FBI raids Mar-a-Lago

Yes they better. Hopefully the weak pathetic Republicans will actually do something eh? They failed miserably when Trump had the trifecta.
Unfortunately, the Repubs do not march in lockstep like the Dims do. There are different factions within the party that are unable to merge together at times for the greater good.
 
But in the UK following Trump's election with all the Democrat t-shirts and banners 'not my president'
The UK can do what it wants, I'm talking about Democrats in 2000 and repubs in 2020-22.

the mainstream media featured generally criticised news of Trump almost daily yet relatively little on Biden since his election, so I would say its just escalated, the left are no better.
It's the news media's job to criticize those in power. But I was talking about rank-and-file Trump supporters (and rank-and-file Dems in 2000).
 
Why should we just accept injustice? Look at what has happened to our country and to our constitution, because we have all just sat back and accepted this injustice.

Our elections are rigged. Why should we accept it?
Because anyone can say any election was rigged at any time, so if we didn't respect the process in place at the time because someone says an election was rigged and stopped the process or lengthened it and changed it or whatever, no election would ever be adjudicated. The process - flawed as it may be - has to be respected, and it may create injustice, but any other system is worse.

ETA: You have to look at this as a system, and rise above the particular injustice you see right now. Whatever system or process you come up with, you have to be OK with the other side using to its fullest advantage. (Otherwise you're the one rigging the election.)
 
Because anyone can say any election was rigged at any time, so if we didn't respect the process in place at the time because someone says an election was rigged and stopped the process or lengthened it and changed it or whatever, no election would ever be adjudicated. The process - flawed as it may be - has to be respected, and it may create injustice, but any other system is worse.
I vehemently disagree! A flawed process that dilutes our vote and only give us an illusion of a fair election should NOT be respected! And we can bring these issues up before an election, so there is no question of adjudication. In fact, there are several people currently filing TRO’s in their local counties and states demanding electronic voting machines be removed before the next election.
ETA: You have to look at this as a system, and rise above the particular injustice you see right now. Whatever system or process you come up with, you have to be OK with the other side using to its fullest advantage. (Otherwise you're the one rigging the election.)
You are singing their tune! Our election “process” has already been changed with the use of electronic voting machines, and THIS has been the source of the problem.

They are not using the system “we” came up with. They are using the system “they” came up with, and it has served them quite well. It is time we stand up against the injustice. We have sat by for far too long, watching as these usurpers have robbed us of our sovereignty.

I encourage you to file a TRO in your county and let them know you are onto their racquet.
 
I vehemently disagree! A flawed process that dilutes our vote and only give us an illusion of a fair election should NOT be respected!
But it's like this: the rules of the game are laid down, including what happens if you think the other side cheated, and how you go about resolving those disputes. Once those rules are in place, when you play the game you have to accept those rules and that process. If you think the the rules about how to resolve accusations of cheating are wrong, the time to challenge them is *before* you play the game. Otherwise, as I said before, anyone at anytime can challenge an election result.

So, if a Democratic candidate lost an election and claimed the process was flawed, etc. - whether it was or not - you would have to accept that, to be consistent, and potentially drag out adjudicating the election long after the Republican candidate was installed into office. That shouldn't be acceptable to you, nor to anyone, because that system is a poor one, for obvious reasons.

And we can bring these issues up before an election, so there is no question of adjudication.
Yes, that is the time to do it, because that's how the rules of the game work. But there is always a potential of adjudication, because any candidate can bring a challenge to the results with no restrictions; that's why Trump had 60+ lawsuits, either by him or on his behalf.

In fact, there are several people currently filing TRO’s in their local counties and states demanding electronic voting machines be removed before the next election.
I support that! (Or, at least always have a paper ballot or paper trail to check the electronics.) But the important point is that the time to do that is NOW, before the next election. Once the rules are in place, you gotta play by them. If you think some rule is a bad idea, change the rule, but do it before the game begins.

You are singing their tune! Our election “process” has already been changed with the use of electronic voting machines, and THIS has been the source of the problem.
See above.

They are not using the system “we” came up with. They are using the system “they” came up with, and it has served them quite well. It is time we stand up against the injustice. We have sat by for far too long, watching as these usurpers have robbed us of our sovereignty.
I encourage you to file a TRO in your county and let them know you are onto their racquet.
Perhaps a good analogy for your point is gerrymandering. That's a system that both parties have used to the disadvantage of the other. I support the end of gerrymandering; I was just reading the other day about a system - was it in Australia or New Zealand? - in which the political parties don't draw district lines, it's a much more objective process.

Again, I think gerrymandering is unfair and undemocratic, but it's the rules of the game. Get the rules changed.

However, and this is going to get us into the weeds, and I'm not going to go there, but it has to be said once: the idea that electronic voting systems in the 2020 election was flawed to the extent that it would have changed some election result has been debunked again and again.
 
I vehemently disagree! A flawed process that dilutes our vote and only give us an illusion of a fair election should NOT be respected! And we can bring these issues up before an election, so there is no question of adjudication. In fact, there are several people currently filing TRO’s in their local counties and states demanding electronic voting machines be removed before the next election.

You are singing their tune! Our election “process” has already been changed with the use of electronic voting machines, and THIS has been the source of the problem.

They are not using the system “we” came up with. They are using the system “they” came up with, and it has served them quite well. It is time we stand up against the injustice. We have sat by for far too long, watching as these usurpers have robbed us of our sovereignty.

I encourage you to file a TRO in your county and let them know you are onto their racquet.
If there is a flawed process that dilutes your vote, then you need to clearly explain how and when this happens, and you have failed to do so.

OTOH, there are voting processes that DO dilute the votes of some people, and this includes gerrymandering. Some Red States have majority Republican legislatures even though more Dems voted. How is that not diluting the vote? But you are not upset by that, right? It does help your side so it must be OK.
 
If there is a flawed process that dilutes your vote, then you need to clearly explain how and when this happens, and you have failed to do so.

OTOH, there are voting processes that DO dilute the votes of some people, and this includes gerrymandering. Some Red States have majority Republican legislatures even though more Dems voted. How is that not diluting the vote? But you are not upset by that, right? It does help your side so it must be OK.
You have no authority to be an arbitrator of truth. Nobody cares if you don't believe it. We know your biases.
 
Man killed on family vacation after offering ride to stranger
“I don t care what political party you re from. Seeing an FBI contingent raid a former president s home put everyone on alert.” Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody joins a long list of officials demanding transparency from the DOJ following Monday’s raid at Mar-a-Lago.
facebook.com

I'm just wondering what's next.
 
But it's like this: the rules of the game are laid down, including what happens if you think the other side cheated, and how you go about resolving those disputes.
This is not about resolving a dispute over “who won” a particular election. This is about resolving a flawed election system. The enormous complexities and rules that have been added to “the game,” only serve to muddy up the process. We need to simplify the process. To ensure accuracy, not efficiency. Transparency, not secrecy. We agree the system is flawed. We agree it is unjust. We agree we cannot trust the result of our elections.

This issue must be addressed.

B, I don’t think “the other side” cheated. I think there is only one side… and they’re not working for us.
Once those rules are in place, when you play the game you have to accept those rules and that process.
And if the rules disenfranchise our vote… are you saying there is no resolution? That the rules simply cannot be changed? That’s incorrect.
If you think the the rules about how to resolve accusations of cheating are wrong,
Again, I am not talking about how to resolve accusations and disputes about election “results.” I’m talking about how to resolve the flaws in our election system overall. Namely, removing the electronic voting machines, which have enabled “career policiticans” we call “leaders” to hold office, some of them for 30-50 years. They hold the keys to power with those machines and our Data.
the time to challenge them is *before* you play the game.
Isn’t that what I said? File your TRO now. Would you like help with it? I can give you a template. ?
So, if a Democratic candidate lost an election and claimed the process was flawed, etc. - whether it was or not - you would have to accept that, to be consistent, and potentially drag out adjudicating the election long after the Republican candidate was installed into office. That shouldn't be acceptable to you, nor to anyone, because that system is a poor one, for obvious reasons. Yes, that is the time to do it, because that's how the rules of the game work. But there is always a potential of adjudication, because any candidate can bring a challenge to the results with no restrictions; that's why Trump had 60+ lawsuits, either by him or on his behalf.
Irrelevant, You’re not addressing the underlying issue.
I support that! (Or, at least always have a paper ballot or paper trail to check the electronics.)
Okay then! Now we’re getting somewhere! But tell me, why do we NEED electronics???
But the important point is that the time to do that is NOW, before the next election.
Exactly what I said!
Once the rules are in place, you gotta play by them. If you think some rule is a bad idea, change the rule, but do it before the game begins.

Perhaps a good analogy for your point is gerrymandering. That's a system that both parties have used to the disadvantage of the other. I support the end of gerrymandering; I was just reading the other day about a system - was it in Australia or New Zealand? - in which the political parties don't draw district lines, it's a much more objective process. Again, I think gerrymandering is unfair and undemocratic, but it's the rules of the game. Get the rules changed.
I’m in agreement with you on that! I think we have found common ground!
However, and this is going to get us into the weeds, and I'm not going to go there, but it has to be said once: the idea that electronic voting systems in the 2020 election was flawed to the extent that it would have changed some election result has been debunked again and again.
By corporate interest… yes it has been thoroughly debunked. But everyone else knows it’s a ruse. Whistleblowers have tried to expose it for years. You can’t prove the machines rig our elections and you can’t prove they don’t.

So, how do you undo a Gordian knot?

You sever it.
 
Last edited:
Exactly what I said!

I’m in agreement with you on that! I think we have found common ground!
Yes, we agree on several things; on others, I have no idea how to engage with your points, so I'm going to let those slide, and maybe that means our conversation is over; but, there are a few points I can respond to:

Okay then! Now we’re getting somewhere! But tell me, why do we NEED electronics???
Not sure. I'd like to hear from someone who has an idea about that.

And if the rules disenfranchise our vote… are you saying there is no resolution? That the rules simply cannot be changed? That’s incorrect.
I'm not saying not change the rules. I'm only saying the when the game starts, you have to play by those rules if you want in the game. The time to change the rules is before the game starts.
 
Yes, we agree on several things; on others, I have no idea how to engage with your points, so I'm going to let those slide, and maybe that means our conversation is over; but, there are a few points I can respond to:

Not sure. I'd like to hear from someone who has an idea about that
You mean like an “intellectual,” someone with “credentials”??
I'm not saying not change the rules. I'm only saying the when the game starts, you have to play by those rules if you want in the game. The time to change the rules is before the game starts.
Well, we all have to take a stand. We can’t wait for someone else to do it for us, right?
 
If there is a flawed process that dilutes your vote, then you need to clearly explain how and when this happens, and you have failed to do so.
Read:
OTOH, there are voting processes that DO dilute the votes of some people, and this includes gerrymandering. Some Red States have majority Republican legislatures even though more Dems voted. How is that not diluting the vote? But you are not upset by that, right? It does help your side so it must be OK.
Actually, I can totally get on board with you regarding the gerrymandering issue.
 
Oh yeah in his latest speech he suggested the death penalty for drug dealers.

FASCIST dictator nonsense.
i would not agree with the death penalty, although some of the families and friends of those who have died as a result of the drugs might not agree.
Not sure how the fascist bit fits in.
 
The UK can do what it wants, I'm talking about Democrats in 2000 and repubs in 2020-22.


It's the news media's job to criticize those in power. But I was talking about rank-and-file Trump supporters (and rank-and-file Dems in 2000).
But that was my point, how come the UK media criticised Trump but arent criticising Biden?
 
This raid by the FBI and the Justice Department on President Trumps home will prove in the long run to be a complete disaster for the Democrats. The American people are in the main a fair-minded people and can see where things have gone too far, as most of us would not even have wanted President Obamas home invaded by government agents either. The great majority of hyper partisan Democrat politicians have been quiet on this action because even they know deep down that this was not the right thing to do, that things could have been handled in a more respectful manner concerning the former President.
 
But that was my point, how come the UK media criticised Trump but arent criticising Biden?
I dunno, I don't have any insight or connection to UK media. Maybe they think Biden has done less than Trump to criticize? I'm just spitballing, though.
 
I dunno, I don't have any insight or connection to UK media. Maybe they think Biden has done less than Trump to criticize? I'm just spitballing, though.
They are supposed to report what happens not think its ok so they dont have to.
The bias in the UK is evident, especially the BBC.
 
Back
Top