slug.com slug.com
48 13

Now what?

Hours after the Democrats appear to win control of the House of Representatives, pro-Trump protesters reach the house floor - now what? Please feel free to comment as this action continues.

Admin 8 Jan 6
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

48 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

13

Well, I for one am not suprised. I was briefly suprised they broke in, but not all that suprised they tried. MSM and politicians are absolutely reacting exactly as expected.

"White supremacists", "domestic terrorists", have been so over used, they have no real impact anymore. Riots, and political violence has been going on for so long, it's been normalized.

This will not change the outcome of this election. A young woman, who was shot in the neck inside, has died. MSM is reporting on this as if they have no idea how we got to this point. They continue to point their fingers at Trump as being the sole reason we are here. They are absolutely clueless about their own part they played, but they aren't wrong as far as Trump not conceding the election goes.

Trump put out a brief video urging patriots to be peaceful and go home. It was suppressed by Twitter, supposedly because it included language that "incites violence". He still maintains the election was stolen, and that's a sentiment shared by many.

Personally, I'm pissed. I don't think any of this will change anything, but where was this response by MSM and politicians when cities were being burned to the ground? Taking the fight to the politicians is much different. Where's the "mostly peaceful" bs they crammed down our throats while reporting in front of burning buildings and car lots up in flames?

I'm still trying to sort through my own feelings, but I'm very angry. Since the day Trump took office, the deck was stacked against conservatives. I may not have liked everything Trump did, and I don't condone violence of any kind, but if these idiot politicians don't figure this shit out without continuing to demonize patriots, it will get worse.

Trump can't stop this. Biden can't stop this. No single news journalist or politician can stop this. It's going to take a hell of a lot more than virtue signaling to fix this. Unlike BLM, however, politicians think they don't even have to try to appeal to patriots. The patriots are the monsters in all their stories of oppression. They're the ones that created the big, bad, "white supremacist" monster. They wanted this boogie man, well, here it is.

"Look what you made me do."

11

I bet y’all think this is normal, too...and doesn’t it bear a resemblance to the federal election results? I like the way how four people’s votes can move in such clear unison, Dems surging together to pass their republican opponents at exactly the same time! Kinda makes,you believe in coincidence, doesn’t it?

Three conspiracy theorists walk into a bar.
Coincidence? 😂

Yuh, makes me furious.

@Rick-A must be when they “stopped counting.”

@TheMiddleWay Where’s the theory, teacher? I have a theory you’re racist.

@parsifal
Seems the joke went over your head, my padawan.

@TheMiddleWay LOL for the joke 😂 Agree on refusing conspiracy theories. But doesn't it (this and the presidential election) raise any suspicion?!!! Doesn't it need to be investigated and the evidence to be examined?!!! Doesn't that, as a man of science, look like an anomaly that should be further examined?!!! C'mon, man!

@EgyptianRedpill
Thing is for something to be investigated there needs be something to investigate.
Yet when actually in front of a court and asked to present what evidence they wish to pursue, they constantly came up short.

Lawyer: There were thousands of dead people voting.
Judge: Show me 10.
Lawyer: I have none.

Lawyer: There were thousands of double scanned votes.
Judge: Show me 10.
Lawyer: I have none.

Lawyer: The votes should be invalidated due to voter fraud
Judge: Show me 10
Lawyer: I have none.

You don't ask the courts to provide the evidence for you; you bring the evidence to the court.

@TheMiddleWay Not the Trump team cases. There are sworn affidavits, that's evidence. There is live hacking of voting machines, that's evidence. There are instances of such irregularity, that's evidence. You're being misled by the Fake News media. I'm about half way around the world and I know that much! Oh, and yes, courts don't get evidence, but there are also authorities, such as, you know, THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION!!! And courts should examine evidence, not refuse to look at it.

And my point was about that graph, and the WI graph. Nothing to see here I guess?!!!

@EgyptianRedpill

There are sworn affidavits, that's evidence.

That is not evidence. Those are allegations. My saying "I saw votes being double scanned" but being unable to show where, when, or how that happened doesn't elevate my allegation to evidence. Evidence are the actual votes being double scanned, not my saying they were.

Consider, I could sign an affadavit claiming that you killed my mother. Is that evidence that you killed my mother if I can't even point to where, when, how or even IF my mother was killed?

There is live hacking of voting machines, that's evidence.

No, there is not. There is numerology, numbers going up going down, etc. But no actual evidence of hacking found by republican, democratic, and independent election officials.

There are instances of such irregularity, that's evidence.

There are always going to be irregularities. That's evidence of humanity, not fraud.

THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION!!!

Indeed. Here is what the person they report to has to say:
"Attorney General William Barr declared Tuesday the U.S. Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election"

And courts should examine evidence, not refuse to look at it.

There has to be more than allegations and "irregularities" to examine. There has to be actual, tangible, evidence... which in over 60 cases there has not been.

And my point was about that graph, and the WI graph. Nothing to see here I guess?!!!

How do you personally distinguish between conspiracy and coincidence?
If you get in a car accident in the morning and at the same time get fired, it is conspiracy or coincidence?

@TheMiddleWay Lol. Well teach away, teacher. Will I be a racist, too, when you’re done?

@TheMiddleWay pay attention, teacher: Italygate.

@parsifal
Been looking for it: is this it?

Italygate, part II: Obama and Renzi accused of being the masterminds of the US electoral fraud
[lacrunadellago.net]

@TheMiddleWay AND THE LITTLE NIKITA MARCHES ON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@TheMiddleWay I think you're confusing "evidence" and "proof" in this context, the context of law. While they're allegations in a sense, they are what is presented to support an allegation or a claim. A testimony is a type of evidence. Documents are another. However, that evidence being valid or not (as in Perjury in case of testimony or forgery in case of documents), contradictory with other evidence or not, circumstantial or not, or can be enough or not to (with other evidence or not) to constitute a proof to a sufficient degree. Evidence may be examined and accepted or rejected. For example, a document can be presented as Evidence. It then can be examined to be determined if it's valid or a forgery. The same for testimony. In your example, the saying "I saw votes being double scanned" is a testimony. It's presented to support an allegation that a fraud happened for example. It can then be examined and can be found valid or not. It's evidence, but it's not proof until being examined and verified as valid and then maybe with or maybe without other evidence can prove the allegation.

For an analogy, and since you are a man of science, the detection of faster-than-light neutrons at CERN in 2011 was evidence, in the legal sense (and I'm stressing that to distinguish it between "empirical evidence" which is proof). It wasn't proof though. It needed to be examined. It was then repeated and another evidence, FTL reading, was recorded. However, still not proof enough especially with something of this significance. Later it was found it was 2 issue in equipment setup.

As for the hacking I mentioned..

Also please see that search result and how Dems have been saying it for years but suddenly now it's the most secure election evaaaaar! 🤣🤣🤣

"numerology" What?! Please look up what it means.

“We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results,”
That's from the Michigan report on Dominion machines and the flipping of 6000 votes. But you didn't hear about that from the Fake News media, did you?! You didn't hear about that from John Oliver who did a 20 minute (or whatever) segment on hacking voting machines, did you?!

Oh, and on your "there is no evidence", there is also video evidence of counting same ballots multiple times! But again, you didn't see it on Fake News media, did you?! And, you know, thousands of affidavits! Thousands of testimonies under the penalty of perjury (assuming even that's all they got!) are not enough to be examined! RRRRRIGHT! 😂😂😂

As for your question about conspiracy and coincidence: evidence, examination of evidence, logic and avoiding logical fallacies (also understanding that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation and all that). But certainly, refusing to examine evidence isn't how to do it. How do you think "conspiracy" charges in courts get decided?!

@EgyptianRedpill
Which is more likely:

60+ career federal and state judges from multiple states and multiple political appointment knowing what constitutes evidence to move forward on a case
or
you or I knowing what constitutes evidence to move forward on a case?

@EgyptianRedpill

For an analogy, and since you are a man of science, the detection of faster-than-light neutrons at CERN in 2011 was evidence, in the legal sense (and I'm stressing that to distinguish it between "empirical evidence" which is proof). It wasn't proof though. It needed to be examined. It was then repeated and another evidence, FTL reading, was recorded. However, still not proof enough especially with something of this significance. Later it was found it was 2 issue in equipment setup.

Now imagine that someone with no physics experience made an FTL claim
Would we demand that CERN perform experiments, spend time and money, to prove their claims?

@EgyptianRedpill
>That's from the Michigan report on Dominion machines and the flipping of 6000 votes.

This was due to an old key file in the machine which failed to properly assign votes to candidates.
The mistake was found and rectified before the results were official.
Subsequent audits and recounts found the official reports to be accurate.
Irregularities happen in every human endevour; this doesn't mean every irregularity points to conspiracy... especially when it's a singular person, the person with the most to gain, who is elevating irregularity to conspiracy.

@TheMiddleWay Let me correct something here (and assuming that's the case), it's not then a "key file" but it's then a "configuration file". The name "key file" would be a license key file or something of the sort like a file holding some sort of credentials.

Having a config file with keys (or attributes) that can flip votes means that the software specifically reads the value of this key/attribute and this acts upon it to perform this behavior (say that this key/attribute holds a boolean value and that if it's true then flip). That means the software is designed and written to perform this fraud. Which is what it is, a fraud, in a VOTING SYSTEM! That means that the system is not only susceptible to fraud, but it's designed intentionally to do that. Let alone having it connected to the internet and connected to servers in Germany (why?!!! and how is that not a thread to election integrity?!!!)

How does all of that not merit examining evidence?!!!

Having that particular 6000 votes switch caught and corrected does not necessarily mean it didn't happen with another batch on this machine or other machines. Hence, investigation is needed so that we may know for sure!!! Or are you arguing because one error is caught and corrected this it is impossible to have been repeated?!!!

"especially when it's a singular person" Not one person. Thousands of individuals who provided affidavits. It's funny how you keep ignoring that! Millions of citizens who have been seeing evidence (affidavits, video footage, the Michigan forensic report, the very SUSPICIOUS graph of Wisconsin...!!! But examining that to ensure the integrity of election to about half the country (assuming they're just hald the country and not much more!) is not worth it, I guess!!! 🤣🤣🤣

@EgyptianRedpill

Or are you arguing because one error is caught and corrected this it is impossible to have been repeated?!!!

That error came about because version 1 (to call it something) was incorrectly left remaining from previous use that had nothing to do with trump... hence the errounous assignment.... and version 2 was not.
As all other machines were running version 2... this is verified by republican and democratic election officials.
So yes. One error that is caught and the reason known and that reason is not found in any other machine makes it impossible to be repeated.

@TheMiddleWay Judges that many of which (or if not them, others, and they can be next) have been put on a list by AOC and the Left! That's assuring!!! 🤣🤣🤣

Not only that, but you know, there is something (which is also a crime, and it can happen, you know!) called "conspiracy"! Not that I'm charging them with it!

Not to mention that it's Appeal to Authority logical fallacies in the sense that "they know better, shut up"! But of course I understand you're saying that they have the domain knowledge and that it's literally their job to cast judgment on such matters. But whatever!

@EgyptianRedpill

Thousands of individuals who provided affidavits. It's funny how you keep ignoring that!

Roughly 100.
I don't ignore that. I just trust that the republican and democratic judges who reviewed said affidavits give it the proper weight and unanimously found they had none.

As outlined in this article:

[usatoday.com]

@TheMiddleWay Funny thing is, there was that thing, you know, the alleged Russian Collusion hoax and the Mueller Investigation! 🤣 But now it's a waste of time and money! 🤣🤣🤣

"Now imagine that someone with no physics experience made an FTL claim"
But we're talking here about a legal claim and presented by lawyers, unlike your "some with no physics experience". However, even in your example, if that someone even without physics experience is presenting evidence, won't it be foolish and plainly unscientific to refuse to see the evidence that he/she is presenting and examining it. The problem here is you're making a false equivalence between someone making the claim and presenting evidence (which you're refusing to examine), and someone making a claim and shifting the burden of proof (which you'd be right in dismissing it without evidence as the claim is without evidence presented).

@TheMiddleWay So you're saying version 1 of the config file had "true" (or something) to switch the votes (for a previous election!!! as if that's okay, but whatever now!) then it was supposed to be "false" for this election, version 2, but didn't get set as such?! And that means the system is not intentionally designed to perform fraud. Dude, that's fraud by a config value! 🤣🤣🤣 That's like, say, having a button on an equipment to give intentionally FTL reading on demand at CERN! 🤣🤣🤣

@TheMiddleWay. That’s a blog but one of them, teacher..

@TheMiddleWay soooo...you expect a witness to bring the actual ballots into court? Is that it?

@TheMiddleWay That's rich! Citing the Fake News media that takes non-Trump case and paints the affidavits that Giuliani and his team have because a couple of, let's say for the sake of argument, "crazies" (assuming their cases and affidavits were examined in court and not dismissed as not having Standing or something! It's also worth noting how they deceitfully say "The Trump campaign and its allies" as if most of those 42 cases are from Trump's team when it's maybe 1 case from Trump team and the rest from "allies"! 🤣🤣🤣

@TheMiddleWay you’re mistaking statements of fraud as merely allegations. Separately I agree. Those affidavits, however, corroborate what is alleged in the other situations. If ten people say “I saw votes being run through the counter multiple times” that becomes evidence of an illegal occurrence. rules are rules, and when in this case the rules are determined to have been broken in violation of a federal law, that is a real issue.

@parsifal Or to bring the voting machines or their log files or databases! 😂😂😂 Good point. I got into the technicalities and didn't occur to me to say that! 😅😅😅

@parsifal
As I told Egyptian previously, I expect Republican and democratically appointed federal and state judges to know what is needed to be presented in order to go forward with the case. And because I respect our legal system, the fact that 60 plus of them saw no merit in what was being forwarded carries more weight than the allegations of trump, sydney, rudy, and others who stand to gain by these allegations.

@parsifal
And if upon audit, there are nine votes that are unaccounted for in the machine as compared to the paper, then those allegations have merit. However in every case that was audited, in every state where it was alleged this happened, no such discrepancy was found.

And further compounding the problem of elevating these allegations to evidence is the fact that it wasn't just in Republican states that these allegations were unfounded. In Republican states and by Republican officials... People who voted for Trump and want him to win... Did not support these allegations and further denied that any such malfeasance were to occur. I mean if it was purely Democrats claiming that nothing was wrong, then hell yeah I'd be skeptical. But when both Democrats and republicans, united, said that there was no malfeasance, then that is a strong indicator that they are telling the truth

@EgyptianRedpill
In regards to my; comment about a person with no physics experience making FTL claims, that was in reference to the affidavits not the lawyers. But I'm saying is that the affidavits are made by mostly people that have zero experience in how the machines work or how the election is handled. As such, their claims that they saw fraud and that it should be investigated is like a person with no physics experience alleging there is FTL and others claiming that it must be investigated

In regards to the article about the hundred or so affidavits, I'm fully cognizant that the minority of those affidavits were from crazies, like the lady that testified before the subcommittee claiming that she had a grand deals role and she saw many nefarious actions when it actually turned out that she was only hired and present to clean machines. The vast majority of the affidavits are like the guy that claimed got election officials were literally changing votes and upon questioning actually stated that he overheard to be talking about something but never saw any actual vote rigging. Again, the majority of people are people that saw something they don't understand and then assign fraudulent intent to it. And the courts, when reviewing those affidavits, can see through it and given no corroboration to the affidavits, see no reason or substance to proceed ahead

@TheMiddleWay Okay! So using the same reasoning you used with the judges dismissing those cases and affidavits (which aren't Trump's nor the thousands his team has), isn't it then that the lawyers (Trump's team) know what is needed and vetted those affidavits?! No?!

Anyway, your analogy then is not aligned with the actual case here (given my previous explanation of what legal evidence is)! So, it should be (even though it's wrong):
Someone with no physics experience => Trump's team.
Evidence if he/she presented any (or not) => the affidavits (and other evidence).
CERN => Courts and investigation authorities to examine evidence.

"I'm fully cognizant that the minority of those affidavits were from crazies"
A few words later:
"The vast majority of the affidavits are like the guy that..."
Dude!!! 😂

"And the courts, when reviewing those affidavits"
But that didn't happen with Trump's team cases! Nor the Supreme Court and they refused because of Standing!!!

@EgyptianRedpill

isn't it then that the lawyers (Trump's team) know what is needed and vetted those affidavits?! No?!

Clearly not since none of the cases that they put forth were unable to convince a single judge otherwise.

Someone with no physics experience => Trump's team.

I explained myself above though maybe you posted before I gave that explanation. The people with no physics experience are the people making the affidavits. I honestly don't know where the lawyers would stand in this analogy and maybe that's where the analogy breaks down. but my point is that an affidavit claiming voter fraud by someone with no experience with votes has very little merit

"And the courts, when reviewing those affidavits"
But that didn't happen with Trump's team cases! Nor the Supreme Court and they refused because of Standing!!!

They went before a judge. This means they went before a court. and in those cases where they were refused because of standing, I mean that's just basic Court procedures and reflects at the very least incompetence on the part of the lawyers bringing the case before the court. For example if you lose money because of my actions, then a third party can't sue me for that because they have no standing; only you can sue me. In this case, it would have to be the very election officials that state that there was no evidence of fraud that would need to bring the case that there was.

@TheMiddleWay Your analogy, version of it, yes, it breaks down.

The first point and the last point, you're confusing Trump's cases and other people's cases.

@EgyptianRedpill
Is there a functional difference between Trump cases and Ally cases such that anything said for one doesn't also apply to the other?
I can't think of any

@TheMiddleWay I can think of 2 potential differences:

  1. Different and larger set of affidavits. And other forms of evidence including video evidence!!!
  2. Not being put forward by "crazies" or amateurs! We're talking about Giuliani and Powell here!

So saying the courts refusal to even look at the evidence and have proceedings because other cases put by other people were also rejected (whether their evidence was examined or not) is a false equivalency logical fallacy.

@EgyptianRedpill

Not being put forward by "crazies" or amateurs! We're talking about Giuliani and Powell here!

The "crazie" that testified before congress, Mellissa Carone, was Giuliani's.
The affidavit claiming election fraud in Nov 2020 by a pro-trump podcaster, Terpsichore Maras-Lindeman, that was almost verbatim what he said back in Nov 2019 was Powells.

I don't think there is a difference....

So saying the courts refusal to even look at the evidence and have proceedings because other cases put by other people were also rejected (whether their evidence was examined or not) is a false equivalency logical fallacy.

The fallacy is saying the courts refused to look at the evidence.
They did and found it insufficient during the discovery phase, hence the almost universal dismissals.
The discovery phase is literally when "the courts look at the evidence"

@TheMiddleWay So, label her as "crazie" and be done with it. Nothing to see here! Everything is fine!

Also, if I'm not mistakes, there are still cases ongoing (maybe 10).

Also, about the discovery phase, so in one session the court went through thousands of affidavits and tried to verify them, and ruled out every single one of them?! Cool story, bro!

Also, again, you're forgetting about AOC's list which had judges on them. But hey, everything is fine!!!

@EgyptianRedpill

So, label her as "crazie" and be done with it. Nothing to see here! Everything is fine!

Her actions and demeaner before congress earns her that label, not I. It was so bad that even Giuliani himself was overheard trying to shush her as she ranted wild.

Also, if I'm not mistakes, there are still cases ongoing (maybe 10).

I suppose. But not sure what those 10 cases will accomplish the other 60 didn't.

Also, about the discovery phase, so in one session the court went through thousands of affidavits and tried to verify them, and ruled out every single one of them?! Cool story, bro!

Not one. In 60 independent sessions.
And there are roughly 100, not thousands of affidavits.

Also, again, you're forgetting about AOC's list which had judges on them

Not forgetting; what AOC says or does is completely irrelevant to how Judges, many of them Trump appointed, rule.

But hey, everything is fine!!!

Everything is fine with this election, or at least as fine as it was in 2016, 2012, 2008, etc.
It's the country that accepts the word of a handful of people (Trump and his team) over the word of hundreds of people (Judges, election officials, governors, mayors, secretaries of state, etc) both democrat and republican that is not fine.

@TheMiddleWay I wonder what actions and demeaner! Sure that wasn't the SNL and smearing of her on Fake News media?!

You should check the number of affidavits. It's not a single 100, it's hundreds (thousands even). 234 pages of sworn affidavits in just one case in Michigan. Get your facts straight.

Wait, wasn't it Russia, Russia, Russia, foreign interference, collusion, Russia, Russia, Russia?! Wasn't it "voting machine hacking" all over Fake News media with even a 20 minute segment by John Oliver?! Now it's the most secure election evaaaaar!!! Just like previous elections! Nothing to see here! Everything is fine!!! What a joke! 🤣🤣🤣

Sure, Jan.

@EgyptianRedpill

I wonder what actions and demeaner! Sure that wasn't the SNL and smearing of her on Fake News media?!

Giuliani was overheard trying to shush her as she ranted wildly.
Several conservative commentators made that comment as well.
No, this is not on SNL or the media.

234 pages of sworn affidavits in just one case in Michigan.

  1. 238 pages does not equal 238 affadavits.
  2. Have you read that affadavit?
    I found none of them had any merit, ranging from loud noises to mean mean to pristine ballots.
    Can you tell me the top three affidavits from that 238 page document that you think have merit?

Wasn't it "voting machine hacking" all over Fake News media with even a 20 minute segment by John Oliver?!

Yes. And when investigated and found not true, that was the end of it.
Unlike now which when investigated and found not true, that is merely the start of it.

@TheMiddleWay You know lawyers give advice like that, right?

True, but that's just one case as an example. They could be less than the number of pages but to what ratio?! And again, one case. So it's not one hundred. And again, 234 pages have been all examined in one session, I mean, how long was that session?! And no, I haven't read them but it looks like neither did the courts!

Incorrect. It has been investigated in Michegan and I even cited the forensic report. It was investigated in Texas when considering using them and were rejected. You're only repeating the Fake News narrative.

@EgyptianRedpill

And again, 234 pages have been all examined in one session, I mean, how long was that session?! And no, I haven't read them but it looks like neither did the courts!

Took me about one hour to read the full transcript and I'm no legal expert.
So as long as the session lasted longer than an hour, there is no merit to your allegation they did not read it.
Further, if you've not read it, then please don't bring it up as you give us no basis for discussion, just what others are saying about it.

Incorrect. It has been investigated in Michegan and I even cited the forensic report. It was investigated in Texas when considering using them and were rejected. You're only repeating the Fake News narrative.

The forensic report cited a 68% rate of vote flips.
Yet when the hand count was performed, there was no 68% vote flip.

As well, the report based it's conclusions on an allegation that they do digital conduct adjudication.
That is false: that is done manually, not manually.

They also alleged that common errors that had nothing to do with vote tabulation reflectied an error in vote tabulation. For example, there were many accounts of votes being "reversed"... but that means the vote was tagged for return to the voter for some reason, not the the vote was counted and reversed.

So the forensic investigation has glaring holes in it's foundational assumptions and conclusion. If you trust a report that has such glaring inconsistencies, then so be it. But I don't.
And neither do the courts. And they are the ones that matter, not you or I.

@TheMiddleWay Sure you can read quickly through 234 pages. But the point is, have they been examined? Details of the accounts being verified or falsified? You know, reading something (like your reply here for example) can be done quickly, examining it and verifying/falsifying/researching is different matter.

And no, I don't necessarily have to read every single thing myself. You know I can read about it or a summary to be alerted about it and request an investigation and the evidence I hear about (you know it exists) to be examined.

You're also confusing a recount with an audit. So, your point is naive. Because say that boolean config value we discussed yesterday was "true" (or not, technically), then if you run the same ballots, you'd get almost the same results! Duh!!!

@EgyptianRedpill
Again, as you have not read the report then you are not aware that the majority of what was said is unverifiable... Somebody gave me a mean look... Somebody was where I don't think they should be.

And that which is verifiable is instantly understood by the experts as being absolutely normal... Somebody took a box of ballots and put them in the closet for example. this is not fraudulent nefarious or anything unusual since that was the closet where they stored the ballots.

read the report please and then let's get back to the discussion. Otherwise you're only working from secondhand knowledge superposition and guesswork

@EgyptianRedpill
Not at all.
Georgia had an audit and a recount and everything was fine. Same machine. Same election.

@TheMiddleWay I wonder which ones you said you read? The very same ones I mentioned?!

Anyway, sure, you can find things like that in there. But that doesn't mean they're all like that. Especially, for instance, when they told watchers and the press to go home and they were going to stop counting, but 4 remained and pulled cases or boxes and kept counting. Which is not only reported as it was happening as a plumbing issue or something, it's affidavits and cam footage (oh, and the fact-checking, no it's not suitcases!). Yet, nothing to see here! But when we want investigation and court cases to be heard, no, waste of time and money!!! A graph taking a sharp turn up, not suspicious at all!!! A graph with lines tracking each other, nope, nothing suspicious here either!!! No need to investigate!!! If you had some sensor reading or something looking strange/unusual, no need to check it either!!! Really rational, really scientific!!! Also, look, one state did a recount and turned out seemingly okay, no need then to check all the others!!!

@EgyptianRedpill

But that doesn't mean they're all like that.

Read it for yourself and you'll see that they are all like that, yes.

@EgyptianRedpill

Especially, for instance, when they told watchers and the press to go home and they were going to stop counting, but 4 remained and pulled cases or boxes and kept counting

Except for the annoying little thing that that never happened and there is live video footage of that not happening. As I recall the claim was that a blonde woman, who nobody knows, but a blonde woman told people to leave and that the counting would stop. However there is no law that says the counting had to stop. No law that observers or the press had to be present for the counting to it is a 100% entirely fabricated storyline for which there is video proof that it never happened.

Yet here you are months later repeating it as if it's true.

@EgyptianRedpill
I believe every state Trump lost by a small margin had either a recount, an audit, or both. In all cases, there there was no evidence of any malfeasance

@TheMiddleWay I asked you which all you read but you didn't reply? Were they the very same MI ones I cited as an example of the count of affidavits?!

Anyway, it did happen. It's true and I was awake at the time and saw the reporting on it, live, from even the Fake News media. Not only that, we have the cam footage showing exactly that. What are you evening trying to deny?!!!

Here are videos of both. Would you then stop?!

Stop it. Get some help. -Michael Jordan

@EgyptianRedpill

I asked you which all you read but you didn't reply? Were they the very same MI ones I cited as an example of the count of affidavits?!

Yes. For the past few posts we've only been talking about the 238 page of affidavits.

Not only that, we have the cam footage showing exactly that.

That's the exact same camera footage I was referencing so this will be easy: when in the video you provided where people told to leave? You are being told that that is what happened but can you actually see and point to where what they claimed actually happened? Where a person said to leave?

@TheMiddleWay "when in the video you provided where people told to leave?"
Are you kidding me?! So this video showing the center empty but showing them resuming counting isn't enough? Maybe they disappeared or invisible or something!!! The affidavits which this video confirms aren't enough? Oh, and those aren't suitcases, that's fact-checking!!! Listen to yourself! Do you seriously believe that's a valid argument?!

However, here is a longer video and that lady with the blonde braids is at about 13:55 of that video! Now try to move the goal post! 😏

And remember, and I'm quoting you, you said "Except for the annoying little thing that that never happened and there is live video footage of that not happening." 😏

Do you still think you're correct and not fooled by the Fake News media? 😏

And again..

Stop it. Get some help. -Michael Jordan

@EgyptianRedpill

So this video showing the center empty but showing them resuming counting isn't enough?

If the claim is that somebody told observers and media to leave, then of course not this is not enough.
I ask again, you and the videos presenter both claimed that the observers and media were asked to leave and present this video as evidence. Where or when in the video can we see someone that is telling others to leave? Because we see The observers and media leaving but we don't see, nor can hear, the lady saying anything to anybody.

@TheMiddleWay I said at about 13:55 of that video (the longer one). Or can't you read now?! 😏

@EgyptianRedpill

Do you still think you're correct

Since no one can hear the lady saying what is claim she said,
given the fact that there is no law putting the blonde lady in command of The observers such that they should follow her instructions,
no law preventing them from coming back,
no law that makes it illegal to count without observers...
Then yes.

@EgyptianRedpill

The affidavits which this video confirms aren't enough

if I signed an affidavit claiming that you were my son, would that be enough for you to believe that you are my son? Clearly not.

yet someone someone saying an affidavit that a lady said something is enough for you to believe that she said something.

think about why you wouldn't believe my affidavit but you would believe the trump-based affidavit.

In the US this is why hearsay is seldom presented as a form of evidence and why affidavits are seldom considered evidence in and of themselves.

@EgyptianRedpill

Or can't you read now?!

You're getting testy.
Should we take a break?

@TheMiddleWay Thank you for being yet another example of how dogma and religion (which what "Leftism" is basically), unfortunately, makes otherwise intelligent logical people deny things before their own eyes.

And again, the video shows her talking and instructing them to leave, and it shows them leaving, and it confirms the affidavits (multiple) that came before that video saying exactly that. So it's not just affidavits in and of themselves (although having multiple consistent testimonies corroborate them) are you pathetically saying 😏

Stop it. Get some help. -Michael Jordan

@TheMiddleWay "You're getting testy.
Should we take a break?"
Nah! I think I'm done here. You did enough already to prove my point.

@EgyptianRedpill

the video shows her talking and instructing them to leave,

The video has no sound. So how does it show her talking and giving instructions for them to leave? Could she just not be saying for people to stay or say nothing at all?

@EgyptianRedpill

are you pathetically saying

Are you sure you don't want to take a break?
Your responses to me are getting more and more emotional...

@EgyptianRedpill

makes otherwise intelligent logical people deny things before their own eyes.

It's interesting how the religious use the same argument.
I mean here you are believing in what other people say but cannot hear. That sounds an awful lot like believing a religious say god speaks to you but you refuse to hear.

in this case you have the religious, the people signing the affidavit claiming that the woman said something. And as evidence they provide a video where you can't hear the woman say anything. This is kind of like the religious presenting a book claiming that that supports their claim.

So on what basis are you believing that she said what the affidavit claims? so far because nobody can hear what she said, the only basis is that somebody told you that she said something. But consider that under Michigan law, no one has the authority to tell observers or the media to leave, The observers and the lawmakers can come back anytime, and there is no requirement for any observers to be present for ballots to be counted.

@TheMiddleWay

  1. The affidavits that were made before that video.
  2. Duh! Of course there is no audio! It's a security cam footage.
  3. Maybe she was doing a mime routine or something and all those who left just left out of the blue!

Stop embarrassing yourself further and stop projecting maybe!

@EgyptianRedpill
In short, if multiple people signed an affidavit claiming a video they presented shows that a person in the video is God, would that be enough for you to believe that that person is in fact God?

@EgyptianRedpill

The affidavits that were made before that video.

Impossible given that that video was live streamed. 😂

Maybe she was doing a mime routine or something and all those who left just left out of the blue!

do you think that without someone telling them to leave those observers and media would have stayed there forever? Obviously not. Obviously they had to leave sometime and that's exactly what they did, they left. But without audio, you cannot confirm that what was said in the affidavit is true, right?

@EgyptianRedpill

Stop embarrassing yourself further and stop projecting maybe!

As we get deeper into discussion you are making more and more comments about me instead of restricting your comments to the topic at hand. This is why I asked if you need to take a break because it's clear that you're getting way too emotional over this topic.

@TheMiddleWay Maybe one day you'd remember this reply you've just made and have a good laugh at yourself. And your false analogy because a book isn't like.. you know.. a VIDEO!

A video isn't evidence proving the testimonies!!! LOL 🤣🤣🤣

Sure, Jan.

@EgyptianRedpill

A video isn't evidence proving the testimonies!!!

A testimony claiming something is said is not proven by a video where you can't hear what is being said.

again, if a religious claims under penalty of law that a person in the video is god, do you consider that evidence that God exists?

@TheMiddleWay "Impossible given that that video was live streamed. 😂"
That's a SECURITY CAMERA FOOTAGE. "live streamed"!!! LOL 🤣🤣🤣 What was live streamed was reporting that they were told the counting would stop, not that who told them was that person with the blonde braids.

"those observers and media would have stayed there forever?"
But all are leaving at the same time by themselves?!
Also, the live reporting of them BEING TOLD that the counting would be stopped.

I really that's enough. You know, arguing with fools, playing chess with pigeon and all that! (coincidentally, I found that meme/picture while trying to find the pigeon one)

Never play chess with a pigeon

@TheMiddleWay Was that person in the said video acting like god (even without audio)?!!! Is the video valid (not fake) and shows exact details and actual acts of alleged divinity?!!!

Again, false analogy. Nice try 😏

@EgyptianRedpill

Also, the live reporting of them BEING TOLD that the counting would be stopped

Where is the live reporting then? Let's focus on what we can hear instead of only what we can see

@EgyptianRedpill
I noticed that you don't wish to address the fact that if someone claimed that someone on a video was God you wouldn't believe it was God just because the person says so...

... but someone claiming that a person said something you can't hear you would

@EgyptianRedpill

You know, arguing with fools, playing chess with pigeon and all that! (coincidentally, I found that meme/picture while trying to find the pigeon one)

Nobody is keeping ypu here or forcing you to talk to me.
If you want to take a break, then say so and we'll take a break.

@TheMiddleWay I already provided it 😏 But here it is again 😏

@EgyptianRedpill

Was that person in the said video acting like god (even without audio)?!!!

They don't need to act like God in this analogy just me claim that they are god. In the same way that we don't need to hear what the blonde braided lady saying, just me claiming that she said something

Is the video valid (not fake) and shows exact details and actual acts of alleged divinity?!!!

Yes.

now if a religious person did that for you, as an atheist, would that be enough to change your mind to being a theist... That simply the claim of a religious is enough for something that you can't hear for yourself be true?

@EgyptianRedpill

I already provided it

That's a video about the pipe burst and has nothing to do with what we're talking about right now. it is not live reporting on a lady telling observers and media to stop counting.

Do you want to take a break from the lady who says something but we can't hear and move on to the pipe bursting and stopping count and why you think that proves fraud?

@TheMiddleWay No, it needs to because the point is that the content of the video is CONSISTENT with the testimony.

And to answer your question if that video exists, you know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So if it contains such extraordinary evidence/act and it's true, sure that would made the claim highly probable then but of course there would still some doubt (you know, the thing, sufficiently advanced technology and all that).

And you seem to be insistent on taking a break! Maybe you need it! (I don't deny that I'll need to sleep soon anyway since it's about 2:17 AM here)

By the way, I'm making now a post to showcase this conversation (because it's not visible really and I think there is value/example in it to be shown!)

@EgyptianRedpill

No, it needs to because the point is that the content of the video is CONSISTENT with the testimony.

if the testimony is about something that was said, how can a video where we can't hear be consistent with the testimony? That doesn't make sense.

you know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I am a huge fan of hitchens razor myself. Which is exactly why the extraordinary claim of election fraud requires extraordinary evidence. and a person claiming that someone said something but us not being able to independently hear that something, is not extraordinary evidence... In fact it's hardly any evidence at all.

@EgyptianRedpill

I don't deny that I'll need to sleep soon anyway since it's about 2:17 AM here)

Then let's both agree to take a break as we have both laid out our points, we have both heard each other, and that as as much as we can accomplish now.

Make the post and maybe we can revisit the conversation there in the presence of others.

Good night! Good talk!

@TheMiddleWay Good night. Although I'm not sure it's a break since I already said I'm done (yet I'm still here! 😅) and you have said enough to prove my point! Anyway, I'll post it now.

9

Howdy @Admin,

The Dems and their media arm will construe this as insurrection and try to invoke the Insurrection Act to punish any conservative gathering.

Trump also suggested invoking the insurrection act against protests during the summer.
Karma's a bitch.

Nah they'll do nothing or use it to repress more leftists. The elites still support "law and order" and the status quo that they protect is white supremacist and patriarchal. Then a future unified elite will use this type of coup opportunistically.

@TheMiddleWay spples and oranges. No karma its just frigging politics on both sides of the aisle.

8

Of course all this is being reported as Trump's fault.
Talk about a biased bunch of hypocrites running the media.
Not to mention the Democrats what a brainless bunch of Woke idiots.
also I don't think there was 1 sentence in Biden's speech that didn't reflect directly on the Democrats and their behaviour over the years of Trumps Presidenccy particularly the last year.

Given they are Trump supporters, Trump share some fault at least.

@TheMiddleWay Really did I say he didn't?
Look to your side of politics where the lion's share of the blame actually lies.

@TheMiddleWay Yea, I put it at about 10%......but I might be too optimistic....maybe only 5%

@tracycoyle
I'm curious to know if you are so generous in your assignment of little to no faulto fault to Democrats for the looting, rioting, and other violence at BLM and antifa protests

@TheMiddleWay I'm wondering how far removed from reality you are. Or how much of a hypocrite you are. Or how very short your memory is....
How does burning looting and murder equate to peaceful protests?
How does just an idea like ANTIFA actually carry out violence and destruction on private and public property... hey its just an idea.
Police told to stand down... parts of cities taken over... the list goes on and on...

Yes, that is my fear. It is going to be used against Trump, and the whole movement. This does not bring a lot. It will be exploited by the media for years to come.

@Lightman
How are Democrats responsible for Trump supporters storming and breaking into the capital? Did they call for or support a march on washington? No that was trump. Have they eroded confidence in the electoral process for months? No that was Trump.did they tell him Alicia group to stand by? No that was trump.

@TheMiddleWay My belief is that the political Democrat is not at fault for the riots, that belongs to the rioters. My problem is that it is supported, if by no other means that their (the Dems, both political and private citizens) silence, excusing, or justifications of the riots. In that regard, after the first, they own responsibility. Because we went MONTHS and hundreds of riots that were excused, defended, and yes, supported by the Dems, they own the consequences of them, including when the people are sick and tired of the riots and decide that "law" is no longer being supported institutionally, and fire has to be met with fire.

@tracycoyle
Would you not then agree that Trump is the same as the Democrats in that by his explicit words, or implicit silence, he lends support to the actions of today at least?

see a lot of people are making the comparison that the riots occurred for months versus the singular action. and therefore those rights are condemnable and blamable on the Democrats but this one is not condemnable or blamable on Trump and Trump Republicans

I see no such distinction. I see a singular action of looting to be equally as condemnable as a month's worth of looting. And the people that explicitly or implicitly support said actions to be equally condemnable. So we're upon I agree that Democrats fan the flames that led to violence early last year, I also have to agree that Trump did the same with the violence that occurred today

@Lightman

I'm wondering how far removed from reality you are. Or how much of a hypocrite you are. Or how very short your memory is....

Interestingly, I've never cared about those questions about you because I; care about discussing the topic instead of discussing the person.

@Lightman

How does burning looting and murder equate to peaceful protests

It doesn't. Neither does breaking into the nation's capital while government is in session and looting it and causing property damage.

Your point?

@TheMiddleWay Exactly.... my point.... they hypocrisy is clear to see all you need do is concede it.

@TheMiddleWay Not a Trump fan... never have been, why try to make it seem I am or have been.
Are Biden and the Democrats etc hypocrites... yes or no?

@TheMiddleWay Note I gave the Democrats a pass on the first one....and as this is 'the first one' from of the Right....

@Lightman
It's an understandable mistake to confuse you for a trump supporter if you find hypocrisy in placing blame on Trump for what his supporters did today.

@tracycoyle
That's where our viewpoints differ. I never give a pass to anything I thought the Democrats, or Republicans do wrong.

@TheMiddleWay Nor do I.... your blinded self righteous biased opinion of others is where you continually fall down. You also fail to acknowledge you rarely if ever think the Democrats do anything wrong judging by your comments on this site.
I think Trump is a buffoon and I've said it many times before.
But the Democrats... the swamp... they socialist LW Progressives... they are a completely different kettle of fish.

@Lightman

your blinded self righteous biased opinion of others is where you continually fall down.

Your obsession with making commentary about me is yours

@Lightman

You also fail to acknowledge you rarely if ever think the Democrats do anything wrong judging by your comments on this site.

Among others, I've condemed aoc for her crazy ideas, crt for its racist ideas, and pelosi for her political hypocrisy. I would of course never ask you to review my entire body of work on this site but if you did, you'd see how wrong you are in thinking that I ignore Democratic malfeasance.

@TheMiddleWay how do you explain seaway Italy gate?

Ain’t it funny, teacher, how democrats claimed foreign interference in an election for four years yet when confronted with actual proof, not a peep!

You’re a hypocrite as well as a racist, teacher.

@parsifal
Can't explain what i don't know: never heard of "seaway Italy gate" till now but I'll be sure to look it up.

@TheMiddleWay LOL you condemned AOC? Really? Who hasn't.
BTW they are still letting her say whatever she likes in the name of the Democrats and its future and on policy matters... in fact just look at the crazy in their policies... you think AOC has nothing to do with that Green new Deal? ROTFLMAO

@TheMiddleWay I don't have to review all your work here.... do the Dems actually pay you?
But what I have read puts you well and truly in their camp.
A bit to the right of AOC perhaps eh.
I note when you aren't feral woke we actually agree on some things... no doubt you've noticed that too, when you weren't busy ignoring it or ridiculing me etc... glad to repeat you agree with me on everything because I'm always right.

@parsifal, @Lightman, @tracycoyle
TheMiddleWay is not in the middle at all. He is an extremist Leftist troll.

@eschatologyguy He pretty much is...

@TheMiddleWay LOL
YOu post a comment sunshine I have a right to reply just like everybody else.
wassup truth starting to sink in and you don't like it?

@Lightman

. glad to repeat you agree with me on everything because I'm always right.

I agree: you are always, so far, right.

@Lightman so is News from All Views group originator WilyRickWiles

@Lightman

YOu post a comment sunshine I have a right to reply just like everybody else.
wassup truth starting to sink in and you don't like it?

I've never cast doubt on your right to reply to every one of my replies on this board.

@TheMiddleWay thought you just did... got the quote I was replying to?

@TheMiddleWay Liar liar pants on fire we both know I'm Ghandi not RW at all.
Proud of your lies are you... liar.

@Lightman

thought you just did... got the quote I was replying to

Nope. Never said anything that would give anyone the impression that I would want them to restrict their replies to me. I even have a strict no blocking policy in support of that philosophy.

@TheMiddleWay Never said or simply deleted?

@Lightman
Never said.
What do you think I said that you think I deleted?

@TheMiddleWay Lightman does that all the time. I've also pointed this fact out to them.

@eschatologyguy
so is News from All Views group originator WilyRickWiles
that's funny. It's ok tho

@TheMiddleWay Don't believe you I don't respond to words that aren't there.

@TheMiddleWay, @MilesPurdue what?
BTW mw... you keep ignoring my questions... I'll repeat the last one you ignored.
Liar liar pants on fire we both know I'm Ghandi not RW at all.
Proud of your lies are you... liar?

@TheMiddleWay Here's another you ignored... the list goes on and on and on...
LOL you condemned AOC? Really? Who hasn't.
BTW they are still letting her say whatever she likes in the name of the Democrats and its future and on policy matters... in fact just look at the crazy in their policies... you think AOC has nothing to do with that Green new Deal? ROTFLMAO

@TheMiddleWay Found the post you denied.
TheMiddleWay 7 replied Jan 6, 2021 Edited
0

@Lightman

your blinded self righteous biased opinion of others is where you continually fall down.

Your obsession with making commentary about me is yours

It would seem I was right. You objected to my making commentary about what you said etc...
I'm not obsessed I just have a right to comment...

@Lightman
Your obsession with making commentaries about me is not a denial that you have a right to make those comments about me.

Its merely a reminder that the logical fallacy of ad hominem weakens a discussion.

@Lightman it’s like his racism. He figures if he ties it up pretty with a bow nobody will recognize how disgusting his opinions are....

@TheMiddleWay You want me to be obsessed about you? Pffffffft fat chance.
Hypocrite...
You are so dumb you are clueless or a liar or maybe both about what you say...

@Lightman

You want me to be obsessed about you? Pffffffft fat chance.

Yet here you are with another post dedicated to your opinions of me. 😂
Keep on proving you are not obsessed with me by continuing to talk about me... 🥱

@TheMiddleWay yawn.

so should Trump be impeached now and why ?

@Lightman
No; an impeachment attempt right now would be an unnecessary distraction the US can't afford.

@TheMiddleWay correct answer NO because the guy will be gone in what 13 days now... nothing to do with affordability

@TheMiddleWay There’s that odd document that is called the Constitution that keeps getting in your way....of course, Democrats have been SO above board since 2008 how’s could anyone dare to think THEYD be responsible for anything that has transpired?

Dems cheat in the election but Trump using the courts is bad!

Dems undermine the entire government, but orange man bad!

Dems approve, if not encourage, domestic terrorism but Republicans are anti-American!

You should stick to being a racist, you’re better at it

@parsifal
>There’s that odd document that is called the Constitution that keeps getting in your way

Assigning responsibility to Trump?
No. No it doesn't.

Preventing impeachment (which I'm against)?
No. No it doesn't.

I'm unsure what specifically you claim the constitution is getting in my way of.

8

Mostly peaceful

I've been watching all day and yes, quite peaceful compared to the BLM and Antifa protests. It will not be protrayed as peaceful by the msm but if you watch INFOWARS you can see the truth for yourselves. I understand our dear Justin (sorry to admit he is the Canadian PM at present), is monitoring and is concerned so we can expect a very breathy and lispy condemnation of these events very soon (yawn). Go Patriots!!
(p.s Justin, Canadians may come for you next...)

I expect that antifa infiltrated the protest. The guy with hammer and sickle tattoos doesn’t seem like the typical maga type, nor do the people wearing helmets or carrying plexi shields...

7

Over the summer, Antifa and BLM demonstrated that violent protests are effective and largely uncastigated.

6

I have been watching the coverage of the "RIOT" in DC!!!
There have been several comments by the "talking heads" about how quickly the "demonstrators" were able to get into the Capital Building!!!!!
ONE, Anti-fa has had lots of experience breaking into buildings, TRUMP supports have not!!!
TWO, DC and Capital Police claim not to have been prepared!!!! I wore a badge for over 25 years, if they were not prepared the police desperately need new command staff!!!

Serg97 Level 8 Jan 6, 2021

There are videos of the capitol police moving barriers and letting the pantyfa mob in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@farmerguy56 And the one with ONE cop, by himself, backing up the stairs inside the Capital

6

If nothing else, this has gotten the communists to suddenly denounce violence and be concerned about buildings 🤔

Tom81 Level 7 Jan 6, 2021

Its only because there are communists in the building!
Forget the statues, businesses, homes & even lives lost/taken/murdered by BLM & ANTIFA (communists) - nothing to see here.
Communists being communists & hypocrites!

6

They're probably hoping to delay the counting of the electoral votes and force a constitutional crisis in which either the President or the white supremacist-dominated Supreme Court will take action to establish a fascist dictatorship. I doubt they will succeed because they haven't unified the capitalist elites.

conspiracy theory.

@CookieMonster Occam's razor.

@WilyRickWiles

3 conspiracy theories..
white supremacist-domin
action to establish a fascist dictatorship
haven't unified the capitalist elites

5

Suck it up. Trump lost the election, oh and by the way, the latest result from Georgia may not be to the Right's liking either.
2020 must really suck, what with the fake news, fake pandemic, cabals around every corner and don't get me started on those neo marxist commie's, they're everywhere!

5

It was the Senate, actually.

Do you really believe everything you hear on TV? After all this, do you believe anything you hear on TV?

Your questions are useful to provoke discussion, but I’m dismayed by the way you reflexively accept the left’s framing of the topic, and their language.

What if—gasp—certain facts that run counter to the “narrative” are being covered up? GOSH! We’ve never seen that before.

For five years, everything from the media has been at best disinformation, at worst, cold, calculated lies to manipulate outcomes. And now, all of a sudden, everything they say is unvarnished truth?

Gimme me a fucking break. Do your homework. Come on. This one isn’t even a stretch.

[hangthecensors.com]

[welovetrump.com]

Not that I'm surprised by this, but I'm hearing multiple reports that ANTIFA agents infiltrated the rally posing as Proud Boys, and of course the medias aren't saying much about that.

@SpikeTalon It was clearly well-organized by the MAGA chuds. They had all sorts of supplies and roles organized ahead of time. And the famous IDW-affiliated celebrities were there with them, cheering them on.

@WilyRickWiles I don't deny that much, but their rally was almost certainly infiltrated by ANTIFA posers. If Proud Boys etc could infiltrate ANTIFA protests posing as one of them, then it only stands to reason vice versa that scenario could be possible as well.

@SpikeTalon I don't accuse Proud Boys of infiltrating leftist protests in any meaningful way. Only thing I can think of is that guy in Minneapolis who was breaking windows and got caught right away.

@WilyRickWiles You may not accuse them, but others do though, that was my point. Personally, I don't trust any of these groups/identity movements.

@SpikeTalon Neoliberals always want to blame "agitators" or "infiltrators" for leftist unrest. Never want to own up to the fact that they might be complicit in an injustice that has inspired people to rebel.

One of the alleged antifa guys in the photos being passed around is fucking Matthew Heimbach. Might have to go back to Trump season 1 to remember who he is. Hint: he's a Nazi.

@WilyRickWiles The bad actors most likely never will be identified.

@SpikeTalon 🙈🙉🙊

@wilyrickwiles oh here comes another communist infiltrator!!!!!!!!!!!

@wilyrickwiles why do you think they are called agitators and infiltrators??????????? Get your damn chinese hammer and sickle outta here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

5

President Trump finally released a video of him calling on his supporters to "go home, and go home in peace."
Twitters policy?
𝐓𝐨 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭.

Nice narrative spin you got there. The full Tweet:

These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!

He couldn't just tell them to go home and stop the violence. He had to perpetuate his fantasy of a "landslide election victory" and dog-whistle to his supporters that it was "unceremoniously & viciously stripped away" from them.

@JacksonNought -

A BLM activist states an opinion that all white people are racist; Twitter allows it.

Trump states an opinion that he won in a landslide victory; Twitter censors it.

Irrespective of what you think of Trump or his narrative, why is it acceptable for Twitter to decide what is allowed to be said and what is not? Let's say you're right and this is nothing more than a fantasy-driven dog-whistle to his supporters...he still told them to go home. Why was it necessary to keep that locked down?

@Alysandir

why is it acceptable for Twitter to decide what is allowed to be said and what is not?

Private company + 1st amendment. = Right to determine what is said or not within that company

@TheMiddleWay - If that's the case, then Twitter should not be protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. You cannot claim to be just be a platform and not a publisher - hence requiring legal protections for material posted on the platform - and then claim editorial control over what is put on the platform. One or the other.

But even more than that, it is unethical to allow some hate speech or conjecture while denying other hate speech or conjecture; you either let it all pass or you stop it all. A perfect example is Twitter banning the NY Post account after they broke the Hunter Biden investigation story and then allowing other news outlets to report on the very same story AFTER the election was over.

At some point in time we as a nation have to stop thinking in terms of Left vs Right or Black vs White and get back to thinking in terms of right vs. wrong. What is ethical and what is not. We have lost our way.

@Alysandir
Editorial control is not the same as publishing control.
They are not the ones publishing the material hence they can't be publishers.
My go to example in this case is Walmart's refusal to carry certain magazines, including playboy. This does not make Walmart a publisher but merely decreeing what it will and will not sell. all of social media can be seen the same way. They are not the ones publishing the content, but they do have a say in what they will and will not sell.

If you take away section 230 protection, then social media will shut down because nobody will wish to expose themselves to the risk of being held responsible for what somebody else publishes.

@Alysandir so you are admitting it is Trump's opinion then, and not a fact?

First, Twitter isn't censoring it - you can still access the Tweet, you just can't like or reply. Also, he is the fucking President of the United States, not some random activist, he should not spreading misinformation.

And as MiddleWay says, 1st Amendment - you don't have a right to a platform. That doesn't mean they are a publisher, they can still determine what their TOS is. Instagram and Facebook don't allow nudity - should we remove their 230 protection because of it?

You know what, if Trump makes sure to clarify in all of his Tweets that it is only his opinion that he won the election, I'll be sure to join you in arguing that Twitter shouldn't censor his Tweets. But again, he has to make sure he doesn't try to pass it off as a fact.

@JacksonNought @TheMiddleWay

I am curious; do either of you have even a twinge of concern that technology is being used to allow some to say whatever they want while silencing others no matter what relevance they have to say? (Again, if you require an example, use my example of the NY Post being banned for publishing a truthful story at a time that was politically inconvenient for the party Twitter supports.)

We can sit here and discuss legalities and semantics until we're all bored of it, but what it really comes down to is what is right and what is wrong? Were the tables turned and it's white supremacists or your worst political nightmare having free reign to speak as they wish, and minorities, LGBTQ, and progressives barred from speaking their mind...would you be so cavalier and quick to defend the platform?

If you say "yes," then I know we will not find common ground. I am not a partisan; I did vote for Trump in 2020 as what I believed to be the best available choice, but I am neither a Trump supporter nor a Republican. I don't believe anyone should be rioting, burning, stealing, hurting others. I do however believe in our Constitution and in all my life I have never seen a time where it's treated as a quaint old idea to be ignored and it pains my heart to see this.

@Alysandir

curious; do either of you have even a twinge of concern that technology is being used to allow some to say whatever they want while silencing others no matter what relevance they have to say?

As it relates to the internet not at all. This is because what you can't say in Facebook you can say in thousands of other sites. And if nobody allows you to say what you want to say, every one of us is free to create our own website and say it anyways.

would you be so cavalier and quick to defend the platform

I am unconcerned by sites that promote different political views. Quite the opposite I support them as a way to test my own views: Witness my presence here given that I lean left while most of the site leans right. However I do condemn any site that promotes violent or hateful content, such as that from white supremacists or critical race theory.

@Alysandir its called blind censorship.

@TheMiddleWay

First, would you kindly tell me what tags you used to generate the quotes? Thank you.

"As it relates to the internet not at all. This is because what you can't say in Facebook you can say in thousands of other sites. And if nobody allows you to say what you want to say, every one of us is free to create our own website and say it anyways."

Respectfully, that's a very cavalier approach to free speech, particularly when sites that do promote free speech - for example, Parler - are being characterized by the MSM and other social media as white supremacist platforms, that subsequently lose their ability to monetize or their host because of it.

Is it ethically acceptable if others are allowed to take steps to ensure that you cannot even reliably create your own space to exercise that freedom?

"Witness my presence here given that I lean left while most of the site leans right."

But is anyone censoring you here? Granted, I've encountered people of the lunatic fringe on the political Right as I have their counterparts on the fringe political Left at Twitter, but that's an unfortunate symptom of having the right to speak one's mind: you're going to run into people who say things you don't agree with or find offensive. Frankly, I don't know if it's better to allow absolute freedom of speech or having a standard set of rules that are applied universally. But either has to be better than picking and choosing what's allowed to be said. When Twitter allows opinions that are borderline slander to stand while censoring and banning truth (again, my NY Post example), how does that benefit us?

I'm not sure there's much else for me to say without repeating myself. I get where you're coming from and I don't entirely disagree with it. But there's something very wrong when Big Tech, through carefully applied censorship, plays such a major role in shaping the thoughts and ideas of its users, most of which are not aware enough to know they are being so affected.

In any event, thank you for the conversation.

@Alysandir

Use ">" on the left with a space after the character

@Alysandir

Is it ethically acceptable if others are allowed to take steps to ensure that you cannot even reliably create your own space to exercise that freedom?

For one, parlor has its own set of censorship, sometimes far beyond the level of what other social media allows. so it's not the case that there is a perfect social media site in which everything can be spoken.

As for ethics, that is a nature of capitalism. The fact that Facebook is dominant right now and as soon as a problem ignores the fact that Myspace was dominant before and friendster was dominant before and so on. if there is a better product to come online, then it will be adopted. Unfortunately, none of the other social media sites offer a better alternative to Facebook in terms of utility, integration with other software, etc. of course this can reach the level of Monopoly and there are several states that are suing Facebook right now from Monopoly and that is a valid issue. But when it comes to the type of content being distributed online, then it's not the case as far as I know that Facebook is directly trying to suppress others. Quite the opposite. It's policies have driven many people off their platforms and on to other social media sites.

so I stand by my original statement then anybody can create a site to be heard. The problem is not everybody wants to hear what you say and not everybody wants to take the effort to do what is needed to be heard... and that one isn't heard, can't be easily heard, is a bitter pill to swallow for some people

@Alysandir for the longest time, minorities and LGBTQ people were barred from speaking their mind... but in actual life, not on random social media sites.

Platforms can decide what kind of content they want. I've already heard of Parler banning people or removing content they didn't like. I comment on other Conservative sites, like Townhall, and my comments are usually removed or put under review because I express Liberal viewpoints. Like I already said, you cannot post nudity on Facebook; Instagram is even more strict, as they will remove even implied nudity. You do not have the right to a platform, plain and simple. Imagine it is a farmers market, and different vendors apply to sell their goods - the market is allowed to decide which vendors they want, you do not have a right to sell there.

There are already white supremacists and other extreme fringe groups on Parler - that is fine, I hope they have a blast. That is the freedom of the Internet, if a need isn't being met by one site, another can pop up. Supply and demand.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, as I already said, you do not have a right to a platform.

@Alysandir

But is anyone censoring you here?

I don't feel that at all. In fact I'm also somewhat active in a sister site to this, agnostic.com, which is far left leaning and I don't feel censored there as well. likewise, on facebook, I've never been banned and I don't feel censored at all. I've said anything I wanted to say with no reservation.

Having said that, this site has banned people that have declared anti-semitic sentiment and violence against others. one might argue that having those thoughts being said is healthier than banning them but I disagree. Allowing them to speak only allows them to sharpen their rhetoric, practice their ideas, and share viewpoints that are all but universally rejected. but at the end of the day, that's my choice to remain here or not in light of what this site allows or not. several people are annoyed at Facebook and Twitter and have left it. I say good for them, there's no sense bitching about something you can't control and instead should move on to somewhere that you can. Maybe parlor will grow to be a good option and while I don't welcome the echo chamber nature of what is happening, I do welcome the fact that a place where people feel welcome to say what they want exists.

@Alysandir

In any event, thank you for the conversation.

Likewise!
Like you, I don't feel our positions are radically different but we expose the fundamental tension of this discussion: what is the line between a site promoting abhorrent viewpoints and a site promoting free speech?

We may have different lines for that but I would argue that we both do have a line wow many people do not and advocate either complete freedom or complete restriction.

@Alysandir One is the POTUS, the other isn't.

@themiddleway and the rest of us don't have that same first admendment right lttile nikit??????????

@farmerguy56
Everyone has that same first amendment right, as we demonstrate on this site every day where right, left, and center views are all free to be expressed without government interference..

5

after stoking the fire for 4 years the MSM and left are still blaming Trump, I would suggest they focus on stuff like walking back ideas about stacking the supreme court and other nefarious ideas. They need to focus on defusing this while they have time.

Oh man the chutzpah. Well done.

@WilyRickWiles

I can understand your comment. You are not scared enough to focus, yet. The difference in extreme between a death wish and a survival instinct.

@CookieMonster You might want to get on with unifying the capitalist elites if you want to make good on your implicit threat.

@WilyRickWiles
what threat?

Lol. MSM stoking the fire? That's hilariously deluded.

@maxmaccc

and if you are wrong who is deluded?

5

In regards to the guns being drawn and cops drawing theirs in the process, it's too early to say for sure who was behind that, and I cannot find enough sources saying the same thing. When ANTIFA/BLM had rioted, we were told to hold judgment as some of those rioters could have been the Proud Boys pretending to be ANTIFA in order to make them look bad. Okay fair enough, but the same should also apply now as well, maybe ANTIFA agents have infiltrated the Proud Boys posing as one of them to make them look bad. Only difference here is, that notice how the mainstream medias were quick to jump on the first act of perceived violence regarding the Trump supporters and yet the same medias were hesitant to condemn ANTIFA and BLM when they tore up the city of Portland? This issue with protesters from both political sides is truly one-sided where medias are concerned.

Playing to people's fears is another big issue there, and predictably enough alot of those on the political left are playing along with the fearmongering and even a few conspiracy theories. The ironic part is, the left complained when the right did that with ANTIFA and BLM, and yet they turn around and do the same thing that they accused the right of doing. Small wonder why this country is screwed up, the elites from both political parties have succeeded in getting people to be afraid of another who does not share in their views, and the division only appears to be getting worse.

Dude.
There is no way you can explain 100's of people breaking into the capitol on infiltration.
Nor can we call this fear mongering on the part of the media.
This should be troubling and unconscionable regardless of politics.
This is the LITERALY attack on democracy as opposed to the FIGURATIVE ones normally seen in the Capitol.

@TheMiddleWay I'm not downplaying the Capitol infiltration if it be genuine, all I'm saying at this point is we don't have the full story and some parts may have been exaggerated a bit. If that claim is true, I am against such, and agree that is over the edge. To be fair, rioting like what went on in Portland should not be overlooked either, that was my point. The medias are quick to jump on a story when right-wing protesters are involved but far slower to react when it's left-wing protesters involved, and that's a clear double standard in my book. I regard any protest groups like that regardless of their political persuasion to be a potential threat to society.

@SpikeTalon

I'm not downplaying the Capitol infiltration if it be genuine,

If it be genuine???????? WTF, bro???? There is ZERO doubt on anyone's minds that this is Trump based, not ANTIFA based.

I'm all for healthy skepticism but to cast doubt on what is happening now, with sources inside and out, national and international, is unhealthy.

I just thought I would add this. Considering conservatives are “ conservative “

@themiddleway we can see it and call it for what it is though cant we.... Total hypocrisy from the democrats and their supporters.

@TheMiddleWay OH AND ONE MORE THING... just as not all on the Left are Progressives, not all on the Right are Conservatives...

@Lightman
Except Republicans and their supporters are also condemning these actions. So it's not just the democrats.

@TheMiddleWay never said they weren't even Trump told them to go home...

@FEWI Isn't that typical? It happens in the UK, too, i.e., peaceful protest marches organised by ordinary citizens are often hijacked by the far-right or far-left.

Elijah Schaffer a well-known rightist YouTuber was with them every step of the way.

@TheMiddleWay so should stealing an election. You American? That should be first on your mind, but as we’ve seen, it isn’t.

Antifa most definitely did infiltrate the March...unless you can equate hammer and sickle tattoos with the maga crowd. Or those wearing helmets. Or those carrying plexi shields...

@parsifal
First on my mind today was hearing the Republican objections.
This was rendered impossible due to the capital attack

@TheMiddleWay first on my mind is why democrats aren’t overly interested in the evidences of the attack on democracy...must be a maga phenomenon

@parsifal
If I could draw a parallel, this is similar to the way that an atheist is unconcerned with the evidence theists present for God existing: what a theist considers evidence an atheist does not.

@TheMiddleWay and yet another very very long bow being drawn...

@TheMiddleWay I've gotten to hear more of the story now whereas at the time of my original comment I did not. I agree that what transpired at the Capitol building earlier today was not the solution to the problem, but I think you missed the bigger point I was trying to make...

If we are going to criticize the DC patriot rally, then there should be equal criticism for the ANTIFA/BLM riots that took place last year, in particular Portland and Seattle. If I'm not mistaken people were killed in those protests too, so how is this protest any worse in that manner (as of this reply there has been one casualty)? Yet, I've sat back and watched the mainstream medias hype what went on today while remaining largely silent on the ANTIFA protests. More recently, the medias have been silent on ANTIFA sympathizers who harassed Sen Hawley and his family at his residence, how is something like that peaceful? I'm going to keep asking that question until I get a rational answer, because that is a glaring double standard, everyone is supposed to be afraid of the rightwing protesters but not the ones on the left though? How is that fair and balanced?

Have to go for now but if you reply will try to get back to you soon as possible. Last I'm hearing now is that ANTIFA agents infiltrated the DC rally posing as some Proud Boys, and I'm following that to see if there is any merit to that claim, not that it would surprise me any if it turned out to be true.

4

I'm not a US citizen so I'll try to be very careful about what I say here. Also I haven't been, the past few days, keeping up with the news. I also started writing this in the morning, Cairo time, on and off, and now I'm back to resume writing it and I found that total 4 are now dead (I don't know much details yet) in the Capitol and Mike Pence certified The Big Guy. What a sad day for the US and the rest of the world!

It's sad that things got to this point. Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed Air Force veteran was shot dead inside the Capitol building.

Much respect to Babbitt. And allow me to share a thought on that. I think Babbitt, as many others, went to DC well aware to the risks that include getting killed or at least being arrested and persecuted without probably much or any legal cover unlike those BLM and Antifa thugs shooting/looting/vandalizing knowing they have support of organizations and even a US presidential candidate's campaign funds for bail and legal defense. And don't get me wrong, what I'm saying is not meant to belittle the situation or her sacrifice at all, on the contrary. I think she probably considers it her duty whether in military service or not. In fact, I have this thought because I was in a similar situation and had this thought back when many other Egyptians and I took to the streets protesting The Muslim Brotherhood [un]constitutional declaration of 2012 in which they protected presidential decrees from being challenged in courts (including the Supreme Constitutional Court), similarly the Shura Council and the Constituent Assembly both which they controlled and replaced the Attorney General. It was also similar because we know most of the police force are on our side but they have to do their job still and protect civilians, public and private properties and maintaining law and order, which I think it's the case here as well. So we protested (and some even clashed with the police, but I never did), and they guard and fortify the streets and throw tear gas at us and try to disperse us. I was well aware I could get killed and was well aware of the risks. Of course I can't speak for Babbitt or any other, and it might not be the case, but I truly respect her sacrifice either way and her military service before that.

That being said, I'm not advocating for violence. I'm a reformist as long as it's possible, but sometimes it becomes necessary to revolt. But are we at that point yet?!

And what the hell has Mike Pence done?!!! WTF?!!! Didn't he say we will have our day in Congress?!!! I never liked that guy (even though he may have seemed to be fit to be a Statesperson to some degree but certainly now that's gone).

And I don't know for sure, but isn't there still pending court cases including Trump's case before the Supreme Court? Is it still possible for the Supreme Court to intervene? I'm asking but I sadly don't expect much from them anyway. Is there anyway this could still be overturned?

I hope my words don't get misunderstood. And please excuse the little rant.

4

FYI: The Woman Who Was Shot ...

Ashli Babbit;
Seems she was a 14 year / Four Tour Air Force Veteran ...

Seems to me that she actually had a stake in Supporting the US Constitution she swore to Defend.

well, thousands were protesting in DC because this voting session is invalid and the Houses of Congress were not listening. For voting sessions of the National Government the ballots are Federal Documents and need to be secured, they weren't. The Network used to tally the count is required to be secured, it wasn't, it was networked in a foreign country. There were many claims of fraud, the ballots needed to be audited in the legal time frame, they weren't. Obviously people were attempting to get the Representatives and Senators to listen and do their job. It is sad a fighter for freedom of the U.S.A. was shot in at the time a nonviolent protest pushing for truth with government she fought for. We must still and always push for truth, no matter what side you're on.

The Capitol should've never been breached. The Capitol police are a small security force. Metro PD has riot patrol, SWAT...whoever prepared for this, or didn't prepare is more responsible for her death than the person who fired the shot. From my perspective the shooting itself was justified. If I worked there I'd have been standing by the door with my Glock 40 drawn. So sad.

When a group of people push past police and break windows and doors down to storm the US Capitol building to interrupt a government proceeding, it is no longer peaceful. If you defended people shooting at trespassers during the BLM riots, you cannot cry foul about this woman being shot for trying to break into the Capitol. It's no different than someone jumping the White House fence and trying to break in.

@MilesPurdue

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Yesterdays protestors literally attempted to delay the execution of US election law and literally attempted, or succeeded, in taking US property.

Should not those claiming to defend the constitution be subject to it as well?

@JacksonNought Tell me how "mostly peaceful" BLM/Antifa riots are!

Willy Wonka

@EgyptianRedpill never said that, now did I? I completely acknowledge that there was violence among the BLM protests, and have always condemned the rioting and looting. Just as I am sure there were people in DC yesterday who came just to protest, and had no intention of storming the Capitol. But if you condemn the unsavory actions during BLM, you must condemn what happened at the Capitol. You must also question why police tactics were extremely different, both in preparation for a known protest, as well as in response, escalation, dispersion, and brutality.

Here you can see an actually peaceful demonstration for BLM, holding a violin vigil. Police came and started using extreme force to disperse the crowd and attack people. I've already shared police shooting at people on their porches and at their windows during BLM protests. Yet yesterday people stormed the Capitol, vandalized and looted, and threatened democracy - and the police just let them waltz out, even took selfies with them.

@JacksonNought I don't necessarily know what you said or did not say. My response is to show the hypocrisy from your side, the Left. But the thread to democracy didn't start yesterday, it started with all the fake news since Trump's win, the Russia Collusion hoax, the Ukraine quid pro quo hoax, the BLM/Antifa riots... Also, on police preparation (and I'm not in law enforcement so my conclusion could be wrong), I guess violence from our side was not expected!

@JacksonNought Also, I wanted to ask for some time; your profile picture, which movie or TV is it from?

@EgyptianRedpill I don't identify with any side, as I have very Liberal views on some things and very Conservative views on others - however, I do mostly identify with Liberals / Democrats, because of how heavily the Conservative and Republican movement has tied itself with Christian theocracy.

I fully acknowledge there are plenty Left-Wing people being hypocrites about this right now. But I also see equally as many Right-Wing people being hypocrites, renouncing their hard "Back The Blue" stance now that they are on the other end of it, and finding it abhorrent that they were maced trying to storm the Capitol for a "revolution" (https://twitter.com/hunterw/status/1346919171595137025) when BLM protesters were beaten and shot with rubber bullets (some even losing eyes and getting brain damage).

You call Russian collusion a hoax, and you call the Ukraine corruption / impeachment a hoax. There are people who don't see them as a hoax, they see mountains of evidence validating it. I believe Trump's "I won, by a lot" narrative, and accusations of election fraud as a hoax. There are people who think it is real, and see mountains of evidence. I am sure your opinion depends on which side of the aisle you fall on, and your feelings for Trump. Unfortunately we are such a divided nation right now that we all have our own facts, there is no accepted objective truth anymore. I don't see this changing any time soon.

As for my profile picture, it is an image of Cthulhu from concept artist Andrée Wallin. [andreewallin.com]

@TheMiddleWay

Well shit DimBulb ...

“ 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both”

That could be applied to the DemLeft, Democrats and the DNC for several years now ... especially the last 4 or 5 ...

@Bay0Wulf
Yes.
So let's set the precedent by applying it to the protestors that stormed Capitol Hill today and we can apply it to others tomorrow.

@TheMiddleWay as I stated, some were protesting to motivate both Houses of Congress to investigate the ballot handling procedure, ballots were not secure, computers used were not on a Federally secured intranet, but networked in a foreign country. Many claims of fraud needed to be audited. I have not defended any committing a crime, nor have I claimed for successor to the voting. I am a U.S. Citizen pushing for the National Government to follow the laws they make and voice truth.

@MilesPurdue
The law has said ballots were secure.
Trump says they weren't.

The law has said there was no foreign country networked in.
Trump says they were.

Following the law and following Trump are mutually exclusive as pertains to the elections.

@TheMiddleWay with not following anyones talking points, I read Federal Law. The ballots used for State election are the states problem, as who votes, when and where. Votes for National Government are Federal Documents, doesn't matter what any state says, it's Federal and must follow Federal Regulations, they didn't. Opinions don't matter. Fraud claims showed need of aduits, they weren't. Tally count system was connected to a server in Germany, not a Federally secured intranet. Regulations were not followed.

@MilesPurdue

Opinions don't matter.

I daresay the head of the DOJ's opinion matters in these cases, yes?
And he said federal regulations were followed and there was no evidence of systemic fraud.
If Trumps allegations are more truthful to one than the statements from the DOJ, then one isn't following the law according to our constitution but the law according to Trump.

@MilesPurdue

Fraud claims showed need of aduits, they weren't.

Audits were performed in AZ, GA, PA and nothing was found.

Tally count system was connected to a server in Germany, not a Federally secured intranet

This is the claim of one retired general who also claimed that the us gov't raided german servers where information was stored. Germany denied any such event happened. So did the US military. Germany had no reason to lie as it would have been sovering infiltration if they had.

Again, the allegations of singular indivuduals does not fact make.

@TheMiddleWay not gonna debate facts, I communicated with Senators, Representatives and Mr. President that ballots are invalid in many districts when talking Federal Law and Regulations. The computer system was connected to a server confiscated in Germany, I will search again for documents, the company and Gov.. There is no argument or debate, many ballots are invalid, an audit is needed for an accurate count. Like I told the President and Senate, until an audit this voting session is void by Federal Law.

@MilesPurdue

Like I told the President and Senate

COOL! When did you speak to the senate?

@MilesPurdue

an audit is needed for an accurate count.

Audits were done.
Results were accurate.
Not getting the result you want (Trump winning) doesn't mean those votes and subsequent audits are invalid.

@MilesPurdue how exactly did you tell the President and Senate? Do you know them personally? Did you write a letter? Leave a voicemail? Tweet?

There was no system in Germany. That is, as Trump likes to say, Fake News! That is a plain fact. Peddling false narratives does not help your cause.

@JacksonNought I do agree false info is bad. The NYSE gives a lot of info when you know where to look, as does the library of Congress, I spend too much time reading too much crap, started reading it 50 years ago and I don't have a way to store it all. I've always pushed people to read the whole constitution and look in Congressional records for Federal, people don't.

@TheMiddleWay never had dinner with any of them, and don't expect to. When communicating with someone online, with Microsoft, not Android, I check ip and find location, so if in DC or their state capital I have no problem talking law, not opinion, just law as I have for over 20 years. I don't waste time to keep track of everything, if you listen and learn fine. If you read the U.S. Declaration of Independence you may see it as a contract agreement with the Crown, Parliament and Bank of the UK, read the U.S. and your State Constitution you may understand what the media does not tell and when a Journalist lies. You can learn a lot looking through the Congressional Library, well, before they restrict it.

@MilesPurdue

I communicated with Senators, Representatives and Mr. President

Like I told the President and Senate,

never had dinner with any of them, and don't expect to

So when you said that you communicated and told the president and the Senate you meant which president and which senate?

@JacksonNought I think you'd see similarities here but I wonder what conservative views you have! I too have views commonly identified as Leftist (and the Left is not Liberal, but those values are; and you'll also that I'm usually adding disclaimers to them as they are distorted by the Left) such as: Pro-Choice (but at the same time I understand the other side's argument and where they come from), LGBT rights (but not identity politics), Marijuana legalization (but not hard drugs!), Feminism (equality, not equity, not crazy feminism/supremacy, not baseless or flawed claims such as the wage gap).

It's also sad and frustrating that many on the Right are religious; or hold stupid opinions or deny science or believe some conspiracy theories. But that still doesn't make me shy away from being identified as a Conservative and a Classical Liberal which is tautologically correct. I don't consider myself as Centrist either because I view those positions as being Right values (you know, individual liberties and freedom).

Your equivalence between those hoaxes and the claim of election fraud is false for, if nothing else, because it hasn't been investigated (and because facts too, especially the Ukraine hoax, which is in fact was something The Big Guy actually did and even bragged about). You dismissing things left and right like there are hypocrites here and there are hypocrites there and you say that's a hoax and I say that's a hoax, without judging on merit is wrong!

Anyway, thanks for the info on your profile picture. That's cool. I thought they were from movies or TV because I think I saw it in some YouTube video and thought it was taken from some movie or something.

4

Their mistake was storming the Capitol; the gift shops there don't have Rolex or Louis Vuitton. Looting seems to be the difference between acceptable and unforgivable.

3

The fact that we will soon have a senile president is perfectly symbolic of the dysfunctional nature of the mainstream media, big tech, congress, the educational system and those that have lived in a TDS delusion for 4 years.

3

Four people died during the mostly peaceful protest.
BTW, did any of you, Trump supporters, join the pro-Trump rally at the Capitol yesterday? If not, why not?

Naomi Level 8 Jan 7, 2021

The shooting was justified. I'm sorry the lady died. I bet your weren't calling protests this summer "mostly peaceful" I'm glad they stormed the Capitol though. It exposed the Qanon for who you are.

Hello Nealjoe, Apart from the lady you talk of, three more people died. Did you join the rally yesterday?

I didn't as I'm an Egyptian living in Egypt 😅 Seriously though, I'm a reformist, unless it's necessary to revolt. Although I think I know what's at stake here (which isn't Islam, even if it's involved to a not insignificant degree, might still be possible to be reversed, maybe now, maybe after 4 years, maybe after 8, continuously!), are we at that point yet?

I voted for Trump, and have remained skeptical as far as the outcome of this election, but didn't attend the rally yesterday. Personally, if I lived closer, I would have attended. However, I would not have fought the police, broken into the Capitol, or been a part of any of the violence that went on yesterday.

Hello EgyptianRedpill. So are you saying that if you were in the US, you would have joined the rally?

@EgyptianRedpill, @saramarylop3z Hi there. I know at least three members in Australia who told me that they would have joined the protest if they were in America. I kind of admire their partisanship. What I find a little disappointing is that many Trump supporters here are trying very hard to justify what went on yesterday, including the four deaths, fighting the police, breaking into the building, etc. Would you be honest and genuine enough to condemn those Trump supporters, comrades if you like, for their wrong doing? Don't they say that real friends tell you when you are wrong?

@Naomi I guess my position would be as Sara's, @saramarylop3z

It's basically what I actually did in Egypt. I also wrote a longer reply here.

@Naomi "comrades" Ugh, not that damned word! 🤮😂

I understand their frustration. I am too. However, and since I'm not a US citizen, I wouldn't want my words to help influence any action or inaction at this critical time, not to a significant degree anyway; even though it's affecting us here and the rest of the world as well! Being a reformist as long as it's possible, and while it might be foolish of me to think that, maybe it's still possible to turn things around (now, 4 years, 8, continuously as I mentioned in my longer reply!); so this at this time maybe it's necessary and even harmful and wrong. Certainly it's illegal obviously, laws are written to prevent and criminalize attempts at instability and overthrowing governments, but if it's a revolution that's how things go!

@nealjoe qanon has disavowed any knowledge of the person the communists claim to a qanon plant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@EgyptianRedpill Comrade isn't a word I particularly like to use either, but in this context, I thought it was appropriate.

@Naomi I condemn violence of any kind regardless of political affiliation, so yes, I do condem the violence that went down at the capitol yesterday. However, condemning the violence without addressing the grievances will only continue to increase the violence. Which, unfortunately, is the route our politicians are taking.

I've watched this happen with the way Republicans handle BLM and the way Democrats handle MAGA. This may be a biased opinion, but MAGA and regular patriots have the MSM and social media stacked against them. Additionally, I find my own personal voice to either be not big enough to be heard, or not fairly represented by those I voted for.

Yes, I want the Republicans to actually stand for the people who elected them. To be fair, some have. I don't want this political violence to be the answer each side feels is needed in order to make this our very real reality. I want our Democratic leaders to also treat the other half of the country with the same delicacy they treated the BLM protests over the last several months.

I have an overly simplistic and biased perception on this mess we're currently in. I'm also very concerned that we may be already in the "too late" zone. It doesn't help watching social media, MSM, and politicians doubling down on their condemnation of all patriots. I condemn the violence. I don't condemn the grievances.

@saramarylop3z Surely, we're all conservative in that we want to conserve all the good stuff that is working well for us, and we are all liberal in that we are open to new ideas and will consider changes if they bring us goodness and improve our lives. It is sad that you think it is too late for your country to restore peace.

@farmerguy56 They were there. All of them. You don't even know what communism is, you just call anybody who disagrees with you (that's most people) a "commie". "Disavowed" that's a pretty big word. Lots of exclamation marks ❗❗❗

@Naomi I think I may have been misunderstood. I'm not saying it's too late to restore peace. I'm concerned that we might be there. Like I said in my comment, the MSM and political reaction to yesterday's events have affected me a great deal as far as my own perceptions. (One reason I love coming to Slug to sort through "perceptions" )

I really am a pretty simple person lol

Seriously though. I think what you wrote was very sweet. I also think we should conserve the good and welcome the new. Honestly, I may feel frustrated with our current situation, and it's probably going to be a rough road to figure it all out, but the last thing I want to be is a bitter defeatist.

@Naomi I causally use it especially jokingly or sarcastically at times even though I hate it 😅

3

The first USA patriot martyr by the swamp establishment, yet they didn't raise arms against ANtIFA thugs & Blasted Loony Marxists rioting looting burning & killing last year, Dem’rats cheered them on and even kneeled in obeyance

3

Considering the blatant judicial inability to see the truth about the fraud, this is peaceful.
The election process was hijacked through corruption and MSM.
Denying this makes the impending response reasonable and justified - sadly.

Rick-A Level 8 Jan 6, 2021

Soon to be even clearer. The failing to date has been showing how exactly the machines were infiltrated to switch the votes and who and how it was done. Italygate is the new issue. And messy it seems to be, but - and a big but, it shows the complete story.

Let’s see what’s happens.

3

What I have been concerned about is the point of no return where our differences become irreconcilable via ordinary political process. I don't know that we are there, but I am certain we are getting very close.

I see talking heads saying there is never, ever any cause to resort to violence, but that is something those on the Left already don't believe -- if they ever have. And the founders certainly knew there was a point where resort to force of arms was both necessary and prudent.

This is going to be painted by most of the media as some horrible transgression fully in the lap of Trump, and part and parcel of who the Trump republicans are; unlike how they characterized Antifa and BLM violence when it occurs. The narrative is being shaped in a way that makes reconciliation ever more difficult.

There is a small set of voices on the Right pushing for a revolution; I generally think that's a bad idea, but I can foresee a time where it would be the least bad of many bad options. And calling for revolution is already mantra for many extremist leftist groups -- and their mainstream political rhetoric already calls for fundamental and revolutionary changes to our country -- they just carefully, and perhaps with a wink and nod, exclude deliberate violence from it.

I don't see it getting better.

I'm starting to agree with the idea that each side is supporting a viable policy system but that they're incompatible with each other. It used to be "state's rights" which helped but since the federal government handles taxes and borders, it's moot.

@Admin Not only are the two policy systems (three? If one includes the traditional conservatives as well) incompatible, but the groups advocating them are losing confidence that the others are operating in good faith and within the historical rules. Honest to god, I am myself doubting whether we can ever have a fair national election again in our country. The other side will burn, loot, and murder; why would they not stoop to the modern equivalent of stuffing ballot boxes?

It makes my head spin and I lose my faith in the principles of the Republic.

3

Interesting. No reports of police using tear gas or rubber bullets against these particular protesters. What gives? It shouldn't be this easy to overrun our Capital building.

TyKC Level 6 Jan 6, 2021

Cops inside now taking selfies with the aspiring fascists.

Hello. Tear gas was dispersed and one person was shot and is in a critical condition.

[pbs.org]

@WilyRickWiles
Rick, Rick, Rick, you are so Wily!

2

Both Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame for this. The Republicans for feeding conspiracy BS and blind hatred for the left in their bid to take over the United States and keep their leadership positions for life. The Democrats for completely losing sight of trying to bring a livable income to those who are falling behind day by day. Instead they have been concentrating on the few who's feelings are hurt because "they don't get no respect." There always will be and should be wealthy people. The wealthy need to pay their fair share in supporting the institution that is providing them with essential services that enhance their ability to create wealth.

2

It was Antifa and BLM instigators that started that yesterday

Why were there umbrellas and not real trump hats on just saying look closer before you say it’s over. You are Right sir...

Absolutely. All those Trump signs and banners, the American flags, the Stop the Steal posters and the invasion of the Capitol were Antifa and BLM in disguise. You saw all those black people in Whiteface carrying Confederate flags and destroying the center of our government. Trump supporters would never consider desecrating our symbol of liberty and justice.

Write Comment