PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: PeterNSteinmetz on February 14, 2024, 07:00:10 PM
-
Oh dear - https://apnews.com/article/199113b47bc2df79c63fdf007cd23115
-
This needs to be parsed out. Just because one mule was actually legit doesn’t necessarily discredit the whole thing. And they’re not turning over informants, makes sense. But it sounds like they don’t have their mess together. No evidence at all? Or are we being lied to? I’d like to hear what Dinesh has to say about this.
Even if all of “2000 Mules” is false that does not discredit many other cheats that night in other states. You will never convince me that election wasn’t stolen. Dead people voting. More mail in ballots than voting age people in a district. The voting machine problems such as allowing poll workers to change votes after the fact.
-
Well Rush, at least you are open about your non-falsifiable belief!
-
Well Rush, at least you are open about your non-falsifiable belief!
Biden is not the legitimate president. Even if there was ZERO technical cheating, there was an admitted organized plan carried out months ahead of time by a group of “racketeers” to change election methods to ensure a Dem win (sometimes against state constitutional law) by, allowing universal mail in ballots, targeting specific swing states for voter registration and ballot harvesting but only among Dems. Mark Zuckerberg funded that with hundreds of millions of dollars going to blue but not red districts.
It was the mail in ballots that pushed Biden over Trump in the middle of the night and there are plenty of questions about the legitimacy of all those mail ins, such as multiple ballots that had identical marks (having been copied).
When I moved to Texas I received a ballot from NC and had to call the county and have them remove me from the voter rolls. That does NOT happen automatically. I could have filled it out and mailed it in and also voted in Texas. My sister received two ballots, one for her and one for our mother. Our mother was completely demented and didn’t vote. My sister could easily have filled out both ballots for whoever she wanted. When my mother died I had to notify the election board of the death and they required a copy of the death certificate. How many people do that? There are countless dead people still on voter rolls everywhere, and, beginning in 2020, many were mailed ballots. Convince me their family members never fill them out and “vote” for them.
You will never convince me there aren’t many people who did just that and were never found out or moved and voted in two places. I don’t care if that’s “falsifiable” or not, it is common sense. Mail in ballots are not secure and should be outlawed except for very limited situations. You’re overseas in the military or on extended business, you’re literally housebound from disability. That’s about it, and you should be required to show proof.
Automatic voter registration when you get a drivers license should be banned. Automatic voter machines should be banned. Early voting should be banned. Extended early voting causes a skewed result because people vote before learning critical last minute information about the candidates.
Poll workers need to be bipartisan. If partisan workers ban observers from the room or restrict them to a far corner, as happened in 2020, the election result in that district should be thrown out and those responsible criminally prosecuted for election interference.
Elections in the U.S are a joke.
-
Well Rush, at least you are open about your non-falsifiable belief!
You use that phrase as if it somehow implies that a plurality of anecdotal evidence is not valid data. But it is. The election was stolen. Rush is correct in her observations. I watched many testimonies and read many of the affidavits that came out right after the election. Most quickly were suppressed. The speed with which AG Barr insisted no evidence of cheating was found was a giant tell. He didn’t even look, therefore he didn’t find. The whole situation we are in is a perfect illustration of the old fable of the emperor with no clothes. Anyone insisting Biden got 81 million votes and won the election is living in a fantasy.
-
I've said this before, and I'll repeat.
Get ready this fall to see this again, except this time it will be the dems shouting stolen election. They are going to use everything the republicans used in 2020, except this time the judges will listen and the lawsuits will happen. This will tie up election certifications and eventually tip the election to the twelfth amendment and congress.
And Rush and Becky are spot on about 2020.
-
Biden is not the legitimate president. Even if there was ZERO technical cheating, there was an admitted organized plan carried out months ahead of time by a group of “racketeers” to change election methods to ensure a Dem win (sometimes against state constitutional law) by, allowing universal mail in ballots, targeting specific swing states for voter registration and ballot harvesting but only among Dems. Mark Zuckerberg funded that with hundreds of millions of dollars going to blue but not red districts.
It was the mail in ballots that pushed Biden over Trump in the middle of the night and there are plenty of questions about the legitimacy of all those mail ins, such as multiple ballots that had identical marks (having been copied).
When I moved to Texas I received a ballot from NC and had to call the county and have them remove me from the voter rolls. That does NOT happen automatically. I could have filled it out and mailed it in and also voted in Texas. My sister received two ballots, one for her and one for our mother. Our mother was completely demented and didn’t vote. My sister could easily have filled out both ballots for whoever she wanted. When my mother died I had to notify the election board of the death and they required a copy of the death certificate. How many people do that? There are countless dead people still on voter rolls everywhere, and, beginning in 2020, many were mailed ballots. Convince me their family members never fill them out and “vote” for them.
You will never convince me there aren’t many people who did just that and were never found out or moved and voted in two places. I don’t care if that’s “falsifiable” or not, it is common sense. Mail in ballots are not secure and should be outlawed except for very limited situations. You’re overseas in the military or on extended business, you’re literally housebound from disability. That’s about it, and you should be required to show proof.
Automatic voter registration when you get a drivers license should be banned. Automatic voter machines should be banned. Early voting should be banned. Extended early voting causes a skewed result because people vote before learning critical last minute information about the candidates.
Poll workers need to be bipartisan. If partisan workers ban observers from the room or restrict them to a far corner, as happened in 2020, the election result in that district should be thrown out and those responsible criminally prosecuted for election interference.
Elections in the U.S are a joke.
Spot on! We are now the Territorio de la Bannana Republica.
-
You use that phrase as if it somehow implies that a plurality of anecdotal evidence is not valid data. But it is. The election was stolen. Rush is correct in her observations. I watched many testimonies and read many of the affidavits that came out right after the election. Most quickly were suppressed. The speed with which AG Barr insisted no evidence of cheating was found was a giant tell. He didn’t even look, therefore he didn’t find. The whole situation we are in is a perfect illustration of the old fable of the emperor with no clothes. Anyone insisting Biden got 81 million votes and won the election is living in a fantasy.
Actually no, I use that phrase to mean that the belief is non-falsifiable for that person. In the this case, by Rush’s own admission. That means it is pointless to discuss further with that person because here is no evidence that exists which would ever falsify the belief. And I think it is a good thing when a person who has such beliefs is up front about it. It reduces waste of time and keeps the discussion more polite.
Let me ask Becky if you can name any evidence, which could exist in principle, which would persuade you that the amount of fraud which existed in the 2020 presidential election did not affect the outcome?
-
You use that phrase as if it somehow implies that a plurality of anecdotal evidence is not valid data. But it is. The election was stolen. Rush is correct in her observations. I watched many testimonies and read many of the affidavits that came out right after the election. Most quickly were suppressed. The speed with which AG Barr insisted no evidence of cheating was found was a giant tell. He didn’t even look, therefore he didn’t find. The whole situation we are in is a perfect illustration of the old fable of the emperor with no clothes. Anyone insisting Biden got 81 million votes and won the election is living in a fantasy.
Yes, I printed out a copy of the forensic analysis of the Dominion voting machines. I don't know if it's been scrubbed from the internet but I wouldn't be surprised. The machines had a feature where the poll worker could adjudicate the votes, which the idea was to correct a vote that was fat fingered wrong or something like that, and past data had shown that only a tiny percent of votes are ever changed in that manner, except in one of the disputed districts in 2020, where the machine showed a very high percent of votes changed. Select files had been deleted that would prove what was changed, while no other files were deleted. This isn't proof, but it is evidence tampering and highly suspicious whoever deleted the files was trying to hide something.
So when you hear everybody talk about the "false" allegation of 2020 voter fraud, that statement itself is FALSE. Just because there is no proof that fraud was committed on that machine, there is also no proof that NO fraud was committed and in fact, proof that something was erased whether deliberately or inadvertently, that might have either proved or disproved fraud on that machine, one way or the other. Therefore it is false to say accusations of cheating on that machine are false.
The lefty John Oliver did an excellent video of the problems with vote machines and he recommended in person paper ballots only. This video was made prior to 2020 and no doubt he regrets it now. But it showed that the problems with vote machine insecurity were widely known well prior to 2020.
-
Can someone explain how mail-in ballots were secure? Were signatures verified? or ?
of course, if the number of mail-in ballots was less than the margin of victory for <whoever>, then it doesn't matter whether or not the mail-in ballots were secure, does it...
-
Actually no, I use that phrase to mean that the belief is non-falsifiable for that person. In the this case, by Rush’s own admission. That means it is pointless to discuss further with that person because here is no evidence that exists which would ever falsify the belief. And I think it is a good thing when a person who has such beliefs is up front about it. It reduces waste of time and keeps the discussion more polite.
Let me ask Becky if you can name any evidence, which could exist in principle, which would persuade you that the amount of fraud which existed in the 2020 presidential election did not affect the outcome?
Yes. A complete redo of the 2020 election as soon as possible, at the time, using only paper ballots, requiring ID, and one-day counting would have been ideal but of course doesn’t exist. It could still be done, but has not been and here we are facing another election with most of the cheat mechanisms still in place.
Don’t forget that the bulk of the cheat was made through controlling voting machine data in real time, in selected states and selected precincts where people were put in place to carry out the cheat in real time. However, they could not outsmart real time. President Trump’s lead was so great that the jumps in counts in those precincts were seen by the world. Literally, the world knows President Trump won. The frantic rush to produce paper ballots to back up the millions of fake votes was seen by the world. Testimonies were given, hundreds of them, by election workers from those selected precincts where the cheat happened, including by representatives of Dominion who testified they were told on election night to sit away from the counting activity and were not allowed to observe or monitor the activity of the machines in any way.
The passage of time has made it harder to find or even access these testimonies because there is a constant scrubbing of them from the internet.
I could be convinced the 2020 election was not stolen if every deposition, testimonial, video, election official statement, voting machine data and ballot were unearthed and examined with extreme focus and with bipartisan observers documenting each finding.
As well, let analysis and concrete backup explain the dozen or more statistics, such as Biden losing the bellwether counties and the differentials in registered voters vs. ballots counted, that prove the outcome was not merely statistically improbable, but impossible.
-
Yes. A complete redo of the 2020 election as soon as possible, at the time, using only paper ballots, requiring ID, and one-day counting would have been ideal but of course doesn’t exist. It could still be done, but has not been and here we are facing another election with most of the cheat mechanisms still in place.
Don’t forget that the bulk of the cheat was made through controlling voting machine data in real time, in selected states and selected precincts where people were put in place to carry out the cheat in real time. However, they could not outsmart real time. President Trump’s lead was so great that the jumps in counts in those precincts were seen by the world. Literally, the world knows President Trump won. The frantic rush to produce paper ballots to back up the millions of fake votes was seen by the world. Testimonies were given, hundreds of them, by election workers from those selected precincts where the cheat happened, including by representatives of Dominion who testified they were told on election night to sit away from the counting activity and were not allowed to observe or monitor the activity of the machines in any way.
The passage of time has made it harder to find or even access these testimonies because there is a constant scrubbing of them from the internet.
I could be convinced the 2020 election was not stolen if every deposition, testimonial, video, election official statement, voting machine data and ballot were unearthed and examined with extreme focus and with bipartisan observers documenting each finding.
As well, let analysis and concrete backup explain the dozen or more statistics, such as Biden losing the bellwether counties and the differentials in registered voters vs. ballots counted, that prove the outcome was not merely statistically improbable, but impossible.
Add to the list the states that allowed state SoS and judges to rewrite election allows outside of the legislative to allow mass mail in voting with no signature verification, and no cutoff dates.
The Arizona debacle of 2022 also adds another dimension of cheating.
-
Yes. A complete redo of the 2020 election as soon as possible, at the time, using only paper ballots, requiring ID, and one-day counting would have been ideal but of course doesn’t exist. It could still be done, but has not been and here we are facing another election with most of the cheat mechanisms still in place.
Well, being able to name something that is at least theoretically possible means that is not a logically non-falsifiable belief. That means it is then possible to begin to consider issues like how to objectively consider the totality of the evidence and what the evidence is. Key questions for a specific proposition are what standard of evidence should be used to support the claim and how the different types of evidence are weighed. An important item to note is that it is possible for a belief to be effectively non-falsifiable if one won't consider any evidence that can be practically obtained or if one non-objectively weighs evidence grossly disproportionately.
So I started to consider what the evidence was with the claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen and at first thought it might be one of those cases where things are so close that one can't even with all the evidence theoretically know a conclusion to say greater than 95% certainty.
So the first thing I went to look for was the actual popular vote counts as reported. It seems like Joe Biden won by over 7M votes, or 5.1%. (https://www.cookpolitical.com/2020-national-popular-vote-tracker). So it really isn't a case of an inherent level of statistical uncertainty causing the confusion here. Instead one has to find evidence for some process that would result in over 7M false votes.
I could be convinced the 2020 election was not stolen if every deposition, testimonial, video, election official statement, voting machine data and ballot were unearthed and examined with extreme focus and with bipartisan observers documenting each finding.
You do know that pretty close to the last item mentioned, the ballot examinations, was performed in Maricopa County? While that did uncover evidence of troublesome counting, admission of ballots, etc. it failed to show any good evidence that the results on the improper ballots were so biased that including them or excluding them would significantly impact the choice of electors in AZ. This is actually evidence which suggests that whatever fraud may have present did not affect the outcome of the election. That is just one piece of evidence of course.
-
In any case I stand by my original comment of "oh dear". Whether one thinks that election was "stolen" or not, it certainly is not a good thing when an organization called "True the Vote", which has made a big stink about this, can't produce the evidence when requested by the judge.
-
Add to the list the states that allowed state SoS and judges to rewrite election allows outside of the legislative to allow mass mail in voting with no signature verification, and no cutoff dates.
I think these changes likely had an affect on the outcome overall as the mail-in voters are much more leftist.
I don't consider that outright fraud, which usually means things like fake ballots for dead people, duplicate ballots, etc. Do you count that as fraud?
Do you consider it a form of "stealing" the election?
Or rather a form of cheating?
I consider it dirty politics as usual.
-
Get ready this fall to see this again, except this time it will be the dems shouting stolen election. They are going to use everything the republicans used in 2020, except this time the judges will listen and the lawsuits will happen. This will tie up election certifications and eventually tip the election to the twelfth amendment and congress.
I would agree that somehow the democrats bamboozled the American public into voting for their candidate, a demented old political crook, for President in 2020.
I hope the American public has learned something and won't make that mistake again.
-
In any case I stand by my original comment of "oh dear". Whether one thinks that election was "stolen" or not, it certainly is not a good thing when an organization called "True the Vote", which has made a big stink about this, can't produce the evidence when requested by the judge.
I agree with that.
-
So the first thing I went to look for was the actual popular vote counts as reported. It seems like Joe Biden won by over 7M votes, or 5.1%. (https://www.cookpolitical.com/2020-national-popular-vote-tracker). So it really isn't a case of an inherent level of statistical uncertainty causing the confusion here. Instead one has to find evidence for some process that would result in over 7M false votes.
exercise for the student: what were the popular vote totals for hillary and President Trump in 2016? and why would that be relevant wrt wining/losing the election in 2016?
-
So the first thing I went to look for was the actual popular vote counts as reported. It seems like Joe Biden won by over 7M votes, or 5.1%. (https://www.cookpolitical.com/2020-national-popular-vote-tracker). So it really isn't a case of an inherent level of statistical uncertainty causing the confusion here. Instead one has to find evidence for some process that would result in over 7M false votes.
We don’t need 7M false votes to fraudulently change the result. Because of the electoral system it was only a few thousand in select counties that did it. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.
-
That is a good question of whether a much smaller number of fraudulent votes could have affected the electoral college outcome is a good one.
I believe the Heartland Institute study mentioned in this other thread http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=7426.0 tried to address that. Has anyone actually read that study and thinks it is worth looking more carefully at?
-
That is a good question of whether a much smaller number of fraudulent votes could have affected the electoral college outcome is a good one.
Of course it could. In 2000 Bush won Florida by 537 votes and that’s what won the whole election. What are you talking about?
-
Popular vote is meaningless. Wow. To use that as an indicator of anything is counterproductive and considering many were fraudulent, even more misleading.
-
Popular vote is meaningless. Wow. To use that as an indicator of anything is counterproductive and considering many were fraudulent, even more misleading.
That there have been a few elections where the winner of the popular vote did not win the electoral college is used by the left to agitate to get rid of the EC. To do that would violate the most basic premise of the United States which is exactly that: United States: A bunch of separate states uniting for a purpose; NOT the Empire of The District of Columbia. Each state is sovereign and under limited federal control as outlined in the Constitution and with power to elect federal officers through the EC which is designed to empower the state, not the individual citizens.
Thus we are not a direct democracy. We already partially damaged states’ powers with the 17th which we never should have done. People need to get over the popular vote. If you need to understand why, take a look at Texas right now asserting it’s rightful sovereignty by trying to protect her borders while the criminally reckless federal apparatus opposes those efforts. The good of the state must be considered in addition to the good of the individual and that is what the EC endeavors to address.
If the federal government were elected by popular vote, in other words a direct democracy ignoring state boundaries, then the overwhelming numbers in a few east and west coast cities would always prevail over the needs of all the other states. Why bother having states then? We would be back to feudal autocracy with sparsely populated but productive flyover states enslaved to support crowded little patches of land full of decadent elite and lazy underclass neither of which have a clue how to produce food or electricity.
No. Fuck the popular vote.
-
Ideally we'd extend the electoral concept into the states so that it's county by county and not state popular vote. That way the urban centers would not have their massively overwhelming influence over the rest of the state. For example, most of Illinois is red with only Chicago and East St. Louis being blue. The rest of the state is really pissed off at being controlled by Chicago politics. Same with Wisconsin and Madison / Milwaukee. And on and on. Of course county electoral votes will never happen.
-
That there have been a few elections where the winner of the popular vote did not win the electoral college is used by the left to agitate to get rid of the EC. To do that would violate the most basic premise of the United States which is exactly that: United States: A bunch of separate states uniting for a purpose; NOT the Empire of The District of Columbia. Each state is sovereign and under limited federal control as outlined in the Constitution and with power to elect federal officers through the EC which is designed to empower the state, not the individual citizens.
Thus we are not a direct democracy. We already partially damaged states’ powers with the 17th which we never should have done. People need to get over the popular vote. If you need to understand why, take a look at Texas right now asserting it’s rightful sovereignty by trying to protect her borders while the criminally reckless federal apparatus opposes those efforts. The good of the state must be considered in addition to the good of the individual and that is what the EC endeavors to address.
If the federal government were elected by popular vote, in other words a direct democracy ignoring state boundaries, then the overwhelming numbers in a few east and west coast cities would always prevail over the needs of all the other states. Why bother having states then? We would be back to feudal autocracy with sparsely populated but productive flyover states enslaved to support crowded little patches of land full of decadent elite and lazy underclass neither of which have a clue how to produce food or electricity.
No. Fuck the popular vote.
Thus needs to be pounded on in our schools as it ts the TRUTH. But it never will be because the Communists control them.
-
Thus needs to be pounded on in our schools as it ts the TRUTH. But it never will be because the Communists control them.
That’s right; this isn’t being taught in schools. Kids are graduating at age 18 - with the immediate ability to vote - with NO understanding of the basic construct of our nation. They’re genuinely baffled about the electoral college. It’s a travesty.
-
That’s right; this isn’t being taught in schools. Kids are graduating at age 18 - with the immediate ability to vote - with NO understanding of the basic construct of our nation. They’re genuinely baffled about the electoral college. It’s a travesty.
We have adults, even those with advance education that don't understand the concept. And those are easily manipulated by the propaganda media.
-
Popular vote is meaningless. Wow. To use that as an indicator of anything is counterproductive and considering many were fraudulent, even more misleading.
Certainly not determinative of who wins in the US. It does however indicate popular sentiment. I think it very unlikely that there were 7 million fraudulent votes, though I can imagine the sort of evidence that would be persuasive.
The electoral college was designed to push ambiguous outcomes one direction or the other so I can also imagine smaller amounts of fraud having an effect there, though have not seen convincing evidence of it.
That is why I ask, has anyone read the Heartland Institute report who could say it looks good and worth investigating further?
What could be going on with the electoral college is something like this. There are errors in any human process including elections. In a scientific experiment we consider 5% a reasonable error rate and the recommendation for voting is on the order of 2%. What that then means is that if you could repeat the election multiple times, that you could get differences of 2% with a fair frequency.
If the margin between two candidates is on the same order, then you will get different outcomes each time you repeat the election.
In that scenario, if some group commits fraud which amounts to 0.1 percent and it tips in one direction or the other, is it accurate to say that their fraud “caused” the outcome and was a “steal” of the election?
I would submit not in the normal sense of the word which implies in the average person’s mind a much higher causal contribution to the outcome, not a 5% shift in the probability.
The average person does not think in terms of statistical contributions to causality, but rather in terms of all or nothing causation. That is how our brains evolved.
-
The electoral college was designed to push ambiguous outcomes one direction or the other...
What is the basis for your claim wrt the design intent?
-
What is the basis for your claim wrt the design intent?
Honestly I don’t remember as it was probably back in high school. I do not mean to imply that is it’s only design criterion.
-
Honestly I don’t remember as it was probably back in high school. I do not mean to imply that is it’s only design criterion.
I never heard that it was any of the design criterion... hence the question.
-
I think it very unlikely that there were 7 million fraudulent votes,
I do too.
But as has been pointed out, it wouldn't take 7 million votes to sway the election.
A few thousand in a few well selected precincts might do it.
But I don't know what to believe. I waited with bated breath several times as some group or other was going to present hard evidence, only to be disappointed with a bunch of coincidences and suppositions.
-
But I don't know what to believe. I waited with bated breath several times as some group or other was going to present hard evidence, only to be disappointed with a bunch of coincidences and suppositions.
Yes, there has been a real lack of quality analysis. I hope someone will be able to comment on the quality of the Heritage Institute study. Having been disappointed by many prior “revelations” I am not inclined to invest the time unless someone who has read it chimes in.
-
I believe that there was election fraud, but whether or not it was enough to sway the election I don't know. However, states violating election law based on their secretaries of state's opinions on "safety during a pandemic" DID affect the election. Democrat groups took advantage of the slack laws and, perhaps as allowed at the time, flooded the system and gave it to FJB. That was by far the biggest factor in 2020.
-
I am not inclined to invest the time unless someone who has read it chimes in.
And others are not inclined to debate or discuss the topic with someone who is not inclined to invest the time to do their own research. ;)
-
I believe that there was election fraud, but whether or not it was enough to sway the election I don't know. However, states violating election law based on their secretaries of state's opinions on "safety during a pandemic" DID affect the election. Democrat groups took advantage of the slack laws and, perhaps as allowed at the time, flooded the system and gave it to FJB. That was by far the biggest factor in 2020.
This was premeditated and organized months ahead of time, and then bragged about publicly after the fact. Those of us who stayed up past midnight that night saw it happen in real time.
-
I believe that there was election fraud, but whether or not it was enough to sway the election I don't know. However, states violating election law based on their secretaries of state's opinions on "safety during a pandemic" DID affect the election. Democrat groups took advantage of the slack laws and, perhaps as allowed at the time, flooded the system and gave it to FJB. That was by far the biggest factor in 2020.
Several states violated the constitution by allowing Secretaries of State to rewrite election laws absent of legislation. They also allowed state Supreme Courts to legislate from the bench, again absent of legislation.
Mass Mail in ballots of everyone on the voter rolls, even knowing that those voter rolls had dead people, people that no longer lived in the area, etc. This resulted in some addresses receiving multiple ballots for people who were no longer alive or lived at that residence.
They went even further by not requiring a valid signature, allowing votes to be counted well past the election deadline. Other localities had voters registered to empty lots. Districts had more votes than the actual legitimate voters.
Then we had videos of election workers pulling huge cases out from under tables and running the same ballots through the tabulator multiple times. Stacks of pristine ballots with no fold lines. Each one with identical marks.
And election officials and SoS forbidding examinations. If there was no fraud, then why forbid examination of ballots and machines? That should bolster the case if everything was on the up and up.
-
I believe that there was election fraud, but whether or not it was enough to sway the election I don't know. However, states violating election law based on their secretaries of state's opinions on "safety during a pandemic" DID affect the election. Democrat groups took advantage of the slack laws and, perhaps as allowed at the time, flooded the system and gave it to FJB. That was by far the biggest factor in 2020.
I agree on that. I just don’t consider doing something within the law to be fraud in the general meaning of the term.
It also doesn’t seem like “stealing” the election in the sense it is generally meant. But I suppose could be considered theft like taxation is extortion.
No doubt the politicians used every excuse to increase their power and enrich themselves, as they almost always do.
Plus “public health” officials saw this as their big chance to “do something” and “help”.
-
Don't forget this.....
https://conservativeus.com/governor-kemps-daughters-boyfriend-dies-in-fiery-crash-and-witnesses-nearby-allegedly-heard-multiple-explosions-that-lasted-until-first-responders-arrived/?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral
-
I agree on that. I just don’t consider doing something within the law to be fraud in the general meaning of the term.
General meaning or not, changing election rules in an unlawful manner is not within the law. If the state constitution says that all changes to election rules must go through the state legislature, then that's it. No amount of "well meaning for the public good" can change that. The rule changes were unlawful. Therefore all votes cast outside the law are null and void.
Many of us here watched it happen, but no amount of "Hey, you can't do that!" could change anything. Lots of shady stuff going on. But no election fraud was found... because we're not allowed to look for it.
If the democrats are unable to get Trump off the ballot (and even if they do) I fully expect another pandemic, BLM riots over a staged event, the feds storming the capitol and blaming it on MAGA, another overseas war, nukes in space, and giant spiders forcing us to all use mail-in ballots "for our own protection". And FJB will somehow win 110% of the votes cast. Welcome to the USSA.
-
General meaning or not, changing election rules in an unlawful manner is not within the law. If the state constitution says that all changes to election rules must go through the state legislature, then that's it. No amount of "well meaning for the public good" can change that. The rule changes were unlawful. Therefore all votes cast outside the law are null and void.
Certainly things done outside the law are unlawful, tautologically.
But do you consider those unlawful changes a form of “fraud”?
-
does it really matter if the unlawful changes are considered fraud?
They are UNLAWFUL.
-
does it really matter if the unlawful changes are considered fraud?
They are UNLAWFUL.
Well I think it does in terms of accuracy if one is going to claim something was fraud, rather than say, claiming it was unlawful actions by politicians.
Also these have rather different implications in terms of possible solutions to the problem.
If the problem is mostly politicians and bureaucrats making unlawful changes, no amount of cracking down on fraudulent ballots will help.
-
Certainly things done outside the law are unlawful, tautologically.
But do you consider those unlawful changes a form of “fraud”?
fraud /frôd/
noun
A deception practiced in order to induce another to give up possession of property or surrender a right.
A piece of trickery; a trick.
One that defrauds; a cheat
-
Well I think it does in terms of accuracy if one is going to claim something was fraud, rather than say, claiming it was unlawful actions by politicians.
Also these have rather different implications in terms of possible solutions to the problem.
If the problem is mostly politicians and bureaucrats making unlawful changes, no amount of cracking down on fraudulent ballots will help.
I don’t know you at all on a personal level, so take what I am about to type at face value, but you are either very, very obtuse, or you are using stupid words games to pretend to miss the truth. My guess is that you are on this subject, a true, deeply partisan, leftist and using every trick you think you know to deflect, obscure, or simply ignore reality in favor of your political agenda.
-
I don’t know you at all on a personal level, so take what I am about to type at face value.
Number 5 - "You're not one to talk but keep beating the drum."
Lacking an ego, your id is showing again. You really should work more on your amazing discovery of a brainless mind. Sounds like it could win you a Nobel prize.
-
fraud /frôd/
noun
A deception practiced in order to induce another to give up possession of property or surrender a right.
A piece of trickery; a trick.
One that defrauds; a cheat
Sounds about right. So how is a politician or a bureaucrat unlawfully changing the rules on an election a deception? Does it even qualify as trickery? (which is usually defined as involving deception).
If this stuff is done out in the open and on the records in an unlawful manner, trying to treat it by trying to ferret out fraudulent ballots being dumped seems quite unlikely to help. What might help is getting rid of the politicians or government responsible. Focusing on ballot cheats seems like a diversion of resources which would be better spent elsewhere.
-
Sounds about right. So how is a politician or a bureaucrat unlawfully changing the rules on an election a deception? Does it even qualify as trickery? (which is usually defined as involving deception).
If this stuff is done out in the open and on the records in an unlawful manner, trying to treat it by trying to ferret out fraudulent ballots being dumped seems quite unlikely to help. What might help is getting rid of the politicians or government responsible. Focusing on ballot cheats seems like a diversion of resources which would be better spent elsewhere.
Yea, that’s the ticket, just vote them out.
Should be easy to do when they control the voting process.
-
Number 5 - "You're not one to talk but keep beating the drum."
Lacking an ego, your id is showing again. You really should work more on your amazing discovery of a brainless mind. Sounds like it could win you a Nobel prize.
You should really try heading down to San Francisco and seeing if you can buy a clue.
For someone so desperate to pretend intellectual superiority, your pathetic ignorance of how shallow and stupid you sound gets in the way of people noticing how bereft of a point you become once you are challenged. Arguing in circles like you do must give you some kind of comfort, but is transparent to everyone else.
-
For someone so desperate to pretend intellectual superiority,
Number 5 - "As I said, the fact that you seem so obsessed with anyone who disagrees tells far more about your lack of a solid base than anything else. Making debate toxic is an old and revered progressive tactic."
That chip on your shoulder about your lack of education seems to be getting heavier and heavier. Better watch out, it may cause some bad scoliosis.
Tit for tat Number 5. How do you like it?
-
Yea, that’s the ticket, just vote them out.
Should be easy to do when they control the voting process.
Who said anything about voting them out? That's sort of my whole point - that is not likely to work very well. Too far gone for that to work with the Federal government I suspect.
-
Number 5 - "As I said, the fact that you seem so obsessed with anyone who disagrees tells far more about your lack of a solid base than anything else. Making debate toxic is an old and revered progressive tactic."
That chip on your shoulder about your lack of education seems to be getting heavier and heavier. Better watch out, it may cause some bad scoliosis.
Tit for tat Number 5. How do you like it?
Your junior high school need to pretend gets dumber by the hour. Maybe you need mommy to give you some warm milk and go to bed.
I don’t get your obsession with insulting people’s education. One would think you are aware but not accepting of your intellectual shallowness, and need to attack others to keep the spotlight of yourself. Either way, your short man complex is on full exposure tonight.
-
I can’t believe this whole argument is boiling down to the definition of fraud.
Okay here we go. If you want to stick to a strict definition that fraud involves deception, then Peter is right that the unlawful changes in mail in voting isn’t technically fraud. The legal definition of fraud is misrepresentation of fact, usually involving buying or selling something of value.
A vote is something of value. So if you deceive on matters of fact, that would be for example, claiming you counted x number of legitimate votes. But if some of the ballots were illegitimate (for any number of reasons) then the illegitimate ballot is a misrepresentation of the fact of a vote. And therefore your total count x is false and also a misrepresentation of fact.
However if you changed the law to allow mail in ballots and all the mail in ballots were legitimate, but you obtained more votes that way because some voters were too fucking scared of a virus or just too lazy to come vote in person, then your count of x votes is true. The law itself may be unconstitutional, but you did not misrepresent the fact of how many votes you obtained.
So I see Peter’s point if he wants to parse apart the difference between how many actual fraudulent votes Biden got meaning the ballot itself was false, vs how many were excess mail in but otherwise legitimate ballots, then fine.
But the truth is that mail in ballots makes it much easier to commit actual fraud, that is, to use it as an opportunity to manufacture false (fraudulent) ballots. We know for a fact this happened. It seems the debate is over whether it happened enough to change the election result.
It appears that the original post is asserting that there isn’t evidence thereof. Or at least if there was, True the Vote lost it somehow.
Those of us convinced that allowing mass mail in ballots did result in the election result being different than it would have been otherwise point to a lot of circumstantial evidence, but no smoking gun that has been properly adjudicated by a court. And also plenty of statistical anomalies, such as the bellwether counties, that strongly suggest the election result isn’t true.
On the other hand we’ve never had mass mail in ballots before and so the bellwether county aspect may be based on a premise (mostly in-person voting) that is no longer true.
The term “fraud” applies to each illegitimate mail in ballot, and only an idiot believes there were none. But whether only the false fraudulent mail in ballots were enough to turn the election, or if it also needed the extra legitimate (albeit resulting from unconstitutional law) ballots to push the result over, is a question to which none of us has the answer.
Either way, it’s wrong.
-
Certainly things done outside the law are unlawful, tautologically.
But do you consider those unlawful changes a form of “fraud”?
Unlawful actions to manipulate the vote count to undermine the integrity of a free election is fraud, but as others have said it's Unlawful and Illegal. That's the bottom line.
-
Unlawful actions to manipulate the vote count to undermine the integrity of a free election is fraud, but as others have said it's Unlawful and Illegal. That's the bottom line.
The problem is the usage of the term “fraud”. The lay definition is not the strict professional definition. Lay people use the term to refer to any interference in the election process with intent to manipulate the outcome. Peter wants to limit it to the legal definition. I can understand where he’s coming from because I do the exact same thing with the term “abortion”.
The term “abortion” differs between lay usage and the actual correct professional definition, in this case the medical profession. The correct definition is simply the termination of a pregnancy, without reference to how it was terminated. It could be Mother Nature all by herself. Lay people call this a miscarriage but the medically correct term is “spontaneous abortion”.
But in common lay usage, abortion means induced abortion, specifically while the baby is still alive, and for the express purpose of deliberately terminating an otherwise viable pregnancy. This misuse of the word results in all kinds of problems.
Likewise the misuse of the term “fraud” also seems to be causing problems, such as endless bickering on this forum.
-
Well I think it does in terms of accuracy if one is going to claim something was fraud, rather than say, claiming it was unlawful actions by politicians.
Also these have rather different implications in terms of possible solutions to the problem.
If the problem is mostly politicians and bureaucrats making unlawful changes, no amount of cracking down on fraudulent ballots will help.
what's the phrase.... ? a distinction without difference
-
The problem is the usage of the term “fraud”. The lay definition is not the strict professional definition. Lay people use the term to refer to any interference in the election process with intent to manipulate the outcome. Peter wants to limit it to the legal definition. I can understand where he’s coming from because I do the exact same thing with the term “abortion”.
The term “abortion” differs between lay usage and the actual correct professional definition, in this case the medical profession. The correct definition is simply the termination of a pregnancy, without reference to how it was terminated. It could be Mother Nature all by herself. Lay people call this a miscarriage but the medically correct term is “spontaneous abortion”.
But in common lay usage, abortion means induced abortion, specifically while the baby is still alive, and for the express purpose of deliberately terminating an otherwise viable pregnancy. This misuse of the word results in all kinds of problems.
Likewise the misuse of the term “fraud” also seems to be causing problems, such as endless bickering on this forum.
I understand what you're saying. However, this entire thread is merely an attempt to MINIMIZE and DIMINISH the stealing of an election through malevolent and illegal means. It has undermined the very foundation upon which this former country stood.
-
Who said anything about voting them out? That's sort of my whole point - that is not likely to work very well. Too far gone for that to work with the Federal government I suspect.
I will quote you
What might help is getting rid of the politicians or government responsible.
In our form of government, we elect representatives. Maybe you have an alternative way to get rid of them. Right now we need to stay within the framework of the constitution, which does offer some relief.
-
I don’t get your obsession with insulting people’s education.
Number7, again it seems to be you are not understanding Number5 mode. I hoped it would be clear after our previous exchange and three repetitions as well as direct hints. So again I will be quite direct.
In this mode you are treated pretty much exactly how you treat others in a one for one manner. If you insult and attack the other speaker, you will get insults back. If you behave in a civil manner, you will be treated civilly, even in the presence of strong disagreement.
Your choice. How do you wish to proceed?
-
Number7, again it seems to be you are not understanding Number5 mode. I hoped it would be clear after our previous exchange and three repetitions as well as direct hints. So again I will be quite direct.
In this mode you are treated pretty much exactly how you treat others in a one for one manner. If you insult and attack the other speaker, you will get insults back. If you behave in a civil manner, you will be treated civilly, even in the presence of strong disagreement.
Your choice. How do you wish to proceed?
You are a petulant little child with a toxic ego and a super developed, little man complex.
Proceeding with you is a waste of good brain cells, but feel free to continue to make my point.
-
In simple terms for me, to believe the guy that only rarely came out to campaign, and when he did couldn't attract a thousand people, got 81 millions people to vote for him mean I have to suspend believeability.
The shenanigans, here in Georgia alone, are appalling.
-
Some thoughtful remarks here by all parties (other than Number7, who has had to be treated in Number5 mode again).
Which brings us to Lucifer’s asking about constitutional means and ways to make changes.
Firstly let me say that I think it is important at this juncture to first continue to try all legal and constitutional means. This may not work and people who are interested in liberty should likely begin to consider what is next for at least planning purposes.
Within the constitution obviously we vote. Given the fairly small margins voted in favor of liberty I tend to think that is not likely to work, but perhaps the example of Argentina suggest that when things get bad enough economically an overwhelming fraction of people are willing to throw the bums out.
Then there is nullification. Maybe that is constitutional though the nullification crisis of the 19th century suggests arguably not.
It appears at least nearly all of Texas could secede within the bounds of the Constitution and the law.
There is the Convention of the States. While that is risky, given the current tendencies of some states, it may be worth the risk at this point.
Returning to the OP. I do think that focusing on potentially fraudulent ballots is unlikely to help any of these solutions along. And calling other things, such as unlawful actions by politicians and bureaucrats, fraud or theft leads to a focus in the wrong areas. It also makes liberty minded people who do say that appear like nutcases in the eyes of the average citizen who views these terms much more along the lines of the dictionary definitions. That does not help the cause of liberty.
-
Proceeding with you is a waste of good brain cells, but feel free to continue to make my point.
Number 5. I should think you would want to hold on to those few good brain cells you have left. How did you experience all that brain damage in the jungles of Vietnam? Smoking too much dope, exposure to agent orange, or losing and being hit
-
In simple terms for me, to believe the guy that only rarely came out to campaign, and when he did couldn't attract a thousand people, got 81 millions people to vote for him mean I have to suspend believeability.
The shenanigans, here in Georgia alone, are appalling.
I understand the apparent disconnect there and the suspicion.
However I think there are other more likely explanations than massive fraud, for which there really hasn’t been good evidence despite a lot of looking.
One is as proposed here unlawful actions to bias the results in key places, like Georgia.
The other which may have contributed is that people on the left were all more afraid of Covid at the time and scarcely came out even when Biden did campaign. So it gave a smaller impression of support than was actually there.
-
In simple terms for me, to believe the guy that only rarely came out to campaign, and when he did couldn't attract a thousand people, got 81 millions people to vote for him mean I have to suspend believeability.
The shenanigans, here in Georgia alone, are appalling.
Georgia is a perfect example. FJB won by something like 12,000 votes (?), yet there was ballots with no signatures, mass mail ballots, under age ballots, dead voters, etc, not to mention the large cases hidden under tables that had pristine ballots that gat tabulated multiple times, caught on video.
Remove all that and FJB lost by a huge number.
-
Number 5. I should think you would want to hold on to those few good brain cells you have left. How did you experience all that brain damage in the jungles of Vietnam? Smoking too much dope, exposure to agent orange, or losing and being hit
I'm going to chime in once again.
There you go again Pete, another lame attack on veterans. I'm beginning to believe you have a grudge against those who have served with your petty smears.
You obviously didn't serve, and I can imagine the reasons why. Why don't you lay off on the veteran smear tactics.
-
I understand the apparent disconnect there and the suspicion.
However I think there are other more likely explanations than massive fraud, for which there really hasn’t been good evidence despite a lot of looking.
One is as proposed here unlawful actions to bias the results in key places, like Georgia.
The other which may have contributed is that people on the left were all more afraid of Covid at the time and scarcely came out even when Biden did campaign. So it gave a smaller impression of support than was actually there.
Yet Trump had massive rallies with thousands attending, and thousands waiting outside. Why was his supporters not afraid of Covid yet Biden's were?
Question Pete, do you believe the Arizona 2022 election was fair and secure?
-
Georgia is a perfect example. FJB won by something like 12,000 votes (?), yet there was ballots with no signatures, mass mail ballots, under age ballots, dead voters, etc, not to mention the large cases hidden under tables that had pristine ballots that gat tabulated multiple times, caught on video.
Remove all that and FJB lost by a huge number.
This is true though that assumes all the fraudulent ballots, those without signatures, etc., would favor Trump by a wide margin.
Do we even know the specific distribution of the votes on those ballots?
Without them being overwhelmingly in favor of Trump, it would not change the outcome.
A similar case was in Maricopa County. They examined all the ballots in excruciating detail. While uncovering a number of irregularities, they did not show a substantial change in the fractions relative to the counted ballots.
-
This is true though that assumes all the fraudulent ballots, those without signatures, etc., would favor Trump by a wide margin.
Do we even know the specific distribution of the votes on those ballots?
Without them being overwhelmingly in favor of Trump, it would not change the outcome.
Go do the research. Almost 4 years ago there was massive research on the Georgia issue that exposed the problems. And you are wrong about it not changing the outcome.
A similar case was in Maricopa County. They examined all the ballots in excruciating detail. While uncovering a number of irregularities, they did not show a substantial change in the fractions relative to the counted ballots.
You tend to deflect away from other election issues and focus on select ones to make your point. The Arizona 2022 election was a clusterfuck with many irregularities. The undersized ballots being placed in heavy conservative districts comes to mind as one of them.
-
https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/how-hack-elections-georgia-electronic-voting-machines/K4s5F935330BS6fGDm3CVI/
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23846675-halderman-report
-
I go vote and I get a printout fo who I supposedly voted for. Down in the corner is a QR code that is encrypted and I have no way of knowing if what is in the QR code matches what is on paper.
-
However I think there are other more likely explanations than massive fraud, for which there really hasn’t been good evidence despite a lot of looking.
once again, "massive fraud" isn't needed to swing an election.
States like California would go for whatever oxygen-thief had a (D) next to it's name. No fraud needed there.
Just focus on the swing states...
-
I'm going to chime in once again.
There you go again Pete, another lame attack on veterans. ... Why don't you lay off on the veteran smear tactics.
Again Lucifer, those are delivered in Number5 mode. They are in direct response to Number 7's abuse of the other speaker and are designed to be roughly proportional and appropriate given the abuse he has subjected the other speakers on this forum to for 9 years now.
So my counter question would be - why don't you complain about Number7's aggressive abuse of other speakers? I imagine you have your reasons. As I have mine for dealing with Number7 in this this manner.
-
I go vote and I get a printout fo who I supposedly voted for. Down in the corner is a QR code that is encrypted and I have no way of knowing if what is in the QR code matches what is on paper.
Yes, using cryptographically secure voting would be a huge improvement. Though I think the average person would have a hard time understanding that.
-
Go do the research. Almost 4 years ago there was massive research on the Georgia issue that exposed the problems. And you are wrong about it not changing the outcome.
Maybe. But I haven't seen good evidence of that despite some looking at this issue (I have of course been more interested in Maricopa County since I live there). I thought the Heartland Institute report might be a good overview though am skeptical after having been disappointed by prior supposed proofs of fraud. It seems noone here has read it yet and is able to comment on it.
You tend to deflect away from other election issues and focus on select ones to make your point. The Arizona 2022 election was a clusterfuck with many irregularities. The undersized ballots being placed in heavy conservative districts comes to mind as one of them.
You are correct that in my postings I will tend to focus on this issues that make my point. I suspect however that in actual analysis I am quite able to objectively consider the evidence on both sides of an issue.
Agreed the Maricopa election was a mess. It was obviously so on election day. Thus I initially shared the concerns about fairness and security. My primary concerns about security were more than addressed by the massive re-examination effort which failed to show fraudulent ballots being enough to change the outcome.
In terms of fairness I remain concerned, at least in terms of perception of fairness, with the changes to rules for signature verfication which were implemented by Hobbs as well as her supervising an election in which she was a candidate. While Kari Lake did raise those issues in her lawsuit, alas, she had filed them too late and only after she lost so they were time barred.
-
Imagine, even if they gave me an app to read the QR code, it doesn't preclude encoding two results in the code so the app they let me have only shows the printed results while the results they want are what the scanner tallies. Can you see how this is not secure in the least?
-
Objectivity and petey are unrelated terms.
His pathetic attacks on veterans are just one of the many ways his mask slips.
The real petey is a little angry, jealous, envious, man so desperate for attention and a claim he can’t control his ugly hatred of anyone he sees as getting attention he deserves.
-
Imagine, even if they gave me an app to read the QR code, it doesn't preclude encoding two results in the code so the app they let me have only shows the printed results while the results they want are what the scanner tallies. Can you see how this is not secure in the least?
You are right, I don't think what they are presently doing is particularly secure or using cryptographically secure voting.
Those systems are essentially using cryptography to ensure that you can check with a high level of certainty that your vote was counted but noone else can know how you as an individual voted. These systems have been designed and tested but not used, so far as I know.
-
Again Lucifer, those are delivered in Number5 mode. They are in direct response to Number 7's abuse of the other speaker and are designed to be roughly proportional and appropriate given the abuse he has subjected the other speakers on this forum to for 9 years now.
So my counter question would be - why don't you complain about Number7's aggressive abuse of other speakers? I imagine you have your reasons. As I have mine for dealing with Number7 in this this manner.
Don’t try to twist this. I’m using YOUR words. Your inherent disdain for veterans is abhorrent and disgusting. You can try to deflect this on N7, but it comes from you.
You’re nothing but a little Rambo wannabe thinking you are so cool walking around with an AR15 at an airport. Truth be known, if you were in a real combat situation like a veteran endured you would be shitting and pissing yourself while crying for mommy.
Keep it up little man. You’ve revealed your true self here.
-
Don’t try to twist this. I’m using YOUR words. Your inherent disdain for veterans is abhorrent and disgusting. You can try to deflect this on N7, but it comes from you.
You’re nothing but a little Rambo wannabe thinking you are so cool walking around with an AR15 at an airport. Truth be known, if you were in a real combat situation like a veteran endured you would be shitting and pissing yourself while crying for mommy.
Keep it up little man. You’ve revealed your true self here.
Are you going to need to be treated similarly Lucifer?
You seem to be unable to distinguish between someone receiving abuse as retribution for their abuse and my more normal civil treatment of you. Your choice how you want to be treated.
Why do you think these insults apply to you?
-
His pathetic attacks on veterans are just one of the many ways his mask slips.
Number 5 - "Right. You cover your intolerance and disrespect fo other view points with bullshit. Congratulations."
Ah yes, the brilliant "unmasking hypothesis". Delivered without any apparent recognition of the irony of delivering a 9 year train of abuse trying to mask ones identify by using a pseudonym.
But even that mask continues to develop holes.
-
Hahahahahahahahaha….
-
Are you going to need to be treated similarly Lucifer?
You seem to be unable to distinguish between someone receiving abuse as retribution for their abuse and my more normal civil treatment of you. Your choice how you want to be treated.
Why do you think these insults apply to you?
I’m a veteran. I find it disgusting when anyone starts smearing vets.
You’re not fooling anyone.
-
I’m a veteran. I find it disgusting when anyone starts smearing vets.
You’re not fooling anyone.
Well that is mostly civil. Do you find it disgusting if someone attacks a particular veteran and it is very clear it is a particular attack directed at one specific individual for something that person did?
It strikes me that reasonably one would have to assume either that the particular person didn't deserve it or alternately that all veterans are due some certain level of respect which would preclude making such an attack even if potentially deserved.
-
I’m a veteran. I find it disgusting when anyone starts smearing vets.
Equating an insult to #7 as an insult to all veterans is like equating an insult to Hillary as an insult to all women.
If indeed #7 is a veteran, which I have seen no proof of, he does not deserve the default respect I have for real veterans.
You don't get the respect due a veteran when you claim to be one behind an anonymous screen name.
-
Equating an insult to #7 as an insult to all veterans is like equating an insult to Hillary as an insult to all women.
If indeed #7 is a veteran, which I have seen no proof of, he does not deserve the default respect I have for real veterans.
You don't get the respect due a veteran when you claim to be one behind an anonymous screen name.
You poor thing…
Maybe you and petey can hold hands and sing kum by yah together.
-
On the topic of the walking thru an airport with a weapon guaranteed to get you arrested is clearly an act of desperation to get attention.
What is next, sneaking into a Trump campaign event with a fake pipe bomb to get people to notice you?
Pretend kidnapping of nursery school children?
Pretending to be a lesbian to get noticed?
-
On the topic of the walking thru an airport with a weapon guaranteed to get you arrested is clearly an act of desperation to get attention.
What is next, sneaking into a Trump campaign event with a fake pipe bomb to get people to notice you?
Pretend kidnapping of nursery school children?
Pretending to be a lesbian to get noticed?
None of the above.
I had actually been there previously with an AR-15 and was not arrested, so the assumption about guaranteed is clearly incorrect. It is perfectly legal in Arizona to do so. That in and of itself tends to illustrate the absurdity of the TSA.
Public protests are of course intended in some sense to garner attention for a political purpose. That is their nature. It is one general tool to try and effect political change. Other major tools to effect such changes are political, such as running for political office (which also requires attracting attention) and legal battles. All of these can be useful.
-
Equating an insult to #7 as an insult to all veterans is like equating an insult to Hillary as an insult to all women.
If indeed #7 is a veteran, which I have seen no proof of, he does not deserve the default respect I have for real veterans.
You don't get the respect due a veteran when you claim to be one behind an anonymous screen name.
Ok “Little Joe”, please post your name so we know you’re not hiding.
I’ll wait.
-
I don’t think Little Joe is expecting any special respect due to private aspects which he has not disclosed.
-
Ok “Little Joe”, please post your name so we know you’re not hiding.
I’ll wait.
I can't post my real name. All of my service records are classified.
See how easy that is! I have no reason to post my real name and there is no reason anyone would care about me anyway. But I don't lie about what I have done so there is no need to provide proof.
I don't know if you are a veteran or not. And I don't care but I do appreciate the respect you show veterans.
I have no respect whatsoever for N7 and I don't believe he ever served anything except perhaps a sentence.
-
See how easy that is! I have no reason to post my real name and there is no reason anyone would care about me anyway. But I don't lie about what I have done so there is no need to provide proof.
...
I have no respect whatsoever for N7 and I don't believe he ever served anything except perhaps a sentence.
You also have not engaged in a 9 year long string of endless abuse of other posters. Thus you do not appear to need to hide behind a pseudonym.
-
Oh well…
I’m surprised at how easily joe and petey proclaim their antipathy for statements that they say are not provable, then both twats make asinine accusations, impossible to be anything but bullshit they vomited for shock value and feel perfectly righteous.
The hypocrisy of you two is remarkable and makes me wonder what else you claim is pure bullshit.
Either way, your bromance is as obvious as it is pathetic.
-
Some questions for @Lucifer.
I think Little Joe brings up an interesting point. You have stated that Number7 is a veteran. How do you know that?
And do you think he reflects well upon veterans in general and thus deserves any respect for that?
-
Some questions for @Lucifer.
I think Little Joe brings up an interesting point. You have stated that Number7 is a veteran. How do you know that?
And do you think he reflects well upon veterans in general and thus deserves any respect for that?
Ummm…. How does anyone know joe is what he says?
Here is another nail in your delusions, you made up accusations out of whole cloth about me, then gave yourself a pass about things you say others claim that are not in your lexicon, provable… unless you have some proof that I am a baby killer, or uneducated, that is.
Otherwise you are guilty of spreading lies and calling truth which would be just like how the left tries to destroy those who disagree with them, too.
Nice bit of delusional, ego-maniacal, projection there, petey-boy.
Oh, I guess you like his politics so it makes everything else true. That would be consistent with your other delusions.
-
Ummm…. How does anyone know joe is what he says?
lol. What do I say I am?
Here is another nail in your delusions, you made up accusations out of whole cloth about me
No one is making up accusations out of whole cloth about you. There is no whole cloth to be found. You are a complete figment of your own imagination. You are the only one making up stories about you. Some of us just don't believe you.
Oh, I guess you like his politics so it makes everything else true.
If you are talking about me, my politics are a lot like yours. I'm just not an asshole about it.
-
lol. What do I say I am?
No one is making up accusations out of whole cloth about you. There is no whole cloth to be found. You are a complete figment of your own imagination. You are the only one making up stories about you. Some of us just don't believe you.
If you are talking about me, my politics are a lot like yours. I'm just not an asshole about it.
Here we are again…
You posted that your service records are classified, which is unverifiable, yet you claim you didn’t.
It is hard to keep up with butt hurt, pussies who can’t keep up with their claims.
And… I wasn’t talking about you, only using your post as an example of petey’s hypocrisy.
-
lol. What do I say I am?
If you are talking about me, my politics are a lot like yours. I'm just not an asshole about it.
It is sort of weird isn’t it? I would have to say I agree with 95+% of Number7’s actual positions. It is as though he has some strange need to antagonize and attack every single poster here. Over the years this has included virtually everyone that I would characterize as being highly liberty oriented.
I don’t think we know enough about him to really say what the cause is. Obviously there are a few brain illnesses that tend to result in this sort of behavior but one can’t diagnose without more information. Perhaps we will be learning more in the future.
-
It is sort of weird isn’t it? I would have to say I agree with 95+% of Number7’s actual positions. It is as though he has some strange need to antagonize and attack every single poster here. Over the years this has included virtually everyone that I would characterize as being highly liberty oriented.
I don’t think we know enough about him to really say what the cause is. Obviously there are a few brain illnesses that tend to result in this sort of behavior but one can’t diagnose without more information. Perhaps we will be learning more in the future.
You are a deeply disturbed person.
I see why people say you’ve been run out of other forums.
Oh, well. The world is full of people so deluded that they think they can hold two opposite convictions at once and not be mentally disturbed. You seem to fit that bill.
-
So… petey.
I’m still waiting for you to substantiate your accusations against me.
You pathetically tried to claim you were just playing tit for tat but that would mean you were admitting you lied out your deluded ass to us all. You made a reference to Lucifer that you made your accusations as retribution because you didn’t like a post I made, but that seems to prove you were lying because it made you feel good.
So
Where is your proof? Or are you just happy making up lies when your bullshit starts to stink so bad nobody even tried to pretend to believe it?
If you were lying because it makes you feel important that taints every post you have ever written.
If you were lying just to hurl insults, that makes you stupid and a liar.
If you have some proof let’s see it. Otherwise You are just another, what do you call them… keyboard warrior pretending to be tough when you are really a child playing a grownup game.
-
I told you they orchestrated this ahead of time to ensure a Biden win in 2020 as they bragged about in the Time Magazine article. But it went even deeper than that.
Listen to this video. A massively organized pre-planned underground mission to suppress any public discourse questioning the security of mail-in ballots. Listen to it all the way to the end. Then tell me this isn’t fraud, even by the legal definition: to trick using deception. It’s way worse than I thought. They not only planned the Biden win, they planned ahead of time the cover-up; ie the management of what they knew would be extreme doubt on the part of the public, that that demented old man who couldn’t draw a crowd beat Trump.
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1759722356975530158
-
I have that bookmarked and haven't had the chance to listen to it yet.
-
I have that bookmarked and haven't had the chance to listen to it yet.
It’s not that long, and worth it. Everything makes sense. The government can’t legally censor because of the 1st so they coerced all the platforms to do it for them. We already knew that but one of the missing pieces is the involvement of universities and the extent to which this was coordinated even way beyond what the Time article revealed.
The whole fucking thing was planned ahead of time. 2020 was RIGGED, no doubt about it.
-
I can't post my real name. All of my service records are classified.
Exactly what a commie spy would say.
-
Exactly what a commie spy would say.
I thought it was obvious that that was a lie to show how easy it is to pretend to be someone you are not on an anonymous forum.
Since you put your comment in green I suspect you knew that, but . . .
-
… unless you have some proof that I am a baby killer, or uneducated, that is.
Number5. Is this a sign of a developing memory impairment? Geez, you can't even get the insults straight.
I called you a "paid killer", not a "baby killer". But I suppose you may have killed some babies in Vietnam, unavoidable collateral damage you know.
It is true that Lucifer said you are veteran. Are you denying that now? Do tell. We are all anxious to hear you witness to the truth!
-
Number5. Is this a sign of a developing memory impairment? Geez, you can't even get the insults straight.
I called you a "paid killer", not a "baby killer". But I suppose you may have killed some babies in Vietnam, unavoidable collateral damage you know.
It is true that Lucifer said you are veteran. Are you denying that now? Do tell. We are all anxious to hear you witness to the truth!
Now that's going too far. I was against the Vietnam War back when I was a teenaged hippie but I always HATED people calling our guys "baby killers". Or dissing the vets in any manner at all. Most of them didn't ask to go and I'm not judging a combat vet for anything whatsoever when I nor anybody at home has first clue what it's like over there, and even as a stupid idiot teenager I understood that much.
-
I assure you that no one cares a whit about my background, least of all you. The big mistake you made was thinking your
attention stunt would cause everyone here to swoon. Now that you realize that no one cares, you are desperate to find something
to use as a bludgeon to get the spotlight on you.
Little petey, you can't help yourself.
The moment he loses control of the narrative he changes the topic. It's what liberal losers do.
Next he shifts to unbalanced attacks, stupid accusations, and juvenile insults because he has the intellectual maturity of a junior mikey.
His mask slips every time he tries to discuss veterans. There might be a bit of jealous rage in his rantings. If he is feeling ashamed
because he refused to serve, it might drive him to this type of deranged attack.
And because he can't showcase his imagined intellect on the subject, the pressure to hijack the topic away from his imagined failure
and frailty could be too much for his damaged psyche to endure.
Maybe not. It could be that he is just an angry, petulant, envious, child in an old, useless, man's body.
-
Now that's going too far. I was against the Vietnam War back when I was a teenaged hippie but I always HATED people calling our guys "baby killers". Or dissing the vets in any manner at all. Most of them didn't ask to go and I'm not judging a combat vet for anything whatsoever when I nor anybody at home has first clue what it's like over there, and even as a stupid idiot teenager I understood that much.
Rush, I have to disagree. These comments are delivered in Number5 mode and clearly labelled as such. This is a special mode for Number7 and are a direct response to his abuse. They are roughly proportional.
He deserves it after his 9 years of abusing every poster here. Are you seriously proposing that there is something wrong with tit for tat under the circumstances?
It has also been made perfectly clear to him that it will stop as soon as he behaves civilly. It is totally up to him.
-
Rush, I have to disagree. These comments are delivered in Number5 mode and clearly labelled as such. This is a special mode for Number7 and are a direct response to his abuse. They are roughly proportional.
He deserves it after his 9 years of abusing every poster here. Are you seriously proposing that there is something wrong with tit for tat under the circumstances?
It has also been made perfectly clear to him that it will stop as soon as he behaves civilly. It is totally up to him.
I get that you are stooping to his level and that’s perfectly fair. But the baby killer thing is stooping below his level. Just my opinion. You are free to disagree.
Also nit picky disagreement about him abusing every poster here. I don’t recall him ever abusing me. Not even once.
-
I get that you are stooping to his level and that’s perfectly fair. But the baby killer thing is stooping below his level. Just my opinion. You are free to disagree.
Also nit picky disagreement about him abusing every poster here. I don’t recall him ever abusing me. Not even once.
Nor me.
-
But the baby killer thing is stooping below his level.
OK, but I didn't bring up the baby killer thing. He did. I don't know why exactly. But since he brought it up I thought it interesting to probe that.
Also nit picky disagreement about him abusing every poster here. I don’t recall him ever abusing me. Not even once.
True. I suspect it may be some sort of thing about not attacking women. He has mentioned that before regarding another poster.
-
I thought it was obvious that that was a lie to show how easy it is to pretend to be someone you are not on an anonymous forum.
Since you put your comment in green I suspect you knew that, but . . .
Yes, I was being ironical. :)
-
I get that you are stooping to his level and that’s perfectly fair. But the baby killer thing is stooping below his level. Just my opinion. You are free to disagree.
Also nit picky disagreement about him abusing every poster here. I don’t recall him ever abusing me. Not even once.
Or me.
-
OK, but I didn't bring up the baby killer thing. He did. I don't know why exactly. But since he brought it up I thought it interesting to probe that.
He was being hyperbolic. Then you made it literal.
True. I suspect it may be some sort of thing about not attacking women. He has mentioned that before regarding another poster.
Yeah, calling a woman a “pussy” just doesn’t have quite the same impact as on a man. But, not to speak for him, I like to think it’s because we are almost completely aligned on our positions regarding the world. Not 100% but not far off. I nearly always agree with his venom toward outside parties (and vicariously enjoy it) but I disagree with some of his attacks on the posters here. However I usually stay out of fights between you guys.
-
He was being hyperbolic. Then you made it literal.
Well, in Number5 mode those sort of errors will be exploited. And to be accurate, I did not literally call him a "baby killer". I speculated that perhaps some babies may have been killed, in a clearly hyperbolic manner.
More seriously I think this relates to a question which I asked Lucifer and was not answered. It may be a question you prefer to just disagree on and not discuss, which is fine.
But it does strike me that to claim that even literally saying "Number7 is a baby killer" in Number5 mode is somehow unjust or unfair requires one to assume that either he doesn't deserve that sort insult or that he is a veteran who should be afforded some respect. Would you argue that his behavior is becoming of a veteran and so deserves respect?
But, not to speak for him, I like to think it’s because we are almost completely aligned on our positions regarding the world.
Yes, he does not seem capable of processing or responding civilly to even the slightest degree of disagreement. I don't know what Becky's experience as a woman has been if disagreeing with him.
-
Give it a rest Pete. Your game is clear, and you aren’t that cleaver.
-
Give it a rest Pete. Your game is clear, and you aren’t that cleaver.
I am glad people understand exactly the purpose of Number5 mode. Hopefully they won't be offended if they are not Number7.
Number5 mode will likely continue as long as Number7 wants it to. It is entirely up to him.
If others don't like it continuing, they are free to encourage Number7 to stop abusing others. Completely up to them.
-
He was being hyperbolic. Then you made it literal.
I disagree. #7 was the one that brought it up even though Peter did not say it. Or was Peter denying it that was going to far.
Reminds me of Trump being accused of rape and when he denied it he was accused of slander. Sometimes you just can't win.
-
Give it a rest Pete.
Seems to me it is the others that need to give it a rest. There are several attacking him and if he only responds to half of them it looks like he is not "resting".
Your game is clear, and you aren’t that cleaver.
He might not be clever, but he is right.
-
I am glad people understand exactly the purpose of Number5 mode. Hopefully they won't be offended if they are not Number7.
Number5 mode will likely continue as long as Number7 wants it to. It is entirely up to him.
If others don't like it continuing, they are free to encourage Number7 to stop abusing others. Completely up to them.
You’re Don Quixote tilting at windmills now.
-
Seems to me it is the others that need to give it a rest. There are several attacking him and if he only responds to half of them it looks like he is not "resting".
He might not be clever, but he is right.
I’ve seen Pete’s behavior on other boards. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. It’s the same ol’ schtick, nothing new.
-
You’re Don Quixote tilting at windmills now.
Perhaps. There are other processes in the works as well.
-
I’ve seen Pete’s behavior on other boards. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. It’s the same ol’ schtick, nothing new.
I don't think I have ever used something akin to Number5 mode before anywhere. Number7 on this board is sort of a special case.
But if you are referring to a civil insistence on the facts and proper analysis - yep - that's me.
-
As to the killer accusation.
petey has clearly stated he had no foundation for such an accusation, which means he intended to lie about it.
That calls into question everything he has ever posted.
Other than to call out the complete fabrication of his, I am not even mildly upset because I’ve considered the source and dismissed him for what he is,
-
Well, in Number5 mode those sort of errors will be exploited. And to be accurate, I did not literally call him a "baby killer". I speculated that perhaps some babies may have been killed, in a clearly hyperbolic manner.
More seriously I think this relates to a question which I asked Lucifer and was not answered. It may be a question you prefer to just disagree on and not discuss, which is fine.
But it does strike me that to claim that even literally saying "Number7 is a baby killer" in Number5 mode is somehow unjust or unfair requires one to assume that either he doesn't deserve that sort insult or that he is a veteran who should be afforded some respect. Would you argue that his behavior is becoming of a veteran and so deserves respect?
I’m not claiming it’s unjust or unfair. I just think it’s mean and unnecessary, that’s my subjective reaction.
I wouldn’t argue anything about the behavior of a veteran. Why should they be expected to behave any differently than anyone else? Whether or not I respect them has nothing to do with my having an emotional reaction when people criticize their erstwhile presumed behavior while in combat.
Yes, he does not seem capable of processing or responding civilly to even the slightest degree of disagreement. I don't know what Becky's experience as a woman has been if disagreeing with him.
Becky did respond above.
-
I’m not claiming it’s unjust or unfair. I just think it’s mean and unnecessary, that’s my subjective reaction.
I wouldn’t argue anything about the behavior of a veteran. Why should they be expected to behave any differently than anyone else? Whether or not I respect them has nothing to do with my having an emotional reaction when people criticize their erstwhile presumed behavior while in combat.
Becky did respond above.
Thanks for the feedback Rush. I can understand the subjective impression of mean. As to unnecessary, well, he still hasn't changed his tune.
My treatment of Number7 is based precisely on how he treats others and it strikes me as both fair and just.
-
About time to put this thread on ignore.
-
What a poor misunderstood snowflake you present yourself as, petey.
-
About time to put this thread on ignore.
Well it does give me a break from working on taxes. And my mother’s taxes.
Yeah you still have to pay taxes when you’re dead.
-
Well it does give me a break from working on taxes. And my mother’s taxes.
Yeah you still have to pay taxes when you’re dead.
Well, if she is allowed to vote, then she should pay taxes.
Of course, if paying taxes was a prerequisite to vote, then Biden would have received about 40 million fewer votes.
(my wording is screwed up but my point should be obvious).
-
Well, if she is allowed to vote, then she should pay taxes.
Of course, if paying taxes was a prerequisite to vote, then Biden would have received about 40 million fewer votes.
(my wording is screwed up but my point should be obvious).
The last four years my father stopped voting due to his physical challenges.
My baby brother checked a few years after he died and found out he had voted in every recent election.
Quite a feat if you ask me.
-
The last four years my father stopped voting due to his physical challenges.
My baby brother checked a few years after he died and found out he had voted in every recent election.
Quite a feat if you ask me.
Yea, but for some odd reason when people die they start voting democrat.
-
I assure you that no one cares a whit about my background.
Number5, I'm afraid you are selling yourself short. Many are curious about a person of your nature. And despite our friendly curiosity, you have have told us so little about yourself (one might say masking it). So please do tell us about your glorious military exploits and your bravery and courage under fire.
-
The last four years my father stopped voting due to his physical challenges.
My baby brother checked a few years after he died and found out he had voted in every recent election.
Quite a feat if you ask me.
That right there is evidence of fraud.
One of the first things I did after she died was notify the election board of the death. That reminds me, I should check and make sure they removed her. Or de-activated or whatever they do.
Edit: Status “REMOVED”. Hot dog!
-
That reminds me, I should check and make sure they removed her. Or de-activated or whatever they do.
They send her mail-in ballots; at the DNC.
-
They send her mail-in ballots; at the DNC.
I just checked, they removed her. Unless the DNC has past info. I don’t think she’s ever been a registered Democrat though.
Hey, I should look myself up and make sure they took me off when I told them I moved.
-
That right there is evidence of fraud.
One of the first things I did after she died was notify the election board of the death. That reminds me, I should check and make sure they removed her. Or de-activated or whatever they do.
Edit: Status “REMOVED”. Hot dog!
Getting the county to physically remove my deceased father from the voter rolls was a huge battle. The SOE seemed to think that she was protecting the integrity of something. When I went to the Secretary of State annd threatened to go to the TV and complain they suddenly notified me that they had successfully removed him from the rolls.
-
Number5, I'm afraid you are selling yourself short. Many are curious about a person of your nature. And despite our friendly curiosity, you have have told us so little about yourself (one might say masking it). So please do tell us about your glorious military exploits and your bravery and courage under fire.
I share very little personal information for good reason. People like you love to DOX anyone that dares to challenge your deranged opinion of yourself. I wouldn’t put much of anything past. A clown like you.
Other than your silly gamesmanship, I assure you that no one cares a whit about me.
-
I share very little personal information for good reason. People like you love to DOX anyone that dares to challenge your deranged opinion of yourself. I wouldn’t put much of anything past. A clown like you.
Other than your silly gamesmanship, I assure you that no one cares a whit about me.
Aren't you the one that doxed Michael?
-
Aren't you the one that doxed Michael?
Nope.
Mikey posted a photo of his origami book with the About The Author information.
-
Nope.
Mikey posted a photo of his origami book with the About The Author information.
Ok. Thanks for clearing that up.
-
Nope.
Mikey posted a photo of his origami book with the About The Author information.
That’s right. Didn’t Lucifer actually meet him at Osh last year? Or at least see him, maybe he was too involved teaching his origami class or something.
-
Ok. Thanks for clearing that up.
No problem.
-
I’m a veteran. I find it disgusting when anyone starts smearing vets.
How about when Trump says
"Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers'
Oh, I know. That's just Trump being Trump.
-
That hoax has been debunked
White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany destroyed this "suckers and losers" hoax report in September 2020.
“Ten sources went on the record debunking these lies, eight with first-hand knowledge, stating on the record one common truth: That this story is false. It never happened,” McEnany said at the press briefing.
She then referenced two members of Trump’s staff who refuted the Atlantic’s claims: Derek Lyons, Counselor to the President, and Dan Walsh, former Deputy Chief of Staff and retired military commander.
“I can attest to the fact that there was a bad weather call in France and that the helicopters were unable to safely make the flight,” McEnany said, citing Walsh. “Overall, the president’s support and respect for our American troops past and present is unquestionable.”
McEnany proceeded to praise the president’s commitment to military veterans and members of the United States Armed Forces, noting that he has always showed care and respect while visiting veterans and wounded fighters.
“Why would a publication abandon all journalistic integrity and publish this story?” McEnany asked. “It’s because the liberal activists at the Atlantic are uninterested in the truth and only interested in pedaling conspiracy-laden propaganda. Because here is the one truth. No one, and I mean no one, loves and cares for our servicemen and women as much as President Donald J. Trump.”
-
How about when Trump says
Oh, I know. That's just Trump being Trump.
He never said that, and I’m surprised you fell for that old attempt by his enemies to smear him with fake attributions. Where to start? If not outright fabrications, they’re often twisted to make them worse. Such as pussy grabbing. He said he “could,” not that he did. He was referring to women known as “star f**ckers,” who chase wealthy men. As for members of the military, as President he respected them and was respected by them. But keep believing whatever you hear. We expect that of you by this time.
Just saw Username’s reply. Spot on. Keep up, Joe!
-
Curses!
Foiled again.
-
Curses!
Foiled again.
The fucking left will lie, cheat, and steal anything, anywhere, anytime.
Falling for their bullshit is like believing mitt romney is a republican.
-
Curses!
Foiled again.
You do like to make excuses for the Fascists don't you? It makes you look "Moderate" in your mind, but that's OK. We have you Sussed. ;D
-
You do like to make excuses for the Fascists don't you? It makes you look "Moderate" in your mind, but that's OK. We have you Sussed. ;D
What excuse? My response was that I was wrong (or at least that I picked a bad example).
My point was that anyone that says you can't criticize any veteran because they are a veteran is the same as when people say you are racist if you criticize any black person. It is hypocritical. I heard on the radio that Trump mocked Nikki Haley's service record but had no link, so I looked for an example because I know I have heard him say similar things. I picked a bad one.
I'm still going to vote for Trump because I think he could be a good President. I just detest the man.
-
My point was that anyone that says you can't criticize any veteran because they are a veteran is the same as when people say you are racist if you criticize any black person. It is hypocritical.
That's ludicrous Joe. You've now taken the conversation you are lamely trying to reference out of context. You had a real problem with me bringing it up, but when others made a similar comment you said nothing, which once again just shows your problem is with the messenger, not the message.
-
That's ludicrous Joe. You've now taken the conversation you are lamely trying to reference out of context. You had a real problem with me bringing it up, but when others made a similar comment you said nothing, which once again just shows your problem is with the messenger, not the message.
You are one to talk. You constantly criticize people like me, Jim or Peter for saying things that you would let go if your "friends" said them.
Saying that you can't criticize a veteran because he is a veteran is idiotic. I say that having lost a father, an uncle and several close friends due to military combat.
Admit that some veterans need criticizing and I will drop this.
-
You are one to talk. You constantly criticize people like me, Jim or Peter for saying things that you would let go if your "friends" said them.
Saying that you can't criticize a veteran because he is a veteran is idiotic. I say that having lost a father, an uncle and several close friends due to military combat.
Admit that some veterans need criticizing and I will drop this.
You poor thing.
The safe space is the second door to the left.
-
I'm still going to vote for Trump because I think he could be a good President. I just detest the man.
I agree with you. Yes, the media has amplified every little thing* into a HUGE SCANDAL in an effort to crush Trump. I don't care for some of the things that Trump has done in the past. Most of which are probably just the way business is done in New York. While I don't detest the man, he's not someone I would want to hang out with. Yet I don't doubt that he's sincere in his love of country and his policies are in line with things I care about. I'll vote for him, no question.
* The latest media tizzy is that Trump shoved a man out of the way at Mar-a-Lago. But the extended video and the man's own words show that Trump was patting him on the back.
-
I agree with you. Yes, the media has amplified every little thing* into a HUGE SCANDAL in an effort to crush Trump. I don't care for some of the things that Trump has done in the past. Most of which are probably just the way business is done in New York. While I don't detest the man, he's not someone I would want to hang out with. Yet I don't doubt that he's sincere in his love of country and his policies are in line with things I care about. I'll vote for him, no question.
* The latest media tizzy is that Trump shoved a man out of the way at Mar-a-Lago. But the extended video and the man's own words show that Trump was patting him on the back.
I say to the media, “Keep it up, Alice!!!” The more they fake accusations, the more we see what they’ll do to us. President Trump spoke no truer words than when he said they’re not coming for him, they’re coming for us, and he’s just in the way.
-
You poor thing.
The safe space is the second door to the left.
Unbelievable, what I saw on Next Door yesterday. A child’s “mental and emotional health” being “managed” by teachers, at school? NO. That is the parents’ job. Plus, being in the “calming corner” … way to promote bullying! Kevin can’t manage his BIG feelings, hahaha!!! Still, every workplace where I’ve been employed had a calming corner, so there’s that.
https://nextdoor.com/p/SQZktHsghCNq?utm_source=share&extras=NjU0MjY4Mjg%3D&utm_campaign=1708637815672
-
You are one to talk. You constantly criticize people like me, Jim or Peter for saying things that you would let go if your "friends" said them.
Saying that you can't criticize a veteran because he is a veteran is idiotic. I say that having lost a father, an uncle and several close friends due to military combat.
Admit that some veterans need criticizing and I will drop this.
I’m not sure he said that. But anyway, I’ll criticize a veteran all day long for stuff he does unrelated to war. My dang leftist Democrat brother is a vet. In everyday matters they don’t deserve any more respect than anyone else.
I will not criticize anything they do in combat. Or generally related to being deployed.
-
Look, when you hire someone as the CEO, do you want a guy that will just give nice talks, make promises, then work behind the scenes to steal from the company and put it in further debt?
Or do you hire a guy that talks a tough line, vows to take action against those stealing from the company, and vows to work diligently to make the company stronger and make the company number 1?
We're electing a president, not appointing a Pope. I want a guy that can do the job.
-
Look, when you hire someone as the CEO, do you want a guy that will just give nice talks, make promises, then work behind the scenes to steal from the company and put it in further debt?
Or do you hire a guy that talks a tough line, vows to take action against those stealing from the company, and vows to work diligently to make the company stronger and make the company number 1?
We're electing a president, not appointing a Pope. I want a guy that can do the job.
Trump read my mind on that subject. My husband and I were discussing who we wanted Trump to pick as VP. We talked about the pros and cons of each, whether they’d bring more votes, what their ideology is, their age, etc. Finally I said to my husband, “None of that matters, what matters is do we want them as president.”
The very next day I get this text from Trump saying his number one criteria for choosing his VP is that they should be ready to assume the office of the presidency.
Anyhow, related to what you’re saying, we need those same qualities in the VP choice too. Leadership qualities require backbone, a willingness to do unpopular things, a dedication to protecting what they’re leading, not undermine it.
-
That's very much unlike FJB who picked a VP who assured that FJB would never be forced to leave office.
-
Look, when you hire someone as the CEO, do you want a guy that will just give nice talks, make promises, then work behind the scenes to steal from the company and put it in further debt?
Or do you hire a guy that talks a tough line, vows to take action against those stealing from the company, and vows to work diligently to make the company stronger and make the company number 1?
We're electing a president, not appointing a Pope. I want a guy that can do the job.
I wholeheartedly embrace that.
-
I'm still going to vote for Trump because I think he could be a good President. I just detest the man.
Do you not see the disconnect?
-
Do you not see the disconnect?
Of course I do.
But many others on here have justified the same conclusion.
Personally, I think no matter who wins, our country is going to split so far apart that it will explode and it remains to be seen who will pickup the pieces. So in that case, it doesn't really matter who wins. It just matters who picks up the pieces. And I doubt I will be around to see that.
-
I agree with Joe but would add a caveat.
The civil divorce coming will become chronic due to the pressure on the treasury. The communist
Arty (disguised as democrats) with assistance from the scum bag republicans, have insured collapse thru spending and printing of money.
Once the supply dries up it is game over and the civil war will break out between states that can survive thru production and those that only know how to take and think it is their right.
When Colorado stops giving trillions of gallons of water to the communist utopia of california, they just close the gates and refuse to reopen them. When outside power sources refuse to send free, or cheap power to them, the pace of cloacae and rise of anarchy becomes acute.
The communist democrat states will descend into darkness and separatist so fast it will shock even the dumbest liberal. Suddenly asshole judges and criminal prosecutors are impotent and shit holemdommunist cities and states find themselves with millions of irate, rioters and arsonists.
It will be not bad, but terrible to be caught when the wheels come off cities and states overwhelmed with entitlement whores when the free stuff runs out.
-
The civil divorce coming will become chronic due to the pressure on the treasury. The communist
Arty (disguised as democrats) with assistance from the scum bag republicans, have insured collapse thru spending and printing of money.
Once the supply dries up it is game over and the civil war will break out between states that can survive thru production and those that only know how to take and think it is their right.
Exactly what is most likely to cause the breakdown of the Federal government.
-
Exactly what is most likely to cause the breakdown of the Federal government.
Domestic Terrorists, AKA, We the People.
-
Exactly what is most likely to cause the breakdown of the Federal government.
Unsustainable debt.
Just like the old USSR.
According to the debt clock our national debt increases by one trillion dollars every four months.
That seems impossible but I’m not a mathematician.
-
Unsustainable debt.
Just like the old USSR.
According to the debt clock our national debt increases by one trillion dollars every four months.
That seems impossible but I’m not a mathematician.
Phoo. Just print a trillion a month and you'll be out of debt in no time.
-
Unsustainable debt.
Just like the old USSR.
According to the debt clock our national debt increases by one trillion dollars every four months.
That seems impossible but I’m not a mathematician.
Hotshot Wharton professor sees $34 trillion debt triggering 2025 meltdown as mortgage rates spike above 7%: ‘It could derail the next administration’
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hotshot-wharton-professor-sees-34-110000414.html
-
Can't stop Trump from winning, so plan to destroy his presidency by destroying the country.
But 7% mortgage rates? Shit. I remember 12% to 14% and yet we survived. And we had to walk uphill through snow just to get that. Fucking snowflakes.
-
Can't stop Trump from winning, so plan to destroy his presidency by destroying the country.
But 7% mortgage rates? Shit. I remember 12% to 14% and yet we survived. And we had to walk uphill through snow just to get that. Fucking snowflakes.
I remember them going as high as 18%. My first home I bought in 1988 had a 9.5% mortgage and I was happy!
-
There is record credit card debt now, over $14T dollars. Watched a guy checking out in front of us at the grocery store today, he had two credit cards declined before he hit the jackpot.
-
Can't stop Trump from winning, so plan to destroy his presidency by destroying the country.
But 7% mortgage rates? Shit. I remember 12% to 14% and yet we survived. And we had to walk uphill through snow just to get that. Fucking snowflakes.
Me too, we had interest rates around that. There seems to be a difference now though. Young people seem unable to afford to buy a house. But my husband and I could when we were young, even with those interest rates. Is it that the prices are higher than they were back then (adjusted)? Is it that the young people aren’t earning as much? Is that because fewer women worked back then? (Dumping women into the workforce created more supply and lowered salaries and wages?) Or is it because they aren’t marrying and are trying to buy homes by themselves?
There’s a different feel this time around.
-
Me too, we had interest rates around that. There seems to be a difference now though. Young people seem unable to afford to buy a house. But my husband and I could when we were young, even with those interest rates. Is it that the prices are higher than they were back then (adjusted)? Is it that the young people aren’t earning as much? Is that because fewer women worked back then? (Dumping women into the workforce created more supply and lowered salaries and wages?) Or is it because they aren’t marrying and are trying to buy homes by themselves?
There’s a different feel this time around.
You weren't spending money back then on the newest iphone, high speed wifi, multiple streaming services, starbucks, etc. It's a spending/saving problem, not an income problem.
-
Me too, we had interest rates around that. There seems to be a difference now though. Young people seem unable to afford to buy a house. But my husband and I could when we were young, even with those interest rates. Is it that the prices are higher than they were back then (adjusted)? Is it that the young people aren’t earning as much? Is that because fewer women worked back then? (Dumping women into the workforce created more supply and lowered salaries and wages?) Or is it because they aren’t marrying and are trying to buy homes by themselves?
There’s a different feel this time around.
I am not claiming this is the primary cause but perhaps it is also contributing. In some sense houses are more sophisticated now and may thus just cost more in real dollars. There is also a lot more regulation and code compliance which likely drives up prices. Many municipalities have actually banned things like the small house movement which was designed to provide more smaller but livable spaces.
-
You weren't spending money back then on the newest iphone, high speed wifi, multiple streaming services, starbucks, etc. It's a spending/saving problem, not an income problem.
I'm also seeing that most young people these days want to buy the same kind of house their parents have now rather than settle for something they can afford and work their way up. And they're frustrated that their gender studies degree won't land them a job they can live on.
-
I am not claiming this is the primary cause but perhaps it is also contributing. In some sense houses are more sophisticated now and may thus just cost more in real dollars. There is also a lot more regulation and code compliance which likely drives up prices. Many municipalities have actually banned things like the small house movement which was designed to provide more smaller but livable spaces.
That's a very good point. Back when I was a kid, all the houses we lived in and the ones our relatives lived in had only one full bath plus a lone toilet sitting open on the floor of the basement. Everybody had 4 or more kids and we managed with one bath. Nobody used the basement toilet except Dad. That was his emergency exit when wife or kid was hogging the one bathroom.
Our great aunt out on the farm still had the outhouse in addition to the single added on bath that had been installed in the landing of the front staircase. (There was no toilet in her root cellar.) There was a separate staircase in the back that led to an upstairs servant's bedroom. They had no servants by the time we came along and visited but one of our great aunts slept up there and used a chamber pot. The stove was wood fired.
The past two houses we've lived in have a full bath for each bedroom. Plus another half bath. And they're just your average 3 bedroom house. All our other houses had at least 2 and a half baths. (Except our money pit starter home.) So yes, expectations have changed greatly.
-
I've always wondered how we got to people needing 3500+ sq ft houses. We've never had anything more than 1,500 sq ft.
-
Dumping women into the workforce created more supply and lowered salaries and wages?
That's always been my contention.
Also, at about that time globalization was taking off which has resulted in compressed wages and much fewer "high paid manufacturing" jobs. That's why wages have remained "flat" since the 80s.
-
I've always wondered how we got to people needing 3500+ sq ft houses. We've never had anything more than 1,500 sq ft.
I need 4000'. 2 adults +2 little dogs.
-
I need 4000'. 2 adults +2 little dogs.
Same here. 2 adults, 3 large dogs. Two home offices and a guest room in the basement. But we were forced to go big. Nothing smaller in a ranch with main floor everything and hallways wide enough to accommodate future lack of mobility.
-
One problem with a large house is that there are so many more places to misplace things, um, I mean store things...
-
My husband and I actually need two completely separate houses. We drive each other insane in this 2400' 3 bed, 3 bath on an acre and a half. Just us two, no pets.
-
When I moved from WI to OH I went from 1400 to 3200 sq ft. And I paid less in OH for what I sold in WI and with less property taxes, too. Gotta love the red states.
-
That's always been my contention.
Also, at about that time globalization was taking off which has resulted in compressed wages and much fewer "high paid manufacturing" jobs. That's why wages have remained "flat" since the 80s.
Great point. We're competing with low wage low cost economies.
-
Great point. We're competing with low wage low cost economies.
The Democrats have a plan to fix that. Some D weirdo in California is proposing a $50 minimum wage. ::)
-
The Democrats have a plan to fix that. Some D weirdo in California is proposing a $50 minimum wage. ::)
Can’t wait to see how the poor react to $50 Big Macs.
-
Can’t wait to see how the poor react to $50 Big Macs.
They'll blame greedy corporations. And Trump.
-
They'll blame greedy corporations. And Trump.
I got an email from my Communist Senator, Bob Casey. He's calling it "Greedflation", which means the Dems are lying yet again as to the real causes of this hyper-inflation. It's company's profit motive that's causing it! Effing lying frauds