Trump vs. Biden

[Jaguar]

.

THE EARTH IS FLAT I SWEAR !!!!!!!!!

 

[Jaguar]

.

 

[Jonny]

Almost as if you guys think you have to be able to Google something to believe it, or find it credible.

As opposed to what, 4channing it? Is that a verb? Can one 4chan something like they might google it?

What do you suggest we do? Like basically everyone without firsthand knowledge, we must rely on what arguments others are making and what evidence they are presenting. And available evidence overwhelmingly points to a legitimate Biden win.

 

[Maou]

As opposed to what, 4channing it? Is that a verb? Can one 4chan something like they might google it?

What do you suggest we do? Like basically everyone without firsthand knowledge, we must rely on what arguments others are making and what evidence they are presenting. And available evidence overwhelmingly points to a legitimate Biden win.

I am saying over reliance on "official channels" increases your chances of being manipulated. This is problematic, when you are only presented with one-sided information about everything, because it will make you think in black and white. It will make you immediately fall into cognitive dissonance the moment a new idea is presented. If the official channels were legit, you't naturally have multiple angles and ideas about multiple things. But no, today's society is very black and white, one sided, and very polarized.

I get my information from both official channels, andunofficial channels to get a better read on the situation from more than two perspectives. Mostly because I distrust the government in providing all the information, and I distrust humans as a whole due to their inherent nature of tribalism and being afraid of doing the right thing when they are alone. I don't understand why other people don't distrust government more, when its been proven time and time again that they only talk nice, but are loyal to their donors more than the public. I don't get why people trust the media either, they do not have the moral authority to tell people what is right and wrong. They are suppose to just state the facts, not manipulate and tilt them to favor one side. Journalism isn't suppose to have over 90% bias towards one side. That isn't the truth, its activism and propaganda. They are literally no different than the press under Hitler.

 

[Jaguar]

.

 

[Nicodemus]

I think the election was rigged based on some very simple data analysis, the fact observers were removed from the count, impossible turnout rates, somehow exceeding 200-300%. Or the lack of downballots on Biden votes in insanely large numbers. Or how about when republican observers were told to go home while the count continued in secret? There are 1000s of affidavits on this, and many other things. If it was just something small, it would just be a conspiracy. But 1000s with threat of perjury? Then you have the Dominion official whistleblowing. Then you have Pennsylvanian ignoring court orders etc. Something is up, and notice how it all happened after people went to bed. If you were honest, you'd also conclude something was off.

Trump has the legal right to pursue recounts, but when they need to happen in democratic strongholds in charge of the courts who wont rule fairly. Hes likely to be rejected, even with overwhelming evidence. Also, Trump vs the deepest corruption in our country, isn't likely to end in his favor. I wouldn't be surprised of a few people "Died of Covid" suddenly in the next two weeks. Trump just sent the calling card to the plutocrats/deepstate.

Also, do you support transparency in elections, and increasing election integrity? Do you not find it weird that its being opposed despite the Democrats spending 4 years saying Trump colluded with Russians to steal the election, but this one is somehow 100% legit?

Biden, got way less votes than Obama in deep blue states. But somehow, he outperformed Trump in swing states? That hes the most popular president in history? You can't be serious. A lot of Dems hated Biden, he hardly even campaigned. Republicans also dominated the other races too.

I'll try again: Do you think Trump lost the election?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Almost as if you guys think you have to be able to Google something to believe it, or find it credible.

Someone recently posted an interesting interview about how social media algorithms are reinforcing each person's separate worldview. I do agree with you that the news media and social media in the U.S. is unreliable. It is a challenge to find objective sources of information. This is the best solution that I have and am attempting to continually refine it. It does typically require that I google information, but I try to approach more like a library search engine.

1. Science articles that are peer reviewed from credible journals.
2. Historical documents, original sources being ideal.
3. Court documents and court records of verdicts.
4. Interviews and quotes where an individual is directly making statements you can witness in place of heresy about what someone has said.
5. News sources from various countries that have less political and financial stakes in the information, and to consider several different perspectives.

Basically, I try to focus on a combination of expertise and original sources. The more information has been restated by people without expertise and with political agendas, the more distorted it will become. While it is true that scientific research can change what is assumed, court rulings can be unfair, and history can be misrepresented even in source documents, still, this is as close to "fact" and "truth" as we have available as a human species. One additional help is increasing the sample size of these original and expert sources.

 

[Maou]

Someone recently posted an interesting interview about how social media algorithms are reinforcing each person's separate worldview. I do agree with you that the news media and social media in the U.S. is unreliable. It is a challenge to find objective sources of information. This is the best solution that I have and am attempting to continually refine it. It does typically require that I google information, but I try to approach more like a library search engine.

1. Science articles that are peer reviewed from credible journals.
2. Historical documents, original sources being ideal.
3. Court documents and court records of verdicts.
4. Interviews and quotes where an individual is directly making statements you can witness in place of heresy about what someone has said.
5. News sources from various countries that have less political and financial stakes in the information, and to consider several different perspectives.

Basically, I try to focus on a combination of expertise and original sources. The more information has been restated by people without expertise and with political agendas, the more distorted it will become. While it is true that scientific research can change what is assumed, court rulings can be unfair, and history can be misrepresented even in source documents, still, this is as close to "fact" and "truth" as we have available as a human species. One additional help is increasing the sample size of these original and expert sources.

I find older sources of information to be far less tainted with political activism. My biggest issue with Google, is they actively censor or bury opposite views points that they, as a company do not like, or not allow it to be searched. Which makes actual libraries or having a book list essential. I've had multiple incidences in the last four years where I read an article or found excerpts from old books that disappeared off Google somehow. So when I read something, and want to use that text in a conversation. I am unable to find it again. I need to learn to take notes.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll try again: Do you think Trump lost the election?

No

 

[Z Buck McFate]

No I am not. The whole thing disturbs me.

I saw this tweet awhile ago, and can't stop thinking about it (and wondering how well this effectively characterizes what's happening).

But then something like this happens:

...and I find myself fully mystified all over again.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Jaguar]

.

 

[highlander]

I find older sources of information to be far less tainted with political activism. My biggest issue with Google, is they actively censor or bury opposite views points that they, as a company do not like, or not allow it to be searched. Which makes actual libraries or having a book list essential. I've had multiple incidences in the last four years where I read an article or found excerpts from old books that disappeared off Google somehow. So when I read something, and want to use that text in a conversation. I am unable to find it again. I need to learn to take notes. - - - Updated - - - No

If you don't see the con, you're the mark.

 

[Stigmata]

If you don't see the con, you're the mark.

Not only that, he seems to be openly grifting his own voters by his taking donations to fund his campaign's legal fight to overturn the election. An alleged billionaire needs to take donations to aid in his legal fight -- say it aloud until it starts to sound suspicious to you as well. Keep in mind this is the same guy that had to pay a $25,000,000 settlement for running a fake university and luring in poor unsuspecting people who trusted what they believed to be a brand name to help them learn how to be successful in the real estate business. But he wouldn't do that again....totally implausible. Definitely trust this guy with my money.

 

[Jaguar]

Federal judge dismisses Trump election lawsuit in Pennsylvania

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Saturday dismissed a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump's campaign in Pennsylvania, saying it contained "strained legal argument without merit."

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann turned down the request for an injunction, dealing another blow to Trump's hopes of invalidating the election's results. In his 37-page ruling, Brann said the Trump campaign asked him to “disenfranchise almost seven million voters” and said he could not find any case in which a plaintiff “has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election.”

With such a request, the judge said, one might expect compelling legal argument “and factual proof of rampant corruption.” Instead, Brann added, “this court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations.”

 

[Maou]

Cable: 06CARACAS2063_a

Wikileaks article linking Smartmatic to Sequoia (Dominion) and election fraud, and used by Chavez.

Tldr

>Dominion and Smartmatic share subsidiaries with each other despite claiming that they have zero business relation. CNN, MSNBC, Atlantic, ETC, have all repeated this claim of zero-relation, despite that fact that it is provably false.

>Smartmatic loves to intentionally hide who their real owners are, and launders money through a series of undetectable channels. This is NOT how an honest company operates. Ever.

>Smartmatic / Dominion is just as, if not more shady, than what Powell is accusing them as. US intelligence officers have been aware of this problem for decades, but still let a related company ( Dominion ) handle the US 2020 election.

>Everything Powell has stated about Chavez is true, and if you read other documents on wikileaks classified by the same source ( Robert Downes, Political Counselor ) this just further confirms everything.

Injuncted Princeton voting machine report: Insecurities and Inaccuracies of the Sequoia AVC Advantage 9.00H DRE Voting Machine, 17 Oct 2008 - WikiLeaks

 

[Nicodemus]

No

Do you think Trump won the election?

 

[highlander]

Federal judge dismisses Trump election lawsuit in Pennsylvania

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Saturday dismissed a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump's campaign in Pennsylvania, saying it contained "strained legal argument without merit."

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann turned down the request for an injunction, dealing another blow to Trump's hopes of invalidating the election's results. In his 37-page ruling, Brann said the Trump campaign asked him to “disenfranchise almost seven million voters” and said he could not find any case in which a plaintiff “has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election.”

With such a request, the judge said, one might expect compelling legal argument “and factual proof of rampant corruption.” Instead, Brann added, “this court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations.”

There are some awesome quotes in that document.

 

[Maou]

Do you think Trump won the election?

 

[Red Memories]

omg please kill that spongebob meme it's dead as a doornail XD

 

[Nicodemus]

No, I know he lost the election.