(12-10-2023, 07:48 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2023, 08:34 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Herpy derp is a good way to end that post. I gave specifics. You name call without addressing my points. Supercilious. I point out that you are othering and you offer more smugness. You have no concept of how the world is shaped by others because you have no epistemic humility. I repeat myself because you are consistently, arrogantly asserting your world view as fact. We can keep doing this.
You mean you failing miserably at defending indefensible opinions?
Yes, we can definitely keep doing this.
I mean - you really [BLEEP] suck at it - but we can keep doing it.
If you can come up with a way do defend your position as an election denier without "nuance" or deflection, or posts with a bibliography that blather pointless rhetoric of no value - go for it.
In the mean time - get another big giant heaping of smugness - because I'm right and you're wrong and you have not a [BLEEP] kernel of truth to help defend your position.
What are you, 12? You don't
know you're right. You
BELIEVE the authorities, which I have no problem with people trusting the authorities. You don't KNOW, though. You're just assuming you're getting the full truth, which is almost always not the case, whether you're right, left, or independent. It's almost remarkable you can't seem to make that distinction. Oops, my bad, forgot you don't do nuance. It's why you're "always right," but that's pretty typical chauvinistic behavior.
CISA said 9 days after the election that this was the most secure election in US history. 9 days. This was trotted out all over the media and by political figures in the US. It's still the go-to quote for people who blindly defend the election. CISA does not have the capacity or charge to declare the entire election secure. They only look at cybersecurity infrastructure and foreign threats. Their claim it was the most secure in US history has nothing to do with actual fraud. That's nuance. You should never site this in defense of your cause, yet supercilious know-it-alls like you love to repeat this one.
CISA, btw, was just busted for censoring Americans leading up to the election, even though it's outside their purview. CISA knew it wasn't supposed to be censoring Americans, so they set up a go between that worked on their behalf to notify social media which accounts to censor. One of those social media groups was Facebook. You remember me talking about the Zuckerberg initiative before? You just ignored it. Too busy beating your chest to be bothered to address the difference his organization made in the election to the tunes of 10s of thousands of votes. But, hey, he's just a billionaire who's also totally trustworthy unlike those Koch brothers and Elon Musk.
What about the investigations? Let's just take the GA one (since it's the most infamous). I acknowledge that the GBI along with the FBI looked into the night in question. I read the 10-page report that was released by the secretary of state's investigations division. 10 pages. That's it. It took them 4 months to do an investigation and we get a 10-page report. It's not detailed. It doesn't break down specific questions asked. While it does attempt to address some of the confusion surrounding the night, the entire investigation hinges on whether or not observers were ordered to go home. They were not. Instead, they went home when someone yelled to the other workers that they were shutting down for the evening. When the workers began packing up, the observers left. The elections supervisor received a phone call (according to the report), then told the workers he didn't know why they were stopping (45 minutes later) and reordered them to start again. So, there was no "order" for the observers to go home, but it was clearly communicated they were stopping. They stopped, the observers left, then they started again. Not proof of fraud, of course, but odd behavior. Could just be human error.
Additionally, they examined the "suitcases" to see if they were out of the ordinary from the other ballot carriers, which they were not. That's it. That's the sum of the investigation. They didn't actually look at the ballots in question. How does that tell anyone anything? It's certainly not proof of cheating, but it's also not definitive proof there was no cheating. It's still shady as hell, but without looking at the ballots themselves, what could they possibly find? Oh, that's right... nothing. Especially not if authorities are not pushing for it to be more rigorous. Even recounts can't determine that information. Ballots have to be examined.
All of this doesn't even factor in political bias that is rampant in our bureaucratic agencies. I know, I know. That's impossible. The FBI would never have agents who would want to stop Trump. They'd never willingly cover in a lie like Russiagate. They probably don't have any agents who took illegal foreign money and played key roles in propagating a lie that the national media spread for 2 years. They'd never fire agents who spoke out about the agency's political bias. Our authorities are above reproach, and it's just a stupid conservative conspiracy theory why anyone would question them. Right?
Regardless, just like I can't point to these things as any proof of cheating, you can't point to them and say it's not cheating. I have been happy from the beginning just to clean these things up so they don't happen again, but half of the country is acting like all these irregularities are just normal. So, that will never happen so long as political chauvinists, who are louder than they are educated, keep running around pointing fingers at "election deniers."
(12-11-2023, 12:12 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (12-11-2023, 11:45 AM)Jagger Wrote: [ -> ]If Nikki Haley were to run, it could be the most landslide election win since Reagan. She has a 17-point lead on Biden! I’ve never seen any poll in any Pres election that big…not even in the Obama-McCain ones. So if the GOP cares more about just getting their party in, she’s the safest route. And if I were her, I’d make that a centerpiece.
Biden’s chances of winning continue to seemingly go downhill. I think there’s a plan in place at the Convention for him to step aside, which will open it up the delegates who they want. I assume they will choose Newsom. Depending on how the Trump trial goes, the same could happen on the GOP side.
(12-11-2023, 12:08 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]Nikki Haley lolol
I'd rather die than vote for that communist..
Look who is putting the articles out and polls for Haley. It's all liberals, they want her to win because she is easy to beat, especially when they replace Biden.
Her complete image is a fraud, including her name. She wants everyone to have to use their real name on the internet but won't use hers. That tells you everything you need to know that she hides something simple as her name.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
You guys get too caught up in right and left. It's just establishment hacks. I really don't think anyone in the establishment would mind hitting the reset with Haley. I think she would win in a landslide. We'd get 4 years of platitudes, people would calm down, she'd probably get some legislation passed that removes anonymity from the internet and tax breaks for the rich, and it'd be business as usual in a few years.