who do you believe ?

[Carmady]

Straight from the horse's ___:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGRnhBmHYN0

And a little history on voting machines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpNZattlJv4

[Carmady]

Maria Bartiromo and Sidney Powell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54RiNzlzWUA

[Colorado Redneck]

Posted by Metal God

To be fair here , all real investigations are being blocked . You need to do a real investigation to find the problems you suspect as being wrong . If there was hard evidence they would not be asking to look deeper , they would be demanding a new election

Evidently, thus far there has been no presentation of evidence pointing to fraud. There have been a few incidents that are anecdotal, similar to your receiving two ballots. And in regards to voting more than once, the punishment is fairly draconian.

None of the issues you pointed out indicate any coordinated attempt at massive voter fraud. Opportunity does not indict.

This presidential election has me bamboozled. Why on earth is the party of law and order that proclaims self righteous patriotism playing along with the candidate that is tearing at the fabric of our democratic institution of elections?

[Metal god]

CR . That last part sounds interesting to me . It’s my understanding the candidate is availing him self of the very thing we all hold dear , The judicial system to work out disputes . I’m assuming your fabric tearing comment goes to what’s being said in the media and not the candidates right to challenge in court?

It’s Also my understanding that 80% of the cases that have been dismissed were procedural things that are either moot now or the courts are claiming they don’t have standing to avoid ruling on their merits . A few judges are saying that they need to start in state courts not at the federal level and in that case they have to wait for the certification . Then they will have standing but until certification the court seem to be claiming nobody has standing .

[Metal god]

Carmdy , that voting machine footage is one of the typesof things they presented in court . The problem with that is that its years old so the court can ingnore it . It’s my understanding many arguments being presented are from other election and are just trying to show what “could” happen or may have happened . I have to say I agree that is not evidance of wrong doing because it happened before . That doesn’t mean it happened hear .

[Colorado Redneck]

Metal God
Applying pressure on election officials and legislators in attempts to throw out election results, because Trump keeps saying he won by a lot is in itself a violation of ethics. The judges have been emphatic in their rulings. If Trump or his lawyers have proof of the assertion that he won by a lot, they sure aren't showing it in court.

Here's my conspiracy theory: Trump is likely in big trouble after his term is done. State courts have investigated him and his businesses and are lying in wait. I don't have proof, but he sure is hanging on like he's afraid for his well being. This makes more sense to me than his allegations of massive voter fraud.

[Metal god]

CR you are talking above my pay grade now . I’m sure there has to be some dialogue with these officials if you want to challenge their assertions . What is challenging and were challenging turns to intimidations I don’t know . I haven’t heard much about all of that in so much is hearing people say they felt that they have been intimidated . But hey nowadays saying 100% factual things can trigger people into having feelings of harassment . If you could I’d like a couple links through private message if you’d like the intimidation claims I’d like to read more about that because I admit I’m a little behind the curve on that one .

[44 AMP]

My Daughter joined the Air Force two weeks before 9/11/2001. She's been in Texas since 2002.

Every election the send us a ballot for her. After over a decade of me calling them and tell them that she doesn't live here, I finally decided to stop bothering. They still send the ballots for her, here. I destroy them.

I think the details of the election lawsuits are a bit off topic which was about media reporting and who you believe, not what was being reported in specific cases.

[Brit]

My Dad had a statement on the local newspaper. The only part of it that was undeniably true? Was on the front page. It was the price, inside a little circle.

[stinkeypete]

“Who do you believe?” vs. “Why do you believe” might be part of our problem.

“Who do you believe” leans us towards faith in an authority figure. In that case, we want an authority that has a sterling reputation with everyone, even internationally. We want someone with a reputation for thorough, balanced and accurate reporting, a sterling track record of being correct and an equally sterling reputation of admitting and correcting errors when errors are found.

“Why do we believe” makes us form a balanced judgement and examine our own personal biases as to what we want to believe without evidence.

I could say that I believe Jeff Quinn (rip), Paul Harrel, and Randy Wakeman but I add “because they show the results of their testing as well as interpret it and I hope they don’t fudge their data because I think it’s in their best interests to be truthful.”

Jeff’s reviews expressed a moderate opinion and showed results from is Ransom Rest- accuracy testing removing as much of the human factor as possible.

Paul shoots at his “meat target” simulation of leather over beef rib meat over oranges to simulate lungs. The results are qualitative rather than quantitative, but qualitative analysis is an accepted scientific method IF done correctly. I took a grad school class on qualitative analysis from a big university, so... look at Paul’s analysis of “which is a better deer rifle- .44 magnum or 30-30.” He shows both targets with extensive and comparable damage. He shoots both and shows they are light carbines both with acceptable hunting accuracy and uses commonly available ammunition (not boutique stuff). He notes that both choices are very popular hunting choices. His conclusion: both are very good. 30-30 a little better over 100 yards, 44 Magnum a little better under 100 yards and he shows the math to compare energies and explains why raw numbers are not the whole story. It’s a complete analysis. No radical claims are made without extraordinary amounts of evidence.

Why do I believe Paul Harrell? He shows his evidence. He does the math and explains it. He tells his experiences and he does not have a clear dog in the fight. Not because he’s watcha call an expert.

[44 AMP]

The last "news" guy I respected and believed was Paul Harvey. And, he's long gone now....

[Metal god]

The last "news" guy I respected and believed

That's the key word right there . It's hard to have respect for someone when you can't trust what they are saying .

[USAFNoDak]

We certainly saw fake news when they blew up the GMC pickup claiming it's gas tank location was a problem for certain types of collisions, even though there hadn't been any real life explosions of a GMC pickup resulting from any collisions.

We certainly saw fake news when NBC showed Federal agents shooting basement cinder blocks with full auto M-16's while we were immersed in the debate about whether semiautomatic "assault weapons" such as the AR-15 should be banned. That one caught my father-in-law, who was a retired police officer. He said, "I don't have a problem with semi automatics, but no one needs a machine gun". I asked him why he thought the proposed "assault weapons" ban was regarding machine guns. He said he saw a news report where they were shooting basement cinder blocks. Aha! Fake news had done its job until I informed him otherwise.

[44 AMP]

"I don't have a problem with semi automatics, but no one needs a machine gun"

I've known a lot of people with that point of view.

I try to point out to them that someone else deciding what people "need" is not, and never was a valid reason to ban anything.

One of my examples (which doesn't always work, but does get them thinking) is the minimum wage.

The govt sets a minimum wage. What employers must pay you, because that is the amount of money the govt says you need, to live on.

Therefore, every penny you make, over and above minimum wage should be taken by the govt (banned) since you don't NEED IT!!

Somehow, no one ever seems to agree with that....

[Armybrat]

National Review is about the only source I find credible.... for the most part.

[USAFNoDak]

I try to point out to them that someone else deciding what people "need" is not, and never was a valid reason to ban anything.

That is a good point. It's also not the Bill of Needs, it's the Bill of Rights. Rights are not dependent upon what the government or any other group thinks that we "need", as you pointed out in your minimum wage example.

Does anyone really "need" to read books now-a-days, since we have computers and the internet? Should the government be able to ban books because we don't "need" to have books?

[Metal god]

Minimum wage is not and has never been about a living wage , looks like even you have drank the Dems koolaid 44 haha .

It was to protect the employee from slave wages . In times of great dispare and unemployment people will work for anything to get food on the table and there are plenty of people/companies willing to pay as little as possible if you let them . Minimum wage was designed to prevent that . It’s another reason why undocumented aliens do all the grunt work . You can pay them under the table below minimum wage and they have no recourse but to except whatever you’re willing to pay . Yes they can turn you in but you can turn them in as well .

I worked on landscaping 30 years ago and the company paid the illegal immigrants $20 a day plus lunch and they worked their butts off for that . I think minimum wage back then was somewhere close to $4 and I was making bank @ $6.50hr lol And like now you couldn’t get Americans to dig trenches or holes for 36 inch box trees for four bucks an hour just like you can’t get them to do it for 15 bucks an hour now . As much as things change they stay the same .

Somewhere in the last 10 years or so the minimum wage argument has been redefined as a living wage which it was never intended to do or promote. It another definition change we see oh so often in politics.

I don’t have a problem having a living wage argument just don’t hide it behind the the minimum wage regulations.

[44 AMP]

I don’t have a problem having a living wage argument just don’t hide it behind the the minimum wage regulations.

No, I haven't drunk their Kool-Aid, and I do understand the reality of a "living wage". I am, in fact living on a pension that actually pays me a few dollars a month less than my state's current minimum wage. I manage, barely, but I manage and not having to work 40hrs a week 4 weeks a month to get it, helps.

I deliberately chose the "minimum wage" as an EXAMPLE that most people, well beyond min wage law level, would recognize, and as something they would not like to have to go back to.

I never said it was a "living wage" I used it because it is a set Govt standard one that people would recognize and understand the logic of the argument.

I said that since the govt sets a standard, then that is what they think you "need". The whole point is about having someone, other than you, making binding legal decisions about what you or I "need", and how that is NOT a good thing. Having the Govt take away (ban) you from owning anything (including money) that they feel you or I do not "need" is bad.

Demanding the Govt DO just that, is worse. So when someone says "nobody needs a "xxx" and they should be banned, remember, you don't NEED all the money you make, so lets take that away, too!

After all, you could use that "unneeded" money for criminal acts, or to fund a political party, or ...or...or...anything else not "needed".

Using money and the minimum wage as an example (and yes, realizing reality is different) is something everyone can relate to, even non-gun owners, who have a hard time connecting gun rights with their personal lives.

[Metal god]

I understand your point , I just think its a bad one haha . Because the minimum wage is not what the government thinks you need . It’s the minimum they think an employer should pay . For your argument to work it would need to be a maximum wage . “That” would indicate they think it’s all you “need”

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Metal God

I understand your point , I just think its a bad one haha . Because the minimum wage is not what the government thinks you need . It’s the minimum they think an employer should pay . For your argument to work it would need to be a maximum wage . “That” would indicate they think it’s all you “need”

At an intuitive level, I don't understand how outlawing low wage employment helps people whose work is has a low market value. Making marginally productive people unemployable doesn't help them, but does set them up to become state dependents.

If one admits that the government should have the power to prohibit what you earn (either very low or very high), which firearms you can possess without due process, what you can say or hear and when you can say it or hear it, that grants government an enormous power to manipulate people and is hardly consistent with the idea of a limited government the powers of which are enumerated.

Originally Posted by 44AMP

Therefore, every penny you make, over and above minimum wage should be taken by the govt (banned) since you don't NEED IT!!

Somehow, no one ever seems to agree with that....

One of the grotesque powers the IRS has involves deeming your compensation for a position excessive and taxing the excess as a gift.

There is a cultural shift away from "I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it" and more toward "Speech doesn't include [a poorly defined] hate speech".

Part of that cultural shift makes news consumption more difficult in that a news outlet may not feel obliged to give a fair shake to ideas it regards unfavorably.

[Metal god]

I can’t say it any plainer then minimum wage is not about the individual . Its about the company . Companies are regulated all the time and some regulations are good . We had a lot more planes falling out of the sky before regulations force them to conduct more rigorous maintenance procedures . Now it’s relatively unheard of in the United States .

That was my joking point about drinking the Kool-Aid . Minimum wage has been Referred to as a living wage now for so long people forget what it’s actually about . It’s The same difference when it comes gun control , We have Conceded the linguistic Highground for so long that the general public believes everything the anti’s say because they just re-define what words mean in the middle of arguments and we say OK .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Because the minimum wage is not what the government thinks you need . It’s the minimum they think an employer should pay .

Originally Posted by Metal god

I can’t say it any plainer then minimum wage is not about the individual . Its about the company .

Regardless of whether the minimum wage is about the individual or about the company, if the minimum wage isn't supposed to be a livable wage (for the individual), why does the government impose that requirement on companies? I'd like to understand why you think this is the case.

[Metal god]

I already did in a earlier post , the same reason china has their slave labor . Because when people are desperate they’ll work for anything and companies will take advantage of that . I talked in pretty good detail about that above to include my experiences 30 years ago and seeing companies paying people that were desperate less than minimum wage under the table . It’s been going on since the beginning of time .

[44 AMP]

yes, hungry people will do anything to "fill the rice bowl".

That's irrelevant.

you're focusing on a tree and its bark when we're talking about the forest...

The point is, its not what the standard is, its that someone other than you sets the standard you have to live to, and the idea that anything other than that standard is something that someone else (the govt in this case) controls, and if they so desire, forbids to you and I.

The entire "nobody needs ...(what ever it is) and therefore the Govt should not allow us to have it (ban it) is just BARKING WRONG, in my opinion.

But, it not only seems to be the way the world is working today, its something a lot of people are demanding....as long as its not their personal ox being gored....

Couple years back, there was a new "high powered energy drink" being sold here. Half a dozen high school kids, at a college Frat Party, OD'd on the drink and booze. Two died.

the Govt response was to ban the sale of that drink.

Ignoring the other factors that were involved entirely.....

I don't think that was the correct response...

[Metal god]

My point was clear and narrow in scope . Using minimum wage to back up your argument about the government saying you only need , is a bad one . I stated why clearly IMHO and don’t really have anything to add to that .