Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[smf]

There were stories that were 'disqualified' as conspiracy theories, before Snowden, that hinted at the same proceedings.

See f.e.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

I don't think congress granting retroactive immunity is dismissing it as a conspiracy theory.

If anything it proves a conspiracy, but they'll argue that they are doing it for the right reasons anyway.

 

[notimp]

I don't think congress granting retroactive immunity is dismissing it as a conspiracy theory.

If anything it proves a conspiracy, but they'll argue that they are doing it for the right reasons anyway.

Snowden only came forward, after he watched James Clapper lie to congress under oath. Clapper lied to congress under oath, because Senators in the oversight committee tried to force the program to be put on record.

Clapper from that point onward only 'failed upward' netting him a private sector utility post as a reward ( In May 2017, he joined the Washington, D.C.–based think tank the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) as a Distinguished Senior Fellow for Intelligence and National Security.[4] ).

Between 2006 and 2013 - there was practically no media reporting on the Room 641A case and everyone who you'd talk to outside of a very small group of people who knew the EFF case in detail would dismiss those notions outright, and declare you a conspiracy theorist.

After the fact its easy to produce all those PBS 'what really happened' features, but they didnt help the people involved, when it was necessary.

And some of it is due to the tight nit nature of how government, corporate and media relations work when 'national security' is pronounced.

Regardless. That was one case out of many. There might be others. They usually arent common. But you arent doing those a favor, when you are arguing for 'well media would have found out and exposed it anyhow'. Even in the Daniel Ellsberg case it was a miracle, that he got his stuff 'on record'. Media was barred from reporting on it, until it was.

edit: This is what clapper does today, btw:
https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/10/26/james-clapper-has-right-to-remain-silent-please-stay-silent/

 

[Deleted member 326676]

There were stories that were 'disqualified' as conspiracy theories, before Snowden, that hinted at the same proceedings.

See f.e.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

A conspiracy theory involving a government eavesdropping on it's own citizens would involve an official high up the leadership chain issuing the order while the subordinates conspire to keep it a secret. As with any conspiracy theory, the evidence requirement remains the same, but the scenario itself is plausible. This is much different than a grand conspiracy theory like the 2020 election fraud allegation that's been discussed here, which is dependent not on subordinates, but disparate parts from across the political and judicial spectrum, including Trump appointees and loyalists breaking the law in an effort to get a Democrat elected.

I have yet to read an explanation that ties together these connections in a manner that makes any sense.

 

[tabzer]

A conspiracy theory involving a government eavesdropping on it's own citizens would involve an official high up the leadership chain issuing the order while the subordinates conspire to keep it a secret. As with any conspiracy theory, the evidence requirement remains the same, but the scenario itself is plausible. This is much different than a grand conspiracy theory like the 2020 election fraud allegation that's been discussed here, which is dependent not on subordinates, but disparate parts from across the political and judicial spectrum, including Trump appointees and loyalists breaking the law in an effort to get a Democrat elected.

I have yet to read an explanation that ties together these connections in a manner that makes any sense.

For your personal interpretation of how the widespread voter fraud must have happened, you could blame a single entity influencing these people with bribery, threats, and blackmail.

I think there is some of that, but I see it is as more likely that the criminal element was encouraged socially, and people have been doing whatever they feel like might work. Then you have higher ups willing to fortify it and fight against exposure. And for those who seem like they'd be trouble, just send them a little personal message. In the end though, none of those people's capacity for fraud compare to what a smaller group of people could do with their closed source vote manipulation software--disguised as voting machines.

Anyway, if you want to be genuine in trying to understand how it could work, don't preset it with the most outrageous scenario. Start with what is plausible of working and build on that.

 

[djpannda]

It’s sad to see a side soo blind. They they refused to look at themselves
SNL described Giuliani actual defense. Really there was no difference.
Rudy’s whole argument is a joke meant to create doubt.. why ? Donations.. Trump raised 200million but only spent 3million in Wisconsin recount and 20 thousands a day for Rudy to go to court.. lol that’s bout 195 million that was pocketed.... man it’s going to be only a few days before pardons and then it will be over.

 

[Deleted member 326676]

For your personal interpretation of how the widespread voter fraud must have happened, you could blame a single entity influencing these people with bribery, threats, and blackmail.

I think there is some of that, but I see it is as more likely that the criminal element was encouraged socially, and people have been doing whatever they feel like might work. Then you have higher ups willing to fortify it and fight against exposure. And for those who seem like they'd be trouble, just send them a little personal message. In the end though, none of those people's capacity for fraud compare to what a smaller group of people could do with their closed source vote manipulation software--disguised as voting machines.

Anyway, if you want to be genuine in trying to understand how it could work, don't preset it with the most outrageous scenario. Start with what is plausible of working and build on that.

Ok, let's start with the most plausible scenario.

You've questioned the credibility of everyone except Trump himself. The same argument you're using to explain wide-spread election fraud -- bribery, threats, and blackmail -- can be applied to him as well. How do we know that Trump isn't the person being compromised here? What scenario is more plausible -- Trump lying about wide-spread election conspiracy, or hundreds of judges, politicians, and Trump loyalists across the country conspiring against him?

 

[notimp]

A conspiracy theory involving a government eavesdropping on it's own citizens would involve an official high up the leadership chain issuing the order while the subordinates conspire to keep it a secret. As with any conspiracy theory, the evidence requirement remains the same, but the scenario itself is plausible. This is much different than a grand conspiracy theory like the 2020 election fraud allegation that's been discussed here, which is dependent not on subordinates, but disparate parts from across the political and judicial spectrum, including Trump appointees and loyalists breaking the law in an effort to get a Democrat elected.

I have yet to read an explanation that ties together these connections in a manner that makes any sense.

Actually, let me refute that.

If you own a network of thinktanks, you own outlook trajectories on several institutional bodies.

In Europe currently the debate about the e-Euro is starting. With the same 'what do you have to hide - its so convenient' rhetoric to start with. The arguments from central bankers that point into the direction of a difference between 'investment tier' money and 'the publics money' show that they are looking at this from a PoV to inflate away part of the money supply without impacting 'structural investments'.

If you follow that logic, you currently have - thinktanks, politicians, national banks, private banking, and media staked against the public interest.

What do you do in that instance? Just make up a story on how all of this is sensationalism, and that this will allow for the much needed investments into the future, while telling the public - no its really private - only the good people can look at all the transactions? And rewrite the 'what the e-Euro is' protocols?

So poor people in the future, get their own economic targets, that arent GDP anymore. Their own money, which isnt the investors money anymore, ... Privacy becomes a privilege for the ritch. Owning your own air conditioner will fall by the wayside to enable livelong renting programs on stuff like that - which means you can employ your own service sector, just for people that rent others things they would have bought before...

 

[Deleted member 326676]

Actually, let me refute that.

If you own a network of thinktanks, you own outlook trajectories on several institutional bodies.

In Europe currently the debate about the e-Euro is starting. With the same 'what do you have to hide - its so convenient' rhetoric to start with. The arguments from central bankers that point into the direction of a difference between 'investment tier' money and 'the publics money' show that they are looking at this from a PoV to inflate away part of the money supply without impacting 'structural investments'.

If you follow that logic, you currently have - thinktanks, politicians, national banks, private banking, and media staked against the public interest.

What do you do in that instance? Just make up a story on how all of this is sensationalism, and that this will allow for the much needed investments into the future, while telling the public - no its really private - only the good people can look at all the transactions? And rewrite the 'what the e-Euro is' protocols?

So poor people in the future, get their own economic targets, that arent GDP anymore. Their own money, which isnt the investors money anymore, ... Privacy becomes a privilege for the ritch. Owning your own air conditioner will fall by the wayside to enable livelong rent programs on stuff life that - which means you can employ your own service sector, just for people that rent others things they would have bought before...

Whether we call it ideological alignment or conspiracy, the outcome is the same. If we call it conspiracy, well the 1% conspiring against the 99% in this manner isn't exactly a theory at this point is it? At least not in a world where hedge funds and lobbyists exist.

 

[notimp]

Whether we call it ideological alignment or conspiracy, the outcome is the same. If we call it conspiracy, well the 1% conspiring against the 99% in this manner isn't exactly a theory at this point is it? At least not in a world where hedge funds and lobbyists exist.

But then what do centralbanks and the media do in there? (To be answered in the future.. ) 'interest alignment of the 1%' might be a little narrow..

edit EZB Report:
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/Report_on_a_digital_euro~4d7268b458.en.pdf

edit:

This report examines the issuance of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) – the digital euro – from the perspective of the Eurosystem. Such a digital euro would be a central bank liability offered in digital form for use by citizens and businesses for their retail payments. It would complement the current offering of cash and wholesale central bank deposits.

Split the money base.

A possible role for the digital euro as a tool to strengthen monetary policy is not identified in this report, but could emerge in the future on the basis of further analysis or owing to developments in the international financial system.

PR first?

The Eurosystem would design the digital euro in such a way as to avoid possible undesirable implications for the fulfilment of its mandate, for the financial industry and for the broader economy. Some digital euro design options could affect the intermediation function of banks and their funding costs, especially in situations of stress. Furthermore, some potential configurations of a digital euro could lead to an Report on a digital euro 4 expansion of the size of the Eurosystem’s balance sheet and increase its exposure to shocks and could give rise to challenges in international financial markets related to larger capital flows. However, the analysis in this report indicates that by following appropriate strategies in the design of the digital euro the Eurosystem can address these challenges.

Commercial banks and large scale investors are safe - we promise.
Also promises of not inflating the money pool ("state investments into peoples abilities to purchase retail") (with negative interest you get the desired effects).

Most users and investors are also concerned that emerging private payment solutions (especially if unregulated) could entail cyber risks.

The boogey man can!

In the case of a digital euro, such risks might be mitigated by the involvement of the central bank. Finally, the issuance of a digital euro could stimulate the supply of new payment services and functionalities and create business opportunities, although it could also generate new sources of risk.

You know, the commercial banking sector really had too few business opportunities in the past...

Scenario 4: if the Eurosystem were to conclude in the future that the issuance of a digital euro is necessary or beneficial from a monetary policy perspective. For example, the introduction of a CBDC might reinforce the transmission of monetary policy by allowing the central bank to set the remuneration rate on the digital euro in order to directly influence the consumption and investment choices of the non-financial sector, although the strength of this mechanism is not clear cut18 (the effect of the digital euro on monetary policy is examined in more depth in Section 3).

Bingo.

edit Footnote 18:

18 A CBDC could help to eliminate the effective lower bound on policy rates, and thereby widen the policy options available in crisis situations, if cash were to disappear. This may be considered particularly important in view of the decline in the neutral real rate (== cumulative interest). However, to the extent that cash remains available in the economy, this objective becomes less relevant. See Lalouette, L. and Esselink, H., “Trends and developments in the use of euro cash over the past ten years”, Economic Bulletin, Issue 6, ECB, 2018.

Bingo 2:

Requirement 4 (R4): monetary policy option. If considered to be a tool for improving the transmission of monetary policy, the digital euro should be remunerated at interest rate(s) that the central bank can modify over time.19

Footnote 19:

19 There may be other reasons to remunerate the digital euro at a variable rate, namely financial stability reasons and to prevent the central bank becoming a large-scale financial intermediary if the digital euro becomes a large-scale store of value.

Yeah we dont want it to be a value store option, do we..

• The excessive use of the digital euro as a form of investment and the associated risk of sudden large shifts from bank deposits to the digital euro should be avoided. The digital euro should be available via supervised intermediaries, while IT project risks (for example, project delays or unexpected costs) should be minimised. The Eurosystem should aim at complying with regulatory standards even when exempted, unless it is clearly in the public interest not to do so.

Split the money base.

Effects on the banking sector, monetary policy and financial stability

The introduction of a digital euro could affect the transmission of monetary policy and have a negative impact on financial stability, for example by challenging banks’ intermediation capacity and by affecting risk-free interest rates. Depending on its characteristics as a form of investment, it might induce depositors to transform their commercial bank deposits into central bank liabilities. This might increase the funding costs of banks and, as a consequence, interest rates on bank loans, potentially curtailing the volume of bank credit to the economy. Banks could react to this trend in different ways. One possibility would be to try to stabilise deposits by increasing their remuneration or by bundling them with additional services (for example, payment services, mortgages, etc.). Second – unless the central bank increases its outright holdings of securities, thus increasing the supply of liquidity on a permanent basis – banks could replace lost deposit funding with central bank borrowing, provided that they have adequate collateral (in terms of both quality and quantity). This would imply an increase in demand for collateral, which might ultimately have an impact on market interest rates for safe assets; moreover, the central bank would expand its role in the economy and its risk exposure. Finally, to the extent that the central bank increases its outright holdings of securities, banks could still try to substitute deposit funding with more expensive capital market-based funding. Substantial demand for digital euro may also have a negative impact on financial stability, given the key role of the banking sector in financial intermediation. Were this demand to increase their funding costs, banks might have to deleverage and decrease the supply of credit, thus preventing an optimal level of aggregate investment and consumption. If this process ultimately implies higher costs for borrowers, economic activity could be hampered. Moreover, if their traditional business model is compromised, banks may decide to take on greater risks in an attempt to earn higher (nominal) returns and to offset the reduction in profitability.32 Additionally, if banks decrease their role in deposit-taking and intervene less in the routing of payment instructions, they might have less information about clients, which, in turn, would harm their risk assessment capacity. This may increase the riskiness of banks’ balance sheets, with negative effects on financial stability. Furthermore, investors may substitute safe assets (for example, sovereign bonds) with the digital euro, which would directly affect risk-free interest rates and indirectly affect other risk classes.33 In crisis situations, when savers have less confidence in the whole banking sector, liquid assets might be shifted very rapidly from commercial bank deposits to the digital euro if the operational obstacles to withdrawing money in the form of digital euro are lower than for withdrawing cash. This could increase the likelihood and severity of bank runs, weakening financial stability. These examples highlight that the design of the digital euro needs to be carefully assessed, taking into account its implications for such important issues as monetary policy transmission and financial stability. Consideration should be given, inter alia, to whether a digital euro should be accessible by households and firms directly or indirectly through intermediaries, whether it would be remunerated, and whether digital euro holdings of individual users should be limited or unlimited. For instance, the central bank might mitigate potential effects on the banking sector, financial stability and the transmission of monetary policy by remunerating digital euro holdings at a variable rate over time,34 possibly using a tiered remuneration system, or by limiting the quantity of digital euro that users can hold and/or transact.

Footnote 34:

34 A non-interest-bearing or positive interest-bearing digital euro is more likely to induce large-scale substitution away from deposits in a negative interest rate environment. While banknotes already offer a non-interest-bearing alternative to deposits, storage and insurance costs mean that deposit rates can be below zero without triggering large-scale substitution into cash. Holding digital euro would likely entail lower costs than holding banknotes, implying that large-scale substitution into non-interest-bearing or positive interest-bearing digital euro would be more likely – at any given negative rate on deposits – compared with substitution into banknotes.

Oh, what could we do - what could we possibly do??!?

Next paragraph:

Given the risks for monetary policy transmission and financial stability, it is not desirable for the digital euro to attract very large investment inflows. However, if individual holdings of digital euro were too low, either because of rigid constraints or because of disincentives applied above a relatively low threshold, then the digital euro would be less attractive as a means of payment and less competitive than alternative instruments.35 To address the aforementioned risks, the central bank should design the digital euro in line with the following requirement: Requirement 8 (R8): ability to control the amount of digital euro in circulation.

The digital euro should be an attractive means of payment, but should be designed so as to avoid its use as a form of investment and the associated risk of large shifts from private money (for example bank deposits) to digital euro.

BINGO!

 

[smf]

That Richard Barron says it was dripping from the ceiling and soaking the carpet beneath it; others say it was a simple overflowing toilet far away from the counting area.

Both could be true, an overflowing toilet upstairs could leak into the ceiling of the room below. It's possible that nobody making the decision was aware of the entire facts, or understood them. If they had to close toilets while they are fixed then they may have decided to send people home, because otherwise they wouldn't be able to go to the toilet.

Richard Barron could have emptied a bucket of water to make it look like there was a leak so that he could bring in his massive dump of illegal votes, or it could just be that it's something innocent.

I don't think it's something that you can get to the bottom of.

If we call it conspiracy, well the 1% conspiring against the 99% in this manner isn't exactly a theory at this point is it? At least not in a world where hedge funds and lobbyists exist.

I don't think hedge funds count as conspiracy in general. They would need to be involved in a secret plot to do something illegal.

It's possible that there are some conspiracies though & if you start making baseless claims about an individual hedge fund, then it counts as a conspiracy theory. If you actually have proof then it's not a theory.

But without proof then how do you know which hedge fund you should accuse to of conspiracy? Certainly you can't accuse them all & just picking one at random seems likely to be wrong. If you pick one because you don't like a particular person who is involved in the hedge fund then your judgement is clouded.

 

[Deleted member 326676]

I don't think hedge funds count as conspiracy in general. They would need to be involved in a secret plot to do something illegal.

It's possible that there are some conspiracies though & if you start making baseless claims about an individual hedge fund, then it counts as a conspiracy theory. If you actually have proof then it's not a theory.

But without proof then how do you know which hedge fund you should accuse to of conspiracy? Certainly you can't accuse them all & just picking one at random seems likely to be wrong. If you pick one because you don't like a particular person who is involved in the hedge fund then your judgement is clouded.

That's a fair rebuttal. Let's cross out hedge funds and call it a day.

 

[tabzer]

Ok, let's start with the most plausible scenario.

You've questioned the credibility of everyone except Trump himself. The same argument you're using to explain wide-spread election fraud -- bribery, threats, and blackmail -- can be applied to him as well. How do we know that Trump isn't the person being compromised here? What scenario is more plausible -- Trump lying about wide-spread election conspiracy, or hundreds of judges, politicians, and Trump loyalists across the country conspiring against him?

That's not true. I've considered that Trump brokered his way into presidency and that this is all apart of the show.

Also, your account doesn't accurately describe what I proposed.

 

[notimp]

For anyone interested, I've got my answer in the 'digital central bank currency' example.

According to a statement of a spokesperson of the Adenauer Stiftung in germany - this cant be a 'technocratic measure' that would be implemented top down. You would have a democratic referendum to ask people if they are ok with it first.

src: h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08guZbfhW14 (german)

So thats the fallback on 'technocratic collusion'.

 

[djpannda]

sorry horse

but then you see statements like this yesterday from high level Republicans... it warms my heart.

“I’m proud that we’re able to look up after three recounts and watch and be able to see that this election was fair, Was it perfect? Absolutely not. I don’t know if any election was perfect in the history of this country.” - Lt. GovernorDuncan

“Right now, we don’t see anything that would overturn the will of the people here in Georgia,”-Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger

 

[Driving_duck]

sorry horse

but then you see statements like this yesterday from high level Republicans... it warms my heart.

“I’m proud that we’re able to look up after three recounts and watch and be able to see that this election was fair, Was it perfect? Absolutely not. I don’t know if any election was perfect in the history of this country.” - Lt. GovernorDuncan

“Right now, we don’t see anything that would overturn the will of the people here in Georgia,”-Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger

Yep, seems like some of the republicans are actually starting to see that there is no widespread voter fraud.

 

[Doran754]

Isn't that a good thing, that if there was no widespread voter fraud and they can see that, they admit it. Unlike the numpties who cried Russia with no evidence and 4 years later were still beating that horse.

 

[Driving_duck]

Isn't that a good thing, that if there was no widespread voter fraud and they can see that, they admit it. Unlike the numpties who cried Russia with no evidence and 4 years later were still beating that horse.

Yes, sadly i will admit that some of those demos go far too much to the left. While yes, there was some kind of evidence to back it up the russia scandle, they kept beating the horse soo much that the horse was turned to dust.
Personally, im a demo with a few republican believes, like restricting guns is so stupid, I think anyone with a brain would agree with that.

 

[djpannda]

Isn't that a good thing, that if there was no widespread voter fraud and they can see that, they admit it. Unlike the numpties who cried Russia with no evidence and 4 years later were still beating that horse.

and it only took counting 3 times to accept it .( that is ridiculous ) ... well at least for Sane Republicans.. other are still push fraud and asking to illegally change Electors

 

[AmandaRose]

How is this acceptable. Terrorising a whole family just to get an election official to change there mind.


Michigan secretary of state’s home surrounded by armed protesters shouting ‘stop the steal’
Armed protesters chanting "stop the steal" marched on the home of Michigan's top election official on Saturday night to protest what they claim is an election rigged in favour of Joe Biden, writes Harriet Alexander.

Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, had just finished stringing up her Christmas lights and was about to watch How The Grinch Stole Christmas with her four-year-old son when the crowd of about two dozen turned up with guns, flags, loud hailers and speakers at around 9:30pm.

Michigan state officials accused the group of "terrorising" Ms Benson and her family, in retaliation for her overseeing the election.

Jocelyn Benson accused ‘the armed people outside my home’ of wanting ‘to undermine and silence the will and voices of every voter in this state



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-live-biden-update-twitter-b1767194.html?amp

 

[Driving_duck]

How is this acceptable. Terrorising a whole family just to get an election official to change there mind.


Michigan secretary of state’s home surrounded by armed protesters shouting ‘stop the steal’
Armed protesters chanting "stop the steal" marched on the home of Michigan's top election official on Saturday night to protest what they claim is an election rigged in favour of Joe Biden, writes Harriet Alexander.

Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, had just finished stringing up her Christmas lights and was about to watch How The Grinch Stole Christmas with her four-year-old son when the crowd of about two dozen turned up with guns, flags, loud hailers and speakers at around 9:30pm.

Michigan state officials accused the group of "terrorising" Ms Benson and her family, in retaliation for her overseeing the election.

Jocelyn Benson accused ‘the armed people outside my home’ of wanting ‘to undermine and silence the will and voices of every voter in this state



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-live-biden-update-twitter-b1767194.html?amp

Yeah, there has been a lot of craziness out there going on with the world. All i can say is, "Thats america for ya!"