PENNSYLVANIA, ARIZONA, MICHIGAN LEGISLATURES TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON 2020 ELECTION

[Michael R2]

You apparently trust it. Would the partisan Democrats lie? Let me think about that. Yeah, they are part of the crew who committed to no objectivity. You seem to be prepared to believe anything, but a straight forward commitment to lie. To each their own.

Sorry for the repeat. I hit the wrong button.
Whether you believe it or not, I have been very objective through all this. In case you haven't noticed, I have been presenting primary sources throughout these threads, particularly in the legal cases. I don't argue by blog or you tube.
You can disagree with my conclusions if you wish, but saying I have not been objective would be a lie. You haven't come right out and said that, but your implications are obvious. Please do not do so in the future.

 

[Harry Leggs]

Sorry for the repeat. I hit the wrong button.
Whether you believe it or not, I have been very objective through all this. In case you haven't noticed,

Straight up crap. If you have been objective then why are you assuming Biden won, fair and square?

You can disagree with my conclusions if you wish, but saying I have not been objective would be a lie.

Self-serving crap.

You haven't come right out and said that, but your implications are obvious. Please do not do so in the future.

Given your gullibility on this and then to come out and claim objectivity. You might as well have a sign on your back that says ''kick me.'' The only question here is what are Trump supporters going to do about all this? How far are they willing to go? All we know is Biden won by cheating and we will act accordingly. Never accept Biden as legit President. Biden is a fraud representing fraud americans. Lowdown cheats.

 

[Thistle]

Mmmm... The projection strong in this one is, Luke.

So I take it that you are not actually watching this proceeding you'd asked about?

 

[Michael R2]

Straight up crap. If you have been objective then why are you assuming Biden won, fair and square?

I am not assuming he won. It is most likely that he has, but it is still to be determined.

Self-serving crap.

The truth serves everyone.

Given your gullibility on this and then to come out and claim objectivity. You might as well have a sign on your back that says ''kick me.'' The only question here is what are Trump supporters going to do about all this? How far are they willing to go? All we know is Biden won by cheating and we will act accordingly. Never accept Biden as legit President. Biden is a fraud representing fraud americans. Lowdown cheats.

There is no answer to this.

 

[rossum]

So I take it that you are not actually watching this proceeding you'd asked about?

Where did I mention the proceedings in that post? Where did you mention the proceedings in the post I replied to? That post was all about Democrats can only lie and are not to be trusted to tell the truth.

That was where you were projecting.

 

[Harry Leggs]

I am not assuming he won.

Inconsistent with previous posts consistent with the orthodox position of Biden as President-elect and inconsistent with any claim of neutrality. (It is all up in the air.)

It is most likely that he has, but it is still to be determined.

Odds are it will never be determined and that is in spite of the evidence of election malfeasance. The case is now being addressed on OAN. Unfilitered.

The truth serves everyone.

Trump won, the Dems cheated. That is the truth based on the evidence. Fiction and cheating serve the Dems and truth is their enemy.

Whatever aids in the triumph of the revolution is ethical; whatever hinders is unethical and criminal. Bakunin

There is no answer to this.

It will be forthcoming. Expect resistance because resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.

 

[Michael R2]

Inconsistent with previous posts.

Show me where.

Odds are it will never be determined and that is in spite of the evidence of election malfeasance. The case is now being addressed on OAN. Unfilitered.

Trump won, the Dems cheated. That is the truth based on the evidence. Fiction and cheating serve the Dems and truth is their enemy.

Whatever aids in the triumph of the revolution is ethical; whatever hinders is unethical and criminal. Bakunin

It will be forthcoming. Expect resistance because resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.

Sorry, but I am not going to deal with this level of vitriol further. Have a nice day.

 

[Thistle]

Sorry for the repeat. I hit the wrong button.

No problem.

Whether you believe it or not, I have been very objective through all this.

You believe you can be objective, while relying on sources who have committed to lie to you. With all due respect, you have to consider the possibility that you are not the weak link in the chain.

In case you haven't noticed, I have been presenting primary sources throughout these threads,

There is testimony going on live that I'm listening to, as we correspond. Is that a primary source? Are you also watching this testimony?

particularly in the legal cases. I don't argue by blog or you tube.

That is interesting because the NYT hires bloggers, and Bloomberg posts on YouTube. You seem to object to how the record is recorded rather than the content.

You can disagree with my conclusions if you wish, but saying I have not been objective would be a lie.

You miss the nature of my criticism.

You haven't come right out and said that,

What I actually said is what I actually meant.

but your implications are obvious. Please do not do so in the future.

I mean what I said grammatically and syntactically. I'm not attributing a motive to you, so if you are drawing that inference you are wrong.

 

[Harry Leggs]

Show me where.

Sorry, but I am not going to deal with this level of vitriol further. Have a nice day.

All anyone has to do is take out an hour and review your previous posts. It is on OAN right now and i am willing to bet the farm you have no interest. You have no interest in truth as it relates to any of this election and you need more than a claim because what is printed earlier says more than your denials now. Again your claims of neutrality are

Inconsistent with previous posts that are consistent with the orthodox position of Biden as President-elect and inconsistent with any claim of neutrality. (It is all up in the air.)

 

[Thistle]

Where did I mention the proceedings in that post?

You mentioned them in post 91. You specifically asked for the detail on the hearing that is going on right now.

Where did you mention the proceedings in the post I replied to?

In post 94 and post 115.

That post was all about Democrats can only lie and are not to be trusted to tell the truth.

"That post" is a bit vague. Do you have a post number?

That was where you were projecting.

This is not projection. It's the New York Times telling all like minded media to reject objective journalistic standards respecting Donald Trump. And they are doing it on the front page of their paper, not on the Op Ed page. You may not like that, but it is what it is. You reap what you sow, this is where you get your information.

 

[Michael R2]

No problem.

You believe you can be objective, while relying on sources who have committed to lie to you. With all due respect, you have to consider the possibility that you are not the weak link in the chain.

You have no idea what sources I rely on. I do my best to hear both sides of the media, with the understanding that all of them have an agenda. The raw news is present in all the sources, be they liberal or conservative.

There is testimony going on live that I'm listening to, as we correspond. Is that a primary source? Are you also watching this testimony?

I have watched some of it. There are some damning allegations being presented. Whether they turn out to be true or not, only time will tell. I find the allegation that 1.9 million mail in votes were not verified at all to be a bit far fetched. If they have evidence other than the allegation, you have your smoking gun.

That is interesting because the NYT hires bloggers, and Bloomberg posts on YouTube. You seem to object to how the record is recorded rather than the content.

I was less than specific there. I should have said I do not rely on or post opinion shows, blogs and etc. If an opinion is given, it is my own.

You miss the nature of my criticism.

What I actually said is what I actually meant.

I mean what I said grammatically and syntactically. I'm not attributing a motive to you, so if you are drawing that inference you are wrong.

Then I am wrong. My apologies.

 

[rossum]

"That post" is a bit vague. Do you have a post number?

I have a couple of posters on ignore, so the post numbers I see are probably different to yours. Just use the back button where I have quoted you.

 

[Thistle]

You have no idea what sources I rely on.

You mentioned "primary sources." Think about manipulated search results on search engines like Google. If you had to guess would you suspect that Sundar Pichai's politics is closer to yours, or mine? What if it's 5 or 10 times harder for one side to make their arguments, because of manipulated search results? I'm not asking you to adopt that as a premise, it's just food for thought.

I do my best to hear both sides of the media,

The media is not a coin with a heads or tails. The salient questions are seldom bifurcated. Online information means there is more to sort out, but it keeps you out of the bifurcation trap.

with the understanding that all of them have an agenda.

That's a promising insight.

The raw news is present in all the sources, be they liberal or conservative.

And a lot of falsity is presented as objective news. Let me give you an example. Turn on any media and they will say "President Elect Biden." That is factually false. It may be true come the sixth of January, but it can't be true before then. If you trust them on this point, you will be correcting people who are right, when you are wrong, and you will likely feel perfectly justified. That is a problem. I consider myself a skeptic, and I fell for this argument. When the GSA released funds to Biden I took that to mean he was president elect, and that is literally impossible before January sixth. That is one small example on a pile of examples that is higher than Mount Everest.

I have watched some of it. There are some damning allegations being presented. Whether they turn out to be true or not, only time will tell. I find the allegation that 1.9 million mail in votes were not verified at all to be a bit far fetched.

Okay, that is fine, but everything that is being presented is from sworn affidavits. Thus it's essentially the equivalent of court testimony. That doesn't guarantee it's true, but it guarantees it's evidence. And again, the media is telling us there is no evidence. That no evidence tagline is a disclaimer every-time they deign to tell you what the Trump campaigns argument may be.

If they have evidence other than the allegation, you have your smoking gun.

So there are 19 bell-weather counties that always predict the winner of the presidential election, and Trump won 18 of them. That is perfectly consistent with an election being stolen in a handful of heavily Democrat urban counties. I'm not demanding you have an answer for that. But this is just one more statistical anomaly that sits upon a stack of anomalies has high as a house.

I was less than specific there. I should have said I do not rely on or post opinion shows, blogs and etc. If an opinion is given, it is my own.

That is a distinction without a difference when the New York Times says in the Trump era objective journalism no longer applies. It's not that our opinions or motives are at odds, it's much further down than that. There are a lot of key facts that we presume to be true that don't match up. If we could exchange special glasses by which we could immediately distinguish truth from falsehood, I expect we could agree on most issues in seconds.

Then I am wrong. My apologies.

When you draw an inference the only way to test is to ask in this kind of setting, no apology necessary. Emogies are not my strong suit. Do they go before or after the punctuation?

 

[Thistle]

I have a couple of posters on ignore, so the post numbers I see are probably different to yours. Just use the back button where I have quoted you.

Above in post 130 (by my count) [link] I linked the original posts under the number. It may be hard to tell, because I highlight in the same color that identify links, but you should be able to link to them from there.

 

[Michael R2]

You mentioned "primary sources." Think about manipulated search results on search engines like Google. If you had to guess would you suspect that Sundar Pichai's politics is closer to yours, or mine? What if it's 5 or 10 times harder for one side to make their arguments, because of manipulated search results? I'm not asking you to adopt that as a premise, it's just food for thought.

When I talk about primary sources, I am talking about the actual lawsuits as filed, the opinions as written, official state documents and etc.
I had no idea who Sundar Pachai is until I just searched. Anyway, I don't use google, I mostly use bing. I often have to change my search parameters to find what I'm looking for, but I'm sure I would have to do that with google as well. What you find is dependent on what you ask for. It's always there with a little patience.

The media is not a coin with a heads or tails. The salient questions are seldom bifurcated. Online information means there is more to sort out, but it keeps you out of the bifurcation trap.

I use all forms of media sources available to me, including online sources. Online sources tend to be more opinion oriented so I rarely use them as a point in any argument I am making.

That's a promising insight.

And a lot of falsity is presented as objective news. Let me give you an example. Turn on any media and they will say "President Elect Biden." That is factually false. It may be true come the sixth of January, but it can't be true before then. If you trust them on this point, you will be correcting people who are right, when you are wrong, and you will likely feel perfectly justified. That is a problem. I consider myself a skeptic, and I fell for this argument. When the GSA released funds to Biden I took that to mean he was president elect, and that is literally impossible before January sixth. That is one small example on a pile of examples that is higher than Mount Everest.

Despite your point being true, it has been standard usage as long as I can remember. Were you this much of a stickler when Trump was called the 'president elect' the day after the 2016 election?

Okay, that is fine, but everything that is being presented is from sworn affidavits. Thus it's essentially the equivalent of court testimony. That doesn't guarantee it's true, but it guarantees it's evidence. And again, the media is telling us there is no evidence. That no evidence tagline is a disclaimer every-time they deign to tell you what the Trump campaigns argument may be.

It is, at this point, alleged evidence (I can be a stickler too). We'll see what happens if it is brought to court. As I said before, I didn't watch much of the hearing so I have to ask; was the allegation at the counting venue? If so, were you aware that they would have been verified prior to being sent to be counted? If you wish, I try to find the Arizona county sites on mail in ballots again.

So there are 19 bell-weather counties that always predict the winner of the presidential election, and Trump won 18 of them. That is perfectly consistent with an election being stolen in a handful of heavily Democrat urban counties. I'm not demanding you have an answer for that. But this is just one more statistical anomaly that sits upon a stack of anomalies has high as a house.

Demographics change over time and anomalies do occur.

That is a distinction without a difference when the New York Times says in the Trump era objective journalism no longer applies. It's not that our opinions or motives are at odds, it's much further down than that. There are a lot of key facts that we presume to be true that don't match up. If we could exchange special glasses by which we could immediately distinguish truth from falsehood, I expect we could agree on most issues in seconds.

The writer of that piece is none too bright. Do you really believe his opinion applies to everyone who voted for Biden?

When you draw an inference the only way to test is to ask in this kind of setting, no apology necessary. Emogies are not my strong suit. Do they go before or after the punctuation?

They can go wherever you wish. I almost never use the things and could care less about the etiquette. (but, just for fun)

 

[vibise]

Inconsistent with previous posts consistent with the orthodox position of Biden as President-elect and inconsistent with any claim of neutrality. (It is all up in the air.)

Odds are it will never be determined and that is in spite of the evidence of election malfeasance. The case is now being addressed on OAN. Unfilitered.

Trump won, the Dems cheated. That is the truth based on the evidence. Fiction and cheating serve the Dems and truth is their enemy.

Whatever aids in the triumph of the revolution is ethical; whatever hinders is unethical and criminal. Bakunin

It will be forthcoming. Expect resistance because resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.

Any malfeasance should be addressed in court, not on a RW news site.

So far, no actual evidence has been presented of cheating, and certainly not to the point where it is reasonable to declare Trump to be the winner. After all, the cases by Trump's legal team have been abject failures, even when presented to a judge that Trump appointed to the bench.

You can resist all you like. March, sign petitions, hold rallies...

 

[Whateverman]

Inconsistent with previous posts consistent with the orthodox position of Biden as President-elect and inconsistent with any claim of neutrality.

Inconsistent with past elections, in which the president-elect was anointed as soon as it looked like sufficient electoral college votes had been obtained.

I guarantee that you spent exactly 0 Minutes nitpicking the minutiae of the election process last year.

You're not fooling anyone.

 

[vibise]

All anyone has to do is take out an hour and review your previous posts. It is on OAN right now and i am willing to bet the farm you have no interest. You have no interest in truth as it relates to any of this election and you need more than a claim because what is printed earlier says more than your denials now. Again your claims of neutrality are

Inconsistent with previous posts that are consistent with the orthodox position of Biden as President-elect and inconsistent with any claim of neutrality. (It is all up in the air.)

What is up in the air?
The states have reported their vote totals and in key states or districts there have been recounts confirming the original count.
There is no credible evidence of cheating or fraud or other shenanigans.
States are now certifying their results.

It is understandable to be upset when your candidate loses, but just because he lost does not mean the election was faudulent or rigged.

 

[Harry Leggs]

Inconsistent with past elections, in which the president-elect was anointed as soon as it looked like sufficient electoral college votes had been obtained.

I guarantee that you spent exactly 0 Minutes nitpicking the minutiae of the election process last year.

You're not fooling anyone.

Are you America? I had you on ignore back in the day.

 

[Thistle]

When I talk about primary sources, I am talking about the actual lawsuits as filed, the opinions as written, official state documents and etc.

I'm going to assume you are alerted to the relevance of such documents by some form of media.

I had no idea who Sundar Pachai is until I just searched. Anyway, I don't use google, I mostly use bing.

The point is the same if I had said Bill Gates.

I often have to change my search parameters to find what I'm looking for, but I'm sure I would have to do that with google as well. What you find is dependent on what you ask for. It's always there with a little patience.

If you argued from the right your skills at fine tuning search parameters would be par excellence. That is not my point really. Here is Dr. Robert Epstein's paper that demonstrates that internet search results can move millions and millions of votes in an election. [link]

I use all forms of media sources available to me, including online sources. Online sources tend to be more opinion oriented so I rarely use them as a point in any argument I am making.

Despite your point being true, it has been standard usage as long as I can remember. Were you this much of a stickler when Trump was called the 'president elect' the day after the 2016 election?

No, for a very good reason. She conceded. Making the claim is an issue when neither the candidate nor his supporters concede. I don't know how old you were in 2000 but Al Gore conceded in 2000 on election night then subsequently took the concession back.

It is, at this point, alleged evidence (I can be a stickler too). We'll see what happens if it is brought to court.

Whether or not something is evidence has a truth value and that does not depend on whether or not there is ever a court proceeding.

As I said before, I didn't watch much of the hearing so I have to ask; was the allegation at the counting venue? If so, were you aware that they would have been verified prior to being sent to be counted? If you wish, I try to find the Arizona county sites on mail in ballots again.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question.

Demographics change over time and anomalies do occur.

True. So how many times does the coin come up heads, before you admit there may be something to see here. If I see smoke pouring out of a building, I call 911, and the operator says "I understand you see smoke coming out of the building, but have you actually seen wide spread flames in the building?" What am I going to say? "You want me to prove there are wide spread flames in the building before you do anything?!?!?! What exactly do you do at the fire department?" Trump supporters are told you've got to prove there is "wide spread fraud" before we can consider any of these questions. All these anomalies constitute a ton of smoke poring out of the building.

The writer of that piece is none too bright.

So the New York Times put that opinion piece on their front page, to there credit they admitted it was an opinion piece. However that may be, what does it say about the level of intelligence at the New York Times?

Do you really believe his opinion applies to everyone who voted for Biden?

Absolutely not. The point is it's corrupted the information chain ecosystem long before many of them thought about the 2020 election seriously. This is a media criticism not a voter criticism.

They can go wherever you wish. I almost never use the things and could care less about the etiquette. (but, just for fun)

I'm not of the emoji generation, if there is such a thing.