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

[tabzer]

Mastered in psychology and minored in biochem with a proclivity toward information security and UNIX systems <3

The damage of a faulty primary schooling is very hard to reverse, despite one's sense of success in following orders.

You're assuming one has the wherewithal to have these suspicions, which Giuliani obviously didn't. Do you know why I made my court analogy by now? If you were a defense lawyer, a judge would laugh in your face

You are cherry picking "real facts" out of a work of complete fiction. I don't know what Guiliani went through. I posted a completely fabricated work of fiction to show an example of how the Guiliani situation could be more complex than it appears on the surface. In my fiction, the character was not a pedophile.

Giuliani could be a pedophile. I don't know. But it's a little contradictory for you to say that the character can't know someone's age, unless by magic--yet you know for sure what Giuliani was thinking. I don't know what experience you have had, but for me It's easier to determine someone's age by their physique and mentality than it is to read someone's mind. Not saying that the latter is impossible. It's a generalization.

 

[Joom]

The damage of a faulty primary schooling is very hard to reverse, despite one's sense of success in following orders.

What are you even talking about? You're babbling again.

I don't know what Guiliani went through.

You claimed to with your analogy.

I posted a completely fabricated work of fiction to show an example of how the Guiliani situation could be more complex than it appears on the surface.

You mean you posted an analogy that sympathizes with pedophiles. You see this @gregory-samba? Your only support here sympathizes with kiddy diddlers. Kinda like Giuliani. How fittingly ironic.

 

[tabzer]

You claimed to with your analogy.

The analogy was a possible scenario, not a claim of what actually happened. But please explain how you seem to know exactly what Guilani was thinking and why. "Magic?" If you think my analogy is flawed, it doesn't mean I support pedophilia. I am reluctant to assume Guialini is a pedophile based on a post production promotion of the new Borat movie.

You mean you posted an analogy that sympathizes with pedophiles.

No. The analogy was about someone being caught up in a strange situation, similar to Guilani's--which seems like a cruel trick. It had nothing to do with sympathizing or encouraging sympathy with child abusers.

I mean, I think you wrongly drew equivalence between "To catch a predator" and this Borat scene. In to catch a predator, you have people who seek out sexual relationships with people, thinking they are minors--to the point that they basically sign a confession before they even see the actor/actress. In the Borat scene, it seems like Giuliani was placed in a very confusing situation with someone he could have thought was older than what they were saying--(if they even said it, I don't know) but there seems to be doubt surrounding how/if/when/what order the information was delivered. It's even possible the Giuliani was a willing participant in a movie sketch with Borat. I don't know a lot about how Sascha manages to get people to look so ridiculous. It's uncanny.

 

[tabzer]

He's accusing me of being a drug addict, but then he goes off on tirades over stuff he's misreading and misinterpreting. When I used "you" in the reply he quoted, not only was I not replying to him but "you" meant anyone who would think minorities can't figure out how to vote by themselves under the current rule set. I think he's either (1) been up too long (2) is high as fuck or both.

I have trouble telling if it is just trolling to him or if he's just an abusive person in general.

 

[Joom]

No. The analogy was about someone being caught up in a strange situation

"Strange" meaning pedophillic?

Giuliani was placed in a very confusing situation

You're still making excuses for him.

to the point that they basically sign a confession

What does it mean to "basically sign a confession"?

In the Borat scene

Do you not think he signed release documents as well? It's why his actions were legally displayed through Amazon's streaming service.

If you think my analogy is flawed, it doesn't mean I support pedophilia.

Then maybe don't make a flawed argument that sounds like pedophilia. You trying to put me in Giuliani's shoes andc saying "imagine yourself as an old man in this situation" doesn't help.

I mean, I think you wrongly drew equivalence between "To catch a predator" and this Borat scene.

How? They both used bait actors to suss out a sexual predator.

But it's a little contradictory for you to say that the character can't know someone's age, unless by magic--yet you know for sure what Giuliani was thinking.

I have no idea what "character" you're talking about. I'm also a psychologist, and with how transparent Giuliani is in his actions, it's easy to form conclusions through deductive reasoning and his celebrity status.

I have trouble telling if it is just trolling to him or if he's just an abusive person in general.

It's the latter. I'm a hate machine, obviously.

 

[g00s3y]

Trump supporters crying like snowflakes, it's hilarious.

Bunch of trashy, racist, white people upset because the racist they voted in office isn't going to be there anymore.

 

[tabzer]

"Strange" meaning pedophillic?

No. As in suspicious.

How? They both used bait actors to suss out a sexual predator.

In one, where prosecution is successful, it is because they displayed unquestionable intent in soliciting a minor, and have even been on record stating as such. In Borat, they try to make it look that way with theatrics and post-production editing.

What does it mean to "basically sign a confession"?

Such as chat dialogues where the person posing as a minor says that they are a minor, and the predator says,"that's what I am soliciting."

I have no idea what "character" you're talking about.

The character in my fiction that was not Giuliani, but was meant to show how Giuliani's situation could have been like.

I'm also a psychologist

Would you be willing to stake your professional career and testify against Giuliani?

It's the latter.

Well. It'd be nice if you can get some proper support before you seriously hurt someone close to you instead of just trying to hurt random people on the internet.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

Oh my god are you *still* on about whether or not "old man makes advances on actress who is playing a role as if she were underage" constitutes engaging in pedophilic behavior?

Because it kinda is, specifically in the Borat/Rudy situation. Look up some "to catch a predator" if you've never seen that tactic used before.

No amount of "she seemed old enough/she's actually old enough" is gonna be holding up to that.

The argument of "Rudy doesn't get enough action" is uh... Even worse and really sounds like you're defending pedophiles, cuz that's what it is.

Good grief.

 

[Lacius]

Put up or shut up.

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

@Joom, I think it's funny how you glanced over the whole thing about Biden.

The racial wealth gap is a heavily studied thing. To deny it exists is to live in a fantasy world.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_inequality_in_the_United_States

 

[tabzer]

Oh my god are you *still* on about whether or not "old man makes advances on actress who is playing a role as if she were underage" constitutes engaging in pedophilic behavior?

I'm saying that it is possibly a misrepresentation.

Because it kinda is, specifically in the Borat/Rudy situation. Look up some "to catch a predator" if you've never seen that tactic used before.

Got an episode in mind?

No amount of "she seemed old enough/she's actually old enough" is gonna be holding up to that.

I'm lacking context to figure out what you even mean by this.

The argument of "Rudy doesn't get enough action" is uh... Even worse and really sounds like you're defending pedophiles, cuz that's what it is.

Good grief.

I framed the character as being desperate and sleezy, but explicitly not a pedophile. The character didn't make any advances. It ended with him intending to use his "brilliant" skills in trying to determine the truth. The narration was intended to be satirical and to also to draw attention to the moral dilemma in a staged entrapment scenario possibly falsely incriminating someone.

 

[gregory-samba]

I framed the character as being desperate and sleezy, but explicitly not a pedophile. The character didn't make any advances. It ended with him intending to use his "brilliant" skills in trying to determine the truth. The narration was intended to be satirical and to also to draw attention to the moral dilemma in a staged entrapment scenario possibly falsely incriminating someone.

By the looks of it the people you're arguing with don't have the ability or are allowed by their peers to judge the scene correctly. The entire purpose and intent is lost on them. There's "what they get out of it" and then "what the author meant" and the latter is completely lost on them.

 

[Deleted User]

@tabzer You want to dance. we can dance.

Tabzer's claim

Oh that's cool. You can retroactively change the meaning and the intention of what you said by using a switch in your mind. Too bad nothing of what you are saying has anything to do with what I've said.

before we can get down to business. we need to establish the conversation, and background.

I was discussing the fact I found it insane that people were not listening to evidence.

Copium overdose still ongoing?
sure does look like it.

People:"Trumps cases are being thrown out in court"

the copium addicts: "LOOK ANOTHER COURT CASE BEING FILED! RiGgEd EleCtIon!"


I'm generally finding this insanity with how much these guys are disenfranchised with reality. When people tell you that the court cases are being thrown out/dismissed. They continue still talking like that evidence didn't exist. When you tell them reality of things that Trump can't win, due to statistics regarding the votes being counted as of now. They say Trump can still win.

Tabzer earlier stated trump could still win before this post. More specifically, believing in the conspiracy of widespread voter fraud.

I appreciate the sincere posts. They mean a lot to me. I'm only conservative in this thread because I'm reluctant to say "it's finally over". I honestly think Trump could have a trick up his sleeve and is not as stupid as people want to say. That makes me a Trump supporter to some people even though I don't vote. Why do I have to belong on one side or the other? I hate everyone equally.

Earlier than this.

Looks widespread to me.

this one above was in reference to someone linking Trump making another court case.


this proves. Tabzer does believe that there is widespread voter fraud and trump could win.

Now... Let's play a game
Was tabzer told that there wasn't widespread voter fraud?
For any skeptics, or for any of those who wonder if it's real or not. It is not.
Why can I say that definitively?
https://apnews.com/article/ap-explains-fail-prove-election-fraud-d0f13ae6ca370c8716706d3f7d85659e
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/us/politics/trump-election-lawsuits.html

If you notice. A lot of Trumps court cases aren't holding up.
Why?
Well one the accusations are large, so you need large evidence to back it up, and also it would stop the vote count until investigations where finished.
When you go to a court, you must provide at least some evidence to prove that the case is real before the case even starts. Trumps lawyers, are failing to provide sufficient evidence. Causing the Judge to immediately dismiss those cases.
So... did anyone before page 79. Mention voter fraud before then?
Answer:
Yeah. He was.
both directly. And indirectly
indirectly on the same page through lacius

There is zero evidence of widespread voter fraud. Put up or shut up.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/us/politics/voting-fraud.html

https://apnews.com/article/election...litics-media-1bf96bf3910bdcbe0f125958357c8f1a

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...nt-trumps-false-claims-vote-fraud-chronology/

and also directly.
There was a post by Wholam (who is deleted)
linked a article with someone being charged for voter fraud. By changing how many ballots? 67
Lacius pointed out that is voter fraud. But it isn't widespread. (and even then. also note the fraud was caught... which would also mean the votes would of been restored to the proper numbers)
Tabzer asked. which I will allow the rest of this conversation to play out.

How many of those does it take?

Widespread voter fraud would perhaps be something large enough to potentially tip the election.

1. Trump won Texas by 647,076 votes, as of this post.
2. This woman registered 67 nursing home patients in Texas to vote.
3. My understanding is 0 of these votes were actually cast.

So no, this is not an example of widespread voter fraud. There's zero evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Edit: Also, do we know what the intent was behind the fraud? Was it to help Biden? Was it to help Trump? Was it not intended to help anybody?

So... Now with all this baggage. We can comeback to tabzer's statement which involves this specific post from me.

Copium overdose still ongoing?
sure does look like it.

People:"Trumps cases are being thrown out in court"

the copium addicts: "LOOK ANOTHER COURT CASE BEING FILED! RiGgEd EleCtIon!"


I'm generally finding this insanity with how much these guys are disenfranchised with reality. When people tell you that the court cases are being thrown out/dismissed. They continue still talking like that evidence didn't exist. When you tell them reality of things that Trump can't win, due to statistics regarding the votes being counted as of now. They say Trump can still win.

This was my point. I was saying it very broadly, not targeting tabzer with this statement.

If that is a claim you are making of me, I would appreciate a reference of such a situation. If you aren't casting shade on my personal character then you can ignore this.

He took offense, believing that I was mentioning him.

I won't count on any of this to be true, but if Trump is going to win the election, this could be a "how". @Lacius

If it is true, I can see this being very troubling for those who have already committed themselves to "knowing" the outcome.

This statement above, proves that he fits my definition of people who don't listen. On page 70 lacius told him about what wide spread voter fraud would actually be. And on this quote. page 72. He ignored.
Already not looking too good for himself.


So I finally responded to his accusation

Remember how you asked if I was attacking your character when I made the statement about you guys not listening to evidence?
Yeah... at this point I'll let it be an attack on your character.
We've already told you, shown you, used evidence from courts, that there is no voter fraud. We've provided our sources. We've provided arguments.
Now here you are just wanting to make a statement, without any evidence, and then when someone asks you for evidence, you side step the issue and attack the person.
When lacius asks you to "put up or shut up"
We are strictly asking for evidence to your claims, evidence that is irrefutable or at least strong. That doesn't have some significant issue or extreme leaning.
If it comes from something like idk
Project vertias or beritbart. When they have a long track record of either having extremist views and along with not being factual. We write that evidence off. Because that source, is extremely sketchy. TO prevent problems since I don't know if you can natively use English or you use google translate. Replace sketchy with questionable.
Sources we often use, are as least extreme as possible and has a high reputation of accurately reporting things.

I changed no meaning, only pointing out how ignorant Tabzer was being.

Oh that's cool. You can retroactively change the meaning and the intention of what you said by using a switch in your mind. Too bad nothing of what you are saying has anything to do with what I've said.

Unfortunately Taber, I swapped no meaning. I said exactly what I wanted to say. You asked if I was attacking your character. And I decided to agree with you that I was.
Oh and also too bad everything I have to does relate to what you said.



If your going to claim my post is untrue. Then in the words of Lacius
"put up or shut up"

 

[gregory-samba]

this proves. Tabzer does believe that there is widespread voter fraud and trump could win.

Now... Let's play a game
Was tabzer told that there wasn't widespread voter fraud?
For any skeptics, or for any of those who wonder if it's real or not. It is not.
Why can I say that definitively?
https://apnews.com/article/ap-explains-fail-prove-election-fraud-d0f13ae6ca370c8716706d3f7d85659e
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/us/politics/trump-election-lawsuits.html

If you notice. A lot of Trumps court cases aren't holding up.
Why?
Well one the accusations are large, so you need large evidence to back it up, and also it would stop the vote count until investigations where finished.
When you go to a court, you must provide at least some evidence to prove that the case is real before the case even starts.

You're spot on with these comments. Regardless of what the Liberals or Conservatives think the actual court cases will be a chance for Trump to provide evidence that there is voter fraud and on a massive scale. It doesn't look too good for Trump as because he's losing these cases he's apparently been unable to provide evidence of widespread voter fraud. It really doesn't matter what either side claims as one side is full of people that take orders like sheep and refuse to ever admit they are wrong (Liberals) and then the other side that has a tendency to believe fabricated conspiracy theories (Conservatives). The actual cases and evidence that's being presented are what matters ... not some random persons opinions. So what do the cases prove thus far? Not much. As I stated before it looks like Biden is the winner. We just have to wait until the electoral college votes now for it to be official.

 

[Lacius]

You're spot on with these comments. Regardless of what the Liberals or Conservatives think the actual court cases will be a chance for Trump to provide evidence that there is voter fraud an on a massive scale. It doesn't look too good for Trump as because he's losing these cases he's apparently been unable to provide evidence of widespread voter fraud. It really doesn't matter what either side claims as one side is full of people that take orders like sheep and refuse to ever admit they are wrong (Liberals) and then the other side that has a tendency to believe fabricated conspiracy theories (Conservatives). The actual cases and evidence that's being presented are what matters ... not some random persons opinions.

Liberals don't broadly take orders like sheep, and they broadly admit when they're wrong as much as anybody else. Your overgeneralizations are as silly as they are boring.

 

[gregory-samba]

Liberals don't broadly take orders like sheep, and they broadly admit when they're wrong as much as anybody else. Your overgeneralizations are as silly as they are boring.

You're a Liberal so of course you don't see what's really going on because you've been instructed not to think about such things. Liberals don't value the individual and that includes the individuals thoughts. You're instructed what to think as opposed to Conservatives that are educated on how to think for themselves. You yourself couldn't even list 1 single thing that Trump did that you agree with and this is a symptom of not being able to think for yourself as your peers would attack you and your so called friends would abandon you for doing something you're not allowed to do. Liberals try to champion their superior critical thinking skills, but you can't possibly critically think because what you're allowed to think about is only a small fraction of the possible things you could be pondering. You're literally controlled by your peers and their thought control groups.

You take orders from your news media, celebrities and politicians and would be outcast for thinking or saying certain things by the establishment and your peers. You're told what you should be outraged about, why you should be outraged and what you should do about the outrage on subjects that don't even involve you or effect your personal life. You seek to be part of a system that doesn't value individuals or independent thinking and wants a central source (Government) to control every aspect of your lives because you're too damned scared to think and take risks for yourself. You need to be included in something and unfortunately the groups of people you want to be included in are lying and cheating sinners that will turn on you the second you say something you're not allowed to or start to think for yourself.

You yourself and other Liberals on this board also will go to great lengths to not admit they are wrong even when the truth, like what I just typed, is presented to you. You're programmed to automatically label and reject things by calling them racist, *phobic or conspiracy theories. What I observe from you and others hasn't changed as you do not have the ability to think for yourself and that includes admitting when you're wrong.

 

[Lacius]

You're a Liberal so of course you don't see what's really going on because you've been instructed not to think about such things. Liberals don't value the individual and that includes the individuals thoughts. You're instructed what to think as opposed to Conservatives that are educated on how to think for themselves. You yourself couldn't even list 1 single thing that Trump did that you agree with and this is a symptom of not being able to think for yourself as your peers would attack you and your so called friends would abandon you for doing something you're not allowed to do. Liberals try to champion their superior critical thinking skills, but you can't possibly critically think because what you're allowed to think about is only a small fraction of the possible things you could be pondering. You're literally controlled by peers and their thought control groups.

You take orders from your news media, celebrities and politicians and would be outcast for thinking or saying certain things by the establishment and your peers. You're told what you should be outraged about, why you should be outraged and what you should do about the outrage on subjects that don't even involve you or effect your personal life. You seek to be part of a system that doesn't value individuals or independent thinking, but wants a central source (Government) to control every aspect of your lives because you're too damned scared to think and take risks for yourself. You need to be included in something and unfortunately the groups of people you want to be included in are lying and cheating sinners that will turn on you the second you say something you're not allowed to or start to think for yourself.

You yourself and other Liberals on this board also will go to great lengths to not admit they are wrong even when evidence, like what I just typed, is presented to you. You're programmed to automatically label and reject things by calling them racist, *phobic or conspiracy theories. What I observe from you and others hasn't changed as you do not have the ability to think for yourself and that includes admitting when you're wrong.

I got through one sentence and couldn't continue with the rest of this idiotic post. Obviously, nobody has instructed me to do anything. This post is hyperbolic nonsense.

I think for myself, and I did articulate one thing of Trump's I liked. Grow up and start thinking for yourself.

 

[gregory-samba]

I'm saying that it is possibly a misrepresentation.

You're really wasting your time by being manipulated by the Left's tactics of deliberately changing the subject, which was Biden likes to fondle pre-teens breasts to focus on someone else. The subject matter isn't the President's lawyer it's the probable new President Biden and the fact he's on various video feeds in which he was recorded fondling young children. He's a sicko so you shouldn't really buy into the left's deflection techniques and keep the focus on the child predator Joe Biden.

 

[Lacius]

You're really wasting your time by being manipulated by the Left's tactics of deliberately changing the subject, which was Biden likes to fondle pre-teens breasts to focus on someone else. The subject matter isn't the President's lawyer it's the probable new President Biden and the fact he's on various video feeds in which he was recorded fondling young children. He's a sicko so you shouldn't really buy into the left's deflection techniques and keep the focus on the child predator Joe Biden.

Fact check: Biden doesn't like to fondle pre-teen breasts.

 

[chrisrlink]

this entire thread....no the entire subforum went to hell over a biden win let me spell it out to trump supporters YOU LOST DEAL WITH IT LIKE AN ADULT

 

[tabzer]

I posted this:

You are not an authority or someone that I would personally trust to decide what is and what is not evidence, as it seems as if you have already decided the outcome of all news cycles between now and Biden's anticipated transition. There is evidence. Whether that evidence is condemning, accurate, fraudulent, misconstrued, unnoticed, unsubmitted, or enough--it is the court process deciding "the truth".

And almost immediately after you posted this:

Copium overdose still ongoing?
sure does look like it.

People:"Trumps cases are being thrown out in court"

the copium addicts: "LOOK ANOTHER COURT CASE BEING FILED! RiGgEd EleCtIon!"

I asked you if you were talking about me, because it seemed like you were cowardly branding me instead of addressing the heart of the argument. It made you look more interested in reinforcing an "us vs. them" narrative than to be genuine.

My argument stands as this:

"It is posited that there was was wide spread voter fraud. By the President.

If there was wide-spread voter fraud, then it is assumed there is evidence."

The President has higher stakes in making a claim, which makes what he is saying more tangible than @Lacius no-stakes claim that "the President is lying". The "zero evidence" claim is just a way of saying there is no such thing as wide-spread voter fraud.

I have said that I don't know--I can't know at this moment. I have said that @Lacius cannot be held accountable for the things he is saying, so it's just a no-stakes game for him to sound authoritative.

Looks widespread to me.

this one above was in reference to someone linking Trump making another court case.

That's false.

It was in direct response to "Texas Social Worker Charged With 134 Felony Counts Of Elections Fraud" and if you paid attention to the mugshot, you could see that it is obviously a joke.

This is voter fraud, and it should be prosecuted.

I know she looks wide, but there is still no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

How many of those does it take?

This was a break from the typical pedantic argument for the sake of some comedy relief. It just seems like you aren't really paying attention. I'll let it slide.