All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Dalak]

If it were up to you, we'd still be waiting 20 minutes for a single porn picture to load on our phones.

Not really, we'd be living in a realm devoid of roads, electrical lines, water pipes, and all technology reliant on infrastructure. We'd also be living in a realm where the truth never matters, and lies only matter if they are told by someone that believes differently than you.

I'm seriously surprised that anyone is still responding at this point.

[Kirby101]

I find myself needing this reminder.

[Xheight]

Mabey the Judge looked it up on Wikipedia and discovered how ridiculously unreliable the Cross-Check program really is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inte...scheck_Program

or discrediting a system check on wide open voting is on number of people's agendas. NGO"s and PACs load that biblio. Who needs conspiracy when turds do that work out in the open; its like our own troll farms.

[Mister Mets]

“Bad faith”? Let’s call a spade a spade, my friend, Ghouliani and Powell were flat out lying out their asses.

I'm going with the most generous interpretation, as that's more likely to persuade someone who is misinformed.

Granted, a problem in these discussions is that for some people the specifics don't matter, and any rationale is pretext.

not vetting claims leaps to Bad Faith - really Mets where was this finger wagging when Dems urged that we must hurry to anoint the next president and the courts agreed that time not evidence was THE most important thing.

Rudy Giuliani said during his rather famous media conference on November 19. “What we have asked for in court is to not have the certification of false results. And so to say, ‘Hold on a minute, we have evidence that we will present to the court.’ We haven’t had an opportunity yet to present that to the court,”

Cart before the Horse. Never got to court. Or to Answer BabyBlob: our courts perform the same function as Chinese courts in closing ranks to protect the institution of goverment no matter the cost. The judges decided on standings not evidence.

Here is one of my favorites


Merits and arguments about methodology - dismissed

I will certainly fingerwag when Democrats are wrong. I'm not sure they are in this case.

Giuliani has had ample opportunities to present evidence. There are numerous places he can do so if the courts refuse to consider it.

I noted in December how pathetic the Trump legal strategy had been, according to Andy McCarthy of National Review.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post5277855

I get your argument that the Trump legal defense team didn't do a great job, but it's not up to amateurs to make a better case, especially since amateurs may be mistaken when it comes to election law.

Looking at your evidence, you note that a judge dismissed a case on technical grounds, because the plaintiff sued the wrong person.

It seems there are four possibilities. The first is that the judge failed to abide by the letter of the law. I would need to see someone with legal credentials make this argument before considering it.

The second possibility is that the plaintiff was careless.

The third possibility is that the plaintiff was ignorant.

The fourth possibility is that the plaintiff knew their case was terrible, and sabotaged it.

Possibilities 2-4 do not support the idea that these people should be taken seriously.

Another court looked at the question of whether the evidence took into account a known tendency for certain types of voter matches to have false positives. That seems to be a valid point that has to be addressed by anyone using that kind of evidence. If they're not willing to share their algorithm, finding 20,312 voters who don't match residency requirements in one state is meaningless because there may be up to three million false positives.

A fun example of a false positive was when Governor Rick Scott wasn't allowed to vote because his name was kicked off the rolls as he shares a name and birthday with someone who passed away.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national...s-dead/326896/

[Robotman]

Ron DeSantis announces election police force

Gotta make sure that “the wrong kinda people” don’t vote.

[Kirby101]

Ron DeSantis announces election police force

Gotta make sure that “the wrong kinda people” don’t vote.

Republicans are not suppressing the vote!!! They aren't!! There is an alternative , orwellian reason for everything they do that actually shows how less people being able to vote means more people vote. So stop pointing out how they are institutionalizing voter suppression.

[babyblob]

Ron DeSantis announces election police force

Gotta make sure that “the wrong kinda people” don’t vote.

I guess Biden's Dogs and 6 million illegals are out of luck in Florida.

[Xheight]

I'm going with the most generous interpretation, as that's more likely to persuade someone who is misinformed.

Granted, a problem in these discussions is that for some people the specifics don't matter, and any rationale is pretext.

I will certainly fingerwag when Democrats are wrong. I'm not sure they are in this case.

Giuliani has had ample opportunities to present evidence. There are numerous places he can do so if the courts refuse to consider it.

I noted in December how pathetic the Trump legal strategy had been, according to Andy McCarthy of National Review.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post5277855

I get your argument that the Trump legal defense team didn't do a great job, but it's not up to amateurs to make a better case, especially since amateurs may be mistaken when it comes to election law.

Looking at your evidence, you note that a judge dismissed a case on technical grounds, because the plaintiff sued the wrong person.

It seems there are four possibilities. The first is that the judge failed to abide by the letter of the law. I would need to see someone with legal credentials make this argument before considering it.

The second possibility is that the plaintiff was careless.

The third possibility is that the plaintiff was ignorant.

The fourth possibility is that the plaintiff knew their case was terrible, and sabotaged it.

Possibilities 2-4 do not support the idea that these people should be taken seriously.

Another court looked at the question of whether the evidence took into account a known tendency for certain types of voter matches to have false positives. That seems to be a valid point that has to be addressed by anyone using that kind of evidence. If they're not willing to share their algorithm, finding 20,312 voters who don't match residency requirements in one state is meaningless because there may be up to three million false positives.

A fun example of a false positive was when Governor Rick Scott wasn't allowed to vote because his name was kicked off the rolls as he shares a name and birthday with someone who passed away.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national...s-dead/326896/

Looking over your points of discussion I am reminded of the fact that a brilliant criminal isn't any less guilty for a crime for being brilliant nor is sloppy or incompetent lawyer-ing speak to the merits of a case as any number of wrongly convicted people will show us. All of which does not support your assertion of "Looking over your points of discussion I am reminded of the fact that a brilliant criminal isn't any less guilty for a crime for being brilliant nor is a sloppy or incompetent lawyer-ing speak to the merits of a case as any number of wrongly convicted people will show us.

Perhaps that is the essence of The Steal in that it was done legally if not lawfully. In this thread we have already seen our different tolerances for what is cheating and corruption and that which is not built upon a cynicism that puts institutions above instances and winning above all. The letter of the law is exactly where this brilliance must be displayed in allowing the certification to be completed to have worked at all along with the bulwark of Judges that would, for the sake of stability, not allow actual cases be developed. SCOTUS punted rather than revisit Bush v. Gore as just one of the many cases where deference to the system did not serve justice only power and stability. The gaming papers of TIPS show this as strategy to close down opposition so as to not let it gather sentiment and action. It clearly understood that a broad review by SCOTUS of the would dispense with the "technicalities" and evidence and center on how the goal posts had been changed to such an extent that "emergency" really became an excuse for the changes made by brilliant lawyer-ing all summer in the various targeted states. These double dealing practices were exposed in the suppression of Green candidates in most of those same states.

I suppose some white shoe lawyer might sit back and say well that is how the game is played old boy, and these pages have name just such firms involved, but is that not also the very anti-elite position that Trump and his supporters have railed against in their attempt to Drain the Swamp. Is that the Democrat message of the day - hooray the Swamp wins again!

I think there is a reckoning in that which even the midterms won't fold under as just another turn of the wheel.

[thwhtGuardian]

Looking over your points of discussion I am reminded of the fact that a brilliant criminal isn't any less guilty for a crime for being brilliant nor is sloppy or incompetent lawyer-ing speak to the merits of a case as any number of wrongly convicted people will show us. All of which does not support your assertion of "Looking over your points of discussion I am reminded of the fact that a brilliant criminal isn't any less guilty for a crime for being brilliant nor is a sloppy or incompetent lawyer-ing speak to the merits of a case as any number of wrongly convicted people will show us.

Perhaps that is the essence of The Steal in that it was done legally if not lawfully. In this thread we have already seen our different tolerances for what is cheating and corruption and that which is not built upon a cynicism that puts institutions above instances and winning above all. The letter of the law is exactly where this brilliance must be displayed in allowing the certification to be completed to have worked at all along with the bulwark of Judges that would, for the sake of stability, not allow actual cases be developed. SCOTUS punted rather than revisit Bush v. Gore as just one of the many cases where deference to the system did not serve justice only power and stability. The gaming papers of TIPS show this as strategy to close down opposition so as to not let it gather sentiment and action. It clearly understood that a broad review by SCOTUS of the would dispense with the "technicalities" and evidence and center on how the goal posts had been changed to such an extent that "emergency" really became an excuse for the changes made by brilliant lawyer-ing all summer in the various targeted states. These double dealing practices were exposed in the suppression of Green candidates in most of those same states.

I suppose some white shoe lawyer might sit back and say well that is how the game is played old boy, and these pages have name just such firms involved, but is that not also the very anti-elite position that Trump and his supporters have railed against in their attempt to Drain the Swamp. Is that the Democrat message of the day - hooray the Swamp wins again!

I think there is a reckoning in that which even the midterms won't fold under as just another turn of the wheel.

..."The steal" didn't happen period. How long are you going to bury your head in the sand?

[Jack Dracula]

I am sure the same people will make gobs of money for "improving your life"

That's Capitalism. You're literally describing Capitalism.

or discrediting a system check on wide open voting is on number of people's agendas. NGO"s and PACs load that biblio. Who needs conspiracy when turds do that work out in the open; its like our own troll farms.

Did you even read that entry?

Crosscheck's use of loose matching standards lead to a high rate false positives: pairs of voter registration records lacking a match on SSN4 but who are identified as "potential duplicate registrants" by Crosscheck. Although false positives created a myriad of issues, the Kansas Secretary of State's office did not publicly release the percentage of their widely publicized "potential duplicate registrants" which were false positives. Independent researchers point to public data from Virginia's 2013 Annual Report on List Maintenance] which documented a 75% false positive rate.[9

Prior to the legally mandated suspension of the program, 12 states (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington) had withdrawn from the free program.[13]

Despite over seven million "potential double registrants" being "flagged" by the Crosscheck program in 2014, less than four people were charged with voting more than once, and not a single flagging led to a conviction, casting doubt on the system's usefulness.

This information is easily researched. The independent sources are cited at the bottom of the page. Cross-Check was well documented as unreliable back in 2013.

Ron DeSantis announces election police force

Gotta make sure that “the wrong kinda people” don’t vote.

"Election Police" are kind of a southern tradition aren't they?

[JB]

The FBI never concluded the dossier was legit or included it as official evidence in any investigation of Trump due to its inability to be verified and the dubious nature of its origin.
They did feel responsible since they had it in their possession to notify Trump of its existence and the sensitive, possibly damaging information it contained.
They did consider it grounds for an investigation because to not do so wouldn't be fulfilling their obligation towards national security.
The investigation started by Comey and finished by Mueller led to evidence of dealings between Russia and the Trump campaign and instances of attempted obstruction by Trump of the investigation itself.

I'm not sure why this is an indictment of Democrats in general or the current administration.

My biggest concern regarding the dossier was that the indictments wouldn't stop with Danchenko. The first two indictments thankfully didn't make much of a splash but his did. The second indictment, of Michael Sussman, pointed to Sussman sharing information with a "foreign policy advisor."

As of a few hours ago it's now being reported that this foreign policy advisor was Jake Sullivan, and Yahoo picked it up. That's Biden's current National Security Advisor. I'm sorry but Biden should distance himself from this and let him go immediately.
https://sports.yahoo.com/report-nati...202127374.html

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Ron DeSantis announces election police force

Gotta make sure that “the wrong kinda people” don’t vote.

Will they wear fancy uniforms like Space Force while denying minorities their right to vote?

[Xheight]

Did you even read that entry?

This information is easily researched. The independent sources are cited at the bottom of the page. Cross-Check was well documented as unreliable back in 2013.

Unreliable to whom ? Reading it I was staggered at the lengths of denial to force through doubt at having caught people that were disqualified. And yes the authorship matters as a point of the agenda here which has been being built for more than a decade. What part of the reinforcement system do you not understand? Discrediting any and all checks on the programs that check the rolls is what they get money for, and not just this election. Money has been pouring into Motor voter and registration drives before Staci Abrams ever lost an election, the same PACs pay for both the pseudoscience and the people to man the mechanisms . Making active a latent Democratic Majority has been a wet dream of every Democratic candidate but technology and the legal army to protect it has finally caught its crisis to activate it.
What else is the John Lewis bill about but to make permanent the rigged game?

[Xheight]

Will they wear fancy uniforms like Space Force while denying minorities their right to vote?

sob. really? you believe that trash and think I am a deluded one.

[The Cool Thatguy]

sob. really? you believe that trash and think I am a deluded one.

Well, yeah, as you have no evidence whatsoever that the election was stolen, and clearly no concept on the logistics involved in stealing a national election.

Deluded would be the kindest word to describe your position.