A Little Social Experiment

[nanashi]

I shall clarify then. I do agree, wholeheartedly (and with the conviction of my own faith to boot) that it is always wrong to initiate violence upon anyone Ceteris Paribus. Long story short, as we are all creations of the one true God I can't judge you in an absolute sense/kill you unless you force my hand. Like, say, if you're about to cap a baby (i.e. what abortion pretty much is), or about to summarily execute me because I dared to say that there are only two genders and they're both different. In that instance, I can waste your ass guilt/judgement free. For another fun example, look up how and why the Crusades actually got started. Those Muslims kept on poking us as one pokes a rock while failing to realize it's a bear in hibernation. If you manage to wake that bear up... Oh boy, you best believe that fuck up is 100 percent on you gosh darn it. To give a more scientific example, try banging on a nuke with a rock because you like the sound it makes. Do ya really find fault with the nuke for producing a mushroom cloud after you banged it for the thousandth time?

Schrader (PhD in History) :

"the First Crusade can be said to have been a success (for the 'relgious' violent subset Christians). Later crusades were almost all failures (for the violent subset of Christians and wins for the violent subset of Muslims), however, and by 1291 the Christians had again been pushed out of Palestine and Syria completely. So, in the long run, the Holy Land crusades can be said to have been a failure."


And you're acting like all your forum members are fundamentalist Christians. About 1% might be. And some may be Muslim.

So, refering to 'us' as the 'Christian' side of the stupid, ego-driven, senseless slaughter of both sides and likely of non-combatants that was the Crusades is just incorrect.

And acting like people of the Muslim faith are a 'them' and 'Other' is also incorrect.

I've totally found some great spiritual truth in a Muslim Hadith and some heinous, pathetic evil in the Bible that was my constant companion as a fundie.


So, I'm a tad Muslim if I'm also Christian.

[Grendel]

Hope you like living in the pod and eating the bugs, because that's your/our future if you just refuse to see how obviously this election was rigged somehow.

This is fast heading towards my second predicted outcome that, while I am fine with it, I didn't want at all because it means hot Civil War 2.0 is a go within the next year or two. I and my ilk did not and do not want that because we know and understand what war is when fought on a moral level like what's coming. It is a total war. A war to the blade, tooth, blood, and the last man, woman, and child. Anyone who looks forward to or relishes the prospect of that is just plain stupid and is likely some kind of sociopath.

From experience I can tell you that the more panicked one gets about an imminent cataclysm, the more they themselves inevitably imminentize it. Trust me man. I see apocalyptic language from you all the time, half an anticipation betrayed where it's hardly solicited or relevant, but clearly a thing of which you live in dread and not desire. Lay low, turn away from the kernel of any fear laid in your head, no matter how rational it is, and you might inherit the earth.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Smarkets probabilities (last traded prices)

Trump to auto-pardon: No 76.34%; Yes 30.30%

Trump to attend Biden's inauguration: No 86.96%; Yes 17.54%

Trump to serve full term: Yes 92.59%; No 11.90%

Trump to leave the White house after 20th January 2021: No 96.15%; Yes 2.38%

Senate Control: 69.44% Republican (Over 50 R seats); 34.48% Tie (Exactly 50 R seats)

Biden to serve full term: Yes 65.79%; No 34.25%

[Aramas]

Perception>Reality and that didn't happen where it actually mattered. If it did, you'd see me grumble about Biden winning fair and square. It has not. Try doing some research yourself instead of blindly trusting the MSM like a good little slave for the PTB. Hope you like living in the pod and eating the bugs, because that's your/our future if you just refuse to see how obviously this election was rigged somehow.

So you're going to claim that the election was rigged but you want me to prove your point for you? No thanks.

[End]

This professor argues that the American religious divide is fuelled by the political divide rather than vice versa. It's normal for young people to drift away from religion only to come back once they start raising families. This is now happening much less because of the strong association between Christianity and the Republican party. Once a person's political identity is shaped (often in early adulthood), it goes on to circumscribe their religious choices—the religious identity is more malleable, and easier to change, than the political one.

The ties between the Republican party and Christianity solidified during Ronald Reagan's presidency, but the politicization of religion and non-religion really kicked off during the cultural changes of the 1960's.

There's a quote that comes to mind here. If you're in your 20's and you're not a Democrat/Liberal you have no heart. If you're in your 30's and you're not a Republican/Conservative you have no brain.

Also, a person makes up their mind one way or the other around their mid-20's insofar as politics is concerned. It takes what I term as "conversion events" to change minds after that. Good luck convincing a BLM organizer or a KKK Grand Dragon they're wrong outside of that emotional nadir. Won't. Fucking. Happen. And your attempt to do so outside of that will only reinforce their biases to boot.

A painful lesson I wish I had learned sooner and easier...

[End]

So you're going to claim that the election was rigged but you want me to prove your point for you? No thanks.

It's rather self-evident IMO. Do you honestly believe that Biden got more votes, especially more black votes overall, than Obama himself? Especially given the enthusiasm gap between both Trump Voters now and Obama voters back then?

That's just the most obvious data point. Ask me about more that may well convince you I'm right and we can go from there. I don't want you to prove my point for me, I rather ask that you provide me the criterion through which I may be able to bring you into a conversion event. If you can honestly tell me how I may actually convince you that I'm right than you can bet I'll put in the effort to do so if you're arguing in good faith as I am. I can tell you how you can convert me to your side, but your side is also doing everything it can to not give me what I'm asking for. If ya wanted to convince me I'm right about everything I've ever said, well, your cohorts are doing a damn fine job .

[xerx]

There's a quote that comes to mind here. If you're in your 20's and you're not a Democrat/Liberal you have no heart. If you're in your 30's and you're not a Republican/Conservative you have no brain.

That's just a dumb idea that was cooked up by blowhard conservatives.

[xerx]

@End

If it's that easy to accuse Biden of rigging the election, then it's that easy to accuse Trump of attempting (and failing) to rig the election. Like Biden, Trump also got more votes than previous presidential candidates, and the most obvious explanation is the higher voter turnout and larger population.

[End]

That's just a dumb idea that was cooked up by blowhard conservatives.

I don't think so. Optimism and the like is much easier to achieve in a state of innocence. Once you lost that it's way easier to be a cynic.

@End

If it's that easy to accuse Biden of rigging the election, then it's that easy to accuse Trump of attempting (and failing) to rig the election. Like Biden, Trump also got more votes than previous presidential candidates, and the most obvious explanation is the higher voter turnout and larger population.

Ok, let's put that assertion to the test shall we? How many Democrat Election Observers got thrown out before 3 A.M. Election night or were forced to stand 100 feet away from where the ballot counters were, well, counting the ballots? I mean, if you were so absolutely confident your candidate won you'd full on welcome the microscope your opposition wants to apply to the results. If they see your candidate being the clear winner and then go "Hey my eye's a bit watery so obviously your candidate didn't win because my itchy eye never lies!" Than you can rightfully and righteously call em' nuts, hacks, and vile human beings on the level of a cultist straight out of the fevered nightmares of H.P. Lovecraft.

Biden/The Democrats could do that. Hell, they could consent to a "redo" of the election with armed Republican and Democrat observers so that we can ALL be certain that, this time, the results are totally accurate and true if we assume nobody got fatally shot. After all, fuck around and find out. Every single ballot would be put under the microscope from both ends and either verified as true or thrown out as false by the will of both party advocates engaging in a Mexican Standoff. In other words, it'd be the most fair and honest election one could ever hope to see on this fallen Earth .

I don't exactly see you advocating for that whereas I'm all for it! I can kinda rest my case on that. Trump Derangement Syndrome is a thing. Get treated for it if you can...

[xerx]

I don't think so. Optimism and the like is much easier to achieve in a state of innocence. Once you lost that it's way easier to be a cynic.



Ok, let's put that assertion to the test shall we? How many Democrat Election Observers got thrown out before 3 A.M. Election night or were forced to stand 100 feet away from where the ballot counters were, well, counting the ballots? I mean, if you were so absolutely confident your candidate won you'd full on welcome the microscope your opposition wants to apply to the results. If they see your candidate being the clear winner and then go "Hey my eye's a bit watery so obviously your candidate didn't win because my itchy eye never lies!" Than you can rightfully and righteously call em' nuts, hacks, and vile human beings on the level of a cultist straight out of the fevered nightmares of H.P. Lovecraft.

Biden/The Democrats could do that. Hell, they could consent to a "redo" of the election with armed Republican and Democrat observers so that we can ALL be certain that, this time, the results are totally accurate and true if we assume nobody got fatally shot. After all, fuck around and find out. Every single ballot would be put under the microscope from both ends and either verified as true or thrown out as false by the will of both party advocates engaging in a Mexican Standoff. In other words, it'd be the most fair and honest election one could ever hope to see on this fallen Earth .

I don't exactly see you advocating for that whereas I'm all for it! I can kinda rest my case on that. Trump Derangement Syndrome is a thing. Get treated for it if you can...

Armed, intimidating partisans "observing" a high-stakes election? That is not the best recipe for the objective interpretation of ballot papers. I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one, bro.

[Ave]

@End

If it's that easy to accuse Biden of rigging the election, then it's that easy to accuse Trump of attempting (and failing) to rig the election. Like Biden, Trump also got more votes than previous presidential candidates, and the most obvious explanation is the higher voter turnout and larger population.

What all these "the election was rigged" folks don't seem to understand.

Why would it be "rigged" in favor of Biden, in states where Biden won, but not in favor of Trump, in states where Trump won (or lost, even)?

[Adam Strange]

What all these "the election was rigged" folks don't seem to understand.

Why would it be "rigged" in favor of Biden, in states where Biden won, but not in favor of Trump, in states where Trump won (or lost, even)?

Because human nature starts with a conclusion and then looks for supporting evidence. Doing the opposite is both difficult and unnatural for most people, and I include myself in that group. Unfortunately.

[Ave]

Because human nature starts with a conclusion and then looks for supporting evidence. Doing the opposite is both difficult and unnatural for most people, and I include myself in that group. Unfortunately.

You are right.

That said, I'm thinking Trump is an SEE because of how much enthousiasm he imparts to his base - a logical type couldn't transmit his own mood in such a contagious fashion to millions of people and have them twist the facts in order to support him. Not his policies, because it's never been about that - it's always been about him. I don't mean for the Republican party who saw a tool in Trump, but for his base who saw an embodiement of their fears and desires.

[End]

Armed, intimidating partisans "observing" a high-stakes election? That is not the best recipe for the objective interpretation of ballot papers. I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one, bro.

There'd be the obvious caveat I hoped I'd not have to point out. Both sides would essentially be holding nuclear weapons and daring their opponents to make the first use of said weapons knowing full good and well how Narrative Warfare works and thus know that the first person to launch a nuke in this day and age has immediately consigned themselves to defeat.

Ceterus Paribs of course. I mean, if you have enough nukes on hand to just glass all your opposition from existence and they can't counter that, well, you kinda still win.

To put it another way. Say we had a full on redo of the Election. The observers, both democrat and republican, are now armed and armored to the teeth and will not ever consent to being anything less than a specter hovering above the shoulder of every vote counter with a most potent Magnifying Glass that may or may not include such measures as Exotic filters like infrared or "Black Light" options.

One side (i.e. Mine) is all about a recount in full view of the public. The other is not. If they were confident they won fair and square they'd just agree to me and my people's demands and then gleefully rub that in our face for the next 4 years. The fact it's not happening like it ought to logically is more than enough fuel for those of us on my side to conclude the election was rigged.

What all these "the election was rigged" folks don't seem to understand.

Why would it be "rigged" in favor of Biden, in states where Biden won, but not in favor of Trump, in states where Trump won (or lost, even)?

Ok, Explain how Biden got all the votes for the presidency, yet so many of those ballots were otherwise Republican. Seriously, if you voted for Trump, you probably would, as history has shown us Americans, vote down ticket solidly in favor of said candidate. That is, a vote for Trump implies a vote for all other Republican candiates and vice versa. So many a ballot voted for Biden yet otherwise was a straight ticket vote for the Republicans...

Yeah, forgive me for calling bullshit on that one. Only the inbred and Statanic PTB, absolutely disconnected as they are, could ever hope to assume that such a story would pass the most cursory of smell tests.

I mean hell, if you really believe Biden got more black votes than Obama than I got a bridge in Florida to sell ya that just so happens to extend to Cuba and is totally immune to Hurricane damage! Process that one will you?

[xerx]

There'd be the obvious caveat I hoped I'd not have to point out. Both sides would essentially be holding nuclear weapons and daring their opponents to make the first use of said weapons knowing full good and well how Narrative Warfare works and thus know that the first person to launch a nuke in this day and age has immediately consigned themselves to defeat.

Ceterus Paribs of course. I mean, if you have enough nukes on hand to just glass all your opposition from existence and they can't counter that, well, you kinda still win.

To put it another way. Say we had a full on redo of the Election. The observers, both democrat and republican, are now armed and armored to the teeth and will not ever consent to being anything less than a specter hovering above the shoulder of every vote counter with a most potent Magnifying Glass that may or may not include such measures as Exotic filters like infrared or "Black Light" options.

One side (i.e. Mine) is all about a recount in full view of the public. The other is not. If they were confident they won fair and square they'd just agree to me and my people's demands and then gleefully rub that in our face for the next 4 years. The fact it's not happening like it ought to logically is more than enough fuel for those of us on my side to conclude the election was rigged.

No, having rival militias in the same room makes things worse, not better. With hotheads in charge, you'd start seeing random counting errors getting blown out of proportion, generating widespread accusations of fraud. People like this are primed to cast suspicion over any result that they don't like.

Suppose you did get your armed observers. By the same paranoid logic, you couldn't trust your militia boys with the count, either. Why would they be any less compromised than election officials, and how could you possibly know that they weren't undercover deep-state agents?

Militias shouldn't be allowed to oversee elections for the same reasons that the army shouldn't. Armed men oversee government functions in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. Armed militias, as a whole, are a feature of life in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East.

[Ave]

Ok, Explain how Biden got all the votes for the presidency, yet so many of those ballots were otherwise Republican. Seriously, if you voted for Trump, you probably would, as history has shown us Americans, vote down ticket solidly in favor of said candidate. That is, a vote for Trump implies a vote for all other Republican candiates and vice versa. So many a ballot voted for Biden yet otherwise was a straight ticket vote for the Republicans...

That's the thing though.

If democrats wanted to cheat, why would they not have manipulated the senate ballots too? Why just the presidency?

I mean hell, if you really believe Biden got more black votes than Obama than I got a bridge in Florida to sell ya that just so happens to extend to Cuba and is totally immune to Hurricane damage! Process that one will you?

Biden got more black votes than Obama did because in this election there was higher voter turnout.

[End]

No, having rival militias in the same room makes things worse, not better. With hotheads in charge, you'd start seeing random counting errors getting blown out of proportion, generating widespread accusations of fraud. People like this are primed to cast suspicion over any result that they don't like.

Suppose you did get your armed observers. By the same paranoid logic, you couldn't trust your militia boys with the count, either. Why would they be any less compromised than election officials, and how could you possibly know that they weren't undercover deep-state agents?

Militias shouldn't be allowed to oversee elections for the same reasons that the army shouldn't. Armed men oversee government functions in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. Armed militias, as a whole, are a feature of life in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East.

Than the nuke analogy I used still applies. The first side to bust a cap in the other is the obvious loser ceterus paribus. After all, if your side was winning you'd not see the need to go into murder mode to ensure it right?

That's the thing though.

If democrats wanted to cheat, why would they not have manipulated the senate ballots too? Why just the presidency?

Two reasons. One, legal BS. Every vote you rig can be challenged by the guy/girl you're rigging it against. So Trump's little crusade against the fraud would be joined by all those senators and house members who also felt cheated out of their seats. Thus, better to limit that incoming crusade to a single man that, conveniently enough, half the population believes to be the reincarnation of a particular person I refer to as the funny mustache man.

Two, it gives the RINO cucks a reason to go along with it. Hell, they probably arranged for this by the way. Don't forget that the GoP Establishment hates Trump too. After all, among other things, he refused to start a new war for their buddies in Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockeed Martin. Billions of dollars in profits (and by extension, campaign contributions) failed to materialize because Trump, like myself, was/is sick and tired of bombing Brown People who didn't do anything to us for the benefit of Israel's geopolitical standing in their region of the world and not much else.

As I've said before, hate him all you want, but his failure to engage the U.S. in a new war cannot be seen as anything but good to anyone with a shred of sanity remaining in their soul.

[xerx]

Than the nuke analogy I used still applies. The first side to bust a cap in the other is the obvious loser ceterus paribus. After all, if your side was winning you'd not see the need to go into murder mode to ensure it right?

No, the count is made objective by the fact that the vote counters are trained, neutral bureaucrats that are safe from violent intimidation. It is for that reason alone, and not because of the "balance of power" between opposing factions, or due to any sham game-theoretical consideration.

Even if militia oversight works to detect fraud, it could still lead to undemocratic results in other ways. Let's think about the consequences of giving oversight to ideologically-driven partisans. Suppose that some observers (from whichever side) perceive or manufacture irregularities in some battleground states. Accusations of fraud explode across media, with screams of bloody murder. Donald Trump predictably tweets that the election results are rigged and should be nullified. The state legislatures—overwhelmingly Republican—declare that the results are unclear and go on to handpick their list of electors, which they're able to do under the law. Consequently, it is the state machinery, not the direct electorate, which decides the outcome.

Counterfactual history isn't a science, and we can't know for sure how this scenario would have played out in real life, but it's not far-fetched, and I'd rather avoid ever having to plan for it in the first place.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Trump wouldn't have made your personal life any better though. He himself used to register and call himself as a Democrat anyway- so if the election was rigged (highly doubtful) then it also was rigged when he himself won four years ago. A vote for Trump isn't a vote against the Illuminati/establishment, but a vote for it. Since much about it is to create these left/right illusions to get us to hate and divide against one another. I read through some of what you said- you aren't really going into your own shadow enough. You come off like you are this righteous, innocent and moralistic white male but in reality it does sound pretty sociopathic even when you are claiming you aren't being that way lol.

I agree with you that innocent old straight white male deltas/Fi valuers that are farmers/steel mill workers or whatever don't get their fair share enough and society rewards some pervy city dwelling two faced liar too much, but that isn't really a Trump/Biden issue for me- because Trump isn't going to make that sort of thing any better or shine any justice to it. As he himself is the city dwelling' perv not the small town savior hero that white townsfolk want him to be. He just isn't, he's just playing on your own genuine fears & hopes for his own sick amusement.

A vote for Trump is a self-defeating vote for your own interests and lifestyle.

[End]

No, the count is made objective by the fact that the vote counters are trained, neutral bureaucrats that are safe from violent intimidation. It is for that reason alone, and not because of the "balance of power" between opposing factions, or due to any sham game-theoretical consideration.

Even if militia oversight works to detect fraud, it could still lead to undemocratic results in other ways. Let's think about the consequences of giving oversight to ideologically-driven partisans. Suppose that some observers (from whichever side) perceive or manufacture irregularities in some battleground states. Accusations of fraud explode across media, with screams of bloody murder. Donald Trump predictably tweets that the election results are rigged and should be nullified. The state legislatures—overwhelmingly Republican—declare that the results are unclear and go on to handpick their list of electors, which they're able to do under the law. Consequently, it is the state machinery, not the direct electorate, which decides the outcome.

Counterfactual history isn't a science, and we can't know for sure how this scenario would have played out in real life, but it's not far-fetched, and I'd rather avoid ever having to plan for it in the first place.

See, I am once more proven right in my assertions. If it were not for the recent COVID relief bill shenanigains you may have made a coherent point. Sadly, my cynicism proves to be supremely founded yet again. You seem to erroneously think/believe that the GoP is Trump's party and that their power brokers and other such folks actually like/back him.

As I said before, you had best remember that they hate him just as much if not more than the average "progressive" or "Democratic" ideologue. Hell, a few of em' hate him so much they've actually looped back around into rationality. Ms. Omar and AOC actually agree with him on a single point. He apparently just wants to ship every American Citizen a check for 2k absent any pork for survival reasons. A rational request she seems to back. Never thought I'd agree with such a person but I actually do here. 2k is enough to pay the rent for a month and afford something majorly important to us lower classers like a major car repair.

Another fun fact that you may want to research. Surplus elites. After all, the lower classes don't ever seem to organize successful revolts on their own. They're often lead by those who may have otherwise been counted among an empire/nation's elites, yet were not for pretty much arbitrary reasons. If that empire/nation operated on a full on and honest meritocracy they would have likely displaced their "betters" as it were. They did not and it was obvious that they didn't despite observing the fact they had at least two standard deviations on said "betters" in the IQ department. They failed to attain rulership positions because they erroneously believed that merit trumped things like connections and bribes (which, in an ideal society, they do).

And one wonders why the Dynastic Cycle doesn't take more than 10 years tops to actualize or why I'm not tilted in the slightest no matter how this all plays out by extension. I'd rather Trump get his second term as that results in less overall bloodshed. If he does not, however, he proves to anyone with half a brain that Democracy is officially a farce. Imagine a Presidential election where it was obvious that no more than 35 percent of the electorate actually bothered to vote. What mandate does that government have? Is it even fully legitimate? What are the odds that such a voter turnout isn't the result of a hot civil war? I mean, why vote at a booth when you're already voting with bullets?

[ContractedCriminalboy]

I would never accept Biden under any circumstances, even if he won the elect fairly (which he did not). An election isn't the superbowl where if the other team wins it's whatever, congratulations. If a POS who will destroy what I love and believe in takes power, I will oppose him plain and simple. If Trump wanted and could use his powers to establish martial law and override the election, I would support this course of action wholeheartedly. If it leads to bloodly civil war, I would still support this.

[Adam Strange]

I would never accept Biden under any circumstances, even if he won the elect fairly (which he did not). An election isn't the superbowl where if the other team wins it's whatever, congratulations. If a POS who will destroy what I love and believe in takes power, I will oppose him plain and simple. If Trump wanted and could use his powers to establish martial law and override the election, I would support this course of action wholeheartedly. If it leads to bloodly civil war, I would still support this.

Sounds to me like you don't believe in Democracy.*

Maybe North Korea would be more to your liking. I think they are accepting volunteers. They have martial law there, too! It's everything you could want.


*It's OK for you to admit this. About 40% of the people in every country would be happier under an authoritarian dictatorship like the one you are advocating. Democracy is just too scary for them because it allows bad people to have power. So you're not the only one who thinks this way.



*EDIT*
But before you book your flight to hew closer to your obviously fervently felt ideals, please tell me what it is that you love and believe in. I'm curious.

[ContractedCriminalboy]

Sounds to me like you don't believe in Democracy.

Maybe North Korea would be more to your liking. I think they are accepting volunteers. They have martial law there, too! It's everything you could want.

If I were a Biden supporter perhaps I'd be inclined towards living in a communist regime yes.

I'm a nationalist not a communist. I prefer to stand with my nation, not the masses or some crazed economic theory, but whatever keeps it thriving and well, if that be an oligarchy, monarchy, democracy, etc so be it. But our current system has more than proven itself not to be a system supporting the health and vitality of our nation and it's culture and traditions so I would not be opposed to the establishment of another system that will do such a thing. Democracy had failed in Spain in the 30s forcing the Spanish to establish Franco to save them and I would be quite fine with making Trump our Franco if that is what is needed.

[Adam Strange]

If I were a Biden supporter perhaps I'd be inclined towards living in a communist regime yes.

I'm a nationalist not a communist. I prefer to stand with my nation, not the masses or some crazed economic theory, but whatever keeps it thriving and well, if that be an oligarchy, monarchy, democracy, etc so be it. But our current system has more than proven itself not to be a system supporting the health and vitality of our nation and it's culture and traditions so I would not be opposed to the establishment of another system that will do such a thing. Democracy had failed in Spain in the 30s forcing the Spanish to establish Franco to save them and I would be quite fine with making Trump our Franco if that is what is needed.

That's kind of what I thought. The usual Blood and Soil thing. "We are surrounded by enemies who want to dilute our culture and our precious bodily fluids. We must eliminate those who are not of our pure race, and lets invade Poland, too."

Have you been listening to Fox News again? You must know that there are studies that show that listening to Fox News makes you less informed of facts, not more.

*EDIT*
Now, I'll be the first one to say that the last few decades have not been kind to Americans not in the top 20%. In fact, the rich have pretty well screwed everyone else in the areas of job security, pay, and moral support. But that means that the rich guys, like Murdoch and Trump and the Senators whose legislation they buy are the problem, not Democracy.

[ContractedCriminalboy]

That's kind of what I thought. The usual Blood and Soil thing. "We are surrounded by enemies who want to dilute our culture and our precious bodily fluids. We must eliminate those who are not of our pure race, and lets invade Poland, too."

Have you been listening to Fox News again? You must know that there are studies that show that listening to Fox News makes you less informed of facts, not more.

kk

[Adam Strange]

kk

OK, I was being an asshole there. I apologize. But you are being misled as to who your real enemies are.

[xerx]

See, I am once more proven right in my assertions. If it were not for the recent COVID relief bill shenanigains you may have made a coherent point. Sadly, my cynicism proves to be supremely founded yet again. You seem to erroneously think/believe that the GoP is Trump's party and that their power brokers and other such folks actually like/back him.

As I said before, you had best remember that they hate him just as much if not more than the average "progressive" or "Democratic" ideologue. Hell, a few of em' hate him so much they've actually looped back around into rationality. Ms. Omar and AOC actually agree with him on a single point. He apparently just wants to ship every American Citizen a check for 2k absent any pork for survival reasons. A rational request she seems to back. Never thought I'd agree with such a person but I actually do here. 2k is enough to pay the rent for a month and afford something majorly important to us lower classers like a major car repair.

Another fun fact that you may want to research. Surplus elites. After all, the lower classes don't ever seem to organize successful revolts on their own. They're often lead by those who may have otherwise been counted among an empire/nation's elites, yet were not for pretty much arbitrary reasons. If that empire/nation operated on a full on and honest meritocracy they would have likely displaced their "betters" as it were. They did not and it was obvious that they didn't despite observing the fact they had at least two standard deviations on said "betters" in the IQ department. They failed to attain rulership positions because they erroneously believed that merit trumped things like connections and bribes (which, in an ideal society, they do).

And one wonders why the Dynastic Cycle doesn't take more than 10 years tops to actualize or why I'm not tilted in the slightest no matter how this all plays out by extension. I'd rather Trump get his second term as that results in less overall bloodshed. If he does not, however, he proves to anyone with half a brain that Democracy is officially a farce. Imagine a Presidential election where it was obvious that no more than 35 percent of the electorate actually bothered to vote. What mandate does that government have? Is it even fully legitimate? What are the odds that such a voter turnout isn't the result of a hot civil war? I mean, why vote at a booth when you're already voting with bullets?

I have no doubt that the GOP higher-ups have a low opinion of Trump the man. Many said so directly during the 2016 primaries. It doesn't matter. In any scenario where the president is selected by the modern American legislature, especially a Republican one, the legislature will vote along party lines.

Democracy exists because of the separation of powers between the different branches of government. Invoking the legislature to elect the president contravenes that spirit directly. Electoral oversight by partisan militias is, effectively, a form of mob rule that can be leveraged by one branch of government (the legislature) to bypass another (the Election Commission).

Moreover, it's not true that the GOP wants to get rid of Trump. His policies have very much been Republican policies, and the GOP will be content to keep him in power until that changes. His supreme and lower court picks have garnered tremendous approval from conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. His popularity with the Republican base is also unquestionable.

[xerx]

Sounds to me like you don't believe in Democracy.*

Maybe North Korea would be more to your liking. I think they are accepting volunteers. They have martial law there, too! It's everything you could want.


*It's OK for you to admit this. About 40% of the people in every country would be happier under an authoritarian dictatorship like the one you are advocating. Democracy is just too scary for them because it allows bad people to have power. So you're not the only one who thinks this way.

This is an interesting point. I listen to a lot of conservative commentary (from different countries), and one theme that crops up constantly is the lack of "trust" in society. The Left's answer to this is to create more transparent and more inclusive public institutions. I no longer believe that this is enough for many on the Right.

I believe that conservatives react strongly to other people based on their familiarity: the way they dress, the jokes that they laugh at, their ethnic origin, etc. Why? Because someone who's just like you makes similar decisions, has similar incentives, uses the same tropes, and can be expected to behave in more-or-less predictable ways. In a democratic society that allows common people to elect their representatives, this is the real origin of trust, and it is a more organic source than a potentially co-optable governmental institution.

A self-segregating immigrant population that maintains its culture flouts this implicit social contract, and immigration is undesirable as a result. The policeman who looks like you (has common origins) garners implicit trust, and he can be expected to reciprocate that good-will towards his tribe. Loyalty is, after all, not to a bureaucracy, but to a tribe that is held together by shared commonality.

Right-wing people react to this stuff less strongly or more strongly, depending on other aspects of their personality, and blanket generalizations are probably wrong. Some favour stronger purity tests, some less. Some are more open-minded to different forms of self-expression, others not so much. Some are willing to accept that immigrants can be assimilated, others are out-and-out racists. The media can certainly push people in either direction.

This is just a belief, not a statement of fact. I'd actually be interested in reading criticism from people.

[End]

This is an interesting point. I listen to a lot of conservative commentary (from different countries), and one theme that crops up constantly is the lack of "trust" in society. The Left's answer to this is to create more transparent and more inclusive public institutions. I no longer believe that this is enough for many on the Right.

I believe that conservatives react strongly to other people based on their familiarity: the way they dress, the jokes that they laugh at, their ethnic origin, etc. Why? Because someone who's just like you makes similar decisions, has similar incentives, uses the same tropes, and can be expected to behave in more-or-less predictable ways. In a democratic society that allows common people to elect their representatives, this is the real origin of trust, and it is a more organic source than a potentially co-optable governmental institution.

A self-segregating immigrant population that maintains its culture flouts this implicit social contract, and immigration is undesirable as a result. The policeman who looks like you (has common origins) garners implicit trust, and he can be expected to reciprocate that good-will towards his tribe. Loyalty is, after all, not to a bureaucracy, but to a tribe that is held together by shared commonality.

Right-wing people react to this stuff less strongly or more strongly, depending on other aspects of their personality, and blanket generalizations are probably wrong. Some favour stronger purity tests, some less. Some are more open-minded to different forms of self-expression, others not so much. Some are willing to accept that immigrants can be assimilated, others are out-and-out racists. The media can certainly push people in either direction.

This is just a belief, not a statement of fact. I'd actually be interested in reading criticism from people.

If that's their answer than forgive me for laughing in their face as I launch dueling middle fingers at them thanks to the current farce going on. Again, say we redo the whole fucking election just to be sure we got a real winner. Both sides now have heavily armed and armored vote counters who also, I'd hope and pray, have a functional self-preservation instinct (i.e. they ain't intent on dying for their God/Party for some reason or another).

Again, the first side to bust a cap in the other loses and they all know that. Furthermore, tons of independent streamers and content creators will be pointing their cameras (which we all have now thanks to smartphones) feeding info to the public in real time. So there won't be any BS spin cycle that'll prove lies to be truths in the long term no matter who the "media" wants to win (fun fact: It's Biden in our current reality).

I want/need that kind of transparency in any democracy I'm forced to live under. How about you?

[xerx]

If that's their answer than forgive me for laughing in their face as I launch dueling middle fingers at them thanks to the current farce going on. Again, say we redo the whole fucking election just to be sure we got a real winner. Both sides now have heavily armed and armored vote counters who also, I'd hope and pray, have a functional self-preservation instinct (i.e. they ain't intent on dying for their God/Party for some reason or another).

Again, the first side to bust a cap in the other loses and they all know that. Furthermore, tons of independent streamers and content creators will be pointing their cameras (which we all have now thanks to smartphones) feeding info to the public in real time. So there won't be any BS spin cycle that'll prove lies to be truths in the long term no matter who the "media" wants to win (fun fact: It's Biden in our current reality).

I want/need that kind of transparency in any democracy I'm forced to live under. How about you?

In principle, it's not wrong to say that every ballot should be filmed using high resolution scans, then digitally uploaded. I'm not familiar with the counterfeiting process, and I'm not sure how easy it would be to detect counterfeits even in that case, but the principle is reasonable.

In practice, wouldn't there be too many to do that by hand? Machines would have to be used. If machines can be rigged to change the result, as is alleged, then they can be rigged to upload fake ballot pictures.

If you go the manual route, you'll still need to use a manually-operated scanner or camera to make a scan of the ballot. The scanner or camera can also be rigged to upload fake ballot pictures.

[End]

In principle, it's not wrong to say that every ballot should be filmed using high resolution scans, then digitally uploaded. I'm not familiar with the counterfeiting process, and I'm not sure how easy it would be to detect counterfeits even in that case, but the principle is reasonable.

In practice, wouldn't there be too many to do that by hand? Machines would have to be used. If machines can be rigged to change the result, as is alleged, then they can be rigged to upload fake ballot pictures.

If you go the manual route, you'll still need to use a manually-operated scanner or camera to make a scan of the ballot. The scanner or camera can also be rigged to upload fake ballot pictures.

Not if you got multiple smartphone wielding mofo's fully intent on dying for the cause in a way that counts motherfuckers doing the recount.

Again, first side to bust a cap in cold blood automatically loses. I am certain the Left will fire upon the right first because (among other critically important things) they barely understand how firearms actually work!

[marooned]

I'm already "looking forward" to the next shit show in four years.

If the left loses by tiny margins in the Important States I will just assume it was rigged bc why not.

[xerx]

Not if you got multiple smartphone wielding mofo's fully intent on dying for the cause in a way that counts motherfuckers doing the recount.

Again, first side to bust a cap in cold blood automatically loses. I am certain the Left will fire upon the right first because (among other critically important things) they barely understand how firearms actually work!

Your "first side to bust a cap in cold blood" scenario sounds extremely contrived; moreover, there would never by any general consensus that this action proves cheating. The ability for smartphone cameras to detect forged ballots is questionable. Trusting partisan militias to be objective observers is more problematic (and less democratic) than trusting neutral bureaucrats to be objective. I won't belabour these points any further, as I've already made them in previous posts.

Honestly, I'm done here; we're not going to convince each other. In any case, the demand to give election oversight to armed militias is so unrealistic (is it even constitutional??) that the discussion is a waste of time. For the sake of your side's credibility as a fair player, my advice is to accept the democratic result and try again in four years. Good luck.

[xerx]

I'm already "looking forward" to the next shit show in four years.

I won't even be tuning in for four years because I'm so burned out by American politics. I've stopped following every news outlet related to it. It isn't even my country, I don't know why I'm preoccupied with its strange politics in the first place.

[Adam Strange]

I won't even be tuning in for four years because I'm so burned out by American politics. I've stopped following every news outlet related to it. It isn't even my country, I don't know why I'm preoccupied with its strange politics in the first place.

Absolutely everyone is looking forward to not having Trump screaming for attention, in their face, every day, with some new insanity that he's threatening.

[xerx]

Absolutely everyone is looking forward to not having Trump screaming for attention, in their face, every day, with some new insanity that he's threatening.

It's cartoonishly bad that Donald Trump managed to become an even less popular candidate than Hillary Clinton.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Absolutely everyone is looking forward to not having Trump screaming for attention, in their face, every day, with some new insanity that he's threatening.

wish I could like this post three times

[End]

Your "first side to bust a cap in cold blood" scenario sounds extremely contrived; moreover, there would never by any general consensus that this action proves cheating. The ability for smartphone cameras to detect forged ballots is questionable. Trusting partisan militias to be objective observers is more problematic (and less democratic) than trusting neutral bureaucrats to be objective. I won't belabour these points any further, as I've already made them in previous posts.

Honestly, I'm done here; we're not going to convince each other. In any case, the demand to give election oversight to armed militias is so unrealistic (is it even constitutional??) that the discussion is a waste of time. For the sake of your side's credibility as a fair player, my advice is to accept the democratic result and try again in four years. Good luck.

You may be, but I got a few more point to make. See, there are too many obvious and documented irregularities to count for my side to just lie down and accept it. I mean fuck, Newt friggin' Gingrich, a career politician, wrote a damn fine article that lays it all out as to why my side cannot and will not just accept the "Democratic" result (pun intended BTW). Open your eyes damnit, you only accept this result in spite of all that because your side "won" and you think Orange Man is "he who bears the funny mustache" reincarnated!

If you really want to go down this road, well, look at that election map by county and than also ask who has the guns, the knowledge of things like logistics (e.g. Truck Drivers), the will, and the actual moral high ground in the coming civil war? Do you really, honestly, think getting him out of office here and now is worth that? I don't, and that's me wargaming a scenario where I'm on your side. Leftists and their sympathizers just don't seem to get how BAD war, actual, total war, is. If I didn't suspect that just giving into your side would likely result in my ass ending up in a gulag/concentration/reeducation camp swiftly down the line upon my surrender I'd gladly do so just to avoid that worst case scenario. THAT is how bad total war is and you are advocating for it whether you know it or not.

Also, you think Biden's masters won't just flip the table during those 4 years if he gets in? No. Trump's entire line will suffer a series of "unfortunate" accidents in prison (they will all end up there if they don't sell out somehow I bet my family jewels) that resulted in their prolonged, gruesome, and most painful of deaths. The PTB will make the Mother of all examples of them if they pull this off. Not to mention the quite literal "Mark of the Beast" BS they're planning with the Covid vaccines "passports" and whatnot. And then there's the tearing down of the Wall, the amnesty for all the illegals, I could go on and on and on...

Final point, because this is another facet you're failing to realize for a lack of I'd wager. You'll be right there beside me on that wall they're gonna line us up on before they have us all shot in the "Best of the Worst" case scenario. You are a "useful idiot" who, ultimately, knows too much for the PTB to find palatable once they've finished constructing their "New World Order."

If you've never heard of Yuri Bezmenov, I highly recommend his interview "Deception was my Job". The most enlightening hour and a half you'll experience. Experience it soon, for I doubt the technocrats running google will keep it up past January 6th.

With that, we truly are done and have said all that can be said. I pray you will find the truth and accept it no matter how horrible you see it to be...

[End]

Absolutely everyone is looking forward to not having Trump screaming for attention, in their face, every day, with some new insanity that he's threatening.

I doubt you'll be saying that if you or your children get conscripted into the next World War that's just about guaranteed to happen under a Biden administration. Again, say what you will about the Orange Man. No New Wars. If you can't see that as at least the single good thing that resulted from his presidency I doubt your capacity for human empathy.

[Number 9 large]

I doubt you'll be saying that if you or your children get conscripted into the next World War that's just about guaranteed to happen under a Biden administration. Again, say what you will about the Orange Man. No New Wars. If you can't see that as at least the single good thing that resulted from his presidency I doubt your capacity for human empathy.

bra