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

[smf]

So are you for not being suspicious.

There is a difference between questioning and prejudging.

 

[Deleted User]

I came back to this thread...
And I believe I just lost a lot of braincells reading through everything.
At least this insanity is almost over.
One can only go through the same arguments over and over.
I'll simply put that, there is clearly no widespread election fraud in the 2020 election.
The court case ratio
1-42
is enough proof.

 

[Deleted member 326676]

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.

Except I have you on record claiming that it's the two political parties that "broker candidacy" in choosing the winner, which is why I don't consider that direct criticism:

The Republicans and the Democrats, alike, generally don't like leaving anything up to chance--so it's likely that they broker candidacy and negotiate who is going to win

If you were even halfway serious about election-related conspiracy, your focus would include the possibility that Trump himself has been compromised. While I find his involvement unlikely, a conspiracy involving a minimum of one compromised individual is still far more "likely" than one involving dozens or hundreds of compromised individuals.

Your conspiracy alleges that practically every-single-person in position to influence the election outcome has been compromised (i.e. Trump's 1-49 court record), while forgiving Trump of his long history of conspiracy and misinformation peddling. The alternative merely suggests that the courts, states, and election watchdogs are doing their jobs as expected, while alleging that Trump is the one who's been compromised, which includes his conspiracy and misinformation peddling as evidence rather than conveniently ignoring it.

I came back to this thread...
And I believe I just lost a lot of braincells reading through everything.
At least this insanity is almost over.
One can only go through the same arguments over and over.
I'll simply put that, there is clearly no widespread election fraud in the 2020 election.
The court case ratio
1-42
is enough proof.

How does 1-49 sound to you, monkeyman?



Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1336142921054232576

 

[Deleted User]

Except I have you on record claiming that it's the two political parties that "broker candidacy" in choosing the winner, which is why I don't consider that direct criticism:

If you were even halfway serious about election-related conspiracy, your focus would include the possibility that Trump himself has been compromised. While I find his involvement unlikely, a conspiracy involving a minimum of one compromised individual is still far more "likely" than one involving dozens or hundreds of compromised individuals.

Your conspiracy alleges that practically every-single-person in position to influence the election outcome has been compromised (i.e. Trump's 1-49 court record), while forgiving Trump of his long history of conspiracy and misinformation peddling. The alternative merely suggests that the courts, states, and election watchdogs are doing their jobs as expected, while alleging that Trump is the one who's been compromised, which includes his conspiracy and misinformation peddling as evidence rather than conveniently ignoring it.


How does 1-49 sound to you, monkeyman?



https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1336142921054232576

fucking lmao
1-49 is a painful number, at that point, why would they continue trying?


But yeah, at that point it's like doing the damage cap on already dead boss.
Clearly, like, super clearly, no widespread election fraud.

 

[omgcat]

I came back to this thread...
And I believe I just lost a lot of braincells reading through everything.
At least this insanity is almost over.
One can only go through the same arguments over and over.
I'll simply put that, there is clearly no widespread election fraud in the 2020 election.
The court case ratio
1-42
is enough proof.

42 is the answer to life, the universe, and everything. oh and also trumps loss count.

 

[Deleted member 326676]

fucking lmao
1-49 is a painful number, at that point, why would they continue trying?

But yeah, at that point it's like doing the damage cap on already dead boss.
Clearly, like, super clearly, no widespread election fraud.

Here's the most likely reason, monkeyman:

Trump campaign, RNC announce $200 million post-election fundraising haul
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...nnounce-200-million-post-election-fundraising

President Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee (RNC) have raised more than $200 million since Election Day, a sum gained through solicitations to fight against what the president falsely claimed was widespread voter fraud that influenced the 2020 election results.

The Trump campaign and RNC announced the massive fundraising haul of $207.5 million Thursday evening, which they said was raised by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., the RNC, the two joint fundraising committees Trump Victory (edit: LOL?) and the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, and Trump’s new Save America political action committee.

Here's my favorite part of the article:

Earlier this week, Attorney General William Barr said that the Justice Department has not found evidence of any widespread fraud that would alter the result of the election, a stunning break to which Trump reacted negatively on Thursday.

 

[Foxi4]

Sure as hell didn't look like a standard hunting rifle to me, but I won't claim that I'm expert enough to identify each and every firearm by make and model with one glance, either. Regardless, it should go without saying that nobody should be deifying a murderer or making excuses for him simply because he's on the same political "team" as them. There's a word for that kind of violence with a political motive/agenda: terrorism.

Listen, I can understand what you're saying, but I have to tell you, I recognise that it's coming out of a place of hate and I won't engage you on it much. The reason why you're saying that firearm was a dangerous combat rifle is because it was black, and I don't see colour - black, woodgrain, dark green, I treat them all equally. I resent this kind of prejudice and won't discuss it further.

Jokes aside, if you can buy it in the sporting goods section, it's probably not a combat rifle, it probably just looks cool, which is indeed pretty cool. Regarding terrorism, if it's the kind that takes out violent agitators who attack people in the middle of the street then I can get behind that. I've seen the rap sheets of the "victims", I very much doubt they were there to peaceably assemble, but you do you - there's nothing to discuss here, I won't budge. Everyone can see the video, to me it looks like self-defense, but it's up to the judge to figure this one out and I have no further input. What I will say is that if you, by your own admission, are not particularly expert at something, perhaps you shouldn't make definitive statements on those subjects. It wasn't a combat rifle, it was a typical modular platform rifle. "Looking scary" does not make it a military rifle, or a "combat rifle", whatever that means.

*Snip*

You're quoting the wrong person, I never said that, you may want to correct that to maintain the quote chain.

 

[tabzer]

Except I have you on record claiming that it's the two political parties that "broker candidacy" in choosing the winner, which is why I don't consider that direct criticism:

So, would you be making this same argument, if he had won just like 2016? "I don't trust the government. I think Biden still has a chance!"

The last election I believed was with Bill Clinton.

I can't really imagine Trump cheating with bipartisan support, but it's possible that is what happened in 2016. I doubt he is going to do what he said he would do. But he might.

Basically, it is passive, but it is an admission that Trump maybe apart of the presidential brokerage scheme. To my defense, you weren't really that interested anyway. So why say anything about it?

If you were even halfway serious about election-related conspiracy, your focus would include the possibility that Trump himself has been compromised. While I find his involvement unlikely, a conspiracy involving a minimum of one compromised individual is still far more "likely" than one involving dozens or hundreds of compromised individuals.

That is how you interpret it. That's not, at all how I see it.

Your conspiracy alleges that practically every-single-person in position to influence the election outcome has been compromised (i.e. Trump's 1-49 court record)

It really doesn't. As I have said before, I believe the bulk of those lawsuits only apply for the bare minimum of evidence in order to cast a semblance of doubt into the courtrooom. I don't think he is honestly trying to win them. If he is as serious as I think he could be, think he is just poke/testing the court system and getting all the judges on record to state their position before dropping the bombshell proof of election fraud. That way he can campaign for running opposition, saying things like, "judge so and so was presented with evidence that the election may have been compromised, but instead of trying to get to the bottom of it, they chose to assist in covering up the dire problem of the fraud. Vote for not-so and so, and make America greater than ever!"

There are two assumptions that seem to be seriously considered here. One assumption is that he is desperate, and is trying to cling onto his Presidency by all means possible, which would mean that the losing count in the courtrooms are laughable desperation moves. The other assumption is that he believed that the election, 4 years ago, was rigged against him, and has prepared for it this time. If there is fraud, then why would he play his "Trump" card when he can milk this time for all the sweet intel?

The bottom line is that we never know with Trump. He's narcissistic, but not stupid. I think he wants to be the greatest, and if he proves election fraud happens in America, that would make him the greatest. I think people ought to desire that, if election fraud is truly real, that Trump would be able to expose it--despite how much they think they should hate Trump.

What I first saw when I came into this thread, was that "because Trump made a bogus 'as a matter of a fact claim', we too, can make a claim that we cannot prove." Nobody seems to be okay with not really knowing, and are overcompensating by pretending that they know.

Earlier this week, Attorney General William Barr said that the Justice Department has not found evidence of any widespread fraud that would alter the result of the election, a stunning break to which Trump reacted negatively on Thursday.

Before we take that medicine, can we see how much he looked, if at all? A lot of people dislike Barr because he seems useless for Trump, but he could be posturing.

 

[smf]

You're quoting the wrong person, I never said that, you may want to correct that to maintain the quote chain.

Sorry, no idea how that happened. I don't think it's worth fixing, we're all just shouting at the moon.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

"Looking scary" does not make it a military rifle, or a "combat rifle", whatever that means.

But it does mean that the people who tried to take the gun from him were acting in self defense when he shot them.

 

[notimp]

1. Hunter Biden is under current FBI criminal investigation, neither The Bgman or Hunter Biden have disputed the legitimacy of the laptop

On the "Biden-China scare" - watch this:


Then dont fall over into the 'all collusion, everything is collusion' narative quite yet, but contrast with this:
https://www.dw.com/en/joe-biden-trump-us-china-trade-war-asia-india/a-55588355

and read this for more context:
https://www.dw.com/en/china-bares-teeth-in-wolf-warrior-trade-diplomacy/a-55720212

DW.com is the german foreign news channel, so government funded:
https://www.dw.com/en/who-finances-dw/a-36767785

At the very least - this should give you an 'image' that doesnt include blackmail as a structural tool. As in generally it doesnt. As in - it wouldnt work. Everything is set up to "exchange mutual favors".

If you go down further in interpretation, it helps to know that China has declared a 'domestic growth decade' (which chinese export industry doesnt like), and the event in the video up top is a public event - where the professor cited 'dumbs down' rethoric. meaning, he doesnt speak to his peers. So if seen under that light - its probably public appeasement. (To a large extent.) China having to pronounce 'a domestic growth decade', means reduced growth potential for many stakeholders.

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

Oh, no, please understand, my dear friend. I want you to be happy and get all hyped for a Harris.. I mean... a Biden administration because then your tears will be tainted with all that despair you're all going to suffer from once Trump is declared the winner that will only make them sweeter.

If you folks decide to ignore all the evidence and odd happenings, then you can only blame yourselves for what happens. Of course, I bet you'll still blame white men and black Trump supporters for all your issues.

Cope harder

 

[Foxi4]

But it does mean that the people who tried to take the gun from him were acting in self defense when he shot them.

It absolutely does not. It's perfectly legal to carry this kind of weapon, either openly or concealed, depending on state law. The three attackers (and they were attackers) had no way of knowing he was underage, so they attacked him for no reason. You do not have the right to disarm anyone on a whim, that's how you get shot.

 

[tabzer]

Sorry, no idea how that happened. I don't think it's worth fixing, we're all just shouting at the moon.

You can speak for yourself with that one.

 

[Xzi]

Regarding terrorism, if it's the kind that takes out violent agitators who attack people in the middle of the street then I can get behind that.

The violent agitator in this scenario is the kid who crossed state lines, arrived at the protest, and then crossed the police line, all while (illegally) carrying a firearm. No private citizen has the right to carry out extrajudicial killings, and attempting to justify murder after the fact is fucking absurd. "Oh look, this guy had a jaywalking charge on his record...guess he deserved the death penalty."

If one political party in particular continues to encourage and cheer for violence, we're going to end up in another Civil War. And while that might be what Republicans think they want right now, it would ultimately end up just like the previous one: with most of the South burned to the ground.

It's perfectly legal to carry this kind of weapon, either openly or concealed, depending on state law.

He didn't have the weapon registered in WI, nor did he have any permit for carrying a weapon in the state. He was carrying illegally at the time of the murders, not that that should be the most important point of emphasis anyway.

 

[Foxi4]

The violent agitator in this scenario is the kid who crossed state lines, arrived at the protest, and then crossed the police line, all while (illegally) carrying a firearm. No private citizen has the right to carry out extrajudicial killings, and attempting to justify murder after the fact is fucking absurd. "Oh look, this guy had a jaywalking charge on his record...guess he deserved the death penalty."

If one political party in particular continues to encourage and cheer for violence, we're going to end up in another Civil War. And while that might be what Republicans think they want right now, it would ultimately end up just like the previous one: with most of the South burned to the ground.

Everything you've just mentioned had precisely nothing to do with the fact that he was attacked by three individuals and used his weapon to defend himself. Flip your own reasoning the other way - the fact that he was illegally carrying a firearm doesn't make it justifiable to attack him, which is precisely what happened. He wasn't blasting at anyone like a maniac - he fired only once he was attacked. *Clearly* he was not the aggressor. I'm fully in favour of punishing him for illegally carrying, however he did not, in my eyes, commit murder. He was defending his life and limb.

He didn't have the weapon registered in WI, nor did he have any permit for carrying a weapon in the state. He was carrying illegally at the time of the murders, not that that should be the most important point of emphasis anyway.

Irrelevant in the context of smf's assertion. "Being scared" doesn't justify aggression, which was the point.

 

[Xzi]

Everything you've just mentioned had precisely nothing to do with the fact that he was attacked by three individuals and used his weapon to defend himself. Flip your own reasoning the other way - the fact that he was illegally carrying a firearm doesn't make it justifiable to attack him, which is precisely what happened. He wasn't blasting at anyone like a maniac - he fired only once he was attacked. *Clearly* he was not the aggressor. I'm fully in favour of punishing him for illegally carrying, however he did not, in my eyes, commit murder. He was defending his life and limb.

You're basically attempting to apply "stand your ground" laws to a kid who was hundreds of miles from home. He put himself in that situation knowing full well he wouldn't be greeted with open arms by his political opposition; he went there seeking conflict. Pointing a gun at people who are simply exercising their first amendment rights is an act of aggression.

 

[tabzer]

You're basically attempting to apply "stand your ground" laws to a kid who was hundreds of miles from home. He put himself in that situation knowing full well he wouldn't be greeted with open arms by his political opposition; he went there seeking conflict.

Stand your ground is about defending property, no? This was him defending his life.

 

[Foxi4]

You're basically attempting to apply "stand your ground" laws to a kid who was hundreds of miles from home. He put himself in that situation knowing full well he wouldn't be greeted with open arms by his political opposition; he went there seeking conflict.

You stand your ground wherever your feet happen to stand, anything short of that is an egregious infringement of the immutable right to life. "Not being at home" is not a justification for getting pummeled over the head with a skateboard.

(...) he went there seeking conflict. Pointing a gun at people who are simply exercising their first amendment rights is an act of aggression.

You have no evidence of that. He went armed because he expected a riot to take place and he carried a weapon for his own personal safety - that's the sensible interpretation. He was also right - he was attacked. It's nice of you to bring up the constitution - attacking people as a mob as they exercise their second amendment right is not acceptable, and his attackers had no knowledge of whether he was carrying legally or not. That's an act of aggression - you can tell by the fact that they attacked him, on video.

Stand your ground is about defending property, no? This was him defending his life.

That's castle doctrine.

 

[Xzi]

You stand your ground wherever your feet happen to stand, anything short of that is an egregious infringement of the immutable right to life. "Not being at home" is not a justification for getting pummeled over the head with a skateboard.

Again, he crossed the police line looking for conflict. He was pointing a loaded weapon at people simply for exercising their first amendment rights. That's an act of aggression, and aggression in response is to be expected.

If only a claim of "self defense" was the catch-all you're making it out to be, people getting revenge for police killing their dogs would be a much simpler matter.

 

[omgcat]

The violent agitator in this scenario is the kid who crossed state lines, arrived at the protest, and then crossed the police line, all while (illegally) carrying a firearm. No private citizen has the right to carry out extrajudicial killings, and attempting to justify murder after the fact is fucking absurd. "Oh look, this guy had a jaywalking charge on his record...guess he deserved the death penalty."

If one political party in particular continues to encourage and cheer for violence, we're going to end up in another Civil War. And while that might be what Republicans think they want right now, it would ultimately end up just like the previous one: with most of the South burned to the ground.


He didn't have the weapon registered in WI, nor did he have any permit for carrying a weapon in the state. He was carrying illegally at the time of the murders, not that that should be the most important point of emphasis anyway.

You stand your ground wherever your feet happen to stand, anything short of that is an egregious infringement of the immutable right to life. "Not being at home" is not a justification for getting pummeled over the head with a skateboard.

That's castle doctrine.

the kid is still gonna get fucked for illegally carrying a firearm across state lines, improper discharge of a firearm, either manslaughter or criminal negligence, committing a straw purchase, and a huge host of other offenses. he's pretty damn fucked. a bunch of what he did was criminally stupid, and he should get the book thrown at him. also i love how people are calling Rittenhouse a "kid" when he is 17. people argued that Trayvon Martin wasn't a kid because he was 17. if Rittenhouse doesn't see the inside of a jail cell, our country is going to lose it's fucking mind.