Trump supporters and conspiracy theory - Part 2

[Joe Elliott]

'Of course, Churchill would never do such a thing.
He was a good man, a great man'

Joe Elliott

------------
Not so fast
------------

I didn’t say he didn’t have any racist views. I said he was committed to democracy and the rule of the people.

His views on race were typical of his generation. But no one talks of Stalin’s antisemitic views, or of punishing whole groups of people in the Soviet Union whose only crime was belonging to the wrong racial or ethnic group. Or Che Cuevara wrote "The Negro is indolent and lazy and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent."

I am just wondering why, on the subject of racism, Churchill is brought up so much while the heroes of Socialism are brought up so little?

Churchill was not a perfect man. But he was a good man and a great man.

[Joe Elliott]

By the way, if this 2020 Presidential Election conspiracy theory continues beyond January 2021, which I am sure it will, who can doubt that we will soon see a list of mysterious deaths of Dominion Voting Systems employees, poll workers, poll watchers, and government officials involved in this controversy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_Jos%C3%A9_Anzola  Alfredo Anzola died in 2008 in a plane crash with his lawyer on the way to a Smartmatic meeting. A happenstance death Joe!

Well, what do you know? I guess the mysterious deaths started way back in 2008.

[Bill Chapman]

I didn’t say he didn’t have any racist views. I said he was committed to democracy and the rule of the people.

His views on race were typical of his generation. But no one talks of Stalin’s antisemitic views, or of punishing whole groups of people in the Soviet Union whose only crime was belonging to the wrong racial or ethnic group. Or Che Cuevara wrote "The Negro is indolent and lazy and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent."

I am just wondering why, on the subject of racism, Churchill is brought up so much while the heroes of Socialism are brought up so little?

Churchill was not a perfect man. But he was a good man and a great man.

That's an alarming attitude.

One cannot be a good man, let alone a great man, if one is also ignorant about racism. And blaming the era is giving the offending individual an unearned free pass.

[Joe Elliott]

That's an alarming attitude.

One cannot be a good man, let alone a great man, if one is also ignorant about racism. And blaming the era is giving the offending individual an unearned free pass.

Not an alarming attitude. A realistic one. People are affected by their environment. The attitudes they learn from others are going to affect their thinking. I think it is reasonable to judge a nineteenth century person differently than a twenty first century person, even if both have similar views.

I mean, let’s consider Sir Isaac Newton. He didn’t know anything about the theory of evolution, plate tectonics, the age of the earth and a host of other things. He was practically scientifically illiterate.

And I’m not exactly saying Churchill should be given a free pass. I’m saying we should be even handed about it. If the subject of Karl Marx comes up, rarely does one bring up his antisemitic statements. Yes, it is possible for a person who is Jewish to make antisemitic statements. If the subject of Joseph Stalin comes up, rarely does one bring up just antisemitic and anti-ethnic actions. If the subject of Che Cuevara comes up, rarely does his racist statements come up. But a mention of Churchill has a high probability of bringing up his objectionable statements.

I’m not asking for Churchill to be given a free ride. I’m just asking for fairness. When I see the left-wing heroes criticized as often as Churchill is for racists views, then I’ll stop objecting to these criticisms to Churchill.

[John Iacoletti]

On election night,  Trump was in a commanding lead.  How were those results put on teevee?   That was in person voting.   Then, election polling was closed.   You have that ratio of votes that you saw.   In a normal vote, you would expect the mail in ratio would be similar to what you saw in live polling.  Instead, you saw a flip. 

Are you really confused about why Biden got the vast majority of the absentee and mail-in votes? Seriously? Hint: Trump told his followers not to do that. Another hint: Trump followers are COVID deniers.

  After 3 days of mail in counting, enough votes were found by mail to overthrow the live polling results.   Is that how popular vote works?

Yes. Are you really confused about why it takes longer to count mail-in ballots?

In a place like Florida, was there a massive Biden surge in votes due to mail in? 

Yes. The difference is that in Florida the mail-in votes were counted first.

Election integrity means you need to look at the physical ballots and not just feed them through the same machines that gave the same score last time.

What makes you think they didn’t do that the first time?

Mail in votes should be scrutinized just as hard as those that came in person to vote. 

What makes you think they’re not?

If this was examined and shown that Biden won, there was and is no problem.

There is for Trump, because any result other than him winning is by definition “fraudulent”.

However, if you have affidavits signed (and perjury is punishable by incarceration), then lets throw these people into jail for lying about what they put their signatures.  Let's make the case and prove it.   We saw how the FBI worked over campaign workers in the Trump campaign and incarcerated them for lying to them, lets force the judges to make real decisions instead of just throwing out the accusation as being unfounded, lacked evidence and not worth pursuing.  No time for that!

Somebody who studies the JFK case should know that just because somebody claims something happened, that doesn’t make it true. You have to back it up with actual evidence.

We can't prove that anyone used the machines fraudulently to count votes and never will.  However, if you insist on using machines which have the capability written in the operator's manual to divide votes by percentage, there is a major problem. 

Why? They sell their machines to countries that actually do that.

For some reason, these electronic voting systems were not used across the entire country in all states. Why not?

Because each state determines how it conducts its elections.

[Rick Plant]

On election night,  Trump was in a commanding lead.  How were those results put on teevee?   That was in person voting.   Then, election polling was closed.   You have that ratio of votes that you saw.   In a normal vote, you would expect the mail in ratio would be similar to what you saw in live polling.  Instead, you saw a flip.    After 3 days of mail in counting, enough votes were found by mail to overthrow the live polling results.   Is that how popular vote works?  They were "scared" to go in person and so all results cast in that manner favored Biden.

Then, all these mail in votes were mixed in with the rest so you can't even compare anymore.  You can only see the results when live polls closed where Trump had a commanding lead and compare them to what you saw by next morning.   In a place like Florida, was there a massive Biden surge in votes due to mail in?   Or was the ratio between live votes and mail in votes there similar?   Launch an argument that the mail in vote ratio there was the same for Biden as it was in a place like Georgia.   Statistics should say they are very similar when comparing live vote ratio to mail in ratio as you are giving the shut-ins a way to vote.    Democrats there should be no different in their casting then Democrats in Georgia.

Election integrity means you need to look at the physical ballots and not just feed them through the same machines that gave the same score last time.  Each ballot needs vetting and yes the process takes time.    Verify signatures, addresses and identities.  Look at things like if ballots came out of an envelope and had creases on them or were they stacked and fed in and had no creases.   See if the adjudicated votes matched those fed in.   Mail in votes should be scrutinized just as hard as those that came in person to vote. 

If this was examined and shown that Biden won, there was and is no problem.   However, if you have affidavits signed (and perjury is punishable by incarceration), then lets throw these people into jail for lying about what they put their signatures.  Let's make the case and prove it.   We saw how the FBI worked over campaign workers in the Trump campaign and incarcerated them for lying to them, lets force the judges to make real decisions instead of just throwing out the accusation as being unfounded, lacked evidence and not worth pursuing.  No time for that!

We can't prove that anyone used the machines fraudulently to count votes and never will.  However, if you insist on using machines which have the capability written in the operator's manual to divide votes by percentage, there is a major problem.  The Scribd expert report shows that.   They redacted the operator's manual picture proving what they said was true by the judge?  Why would they do that?   Confidential information or exposure of truth and obviously they must have had a picture to back up their statement about this algorithm?   As well, there was a common user name and password entry into the system they said that allows multiple users access to the same voting records,  there is a problem with accountability.  Plausible deniability by anyone with access!   How hard would it be to have a machine count 1+1+1?    For some reason, these electronic voting systems were not used across the entire country in all states.    Why not?    Votes were allowed to be changed in the adjudication process electronically  and  to "cure" votes.   Sorry, the electronic system is compromised and if it continues to be used, you will see the same results as in Venezuela,  55/45 perhaps?

 

Benedict Donal.d never had a "commanding lead". He was losing in EVERY single poll and was losing in the vote total as well. Everybody knew that the mail in ballots outnumbered in person voting. This is all debunked garbage that every single judge threw out of court. 

[Rick Plant]

LOL.  Imbecile.  You apparently don't understand the word "conspiracy."  You are falsely suggesting that Russian boogeymen are behind Hunter's laptop.  That is the "conspiracy theory" because it involves more than one person.  Crackhead Hunter dropping off his laptop and forgetting it in a drug haze is not a conspiracy.  It's all the more humorous that you want to discredit someone as a "conspiracy theorist" while touting the most outlandish conspiracy theories.  An exercise in self loathing.  Very enlightening.

You swallow every single bogus right wing conspiracy and parrot it like it's a fact and it always turns out to be fraudulent because you are gullible. This is another perfect example.