There were observers from both parties at the counts.
There were also independent observers who say that they did not witness fraud.
So if there is some specific location that they did not have access, then let’s see what you have.
That seems like a potential strong argument. Could you link me to data? I think also, in fairness, it would need to be shown that there were observers in earlier elections and that this was different. Fair not so much in a legal sense, but in the outrage sense. For example, if observers were missing during the previous presidential election, then Trump’s original win would invalid potentially. Now that doesn’t mean that it’s ok this time, it would just reduce, I think, a justified outrage factor.
And by the way, I think the system is rigged, though in a more open secret kind of way. So I am not dismissing things like voter fraud or systematic process problems.
America is a little different in that they allow each State to set the rules. In the civilized democracies observation is very seriously respected and maintained.
In the USA –
Observation is voluntary on the part of the observers, but not on the part of the ballot counters. So if in the past, observers did not try to observe, no laws were broken.
There are also Federal and International observers but they are usually an “after the fact” intervention and concerned with recounts.
That is convincing, but the basic issue of truth versus fabrication remains. A fact, does not become accepted, until the negation of that fact convinces a jury of peers ,that within the context that it has occured, it is believable
This crux problem has followed the issues surrounding this administration all through the 4 years
Down to the wire, until now: Initially, the complaint has to be taken up by various courts and here again, opinions can vary.
The introduction of witnesses may present a problem as well, because the truthfulness of the observers may also account for a certain amount of doubt
The ultimate arbiter, the Supreme Court . even that body may be challenged publically as to their opinions., especially with the charge that they have been loaded.
The primary impressions are merely two contradictory opinions, one negating the other.
Usually the Judges have to use precedents in their arguments, and it is uncertain if there is one in this case.
The Supreme Court has no “jury of peers”.
They can be critised, which preemptively counts to a degree, but they cannot be contested except by offering sufficient new evidence to warrant another review.
Only to the public being controlled by the Propaganda Ministry (MSM in the US). Once the Supreme Court can be unpolitical (conservatives - conserving the Constitution), it can ignore “impressions”.
Obsrvr, I know you’re intelligent - but! Almost every post you make is absurd. If Warren buffet, Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates strolled into the Supreme Court because the second amendment guarantees that they can buy 100 nuclear warheads with operational ballistic missiles and the Supreme Court rules against them, the Supreme Court is violating the constitution and should all be hanged pursuant to laws of the time. (Traitors).
So here’s the deal. The constitution is garbage. It’s toilet paper like the Bible is toilet paper.
We need to rewrite the whole fucking thing.
Lots of countries do that. France rewrites their constitution every 2 years (as a provision of their constitution).
What you suggest about defending toilet paper as eternal law is absurd.
_
Nepotism are they @fickwitz
Then you must not know that I am intelligent. You contradict yourself.
Not true.
The SCOTUS in supporting the US Second Amendment has the obligation to afford “the right to own and bear arms”. But (because like most uncivilized countries) they did not define “arms”, the SCOTUS must choose what falls into the intended meaning of that word as written. I am sure that nuclear weapons would not qualify. So by declaring that they do NOT have the inalienable right bear those weapons, they would not violate their oath.
Coming from an admitted highly uneducated person, that statement merely reflects what is already a self-evident admission.
By you? Sure why not.
You could propose that SAM co-op thing, but you would have to convince a very large portion of the population no matter what you proposed. Think you are up to it?
And look where they are.
I can interpret that bizarre reply about 15 ways.
I actually made a point. Maybe, for once on ILP, you can stop using argument from authority and actually make a post that has a real point.
Sure, I’ve stated I have a high IQ several times on this board (like many of us have) but it ultimately comes down to making an argument.
You talk about your health issues in terms of suffering, and you go on about how smart you are when the argument gets serious. That’s your MO.
I offer this to MagsJ and the board as a whole… show me one single post of hers where she said one profound thing.
America is the most resource rich country on earth. Sure, our country started with progressive tones…
It was the combination of the two that made us a superior world player. Once you’re strong, you have a power advantage for a long time. The question ? Is it sustainable?
[gvid][/gvid]
Is that “proving a negative”?
All her quote basically states is that continuity of consciousness is not remembered when someone approaches a debate on ILP with a concept that one side is correct. It doesn’t gauge growth by this measure of that quote (that people can change or they were misunderstood).
That is not what she said so I guess the same negative is yet proven again. And “gauging growth” was not the point, so maybe even a third proof of the same negative?
I believe it was me and that it was related to COVID-19.
I can think of many negatives that can easily be proven e.g. “There are no square-circles”.
If you want to prove that no unicorns exist within certain portion of spacetime, you have to observe every part of that spacetime. If it’s impractical to observe it in its entirety, you can at least observe a portion of it and generalize from that. Ultimately, you will either observe unicorns or you won’t. The same applies to conspiracies (whether they are related to COVID-19 or US presidential election.)
I am not sure who came up with the idea that “You can’t prove a negative” but it’s sure as hell a convenient way to place the burden of proof on everyone other than yourself.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
Whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.
If you’re going to adopt a position, you better have a rationale backing it up. Otherwise, you have to refrain from adopting a position.
If you’re going to say “There is a conspiracy!”, you better be able to prove it. But also, if you’re going to say “There is no conspiracy!”, you also better be able to prove that. Otherwise, you have to take a neutral stance and say “I don’t know, let’s see”.
(Basically, I agree with what phyllo and obsrvr524 said.)
And I forgot to mention, concerning breaking federal and constitutional law –
That alone invalidates most of the contested ballots. They are prima facie fraudulent in ALL States.
And again, the constitution is toilet paper, like I said before.
Life has changed massively since 1776!!
The constitution doesn’t even allow for amendments (we just made that shit up). Even our amendments are toilet paper (not all of them)
Negatives can easily be proven: god exists and god is good. Every being in existence is having their consent violated except god. That’s not a good god. That’s the most maniacly evil being possible. If god is defined as good, and every being is having their consent violated (the only definition of bad) and god could have made it differently, and god is defined as good, then we can easily prove god doesn’t exist.
It’s not very complicated.
It might be mere toilet paper to you, but to the armed forces of your nation, it is the Law. If you don’t believe that~~~
You’re insane. Now you’re trying to pull the “unpatriotic armed forces” card on me…
The preamble has “provide for the common defense” written Right there!!! I wouldn’t change the preamble.
Just like there might be two good sentences in the Bible - there is good stuff in the constitution, but!!! It’s basically toilet paper for our modern era.
You keep avoiding my argument about how to get all Supreme Court justices hung by the letter of the law of the actual constitution!!!
You know why? Because you know it’s a fact and you’re full of shit.
Like they say it’s way to start far afield. The thing is maybe even more multiferious than that. To start with something which may raise eyebrows, it is probable that fraud is committed left and right in ant general election to a degree.
I have sewn one, almost unpreceptible in the Gore vs Bush election.
The thing is, all administrations of short duration , max
8 years, whereas there are big time bosses out there with interminable claims to power.
To these presidents are held accountable.There may be some kind of super play here, and they can play this for a few more months. By that time things will calm. up, and even some kind of power- trade- detente can be established.
The negation is only appearent on the only public understanding of it, so that is why the cintuniuum must keep rolling along.
There is far more to this than meets the eye, and we are simply not prevy to this.
…how I deal with an outed misogynist, that only knows how to operate through the blinkered eyes and mind of misogyny.
It works for me, so not at my detriment… only a fickwitz would expect it to be counter-so, and I certainly don’t operate from a place of appealing from my ex-ILP authority but from appealing from my own authority. How very misogynistically-minded indeed.
I’m not sure why my statement needed an interpretation? an interpretation which seems like pure projection.
The exchange that I had mentioned that observation in and which my statement was taken from, never got to progress beyond the initial stage of the inquiry, due to a preempting that something may reoccur that had happened in previous exchanges, on the matter of clarity of definitions.