Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - PeterNSteinmetz

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 47
271
Spin Zone / Re: The Trump raid and "3 Felonies A Day"
« on: August 16, 2022, 11:41:36 AM »
Quote from: Lucifer on August 16, 2022, 11:11:27 AM
Did the raids "you know of" involve high profile government officials?   And how were you briefed on these raids?

More usual citizens. I heard about it from the victims.

Quote
When involving client/attorney privilege or in the case of Trump, executive privilege, you cannot have LEO going through random papers and reading them, then turning them over to another team to have them declared CA privilege or executive privilege.  Therein lies the "taint" once those documents are exposed.

You are right. But that is how they do it.


Quote
Think the fourth amendment comes into play here?   Do we actually have a justice system that will sign off a warrant for a fishing expedition???
Yes. But remember, all they need is probable cause. Not a very high standard.


Quote
There's a reason they want the affidavits kept sealed.

Right. And I doubt you will see it until a decision has been made not to charge or the case is fully adjudicated. Think years.

It is not right, but this is what normal innocent citizens go through all the time. "The process is the punishment" is the saying.

272
Spin Zone / Re: The Trump raid and "3 Felonies A Day"
« on: August 16, 2022, 10:42:32 AM »
Is that true about a "taint team"? Certainly the raids that I know of did not have one on site. And a quick search on this shows most discussions being about the taint team being appointed later.

I think their strategy in these is to seize everything for which they have the least cause, then sort it out later at leisure. Like months and months of leisure.

273
Spin Zone / The Trump raid and "3 Felonies A Day"
« on: August 16, 2022, 09:57:14 AM »
(Cross posted from my MeWe account)

The main thesis of the book "3 Felonies A Day" (https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent-ebook/dp/B00505UZ4G/) is that given the huge number of Federal laws and regulations which have been criminalized, that any person performing a serious function in society is arguably committing 3 felonies each day. Some of them very obscure and hard to even know. And thus if the prosecutors want to get you, they can. If not convict, they can make your life hell for a long time.

If we take this thesis seriously it would seem to imply that they can likely convict Trump of something. I think this is a sad state of affairs generally for all citizens of course and don't support it. But it is a result of many policies promoted by both major political parties.

So what will happen if Trump is convicted and sentenced? Will people finally realize that we live in police state lite and say enough is enough and rise up to bring an end to this, by force of arms if necessary?

Somehow I don't suspect that will happen. A fair fraction of the population hate Trump and will think he is getting what he deserves and even got off easy. In that case, I suppose the best that could happen is some future legislation which starts to peel back this excessive Federal government's police powers. What may be more likely is not that, but that a future President of very conservative nature pardons him.

Given how long these cases can drag on, I would not be surprised to see the adjudication of this case drag out way after 2024. I suppose Trump could even run for President while under indictment.

In terms of the searches and warrants and property. I also expect that to drag on and on. Trump has claimed that there are privileged materials involved. That means they will now appoint a separate filter team to go through everything for privilege, before passing it on to the normal investigation team. That will take a long time. After that the investigators will want to look through everything in detail to see if they can find evidence of one of the 3 felonies a day he likely committed. Then there will be charges. Then negotiations. Then maybe a trial. Then sentencing. Then appeal. After all that, he might get his property back.

274
Cool Places to Fly / Re: OshKosh 2022
« on: July 22, 2022, 04:46:35 PM »
Now at Osh until very early Wednesday morning. Row 93 in Vintage right by the road. The orange Cardinal.

275
Cool Places to Fly / Re: OshKosh 2022
« on: July 02, 2022, 03:44:42 PM »
Quote from: nddons on July 02, 2022, 09:32:49 AM
If you see me, give me a wave. I’ll be playing in traffic.

We'll be looking for you.

276
Cool Places to Fly / OshKosh 2022
« on: July 01, 2022, 08:25:16 PM »
Who is going to OshKosh this year and which dates? My son and I plan on being there 7/22 - 7/26.

277
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: July 01, 2022, 09:52:51 AM »
Quote from: Rush on July 01, 2022, 05:56:20 AM
But Pete will have to speak for himself.

As you know, I don't speak to posters like Number7 or even read their posts as they engage in name calling. It is not only a logical fallacy, but also rude and inappropriate in this context.

Happy to discuss the issues if raised by other posters who don't engage in those errors. But I think you have it about right. And thanks for the more accurate analyses and appraisals.

BTW, I was going to suggest Rush that if you have the time, that you try and write down a good objective summary of what you have found and analysis on this question. As we've discussed here before, it doesn't seem like anything like that is out there or readily accessible. I think you could do a rather good job and I, for one, would be very interested to read it.

278
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 30, 2022, 04:00:50 PM »
Quote from: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 30, 2022, 03:38:21 PM
Examples are:

Show me how a ballot cannot possibly be counted more than once

Show me how we can be sure that a mail-in ballot came from an eligible voter.

What are the processes to insure integrity?



Which are the converse for your apparent belief that the elections were perfectly fine

Show how ballot counts were incorrect

etc etc



oh, btw, apparently you are making some rather bold assumptions regarding my belief.

Bob, maybe we are making a little progress here, not sure.

So do you then wish to say that it is not your belief that the election was somehow stolen? Or in the alternative, that your belief is that there was not fraud at a sufficient level to affect the outcome?

Please clarify. No point in debating an inadvertent straw-man.

279
Spin Zone / 2000 Mules
« on: June 30, 2022, 03:16:56 PM »
Quote from: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 30, 2022, 03:03:47 PM
What you think I believe does not make it so.  Nor does it change the facts wrt the methods used, if any, to establish ballot counting process integrity.

If you are unable to engage in conversation of about it (because you don't have information, are unwilling to admit the process lacks integrity, or whatever reason), then I can't force you to do so.
Perhaps, but the fact that you are unable to name any evidence which could in principle falsify your belief, is rather compelling evidence that the belief is non-falsifiable. That is rather near the definition of such a belief.

Such beliefs are logically vacuous and it makes no sense to debate them. See link previously provided.

280
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 30, 2022, 02:32:47 PM »
Quote from: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 30, 2022, 08:27:37 AM
Show me how a ballot cannot possibly be counted more than once

Show me how we can be sure that a mail-in ballot came from an eligible voter.

Where is the integrity?
Bob, I have reviewed your posts on this in this thread and I think is is fair and reasonable for me to conclude that you have a non-falsifiable belief that the election was somehow stolen.

So I’m sorry, but while you raise some interesting questions, I don’t discuss people’s non-falsifiable beliefs with them generally even in person, let alone on the internet.

That is mostly because it is not logically meaningful or interesting to do so. It also just tends to lead to acrimony.

Now I am happy to discuss what falsifiability is and why it is necessary generally or even how it applies to this case. And of course happy to discuss how scientific professionals discuss the evidence for and against a proposition.

But other than that it probably is best if I confine myself to politely acknowledging that you appear to have this belief and it appears you sincerely hold it.

281
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 30, 2022, 08:26:21 AM »
Quote from: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 30, 2022, 08:22:02 AM

Consider quality control procedures that are supposed to be followed to insure that a particular vaccine production lot is correct and safe.

If the manufacturer fails to retain documentation showing that the quality control procedures were in fact followed, do you (A) assume that the procedures were followed and use the lot or (B) toss the lot?

In this hypothetical, we don't know if the procedures were followed or ignored, we don't know if anything bad happened during the production run.  The lot could be perfectly good, but we don't have proof.
Interesting points Bob. But what sort of evidence would persuade that the election was not “stolen” and that it was essentially a toss up based on small essentially random factors?

282
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 30, 2022, 08:24:41 AM »
Quote from: Becky (My pronouns are Trump/won/bigly) on June 30, 2022, 08:11:25 AM
Peter, there’s no way I can take on an intellect like yours, but I’ll put my little oar in.

One of the reasons that over half the country now believes that President Trump won an overwhelming victory in 2020 is that multiple statistical improbabilities and implausibilities obviously occurred. Even without analyzing the validity of each individual vote, what happened to the count on November 3 could not have happened without an extreme skew in the universe. And people know when this occurs, even if they are uncomfortable admitting it.

These 2020 election impossibilities and implausibilities (I use both terms for a balanced approach) have been listed and analyzed on the internet ad infinitum over the last 18 months, and I’m sure you’ve seen them. Sadly, at this point much of the information had been buried by the narrative-controlled search engines and, as noted earlier in this thread, much information about the election is labeled “conspiracy,” “unfounded,” “baseless,” and the always effective but becoming less so,“right wing extremist.”

Your analysis strikes me as a little too dismissive and convenient, and asks for something that, for an event as massive as the 2020 election, with the subsequent silence and stonewalling by officials who should be safeguarding our elections, and vast media insistence on one narrative only, cannot be provided.


 
Becky, I appreciate your concerns. I think I have said before I would be very happy to see a written objective evaluation of all of these others factors and how they add up. So far I have never seen one posted.

Since you are friendly and polite, rather than rude and inappropriate, I will comment just a bit more on my overall perspective on this question.

I am old enough to remember the 2000 election as I imagine most of us here are. Remember all the debates about the rules for hanging chads etc? My view is predicated on an interesting follow on to that election. After the dust had settled, the major news organizations hired a separate re-analysis in the county in FL which was pivotal. They concluded that if the rules advocated by the Bush side had been adopted, then Gore would have won. And if the rules advocated by Gore side had been adopted, then Bush would have won! It was essentially a toss up decided by small random factors like the rules about counting chads in a county.

When there is little actual data on a subject, it is very easy for people to form and retain non-falsifiable beliefs. So my challenge stands.

Think about what would persuade you of the falsity of your current position and let us know. Then one can meaningfully debate the criteria and how the data fit in. Until then, it bears much resemblance to a religious debate.

283
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 30, 2022, 07:48:56 AM »
But I notice my prior question about non-falsifiable beliefs has gone unanswered by all of the posters here. Thus I will repeat the request.

I would challenge each of the posters advocating for the theory that the election was "stolen" to post some type of evidence, which could exist in principle, that would be persuasive for them that it was not stolen, and that what we had was simply the type of error and problems typical in an election and basically a tie which was decided by random factors. What would be persuasive of that?

If you can't think of any then you have a non-falsifiable belief. No evidence will ever be persuasive for you and so future discussion and debate is pointless. Please also note that I have already led the way by posting several concrete types of evidence that I think would be persuasive that the election was in fact fraudulent and have even suggested specific ways to use existing datasets to test that hypothesis.

See https://reasonandmeaning.com/2020/11/26/why-non-falsifiable-beliefs-are-absurd/ for a further explanation of this approach.

284
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 30, 2022, 07:42:18 AM »
Quote from: Rush on June 30, 2022, 01:57:49 AM
The trouble is wiki is biased. 

When an article calls anyone who questions the total security of the 2020 election “right wing conspiracy theorists” yet nowhere in all of wiki do you see those who question the 2016 election as “left wing conspiracy theorists” you know a source is not objective or trustworthy.

I will grant that it’s extremely difficult to find an objective source.

As you know, I am not really that interested in debating the quality of this source or that source generally. It just isn't as productive as looking at what a source actually has to say.

Now I understand that most people commenting on social media are not in a position to actually do that, give training and time available. That is why one sees so much debate about sources rather than actual facts. It is important to realize all sources have their inclinations and biases. That is why it is so important to actually look at and evaluate the facts. Focus on that rather than throwing around accusations of bias or lack of objectivity. 

If and when his methods are fully and accurately described, one can judge them. Until then, I won't hold my breath because of both the very light description of this 'kinematic analysis" which is available and the description of his past questionable business practices. But as I said, we can wait and see.

285
Spin Zone / 2000 Mules
« on: June 29, 2022, 07:45:20 PM »
Quote from: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 29, 2022, 06:45:28 PM
https://uncoverdc.com/2022/06/29/predetermined-algorithms-source-of-widespread-election-fraud-in-arizona/
It will be interesting to see more of the report of his investigation. I don’t quite understand what he did from that description.

It will be best if the methods are fully described and reviewed and the datasets made publicly available. That way, anyone can double check.

May be too much to hope for given his background. But I guess it can be judged if more fully described by its merits.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Hutton_Pulitzer

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 47