Election Fraud
- Thread starter babe
- Start date
stop with your baseless projections of your own totalitarianism upon others who actually believe the government should have no power to rig elections, define acceptable beliefs, establish religions or push propaganda.
I envision no camps like progressives, and other ideological totalitarians must eventually resort to in their determination to regiment humanity, but there Is no need to compromise freedom of speech, or scientific accuracy, in describing the essential, normal, human nature.
Cows, for example, do not seem ever to develop "ideologies" or twisted visions of nobility and virture. They accept grass, water, sun, and whatever weather with a stoic fundamental realism. They need no government supervision, really. Cowboys would perhaps seem like our government bureaucrats, but cows do not let cowboys change their beliefs. We can castrate them, butcher them, or turn them loose anywhere if we please, but we do not regulate their ideas of reality. It is only humans, in all of Nature so far as we have known, who can develop schemes of management for the world, for others, and imagine some kind of "truth" that can justify our plans.
So while we have "human" notions, both good and bad, it is also one line of reasoning I consider more acceptable, that humans make themselves truly "human" by rejecting propaganda, submission to totalitarian governance, and prescriptions on speech and thought.
So get over your penchant for lying projections about the fascism you imagine to be in others, and take a good close look at how it affects your own opinions.
your lost in your rhetoric. I am not a "centrists", and what I described is an election system that is hopefully resistant to tampering from "establishment" or partisan interests. A truly "transparent" election, that is all.
I actually reject most government claims of authority, jurisdiction, and management.
Red
Well-Known Member
Yeah, except you expressly stated we should revoke the right to vote for people you clearly do not like, in the very comments of yours that I quoted in comment #40 of this thread. Leading me to wonder just who the hell you think you are?
Red
Well-Known Member
To which @babe replied: "one way to recognize a transbrained ideologue who is no longer truly "human" is the absolute loss of humor."
Hey, who's without a sense of humor here? I admit, I was juvenile to quote that line and respond to it that way. But, it was right there for the taking, I thought, yeah, I'll be juvenile, lol.
But, now you want to claim I'm not even truly a human being? Lol. I have no totalitarian tendencies at all, and if there's any projecting going on, well, you know....
You know, I am progressive in some ways, liberal in some ways, and actually very conservative in many ways. I'm really not the ideologue you think I am. My "crime", from your perspective, consists of recognizing that Trump was a demagogue, who appeared on the scene at just the right time to marshal the allegiance of many disaffected members of our society. And because I believe that, rather then your claim that Trump "just wants everyone to be happy", you want to take my rights away, for that reason. You've said as much right in this thread. Should not be allowed to vote. The very reason I sarcastically suggested you'd next be in favor of camps for progressives and globalists. You are the one caught up in an ideology, as I see it.
You know, assuming we are both human, it's likely we both could benefit with examining our own beliefs. Probably a good thing for anyone from time to time. I do it all the time, believe it or not. But you want to take my rights away from me, judging from your comments in this thread. Well, you can't.
*Ahem*
Your suggestion:
Reality:
Bank cash transport is commonly known as Cash-In-Transit (Hereby cited as CIT)
And this is just transportation. Who provides this? Private organizations, like Brinks(Probably the most famous incidents) and Loomis(Wells Fargo in cognito). Companies either inept of keeping (real or fake) votes safe, or companies that have broken America's trust in them.
Nothing's changed. You still don't know what you're asking for, or at what price, and if you ever got it you'd just bitch about it anyway. Your unknown unknowns are staring you in the face, you just don't want to see them cuz... I dunno... 'merica? no step on snek? #TinfoilUSA?
We already deny voting rights to felons.
That we do not have adequate laws to prevent organized hijacking of elections by little squads of law-breaking cheaters who will lie like hell every step they take would not be out of line. People like Comey and Brennan and Hillary and Obama have broken enough laws already, felonies. We need to prosecute them, and people like you who have gloated about your damn "Resistance" campaign and even declared you'll be shooting at people who don't cave for your program.
Well, it is a hard line I suppose. We have long considered political parties like Communists who advocate armed overthrown of our nation, and globalists who advocate an end-run around whatever shreds of our original constitution there may still be in some marginal sort of legal applicability as qualified to vote.
But the fact is, we should require as the Constitution states, an affirmative oath of allegiance to our Constiution and laws as a qualification for citizenship..... opps…. we still do. That is the fact. I've been there and watched the process where people legally become citizens. They do take that oath.
That it is, like many other laws, ignored...… is actually not such a good idea.
dunno if I really care to have police prowling the webz finding people who openly gloat about the overthrow of our country and bringing a complaint to the voting registrar.
I've helped out in some disability care centers with hundreds of people who really just don't know where they are, or whether they are drooling, or pissing..... or who can't hold a spoon.... or who think they are Jesus' bride or somesuch. I don't know what the rules are regarding such people who clearly do not have the capacity to comprehend, or make a choice for themselves.
But really, you have no case when you are calling for the overthrow of the country by violent means. I think we have laws for removing citizenship from people for some reasons. Well, we should. But we never will..... unless it's the rednecks out with their guns shooting up the UN blues come to collect them, I suppose. Being an avowed believer in a political dream that requires the overthrow of the country will probably never be a reason to deny voting rights, but if those believers gain the power they want, there will actually be no more "voting rights" for anyone who differs from that belief...….
I'd rather just smile and say "there, now. It'll be alright. Just take these meds and you'll be better.", than put you on a list where you have to prove your sanity or functional intellect. But I know there will never be such a list.... until dreamers hell-bent on utopia run the government......
Last edited:
Red was objecting to the voting procedure that called for his balls being verified.
humor is essentially lost on the left. Can't hang onto the conversation unless it dovetails the propaganda du jour, or is somehow a filthy little "joke". I don't really credit porn or lewd speech as "humor", hence I could never really stand much of our so-called comedy today. s
Red saw the juvenile implications before I did. I was talking about a system which had objective reality that is physically visible unlike computer data bytes, something even more difficult to forge/fake/manipulate than paper ballots.
When you cast a vote, it is in the form of a ball large enough to be visible to judges sitting at their table and the general public on video and to anyone standing nearby.
"your balls" would be traceable enough you could locate them (RFID) tags and verify that they were in the counted lot, and counted for the way you "cast' them.... in the barrel(s) you put them in. One ball for each electioin issue.
The tallies could be reported in real time, as the votes are cast.....
Last edited:
All of that when you can't even prove there's a statistically significant problem.
Talking about disqualifying a voter whose thinking is diagnosed in some clininically-defined disorder, which Red has been objecting to, is truly dicey.
Xi is doing stuff nearly the same as this right now in China, with re-education camps.
We are, essentially, doing the same thing disqualifying mentally-impaired people right now. We are also eliminating a lot of "people" before they are even born, through genetic testing of embryos and abortion for genetic reasons. No more Down's Syndrome, and such.
Talking about citizen qualifications that include a test oath of allegiance to the government, as we do now..... and talking about the Constitutional oath to uphold the Constitution, comes close to disqualifying a voter because they don't believe in Science, or any generally-promoted line of propaganda, or because they harbor beliefs in utopian societies like Marxism.
I think my point about people who are so convinced ideologically about any cause.... any religion, or any political idea.... that they lose an essential component of being truly human.... is a good point.
A person who will justify killing another human for non-compliance, as Marxists revolutionaries have done with millions of other human beings, is in a state of mind that, whatever the rationale, is just as destructive as any mass murderer. (Well, OK.... as a lot of medieval Christian and Islamic nations with state-religions have done)
We as a society generally do not tolerate mass murderers, but lets say a religious zealot who is determined to kill other human who disbelieve, does present essentially the same issue.
The issue is human rights, and the government's duty to ensure we have "human rights" to belief, to conscience, to political thought, and political action.
One persons rights, or claimed rights, to suppress dissidents or political opponents, in any way.... must pretty much end before it can destroy the same rights others have.
I think there's room to debate the eligibility of Marxists to vote, or hold office, because of their avowed determination to replace our government with a government that will not protect human rights.
The same kind of debate could be had over Islamic zealots with ideas of subjugating the world, as well as say any little Christian cult with ideas about Jesus being King.....
There's a clear lie to the Marxist dialectic process, the lie is that it results in a better life for humans. It does not. It destroys human choice. the inexorable march of history, the deterministic outcome of the various stages of revolution.... goes to an end where people do not have rights.
The essential components for being human, in my view, must include.... but certainly not be limited to.....
1. Mortality (no machines, please) A natural condition of life that will foreseeably end.
I put this first because it is the most essential limitation against all the other qualities we possess which could ever be deplored....
2. Choice, or Will. The capacity to desire, to want, to act independently.
hence, in my view, large groups of essentially coherent belief, interest, or action.... constitute a trade-off of our humanity for our group or community.
3. Sovereignty (personal)….. includes rights like ownership of property, the power to enter contracts or agreements or relationships under protection of law. Means the government or other people are required to accept your choice, you actions.... so far as they do not infringe on the equal right others possess.
The reason we make governments include designs to eliminate the human rights of others but includes the essentially revolutionary claim that the people, with equal rights, can form a government to protect those equal rights amongst ourselves.
We commonly believe being "human" includes holding virtues and/or vices along patterns of behavior either praised or deplored, commonly defined in societal or communal norms. I generally hold forth that being "human" includes respect for others, good manners, and a lot of feelings and behaviors that generally make life better for everyone.... kindness, sympathy, compassion, love, etc.
So we as people who are determining our rights as we wish our government to protect for us equally, may believe some people shouldn't "vote" or "hold office" in our government.
some clearly impaired people with severely limited capacities for mature thinking...… maybe even children up to some arbitrary age..... we presently do not allow to vote. Felons.... people who commit crimes we label "felony".... we do not allow to vote. I think some of these reasons are really questionable. But here we are, debating and deciding who can vote, who has rights, who does not have rights.
It could be a liberal nightmare. We could be rolling out vans to collect the votes of dogs, family members, of folks before we're done with this.
Common sense figures in, thankfully, and most of us accept the humanity of others, even Mormons and Marxists..... even Moslems and atheists...… and so, here we are.
But it is still a fair question whether we can maintain a government that will protect human rights when ideologies and religions rise to replace that government and enforce any regime requiring significant coherence or compliance.
Xi is doing stuff nearly the same as this right now in China, with re-education camps.
We are, essentially, doing the same thing disqualifying mentally-impaired people right now. We are also eliminating a lot of "people" before they are even born, through genetic testing of embryos and abortion for genetic reasons. No more Down's Syndrome, and such.
Talking about citizen qualifications that include a test oath of allegiance to the government, as we do now..... and talking about the Constitutional oath to uphold the Constitution, comes close to disqualifying a voter because they don't believe in Science, or any generally-promoted line of propaganda, or because they harbor beliefs in utopian societies like Marxism.
I think my point about people who are so convinced ideologically about any cause.... any religion, or any political idea.... that they lose an essential component of being truly human.... is a good point.
A person who will justify killing another human for non-compliance, as Marxists revolutionaries have done with millions of other human beings, is in a state of mind that, whatever the rationale, is just as destructive as any mass murderer. (Well, OK.... as a lot of medieval Christian and Islamic nations with state-religions have done)
We as a society generally do not tolerate mass murderers, but lets say a religious zealot who is determined to kill other human who disbelieve, does present essentially the same issue.
The issue is human rights, and the government's duty to ensure we have "human rights" to belief, to conscience, to political thought, and political action.
One persons rights, or claimed rights, to suppress dissidents or political opponents, in any way.... must pretty much end before it can destroy the same rights others have.
I think there's room to debate the eligibility of Marxists to vote, or hold office, because of their avowed determination to replace our government with a government that will not protect human rights.
The same kind of debate could be had over Islamic zealots with ideas of subjugating the world, as well as say any little Christian cult with ideas about Jesus being King.....
There's a clear lie to the Marxist dialectic process, the lie is that it results in a better life for humans. It does not. It destroys human choice. the inexorable march of history, the deterministic outcome of the various stages of revolution.... goes to an end where people do not have rights.
The essential components for being human, in my view, must include.... but certainly not be limited to.....
1. Mortality (no machines, please) A natural condition of life that will foreseeably end.
I put this first because it is the most essential limitation against all the other qualities we possess which could ever be deplored....
2. Choice, or Will. The capacity to desire, to want, to act independently.
hence, in my view, large groups of essentially coherent belief, interest, or action.... constitute a trade-off of our humanity for our group or community.
3. Sovereignty (personal)….. includes rights like ownership of property, the power to enter contracts or agreements or relationships under protection of law. Means the government or other people are required to accept your choice, you actions.... so far as they do not infringe on the equal right others possess.
The reason we make governments include designs to eliminate the human rights of others but includes the essentially revolutionary claim that the people, with equal rights, can form a government to protect those equal rights amongst ourselves.
We commonly believe being "human" includes holding virtues and/or vices along patterns of behavior either praised or deplored, commonly defined in societal or communal norms. I generally hold forth that being "human" includes respect for others, good manners, and a lot of feelings and behaviors that generally make life better for everyone.... kindness, sympathy, compassion, love, etc.
So we as people who are determining our rights as we wish our government to protect for us equally, may believe some people shouldn't "vote" or "hold office" in our government.
some clearly impaired people with severely limited capacities for mature thinking...… maybe even children up to some arbitrary age..... we presently do not allow to vote. Felons.... people who commit crimes we label "felony".... we do not allow to vote. I think some of these reasons are really questionable. But here we are, debating and deciding who can vote, who has rights, who does not have rights.
It could be a liberal nightmare. We could be rolling out vans to collect the votes of dogs, family members, of folks before we're done with this.
Common sense figures in, thankfully, and most of us accept the humanity of others, even Mormons and Marxists..... even Moslems and atheists...… and so, here we are.
But it is still a fair question whether we can maintain a government that will protect human rights when ideologies and religions rise to replace that government and enforce any regime requiring significant coherence or compliance.
The problem has been proven. Over and over again. One vote margins have determined many electoral outcomes. Even ties have happened, with a coin toss to resolve the impasse.
There is already a significant amount of government procedure cooked up expressly for the purpose of presenting a credible claim to fair elections, and every election still gets shanghaied somehow. One person, here and there, gets their vote disqualified for some technicality, a few people try to vote twice. Some, maybe not a few, interested folks can do what they want without getting caught, or prosecuted. A sort of buddy system in some corner of town.
But progressives, democrats in significant numbers, harbor the will and the intent to lay their thumbs on the voting by hook and by crook, while protesting very loudly that their opponents are doing everything they have ever tried to do.
Or vice versa??? I think there's quite a catalog of suspect elections, really.
It simply is not statistically possible that Californians can brag about a 75% voter turnout, with 67% of the votes for democrats, when 33% of the registered voters have not appeared to vote for six elections. Rural California votes Republican, and a few urban concentrations of democrats are voting, supposedly, 90% for democrats.
I'll take the "statistical argument" hands down.
Even heavily mesmerized, homogenized Mormons can hardly get out a 75% Republican vote. Do you really believe an urban area will be honestly voting 90% one way? People are more like cats. Politicians trying to get everyone to vote the same are like people trying to herd cats. We are innately rebellious. Sure some of us will just vote the way "everyone else does", but not 75% let alone 90%
You are arguing that not enough ballots are mishandled or miscounted to make a difference in the outcome. Nobody can prove that as a fact, nobody is really even looking..... in a lot of precincts.
Last edited:
Red
Well-Known Member
You must be thinking of a homicidal maniac. Staring at the mirror again?
Well, that certainly would not be me. And you're not suggesting I gloat about the "overthrow of our country". Of course you're not.
Agreed, and again, you're not talking about me.
So your solution to dissent in America today is to drug people up so they'll be compliant with the wishes of your fascist overlords. Interesting.
No I wasn't. I made a joke about somebody needing to have their balls verified. Lighten up.
@Red:
Really, line by line, you're nuts in the above post.
I guess it's the pack you run with. You all believe you are sentient, and capable of valid judgments of those who don't agree with you. You're just not. None of you are, from Jason and Colton through Kicky all the way down to Zombie and Alfalfa.
OK, besides it's useless to chatter on, I'm not the man with the dream of Utopia or good government that will make humans all OK, or validated, or approved by authorities.
I'm the useless babbler who disturbs your pleasant delusions.
I know you don't believe you're a homicidal maniac, but plenty or general Statist enforcers and advocates have over the ages ruthlessly eliminated inconvenient babblers, and just being in general in today's "Progressive" crowd puts you shoulder to shoulder with some who would, and you don't care to see it.
I might have been referring in general to even Pelosi or Shiff, or Hillary. But Obama ordered thousands of drone strikes against enemy combatants he didn't care for, including two American citizens who were convicted of nothing. Reported to be working with the enemy was enough. I did not see you object to that. For the record, I do object to stuff like that.
The whole reason people start wars or say won't finish them, is because it gives them cover for killing humans. Ongoing, endless wars. Not my thing.
I could go on, line by line, but if you won't see this as valid, you won't see anything else I have to say as valid either.
Participatory democracies, even Constitutional Republics like ours, have always been too picky about who gets to participate, and maybe for understandable reasons. Preserving the privilege to themselves, or preventing the destruction of the entire idea. One or the other, a lot of both..... always pretty much too dicey for humans to do justice with.
You love this country, as you wish it, as you understand it, to some degree, and no doubt you don't want to just go start over somewhere else, but your ideas are not well conformed to many other people's. I get it, you think you have great friends who know stuff, you like the stuff you think you know, you probably believe as much as most ordinary citizens that your views are particularly valid, and you really just can't let other people alone to believe as they wish, any more, I guess, than I have been able to do.....
Peace.
Really, line by line, you're nuts in the above post.
I guess it's the pack you run with. You all believe you are sentient, and capable of valid judgments of those who don't agree with you. You're just not. None of you are, from Jason and Colton through Kicky all the way down to Zombie and Alfalfa.
OK, besides it's useless to chatter on, I'm not the man with the dream of Utopia or good government that will make humans all OK, or validated, or approved by authorities.
I'm the useless babbler who disturbs your pleasant delusions.
I know you don't believe you're a homicidal maniac, but plenty or general Statist enforcers and advocates have over the ages ruthlessly eliminated inconvenient babblers, and just being in general in today's "Progressive" crowd puts you shoulder to shoulder with some who would, and you don't care to see it.
I might have been referring in general to even Pelosi or Shiff, or Hillary. But Obama ordered thousands of drone strikes against enemy combatants he didn't care for, including two American citizens who were convicted of nothing. Reported to be working with the enemy was enough. I did not see you object to that. For the record, I do object to stuff like that.
The whole reason people start wars or say won't finish them, is because it gives them cover for killing humans. Ongoing, endless wars. Not my thing.
I could go on, line by line, but if you won't see this as valid, you won't see anything else I have to say as valid either.
Participatory democracies, even Constitutional Republics like ours, have always been too picky about who gets to participate, and maybe for understandable reasons. Preserving the privilege to themselves, or preventing the destruction of the entire idea. One or the other, a lot of both..... always pretty much too dicey for humans to do justice with.
You love this country, as you wish it, as you understand it, to some degree, and no doubt you don't want to just go start over somewhere else, but your ideas are not well conformed to many other people's. I get it, you think you have great friends who know stuff, you like the stuff you think you know, you probably believe as much as most ordinary citizens that your views are particularly valid, and you really just can't let other people alone to believe as they wish, any more, I guess, than I have been able to do.....
Peace.
False. Read the thread again. Special interest groups are spending their dollars trying to prove a white whale exists. The fallacy in that is ofcourse there's white whales. They're statistically insignificant, but they exist. They're never not going to exist, even if we appropriate half the military spending preventing them.
The only thing you're going to achieve adding rfid chips, armed guards, and double ocular scans is a bloated system you'd bitch about two years after implementing.
And then blame Democrats for.
you really need to just move to China and/or Russia, maybe Venezuela. There's no election fraud there, either.
@babe
The difference is, you can prove statically significant election fraud there. You can't prove it here. Millions of dollars from *******s that are absolutely sure it's all around us in every election. They can prove it's possible, but can't prove it's significantly happening.
But I tell you what, write your representatives and tell them to take the money out of the defense budget. I'll consider voting for it, if it's done responsibly.