gearhog
-
Posts
1,553 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
45
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Everything posted by gearhog
-
Again, does election fraud exist in any form? It's a yes or no. I'm not asking you how much, only if it does. I posted links to the the New York Times from 2019. You seem to be saying the age of an article is a discredit in itself. It's not. Updated controverting information is. You have none. Believe me, I fully understand why you have a problem with precise language. If you believed precision was important, you wouldn't have much to say.
-
Prozac, are you no longer beating your wife? Invalid question. Why would I frame a question like that unless I was trying to be deceptive? You're asking which article supports the narrative that Hugo Chavez had a hand in the 2020 election. No one said Hugo Chavez had a hand in the 2020 election. I know it's easier to attack your own mischaracterization of what was said than attacking what was actually said. But it's also obvious, and dishonest. However, I'm not sure if you're intentionally creating a false statement that a narrative exists in which people believe Hugo Chavez interfered in the election, or if you're lazily summarizing what you think was said. I've provided links to mainstream media sources in 2019 that said electronic voting fraud is possible and probable. If you ignored them earlier, would it change anything if I posted the same ones again, or more of them? What were my claims? I have claimed that fraud exists. I've made no indication as to the extent, because I simply do not know. However, I believe it entirely possible, even probable that it could exist in ways that could have changed some of the results. You seem to be saying election fraud simply does not exist. Am I misunderstanding? As for the about "70%" of Republicans rooting for the "shit throwing orangutan", your derangement is showing. How is it you expect a civil conversation with regard to election security when you can so easily devolve into profane insults and emotional hysterics? Again, invalid question. You don't expect a civil conversation.
-
Let me make it easy for you. Each and every claim in that article is numbered. Each numbered paragraph has a link to the source of the information, many of them being from .gov websites, CNN, The Guardian, etc. If I were to ask you to find a single false truth in the article, the probability that you'd switch the subject, "butwhatabout...", or stick to the "Nuh-Uh!" tactic is extremely high. Here's how I know that you, also, are not interested in finding the truth: You don't have any disputes about the contents of the article, which is merely a compilation of other sources you'd otherwise call solid.
-
"We asked the companies if there were any incriminating relationships and they said 'No'." LOL.
-
From your link: "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised." Yet you are saying there were inconsistencies. Which is it? None or Some? Now this is the frustrating thing: You go on to claim that I've quoted the above sources you listed. I didn't. Now you'll go back and check, and maybe post something like "My Bad." Once Again. How many times are you going to falsely attribute things to me just to score a debate point? For someone who seems so concerned about fact finding and truth, you sure seem to fire from the hip anything that suits your narrative, valid or not. Why is it you didn't correctly attribute the sources which I actually did link to: New York Times, CBS, CNN? You're being disingenuous. Are you dismissing the contents of those articles as well?
-
False claim. You didn't inform me as to what the reality is in this case, and should you want to, you would only able to relay what your perception of it is.
-
Just watched the press conference. What exactly are you disputing? That Smartmatic has connections to US voting machines? https://medium.com/@jennycohn1/updated-attachment-states-have-bought-voting-machines-from-vendors-controlled-and-funded-by-nation-6597e4dd3e70 Or that Smartmatic was originally developed in Venezuela for the purpose of rigging elections?
-
What is your personal statute of limitations for the relevance/recency of evidence? Perhaps I can find some within it. New York Times, again. Think they replaced all the voting machines in the last year? It's up to you to prove that they did. The burden of proof lies with the claimant. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/us/politics/pennsylvania-voting-machines.html
-
Yes. That's what I am saying. Would you like to dispute it with something other than "Surely not!"? NOVEMBER 3rd, 2019:
-
Not a very good analogy, brother. The chutes are manufactured and packed by a foreign third party contractor off base. Your own inspectors found flaws. CBS: CNN: The New York Times:
-
What’s the greater threat to our freedoms and democracy: believing our election process isn’t flawed or believing that it is flawed?
-
Looks like I posted the link to the page right after you. We’ll see what the results are. Why is the most straightforward explanation, in existence, of what’s currently happening coming from this guy?
-
Not only is his sarcasm glaringly obvious, he ended his statement with "/s".
-
Can you quote where I mentioned anything about crime and violence? You're fabricating a position, attributing it to me, and creating an argument against it just so you can feel like you won a debate. Retarded.
-
No, I am saying in this particular instance, political bias is clearly evident in the authors' attempt to make the case that a vote means more if its near higher economic activity. "Democrats represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports." "By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement. Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country, but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base." What locations have problems with housing affordability, homelessness, infrastructure, and racial justice? The same ones the authors are praising for voting blue. What bullshit.
-
Counties do not account for economic activity, people and businesses do. The GDP contribution of a business headquartered in Cook Co, IL has little to do with the unassociated millions of voters who live there. It seems they're trying to make the case that because a big business happens to be located in the same geographic area, the opinions of those who live near it matter more. Check the Twitter feeds of the authors of the article. They're all politically biased.
-
But you don't need to be hypocritical. You already have the correct answer, why would you also argue the case for a policy-maker with the incorrect answer? If white males are over-represented because the selection criteria was biased for race/gender, creating more biases based on race/gender that originally created the problem clearly doesn't make sense. The health of a military service is measured in performance, not identity. As the post above said, set a standard, create a selection process that removes the potential for decisions to be made with a conscious or subconscious bias with regard to race/gender, and I too believe minorities will fair far better, and do so more legitimately, that they do today or will after more diversity quotas.
-
Shameful. Go watch the movie again.
-
Say you have a room of 100 pilot candidates that exactly represents the demographics of the USA. They all have different resumes and the resumes don't specify race or gender. What would your selection process be if you needed to choose 20 of them to fly aircraft in combat?
-
You didn't specify your gender. Why?
-
I was thinking this morning Trump's like the Herc of politicians. Loud, lots of weird noises, not the most handsome on the ramp, requires lots of maintenance, probably smells bad... many people would say it's just generally offensive to most of the senses. But the capabilities! Anyone who bothers to look beyond the surface knows it does damn near anything you need it to do to protect the country. Prang it into the ground and it bounces back and keeps flying. Can take a bullet. Performs as well as anything else in the midst of chaos. It's why we keep it around. 😆
-
Crenshaw!
-
Screenshot your electoral predictions. https://www.270towin.com/maps/r9v80 Trump wins.
-
Maj Gen Ed Thomas: Too many white guys are pilots. https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/86-of-air-force-pilots-are-white-men-heres-why-this-needs-to-change-155046366.html?guccounter=1&__twitter_impression=true
-
You said a black man in THAT video would have been shot much earlier than THIS white guy. The system did not shoot the white guy, a cop did. To say that cop, whom you know nothing of, would have shot a black man sooner means means that cop decides when to pull the trigger based on race. If you doubt that cop is racist, why do you believe he would have pulled the trigger sooner? How can you possibly stand by this argument?
