destruction of america

[Mattndew76]

33 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

 

Well do you trust the FBI???? then. Maybe he should keep looking or looking harder because apparently there are masses of people signing affidavits about the shit going on.  .

 

He is quoted as saying that they're still running down individual complaints that canvas a few votes to a couple thousand votes.

 

“Most claims of fraud are very particularized to a particular set of circumstances or actors or conduct. ... And those have been run down; they are being run down,” Barr said. “Some have been broad and potentially cover a few thousand votes. They have been followed up on.”

[tr8er]

21 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

 

Well do you trust the FBI???? then. Maybe he should keep looking or looking harder because apparently there are masses of people signing affidavits about the shit going on.  .

Sliding scale with trust.  Always.  The FBI can be trusted more than a scam artist or a 2y.o. Who just stole a cookie.  Even then it comes down to the person wearing the badge.  Same goes for any random person signing affidavits.  There are enough idiots out there who are submitting statements of potentially suspicious behavior.  Or even suspicious outright, as it leads them to suspect.  I’ve still not seen evidence of fraud.  Just evidence of suspicious data.  Which does have data backing it, but many choose to believe that is false.  Not wrong to opine.  But evidence needs to be shown.  Not affidavits of suspicion if our Democratic process of succession is going to be fucked with

[Mattndew76]

5 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

A bit long and rambling but...

 

 

 

He isnt spitting out false statements either. 

 

He has to battle a political judiciary and a mountain of establishment GOP jelly fish.  

[datzenmike]

5 minutes ago, tr8er said:

Sliding scale with trust.  Always.  The FBI can be trusted more than a scam artist or a 2y.o. Who just stole a cookie.  Even then it comes down to the person wearing the badge.  Same goes for any random person signing affidavits.  There are enough idiots out there who are submitting statements of potentially suspicious behavior.  Or even suspicious outright, as it leads them to suspect.  I’ve still not seen evidence of fraud.  Just evidence of suspicious data.  Which does have data backing it, but many choose to believe that is false.  Not wrong to opine.  But evidence needs to be shown.  Not affidavits of suspicion if our Democratic process of succession is going to be fucked with

 

Pretty ballsy to risk perjury. But I will say if there were false statements filed they should be severely dealt with.

[Mattndew76]

10 minutes ago, tr8er said:

Sliding scale with trust.  Always.  The FBI can be trusted more than a scam artist or a 2y.o. Who just stole a cookie.  Even then it comes down to the person wearing the badge.  Same goes for any random person signing affidavits.  There are enough idiots out there who are submitting statements of potentially suspicious behavior.  Or even suspicious outright, as it leads them to suspect.  I’ve still not seen evidence of fraud.  Just evidence of suspicious data.  Which does have data backing it, but many choose to believe that is false.  Not wrong to opine.  But evidence needs to be shown.  Not affidavits of suspicion if our Democratic process of succession is going to be fucked with

 

Evidence has been shown. Evidence is totally different than Substantiated Evidence. If people have come forward with sworn testimony, then the time and finances need to be set in place to validate or disprove the affidavit. Especially when it deals with the worry of 130 million voters.

 

75% of Trump voters say its Rigged

 

30% of Biden voters say its Rigged (the buyers remorse crowd)

 

You and I both wanted Tulsi, but I sure as fuck never wanted a twisted bullshit mess like this.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Mattndew76

[BrothersGarage]

1 hour ago, Str8jacket said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/media/bbc-defends-us-election-2020-coverage-complaints-749096

 

https://thecritic.co.uk/batting-for-biden-the-bbc-and-the-us-election/

 

2 second search? 

 

All I see or hear on any tv or radio show here is one sided views, which coincidently is your view.

 

When everything you see and hear reported seems wrong to you, and you look around and reality doesnt match what you are being sold. People you talk to dont actually think what you are being told people think, you go looking for other points of view. 

 

It must be easy when you can watch all those lies being told to you and you can blissfully nod and smile, tsk tsk at us extremists, put on your mask and virtuously continue on your way. 

1. So the argument against the BBC is that someone is alleging that BBCs stance is - quoting the article "The BBC has a Manichean understanding of the world which comes down to liberal = good, conservative = bad.". K.

What does that change about the linked article quoting AG Barr - or the other articles stating the same thing? 

All you see in hear is people saying the same view that I have? What is my view that they are parroting?

Whole lotta assumptions on my views based on me sharing a news article my dude. I look around and reality doesn't match what I am being sold and the people I talk to don't think like I do so I go looking for other points of view? My dude, what are you talking about? I literally linked multiple sources from both sides of the political spectrum and as neutral as I could find and you're building some strawman out of it and then saying something stupid like put on my mask and virtuosity. Chill the fuck out and why don't you try and stay on topic instead of turning to attack people?

Do you actually wanna talk about what AG Barr said or do you wanna attack me, my sources, and go off on more tangents? 

  

1 hour ago, datzenmike said:

Well do you trust the FBI???? then. Maybe he should keep looking or looking harder because apparently there are masses of people signing affidavits about the shit going on.  .

 

Well who do you trust, Trump and his lawyers that have lost all but one appeal and have yet to present evidence in their cases? Are we supposed to be still waiting on the Kraken to be released? 

 

31 minutes ago, Mattndew76 said:

 

He didn't say systemic either, because the word systemic is actually accurate to what happened. The AP paraphrased Barr with an opinion of what he said

 

" And he said quite bluntly they have not found any evidence of widespread fraud."  (OPINION)

 

If it was so bluntly stated by Barr then why didn't the AP quote him verbatim?

 

They are selling a vague answer from Barr as a definitive fact. 

 

"to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election."  Bill Barr. 

 

This quote does show that they're still investigating, and does not define "widespread." being part of his comments made. 

 

I would suggest running down the transcript of the actual interview that way you can parse through the opiniated rhetoric filling the body of the article. 

 

So wanna split hairs, cool.  Systemic was my verbiage to describe it. Doesn't  systemic/widespread mean "distributed over a large area / majority" - meaning that it would have been able to be perceived through the entire election process? By definition would that fraud not have to be widespread/systemic to effect the outcome? 

To again quote AG Barr - this time using the word "systemic":

“There’s been one assertion that would be systemic fraud, and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results. And the D.H.S. and D.O.J. have looked into that, and so far, we haven’t seen anything to substantiate that,” Mr. Barr said, referring to the Department of Homeland Security and his own department.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/01/us/politics/william-barr-voter-fraud.html

I hope they are investigating every lead they have, but as Barr said - it's still not going to change the outcome of the election. More so with all these states certifying the results. 

FYI - I include the direct quote in my reply, the same one you're using - directly below my words which you're misconstruing.  

Edited December 2, 2020 by BrothersGarage

[datzenmike]

21 minutes ago, Mattndew76 said:

 

Evidence has been shown. Evidence is totally different than Substantiated Evidence. If people have come forward with sworn testimony, then the time and finances need to be set in place to validate or disprove the affidavit. Especially when it deals with the worry of 130 million voters.

 

75% of Trump voters say its Rigged

 

30% of Biden voters say its Rigged (the buyers remorse crowd)

 

You and I both wanted Tulsi, but I sure as fuck never wanted a twisted bullshit mess like this.

 

8% of Biden voters say wtf? they voted for trump

[BrothersGarage]

20 minutes ago, Mattndew76 said:

Evidence has been shown. Evidence is totally different than Substantiated Evidence. If people have come forward with sworn testimony, then the time and finances need to be set in place to validate or disprove the affidavit. Especially when it deals with the worry of 130 million voters.

 

75% of Trump voters say its Rigged

 

30% of Biden voters say its Rigged (the buyers remorse crowd)

 

You and I both wanted Tulsi, but I sure as fuck never wanted a twisted bullshit mess like this.

Their evidence wasn't evidence, it was claims of people presented as evidence - most of which Trumps lawyers couldn't validate or substantiate. That's why they have lost so many times. 

100% of people are tired of politics. - Not that it would effect the outcome of investigations or where the facts actually lay. 

[Mattndew76]

9 minutes ago, BrothersGarage said:

Their evidence wasn't evidence, it was claims of people presented as evidence - most of which Trumps lawyers couldn't validate or substantiate. That's why they have lost so many times. 

100% of people are tired of politics. - Not that it would effect the outcome of investigations or where the facts actually lay. 

 

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. (LOTS OF IT AVAILABLE) 

 

Substantiate Evidence: to establish by proof or competent evidence: to substantiate a charge. to give substantial existence to: to substantiate an idea through action. to affirm as having substance; give body to; strengthen: to substantiate a friendship.

 

See the difference? 

 

Sworn Affidavits are considered EVIDENCE in a court of law... In order for it to be believed by a judge then it has to be Substantiated Evidence through investigation..

 

There are several types of court considered evidence too.... 

 

 

There are four types evidence by which facts can be proven or disproven at trial which include:

• Real evidence;
• Demonstrative evidence;
• Documentary evidence; and.
• Testimonial evidence.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Mattndew76

[datzenmike]

6 minutes ago, BrothersGarage said:

 
100% of people are tired of politics. - Not that it would effect the outcome of investigations or where the facts actually lay. 

 

I'm not. I'm fascinated in the drama. If there is even a hint of election fraud everyone should be interested in the outcome. They should be enraged. They should demand accountability.

[Mattndew76]

1 minute ago, datzenmike said:

 

I'm not. I'm fascinated in the drama. If there is even a hint of election fraud everyone should be interested in the outcome. They should be enraged. They should demand accountability.

 

No way. Nothing to see here. Orange man lost so election system and fair elections can fuck off.

[datzenmike]

Or disprove it.

[Mattndew76]

5 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

Or disprove it.

 

You would think. 

 

After 2016 my brother in-law was on a task force that sample audited the machines for the DOD. (Foreign Collusion) Trump ordered this. He wanted to know if his own win had been through the help of a foreign power. The team found no outside tampering, but he said the machines are really easy to tamper with from within the building that these machines are parked in during an election.

 

then repeated to me "They had to have been messed with from within..." 

 

[frankendat]

21 hours ago, Cardinal Grammeter said:

Rural people know about cows... and guns.

Urban people don't know about cows.... or guns.

 

I don't think you can train a non-gun culture person to be as "familiar/at home/relaxed" with guns as a person who grew up with them.

 

Self defense which is the dark side of gun ownership.  It has nothing to do with a lifetime of hunting or target shooting experience - it is about shooting people.  Ironically, traditional gun-culture is always about NOT shooting someone.

 

Unfortunately, adults who never owned guns, that get them, are thinking about shooting people - not punching holes in paper or deer.

 

I grew up with guns and I cannot comprehend the need to carry concealed for self defense.  Where I live the hassle of CC isn't worth the effort.

 

The strongest argument for carrying guns has never been made publicly to my knowledge:  "If you were in the process of getting raped/mugged/murdered, would you want bystanders to be armed?"

 

There are firearms designed for killing animals, even subsets designed for killing specific animals; the majority of these weapons are overkill for defense of self or others. It is not that such weapons would be ineffective, it is that there are better suited firearms for killing people.

I understand Cardinal’s position and let my CC expire decades ago, but now older and far from fighting shape, I am thankful the option is available. (Although I keep putting off applying) It is a good that many, even most, have not witnessed the evil of man, but that is not evidence, it no longer exists.

The expression that is overused, because of its veracity, “It is good to have a gun and not need then need a gun and not have it.”

The police are a reactionary force, that is mostly ineffective and recent events (BLM riots) have reconfirmed this fact. Crime is on the rise and it will quadruple with Biden’s immigration plan. This is not anti-immigration, it is realizing the statistical facts that those with lower income and those who are disenfranchised (refuse to assimilate) are more likely to engage in criminal enterprise.

Another part of age, for most, is realizing the blessing of family and the obligations it brings. Even if I could rationalize not carrying for my defense, I have a duty to keep my family safe.

[tr8er]

Where the fuck were you guys on accountability when people were straight up ignoring congressional subpoena?  Ignoring testimony.  Denying evidence requests?   You didn’t agree with the implication so you didn’t wanna honor the law.   Now the law is being followed and you just want more and more.   Some of you guys are so far right you forgot you can be wrong.  

[BrothersGarage]

17 minutes ago, Mattndew76 said:

 

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. (LOTS OF IT AVAILABLE) 

 

Substantiate Evidence: to establish by proof or competent evidence: to substantiate a charge. to give substantial existence to: to substantiate an idea through action. to affirm as having substance; give body to; strengthen: to substantiate a friendship.

 

See the difference? 

 

Sworn Affidavits are considered EVIDENCE in a court of law... In order for it to be believed by a judge then it has to be Substantiated Evidence through investigation..

 

There are several types of court considered evidence too.... 

 

 

There are four types evidence by which facts can be proven or disproven at trial which include:

• Real evidence;
• Demonstrative evidence;
• Documentary evidence; and.
• Testimonial evidence.

 

 

[tr8er]

18 minutes ago, Mattndew76 said:

 

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. (LOTS OF IT AVAILABLE) 

 

Substantiate Evidence: to establish by proof or competent evidence: to substantiate a charge. to give substantial existence to: to substantiate an idea through action. to affirm as having substance; give body to; strengthen: to substantiate a friendship.

 

See the difference? 

 

Sworn Affidavits are considered EVIDENCE in a court of law... In order for it to be believed by a judge then it has to be Substantiated Evidence through investigation..

 

There are several types of court considered evidence too.... 

 

 

There are four types evidence by which facts can be proven or disproven at trial which include:

• Real evidence;
• Demonstrative evidence;
• Documentary evidence; and.
• Testimonial evidence.

Evidence yes.  Evidence of fraud no.   

[Mattndew76]

4 minutes ago, tr8er said:

Evidence yes.  Evidence of fraud no.   

 

Yes there is evidence of Fraud.

 

https://voterintegrityproject.com/

 

conducted a cold call campaign and discovered over 40,000 different cases of ballot fraud. The FBI also requested the data so they could run down the people involved.

 

This is just one instance uncovered, but there are more. 

Edited December 3, 2020 by Mattndew76

[BrothersGarage]

2 minutes ago, Mattndew76 said:

 

Yes there is evidence of Fraud.

 

https://voterintegrityproject.com/

 

conducted a cold call campaign and discovered over 40,000 different cases of ballot fraud. The FBI also requested the data so they could run down the people involved.

 

This is just one instance uncovered, but there are more. 

That same information is addressed in the video I linked above, and how that information was handled. 

[Mattndew76]

8 minutes ago, BrothersGarage said:

 

 

 

 Not Trumps attorneys. 

 

Trump has only filed 4 cases.

 

The other hundreds of cases are not being conducted by the Trump legal team, but by private citizens. 

Edited December 3, 2020 by Mattndew76

[Mattndew76]

4 minutes ago, BrothersGarage said:

That same information is addressed in the video I linked above, and how that information was handled. 

 

That judge wasn't speaking to anyone from the voter integrity project. 

[john510]

23 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

Yeah. I had them in the mid '80 up here and then they just disappeared.

 

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/10/30/no-mcrib-for-canada/

 

 Abstract Pork ranks third in annual U.S. meat consumption, behind beef and chicken, averaging 51 pounds per person. The Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) indicates that most pork is consumed at home. Pork consumption is highest in the Midwest (58 pounds), followed by the South(52 pounds), the Northeast (51 pounds), and the West (42 pounds). Rural consumers eat more pork (60 pounds) than urban/suburban consumers(49/48 pounds). Pork consumption varies by race and ethnicity. Blacks consume 63 pounds of pork per person per year, Whites 49 pounds, and Hispanics 45 pounds. Higher income consumers tend to consume less pork. Everything else remaining constant, demographic data in the CSFII suggest future declines in per capita pork consumption, as increases of Hispanics and the elderly—who eat less pork than the national average—enlarge their shares of the population. However, total U.S. pork consumption will grow because of an expansion of the U.S. population.

Canadian black population 3.5% in the '16 census. The US is almost 13.5%

I thought it was funny.No need to show me stats.I could believe it.

[Mattndew76]

 

[Mattndew76]

 

[john510]

2 hours ago, BrothersGarage said:

1 - What agenda does the BBC have with US politics? 

2 - https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/news-wrap-ag-barr-says-no-evidence-of-large-scale-election-fraud

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/william-barr-doj-fbi-voter-fraud-2020-election

https://www.newsweek.com/ag-barr-says-no-evidence-widespread-voter-fraud-after-trump-suggests-doj-involvement-election-1551574

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/barr-says-no-evidence-widespread-voter-fraud-defying-trump-n1249581

Your first question ? You're kidding right ? Maybe,i'm not sure,possibly.There left leaning and despise the right ? Just a wild guess.