entity requires the selection (by charter/contract/constitution) of the means of resolving disputes in disposal of property.
In other words don't get married without a prenuptial. If you never fall out then it's harmless.
In this context I should remind everyone that you can't own land, all you can do is claim it and any system of mutually respected land claims is a negotiation (when it's not a negotiation it's a war, you may have noticed).
Created:
Posted in:
All nations are made up. Objective rights are properties of individuals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You have no way of knowing that.Because the orange dog, lost democratically.
Created:
[IwantRooseveltagain]No, she didn’t destroy anything and she didn’t tell anyone to destroy anything.
Created:
I see it's one of those "last word" contests, well too bad for you ctrl-V is just as easy for me as it is for you.
[IwantRooseveltagain]No, she didn’t destroy anything and she didn’t tell anyone to destroy anything.
Created: