Post by: Pseudoscience-is-malarkey on 21/11/2020 23:37:28
Post by: alancalverd on 22/11/2020 09:05:35
the queen still influences political decisions and policies.Unlike elected presidencies, parliament has the first and last word. The monarch can advise, with the benefit of a thousand years of hindsight and no stake in the outcome, but cannot demand or veto. Most importantly, she can't appoint or sack officials outside of her own household.
Any time a member of the royal family makes a political statement, they get a bashing from all sides of the press. They are significant landowners and can invest capital in demonstrative projects, but, unlike bankers, newspaper proprietors, in-laws, blackmailers, foreign presidents and old school chums, can't tell the government what to do with public money and property.
Unlike the PUS in the White House or the scum in the Kremlin, the Queen doesn't command or even encourage a ragtag army of knuckledragging racists to oppose the democratic process.
You don't get to be the monarch by spending Daddy's money on razzmatazz and libel, nor by being a draft-dodging coward and liar. As nominal Commander in Chief of the British forces and representative of all the people, you actually have to serve in uniform and be polite to everyone.
And unlike the hyperpatriotic sheep in the transatlantic banana republic, Brits enjoy laughing at themselves and the pathetic whimsies that stood up to fascism, abolished slavery, and invented practically everything from vaccines and railways to the world wide web.
The Head of State doesn't need armed motorcades precisely because it isn't a political office.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/11/2020 10:28:45
asked if you guys also still have fairies, unicorns and terrorist attacks committed by warlocks.No, the "war on drugs" is an American idea.
But what is perplexing is how the queen still influences political decisions and policies.The current government is in power, at least in part, because they lied to the Queen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_British_prorogation_controversy
What does that tell you about how much power she wields?
Having an historically odd figurehead isn't the problem with British politics.
The fact that we have Boris as a dictator even though he got much less than half the votes is a far dumber.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 22/11/2020 14:30:31
Lolthe queen still influences political decisions and policies.Unlike elected presidencies, parliament has the first and last word. The monarch can advise, with the benefit of a thousand years of hindsight and no stake in the outcome, but cannot demand or veto. Most importantly, she can't appoint or sack officials outside of her own household.
Any time a member of the royal family makes a political statement, they get a bashing from all sides of the press. They are significant landowners and can invest capital in demonstrative projects, but, unlike bankers, newspaper proprietors, in-laws, blackmailers, foreign presidents and old school chums, can't tell the government what to do with public money and property.
Unlike the PUS in the White House or the scum in the Kremlin, the Queen doesn't command or even encourage a ragtag army of knuckledragging racists to oppose the democratic process.
You don't get to be the monarch by spending Daddy's money on razzmatazz and libel, nor by being a draft-dodging coward and liar. As nominal Commander in Chief of the British forces and representative of all the people, you actually have to serve in uniform and be polite to everyone.
And unlike the hyperpatriotic sheep in the transatlantic banana republic, Brits enjoy laughing at themselves and the pathetic whimsies that stood up to fascism, abolished slavery, and invented practically everything from vaccines and railways to the world wide web.
The Head of State doesn't need armed motorcades precisely because it isn't a political office.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/11/2020 23:31:06
The fact that we have Boris as a dictator even though he got much less than half the votes is a far dumber.
The drift towards presidential government here really began with Thatcher, but at least she and Tony B Liar were personally in charge.
Recent events in Downing Street show that an unelected woman with her hands on the PM's balls has more influence than an unelected man with his hand up the PM's arse. With a Cabinet of Vegetables and an Opposition devoted to destroying itself, it would be interesting to know Carrie Symonds' legislative program. Perhaps she will grant us an audience in the garden.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/11/2020 12:39:30
it would be interesting to know Carrie Symonds' legislative program.As far as I can tell, it started with getting rid of Cummings.
I think we should let her carry on making the decisions.
Post by: Jolly2 on 23/11/2020 18:03:42
I have no problem with the royal family as a ceremonious faction, representing an aristocratic lineage going back to the French king Rollo in the 10th century. But what is perplexing is how the queen still influences political decisions and policies. Your prime minister still meets with the queen about once a week, and the two go over loads of things, and tells him what she approves of and doesn't approve of. Recently an American comedian in front of a British audience asked if you guys also still have fairies, unicorns and terrorist attacks committed by warlocks. Which, by the way, was met with a collected guffaw that almost rocked the building.
Actually I'm going to shock you by saying that actually we need more, not less monarchy.
Monarchy is actually the best solution to the problem of elites, firstly because you actually know who they are and the powers they are allowed. Which is certianly not the case with republics where elites rule from the shadows and you have no idea who they are or what agendas they have, hence all an elites need to rule is the skills to get to the top, what kind of person they are morally utterly unknown, if you don't know who is actually incharge anyone can be. Which I find far more dangerous then having a monarch.
Secondly I would call it a society of light that you know who is actually in power, and a society of darkness when you do not.
I am certianly not suggesting monarchy is perfect, but there are certainly rules monarchs can agree to before they take office to restrict their powers, or deal with them should they break the agreements they made. Or remove them should they become insane as an example.
So just for these reasons I would say monarchy is probably desirable for most societies. Every Christian, Jew, and Muslim would most likely agree, monarchy is certianly the biblical model for society.
All I see you defending is a society ruled by elites that hide in the shadows and who have no duty to their society or the people that live in it at all, a 3rd reason why monarchy is a better option.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/11/2020 18:06:39
Having a monarch doesn't always help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_behind_the_throne
Post by: alancalverd on 24/11/2020 00:22:30
Whenever public surveys of national happiness or human rights are carried out, the constitutional monarchies of Europe tend to shine in comparison with republics. The fact that the Head of State holds (and has not merely assumed) military rank and simultaneously represents the whole nation imposes a degree of realism on the government. The quaint phrase "la Reine le veult" turns a Bill into law and in principle would not be granted to a Bill that was unreasonably discriminatory against a section of the population.
The US presidential circus parade is a fine example of what happens when the HoS is elected, particularly in a bogus democracy. Th vituperative nature of the election campaign results in just under 50% of the electorate actually despising him, so he needs deep armoured protection at all times. Constitutional monarchs are only despised by a few nutters, and since the succession is predetermined, it wouldn't change anything if the current monarch was suddenly abducted by aliens, so one or two anti-nutter cops seem to be sufficient security for Their respective Majesties to drive around Scandinavia, Belgium, Holland, Spain and the UK, and to sit in an open box at Wimbledon or Wembley.
Unfortunately it's probably unacceptable for a modern republic to revert to a monarchy. Historically you got to be king by killing everyone who disagreed, and stealing their land. Such behavior would be intolerable nowadays, and there is no other route to royalty.
Post by: Jolly2 on 24/11/2020 01:00:17
Not only having the title of most survelled country on earth for quite a while, and thanks to the evidence provided by Edward Snowden GCHQ is by far the most invasive surveillance organisation on the planet.
We can of course add the persecution, torture and kangaroo courts of journalists such as Julian Assange.
We now have this, the passing of legal protection to basically all areas of the security state, even Customs, and even food safety officers are being given protections under the law to be criminal,
and allowed to authorise murder, torture and God knows what else.
Britian can take first place on planet earth, as potentially most disgusting country ever, we are literally just left to see just how bad this will get and just how many more abuses these new protections are going to encourage.
The state has been acting criminally for years anyway. As the Snowden evidence showed the actions of GCHQ and security establishment were criminal so they simply changed the law.
I strongly recommend anyone who believes in the rule of law or human rights, or even human dignity to leave, thi s only goes one way...
This is literally the most disgusting thing I have seen from Britian, I honestly didnt think it was possible for my country of Birth to disgust me anymore then it already has, but no I am yet again having to face the reality that Britian is a travesty of everything it ever claimed it was. FOR SHAME!
Post by: evan_au on 24/11/2020 08:37:44
Quote from: Jolly2
persecution, torture and kangaroo courts of journalists such as Julian AssangeI suggest that the action against Julian Assange is mostly being driven by the USA, which was embarrassed by the truth of what happened in the middle east.
But the UK should not be keeping political prisoners or journalists in solitary confinement (nor should they be deporting them to the country that is persecuting them).
Post by: chris on 24/11/2020 08:40:07
Any time a member of the royal family makes a political statement, they get a bashing from all sides of the press.
As Harry and Meghan sparkle found out recently when they weighed in on the US election...
Post by: alancalverd on 24/11/2020 11:29:54
GCHQ is by far the most invasive surveillance organisation on the planet.When I was on the Special Branch watch list (dangerous radical in favor of nuclear disarmament) the nuisance phone calls stopped. Sadly, the task of surveillance has been passed to GCHQ who are much less diligent. I'd happily pay for that service to be reinstated.
Seriously, though, the case of Katharine Gun shows how fragile the power of the establishment is.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6780454/david-kelly-family-doubt-suicide/ shows that "they" occasionally get away with it, as with Hilda Murrell, but whether due to incompetence or actual scruples, such cases are rare.
Post by: Jolly2 on 24/11/2020 18:18:55
Quote from: Jolly2persecution, torture and kangaroo courts of journalists such as Julian AssangeI suggest that the action against Julian Assange is mostly being driven by the USA, which was embarrassed by the truth of what happened in the middle east.
But the UK should not be keeping political prisoners or journalists in solitary confinement (nor should they be deporting them to the country that is persecuting them).
You can blame the USA but all of that is happening in Britian.
Infact the day Teresa May announced in the commons that Julian Assange had been arrested almost the entire house Cheered.
May closed with the statement that "no one in Britain is above the rule of law"
'Woe to those who call black white'
Post by: Jolly2 on 24/11/2020 18:22:06
GCHQ is by far the most invasive surveillance organisation on the planet.When I was on the Special Branch watch list (dangerous radical in favor of nuclear disarmament) the nuisance phone calls stopped. Sadly, the task of surveillance has been passed to GCHQ who are much less diligent. I'd happily pay for that service to be reinstated.
Seriously, though, the case of Katharine Gun shows how fragile the power of the establishment is.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6780454/david-kelly-family-doubt-suicide/ shows that "they" occasionally get away with it, as with Hilda Murrell, but whether due to incompetence or actual scruples, such cases are rare.
Actually truth be known mass human rights abuse is an inherent part of the British system, which is why they are seeking immunity across the board.
They have never respected Human Rights law and have always broken it and always sort to remove it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/11/2020 18:27:44
always sort to remove it.Were they seeking to remove it when they introduced it in 1998?
Or when they introduced the equality act in 2010?
Or same sex marriage in 2013?
I grant you that the current bunch of ****s are trying to undermine it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/11/2020 18:29:02
May closed with the statement that "no one in Britain is above the rule of law"Except Boris and cummings and gove and ... well, lots of them.
But what's the point of having power if you don't abuse it?
Post by: Jolly2 on 24/11/2020 18:43:14
always sort to remove it.Were they seeking to remove it when they introduced it in 1998?
The security establishment did not introduce human rights law, Blair did with them protesting it.
The only good thing Blair did in my opinion not that the security establishment cared to pay any attention or follow it.
Maybe its simply the result of the security establishment really running the country or the Cults them, who knows?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 25/11/2020 06:33:27
and allowed to authorise murder, torture and God knows what else.As a quasi approx quote from the above
Britian can take first place on planet earth, as potentially most disgusting country ever, we are literally just left to see just how bad this will get and just how many more abuses these new protections are going to encourage.
Quote
you have to prove yourself to a rape gang so you have to rape some kids
It is different to the principles of justice I am used to. Still, black lives matter and climate emergency.
Post by: Jolly2 on 25/11/2020 17:56:58
and allowed to authorise murder, torture and God knows what else.As a quasi approx quote from the above
Britian can take first place on planet earth, as potentially most disgusting country ever, we are literally just left to see just how bad this will get and just how many more abuses these new protections are going to encourage.
Quoteyou have to prove yourself to a rape gang so you have to rape some kids
It is different to the principles of justice I am used to. Still, black lives matter and climate emergency.
Well the BBC literally with the MET protected Jimmy Savile for years, or maybe it was Savile's fellow free masons.
And still today we see Jeffery Epstein given a joke of a sentence initially and then murdered in prison conveniently, while his associates are still protected.
This is my suggestion after listening to Janis varoufakis and considering the options I suggest this-
Quote
BOYCOTT BRITIAN FOR JULIAN ASSANGE and the general population.
I know some of you may blame the U.S for what is happening to Assange, but I would point out,
1. Julian Assange is being persecuted in Britian.
2. It was British police that arrested him.
3. Julian Assange is being held and tortured in a British prison.
4. It is in a British court, with an utterly biased Judge, as Wikileaks published information about the judges husband, that this case is being tried.
5. Effectively the entire house of commons cheered at news that Julian Assange was arrested.
As Such currently Britian is far more responsible for Julain Assanges treatment, then America is.
Even if there is pressure from America to be corrupt, the British establishments cowardice, to not stand up to that pressure, is no justification.
And clearly Wikileaks published information damaging to the British establishment, as such currently this is all on Britian.
I have personally spent the last 15 to 20 years hoping the British establishment would change and become more humane but considering the recent passing, by the house of commons of the 'covert human intelligence sourses bill'
It seems clearly that the security establishment is not only content to continue mass human rights abuses, they are literally going to get worse and seek to protect themselves from all of their crimes.
I suppose when sociopaths run a country little else should be expected.
I have for a while suggested anyone who wants to live in a civilised society should leave Britian.
And now I have to suggest, in solidarity with Assange and all the people of Britian this new law will persecute with impunity,
that We should all -
BOYCOTT BRITIAN. To Free Assange, defend human Rights.
And you should all be aware the new C.H.I.S Bill calls for the MURDER of anyone damaging the economic interests of Britian.
So I suggest you advocate this boycott outside Britain where MURDER is still actually considered a crime.
I am beyond disgusted at my country of birth and those that rule it.
There are not words to describe this horror actually, its beyond sick.
Post by: Jolly2 on 25/11/2020 18:55:38
Let humanity speak.
Anyone who cares about human beings as the children of God we all are, I sincerly believe should boycott Britian, as an expression of that care.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/11/2020 18:58:19
It doesn't matter if you think Assange is a hero or a villain.
The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill is a bad thing.
The bill seeks to "Make provision for, and in connection with, the authorisation of criminal conduct in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of covert human intelligence sources"
Yes, it really does authorise criminal conduct.
No need to repeal the human rights act if you can simply authorise your state machinery to break it at whim.
This bill is what we should expect from a tinpot dictatorship, but not from a mature Western Democracy.
It's particularly worrying that Labour are not firmly opposing it.
Post by: Jolly2 on 25/11/2020 21:34:28
In fairness to Jolly, he has a point.
It doesn't matter if you think Assange is a hero or a villain.
The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill is a bad thing.
The bill seeks to "Make provision for, and in connection with, the authorisation of criminal conduct in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of covert human intelligence sources"
Yes, it really does authorise criminal conduct.
No need to repeal the human rights act if you can simply authorise your state machinery to break it at whim.
This bill is what we should expect from a tinpot dictatorship, but not from a mature Western Democracy.
It's particularly worrying that Labour are not firmly opposing it.
Thank you mr chemist, you are correct this is the kind of laws you would expect to see in Stalin's Russia. "No person no problem" literally they want a license to kill for food safety personal or customs officers, what could go wrong?
I wouldn't expect much from Keir Starmer he is a shoe in for the establishment, there to undo everything Jeremy Corbyn achieved, personally I think all Actual Labour members should join the Workers party and just leave new Labour to the blairites.
Still if it isnt shocking enough that some lunatic has actully written this law, jaws can drop in horror that the house passed it. There appears to be hardly any servants of the people currently present in the house of commons. There are not words for this, it beggars belief.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 26/11/2020 21:41:11
I'm sure this must be against the magna carta (In fairness to Jolly, he has a point.
It doesn't matter if you think Assange is a hero or a villain.
The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill is a bad thing.
The bill seeks to "Make provision for, and in connection with, the authorisation of criminal conduct in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of covert human intelligence sources"
Yes, it really does authorise criminal conduct.
No need to repeal the human rights act if you can simply authorise your state machinery to break it at whim.
This bill is what we should expect from a tinpot dictatorship, but not from a mature Western Democracy.
It's particularly worrying that Labour are not firmly opposing it.
Thank you mr chemist, you are correct this is the kind of laws you would expect to see in Stalin's Russia. "No person no problem" literally they want a license to kill for food safety personal or customs officers, what could go wrong?
I wouldn't expect much from Keir Starmer he is a shoe in for the establishment, there to undo everything Jeremy Corbyn achieved, personally I think all Actual Labour members should join the Workers party and just leave new Labour to the blairites.
Still if it isnt shocking enough that some lunatic has actully written this law, jaws can drop in horror that the house passed it. There appears to be hardly any servants of the people currently present in the house of commons. There are not words for this, it beggars belief.
Which was largely about barons and Kings) and the following human rights acts, you can't have a law and then refuse to prosecute, but then maybe logic is now illegal and therefore this makes sense
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/11/2020 09:00:27
Have we ruled out "working class Tories"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/11/2020 09:01:49
I'm sure this must be againstthemMagnacCarta
Post by: Jolly2 on 01/12/2020 01:47:59
I'm sure this must be against the magna carta (In fairness to Jolly, he has a point.
It doesn't matter if you think Assange is a hero or a villain.
The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill is a bad thing.
The bill seeks to "Make provision for, and in connection with, the authorisation of criminal conduct in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of covert human intelligence sources"
Yes, it really does authorise criminal conduct.
No need to repeal the human rights act if you can simply authorise your state machinery to break it at whim.
This bill is what we should expect from a tinpot dictatorship, but not from a mature Western Democracy.
It's particularly worrying that Labour are not firmly opposing it.
Thank you mr chemist, you are correct this is the kind of laws you would expect to see in Stalin's Russia. "No person no problem" literally they want a license to kill for food safety personal or customs officers, what could go wrong?
I wouldn't expect much from Keir Starmer he is a shoe in for the establishment, there to undo everything Jeremy Corbyn achieved, personally I think all Actual Labour members should join the Workers party and just leave new Labour to the blairites.
Still if it isnt shocking enough that some lunatic has actully written this law, jaws can drop in horror that the house passed it. There appears to be hardly any servants of the people currently present in the house of commons. There are not words for this, it beggars belief.
Which was largely about barons and Kings) and the following human rights acts, you can't have a law and then refuse to prosecute, but then maybe logic is now illegal and therefore this makes sense
Actually it's the charter of libertines that is the foundational document.
The Magna Carter came later, was I believe intially signed into law under duress and would not have stood legally but for the charter of libertines which had already given many of the rights the magna Carter did sinply because they already were in existenced in that charter, essentially anyway.
Sadly the security services are breaking human right law all the time, all this new law seek ls to do is allow them to carry on with out risk of prosecution. Top to bottom it's disgraceful.
Post by: Jolly2 on 01/12/2020 01:50:06
"The dumbest aspect of the British political system"
Have we ruled out "working class Tories"?
They didnt vote for the Tories they voted for Brexit and against Jeremy Corbyn who had turned against Brexit, and who had been labelled by the Press a terrorist and a communist who would destroy the country.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 01/12/2020 06:30:09
Actually it's the charter of libertines that is the foundational document.Don't believe the hype, around the time the French nobels where committing genocide and taking slaves.
The Magna Carter came later, was I believe intially signed into law under duress and would not have stood legally but for the charter of libertines which had already given many of the rights the magna Carter did sinply because they already were in existenced in that charter, essentially anyway.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North#:~:text=The%20Harrying%20of%20the%20North,had%20encouraged%20Anglo-Danish%20rebellions.
Essentially its these peoples children who got into an argument with the king.
Yep, Corbyn was hung by his party, being the staunch brexiteer he was if he could have took that stance versus Theresa May we would still have him as PM."The dumbest aspect of the British political system"
Have we ruled out "working class Tories"?
They didnt vote for the Tories they voted for Brexit and against Jeremy Corbyn who had turned against Brexit, and who had been labelled by the Press a terrorist and a communist who would destroy the country.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/12/2020 09:01:57
Yep, Corbyn was hung by his party,Mainly, he was hanged by the media.
Labour party voters were anti brexit by a solid margin. For the party to have had a pro brexit stance would have been absurd.
JC recognised that.
Because he was prepared to talk about a 2nd referendum (which would probably have overturned the first one) the billionaire's couldn't allow him to win (and it's not as if they were pro Labour anyway) so they lied, lied and lied again to stop him.
The idea that a life-long pacifist was a terrorist supporter either in Northern ireland or in Palestine is absurd; but that's the lie that was told.
Enough people believed it, and here we are with a clown as PM and a brexit crash due at the end of the month.
Post by: evan_au on 01/12/2020 09:22:22
Quote from: Petrochemicals
I'm sure this must be against the magna carta (Which was largely about barons and Kings)...It was amusing recently to see "Karen"s in Australia posting video of themselves declaring that they don't need to follow instructions of police or health officials because they are "sovereign citizens", or because of Magna Carta.
Unless Karen was a noble of some sort, the Magna Carta does not apply.
- And the Sovereign of Australia (currently QE2) delegates authority down to the local Governer-General and the national government (including police and health authorities).
Post by: syhprum on 01/12/2020 18:11:47
Post by: Jolly2 on 01/12/2020 21:05:39
Yep, Corbyn was hung by his party,Mainly, he was hanged by the media.
Labour party voters were anti brexit by a solid margin. For the party to have had a pro brexit stance would have been absurd.
JC recognised that.
No he didnt, he allowed Janis Varoufakis to convince him a reform EU position was better then leaving.
Because he was prepared to talk about a 2nd referendum
The peoples vote was Tony Blairs idea. Jeremy basically allowed the blairites to set the agenda. He tried a "3rd way," very Blair. He wanted remain and reform the EU or Leave but keep all the rules, which is leave in name only. It was a total failure of a position.
(which would probably have overturned the first one)
I seriously doubt it as the Election results showed.
the billionaire's couldn't allow him to win (and it's not as if they were pro Labour anyway) so they lied, lied and lied again to stop him.
They certainly lied alot.
The idea that a life-long pacifist was a terrorist supporter either in Northern ireland or in Palestine is absurd; but that's the lie that was told.
Enough people believed it, and here we are with a clown as PM and a brexit crash due at the end of the month.
The real Brexit struggle has started, what kind of country is britian going to be? Seems clear at the moment the security establishment and the conservatives want a neoliberal authoritarian nightmare.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/12/2020 08:54:15
I seriously doubt it as the Election results showed.What the election showed was that Boris- and a pro brexit party got 42% of the vote.
58% voted against him.
If the others had "teamed up", they would have won.
What the actual data showed was a clear lead for Remain by mid 2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_the_United_Kingdom%27s_membership_of_the_European_Union_(2016%E2%80%932020)#/media/File:Brexit_post-referendum_polling_-_Right-Wrong.svg.
So a "rematch" in 2019 would have overturned the original poll
Post by: alancalverd on 03/12/2020 00:38:16
Repeated voting until you produce the right answer (Ireland), or denying a referendum in case it comes up with the wrong answer (Holland), was one of the many objections to continued membership of the EU.
The only consistent policy of the Labour Party both pre- and post-Blair has been selfdestruction. Corbyn blew it for me when, running for the office that would put his finger on the nuclear button, he refused to say whether he would press it or scrap it. Not that the Blair period was in any way admirable - Thatcherism stinks even if it's painted red.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2020 08:54:04
Don't confuse a general election, where you vote for a constituency representative, with a single issue referendum where you vote for or against a stated action.I didn't; that's the brexiteer stance. It was, for example, Boris' only campaign issue.
All those lies about " Getting brexit done"- for which we are still waiting and "oven ready deal" or "£350M a week for the NHS" which could never exist and so on.
Boris turned the election into a rehash of the referendum because he knew that he could win that with a minority. And he did. That's teh important difference whetween an election and a referendum.
In an election 42% is a commanding majority.
A referendum is obviously nearer to being democratic (and relatively cheap). I see that you object to them...
Repeated voting until you produce the right answer (Ireland), or denying a referendum in case it comes up with the wrong answer (Holland), was one of the many objections to continued membership of the EU.
Repeating votes is hardly unique to the EU, is it?
For example we had a referendum in the 70s and we repeated it in 2016.
Leaving the EU isn't going to stop demands for another Scottish independence referendum, is it?
The last one before that was about AV; a pretend version of proportional representation. It was nothing much to do with Europe and a lot to do with the Lib Dems not realising that getting into bed with Tories is a bad idea..
So your stance "We can fix the problem of too many referenda by leaving the EU" is doomed.
It's no more plausible than the "oven ready deal".
he refused to say whether he would press it or scrap it.Well, which would you do?
Obviously, whatever answer you give, I will point out a scenario where your choice is laughably wrong.
That's what the press wanted to do to Corbyn.
He had the sense not to answer with anything but "it depends"
Expecting a yes or no answer to a question like that is childish, yet that's what you wanted.
About the only thing you said that isn't plainly wrong is that Blair was wet Tory in disguise.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/12/2020 10:41:54
A referendum is obviously nearer to being democratic (and relatively cheap). I see that you object to them...No, I object to the losers whingeing about it.
Quote
He had the sense not to answer with anything but "it depends"
That would have been an acceptable answer. Indeed a sensible one.
Quote
For example we had a referendum in the 70s and we repeated it in 2016.At some point in your journey, you have to make a decision. When the road turns into a swamp, it makes sense to review that decision. Like many people, but not quite enough, I saw the swamp in the 1960s and it just got bigger the further we drove into it. Getting out of a swamp is more difficult than staying still, but when you can see a crocodile like Germany eating fish like Greece, it's probably a good idea to engage reverse.
Quote
lies about " Getting brexit done"What sort of an idiot believes anything a politician says? The best you can do is to give a mandate to the guy least likely to ignore it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2020 10:51:21
Like the ones who lost in the 70s and banged on about it for 4 decades...?A referendum is obviously nearer to being democratic (and relatively cheap). I see that you object to them...No, I object to the losers whingeing about it.
Yes; I agree the Brexiteers were a dratted nuisance.
Worse than that, even though they have won, they are still lying about it, even after it's been pointed out that the lie is a lie.
It is lucky we were not in the EU as UK can approve without waiting for EU approval.
That's what I can't quite understand; why are the pro brexit lobby using lies to justify the move?
Why haven't they published a big list of the benefits?
It's been nearly a year since we left.
Surely some of the benefits must be clear by now.
What are they?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/12/2020 10:57:59
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2020 13:09:43
Nobody banged on about the 1970s referendum result. We just said "I told you so" as fishing stocks and manufacturing industry collapsed and the UK trade deficit increased year on year, until HM Govt tried and failed to renegotiate the terms for the umpteenth time.Fish stocks declined all round the world.
It's not an "EU" thing, it's -as you usually remember to point out- a "too many people" thing.Also, while cash isn't the only thing...
"At best fishing is around 0.05% of GDP, depending on how you capture the economic contribution of the fishing industry "
From
https://thefishingdaily.com/latest-news/3-5-of-britains-gdp-for-uks-fishing-industry-impossible-says-professor/
So, the brexit stance relies on not really telling the truth about something which isn't very important.
The UK is among the top 10 manufacturing nations- not bad given our size.
The industry employs fewer people, but that's because of greater automation not because of the EU bogeyman.
Everyone talks about the mighty finance industry but that's a Tory lie.
You seem to have swallowed it.
The recent figures I found (2018/19) were
Manufacturing generated £191 billion
Financial services generated £130 billion.
We didn't really lose manufacturing jobs to Europe; we lost them to india, China, etc.
The UK joined Europe in 73
Here's what actually happened to the trade deficit. It shrank dramatically, and turned into a surplus (It's the grey line)
Trade.JPG (76.99 kB . 1041x555 - viewed 4268 times)Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2020 13:10:59
That's what I can't quite understand; why are the pro brexit lobby using lies to justify the move?
Why haven't they published a big list of the benefits?
It's been nearly a year since we left.
Surely some of the benefits must be clear by now.
What are they?
Post by: Jolly2 on 03/12/2020 14:23:28
I seriously doubt it as the Election results showed.What the election showed was that Boris- and a pro brexit party got 42% of the vote.
58% voted against him.
If the others had "teamed up", they would have won.
What the actual data showed was a clear lead for Remain by mid 2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_the_United_Kingdom%27s_membership_of_the_European_Union_(2016%E2%80%932020)#/media/File:Brexit_post-referendum_polling_-_Right-Wrong.svg.
So a "rematch" in 2019 would have overturned the original poll
That's highly speculative. Each election and referendum takes place in it's own time.
I'm sure if labour had respected the original referendum, and taken a leave position, they would have won, they certianly wouldn't have lost the north of the country.
States aid and ownership is banned under EU law it's there in black and white in the Lisbon treaty, how any socialist could be pro EU when the EU makes any and all state ownership or aid illegal makes you wonder.
None of Jeremy Corbyns ideas could be allowed under EU law, adding to the ridiculousness of Labours position in the last election.
Ofcourse remain and reform as Corbyns agenda was pushing to remove blocks to states aid. But overturning the Lisbon treaty isnt a cake walk, especially when the EU is a neoliberal project.
Hilariously we have the Tories currently arguing for states aid in the current Deal negotiations, as states aid is essential to being able to maintain a free market economy and has always been deployed historically in times of trouble.
Post by: Jolly2 on 03/12/2020 14:40:24
Nobody banged on about the 1970s referendum result. We just said "I told you so" as fishing stocks and manufacturing industry collapsed and the UK trade deficit increased year on year, until HM Govt tried and failed to renegotiate the terms for the umpteenth time.Fish stocks declined all round the world.
It's not an "EU" thing, it's -as you usually remember to point out- a "too many people" thing.Also, while cash isn't the only thing...
"At best fishing is around 0.05% of GDP, depending on how you capture the economic contribution of the fishing industry "
From
https://thefishingdaily.com/latest-news/3-5-of-britains-gdp-for-uks-fishing-industry-impossible-says-professor/
So, the brexit stance relies on not really telling the truth about something which isn't very important.
The UK is among the top 10 manufacturing nations- not bad given our size.
The industry employs fewer people, but that's because of greater automation not because of the EU bogeyman.
Everyone talks about the mighty finance industry but that's a Tory lie.
You seem to have swallowed it.
The recent figures I found (2018/19) were
Manufacturing generated £191 billion
Financial services generated £130 billion.
We didn't really lose manufacturing jobs to Europe; we lost them to india, China, etc.
The UK joined Europe in 73
Here's what actually happened to the trade deficit. It shrank dramatically, and turned into a surplus (It's the grey line)
Manufacturers decided to pay less and take more profits for themselves, it's simply a question of greed, where the owners and shareholders increase their profits and dividends while wages across the first world get suppressed.
Brexit like Trump, was a vote against the neoliberal status quo. It was a move against corporate governance and a call to return to an actual democracy.
That's the fight, who rules? government of the people or a government of the corporations? Brexit is a vote for the former, sadly the latter still has the power and is driving forward seeking as they go to gain an even stronger postion, hence the new covert human intelligence bill.
Quote
All those lies about " Getting brexit done"- for which we are still waiting and "oven ready deal" or "£350M a week for the NHS" which could never exist and so on.
Honestly if you simply kicked the PFIs and PPP out of the NHS it would be financially stable. As of last year PiFs have given 14 billion to the NHS yet they had extracted in profits of 88 billion, that's 64 billion in tax payers money gone in corporate profits and not used to help the sick or improve the service, when you add the PPP schemes of Blair the massive increase in unnecessary Management layers, the only reason the NHS is struggling is simply because the government wants it to.
All that has happened is that the corporates have managed to stick a straw into the NHS and slowly they are sucking it dry.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2020 15:24:28
Brexit like Trump, was a vote against the neoliberal status quo. It was a move against corporate governance and a call to return to an actual democracy.So, voting for Trump- the man who is still trying to overturn the democratic outcome of an election- having been elected by a minority popular vote is a return to democracy in your view.
Do you understand why I disagree?
Similarly, Brexit is now recognised by the majority as a mistake.
But the "neoliberal" brexiteers are plowing on with it.
Do you feel that's democratic?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2020 15:27:37
Honestly if you simply kicked the PFIs and PPP out of the NHSHow could you do that?
They have government-minister-signed contracts with penalty clauses.
You would still end up paying them.
The problem is Tories who want to privatise the NHS anyway and are happy to do it in stages.
PFI is just an easy place to start.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2020 15:31:49
That's highly speculativeThis is not speculation.
It is data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_the_United_Kingdom%27s_membership_of_the_European_Union_(2016%E2%80%932020)#/media/File:Brexit_post-referendum_polling_-_Right-Wrong.svg.
The population has not supported Brexit since mid 2017.
The fact that Boris polled 42% is also not speculative.
It's also a fact that 42% is less than half
Post by: alancalverd on 03/12/2020 15:58:19
Fish stocks declined all round the world.except in Norwegian and Icelandic waters where the policy was to preserve stock, not ,market price.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/12/2020 16:10:40
Admittedly it's a couple of years old but that was the data on which the decision was taken. Interestingly the article was in a very pro-EU newspaper.
It was inevitable anyway. If you are trading at a loss across a mutual tariff barrier, reducing the tariffs will increase the volume of trade in both directions and thus the loss. Which is why I voted against joining the Common Market in 1960 and ever since.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/12/2020 16:18:20
The population has not supported Brexit since mid 2017."Buyer's remorse" is pretty common after any big deal, and when have opinion polls ever matched the outcome of an actual vote?
Quote
The fact that Boris polled 42% is also not speculative.but a lie. He got 52.6% of the constituency vote in a 12-way poll in 2019. He was elected MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and holds no other elected position.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2020 18:53:34
but a lie.It's a shorthand.
His party got 42%.
It would be a clear loss at a referendum, but it's a win in parliament.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2020 19:01:23
when have opinion polls ever matched the outcome of an actual vote?Well, for a start, the brexit referendum.
The polls were saying it was too close to call and the actual vote was almost a dead heat.
The polls are actually quite good.
"Buyer's remorse" is pretty common after any big deal
Boris promised a deal- but he lied.
We don't have a "big deal".
What we have is the realisation that the stuff labeled "project fear" is coming true, and the brexiteers claims don't hold water.
except in Norwegian and Icelandic waters where the policy was to preserve stock, not ,market price.If you restrict the catch (adequately) the supply falls and the price goes up.
What you need to do is avoid the "tragedy ofthe commons".
You can do that with gunships, or you can be grown up about it, and have trade agreements.
It was the UK government who sold off the UK's fishing rights.
It's not helpful to blame people for recognising the value of something which the Tories didn't.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2020 19:04:18
It was inevitable anyway.If being a member of the EU made a deficit inevitable, then Germany would have one. They don't.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2020 19:04:45
That's what I can't quite understand; why are the pro brexit lobby using lies to justify the move?
Why haven't they published a big list of the benefits?
It's been nearly a year since we left.
Surely some of the benefits must be clear by now.
What are they?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/12/2020 23:36:44
He has two jobs: to represent his constituents' interest and to chair the Cabinet. His party only got 42% of the vote because, this being almost the last free country in the world, there are no limits as to how many candidates can stand in any constituency at an election, political parties have no constitutional status, and (indeed therefore) losing votes are not redistributed, thanks to a referendum that rejected such corrupt practices some years ago. If a dozen candidates stood in every constituency, you could get a 100% parliamentary whitewash with only 8.34% of the popular vote.
Even the idea of a party "winning in parliament" is meaningless. The monarch invites whoever is most capable of commanding a majority in a Commons vote, to form a government. It is usually the leader of the party with the most representatives but that sometimes doesn't guarantee a working majority unless they can use your money to bribe others to vote with them.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/12/2020 08:49:41
Even the idea of a party "winning in parliament" is meaningless.Then why are they so damned keen to do it?
That's just a silly assertion, isn't it.
It's easy enough to have as many candidates in as many flavours as you want, but then have a second vote- a run-off between the top 2 party leaders (even if Alan doesn't believe in parties).
However, enough of the vagaries of voting systems...
That's what I can't quite understand; why are the pro brexit lobby using lies to justify the move?
Why haven't they published a big list of the benefits?
It's been nearly a year since we left.
Surely some of the benefits must be clear by now.
What are they?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/12/2020 10:48:14
then have a second vote- a run-off between the top 2 party leadersThus producing an elected president, conceivably without a parliamentary majority.
At best, this could lead to the sort of nonsense that happens in the USA where PUS wants to do something but Congress won't vote the money.
Worse, think cronyism, corruption, "President Blair"...
Worst of all, parliament and constituency representatives become irrelevant (because the People Have Spoken) and Pigshagger/ Miss Cornfield/ Dominic Johnson becomes Life President
Thank Cromwell, Magna Carta and all the other stuff that has kept a Trumpette out of Number 10 by simply not granting constitutional status to political parties..
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/12/2020 11:17:34
Worse, think cronyism, corruption, "President Blair"So... no actual change.
The same as is happening under Boris and which happened under Blair.
Thus producing an elected president, conceivably without a parliamentary majority.So, they would actually have to have a debate in the House and try to explain why their plan should be implemented, rather than " We are the current elected dictatorship".
constitutional status to political partiesThe UK barely has a constitution.
The fact that the constitution (such as it is) does not recognise parties is hardly relevant because, in fact, they exist.
Our governmental system recognises them in practice... as you say.
The monarch invites whoever is most capable of commanding a majority in a Commons vote, to form a government.
Worst of all, parliament and constituency representatives become irrelevant (because the People Have Spoken) and Pigshagger/ Miss Cornfield/ Dominic Johnson becomes Life PresidentNot really.
In principle a PM could keep their job indefinitely.
A President- a-la USA can't hold office for longer than 2 terms.
So, if anything, it seems you have the two systems muddled up.
That's what I can't quite understand; why are the pro brexit lobby using lies to justify the move?
Why haven't they published a big list of the benefits?
It's been nearly a year since we left.
Surely some of the benefits must be clear by now.
What are they?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/12/2020 23:27:50
Surely some of the benefits must be clear by now.It took 50 years before the public realised how much harm it was doing to the economy and the legal system. The economy has now been further buggered by government incompetence, and there are no plans to change the law in the short term.
What are they?
You plant trees for your grandchildren. I won't be around to see the benefits, but things might stop getting worse before I die.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/12/2020 23:38:51
when have opinion polls ever matched the outcome of an actual vote?
Well, for a start, the brexit referendum.
The polls were saying it was too close to call and the actual vote was almost a dead heat.
The polls are actually quite good.
I have forwarded your CV to Donald Trump, who appreciates that kind of mathematics.
The actual majority was 4%. Had it gone the other way, you would have had to call that "almost a dead heat" too. So "too close to call" or "almost a dead heat" has a bandwidth of at least 8%. In the real world, 8% can make the difference between life and death.
Post by: charles1948 on 05/12/2020 00:40:47
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2020 00:56:11
The grown ups will spot that you didn't answer the question.Surely some of the benefits must be clear by now.It took 50 years before the public realised how much harm it was doing to the economy and the legal system. The economy has now been further buggered by government incompetence, and there are no plans to change the law in the short term.
What are they?
You plant trees for your grandchildren. I won't be around to see the benefits, but things might stop getting worse before I die.
The actual majority was 4%.And the actual spread of the polls was anywhere from 40 to 55.
The real result fell in that range.
So the polls were not actually wrong they were imprecise.
The competent polsters said it was too close to call.
That's consistent with the surprise many people felt the following morning.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/12/2020 19:04:45
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/12/2020 10:51:21
That's what I can't quite understand; why are the pro brexit lobby using lies to justify the move?
Why haven't they published a big list of the benefits?
It's been nearly a year since we left.
Surely some of the benefits must be clear by now.
What are they?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2020 00:58:58
The economy has now been further buggered by government incompetence, and there are no plans to change the law in the short term.So, what you seem to be saying is that Brexit isn't going to bring about a change.
OK... what did we spend £200 Bn for?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2020 00:59:30
Has "Science" been replaced by "Wokeness?No.
Why do you ask?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2020 15:20:11
In principle a PM could keep their job indefinitely.Only for as long as they can command a parliamentary majority.
Quote
Surely some of the benefits must be clear by now.No. The principal benefit should be a reduction in the net trade deficit with the EU, though the ability of future administrations to bugger things up is a confounding variable. It will probably take as long to recover as it did to grow to its present size, and screwing up COVID didn't help. Grownups don't expect instant gratification.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2020 17:54:28
The principal benefit should be a reduction in the net trade deficit with the EUWhy is that a benefit?
The trade deficit has gone up and down over the years but but doesn't seem to have done any harm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_trade
says
"Prior to 20th-century monetarist theory, the 19th-century economist and philosopher Frédéric Bastiat expressed the idea that trade deficits actually were a manifestation of profit, rather than a loss. He proposed as an example to suppose that he, a Frenchman, exported French wine and imported British coal, turning a profit. He supposed he was in France and sent a cask of wine which was worth 50 francs to England. The customhouse would record an export of 50 francs. If in England, the wine sold for 70 francs (or the pound equivalent), which he then used to buy coal, which he imported into France, and was found to be worth 90 francs in France, he would have made a profit of 40 francs. But the customhouse would say that the value of imports exceeded that of exports and was trade deficit against the ledger of France."
In any event, you failed to recognise this.
If being a member of the EU made a deficit inevitable, then Germany would have one. They don't.
So, if having a trade deficit with the EU is such a bad thing, we could do what the Germans do and not have a deficit.
Probably easier and cheaper than Brexit.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2020 18:52:20
Suppose you and I play poker once a week and you lose money every time because I have all the picture cards. Would it be better for you to play once a day? If you lose so much that can't feed your family, I'll lend you money with interest, to cover your debts, and then I don't even have to play in order to take your money.
The simplest model of international trade is to consider that two countries A, B each have two businesses, one that imports and one that exports. Each business makes a profit. But if A imports from B more that it exports to B, A loses money, If we double the volume of trade in both directions, A loses money twice as fast, but every business makes more profit. Hence EU: good for business, bad for Britain.
The "single trader" example is inappropriate and oversimplistic (it was probably devised by an economist). By selling 50 worth of goods for 70, the French winemaker makes a profit of 20. By selling 70 worth of goods for 90, the English collier makes a profit of 20. But whose profit to earnings ratio is greater? Which company would you invest in? Which trader can contribute more in taxes, for a given amount of work, to his national good?
And even if you like the single trader model, what happened on the English side of the channel? He paid 70 for wine and got 70 for coal, so no profit. Beware of incomplete models: they can be as misleading as "COVID deaths" (a political fiction) compared with "excess deaths during an epidemic" (a historical fact).
Germany exports cars, Greece exports olive oil. Greece went broke despite the olive oil trade being profitable, and is now owned by the German banks.
Quote
If being a member of the EU made a deficit inevitable, then Germany would have one[But nobody said it did. If you have winners and losers and they compete more often, the winners end up winning more and the losers end up losing more: that's the inevitability, and exactly what happened.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2020 19:18:12
The simplest model of international trade is to consider that two countries A, B each have two businesses, one that imports and one that exports. Each business makes a profit. But if A imports from B more that it exports to B, A loses money, If we double the volume of trade in both directions, A loses money twice as fast, but every business makes more profit. Hence EU: good for business, bad for Britain.By exactly the same logic... bad for Germany.
But Germany doesn't have a deficit with Europe.
You seem to not understand.
The sensible solution isn't to leave the EU (which, for example, wouldn't help Greece)
The sensible solution is not to be Greece.
[But nobody said it did.Whatever...
It was inevitable anyway.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/12/2020 02:32:37
Please
Brexit like Trump, was a vote against the neoliberal status quo. It was a move against corporate governance and a call to return to an actual democracy.So, voting for Trump-
Was precisely that a democratic vote vote by the people of America, against the neo liberal corporates, Trump was a middle finger to the entire American establishment. As was Obama, except Obama pretended to be anti establishment, Trump didn't, and has spent the last 4 years with the establishment making up lies like Russia gate, impeachment hearings about lies from the Ukraine. Russia Gate had one simply objective which it achieved namely to Prevent Trump building bridges with Russia, so arms can keep flowing to Poland etc.
the man who is still trying to overturn the democratic outcome of an election-
The election is disputed, there are hundreds of people who have signed affidavits claiming they have seen fraud, the poll watchers were removed from the counting areas against regulations, then you have the issues like those brought by the Texas lawsuit namely that the changes to the voting rules were unconstitutional, Pennsylvania changed their rules in Oct 2019 yet people say the new rules were because of Corona virus and need people to vote by mail.
There is the truck driver who drove ballots from New York to Pennsylvania and had his trailer stolen.
Ofcourse the news media from day one has stated there is no fraud, Facebook and Twitter since day one of the election have been removing groups claiming fraud, have censored people claiming it or applied disclaimers, even before any cases were even heard in court.
And yet with all the censorship stats show around 53% of voters in states like Georgia believe there was serious Fraud in the election. 80% Republicans 30% of independents and around 25% of Democrats. Across the country those numbers are increasing. I notice many "anti trumpers" simply dont care if there was fraud they just want Trump out and dont care how it happens; Hardly pro democracy position.
Moving on to the courts is another joke, when you see some of the rulings, if this year shows anything it's that courts are actually political.
Quite simply as with the supreme courts decision today, many courts have simply refuse to even consider the case.
And Texas is correct, to have changed the voting laws, as they did in Pennsylvania with act 77, the state of Pennsylvania would have had to change its constitution, which it did not.
And then there's the pre election "posturing" With Nacy Pelosi literally preventing people having stimulus checks because in her words "Trump isnt going to be allowed to put his name on a check", and the people are still waiting for financial help. They can all thank Nancy for making then wait.
Then you have media blackout and Twitter censorship of the Hunter Biden story published by the New York Post, which today turns out to be completely true and the FBI are likely arresting him soon, which effectively shows that almost the entire media and social media are were partisan for Biden, both before and after the election.
having been elected by a minority popular vote is a return to democracy in your view.
America isn't one country it's better seen as 50 counties, the essence of the electoral college is stopping a few states dominance in every election, which a popular vote would cause. There are other more negative reasons but the popular vote is meaningless in the American system.
Do you understand why I disagree?
I understand you don't see the trees for the wood.
Similarly, Brexit is now recognised by the majority as a mistake.
But the "neoliberal" brexiteers are plowing on with it.
Do you feel that's democratic?
Brexit is only a mistake if Britain doesn't change its system and remains under the yoke of Thathers negative freedom which effectively gives power to the market, and makes voting something you do at the shops.
Brexit is a fight for democracy, but the market and the corporates that own it are certianly as anti democratic as ever.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/12/2020 02:43:51
Honestly if you simply kicked the PFIs and PPP out of the NHSHow could you do that?
They have government-minister-signed contracts with penalty clauses.
You would still end up paying them.
The problem is Tories who want to privatise the NHS anyway and are happy to do it in stages.
PFI is just an easy place to start.
Its was Oliver Letwin wrote a secret white paper for Thatcher suggesting the steps that should be taken to make the NHS private, the whole country should know it was him, and he should answer for it. Anyway effectively consecutive governments have followed it.
Interestingly you should probably
just end the NHS.
And start a new public Health system. UK PUBLIC Health Service.
PHS.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 12:11:14
Was precisely that a democratic vote vote by the people of America, against the neo liberal corporates, Trump was a middle finger to the entire American establishment.Trump is "establishment".
He is a neo-liberal corporate.
The election is disputedNobody has been able to find any evidence to support this but that's hardly the big point.
Why, after 4 years in charge, hadn't Trump got voter fraud sorted?The real answer is that there's so little of it that it isn't worth the effort.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-voter-fraud-facts-explai/explainer-despite-trump-claims-voter-fraud-is-extremely-rare-here-is-how-u-s-states-keep-it-that-way-idUSKBN2601HG
Trump's claims of cheating in the election are lies- just like the "build a wall: Mexico will pay" war-cry.
the poll watchers were removed from the counting areas against regulationsThere's little evidence that happened, is there?
It's simpler than that.
There never was a reason to expect Trump to win.
He barely won last time.
He didn't do the things he said he would.
So the people who voted for him last time now know that he is a liar.
So they didn't vote for him this time.
So he lost.
No need for fraud in the elections because the people spotted that Trump is the biggest fraud of all.
Brexit is only a mistake if Britain doesn't change its system and remains under the yoke of Thathers negative freedom which effectively gives power to the market, and makes voting something you do at the shops.The people bringing about this catastrophic brexit worship Thatcher.
Do you really think they are planning to overturn her ideology?
And that's the only Brexit on offer.
It's hypothetically possible that a Left wing "Corbyn" brexit would be different; but that's not happening.
On the other hand
if Britain doesn't change its system and remains under the yoke of Thathers negative freedom which effectively gives power to the market, and makes voting something you do at the shops.then we are heading for disaster with or without Brexit.
But leaving the EU lets the billionaires get to their goal more easily.
That's why they brought it about.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/12/2020 12:21:55
But Germany doesn't have a deficit with Europe.And never has had since the formation of the EEC. Therefore increasing trade increases overall profit for Germany.
If A and B trade, and A makes a profit, B must be making a loss. In this case, A was always the EU and B was always the UK.
Capitalism is very simple.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 12:30:31
Capitalism is very simple.Then why aren't we doing it?
The point remains that, since Germany can make a profit out of the EU, so could the UK.
It's not a "problem" with the EU; it's a problem with the UK.
Leaving the EU will not actually fix the problem, will it?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/12/2020 13:34:56
The point remains that, since Germany can make a profit out of the EU, so could the UK.Apparently not, after 50 years of trying.
If you start a race 10 yards behind the favorite, and he insists that you cannot take bigger or more frequent strides (oddly, "level playing field" seems not to translate into French, German or Flemish - every EU politician uses the same phrase on TV), the best you can hope for is to finish 10 yards behind him.
If the race runs for 50 years and the loser has to pay the leader every year, you will lose a heck of a lot of money. Meanwhile if the loser's politicians insist that we are not a manufacturing economy, we must maintain higher animal welfare standards than our competitors, we must destroy our coalmines, we must stop growing crops that might lower market prices, and interest rates can go as high as 17%, you might just find that gap increasing each year as anyone with money to invest in productive industry will invest overseas. Which is exactly what has happened.
Note that I haven't mentioned fishing. Remoaners will tell you that it only accounts for buggerall percent of GNP. Absolutely true. But before the CFP was introduced, and HM Govt offered subsidies to owners to scrap their boats (The Dutch and French governments meanwhile offered subsidies for building bigger and more efficient boats, but this didn't count as State Aid because it wasn't British so nobody looked too hard at it), and the North Sea was denuded by the CFP, it accounted for a lot more. Whichis why it would be nice to take back control of it and try to rebuild something.
In summary, joining an organisation for promoting competition rather than collaboration, plus half a century of governmental incompetence, has produced austerity and poverty and seriously damaged the infrastructure. So people voted to get rid of one of the causes. Unfortunately the only way to do so was to give a parliamentary majority to the other cause!
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 13:57:37
Yet Alan things this will allow you to overtake.
In reality, you don't beat that cartell by leaving the cartell.
Also, you don't seem to understand the role of a profit.
If I buy biscuits, the shopkeeper gets a profit; but I get biscuits.
I'm quite happy with this arrangement.
The UK has about 8% of the European fishermen and about 14 % of the EU population.
https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/facts_figures_en?qt-facts_and_figures=3
The money / productivity / GDP per fisherman is probably roughly the same across Europe.
So, if the fishing industry produces bugger all of the UK GDP then it produces roughly 14/8 times bugger all of the EU GDP.
So it's not really worth the EU worrying much about it either.
But it did allow Farage to pose on a boat.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/12/2020 15:39:27
I understand perfectly. If I buy a British product, the UK government gets some tax from the seller to spend on public services in the UK. If I buy a foreign product, they don't. If everyone in the UK buys more from overseas than we sell, the public coffers lose money.
The playing field wasn't level, and by insisting that everyone spends 30% of their income on housing (more than anywhere else in Europe) successive governments have tied our boots together. Knowing you can't win, it's best not to play.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 18:41:03
It's nothing to do with beating the cartel,I think you will change your mind about that soon.
Negotiating a deal with a much larger economy is difficult.
They, in fact, hold all the cards.
If I buy a foreign product, they don't. If everyone in the UK buys more from overseas than we sell...And we just made it much harder to sell goods into the EU- our biggest market.
So that's the mechanism by which brexit cripples our economy.
We don't grow enough food here so at the very least, we will need to import that.
The rest of the world knows it.
They know that we can no longer rely on our membership of the big boys club to gouge cheap prices from them.
They have us over a barrel.
So they are going to charge us more.
In principle, we can retaliate by charging them more for goods that we make- but aside from Scotch, they can buy anything we make from elsewhere in the world. And it's not as if we are a massive manufacturing powerhouse anyway.
So, we will not be able to get as good a price when we sell or when we buy goods as we could as part of a big cartel.
There's not a path to success this way.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/12/2020 22:19:39
They, in fact, hold all the cards.Really? We buy more from them than they do from us, so any restriction on trade will hurt them more than us.
The UK represents 15% of the EU population, and probably 30% of the export market for Spanish fruit and vegetables (the other Mediterranean countries grow their own). So they aren't going to stop sending the stuff, or jack the price up to the point where it's cheaper to grow it under glass in Essex..
The UK consumes about 20% of the European market for German cars. A one year moratorium on such imports would have no significant effect on mobility in the UK, but would cause serious ripples at the point where EU policy is really decided. They would have to sell the surplus in France, which is well-nigh impossible due to the French disdain for EU regulations on free trade. Or in Spain, Italy or Greece, where they have already bankrupted the population.
Quote
They know that we can no longer rely on our membership of the big boys club to gouge cheap prices from them.Cheap? The EU market price on, for instance, meat, is maintained artificially high by a duty of between 16 and 30% on meat from nonEU countries. On manufactured goods, I can buy the same product for 50 - 75% of the price in the USA, even if it was manufactured in the EU (I know - I used to sell high tech medical devices in the EU).
In a trading economy, the customer is king.
And if you are prepared to jump through the hoops, the EU is a huge, soft and profitable market for a non-EU producer because you only have to meet one set of standards to be able to sell it in 25 countries. Yes, 25, because the UK is out and whatever the rules say, you can't sell a foreign product in France. Ask any Chinese entrepreneur.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 22:45:39
you can't sell a foreign product in FranceLast time I was in Paris, I could still drink Coke.
any restriction on trade will hurt them more than us....
or not.
47 per cent of UK exports flow to EU while a mere four per cent of bloc's goods end up in Britain:
https://www.cityam.com/brexit-to-hit-uk-trade-harder-than-eu-trade/
We might buy a lot of Spanish apples, but apples are cheap.
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/12/2020 02:22:17
Was precisely that a democratic vote vote by the people of America, against the neo liberal corporates, Trump was a middle finger to the entire American establishment.Trump is "establishment".
He is a neo-liberal corporate.
In some ways that is true, but he is honest, as an example Obama would say 'we are going to invade this country to help bring freedom and democracy' and Trump says 'we are going to invade to get the oil'. Obama is a liar and Trump is honest.
And the establishment hates his honesty, as it shows better the reality of them and those in power. Trump is actually more honest and decent compared to the people in the establishment, who lie continually about everything and pretend they are in some way not utterly corrupt.
That honest of Trump is totally anti establishment, the establishment loves liars.
But America first also as an idea is anti establishment, it calls on all nations to be independent, the corporate establishment of America is utterly opposed to such ideas, it's sad Trump doesn't apply America First to Iran and Venezuela as that philosophy would respect the independence of both countries.
A philosophy of respect for independent nations as America first called for, is totally anti the American empire.
Ending the wars in the middle east as Trump has tried to, was anti establishment, ofcourse as now shown by recent news stories some generals were lying to Trump about the actual troop numbers, to prevent him removing them.
Stopping American support of ISIS was anti establishment, as Wikileaks showed in leaked emails the Obama administration was aware that arms shipments and funding would go to ISIS. Effectively America did the same thing with ISIS in Syria and Libya they did with Osama bin laden in Afghanistan to fight Russia, fund the terrorist to attack the rulers.
and Trump stopped the CIA funding and assisting ISIS and actually managed to destroy them completely by 2019 again a very anti establishment move, by Trump.
Making a trade war with China and trying to bring back jobs from arround the world is again a very anti establishment move by Trump as it was the corporations that shipped them out to save on wages.
Sadly Trump bought into the fake bubble economy. But he still tried to return jobs and tried renegotiate workers rights into NAFTA. Again the establishment was happy with NAFTA also wanted TTIP and TTP both of which Trump ended, if anything justified the Trump presidency it was ending TTIP which looks like it's back on the table if Biden gets in.
When you look at these things Trump is very anti establishment.
And as a bonus people are actually paying attention with Trump in office, Obama was 1000 times worse then Trump in some ways, yet everyone went to bed and ignored what Obama was doing in office, TTIP was Obama's project as an example, Obama built the cages on the Mexican border, persecuted whistle blowers in greater numbers then any president before him, bailouts of wall street and not a single prosecution of anyone responsible.. . Man the list of crap Obama did is lonnnng
The election is disputedNobody has been able to find any evidence to support this but that's hardly the big point.
Why, after 4 years in charge, hadn't Trump got voter fraud sorted?The real answer is that there's so little of it that it isn't worth the effort.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-voter-fraud-facts-explai/explainer-despite-trump-claims-voter-fraud-is-extremely-rare-here-is-how-u-s-states-keep-it-that-way-idUSKBN2601HG
Trump's claims of cheating in the election are lies- just like the "build a wall: Mexico will pay" war-cry.
Sorry not all the claims of fraud are comming from Trump. Simply to dismiss them without any consideration, is not ok.
The president cant "get fraud sorted" as you out it, each state is responsible for their elections, and as with Act 77 in Pennsylvania the laws were changed to make fraud easier.
Quote
“Statistical analysis of past presidential races supports the view that in 2020, in counties where Dominion Machines were deployed, the voting outcomes were on average (nationwide) 1.5% higher for Joe Biden and 1.5% lower for Donald Trump after adjusting for other demographic and past voting preference.Ben Turner, FraudSpotters
For Dominion to have switched the election from Trump to Biden, it would have had to have increased Biden outcomes (with a corresponding reduction in Trump outcomes) by 0.3% in Georgia, 0.6% in Arizona, 2.1% in Wisconsin, and 2.5% in Nevada. The apparent average of 1.5% “Dominion Effect” is greater than the margin in Arizona and Georgia, and close to the margin for Wisconsin and Nevada. It is not hard to picture a scenario where the actual effect in Wisconsin and Nevada was greater than the national average and would have changed the current reported outcome in those two states.
Assuming the “Dominion Effect” is real, it is possible that an audit of these machines would overturn the election.
These results are scientifically valid and have a p-value of less than 1%, meaning the chances of this math occurring randomly are less than 1 in 100.”
the poll watchers were removed from the counting areas against regulationsThere's little evidence that happened, is there?
Actually there is Tons of evidence from sworn affidavits, videos from election night as many counting areas were live streamed.
It's simpler than that.
There never was a reason to expect Trump to win.
I disagree, there is on the contrary no reason to expect Biden to win, he is by far the most establishment candidate you can think of, the idea mr establishment would get the most votes of any candidate in American history is laughable at best.
He barely won last time.
He didn't do the things he said he would.
Not true:
No new wars, he ran on it
Ending TTIP, he ran on it
Stopping ISIS, he ran on it,
Ending NAFTA, he ran on it
I Could go on...
So the people who voted for him last time now know that he is a liar.
So they didn't vote for him this time.
So he lost.
Liars are most politicians trumps more honest actually. As I suggested before.
No need for fraud in the elections because the people spotted that Trump is the biggest fraud of all.
The establishment lives by fraud I dont agree that Trump is a fraud. Biden as an establishment man by contrast, exudes fraud. Biden helped build the slave Labour camps that America calls for profit prisons.
The people are done with this neo liberal crap the idea the people would on mass vote it back into power doesnt work.
Brexit is only a mistake if Britain doesn't change its system and remains under the yoke of Thathers negative freedom which effectively gives power to the market, and makes voting something you do at the shops.The people bringing about this catastrophic brexit worship Thatcher.
Do you really think they are planning to overturn her ideology?
And that's the only Brexit on offer.
It's hypothetically possible that a Left wing "Corbyn" brexit would be different; but that's not happening.
On the other handif Britain doesn't change its system and remains under the yoke of Thathers negative freedom which effectively gives power to the market, and makes voting something you do at the shops.then we are heading for disaster with or without Brexit.
But leaving the EU lets the billionaires get to their goal more easily.
That's why they brought it about.
The EU is a neoliberal project just look at what they are doing to Greece, Itially, Spain and Portugal.
Currently the EU is trying to stop Britain have the ability to use states aid. Your suggestion is wrong, and be sure the empire some in the EU want to build will be as bad if not worse then the American empire.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/12/2020 05:26:22
Liars are most politicians trumps more honest actually.
Wow.
Just wow.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/president-trump-made-16241-false-or-misleading-claims-in-his-first-three-years/
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/12/2020 05:30:05
Liars are most politicians trumps more honest actually.
Wow.
Just wow.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/president-trump-made-16241-false-or-misleading-claims-in-his-first-three-years/
I wonder how many Bush jr and Obama managed.
But ofcourse when they lie its "white propaganda"
Post by: Kryptid on 13/12/2020 05:32:27
I wonder how many Bush jr and Obama managed.
It doesn't matter. You stated that Trump is honest:
Trump is honest.
It's plainly not true.
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/12/2020 05:52:00
I wonder how many Bush jr and Obama managed.
It doesn't matter. You stated that Trump is honest:Trump is honest.
It's plainly not true.
With respect to the point I made he is. He is who he is and not ashamed of who he is, and he means it when he says take the oil.
By contrast the Obama administration was one long kayfabe. A giant lie that got people sleeping.
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
Former CIA Director William Casey.
Many CIA people work In the media and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they wrote the article you shared.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/12/2020 05:55:07
With respect to the point I made he is.
Yes, an honest man publicly makes 16,241 false or misleading claims in 3 years.
Right...
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/12/2020 05:58:49
With respect to the point I made he is.
Yes, an honest man publicly makes 16,241 false or misleading claims in 3 years.
Right...
To repeat myself
Quote
By contrast the Obama administration was one long kayfabe. A giant lie that got people sleeping.
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
Former CIA Director William Casey.
Many CIA people work In the media and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they wrote the article you shared.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/12/2020 06:00:20
To repeat myself
Repeating yourself won't make Trump honest. You can't make one lie true by comparing it with another lie.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/12/2020 10:23:13
Actually there is Tons of evidence from sworn affidavits, videos from election night as many counting areas were live streamed.Every single case has been thrown out of court for a lack of evidence- even in the Supreme court which Trump packed with his supporters.
There are people saying there is evidence; but there is no evidence.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/12/2020 10:38:39
By contrast the Obama administration was one long kayfabe. A giant lie that got people sleeping.What did he say that isn't true?
No new wars, he ran on itNobody ever ran on a campaign of "I will start a war".
So they all run on a campaign of "no new wars".
Ending TTIP, he ran on itTTIP was dying.
There was no political support for it from the people of Europe (or the USA).
A campaign to "end" something that's already moribund is lying by omission.
Stopping ISIS, he ran on it,He did.
And, just like "Mexico will pay for the wall" he didn't fulfil his promise, did he?
Ending NAFTA, he ran on itAnd he immediately replaced it with this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Mexico%E2%80%93Canada_Agreement
nine out of ten people can't tell the difference.
As WIKI says
"The agreement has been characterized as "NAFTA 2.0,"or "New NAFTA," since many provisions from NAFTA were incorporated and its changes were seen as largely incremental. On July 1, 2020, the USMCA entered into force in all member states."
So, once again, that's a meaningless promise- not saying "I will replace NAFTA by something identical" is lying by omission.
I Could go on...Feel free, but try to do better this time.
Those examples (I presume you picked what you thought were the best ones) were all rubbish.
, and as with Act 77 in Pennsylvania the laws were changed to make fraud easier.So, you are saying that the Republicans in Pennsylvania changed the law to make it easier for Trump to be beaten.
That's absurd anyway.
But the interesting question is; in what way did the change make fraud easier?
Post by: alancalverd on 13/12/2020 13:01:53
Quote
According to a new study by the ifo Center for International Economics, the UK relied on the EU for 50 per cent of its imports last year, whereas the EU was the final destination for 47 per cent of all UK export, making it the UK’s single largest market........
“Brexit means both sides lose, but the United Kingdom loses considerably more,” said Lisandra Flach, director of the ifo Centre for International Economics.
Yes, folks, 47 > 50 in the New Economics.
Now back to Trump. At least his lies are obvious!
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/12/2020 13:23:23
Yes, folks, 47 > 50 in the New Economics.Nobody said that.
It's misleading for you to say what you did and imply that someone had said it.
Now back to Trump. At least his lies are obvious!While yours... not so much.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/12/2020 15:09:06
Actually there is Tons of evidence from sworn affidavits, videos from election night as many counting areas were live streamed.
What is your source for this? I've seen claims about election fraud that turned out to be unsubstantiated rumors (such as the claim that many thousands of ballots from dead people were counted and that Republican observers weren't allowed to watch the ballot counting process). Like Bored Chemist said, if there was solid evidence then the courts wouldn't keep throwing out the cases. You'd think that the lawyers would be presenting their top evidence if they were hoping to overturn something as serious as a presidential election. If even their best gets thrown out, then what does that tell you about the quality of that evidence?
Post by: alancalverd on 13/12/2020 16:09:22
Nobody said that.I implied nothing. I quoted verbatim from the article you used as a reference.
It's misleading for you to say what you did and imply that someone had said it.
Last night I caught an old episode of "Have I got news for you", chaired by Jennifer Saunders. Apropos some weaselly headline predictions she pointed out that they were made by an economist, so "you might as well ask the cat."
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/12/2020 16:33:23
I implied nothing. I quoted verbatim from the article you used as a reference.Yes.
And then you made up this bit
Yes, folks, 47 > 50 in the New Economics.And the way you posted it, you led people to think that the article you quoted said that 47 was more than 50.
You did this by taking the numbers from the report, but lying about what the report had said about those numbers.
But, in the real world, they didn't ever say that, did they?
It's just a lie you invented, isn't it?
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/12/2020 17:31:45
Actually there is Tons of evidence from sworn affidavits, videos from election night as many counting areas were live streamed.Every single case has been thrown out of court for a lack of evidence- even in the Supreme court which Trump packed with his supporters.
There are people saying there is evidence; but there is no evidence.
Incorrect, the courts have refused to hear the cases, as with the supreme courts decision with Trxas they simply stated that Pennsylvania the right to conduct its elections as it chooses to and that they do not consider Texas an injured party.
They refused to look at it, as such evidence isn't shown, arguments are not made, the supreme court has made no actual statement on the merits. And that has happened in many courts across the country.
Ofcourse you cant see evidence if you dont look.
Interestingly lower courts in Pennsylvania agree that the Republicans that brought their case had standing, but the supreme court blocked the cases from continuing.
But then ofcourse they, did the supreme court assisted the governor in over riding the legislature. It is only the legislature that has authority under the constitution to change the laws for voting, hence the governor and the supreme court acted unconstitutionally.
That alone should be reason enough that the case goes to the supreme court of the United states.
All you are doing is repeating main stream partisan media. And they are being dishonest.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/12/2020 17:49:00
the courts have refused to hear the cases
Do you have a citation for this?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/12/2020 17:51:47
the courts have refused to hear the cases,No
https://www.newsweek.com/dismissed-prejudice-district-judge-nixes-trumps-federal-lawsuit-wisconsin-1554347
Interestingly lower courts in Pennsylvania agree that the Republicans that brought their case had standing, but the supreme court blocked the cases from continuing.No. You have that completely wrong.
The lower court dismissed the case "with prejudice" thereby blocking it from going to the supreme court.
https://www.ft.com/content/8fa5ec6d-a7c6-4eec-88c0-f56aa42b29a8
That's because there simply wasn't a valid case.
There was no actual evidence.
As the judge put it they "presented only “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence”."
There's no point in wasting the time of a higher court.
That alone should be reason enough that the case goes to the supreme court of the United states.Do you remember that the only case to go to the supreme court failed?
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/12/2020 17:54:19
I
By contrast the Obama administration was one long kayfabe. A giant lie that got people sleeping.What did he say that isn't true?
I think one of Mr Obama's most disgusting lies is when he went to flint Michigan, and asked for a glass of water, he said "this is not a stunt"( clearly was) he then wet his lips and said, "when I was kid I probably put a chip of led paint in my mouth"
But the entire Administration of Obama was a lie, his cabinet was chosen for him by CITIBANK as leaked emails from Wikileaks shows, his entire campaign of Hope and change, "we are moments away from radically changing America forever" Obama said on both election campaigns he then proceeded when in office to make all of Bush tax cuts permanent, increased wars across the middle east, and even funded ISIS, not bad for a Nobel peace prize winner, he also signed the order for ever single drone strike America carried out, the drone strikes not only killed Americans but 90% of the victims were innocent civilians.
Hope and change? Has to be the biggest lies ever, and Obama the greatest of hypocrites.
No new wars, he ran on itNobody ever ran on a campaign of "I will start a war".
So they all run on a campaign of "no new wars".Ending TTIP, he ran on itTTIP was dying.
There was no political support for it from the people of Europe (or the USA).
A campaign to "end" something that's already moribund is lying by omission.
incorrect you are about to see Biden bring TTIP back.
And it doesnt matter If you assume that, reality is Trump ran on ending it and did.
Stopping ISIS, he ran on it,He did.
And, just like "Mexico will pay for the wall" he didn't fulfil his promise, did he?
ISIS was finally destroy at the end of 2019.
Obama was funding them, so the suggestion Obama did more to deal.with ISIS then Trump is hilarious at best.
Ending NAFTA, he ran on itAnd he immediately replaced it with this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Mexico%E2%80%93Canada_Agreement
nine out of ten people can't tell the difference.
As WIKI says
"The agreement has been characterized as "NAFTA 2.0,"or "New NAFTA," since many provisions from NAFTA were incorporated and its changes were seen as largely incremental. On July 1, 2020, the USMCA entered into force in all member states."
So, once again, that's a meaningless promise- not saying "I will replace NAFTA by something identical" is lying by omission.
I AGREE its not as good as It could be, changing NAFTA was still a campaign pledged he achieved, even If you domt like the end result.
I Could go on...Feel free, but try to do better this time.
Those examples (I presume you picked what you thought were the best ones) were all rubbish., and as with Act 77 in Pennsylvania the laws were changed to make fraud easier.So, you are saying that the Republicans in Pennsylvania changed the law to make it easier for Trump to be beaten.
That's absurd anyway.
No it isnt there are some Republicans as opposed to Trump as the Democrats are.
But the interesting question is; in what way did the change make fraud easier?
Because before ballots had to have signature verification, amoung other things, previously it was absentee bailouts and people had to request them directly, with the new mail in changes millions of ballots were simply posted to address.
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/12/2020 17:58:44
the courts have refused to hear the cases,No
https://www.newsweek.com/dismissed-prejudice-district-judge-nixes-trumps-federal-lawsuit-wisconsin-1554347
Hilarious you say no and reference a case that does exactly the thing I suggested.
Interestingly lower courts in Pennsylvania agree that the Republicans that brought their case had standing, but the supreme court blocked the cases from continuing.No. You have that completely wrong.
The lower court dismissed the case "with prejudice" thereby blocking it from going to the supreme court.
https://www.ft.com/content/8fa5ec6d-a7c6-4eec-88c0-f56aa42b29a8
That's because there simply wasn't a valid case.
There was no actual evidence.
As the judge put it they "presented only “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence”."
There's no point in wasting the time of a higher court.
Again it was NOT Trump, but a team of Republicans that brought that case. The aritcal you post bares no relation to the actual case.
That alone should be reason enough that the case goes to the supreme court of the United states.Do you remember that the only case to go to the supreme court failed?
It's being re-applied currently.
And you again miss that it didn't go to the court they refused to hear it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/12/2020 18:07:04
The aritcal you post bares no relation to the actual case.The article about the case is relevant to the case.
Again it was NOT Trump, but a team of Republicans that brought that case.As far as I'm aware, none of the cases is being brought by Donald Trump. They are all being brought by teams of his supporters.
So that's a meaningless distinction.
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/12/2020 18:08:55
Re
To repeat myself
Repeating yourself won't make Trump honest. You can't make one lie true by comparing it with another lie.
You are still missing my point I didnt suggest that Trump never lies, I suggested he is MORE honest then the establishment.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/12/2020 18:10:12
Hilarious you say no and reference a case that does exactly the thing I suggested.And here is what it says.
"This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits," Ludwig wrote in the latest dismissal of a Trump election challenge."
You seem to think that letting them put their case is refusing to let them put their case- which is a stupid thing to think.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/12/2020 18:13:52
You are still missing my point I didnt suggest that Trump never lies, I suggested he is MORE honest then the establishment.You have made that claim but (like Trump's claims about election fraud) there is no evidence to support it, and a lot of evidence to say it is not true.
Here, for example:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54645608
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/12/2020 18:15:24
The aritcal you post bares no relation to the actual case.The article about the case is relevant to the case.Again it was NOT Trump, but a team of Republicans that brought that case.As far as I'm aware, none of the cases is being brought by Donald Trump. They are all being brought by teams of his supporters.
So that's a meaningless distinction.
Trumps cases are being brought by his legal teams lead by Giuliani.
There are also separately cases by Republican house and Senate members, inside states.
There are cases where as with Texas, where a state itself is bringing case against another state.
There are private/professional cases being brought separate from Trump as we see with Sydney Powell.
And there are I believe also some cases brought by Trump supporters.
Atleast 5 different types of parties bringing cases.
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/12/2020 18:18:09
You are still missing my point I didnt suggest that Trump never lies, I suggested he is MORE honest then the establishment.You have made that claim but (like Trump's claims about election fraud) there is no evidence to support it, and a lot of evidence to say it is not true.
Here, for example:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54645608
Hilarious it's just Trumps claim in your mind.
As I said before about 53% of the state of Georgia believe this election was stolen.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/12/2020 18:35:27
ISIS was finally destroy at the end of 2019.
Just not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_linked_to_ISIL#2020
Obama was funding them,In what way?
Because before ballots had to have signature verificationAnd here's the relevant instruction regarding the new system
"Complete, sign and date the voter’s declaration on the outside of the outer return envelope.
If you do not sign the outer return envelope, your ballot will not be counted."
From
https://www.votespa.com/Voting-in-PA/Pages/Mail-and-Absentee-Ballot.aspx
So, previously, they checked signatures.
Under the new system they check signatures.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/12/2020 18:37:21
As I said before about 53% of the state of Georgia believe this election was stolen.That's because they have been lied to repeatedly.
I'm not terribly interested in the opinions of a bunch of people who are not in a position to actually judge the facts.
What is the evidence?
Why isn't it being presented in (lower) courts?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/12/2020 18:38:54
Trumps cases are being brought by his legal teams lead by Giuliani.And it's going so well for him...
https://www.comicsands.com/giuliani-witness-carone-google-drunk-2649335090.html
That's their best "evidence".
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/12/2020 18:40:42
There are cases where as with Texas, where a state itself is bringing case against another state.That was notably thrown out because it's none of Texas' business.
Don't you see how all these cases are baseless?
Atleast 5 different types of parties bringing cases.None of them is winning.
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/12/2020 20:53:02
There are cases where as with Texas, where a state itself is bringing case against another state.That was notably thrown out because it's none of Texas' business.
Don't you see how all these cases are baseless?
Incorrect, it was never in court to be thrown out. The state of Texas Requested a hearing. The supreme courts reply was that the state of Pennsylvania decides it's own election rules, and that they do not consider Texas an injured party.
It never went to court, the supreme court refused to hear it, they made no comment on the merits.
They simply avoided it. Basically saying Pennsylvania has to deal with it we don't see your injury.
The supreme court of Pennsylvania however is complicit with unconstitutionality and itself acted against the constitution and the legislator and ruled in the favor of the governor who wanted all signature certifications and checks removed.
Honestly the Republicans that brought the case and won in lower court, to then be blocked from continuing by the supreme court that is clearly complicit, should try and bring their case to the supreme court of the United states as the Supreme court of Pennsylvania is acting unconstitutionally.
Atleast 5 different types of parties bringing cases.None of them is winning.
Again simply not true, Giuliana did win cases to have certification stopped, higher courts then over turned, he also managed to get audits of the dominion voting machines. The Republicans I mentioned before were winning their suit until the supreme court of Pennsylvania squashed it.
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/12/2020 20:54:33
Trumps cases are being brought by his legal teams lead by Giuliani.And it's going so well for him...
https://www.comicsands.com/giuliani-witness-carone-google-drunk-2649335090.html
That's their best "evidence".
Simple hit pieces you should know better.
"Always wondered why a prostitute has to have bad eye sight"
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/12/2020 21:02:53
the state of Pennsylvania decides it's own election rules, and that they do not consider Texas an injured party.
That was notably thrown out because it's none of Texas' business.
the governor who wanted all signature certifications and checks removed.No he didn't. That's why the ballot instructions still tell you that you need a signature.
Honestly the Republicans that brought the case and won in lower court,You need to clarify that.
What case did they win?
But it's all irrelevant.
Trump scraped in 4 years ago.
He failed to do what he said he would, and got chucked out.
There's no reason to think that voter fraud was involved.
The voters spotted that Trump was a fraud.
Simple hit pieces you should know better.You forgot to address the issue.
If she was billed as the "star witness", what are the others like?
Show us the evidence.
Courts are public events and widely reported.
You should be able to point us to a record of someone actually presenting evidence.
If the court doesn't follow that evidence then you have some sort of point.
At the moment, all you have is some small bunch of people saying "they cheated" and a lot of evidence- stuff like videos of the Republicans' observers- proving that they didn't.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/12/2020 21:23:30
It gets worse. Communist agents in the USA are pretending to die from COVID to make Trump look bad, but they will be mysteriously resurrected in time for the 2024 presidential election.
Melania Trump was born in Hawaii and never worked the streets.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/12/2020 22:55:35
You are still missing my point I didnt suggest that Trump never lies, I suggested he is MORE honest then the establishment.
And on what basis were you making that assertion? Do you have a record comparing how many lies one politician tells compared to another?
And I'm still waiting for you to provide a source that supports your claim that, "Actually there is Tons of evidence from sworn affidavits, videos from election night as many counting areas were live streamed."
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 12:53:21
Do you realoly not see that these are the same thing?the state of Pennsylvania decides it's own election rules, and that they do not consider Texas an injured party.That was notably thrown out because it's none of Texas' business.the governor who wanted all signature certifications and checks removed.No he didn't. That's why the ballot instructions still tell you that you need a signature.Honestly the Republicans that brought the case and won in lower court,You need to clarify that.
What case did they win?
The case is still underway, foolish me listening to the main steam media.
You can listen to the lawyer leading the case here:-
https://rumble.com/vbusbz-mainstream-media-falsely-claims-supreme-court-ended-rep.-mike-kellys-pennsy.html
Nice, my idea was right...
Honestly the Republicans that brought the case and won in lower court, to then be blocked from continuing by the supreme court that is clearly complicit, should try and bring their case to the supreme court of the United states as the Supreme court of Pennsylvania is acting unconstitutionally.
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 13:09:59
You are still missing my point I didnt suggest that Trump never lies, I suggested he is MORE honest then the establishment.
And on what basis were you making that assertion? Do you have a record comparing how many lies one politician tells compared to another?
And I'm still waiting for you to provide a source that supports your claim that, "Actually there is Tons of evidence from sworn affidavits, videos from election night as many counting areas were live streamed."
Ok so the FBI are investigating the disappearance of 500,000 ballots.
https://truepundit.com/exclusive-fbi-criminal-probe-tracks-500000-counterfeit-biden-ballots-in-four-key-battleground-states/
Relates to a Truck Driver who was told to drive between 300 and 500 thousand ballots from New York to Pennsylvania, his trailer was stolen in Pennsylvania you can hear his testimony here:-
---
Discussion about elements of fraud including double voting and people being paid to vote for Biden
https://rumble.com/vbuxyh-nevada-gop-advisor-on-voter-fraud-in-the-state.html
-----
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 13:16:07
Also, your idea was that the case was blocked from being heard.
Now it's (apparently) going to be heard.
In what way does that make your idea right?
Incidentally the constitution grants power to courts.
The actions of the court are almost certainly not "unconstitutional".
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 13:26:46
The FBI is required to investigate any alleged crime (in their jurisdiction) reported to them.You are still missing my point I didnt suggest that Trump never lies, I suggested he is MORE honest then the establishment.
And on what basis were you making that assertion? Do you have a record comparing how many lies one politician tells compared to another?
And I'm still waiting for you to provide a source that supports your claim that, "Actually there is Tons of evidence from sworn affidavits, videos from election night as many counting areas were live streamed."
Ok so the FBI are investigating the disappearance of 500,000 ballots.
https://truepundit.com/exclusive-fbi-criminal-probe-tracks-500000-counterfeit-biden-ballots-in-four-key-battleground-states/
Relates to a Truck Driver who was told to drive between 300 and 500 thousand ballots from New York to Pennsylvania, his trailer was stolen in Pennsylvania you can hear his testimony here:-
---
Discussion about elements of fraud including double voting and people being paid to vote for Biden
https://rumble.com/vbuxyh-nevada-gop-advisor-on-voter-fraud-in-the-state.html
-----
That's not the same as saying that the crime happened.
If you are in the business of counterfeiting ballots, you do not send them in open boxes and tell the courier what they are.
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 13:34:14
Just curious; do you think that a few million people should have their votes thrown out for no fault of their own?
Goes both ways fraud also disenfranchises. Why should you allow millions of people be cheated? If the election was stolen then it's the entire country that's been disenfranchised. Electoral integrity is too Important. I would implement a paper ballot only system and re-run the election.
Also, your idea was that the case was blocked from being heard.
Now it's (apparently) going to be heard.
In what way does that make your idea right?
You have not understood, the supreme court of Pennsylvania refused to hear the case with prejudice, the main stream media said it was over. I believed them and had the idea that those involved should go to the supreme court of the United states, and they are.
Incidentally the constitution grants power to courts.
The actions of the court are almost certainly not "unconstitutional".
Well see what the supreme court of the United states does. But to change the constitution in Pennsylvania they need two votes house and Senate and a referendum of the people.
The suggestion the supreme courts can ignore the Laws of constitution I find a concerning idea.
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 13:35:20
The FBI is required to investigate any alleged crime (in their jurisdiction) reported to them.You are still missing my point I didnt suggest that Trump never lies, I suggested he is MORE honest then the establishment.
And on what basis were you making that assertion? Do you have a record comparing how many lies one politician tells compared to another?
And I'm still waiting for you to provide a source that supports your claim that, "Actually there is Tons of evidence from sworn affidavits, videos from election night as many counting areas were live streamed."
Ok so the FBI are investigating the disappearance of 500,000 ballots.
https://truepundit.com/exclusive-fbi-criminal-probe-tracks-500000-counterfeit-biden-ballots-in-four-key-battleground-states/
Relates to a Truck Driver who was told to drive between 300 and 500 thousand ballots from New York to Pennsylvania, his trailer was stolen in Pennsylvania you can hear his testimony here:-
---
Discussion about elements of fraud including double voting and people being paid to vote for Biden
https://rumble.com/vbuxyh-nevada-gop-advisor-on-voter-fraud-in-the-state.html
-----
That's not the same as saying that the crime happened.
If you are in the business of counterfeiting ballots, you do not send them in open boxes and tell the courier what they are.
Have experience in this kind of work do you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 13:41:51
You have not understood, the supreme court of Pennsylvania refused to hear the case with prejudiceThat doesn't make sense.
Do you understand what "with prejudice" means in this context?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 13:43:00
Have experience in this kind of work do you?We are talking about the level of duplicity needed to stop the neighbour's kids finding out that Santa isn't real.
Yes, I have that kind of experience.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 13:44:12
Why should you allow millions of people be cheated?Who would those people be?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 13:46:49
I would implement a paper ballot only system and re-run the election.So, you want to disenfranchise people who think Covid is a real threat, rather than Trump supporters.
I can see why you would want to do that, but don't you think it's a bit of an obvious way to cheat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 13:48:04
fraud also disenfranchises.We (and the courts) are still waiting for any evidence of fraud.
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 13:57:18
I would implement a paper ballot only system and re-run the election.So, you want to disenfranchise people who think Covid is a real threat, rather than Trump supporters.
I can see why you would want to do that, but don't you think it's a bit of an obvious way to cheat?
That's a compete lie, the changes to law with Act 77 to allow mass mail in voting were done in Oct 2019. Long before Covid became an issue.
Belief in covid as a threat or not isnt partisan.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 14:00:11
You have not understood, the supreme court of Pennsylvania refused to hear the caseDo you mean this case?
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7862/file-10782.pdf?cb=1c64e8
That's the paperwork where the judge point out that, even if they had a case, by waiting until after two elections under the new system, the claimants had left it too late.
(The legal term is "laches")
That's the report from the Penn. supreme court's own web page.
They clearly did make a judgement on senator Mike Kelly's case.
They told him to stick it.
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 14:01:19
fraud also disenfranchises.We (and the courts) are still waiting for any evidence of fraud.
Well it's nice you show your colours.
I'm not pro-Trump, I'm pro fair elections.
Honestly mr chemist I think no evidence will convince you, you are left to let the papers tell you what to think.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 14:03:13
Belief in covid as a threat or not isnt partisan.Yes it is, Trump has been telling his supporters that it's not a threat.
Biden has been pointing out that it has killed roughly as many Americans as WWII
Trump was telling lies about postal ballots being insecure.
Those things make mail in ballots partisan.
It's a lie to say otherwise.
And the date of the change isn't what matters.
You are suggesting a change- now- in the middle of a pandemic- to an all paper ballot.
That is because you know it would favour your side, isn't it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 14:05:36
you are left to let the papers tell you what to think.I think that the court papers tell me what I should think about the decisions of the court.
I'm not pro-TrumpYou plainly are.
I'm pro fair elections.But you don't want peoples' votes counted...
Well it's nice you show your colours.Yes, I'm on the side that looks at evidence.
Well... this is a science page. What did you expect?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 14:07:37
Honestly mr chemist I think no evidence will convince youYou have "no evidence" and it's not convincing me.
You have a truck driver telling a story that makes no sense.
You have a video of a man saying that his case wasn't considered by the court- but the court's web page gives the outcome of that consideration.
You don't have evidence.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 14:07:58
Who would those people be?
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 14:42:43
Belief in covid as a threat or not isnt partisan.Yes it is, Trump has been telling his supporters that it's not a threat.
Biden has been pointing out that it has killed roughly as many Americans as WWII
Honestly I forgot all Democrats and Republicans are simply drones that believe in and hold only the opinions expressed by the party and its leader.
Trump was telling lies about postal ballots being insecure.
Really how so? Where is the lie?
Those things make mail in ballots partisan.
It's a lie to say otherwise.
I suggested belief in the dangers of covid were not partisan, not ballots.
And the date of the change isn't what matters.
It is, if you are going to claim you need mail in ballots because of a pandemic, yet somehow manage to change the laws to allow mail in ballots months before there is a pandemic.
Either they are clairvoyant or lying.
Clearly the pandemic that didnt exist, wasn't a primary reason for changing the law.
You are suggesting a change- now- in the middle of a pandemic- to an all paper ballot.
That is because you know it would favour your side, isn't it?
No it's because voting machines, mail in ballots, amoung other things and systems are not trustworthy. One person one vote with a paper record is the safest and surest way to have a election.
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 14:51:39
Honestly mr chemist I think no evidence will convince youYou have "no evidence" and it's not convincing me.
You have a truck driver telling a story that makes no sense.
You have a video of a man saying that his case wasn't considered by the court- but the court's web page gives the outcome of that consideration.
You don't have evidence.
Well no I don't mr chemist, lawyers in America have that. Lawyers and the people comming forward.
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 14:53:57
«
I'm not pro Trump, I'm anti swamp.
I get the joke "Trump drained the swamp and found his cabinet"
But John Bolton' gone and Trump is getting better at being anti swamp. All in all he has certainly done better in office then most thought he would. And he has definitely not been given a fair shake by the media.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/12/2020 15:03:09
I'm not pro-Trump, I'm pro fair elections.Trump boasted that this would be the fairest and cleanest election ever because he had made all the arrangements. Was he lying or merely disappointed that his "arrangements" didn't bend the vote sufficiently?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 15:06:17
Really how so? Where is the lie?He said they were insecure.
They are not.
It's just stuff he made up- he does that a lot.
Well no I don't mr chemist, lawyers in America have that. Lawyers and the people comming forward.None has been presented in court.
What the America lawyer notably had wasn't evidence but a gabbling fool.
I'm not pro Trump, I'm anti swamp.Trump is the swamp. He's only still in business because the system bailed him out when he went bankrupt- repeatedly.
No it's because voting machines, mail in ballots, amoung other things and systems are not trustworthy.You have no evidence of that.
One person one vote with a paper record is the safest and surest way to have a election.You also have no evidence of that, but you did ignore the problem.
Not everyone can get out of the house to the polling station.
Why do you repeatedly insist in stopping people voting?
Clearly the pandemic that didnt exist, wasn't a primary reason for changing the law.OK, what was?
If as you (groundlessly) claim mail in ballots are open to fraud then they are equally open to fraud by either side.
Why would the Dems allow a system that let Reps cheat?
It doesn't make sense.
Maybe they just realised that having mail-in votes means that more people get to vote which is good for democracy.
I suggested belief in the dangers of covid were not partisanWhich was a stupid suggestion, because they plainly are- for the reasons I gave.
Honestly I forgot all Democrats and Republicans are simply drones that believe in and hold only the opinions expressed by the party and its leader.Nobody ever said they were.
What you actually "forgot" was to answer the question- again.
Who would those people be?
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 15:08:16
I'm not pro-Trump, I'm pro fair elections.Trump boasted that this would be the fairest and cleanest election ever because he had made all the arrangements. Was he lying or merely disappointed that his "arrangements" didn't bend the vote sufficiently?
When did he say it? All I heard from Trump before the election was complaints about how the Democrats had changed the laws and intended to flood states with unrequested mail in ballots. He even complained about it directly during the Debates.
I would suggest that if Trump made those comments they probably related to foreign interference at a guess.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 15:12:39
And he has definitely not been given a fair shake by the media.The media did not take kindly to his idea of "alternative facts"- lies, as everyone else calls them.
Nor should they have.
He kept accusing the media of lying because, for example, they said there were more people at Obama's inauguration than at his.
Well there were. We have the pictures.
The media didn't like him because he kept calling them liars while, in fact, he was the liar.
Some elements of the media- notably Fox- got into bed with him in a way that should see them destroyed as an insult to journalism but... that's their long standing policy.
https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5?r=US&IR=T
Incidentally, if he's more honest than most politicians, how come he's the only one who needs to talk about "alternative facts"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 15:15:23
When did he say it?His team are still saying it.
https://www.vox.com/2020/11/13/21563825/2020-elections-most-secure-dhs-cisa-krebs
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 15:22:29
Really how so? Where is the lie?He said they were insecure.
They are not.
It's just stuff he made up- he does that a lot.
How are they secure? Even John Oliver found a women that voted for her dead husband, very simple when ballot turns up at your door unresquested and you can simply fill it in fake a signature and send it back.
Your suggestion is utterly false.
Well no I don't mr chemist, lawyers in America have that. Lawyers and the people comming forward.None has been presented in court.
What the America lawyer notably had wasn't evidence but a gabbling fool.
Cases are still pending, and most courts have simply refused to heat the cases.
We shouldnt be suprised, the idea of a judiciary that activity supports the American slave Labour camp system, being capable of not being partisan and corrupt and actually upholding the law and maintaining justice is clearly wishful thinking. Ofcourse the more the legal system shows its colours the more damaging it is to the country. The fallout is potentially going to be devastating.
I'm not pro Trump, I'm anti swamp.Trump is the swamp. He's only still in business because the system bailed him out when he went bankrupt- repeatedly.No it's because voting machines, mail in ballots, amoung other things and systems are not trustworthy.You have no evidence of that.
You should get a job in electoral security Mr chemist there are despots all over the world, in need of your services.
Which is why there are absentee bailouts.One person one vote with a paper record is the safest and surest way to have a election.You also have no evidence of that, but you did ignore the problem.
Not everyone can get out of the house to the polling station.
There already was a solution there was no need to change the rules, but ofcourse the rules related to absentee ballots makes it hard to cheat.
Why do you repeatedly insist in stopping people voting?Clearly the pandemic that didnt exist, wasn't a primary reason for changing the law.OK, what was?
If as you (groundlessly) claim mail in ballots are open to fraud then they are equally open to fraud by either side.
Why would the Dems allow a system that let Reps cheat?
It doesn't make sense.
Maybe they just realised that having mail-in votes means that more people get to vote which is good for democracy.I suggested belief in the dangers of covid were not partisanWhich was a stupid suggestion, because they plainly are- for the reasons I gave.
Your drone ideas are ludicrous.
Honestly I forgot all Democrats and Republicans are simply drones that believe in and hold only the opinions expressed by the party and its leader.Nobody ever said they were.
What you actually "forgot" was to answer the question- again.Who would those people be?
I certainly did answer I do not agree that Republicans are not scared of COvid but Democrats are, there are people on either side feeling the same way.
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 15:23:36
When did he say it?His team are still saying it.
https://www.vox.com/2020/11/13/21563825/2020-elections-most-secure-dhs-cisa-krebs
That's not his team, I think Trump already fired that guy.
Still your claim was that Trump said it. And He didn't
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 15:26:51
And he has definitely not been given a fair shake by the media.The media did not take kindly to his idea of "alternative facts"- lies, as everyone else calls them.
Nor should they have.
He kept accusing the media of lying because, for example, they said there were more people at Obama's inauguration than at his.
Well there were. We have the pictures.
The media didn't like him because he kept calling them liars while, in fact, he was the liar.
Some elements of the media- notably Fox- got into bed with him in a way that should see them destroyed as an insult to journalism but... that's their long standing policy.
https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5?r=US&IR=T
Incidentally, if he's more honest than most politicians, how come he's the only one who needs to talk about "alternative facts"?
Alternative facts like Russia gate? Which was a total lie made up the Clinton and repeated by the media for years. Or the phoney impeachment on a quid proquo that wasnt.
The media are a joke, and have lied us into so many wars, hidden so many truths, span so many stories I seriously don't understand how anyone could trust them today.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 17:13:24
What you actually "forgot" was to answer the question- again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 14:07:58
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:44:12
Who would those people be?
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 18:19:04
What you actually "forgot" was to answer the question- again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 14:07:58
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:44:12
Who would those people be?
That's a joke? If you allow fraud in an election everyone is cheated.
Fraud effectively nullifies the entire process.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 18:39:30
If you allow fraud in an electionNobody did. Trump claims he did, but nobody believes him.
Why did you think that answered the question?
Who gets cheated when a state decides to allow people to vote by post ?
Surely the only way people get cheated is when a state refuses to allow postal votes?
That disenfranchises those who can't get out of the house.
But who gets cheated by letting people vote?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 18:49:36
on a quid proquo that wasnt.It was.
Alternative facts like Russia gate? Which was a total lieYou do know Trump wasn't exonerated, don't you?
Just because his cronies refused to testify, that doesn't make him innocent.
And, since the topic seems to have drifted to US elections.
As early as January 2017, a joint report by the CIA, FBI and NSA confirmed that there had been Russian interference in the 2016 election.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 21:52:09
on a quid proquo that wasnt.It was.Alternative facts like Russia gate? Which was a total lieYou do know Trump wasn't exonerated, don't you?
Just because his cronies refused to testify, that doesn't make him innocent.
And, since the topic seems to have drifted to US elections.
As early as January 2017, a joint report by the CIA, FBI and NSA confirmed that there had been Russian interference in the 2016 election.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf
Oh really and where does it say that?
Or are you referencing the few thousand euros on Facebook ads? And little bear a meme farm?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 21:58:04
Oh really and where does it say that?Here
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdfIt says
"INTRODUCTION
From 2017 to 2019, the Committee held hearings, conducted interviews, and
reviewed intelligence related to Russian attempts in 2016 to access election infrastructure. The
Committee sought to determine the extent of Russian activities, identify the response of the U.S.
Government at the state, local, and federal level to the threat, and make recommendations on
how to better prepare for such threats in the future. 1 he Committee received testimony from
state election officials, Obama administration officials, and those in the Intelligence Community
and elsewhere in the U.S. Government responsible for evaluating threats to elections.
II. FINDINGS
The Russian government directed extensive activity, beginning in at least 2014
and carrying into at least 2017, against U.S. election infrastructure' at the state and local
level.
The Committee has seen no evidence that any votes were changed or that any voting machines were manipulated."
There's a summary of it here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 22:00:11
What you actually "forgot" was to answer the question- again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 14:07:58
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:44:12
Who would those people be?
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 22:04:37
Oh really and where does it say that?Herehttps://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf
No it doesnt you'll have to actually quote the section, provided it's not redacted of course
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 22:07:03
Or are you referencing the few thousand euros on Facebook ads? And little bear a meme farm?
Do you realise that posting nonsense does not make you look good or clever?
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 22:08:31
If you allow fraud in an electionNobody did. Trump claims he did, but nobody believes him.
https://rumble.com/vbvx0r-arizona-gop-chairwoman-there-is-no-biden-win-in-arizona..html
Try again. Lying isnt healthy chemist. Even if you want to delude yourself.
Why did you think that answered the question?
Who gets cheated when a state decides to allow people to vote by post ?
Surely the only way people get cheated is when a state refuses to allow postal votes?
That disenfranchises those who can't get out of the house.
But who gets cheated by letting people vote?
Fraud disenfranchises people far more, and the absentee bailouts perfectly could have solved that issue.
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 22:09:25
Or are you referencing the few thousand euros on Facebook ads? And little bear a meme farm?
Do you realise that posting nonsense does not make you look good or clever?
Maybe you should look in the mirror nonsense is becoming a speciality of yours.
CiA officer admits Russia gate failed
FbI caught faking documents for Russia gate.
NSA whistle blower debunks Russia gate
Final nail.in coffin NO Evidence for Russia gate
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 22:17:08
Fraud disenfranchises people far more,Imaginary fraud does not.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 22:19:42
Maybe you should look in the mirror nonsense is becoming a speciality of yours.You forgot to look at the actual report, don't you.
Do you remember accusing me of getting my information from the papers?
Don't you see how getting it from TV pundits isn't any better?
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 22:21:33
Maybe you should look in the mirror nonsense is becoming a speciality of yours.You forgot to look at the actual report, don't you.
Do you remember accusing me of getting my information from the papers?
Don't you see how getting it from TV pundits isn't any better?
Papers are the sources of Russia gate dis information.
The entire thing is debunked today.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 22:24:42
https://rumble.com/vbvx0r-arizona-gop-chairwoman-there-is-no-biden-win-in-arizona..htmlAnd you think that Arizona GOP Chairwoman is an reliable independent reporter?
Try again. Lying is healthy chemist. Even if you want to delude yourself.
Did you notice that she carefully hedged all her claims so that when she is shown to be wrong, she won't get done for libel?
We will find out soon enough.
The entire thing is debunked today.So, you are saying the entire intelligence gathering system of the US got it utterly wrong.
How?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 22:26:20
absentee bailouts perfectly could have solved that issue.What is the magical difference between a ballot you call absentee and a ballot you call postal?
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 22:33:40
https://rumble.com/vbvx0r-arizona-gop-chairwoman-there-is-no-biden-win-in-arizona..htmlAnd you think that Arizona GOP Chairwoman is an reliable independent reporter?
Try again. Lying is healthy chemist. Even if you want to delude yourself.
Did you notice that she carefully hedged all her claims so that when she is shown to be wrong, she won't get done for libel?
Maybe you miss I was pointing out that NOBODY believes there was fraud as you claim is completely incorrect.
The entire thing is debunked today.So, you are saying the entire intelligence gathering system of the US got it utterly wrong.
How?
No they intentionally sort to prevent Trump building bridges with Russia, because the cash cow of arms sales to East Europe is too valuable for them to lose. They need the Russia fantam.
"Executive Summary
Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer."
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2008/S00066/russiagate-hoax-unravels-but-their-anti-russia-sanctions-dont.htm
Unlike the rubbish you posted, this is NOT almost entirely redacted. ENJOY
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/12/2020 22:35:28
absentee bailouts perfectly could have solved that issue.What is the magical difference between a ballot you call absentee and a ballot you call postal?
The laws pertaining to how they are sent and received, the checks and balances in place to make sure fraud does not happen. The standards for signature verification.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 22:37:10
But, as I have pointed out twice, the ballots signatures do get verified.absentee bailouts perfectly could have solved that issue.What is the magical difference between a ballot you call absentee and a ballot you call postal?
The laws pertaining to how they are sent and received, the checks and balances in place to make sure fraud does not happen. The standards for signature verification.
You have yet to provide any evidence of fraud.
No court case as provided any evidence of fraud.
Why do you think that is?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 22:49:50
a mainstream UK tabloid ... the Daily Mailhttps://rumble.com/vbvx0r-arizona-gop-chairwoman-there-is-no-biden-win-in-arizona..htmlAnd you think that Arizona GOP Chairwoman is an reliable independent reporter?
Try again. Lying is healthy chemist. Even if you want to delude yourself.
Did you notice that she carefully hedged all her claims so that when she is shown to be wrong, she won't get done for libel?
Maybe you miss I was pointing out that NOBODY believes there was fraud as you claim is completely incorrect.The entire thing is debunked today.So, you are saying the entire intelligence gathering system of the US got it utterly wrong.
How?
No they intentionally sort to prevent Trump building bridges with Russia, because the cash cow of arms sales to the is too valuable for them to lose. They need the Russia fantam.
Executive Summary
Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2008/S00066/russiagate-hoax-unravels-but-their-anti-russia-sanctions-dont.htm
Unlike the rubbish you posted, this is NOT almost entirely redacted. ENJOY
Yeah; right.
"He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University"
You think that diplomats are still meeting in wooded areas.?
This is the 21st C.
One guy, Craig Murray, told a story that nobody can verify.
The Daily Fail picked it up, and you think it's reliable?
Then there's "It has now been incontrovertibly proven that the time-stamps and other data in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) files that were leaked to Wikileaks are consistent with "
OK, that lovely phrase "consistent with". It doesn't say that they are, or that they are not.
Anyone who knows anything about computers knows that you can change the time and date on a computer.
It will then report that.
Or you can simply edit the files.
"the technical proof of its having likely been transferred to Wikileaks by means of a leak instead of a hack. Even the data that were transferred are entirely consistent with this having been a voluntary release of this information."
Easiest way to hack is to bribe someone with legitimate access...
It's too late at night to waste time on any more of that hogwash.
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/12/2020 01:29:18
a mainstream UK tabloid ... the Daily Mailhttps://rumble.com/vbvx0r-arizona-gop-chairwoman-there-is-no-biden-win-in-arizona..htmlAnd you think that Arizona GOP Chairwoman is an reliable independent reporter?
Try again. Lying is healthy chemist. Even if you want to delude yourself.
Did you notice that she carefully hedged all her claims so that when she is shown to be wrong, she won't get done for libel?
Maybe you miss I was pointing out that NOBODY believes there was fraud as you claim is completely incorrect.The entire thing is debunked today.So, you are saying the entire intelligence gathering system of the US got it utterly wrong.
How?
No they intentionally sort to prevent Trump building bridges with Russia, because the cash cow of arms sales to the is too valuable for them to lose. They need the Russia fantam.
Executive Summary
Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2008/S00066/russiagate-hoax-unravels-but-their-anti-russia-sanctions-dont.htm
Unlike the rubbish you posted, this is NOT almost entirely redacted. ENJOY
Yeah; right.
"He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University"
You think that diplomats are still meeting in wooded areas.?
This is the 21st C.
One guy, Craig Murray, told a story that nobody can verify.
The Daily Fail picked it up, and you think it's reliable?
Then there's "It has now been incontrovertibly proven that the time-stamps and other data in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) files that were leaked to Wikileaks are consistent with "
OK, that lovely phrase "consistent with". It doesn't say that they are, or that they are not.
Anyone who knows anything about computers knows that you can change the time and date on a computer.
It will then report that.
Or you can simply edit the files.
Well.as bill binne points out data transfer speed, shows it was local.
"the technical proof of its having likely been transferred to Wikileaks by means of a leak instead of a hack. Even the data that were transferred are entirely consistent with this having been a voluntary release of this information.
Easiest way to hack is to bribe someone with legitimate access...
Doesnt matter the leaker was most likley a whistle blower inside the DNC.
If you want to claim Russia bribed someone to do. Well then as you love to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
There is nothing linking Russia to this. Anyone could have relased it.
Most believe it was the DNC worker found murdered days later. Killed and left in the with his wallet still on his person so it Wasnt a robbery, even Julian Assange believe it was him.
It's too late at night to waste time on any more of that hogwash.
Hogwash is Russia gate itself.
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/12/2020 01:36:20
But, as I have pointed out twice, the ballots signatures do get verified.absentee bailouts perfectly could have solved that issue.What is the magical difference between a ballot you call absentee and a ballot you call postal?
The laws pertaining to how they are sent and received, the checks and balances in place to make sure fraud does not happen. The standards for signature verification.
You have yet to provide any evidence of fraud.
No court case as provided any evidence of fraud.
Why do you think that is?
One of Two Wisconsin Supreme Court Rulings Give President Trump the Win – May Be Enough Votes to Win the State
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/one-two-wisconsin-supreme-court-rulings-give-president-trump-win-enough-votes-win-state/
You are sadly going to find there is tons of evidence of fraud the mainstream media and social media cannot stop the truth comming out no matter how hard they try to control the narrative "the truth alone triumphs" and it will.
Simply a matter of Time. And the backlash on the media when everyone realises the massive deception they are engaged in, is going to be beautiful
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2020 08:40:04
Maybe you miss I was pointing out that NOBODY believes there was fraud as you claim is completely incorrect.So, you don't understand figures of speech?
You should probably get help with that.
In the mean time, the fact that she keeps hedging suggests that she might not actually believe what she's saying.
You know- like a politician lying.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2020 08:44:18
Simply a matter of Time.
And the backlash on the media when everyone realises the massive deception they are engaged in,Why would the media oppose Trump?
He makes good copy.
Clinton would not have been good business for them.
But Trump's unconventional approach makes things easy for the media.
Need a story, but too lazy to write one? Just speculate about what covfefe meant.
The media, as such, would have wanted Trump to win.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2020 08:51:43
One of Two Wisconsin Supreme Court Rulings Give President Trump the Win – May Be Enough Votes to Win the StateWhat they say is " Thousands of ballots counted in Dane County which were labeled as indefinitely confined were in pristine condition. This indicated that they were fraudulent."
That's just not true.
What has a nicely folded envelope got to do with anything?
No appeal court is going to swallow such obvious nonsense.
Post by: The Spoon on 15/12/2020 12:26:18
No they intentionally sort to prevent Trump building bridges with Russia, because the cash cow of arms sales to East Europe is too valuable for them to lose. They need the Russia fantam.Could you tell us what the value of arms sales from the US to the Eastern Europe is?
Post by: The Spoon on 15/12/2020 12:28:48
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 22:49:50Can you not see the contradiction in you asking for extraordinary evidence and then stating 'Doesnt matter the leaker was most likley a whistle blower inside the DNC' and 'most believe'?
"the technical proof of its having likely been transferred to Wikileaks by means of a leak instead of a hack. Even the data that were transferred are entirely consistent with this having been a voluntary release of this information.
Easiest way to hack is to bribe someone with legitimate access...
Doesnt matter the leaker was most likley a whistle blower inside the DNC.
If you want to claim Russia bribed someone to do. Well then as you love to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
There is nothing linking Russia to this. Anyone could have relased it.
Most believe it was the DNC worker found murdered days later. Killed and left in the with his wallet still on his person so it Wasnt a robbery, even Julian Assange believe it was him.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2020 12:50:24
If you want to claim Russia bribed someone to do. Well then as you love to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.It's not an extraordinary claim.
Russia is content to kill people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko
Bribery is not going to trouble them much.
The idea that states buy secrets from "traitors" in other states is not new or even controversial.
There is nothing linking Russia to this.Putin disagrees.
He recognises that people in Russia are involved- but says they are Russian patriots working on their own .
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/world/europe/vladimir-putin-donald-trump-hacking.html
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/12/2020 13:31:36
Simply a matter of Time.And the backlash on the media when everyone realises the massive deception they are engaged in,Why would the media oppose Trump?
It's a good question. Who do the media work for?
He makes good copy.
Clinton would not have been good business for them.
But Trump's unconventional approach makes things easy for the media.
Need a story, but too lazy to write one? Just speculate about what covfefe meant.
The media, as such, would have wanted Trump to win.
The media do as they are told.
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/12/2020 13:36:13
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 22:49:50Can you not see the contradiction in you asking for extraordinary evidence and then stating 'Doesnt matter the leaker was most likley a whistle blower inside the DNC' and 'most believe'?
"the technical proof of its having likely been transferred to Wikileaks by means of a leak instead of a hack. Even the data that were transferred are entirely consistent with this having been a voluntary release of this information.
Easiest way to hack is to bribe someone with legitimate access...
Doesnt matter the leaker was most likley a whistle blower inside the DNC.
If you want to claim Russia bribed someone to do. Well then as you love to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
There is nothing linking Russia to this. Anyone could have relased it.
Most believe it was the DNC worker found murdered days later. Killed and left in the with his wallet still on his person so it Wasnt a robbery, even Julian Assange believe it was him.
The simplest explanation is normally the correct one a DNC worker seeking to blow the whistle is the most logical answer.
Conspiracies about bribes, or hacking, are not, and to shoe in any particular country as the initiator just adds to the complexity.
Surely you see that?
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/12/2020 13:43:09
That's your evidence?If you want to claim Russia bribed someone to do. Well then as you love to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.It's not an extraordinary claim.
Russia is content to kill people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko
;D
Really going to stand up in court. Russia kills people.
Seriously? You are really going to scrape the barrel?
Bribery is not going to trouble them much.
The idea that states buy secrets from "traitors" in other states is not new or even controversial.
Sure but first you have to prove it was not simply leaked from a person inside the DNC.
Then you have to show if it was released by a agent of another country if that was the case.
Or show it was a person brided by another country.
And then prove which country it was, out of all the countries that it could have been.
Extraordinary claims chemist, you should know better...
There is nothing linking Russia to this.Putin disagrees.
He recognises that people in Russia are involved- but says they are Russian patriots working on their own .
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/world/europe/vladimir-putin-donald-trump-hacking.html
Its true to the TV said so.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2020 13:45:40
a DNC worker seeking to blow the whistle is the most logical answer.Why would they do that?
What whistle did they actually blow?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2020 13:49:29
Really going to stand up in court. Russia kills people.That's the plan, yes.
https://apnews.com/article/2e44549e68164e6ba88b763fd098e5b1
It will go to court if those two individuals are spotted in Europe or the UK.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2020 13:50:52
And then prove which country it was, out of all the countries that it could have been.Who else has the motivation and resources?
Maybe China, but that's not where the story went, is it.
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/12/2020 13:51:02
a DNC worker seeking to blow the whistle is the most logical answer.Why would they do that?
What whistle did they actually blow?
Well in a very on topic way they showed that the DNC, rigged the election 😊
Leaked information shows that the election was stolen from Bernie Sanders.
Hence whoever released it was probably disgusted by the theft of the nomination, by Hillary Clinton's supporters
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak
Stealing elections is a Democrat profession
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/12/2020 13:52:15
And then prove which country it was, out of all the countries that it could have been.Who else has the motivation and resources?
Maybe China, but that's not where the story went, is it.
Not going to speculate any could. Included countries in Europe
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2020 13:53:06
So, you only think Occam's razor is valid when it supports your prejudice?And then prove which country it was, out of all the countries that it could have been.Who else has the motivation and resources?
Maybe China, but that's not where the story went, is it.
Not going to speculate any could. Included countries in Europe
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/12/2020 13:55:54
So, you only think Occam's razor is valid when it supports your prejudice?And then prove which country it was, out of all the countries that it could have been.Who else has the motivation and resources?
Maybe China, but that's not where the story went, is it.
Not going to speculate any could. Included countries in Europe
The prejudice is yours, I think the evidence supports a leak by a disgruntled DNC worker annoyed about the theift of the primary by Hillary Clinton.
Your the one obsessed with Russia
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/12/2020 13:57:43
Really going to stand up in court. Russia kills people.That's the plan, yes.
https://apnews.com/article/2e44549e68164e6ba88b763fd098e5b1
It will go to court if those two individuals are spotted in Europe or the UK.
Sorry I dont buy this story. I think Britian was involved.
Post by: The Spoon on 15/12/2020 14:04:53
Not without evidence to support your claim I dont. You ask people for evidence, yet you airily suggest we should accept your claim without evidence because 'it is the simplest explanation'.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 22:49:50Can you not see the contradiction in you asking for extraordinary evidence and then stating 'Doesnt matter the leaker was most likley a whistle blower inside the DNC' and 'most believe'?
"the technical proof of its having likely been transferred to Wikileaks by means of a leak instead of a hack. Even the data that were transferred are entirely consistent with this having been a voluntary release of this information.
Easiest way to hack is to bribe someone with legitimate access...
Doesnt matter the leaker was most likley a whistle blower inside the DNC.
If you want to claim Russia bribed someone to do. Well then as you love to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
There is nothing linking Russia to this. Anyone could have relased it.
Most believe it was the DNC worker found murdered days later. Killed and left in the with his wallet still on his person so it Wasnt a robbery, even Julian Assange believe it was him.
The simplest explanation is normally the correct one a DNC worker seeking to blow the whistle is the most logical answer.
Conspiracies about bribes, or hacking, are not, and to shoe in any particular country as the initiator just adds to the complexity.
Surely you see that?
Post by: The Spoon on 15/12/2020 14:05:49
You 'think' Britain is involved?Really going to stand up in court. Russia kills people.That's the plan, yes.
https://apnews.com/article/2e44549e68164e6ba88b763fd098e5b1
It will go to court if those two individuals are spotted in Europe or the UK.
Sorry I dont buy this story. I think Britian was involved.
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/12/2020 14:10:22
No they intentionally sort to prevent Trump building bridges with Russia, because the cash cow of arms sales to East Europe is too valuable for them to lose. They need the Russia fantam.Could you tell us what the value of arms sales from the US to the Eastern Europe is?
https://www.dw.com/en/eastern-europe-and-the-lucrative-middle-east-arms-trade/a-19459840
The U.S. dominates this international arms market, supplying just under half of all arms exports in 2001, roughly two and a half times more than the second and third largest suppliers.
This is a good link.
https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/eastern-europe-defense-market
Several countries in Eastern Europe made huge increases in their defense spending in 2019. According to SIPRI, the defense spending by Bulgaria rose by 121.33% in 2019, to reach USD 2.18 billion, followed by Slovakia, which grew by 43.9% to reach USD 1.87 billion. Spending by countries, like Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine, also increased by more than 13% in 2019.
That would have been a lot lower if the Russia fandom wasnt there because of Trump making peace and agreeing deals with Russia as he had intended before the Russia gate hoax
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/12/2020 14:12:42
Not without evidence to support your claim I dont. You ask people for evidence, yet you airily suggest we should accept your claim without evidence because 'it is the simplest explanation'.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 22:49:50Can you not see the contradiction in you asking for extraordinary evidence and then stating 'Doesnt matter the leaker was most likley a whistle blower inside the DNC' and 'most believe'?
"the technical proof of its having likely been transferred to Wikileaks by means of a leak instead of a hack. Even the data that were transferred are entirely consistent with this having been a voluntary release of this information.
Easiest way to hack is to bribe someone with legitimate access...
Doesnt matter the leaker was most likley a whistle blower inside the DNC.
If you want to claim Russia bribed someone to do. Well then as you love to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
There is nothing linking Russia to this. Anyone could have relased it.
Most believe it was the DNC worker found murdered days later. Killed and left in the with his wallet still on his person so it Wasnt a robbery, even Julian Assange believe it was him.
The simplest explanation is normally the correct one a DNC worker seeking to blow the whistle is the most logical answer.
Conspiracies about bribes, or hacking, are not, and to shoe in any particular country as the initiator just adds to the complexity.
Surely you see that?
Read my reply to Bored. The leaks revealed Clinton stole the election.
Where is your evidence for Russian involvement?
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/12/2020 14:18:46
You 'think' Britain is involved?Really going to stand up in court. Russia kills people.That's the plan, yes.
https://apnews.com/article/2e44549e68164e6ba88b763fd098e5b1
It will go to court if those two individuals are spotted in Europe or the UK.
Sorry I dont buy this story. I think Britian was involved.
Yes Britian has a history of not only using chemical weapons but actually testing them on there own citizens
1930: Porton Down scientists conduct tests on the London Underground to assess vulnerabilities to chemical or biological attack
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/magazine-36606510
The whole story adds to the hoax of Russia gate and Britain also is massively involved in arms sales and needs the Russia fandom.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2020 15:08:01
The leaks revealed Clinton stole the election.Reality reveals that she didn't (and nor did he).
Yes Britian has a history of not only using chemical weapons but actually testing them on there own citizensYou "think" Britain was involved- because of something that happened nearly a hundred years ago?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2020 15:18:02
Several countries in Eastern Europe made huge increases in their defense spending in 2019. According to SIPRI, the defense spending by Bulgaria rose by 121.33% in 2019, to reach USD 2.18 billion, followed by Slovakia, which grew by 43.9% to reach USD 1.87 billion. Spending by countries, like Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine, also increased by more than 13% in 2019.
Do you realise that a price quoted in dollars does not mean the arms were sold by Americans?
Do you think the USA is selling arms to Eastern Europe?
I'm not saying such deals don't exist, but they are pretty small compared to the internal market within the US.
The US arms market is huge- it's why their defence budget is huge.
The whole story adds to the hoax of Russia gateIt's funny how all the evidence point in favour of "Russia gate"; Maybe that's because Russiagate is true.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2020 15:18:37
The simplest explanation is normally the correct one a DNC worker seeking to blow the whistle is the most logical answer.When you strip away all the accusations and counter accusations, what you are saying here is that the DNC is more likely to have been undermined by one of its own supporters than by an opponent.
Think that through a few times.
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/12/2020 15:47:38
The simplest explanation is normally the correct one a DNC worker seeking to blow the whistle is the most logical answer.When you strip away all the accusations and counter accusations, what you are saying here is that the DNC is more likely to have been undermined by one of its own supporters than by an opponent.
Think that through a few times.
That isn't the claim is it. The claim is that a Democrat who supported Berine Sanders in the primary released the information because Hillary clinton stolen the election.
It appears they also stole the primary election from Berine Sanders in 2020 also.
It's not a DNC worker working against the DNC, Democrats are a broad Church.
Your implication of uniformity inside the DNC is nonsense, but I suppose you have to find something to say even if it is nonsense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2020 19:16:06
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/12/2020 23:22:52
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak#Perpetrators
And it's all been debunked
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange initially stuck to WikiLeaks policy of neither confirming or denying sources but in January 2017 said that their "source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party"
Honestly Chemist. You're started to defend the indefensible. The war mongers of Russia gate are a disgrace! And the sooner the swamp is drained the better.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5012489/Bernie-Sanders-supporter-sues-DNC-Hillary-Clinton.html
Rich, a known Bernie Supporter, was working as a DNC data analyst at the time of his death. Theories suggest he was killed because he had been the 'leaker'
-----
Russiagate more fiction then fact
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/russiagate-is-more-fiction-than-fact/
RIP/Russiagate
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/rip-russiagate/
Post by: alancalverd on 16/12/2020 00:16:22
George Whatdayisit Bush was given an election by his brother who counted the votes, Donald Dead Duck was given an election by the electoral college, and Teresa Maybe bought an election with my money, but I've never seen anyone steal such a thing.
A meaningless phrase from the vacant mind of a failed Fuhrer.
Post by: Jolly2 on 16/12/2020 00:38:32
Can someone tell me how to steal an election?
Steal in the sense of taking something that is not yours, its linguistics, but claiming 'taking' an election win, you have no right to claim or take because you effectively cheated,
by adding votes of people that didn't exist, voting for people that didn't know you were using their information to vote, voting for people that have died, not counting the votes of the other person you are running against, and there are more ways to add votes to yourself or remove votes from your opponents.
As such if you achieve a victory by doing any of the above you can say they Stole the election stole the victory, by taking something that wasnt rightfully theirs to take.
George Whatdayisit Bush was given an election by his brother who counted the votes,
Actually Gore won, recounts later proved it. Sadly Gore Dropped the court cases allowing Bush the win.
Donald Dead Duck was given an election by the electoral college,That's how.all American elections work the electors may well again apparently there are double electors from about 7 states currently, not unusual in contested elections for the states involved to send electors for both sides.
Apparently there were 3 sets of electors for Hawaii sent for the Nixon Kennedy election, and Nixon as the vice president at the time had to choose which ones to accept, and he accepted Kennedy's.
and Teresa Maybe bought an election with my money, but I've never seen anyone steal such a thing.
A meaningless phrase from the vacant mind of a failed Fuhrer.
You mean the party leadership? I dont think ttherewas anyone else to do it then, ofcourse David Cameron should not have resigned. Maybe it was his final out after the sleeping with a pig scandal he'll never be allowed to escape...
------
Looking to America, the DNC have stolen the last two primary elections from Bernie Sanders.
Now it looks like they are going to try and steal the main event. Even if Biden/Harris manage it, they are not legitimate runners, just like Hillary wasnt.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/12/2020 07:50:30
by adding votes of people that didn't exist, voting for people that didn't know you were using their information to vote, voting for people that have died, not counting the votes of the other person you are running against, and there are more ways to add votes to yourself or remove votes from your opponents.
As you said in your next paragraph, the only time this has been proved to happen, it was the Republicans who cheated.
Pigshagging is not considered a scandal in the UK. It is an essential step on the route to high office in the Tory party. How else can you be judged fit to screw the peasants? The option not being open to Mrs May, she proved her worth by deporting honest citizens to places they had never seen, and giving protection to foreign scum under the Human Rights Act. Priti Patel looked like a runner until this week but whilst pissing off the civil service scores plenty of merit marks, paying compensation to victims of malpractice is a sign of weakness.
I think we have stumbled on the dumbest aspect of the British political system. Whilst our anointed aspire to Republican arrogance, and are chosen in secret by an alleged 90,000 anonymous members of the Conservative Party, or in public by an inebriated trade union secretary, they simply cannot match our American cousins for ignorance and electoral fraud.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 08:51:10
And it's all been debunkedAs far as I can tell, what you mean by that is Assange says it isn't true.
Assange needs somewhere to live- some place where the Americans can't find him.
Russia probabaly looks good enough.
They will offer him sanctuary if he is nice to them.
He's being nice to them.
In the mean time, the security experts
CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica,
who are not particularly partisan, are saying the Russians did it.
They sent the stuff to WikiLeaks as a way to get plausible denial.
It hardly matters if they did it with or without a disgruntled insider. The point is that the insider couldn't have done it alone.
I see the guy, Seth Rich, who was prepared to go to court to defend his honour over the allegations is now dead.
That's very convenient for the conspiracy theorists.
It's not evidence that he was involved. The police say it was attempted robbery.
Fox news- who were, at the time, practically part of Trump's campaign team- paid out a huge defamation settlement to Seth's family, accepting that they had essentially fabricated the story.
If some politicians want you dead and pay a hit man, he won't leave you alive for an hour and a half to talk to the police, he will shoot you in the head.
Post by: Jolly2 on 16/12/2020 11:19:08
:)And it's all been debunkedAs far as I can tell, what you mean by that is Assange says it isn't true.
Assange needs somewhere to live- some place where the Americans can't find him.
Russia probabaly looks good enough.
They will offer him sanctuary if he is nice to them.
He's being nice to them.
In the mean time, the security experts
CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica,
who are not particularly partisan, are saying the Russians did it.
Must be true then. Real question who owns them. Not "particularly" partisan? Wow
They sent the stuff to WikiLeaks as a way to get plausible denial.
It hardly matters if they did it with or without a disgruntled insider. The point is that the insider couldn't have done it alone.
How so?
I see the guy, Seth Rich, who was prepared to go to court to defend his honour over the allegations is now dead.
That's very convenient for the conspiracy theorists.
It's not evidence that he was involved.
Not evidence he wasnt.
The police say it was attempted robbery.
Fox news- who were, at the time, practically part of Trump's campaign team- paid out a huge defamation settlement to Seth's family, accepting that they had essentially fabricated the story.
If some politicians want you dead and pay a hit man, he won't leave you alive for an hour and a half to talk to the police, he will shoot you in the head.
You clearly missed it
Russiagate more fiction then fact
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/russiagate-is-more-fiction-than-fact/
RIP/Russiagate
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/rip-russiagate/
Post by: Jolly2 on 16/12/2020 11:34:20
Its actually fairly well established that Kennedy stole the election from Nixon. Which is the contrary.by adding votes of people that didn't exist, voting for people that didn't know you were using their information to vote, voting for people that have died, not counting the votes of the other person you are running against, and there are more ways to add votes to yourself or remove votes from your opponents.
As you said in your next paragraph, the only time this has been proved to happen, it was the Republicans who cheated.
Both parties cheat, Republicans and Democrats both do gerrymandering, Democrats add voters to the roles that shouldn't be there, Republicans remove voters that should be.
Democrats apparently just added 80,000 new voters in Georgia when asked to see their addresses for verification, the reply was "you can see that after they vote, and the election is finished" :)
Pigshagging is not considered a scandal in the UK.
Maybe amoung the Mps in government, the electorate hold another opinion.
It is an essential step on the route to high office in the Tory party. How else can you be judged fit to screw the peasants? The option not being open to Mrs May, she proved her worth by deporting honest citizens to places they had never seen, and giving protection to foreign scum under the Human Rights Act.
Show your true colours why dont you.
The human rights act protects everyone, and the people that want it gone are the criminals in the security establishment that enjoy being sadistic with the general population, they are sadistic even with human rights laws present, but always risk criminal charges should they get caught, atleast they did,
now they hope to gain immunity from prosecution under the new covert human intelligence Bill.
You people are a joke under the pretense, of "stopping criminals" or immigrants being protected by human rights law, you actually seek the right of the state security apparatus the to abuse anyone at will. Its utterly disgraceful
"Either some people will be prepared to die for freedom or we all die under tyranny"
Its always the security establishment that imposes tyranny, in every state where tyranny have arrive it is the security establishment that arranged it maintained it and allowed it.
It is the security establishment and the service that work for it, that must have strong check and balances in place to prevent their decent into tyrannical behaviour and the promotion of a culture that respects the human rights of people rather then a culture that promotes inhumanity as we currently see.
Biggest threat to freedom comes from the security establishment.
Priti Patel looked like a runner until this week but whilst pissing off the civil service scores plenty of merit marks, paying compensation to victims of malpractice is a sign of weakness.
Maybe the establishment shouldnt act criminally and she wouldn't have to.
I think we have stumbled on the dumbest aspect of the British political system. Whilst our anointed aspire to Republican arrogance, and are chosen in secret by an alleged 90,000 anonymous members of the Conservative Party, or in public by an inebriated trade union secretary, they simply cannot match our American cousins for ignorance and electoral fraud.
You'll have to justify the claim.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/12/2020 12:09:46
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 12:41:37
Democrats apparently just added 80,000 new voters in Georgia when asked to see their addresses for verification, the reply was "you can see that after they vote, and the election is finished"Got evidence?
Post by: The Spoon on 16/12/2020 13:44:14
Again, the arms sales to Eastern Europe from the US? Not arms sales in dollars, but actually from the US.No they intentionally sort to prevent Trump building bridges with Russia, because the cash cow of arms sales to East Europe is too valuable for them to lose. They need the Russia fantam.Could you tell us what the value of arms sales from the US to the Eastern Europe is?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/12/2020 15:18:32
I heard of a case some time ago where the CIA accused a Brit of supplying plastic bomblet wings to the Chinese, after they found some in Vietnam that were identical to those he had designed under contract to the US air force. He managed to prove that they were knock-off copies, but took pride in the fact that they had even tried to copy the rough tool marks from his hand-made moulds, probably believing that they acted like golfball dimples.
Post by: Jolly2 on 16/12/2020 19:51:44
No. Herr Fuhrer Trumpf is going to amaze the world by explaining to the Supreme Court (the majority of which are his appointees) that the election he boasted would be the fairest and most secure EVER (his capitals) was stolen from the Best Presidential Candidate in the Known Universe. If he fails, my claim stands.
Can you site Trumps claim? Because he was probably referencing Russia. I can say I never heard him suggest it, the only suggestion I heard from him was how the Democrats were intending to steal it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 20:04:25
the only suggestion I heard from him was how the Democrats were intending to steal it.Which is what a liar (like Trump) would say if he knew he was going to lose.
Shouldn't he- as president- have said " I am going to stop anyone stealing the election by doing something about it"?
If we take the claim of the man in the video at face value, there were over 100,000 fake votes.
Perhaps they were all Republicans?
Post by: Jolly2 on 16/12/2020 20:21:48
Again, the arms sales to Eastern Europe from the US? Not arms sales in dollars, but actually from the US.No they intentionally sort to prevent Trump building bridges with Russia, because the cash cow of arms sales to East Europe is too valuable for them to lose. They need the Russia fantam.Could you tell us what the value of arms sales from the US to the Eastern Europe is?
Well if you had paid attention America accounts for at least 50%.
Why are you so hung up on exactly to the dollar, the amount of money America makes?
It's not really relevant. The arms trade is huge business for America.
Post by: Jolly2 on 16/12/2020 20:22:53
the only suggestion I heard from him was how the Democrats were intending to steal it.Which is what a liar (like Trump) would say if he knew he was going to lose.
Shouldn't he- as president- have said " I am going to stop anyone stealing the election by doing something about it"?
If we take the claim of the man in the video at face value, there were over 100,000 fake votes.
Perhaps they were all Republicans?
Was I discussing with you?
Trump has his way of talking.
And yes atleast 1500 dead people voted in just one state
But carry on about no fraud chemist.
Post by: Jolly2 on 16/12/2020 20:30:21
AFAIK the US does not manufacture AK47s or Katyushas, and NATO forces in general seem to be surprised when their opposition lobs RPGs at them. All of these simple, effective weapons of choice seem to originate from Russia or China.
I heard of a case some time ago where the CIA accused a Brit of supplying plastic bomblet wings to the Chinese, after they found some in Vietnam that were identical to those he had designed under contract to the US air force. He managed to prove that they were knock-off copies, but took pride in the fact that they had even tried to copy the rough tool marks from his hand-made moulds, probably believing that they acted like golfball dimples.
Interesting
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 22:14:53
Trump has his way of talking.It's called "telling lies".
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 22:20:37
InterestingGalloway?
Possibly, interesting.
Unlikely to be informative.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 22:21:23
Do you know that there's a difference between an allegation and evidence?the only suggestion I heard from him was how the Democrats were intending to steal it.Which is what a liar (like Trump) would say if he knew he was going to lose.
Shouldn't he- as president- have said " I am going to stop anyone stealing the election by doing something about it"?
If we take the claim of the man in the video at face value, there were over 100,000 fake votes.
Perhaps they were all Republicans?
Was I discussing with you?
Trump has his way of talking.
And yes atleast 1500 dead people voted in just one state
But carry on about no fraud chemist.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/12/2020 23:07:50
And yes atleast 1500 dead people voted in just one state
As they should.
There are 40,000,000 people in California, with a life expectancy around 80, so at least 500,000 die every year, say 42,000 per month, and most of those will be of voting age. Suppose just 10% of the population vote by mail a month ahead of the election (as old people tend to). That means that 4,200 dead people voted. And with a bit of research, I could even name them.
I'd be really worried if the number was much less.
Post by: RD on 17/12/2020 00:51:15
Galloway?
Possibly, interesting....
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/12/2020 08:34:16
Possibly one of the dumber aspects of British politics.Galloway?
Possibly, interesting....
Post by: The Spoon on 17/12/2020 11:56:59
At least 50%? have you got evidence i.e. figures that you can actually supply to support that?Again, the arms sales to Eastern Europe from the US? Not arms sales in dollars, but actually from the US.No they intentionally sort to prevent Trump building bridges with Russia, because the cash cow of arms sales to East Europe is too valuable for them to lose. They need the Russia fantam.Could you tell us what the value of arms sales from the US to the Eastern Europe is?
Well if you had paid attention America accounts for at least 50%.
Why are you so hung up on exactly to the dollar, the amount of money America makes?
It's not really relevant. The arms trade is huge business for America.
I am not 'hung up' on exactly what America makes, rather the veracity of your claim that
'cash cow of arms sales to East Europe is too valuable for them to lose'.
However, you now claim it is not relevant which is odd given that you used that claim to support your argument.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/12/2020 12:45:06
Post by: Jolly2 on 17/12/2020 18:00:11
past
At least 50%? have you got evidence i.e. figures that you can actually supply to support that?Again, the arms sales to Eastern Europe from the US? Not arms sales in dollars, but actually from the US.No they intentionally sort to prevent Trump building bridges with Russia, because the cash cow of arms sales to East Europe is too valuable for them to lose. They need the Russia fantam.Could you tell us what the value of arms sales from the US to the Eastern Europe is?
Well if you had paid attention America accounts for at least 50%.
Why are you so hung up on exactly to the dollar, the amount of money America makes?
It's not really relevant. The arms trade is huge business for America.
I am not 'hung up' on exactly what America makes, rather the veracity of your claim that
'cash cow of arms sales to East Europe is too valuable for them to lose'.
However, you now claim it is not relevant which is odd given that you used that claim to support your argument.
This is really an expression of you firstly being pedantic and secondly missing the point.
1. The main victim of the Russia gate hoax isnt Trump or Russia, it's the east European countries that are MASSIVELY increasing in military spending because they are afraid of a Russian threat that isnt really real.
2. It is not simply America that has an interest and benefit in the Russia gate lie, Britian and other countries that sell arms also have the same interest. Hence why Britian was so eager to support the hoax, with it's own agents like Mark Steal who sold the fake dossier to the Clinton's.
Or who also I believe chemically attacked the shippals then sort to blame Russia for it.
Historically Reagan Agreed in a gentlemen's Agreement with Gorbachev that NATO would not advance east into eastern Europe, an agreement the Americans broke very quickly after the USSR disintegrated. A betrayal and an act of aggression
in the part of America.
The Americans moved into Russia with the collapse of the USSR and imposed an extremely capitalistic system, which ultimately back fired and led to the rise of Putin. Who naturally moved to get rid of the oligarchs that America had installed the run Russia for them.
And here we are today after America has repeatedly sort to increase bases along the Russian border, funded terrorist groups in Chechnya, broken ballistic missile agreements or simply left them and just spent the last 4 years lying about Russian involvement in the US elections.
The notion that Russia is the aggressor is a total joke.
As Putin said today
Sad reality is people that want empire, think they own everything, and woe be them that disagree. The arrogance of not just the Americans but also the British beggars belief.
And to hear Brtian claim a moral high ground about the use of chemical weapons, when I know for a fact that Britian is using chemical weapons on it's own people repeatedly and routinely, Is a real expression of just how depraved, uncivilized, and utterly disgraceful the British establishment is.
Not only is Britain a state that sponsors terrorism, it also is massively engaged in the human rights abuses of its own citizens, and now seeks complete immunity and impunity to be even more disgusting! if that were possible!
I urge anyone who cares about their life and that of their family to leave.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/12/2020 18:21:26
As Putin said todayAnd ex KGB officers never lie.
I know for a fact that Britian is using chemical weapons on it's own people repeatedly and routinely,How?
Post by: Jolly2 on 17/12/2020 18:51:21
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/%22MKDELTA%22
Enjoy downloading the PDF, which explains that much of the experimentation was designed for the agents themselves so they could have their memories erased, amoung other things.
Who will drug the druggers?
Post by: Jolly2 on 17/12/2020 18:56:23
Quote from: Bored chemist
I know for a fact that Britian is using chemical weapons on it's own people repeatedly and routinely,How?
Well sadly while I would live to prove it, my day in court is highly unlikely as those responsible are going to move heaven and earth to prevent the truth coming out.
All I can say here really but I know for a fact the British establishment engages in the use of chemical weapons attacks on it's own people.
You can ofcourse reread the BBC article related to some of the history.
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/magazine-36606510
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/12/2020 19:42:56
Honestly all you professionals trolls. And agents of the establishment can enjoy the relevationsMKULTRA and MKDELTA were ditched in the 70s for the simple reason that they didn't work.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/%22MKDELTA%22
Enjoy downloading the PDF, which explains that much of the experimentation was designed for the agents themselves so they could have their memories erased, amoung other things.
Who will drug the druggers?
Yes they did happen.
Is that a reason to think they are still doing it? Of course not.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/12/2020 19:44:31
Well sadly while I would live to prove it, my day in court is highly unlikely as those responsible are going to move heaven and earth to prevent the truth coming out.That only makes sense if you think you were the target.
And you also think they used mind altering drugs.
So the obvious question is why do you believe yourself- who you consider to have been drugged, rather than us who haven't?
Post by: Jolly2 on 17/12/2020 20:37:02
Honestly all you professionals trolls. And agents of the establishment can enjoy the relevationsMKULTRA and MKDELTA were ditched in the 70s for the simple reason that they didn't work.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/%22MKDELTA%22
Enjoy downloading the PDF, which explains that much of the experimentation was designed for the agents themselves so they could have their memories erased, amoung other things.
Who will drug the druggers?
Yes they did happen.
Is that a reason to think they are still doing it? Of course not.
Establishment lies, they never stopped, they never destroyed the files.
Easy to do, hard to prove.
Seriously you are now literally defending the indefensible. As such I really am not sure I care to converse with you any longer, there are literally 100,000s of people suffering under these types programs daily, your defense of it, is beyond disgusting.
You might claim ignorance, you seems to have clearly absorbed soo much propaganda as shown by your statements on this thread, that maybe you are unable to think for yourself anymore, but I think your smarter then that, and as such all you have is a plausible denie-ability, that I don't accept.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/12/2020 21:58:59
Seriously you are now literally defending the indefensible.I'm not "defending" anything.
The military tried doing something stupid- just in case it worked- and as often happened, it didn't.
Since they stopped doing it decades ago there is nothing to defend.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/12/2020 22:02:50
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_laboratory_of_the_Soviet_secret_services
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/12/2020 09:35:37
Some bloke, Glenn Kirshner, in this video
Makes the case that Trump's team were deliberately letting the virus spread, even though they were well aware that it was much more dangerous than they were telling the public.
He's a lawyer so he probably knows what he is talking about.
Trump killed people this way.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/12/2020 11:37:41
when I know for a fact that Britian is using chemical weapons on it's own peoplePlease name one. Apart from COVID, of course.
Post by: Jolly2 on 19/12/2020 05:02:56
that Seth Rich was responsible for the DNC leaks to Wikileaks
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/12/2020 11:18:32
FBI knew in 2016 long before Trump was sworn in as presidentThen why didn't they arrest him?
that Seth Rich was responsible for the DNC leaks to Wikileaks
Post by: charles1948 on 20/12/2020 21:02:49
FBI knew in 2016 long before Trump was sworn in as presidentThen why didn't they arrest him?
that Seth Rich was responsible for the DNC leaks to Wikileaks
Is it because all the people in power, have the same interest - ie, they want to stay in power, therefore they won't arrest each other
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/12/2020 21:50:53
Post by: charles1948 on 20/12/2020 22:56:22
You will need to draw a diagram of who is in league with who.
Such a diagram would merely show a pyramid:
The big bossy assertive people at the top - everyone else, underneath. Isn't it the same in Science?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/12/2020 10:06:14
Isn't it the same in Science?No.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/12/2020 12:29:33
He said "If I had been wrong, one student would have been enough."
Post by: charles1948 on 22/12/2020 17:27:15
Einstein was asked to respond to a paper signed by 100 Nazi professors, denouncing one of his publications.
He said "If I had been wrong, one student would have been enough."
So, the end of peer-reviewing eh?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/12/2020 19:20:47
How many people do you think are usually involved in a peer review?Einstein was asked to respond to a paper signed by 100 Nazi professors, denouncing one of his publications.
He said "If I had been wrong, one student would have been enough."
So, the end of peer-reviewing eh?
Post by: charles1948 on 22/12/2020 19:49:34
How many people do you think are usually involved in a peer review?
[/quote]
I've no idea. Is it less than 99 professors, and more than 1 student?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/12/2020 23:37:08
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/12/2020 19:19:42
Again, the arms sales to Eastern Europe from the US? Not arms sales in dollars, but actually from the US.No they intentionally sort to prevent Trump building bridges with Russia, because the cash cow of arms sales to East Europe is too valuable for them to lose. They need the Russia fantam.Could you tell us what the value of arms sales from the US to the Eastern Europe is?
8:50 to 9:20 factions in America squabble about making Russia or China the biggest perceived threat
Likely America now needs both Russia and China to be seen as bad guys as the only means to justify 1.5 trillion dollar YEARLY defence budget.
Post by: Jolly2 on 04/01/2021 10:47:15
FBI knew in 2016 long before Trump was sworn in as presidentThen why didn't they arrest him?
that Seth Rich was responsible for the DNC leaks to Wikileaks
Because he was dead, shot in the back.
The FBI knew Russia Gate was a lie and hid the truth so they could carry on an investigation into Trump, it appears the FBI are little more then a swamp organisation there to defend the swamp and little else.
FBI should be disbanded...
Movie based on atleast 100 incidents where the FBI faked evidence to try and put innocent people in Prison for terrorism, they knew they were innocent... THE DAY SHALL COME
Also left to ponder who actually Killed Seth Rich, clearly was not a robbery. Someone at the DNC certainly would have motive.
Certianly cannot trust the FBI to find out.
Hopefully Trump will Pardon Assange on this news, Seth Rich released the emails to Wikileaks the FBI knew and hid that fact.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/01/2021 11:00:06
appears the FBI are little more then a swamp organisationTrump IS the swamp.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/01/2021 00:14:47
For those who don't understand the British political system, the most significant scene in The Crown is where the Queen sends for the Leader of the Opposition and says "Mr Wilson, as the electorate has given you a parliamentary majority, I must ask you to form a government in my name." "Thank you, Ma'am, it is an honour to serve." Shake hands, and the color of government changes instantly.
How quaint, outdated and efficient, compared with the bloated pomposity that was taking place in the Capitol until the guardians of stupidity invaded the place this afternoon.
Post by: charles1948 on 08/01/2021 20:40:43
Wouldn't the colour of government change quicker, if the new Prime Minister, after shaking hands with the Queen, politely ushered her into a waiting van, which took her into a retirement home.
Then went onto nationwide TV to proclaim a new socialist British Republic!
Post by: alancalverd on 09/01/2021 00:42:44
If not, think on this: "President Blair".
As for the speed of change, any civil servant will tell you that the post-election contingency files are continuously reviewed and updated in view of Party conference decisions. Even minority governments and various coalitions have their place in the drawer. The removal vans enter Downing Street literally as soon as hands are shaken and there is no need for a prolonged handover period because the top civil servants, ambassadors and military officers are permanently appointed by their professional peers on ability, not political allegiance.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/01/2021 00:57:16
Surely you have seen enough this week of what happens in republics, to be revolted by the idea?Why?
If not, think on this: "President Blair".
He didn't win a presidency.
On the other hand, history tells us than a monarchy is also bad.
And so is a republic
and so is...everything else.
So what are you suggesting?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/01/2021 01:03:44
How many Marines accompany the Queen on a shopping trip? How many armoured cars form a royal wedding procession?
Franco or Juan Carlos?
Name one happy republic.
Post by: Jolly2 on 24/01/2021 20:43:16