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

[Xheight]

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.

No concept... when I have posted a number of links that show a logistics plan for both countering the accusation of insecurities(now famous Time article) of the mail-in system and the TIPS project (google it) about a national mobilization? You don't care that the DNC and its funding base of PACs has been working for years to turn its base into a database of registered voters but it is not as if it has gone unnoticed by the opposition for it to be weaponized in a scenario of unprecedented shift to absent voting.

[The Cool Thatguy]

No concept when I have posted a number of links that show a logistics plan for both countering the accusation of insecurities(now famous Time article) of the mail-in system and the TIPS project (google it) about a national mobilization? You don't care that the DNC and its funding base of PACs has been working for years to turn its base into a database of registered voters but it is not as if it has gone unnoticed by the opposition for it to be weaponized in a scenario of unprecedented shift to absent voting.

If you understood anything you were parrotting, you'd understand that building a database of voters isn't illegal or even immoral, and that both parties do it.

But you clearly don't.

[shooshoomanjoe]

No concept when I have posted a number of links that show a logistics plan for both countering the accusation of insecurities(now famous Time article) of the mail-in system and the TIPS project (google it) about a national mobilization? You don't care that the DNC and its funding base of PACs has been working for years to turn its base into a database of registered voters but it is not as if it has gone unnoticed by the opposition for it to be weaponized in a scenario of unprecedented shift to absent voting.

Don't expect people to accept conspiracy theories as facts.

[Xheight]

I think I can see the misunderstanding.

You post a fact-check you disagree with, where they mention a high number of false positives in the cross-check method of voter verification.



From my understanding, Matt Braynard, the guy suing Georgia doesn't say he's using Crosscheck. He said he found 20,312 ballots cast by people who didn't satisfy residency requirements, but he doesn't say how he verified this.

ChadH notes that Crosscheck is unreliable.

You complain about the effort to discredit crosscheck.

ChadH notes the evidence is well-documented, including in your link.

It's worth noting Crosscheck is an example of how professional efforts to clear voting rolls result in false positives.

You suggest the game is rigged.

ChadH talks about the false positives.

You say that the controversy is that thousands of people in a state are not qualified.

I note that we haven't shown the evidence that thousands of people in a state are not qualified, since the controversy is over the likelihood of false positives.

You and ChadH both seem to think Crosscheck was used by the guy making the suit, when Crosscheck is an example of how these efforts have false positives.

From what I can figure, Braynard refused to share relevant information with the courts, so we have no idea how accurate his information is. We should draw a negative inference from his refusal to share the information.

At no point, did you establish that Crosscheck or Braynard's method of investigating voter rolls find more illegitimate voters than false positives. If you have a link on that, I'd be interested in it.

A false narrative to go with the false election; part and parcel. For one that calls out either/or moral evaluations like reasonable doubt you seem to be deploying much the same. Crosscheck isn't discredited nor is the finding of the GA votes as the attempt here has been to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is not discredited by simply being barred from state's using it. That credits the state with a power it doesn't have for one.
Even at 75%(the wikipedia number for Crosscheck) we still have a 25% of people who should not be voting YET did. So is that not fraud? maybe that is too either/or for you but you would deny it to me and others? And clearly there is an inference being made as there are others that look in askance at the not just the election but at its review and see power protecting power.
I am not asking if that turned the election but by not accepting that into evidence because the case was never presented, again by inference, is the state blocking a challenge to the state's system of reckoning. How much more of Who watches the Watchmen do we need here to have confirmation that the State will not recognize extra-State oversight. ChadH btw never points to the Judge talking about Crosscheck in his ruling about standing so that is just speculation on an non-state system of checking who should rightfully voting and another break in your story of my argument. It is an intolerable idea in itself to the ACLU and the NGOs that love it so and so we have had filings to block actions and audits by anyone who is not sanctioned by the State on various tangents. We saw this explicitly in the AZ recount fight over the ninjas and not state officials doing the process of audit, when no conclusions were even made.

[Xheight]

If you understood anything you were parrotting, you'd understand that building a database of voters isn't illegal or even immoral, and that both parties do it.

But you clearly don't.

If your reading comprehension matched your refusal you would note that it is the manner of using the database that is foul not the database itself. There is a difference in targeting 'would be' voters and turning 'would be' voters into voters via the magic of harvesting.

[Xheight]

Don't expect people to accept conspiracy theories as facts.

Okay so when told to point to or show evidence of planning and then one does that is just conspiracy thinking? What you really seem to be saying is I don't want to see anything that confuses my tidy understanding of How evil the Orange man is.

[Xheight]

Never mind that Rittenhouse was running away from that crowd when he fell.

You have to put a lot of work into creating a situation where that is someone that you needed to defend yourself from.

Just let them keep running away from you. That ends the threat that did not actually exist pretty quickly.

The Prosecution did itself no favor by trying to impose on the jury some sort moral value of the crowd. Having sat on two criminal juries people have their own moral compass that they want to employ not the one handed to them by either side.

[The Cool Thatguy]

If your reading comprehension matched your refusal you would note that it is the manner of using the database that is foul not the database itself. There is a difference in targeting 'would be' voters and turning 'would be' voters into voters via the magic of harvesting.

And explain how that magic was accomplished? What method of mind control did they use, pray tell?

Again, precision targeting of voters isn't a crime or even immoral. Maybe you should ask yourself by Democrats had superior motivation?

[Xheight]

And explain how that magic was accomplished? What method of mind control did they use, pray tell?

Again, precision targeting of voters isn't a crime or even immoral. Maybe you should ask yourself by Democrats had superior motivation?

Do I have to put Magic in quotes for it to be understood a factious word for fraud. The anonymity of the faceless ballot protects it from inspection of authenticity and hence the distracting focus of if it is legal or not. Voter X is registered Voter X has a ballot summited therefore Voter X has voted is flawed in its chain of custody.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Do I have to put Magic in quotes for it to be understood a factious word for fraud. The anonymity of the faceless ballot protects it from inspection of authenticity and hence the distracting focus of if it is legal or not. Voter X is registered Voter X has a ballot summited therefore Voter X has voted is flawed in its chain of custody.

Funny, the military, and Trump himself, have voted via mail for decades without issue.

And as I said earlier, you clearly have no understanding of the logistical issues involved in such a fraud.

What you are alluding to, but not brave enough to say, is that the mail in ballots were intercepted and altered. But that requires a large staff of at least hundreds in every state, working so seamlessly that no law enforcement or election official has found proof of tampering that can stand up in a court of law.

Lemmie guess, 9/11 was an inside job, too, right?

[kidfresh512]

Defense attorney in the McMichael/Bryan trial objects to Al Sharpton sitting with Ahmaud Arbery’s family: “We don’t want to have any more black pastors coming in here .. sitting with the victim’s family.” Presumably, white pastors are ok.

I mean wow.

[4saken1]

Even at 75%(the wikipedia number for Crosscheck) we still have a 25% of people who should not be voting YET did. So is that not fraud?

It is not fraudulent to be registered to vote in more than one state. It IS fraudulent to vote in more than one, however. How many cases of double voting have actually been tried in states that claim to be so concerned about this?

But let's get to the real reason some states want to use Crosscheck, also from the same Wiki page:

The loose matching standards used to identify "potential duplicate registrants" by the Kansas Secretary of State also raised significant concerns about the opportunity for racial bias in list maintenance. According to "Health of State Democracies", "50 percent of Communities of Color share a common surname, while only 30 percent of white people do," so that in the program's flagged lists, "white voters are underrepresented by 8 percent, African Americans are overrepresented by 45 percent

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Funny, the military, and Trump himself, have voted via mail for decades without issue.

And as I said earlier, you clearly have no understanding of the logistical issues involved in such a fraud.

What you are alluding to, but not brave enough to say, is that the mail in ballots were intercepted and altered. But that requires a large staff of at least hundreds in every state, working so seamlessly that no law enforcement or election official has found proof of tampering that can stand up in a court of law.

Lemmie guess, 9/11 was an inside job, too, right?

Basically Oliver described last year the insane , stupid process to just commit one vote fraud. To do it on a major scale is beyond comedy and the fact no Trump supporter has been able to really deliver facts the last year is one of the funniest parts of this. Everyone knows Trump lost , he lost by a big margin. But his supporters tend to do what NFL fans do when their teams lose. They can't handle the loss and can't handle it.

[Mister Mets]

No concept when I have posted a number of links that show a logistics plan for both countering the accusation of insecurities(now famous Time article) of the mail-in system and the TIPS project (google it) about a national mobilization? You don't care that the DNC and its funding base of PACs has been working for years to turn its base into a database of registered voters but it is not as if it has gone unnoticed by the opposition for it to be weaponized in a scenario of unprecedented shift to absent voting.

What links are you referring to?

In your last 25 posts, you've included two links.

One was a CNN article about migrants facing difficulties on the Poland- Belarus border.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/10/europ...ntl/index.html

And then there was a year old Ars Technica article about how 5G Broadband can help rural areas.
https://arstechnica.com/features/2020/09/5g-03-rural/

[AnakinFlair]

Appeals court temporarily blocks release of Trump's papers to the Jan 6 Commission.