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 - cherrypoptart

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27
General Comments / Re: Now you've done it
« on: January 12, 2021, 05:37:10 AM »
Now I disagree with illegal protests, especially violent ones in which people get hurt and property gets damaged, and that should be very clear with no buts about it.

And of course here it comes.


The Democrats proved with this last election and their antics for the past four years leading up to it that violent illegal protests work. Undermining the integrity of the democratic process and refusing to accept the legitimacy of the election and the President works. Everything they say right now is wrong to do, they just did, and it worked flawlessly. After all, they just won didn't they?

The riots, the arson, attacking federal buildings, attacking people, shutting down highways, pulling people out of vehicles and beating them senseless, and all of the rest of it. When you get right down to it, was it effective? Did it result in final and total victory? Well the Democrats now control Congress and the Presidency so yes, it was effective. The results speak for themselves.

But now all of a sudden those types of violent and illegal protests will NOT be tolerated. Not when it's from the other side of course. Just like after a violent communist revolution all future revolutions will be violently and mercilessly squashed. No mercy and no quarter shown to counter-revolutionaries. Kind of hard to put that genie back in the bottle though.

The Democrats with this election have shown what it takes to win in America. Riots in the streets. Threats and intimidation against political opponents. Constant doxxing of anyone who disagrees and every effort made to get them fired from whatever employment they enjoy at the moment. Even without massive voter fraud it's still clear that the election was stolen in all the ways the Democrats will work to make sure it isn't stolen back the next time, by preventing the same type of violent protests and media manipulation, threats and intimidation and execution of persecution policies that helped them steal their "legitimate" victory at the ballot box, "fair and square".

Democrats fully realize that the next election will be won or lost by them based mostly on whether or not they prevent their political opponents from using the same tactics they just finished using. Of course the first move out of the playbook is to brazenly assert and make the case for why when the other side does the same types of things, it's completely different.

Now again, that's not saying I agree with such tactics. I don't. I'm just making an observation and echoing the assertion: Hypocrites.

General Comments / Re: Pencemegeddon
« on: January 11, 2021, 10:24:07 AM »
Yeah and that's another thing.

Now anyone and everyone who has questions about the security and integrity of our elections is going to be branded as being the same people who stormed the capital and they will be accused of encouraging exactly that type of violence.

Again, it's very convenient how silencing any questioning or dissent works to the advantage of the left. Radio hosts are being told that if they continue to question the election results they will be pulled off the air.

"Mark Levin accuses ‘the media’ of exploiting the Capitol riots to silence conservatives"

He's right too. After all, we never want to let a crisis go to waste.

General Comments / Re: Pencemegeddon
« on: January 11, 2021, 08:38:16 AM »
You've got people out there inciting violence against Trump supporters and trying their best to ruin the lives of even the people who were just peacefully protesting like the owners of a Vietnamese restaurant, among others.

"I'll grant you that not all Republicans are Trump supporters."

Well the group I'm talking about IS the Trump supporters so you proved my point quite nicely there.

General Comments / Re: Pencemegeddon
« on: January 11, 2021, 06:46:05 AM »
Is it just me or does it seem like whenever it's some other group we're always reminded that we can't let a few bad members of the group spoil the image of the whole bunch? It's just a relatively small number of people and they are not representative of the vast majority. Muslim terrorists, BLM rioters, bad hombres, and so on. Fair enough.

But when the shoe is on the other foot the few bad actors stand for all Trump supporters. It's amazing how that works.

General Comments / Re: Pencemegeddon
« on: January 08, 2021, 06:47:12 AM »
Yeah, yeah.

And another thing.

Though I'm against this latest riot just as I was against the BLM riots, was shooting that unarmed female 14 year Air Force veteran justified?

Again, sitting back and trying to watch this as an objective observer (notice I said trying... not necessarily doing), the media double standard is on display.

Are they trying to dox the police officer who shot an unarmed woman? Was he aiming for her specifically? Or did he just shoot into the crowd?
So is the media going to go after him and his entire family like they did in the Floyd case? Are they even going to question anything? They are doing more to destroy a young Puerto Rican lady who falsely accused a young black man of stealing her phone than they are doing after an unarmed rioter is shot down in cold blood.

Or was killing her like that okay?

General Comments / Re: Pencemegeddon
« on: January 08, 2021, 06:38:21 AM »
The exact same argument can be made, and is made, with even more validity that the Democrats have been undermining our democratic system ever since the last election with their Trumped up fake charges of Russian collusion. We've had four years of undermining the legitimacy of the last election and now we're going to have four more years of the exact same thing. The entirety of the Russian collusion hoax including a kangaroo clown court impeachment was an attempted coup, and the BLM riots including incitement of them by Democratic leadership were an integral part of that attempted coup. So what about that? Heh. This is all just the turning of the wheel, what went around is coming back around. The Democrats took it to the streets and now the other side is doing the same thing. It's amazing the difference in treatment received. It all depends on which side everyone is on. What was praised before is now the end of the world. And what was the end of the world before is now on the receiving end of an overreaction. It doesn't seem like it's been that long since we had the BLM riots including the assault on a federal courthouse. But to Democrats and the press the way they are going on about this riot as if the other ones didn't just happen is totally bizarre, as if the BLM riots occurred in a long forgotten age and are now nothing more than myth or legend.

“The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. ... There are neither beginnings nor endings to the Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning.”

General Comments / Re: Pencemegeddon
« on: January 08, 2021, 05:59:21 AM »

Rush as usual made some good points.

Where are the Democrats and leftists at on defunding the police now?

Does that include the Capitol Police?

Also, now apparently the press has found the words violent rioters in their dictionaries when apparently those words were unknown to them previously.

Why weren't these protestors given the same "room to destroy" as the others?

How come now all of a sudden property damage and violence are a big deal when for months the media and the Democrats covered up the violent and destructive BLM riots? When it was the property and businesses of average citizens being destroyed and burned to ash all we got from the left were excuses, appeasement, and even encouragement toward the rioters. But now we see how important security is, at least when it's the political elites feeling the heat.

Where are the calls for the resignations and forced removals from office for the politicians who fueled the BLM riots?

Yeah, I know... this is different. Yeah, it's always different. That's what makes the standards double.

I already know people will make excuses for those riots and not these and say but... but... but... they're totally different. The difference with me is I won't make any excuses for any of the violence, any of the victims both dead and injured, or any of the rioters. Bad is bad, mkay?

But it is nice to see the Democrats are finally onboard with having some law and order, well at least until the next bout of their own politically correct riot inciting resumes.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: January 05, 2021, 10:53:31 PM »
Well I'm not in the camp that says Biden shouldn't take office as President. He should take office as President. That's fine.

But that doesn't mean the investigations into voter fraud need to stop either.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: January 05, 2021, 06:58:12 PM »
To know that one knows what one knows, and to know that one doesn't know what one doesn't know, there lies true wisdom.


General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: January 05, 2021, 06:56:18 PM »
Now to hedge a bit with the disclaimer, the same one Seriati has been using, I admit to not knowing how many fraudulent votes were cast in the election and I have no idea whether or not it was enough to change the results. So far from what I've seen it wasn't enough to change the results since I haven't seen any proof showing otherwise. I would like some more investigation into the matter though and fail to understand how continuing to investigate possible voter fraud is wrong somehow. I will go on the record though as firmly believing that there was definitely more than one fraudulent vote cast in this election and some of those were for Democrats. Did Republicans perpetrate more voter fraud than Democrats? Did it all balance out perfectly? No idea. We need to investigate to find out exactly what happened even if it turns out that, unlikely as it seems, nothing happened at all.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: January 05, 2021, 06:50:01 PM »
Okay let's accept that only one vote in this entire election has been proven to be fraudulent.

That's good because you make the point better than anyone.

We then have a choice of whether or not to believe that either:

A: Only one fraudulent vote was cast in this election or...

B: It's not that easy to prove it when fraudulent votes are cast.

Thanks for making that point so clearly.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: January 05, 2021, 06:46:57 PM »
Well I'll make the point since it's obvious anyway.

The truth is nobody knows how many votes were fraudulent in this election or any other Presidential election.

So we don't know. We really have no idea. For Democrats to proclaim in the midst of such obvious ignorance that they don't actually know how many votes were fraudulent but they do know for certain that it wasn't very many is not only the height of arrogance but it also doesn't make any sense at all. If you don't know how many it was then how in the world could you possibly know how many it wasn't?

Rhetorical question there. The answer is you can't.

So people may as well stop pretending to know things they don't.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: January 05, 2021, 06:41:57 PM »
So in the whole election there was only one fraudulent vote and it was for Trump.

Good to know.

I'd like a little more investigation into the matter though before we settle on that as the final answer.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: January 05, 2021, 06:40:42 PM »
Stole the election...

The political landscape now is like living in a den of thieves.

Hey stop trying to steal that from me!

What?! You stole it first and I'm just taking back what's rightfully mine!

No, you're stealing it!

No, it's you that's the thief!


General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: January 05, 2021, 06:37:09 PM »
One question the left should answer is this:

So how many fraudulent votes were there in this election then?

The honest answer to that question should give them pause but of course it won't.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: January 05, 2021, 06:35:25 PM »
"In what world is it a reasonable answer to someone that demonstrates possible voter fraud, in very large part enabled by Raffensberger's own actions, that Raffensberger promises he's looked into it and can confidently say it didn't happen?"

That's the same world the state government of Hawaii resided in when it said they checked Obama's birth certificate and it was hunky dory. Just have to take their word for it. And that's the same government that also lied outright about the matter when they said that the long form birth certificate that Obama did eventually release was impossible for him to get his hands on even if he came over there in person and demanded it. Why would a government say it couldn't release someone's own information to that very same person? Is Georgia doing something similar right now? If someone says they didn't vote by mail but there is a mail in vote for them is the state of Georgia cooperating to find out what happened? It should be pretty easy to find out where the envelope was processed at least and see if other potentially fraudulent votes were also processed there. Unless of course they already threw out the envelopes.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: January 05, 2021, 06:27:52 PM »
"I've yet to find the law that makes it illegal to exclude illegal ballots."

It's the same law Democrats use for people in the U.S. illegally.

Illegal votes and illegal people have the same rights and privileges as legal votes and legal people. Anything else is just pure racism. You can't discriminate against illegals whether they be votes or people because doing so would be the most vile form of cancel worthy racism and the law it violates is the highest law of the land, the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment that makes any type of racism totally and completely illegal, no matter what.

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: December 31, 2020, 06:43:21 AM »
Another thing that's likely to change with a Biden administration is that the whole pound me too movement is going to get the silent treatment from the media and the idea that women should be believed is out the window too as we can see from the treatment the woman who accused Biden of sexually assaulting her against a wall in a Capitol Hill corridor received by the media and Democrats in general which is exactly the same treatment the Bill Clinton accusers received. Some even say they believe her but they don't care. That whole thing was always so much more about just being against Trump and Republicans in general than it ever was about being for women being treated with dignity and respect.

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: December 31, 2020, 06:36:04 AM »
Holy cow you're right about Harris. I hadn't realized that. Maybe Obama was actually born in America but if that story about Harris is correct then she was not born in America. Not even close. Apparently she was actually born in California.

But the point as far as the birther thing goes is that Trump didn't start it. He just finished it.

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: December 30, 2020, 01:11:59 AM »
"But the Poltifact story completely omitted new claims by former McClatchy Washington Bureau chief James Asher that in 2008, Hillary Clinton’s top advisor Sidney Blumenthal convinced him to send a reporter to Kenya to investigate the possibility that Obama was born there."

How is getting a reporter sent to investigate Obama's possible Kenyan birth not starting it?

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: December 30, 2020, 12:25:01 AM »
Probably most of the media's lies are when they are lying about Trump lying.

Looking up the birther thing again, not that I want to get sucked back down that rabbit hole, but it's another fine example of the media lying by calling Trump a liar when he's the one actually telling the truth. A bunch of stories say that Trump is lying when he says that Hillary started it.

"Actually, he did not expressly say Clinton and her campaign started it; he merely noted how they allegedly pushed it. The misleading summation linked to a Politifact round-up of the issue. It noted that a Clinton campaign volunteer, later fired, circulated an email claiming Obama was born in Kenya.

But the Poltifact story completely omitted new claims by former McClatchy Washington Bureau chief James Asher that in 2008, Hillary Clinton’s top advisor Sidney Blumenthal convinced him to send a reporter to Kenya to investigate the possibility that Obama was born there.

In sum, the item was an incomplete account of Trump’s own words linked to a misleading and separate fact-check of the issue in order to discredit something he didn’t really say."


Key words there: incomplete account. That pretty much sums up our media in two telling words.

By the way, it may have actually been Obama's literary agent who started it all anyway.

In 1990 as the president of the Harvard Law Review, the student yearbook includes a biography of Obama saying that he was “born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”

And in 1991 Obama's literary agency, Acton & Dystel, while promoting sales of “Dreams of My Father” published a promotional booklet with Obama's biography stating he was “born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”

And as for Biden being more respectful toward the media, that's hardly the case either.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden seemed to mock the concept of drug testing in an interview published on Wednesday, despite his role in advancing drug testing expansion legislation during his time in the Senate.

Pressed on whether he’s taken a cognitive test like President Trump has, Biden scoffed at the question and made the drug testing comparison.

“No I haven’t taken a test. Why the hell would I take a test? C’mon man,” he said.

“That’s like saying, ‘You—before you got on this program did you take a test whether you’re taking cocaine or not, what do you think? Huh? Are you a junkie?'” he added, directing the hypothetical question to interviewer Errol Barnett of CBS News.


Biden slaps them around and triggers drug policy reform advocates and they all just lap it up and ask for more please.

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: December 29, 2020, 10:33:24 AM »
Prediction on the Biden Presidency: The vast majority of the mainstream media will roll over and play dead or sit up and beg as commanded like the good little dogs they are. There will be a few exceptions, those in the media who were extremely critical of Trump and may choose to display such a high level of criticism and skepticism toward the Biden administration and it will be interesting to see what happens to them, if they are applauded by the resistance or canceled instead.

"Nuzzi can already tell that the dynamic will be different in the incoming administration. “On a purely social level, I don’t know that reporting critically on Joe Biden will feel as safe for reporters,” she told me..."

"... One cable-news anchor told me that praise from anti-Trump celebrities on Twitter has become like a “narcotic” for some of his colleagues. “It’s important to people that George Takei likes their monologue,” the anchor said, requesting anonymity to speak candidly about his peers (and presumably to avoid alienating George Takei)."


We see this already though, the media rolling over for Biden. It's hilarious how many questions they lead off with an insult to Trump as the preface, just to make sure Biden knows they are on his side. And it's even funnier how often Biden gives them the back of the hand anyway and they just smile and say thank you sir may I please have another?

I guess one consistent thing to be said for them though is that they lied about Trump and now they will also lie about Biden. The only difference is that their lies before were against and now they will be in favor, and I'm counting lies by omission in this more than other lies but there are enough of those to go around as well.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: December 21, 2020, 10:51:13 AM »

"But Hagedorn, a member of the conservative Federalist Society, who in 2016 founded a private school that forbids same-sex relationships among its employees and students, is no longer a darling of the right. In a series of 4-3 decisions in recent months, he sided with the court’s three liberal justices to stop an effort to purge 130,000 people from the Wisconsin voter rolls, block the Green Party candidate and Kanye West from the general election presidential ballot and, on two separate occasions, reject President Donald Trump’s effort to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in Wisconsin."

These types of close split decisions are troubling though. So this judge decided to follow the law but the other 3 judges decided to not follow the law?

Is that how it always works with split decisions? The side in the majority is deciding to follow the law while those on the losing side are deciding to break the law?

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: December 18, 2020, 06:11:44 PM »
Or Dr. (actual) Ben Carson as the head of HUD.

"Carson has no experience with any of these programs-nor any experience in government at all. When rumors circulated last month that Trump might appoint the physician to his cabinet, Carson's close friend and sometime spokesperson Armstrong Williams told The Hill: "Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience. He's never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency."

When Trump did tap his one-time rival to run HUD, Williams declared that one of Carson's chief qualifications was that he had once lived in public housing-a claim that news outlets, including The New York Times, initially repeated. On Monday morning, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee likewise tweeted that "Ben Carson is first HUD Sec to have actually lived in gov't housing." But by Monday afternoon, Williams had retracted his statement, telling the Times that Carson was never a public housing tenant after all."


So the good news is that it's going to be difficult for Trump supporters who didn't say anything about Trump's qualification challenged appointments to make hay about Biden's. Of course the Trump critics who did make a big brouhaha about it now need to follow up on Biden for consistency. As one who didn't make a big deal out of Trump's appointments I'm willing to give Mayor Pete a chance to see how he does. It is a little sad though that these have become like higher level political favors compared to ambassadorships that are handed out like candy now as essentially completely legal bribes for donations in the case of ambassadorships and in the case of cabinet appointments as a reward for being some of the first people willing to kneel and kiss the ring.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: December 15, 2020, 07:29:44 AM »
As usual, just when I'm starting to believe the Democrats about something because of the total media putsch in every single story exclaiming the unfounded nature of voter fraud allegations, Ann brings me back to reality.

"A few years later, we found out that more than 1,000 felons, ineligible to vote, had cast votes in the 2008 Minnesota election. (To state the obvious, felons support Democrats by about 10-1.) There were 113 separate convictions for voter fraud in that election. That’s not easy: In Minnesota, a conviction for voter fraud requires proof that you broke the law knowingly.

More than 100 convictions for something that never happens, way, way back in the prehistoric days of 2008 — who could remember that?"

I wonder how many convictions for voter fraud will we see for this election?

Now that's not to say that there definitely was the massive voter fraud that would have been necessary to steal this election but it is to say that the media and the Democrats are going overboard in a "the lady doth protest too much, methinks" way acting like significant voter fraud doesn't happen, it's not something we need to be worried about, and anyone bringing up concerns is a seditious lunatic traitor undermining the foundations of our democratic institutions and needs to be immediately and permanently canceled.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: December 14, 2020, 04:39:18 PM »
Yeah, well, traveling is a problem. It's been a problem since the very beginning and is why this virus is spreading the way that it is. Is the point that the conservatives don't mind traveling for holidays so why should they mind migrants traveling for better lives? If people are allowed to spread the virus around for selfish reasons then shouldn't other people be allowed to spread it around for good reasons?

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: December 14, 2020, 04:36:22 PM »
Another potential problem with this accelerating infection rate is the increase in likelihood of new strains developing that the vaccine may not work against and which may be more infections or deadly or cause more long term health issues or all of the above. Britain apparently is looking at a new strain of the virus. So the infection rates aren't just exploding in America though but all over.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: December 14, 2020, 04:17:49 PM »
Imagine thousands of Americans traveling from one state to another the same way these thousands of migrants are traveling across countries and continents. Everyone would rightly be concerned that they would be spreading Covid-19 because of their travels. No matter how good their reasons are, Covid-19 doesn't care. If Trump had his way and they knew they wouldn't be getting into America then maybe not as many of them would be traveling all that way to get here. Sure, if they are in a bad situation they would travel to somewhere better but it might be somewhere closer. The point is that with the pandemic situation the way it is right now, the less traveling people do, the better. While Americans are being discouraged from traveling even between states and even between cities in the same state to see family for Christmas, Biden is encouraging dangerous international travel by migrants that will spread the virus all throughout Latin America even more than it is already being spread, making a terrible situation even worse.  It flies in the face of the best advice of all medical experts. It contradicts everything that we're being told to do ourselves. It's irresponsible.

Trying to put a good light on it won't change how much damage it's going to do or how many extra people it's going to sicken and kill. The virus doesn't make exceptions for political correctness no matter how much the Democrats seem to think otherwise.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: December 12, 2020, 04:06:08 PM »
Wow... just... wow.

So supporting a lawsuit is sedition now?

"Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) has called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to bar 126 GOP representatives from the House, arguing that their support for the failed, baseless Texas lawsuit seeking to hijack the presidential election violated the Constitution...

... Pascrell accused the House members who signed an amicus brief supporting the action — including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — of violating the Constitution by seeking to nullify Americans’ votes and instead choose a “dictator.” He cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War and designed to keep traitors out of government.

The section prohibits anyone who had gone to war against the union or given aid and comfort to the nation’s enemies from running for federal or state office.

The Pennsylvania brief responding to the Texas lawsuit referred to its “seditious abuse of the judicial process.”

Pascrell said in a tweet accompanied by a statement on Friday: “Today I’m calling on House leaders to refuse to seat any Members trying to overturn the election and make Donald Trump an unelected dictator.”


And people said that Trump was crazy... I've got a feeling the Democrats are about to stand up and tell America, "Hold my beer."

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: December 12, 2020, 03:06:02 AM »
Having said that, it's now over. Just like when the Mueller investigation made it's conclusion about Russian collusion. But of course that's not going to stop anybody from believing whatever it is they want to believe and pushing it for political benefit.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: December 12, 2020, 03:00:35 AM »
Just looking at standing and jurisdiction, let's take it to the extreme for a moment to make a point.

If, and that's the big IF for hypothetical purposes, not saying this happened, but if a state violated it's own election laws and permitted or even encouraged massive voter fraud and then the government of that state along with the state supreme court did nothing about it and said it's all good, then our Supreme Court is saying that there is nothing any other state can do about it.

That seems dangerous. There are no legal remedies if a state itself turns a blind eye to massive voter fraud. All other states just have to let their voters get disenfranchised in the Presidential election and nobody has any further say in the matter.

I'm not saying that's what happened. I still haven't seen the evidence to prove it. But the Supreme Court smackdown means it's over without any really satisfying redress of grievances.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 09, 2020, 09:58:14 PM »
"This isn't the field.  This is a week after the Superbowl and you're still complaining that somebody cheated or the refs were crooked..."

I disagree with that. The gravity challenged lady is warming up but she's not singing yet. This is like those videos where the guy is coasting into the finish line with his hands raised and a spunky challenger comes up from behind and wins it. The celebrating too early situations.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 09, 2020, 09:50:51 PM »
If Trump loses 9-0 then that helps solidify the legitimacy of Biden's victory. That should be a good thing. As for self-respect I think we can all agree that bird flew the coop a long time ago.

It seems like a lot of these voting changes were done rather hastily and perhaps improperly using the excuse of Covid. So the obvious question is if we were not in the midst of a pandemic would those exact same changes done in the exact same way have been legal? And the next obvious question is if not then are there provisions in the state laws that allow for making those voting changes in the irregular ways they were made because of a pandemic? And if both of those questions are answered in the negative then it seems like there is a good case that the Republicans arguments have some merit. Now is that a case for state supreme courts or for THE Supreme Court? That's another issue. In other words even if the Supreme Court says it doesn't have jurisdiction or it says the plaintiffs don't have standing, that doesn't necessarily mean everything about this election was done properly. Then it just gets political. I'm not sure why Democrats are complaining about that, at least while trying so hard to keep a straight face, after all their efforts to delegitimize the last election using the Russian collusion hoax. Well I guess I do understand why actually, but pot meet kettle.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 09, 2020, 07:22:15 PM »
Aris Katsaris

"The Republicans just want to tell their Trumpist voters that they did their best to fight the 'fraud', so not participating in this would have looked bad for them, and participating in it looks good, even if SCOTUS also turns it down in a single sentence."

I agree that this is what they are doing and this is also what they should do.

What is there to lose?

And when the dust clears and Biden is the President then at least the Republicans can truly say that they left it all on the field.

And sometimes the hail Mary pass actually works. Can't count on it and don't expect it; but if there is no other way then may as well go for it.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 09, 2020, 05:54:34 PM »
Each state may have different procedures for changing it's voting laws. One state may require a constitutional amendment. Another may let the legislature do it. For all I know one may let the governor do it. I admit I don't know. Again, the point is that each state must at least follow it's own laws. So though I don't know the details and this is just off the cuff, just because one state did something and another state did the same thing doesn't necessarily mean they both did it legally. That's just an example though of what one aspect of the lawsuit might be. That's actually somewhat separate from the fraud angle.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 09, 2020, 05:29:18 PM »
I think the point is that though states can within reasonable limits decide how they run their own elections they can't just do anything they want however they want to do it and they must follow certain rules and procedures, especially their own rules and procedures within their own state. And if they want to change the rules they must follow their own processes to do so. We saw the Supreme Court rule against Trump because of exactly that, supposedly not following the proper procedures to do something even if he had the power to do it. By the same token, maybe states had the power to do some of the things they did but if they didn't go about it the right way, for instance with an amendment to their state constitution instead of simple legislative action. That would be a huge mistake.

We saw with DACA how much of a stickler for procedure Roberts pretends to be so we'll see what happens here. The states played very fast and very loose with the election this time around, pretty much just saying, "Because Covid." Did the states really make all the changes they made the right way they needed to be made? Were all of those changes legal? We'll see.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: December 09, 2020, 04:36:32 PM »
As predicted. Biden is the superspreader.

“There are going to be caravans, and in the coming weeks it will increase,” said Jose Luis Gonzalez, coordinator of the Guatemala Red Jesuita con Migrantes, a non-governmental organization. “People are no longer scared of the coronavirus. They’re going hungry, they’ve lost everything and some towns are still flooded.”

Biden has pledged to abolish many of the migration policies of Donald Trump, including prolonged detention and separation of families, which were designed to deter illegal migration. This encourages more impoverished Central Americans to make the trip and test the Biden administration, said Gonzalez.

“When there is a change in government in the U.S. or Mexico, caravans start to move because they are testing the waters to see how authorities respond,” he said. “What they see is that the one who said he was going to build a wall and hated Latinos is on his way out.”

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 09, 2020, 08:08:35 AM »
I follow the news pretty well and if I couldn't tell you who was running as third party candidates I seriously doubt most other Americans could either. It's very clear that the media was determined not to give Americans the information necessary to make any informed decisions about third party options. All information about them was self-censored by unstated understating. I can understand if Americans got savvy to the fact that there is a strong argument to be made that voting third party can end up giving you less of what you want compared to voting for the lesser of two evils. I don't disagree. But that doesn't explain why the media pretty much didn't cover any third party options this time around, at all. That's a completely separate issue. The mainstream media did it's level best to rig the election as much as possible in favor of Biden. They refused to report anything negative about him and exaggerated or outright lied about Trump to make him look like the epitome of pure evil.

Just as a test, without looking it up, who knows who was running as third party candidates? No need to answer really. It can be on the honor system. But everyone can decide for themselves whether their experience makes my point or not.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 09, 2020, 01:23:51 AM »

"3rd party voters really disappeared going from around 185k to 50k."

That was another interesting thing about this election and one may wonder if after seeing how Jill Stein probably cost Hillary the election in 2016 if no third parties were running this election or was it instead that our mainstream media that was determined to do anything and everything they possibly could to help Biden win just refused to report, at all, on any third party candidates this cycle. I've never seen an election like this without any coverage of third parties. I find it harder to believe that they suddenly ceased to exist than I do that the media sucked up all their oxygen and suffocated them all to death because reporting reality would cost Biden votes.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 08, 2020, 11:25:12 AM »
I heard on the radio some caller said something that I found interesting. It would be nice if we had some real investigations into voter fraud. He pointed out that we had Congressional hearings on juicing in baseball. We had 19 FBI agents go down to investigate a pull rope in a NASCAR garage. What do we have as far as investigations into voter fraud. It looks like just the bare minimum and actually not even that.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 07, 2020, 02:19:50 AM »

"Basham also touched on mail-in and absentee ballots, which 65million Americans used to vote this election.

He discussed a 'historically low ballot rejection rate for absentee and mail-in ballots.'

'Rejection rates, which in the primaries earlier this year were well into the double-digits and which historically have often been very, very high in these key swing states, or at least in the key swing counties, we're seeing rejection rates of less than 1%, often very close to to zero,' said Basham.

'Given the increase in absentee balloting and the lack of experience that most of the new voters and those doing the counting would have with those ballots, it is implausible, to put it politely, that that figure would be as low as it was."


Things that make you go "Hmmm..."

Also, is it true that millions of people split their votes and voted for Biden at the top and Republicans more locally? That seems off. Sure a lot of people do it but this many?

I'm not convinced yet of the massive voter fraud in Georgia but if that turns out to be true I completely disagree with the idea that it shouldn't matter that much if it wasn't enough to change the result and it doesn't affect other states. It affects everything. It would be an unprecedented paradigm shift.

It would mean that everything we've been told by the Democrats has been a lie. And if that happened in Georgia and they got away with it this long it means that in more heavily Democrat strongholds they would never get caught at all.

Going back to Lance Armstrong, one point I was trying to make was that when someone is caught cheating it's often impossible to precisely quantify how much that affected the results because you can bet they weren't caught cheating every time they cheated and in all the ways they cheated. Like someone cheating at cards. So you're playing all night and they are clearing everyone out and then one hand you catch them with a card up their sleeve. Do you just say well he loses that hand? Do you say we can't assume he cheated the whole time? We can't assume he cheated in other places on other days in other ways? It doesn't work that way. If the scheme alleged in Georgia actually happened we have to assume that it happened elsewhere as well. That Democrats would so casually brush off a crime of that magnitude against the faith in our election process is telling in and of itself. I see a lot who wouldn't brush it off and understand it would be an earthshaking event and that's good. It would be.

I still doubt it happened though. Perhaps mostly because I just don't want to get my hopes up.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: December 06, 2020, 08:47:07 AM »
"The next President who tries to openly defy the Supreme Court in such a manner, even with the support of Congress, may get an unpleasant surprise."

I wonder about that, for instance what if the Supreme Court finds DACA unconstitutional? Would it surprise anyone to see Democrats openly defying the Supreme Court then? After all, they have no respect for the law anyway, certainly not immigration law. It's funny seeing people say how important it is to respect the rule of law when they enthusiastically voted in a guy whose main promise was to break the law starting on Day One.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 04, 2020, 08:03:44 PM »
Wayward Son

"No, it isn't, because Biden won because of the votes he got."

The point is once cheating is determined often times there is no way to know for sure the exact extent to which it influenced things.

In this case the Democrats will insist that we just assume that the only votes that were fraudulent were the votes that we can prove were fraudulent even though they set up the system to make it almost impossible to prove voter fraud at all.

Like for Lance we just assume that his doping only added a few minutes to his time but since he won by much more than that it didn't actually affect the outcome. I have no idea about his margins of victory by the way but it's just an example. The point is some people like to give too much benefit of the doubt even when it's proven it isn't deserved. It's also interesting that even though now it's proven that Lance cheated he still won anyway. Maybe he was stripped of his titles or whatever but he still lives in a huge mansion and has a lot of money and fame and his foundation and got to enjoy decades of it before he found out. Maybe to some people it seems like in the end he didn't get away with it but to me it doesn't seem like that at all. Same thing with stealing elections. And Obama's unConstitutional executive orders like DACA. There is very little justice in this world.

I'll just leave the Russian collusion hoax alone I suppose. I can understand how people can see it differently and I appreciate that but people can just go round and round on it and we all have here before and it won't get anyone anywhere. Also, this may not be the thread for it except to note that the same type of thing is likely to happen with the issue of voter fraud. We'll all just go round and round again and even after the bombshells drop that won't really change anything.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 04, 2020, 06:03:07 PM »

Okay, to be thorough I changed the accusation a little bit. Just checked Snopes. I changed it to Trump saying that the government spied on his campaign which more generally is what he was saying. Trump actually said Obama did it and Snopes says there is no proof directly tying Obama to our government spying on the Trump campaign, but more broadly our government did spy on the Trump campaign. Trump was right about that. To me it doesn't matter so much whether Obama ordered it or not and just to bring it back around to massive voter fraud it doesn't matter whether or not Biden knew anything about it. I don't think he did but he sometimes doesn't know what state he's in or what office he's running for either.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 04, 2020, 05:51:10 PM »
A distinction without a difference. I understand people will quibble but our government had phone recordings of Trump campaign people. I know the details and how it can be spun the other way but what our government did to the Trump campaign and the way it did it vindicated everything Trump said. I can understand why people would think no it didn't and that's fine. It will probably be the same way with massive voter fraud. Distinctions without a difference.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 04, 2020, 05:46:35 PM »
If we discover massive voter fraud but it's said that it wasn't enough to overturn the election so Biden wins anyway, is that anything like Lance Armstrong being proven to have massively cheated but all of his victories stand because it's determined that he would have won anyway?

I'll also observe that the constant media refrain of "Trump alleges without any evidence..." is the exact same one we heard when Trump was alleging "without any evidence" that our government spied on his campaign and it turned out to be quite true.

If we find massive voter fraud in Georgia that was enough to decide the Georgia election that is as Biden might say, "a big bleeping deal." I've always thought and it may prove to be the case again that one of the main issues with this type of massive voter fraud is that even if you prove it once it's done then it's done and the election will stand. Even if people go to prison they'll wear their prison terms as a badge of honor and that is no disincentive when the stakes of the election have been framed as the Democrats have framed them, with Trump being put up there with Hitler as one of the most evil demagogues of the ages.

So my bottom line answer to what is actually going to be done in this case is essentially nothing.

Maybe people go to prison. Maybe systems get changed a little. But if there was massive voter fraud and yet the decision stands that in my book that means what I've said all along, even if you get caught you still get away with it in the big picture.

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: November 30, 2020, 06:47:15 AM »
Well it's one thing to have a situation in which all qualified potential hires are considered regardless of their gender or race and then the women win out. It's quite another what Biden appears to be doing which is to completely disqualify people based specifically on their race and gender. At least we're being honest about it now with Biden in charge. It's okay to be racist. In fact, it's fantastic. As long as you are racist against whites and especially white men. Then the media will laud your racism and gender discrimination. Maybe he'll win a Nobel Prize for it.

On the other hand, this probably saves a lot of white men a lot of time. At least now they don't have to waste their efforts in a futile attempt even applying. That can be annoying too. Most government jobs and many private sector jobs have to make a big show about letting everyone apply even when they've already decided who is getting the job. It's annoying and depressing getting your hopes up only to find out later that you never had a chance.

I'll confess that it was telling that Kavanaugh did the same thing by hiring only females for his law clerks. Is that really such a good thing? It seems like that's big time gender discrimination too and also gives the appearance of even maybe being a little pervy, only wanting females working under you.

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: November 30, 2020, 01:26:48 AM »
Here's another prediction for the Biden Presidency:

White men need not apply.

Sure he may put in a few as tokens but that'll be about it.

Elections have consequences and all that I suppose.

But one line in this story really tickled my funny bone. The author has a real British penchant for understatement along with a certain dry wit with this keen observation:

"The choice of a number of Obama administration veterans — many with deep relationships with the Washington press corps — also suggests a return to a more congenial relationship with the press."

"...  a return to a more congenial relationship with the press." You can say that again.

General Comments / Re: Census Shenanigans
« on: November 30, 2020, 12:49:37 AM »
Well the census is in the news again.

And going back to counting tourists for just a moment, we should also remember that hundreds of thousands if not millions of the illegals here came on tourist visas and just never left. An argument could be made that they are technically still just tourists.

But if people don't like the tourist angle then what about prisoners of war? If we captured thousands of prisoners of war and had them in custody for years until the war is over then are they counted in the census?

They would actually have more legal status than illegals and most of them could very well be guilty of no crimes at all. Just regular soldiers, sailors, and airmen.

What does our Constitution say about that?


Do we have any predictions on how the Supreme Court will actually rule on this issue? It should be coming up pretty soon.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that they will rule the way I want them to rule. Legal immigrants should be counted in the census but people in America illegally should not. They are invaders, not immigrants.

Which brings up another possibility too for those insisting that everyone living in America needs to be counted in the census.

What about straight out invaders? If we were invaded by a hostile army should they be counted in the census? Not to name any names but just to pull a random one out of a hat, if China invaded Hawaii and put ten million soldiers there and they stayed there for twenty five years as a hostile occupation force and then after that we gave them the boot and took it back over, during those two census periods should their ten million soldiers be counted in our census and give Hawaii more Representation in the House? Sure, that's admittedly some big time argumentum ad absurdum, but it makes the point that it's not necessarily true that everyone living in America at the time of the census should be counted for apportionment, and that's a case in which arguing that they should seems like it would be even more absurd.

That may seem ridiculous and hopefully it always will be just hypothetical but it's still an important stop for the logic train because it illustrates the point that it doesn't make necessarily make sense to count everyone living in America for the census. There are exceptions.

We'll see what the Supreme Court says soon enough. My guess is it will be 5-4 in favor of Trump with Roberts as usual dissenting in some oddball way that makes absolutely no sense at all while the total leftists on the Court do their usual thing as well, ruling the way they feel like ruling just because they feel like it but unlike Roberts at least their approach will be consistent. The only consistency to Roberts in most of these types of cases is his total commitment to absurdity.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 27, 2020, 09:05:32 PM »
I suppose one obvious line of inquiry would be did Chavez win his elections fair and square then using the same company or subsidiary?

Or did the same company or its subsidiary that we used help Chavez to cheat and win but played it fair and square in our own election, perhaps removing the backdoor from the code in the software they used for the U.S.?

Or was it never there in the first place and Chavez didn't rig the vote using it, perhaps winning fairly or cheating some other way?

That's a slightly separate issue from whether or not they flipped any votes in our election. Have they ever flipped any votes in any election anywhere?

Or is that so called Chavez election witness to the vote flipping full of malarkey?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27