Trump's various attempts to challenge election results
Violence from extreme right wingers far exceeds violence from "Antifa\BLM".
I don't think that is the case when it comes to rioting.
The "CHAD" (whatever) experiment was hugely costly in terms of increased crime, loss of income and the destruction of many businesses, plus a number of deaths.
I think the community would be better off if extremists on BOTH sides of the political divide were neutered.

Ok, so you countenance a war crime.
Learning nothing from decades of civil disobedience all over the world isn't exclusive to the left & you're proof.
_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos

You're looking to impose legal order through eugenics judging by what you said about a few dangerous people, as opposed to what you didn't say about a great many dangerous people. What you said is in direct violation of too many international treaties for me to count.
Of course you don't know what I mean, if you were a critical thinker you might check yourself before parroting centrist fairy tales when confronted with your implicit bias.
Quite frankly your viewpoint is very detached from the brutality it represents.
_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos

This is your literal side of autism, at work, presumably.
I didn't literally mean people should be castrated.
It was a joke.

I *am* a critical thinker.

Virtually, all life is brutal.
When you get older, you tend to grow calluses, and learn to cope.
Rational, objective discussion is preferable to illogical emotionalism, to me.
Discussion is an intellectual activity, after all.

Not a "Trump" case, but it seems the rushed attempt to certify Pennsylvania's election results has been halted:
There is no harm to Respondents by the relief fashioned by this Court. The “Safe Harbor” provision of 3 U.S.C.§5 does not expire until December 8, 2020, and the Electoral College does not vote for president and vice president until December 14, 2020. Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim
Source: https://www.marklevinshow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/301/2020/11/Memorandum-Opinion-Filed.pdf
Given the rushed attempt to certify the results came as about because of a motion for an injunction to prevent it occurring, I'm not sure how favourable towards the respondents in this case the judge is likely to be...
ASPartOfMe
Veteran

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,119
Location: Long Island, New York
Pennsylvania Republican Lawmakers Introduce Resolution Disputing 2020 Election Results
The resolution intends to declare the 2020 election results as being “in dispute,” delay the certification of votes from Pennsylvania for both the state and presidential races and asks for the U.S. Congress to also declare the 2020 presidential race to be in dispute.
The legislators contend that a multitude of factors put the election results in dispute, including the extension of the mail-in ballot deadline and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling that loosened restrictions regarding signature authentication. They also accuse Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar of certifying the results of the election “prematurely… despite ongoing litigation.”
The resolution does not specify how the state or presidential electors would be determined if the resolution were to pass.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
Violence from extreme right wingers far exceeds violence from "Antifa\BLM". According to White Supremacists, Domestic Terrorists Pose Biggest Threat Of ‘Lethal Violence’ This Election, DHS Assessment Finds, in Forbes (a moderate right-leaning periodical!), Updated Nov 7, 2020:
...
329. The number of murders over the past 25 years that have been linked to far-right extremists, according to a recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Not one murder in the U.S. was linked to antifa during the same time period.
It is intriguing how a blanket statement of "violence" is twisted and distorted to imply a focus on the subset "violence against person\people", when the original statement was not limited to any subset and as such included all forms of violence...It certainly gives the impression of acknowledging the accuracy of the original statement's intent, but attempting to hide this inconvenient fact through the dishonest attempt at refocussing.
It is standard practice, here in the U.S.A., to use the term "President Elect" as soon as it is clear who the winner is. See Biden Did Not Invent the ‘Office of President-Elect’, FactCheck.org, November 13, 2020.
Just because the media say something (or it is "standard practice") doesn't make it true...
singular noun
The president-elect is the person who has been elected as the president of an organization or country, but who has not yet taken office.
Source: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/president-elect
To clarify (somewhat simplified), as you appear not to understand the electoral system in the U.S.A. as relates to Presidential elections:
* People in each state vote for the person they wish the state's electors in the electoral college to vote for. They are not directly voting for the President, and so the "winner" is not "President Elect" (In the same way that the "popular vote" result is meaningless).
* Once counting is completed and the results certified, states determine which electors will be sent to the electoral college, along with who they should vote for. At this point, there has still been no direct vote for the role of President (and there is the possibility of "faithless electors"), and so the "President Elect" is still to be determined.
* The electoral college convenes and votes for the President - The result of this, being the first time the President is directly voted for, is where the "President Elect" is determined in fact.
The other alternative, of course, is that you dishonestly reframed what you were responding to, in order to sidestep the "without waiting for the constitutional process to proceed" portion which was an integral component of the initial statement...
How?
An obvious example would be certain online publishers blocking posts\people who make certain posts regarding irregularities which may have occurred, in order to attempt to prevent others becoming aware of\having access to this information which may have relevence to claims contesting the result of the election.
The amusing part, though, is that by fighting against attempts from Mr Trump to show there was adequate fraud such that it may have affected the result, rather than allowing the claims to be investigated, those seeking to block investigations are helping him. Regardless of the outcome, as a result of their actions, his supporters are going to be more likely to remain loyal (2024, and probably would have an impact around his endorsements for 2022), whereas by allowing the investigation to continue, they would either have had their belief in him vindicated (if it was found fraud prevented him winning), or would be less likely to remain loyal if it was shown his claims were incorrect.
The latter is how the word "violence" is most commonly used. Theft and vandalism are not usually described as "violent" (except in the case of mugging or armed robbery).
Both violence and looting (theft) can accurately be described as "criminal activity."
On the contrary, I would say that people who describe BLM and antifa protests as "violent" are trying to insinuate, falsely, that they are at least as prone to killing people as some of the more extreme right wingers are.
It is standard practice, here in the U.S.A., to use the term "President Elect" as soon as it is clear who the winner is. See Biden Did Not Invent the ‘Office of President-Elect’, FactCheck.org, November 13, 2020.
Just because the media say something (or it is "standard practice") doesn't make it true...
singular noun
The president-elect is the person who has been elected as the president of an organization or country, but who has not yet taken office.
Source: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/president-elect
To clarify (somewhat simplified), as you appear not to understand the electoral system in the U.S.A. as relates to Presidential elections:
* People in each state vote for the person they wish the state's electors in the electoral college to vote for. They are not directly voting for the President, and so the "winner" is not "President Elect" (In the same way that the "popular vote" result is meaningless).
* Once counting is completed and the results certified, states determine which electors will be sent to the electoral college, along with who they should vote for. At this point, there has still been no direct vote for the role of President (and there is the possibility of "faithless electors"), and so the "President Elect" is still to be determined.
* The electoral college convenes and votes for the President - The result of this, being the first time the President is directly voted for, is where the "President Elect" is determined in fact.
The other alternative, of course, is that you dishonestly reframed what you were responding to, in order to sidestep the "without waiting for the constitutional process to proceed" portion which was an integral component of the initial statement...
The electoral college is indeed the "constitutional process," but, for most of the U.S.A.'s history, it has been just a rubber-stamp formality. While there are occasional "faithless electors," there have never been enough of them to change the outcome of an election. That's why it is standard practice for American media to start using the term "President-elect" as soon as the outcome of the popular vote in enough states is known that it can be determined that one candidate will get at least 270 electoral college votes.
Not only is this standard practice for the American media, it is also standard practice for the U.S. government to begin the transition process at that point, or within a few days thereafter. Reason: the transition process takes time. If we had to wait until the "constitutional process" was all finished, there would not be enough time to do a proper transition.
How?
An obvious example would be certain online publishers blocking posts\people who make certain posts regarding irregularities which may have occurred, in order to attempt to prevent others becoming aware of\having access to this information which may have relevence to claims contesting the result of the election.
The amusing part, though, is that by fighting against attempts from Mr Trump to show there was adequate fraud such that it may have affected the result, rather than allowing the claims to be investigated, those seeking to block investigations are helping him. Regardless of the outcome, as a result of their actions, his supporters are going to be more likely to remain loyal (2024, and probably would have an impact around his endorsements for 2022), whereas by allowing the investigation to continue, they would either have had their belief in him vindicated (if it was found fraud prevented him winning), or would be less likely to remain loyal if it was shown his claims were incorrect.
Recounts, audits, and some investigations have already been done, along with a lots and lots of lawsuits, only one of which had enough substance to decided in Trump's favor, and none of which turned up any credible evidence of fraud. At this point, there is no reason to keep on investigating and investigating and investigating in the absence of any credible evidence of fraud. Delaying the transition process would be a huge boon to the U.S.A.'s enemies.
_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
Last edited by Mona Pereth on 28 Nov 2020, 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am giving to that fund- to cover the legal costs for Trump to overturn the election- after seeing this ad.
So what if Biden really DID win the election?
We all cant allow this...
Last edited by naturalplastic on 28 Nov 2020, 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
The "CHAD" (whatever) experiment was hugely costly in terms of increased crime, loss of income and the destruction of many businesses, plus a number of deaths.
I think the community would be better off if extremists on BOTH sides of the political divide were neutered.

I don't entirely understand how somebody who lives in Australia can know more about recent events in Seattle than I do. I wonder if anybody who reads this actually lives in Seattle and can expand on what you've said?
So sad.
Like those sad dog commercials with dogs in cages.
I'm balwing tears.
So what if Biden really DID win the election?
We all cant allow this...

_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.
Be the hero of your life.
Like those sad dog commercials with dogs in cages.
I'm balwing tears.

So what if Biden really DID win the election?
We all cant allow this...

Yes. Some say that we should just...put him down.
But I think that we should find him a home.

There is no harm to Respondents by the relief fashioned by this Court. The “Safe Harbor” provision of 3 U.S.C.§5 does not expire until December 8, 2020, and the Electoral College does not vote for president and vice president until December 14, 2020. Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim
Source: https://www.marklevinshow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/301/2020/11/Memorandum-Opinion-Filed.pdf
This case has been thrown out:
Pennsylvania Supreme Court tosses GOP congressman’s suit seeking to throw out all ballots cast by mail by Jeremy Roebuck, Philadelphia Inquirer, November 28, 2020.
But Rep. Mike Kelly And Sean Parnell are now trying to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court:
Rep. Mike Kelly And Sean Parnell To Appeal Pa. Supreme Court Loss Over Mail-In Ballots To SCOTUS by Jon Delano, KDKA Channel 2 CBS Pittsburgh, November 30, 2020.
_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
The "CHAD" (whatever) experiment was hugely costly in terms of increased crime, loss of income and the destruction of many businesses, plus a number of deaths.
I think the community would be better off if extremists on BOTH sides of the political divide were neutered.

I don't entirely understand how somebody who lives in Australia can know more about recent events in Seattle than I do. I wonder if anybody who reads this actually lives in Seattle and can expand on what you've said?
I watch the news here.
Wot, you think the Amerikans censor what goes out of America, like the China*s* do?

Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Trump alleges musicians election plot |
24 May 2025, 4:07 pm |
Trump’s pardons |
28 May 2025, 8:39 pm |
Trump announces new name for the hoildays |
08 May 2025, 4:30 pm |
Trump Carney meeting |
06 May 2025, 9:22 pm |