The Next President is...

[drewpey]

2 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

Your “delay” is just that...one that leads to them also developing weapons. Our position is non proliferation, make the consequences dire not soft and laughable. 

A lot can happen in a decade delay.  Just because it's controlled by a extremely conservative religious group and they want to impose their ideals on others doesn't mean there isn't a younger more forward thinking generation of more liberal minded individuals who will want to go a different direction.  Wait...are we talking Iran still?

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

Li'l Kim's situation is looking good because we smashed the last regime to GIVE UP its WMD program...Libya.

Kinda ironic that you think the guy pulling troops out of the Middle East is the warhawk.  Seems to me actions like killing Iran's top terrorist demonstrate reasons why Iran should NOT poke the bear, while giving them pallets of cash encourage them to rattle the saber any time the treasury looks empty...kind of like North Korea.

Viper is the warhawk, not Trump.  I don't think Trump cares about war unless it makes him look good, gets him rich or reelected. He knows enough to know it does none of those things.  I honestly don't think he even cared about the details of the Iran deal, but he was told to destroy it, and it had Obama's name on it so he broke it with the empty promise of something far greater like he did with literally everything he touched.  Honestly Iran could have nukes right now if they had appealed to Trump's ego 4 years ago like lil Kim did, but the whole saving face thing gets in the way.

I don't disagree with your Libya comments, but in the end I don't think it would have stopped things, it only sped them up.

[Lord Ratner]

21 hours ago, FLEA said:

Hobbes argued in complete monarchy based on the idea that people needed some form of control since they were fundamentally evil. His advocacy for monarchy should not detract from his arguments that people are fundamentally evil. You either believe in altruism, or you don't. I've seen very little evidence for altruism in the world though. Democracy is not perfect, its simply the best system we have. 

If people were fundamentally evil, society would trend downward. It hasn't.

 

There are evil people. There are more good people. Over time the good have beaten the evil. 

 

Our system protects the good from the evil to allow the good to flourish and continue doing good. If you've seen little evidence of altruism, you've been limiting your view to a TV screen. Look around, it's literally everywhere.

[AirGuardianC141747]

Nuclear umbrella good stuff, but with hyper velocity at the forefront of research/implementation with nothing to catch it or see it in time for anything we must just keep on keeping on. Plenty of “practice targets” around. Besides, Israel will take care of a few things behind the scenes while the Giants lurk around in the background. They always have.

[ViperMan]

11 hours ago, drewpey said:

So you get to pick between a deal that delays their program or what is likely certain war, and you choose warhawk.

Countries act in their own self interest, and if you threaten them with destruction, and turn the cheek to Israel doing the same shit and sabre rattling then you are only encouraging them to amp up their program.

This is essentially the policy we have set with Iran and NK in the past...and how has that turned out?  Lil Kim's situation is likely looking pretty nice to Iran right now.

Soooooo...war or war. Ok. We're not threatening them with destruction - we're giving them a choice between pursuing a policy that will result in them possessing something that will result in their upending, or not doing that thing and continuing with the status quo. Right now, they don't possess nuclear weapons, and we're NOT overthrowing them. So the idea that they have a legitimate right to pursue nukes in order for their own security is a non-starter.

NK doesn't give one F about the US - it's a performance. It's a show. We are their boogeyman so they have something to justify their poor existence. 0 reason they actually want to use nukes on us or SK.

Iran views Israel as illegitimate and has made statements to the effect that they should be destroyed. That, combined with a desire to use non-conventional means to implement their policy, puts them into a category altogether different from NK - it makes them an actual threat.

Like it or not, we are the world's police, and the world order is dependent on us - right or wrong, that gives us the responsibility to ensure suitcase nukes don't blow up in Jerusalem. If that pisses off some al-whoevers, IDGAF.

Edited November 30, 2020 by ViperMan

[drewpey]

2 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Soooooo...war or war. Ok. We're not threatening them with destruction - we're giving them a choice between pursuing a policy that will result in them possessing something that will result in their upending, or not doing that thing and continuing with the status quo. Right now, they don't possess nuclear weapons, and we're NOT overthrowing them. So the idea that they have a legitimate right to pursue nukes in order for their own security is a non-starter.

NK doesn't give one F about the US - it's a performance. It's a show. We are their boogeyman so they have something to justify their poor existence. 0 reason they actually want to use nukes on us or SK.

Iran views Israel as illegitimate and has made statements to the effect that they should be destroyed. That, combined with a desire to use non-conventional means to implement their policy, puts them into a category altogether different from NK - it makes them an actual threat.

Like it or not, we are the world's police, and the world order is dependent on us - right or wrong, that gives us the responsibility to ensure suitcase nukes don't blow up in Jerusalem. If that pisses off some al-whoevers, IDGAF.

Yeah NK never made statements that someone should be destroyed or that they would use their weapons preemptively...🙄

You can fantasize all you want about Iran suddenly denuclearizing from a threat, or an all out shooting war with a potential to go nuclear, but the reality is that they will do what they think is best for themselves, and if they continue to feel threatened, by the US, by Israel, by the West, whoever...they will take steps to ensure their safety.  They have seen NK nuclearize after years of empty threats and no repercussions, and as you eluded to before things didn't go well for Libya...so what is their rational choice?

While the JCPOA wasn't great, it at least hit the pause button and pushed the decision until later when hopefully cooler heads prevail or another solution presents itself.  Again I am/was open to Trump reworking the deal to be more advantageous, but he didn't.  Even if the JCPOA did nothing, the only outcome of destroying the deal is a symbolic gesture of hostility towards them to instigate them to nuclearize faster and remove any incentives.  It doesn't make sense and you guys are defending a ridiculous position, but don't let reality get in the way of your fantasies.

[brabus]

4 hours ago, drewpey said:

While the JCPOA wasn't great, it at least hit the pause button

Did it? Rhetorical...

4 hours ago, drewpey said:

the reality is that they will do what they think is best for themselves

Agreed. 

[gearhog]

16 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

If people were fundamentally evil, society would trend downward. It hasn't.

 

There are evil people. There are more good people. Over time the good have beaten the evil. 

 

Our system protects the good from the evil to allow the good to flourish and continue doing good. If you've seen little evidence of altruism, you've been limiting your view to a TV screen. Look around, it's literally everywhere.

This is going to sound like a lecture to some. It's not. Just trying to sort through what's happening.  I've got a rural farm and things are A-okay here. But things aren't for a lot of people and it's had me thinking about the subject above.

Totally agree people are not inherently evil. I also agree society hasn't trended downward...lately.

I don't know what the best definitions of good and evil are, but if we aren't talking about fictional heroes and villians, it's sort of hard to pin down. We're not talking about serial killers, rapists, terrorists, etc. Those typically don't last long. As for the rest of the world, one might say good and evil is a sliding scale. On one end, a person acts selflessly and at great sacrifice to themselves to improve the lives of others. In the middle, a person acts in self interest, but also wants the best for others, at the other end, acts to purely out of self interest at great detriment to those around them. Who are the people leading us and where do they fall on the scale?

Prosperity

Principles, morals, values and ethics seem to increase as people are lifted out of poverty and now have options for social behavior. As people treat one another better and have the freedom to honestly work toward their own increasing prosperity, good prevails. However, there are always people who seem to have a massive increase in prosperity without having treated those around them better. It seems that for some people who acquire massive amounts of prosperity, their principles, morals, values, and ethics diminish. If people feel they are moving toward poverty while a few are moving toward wealth and prosperity, perhaps that leads to decrease across the board of "good".

Economics

If prosperity is determined by economics, we can say we've enjoyed the most massive overall increase in wealth in human history over the last few decades. However, the global economy is teetering on the edge of a cliff and has been since 2008. Around 22% of US Dollars in existence have been created in the last 8 months. Around 30% of the US is facing mortgage default or eviction in the next few months. Small businesses are closing at the fastest pace ever while Big Tech has gone parabolic. Everything good and bad in the economy is driven by creation of debt, not creation of wealth. For policy makers, the decision is whether to let the whole thing implode spectacularly, or let it down gradually through devaluation. Either way, none of us regular folks will enjoy our current standard of living in 5 years.

Social Unrest

People are already pissed. A Google News search of "protests" today reveals massive protests around the world. France, UK, Germany, India, Iran, Poland, Belarus, etc. Social issues are at a boiling point. Combined with everything surrounding COVID and an impending personal, regional, national, and global financial crisis (decrease in prosperity), there are no improvements on the horizon. People will act out.

Who is evil?

Being in the airlines, It seems the world follows a similar natural progression: Aggregation and consolidation. In this case, of wealth and power. When an organization or individual achieves these things, what else could they want? More. Why? At some point, you get the idea you may have the resources to make the world a better place. Call me what you will, but the most successful people in the world have looked at the planet and believe the track we are on is an unsustainable path. We have a growing population and decreasing resources. Cultural and political differences are creating conflict. There are massive economic inequalities and suffering. If you have the technological and financial resources, would you attempt to address these problems? Would you stop this train in it's tracks and move it to track in another direction? How would you address it among a population that either doesn't care or doesn't have the same vision of a better world? What lengths would you go to achieve it? How would you bring the USA into the fold?

Good usually does prevail, but not always through peaceful means, and it is often accompanied by a fair amount of bad.

 

 

 

 

[jazzdude]

If people were fundamentally evil, society would trend downward. It hasn't.
 
There are evil people. There are more good people. Over time the good have beaten the evil. 

Don't forget that generally the winner in conflicts get to write the history, and pretty much everyone sees themselves as good and their opponents (who lost) as evil. There's a super fine line between a freedom fighter and a terrorist, just depends on if you win or not.

And the US isn't exempt from this either-we've done stuff throughout our history that could be viewed as evil, or at the very least makes us have to question if we were the "good guys" at that point in history in retrospect. Some of that could be tempered by a belief that a state/country will act in its own best interest, and conflict is messy, but to ignore the darker parts of our history allows it to potentially happen again.

[FLEA]

19 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

If people were fundamentally evil, society would trend downward. It hasn't.

 

There are evil people. There are more good people. Over time the good have beaten the evil. 

 

Our system protects the good from the evil to allow the good to flourish and continue doing good. If you've seen little evidence of altruism, you've been limiting your view to a TV screen. Look around, it's literally everywhere.

Evil might be a poor word choice. Self interested probably describes it better. Society hasnt collapsed because cooperation is still a better security strategy than lone-wolfing it. However, the minute that cooperation begins to stretch a person's values outside their self interest they will cease to cooperate. It doesn't make the world horrible. Its just nature. And people will justify horrendous acts on a platform of moral virtue because they will try to uphold their own self interest. 

[Lord Ratner]

5 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Evil might be a poor word choice. Self interested probably describes it better. Society hasnt collapsed because cooperation is still a better security strategy than lone-wolfing it. However, the minute that cooperation begins to stretch a person's values outside their self interest they will cease to cooperate. It doesn't make the world horrible. Its just nature. And people will justify horrendous acts on a platform of moral virtue because they will try to uphold their own self interest. 

And that's exactly why the American system works. Because if people are left to pursue their self-interests, their fundamentally good nature will be freed to impact those around them. But we will suppress that good nature if required in order to protect our self-interest. Thus the failure of communism over capitalism.

 

Even the best mannered dog will bite you if provoked enough. Doesn't mean it's not a good dog.

 

One of the most unfortunate results of the era of limitless and instant communication is the proliferation of bad news over good news, even though the latter exceeds the former in every way. Can you even name a movie or TV show that is set in the future that doesn't have some sort of dystopian hellscape as the backdrop? For some reason we are fascinated with the idea that the future, even the immediate future, is doom on our doorstep. Yet overwhelmingly the evidence is that across the globe it has only gotten better for humanity over time.

 

Anyone who's interested in the data supporting this concept should read "Enlightenment Now" by Stephen Pinker. Great book.

Edited November 30, 2020 by Lord Ratner

[jazzdude]

Evil might be a poor word choice. Self interested probably describes it better. Society hasnt collapsed because cooperation is still a better security strategy than lone-wolfing it. However, the minute that cooperation begins to stretch a person's values outside their self interest they will cease to cooperate. It doesn't make the world horrible. Its just nature. And people will justify horrendous acts on a platform of moral virtue because they will try to uphold their own self interest. 

Realism...

And that's exactly why the American system works. Because if people are left to pursue their self-interests, their fundamentally good nature will be freed to impact those around them.

...vs Liberalism (not to be confused with US political definitions).

Are people (or countries) acting only in self interest, or altruistically? Are people inherently lazy and need external motivation to work, or are they inherently motivated to work?

All this gets even murkier considering different cultures and the values attached with those cultures, especially when a country internally is made up of several diverse cultures like ours.

[gearhog]

I was just listening to ARMY Col Phil Waldron (Ret) discussing election cybersecurity.

"Your vote is not as secure as your Venmo account." I wonder if he's lying.

 

[Pooter]

2 hours ago, torqued said:

I was just listening to ARMY Col Phil Waldron (Ret) discussing election cybersecurity.

"Your vote is not as secure as your Venmo account." I wonder if he's lying.

 

 So what exactly does this video prove?  Are we just throwing up spider charts of how servers work and saying because something is on the internet it could hypothetically be hacked...

The question isn't whether a system can be hacked. Of course it can. The question is WAS it hacked.  This has been the crux of the entire debate for weeks now: If you want to disenfranchise millions of voters you need to provide tangible evidence that large scale election interference/hacking/fraud actually occurred.

And I'm not sure where the evidence for that Venmo claim is.  Nowhere in that video did he discuss dominion or Venmo's actual security measures. Meanwhile you have Rudy in the background extrapolating ad infinitum the most bonkers conclusions possible. Because dominion is on the internet->Frankfurt->hackers are on the internet->the democrats changed votes->NAZIS!!

This is why you need to be careful about where you get your news.

[Smokin]

The real question is not if there was illegal voting and vote manipulation (I doubt if any sizable election has ever been 100% accurate and correct since the days of the Athenian democracy) but was on a scale that could have affected the outcome.  Since so many states were so close, it is a worthwhile discussion to have.  I voted for Trump and I am obviously not happy that he lost.  I have seen enough evidence to convince me that there was some voter fraud (see first comment and a Fox News article that listed multiple voters that were listed as having voted by name that died prior to 2018) , but so far no evidence that it was on the scale that some have accused.  As is normal in our republic, especially lately, it is necessary to tune out both extremes.  Was there a massive liberal corporate conspiracy to steal the election?  Probably not.  Was every single vote that was counted legal and legit?  Certainly not.  So the left should stop claiming that voters are being disenfranchised by the millions by looking into voter fraud.  Similarly, the right should stop claiming that millions of votes were changed by some computer program unless they have some real tangible evidence.

[gearhog]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

 So what exactly does this video prove?  Are we just throwing up spider charts of how servers work and saying because something is on the internet it could hypothetically be hacked...

The question isn't whether a system can be hacked. Of course it can. The question is WAS it hacked.  This has been the crux of the entire debate for weeks now: If you want to disenfranchise millions of voters you need to provide tangible evidence that large scale election interference/hacking/fraud actually occurred.

And I'm not sure where the evidence for that Venmo claim is.  Nowhere in that video did he discuss dominion or Venmo's actual security measures. Meanwhile you have Rudy in the background extrapolating ad infinitum the most bonkers conclusions possible. Because dominion is on the internet->Frankfurt->hackers are on the internet->the democrats changed votes->NAZIS!!

This is why you need to be careful about where you get your news.

"We"? "We" aren't doing anything. This was an Arizona State Legislature Public Hearing, not a court of law, and not a news source. Not sure why I'd need to be careful watching it. All that it proves is that a former US ARMY Colonel and cybersecurity expert can reasonably demonstrate that the system is capable of being hacked. Apparently, you agree with him. But you're in a rush to sort through the evidence so you can dismiss it as false. If I were to argue in favor of an election hacking accusation, and I'm not, my opening remarks to the jury wouldn't be the tangible evidence. First, I'd need them to agree that the idea of an election being hacked is possible, then proceed to walk them down the path. You're already halfway there.

No one is going to blow their load in public hearing or in a state level court system fight. No state wants to be responsible for calling a contested election. The idea is to move these lawsuits through the appeals process and into the Federal Court system ASAP. We're not going to see anything of significance until then, where the real fight begins.

Today's PA General Assembly Resolution:

WHEREAS, The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has the duty to ensure that no citizen of this Commonwealth is disenfranchised, to insist that all elections are conducted according to the law, and to satisfy the general public that every legal vote is counted accurately; therefore be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives:

(1) Recognize allegations of substantial irregularities and improprieties associated with mail-in balloting, pre-canvassing and canvassing during the November 3, 2020,election.

(2) Disapprove of the infringement on the General Assembly's authority pursuant to the Constitution of the United States to regulate elections.

(3) Disapprove of and disagree with the Secretary of the Commonwealth's premature certification of the results of the November 3, 2020, election regarding presidential electors.

(4) Declare that the selection of presidential electors and other Statewide electoral contest results in this Commonwealth is in dispute.

https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20418113-diamond-language-hr1094

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by torqued

[Pooter]

@torqued

"we" know exactly what you're trying to do. We've been watching you embarrass yourself for weeks with comically flimsy election fraud claims. It's also why you posted verbiage from a Pennsylvania house resolution written by the fringe of their right wing, which was not passed, or even voted on.

"House Republican leaders, however, declined to grant extra time in order to consider the proposed resolution. The legislative session ended Monday, as scheduled."

 

[gearhog]

1 minute ago, Pooter said:

@torqued

"we" know exactly what you're trying to do. We've been watching you embarrass yourself for weeks with comically flimsy election fraud claims. It's also why you posted verbiage from a Pennsylvania house resolution written by the fringe of their right wing, which was not passed, or even voted on.

"House Republican leaders, however, declined to grant extra time in order to consider the proposed resolution. The legislative session ended Monday, as scheduled."

 

 Perhaps if you explicitly stated what it is you think I'm trying to do, we could clear up any misunderstandings. Also, could I ask you to quote my specific election fraud claims? It kinda seems like you're intentionally falsely attributing various election fraud claims to me.

Why is it you're calling these PA representatives the "fringe of their right wing." I'd be very surprised if you knew anything about their positions apart from this single resolution. Why is it that you think the resolution didn't get voted on? Was it because it was widely disagreeable? Or was it because:

“We are physically unable to consider any new legislation before the end of session. A simple resolution takes three legislative days for consideration and a concurrent resolution takes five legislative days to move through both chambers, which means we do not have the time needed to address any new resolutions in our current session,” which expires Monday as per the state constitution.

”It is obvious Pennsylvania’s election processes are in dire need of repair. Our work to ensure the chaos and confusion of the 2020 election are not repeated will continue in the next legislative session.”

 

[17D_guy]

35 minutes ago, torqued said:

“We are physically unable to consider any new legislation before the end of session. A simple resolution takes three legislative days for consideration and a concurrent resolution takes five legislative days to move through both chambers, which means we do not have the time needed to address any new resolutions in our current session,” which expires Monday as per the state constitution.

”It is obvious Pennsylvania’s election processes are in dire need of repair. Our work to ensure the chaos and confusion of the 2020 election are not repeated will continue in the next legislative session.”

 

Sounds like politics to me.  "Oh, if only we had more time!"  Like every single Trump lawsuit.

If only the legislature could have done that before the election since they already passed other laws on how their state was going to administrate the elections.  Convenient of them to do that after they lost. 

Also, misleading of you to post it without the context of it not getting heard/passed.
 

Quote

a former US ARMY Colonel and cybersecurity expert

I googled this guy, but could find nothing supporting these claims.  Go with creds you have, otherwise I'm going to assume he's as credible a cybersecurity expert as Rudy.

Edited December 1, 2020 by 17D_guy

[GoodSplash9]

I’m honestly surprised at how many supposed critical thinkers and skeptics on here clearly haven’t put any real effort into seeing if there is any evidence of widespread fraud. If your using google, good luck finding anything besides the official mainstream narrative (recommend DuckDuckGo.com as an unbiased search engine).

I challenge anyone actually interested in data to do your own research on official absentee ballot numbers in Pennsylvania (hint...1.8 million mailed/1.4 million returned in the mail/2.4 million counted) or the four vote spikes that occurred after midnight (the largest was 330k+...97% for one candidate) with over 600k votes instantly showing up. The vote spikes are easy to find in graphs or live on any news station after midnight. 

[gearhog]

50 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Sounds like politics to me.  "Oh, if only we had more time!"  Like every single Trump lawsuit.

If only the legislature could have done that before the election since they already passed other laws on how their state was going to administrate the elections.  Convenient of them to do that after they lost. 

Also, misleading of you to post it without the context of it not getting heard/passed.
 

I googled this guy, but could find nothing supporting these claims.  Go with creds you have, otherwise I'm going to assume he's as credible a cybersecurity expert as Rudy.

Of course it's politics. To be fair, I don't think the PA legislature had any idea the election results would be this contentious. I had read the resolution earlier in the day just after it was submitted. The statement by the Speaker had not yet been published. I was not trying to be misleading.

As for Waldron, I also googled his name and this was in the first few results: "Giuliani’s first witness at the was officer retired U.S. Army Colonel Phil Waldron, a cybersecurity expert who spent half of his 30-year military career as a cavalry officer, conducting armed reconnaissance, and the last half of his career in information warfare."

But I gather your point: Being a military officer with experience in information warfare or cybersecurity does not necessarily make one an expert.

(see what I did there? I kid, I kid!)

[gearhog]

7 minutes ago, GoodSplash9 said:

I’m honestly surprised at how many supposed critical thinkers and skeptics on here clearly haven’t put any real effort into seeing if there is any evidence of widespread fraud. If your using google, good luck finding anything besides the official mainstream narrative (recommend DuckDuckGo.com as an unbiased search engine).

I challenge anyone actually interested in data to do your own research on official absentee ballot numbers in Pennsylvania (hint...1.8 million mailed/1.4 million returned in the mail/2.4 million counted) or the four vote spikes that occurred after midnight (the largest was 330k+...97% for one candidate) with over 600k votes instantly showing up. The vote spikes are easy to find in graphs or live on any news station after midnight. 

Exactly. If nothing else, it's a math problem. And the math doesn't add up. Perhaps there is an explanation that doesn't involve fraud. I have yet to hear it.

[Prozac]

41 minutes ago, GoodSplash9 said:

I’m honestly surprised at how many supposed critical thinkers and skeptics on here clearly haven’t put any real effort into seeing if there is any evidence of widespread fraud. If your using google, good luck finding anything besides the official mainstream narrative (recommend DuckDuckGo.com as an unbiased search engine).

I challenge anyone actually interested in data to do your own research on official absentee ballot numbers in Pennsylvania (hint...1.8 million mailed/1.4 million returned in the mail/2.4 million counted) or the four vote spikes that occurred after midnight (the largest was 330k+...97% for one candidate) with over 600k votes instantly showing up. The vote spikes are easy to find in graphs or live on any news station after midnight. 

Holy shit guys! He’s right. I watched cable news after midnight the other day and it blew my fucking mind!
 

#dontletTuckerCarlsongetwetaftermidnight

[Prozac]

48 minutes ago, GoodSplash9 said:

I’m honestly surprised at how many supposed critical thinkers and skeptics on here clearly haven’t put any real effort into seeing if there is any evidence of widespread fraud. If your using google, good luck finding anything besides the official mainstream narrative (recommend DuckDuckGo.com as an unbiased search engine).

I challenge anyone actually interested in data to do your own research on official absentee ballot numbers in Pennsylvania (hint...1.8 million mailed/1.4 million returned in the mail/2.4 million counted) or the four vote spikes that occurred after midnight (the largest was 330k+...97% for one candidate) with over 600k votes instantly showing up. The vote spikes are easy to find in graphs or live on any news station after midnight. 

Didn’t have to look very hard for answers:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/28/fact-check-pennsylvania-ballot-claim-mixes-primary-general-election-data/6450032002/

But keep up with the “critical thinking” man. 

[Pooter]

3 hours ago, torqued said:

 Perhaps if you explicitly stated what it is you think I'm trying to do, we could clear up any misunderstandings. Also, could I ask you to quote my specific election fraud claims? It kinda seems like you're intentionally falsely attributing various election fraud claims to me.

I'll tell you exactly what you're doing. You continuously and non-commitally allude to massive election fraud somewhere in the ether, and then when anyone challenges you on any detail you immediately retreat to "that's not what I was saying" semantic bs. 
 

Here's a crazy idea to try: make a concrete claim, and then support it with evidence. The trump legal team could probably use that advice too.

[Pooter]

2 hours ago, GoodSplash9 said:

I’m honestly surprised at how many supposed critical thinkers and skeptics on here clearly haven’t put any real effort into seeing if there is any evidence of widespread fraud. If your using google, good luck finding anything besides the official mainstream narrative (recommend DuckDuckGo.com as an unbiased search engine).

I challenge anyone actually interested in data to do your own research on official absentee ballot numbers in Pennsylvania (hint...1.8 million mailed/1.4 million returned in the mail/2.4 million counted) or the four vote spikes that occurred after midnight (the largest was 330k+...97% for one candidate) with over 600k votes instantly showing up. The vote spikes are easy to find in graphs or live on any news station after midnight. 

Riddle me this with your incredible critical thinking skills: if this nefarious fraud was so widespread, why does it seem to be perfectly constrained to the close margin states in which trump has a vote deficit?

Edited December 1, 2020 by Pooter