The 2020 General Election Thread II

[Alpo]

I think it speaks to sensibilities and some common sense, V8.

When the batting average in court is 59 to 1 against and the same bad facts are posted as if it is new information and accumulative to prior postings of the same bad fact, one wonders what the purpose of the propaganda might be. Just because a statement is repeated 60 times, it's veracity is not changed. A lie is still a lie.

So then the reputation of the courts is impugned. In many cases, these people are republican appointed judges. And, let's raise the stakes to now impugn the character of the Chief Justice of the United States.

Is there no bridge too far here on INGO? Is it OK to continually prints lies and falsehoods and give them equal footing with truth?

 

[printcraft]

Perhaps I prefer not to see the Chief Justice libeled on INGO from the same group who continuously attempt to undermine the results of a presidential election.

At a certain point, sedition becomes a crime.

We had a problem with "chief justice" roberts when he went above and beyond to pass obamascare.
He's a swampcreature, probably a kiddie diddler ala epstein.

 

[OneBadV8]

So rather than admit your case doesn't have merit, you attack the character of the Chief Justice?

Why am I reminded of junior high?

this is the line I’m talking about. Omit this **** next time and it’s fine. Clear as mud?

 

[spencer rifle]

I clipped this from a magazine.

I used to work there. Beautiful country, but not of you like lots of trees. It has all 4 seasons - June, July, August and winter. When I was there it was still below freezing at night in early June and back to below freezing in early September. In between up to 106 (but dry heat).

Look - a non-divisive post in a political thread. See, it can be done.

 

[Route 45]

why does everyone have to be 100x more argumentative and butthurt in the political threads?

Human nature. Politics and religion go to the core of some people's beliefs. Challenge that, and a natural reaction is annoyance at best, hatred at worst.

I don't know if you've noticed, but any casual glance at the news should tell you that a good portion of Americans would be fine with shooting another good portion of Americans in the streets right now.

And that's not hyperbole.

 

[OneBadV8]

Human nature. Politics and religion go to the core of some people's beliefs. Challenge that, and a natural reaction is annoyance at best, hatred at worst.

I don't know if you've noticed, but any casual glance at the news should tell you that a good portion of Americans would be fine with shooting another good portion of Americans in the streets right now.

And that's not hyperbole.

Fine, present your argument, cite your sources, have civil discussion.

if you feel like slinging a personal attack, just walk away. Go for a jog, do whatever you need. Or start posting personal attacks and let the temp bans/infractions roll.

we’ve had to lock this thread in the past. You want to discuss these things, just follow the rules. If you’re too worked up, take a break. That’s all I’m asking.

is that too much?

 

[Route 45]

Fine, present your argument, cite your sources, have civil discussion.

is that too much?

Consider the number of thread locked lately, and you tell me.

We have our top "leaders" calling each other "****ers" and throwing the words traitor and treason around, and you expect calm, nuanced discussion over finer points of political procedure on a gun forum? At a time when we are at serious risk, perhaps more than ever, of becoming felons with the stroke of a pen due to the the stated gun control goals of an incoming administration that is not even seen as legitimate by millions of Americans?

Good luck with that.

 

[OneBadV8]

You can be animated with out calling each other names. When you start name calling your credibility goes to **** anyway. If things are that dire in your eyes, then this is exactly the time to have well define points with sources. Not just slinging mud around.

 

[Ingomike]

A very useful data point would be the percentage of votes that were adjuicated (manually adjusted and handled) for every county in the country. This should be public information and hiding it is a red flag. The allowed percentage of adjudications would be in the less than 1% by FEC regulations. Not the nearly 70% being found in the court ordered examinations.

To to those not getting this, the operator can do anything they want with the vote (change it) and no one can ever know what was done. That is why the allowed rate is so low.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ion-machines-also-kicked-70-ballots-settings/

Ff

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think it speaks to sensibilities and some common sense, V8.

When the batting average in court is 59 to 1 against and the same bad facts are posted as if it is new information and accumulative to prior postings of the same bad fact, one wonders what the purpose of the propaganda might be. Just because a statement is repeated 60 times, it's veracity is not changed. A lie is still a lie.

So then the reputation of the courts is impugned. In many cases, these people are republican appointed judges. And, let's raise the stakes to now impugn the character of the Chief Justice of the United States.

Is there no bridge too far here on INGO? Is it OK to continually prints lies and falsehoods and give them equal footing with truth?

Just because you said "Nuh-uh!!!" 60 times, that doesn't make it false.

 

[Alpo]

Just because you said "Nuh-uh!!!" 60 times, that doesn't make it false.

If it was just me saying it was false, you'd have a valid argument. But this is the state and federal court systems. There isn't any other authority to appeal to....agree?

The Trump lawyers have had their day(s) in court. Evidence has been reviewed in many cases. Depositions have been taken. The courts have ruled.

The inability of a segment of the population to accept the decisions of the courts doesn't leave us in a very good place.

 

[printcraft]

......When the batting average in court is 59 to 1 against and the same bad facts are posted as if it is new information and accumulative to prior postings of the same bad fact, one wonders what the purpose of the propaganda might be. Just because a statement is repeated 60 times, it's veracity is not changed. A lie is still a lie......

Coercion.
bill barr said he didn't disclose active investigations and info on bidet's kid and bidet in the months before the election.
He said he didn't want to be political... that's a political decision in itself, his job isn't to hide information from the public.
Couple that with the country burning for the last year and the STATED threats from the left about doing more of it should Trump win.
Death threats to them and family and threats to livelihood that would hit ANY of these judges should they side with Trump here can NOT be underestimated.
You know it would happen.
This isn't hollywood, there aren't any superhero defenders of truth and justice out there in the political world.

 

[indyartisan]

If the courts are done with their subterfuge maybe it’s time to start the military tribunals and get some justice.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If it was just me saying it was false, you'd have a valid argument. But this is the state and federal court systems. There isn't any other authority to appeal to....agree?

The Trump lawyers have had their day(s) in court. Evidence has been reviewed in many cases. Depositions have been taken. The courts have ruled.

The inability of a segment of the population to accept the decisions of the courts doesn't leave us in a very good place.

You have signally failed to account for the following:

1. The process has not finished.

2. Politically-motivated activist judges have been a chronic problem for the better part of a century.

3. None of these cases to the best of my knowledge have been addressed based on the merit of the case but rather on weasel-standards like misapplication of standing.

4. You appear incapable of understanding that such outcomes from courts have no connection whatsoever with objective truth.

You have made it very clear that you have no regard for truth or fact when you are screaming that we are wrong because of courts denying due process based on procedural issues which are being applied in clearly political ways. This leads to the conclusion that you don't care how Biden gets to the White House as long as he gets there.

The remainder of this post has been redacted in order to avoid further elevating V8's blood pressure.

 

[T.Lex]

Did some skimming of the US Code and related laws on counting the electoral votes. (Any junior high reader could probably accomplish the same thing.)

There are basically 2 things that look like they'll come into play: objections and alternate electors.

On the objection front, I think Pence will actually have very little to do after he asks, "Are there any objections?" If there aren't, then everything goes like every other cycle in my lifetime. If there are, they basically get referred to both chambers to decide how to rule. They can only agree on what votes to reject. That is, if they can't agree, then the votes are allowed.

On the alternate electors issue, it looks like if they can't agree on that, the electors certified by the state executive are the ones that count.

So, much depends on whether the 2 chambers can agree. It doesn't appear that this is the same constitutional issue in which each state delegation gets a vote. Instead, it looks like each chamber votes. If both chambers are Dem, then it'll be Biden, obviously. If the Senate stays Republican, then a non-agreement scenario still appears to result in a Biden win.

That's my take on the procedural mechanics, at least.

 

[Alpo]

You have finally failed to account for the following:

1. The process has not finished.

There might be an attempt to circumvent the EC in the Jan 6 proceeding. It doesn't really have much of a chance.

2. Politically-motivated activist judges have been a chronic problem for the better part of a century.

Not relevant in this context. No one is creating new law.

3. None of these cases to the best of my knowledge have been addressed based on the merit of the case but rather on weasel-standards like misapplication of standing.

Incorrect. See my referenced transcript of the Carson City District Court above.

 

[IndyDave1776]

There might be an attempt to circumvent the EC in the Jan 6 proceeding. It doesn't really have much of a chance.



Not relevant in this context. No one is creating new law.



Incorrect. See my referenced transcript of the Carson City District Court above.

No one is creating new law? You apparently did not review Pennsylvania's changes at the hands of the Secretay of State and state Supreme Court. You are also ducking the activist implications of procedural rejections with political motivations.

 

[Alpo]

No one is creating new law? You apparently did not review Pennsylvania's changes at the hands of the Secretay of State and state Supreme Court. You are also ducking the activist implications of procedural rejections with political motivations.

Those are your views. I can't argue with what you believe.

Whether that belief has a basis in fact is clearly arguable, but I don't know how to argue against "activist implications ....political motivations". If they are implied, they aren't more than your beliefs.

There were 60 lawsuits. Are you arguing that all 60 were decided by something other than reliance upon law?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Those are your views. I can't argue with what you believe.

Whether that belief has a basis in fact is clearly arguable, but I don't know how to argue against "activist implications ....political motivations". If they are implied, they aren't more than your beliefs.

Votes were assigned at a rate several times the speed of which the tabulating machines are capable of operating. That happened. It is not open to interpretation. Thousands of dead people were caught red-handed voting. That is not subject to debate. The Dominion machines were examined and found capable of being connected to the internet. That is not subject to interpretation and is further addressed by sworn statements off seeing the machines connected. We have videos of the same ballots being run through the tabulating machine repetitively. We have people proven to have voted in more than one state.

How do you account for this, and how do you argue that further investigation and resolution are unnecessary?

Oh, and yes, I am saying quite clearly that at minimum a solid majority of the dismissals happened for reasons that don't have Jack **** to do with the law.

 

[Alpo]

Votes were assigned at a rate several times the speed of which the tabulating machines are capable of operating. That happened. It is not open to interpretation. Thousands of dead people were caught red-handed voting. That is not subject to debate. The Dominion machines were examined and found capable of being connected to the internet. That is not subject to interpretation and is further addressed by sworn statements off seeing the machines connected. We have videos of the same ballots being run through the tabulating machine repetitively. We have people proven to have voted in more than one state.

How do you account for this, and how do you argue that further investigation and resolution are unnecessary?

Oh, and yes, I am saying quite clearly that at minimum a solid majority of the dismissals happened for reasons that don't have Jack **** to do with the law.

You didn't bother to read the transcript, else you wouldn't bother repeating something that was litigated and found to be false.