Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

Hidden Brain podcast episode from Oct 26 is a fascinating listen. Super interesting. Says the bigger problem and divide in the US isn't so much between Rs and Ds, but people who love to talk about politics and those that don't. Point taken, I'm backing out of this world for a while. Gotta stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Torqued it seems that people who don’t want trump just want to censor and say get on with your life and the whole thing wasn’t rigged so stop. Seems like the opposing side says all we want to do is discuss and investigate. There is evidence. Affidavits are evidence. Statements are evidence. And if it comes back in favor of no fraud and Biden won then they will accept it and move on. It’s my personal opinion that History will record Trump as one of the most successful presidents to run the county to a lot of prosperity but even in light of that he was very Divisive, said a lot of egregious and offensive things that made people not look past the words to the actions of the man.

What is true tolerance? Having a different view point but accepting that view point isn’t others view points and life continues. It’s pretty obvious over the last 12-20 years that the right is the side of tolerance, freedom, and equality.

Remember Democrats founded the KKK. Republicans were founded on equality for all men and to give women equal rights and are true to that end today. Obama planted or cultivated the seeds of racial division that we are still feeling the effects of today. The democrats scare lots of minorities into voting for them with scare tactics, victim hood, and free stuff. That’s scary and not the American dream. Now Biden and his transition team have already said they will implement very radical, immoral social policy and force the country to pay. I think paying for everyone’s college is pure theft and is going to do a lot to hurt this country. Thank goodness the Supreme Court leans right. At least we have that.

Guess what true to the last four years, zero republican or right riots. What if on the less than1% chance trump wins? Hell it’s very likely trump lost and that doesn’t stop domestic terrorism from occurring from BLM and Antifa. Scary.

Cant say that is the case with the left or liberals, that they are tolerant. There is zero tolerance for any opinions but their own. And in fact I could accept it if it was liberal thought. But the left as a large percentage has gone progressive which in our society is becoming synonymous with socialist. That’s why the right or people who agree with trump are fighting so hard. We happen to like our land of the free and equal opportunity the way it mostly is. And the right thinks it’s immoral to steal and murder. And that if you make money it should largely stay your money.

I really have a very large difficulty understanding why people think republicans or conservatives are so evil.

And to sum it up torqued, I don’t have a good answer why they can’t simply look at the things we are saying, not assume or try to read between lines that aren’t there, and have civil discourse. I realize they would disagree. But it doesn’t seem like they can answer directly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, torqued said:

I think it's reasonable to begin with asking the simple question:

Does election fraud exist and what would the evidence be?

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!

7 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Remember Democrats founded the KKK. Republicans were founded on equality for all men and to give women equal rights and are true to that end today. Obama planted or cultivated the seeds of racial division that we are still feeling the effects of today. The democrats scare lots of minorities into voting for them with scare tactics, victim hood, and free stuff. That’s scary and not the American dream. Now Biden and his transition team have already said they will implement very radical, immoral social policy and force the country to pay. I think paying for everyone’s college is pure theft and is going to do a lot to hurt this country. Thank goodness the Supreme Court leans right. At least we have that.

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.

14 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Guess what true to the last four years, zero republican or right riots.

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.

18 minutes ago, Guardian said:

There is zero tolerance for any opinions but their own.

Same for you, brother. You literally can't even accept things that you write as facts, as was evidenced by the last couple days.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What fact is that. That there are racists on both sides. That democrats 155 years ago are racist and that Harris is incredibly racist? Yeah. I’m sure some racists voted for trump. Just like I’m positive racists voted for Biden. Equal outcome and equity are inherently racist.

Armed protesters aren’t riots caused by riots. And maybe there was one riot caused by the right. There were something like 90 straight days in Portland of multiple riots throughout the city not caused by the right. So one compared to how many?

Don’t worry man. I hold you and SLACK on the same level of incoherence and in ability to rationalize or answer questions. You twist, manipulate and try to justify something other than what is being talked about. At least it doesn’t seem that you are reverting to name calling like others. But just because you don’t want the left to be a party of racists or ones that support systematic racism doesn’t mean they aren’t. They absolutely are.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same for you, brother. You literally can't even accept things that you write as facts, as was evidenced by the last couple days.

Good thing no one has any idea what you are talking about. I wasn’t proven wrong. I was proven right. That you couldn’t read and understand the things I said without injecting your assumptions into it and claiming I said things I didn’t. So evidence away if you can.







Please explain how prayer U is wrong in the above videos. With facts and reason. Not just saying some liberal think tank says they are wrong or there is no value or truth to what they say. Please. Humor me. Or explain why the more companionate party is the Democrat Party with respect to the average citizen. I don’t think it’s possible by you or anyone. Facts don’t care about your emotions Negatory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Guardian said:

What fact is that. That there are racists on both sides. That democrats 155 years ago are racist and that Harris is incredibly racist? Yeah. I’m sure some racists voted for trump. Just like I’m positive racists voted for Biden. Equal outcome and equity are inherently racist.

Armed protesters aren’t riots caused by riots. And maybe there was one riot caused by the right. There were something like 90 straight days in Portland of multiple riots throughout the city not caused by the right. So one compared to how many?

Don’t worry man. I hold you and SLACK on the same level of incoherence and in ability to rationalize or answer questions. You twist, manipulate and try to justify something other than what is being talked about. At least it doesn’t seem that you are reverting to name calling like others. But just because you don’t want the left to be a party of racists or ones that support systematic racism doesn’t mean they aren’t. They absolutely are.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Negatory said:

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!

Next...

If I'm not being genuine or honest, then I am being disingenuous and dishonest. You're making a claim. According to you, the burden of proof lies with the claimant, yet you haven't quoted any text where I have been disingenuous or dishonest. Maybe I have, I don't know. It certainly wasn't my intent. But if you provide the evidence, I'd very much like to apologize for it, and make corrections.

I'm glad you also agree that fraud exists. But you still haven't answered the question as to what that fraud is and what the evidence would be. Curiously, the article you linked to isn't an example of "fraud." It's an example of an honest man who unintentionally had his vote recorded twice. Please understand, I'm left to assume you either don't know the definition of the word "fraud" or are disingenuously or dishonestly making the claim this man intentionally committed a fraudulent act. Which is it? Forget it, let's let that one go. Do you have any real examples?

Where have I indicated that I'm upset that no one is listening? Again, another specious claim. I don't have circumstantial evidence, I don't have any lawsuits. Why are you using the terms "you" and "your"? If I were mad and childish, wouldn't I be using profane insults, refusing to engage, and quitting the conversation when it became apparent I was losing?

Although you failed, you tried to answer my question so I'd be happy to address yours.

How did they keep the Senate? You'll probably want to look at an election map while reading this. Here: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=senate+races+2020. Use the buttons at the top to switch between Presidential and Senate races. Can you see the states that had senate races? Can you see the states that did not have senate races? The states where voting irregularities were alleged to have occurred did not have Senate races. Does that blow your mind or what?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, torqued said:

I believe you're saying evidence of fraud is... a court case that alleges fraud.

Not sure if intentional or not but you forgot to add the most important second part. He would disagree that a court case alone is evidence of fraud.

19 hours ago, Pooter said:

A court case that actually alleges fraud, which is then successfully prosecuted to completion.

The heritage foundation, one of the most reputable conservative think thanks, has a running list of successfully prosecuted fraud cases with sources. Running tally is at roughly 1000 across the country. These are examples of fraud everyone here would agree with, that should be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible. They are isolated instances that don't change the outcome, with no evidence of systemic conspiracy to change the results, though of course we should remain open to that possibility. The Trump team is undermining democratic process by claiming a priori that there is systemic fraud and that he won in a landslide. Take it to the courts, win your case, and then say it was a fraudulent election.

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

Does this answer your question @torqued? If you want more specifics I can pick out some random ones out from in there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figure they spent 4 years going Russia,Russia, Russia plus an impeachment , wouldn't it be fair to give them 3 weeks looking for voter fraud. Get used to perpetual war again Gents.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nevada Secretary of State homepage says the Cumulative Election Turnout was 1,327,394 ballots.

https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=9054

Nevada Secretary of State also says 1,406,006 ballots were cast for President.

https://silverstateelection.nv.gov/USPresidential/#race1

Biden leads by 33,000 votes.

Is Trump raising doubts about the electoral process, or is Nevada?

 

 

Edited by torqued
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, isn’t it the libs’ job to be triggered?

What’s your point? Is that why you’re triggered? It doesn’t appear torqued is triggered. You just can’t seem to answer and deflect or change the topic! Good job. That is very inherently the democrat way!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, torqued said:

 

Nevada Secretary of State homepage says the Cumulative Election Turnout for the election was 1,327,394 ballots.

https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=9054

Nevada Secretary of State also says 1,406,006 ballots were cast for President.

https://silverstateelection.nv.gov/USPresidential/#race1

Biden leads by 33,000 votes.

 

 

There were 1,241,000 on the last update before the absentee ballots were counted after Nov 10 at 7:00pm.

The secretary of state has not updated those numbers since Nov 10 at 3:37 pm according to your link, so the missing absentee ballots explains the discrepancy. The silver state election source you posted is cumulative votes until today, not Nov 10. Match the dates either way and you won't find a discrepancy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DosXX said:

Not sure if intentional or not but you forgot to add the most important second part. He would disagree that a court case alone is evidence of fraud.

The heritage foundation, one of the most reputable conservative think thanks, has a running list of successfully prosecuted fraud cases with sources. Running tally is at roughly 1000 across the country. These are examples of fraud everyone here would agree with, that should be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible. They are isolated instances that don't change the outcome, with no evidence of systemic conspiracy to change the results, though of course we should remain open to that possibility. The Trump team is undermining democratic process by claiming a priori that there is systemic fraud and that he won in a landslide. Take it to the courts, win your case, and then say it was a fraudulent election.

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

Does this answer your question @torqued? If you want more specifics I can pick out some random ones out from in there.

Nice work! I googled "examples of election fraud" two days ago and that was the website I was using when I asked my question. You're the first of five people to actually look it up. And yes, it does answer my question. I didn't count, but there are at least a dozen different ways fraud can be committed by an individual.

Bear with me: Would you say that, generally speaking, crimes do not occur outside of those that are convicted?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DosXX said:

There were 1,241,000 on the last update before the absentee ballots were counted after Nov 10 at 7:00pm.

The secretary of state has not updated those numbers since Nov 10 at 3:37 pm according to your link, so the missing absentee ballots explains the discrepancy. The silver state election source you posted is cumulative votes until today, not Nov 10. Match the dates either way and you won't find a discrepancy.

 

That's entirely possible. Honest question: When can the state of Nevada start and stop tabulating votes? I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, slackline said:

Hidden Brain podcast episode from Oct 26 is a fascinating listen. Super interesting. Says the bigger problem and divide in the US isn't so much between Rs and Ds, but people who love to talk about politics and those that don't. Point taken, I'm backing out of this world for a while. Gotta stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Super interesting podcast, thanks for mentioning it.

When I was working in politics, I saw people catch party fever all the time. You know it when you see it... the whole "My (insert party) does everything right and they do everything wrong" complex. I fell into it a bit during my first political job, but saw through the charade by the end. Probably because I love playing devil's advocate, even among people I agree with.

When possible, I'd pull junior folks aside and ask for five things the other side believes that they can respect, even if they disagree. Blank stares always came in response. Some would stammer out a few, and almost none could name five. My favorite was when someone tried to say that I wasn't "loyal" or a "true" member of the party. Like its a fucking religion.

If you can't respect your adversary in war/politics/life, then you're overestimating your abilities and underestimating theirs. A great way to die/lose/fail.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, torqued said:

Here's a fun one. Nothing is mentioned about party affiliation, Trump, or Biden. Perhaps it's a hoax.

What is the probability there be shenanigans? Is it low, or is it zero?

https://https://twitter.com/i/status/1329720449127780354twitter.com/local_aperture/status/1329720449127780354?s=2

I think the question isn’t if shenanigans took place. It’s if enough took place to overturn the election. We’re still waiting on that info.

Interesting video if true though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, torqued said:

Bear with me: Would you say that, generally speaking, crimes do not occur outside of those that are convicted?

No they for sure happen outside. For corporate fraud about half of cases go undetected according to a source I found, not sure what the rate would be for election fraud if you have any sources for what that could be. The important thing to note is that it would go in both ways, so even in the extreme case it was only 1% of real election fraud cases get convictions it would not be enough to flip any states. 

Let's do a best case scenario for trump using a 1% detection/conviction rate and the 1000 number from heritage foundation. 

NV: 3,000,000/328,000,000=x/1000

x= 9 expected fraud convicted in NV, which is about what they have on the site. Now dividing by .01 we get 900 expected fraudulent votes based on a 1% detection rate.  They would need a .02% detection rate for Trump to catch up, and that's assuming all fraudulent votes are against Trump.

PN: 2000 fraudulent cases with 1% detection

MI: 1600 ... ""

GA: 1500 ... ""

WI: 980 ... ""

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, torqued said:

Here's a fun one. Nothing is mentioned about party affiliation, Trump, or Biden. Perhaps it's a hoax.

What is the probability there be shenanigans? Is it low, or is it zero?

https://twitter.com/i/status/1329720449127780354

 

It's never zero, but it is very low.

If you look around the 7 second mark of this video you linked for the first row (name is Adams in that row) you can see it has a ballot return date on it on his data source. I found the data source from the PA gov website from Nov 13 and it does not have a return date on this row, or on many other rows in the first page. Seems like the data was faked in this twitter video. I'm using the web archive of the official gov website he says he used so not sure what other explanation there could be for his excel sheet not reflecting the same data.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201113013037/https://data.pa.gov/Government-Efficiency-Citizen-Engagement/2020-General-Election-Mail-Ballot-Requests-Departm/mcba-yywm/data

Additionally, even if it were true that all these suspiciously dated ballots were for Biden, it would not be enough to make up the deficit in PA. Certainly not saying that's not enough of a reason to look into this as a fraud case if it were true, but this video is not very convincing.

image.thumb.png.ee2725ab78204084b041c8b384319e4a.png

 

image.thumb.png.306415594abbc94edac33fd8744a73f6.pngimage.thumb.png.e541c94e0902678985f90248b0a6be57.png

Edited by DosXX
added screenshots
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, torqued said:

That's entirely possible. Honest question: When can the state of Nevada start and stop tabulating votes? I don't know.

The deadline to receive absentee ballots in NV is Nov 10 at 7:00pm, but they must be postmarked by election day. They start counting on Oct 19. They stop counting when all legal votes received before the deadline are counted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...