Discussion Random Discussion

[George]

Understandable. Sorry they weren't meant to be gotcha questions.

I just worry that not everyone will hold to your objective measure especially when there are claims that everything is rigged. Eg. if trump loses the election then the election is rigged. If trump loses court cases then the court cases are rigged etc. And eventually you have a situation in which he never concedes, continues to declare himself the winner forever, and a large portion of people in a democratic country believe him.

I think there's lunatics on both sides. I don't really take too much from news that is from people too far right and from people too far left. I can't really speak for what the rest of his supporters do if the ruling goes against them but again will be right there with the rest of you if he continues to contest it after the courts have made their decision. That to me is just taking it too far. I will give him the benefit of the doubt this time (in that he believes there is enough evidence to go to the courts) and see how it plays out, given the opposition seemingly got a free hit twice over the last four years with the impeachment based on nothing and the hysteria over Russian collusion. I guess along with that, I don't particularly trust anything coming out of the predominantly left mainstream media.

 

[flyingmagic]

There is yet to be a result, that’s the point

Ohhh nooo you got me!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess we will need to revamp our decades of election terminology.

When votes are counted they become results. When referring to the current voting count when it is almost over, the term result is more often than not used. (eg. we could talk about the result in Texas which Trump won, even though not all the votes have been fully counted yet).

So when can we use the term result moving forward? When all the votes are certified by each state? Or once the electoral college votes? Or once the president is inaugurated?

Heck, I need to get a life. Why am I even responding to this hahahahaha? Oh dear. Goodnight, boys.

 

[Crusty Undies]

Ah Kayleigh ....She's hard not to love ...isn't she

Not really no.

 

[Crusty Undies]

Well I'll be able to tell because Biden will be sitting in the White House haha.

If Trump says the courts have it wrong/rigged I will disagree. I get that either party can be fraudulent but I have trust/faith in the legal process.

Again it's the failure from others to really understand my position. Because I support Trump doesn't mean I think he is correct all the time. And just because you may support Biden doesn't mean you should agree with him all the time either. It's a stupid way to think.

Trump is now exercising his right to contest a result, let him do that and let the courts determine what the outcome is. I've never said that I categorically know there is or isn't election fraud, so I can't say I'll hold my hands up and say I was wrong if Biden wins, but what I will do is accept it and be thankful that in the end it was won fairly.

I think part of people's problem with Trump contesting about voter fraud is that he simultaneously tried to stop thousands of legitimate votes being counted explicitly in states where he was winning but looked like losing. It's just another step in a long, long, long line of blatant disregard for election integrity. To me it's a bit of the boy who cried wolf, he's whinged and whined every step of the way through the election and claimed constantly that the whole world is out to get him and only him it just discredits anything he says. I severely doubt there has been anything more than a completely negligible amount of voter fraud (estimations are 0.0002% of votes), and the fact that on one hand he can say that is a significant number but then a number 4 orders of magnitude higher is nothing; 1.5% of people die from covid and he's dismissed it as nothing for months on end.

 

[George]

I think part of people's problem with Trump contesting about voter fraud is that he simultaneously tried to stop thousands of legitimate votes being counted explicitly in states where he was winning but looked like losing. It's just another step in a long, long, long line of blatant disregard for election integrity. To me it's a bit of the boy who cried wolf, he's whinged and whined every step of the way through the election and claimed constantly that the whole world is out to get him and only him it just discredits anything he says. I severely doubt there has been anything more than a completely negligible amount of voter fraud (estimations are 0.0002% of votes), and the fact that on one hand he can say that is a significant number but then a number 4 orders of magnitude higher is nothing; 1.5% of people die from covid and he's dismissed it as nothing for months on end.

Can you link me to wherever you saw the estimations?

For me the conversation is only going one way. I get enough of anti-Trump through the mainstream, reading counter arguments gives me a better perspective. Would be interested in checking out what you've seen though

 

[Crusty Undies]

Can you link me to wherever you saw the estimations?

For me the conversation is only going one way. I get enough of anti-Trump through the mainstream, reading counter arguments gives me a better perspective. Would be interested in checking out what you've seen though

I added one to many 0s it's actually meant to be 0.002%.

Prosecutors in Wisconsin received 158 voter fraud referrals since 2016. Few proved to be criminal.

Improper voting is rare in Wisconsin and is often the result of an error than criminal intent.

www.usatoday.com

This is essentially a case study of the votes that are fraudulent in Wisconsin, about 1 in 46,000.

Considering Wisconsin had one of the highest mail in ballot turnouts of any state I don't see a reason to presume it'd be exceptionally higher anywhere else personally.

This one is a collection of studies based on validating or invalidating voter fraud over the last several years:

What Research Tells Us About Voter Fraud

A sizable body of evidence on voter fraud over the past two decades shows that it has been too rare to influence national elections.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[George]

I added one to many 0s it's actually meant to be 0.002%.

Prosecutors in Wisconsin received 158 voter fraud referrals since 2016. Few proved to be criminal.

Improper voting is rare in Wisconsin and is often the result of an error than criminal intent.

www.usatoday.com

This is essentially a case study of the votes that are fraudulent in Wisconsin, about 1 in 46,000.

Considering Wisconsin had one of the highest mail in ballot turnouts of any state I don't see a reason to presume it'd be exceptionally higher anywhere else personally.

This one is a collection of studies based on validating or invalidating voter fraud over the last several years:

What Research Tells Us About Voter Fraud

A sizable body of evidence on voter fraud over the past two decades shows that it has been too rare to influence national elections.

www.psychologytoday.com

Awesome cheers!

 

[Ceanag]

I added one to many 0s it's actually meant to be 0.002%.

Prosecutors in Wisconsin received 158 voter fraud referrals since 2016. Few proved to be criminal.

Improper voting is rare in Wisconsin and is often the result of an error than criminal intent.

www.usatoday.com

This is essentially a case study of the votes that are fraudulent in Wisconsin, about 1 in 46,000.

Considering Wisconsin had one of the highest mail in ballot turnouts of any state I don't see a reason to presume it'd be exceptionally higher anywhere else personally.

This one is a collection of studies based on validating or invalidating voter fraud over the last several years:

What Research Tells Us About Voter Fraud

A sizable body of evidence on voter fraud over the past two decades shows that it has been too rare to influence national elections.

www.psychologytoday.com

Those articles are from before the 2020 election ...it's yet to be determined if they will be republished with an addendum.

 

[Crusty Undies]

Those articles are from before the 2020 election ...it's yet to be determined if they will be republished with an addendum.

Righto. Keep telling yourself that right up until the courts throw every single case out.

 

[StCicatriz]

American style politics and rhetoric are crap for Australia

Couldnt agree more

 

[StCicatriz]

Agree 100%! And we will soon find out either way.


We can argue semantics if you want? You seem so very offended. It's quite odd.


Haha the mental gymnastics here is hilarious. One of the lefts best attributes is deflecting blame. In 2016 it wasn't their fault they falsely accused the oppoisition of fraud but in 2020 it's against the rules.


Good on her, either party has a right to contest a result and Trump his exercising that right.

You realise the FBI and the CIA kicked off those investigations... gee they must all be about deflection too.

Those damn lefties and their intelligence agencies...

 

[StCicatriz]

I come from a country where we went from bicameral government to military junta in a matter of hours. The transition was that swift. I was there Gringo. In the government buildings in 1987 when a small group of armed militia backed up some military trucks and carted away the citizens who had been elected merely 4 weeks prior.

We went from a country that had two major parties that could be classified left and a right straight into those who dictated and those who obeyed. People from both political leanings were instantaneously amalgamated into a blob of population that needed to be controlled.

The junta then went on to remove senior civil servants in government who had spent lifetimes developing and honing their ability to guide government policy and replaced them with junior military officers who could be relied upon to obey orders. Populist policies were implemented that turned out country from a thriving pacific hub into a mess of failing policy and our economy and outlook crashed.

No help was forthcoming from our allies, from the people that we had shed blood for in several wars. Just some tut tutting and sanctions that deepened the quagmire. Really good, really honest, really hardworking people were just forced to endure in an environment of oppression.

It was all for sh*t too Gringo. A second coup happened 9 years later for the polar opposite reasons. Then another military faction attempted to overthrow them and were literally killed off.

The descent into chaos is swift. I know that first hand. And when you have people who don’t obey the rules and conventions then you would be amazed at how fragile and hollow the rights that we think are permanent and entrenched just evaporate. The only means of resistance is to dissent and when dissenters are kidnapped l, beaten, tortured and even killed then again you would be amazed by how compliant people become.

And amidst all of that you will still find large chunks of people who support and openly barrack for the oppressor.

I have no skin in the game of US politics. But I know a bad egg when I see one. Trump and his cult are dangerous. I am always genuinely surprised by how many people can’t see that.

But what would I know. I come from a shithole country. Right?

Well said

 

[StCicatriz]

We certainly are in the post truth world

 

[StCicatriz]

Hahahahaha

 

[StCicatriz]

Well colour me ****in shocked:

 

[StCicatriz]

 

[George]

You realise the FBI and the CIA kicked off those investigations...

Couldn't possibly be because of pressure from the left...

Not sure why the supreme court is even bothering to hear this case of election fraud, they should just come to you mate. You have all the answers

Just take it easy old mate, we will find out soon enough

 

[Verdun]

Trump stealing the election?

I thought they were going to count all legal votes and come to a decision that way.

Whoever wins the election from here has done it fairly - Trump included.

I don't get why everyone in here is so defensive. If Trump clearly has lost the election then why worry about the court process? If you are all so sure then there's nothing to worry about. If you want to play the ruining Democracy card, you need to focus that frustration on what the Democrats have done the last four years. From Russian collusion to impeachment to calls of racism because he closed the borders to China. It was all well and good when the left were character assassinating someone you don't like, but the moment it happens the other way around everyone gets on the defensive. Bit hypocritical IMO.

Take this thread for a small sample size of how the left like to operate. From people suggesting I'm not worth speaking to, to being told I have no idea, to being labelled a racist all just because I have a different opinion to them. That's not just left that's radical left behaviour. Get on the attack, deligitimize someone's opinion with character assassination all because they don't sing from the same hymn book. Fascinating stuff!

When and who has called you a racist? Talk about getting offended. As I have said the new political correctness, everyone getting offended and saying stop 'character assisination', when others disagree with them. Touchy

Couldn't possibly be because of pressure from the left...

Not sure why the supreme court is even bothering to hear this case of election fraud, they should just come to you mate. You have all the answers

Just take it easy old mate, we will find out soon enough

Out comes the term - pressure from the 'left'.

Thought you weren't going to stop using the label left.

 

[flyingmagic]

Couldn't possibly be because of pressure from the left...

Not sure why the supreme court is even bothering to hear this case of election fraud, they should just come to you mate. You have all the answers

Just take it easy old mate, we will find out soon enough

I think the point is that the Supreme Court is not bothering to hear these cases - so far they have all been thrown out by lower courts.

And going off some of these exchanges, it is easy to see why. I found this transcript quite hilarious (The Trump campaign was seeking to temporarily stop counting some ballots in Detroit. It cited a GOP poll watcher who had said she had been told by an unidentified person that late mail ballots were being predated to before Election Day, so they would be considered valid)

STEPHENS: So I want to make sure I understand you. The affiant is not the person who had knowledge of this. Is that correct?

HEARNE: The affiant had direct firsthand knowledge of the communication with the elections inspector and the document they provided them.

STEPHENS: Okay, which is generally known as hearsay, right?

HEARNE: I would not think that’s hearsay, Your Honor. That’s firsthand personal knowledge by the affiant of what she physically observed. And we included an exhibit which is a physical copy of the note that she was provided.


The two later returned to the point, after Stephens reviewed the note, and Stephens echoed Judge Diamond’s exasperation:

STEPHENS: I’m still trying to understand why this isn’t hearsay.

HEARNE: Well, it’s, it, I –

STEPHENS: I absolutely understand what the affiant says she heard someone say to her. But the truth of the matter … that you’re going for was that there was an illegal act occurring. Because other than that I don’t know what its relevancy is.

HEARNE: Right. I would say, Your Honor, in terms of the hearsay point, this is a firsthand factual statement made by Ms. Connarn, and she has made that statement based on her own firsthand physical evidence and knowledge --

STEPHENS: “I heard somebody else say something.” Tell me why that’s not hearsay. Come on, now.

HEARNE: Well it’s a firsthand statement of her physical –

STEPHENS: It’s an out-of-court statement offered where the truth of the matter is [at-issue], right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ud-claims/#click=[URL]https://t.co/xUV87Vgi7j

[/URL]

 

[gringo2011]

Peter Thiel was a big fan/donor.
The book “Conspiracy” on his decade long quest to take down Gawker Media is amazing, he’s utterly diabolical. I kind of admire it.
Recommended read if you haven’t already!

I just read his bio, he's a freak. I'd give it a go if I see it. Gawker are an example of unregulated new media operating beyond normal media laws. Not a bad thing going after them. Thiel seems like a character to bizarre to be real. So many contradictions.

 

[gringo2011]

I come from a country where we went from bicameral government to military junta in a matter of hours. The transition was that swift. I was there Gringo. In the government buildings in 1987 when a small group of armed militia backed up some military trucks and carted away the citizens who had been elected merely 4 weeks prior.

We went from a country that had two major parties that could be classified left and a right straight into those who dictated and those who obeyed. People from both political leanings were instantaneously amalgamated into a blob of population that needed to be controlled.

The junta then went on to remove senior civil servants in government who had spent lifetimes developing and honing their ability to guide government policy and replaced them with junior military officers who could be relied upon to obey orders. Populist policies were implemented that turned out country from a thriving pacific hub into a mess of failing policy and our economy and outlook crashed.

No help was forthcoming from our allies, from the people that we had shed blood for in several wars. Just some tut tutting and sanctions that deepened the quagmire. Really good, really honest, really hardworking people were just forced to endure in an environment of oppression.

It was all for sh*t too Gringo. A second coup happened 9 years later for the polar opposite reasons. Then another military faction attempted to overthrow them and were literally killed off.

The descent into chaos is swift. I know that first hand. And when you have people who don’t obey the rules and conventions then you would be amazed at how fragile and hollow the rights that we think are permanent and entrenched just evaporate. The only means of resistance is to dissent and when dissenters are kidnapped l, beaten, tortured and even killed then again you would be amazed by how compliant people become.

And amidst all of that you will still find large chunks of people who support and openly barrack for the oppressor.

I have no skin in the game of US politics. But I know a bad egg when I see one. Trump and his cult are dangerous. I am always genuinely surprised by how many people can’t see that.

But what would I know. I come from a shithole country. Right?

That's the scary thing about Trump, he's pulled back the veil and you realise how fragile democracy is.

 

[George]

When and who has called you a racist? Talk about getting offended. As I have said the new political correctness, everyone getting offended and saying stop 'character assisination', when others disagree with them. Touchy



Out comes the term - pressure from the 'left'.

Thought you weren't going to stop using the label left.

Haha, a guy created an account specifically called georgeisaracist. So, uhh, yeah, I'd say that's character assasination.

I guess it's only out of line when it suits you

 

[Verdun]

Haha, a guy created an account specifically called georgeisaracist. So, uhh, yeah, I'd say that's character assasination.

I guess it's only out of line when it suits you

Oh I hadn't seen that !

Not good mate - yep in that context it is character assassination.

 

[George]

Oh I hadn't seen that !

Not good mate - yep in that context it is character assassination.

All good mate

 

[flyingmagic]

I think there's lunatics on both sides. I don't really take too much from news that is from people too far right and from people too far left. I can't really speak for what the rest of his supporters do if the ruling goes against them but again will be right there with the rest of you if he continues to contest it after the courts have made their decision. That to me is just taking it too far. I will give him the benefit of the doubt this time (in that he believes there is enough evidence to go to the courts) and see how it plays out, given the opposition seemingly got a free hit twice over the last four years with the impeachment based on nothing and the hysteria over Russian collusion. I guess along with that, I don't particularly trust anything coming out of the predominantly left mainstream media.

Any thoughts on the President spreading already debunked conspiracy theories? Is that just him exercising his legal rights?