Why Did They Have To Steal The Election?

[Leadeye]

I don't think we witnessed anything we haven't seen before, it's just a matter of money and scale.

 

[KG1]

I don't think we witnessed anything we haven't seen before, it's just a matter of money and scale.

We should follow it.

 

[vulindlela]

Ever read the Foundation trilogy by Isaac Asimov?
Trump was the Mule.....he was an unexpected and unplanned.
He threw a monkey wrench into the works

Indeed.
Trump caused a 4 year delay in the plans of Klaus Schwab and his Great Reset.

 

[jamil]

The election wasn’t stolen, or at the very least, you can’t prove it was stolen, making any definitive statement about it moot.

That's a fair point.

I guess it's really easy to declare something didn't happen when nobody will even investigate.

That's a fair point.

Well typically, you don’t investigate things you know to be fact.

That's circular reasoning.

 

[NKBJ]

Indeed.
Trump caused a 4 year delay in the plans of Klaus Schwab and his Great Reset.

In my heart I so want that to be true, that President Trump's role has been a dam, as an obstruction or a door stop. The alternative, that he was a facilitator from the get go to revamp the political landscape, was a possibility I've had to work my way through over the last few years.

 

[jamil]

This thread is about why they stole the election, if one does not believe the election stolen then there is nothing to add to the thread...

So why did they steal it?

A thread isn't owned by exactly one point of view. The very premise of this thread begs the question, and I'm going to challenge that premise by stating the obvious. The "why" presumes that it was stolen. I'm on board with thinking that every claim needs to be investigated transparently regardless of the findings. But I'm not going to assume facts reported by partisan sources.

I know you like only discussing this stuff with people who won't challenge your premise. That's just not how public forums work. They're not safe spaces from dissent.

 

[jamil]

I don't think we witnessed anything we haven't seen before, it's just a matter of money and scale.

In an abstract sense every election won by Democrats in the last 50 years has been "stolen" by a press meting out "news" that supports the side they want to win. Because of the internet and social media, we don't need the press anymore; they're obselete. And they kinda know it. Anyone with internet access and a smartphone can be a reporter on the streets, or an expert commentator in their field. And people are starting to consume that "news" rather than from the made up pompous asses on the boob tube.

Mainstream media sources have been dying on the vine since the age of the internet started. And I think what we're seeing now is them fighting to take back their 4th estate by working with social media tech giants to deplatform those individuals on the interwebz who are replacing them.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

In an abstract sense every election won by Democrats in the last 50 years has been "stolen" by a press meting out "news" that supports the side they want to win. Because of the internet and social media, we don't need the press anymore; they're obselete. And they kinda know it. Anyone with internet access and a smartphone can be a reporter on the streets, or an expert commentator in their field. And people are starting to consume that "news" rather than from the made up pompous asses on the boob tube.

Mainstream media sources have been dying on the vine since the age of the internet started. And I think what we're seeing now is them fighting to take back their 4th estate by working with social media tech giants to deplatform those individuals on the interwebz who are replacing them.

I'm not so sure. I mean it's happening, but only conservatives are being deplatformed. I haven't seen any liberal "influencers" or "contributors" being canceled.

 

[Leadeye]

Election corruption is as American as apple pie, look at Chicago, like a drunken uncle at Christmas it's just become a joke over the decades. Tammany Hall is the same way. We are just seeing things like that on a national scale and if we continue to tolerate it, we'll all just be indifferent to it like we are about those places.

 

[jamil]

I'm not so sure. I mean it's happening, but only conservatives are being deplatformed. I haven't seen any liberal "influencers" or "contributors" being canceled.

I think we're talking about a couple of different things here. Deplatforming and canceling aren't exactly the same things and it's not always done by the same people and for the same reason.

Canceling is the more partisan action, usually done by extremist leaders inciting the angry mob. Deplatforming is done by the social media giants. Some deplatforming is done as a part of canceling, because some of the people who make up the angry mob work for the new media and old media. It looks to me like a symbiotic relationship between the two for the purposes of getting to be the people who control the news. I don't think it's totally about saving old media, but more about maintaining the 4th estate. So It looks to me like the ideological extremists are the useful idiots being used by the oligarchy. It's not progressive vs conservative as much as it is establishment vs everyone else.

Jeez, look at Amazon. They own book sales (80% market share) and they own WaPo. That's a lot of power to influence people. And because they have AWS, they're able to literally deplatform platforms. I think we're going to be seeing more consolidation of information and not less, and it's not to establish some kind of woke utopia. I think they're on board with going woke because woke people are (ironically) easier to control.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The election wasn’t stolen, or at the very least, you can’t prove it was stolen, making any definitive statement about it moot.

We have a long list of irregularities that range from extremely improbable to damn well impossible in a fair election. We have a number of changes to election rules made by actors who had no constitutional authority to do so. We have flagrant violations of safeguards to protect against corruption on video.

After all this, we have you saying that because no one tripped over one pile of evidence connecting all the deeds to doers and then faceplant himself in a second pile of end of trial quality evidence on the way down it didn't happen.

As a police officer did you refuse to consider the possibility of wrongdoing unless you were handed a slam-dunk just go through the motions of taking it to court guaranteed conviction, or did you have to do a small modicum of investigation once in a while?

Do you not see a problem when the only form of investigation of obvious wrong-doing is the discovery process, and even that is denied?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I think we're talking about a couple of different things here. Deplatforming and canceling aren't exactly the same things and it's not always done by the same people and for the same reason.

Canceling is the more partisan action, usually done by extremist leaders inciting the angry mob. Deplatforming is done by the social media giants. Some deplatforming is done as a part of canceling, because some of the people who make up the angry mob work for the new media and old media. It looks to me like a symbiotic relationship between the two for the purposes of getting to be the people who control the news. I don't think it's totally about saving old media, but more about maintaining the 4th estate. So It looks to me like the ideological extremists are the useful idiots being used by the oligarchy. It's not progressive vs conservative as much as it is establishment vs everyone else.

Jeez, look at Amazon. They own book sales (80% market share) and they own WaPo. That's a lot of power to influence people. And because they have AWS, they're able to literally deplatform platforms. I think we're going to be seeing more consolidation of information and not less, and it's not to establish some kind of woke utopia. I think they're on board with going woke because woke people are (ironically) easier to control.

Well, canceling aside, my point still stands about the deplatforming. Only one side's platforms have been deplatformed.

 

[jamil]

We have a long list of irregularities that range from extremely improbable to damn well impossible in a fair election. We have a number of changes to election rules made by actors who had no constitutional authority to do so. We have flagrant violations of safeguards to protect against corruption on video.

I would not disagree with most of that. The video is questionable though. It's been explained in a plausible way that there is no way to prove was nefarious. The most egregious I think is the efforts to emphasize mail in ballots, a lower integrity voting process, and then make it even lower integrity by allowing same day registration and extending deadlines well past election day and lowering the standards for signature verification. That's not proof that the election was stolen but it does make the election less trustworthy.

After all this, we have you saying that because no one tripped over one pile of evidence connecting all the deeds to doers and then faceplant himself in a second pile of end of trial quality evidence on the way down it didn't happen.

As a police officer did you refuse to consider the possibility of wrongdoing unless you were handed a slam-dunk just go through the motions of taking it to court guaranteed conviction, or did you have to do a small modicum of investigation once in a while?

Do you not see a problem when the only form of investigation of obvious wrong-doing is the discovery process, and even that is denied?

I tend not to put much stock in some of the most questionable "evidence" like the crazy ass Frankfort story. But in terms of trying to put forth an argument that there was NO evidence of election fraud, while refusing to look into all allegations, is disingenuous.

 

[Ingomike]

A thread isn't owned by exactly one point of view. The very premise of this thread begs the question, and I'm going to challenge that premise by stating the obvious. The "why" presumes that it was stolen. I'm on board with thinking that every claim needs to be investigated transparently regardless of the findings. But I'm not going to assume facts reported by partisan sources.

I know you like only discussing this stuff with people who won't challenge your premise. That's just not how public forums work. They're not safe spaces from dissent.

The question is "why", saying it was not stolen is off topic here, there are plenty of threads to say that in. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with a member moderating their own thread, no they are not official mods but if we all volunteer the mods have less work.

Yesterday mods were close to shutting down discussion of motorcycles in the mask thread once it started taking away from the purpose of the thread. How can we have discussions if the topic is not adhered too? Is it welcome to disrupt the civil religious discussion by proclaiming God doesn't exist when the topic would be moot if one does not believe in God.

My hope would be that Kut agreed that because he did not believe it was stolen he had nothing to discuss in this thread. I have posted my support for him against those that want him gone.

Now I feel like Foz, misunderstood, I make a couple of posts explaining why many are tired and punchy at members that support those openly against the 2A, that is so cherished here, and I'm now here for safe space.

The culture war is wearing, particularly on conservatives, who do not enjoy the support of the MSM, Hollywood, social media, etc. Just because I enjoy discussion with like minded from time to time does not mean I am looking for safe spaces.

You are being duped by your so called non-partisan news sources as NO such thing exists. I believe from your posts you have an assignment of confidence depending on the source, as do I, but I believe yous is badly in need of adjustment in light of the media actions in the election. It appears you are operating from the propaganda from the media themselves and have greater distrust of conservative than MSM, even though they are not the trustworthy sources we were taught they were.

 

[Ingomike]

I would not disagree with most of that. The video is questionable though. It's been explained in a plausible way that there is no way to prove was nefarious. The most egregious I think is the efforts to emphasize mail in ballots, a lower integrity voting process, and then make it even lower integrity by allowing same day registration and extending deadlines well past election day and lowering the standards for signature verification. That's not proof that the election was stolen but it does make the election less trustworthy.


I tend not to put much stock in some of the most questionable "evidence" like the crazy ass Frankfort story. But in terms of trying to put forth an argument that there was NO evidence of election fraud, while refusing to look into all allegations, is disingenuous.

Well if you fu****g insist. I'll play along.

The "non-partisan" news you so trust has reported that the voting systems we are using have been used in other countries to affect outcomes desired by our government, particularly the CIA.

Several democratic primary candidates are on record as to the insecurities of the voting systems. (Why is Dominion not suing them?) They know because they have been told of the CIA actions.

We know the systems were internet connected (maybe not individual machines).

Why is it "crazy" to put at least some stock into the premise that the CIA was (at minimum) monitoring the election results from one of their locations?

Why is it "crazy" to think that possibly some faction of Trump supporting government (for lack of a better term) tried to obtain this server that was monitoring the election?

Why is it "crazy" to think that possibly TPTB decided to keep this scuffle classified?

I have no idea if this happened but your outright dismissal indicates to me you are too dependent on those non-partisan sources to have as open of a mind as you want to portray...

 

[IndyDave1776]

I am particularly concerned about the machines. If registering votes far outside the mechanical limitations of the machines to count isn't enough, I know someone personally who witnessed a machine flipping a R/L ballot to straight ticket D.

 

[jamil]

The question is "why", saying it was not stolen is off topic here

Well, that's convenient, isn't it? So that's how you shut down disagreement in a political forum? You couch the topic such that any discussion that disagrees with the premise is out of topic? And that doesn't sound like a safe space to you?

Yesterday mods were close to shutting down discussion of motorcycles in the mask thread once it started taking away from the purpose of the thread. How can we have discussions if the topic is not adhered too? Is it welcome to disrupt the civil religious discussion by proclaiming God doesn't exist when the topic would be moot if one does not believe in God.

Motorcycles in the mask thread is obviously off topic. Answering a question of why something is, with, well, it isn't, IS an answer on topic. But you want to define the topic so tightly to protect your point of view from pushback.

My hope would be that Kut agreed that because he did not believe it was stolen he had nothing to discuss in this thread. I have posted my support for him against those that want him gone.

Not that I agree with people staying out of threads for that reason--I think it's silly to make a topic so narrowly focused that disagreement is considered off-topic--if it's going to upset you I'll unfollow the topic. But I'm gonna say my peace first.

Now I feel like Foz, misunderstood, I make a couple of posts explaining why many are tired and punchy at members that support those openly against the 2A, that is so cherished here, and I'm now here for safe space.

Well, I get the feeling that you're probably getting frustrated with me, because I'm not on board with some of the things you believe so strongly.

The culture war is wearing, particularly on conservatives, who do not enjoy the support of the MSM, Hollywood, social media, etc. Just because I enjoy discussion with like minded from time to time does not mean I am looking for safe spaces.

I understand about the culture war. It's getting pretty scary, the things that people are saying and actually getting away with socially. Even 5 years ago it would not have been socially acceptable in the mainstream to advocate internment camps for conservatives, yet people advocate that not ironically on social media without pushback. So yeah. I do get that. And we're not completely apart on mindedness. I agree with a lot of things you say. I just don't agree with the degree to which you believe that the election was stolen. And I disagree with the trustworthiness of the sources that make you believe it. It looks to me like you believe them uncritically. At least I don't see any evidence that you weight much possibility that they could be gaslighting you.

You are being duped by your so called non-partisan news sources as NO such thing exists. I believe from your posts you have an assignment of confidence depending on the source, as do I, but I believe yous is badly in need of adjustment in light of the media actions in the election. It appears you are operating from the propaganda from the media themselves and have greater distrust of conservative than MSM, even though they are not the trustworthy sources we were taught they were.

You think I am. And I think you are. One of is is more right than the other. I think it's me that's right. And you keep telling me that I have confidence in "my" news sources. I don't. I don't trust any of them. All I can do is read the claims and try to verify the facts claimed. I do my own fact-checking to the extent I have access to information. And that's not all that far.

Saying I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to say the election was stolen is not the same thing as me believing it wasn't stolen. I don't have access to the information that I would need to independently verify it. You read a story about someone claiming to see this or that nefarious action, and then you believe it happened. I see that claim and I ask myself, is that true? Can I verify it?

If I can, I think ti's probably real. And I'll say this. My instinct is to think the election was stolen because that's where my bias is. But I have nothing but the bias to go on. And that's just not enough.

So I'd appreciate if you'd stop saying things that are untrue about "my" sources. I don't have any "go-to" sources. I've caught them all lying.

 

[jamil]

Well if you fu****g insist. I'll play along.

The "non-partisan" news you so trust has reported that the voting systems we are using have been used in other countries to affect outcomes desired by our government, particularly the CIA.

Several democratic primary candidates are on record as to the insecurities of the voting systems. (Why is Dominion not suing them?) They know because they have been told of the CIA actions.

We know the systems were internet connected (maybe not individual machines).

Why is it "crazy" to put at least some stock into the premise that the CIA was (at minimum) monitoring the election results from one of their locations?

Why is it "crazy" to think that possibly some faction of Trump supporting government (for lack of a better term) tried to obtain this server that was monitoring the election?

Why is it "crazy" to think that possibly TPTB decided to keep this scuffle classified?

I have no idea if this happened but your outright dismissal indicates to me you are too dependent on those non-partisan sources to have as open of a mind as you want to portray...

It's not crazy to think that something like that could be possible. It becomes less reasonable as the probability that it happened, and the reliablility of the information that claims it decreases.

I think it's not reasonable to believe it happened without better evidence that it must have happened. I dismiss that claim for the same reason that I dismiss God. Or aliens. or the "truther" theory of 9/11. It's possible that any of those things could be true. The possibility that something could be true is not a sound reason to believe that it is. But hey, you can reasonably suspect that they would do something like that. But you defend it as if you are more certain than that. You at least need to give me more reliable information than some partisan general's word for it for me to be as certain as you are.

 

[jamil]

I am particularly concerned about the machines. If registering votes far outside the mechanical limitations of the machines to count isn't enough, I know someone personally who witnessed a machine flipping a R/L ballot to straight ticket D.

How widespread is that? Do we have the facts on that? Has that particular claim been independently verified? People expecting to see something often turn the thing they see into the thing they thought they were going to see. Claims don't count as proof. Claims are nothing more than accusations until they're substantiated.

So there are some claims that machines were hooked up to the internet, and that the votes were changed in mass somewhere in the chain. What I don't see is the independent verification that the claims are true. Someone saying that they saw machines hooked up to the internet is one thing. The machines actually being hooked up to the internet is another. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying that I don't see enough for me to take it as a fact that it happened.

 

[jamil]

You guys can have the last word. As I promised, I'm out. Have at it.