Do you think Biden won the US election fairly (in 2020)

[felltoearth]

Lol. The Supreme Court won?t even allow them to file the complaint in Texas. What a bunch of fucking losers.




U.S. Supreme Court throws out Texas lawsuit contesting election results | The Texas Tribune

Briskly rejecting a long-shot but high-stakes case, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday tossed out the Texas lawsuit that had become a vehicle for Republicans across the country to contest President-elect Joe Biden?s victory.

In a few brief sentences, the high court said it would not consider the case for procedural reasons, because Texas lacked standing to bring it.

[Cunt]

Odd, as one state injured by another, it seemed to me that they had standing, but I was really hoping for a clear result (whichever septuagenarian asshole takes the office).

That hope probably skewed my 'predictor'.

[Zeluvia]

Originally Posted by Cunt

This is a thread about whether Biden won fairly. You ignore, and deem irrelevant, the Hunter laptop scandal, declare ignorance of the business dealings, and evidence of corruption.

And you want me to listen to you about a giant conspiracy theory?

I'll try, but it sounds like you are ignoring some pretty significant corruption on the part of the Bidens, AND a conspiracy of silence on the part of your information sources.

You don't know anything about current events, so we disagree that you are an informed opinion on this.

This question is too stupid to grab. People DO rule themselves, including ruling that they should turn their consciences over to government (via military service, or parroting government decrees, for a couple examples)

Better than most other systems I've seen.

Here's one for you:

Do you think some people are better than others?

The corruption of the Bidens is irrelevant. It is exactly the same as the corruption of the Trumps. Noise.



You and I have already established that we agree that Media is Manipulated. I think we differ in that you think somehow your sources are not being Manipulated. You seem to think I only read certain sources, or lean one way or the other. This is not true, but I really don't care.



In order to understand why some things are pushed by the media and some things are not, you have to think about the reasons why they do what they do.



1. You obviously didn't watch or listen too the little video I posted, or you would have understood the point of question 1.



It's a question of democracy and group decision making, not individuals.



There is a school of thought that in general, people will make bad and uniformed decisions, the rule of the mob or the majority is a very bad thing, and because of that, democracy must be limited and have controls. This school has another subset of thought, which says that an "aristocracy" or hierarchy is necessary, and those people who belong to the upper echelons should have More Say and More Power in government than the ones below them.


The opposite school of thought is that all people have the right to have an equal say in their government, and democracy should be universal and unlimited. This school of thought also has a subset, which qualifies this type of democracy as being dependent on a well educated and well informed populace.



2. What other systems have you seen?


3. Yes, I do think that people are better than others in all sorts of ways. But like your answer to my question 1, I don't think that is the point of your question. I think the point of your question is do you think people should be treated differently or have different rights or privileges because of some defined scale that says they are "better".



Most societies do make this distinction already. Historically, all societies define "criminals" or "outcasts" and those persons so designated do not share in all the privileges and rights as non-criminal members of the society.


This leads to another interesting discussion, the idea of social debt. What do you as an individual owe to society, and what does that society owe to you?

[Cunt]

Originally Posted by Zeluvia

The corruption of the Bidens is irrelevant. It is exactly the same as the corruption of the Trumps. Noise.

Not so. There is signal in the noise. It's the point of paying attention to data that includes noise AND signal.

The corruption of the Bidens was hidden my nearly all of mainstream media, social media and the alphabet people.

The corruption of Trump was investigated to the tune of tens of millions of dollars worth of Muellers best. Results were so scant I would say that Trump is cleaner than most politicians who haven't been investigated that way.

Originally Posted by Zeluvia

You and I have already established that we agree that Media is Manipulated. I think we differ in that you think somehow your sources are not being Manipulated.

Your sources are effectively silenced on certain subjects. With that being the case, it is easy to go look at 'the banned', and see why so many wealthy elites collude to censor their ideas.

Irregular enforcement of laws, norms and T.O.S.'s is EXACTLY the point, so your dismissing every example of it is kind of missing a large important piece of data.

You seem to think I only read certain sources, or lean one way or the other. This is not true, but I really don't care.

I think you dismiss those stories because you think they aren't important.

Months of nightly 'peaceful protests' would conflict with your notion.

In order to understand why some things are pushed by the media and some things are not, you have to think about the reasons why they do what they do.

Universally, they spiked the Epstein story as much as possible. Same for the stuff damaging to Biden. Same as the fake hate crimes coverage (Smollett, Sandman) and it isn't all that mysterious at all.

Complicated if you want it to be, but like voting, it is dead simple and most efforts to complicate it are highly suspicious.

Like why would anyone include a feature to switch votes in its voting systems?

1. You obviously didn't watch or listen too the little video I posted, or you would have understood the point of question 1.

Nope. Mostly don't do video for various reasons. Lots of time for audio podcasts, almost none for visual 'podcasts'.

You could always give your opinion on Biden, and whether he won fairly. I don't know if you gave that, now that I think of it.

It's a question of democracy and group decision making, not individuals.

Democracy sounds nice. Maybe the US should try it.

By the way, if some hyper-religious Republican nutter tries to push a bill banning biological males from competing with females, does that get democracy? Or do the vulnerable minority who could be affected get a voice somehow?

Can people vote to exclude your racial group from their community?

Democracy isn't enough.

There is a school of thought that in general, people will make bad and uniformed decisions, the rule of the mob or the majority is a very bad thing, and because of that, democracy must be limited and have controls. This school has another subset of thought, which says that an "aristocracy" or hierarchy is necessary, and those people who belong to the upper echelons should have More Say and More Power in government than the ones below them.

I'm good with letting some have more power. Some are indeed more suited to it.

The opposite school of thought is that all people have the right to have an equal say in their government, and democracy should be universal and unlimited. This school of thought also has a subset, which qualifies this type of democracy as being dependent on a well educated and well informed populace.

Can an educated group vote the gays out of their community?

Or a religious group?

2. What other systems have you seen?

Nothing better than the US so far. I only say that because it has mostly allowed states to go their own way. I wonder if that will be a good thing, in the coming few months.

3. Yes, I do think that people are better than others in all sorts of ways.

Thanks. The reason I asked was that it was recently suggested, that to sort the modern left from right, one should ask that question.

Apparently, the modern rightie says yes or no - that's it.

The modern leftie gives a speech.

(I went speech)

But like your answer to my question 1, I don't think that is the point of your question. I think the point of your question is do you think people should be treated differently or have different rights or privileges because of some defined scale that says they are "better".

That IS the case, and not by any one persons design. There are blind auditions for music, and there are hiring quotas for indigenous people, women or other minority groups.

I can understand the motivations behind all of them.

Most societies do make this distinction already. Historically, all societies define "criminals" or "outcasts" and those persons so designated do not share in all the privileges and rights as non-criminal members of the society.

That's quite a civilized approach. Up a few notches from killing one's enemies, or worse.

This leads to another interesting discussion, the idea of social debt. What do you as an individual owe to society, and what does that society owe to you?

Fuck I hate that one.

I think I owe it everything.

It never sinks in more than when I am out on the land, or building some small piece of infrastructure for myself.

Few days ago, someone from a neighbouring town went through the ice on a machine, and died. They haven't found the body. I don't know what bit of road work he was doing, but there are thousands of kilometers of beautiful, empty highways here between communities. It's eye-watering how much blood and sweat went into them.

[Zeluvia]

You don't know my sources, as I have told you over and over again. Most of the time, I try to find primary sources, and that means I ignore most news outlets in favor of finding actual things to read, be it lawsuit filings, judgements, or scientific papers. I do peruse a variety of general things, including The Epoch Times, for a general gist of what is going on, but I ignore or don't care about a lot of it.


The far left progressives in the US are the ones fighting for universal democracy. They are the ones that subscribe for the most part to the theory that every person has a right to be involved in their own government.



The Right has always believed that the rule of the majority is dangerous, and needs to be limited. This is why they support capitalism, as the mechanism to create an aristocracy, however, the Right supports the idea of inherited aristocracy.


The middle left agrees with the Right that the rule of the majority is dangerous, but argues that the problems are education and information. They also support an aristocracy created by capitalism, but do not support one based off inheritance.



The Far Right believes in an autocracy based on Biblical principles.



In my opinion, Trump lost this election the day he won the last one.



Trump was an outsider. People do have good instincts, they know there is something going on and that is why conspiracy theories get so much traction. I think this is why both Trump and Brexit won. They are very closely linked. But the action of the People is mostly misdirected on purpose, and even MORE so after Brexit and Trump.


Trump was not the candidate favored by most of the Powers. The problem is that Trump WANTED to be a Power, and I think he found out fast that is not the position of the President of the US. Putin has real power. Xi has real power. Trump was over his head the day he was elected.






I warned you about the Judges. Of all the actors in this drama, they are the most incorruptible. For me, that means all the noise about election fraud was misinformation also.



I personally like China's system. Instead of capitalism, they use a system based on education and performance to create an aristocracy. They mix in real democracy, but not at high levels. The government has the capacity to be flexible, and yet still create and maintain long term planning. I think it kicks ass.

[Cunt]

Originally Posted by Zeluvia

You don't know my sources, as I have told you over and over again. Most of the time, I try to find primary sources, and that means I ignore most news outlets in favor of finding actual things to read, be it lawsuit filings, judgements, or scientific papers. I do peruse a variety of general things, including The Epoch Times, for a general gist of what is going on, but I ignore or don't care about a lot of it.

I know that you don't consider the importance of the direction most media leans, but you lean yourself, so it isn't surprising it looks straight to you.

That's the point of bias...you don't see your own.

It's why the more someone hides that bias, the more suspicious they look. (nobody trusts corporate-speak)

The Right has always believed that the rule of the majority is dangerous, and needs to be limited. This is why they support capitalism, as the mechanism to create an aristocracy, however, the Right supports the idea of inherited aristocracy.

Curious. I thought the whole gang of signatories at the founding all agreed (whether right or left) that the tyranny of the majority was dangerous.

Weird that you would attribute it to the 'right' now. But ok. Righties are constitutionalist in this respect. Certainly lefties are not.

The middle left agrees with the Right that the rule of the majority is dangerous, but argues that the problems are education and information. They also support an aristocracy created by capitalism, but do not support one based off inheritance.

It gets weird when the government siezes the inheritance of some people.

Do they deserve to take a chunk of success from their citizen, just because they died? In practice, it means that the cagey ones pass on their wealth less obviously.

The Far Right believes in an autocracy based on Biblical principles.

Not sure you are giving a fair assessment of 'far right', or even what far right means now. I mean, Richard Spencer is a Democrat supporter, right?

In my opinion, Trump lost this election the day he won the last one.

I think the results offered so far suggest that Trump, and the Democrats lost. Whoever kept out of the spotlight won (Basement-Biden )

I warned you about the Judges. Of all the actors in this drama, they are the most incorruptible. For me, that means all the noise about election fraud was misinformation also.

I don't know, they look plenty corrupt to me. That Sullivan character was pretty vigorously corrupt in his refusing to allow Flynn to retract his plea. He's getting impeached I think, so there will be more light on it.

I personally like China's system. Instead of capitalism, they use a system based on education and performance to create an aristocracy. They mix in real democracy, but not at high levels. The government has the capacity to be flexible, and yet still create and maintain long term planning. I think it kicks ass.

Yes, I am unsurprised to learn that an older lady thinks communism is more appealing. Authoritarianism, too.

Where I start disliking it is in results, like if I picture being a minority race in China.

[Zeluvia]

The Han Chinese have a very long history of being racist

[Cunt]

Originally Posted by Zeluvia

The Han Chinese have a very long history of being racist

I think by todays definition, the US is the most racist. Especially what with their minority representation in government, law enforcement and the Bureacracy.

Or maybe it's just noise, and the Dems used BLM to fundraise on a race-baiting platform, knowing that the LAST thing the Americans want to be - is racist.

[Zeluvia]

China is not 100% authoritarian or 100% communist anymore. Just like Britain is not a monarchy. Simplistic labels are just that, simple, easy, and requiring no thought.


To me, the thing is to look at the things that work, and the things that don't, and pick and choose and incorporate the best ideas humans have come up with. This is something all countries do to a degree, some faster, some slower.

I am not a fan of the Chinese government, but I pointed out what I like about it.

In the US, we do have an aristocracy created by capitalism and inheritance that uses money to influence power and media, and this is the shadow government. This is the exact idea and philosophy that video shows evolving over time since the French Revolution. But the idea of this philosophy was that the wealthy would work in the best interests of THEIR country and the people in THEIR country. This did work well, actually for some countries, but also allowed a form of economic imperialism to flourish at the expense of poorer countries. Then globalization took off, and things got more complicated as wealth and it's fundamental basis became more international and intertwined.


Some do argue that the US military is now just a enforcement arm for the wealthy shadow government.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Cunt

Odd, as one state injured by another, it seemed to me that they had standing, but I was really hoping for a clear result (whichever septuagenarian asshole takes the office).

That hope probably skewed my 'predictor'.

Note the reasoning behind not taking the case, there is a clue in the brief text. The case brought does not deal with Treason.


The Court put the game back into the hands of the Executive to deal with Treason.


BEST REALITY TV SHOW EVER!!1111!11!11

:awes ome:

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by Cunt

I think by todays definition, the US is the most racist. Especially what with their minority representation in government, law enforcement and the Bureacracy.

Or maybe it's just noise, and the Dems used BLM to fundraise on a race-baiting platform, knowing that the LAST thing the Americans want to be - is racist.

LOL. As if the Republicans are not racist.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Zeluvia

China is not 100% authoritarian or 100% communist anymore. Just like Britain is not a monarchy. Simplistic labels are just that, simple, easy, and requiring no thought.

Did you learn that from the media which is paid for by the CCP whilst they imprison people for their religious beliefs and pay their workers dimes on the day so you have buy $500 Nike shoes and watch football players and buy $1,000 Apple phones....


You love whatever the media tells you to love.


The media is paid for, you dumb cunt.

Just like Britain is not a monarchy.

You dumb cunt.


Women are soo easily manipulated (on the whole) because they need to be a part of the group.



This is why property ownership should be the basis for the vote. If ones shows interests in the system, they have a stake. Giving parasites the vote leads us here.


Your entire thought process is 'not a true Scotsman'.


Still love you though.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Zeluvia

Some do argue that the US military is now just a enforcement arm for the wealthy shadow government.

OMG, YOU ARE ALMOST THERE!!!!1!!!!

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Hermit

I divide people by thier overt characteristics

You look like a racist to me.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Zeluvia

They are the ones that subscribe for the most part to the theory that every person has a right to be involved in their own government.

What is 'your own government'?


Why should everyone have a say? Who is everyone?



Should a drug addict's say be equal to a small business owner's?


If so, why?

[Cunt]

Originally Posted by Hermit

LOL. As if the Republicans are not racist.

Calling republicans racist? I would say that your opinion on republicans is motivated and as likely to be shitty as the rest of what you spout about them. Whatever brains you think you have, are occluded by your spite, hate or fear.

I'll think of Candace Owens, a prominent republican, when you make your race-baiting efforts. She's prettier, smarter and has better manners.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by Jerome

You look like a racist to me.

Thanks for the forgery. The author of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion would appreciate your help. I do not "divide people by thier (sic) overt characteristics". The Republican Party does that. I just pointed it out.

[Cunt]

Originally Posted by Hermit

Thanks for the forgery. The author of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion would appreciate your help. I do not "divide people by thier (sic) overt characteristics". The Republican Party does that. I just pointed it out.

You showed a graph presumably showing the race breakdown of the parties.

Why? If not to show that you are a racist, I mean. Was there a reason?

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by Cunt

You showed a graph presumably showing the race breakdown of the parties.

Why? If not to show that you are a racist, I mean. Was there a reason?

Opinion noted. Meanwhile, back to facts: In the full Congress, the overwhelming majority of racial and ethnic nonwhite members are Democrats (90%), while just 10% are Republicans. If you looked at the chart I presented above you should be able to notice that ethnicity among Democrat Congress members is roughly proportional to that of the US population at large. This is manifestly not something anyone can say about Republican Congress members.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Hermit

I characterize people and make assumptions about individuals based upon their overt characteristic.

Yep, pretty much the classic racist.

[Cunt]

Originally Posted by Hermit

roughly proportional to that of the US population at large

Ah, equity.

Fancy way to describe a racist fantasy.

Equity sounds nice, until you consider people as individuals. Some people don't want to proportionally represent their demographic. No matter how black Candace Owens is, she is not likely to go be a Democrat.

Looking for equity is shallow, racist and ignorant of reality. People aren't locked into their identity groups, no matter how much you want to box them in there.

[Cunt]

Dominion manual brought under suspicion. I was already suspicious without the manual, but if you are interested, it's imaged in this tweet.

Can you feed Dominion “test stacks” with only Biden marked? YES.
Can those be counted as legitimate results? YES.
Can entire batches of Trump votes be purged? YES.
How do I know? Its in Dominion’s user manual.

[Zeluvia]

This voting machine issue is really really old and has been addressed over the years


In 2006 HBO did Hacking Democracy about the Diebold machines flipping votes and being hackable


In 2008 Recounts of multiple places were impossible because there was no paper trail

In 2012 Anonymous claimed it stopped the Republicans from Hacking Ohio votes on machines connected to the internet

In 2020 HBO did Kill Chain, which I haven't watched yet.


By 2020, I know most states had laws against connecting voting machines to the internet, and most states had gone to a system that created a voter reviewed paper trail.


I checked into Dominion machines, and they do produce a paper ballot that the voter can check and can be audited to verify the electronic results. The recount in Georgia did use the paper ballots and not the electronic records.

[Zeluvia]

Originally Posted by Jerome

What is 'your own government'?


Why should everyone have a say? Who is everyone?



Should a drug addict's say be equal to a small business owner's?


If so, why?

Good questions. We were talking about them also. See previous discussion.


If you want to weight power with performance, in other words give those that benefit society more power than those that don't, what mechanism do you use to do that?

[Zeluvia]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Did you learn that from the media which is paid for by the CCP whilst they imprison people for their religious beliefs and pay their workers dimes on the day so you have buy $500 Nike shoes and watch football players and buy $1,000 Apple phones....


You love whatever the media tells you to love.


The media is paid for, you dumb cunt.

You dumb cunt.


Women are soo easily manipulated (on the whole) because they need to be a part of the group.



This is why property ownership should be the basis for the vote. If ones shows interests in the system, they have a stake. Giving parasites the vote leads us here.


Your entire thought process is 'not a true Scotsman'.


Still love you though.

Actually I learned about China from playing internet games and talking to Chinese people who had left China. And yes, they had a LOT of complaints, censorship generally being on the top of their list, but they are the ones that pointed out that China does do some things better, and that it wasn't communist, hence the nearly slave wages at US backed companies.



And yes, love you too




Raw property ownership is problematic. Should someone that owns and develops 200 acres of wetland get more power than someone that parks junk cars on their 1000 acres of desert?


That is why ownership of "capital" was the system that was more or less "agreed" on. Being wealthy assumed that you were intelligent and had a vested interest in the success of the country.