Post by: Jolly2 on 07/02/2021 17:13:36
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
A quote from the article:-
"even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it."
This is not about voter fraud allegations.
Although this group confess to intentionally changing laws like act 77 in Pennsylvania which was changed the year before the election happened, to allow mail in ballots, to remove requirements for signature verification, and for ballots to be accepted days after the election had happened.
The same process was tried in Texas but failed in the courts. Pennsylvania officials tried to have these law changes over turned as they were unconstitutional, yet were stuck down on technicalities not on merits.
So is this the final evidence of a conspiracy to fix the election?
The group involved claims they defended democracy, but that's the claim of the conspirators. Should we believe them? Trust them?
France and Canada have both outlawed mail in voting due to concerns with fraud.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/02/2021 17:22:13
France and Canada have both outlawed mail in voting due to concerns with fraud.While the use is restricted, France and Canada both permit postal voting.
However, the point remains that, whatever the French government thought in 1975, there was no significant evidence of fraudulent voting (postal or otherwise) in 2020 in the USA.
So your "claim" is not just wrong, but irrelevant.
Anyway...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR09AYoJiPEl0lnO6SIcLlcD5l42PiuzUYafDbcD15Np0UGLOwzH9-WB4qk&v=fx2W1Jh4kA0&feature=youtu.be
Post by: alancalverd on 07/02/2021 17:42:48
A year earlier, der Fuhrer Trump publicly stated and pledged that, thanks to his brilliant personal intervention and innovations in the electoral process, this would be the fairest, most honest and least corrupt election EVER and would Make America Great Again. Is anyone seriously doubting His Word?
Apparently Fox News repeatedly asserted (who needs evidence in the New Age of Freedom?) that the vote-counting machines used in California were rigged. The manufacturers, being good Republicans cast in the mould of The Leader Himself, are suing Fox for several billion dollars of cancelled contracts and lost revenue from overseas governments and will probably bankrupt the only source of Revealed Truth on the planet.
And it doesn't matter anyway. Donald Trump thinks he won the election and is now running the world from Berechtesgaden a Lago, FL. Nothing else is of any consequence.
Post by: Jolly2 on 07/02/2021 17:53:15
There cannot have been any fraud in the US 2020 presidential election.
A year earlier, der Fuhrer Trump publicly stated and pledged that, thanks to his brilliant personal intervention and innovations in the electoral process, this would be the fairest, most honest and least corrupt election EVER and would Make America Great Again. Is anyone seriously doubting His Word?
There is a meme going round with Trump dressed like the Queen... the accompanying statement reads "Ok, I might not be president anymore but I can be Queen, I'm gonna be the most amazing, most bestest Queen ever"
This isn't about Trump, this is about democracy.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/02/2021 18:04:17
The simplest form involves ensuring that only your supporters can vote, but interfering busybodies like Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson screwed that up.
Next, get your brother to count the votes: it worked for George W Bush, but Donald Trump's brothers hate him (with good reason) and are therefore not to be trusted.
Then you can tell your supporters to arm themselves and vote in person. This only works if your supporters are capable of doing two things at once.
Refusing Federal aid to states that are likely to vote against you is sound, provided that the pandemic only affects your opponents.
Postal voting is an absolute no-no because it preferentially enfranchises those who can read and write. It is an affront to Republicanism.
But as long as Donald thinks he won, there is no problem.
Demos: the people Crassos: the worst. The principle of government by the worst must be upheld.
Post by: Jolly2 on 07/02/2021 18:24:08
Democracy takes many forms.
The simplest form involves ensuring that only your supporters can vote, but interfering busybodies like Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson screwed that up.
Next, get your brother to count the votes: it worked for George W Bush, but Donald Trump's brothers hate him (with good reason) and are therefore not to be trusted.
Then you can tell your supporters to arm themselves and vote in person. This only works if your supporters are capable of doing two things at once.
Refusing Federal aid to states that are likely to vote against you is sound, provided that the pandemic only affects your opponents.
Postal voting is an absolute no-no because it preferentially enfranchises those who can read and write. It is an affront to Republicanism.
But as long as Donald thinks he won, there is no problem.
Demos: the people Crassos: the worst. The principle of government by the worst must be upheld.
Well I dont like or agree with the current form democracy has. Its clearly and defined as business interests hold the decision making power(left to the market).
Still there is the basis of people voting for a representative, and this agenda appears in some way, to have violated that basis. Unless you trust them at their word and there was nothing dodgy about their agenda.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/02/2021 18:46:21
Still there is the basis of people voting for a representative,And most American voters chose Biden as their representative- so it worked.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/02/2021 18:48:23
If they did, Hillary Clinton would have been the 45th holder of that post.
The People vote, then the Electoral College chooses the President because The People cannot be trusted to choose whose finger goes on the button they have paid for.
Not everyone can be a war hero, a respected academic or an astute politician. The duty of the Electoral College is to ensure that the Presidency is properly representative of The People by ensuring that idiots and narcissists all have their turn.
Post by: Janus on 07/02/2021 19:46:55
Although this group confess to intentionally changing laws like act 77 in Pennsylvania which was changed the year before the election happened, to allow mail in ballots, to remove requirements for signature verification, and for ballots to be accepted days after the election had happened.
Act 77 passed with heavy Republican support( even more so than Democratic support), as a compromise deal with the Democrats. In exchange for exapnded vote by mail, they got rid of straight ticket voting (Where you could go into a booth and click one lever that voted for all candidates of a given party.) The Republicans felt that this would help pick up some seats in the state legislature (which it ended up doing).
Off course, the instant this compromise hurt them in the 2020 presidential election, and their compromise no longer benefited them, they immediately had buyer's remorse.
Quote
Pennsylvania officials tried to have these law changes over turned as they were unconstitutional, yet were stuck down on technicalities not on merits.Those "technicalities" were that they had waited until over a year and 2 elections had passed. ( Oh, and by the way, one of those elections was were they picked up a couple of seats in the state legislature. You didn't hear them complaining that those results should be overturned).
If they had filed their complaint before the election was run, things might have been different. But they didn't. This just tells me it wasn't the law they were really objecting to, but just an election result they didn't like.
The voters that voted by mail did so while the law was in effect and did so with the assurance that they were voting legally, and you can't just go back and disenfranchise those voters just because it was later decided that the law shouldn't have been passed.
Let's put it this way: Supposed a town passes a law that allows drivers in their town to make a right turn at a red light without first coming to a full stop. The law stays in effect for a year. But then someone points out that it is conflict with state laws.
Can you now go back, using traffic camera footage, and issue tickets to everyone that made a right turn without coming to a stop during that year?
As far a mail-in voting goes: My state has had mail-in voting exclusively for decades, and in that time, the cases of voter fraud has been negligible.
Republicans are not against vote by mail due to concerns over fraud, but over concerns that it will increase voter turn out, and historically, Republicans don't fare as well when voter turnout is high.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 07/02/2021 20:38:49
Post by: evan_au on 07/02/2021 20:50:05
Quote from: OP
So is this the final evidence of a conspiracy to fix the election?Every political party and every political candidate aims to fix the election in their favor.
But some methods are more ethical than others.
Encouraging people to vote is a good idea in a democracy, as then you better represent the will of the people.
- By holding elections on a working day (Tuesday), and making voting voluntary, the US elections do not capture the opinion of the population very well.
- You are more likely to vote if you can afford to take time off work.
- The idea of having voters register to vote via a political party sounds suspicious to me - this sounds like it would lead to voter lock-in.
- COVID forced something different, and the 2020 US elections were more representative than any previous US election (as measured by % voter participation).
- Republicans do better when there is poor voter turnout, so the result was somewhat predictable
Quote from: Jolly2
Still there is the basis of people voting for a representativeThe "First past the post" voting scheme used in US presidential elections (and most US state senate elections) promotes extremism, and has created a dysfunctional US senate.
- The preferential voting system used in Australia (and some US states) is superior, in that it requires all politicians to consider what the average voter wants, not just the members of their party.
- In Australia, political parties compete for the attention of the "average" voter, because getting that second preference often decides who wins.
- It concerns me somewhat that Australia has been moving towards "first past the post" voting where preferential voting is optional. That may lead to more extreme politicians gaining power.
Post by: syhprum on 07/02/2021 21:15:42
Post by: Jolly2 on 08/02/2021 14:04:42
Although this group confess to intentionally changing laws like act 77 in Pennsylvania which was changed the year before the election happened, to allow mail in ballots, to remove requirements for signature verification, and for ballots to be accepted days after the election had happened.
Act 77 passed with heavy Republican support( even more so than Democratic support), as a compromise deal with the Democrats. In exchange for exapnded vote by mail, they got rid of straight ticket voting (Where you could go into a booth and click one lever that voted for all candidates of a given party.) The Republicans felt that this would help pick up some seats in the state legislature (which it ended up doing).
Off course, the instant this compromise hurt them in the 2020 presidential election, and their compromise no longer benefited them, they immediately had buyer's remorse.
Well many Republicans hate trump just as much as Democrats.
QuotePennsylvania officials tried to have these law changes over turned as they were unconstitutional, yet were stuck down on technicalities not on merits.Those "technicalities" were that they had waited until over a year and 2 elections had passed. ( Oh, and by the way, one of those elections was were they picked up a couple of seats in the state legislature. You didn't hear them complaining that those results should be overturned).
If they had filed their complaint before the election was run, things might have been different. But they didn't. This just tells me it wasn't the law they were really objecting to, but just an election result they didn't like.
In Texas they did and were successful.
The technicalities issue is rather rediculas, if they had applied before the election they may well have been ignored as not having standing as no injury had occurred, they apply afterwards and are told they are too late.
Technicalities are not a basis for justice, the merit have to be heard for the court to ignore them is rediculas. The supreme court also refused to hear the Texas lawsuit on a technicality that Texas and 20 other states was not an injured party.
The voters that voted by mail did so while the law was in effect and did so with the assurance that they were voting legally, and you can't just go back and disenfranchise those voters just because it was later decided that the law shouldn't have been passed.
Well there is the question if these voters exist at all.
Let's put it this way: Supposed a town passes a law that allows drivers in their town to make a right turn at a red light without first coming to a full stop. The law stays in effect for a year. But then someone points out that it is conflict with state laws.
Can you now go back, using traffic camera footage, and issue tickets to everyone that made a right turn without coming to a stop during that year?
That is a terrible analogy. This case we solely regarding potential fraud.
As far a mail-in voting goes: My state has had mail-in voting exclusively for decades, and in that time, the cases of voter fraud has been negligible.
Republicans are not against vote by mail due to concerns over fraud, but over concerns that it will increase voter turn out, and historically, Republicans don't fare as well when voter turnout is high.
That's simplistic, Trump managed a huge turn out he got more votes then Obama, he actually got the most votes of any candidate in American history, beaten by Biden who claims more.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/02/2021 14:11:08
An automatic counting system can reject any return slips with duplicate numbers, and since the post office has no idea how anyone is going to vote, a genuine vote is as likely to be counted as anyone else's. The only way to bias the result is to intercept a bulk outgoing mailing and return all the slips in your favor. But a sharp-eyed party will raise hell if more than 1% of its members don't receive their papers (UK Royal Mail delivers over 99% of all letters within 4 days of posting), so you know which batch(es) have been intercepted.
This is quite unlike voting in person where you don't even have to provide ID (because there is no national ID standard in the UK) but merely state your home address - or that of someone you know has died or won't vote. Hence Trump's Call to the Faithful: "Vote early and vote often" - previously a traditional Irish proverb.
Post by: Jolly2 on 08/02/2021 14:11:33
Quote from: OPSo is this the final evidence of a conspiracy to fix the election?Every political party and every political candidate aims to fix the election in their favor.
I don't agree to act it that may would mean all politicans are anti democratic. It's one thing to fight hard its quiet another to fix the election. Under the assertion you are effectively agreeing the Democrats stole the election and this kabal helped them control the narrative.
But some methods are more ethical than others.
Encouraging people to vote is a good idea in a democracy, as then you better represent the will of the people.
- By holding elections on a working day (Tuesday), and making voting voluntary, the US elections do not capture the opinion of the population very well.
- You are more likely to vote if you can afford to take time off work.
- The idea of having voters register to vote via a political party sounds suspicious to me - this sounds like it would lead to voter lock-in.
- COVID forced something different, and the 2020 US elections were more representative than any previous US election (as measured by % voter participation).
Wasnt covid the legal changes happened the autumn before the pandemic
- Republicans do better when there is poor voter turnout, so the result was somewhat predictableQuote from: Jolly2Still there is the basis of people voting for a representativeThe "First past the post" voting scheme used in US presidential elections (and most US state senate elections) promotes extremism, and has created a dysfunctional US senate.
- The preferential voting system used in Australia (and some US states) is superior, in that it requires all politicians to consider what the average voter wants, not just the members of their party.
- In Australia, political parties compete for the attention of the "average" voter, because getting that second preference often decides who wins.
- It concerns me somewhat that Australia has been moving towards "first past the post" voting where preferential voting is optional. That may lead to more extreme politicians gaining power.
I don't like any of the western democratic systems they are all a cup and ball show, real power remains with the corporations.
Post by: Jolly2 on 08/02/2021 14:24:47
The People do not vote for the President of the United States.
The people do vote for the president, but they vote for their state. America Is better seen as 50 countries. tHe whole point of the electoral college, is to guarantee high population states dont dominate the rest.
If they did, Hillary Clinton would have been the 45th holder of that post.
The People vote, then the Electoral College chooses the President because The People cannot be trusted to choose whose finger goes on the button they have paid for.
Yeah sure that was always part of the reason for the electoral college, in certain circumstances the elete can intervene and prevent someone they don't like taking the presidency.
Not everyone can be a war hero, a respected academic or an astute politician. The duty of the Electoral College is to ensure that the Presidency is properly representative of The People by ensuring that idiots and narcissists all have their turn.
No it's a fail safe for the ruling oligarchy and a means to stop high population states dominating the rest.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/02/2021 16:24:31
, he actually got the most votes of any candidate in American history,No.
In reality Biden got more which makes Trump the most successful loser of all time.
That is a terrible analogy.Please explain what's wrong with it.
Post by: Janus on 08/02/2021 17:25:53
As far as Pennsylvania goes, The basic law allowing expanded vote by mail was passed a year prior, but some changes were implemented at least in part due to Covid, including ballot drop boxes and allowing late arriving ballots to be counted as long as they were postmarked by Election day.
- COVID forced something different, and the 2020 US elections were more representative than any previous US election (as measured by % voter participation).
Wasnt covid the legal changes happened the autumn before the pandemic
These later changes came about because the Post Office couldn't guarantee that they could get all the ballots to election offices in time. This was in no small part to Trump's newly appointed Postmaster started ripping out sorting machines. (under the excuse of "improving efficiency". But let's be honest, in an election year where you knew that there was going to be a larger than normal amount of vote by mail, even if you were planning on removing the machines anyway, a prudent person would have waited until after the election. That is, unless the very reason for removing the machines was to sabotage vote by mail.)
Quote
The technicalities issue is rather rediculas, if they had applied before the election they may well have been ignored as not having standing as no injury had occurred, they apply afterwards and are told they are too late.
Bullocks. If the argument is that the law is unconstitutional, you can bring a case against it even if the law has yet to even take effect.
This has happened multiple times in my own state, were some law is passed in the Legislature, and is challenged on constitutional grounds before it could come into effect. On more than one such case, it the law was found to be unconstitutional, and was never enacted.
Quote
Technicalities are not a basis for justice, the merit have to be heard for the court to ignore them is rediculas. The supreme court also refused to hear the Texas lawsuit on a technicality that Texas and 20 other states was not an injured party.What those who brought suit against the Pennsylvania election were trying to do was to get 10's of thousands of votes thrown out On a technicality
The Texas lawsuit had no merit either. The constitution clearly states that each state has full control over how it runs its own elections. The suit was based on the fact that those 20 states didn't like how Pennsylvania ran its own election.
The Supreme Court was perfectly correct in not hearing it. Do you have any idea of the can of worms that would have been opened if they did? Any State could sue to have any other state's elections nullified because "They didn't like the way that state ran its election. Hawaii could have turned around and said they wanted Texas' election thrown out, because they didn't like something about how they ran it. Where would it have ended?
Quote
That is a terrible analogy. This case we solely regarding potential fraudAnd just where is the evidence of that "potential fraud"? In all the cases presented, none was ever presented. In fact, in none of the actual court cases was massive election fraud even claimed by the plaintiffs.
For all the claims of how they had tons of evidence, it never surfaced in court, where, if you actually had evidence, you would have wanted to present it.
And many of the court cases were thrown out on merit. On the very fact that the plaintiffs failed to show that there was sufficient cause to have the ballots they wanted tossed out to be invalidated.
Quote
That's simplistic, Trump managed a huge turn out he got more votes then Obama, he actually got the most votes of any candidate in American history, beaten by Biden who claims more.
In an election which had the highest turnout of any election. Which just fits the pattern; high turn out tends to favor Democrats.
You've got it backwards. All indications are the Biden did get more votes. No state, or even the US justice dept. could find any evidence of massive election fraud.
It is the Trump supporters that are simply claiming, without any real evidence, that Biden didn't get as many votes as the election results say he did .
Why is it that people have trouble accepting that a president that never got as much as a 50% approval rating lost re-election?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/02/2021 17:51:20
And he got in on a ticket of jailing Clinton, building a wall, getting Mexico to pay, and draining the swamp.
He did none of those things.
In general, if you achieve precisely zero of your big ticket election pledges, your support falls because people don't like to be taken for fools.
Trump started at less than 50% and did the thing that was guaranteed to lose him votes.
Of course he lost. The miracle is that he didn't lose by a bigger margin.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/02/2021 18:23:53
tHe whole point of the electoral college, is to guarantee high population states dont dominate the rest.
either they do
Quote
The more people who live in a state, the more electors there are for that state. So, California for example, with a population of 38.8 million, has 55 votes - while Delaware, (pop. 936,000), has just three votes.
or they don't: California has 1.4 EC votes per million population, Delaware has 3.2 votes per million. So Californian voters only get half a vote and the result cannot be considered the popular choice.
Post by: Jolly2 on 08/02/2021 19:20:35
QuoteThe technicalities issue is rather rediculas, if they had applied before the election they may well have been ignored as not having standing as no injury had occurred, they apply afterwards and are told they are too late.
Bullocks. If the argument is that the law is unconstitutional, you can bring a case against it even if the law has yet to even take effect.
This has happened multiple times in my own state, were some law is passed in the Legislature, and is challenged on constitutional grounds before it could come into effect. On more than one such case, it the law was found to be unconstitutional, and was never enacted.
Nice these lawsuit were brought after the fact, and were rejected on technicalities. Texas won their law suits the laws were not changed in Texas.
QuoteTechnicalities are not a basis for justice, the merit have to be heard for the court to ignore them is rediculas. The supreme court also refused to hear the Texas lawsuit on a technicality that Texas and 20 other states was not an injured party.What those who brought suit against the Pennsylvania election were trying to do was to get 10's of thousands of votes thrown out On a technicality
The Texas lawsuit had no merit either. The constitution clearly states that each state has full control over how it runs its own elections. The suit was based on the fact that those 20 states didn't like how Pennsylvania ran its own election.
No the lawsuit was based on the claim that the changes to Pennsylvanian law were unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court was perfectly correct in not hearing it.
Completely disagree by not hearing it they leave it open, and give the impression of partiality towards Biden. If they heard the case and there is nothing there the case would be closed, their actions have left it open.
Do you have any idea of the can of worms that would have been opened if they did?
No worms, the supreme court was created to deal with disputes between states. By refusing to hear it they have shown themselves impartial, and now around 100 million Americans have no faith in their legal system. If they heard The case and trump lose his side would have accepted it, as should the other.
Again it's nothing to do with how they ran the election it was about unconstitutional changes to laws. That effected Texas and the electoral results.
Any State could sue to have any other state's elections nullified because "They didn't like the way that state ran its election.
Hawaii could have turned around and said they wanted Texas' election thrown out, because they didn't like something about how they ran it. Where would it have ended?
If Texas had acted criminally absolutely they could and should.
QuoteThat is a terrible analogy. This case we solely regarding potential fraudAnd just where is the evidence of that "potential fraud"? In all the cases presented, none was ever presented. In fact, in none of the actual court cases was massive election fraud even claimed by the plaintiffs.
For all the claims of how they had tons of evidence, it never surfaced in court, where, if you actually had evidence, you would have wanted to present it.
And many of the court cases were thrown out on merit. On the very fact that the plaintiffs failed to show that there was sufficient cause to have the ballots they wanted tossed out to be invalidated.
If there is no case because on technicalities they refuse to hear them no evidence can be shown. Refusing to hear the cases Is refusing to see the evidence.
[QuoteThat's simplistic, Trump managed a huge turn out he got more votes then Obama, he actually got the most votes of any candidate in American history, beaten by Biden who claims more.
In an election which had the highest turnout of any election. Which just fits the pattern; high turn out tends to favor Democrats.
You've got it backwards. All indications are the Biden did get more votes. No state, or even the US justice dept. could find any evidence of massive election fraud.
They did find fraud just not massive fraud. Seems clear the kabal written about by Time working diligently behind the scenes, helped guarantee that.
It is the Trump supporters that are simply claiming, without any real evidence, that Biden didn't get as many votes as the election results say he did .
Why is it that people have trouble accepting that a president that never got as much as a 50% approval rating lost re-election?
Because Biden is a joke, slightly more popular then Clinton, but the idea the man that wrote the patriot act, and has spent the last 50 years in politics building this neo liberal joke of a corporate nightmare, would be the most voted for person in American history, is laughable at best, people voted against Trump hadly anyone voted for Biden.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/02/2021 19:29:31
By refusing to hear it they have shown themselves impartial,Yes...?
If they heard The case and trump lose his side would have accepted it,His side has not yet accepted reality in the case of the elections; why would a court case be different?
If Texas had acted criminally absolutely they could and should.Did you actually think that was relevant to the question?
Hawaii could have turned around and said they wanted Texas' election thrown out, because they didn't like something about how they ran it.
They did find fraud just not massive fraud.In whose direction?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/02/2021 19:35:05
Because Biden is a joke, slightly more popular then Clinton,In a democracy, the one who gets less votes than the one who got less votes is the joke, and his name is Donald.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/02/2021 19:36:12
but the idea the man that wrote the patriot act, and has spent the last 50 years in politics building this neo liberal joke of a corporate nightmare, would be the most voted for person in American history, is...reality
Post by: Jolly2 on 08/02/2021 19:41:14
but the idea the man that wrote the patriot act, and has spent the last 50 years in politics building this neo liberal joke of a corporate nightmare, would be the most voted for person in American history, is...reality
A very carefully scripted narrative written by a now confessed kabal.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/02/2021 20:08:40
now confessed kabal.OK, so post a link to where they confess to setting up a cabal to get Biden elected.
Face it.
Trump scraped his way in in 2016, and showed that he was incompetent, so he got kicked out in 2020.
There's no need for anything complicated; the US voters simply came to recognise him for the fraud he was.
Post by: evan_au on 08/02/2021 20:53:04
Quote from: Jolly2
a now confessed kabal
Quote from: Times
it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. (but) They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.You have missed the journalese - they grabbed your attention by describing it as a potential cabal - and then said why it wasn't.
Post by: Jolly2 on 08/02/2021 21:12:43
Quote from: Jolly2a now confessed kabalQuote from: Timesit sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. (but) They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.You have missed the journalese - they grabbed your attention by describing it as a potential cabal - and then said why it wasn't.
What you expect them to stay?
They claim to have acted to fortify the election. That's their claim doesn't make it true. They are a bunch of conspirators. Working to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information
They had started this conspiracy a year before the election, Trump had no chance to push his case for fraud.
This is not a claim there was fraud.
But if there was fraud, this group categorically worked to prevent that truth comming out.
Post by: Janus on 08/02/2021 23:30:44
Why do you keep bringing suits brought up in Texas dealing with Texas election laws?
Texas won their law suits the laws were not changed in Texas.
Texas has its election laws and Pennsylvania has theirs. What a judge rules in Texas based on his interpretation of Texas election law, has no bearing on Pennsylvania's interpretation of their laws.
Quote
No the lawsuit was based on the claim that the changes to Pennsylvanian law were unconstitutional."Unconstitutional" under Pennsylvania's state constitution, not under US constitutional law.
Again, states have the authority to run their own elections under their own election laws. This is why some states have only vote by mail, some have open primaries and other don't etc. It is the State's supreme court that decides this issue. Here we had a number of other states trying to interfere with another state's election system (just because they didn't like the results, and for no other reason!*) One reason the USSC didn't hear the case was there was no US constitutional issue involved.
Quote
Completely disagree by not hearing it they leave it open, and give the impression of partiality towards Biden.only in the minds of those who aleady wanted to believe that Trump won[/quote]
If they heard the case and there is nothing there the case would be closed, their actions have left it open.
[/quote]Again, only in the minds of those that wished that the election had turned out differently.
Quote
Oh come on, I not seen any indication that Trump supporters would have accepted a Supreme Court ruling that didn't go their way. They would have just claimed the the USSC was "in on it".
No worms, the supreme court was created to deal with disputes between states. By refusing to hear it they have shown themselves impartial, and now around 100 million Americans have no faith in their legal system. If they heard The case and trump lose his side would have accepted it, as should the other.
Quote
QuoteAgain it's nothing to do with how they ran the election it was about unconstitutional changes to laws. That effected Texas and the electoral results.And again it was an issue with the State's constitution, not the US constitution, and other states have no business in telling a state how it should interpret its own constitution. There was no US constitution issue involved,as the US constitution gives states the right to run their own elections under their own election laws.QuoteCriminally according to what? Their state's own election laws? I don't think you have any idea of how election laws work.
If Texas had acted criminally absolutely they could and should.QuoteAnd why is it that so many people also believe that their opinion has to equate to the majority opinion?
Because Biden is a joke, slightly more popular then Clinton, but the idea the man that wrote the patriot act, and has spent the last 50 years in politics building this neo liberal joke of a corporate nightmare, would be the most voted for person in American history, is laughable at best, people voted against Trump hadly anyone voted for Biden.
This may be your opinion of Biden, but it isn't necessarily what the majority of people think of him.
It is likely true that many of the votes for Biden were votes against Trump. But that is just means that Trump lost this election as much as Biden won. And, if Biden is as bad as you say, that means a lot of voters thought Trump was even worse, and that, In their eyes, Trump was a horrible president, and they couldn't stand the idea of 4 more years of him.
* Actually, there is another reason. A good number of the people who signed on to this suit probably knew that it didn't have a leg to stand on, but they just wanted to look like good loyal soldiers to the Trump base. It was just political theatrics. They just counted on most Trump supporters not being well enough versed on the law to know this.
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 14:22:26
Why do you keep bringing suits brought up in Texas dealing with Texas election laws?
Texas won their law suits the laws were not changed in Texas.
Texas has its election laws and Pennsylvania has theirs. What a judge rules in Texas based on his interpretation of Texas election law, has no bearing on Pennsylvania's interpretation of their laws.
If the laws were enacted unconstitutionally they're unlawful. Not just Texas all other states are effected if one acts outside the law. Which is why Texas and 20 other states brought the case.
QuoteNo the lawsuit was based on the claim that the changes to Pennsylvanian law were unconstitutional."Unconstitutional" under Pennsylvania's state constitution, not under US constitutional law.
Ues absolutely unconstitutional under the Pennsylvanias constitution. The supreme court's role is to adjudicate between states when they come into conflict. By refusing to hear the case they have shown partiality to Biden.
Again, states have the authority to run their own elections under their own election laws. This is why some states have only vote by mail, some have open primaries and other don't etc.
And that's fine, what's not fine is to ignore the law when making changes.
It is the State's supreme court that decides this issue. Here we had a number of other states trying to interfere with another state's election system (just because they didn't like the results, and for no other reason!*) One reason the USSC didn't hear the case was there was no US constitutional issue involved.QuoteCompletely disagree by not hearing it they leave it open, and give the impression of partiality towards Biden.Again, only in the minds of those that wished that the election had turned out differently.Quoteonly in the minds of those who aleady wanted to believe that Trump wonIf they heard the case and there is nothing there the case would be closed, their actions have left it open.Quote
Wrong, open to anyone who believed there was incorrect behaviour, 30% of independents believe the election was stolen arround 17% of Democrats do, this is not simply only the people disappointed with the election result.
No worms, the supreme court was created to deal with disputes between states. By refusing to hear it they have shown themselves impartial, and now around 100 million Americans have no faith in their legal system. If they heard The case and trump lose his side would have accepted it, as should the other.Oh come on, I not seen any indication that Trump supporters would have accepted a Supreme Court ruling that didn't go their way. They would have just claimed the the USSC was "in on it".
Again I disagree , an open case that discussed the issues and the merits finding against Trump would have been accepted by his supporters, but refusing to hear the case they have absolutely shown themselves partial towards Biden.
QuoteAgain it's nothing to do with how they ran the election it was about unconstitutional changes to laws. That effected Texas and the electoral results.And again it was an issue with the State's constitution, not the US constitution, and other states have no business in telling a state how it should interpret its own constitution.
Again offiacls inside Pennsylvania also brought a case, wasnt just Texas and 20 other states, members of Pennsylvanian both private and political brought cases which were also not heard and denied a hearing.
There was no US constitution issue involved,as the US constitution gives states the right to run their own elections under their own election laws.QuoteCriminally according to what? Their state's own election laws?
If Texas had acted criminally absolutely they could and should.
Criminally according to the constitution that was ignored.
I don't think you have any idea of how election laws work.QuoteAnd why is it that so many people also believe that their opinion has to equate to the majority opinion?
Because Biden is a joke, slightly more popular then Clinton, but the idea the man that wrote the patriot act, and has spent the last 50 years in politics building this neo liberal joke of a corporate nightmare, would be the most voted for person in American history, is laughable at best, people voted against Trump hadly anyone voted for Biden.
Sorry not an opinion, the statics show it, the majority of people who voted Biden didn't like him, they just voted against trump.
This may be your opinion of Biden, but it isn't necessarily what the majority of people think of him.
It is likely true that many of the votes for Biden were votes against Trump. But that is just means that Trump lost this election as much as Biden won. And, if Biden is as bad as you say, that means a lot of voters thought Trump was even worse, and that, In their eyes, Trump was a horrible president, and they couldn't stand the idea of 4 more years of him.
* Actually, there is another reason. A good number of the people who signed on to this suit probably knew that it didn't have a leg to stand on, but they just wanted to look like good loyal soldiers to the Trump base. It was just political theatrics. They just counted on most Trump supporters not being well enough versed on the law to know this.
Which is a denial of the actual consitutional issue.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/02/2021 14:57:20
Sorry not an opinion, the statics show it,What statistics?
How could you know?
They had started this conspiracyIt's only a conspiracy if it's a secret plan to break the law.
This was not secret, nor is it illegal to seek to bring political change.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/02/2021 16:03:03
the majority of people who voted Biden didn't like him, they just voted against trump.That's politics. Just like Trump persuaded them to vote against Hillary. In the immortal words of archy the cockroach:
“a politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man” ― E.E. Cummings
I am impressed by the diligence with which you interviewed 35,000,000 voters to reach your entirely pointless conclusion.
Post by: Janus on 09/02/2021 18:07:28
No, by refusing to hear the case they were stating that those states bringing the suit had no legal basis for objecting to how another state interpreted it's own constitution. They were ruling that this was not a valid case to bring to the USSC.The supreme court's role is to adjudicate between states when they come into conflict. By refusing to hear the case they have shown partiality to Biden.Not according to the State's own Supreme Court, which has the final say on interpretation of the State's constitution. There were those that tried to argue that it was unconstitutional, which is their right, But once the state's SC rules, it's a done deal, because it is the State's SC that has the power to determine constitutionality not other states that might disagree with that ruling.
Ues absolutely unconstitutional under the Pennsylvanias constitution.
Again, states have the authority to run their own elections under their own election laws. This is why some states have only vote by mail, some have open primaries and other don't etc.
And that's fine, what's not fine is to ignore the law when making changes.
[/quote]And the State's SC ruled that they had not, and they are the ones that determine what is or is not legal under the state constitution.
Quote
So, what? The courts job is to determine law, not to assuage anyone's "beliefs". People can "believe" a lot of stupid stuff: That the world is flat, in astrology, that the Moon landings were faked, That giant space lasers started the California wildfires...
Wrong, open to anyone who believed there was incorrect behaviour, 30% of independents believe the election was stolen arround 17% of Democrats do, this is not simply only the people disappointed with the election result.
and despite how silly these beliefs are, or how there is no evidence of them being true, people will still cling to them. There are still people who cling to Qanon, even after Trump left office without unleashing "The storm". They just shift the goalposts and invent some new reason to keep the belief. and I guarantee that a majority of those who "believe" the election was "stolen would have done the same if the USSC ruled against them.
Quote
Right, like they accepted it when case after case failed to get the results they wanted. and failing that when the state legislatures didn't overturn the state elections, Or when the Electoral college cast their votes, or when Pence correctly said that he did not have the constitutional authority to reject Electoral votes during congressional confirmation...
Again I disagree , an open case that discussed the issues and the merits finding against Trump would have been accepted by his supporters,
Every step along the way they just found something new to hang their hat on in order to hold on to their belief. (Even after the inauguration, there are those that argue the "real" inauguration date isn't until March, and that's when Trump will be sworn in. Which is just about par for the course. Anyone who, after the last 4 years still believes that Trump was a great president will believe anything.
Quote
but refusing to hear the case they have absolutely shown themselves partial towards Biden.This last statement in of itself proves the point. In your mind, not hearing case couldn't have been on legal grounds, they had to be "partial to Biden". Your own statements bely your argument.
Quote
Because the state's own SC had already ruled on its constitutionality. Just because someone brings a case, does not mean they have legal grounds to do so. Court deny hearings when, in their opinion, such legal ground do not exist. Someone "believing" they have a case is not the same as actually having a case.QuoteAgain it's nothing to do with how they ran the election it was about unconstitutional changes to laws. That effected Texas and the electoral results.And again it was an issue with the State's constitution, not the US constitution, and other states have no business in telling a state how it should interpret its own constitution.
Again offiacls inside Pennsylvania also brought a case, wasnt just Texas and 20 other states, members of Pennsylvanian both private and political brought cases which were also not heard and denied a hearing.
Quote
For the umpteenth time: Not according to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has the final say. The only reason to get the USSC involved would be if you were arguing that the state's constitution violated the US constitution.There was no US constitution issue involved,as the US constitution gives states the right to run their own elections under their own election laws.QuoteCriminally according to what? Their state's own election laws?
If Texas had acted criminally absolutely they could and should.
Criminally according to the constitution that was ignored.
Quote
Even if true (And the funny thing about these type of"statistics" is that depending on how you interpret them, you can conclude just about what you want), This still means that more voters saw Biden as the better choice of the two, even if they didn't necessarily "like" him, they thought the other option was undesirable. Biden doesn't need to be a "great" president, just moderately capable, which in of itself would be a refreshing change to the last 4 years.I don't think you have any idea of how election laws work.QuoteAnd why is it that so many people also believe that their opinion has to equate to the majority opinion?
Because Biden is a joke, slightly more popular then Clinton, but the idea the man that wrote the patriot act, and has spent the last 50 years in politics building this neo liberal joke of a corporate nightmare, would be the most voted for person in American history, is laughable at best, people voted against Trump hadly anyone voted for Biden.
Sorry not an opinion, the statics show it, the majority of people who voted Biden didn't like him, they just voted against trump.
Quote
Of which there was NONE. Claiming there was a constitutional issue is not the same as there being a constitutional issue. There were those who tried to argue that there was one, but they got shot down in the courts as not having a case.This may be your opinion of Biden, but it isn't necessarily what the majority of people think of him.
It is likely true that many of the votes for Biden were votes against Trump. But that is just means that Trump lost this election as much as Biden won. And, if Biden is as bad as you say, that means a lot of voters thought Trump was even worse, and that, In their eyes, Trump was a horrible president, and they couldn't stand the idea of 4 more years of him.
* Actually, there is another reason. A good number of the people who signed on to this suit probably knew that it didn't have a leg to stand on, but they just wanted to look like good loyal soldiers to the Trump base. It was just political theatrics. They just counted on most Trump supporters not being well enough versed on the law to know this.
Which is a denial of the actual consitutional issue.
The instructor that taught Ted Cruz( who offered to argue the case to the supreme court) constitutional law, is quoted to say that Ted must have slept through that part of his class. (Most likely he didn't, and knew full well that the case didn't have a leg to stand on. But, hey, arguing that it did made him look good in the eyes of the Trump faithful, and that's what counted! That's just the type of weasel Cruz is.)
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/02/2021 19:21:17
But, hey, arguing that it did made him look good in the eyes of the Trump faithful, and that's what counted!I presume he got paid too.
Post by: Halc on 09/02/2021 19:43:12
A) The topic is inappropriate for general science section
B) The title did not ask a question as is required by the science sections. Putting a question mark behind an assertion does not make it a question, and the OP is definitely making unbacked assertions.
and
C) Because zero actual evidence of a rigged election has been presented, at least not rigged in the favor of the winning side.
Post by: Janus on 09/02/2021 19:51:27
If the case had been heard by the SC, and he had been able to argue it in front of them.But, hey, arguing that it did made him look good in the eyes of the Trump faithful, and that's what counted!I presume he got paid too.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/02/2021 00:01:00
Post by: Jolly2 on 10/02/2021 04:11:28
The supreme court's role is to adjudicate between states when they come into conflict. By refusing to hear the case they have shown partiality to Biden.Not according to the State's own Supreme Court, which has the final say on interpretation of the State's constitution. There were those that tried to argue that it was unconstitutional, which is their right, But once the state's SC rules, it's a done deal, because it is the State's SC that has the power to determine constitutionality not other states that might disagree with that ruling.
Ues absolutely unconstitutional under the Pennsylvanias constitution.QuoteNo, by refusing to hear the case they were stating that those states bringing the suit had no legal basis for objecting to how another state interpreted it's own constitution. They were ruling that this was not a valid case to bring to the USSC.
No you have to have a court case to have a ruling, hear the arguments for and against. They refused to have a court hearing.
So your point is wrong.
Again, states have the authority to run their own elections under their own election laws. This is why some states have only vote by mail, some have open primaries and other don't etc.
And that's fine, what's not fine is to ignore the law when making changes. And the State's SC ruled that they had not, and they are the ones that determine what is or is not legal under the state constitution.
Again they made no ruling they refused to hear it.
Wrong, open to anyone who believed there was incorrect behaviour, 30% of independents believe the election was stolen arround 17% of Democrats do, this is not simply only the people disappointed with the election result.So, what? The courts job is to determine law, not to assuage anyone's "beliefs". People can "believe" a lot of stupid stuff: That the world is flat, in astrology, that the Moon landings were faked, That giant space lasers started the California wildfires...
and despite how silly these beliefs are, or how there is no evidence of them being true, people will still cling to them. There are still people who cling to Qanon, even after Trump left office without unleashing "The storm". They just shift the goalposts and invent some new reason to keep the belief. and I guarantee that a majority of those who "believe" the election was "stolen would have done the same if the USSC ruled against them.QuoteRight, like they accepted it when case after case failed to get the results they wanted. and failing that when the state legislatures didn't overturn the state elections, Or when the Electoral college cast their votes, or when Pence correctly said that he did not have the constitutional authority to reject Electoral votes during congressional confirmation...
Again I disagree , an open case that discussed the issues and the merits finding against Trump would have been accepted by his supporters,
Every step along the way they just found something new to hang their hat on in order to hold on to their belief. (Even after the inauguration, there are those that argue the "real" inauguration date isn't until March, and that's when Trump will be sworn in. Which is just about par for the course. Anyone who, after the last 4 years still believes that Trump was a great president will believe anything.Quotebut refusing to hear the case they have absolutely shown themselves partial towards Biden.This last statement in of itself proves the point. In your mind, not hearing case couldn't have been on legal grounds, they had to be "partial to Biden". Your own statements bely your argument.
20 states with Texas believed this unconstitutional, your position that it's just trump voters fails. And yes when 20 states turn up saying we believe this action was unconstitutional and the court says "we are not interested in hearing it" that absolutely serves the people the 20 states are trying to bring a case against.
Because the state's own SC had already ruled on its constitutionality.QuoteAgain it's nothing to do with how they ran the election it was about unconstitutional changes to laws. That effected Texas and the electoral results.And again it was an issue with the State's constitution, not the US constitution, and other states have no business in telling a state how it should interpret its own constitution.
Again offiacls inside Pennsylvania also brought a case, wasnt just Texas and 20 other states, members of Pennsylvanian both private and political brought cases which were also not heard and denied a hearing.
No they didn't they refused to hear it.
Just because someone brings a case, does not mean they have legal grounds to do so. Court deny hearings when, in their opinion, such legal ground do not exist. Someone "believing" they have a case is not the same as actually having a case.Quote
Wrong. When 20 attorney general's turn up saying they see a problem. To ignore them as the SCOTUS did is totally inappropriate. I get it they were too scared to actually do their job.
For the umpteenth time: Not according to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has the final say. The only reason to get the USSC involved would be if you were arguing that the state's constitution violated the US constitution.There was no US constitution issue involved,as the US constitution gives states the right to run their own elections under their own election laws.QuoteCriminally according to what? Their state's own election laws?
If Texas had acted criminally absolutely they could and should.
Criminally according to the constitution that was ignored.Quote
No Act 77 was unconstitutional, as was argued to have changed the law as they did they need a referendum of the people which never happened.
Even if true (And the funny thing about these type of"statistics" is that depending on how you interpret them, you can conclude just about what you want), This still means that more voters saw Biden as the better choice of the two, even if they didn't necessarily "like" him, they thought the other option was undesirable. Biden doesn't need to be a "great" president, just moderately capable, which in of itself would be a refreshing change to the last 4 years.I don't think you have any idea of how election laws work.QuoteAnd why is it that so many people also believe that their opinion has to equate to the majority opinion?
Because Biden is a joke, slightly more popular then Clinton, but the idea the man that wrote the patriot act, and has spent the last 50 years in politics building this neo liberal joke of a corporate nightmare, would be the most voted for person in American history, is laughable at best, people voted against Trump hadly anyone voted for Biden.
Sorry not an opinion, the statics show it, the majority of people who voted Biden didn't like him, they just voted against trump.Quote
Not if there was fraud there isnt.
Of which there was NONE. Claiming there was a constitutional issue is not the same as there being a constitutional issue. There were those who tried to argue that there was one, but they got shot down in the courts as not having a case.This may be your opinion of Biden, but it isn't necessarily what the majority of people think of him.
It is likely true that many of the votes for Biden were votes against Trump. But that is just means that Trump lost this election as much as Biden won. And, if Biden is as bad as you say, that means a lot of voters thought Trump was even worse, and that, In their eyes, Trump was a horrible president, and they couldn't stand the idea of 4 more years of him.
* Actually, there is another reason. A good number of the people who signed on to this suit probably knew that it didn't have a leg to stand on, but they just wanted to look like good loyal soldiers to the Trump base. It was just political theatrics. They just counted on most Trump supporters not being well enough versed on the law to know this.
Which is a denial of the actual consitutional issue.
The instructor that taught Ted Cruz( who offered to argue the case to the supreme court) constitutional law, is quoted to say that Ted must have slept through that part of his class. (Most likely he didn't, and knew full well that the case didn't have a leg to stand on. But, hey, arguing that it did made him look good in the eyes of the Trump faithful, and that's what counted! That's just the type of weasel Cruz is.)
You really dont see anything past the propaganda
And you need to learn to quote properly.
Ultimately the trick you and the people you are serving are playing is to claim refusing to hear a case is giving a ruling, it is NOT! It is nothing more then refusing to look at it. And the actions of the SCOTUS is an absolute disgrace that has betrayed its purpose and reason for existing, it is nothing more than a betrayal of its duty, and a betrayal of the country and all it's people. A total failure, which the millions of Americans that now have no faith in the legal system, will remember for generations.
They should have heard the cases listened to the arguments and made a ruling their cowardice in not having the guts to do so, I think will be a stain on their reputation for a long time.
Post by: evan_au on 10/02/2021 07:58:40
Quote from: Jolly2
Share with you this time magazine articleI see that you and someone I know on the opposite side of the world post the same claims about Donald Trump, on roughly the same day.
What echo chamber is controlling your views of Donald Trump?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/02/2021 08:45:33
No you have to have a court case to have a ruling, hear the arguments for and against.Yes and no.
You can have a pre-trial hearing to see if the case is worthy of the court's time.
If I killed my brother and his wife tried to get the case heard in Texas because she wanted me to face the death penalty she could send the case to court and there would be a hearing.
That hearing would decide that since the killing did not take place in Texas the case was outside their jurisdiction.
And they would decide not to waste the court's time on an issue that they had no authority over.
Similarly, if my brother died and his wife thought that I was responsible because I'm a wizard, and had cast a spell on him by singing in the shower, she could take that case to a UK court .
Again there would be a pre trial hearing at which the court would (presumably) find that singing in the shower isn't illegal.
There would be no trial at which any other witnesses would be called because the pre trial hearing recognised that the case was without merit.
That's what happened to some of Trump's allegations of electoral fraud; there just wasn't a case.
But in some of the allegations - like the one under discussion, the court decided that regardless of the merit of the allegation- the claim that a state broke its own laws- it happened somewhere else so it was outside the court's jurisdiction. And so they would decide not to have a trial.
Just the same as my brother's wife couldn't have me tried in Texas, even if I was obviously a murderer.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/02/2021 09:25:49
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/02/2021 10:52:38
With a tally of something like 60 vacuous cases, the Trump camp should be careful.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/02/2021 11:24:08
Post by: Jolly2 on 10/02/2021 22:42:00
Quote from: Jolly2Share with you this time magazine articleI see that you and someone I know on the opposite side of the world post the same claims about Donald Trump, on roughly the same day.
What echo chamber is controlling your views of Donald Trump?
I was just up late.
Post by: Jolly2 on 10/02/2021 22:46:02
I think the court can also punish a vexatious litigant for contempt.
With a tally of something like 60 vacuous cases, the Trump camp should be careful.
There are not vacuous, they refused to hear them, Trump never got a pre-trial.
And with the supreme court some judges did vote to have the case heard. The majority didn't.
The majority closed their eyes and refused to look. Shambolic, they are given life time membership on the supreme court so they can act without fear, and they didnt. They have shown themselves partial well not all, but the majority.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/02/2021 23:08:13
There are not vacuous
Various government departments didn't find evidence of widespread voter fraud, which is pretty strong evidence that Trump's cases were vacuous (please don't say that those departments were in on the conspiracy. Please!): https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/its-official-election-was-secure
Post by: alancalverd on 10/02/2021 23:40:37
And with the supreme court some judges did vote to have the case heard. The majority didn't.The majority being Trump's appointees or sitting Republicans. His appointed Attorney General said there was no case to put, and resigned.
PUS was clearly insane but nobody had the guts to invoke the 25th amendment, preferring to see the GOP committing political suicide instead.
Post by: Jolly2 on 11/02/2021 16:17:01
And with the supreme court some judges did vote to have the case heard. The majority didn't.The majority being Trump's appointees or sitting Republicans. His appointed Attorney General said there was no case to put, and resigned.
Same attorney general that effectively screwed Trump over during the impeachment. It's very clear today that Mr Burr was an enemy of Trumps
PUS was clearly insane but nobody had the guts to invoke the 25th amendment, preferring to see the GOP committing political suicide instead.
By No one you mean Mike Pence.
Post by: Jolly2 on 11/02/2021 16:20:09
There are not vacuous
Various government departments didn't find evidence of widespread voter fraud, which is pretty strong evidence that Trump's cases were vacuous (please don't say that those departments were in on the conspiracy. Please!): https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/its-official-election-was-secure
Relates to Russian or foreign interference, not democratic interference, the report clearly missed the giant Cabal that was suppressing information, controlling the information flow and unconstitutionally changing election laws.
What a great report.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2021 16:23:02
It's very clear today that Mr Burr was an enemy of TrumpsSo either the Wisest President Ever deliberately chose an enemy as Attorney General, which seems unlikely, or His Holiness did something so egregious that his personal arselicker resigned rather than be associated with a sinking rat.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2021 16:25:53
By No one you mean Mike Pence.or anyone else. The 25th amendment requires Congressional approval.
Post by: Jolly2 on 11/02/2021 16:38:20
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/its-official-election-was-secure
We need to look back at the claims of the Cabal. They claimed they were fortifying democracy.
The issue is what do they mean by democracy?
To quote chomsky
"Let me begin by counter-posing two different conceptions of democracy. One conception of democracy has it that a democratic society is one in which the public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the management of their own affairs and the means of information are open and free. . . .
An alternative conception of democracy is that the public must be barred from managing of their own affairs and the means of information must be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled. That may sound like an odd conception of democracy, but it’s important to understand that it is the prevailing conception"
In this sense this cabal of business leaders oligarchs and civil rights activists were absolutely acting to defend democracy but their definition of democracy is that the public must be barred from managing of their own affairs.
This article is a total confession that they rigged the election to prevent the population choosing a leader the establishment didn't want.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
A quote from the article:-
"even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people,"
Who have chomskys secound definition as their defintion
ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to"
The imposed illusion.
"influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information."
A requirement of the secound definition is to heavily control information flow
"They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it."
Yes they were fortifying their definition of democracy.
---
In a great piece of journalism from Jimmy dore looking into this conspiracy.
One of the civil rights activists that approached Twitter and Facebook to increase censorship as part of this conspiracy has now been given a job in the Biden administration.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/02/2021 17:15:39
Relates to Russian or foreign interference, not democratic interference
Where do you get that? Election fraud is a form of democratic interference.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/02/2021 17:23:42
This article is a total confession that they rigged the election to prevent the population choosing a leader the establishment didn't want.Explaining to voters that Trump is incompetent is not "rigging the election".
Incidentally, perhaps you could tell us which of Biden's actual policies you object to and why.
Post by: Jolly2 on 11/02/2021 17:38:58
Relates to Russian or foreign interference, not democratic interference
Where do you get that? Election fraud is a form of democratic interference.
The report you reference was set up in response to allegations of Russian interference.
Post by: Jolly2 on 11/02/2021 18:01:24
This article is a total confession that they rigged the election to prevent the population choosing a leader the establishment didn't want.Explaining to voters that Trump is incompetent is not "rigging the election".
You have a very strange definition of "explaining"
Incidentally, perhaps you could tell us which of Biden's actual policies you object to and why.
Wow where to being?
Well on day one of his administration, Biden decided to send more troops to Syria.
He is also breaking previous agreements with Afghanistan to remove troops from the country and so is leaving them there.
He is also filling up his entire administration with people from the corporate sector just like Obama did, and his picks are horrible.
His administration is also along with people like Mike Pompeo pushing propaganda about Iran in a possible build up to war with the country.
Biden has already stated he will recognise Mr Guaido as Venezuelas President. even tho Mr Guaido no longer holds any public office in the country.
Biden is pushing ahead hard, with the extradition of Julian Assange.
He has also stated publicly that Russian Aggression will no longer be tolerated and cited the now debunked lie of Russia gate as evidence of that aggression.
He told all Americans before the election they would be sent 2000 dollar checks if they voted for him. He is now claiming he meant 14 hundred dollars checks that combined with the 600 dollars they previously received will add up to 2000 dollars. So broke a campaign pledged and lied.
This is just looking at some of his current activities...
Biden is a war mongering neo liberal tool of corrupt corporate power and nothing good for America or the world will emerge from his administration
Post by: Jolly2 on 11/02/2021 18:11:59
A long long time ago
Yet some can still remember
There was a crash upon wall street
And people queued for a long time
Trying to get food to survive
And things went a bit nutty
For a while.
And now it's all just happened again
To increase the wealth of a few rich men
And well its really all insane
The day the system died
So bye bye the American lie
They gone commie it's not funny and they're in the house white
I heard Bidens speak
And I started to cry
Thinking oh my God the systems just fried
Of my God the systems just died.
Did you write the book of law?
Do you have faith anymore,
When the politicans tell you so?
Do you believe in the free market
Should the system save wall street from dip?
Can you teach me what to do with my cash floow?
Well I know Biden' a commie now,
Given half the country to ho ming tao.
Just dont know what do...
so I'll write another lyric or two, ouu
I was a lonely teenage investor jock
With a small portfolio and some game stop stock.
And a I knew would sell me more stock the day the system died.
I STARTED SINGING
Bye bye the American lie
They gone commie it's not funny and they're in the house white
I heard Biden speak
And I started to cry
Thinking
Oh my God the systems just fired
Oh my God the systems just died...
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/02/2021 18:43:45
He is also filling up his entire administration with people from the corporate sector just like Obama did, and his picks are horrible.What fraction of them have criminal convictions and how does this compare to Trump?
How many of them are his family and how does this compare to Trump.
pushing propaganda about Iran in a possible build up to war with the country.Pure speculation.
Biden has already stated he will recognise Mr Guaido as Venezuelas President.Well, with China, Cuba, Iran, Russia, Syria, and Turkey supporting Maduro, that seems like a good move.
|It means he's aligned with the Western world. (And, of course, that also demonstrates Trump's political links with Russia).
Biden is pushing ahead hard, with the extradition of Julian Assange.Yep, but it's not happening. The UK already ruled that it would be ilegal.
He has also stated publicly that Russian AggressionSee the comments on Venezuela.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not a huge fan of Biden.
But all he has to be, for me to celebrate, is better than Trump; and he is.
Post by: Jolly2 on 11/02/2021 20:45:25
He is also filling up his entire administration with people from the corporate sector just like Obama did, and his picks are horrible.What fraction of them have criminal convictions and how does this compare to Trump?
How many of them are his family and how does this compare to Trump.
What criminal convictions?
pushing propaganda about Iran in a possible build up to war with the country.Pure speculation.
Ok when war breaks out you'll finally accept they want one. Great
Biden has already stated he will recognise Mr Guaido as Venezuelas President.Well, with China, Cuba, Iran, Russia, Syria, and Turkey supporting Maduro, that seems like a good move.
|It means he's aligned with the Western world. (And, of course, that also demonstrates Trump's political links with Russia).
Very Democratic. Former us presidents like Cater over saw the elections in Venezuela, they were fine. You are a toady for the swamp.
Biden is pushing ahead hard, with the extradition of Julian Assange.Yep, but it's not happening. The UK already ruled that it would be ilegal.
It's being appealed. So much for British justice Assange is in prison and being tortured by Britian with out any crime committed. His year for skipping a bail hearing is over.
He has also stated publicly that Russian AggressionSee the comments on Venezuela.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not a huge fan of Biden.
But all he has to be, for me to celebrate, is better than Trump; and he is.
No he isnt, in no way is Biden better, the many who will now die in wars Trump didnt and wouldn't launch will show that.
Post by: Jolly2 on 11/02/2021 20:47:51
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/its-official-election-was-secure
We need to look back at the claims of the Cabal. They claimed they were fortifying democracy.
The issue is what do they mean by democracy?
To quote chomsky
"Let me begin by counter-posing two different conceptions of democracy. One conception of democracy has it that a democratic society is one in which the public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the management of their own affairs and the means of information are open and free. . . .
An alternative conception of democracy is that the public must be barred from managing of their own affairs and the means of information must be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled. That may sound like an odd conception of democracy, but it’s important to understand that it is the prevailing conception"
In this sense this cabal of business leaders oligarchs and civil rights activists were absolutely acting to defend democracy but their definition of democracy is that the public must be barred from managing of their own affairs.
This article is a total confession that they rigged the election to prevent the population choosing a leader the establishment didn't want.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
A quote from the article:-
"even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people,"
Who have chomskys secound definition as their defintion
ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to"
The imposed illusion.
"influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information."
A requirement of the secound definition is to heavily control information flow
"They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it."
Yes they were fortifying their definition of democracy.
---
In a great piece of journalism from Jimmy dore looking into this conspiracy.
One of the civil rights activists that approached Twitter and Facebook to increase censorship as part of this conspiracy has now been given a job in the Biden administration.
Under the first definition of democracy which most Trump supporters believe, the election was categorically stolen.
Under the secound, faking elections is what democracy is.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/02/2021 21:02:44
On the definition that he's not the president, he lost.
The election wasn't "stolen"; it was squandered by that orange idiot.
It's being appealed. So much for British justice Assange is in prison and being tortured by Britian with out any crime committed. His year for skipping a bail hearing is over.All that time in jail because the Americans were trying to extradite him.
You should find out who was in charge and complain about them.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/02/2021 21:04:13
in no way is Biden better,Not saying he will build a wall is better.
Not bragging about grabbing woman by the ***** is better
Not inciting insurrection is better.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/02/2021 21:04:42
You are a toady for the swamp.Donald is the swamp.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/02/2021 21:06:40
What criminal convictions?https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-associates-prison-faced-criminal-charges/story?id=68358219
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-bannon-associates-factbox-idUSKBN25G1YU
Post by: Kryptid on 11/02/2021 21:12:05
If you are going to define a "stolen election" as one where politicians and other powerful interest groups have manipulated public perceptions, information, and laws in order to influence the results, then there had probably never been a presidential election in the United States that wasn't stolen.
Post by: evan_au on 11/02/2021 21:23:45
Quote from: Jolly2 on Today at 16:38:20
This article is a total confession that they rigged the election to prevent the population choosing a leader the establishment didn't want.
Quote from: Bored Chemist
Explaining to voters that Trump is incompetent is not "rigging the election".I disagree with both of you.
From my reading of this article, the people involved in this campaign spanned the whole spectrum of US politics
- That means that some of them wanted Trump to win
- That is why this group did not try to support one candidate over another (like all political parties do, and some lobby groups do)
The bipartisan goal of this group was to:
- Ensure that processes were in place so the results of the election could be stated with confidence (and proven)
- Ensure that as many eligible voters as possible were able to vote
- some previous US elections found people who turned up to vote had their names struck off the list because they were supposedly dead;
- or turned away because they didn't own a driver's license - because, obviously, car ownership is a better indication of being a True American than your citizenship...
- funny enough, this tended to happen more often to African-Americans in the Southern Confederate states
- This became doubly important with COVID-19; many older people did not feel safe going to a crowded polling place in person, and many of the polling staff were retirees who didn't feel safe doing a day's work at the polling station.
- This had shut down a lot of polling stations earlier in 2020, leaving people with nowhere to vote.
So they worked with multiple states to inform people on the realistic options for postal votes that exist in most states
- This article claims that something like half of the ballots were cast by mail-in votes.
- Sounds very sensible in a pandemic!
- They also worked with media and state governments to set the expectation that it would take longer to get a result this year
- The US is used to election results being reported as soon as the polling station closes
- With "first past the post" voting and electronic polling machines, you close the doors and read the answer from the machine(s)
- With postal voting, there is a lot of manual handling and identity checks, so it takes a lot longer
- Trump always said that COVID was nothing, so Trump's supporters boldly went to polling stations in person; so the instant electronic results favored Trump
- Biden's supporters knew that COVID was real, so they preferred to use mail-in votes. These were added to the tally hours later
- That's why Trump's supporters wanted to "stop the count" before the mail votes could be counted
Post by: Jolly2 on 11/02/2021 22:53:16
Quote from: Jolly2 on Today at 16:38:20
This article is a total confession that they rigged the election to prevent the population choosing a leader the establishment didn't want.Quote from: Bored ChemistExplaining to voters that Trump is incompetent is not "rigging the election".I disagree with both of you.
From my reading of this article, the people involved in this campaign spanned the whole spectrum of US politics
- That means that some of them wanted Trump to win
- That is why this group did not try to support one candidate over another (like all political parties do, and some lobby groups do)
Factually incorrect as the news related to Hunter Biden shows. They suppressed the news story and still are, not only did many news sourses refuse to report on the story, Facebook and Twitter both banned reference on their platforms.
They clearly worked to promote negative news about Trump and suppress negative news about Biden, including stories of women who claimed Biden sexually assaulted them, so much for "me too" when it comes to the democratic nominee.
The bipartisan goal of this group was to:
- Ensure that processes were in place so the results of the election could be stated with confidence (and proven)
- Ensure that as many eligible voters as possible were able to vote
Even dead ones
- some previous US elections found people who turned up to vote had their names struck off the list because they were supposedly dead;
- or turned away because they didn't own a driver's license - because, obviously, car ownership is a better indication of being a True American than your citizenship...
In this recent election many people were told on arriving at the polling station that they had already voted.
- funny enough, this more often to African-Americans in the Southern Confederate states
- This became doubly important with COVID-19; many older people did not feel safe going to a crowded polling place in person, and many of the polling staff were retirees who didn't feel safe doing a day's work at the polling station.
An excuse and a lie, as was stated repeatedly with social distancing and masks there was no risk in going to vote normally.
- This had shut down a lot of polling stations earlier in 2020, leaving people with nowhere to vote.
Shut down by Democrats how convenient.
So they worked with multiple states to inform people on the realistic options for postal votes that exist in most states
- This article claims that something like half of the ballots were cast by mail-in votes.
- Sounds very sensible in a pandemic!
Well it's all.about appearances. Reality is once a ballot is separated from it envelope, it is impossible to identify whose ballot it was or if it was legitimate, hence anyone inclined to do so can easily add ballots that cannot be shown fraudulent.
- They also worked with media and state governments to set the expectation that it would take longer to get a result this year
- The US is used to election results being reported as soon as the polling station closes
- With "first past the post" voting and electronic polling machines, you close the doors and read the answer from the machine(s)
- With postal voting, there is a lot of manual handling and identity checks, so it takes a lot longer
There should have been more checks, the law changes this cabal imposed, removed many of those checks.
- Trump always said that COVID was nothing, so Trump's supporters boldly went to polling stations in person; so the instant electronic results favored Trump
- Biden's supporters knew that COVID was real, so they preferred to use mail-in votes. These were added to the tally hours later
- That's why Trump's supporters wanted to "stop the count" before the mail votes could be counted
No many states counted the mail in ballots first, but other states had allowed ballots to be received days after the election had finished the calls to stop counting were because before the law changes all countable bailouts had to be in on election day.
As I pointed out before once a ballot is removed from its envelope, there is no way to know if it is legitimate or not, hence the people calling for the count to stop were concerned fake ballots were being added.
The reality that they stopped counting during election night is also highly suspicious, some have suggested they stopped counting to check the numbers needed to guarantee a Biden victory, then added them.
Bottom line the democracy this Cabal was defending is a democracy where faking elections results, is demanded and an essential element of it.
Post by: Jolly2 on 11/02/2021 22:54:07
Foreign interference would have been only a part of the investigation. No evidence of widespread domestic voter fraud was found either.
If you are going to define a "stolen election" as one where politicians and other powerful interest groups have manipulated public perceptions, information, and laws in order to influence the results, then there had probably never been a presidential election in the United States that wasn't stolen.
I know just Trump in 2016 which was an accident.
Post by: Jolly2 on 11/02/2021 22:55:21
You are a toady for the swamp.Donald is the swamp.
Clearly demonstrated by the FBI CIA NSA and the Democrats inventing Russia gate to attack him. The swamp is the American establishment
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2021 23:29:38
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 09:07:48
Clearly demonstrated by the FBI CIA NSA and the Democrats inventing Russia gateNo
You forgot that you already showed that Trump is on Russia's side- his support for the fake Venezuelan president proves it.
And, of course, though you didn't seem to know about it, Trump's allies are involved with Russia.
GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS
The former Trump campaign adviser was sentenced in September 2018 to 14 days in prison after pleading guilty in October 2017 to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian officials and a Maltese professor who told him the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton.
And, just to add to the entertainment, here's a good point.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 18:45:53
Clearly demonstrated by the FBI CIA NSA and the Democrats inventing Russia gateNo
You forgot that you already showed that Trump is on Russia's side- his support for the fake Venezuelan president proves it.
And, of course, though you didn't seem to know about it, Trump's allies are involved with Russia.
At no time did I suggest Trump supported Maduro. In one of our last discussions Trumps actions against Venezuela were part of my critic of his presidency.
So if you are going to comment you should atleast have a clue what you are talking about.
Trump massively sanctioned Venezuela, he also supported Guaido. Trump even tried to stage a military cu against the Venezuelan government which failed and lead to the arrest of the military people involved.
Biden is doing this same thing as Trump and supporting Guaido.
Trumps failed cu attempt against Mauro
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-53686509
Biden's position is worse then Trumps, Trump was nominating an elected official to be the president of Venezuela, Guaido has since lost that position in the last election, Biden is now nominating a member of the Venezuelan public with no public support to be president.
His choice to do so, shows not only his intention to continue Americas policy of cu attempts, it also shows an utterly simplistic reading of the situation. Let's see if he drops Trump's sanctions on the country. They are not even allowed medicines, apparently socialism destroys countries, those that claim it somehow ignore the horror sanctions impose.
GUAIDO SUPPORTS US SANCTIONS
https://www.aljazeera.com/videos/2019/8/8/juan-guaido-supports-us-sanctions-against-venezuela-government
The idea anyone could support sanctions on his own country that stops children getting medications is bad enough but coming from someone claiming they should be president is a testament to just how unfit Guaido is for the office he claims to deserve, the guys a disgrace. Somehow mr chemist supports this, for shame.
If you are gonna keep being a toady troll for the swamp you need to research better.
GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS
The former Trump campaign adviser was sentenced in September 2018 to 14 days in prison after pleading guilty in October 2017 to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian officials and a Maltese professor who told him the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton.
And, just to add to the entertainment, here's a good point.Trumpy.jpg (116.36 kB . 941x709 - viewed 2388 times)
They also arrest people for lying. Really doesnt change that Russia gate and the alleged hacking of the DNC was nonsense, as was Russian interference in the election, as was the John pedesta "hack" and the steal dossier.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 18:47:21
Trump rigged the election. He said so. Then he lost, thus demonstrating his utter incompetence. Or was he lying when he said he was certain to win?
If the Cabal hadn't acted the way they did he would have won. It's their confessed reason to have acted, "democracy" isnt self sustaining, it needs a Cabal to work.
Of course only the secound definition of democracy given by
chomsky needs that.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 20:04:32
What criminal convictions?https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-associates-prison-faced-criminal-charges/story?id=68358219
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-bannon-associates-factbox-idUSKBN25G1YU
Yes convictions. Not allegations
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 20:07:15
.It's being appealed. So much for British justice Assange is in prison and being tortured by Britian with out any crime committed. His year for skipping a bail hearing is over.All that time in jail because the Americans were trying to extradite him.
You should find out who was in charge and complain about them.
The British didn't need to arrest him, over extradition, they dont need to keep him in prison now, they certainly dont need to be torturing him.
Extradition isnt a justification to arrest and hold him. This is Britian actively persecuting a journalist.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 20:09:55
in no way is Biden better,Not saying he will build a wall is better.
Not the be outdone Some are claiming Bidens surveillance wall will be worse.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/biden-immigration-surveillance/
Not bragging about grabbing woman by the ***** is better
Sorry Trump said women LET you grab them, if you're famous. Hence the word LET. Which was a comment made while joking with others it was a comment.
Biden actually has women claiming he physically assaulted them. Trump is words, Biden is actions. Biden is worse by far
Not inciting insurrection is better.
Which trump didn't do.
During the speech he said, "let's walk peacefully to the Capitol"
Post by: Hayseed on 12/02/2021 20:11:13
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 20:16:59
Politics is like science and journalism. The participants start believing their own lies.
I don't agree, politicians know they are lying, they have to keep a track on their lies or they will get shown up.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 20:41:55
This is Britian actively persecuting a journalist.Yes it is.
And they were doing it long before Biden was elected so it's not because Biden is president, is it?
It's irrelevant.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 20:42:57
¼Yes convidtions e.g.What criminal convictions?https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-associates-prison-faced-criminal-charges/story?id=68358219
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-bannon-associates-factbox-idUSKBN25G1YU
Yes convictions. Not allegations
Manafort was found guilty on a slew of financial crime charges related to his lobbying work in Ukraine and is currently serving an 81-month prison sentence. Meanwhile, Gates, who had struck a plea deal early on in the case, was recently sentenced to 36 months probation and 45 days in jail
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 20:44:46
Trump is words,Given that, until very recently, Trump was president, can you think of a reason why the allegations may not yet have been proven?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 20:52:51
During the speech he said, "let's walk peacefully to the Capitol"What else did he say?
"They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before. By the way, last night, they didn’t do a bad job either,"
"ll of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they’re doing and stolen by the fake news media. That’s what they’ve done and what they’re doing. We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved."
"We will not take it any more and that’s what this is all about. To use a favourite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal."
"I won them both and the second one, I won much bigger than the first."
"Crowd: Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump!
Thank you. "
"Great. You’re doing a great job, but I’d love it if they could be allowed to come up here with us. Is that possible? Can you just let them come up, please? Rudy, you did a great job. He’s got guts. You know what? He’s got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican party. He’s got guts, he fights. He fights,"
And
"We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
All in all he uses the word "fight" 23 times in that speech.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 20:55:19
Biden's position is worse then Trumps,Then is not the same word as than.
Please learn the difference.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 20:56:04
way
Trump is words,Given that, until very recently, Trump was president, can you think of a reason why the allegations may not yet have been proven?
Irrelevant, convictions are convictions and allegations allegations.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 20:57:11
Biden's position is worse then Trumps,Then is not the same word as than.
Please learn the difference.
How about you stop nitpicking as part of your trolling
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 21:02:27
This is Britian actively persecuting a journalist.Yes it is.
And they were doing it long before Biden was elected so it's not because Biden is president, is it?
It's irrelevant.
Wasnt relating Britians behaviour to Biden even if Biden dropped the charges against Assange its clear Britain won't let him out of prison.
I was merely pointing out that Biden is more aggressive in seeking an appeal against the Verdict to refuse to extradite Assange. It was in the end the Obama Biden administration that caused Assange to seek refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in the first place, Obama prosecuted more whistle blowers then all previous administrations combined, Biden will.just carry on as before, Biden is a disgrace.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 21:05:30
¼Yes convidtions e.g.What criminal convictions?https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-associates-prison-faced-criminal-charges/story?id=68358219
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-bannon-associates-factbox-idUSKBN25G1YU
Yes convictions. Not allegations
Manafort was found guilty
And the point of changing the conversation from Trump to Manafort serves what purpose? Other then you muddling the conversational waters?
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 21:10:44
During the speech he said, "let's walk peacefully to the Capitol"What else did he say?
"They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before. By the way, last night, they didn’t do a bad job either,"
"ll of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they’re doing and stolen by the fake news media. That’s what they’ve done and what they’re doing. We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved."
"We will not take it any more and that’s what this is all about. To use a favourite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal."
"I won them both and the second one, I won much bigger than the first."
"Crowd: Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump!
Thank you. "
"Great. You’re doing a great job, but I’d love it if they could be allowed to come up here with us. Is that possible? Can you just let them come up, please? Rudy, you did a great job. He’s got guts. You know what? He’s got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican party. He’s got guts, he fights. He fights,"
And
"We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
All in all he uses the word "fight" 23 times in that speech.
You really are a toady. When did you finally decide to get on your knees for the swamp thing exactly?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 21:11:32
As previously discussed, it shows that he's the swamp.¼Yes convidtions e.g.What criminal convictions?https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-associates-prison-faced-criminal-charges/story?id=68358219
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-bannon-associates-factbox-idUSKBN25G1YU
Yes convictions. Not allegations
Manafort was found guilty
And the point of changing the conversation from Trump to Manafort serves what purpose? Other then you muddling the conversational waters?
Had you forgotten?
Quote from: Jolly2 on Yesterday at 18:01:24
He is also filling up his entire administration with people from the corporate sector just like Obama did, and his picks are horrible.
What fraction of them have criminal convictions and how does this compare to Trump?
How many of them are his family and how does this compare to Trump.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 21:12:46
When did you finally decide to get on your knees for the swamp thing exactly?I'm certainly not on my knees for Trump, so this post of yours (like so many) makes no sense.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 21:19:11
As previously discussed, it shows that he's the swamp.¼Yes convidtions e.g.What criminal convictions?https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-associates-prison-faced-criminal-charges/story?id=68358219
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-bannon-associates-factbox-idUSKBN25G1YU
Yes convictions. Not allegations
Manafort was found guilty
And the point of changing the conversation from Trump to Manafort serves what purpose? Other then you muddling the conversational waters?
Had you forgotten?Quote from: Jolly2 on Yesterday at 18:01:24
He is also filling up his entire administration with people from the corporate sector just like Obama did, and his picks are horrible.
What fraction of them have criminal convictions and how does this compare to Trump?
How many of them are his family and how does this compare to Trump.
Right someone else being convicted of lying, proves Trump is the swamp. Even tho all the swampy establishment groups like the NSA CIA FBI Pentagon, democratic and Republican parties all hate him. Yeah cut and dry.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 21:20:30
When did you finally decide to get on your knees for the swamp thing exactly?I'm certainly not on my knees for Trump, so this post of yours (like so many) makes no sense.
No your on your knees for the Time magazine Cabal. That cabal is the swamp and they all just like the security services hate Trump. Just like you do.
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/02/2021 02:20:55
During the speech he said, "let's walk peacefully to the Capitol"What else did he say?...
"Great. You’re doing a great job, but I’d love it if they could be allowed to come up here with us. Is that possible? Can you just let them come up, please? Rudy, you did a great job. He’s got guts. You know what? He’s got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican party. He’s got guts, he fights. He fights,"
And
"We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
All in all he uses the word "fight" 23 times in that speech.
Wow, here are some Democrats
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2021 13:07:42
Wow, here are some Democrats
Show me the one who used the word "fight" 23 times in one speech.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2021 13:10:13
No your on your knees for the Time magazine Cabal.No.
But it's good to see that you are working on your spelling.
Now you have got the hang of "cabal", try to find out the difference between "your" and "you're".
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/02/2021 19:22:55
Wow, here are some Democrats
Show me the one who used the word "fight" 23 times in one speech.
No your on your knees for the Time magazine Cabal.No.
But it's good to see that you are working on your spelling.
Now you have got the hang of "cabal", try to find out the difference between "your" and "you're".
Well amazing job, has nothing to do.with the topic at hand. You're a Troll
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2021 20:07:39
Others may hold a different view.
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/02/2021 20:43:59
So, you don't think Trump telling his followers to fight to overturn the lection result is relevant to the fact that he's facing a charge of insurrection.
Others may hold a different view.
The impeachment hearing has nothing to do with incitement to riot, they are seeking to prevent Trump running for office again. Its entirely a political trial. The Democrats spent most of 2020 inciting people to riot.
Kamala Harris on the riots happening across the country in 2020 "they are not going to stop and they should not stop"
You'll have to suck it up.
Trump just got acquitted.
TRUMP 2024🥳
All adding up
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2021 18:40:56
https://www.businessinsider.com/proud-boys-group-splinters-after-enrique-tarrio-outed-fbi-2021-2?r=US&IR=T&fbclid=IwAR1jlixBJyReteaPSlbJ47ZGOd4cOndHAhTdmKfPP4OXfh8nl7HDEvSJJCY
Kamala Harris on the riots happening across the country in 2020 "they are not going to stop and they should not stop"There doesn't seem to be any evidence that she said that.
Post by: Jolly2 on 17/02/2021 21:47:14
Well, this is funny.
https://www.businessinsider.com/proud-boys-group-splinters-after-enrique-tarrio-outed-fbi-2021-2?r=US&IR=T&fbclid=IwAR1jlixBJyReteaPSlbJ47ZGOd4cOndHAhTdmKfPP4OXfh8nl7HDEvSJJCYKamala Harris on the riots happening across the country in 2020 "they are not going to stop and they should not stop"There doesn't seem to be any evidence that she said that.
Yep clearly did your homework 5:30 on.
"They are not going to stop they are not going to let up and they should not"
https://nationalfile.com/kamala-is-a-pathological-liar-struggling-to-score-diversity-points/
"Recently, Kamala was caught in an obvious lie. She claimed that she demanded “Fweedom” when she was a child attending a civil rights protest. Harris plagiarized the anecdote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Did Harris really think she could get away with cribbing a tale from Dr. King, considering King’s massive disproportionate influence on modern public school curricula? Every millenial in the media grew up studying King in school and having all-day seminars on MLK Day. Harris would have had a better chance of getting away with her lie if she’d said she chopped down her father’s cherry tree."
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2021 21:53:08
So... she didn't say what you claimed she did.
Post by: Jolly2 on 17/02/2021 21:55:38
Did you notice that she's talking about protest groups, rather than riots?
So... she didn't say what you claimed she did.
Hilarious, play your word games troll. These are the same "protests" that were setting fires across the country.
13 secound vid mostly peaceful 🤣
.
"They are not going to stop... they are not going to let up and they should not" Karmala Harris
Post by: alancalverd on 17/02/2021 22:27:31
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2021 22:50:10
And protest should continue, shouldn't it?Did you notice that she's talking about protest groups, rather than riots?
So... she didn't say what you claimed she did.
Hilarious, play your word games troll. These are the same "protests" that were setting fires across the country.
13 secound vid mostly peaceful 🤣
.
"They are not going to stop... they are not going to let up and they should not" Karmala Harris
The black people (to be simplistic about it) should continue to protest against the violence wrought on them by a corrupt state, shouldn't they?
What else should they do?
Post by: Jolly2 on 17/02/2021 23:19:06
And protest should continue, shouldn't it?Did you notice that she's talking about protest groups, rather than riots?
So... she didn't say what you claimed she did.
Hilarious, play your word games troll. These are the same "protests" that were setting fires across the country.
13 secound vid mostly peaceful 🤣
.
"They are not going to stop... they are not going to let up and they should not" Karmala Harris
The black people (to be simplistic about it) should continue to protest against the violence wrought on them by a corrupt state, shouldn't they?
What else should they do?
I dont think anyone really disagrees with police reform. The protests where they were peaceful is fine. But the protests were so violent in areas the national guard had to be called out to stop the violence.
Its was the joke of last year no matter how bad they got the main stream media, even when standing infront of burning buildings called them peaceful. Democrats even bailout out of jail protestors that had been arrested. Utter hypocrisy, the Democrats were supporting both the violent riots and non violent protests.
Post by: Jolly2 on 17/02/2021 23:23:28
But where is the evidence of a rigged election?
What apart from the Time magazine article?
Data analysts have some shocking revelations about the algorithms used. You see the exact same % ratios across multiple states and precincts, one data analysts stated the possibility of it happening naturally are impossible.
The evidence will come not that it will make any difference Al gore knew Bush stole the election in Florida we all do today, that didn't manage to get Bush jr out of the white house, tho really it should.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2021 08:41:03
What apart from the Time magazine article?That isn't evidence of a rigged election.
Did you think it was?
But the protests were so violent in areas the national guard had to be called out to stop the violence.No
They didn't "have to" call in the national guard, they chose to in order to make it look as if the protests were something special.
The protests where they were peaceful is fine.The Right wing racists and corrupt cops think that peaceful protests are fine too- because after a century or two, they haven't really changed things.
Understandably those being persecuted don't agree.
I guess you think they should lust lie down and let someone kneel on their neck until the problem goes away.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/02/2021 09:59:49
Data analysts have some shocking revelations about the algorithms used.Algorithms are not used. Votes are counted, then ignored and the electoral college chooses a president without having to explain their decision. How can that be rigged? They chose Trump, then they dumped him because he was an embarrassment to the Party, but refused to convict him because he is a malicious litigant and knows who voted in the Senate.
Nothing to do with democracy or voting.
Post by: Jolly2 on 18/02/2021 11:19:43
Data analysts have some shocking revelations about the algorithms used.Algorithms are not used.
Votes are counted by machines, which can be manipulated by algorithms. Some were even directly connected to the internet.
Votes are not counted by hand they are verified by hand and counted by machine.
Votes are counted, then ignored and the electoral college chooses a president without having to explain their decision. How can that be rigged?
We already went over this, the electoral college is a means to balance the different populations from state to state. And a fail safe if there is a nomination the elite dont like.
They chose Trump, then they dumped him because he was an embarrassment to the Party,
The membership choose trump just like the membership of labour choose Jeremy Corbyn. The party members never wanted either.
but refused to convict him because he is a malicious litigant and knows who voted in the Senate.
There were no grounds to convict, the trial was an attempt to prevent trump running again. Completely political.
Nothing to do with democracy or voting.
The American system should change but the establishment, doesn't want democracy, Trump won in 2016 by mistake, they didnt take him seriously and he slipped through, seems clear they wont allow that again. Effectively every election from now on, unless something changes will be a farse.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/02/2021 11:51:55
We already went over this, the electoral college is a means to balance the different populations from state to state.and I pointed out that this disenfranchises voters in the more populous states, so the president is not chosen by popular vote but by a rigged system.
Rounding up to 3 significant figures we see
2016 Clinton 65.9 million Trump 63.0 Trump wins
2020 Biden 75.0 Trump 71.0 Biden wins
So as I said earlier, the popular vote does not choose the president so the count is irrelevant and not only future but all previous elections were farcical. This is underlined by the ridiculous pomposity of the "final count" in Congress, which merely confirms the inbuilt contempt of politicians for the electorate.
The only function of an algorithm in a paper-counting exercise is to determine whether an indistinct mark is a cross or not. In a civilised country we do it by discussion between the candidates' agents and the returning officer, whose criterion is "clear intention to vote for..." and who, being a civil servant, will be paid the same whatever the outcome. The UK having a high standard of literacy, as a candidate or agent I've never had to review more than 0.1% of indistinct votes and we generally agreed that whilst "bastard" was not a "vote for", the absence of any other mark on the paper could not be construed as a vote for anyone else.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2021 13:06:58
Votes are not counted by hand they are verified by hand and counted by machine.And the hand count verified that the machine count gave the right answer.
Which is exactly what the algorithm is meant to do.
So, what, exactly, is your problem?
There were no grounds to convict,Even the Republicans said there was.
The evidence also said so.
So did Trump's lawyers in the trial. (Though they then said that nobody should have taken him seriously)
Post by: evan_au on 18/02/2021 19:18:44
Quote from: OP
Share with you this time magazine articleYesterday, this Time magazine article (and all other news) suddenly disappeared from Facebook.
This week the Australian government is debating some draft legislation: "No free News on the internet", which would see Facebook and Google paying traditional print media monopolies for access to News.
So, to highlight some of the ambiguities in the draft legislation, Facebook ran a field-trial of their draft algorithms that implemented the draft legislation. Suddenly, the government is lashing out (or back-pedaling furiously, depending on your viewpoint):
- The Pandemic - that's not News! That is Public Health!
- Bushfires - that's not News! That is Public Safety!
- Statements by Government Ministers - that's not News! That is Good Government Communication!
The US elections have monopolized world news for the past year - it's time to move on to something more productive.
- And you shouldn't pay any attention to narcissists - it just encourages them!
Post by: charles1948 on 18/02/2021 19:48:56
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2021 20:12:59
They might cause you trouble in the future.That, in this context, is a political statement.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/02/2021 22:46:31
This week the Australian government is debating some draft legislation: "No free News on the internet", which would see Facebook and Google paying traditional print media monopolies for access to News.It's an interesting point. Legitimate news sources like traditional newspapers and broadcasters pay their own reporters and agencies for factual content and employ writers to turn it into a product. So one would expect the product to be copyright-protected as with any other manufactured literature or broadcast. And they also carry liability for harm caused by inaccuracy, libel, etc. Why should Facebook benefit for free from other people's work and at the same time deny liability on the grounds that they are just repeating stuff published by someone else?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/02/2021 22:53:12
I'd advise all posters to refrain from making political comments. They might cause you trouble in the future.The great advantage of being on the old Special Branch list of suspects was that I never got cold calls or telephone scams - every incoming call was monitored by The Powers That Be and they certainly weren't going to waste their time listening to people persuading me to change my internet password. Hopefully someone in GCHQ is reading this and will restore the service. In return I promise to become a potential Enemy of the State and renew my CND membership.
Post by: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 01:28:24
Quote from: OPShare with you this time magazine articleYesterday, this Time magazine article (and all other news) suddenly disappeared from Facebook.
This week the Australian government is debating some draft legislation: "No free News on the internet", which would see Facebook and Google paying traditional print media monopolies for access to News.
Ok why are you blaming the government? They serve corporate interests.
You are missing the bigger picture, it's the media corporations that have been pushing for these laws for years now along with the oligarchy that owns and controls them.
The primary issue is that they are all going bankrupt, essentially because no one wants to read their fake news, propaganda and draft narratives. Traditionally these institutions drove the narrative, the internet and independent media has destroyed their model.
So they have been seeking a way to claw back income and also suppress the competition, the idea being that the smaller media producers won't be able to cough up the funds once the new system is in place compared to the bigger players. So in part this law is an attack on smaller alternative media.
They also seek to shut alternative media out of social media as the bigger companies have a greater ability to bargain with companies like Facebook.
What Facebook decided was that rather than pay any money to traditional media they would just block all of it. Google by contrast made an exclusive deal with rupert Murdoch, that only Murdoch media will now be available on Google Australia, and there is the perfect solution for the oligarchy, only the traditional controlled voice of the Murdoch press will be heard and all other voices alternative or not, will be silenced.
This is about narrative control, and a war between traditional media controlled by the oligarchy and independent media that is free in its thoughts and content. The Australian government is little more than a lacky to oligarchic power.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/02/2021 09:05:11
By recycling other people's product, Facebook neither paid for its creation nor accepted liability for its content.
Time to restore accountability and protect legitimate business.
Post by: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 18:12:38
If you collect and publish news, you must expect to pay your reporters and be held accountable for what you print.
By recycling other people's product, Facebook neither paid for its creation nor accepted liability for its content.
Facebook's entire business model just like Google's is theift of private data that is never compensated for, most don't even realise Facebook and Google are taking their data, and then selling that data on to 3rd parties.
In an America lawsuit related to cambridge analytica the Judge told the plaintiffs that if they use Facebook they have no rights over their their data, and no privacy. The case happened a few months after Zuckerberg proclaimed PRIVACY to be the facebook service motto.
Not paying their way is the main business model of most companies. Many journalists that work for traditional media are unpaid interns. Hard to feel sorry for one group of lying exploiters not being paid by another group of lying exploiters, when they all avoid paying for anything whenever possible.
Time to restore accountability and protect legitimate business.
This isn't about legitimacy, this is about control, much of the transitional media lie consistently they are losing money because they are terrible journalists, that produce a terrible product. A terrible product that always supports the next war, lies about Russian interference and any other nonsense the CIA tells them to.
Traditional media is illegitimate as a news source.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/02/2021 18:16:25
Traditional media is illegitimate as a news source.Uncharacteristically, Jolly is right about that.
For example, The Sun "newspaper" makes a loss.
But the owners still pay to have it printed as a propaganda sheet to get the naïve to support the billionaires.
However, it does raise an interesting question; where the heck should we get actual information from?
Post by: evan_au on 23/02/2021 20:59:34
Quote from: evan_au
This week the Australian government is debating some draft legislation: "No free News on the internet"An update:
Yesterday, Facebook Australia agreed to terminate their field trial of the draft Australian media legislation.
- This means that traffic to Australian Media and Government websites can start to increase back towards usual levels.
- Advertising revenue to Media websites can start to increase back towards usual levels.
- I would love to know how much media traffic (and revenues) declined while Facebook tested out the new media legislation.
- I would not be surprised it dropped by more than 20%.
- Traffic won't get back to normal quickly, as some people have deserted Facebook for Parler or other platforms that aren't covered by the draft legislation.
- And some people don't need news from reputable sources - they just make up their own conspiracy theories.
- The fact is that the Australian Government and Media needs Facebook more than Facebook needs them.
I am interested in how the Australian government will now rejig their proposed media legislation to fill the enormous holes in their current draft.
- And whether we will need another field trial of the draft legislation before it is enacted into law.
As part of the face-off with Facebook, the government declared it would never advertise with Facebook again.
- Lets see how long that lasts - Facebook is provably the most cost-effective advertising platform to reach a wide demographic
- Especially important with a vaccine rollout underway; now, under the revised legislation, will "vaccine rollout" be News, or not News?
Post by: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 21:29:57
Quote from: evan_auThis week the Australian government is debating some draft legislation: "No free News on the internet"An update:
Yesterday, Facebook Australia agreed to terminate their field trial of the draft Australian media legislation.
- This means that traffic to Australian Media and Government websites can start to increase back towards usual levels.
- Advertising revenue to Media websites can start to increase back towards usual levels.
- I would love to know how much media traffic (and revenues) declined while Facebook tested out the new media legislation.
- I would not be surprised it dropped by more than 20%.
- Traffic won't get back to normal quickly, as some people have deserted Facebook for Parler or other platforms that aren't covered by the draft legislation.
- And some people don't need news from reputable sources -
How are they reputable? Is lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that helped lead to the war in Iraq reputable? Is promoting day after day lies and propaganda about Russia gate, reputable? Is refusing to publish negative information about a corporation or government reputable? Is taking your talking points from a CIA or MI6 memorandum reputable? Is saying nothing about Julian Assange a fellow journalist locked up and tortured without any criminal conviction reputable?
There is NOTHING reputable about the main stream media every day they show themselves as little more then mouth pieces of corrupt corporate oligarchic power. They are a disgrace.
Top to bottom they are a joke, nothing reputable about them at all, Which is why anyone with sense doesnt listen to them anymore, the day they all go bankrupt will be a good day.
There are plenty of new media outlets with real journalists like Glenn Greenwald or Chirs Hedges amounst others like Julian Assange that actual care about the truth journalistic integrity and not corporate propaganda.
they just make up their own conspiracy theories.
- The fact is that the Australian Government and Media needs Facebook more than Facebook needs them.
No one needs Facebook, there are far better alternatives that do not steal your data to sell it, that are not interested in trying to manipulate their users with different algorithms for ads.
Try minds or Gab.
I am interested in how the Australian government will now rejig their proposed media legislation to fill the enormous holes in their current draft.
Well the people pushing this is the oligarchy that controls the media, they can do what they like hardly anyone wants to listen to their propaganda..
- And whether we will need another field trial of the draft legislation before it is enacted into law.Maybe for now, but millions are leaving that trend will continue anyone who cares about their privacy shouldnt use any Facebook service. I recomend no one downloads Facebook to their phone, you cant uninstall it afterwards.
As part of the face-off with Facebook, the government declared it would never advertise with Facebook again.
- Lets see how long that lasts - Facebook is provably the most cost-effective advertising platform to reach a wide demographic
- Especially important with a vaccine rollout underway; now, under the revised legislation, will "vaccine rollout" be News, or not News?
Doesnt have anything to do with the news, doctors give the vaccine not newspapers.
Post by: Jolly2 on 24/02/2021 03:56:29
Post by: Jolly2 on 24/02/2021 19:10:27
Votes are not counted by hand they are verified by hand and counted by machine.And the hand count verified that the machine count gave the right answer.
Apart from the reality that in some precincts the ballot machine numbers didnt always match. And on recounts uncounted ballots were found on occasion.
You're point is meaningless. All they tally at the end of the process, is number of votes, against number of ballots. They dont match votes for candidate against ballots for candidate.
One of the biggest issues is that it is the envelope the ballot arrives in that is used for verification, there is nothing on the ballot to link it to the person that sent it. As soon as a ballot becomes separated from its envelope it is impossible to find out whose ballot it is. Leaving the opportunity to add fake ballots wide open.
Some Poll workers on election day claimed they saw ballots that looked like they had been printed by computer printer, and were not filled in by hand using a pen.
If an algorithm was used to change the voting numbers in the machines, all they would need to do is add fake ballots to the counted ballots after the machines finished their counting. Once fake ballots are added there would be no way to find them.
Algorithms change the numbers fake ballots make up the difference between the votes and ballots.
The best solution to this would be to have the people voting add their ballots to the machines themselves. Poll workers should not be feeding then in People voting should. There should also be a mark on the ballot that links it to the person who voted. Demanding a secret vote allows more potential for fraud. Most voters are registerd Democrat or Republican hardly a secret who they will vote for, I would suggest removing the secret ballot system and allowing those that want to vote in secret to request a secret ballot to do so, with other checks in place to prevent fraud.
Which is exactly what the algorithm is meant to do.
So, what, exactly, is your problem?
The data analysts that looked over the data from the election suggested there was clear evidence of an algorithm that was repeatedly giving a 2% lead to Biden in every precinct it was actively being employed. They suggested when you track the data, the algorithm was not employed universally but in selective areas, and turned on in one precinct then would move to another, they suggested the number match so closely once you know what to look for you can track the activation of the algorithm across the precincts involved.
There were no grounds to convict,Even the Republicans said there was.
The evidence also said so.
So did Trump's lawyers in the trial. (Though they then said that nobody should have taken him seriously)
More nonsense.
Steven crowder took a list of registered voter addresses, then crossed referenced them with the post office to find if any were listed as 'not available to receive packages'. He found 100s on checking them out by going to the actual locations, he found car parks, storage areas and all manner of other places no voter lives in.
On sharing this news on Twitter, Twitter banned him.
Post by: Jolly2 on 24/02/2021 19:26:21
Traditional media is illegitimate as a news source.Uncharacteristically, Jolly is right about that.
For example, The Sun "newspaper" makes a loss.
But the owners still pay to have it printed as a propaganda sheet to get the naïve to support the billionaires.
However, it does raise an interesting question; where the heck should we get actual information from?
"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"
You can read all past reporting if a journalist has been shown to have written a hit piece or published a fake news story or outright lied and not given a retraction. Then you should avoid them.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2021 19:38:42
They dont match votes for candidate against ballots for candidate.Yes they do.
But even if all they did was- as you say- to count that the numbers are right then that's enough to stop this
As soon as a ballot becomes separated from its envelope it is impossible to find out whose ballot it is. Leaving the opportunity to add fake ballots wide open.Please try to remember what you say from one sentence to the next.
Steven crowder took a list of registered voter addresses, then crossed referenced them with the post office to find if any were listed as 'not available to receive packages'. He found 100s on checking them out by going to the actual locations, he found car parks, storage areas and all manner of other places no voter lives in.Did any of the car parks vote?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2021 19:39:40
From the ardent Trump supporter, that is comedy gold.Traditional media is illegitimate as a news source.Uncharacteristically, Jolly is right about that.
For example, The Sun "newspaper" makes a loss.
But the owners still pay to have it printed as a propaganda sheet to get the naïve to support the billionaires.
However, it does raise an interesting question; where the heck should we get actual information from?
"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"
You can read all past reporting if a journalist has been shown to have written a hit piece or published a fake news story or outright lied and not given a retraction. Then you should avoid them.
Post by: charles1948 on 24/02/2021 21:47:24
Traditional media is illegitimate as a news source.
For example, The Sun "newspaper" makes a loss.
But the owners still pay to have it printed as a propaganda sheet to get the naïve to support the billionaires.
However, it does raise an interesting question; where the heck should we get actual information from?
I didn't know that the "Sun" runs at a financial loss. But when I consider the huge amount of paper and coloured ink that goes into producing each issue, and the wages that have to be paid to all the reporters and photographers, plus the cost of distributing millions of copies of it every day, what you say makes sense.
There must be easier ways to make money. Like buying properties in London, then waiting for their values to go up.
As for your question about getting information, at the present time the best information comes from the Internet.
But will this last much longer. Can't you see the Internet soon being censored.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/02/2021 23:15:43
Steven crowder took a list of registered voter addresses, then crossed referenced them with the post office to find if any were listed as 'not available to receive packages'. He found 100s on checking them out by going to the actual locations, he found car parks, storage areas and all manner of other places no voter lives in.So none of those will have voted by post. So no evidence of postal vote fraud.
But the Republicans wanted their people to vote in person, so any fraud would have been caused by people registering at a false address, say in another district or state, then turning up to vote. As I said several times, Trump certainly rigged the election and still lost, which is why he was so pissed off about it.
Or maybe Stephen Crowder didn't actually visit so many voter addresses that he found "hundreds" of false ones. That seems far more likely.
Or maybe he hopes you don't understand what a registered address is. It might be an apartment block, a post office box number, or a lawyer's office. These are places where a legal document can be sent but there may be no facility for holding "packages", which is why we have parcel drops as well as postal addresses.
Beware of false prophets and Republican sympathisers.
Post by: Jolly2 on 25/02/2021 01:43:35
Steven crowder took a list of registered voter addresses, then crossed referenced them with the post office to find if any were listed as 'not available to receive packages'. He found 100s on checking them out by going to the actual locations, he found car parks, storage areas and all manner of other places no voter lives in.So none of those will have voted by post. So no evidence of postal vote fraud.
But the Republicans wanted their people to vote in person, so any fraud would have been caused by people registering at a false address, say in another district or state, then turning up to vote. As I said several times, Trump certainly rigged the election and still lost, which is why he was so pissed off about it.
Or maybe Stephen Crowder didn't actually visit so many voter addresses that he found "hundreds" of false ones. That seems far more likely.
Or maybe he hopes you don't understand what a registered address is. It might be an apartment block, a post office box number, or a lawyer's office. These are places where a legal document can be sent but there may be no facility for holding "packages", which is why we have parcel drops as well as postal addresses.
Beware of false prophets and Republican sympathisers.
All the fake addresses would have had postal ballots created for them, what the post office did with them on realising there was no place to put them is a question.
Post by: Jolly2 on 25/02/2021 01:45:39
- Traffic won't get back to normal quickly, as some people have deserted Facebook for Parler
You can forget about Parler they sold out to get back online, no one that used to use parler is gonna be interested in continuing, with the changes to free speech.
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/betrayed-how-parler-sold-out-to-the-globalist-establishment-to-get-back-online/
Post by: alancalverd on 25/02/2021 12:43:51
All the fake addresses would have had postal ballots created for them, what the post office did with them on realising there was no place to put them is a question.You have made an unsubstantiated statement and asked a question. Please substantiate your statement and answer the question. If you are unable to do so, then my claim that the disgraced 45th president had his brain sucked out by an alien arse probe has equal validity. Particularly as he has never denied it.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2021 17:40:05
Post by: charles1948 on 25/02/2021 18:49:51
Are we seriously still arguing that there was widespread voter fraud? Despite the fact that claims of such were found to be unsubstantiated when investigated by various government departments? Do you really think you are more skilled at finding such evidence than they are?
Were the people who conducted the "investigations" nearly all Left-wingers?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2021 19:29:54
at the present time the best information comes from the Internet.So does the worst.
That's part of the problem.
Post by: charles1948 on 25/02/2021 19:39:00
at the present time the best information comes from the Internet.So does the worst.
That's part of the problem.
Perhaps you should be put in charge of the Internet. I can't think of a better person for the job. So acerbic and masterful. And with a powerful, penetrating intellect.
You could handle my problems any time I'm sure.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2021 19:49:53
I don't think that stating what should be the obvious is much of a qualification.at the present time the best information comes from the Internet.So does the worst.
That's part of the problem.
Perhaps you should be put in charge of the Internet. I can't think of a better person for the job. So acerbic and masterful. And with a powerful, penetrating intellect.
You could handle my problems any time I'm sure.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2021 21:08:13
Were the people who conducted the "investigations" nearly all Left-wingers?
It sounds like you're accusing those government entities of being in on the conspiracy. You can't be serious...
Post by: Jolly2 on 25/02/2021 21:51:11
All the fake addresses would have had postal ballots created for them, what the post office did with them on realising there was no place to put them is a question.You have made an unsubstantiated statement and asked a question. Please substantiate your statement and answer the question. If you are unable to do so, then my claim that the disgraced 45th president had his brain sucked out by an alien arse probe has equal validity. Particularly as he has never denied it.
Rather than ramble, why not directly ask the actual question you want answered?
Post by: Jolly2 on 25/02/2021 22:03:00
They dont match votes for candidate against ballots for candidate.Yes they do.
But even if all they did was- as you say- to count that the numbers are right then that's enough to stop this
No it wouldn't, fake votes added by an algorithm matched with fake ballots, wont be noticed in a tally at the end.
As soon as a ballot becomes separated from its envelope it is impossible to find out whose ballot it is. Leaving the opportunity to add fake ballots wide open.Please try to remember what you say from one sentence to the next.
I know exactly what I'm saying primarily that the American election voting system is a total joke. Which isn't surprising when the elites that run America hate democracy.
Chomsky on neoliberalism destroying democracy
Steven crowder took a list of registered voter addresses, then crossed referenced them with the post office to find if any were listed as 'not available to receive packages'. He found 100s on checking them out by going to the actual locations, he found car parks, storage areas and all manner of other places no voter lives in.Did any of the car parks vote?
Not sure, I saw one women complaining that her dog had voted, her dog had been chipped and as part of the chipping process the dog has a registration number, someone used the registration to make a fake registered voter. She checked the roles and found that her dog had actually voted in the last election. That was her claim anyway.
From the ardent Trump supporter, that is comedy gold.Traditional media is illegitimate as a news source.Uncharacteristically, Jolly is right about that.
For example, The Sun "newspaper" makes a loss.
But the owners still pay to have it printed as a propaganda sheet to get the naïve to support the billionaires.
However, it does raise an interesting question; where the heck should we get actual information from?
"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"
You can read all past reporting if a journalist has been shown to have written a hit piece or published a fake news story or outright lied and not given a retraction. Then you should avoid them.
I'm not an Ardent Trump supporter, I would have voted Bernie Sanders in 2016. I wouldn't vote him today ofcourse, it's clear now that Bernie is a sheep herder there to defend and protect the corporate system.
I like Trump because they all hate him. Watching TDS idiots scream at the sky is rather hilarious. Trump failed to achieve America first, he failed to stop America interfering in other countries affairs but he didn't launch any new wars he stopped the CIA funding ISIS, something atleast.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2021 23:05:28
added by an algorithmDo you understand that what you said there means nothing?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2021 23:06:18
he stopped the CIA funding ISISWhich they weren't doing.
ISIS is about the only group they weren't funding.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/02/2021 23:15:48
She checked the roles and found that her dog had actually voted in the last election. That was her claim anyway.Now why did she take it into her head to check whether her dog had been enrolled?
Since the electoral roll is compiled by householders responding to a postal enquiry, only she (or the dog) could have enrolled him - nobody else would have known the dog's name and entered it on the form that she signed as householder.
And why did she complain? Did Buster tell her he had voted Democrat in spite of her instructions? By turning up and putting a cross on the paper? Or did he fill in the postal ballot that was delivered to his address, sign it, and mail it? That's one hell of a valuable dog!
Is she admitting to repetitive electoral fraud, or do I detect a whiff of bullshit?
Post by: Jolly2 on 26/02/2021 00:57:21
She checked the roles and found that her dog had actually voted in the last election. That was her claim anyway.Now why did she take it into her head to check whether her dog had been enrolled?
Since the electoral roll is compiled by householders responding to a postal enquiry, only she (or the dog) could have enrolled him - nobody else would have known the dog's name and entered it on the form that she signed as householder.
Now theres an assumption, anyone with access to the registration database, could do so. The suggestion an owner would seek to register thier dog is rather hilarious, and unlikely as the chances of being caught you would assume to be quiet high. but an interested party seeking to find extra fake voters in thier rush not noticing the registration was actually for a dog and making a fake registered voter anyway, makes more sense.
Post by: Jolly2 on 26/02/2021 01:02:53
he stopped the CIA funding ISISWhich they weren't doing.
ISIS is about the only group they weren't funding.
News report on America funding ISIS
Most terrorists work for a government, terrorism is a government tactic.
America funded Osama bin laden, to terrorise Russia in Afghanistan, they funded terrorist groups across south America, the rebels in Chechnya, and ISIS to attack Syria. The same play book again and again.
......
On another note war monger Biden attacked Syria today
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2021 13:15:15
It's still pointless.She checked the roles and found that her dog had actually voted in the last election. That was her claim anyway.Now why did she take it into her head to check whether her dog had been enrolled?
Since the electoral roll is compiled by householders responding to a postal enquiry, only she (or the dog) could have enrolled him - nobody else would have known the dog's name and entered it on the form that she signed as householder.
Now theres an assumption, anyone with access to the registration database, could do so. The suggestion an owner would seek to register thier dog is rather hilarious, and unlikely as the chances of being caught you would assume to be quiet high. but an interested party seeking to find extra fake voters in thier rush not noticing the registration was actually for a dog and making a fake registered voter anyway, makes more sense.
I register your dog. (It's not clear how)
The "spare" ballot paper is delivered to your house.
But I still can't use it.
The suggestion an owner would seek to register thier dog is rather hilariousYes, funny, but plausible.
https://angry-chef.com/blog/my-nutritionist-licks-his-own-butt
Post by: alancalverd on 26/02/2021 13:34:35
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2021 16:44:19
Quote
Pellerin told KSBW Monterey the claim was investigated and there was no record that corroborates it.
Post by: Jolly2 on 26/02/2021 19:27:50
This appears to be what Jolly was referring to: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/11/12/dog-vote-santa-cruz-county-voter-fraud/QuotePellerin told KSBW Monterey the claim was investigated and there was no record that corroborates it.
Yeah I watched this.
"The claim about a dog voting in the county was made in viral video that showed a woman saying her service dog microchp ID number was used as a Social Security number to register the pet and vote. As of Wednesday evening, the video had tens of thousands of views."
Aa I said "that was her claim"
Surely the actual women should be questioned.
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2021 20:24:50
Aa I said "that was her claim"
And now we know that there isn't evidence to back her claim up.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/02/2021 15:38:04
"a woman saying her service dog microchp ID number was used as a Social Security number to register the pet and vote.
So did the dog vote in person or fill in a postal ballot form? Either way, he should be in a circus, or maybe the space program.
My grandmother used to cover the kitchen floor with newspaper whenever we left the dog in the house. One day she ran back and turned all the pages over. I asked why and she said "He can't read but he likes to look at the pictures."
Post by: Jolly2 on 27/02/2021 20:37:42
Aa I said "that was her claim"
And now we know that there isn't evidence to back her claim up.
No sadly all you know is one media source says it isn't, that doesnt mean it isn't. All relative to who is speaking.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2021 20:50:57
No sadly all you know is one media source says it isn't, that doesnt mean it isn't.
Okay, so do you have any good evidence that the event in question actually happened? Unsupported claims are very poor evidence.
But if you want another source pointing to the claim being baseless, here's this: https://www.nbc12.com/2020/11/12/calif-county-disputes-womans-claim-her-service-dog-voted-election/
Post by: Jolly2 on 27/02/2021 21:47:38
No sadly all you know is one media source says it isn't, that doesnt mean it isn't.
Okay, so do you have any good evidence that the event in question actually happened? Unsupported claims are very poor evidence.
But if you want another source pointing to the claim being baseless, here's this: https://www.nbc12.com/2020/11/12/calif-county-disputes-womans-claim-her-service-dog-voted-election/
The claim it hasnt happeed is all based on the Dogs name not being a registered voter.
The women in the video claimed she had checked and that the Dogs vote had gone through. Sadly the traditional media are all untrustworthy. I'd like a more independent investigation.
Post by: Jolly2 on 27/02/2021 21:48:08
"a woman saying her service dog microchp ID number was used as a Social Security number to register the pet and vote.
So did the dog vote in person or fill in a postal ballot form? Either way, he should be in a circus, or maybe the space program.
My grandmother used to cover the kitchen floor with newspaper whenever we left the dog in the house. One day she ran back and turned all the pages over. I asked why and she said "He can't read but he likes to look at the pictures."
Probably a good use for the papers
Max Blumenthal reports on how Britian is running a covert propaganda operation, MI6 has over 15,000 journalists employed to lie to readers. Both the BBC and Reuters are involved along with many other media outlets. They have atleast 400 journalists active inside Russia that were trained by Mi6 in London .
To quote Max "everything they are acusing Russia of doing, they(Britian) are doing times 10 over"
Looks like YouTube or someone has blocked the video, you can still find the report by Max Blumenthal on his site.
https://orinocotribune.com/reuters-bbc-and-bellingcat-participated-in-covert-uk-foreign-office-funded-programs-to-weaken-russia-leaked-docs-reveal/
"In several proposals to the British Foreign Office, Reuters boasted of a global influence network of 15,000 journalists and staff, including 400 inside Russia."
In 2019, the FCO put forward a similar initiative, this time articulating a more aggressive plan to “counter the Russian government’s narrative and domination of the media and information space.” In effect, the British government was seeking to infiltrate Russian media and propagate its own narrative through an influence network of Russian journalists trained in the UK.
In its first bid, the media giant boasted of establishing a global network of 15,000 journalists and bloggers through “capacity building interventions.” In Russia, it claimed at least 400 journalists had been cultivated through its training programs.
Post by: Kryptid on 28/02/2021 04:03:42
The claim it hasnt happeed is all based on the Dogs name not being a registered voter.
The women in the video claimed she had checked and that the Dogs vote had gone through. Sadly the traditional media are all untrustworthy. I'd like a more independent investigation.
The woman is the claimant. The burden of proof is on the claimant to show that their claim is right, not on the detractors to show that it's wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 10:25:27
MI6 has over 15,000 journalists employedIn reality, MI6 has 2,594 employees.
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 12:00:16
MI6 has over 15,000 journalists employedIn reality, MI6 has 2,594 employees.
15,000 associates, just semantics. Doesnt change the reality that Mi6 is a propaganda organisation. And a disgusting producer of fake news.
And all the while the British state is torturing a journalist for telling the truth. Britain is a tyrannical joke and has no moral legs to stand on.
Time for the world to BOYCOTT Britain to free Assange. The type of evil the British establishment and the cults that run it are engaged in demands a responce from humanity. Time everyone turns their back on them, and Brits that care about their lives and family should leave, living in big brother tyranny isnt an acceptable state of affairs for a human being.
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 12:01:14
The claim it hasnt happeed is all based on the Dogs name not being a registered voter.
The women in the video claimed she had checked and that the Dogs vote had gone through. Sadly the traditional media are all untrustworthy. I'd like a more independent investigation.
The woman is the claimant. The burden of proof is on the claimant to show that their claim is right, not on the detractors to show that it's wrong.
They should just check the name she checked.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/02/2021 14:14:03
Post by: Kryptid on 28/02/2021 17:39:39
They should just check the name she checked.
They did:
Quote
Santa Cruz County Clerk Gail Pellerin looked into the claims and says no one was registered in the county by the name of Maggie Magoo Vela.
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 17:41:36
I repeat: did the dog vote in person or fill in a postal ballot form?
We don't know, the women who made the claim said she checked and her dog had voted. How that vote was cast I'm not sure she mentioned. Could rewatch the video but I cant be bothered.
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 17:43:46
They should just check the name she checked.
They did:QuoteSanta Cruz County Clerk Gail Pellerin looked into the claims and says no one was registered in the county by the name of Maggie Magoo Vela.
No Kryptid, the county clerk checked that name. The women said she checked and the dog had, ergo maybe the name the owner checked wasn't Maggie Magoo Vela, maybe it was Maggie Vela, or Maggie Magoo or Magoo Vela.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 17:46:04
We don't know, the women who made the claim said she checked and her dog had voted.And Trump said he would build a wall and the Mexicans would pay.
Are you aware that some people tell lies?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/02/2021 17:48:04
And if she knew the dog had voted previously, she has conspired to conceal evidence of electoral fraud.
Post by: charles1948 on 28/02/2021 18:18:01
We don't know, the women who made the claim said she checked and her dog had voted.And Trump said he would build a wall and the Mexicans would pay.
Are you aware that some people tell lies?
Trump would've built the wall, if he hadn't been stopped from doing it.
I mean, if you promise to do something, then someone else stops you doing it, does that mean you told a lie?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 18:21:33
It was always impossible that it would be true.We don't know, the women who made the claim said she checked and her dog had voted.And Trump said he would build a wall and the Mexicans would pay.
Are you aware that some people tell lies?
Trump would've built the wall, if he hadn't been stopped from doing it.
I mean, if you promise to do something, then someone else stops you doing it, does that mean you told a lie?
So, if I promise to jump over the moon (Knowing that I can't) , it doesn't matter if, for example, I get jailed for something and am prevented from pretending to try, I am still a liar for claiming that I could do it.
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 18:50:45
"a woman saying her service dog microchp ID number was used as a Social Security number to register the pet and vote.
So did the dog vote in person or fill in a postal ballot form? Either way, he should be in a circus, or maybe the space program.
My grandmother used to cover the kitchen floor with newspaper whenever we left the dog in the house. One day she ran back and turned all the pages over. I asked why and she said "He can't read but he likes to look at the pictures."
Probably a good use for the papers
Max Blumenthal reports on how Britian is running a covert propaganda operation, MI6 has over 15,000 journalists employed to lie to readers. Both the BBC and Reuters are involved along with many other media outlets. They have atleast 400 journalists active inside Russia that were trained by Mi6 in London .
To quote Max "everything they are acusing Russia of doing, they(Britian) are doing times 10 over"
Looks like YouTube or someone has blocked the video, you can still find the report by Max Blumenthal on his site.
https://orinocotribune.com/reuters-bbc-and-bellingcat-participated-in-covert-uk-foreign-office-funded-programs-to-weaken-russia-leaked-docs-reveal/
"In several proposals to the British Foreign Office, Reuters boasted of a global influence network of 15,000 journalists and staff, including 400 inside Russia."
In 2019, the FCO put forward a similar initiative, this time articulating a more aggressive plan to “counter the Russian government’s narrative and domination of the media and information space.” In effect, the British government was seeking to infiltrate Russian media and propagate its own narrative through an influence network of Russian journalists trained in the UK.
In its first bid, the media giant boasted of establishing a global network of 15,000 journalists and bloggers through “capacity building interventions.” In Russia, it claimed at least 400 journalists had been cultivated through its training programs.
Video is back up
Post by: charles1948 on 28/02/2021 18:51:52
If you claimed you could "jump over the Moon", you'd be an obvious liar. As Science would rule it out.
Whereas if you claimed you could build a wall on the US border with Mexico, Science wouldn't rule it out.
Isn't that right?
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 18:55:20
It was always impossible that it would be true.We don't know, the women who made the claim said she checked and her dog had voted.And Trump said he would build a wall and the Mexicans would pay.
Are you aware that some people tell lies?
Trump would've built the wall, if he hadn't been stopped from doing it.
I mean, if you promise to do something, then someone else stops you doing it, does that mean you told a lie?
So, if I promise to jump over the moon (Knowing that I can't) , it doesn't matter if, for example, I get jailed for something and am prevented from pretending to try, I am still a liar for claiming that I could do it.
Its clear Trump wanted to build the wall, and was hampered from doing so, that is clear. So he wasn't lying when he said that he wanted to build one.
I always saw the line that 'Mexico would pay for it' as a headline grabbing Joke, I never took that idea seriously, I always saw that as a Trump Joke, which is how he meant it, the same is the case with locking up Hilary Clinton, he said he would as a joke to grab headlines, it was never serious, why Trump said "locking up Hillary played well before the election, now we won we don't care right?"
Of course if Trump actually had got Mexico to pay for the wall and managed to put Hillary Clinton in prison both jokes would have been funnier.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 19:08:04
Its clear Trump wanted to build the wall,No it isn't.
It may simply be the case that he knew he could win votes by saying that he wanted to (and that Mexico would pay) even though he must have known that it was stupid.
I never took that idea seriously,Some did.
And Trump knew they would, and that they would vote for him because of it.
Which makes it a deliberate lie.
And he's still telling it.
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-2020-conservative-political-action-conference-national-harbor-md/
Post by: charles1948 on 28/02/2021 19:41:00
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 20:38:14
Aren't all politicians liars?Not always.
Trump didn't do anything else.
He took lying to another level.
He's the only one where it was worth compiling a wiki page to look at his dishonesty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump
Post by: Kryptid on 01/03/2021 02:00:04
No Kryptid, the county clerk checked that name. The women said she checked and the dog had, ergo maybe the name the owner checked wasn't Maggie Magoo Vela, maybe it was Maggie Vela, or Maggie Magoo or Magoo Vela.
Check out this article by Snopes: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dog-voted-presidential-election/
Quote
The woman furthered that her dog was registered to vote using its microchip number that had inexplicably been converted to a Social Security number. According to the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services, a microchip is a nine-digit number just like a Social Security card — but the woman did not provide either number or a birthdate, making it impossible for us to verify whether there was a registered voter by that name in California.
When she supposedly asked for the “voting place” to look for her dog’s file under its name, “Maggie Vela,” the woman was told that her dog had “already voted” under a mail-in ballot. But the woman never provided the registration number, name, or birthdate of her dog, so it is impossible to look up the voter card.
If her claim is true and she really wanted this matter to be properly investigated, then you would think that she would have tried to help by providing the needed information. So all we have is her word. That's it. She said that she couldn't even access the e-mail that supposedly notified her of the dog's vote, so we don't have anything objective to support her claim.
Post by: Jolly2 on 01/03/2021 16:07:52
No Kryptid, the county clerk checked that name. The women said she checked and the dog had, ergo maybe the name the owner checked wasn't Maggie Magoo Vela, maybe it was Maggie Vela, or Maggie Magoo or Magoo Vela.
Check out this article by Snopes: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dog-voted-presidential-election/QuoteThe woman furthered that her dog was registered to vote using its microchip number that had inexplicably been converted to a Social Security number. According to the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services, a microchip is a nine-digit number just like a Social Security card — but the woman did not provide either number or a birthdate, making it impossible for us to verify whether there was a registered voter by that name in California.
When she supposedly asked for the “voting place” to look for her dog’s file under its name, “Maggie Vela,” the woman was told that her dog had “already voted” under a mail-in ballot. But the woman never provided the registration number, name, or birthdate of her dog, so it is impossible to look up the voter card.
If her claim is true and she really wanted this matter to be properly investigated, then you would think that she would have tried to help by providing the needed information.
I agree.
So all we have is her word. That's it. She said that she couldn't even access the e-mail that supposedly notified her of the dog's vote, so we don't have anything objective to support her claim.
Yes, still it does show up the other reporting that stated they checked and it was false. The reports never listed not enough evidence to know they made claims that the suggestion had been investigated and proven false, which is actually fake news.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2021 18:34:27
Perhaps we could close the thread.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/03/2021 18:45:58
Trump would've built the wall, if he hadn't been stopped from doing it.Nobody stopped him. Quite a bit if it is still there. Problem with a boundary wall, of course, is that it is useless until it is complete. Or somebody invents the ladder.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2021 19:42:14
Or an aeroplane.Trump would've built the wall, if he hadn't been stopped from doing it.Nobody stopped him. Quite a bit if it is still there. Problem with a boundary wall, of course, is that it is useless until it is complete. Or somebody invents the ladder.
That's part of the fundamental problem.
Trump promised to do something which is a really stupid idea.
So, either he knew that- and he lied to get elected in which case his election was fraudulent.
Of he didn't know it, in which case he is far too stupid to elect to a position of power.
Jolly still supports him.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/03/2021 21:17:48
The reports never listed not enough evidence to know they made claims that the suggestion had been investigated and proven false, which is actually fake news.
Enough of an investigation was done to show that it was highly unlikely. They looked up the dog's name and didn't find it. If they didn't look up the right name, she doesn't seem to have tried correcting them on the matter. She can't provide any documentation for her claims. The entire story rings of falsehood.
In either case, this was apparently an isolated event. If there were enough false votes based on pet ID numbers to influence the results of the election, it would have been found by the authorities who investigated it.
Post by: Jolly2 on 01/03/2021 23:43:39
The reports never listed not enough evidence to know they made claims that the suggestion had been investigated and proven false, which is actually fake news.
Enough of an investigation was done to show that it was highly unlikely. They looked up the dog's name and didn't find it. If they didn't look up the right name, she doesn't seem to have tried correcting them on the matter. She can't provide any documentation for her claims. The entire story rings of falsehood.
In either case, this was apparently an isolated event. If there were enough false votes based on pet ID numbers to influence the results of the election, it would have been found by the authorities who investigated it.
As your previous post suggested I agree that she should have helped an investigation, maybe she had no faith in one.
Post by: Jolly2 on 01/03/2021 23:47:54
So, 4 pages on, and no actual evidence of a rigged election.
Perhaps we could close the thread.
The discussion was related to this article.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
A cabal that suppressed information, employed electoral workers, changed laws, and claimed they were fortifying democracy.
However as I argued previously their definition of democracy is the second definition of democracy listed by noam chomsky where the people are to be kept from power the media is to be heavily controlled.
Their claims to fortifications under the first definition of democracy are a complete lie.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/03/2021 23:48:18
The reports never listed not enough evidence to know they made claims that the suggestion had been investigated and proven false, which is actually fake news.GCSE English 2021
1. How many negatives in that sentence? (5 marks)
2. What does it mean? (5 marks)
3. How does it make you feel? (no marks, but we have to look as though we care)
4. Compose an apology, rebuttal, explanation or defence, whichever seems appropriate. (10 marks)
Post by: Jolly2 on 01/03/2021 23:53:06
The reports never listed not enough evidence to know they made claims that the suggestion had been investigated and proven false, which is actually fake news.GCSE English 2021
1. How many negatives in that sentence? (5 marks)
2. What does it mean? (5 marks)
3. How does it make you feel? (no marks, but we have to look as though we care)
4. Compose an apology, rebuttal, explanation or defence, whichever seems appropriate. (10 marks)
"Whatever"
The news stories shared made claims that were not correct. As the article Kyriptid pointed out, there was insufficient information to actually find out if the dog had voted, as such all the stories claiming an investigation has proven the suggestion false, were incorrect, and so fake news.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2021 09:36:37
I guess that's marginally more important than police racism or presidential incompetence, in the minds of Republican morons. Never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2021 17:25:47
as such all the stories claiming an investigation has proven the suggestion false, were incorrect, and so fake news.As were the ones who started the stupid story by saying the dog did vote.
Since there's no evidence that it happened, and there's evidence that it would be essentially impossible, we can actually conclude that it almost certainly didn't happen.
We can also conclude that the people who started the story would have known that.
So we can conclude that they were lying.
And guess what; they are Trump supporters.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2021 17:26:34
2. What does it mean? (5 marks)Do I really get five marks for saying it means sod all?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2021 17:41:17
Post by: Jolly2 on 02/03/2021 18:43:50
So the evidence of a rigged election seems to boil down to a wholly improbable and unsubstantiated cock and bull story about a canine serial impostor, with no indication of which way she may or may not have voted, or how.
I guess that's marginally more important than police racism or presidential incompetence, in the minds of Republican morons. Never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate.
No the evidence for a rigged election aside from the Claims of Fraud, which are still disputed. Is the confession by the Cabal that did it.
So, 4 pages on, and no actual evidence of a rigged election.
Perhaps we could close the thread.
The discussion was related to this article.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
A cabal that suppressed information, employed electoral workers, changed laws, and claimed they were fortifying democracy.
However as I argued previously their definition of democracy is the second definition of democracy listed by noam chomsky where the people are to be kept from power the media is to be heavily controlled.
Their claims to fortifications under the first definition of democracy are a complete lie.
The women and claimed 'civil rights activist' who approached Facebook and Twitter to assist in "managing" information for the election, is now working in the Biden administration
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2021 19:11:08
No the evidence for a rigged election aside from the Claims of Fraud, which are still disputed. Is the confession by the Cabal that did it.So, it's only in your head...?
Post by: Jolly2 on 03/03/2021 01:08:57
No the evidence for a rigged election aside from the Claims of Fraud, which are still disputed. Is the confession by the Cabal that did it.So, it's only in your head...?
Apparently not, many alternative journalists and even The MAGA leader who shall not be named have also Cited the article as clear evidence of a rigged election.
Just the law changes alone, caused the election to swing to Biden, the massive amount of poll workers the Cabal employed doesn't really help either.
Then there is also the suppression of the New York post story about Hunter Biden that the Cabal had suppressed intentionally as part of their confessed conspiracy. Facebook Twitter and all the mainstream media except Fox news refused to publish the Hunter Biden Corruption information as a direct expression of their bias towards supporting a Biden victory. The Cabal literally suppressed all negative news about Biden and proliferated negative news about Trump, they held back information about the progress of the Vaccines until Trump had lost the election, amoung other things.
And as a great kicker, some of the people involved in this confessed conspiracy have now been given jobs in the Biden administration.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/03/2021 10:27:34
The question is why, in addition to all his other failures, he managed to lose the election he had rigged in his favor.
The problem is that nobody cares, because he lost, so he can be prosecuted for all his other misdemeanors.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2021 13:37:34
people involved in this confessed conspiracyWhich only exists in Jolly's head...
Post by: Jolly2 on 04/03/2021 01:04:27
Look, we know the election was rigged. Trump said he had rigged it.
So did the Cabal in the Time magazine piece.
The were in their own words fortifying the election, and fortifying democracy.
By massively controlling the media suppressing negative news about Biden to assist his election.
To quote chomsky again
"Let me begin by counter-posing two different conceptions of democracy. One conception of democracy has it that a democratic society is one in which the public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the management of their own affairs and the means of information are open and free. . . .
An alternative conception of democracy is that the public must be barred from managing of their own affairs and the means of information must be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled. That may sound like an odd conception of democracy, but it’s important to understand that it is the prevailing conception"
The "democracy" the Cabal were fortifying was the latter.
"even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.
....
I get it, you don't care, so goodbye democracy, the elites all hate it anyway. Let's all blow them some more. Cowards the lot of you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/03/2021 08:51:55
To quote chomsky againWhy bother?
Trump was controlling the means of information (How many press secretaries did he get through. Who invented this "alternative facts" concept as a disguise for lies?)
So what you are saying is that both sides rigged the election
Well, if they both rig the election then they both win.
That's what rigging an election means; winning by cheating.
So, in your definition, political broadcasts are antidemocratic.
Indeed, this thread is antidemocratic.. By calling me a troll, you are seeking to control the means by which information is spread.
You are part of the cabal.
So why not stop?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/03/2021 12:27:23
Post by: Jolly2 on 04/03/2021 18:32:05
Never mind Chomsky, definitions of democracy, or anything else.
Anyone that cares about democracy which you clearly don't seem to, should mind.
Trump said he rigged the election,
Citation
said he would win by a landslide, and lost. Either he was a liar or he was incompetent, and nobody wants either as a president. End of story.
But it isnt the end of the story even if you want it to be, Trump is already saying he will run again in 2024.
And while people like yourself no doubt believe it was a good thing they stole the election to remove Trump. I'll counter pose that Biden is a worse president by far, who is literally going to increase all the issues that lead to Trump victory in the first place.
More corporate governance, more tyranny, less democracy, and all the issues of corporate greed, that supress wages, damage the environment, consistent promoting fake news and constant wars, with increases in impoverishment for the general population are all going to get worse.
Biden serves the Corporate swamp and everything else can get stuffed.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/03/2021 18:45:35
Anyone that cares about democracy which you clearly don't seem to, should mind.I care enough about democracy to call out Trump's attempts to rig the election.
Why don't you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/03/2021 18:51:43
Biden serves the Corporate swampYou spelled "Trump" incorrectly.
Just about the only campaign promise that Trump kept was to reduce taxes on the swamp.
Obviously, I'm not so naïve that I think Biden is independent of corporate greed, but Trump is a corporation.
Post by: charles1948 on 04/03/2021 19:03:41
Biden serves the Corporate swampYou spelled "Trump" incorrectly.
Just about the only campaign promise that Trump kept was to reduce taxes on the swamp.
Obviously, I'm not so naïve that I think Biden is independent of corporate greed, but Trump is a corporation.
Trump was the last best hope of America.
Now see what happens with Biden.
Post by: Jolly2 on 04/03/2021 19:11:07
Biden serves the Corporate swampYou spelled "Trump" incorrectly.
Just about the only campaign promise that Trump kept was to reduce taxes on the swamp.
Obviously, I'm not so naïve that I think Biden is independent of corporate greed, but Trump is a corporation.
Simply not true, he talked about no more wars, and he started none, he talked about reducing immigration and he did. Biden is now about to give 34 million illegal immigrants citizenship, that's gonna help increase wages isnt it.
Post by: Jolly2 on 04/03/2021 19:14:58
Biden serves the Corporate swampYou spelled "Trump" incorrectly.
Just about the only campaign promise that Trump kept was to reduce taxes on the swamp.
Obviously, I'm not so naïve that I think Biden is independent of corporate greed, but Trump is a corporation.
Trump was the last best hope of America.
Now see what happens with Biden.
In a sense, he was but failed, he was too devoted to flawed economic ideas, he honestly believed reducing taxes on corporations would cause them to employ more, they generally just put the money direct to dividend. Steve bannon was pushing Trump for a 45% tax on the wealthiest but Trump ignored him. A huge failure and lost opportunity, doesnt matter now the oligarchy are firmly back in power and will rob everyone as blind as they can.
Bidens 34 million new legal workers are going to devastate wages, still all the more saving for the oligarchy, LOaaDS A Money!!
Post by: alancalverd on 07/03/2021 17:47:17
they stole the electionWho? How? Evidence?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/03/2021 18:40:06
he honestly believed reducing taxes on corporations would cause them to employ more, they generally just put the money direct to dividend.Just like the Trump corporation always did.
So it's hard to see how he "honestly believed " That they would do anything different.
Trump is the swamp.
34 million new legal workersYou seem to have used a number that's roughly three times the actual number of illegally resident people in the US.
Did you get it from a source that always tells lies, or was this a "special"?
Steve bannon was pushing Trump for a 45% tax on the wealthiest but Trump ignored him. A huge failure and lost opportunity, doesnt matter now the oligarchy are firmly back in powerThe oligarchs were always in power; that's why their puppet- Trump- ignored Banner's push.
I can't understand why you keep refusing to see this.
Post by: Jolly2 on 07/03/2021 19:28:21
he honestly believed reducing taxes on corporations would cause them to employ more, they generally just put the money direct to dividend.Just like the Trump corporation always did.
So it's hard to see how he "honestly believed " That they would do anything different.
Trump is the swamp.
Disagree, Trumps attempts at building the wall, and stopping immigration, along with his trade war with China and seeking to renegotiate NAFTA and bringing back factories from Mexico and China was about rebuilding the American infrastructure Neoliberalism has destroyed. Wages actually started rising in America before covid hit, as they will when there are not millions of immigrants entering the work force.
The swamp wants as much immigration as possible to supress wages and increase profits.
34 million new legal workersYou seem to have used a number that's roughly three times the actual number of illegally resident people in the US.
Did you get it from a source that always tells lies, or was this a "special"?
Sorry my number was conservative, claim was made by Quote:
NumbersUSA President Rosemary Jenks went on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” on Tuesday to explain how under the bill, called the U.S. Citizenship Act, 37 million illegals would receive green cards and citizenship over 10 years.
So it was 37 million I saw a different report that suggested 34.
Steve bannon was pushing Trump for a 45% tax on the wealthiest but Trump ignored him. A huge failure and lost opportunity, doesnt matter now the oligarchy are firmly back in powerThe oligarchs were always in power; that's why their puppet- Trump- ignored Banner's push.
I can't understand why you keep refusing to see this.
Trump was such a good puppet all the oligarchs in America hated him. Along with the CIA, FBI, all the main stream media and both members of the different party establishment. He was such a good swamp thing that the swamp hated him. He put a more honest face on the swamp, as I said before Trump is a nicer guy then the average swamp thing that runs America, they just hide in the shadows generally. They hate Trump for making them look bad, but in reality they are far worse people then Trump.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/03/2021 20:26:39
Disagree,You disagree that a guy who ran a US corporation would know how US corporations react to tax changes.
Sorry my number was conservative, claim was made by Quote:OK, thanks for the clarification.
NumbersUSA President Rosemary Jenks went on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” on Tuesday to explain how under the bill, called the U.S. Citizenship Act, 37 million illegals would receive green cards and citizenship over 10 years.
And given what it says here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NumbersUSA
We can assume that "NumbersUSA is an anti-immigration advocacy organization that seeks to reduce both legal and illegal immigration to the United States."
So the answer to my question is that you chose a source more or less guaranteed to give you the wrong answer (i.e.it wasn't "a special" on their part).
Why did you do that?
Trump was such a good puppet all the oligarchs in America hated him.You can tell by how they acted in teh run up to his election.
Fox news, for example- which is about as swampy as they get- kept right on broadcasting his lies about things like the attendance at his inauguration parade.
They did that until it was obvious that he wasn't going to win in 2020.
He put a more honest face on the swamp,No.
He supported it with tax breaks, having campaigned on a ticket of dismantling it.
as I said before Trump is a nicer guy then the average swamp thing that runs AmericaYou did say that; but you provided no evidence.
But his vindictive behaviour is apparent to everyone.
This is not the behaviour of " a nicer guy".
Post by: Jolly2 on 07/03/2021 20:49:41
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/03/2021 20:51:09
Post by: Jolly2 on 07/03/2021 21:11:00
Disagree,You disagree that a guy who ran a US corporation would know how US corporations react to tax changes.
I disagreed that Trump is the swamp, no matter how bad you think Trump is, the swamp things that control America are worse.
He failed, completely to change America in the way he said he would, his treatment of Assange was disgusting, although he did offer Assange a pardon in exchange for the name of Assanges source, Seth Rich, which Assnage refused to give him, which was a mistake on Assange's part really, Seth Rich had already been compromised and murdered and both the CIA and FBI knew it was him that released the DNC emails to Wikileaks, they just didn't share the information with Trump because they were leading Russia gate against him. Trump actions on Iran, Syria, and Venezuela were equally horrible and against the America first agenda of non interference in foreign countries.
All those things would have been worse under a Clinton administration of course as would have TTIP which Clinton would have passed and day one and Trump destroyed.
Trump did try to remove Troops, but the Pentagon had been lying to him about the actual situation as a means of preventing him doing so.
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/us-troop-levels-syria-jeffrey-interview/
And with regards to his tax policy, he clearly believes in a low tax system, he sort to increase tax revenues by imposing tariffs on good from China and Europe. That was his principle economics, he also clearly believed as many neo liberal economists do that low taxes on corporate business increases their investments in the economy, he ignored Steve Bannon and listened to others. The entire American economy is a bubble, Trump said it himself before being elected then promptly started declaring how amazing it was after he won, another failure on his part.
Sorry my number was conservative, claim was made by Quote:OK, thanks for the clarification.
NumbersUSA President Rosemary Jenks went on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” on Tuesday to explain how under the bill, called the U.S. Citizenship Act, 37 million illegals would receive green cards and citizenship over 10 years.
And given what it says here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NumbersUSA
We can assume that "NumbersUSA is an anti-immigration advocacy organization that seeks to reduce both legal and illegal immigration to the United States."
So the answer to my question is that you chose a source more or less guaranteed to give you the wrong answer (i.e.it wasn't "a special" on their part).
Why did you do that?
No I choose a source that gave a higher number. Because 34 million isnt the high end figure.
Trump was such a good puppet all the oligarchs in America hated him.You can tell by how they acted in teh run up to his election.
Fox news, for example-
That's the same fox News the swamp is trying to get removed.
which is about as swampy as they get- kept right on broadcasting his lies about things like the attendance at his inauguration parade.
They did that until it was obvious that he wasn't going to win in 2020.He put a more honest face on the swamp,No.
He supported it with tax breaks, having campaigned on a ticket of dismantling it.as I said before Trump is a nicer guy then the average swamp thing that runs AmericaYou did say that; but you provided no evidence.
But his vindictive behaviour is apparent to everyone.
This is not the behaviour of " a nicer guy".
If after ths last 60 years of consecutive American administrations, trying to rig elections in way over 60 countries world wide, conducting Cus in just as many, assinations of leaders like Martin Luther King, the constant wars from Vietnam to Syria, the unending bloodshed and exceptional depravity of the Fascists that run the CIA and FBI, and their literal funding and creation of different terrorist groups active across the world, if after all that you think there is no evidence that the people that Run America are more disgusting then Trump, I dont what to say really.
Nixon mentored Trump, little known fact.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/03/2021 22:07:11
no matter how bad you think Trump is, the swamp things that control America are worse.You misunderstand.
When I say "Trump is the swamp", I don't mean he is as bad.
I mean they are two aspects of the same entity.
No I choose a source that gave a higher number. Because 34 million isnt the high end figure.The credible figure is about 11 million. But, if you can find a reckless enough pressure group, I'm sure they will tell you that a tenth of all Americans - including the pensioners and children- are illegal immigrants and you will believe it.
Nobody else will.
That's the same fox News the swamp is trying to get removed.In what way, and since when?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/03/2021 22:08:46
If after ths last 60 years of consecutive American administrations, trying to rig elections in way over 60 countries world wide, conducting Cus in just as many, assinations of leaders like Martin Luther King, the constant wars from Vietnam to Syria, the unending bloodshed and exceptional depravity of the Fascists that run the CIA and FBI, and their literal funding and creation of different terrorist groups active across the world, if after all that you think there is no evidence that the people that Run America are more disgusting then Trump, I dont what to say really.They are indeed awful.
Why do you keep missing the point that Trump helped them, because he's one of them?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/03/2021 23:30:48
But who stole the election, and how did they do it?
Post by: Jolly2 on 08/03/2021 21:59:55
no matter how bad you think Trump is, the swamp things that control America are worse.You misunderstand.
When I say "Trump is the swamp", I don't mean he is as bad.
I mean they are two aspects of the same entity.
Except they are not, the elites are not uniform in their approach and they also have conflict, the populist side of the equation lead by people like Steve Bannon are completely opposed to the Neoliberal Agenda that has seen American industry sent off to China. There's a national verse global conflict the corporations that seek an international system despise national governments as they all interfere with their agendas.
No I choose a source that gave a higher number. Because 34 million isnt the high end figure.The credible figure is about 11 million. But, if you can find a reckless enough pressure group, I'm sure they will tell you that a tenth of all Americans - including the pensioners and children- are illegal immigrants and you will believe it.
Nobody else will.
Doesnt matter to the overall point, the Democrats serve corporate interests and the corporations want wages as low as possible. The 11 million Biden will give citizenship now, combined with the damage covid has done to main street, and all the millions of more migrants now flooding into America are going to devastate wages. Any gains in wages that Trump managed to get for workers are going to be more then lost.
That's the same fox News the swamp is trying to get removed.In what way, and since when?
There are plenty of calls now to remove fox news in America.
Post by: Jolly2 on 08/03/2021 22:03:02
Fact: there are about 250,000,000 descendants of uninvited immigrants in the USA, and about 50,000,000 descendants of unwilling immigrants. "Legal" is irrelevant. They have no rightful place there and should all go back where they came from.
But who stole the election, and how did they do it?
The Cabal didnt steal the election they fortified it, they conspired to prevent a populist winning, because the Cabal have a different definition of what democracy is, they believe the people should have no involvement in the way a country is run, democracy in their terms is that corporations and the elites that own them Rule, at best the people can vote for which company they like when shopping.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2021 23:13:40
the populist side of the equation lead by people like Steve Bannon are completely opposed to the Neoliberal Agenda that has seen American industry sent off to China.... where Trump has a business bank account and dealings.
Trump exported jobs to China.
He is the swamp.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/09/17/donald-trump-trade-policies-damage-american-workers-column/5807633002/
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2021 23:15:38
they believe the people should have no involvement in the way a country is run, democracy in their terms is that corporations and the elites that own them Rule,That's actually the Republican's policy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html
Post by: alancalverd on 08/03/2021 23:28:35
The Cabal didnt steal the election
So who did? Trump said it, you said it, but neither of you has told us who or how. Neither of you would make a false allegation, surely?
Post by: Jolly2 on 16/03/2021 14:11:36
The Cabal didnt steal the election
So who did?
They did, it's all relative to a persons point of view, if you believe that democracy is a system where the people vote and elect someone to represent them, then the cabal prevented that happening and so stole the election.
However if you believe democracy is defined as 'rule by corporate business', where the people have to kept as far away from power as is possible, the people have to be spoon feed information, kept in a position of ignorance and then every few years the society pretends to have elections while the actual election is fake and the winner is already predecided. Then if the latter definition is your definition then the cabal fortified democracy, by holding a fake election.
Trump said it, you said it, but neither of you has told us who or how. Neither of you would make a false allegation, surely?
No I have repeatedly the group confessed it themselves in the time magazine article.
"even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it."
They were fortifying an election their definition demands is fake. Under the cabals definition that is what elections are FAkE. And they fortified that system
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/03/2021 14:22:10
No I have repeatedly the group confessed it themselves in the time magazine article.That's not a confession of anything.
It's not evidence of stealing, or of trying to steal, an election.
People, and groups of people, are allowed to seek to influence voters.
Do you recognise that?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/03/2021 14:22:24
influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.That is the normal business of politics, not election-rigging.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2021 18:22:31
Data analysts have some shocking revelations about the algorithms used. You see the exact same % ratios across multiple states and precincts, one data analysts stated the possibility of it happening naturally are impossible.
It seems that Trumps lawyers think you are not a "reasonable person".
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/23/sidney-powell-trump-election-fraud-claims?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR23YzweS8sebzNJmIl7Q-vHuKK8Z2kon1bHkf82dvurb1yqe0PECeDc3LQ#Echobox=1616516106
Post by: Janus on 23/03/2021 18:56:29
Ah, the "Tucker Carlson" defense. I don't think this is going to wash. Carlson had the advantage of being a TV personality which gave him some leeway in terms of how much of what he says could be considered just "an act" to draw ratings. Powell, on the other hand wasn't in that type of position.Data analysts have some shocking revelations about the algorithms used. You see the exact same % ratios across multiple states and precincts, one data analysts stated the possibility of it happening naturally are impossible.
It seems that Trumps lawyers think you are not a "reasonable person".
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/23/sidney-powell-trump-election-fraud-claims?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR23YzweS8sebzNJmIl7Q-vHuKK8Z2kon1bHkf82dvurb1yqe0PECeDc3LQ#Echobox=1616516106
Post by: alancalverd on 24/03/2021 10:21:18
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2021 12:26:13
The only use of an algorithm in vote counting is to decide the distribution of equivocal or incorrectly filled ballotsI thought the algorithm for that was rather simple: we bin them.
Just like unclear paper ballots.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/03/2021 20:04:23
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2021 20:14:32
but we agreed that "sod off and die" written against my name did not indicate a clear intent to vote for either of the others.So it was... binned... like I said because it was... unclear... for whom they voted.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/03/2021 23:09:22
Post by: Jolly2 on 30/04/2021 22:38:45
influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.That is the normal business of politics, not election-rigging.
Normal only in a society that doesn't have a free press, uncorrupt legal system, or an actual democracy. The imposed illusion.
Inverted totalitarianism where a society has all the trapping of freedom, laws and justice but in reality they are all simply a facade designed to hide the truth, that actually the society is totalitarian.
Post by: evan_au on 01/05/2021 09:09:34
Quote from: Jolly2
No I have repeatedly (said) the group confessed it themselves in the time magazine article.A reporter has to grab the reader's attention in the first paragraph, or they have lost them.
"even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies,
Can't you tell the difference between a reporter's attention-grabbing opening line, and the self-description of a non-political party?
Post by: CliffordK on 02/05/2021 20:12:22
And, now we have automatic voter registration. Anybody that gets a driver's license or change of address is automatically registered to vote (with an opt-out option).
Voter turnout is generally high.
I like the vote by mail in part because I can sit at home and read the voter's pamphlet, or perhaps even review data online as I make my choice of who or what to vote for. Sometimes it takes me a few days to fill out the ballot as I process some of the ballot measures.
COVID put new and unique pressures on our voting in 2020. There were suggestions of transitioning to nationwide vote by mail by early 2020, but it was generally rejected by Republicans.
I would much rather see either 100% vote by mail or < 5% vote by mail. There are multiple issues of having a mixed system, with standing in line, sometimes for hours selecting some voter constituencies, and different ballot reject rates for different forms of voting. And, these differences could potentially be fraudulently manipulated.
Signature verification is complex. I never have two identical signatures. I do have several characteristics of my sig, so I could likely determine 100% whether someone who didn't have a valid signature to copy was me or an imposter, but I can't guarantee anybody would pick that up. My last initial can vary from looking like a "K" to looking like an "R" depending on how quick I'm writing. Yet, that letter morphing may also be a unique characteristic of my signature.
Trump's fight against mail in and absentee ballots in certain jurisdictions had nothing to do with trying to find the proper vote count. The entire argument is an attempt to discard valid opposition votes. If he had his way, he would simply discard all the Democrat votes, and only count the Republican votes.
This is also one reason why I highly disagree with partial recounts. Too much of an opportunity to select results in favor of one's goals. So, only recount precincts that one expects to favor one's ambitions.
Arizona is doing some kind of a partial recount using a company that has previously expressed bias, a full 6 months after the election has already been settled. It is hard to imagine that they'll be able to come up with any valid results.