Formal transition to Biden begins

Temujin

Well-known member
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
Immoral imbeciles are not a good thing. A society that silences and crushes immoral imbeciles is a worse thing.
 

wiseones2cents

Active member
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.
That to an extent we can agree. It is indeed the culture. Americans kids care more about having fun above anything else. And they lack any shame for their immoral behaviour. Its become the norm.

And it all stems from kids wanting to follow the rich kids. who are spoiled rotten.

But I also beleive it has to do with immoral immigrant cultures that corrupt American kids also.

Asian countries are more education oriented and beleive in honour.
 
Last edited:

wiseones2cents

Active member
Yeah, you are. I've seen what you've been posting here for years.
You sure? What name were you under? I always argued with the fundamentalists. Thats why I was designated to the secular boards and can't post on the Christian boards.lol
I know it makes you feel good to believe that.

It doesn't make me feel anything. it is what it is.
Prove it, fact-boy.
What do you want me to post? Gold digger videos, Sovereign citizens, the idiot that asks girls stupid questions in public like if they like anal?lol
 

wiseones2cents

Active member
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 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.

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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.

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.



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).
1. I did provide proof that conspiracies theories have been proven true in the past. You are the one that keeps asking about the ratio

2. Yes I believe all courts are corrupt. No not on every single issue. They have to maintain some credibility, but they usually let the top fish go.

3. Just because they are Trump appointed means very little. Its the 1% that calls the shots. Not Trump. They can use smear campaigns, blackmail, bribery and death threats to keep people in line.

4. Again. I stated Bush election was also rigged. I dont support any party. Those voting machines have a high probability of being hacked. And the fact that some dont leave a paper trail.



5. I truly beleive that the majority of American kids have below average intelligence. Thats why all your great scientists are foreigners.lol
 

Gus Bovona

Active member
1. I did provide proof that conspiracies theories have been proven true in the past. You are the one that keeps asking about the ratio
I did not dispute that some conspiracies are true. I don't think we're arguing about anything important here now.
2. Yes I believe all courts are corrupt. No not on every single issue.
A. How can you have sufficient evidence to decide on which issue all courts are corrupt, and on which issues all courts are not corrupt? What is that evidence? I suspect that you can provide some evidence that shows that some courts are sometimes corrupt, but I can't even imagine what sufficient evidence would look like to conclude that all courts are corrupt, at least on some issues.

B. How can you have sufficient evidence to decide that there is no court that is not corrupt? Have you examined evidence from every single court? That's what you'd need.

3. Just because they are Trump appointed means very little. Its the 1% that calls the shots. Not Trump. They can use smear campaigns, blackmail, bribery and death threats to keep people in line.
But what evidence do you have that they have specifically done so in this case?
4. Again. I stated Bush election was also rigged. I dont support any party. Those voting machines have a high probability of being hacked. And the fact that some dont leave a paper trail.
Except the ones that do have a paper trail - like the Dominion systems in Georgia - have been shown to be consistent with their electronic numbers, so I don't know why a lack of a paper trail is an issue. Which electronic voting system, and where, that doesn't have a paper trail, do you think was corrupted?
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
"I DON'T WANT TO SCARE ANYBODY here but understand the facts: we're likely to lose another 250K people—dead, between now & January." Yet, this is TEN TIMES higher than current projections. Biden is already making egregious statements. No one will fact check or *dispute* him.


From the orifice of Polident Erection Joe

Joe Biden said during a campaign speech in Philadelphia that about 200 million people have died of the coronavirus in the US — or nearly two-thirds of the population — though the number is just shy of 200,000.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
It's funny. I wasn't on-board The Biden Train when he declared his candidacy; I didn't dislike him, but I thought the country needed someone else. I felt slightly discouraged as I watched the number of potential Dem candidates slowly dwindle, too. Still, he made the final cut, and that was that.

In the days since the "convention", Joe Biden has slowly become stronger as a politician. His declarations as to how certain problems are solved or how certain legislation is needed feel less-staged now; more sincere and confident. I'm sitting here watching his press conference, and when coupled with his interview by CNN's Jake Tapper (where he made a point of stating that more than a few Republicans had quietly reached out to him), he really does feel like the statesman this country needs.

The statesman we've needed since Obama was in office.

I was happy when he defeated the white house infestation some Republicans called a presidential candidate, but today I finally relaxed.

Joe Biden will be the kind of president Donald Trump wanted - and spectacularly failed - to be. He's not gonna be perfect; he may even die while in office. Nevertheless, he is uniquely qualified for this particular moment in American history, and I can now say I'm happy he was elected.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
It's funny. I wasn't on-board with The Biden Train when he declared his candidacy; I didn't dislike him, but I thought the country needed someone else. I felt slightly discouraged as I watched the number of potential Dem candidates slowly dwindle, too. Still, he made the final cut, and that was that.

In the days since the "convention", Joe Biden has slowly become stronger as a politician. His declarations as to how certain problems are solved or how certain legislation is needed feel less-staged now; more sincere and confident. I'm sitting here watching his press conference, and when coupled with his interview by CNN's Jake Tapper (where he made a point of stating that more than a few Republicans had quietly reached out to him), he really does feel like the statesman this country needs.

The statesman we've needed since Obama was in office.

I was happy when he defeated the white house infestation some Republicans called a presidential candidate, but today I finally relaxed.

Joe Biden will be the kind of president Donald Trump wanted - and spectacularly failed - to be. He's not gonna be perfect; he may even die while in office. Nevertheless, he is uniquely qualified for this particular moment in American history, and I can now say I'm happy he was elected.
Sadly, I've not yet relaxed fully. I won't until the inauguration, although I'll be much more relaxed after various dates pass...December 8, December 14 and so forth.

But so far the Trumpites have shown they'll stop at nothing to steal the election. Their attempts to convince enough legislatures that their states' election was fraudulent and that they should appoint their own (Trumpite) electors is particularly loathsome, and I'm not certain it will fail. I know a number of Republicans have said that they will not be part of such an effort, but like all politicians, they won't have any difficulty rationalising their going against their word if they think it politically expedient. And thus far Republicans in general have been quite happy to abandon integrity and the country in their eagerness to kiss Trump's behind.

And if that happens - if the Trumpites steal the election - I cannot imagine what will happen. Riots? Certainly. What else? I don't know.

But I'll tell you this - because of what Trump has done and is doing, I fear for this country.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
But I'll tell you this - because of what Trump has done and is doing, I fear for this country.
I agree with 95% of this, but with a critical 5% that I think should be highlighted:

Drumpf was never the problem, and it's not him (or his legacy) that we need to fear.

We need to fear the political force which pushed him into power and kept him there.
 

Gus Bovona

Active member
Sadly, I've not yet relaxed fully. I won't until the inauguration, although I'll be much more relaxed after various dates pass...December 8, December 14 and so forth.

But so far the Trumpites have shown they'll stop at nothing to steal the election. Their attempts to convince enough legislatures that their states' election was fraudulent and that they should appoint their own (Trumpite) electors is particularly loathsome, and I'm not certain it will fail. I know a number of Republicans have said that they will not be part of such an effort, but like all politicians, they won't have any difficulty rationalising their going against their word if they think it politically expedient. And thus far Republicans in general have been quite happy to abandon integrity and the country in their eagerness to kiss Trump's behind.

And if that happens - if the Trumpites steal the election - I cannot imagine what will happen. Riots? Certainly. What else? I don't know.

But I'll tell you this - because of what Trump has done and is doing, I fear for this country.
I don't think any state allows for the legislature (especially without a Governor's approval, which is crucial for states like PA) to appoint its own electors have the results have been certified. Is there any cite or reference out there that contradicts this?

Of course, any dispute winds up in court, but it then becomes a different question from whether a legislature has the power to appoint its own electors after certification.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
I don't think any state allows for the legislature (especially without a Governor's approval, which is crucial for states like PA) to appoint its own electors have the results have been certified. Is there any cite or reference out there that contradicts this?
The US Constitution grant the state legislatures the sole plenary power to determine the means of selecting the electors. This is the plain language of the Constitution so even the courts don't have a right to review. The issue here is the executive, and judicial branches, both violated the election law passed by the legislators. So the body with the real Constitutional power simply reclaims it.
Of course, any dispute winds up in court, but it then becomes a different question from whether a legislature has the power to appoint its own electors after certification.
It's simply the plain language of the Constitution.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
The US Constitution grant the state legislatures the sole plenary power to determine the means of selecting the electors. This is the plain language of the Constitution so even the courts don't have a right to review. The issue here is the executive, and judicial branches, both violated the election law passed by the legislators. So the body with the real Constitutional power simply reclaims it.
There is no evidence that any election law was violated - as every independent agency agrees.
 

Gus Bovona

Active member
The US Constitution grant the state legislatures the sole plenary power to determine the means of selecting the electors. This is the plain language of the Constitution so even the courts don't have a right to review. The issue here is the executive, and judicial branches, both violated the election law passed by the legislators. So the body with the real Constitutional power simply reclaims it.

It's simply the plain language of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the plain, simple language of the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that is not in the Supreme Court's purview. That was established in Maruby v Madison all the way back in 1801. If you want to argue that Marbury v Madison was decided wrongly, I'm going to decline that conversation.

There is also the ex post facto provision in the Constitution. If the legislature determines how the electors will be selected, and that is through an election, and the election is held, then to change the electors as chosen through the election would be an ex post facto law.

Whether the election was held properly and fairly or not is a separate issue.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
There is no evidence that any election law was violated
You mean other than Samuel Alito essentially saying so? I think the answer is, he essentially said so because of the mountains of evidence. But keep chanting your incantations I'm sure they will start to work any time now.
- as every independent agency agrees.
Funny that the swamp should agree with the swamp party. Go figure! Never saw that com'n.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the plain, simple language of the Constitution.
I was referring to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court can't interpret the US Constitution in such a way as to nullify power granted the Pennsylvania legislature by the founding fathers. The office here is a federal office so it's belongs in the jourisdiction of the US Supreme Court. That plenary power granted the Pennsylvania legislature is not subject to being curtailed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
There is nothing in the Constitution that is not in the Supreme Court's purview. That was established in Maruby v Madison all the way back in 1801. If you want to argue that Marbury v Madison was decided wrongly, I'm going to decline that conversation.

There is also the ex post facto provision in the Constitution. If the legislature determines how the electors will be selected, and that is through an election, and the election is held, then to change the electors as chosen through the election would be an ex post facto law.
The law was never compliant with the Pennsylvania Constitution. So applying the big laws to the little ones, the mail-in ballots were not legal to start with. And again it's a federal issue because the President is a federal office.
Whether the election was held properly and fairly or not is a separate issue.
Again it's a federal issue because the President is a federal office.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
You mean other than Samuel Alito essentially saying so? I think the answer is, he essentially said so because of the mountains of evidence. But keep chanting your incantations I'm sure they will start to work any time now.
Sorry, but "essentially saying so" does not equate to "saying so".
Funny that the swamp should agree with the swamp party. Go figure! Never saw that com'n.
Wait...so now every single independent election-scrutinizing organisation in the world is part of the swamp? Every person in the US who has looked into the matter, all the judges, all the civil servants, including Republicans...they're all part of the swamp? Seriously?
 

Gus Bovona

Active member
I was referring to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court can't interpret the US Constitution in such a way as to nullify power granted the Pennsylvania legislature by the founding fathers. The office here is a federal office so it's belongs in the jourisdiction of the US Supreme Court. That plenary power granted the Pennsylvania legislature is not subject to being curtailed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The law was never compliant with the Pennsylvania Constitution. So applying the big laws to the little ones, the mail-in ballots were not legal to start with. And again it's a federal issue because the President is a federal office.

Again it's a federal issue because the President is a federal office.
The US Constitution grant the state legislatures the sole plenary power to determine the means of selecting the electors. This is the plain language of the Constitution so even the courts don't have a right to review.
Actually, that's not true. The SCOTUS has previously ruled that the legislature must pass a law, which requires a signature by the governor, to set or change the method of selecting the electors, and that this method can't be changed after an election (which would be an ex post facto violation).

I'm a little confused about another issue. You originally said

The issue here is the executive, and judicial branches, both violated the election law passed by the legislators. So the body with the real Constitutional power simply reclaims it.

It's simply the plain language of the Constitution.

So, directly above, your complaint is about whether the PA state election law was violated. So the PA state Supreme Court can rule on that, right?

Did any PA court rule on something concerning the federal Constitution?
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Actually, that's not true. The SCOTUS has previously ruled that the legislature must pass a law, which requires a signature by the governor, to set or change the method of selecting the electors, and that this method can't be changed after an election (which would be an ex post facto violation).

I'm a little confused about another issue. You originally said



So, directly above, your complaint is about whether the PA state election law was violated. So the PA state Supreme Court can rule on that, right?
Yes.
Did any PA court rule on something concerning the federal Constitution?
No. The issue is that PA Act 77 authorizing mail in voting en mass, required a constitutional amendment. The constitutional amendment never occurred in spite of the fact that the process was initiated and abandoned. The PA Supreme Court let that stand, however the office in view here is the President of the United States, making it a federal issue. Therefore, the US Supreme Court may have something to say about the fact that the Pennsylvania election violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. All of the mail in ballots were unconstitutional. So applying the big laws to the little ones, the Pennsylvania Constitution [the supreme law of Pennsylvania] trumps PA Act 77.
 
Top