Negatory

Your videos focus primarily on the 1800s and a single quote from LBJ. Doesn't seem like a very rigorous argument. It's not important. The point is that neither party outwardly supports racism. Trying to argue that dems are the party of racists with these arguments is grasping at straws. And I agree that racial politics and identity politics are terrible. I don't support them. Many people who voted D don't. Your arguments are pedantic and churlish and, to that, I say good day. Good day, sir. I said good day! Anyways, how 'bout them Bears?

So now I would like to quote my good friend guardian who always says that EXACT WORDING is the only thing that matters. The guy who won't try to understand your message, just pick apart nitnoid arguments. You said there were zero riots. Guess your credibility is shot forever.

You aren't being a genuine or honest debate partner. Every person has already said election fraud exists, just that there is absolutely no evidence that it is of any magnitude that would be even close to mattering. See here's an example of a terrible citizen voting twice: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article246971357.html I recommend we throw him in jail. Or maybe he was just following what a political leader said? Maybe it's his fault? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-vote/trump-encourages-supporters-to-try-to-vote-twice-sparking-uproar-idUSKBN25U0KK The burden of proof is on you to prove something exists - not the normal system to prove something doesn't exist. That's how things work. You have circumstantial evidence, AT BEST, and you are mad that no one is listening. It's childish and embarrassing. Sorry the judges in every state keep telling you no, your lawsuits don't work. And you still need to address the easy question that you still haven't: How did republicans keep the senate when mass coordinated voter fraud against your party was conducted? The party of cognitive dissonance has spoken! This is actually the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If you think politics haven't changed in 155 years, I've got literally nothing for you. In case you're wondering, David Duke, the current leader of the KKK in 2020, publicly endorsed the person you voted for, multiple times. Here's a few more: Don Black (former grand wizard), Rachel Pendergraff (Knights Party organizer), Matthew Heimbach (leader of the White Nationalist Traditionalist Worker Party). Almost every white supremacist group in America publicly endorsed Trump. I guess by the circular logic in your post, you guys are officially 100% the party of racists. Sorry brother. There's a fact for you that you can try to wrap your mind around. But of course that's not how this works. It's not how anything works. Just because racists support Trump doesn't make all republicans racist. But definitely moreso just because "democrat" used to mean something entirely different 155 years ago doesn't mean it has any impact to the current party. And your decision to determine that black people only vote for dems because they were scared into it is terribly demeaning and oversimplifies a whole group's thought process. But I wouldn't expect any more from you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally 1 dead, 33 injured https://www.npr.org/2020/05/14/855918852/heavily-armed-protesters-gather-again-at-michigans-capitol-denouncing-home-order https://www.dw.com/en/fbi-stops-plot-to-overthrow-michigan-state-government-and-kidnap-governor/a-55208647 You're right, the right doesn't protest. They just go straight to literal domestic terrorism and capture and overthrow of the government. Because you can totally generalize actions of a few to an entire political party. Same for you, brother. You literally can't even accept things that you write as facts, as was evidenced by the last couple days.

Along those lines, I don’t usually watch Bill Maher, but I did happen to see this clip of him calling out some of the delusions of the current Democratic Party and why they didn’t do as well as they thought they would in the elections. I thought this really hit the nail on the head when it came down to what is wrong with “woke” culture.

True, some portions of the narrative on the left are abhorrent. Basically everything you said, I agree with. You can’t defund the police, you can’t tell every 30 year old white dude he’s racist and sexist just for existing, and “cancel culture” is doing quite a bit of driving people to be even more partisan than before. I believe the far right’s attacks on science, the government (intelligence, HHS, etc), and media are more damaging to the country, though. Not far more - but more. This is literally becoming the party that is proud to see evidence and reject it just to reject it - not because there is logic or morality. A literal normalized saying right now is “fake news,” and I know people that are proud to say that to anything that doesn’t align with their current worldview. If you think about it, how can you ever reason with people like this?

Ooh, quotes! Let me do one for you: “In a way, the world−view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.” Heres one more: ”The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” This is fun.

What does that even mean?

Dude just address the point above or take a break. Not being able to back down, no matter what, isn’t winning over many people.

Guardian. Here’s your logic: 1) 2600 votes were just found in one county 2) GA is split by 14k votes 3) 4 more similarly sized counties could turn GA (5 total) Lets do the math. 2600 x 5 = 13,000 total potential votes You need 14,000, so to determine the percentage that would need to be for Trump: 14,000/13,000 = 1.077 So, I guess by the logic of only reading literally exactly what you said, you would just need 107.7% of all the votes in 5 equally sized counties to be found and to go to Trump. Can we call that accurate?

It is interesting how normalized it seems for a president to hypothetically impose unilateral military action. Wasn’t this sort of thing designed to go through Congress? I blame Bush and Obama.

A republican controlled county did a bad job of counting their own votes? And it doesn’t come close to affecting anything? Thoughts?

Do they hear the >5M republicans?

I agree. Delaware, Vermont, Rhode Island, DC, Hawaii. All more examples of places that have more voting weight than they should.

That's fine, you guys are cleared to disagree. I still think you're wrong. There are more republican voters in California, whose votes don't matter at all, than those in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and West Virginia combined. If you look into it, you aren't really following the constitutional founding fathers' intentions. The number of electors was always intended to be the number of senators plus the number of representatives. As our society grew from about 35k people / representative to the 700k people / rep that we have now, the impact of the people should have increased proportionally because the number of representatives should have increased. George Washington argued that there should be a representative for every 30k people. But in 1913, # of representatives was capped arbitrarily to 435. This contributed, strongly, to the undue voter weight of extremely small portions of America and the disregard for vast sects of society. Now the tyranny of the minority has resulted in 2 of the last 3 presidents being elected by the minority of voters. Before, this had only happened 3 times. I'm doubtful this was the intent of the constitution or the founding fathers. Or maybe California should just split into 5-10 smaller states so that their voices are heard.

In my mind that's a pretty complicated answer, haha. I think the simplest answer is that there probably isn't significant enough fraud on either side to matter. Not saying it doesn't make sense, though.

Just wait until deepfakes make up 90% of internet content in 5 years. It will only get worse. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/artificial-intelligence-created-deepfake-videos-22761685 Mark my words, in 5 years the same crowd is going to be sending deepfakes of Biden molesting kids or murdering people and share that as truth. And a questionably high % of America will believe it because it aligns with their politics.

It doesn't "absolutely still make sense." There have been over 700 formal proposals to get rid of the electoral college since 1800, with it almost happening in the Bayh-Celler amendment of 1970. Which was only defeated due to a real philosophical and legal marvel - the filibuster. It's not like it is some philosophical truth. In my opinion, it's antithetical to true democracy.

Still looking for your response to the cognitive dissonance question of the hour: Why did dems allow republicans to win the senate if they were controlling everything through massive manipulation? Could it be that Trump actually is unpopular? Maybe when you receive 5 million less popular votes than the other guy, you should lose? And your whole argument still boils down to people's Presidential votes from Wyoming, North Dakota, and Alaska should count 2-3 times as much as someone from California, Florida, or Texas. That's the electoral college, a totally logical thing that definitely makes sense in the modern world.

A shitshow.

Here's what happens when you try to actually look into the bogus lawsuits about dead voters and they actually aren't dead: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54874120 Also, I know two AD mil folks who legally voted absentee in Nevada. They have since been cited by the Trump campaign, by name, as having committed "criminal voter fraud": https://www.militarytimes.com/pay-benefits/2020/11/13/hundreds-of-military-absentee-ballots-are-likely-on-gops-list-of-alleged-criminal-voter-fraud-votes/

I mean, unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani doesn’t exactly have the highest credibility or like ability. I listened to it, and I agree there could be some things, but unfortunately all of the evidence is entirely circumstantial. All of it. Heres how GOP leadership actually feels about the allegations in each state. Unfortunately it’s not this one sided conspiracy theory: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/14/election-2020-gop-officials-swing-states-shoot-down-trump-fraud-claims/6271421002/ Also, still looking for someone to explain how the dems lost the senate when they committed so much coordinated fraud.

Here’s the truth. I don’t want to watch an hour long video on something when it’s not something that has been shown to be very likely a factor. Give me something that’s easier to digest, or something that points to a need to watch this. I 100% believe there was election fraud. There are probably many cases of it. But there are cases of election fraud every year on both sides. Right now, I believe that the order of magnitude of the fraud is the same as it always is - so small that it doesn’t matter. Put the numbers in context, at least. Don’t just say there’s examples of fraud - I know there will be on both sides. One of the examples that really falls on deaf ears is when someone claims that there are dozens of examples of election fraud in a state... and then it’s literally 25 single people who registered incorrectly. It comes across clickbaity, probably wouldn’t ever come close to affecting anything, and makes me less likely to care the next time. When I hear that there is provable fraud that has X impact that actually could affect the election results, I will be interested. Otherwise, it’s noise or propaganda.

Yeah, I know generally A5/A8 are the folks that set requirements. For the purposes of this discussion, that makes them an integral part of acquisitions, as the acquisition process starts by saying “I need something.” If you’re concerned I’m saying that DT/OT are the ones coming up with the next force structure, I’m not. And if we’d like to really dig into it, I think that a lot of the blame for what has happened the last 20 years falls on A5/A8/A9 being run by untrained or unqualified folks that DON’T understand their impact or importance in the acquisitions process. In fact, bump that out to J5/J8/J9.

I mean, that’s acquisitions role. And they could do a better job than not trying at all. I guess my point is that requirements - the first step in the dumb way we do acquisitions - can be done better. Get a more realistic and actually integration focused group from all of the DoD together to come up with how to do this stuff. I’m not hopeless that we couldn’t get close.

The F-35 is a good cautionary tale of how letting congress and the marine corps acquire things that they have no expertise in is bad. So maybe you’re right that the military integrates so poorly, currently, that the Air Force would screw up army stuff and the navy would mess up the Air Force and everyone would mess up space/cyber. Hell, just make a standard that works for 20 years from now and double the bandwidth, # of players, and the data rate. Link 16, on the open source unclassified side, is ~250 MHz and a relatively low data rate (Was decent for its inception). Literally just make that something that would work for multi-service integration for standard hot spots in the world and give it some amount of buffer and you’ll be better off. Maybe 50 years is aggressive, but I firmly believe when it comes to computers you have to do generational upgrades, not incremental. We’re due for a generational upgrade soon, IMO.