Formal transition to Biden begins

[Whateverman]

So why hasn't a court yet seen this evidence? If you think it has been presented, then give me the specifics: which court, which filing, which documents.

50-60 poll watchers obstructed

No court, no filing, no document references.

aka. just talk

 

[wiseones2cents]

When they are thrown out by courts for a myriad of reasons, yes.

Then you need to actually listen to/read some news outlets.

Listen to whom? The lying MSM who has been busy Hyping covid? No thanks. They've now exposed their hand.

Youtube is full of nutcases.

Ya and most of them are American.lol

 

[wiseones2cents]

So are p0rnography, professional sports and junk food. Just because the windows exist doesn't mean they show us anything particularly useful

A window is a metaphor for transparency. It is particularly useful in judging a society. There is no doubt in my mind or any foreigner that follows the garbage posted on youtube from Americans that the society is immoral and corrupt. Only an actual American would think otherwise, since they are too busy being indoctrinated to beleive that the USA is the greatest country in the world.lol

 

[Whateverman]

A window is a metaphor for transparency. It is particularly useful in judging a society.

No it's not. It may be useful, or it may not - depending ENTIRELY on what it reveals.

Youtube content comes from people around the world, and you have no reliable way of knowing whether a particular video has been posted by an American, or someone posing as an American. You have no way of knowing whether the content-provider believes everything they posted, or whether they do not.

These two simple facts render the quality of "window" Youtube represents as worthless. It can't even be used as a window into the mind of the person posting to it.

 

[wiseones2cents]

No it's not. It may be useful, or it may not - depending ENTIRELY on what it reveals.

Youtube content comes from people around the world, and you have no reliable way of knowing whether a particular video has been posted by an American, or someone posing as an American. You have no way of knowing whether the content-provider believes everything they posted, or whether they do not.

These two simple facts render the quality of "window" Youtube represents as worthless. It can't even be used as a window into the mind of the person posting to it.

Weak.lol They are 100% American. The channels are American and they are about American cities. What it reveals is America is wallowing in immorality and idiocy.

 

[Temujin]

Weak.lol They are 100% American. The channels are American and they are about American cities. What it reveals is America is wallowing in immorality and idiocy.

No what it reveals is that America is so rich, with so powerful an economy and so liberal a society, that even the immoral and the idiotic are sufficiently cared for to be able to waste their time making youtube videos. How immoral and idiotic are those who sit watching said videos in order to pass judgement on them, as you do, is a question we can all have a stab at.

 

[Gus Bovona]

50-60 poll watchers obstructed

Still waiting for the name of the court, judge, and/or case #, and evidence of poll watchers obstructed. Anyone can stand behind anyone in front of a microphone who is saying anything.

Also, there are cases of people who wanted to watch the counting but were not allowed because they hadn't registered first, which you have to do according to the rules, but still complained. We have to make sure those 50-60 people aren't in that category before there is an issue.

Why do I need a ratio?lol The point I was making is that you cannot dismiss something because someone claims its a conspiracy theory, because those theories are sometimes true.

The ratio issue only has to do with your claim that there were "many" conspiracy theories that are true. "many" is meaningless without knowing how many total (true and not) we are talking about. This is a minor issue that is going nowhere, so this is the last I'll say about this.

watch the video

I didn't see anything in that video that identifies a specific court, judge, and/or case. Still waiting.

The Gotti anaolgy does work. Just because the courts found him innocent, didn't mean the crimes weren't commited.

I've already addressed this. Some people are guilty and some are innocent. That means we can't assume that someone is guilty, but that's what you're trying to do with the Gotti analogy. You're trying to say that the court hasn't found fraud by there is still fraud. But you don't know that because you there hasn't been any actual evidence to show that. If there was evidence, it would be in court.

I would imagine. Why it hasn't been tried is odd to me.

"Imagine?" Your imagination is what you're basing things on!? If you can't specify the court, judge, and/or case, that means you don't know that there is a case out there at which this evidence has been submitted. If you knew that there was a specific case, then you'd just tell me which case it is, with which judge, etc.

They brought it to court, and the system refuses to have a trial

Have you examined why the judge said it shouldn't go to trial? Judges actually say why it should be thrown out. Have you examined the reasons the judge gave to see if those reasons are legitimate?

Also, these cases have been brought to an appeals court, and the PA Supreme Court, and **all of them** have said there's nothing of value in these cases. Are they all in on it? Is it one vast conspiracy, including judges **that Trump appointed?** Now **that's** a conspiracy. And that's where you are.

Then let the court announce that no affidavides exist. You haven't confirmed that they dont.

It's not up to me, the judge, or anyone to show that the affidavits don't exist. The people who say they exist need to show that they do. This is basic logic. On your standard, I could demand that you prove that you aren't a bank robber. Exactly what would someone have to do in order to show that affidavits *don't* exist? It's impossible, if you think about it.

Me personally? I've always known that the elections were rigged.

And that's the problem. You're trying to fit things into your pre-conception. What evidence was there **before** the election that showed that the election would be rigged? And, if the evidence existed, why wasn't it brought into court **before** the election?

If you listen to the quotes of the forefathers, they believe most of the public is not intellectually qualified to vote and I sort of 1/2 agree. They are easily influenced and decieved.

Absolutely no argument there. Statistics show that half of all Americans are below average intelligence.

 

[Whateverman]

Weak.lol They are 100% American.

You have no evidence for (let alone proof of) this. You're just stating the things you want to be true as objective facts.

Oh wait, you're a fundamentalist Christian...

Now it makes sense.

 

[Temujin]

Still waiting for the name of the court, judge, and/or case #, and evidence of poll watchers obstructed. Anyone can stand behind anyone in front of a microphone who is saying anything.

Also, there are cases of people who wanted to watch the counting but were not allowed because they hadn't registered first, which you have to do according to the rules, but still complained. We have to make sure those 50-60 people aren't in that category before there is an issue.


The ratio issue only has to do with your claim that there were "many" conspiracy theories that are true. "many" is meaningless without knowing how many total (true and not) we are talking about. This is a minor issue that is going nowhere, so this is the last I'll say about this.


I didn't see anything in that video that identifies a specific court, judge, and/or case. Still waiting.


I've already addressed this. Some people are guilty and some are innocent. That means we can't assume that someone is guilty, but that's what you're trying to do with the Gotti analogy. You're trying to say that the court hasn't found fraud by there is still fraud. But you don't know that because you there hasn't been any actual evidence to show that. If there was evidence, it would be in court.

"Imagine?" Your imagination is what you're basing things on!? If you can't specify the court, judge, and/or case, that means you don't know that there is a case out there at which this evidence has been submitted. If you knew that there was a specific case, then you'd just tell me which case it is, with which judge, etc.


Have you examined why the judge said it shouldn't go to trial? Judges actually say why it should be thrown out. Have you examined the reasons the judge gave to see if those reasons are legitimate?

Also, these cases have been brought to an appeals court, and the PA Supreme Court, and **all of them** have said there's nothing of value in these cases. Are they all in on it? Is it one vast conspiracy, including judges **that Trump appointed?** Now **that's** a conspiracy. And that's where you are.


It's not up to me, the judge, or anyone to show that the affidavits don't exist. The people who say they exist need to show that they do. This is basic logic. On your standard, I could demand that you prove that you aren't a bank robber. Exactly what would someone have to do in order to show that affidavits *don't* exist? It's impossible, if you think about it.


And that's the problem. You're trying to fit things into your pre-conception. What evidence was there **before** the election that showed that the election would be rigged? And, if the evidence existed, why wasn't it brought into court **before** the election?


Absolutely no argument there. Statistics show that half of all Americans are below average intelligence.

I blame the schools and the teachers, half of whom are worse than average.

 

[Whateverman]

I blame the schools and the teachers, half of whom are worse than average.

I don't think education (or its lack) represents the bulk of the problem.

Consider words like "geek" and "nerd", and the disdain which intelligent characters in movie fiction tend to be negatively stereotyped. You can find this mild contempt for education in the US spanning backwards for decades.

Also consider fundamentalist Christianity's losing battle with science. You can find a deep animosity towards any expertise which contradicts narrow/linear religious belief. Heck, just look at how often we find fundamentalist Christians in the US doing harm to their kids and themselves by trying to pray away sickness; "Christian Science" is a legitimate Christian variant that teaches its adherents to keep a positive mental attitude, rather than go to the doctor. My great aunt and her husband literally died because their membership in a local church.

No. I'd argue that the problem is cultural. US society doesn't value education as much as other countries do - as seen in low wages for school teachers, as well as inadequate investment in the school infrastructure need in low-income communities.

This dislike of "knowing stuff" is literally half of the reason that China's gonna kick our asses soon.

 

[Temujin]

I don't think education (or its lack) represents the bulk of the problem.

Consider words like "geek" and "nerd", and the disdain which intelligent characters in movie fiction tend to be negatively stereotyped. You can find this mild contempt for education in the US spanning backwards for decades.

Also consider fundamentalist Christianity's losing battle with science. You can find a deep animosity towards any expertise which contradicts narrow/linear religious belief. Heck, just look at how often we find fundamentalist Christians in the US doing harm to their kids and themselves by trying to pray away sickness; "Christian Science" is a legitimate Christian variant that teaches its adherents to keep a positive mental attitude, rather than go to the doctor. My great aunt and her husband literally died because their membership in a local church.

No. I'd argue that the problem is cultural. US society doesn't value education as much as other countries do - as seen in low wages for school teachers, as well as inadequate investment in the school infrastructure need in low-income communities.

This dislike of "knowing stuff" is literally half of the reason that China's gonna kick our asses soon.

I agree with all of this. My post was sarcasm "half are worse than average..."

 

[Thistle]

Noooo! How can this be happening . . .

"This" is the GSA releasing some funds. It's substantially less than nothing, substantively.

 

[wiseones2cents]

No what it reveals is that America is so rich, with so powerful an economy and so liberal a society, that even the immoral and the idiotic are sufficiently cared for to be able to waste their time making youtube videos. How immoral and idiotic are those who sit watching said videos in order to pass judgement on them, as you do, is a question we can all have a stab at.

LOL. You know what makes America "rich and powerful"?lol The European Monarchy took their money and shipped it to the USA. Since after the war there was no economy left in Europe and it was no longer profitable after milking it to the ground. Looks like now they have their eyes on China.lol

Is liberal a new word for lawless immorality?lol It's the land of the free. Free for the rich to engage in immoral acts.lol But the people are far from free. Living pay check to paycheck. and in perpetual debt.

Again. Why does your sdocierty produce so much filth and idiocy. Lets have a stab at that.lol Because it's liberal and people are free to act like immoral imbeciles?lol Thats your angle? lol

When doing online research I always take a break and scroll through random videos, of which I come across the most idiotic people ever assembled on the planet.

 

[Temujin]

LOL. You know what makes America "rich and powerful"?lol The European Monarchy took their money and shipped it to the USA. Since after the war there was no economy left in Europe and it was no longer profitable after milking it to the ground. Looks like now they have their eyes on China.lol

Ridiculous. America is blessed with massive natural resources and a vibrant economy fuelled by immigration of low paid workers. It was a great power before the world wars, which greatly damaged the economies of Europe while stimulating the economy of America.

Is liberal a new word for lawless immorality?

No. It's an old word indicating a decent place to live in.

lol It's the land of the free. Free for the rich to engage in immoral acts.lol But the people are far from free. Living pay check to paycheck. and in perpetual debt.

True enough, because America is not particularly liberal, and its employment practices evolved from slave labour, through exploitation of cheap immigrant labour to the current, rather unhealthy by modern standards, work ethic.

Again. Why does your sdocierty produce so much filth and idiocy. Lets have a stab at that.lol Because it's liberal and people are free to act like immoral imbeciles?lol Thats your angle? lol

Firstly, I'm not American. Secondly, freedom means being able to behave like immoral imbeciles if that is what you want. This is exactly the point I was making. Only in a society like America are immoral imbeciles able to behave like this without censure. This is a good thing. Societies that crush their immoral imbeciles also crush a great many other things.

When doing online research I always take a break and scroll through random videos, of which I come across the most idiotic people ever assembled on the planet.

I will resist the urge to tell you where you could find the least self-aware person on the planet.

 

[wiseones2cents]

Still waiting for the name of the court, judge, and/or case #, and evidence of poll watchers obstructed. Anyone can stand behind anyone in front of a microphone who is saying anything.

Also, there are cases of people who wanted to watch the counting but were not allowed because they hadn't registered first, which you have to do according to the rules, but still complained. We have to make sure those 50-60 people aren't in that category before there is an issue.

Since they wont take it to court? How will we know if they qualify? What are registered republican poll watchers saying? Too many unanswered questions.

The ratio issue only has to do with your claim that there were "many" conspiracy theories that are true. "many" is meaningless without knowing how many total (true and not) we are talking about. This is a minor issue that is going nowhere, so this is the last I'll say about this.

I said many conspiracies were proven to be factual. Your the one that insists I come up with a ratio,lol My point has been proven which is you cant dismiss something because MSM regards it as a "conspiracy theory".

Do you agee that many conspiracy theories have turned out to be true? YES OR NO!

I didn't see anything in that video that identifies a specific court, judge, and/or case. Still waiting.

Ummm Do your research . They've all been proven true

I've already addressed this. Some people are guilty and some are innocent. That means we can't assume that someone is guilty, but that's what you're trying to do with the Gotti analogy. You're trying to say that the court hasn't found fraud by there is still fraud. But you don't know that because you there hasn't been any actual evidence to show that. If there was evidence, it would be in court.

And Ive addressed this also. Just because the court beleives no crime was commited, or thins the evidence is circumstantial doesn't mean no crime was commited.

Have you examined why the judge said it shouldn't go to trial? Judges actually say why it should be thrown out. Have you examined the reasons the judge gave to see if those reasons are legitimate?

Other than they have no merit? No. If you think I believe anything :the establishment" says try again. I bel;eve the entire American establishment is corrupt.

Also, these cases have been brought to an appeals court, and the PA Supreme Court, and **all of them** have said there's nothing of value in these cases. Are they all in on it? Is it one vast conspiracy, including judges **that Trump appointed?** Now **that's** a conspiracy. And that's where you are.


It's not up to me, the judge, or anyone to show that the affidavits don't exist. The people who say they exist need to show that they do. This is basic logic. On your standard, I could demand that you prove that you aren't a bank robber. Exactly what would someone have to do in order to show that affidavits *don't* exist? It's impossible, if you think about it.

Okay. So Trump and Gulianni say the affidavides exist. The courts dont necessarily say they dont exist. They say that the evidence is not enough to over turn an election.. I guess its all a mater of whom you chose to beleive. You believe the courts(especially when it suits your interests). Me on the other hand, Dont believe in either until it is proven but if the court does not shed any light on the evidence? I am skeptical.

And that's the problem. You're trying to fit things into your pre-conception. What evidence was there **before** the election that showed that the election would be rigged? And, if the evidence existed, why wasn't it brought into court **before** the election?

Think about it. If the elections ARE being fixed. Do you not think they possess the ability to cover their tracks? Again. The American elections like everything else can be fixed if you bribe the right people.

Remember I also believed the elections were fixed when Bush got elected. This is no republican propoganda.

Absolutely no argument there. Statistics show that half of all Americans are below average intelligence.

And why do you beleive that is, considering their are supposedly the greatest nation on earth? Is the dumbification of the public by design? I beleive so....

 

[Gus Bovona]

Since they wont take it to court? How will we know if they qualify? What are registered republican poll watchers saying? Too many unanswered questions.

I have no problems with unanswered questions. But unanswered questions about voting fraud do NOT allow someone to claim that voting fraud happened. Once those unanswered questions get answered, then we can make claim that follows the evidence in those answers, and not until.

I said many conspiracies were proven to be factual. Your the one that insists I come up with a ratio,lol My point has been proven which is you cant dismiss something because MSM regards it as a "conspiracy theory".

Do you agee that many conspiracy theories have turned out to be true? YES OR NO!

I said I wasn't going to address this issue again, but since you asked a direct question, I'll answer just this last one: I think **some** conspiracies have turned out to be true.

Ummm Do your research . They've all been proven true

It's your claim that they've been proven true, it's up to you to demonstrate it, it's not up to me to do your work for you.

And Ive addressed this also. Just because the court beleives no crime was commited, or thins the evidence is circumstantial doesn't mean no crime was commited.

I agree: perhaps a crime was committed, and perhaps not. But you were implying that a crime *had* been committed.

Other than they have no merit? No. If you think I believe anything :the establishment" says try again. I bel;eve the entire American establishment is corrupt.

First of all, we were talking about the courts, not the entire establishment, so are you saying the entire Amreican court system is corrupt? About every single issue? No one ever gets any justice, ever? Or is it only justice when the courts rule in your favor? Would you be saying that all courts are corrupt if a court ruled in favor of Guiliani or Trump?

This is the essence of conspiracy thinking. As I've said before, there are trump-appointed judges that have ruled against Trump. And yet you somehow think they are corrupt. It just doesn't make any sense.

Okay. So Trump and Gulianni say the affidavides exist. The courts dont necessarily say they dont exist. They say that the evidence is not enough to over turn an election..

Not quite: when a court has said that it's not enough to overturn the election, they are saying that even if they grant everything that Guiliani or Powell have alleged **in court.** Even if Guiliani was correct, it wouldn't be enough. that does **not** include allegations Guiliani and Powell have made outside of court, which mean nothing.

I guess its all a mater of whom you chose to beleive. You believe the courts(especially when it suits your interests). Me on the other hand, Dont believe in either until it is proven but if the court does not shed any light on the evidence? I am skeptical.

You are skeptical for no good reason, on insufficient evidence, and manifestly doing so just because the courts are ruling against the parties you support, as it's unbelievable that you would claim the courts are not corrupt if they ruled in favor of Trump.

And this conspiracy you allege covers multiple courts, state and federal, including Republicans and judges appointed by Trump. It just doesn't add up.

Think about it. If the elections ARE being fixed. Do you not think they possess the ability to cover their tracks? Again. The American elections like everything else can be fixed if you bribe the right people.

But the evidence shows that the elections were NOT fixed: when they did a hand recount of the Dominion system in Georgia, the hand re-count - observed by repubs and dems - showed that the electronic count equalled the hand recount. That's what we expect if the Dominion system is not fixed, contrary to trump's claims.

Remember I also believed the elections were fixed when Bush got elected. This is no republican propoganda.

The other problem with your thinking is that it is all or nothing, either an election is fixed or not. There can be irregularities, rules not followed, and even fraud, but it has never been shown that those things occurred on a level big enough to change the outcome of an election. Where are you getting this from? Or, perhaps you're talking about the Florida recount? Those problems were well documented, but that's not fixing an election.

And why do you beleive that is, considering their are supposedly the greatest nation on earth? Is the dumbification of the public by design? I beleive so....

OMG, you don't even get it. it's a joke. No matter how smart or stupid any population of people are, it will *always* be true that about half of the people are below average intelligence. It's a tautology, a joke, a play on words that disguises the fact that the below average people are always about 1/2 of the population because that's what "average" means (approximately).

 

[wiseones2cents]

Ridiculous. America is blessed with massive natural resources and a vibrant economy fuelled by immigration of low paid workers. It was a great power before the world wars, which greatly damaged the economies of Europe while stimulating the economy of America.

LOL!!! Are you kidding me? Where do I begin with America's so called blessings?

The lLand the stole from the Indians(blood money). The land they stole from the Mexicans?(blood money). The slave labour that early Americans profitted from? The Millions stole via taxation? The trillions of dollars of illegal money laundered every year via America?

Or the massive natural resources they took(and still take) from South America, and Africa alone for next to nothing thanks by them falsifying the scales(money manipulation), leaving them dirt poor?

When exactly did it become prosperous? After the civil wear? Not if you ask the south. After the Great Depression?? OR when it was given endless amounts of credit, thanks to European Gold reserves? Well now the party is over and it has come time to pay the piper. You give any nation Trillions of dollars in credit, and people will say wow, look at all that wealth. (especially when that wealth was made out of thin air)not backed by gold or anything valuable.

And its still a cesspool! Shall I go on?

No. It's an old word indicating a decent place to live in. True enough, because America is not particularly liberal, and its employment practices evolved from slave labour, through exploitation of cheap immigrant labour to the current, rather unhealthy by modern standards, work ethic.

Liberal means a decent place to live in? ROTFLOL! Drink liberal kool-ade much?LOL

Liberalism just sees to test the boundries of morality. Led by the immoral British(Liberalism's roots). Who still rule over America via debt.

Firstly, I'm not American. Secondly, freedom means being able to behave like immoral imbeciles if that is what you want. This is exactly the point I was making. Only in a society like America are immoral imbeciles able to behave like this without censure. This is a good thing. Societies that crush their immoral imbeciles also crush a great many other things.

Its a good thing that America's society breeds immoral imbessiles and they are the majority, and that is a good thing? WOW!

Immoral imbeciles have no place in a civilized society. Civilization was accomplished via LAWS that limited/prevented immoral behaviour.

And you wonder why our cities are more like a zoo, than civility.

I will resist the urge to tell you where you could find the least self-aware person on the planet.

Please do. Dont stop now. I've had a laugh at your broken moral compass.

 

[Temujin]

LOL!!! Are you kidding me? Where do I begin with America's so called blessings?

The lLand the stole from the Indians(blood money). The land they stole from the Mexicans?(blood money). The slave labour that early Americans profitted from? The Millions stole via taxation? The trillions of dollars of illegal money laundered every year via America?

Or the massive natural resources they took(and still take) from South America, and Africa alone for next to nothing thanks by them falsifying the scales(money manipulation), leaving them dirt poor?

When exactly did it become prosperous? After the civil wear? Not if you ask the south. After the Great Depression?? OR when it was given endless amounts of credit, thanks to European Gold reserves? Well now the party is over and it has come time to pay the piper. You give any nation Trillions of dollars in credit, and people will say wow, look at all that wealth. (especially when that wealth was made out of thin air)not backed by gold or anything valuable.

And its still a cesspool! Shall I go on?





Liberal means a decent place to live in? ROTFLOL! Drink liberal kool-ade much?LOL

Liberalism just sees to test the boundries of morality. Led by the immoral British(Liberalism's roots). Who still rule over America via debt.

Its a good thing that America's society breeds immoral imbessiles and they are the majority, and that is a good thing? WOW!

Immoral imbeciles have no place in a civilized society. Civilization was accomplished via LAWS that limited/prevented immoral behaviour.

And you wonder why our cities are more like a zoo, than civility.


Please do. Dont stop now. I've had a laugh at your broken moral compass.

I'm not sure what kind of society you would like to live in, now that Stalin is dead. Myanmar perhaps? Or maybe North Korea? It is certainly apparent that anywhere that lived up to your expectations would prevent you from expressing your opinions and would probably have you removed as a corrupting influence.

You are able to post here precisely because immoral idiots are able to post here. You are a turkey, demanding Christmas.

 

[wiseones2cents]

I'm not sure what kind of society you would like to live in, now that Stalin is dead. Myanmar perhaps? Or maybe North Korea? It is certainly apparent that anywhere that lived up to your expectations would prevent you from expressing your opinions and would probably have you removed as a corrupting influence.

You are able to post here precisely because immoral idiots are able to post here. You are a turkey, demanding Christmas.

Thats all you have to say about my powerful post?lol

The prefect society doesn't exist anywhere since the greedy(wicked ones) run every country. Therefore you need a system that does not cater to the greedy. Socialism(in my sense of the word).

You dont think they censor people in America?lol They contriol the flow of information the masses receive. If your a nobody, you can say whatever you want. But if your in a position with a significant audience, you are censored and or you can lose your job by stating your opinion publicly.

Have I just been insulted?lol I'm able to post here because I have internet.lol And I have internet because I paid for it. They have internet in communist countries also. Your argument is weak.

Tell us again how immoral imbeciles in a society are a good thing.lol

 

[wiseones2cents]

You have no evidence for (let alone proof of) this. You're just stating the things you want to be true as objective facts.

Oh wait, you're a fundamentalist Christian...

Now it makes sense.

Actually I'm not a fundamentalist.lol And I base everything I state on facts. The majority are Americans. The places are in America, therefore safe to say the people are American.lol