Easy Truth

A typo? The law to ¬not¬ speak against socialism - seems to better fit the context. Yes, was a typo. Thanks

But shouldn't we define media first? Is this forum media? Is TV and Newspapers media? Or does media include Facebook et. al.? With Covid, the downtown square has turned into a zoom meeting and attacks on free speech include attacks on the medium too. For instance does Facebook and Twitter have a bias toward individualism, or truth telling, simply because of their "being there"?

Personally Harrison Summed it up for me. My greatest fear is waking up to an objectively unjustified war zone. Both sides using violence are being immoral. I can live with it if Obama and Trump's legacy is figuring things out using peaceful means. It is unlikely that anyone in the forum disagrees with this type of attack on free speech. Currently the attack on free speech has been cultural not legal. In other words only private companies are interfering. When it becomes the law to speak against socialism, then I'd be as concerned as you.

Not so much as defend them a little Gee, not much of contradiction there. That's certainly how YOU are proposing it to be done. It's neither moral nor widespread. "Likewise"??? And now you're equating taking a handout from an agency that you already paid into vs. using physical violence to get your point across.

But the congress collective does deserve it, therefore a mob "should" deliver what they deserve ... said the anti-collectivist collectivist.

The question still is when does an idea become a threat? An intentional fraudulent "idea" from a trusted source forces a man to act against his own judgement. It's force but not physical.

Like the terrorist that kills abortion doctors in order to preserve life. What we had? We used to have a sense of safety and order around the center of our government. The expectation that no entity would attack it. The idea that we were not a Banana Republic. We brought that up to China when it happened in Hong Kong. What we had is gone because it was not preserved by people who "already did the thinking". Damaging what we have will preserve what we have. Duh! Now I'm expected to watch your video's because of such pristine intelligent credibility?

Right now the Republicans have shifted to be known as the part of the "worker". They also attack "the elites", just like the Democrats. The've positions themselves to be the party of change. Except, they're all into the status quo of cronyism. One set of industry supports Republicans, another supports Democrats. They both have socialist slogans. Trump wanted big infrastructure bills, depression era welfare payments to farmers, tariffs, and a general anti immigrant attitude (similar to Bernie). You're path out of socialism is nonexistent, inaccurate, basically fake. As far as the Libertarian Party (as opposed to Libertarianism) goes, it's such a hodge podge that one can't determine what they want. I saw a tea shirt saying "Don't tread of my medicare". I saw a speaker at a rally say "Libertarians' don't' care if you marry a goat". (I suppose they were referring to a goat that can sign a legal contract"). There is also such a thing as a leftist Libertarian. Not very inspiring. My point is Democrats are not a good choice, but this idea that there is a clear better choices is also NOT the case.

The question seems meaningful because the answer is "Yes". But it's meaningless because: Do you think the Republicans are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES Do you think the Greens are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES Do you think the Socialists are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES Do you think the Evangelicals are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES Do you think the Libertarians are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES etc...

He also accepted that Biden is the legitimate president. That is the difference he has with you. He was not duped.

Fake news again Dude. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election

So more than 50 courts the United States are like the OJ court. If they were, I would have stormed the Capitol too. There is no Justice in the United States. We can't count on anything. I can get murdered at any time and the guy will get away with it. Careful with this thought process. If we continue on this trajectory, there will be no country left.

One cannot over turn an election by simply shouting "MASSIVE fraud" either. Show us links to the rulings and we can go through them. Can questioning be unlimited? One has to examine: What should stop that process. Why not question ALL previous presidential elections? Why not revisit Gore vs. Bush? I will argue that the questioning happened and ended properly in the courts. As I said before, if you are arguing that it did not work, you are arguing against the efficacy of judicial system (maybe fraud or corruption or a problem in the judicial system). That courts can't do it right or didn't do it right because of some corruption. Then we'll have to drill down and see who did what and why was it wrong and ultimately how should the courts do it? Ultimately the core question still to be answered is: When should we stop asking questions? In any election? Sometimes but we're talking very low probability. In other words what would be the motivation of a Republican Governor in going against his own party's nominee? In this case 2 governors doing that. Party affiliations is in fact the most effective way to get support, financial and otherwise. I'm assuming that's what you're arguing against. You would also have to get around the things that Trump did to lose support in those two states. In Arizona: Made fun of Mccain, in theory if Trump had not done that, with only 10 thousand votes, we would have won. You don't think it is likely that 10 thousand people out of 15 million were upset about how Mccain was treated? In addition to that the two senate seats have gone Democrat. Wouldn't that indicate a shift to the left in general, in other words is that overall shift fraudulent too? In Georgia: Republicans almost seemed to win the first time around. The runoff was won with around 10 thousand votes too. Someone else will have to talk about the internals of Georgia but I saw Trump confusing people about the 2000 dollar checks, and I saw Trumps former lawyer telling people not to vote at all. Bottom line, it takes very little to move 10 thousand votes one way or the other. Trump simply screwed it up.

That would mean you are right, there was massive fraud. Massive fraud implying a coordinated, directed effort to commit fraud (steal the vote). The case would have to make that there was "enough" defrauding to change the election. Not the amount that happens typically in all elections. If you can get around the issue that Arizona and Georgia with Republican governors ALSO were part of the fraud, then you would have a credible case. Otherwise, Arizona and Georgia win the presidency for Biden. In other words, if the assumed fraud in Pa was "similar" in Michigan etc. , it still would not change anything. One would have to make the case that this fraud was done in 50 different independent systems. This fraud should have also been effective in most of the red states. The case would have to be made that there was a "goal" directed by a source to give the presidency to Biden but to take away the congress from Biden. Like someone like Yaron Brook was behind it. The problem is that a democrat would not do that, why cause a presidency that would be debilitated by the Senate? So that would have to be explained. Ultimately the case has to be made that a party other than Republican or Democratic committed the fraud. Massive is meant in the context of what Bill Bar said (paraphrasing) "Not enough to change the over all result".

It would be massive fraud in Pa and in that case Pa should go to Trump. But ... Biden would still be president because he would still have the electoral votes to make him president. Pa does not matter. If you think it does or did, you were duped.

I've made the case that No massive fraud, especially in the legal sense occurred. She was duped. She simply was on the losing side of an election. There was no need for her to risk her life and to die.

Based on your request, you are not arguing fraud anymore. You simply want a procedural change. This is a major shift. Not an allegation of fraud If so, the question is why was this not fought in court before the election? The possibility of advantage was known. Why is it called fraud when everyone knew about it? That is the fraud that has been perpetrated. "Calling it fraud" That is what got that woman killed The truth is, it was incompetence, mistakes, lack of coordination which causes a loss BUT ... even without using your requested procedures, Republicans won seats. It would be an accident if only one did, but more did.

Would you agree that you want a change in the "rules of evidence" that courts use in the United States? If so, what is that change? How should courts deal with "non credible" evidence? How should they deal with "lack of standing"? Should next time when Democrats object, a special privilege be given to them in an election? Should Texas have a right to interfere with internal issues within Pennsylvania? "When someone says, I never saw it happen, but it must have happened" should we investigate it?

Out of all the battleground states, if you can convince me that Arizona and Georgia, who have Republican governors at the helm, had massive coordinated fraud to prevent Trump from winning, you will convince me. (They are used because their Governors would have every reason to push the results in Trump's favor) Keep in mind, these two states (Arizona and Georgia) alone (ignoring ALL other battle ground states, as in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin etc.) gave Biden the Presidency (above 270 electoral votes). Pennsylvania for instance is a moot point if Arizona and Georgia went to Biden. In other words, Biden would still be president if Pennsylvania went to Trump. It's unfortunate because the woman who died probably did not take this into consideration.

That is a valid concern. The basic push back on it is that fact that Trump or the Republican party had opportunity to address those issues, in court, far before the election. That was their responsibility. In fact, the California republican party did do that successfully and the gained republican seats in communist California. So ultimately, there may perhaps be unfair advantage due to mail in ballots for Democrats, but there was no (massive coordinated) LEGAL fraud. Whatever happened for the most part has been legal. Now moving forward, a discussion about mail in ballots and "who should vote" is fine. Trying to address it legally is the proper way to go rather than promoting the idea that the ENTIRE legal system is corrupt. I either don't understand your argument or it seems like you are shooting your self in the foot. If there were anomalies like that, a massive coordinated "steal the vote" did not take place. A coordination steal the vote should have stolen both the presidency and congress.

You forgot C. Relieved Trump lost and not looking forward to Biden

Too much word salad there. Just sum it up. He was incompetent.

It is easier because there is more than ample evidence. There is no attempt on his part to even hide it.

And maybe Stalin believed in laissez fair capitalism. He saw the folly in respecting individual rights so he just acted like communist. We can both play at arbitrary statements.

You're either lying or you somehow believe Trump's lie. If he believed there was fraud, he would have spent some of that money he raised on making his cases stick. Instead, he kept the money. Trump appointed Judges threw out these cases. That's the smoking gun that you lie about. No error here.