Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
KY
“Tyranny is not anything you don’t like.”
I’ll be as succinct as I can in case you decide to elaborate:
WHO gets to decide?
That is my question.
Health
“They didn’t rule at all – they avoided any political issues.”
Lol!! in our other thread you said any pronouncement or dismissal from a court is a “ruling” or “judgment”
(Note: your statement here is correct dismissal is NOT a ruling. BUT not all cases where dismissed. Some where ruled upon and even a dismissal, depends under what grounds may or may not weaken your case)““Biden “stole” six states?… Why didn’t they steal the senate too?””
sorry for the confusion I wasn’t actually asking these questions, they were rhetorical. I know what the answers are. I provided the answer you gave before you gave it.
KY
“Most haven’t thought about it, is my opinion.”
Including yourself… as you said “I have no need to know the answer” The question is a direct outcome of the position you’ve taken
which is of course fine.
You made a point, one that I have heard before but never fully understood . I was hoping you’d elaborate on your point.
You absolutely do not have to (obviously) .And I supplied a direct rational enjoinder. namely your contention
that People have a right to rebel isn’t true, and never was. certainly reading into the 2nd amendment is a very new idea.Again, I do not expect to convince you. I did hope to understand you though.
I gained a lot from our previous discussion
If this wont be one of those times. Fine
But don;t say I’m providing a distraction. You made a surprising contention, I’m trying to understand it. If you don’t know the answer, that is completely fine a simple “wow good question, I don’t know but I want to keep my opinion anyway” would sufficeThe fact that off the cuff I can’t give you clear guidelines to a specific scenario, doesn’t change anything.”
Fair enough, sorry for putting you on the spot. 8ts an argument I’ve heard before which while fine in theory, falls apart quickly in practice. I was hoping you’d flesh it out a bit more.
“Do you agree that that is the intent of the second amendment?”
Without question no. For the first 2 centuries of existence it was understood as applying to states . The nra promoted this reinterpretation over the past decades,, and it was finally accepted by scotus in Heller .
There was no armed uprising (whiskey rebellion, John brown , waco) in which anyone saud hey they have a right to rebel, the givt is tyrannical.
Even the civil war, which WAS a state led rebellion this view was rejected by court“But throwing in a specific instance and me not knowing the answer doesn’t do anything.”
It does, because it shows that your position is untenable. The idea that any individual person has constitutional right to rise up against the govt if he thinks they are tyrannical is a position that stretches the imagination to the point thst most would acknowledge it can’t be true.
Sure some would say it is true and some will prefer not to think about it. But it is far from a standard view.
I’m not trying to convince you of the wrongness of your view , that was not my intent in bringing up blm, or any extreme example
I don’t think its possible to change your mind. I’m just trying to understand your view and was curious if you’d be consistent or not“Here goes. Don’t know why I’m doing it, it’s not healthy but I can’t resist”
I have the same problem!
“Remember that compound in Texas? Waco?”
Yes I do, there have been plenty of armed uprisings in US history. I never heard anyone say that is their right. Interesting .Though, to clarify, although I would lose it doesn’t make me wrong (obviously).
And not just Waco, I suppose all the violent BLM protesters are right too, they elive (rightly or wrongly) that the Govt is tyrannical (in their treatment on blacks) as such they have a RIGHT to rise up in armed , violent rebellion, even killing cops if necessary. Is this correct?“Cute that this word is misspelled. (just cute, we all make clumsy typos)”
Lol! I thought the same when I read my post after posted.“I ask you, if it was possible to steal the election from trump, do you for a moment believe the left would not do it?”
They would. Though that is the far less likely scenario.
I ask you if Trump believed there was fraud wouldn’t he throw the might of the federal govt into proving it. what does he have to lose? There are plenty of lawyers who’d have taken his case if he had a real one.
I think we are approaching conspiracy theory land, this is when every bit of information that doesnt fit the narrative is part of the plot.
Trump appointed judges ruled against him? They are in on it!
Biden “stole” six states? Yes not to make it obvious, couldn’t steal just enough so stole extra
Why didn’t they steal the senate too? Would’ve been too risky Tafasta meruba
Bill Barr? Rino!These arent lal points you’ve made, I’m combining other YWN posters plus real life people who yes “”always ”believe every thing he says”
RE
I don’t really understand the difference between someone calling themselves “klug” and calling yourself “reb” (and getting bent out of shape if others don’t do it) out of ” respect that I bestow to anyone of … knowledge.”
KY
How does this constitutional right to overthrow the Government work?
I f I decide My taxes are too high and are tyrannical do I have a right to defend myself and property by shooting any IRS agents who try to take it?
thanks
Also your post is peppered with a few inaccuracies
” THAT is what created the frustration and anger to boil over into this riot, not some single speech by trump.”
No not a single speech. IT was months of saying the same, in fact he said it before the election took place, he said it before the 2016 election took place as well, sadly many of his supporters follow him no matter what. He said it so it must be true . so yes many of them believed there was fraud, but no not from a single speech.
BTW THIS is what what Trump did was so terrible. Yes, many of them think they were doing the right thing, the President said there was fraud, as many of them claimed. Your argument works to defend them, not Trump. Trump knows there was no significant fraud (He would have hired real lawyers and presented his evidence if it were real .)
I think I may agree with you on the rioters. What do we want for them, they are not very inteeligent or sophisticated, if they are told there was fraud they believe it. The guy who told these bozos over and over that there country is being stolen, and they have to fight ot keep it should be held accountable, not them.
“, because statistical based on all signs before the election it was going to be a trump landslide.”
Not sure what you mean, Most polls showed biden winning. The pundits who had accurately predicted past elections (including 2016) predicted biden winning . what signs are you referring to?And please please please don;t use any signs ignoring Covid “oh before covid Economy was great …..” Sadly Covid happened, and can’t just be disregarded (if only!)
Madealiyah
“I can’t belive nobody realised it was a typo.”
don;t worry I got that it was a typo
I had trouble believing that any person would accept Student B’s defense of having instigated a group of students to want to hang the teacher, by accepting ” but student A….”
“The fact that you think I’m mourning trump’s loss is about as much proof is needed that you haven’t a clue where I stand.”
If I got the cause wrong, I’m sorry (though I Wasn’t referring to his loss, I was referring to his subsequent descent into madness) I guess I was looking for a kaf zechus to explain your break with reality over the past months
Perhaps it was wishful thinking, as now that Trump is gone, you’d improve and be in a better placeIf it is something else in your life. I hope you get help with that and work it out.
It gets better
Syag
That has nothing to do with your slipping grip on reality. My hamster admittedly bizarre wheel spinning doesn’t make it less true
I was hoping you’d come back a bit after Trump left.
Look at your most recent comment, it is so out of character for you, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Just insulting for the sake of insulting .(frankly its something I’d say)
Come back forget your boy Trump he let you down on his way out I get that this is distressing move past it. You’ll find someone better in 2024. Nikki Haley ? (She finally sees the error of following Trump)“based on the assumption that student a,(democrats) is completely innocent”
Nope
Student a is terrible
but :
1. He isn’t the one on trial
2. He didn’t lead to an insurrection against the teacher (intended or not)
3. He isn’t the class Presidentsyag
“I’m continually baffled by how someone actively involved on healthcare can be so out of touch with reality.”don’t be so baffled, you lost your grip on reality sometime mid Trump’s presidency based on most of your comments over the past year or so , your ability to separate fact from fiction, and fact from opinion has been seriously impaired
MAdealiyah
Thanks for fixing my mashal!
Yours is much betterWould nayone in their right mind dram Student B should ever be in charge ? Obviosuly not, he led to his followers trying to hang the teacher for crying out loud. Sure Student a isnt great but what does that have to do with the attempt on tteacher’s life.
Excellent Mashal!
Though I thought you liked Trump kudos for having written such a stinging rebuke” Now imagine Student A talks all day, every day, loudly, and teacher does nothing. Student B whispers just once, and is thrown out. Student B complains about student A…THAT, is NOT “whataboutism”. That is a blatant duel standard. ”
This mashal has no connection to reality.
A better example would be ”
Now imagine Student A talks all day, every day, loudly, and teacher does nothing. Student B tells his classmates day in and day out for months that teacher isnt legitimate and unless they “fight” they will never get the class back. A group of Student B supporters then Go roaming the School looking for Teacher to hang him while smashing windows. Teacher says “Student B, you have got to go” Student B says “Yeah but Student A talks all day and that was ok why the double standard”“We had the javits center, the comfort, and even Shor Yoshuv”
None of these were available on March 25 when Cuomo announced the poilcy
Completly inexcusable
Although at the time it seemed like a reasonable approach
hospitals had a bed shortage , instead of “storing” stable Covid + nursing home residents in hospitals, and having nurses change PPE between tending to them and Covid neg patientswhy not send them back to their homes and have nurses change PPE between tending to them and Covid neg residents.
for whatever reason, it didn’t work .
so own up to it , hiding and coverups are completely inexcusable
Health
“And again – how do you know that”
I’m smart? From reading, following the law? also see below
You dont always need a navi to predict the future. If you drop a glass it will break.“Don’t tell me that you don’t know the difference between mistaken and lying.”
I do, as I told you, I do not think you were lying.“IDK of any Court Case with Powell.”
Its been all over the news. You should follow the news more if you want to be more informed. This you you wont be mistaken as often, and wont call other people names, while you are the one who is mistaken.“Tell me whether it’s Federal or State”
Federal” and where was this case filed.”
US district court for DC“Also the Docket number.”
Case 1:21-cv-00040
Also the Docket number.Healt h dearest
“Don’t put words in my mouth!”
I am not,
Help me understandYou claimed her case would be heard by the Supreme court, and that “she will” (note: not that she did already) release her evidence then.
you said this Dec 20 AFTER her briefs were in. She has provided NO new information since then.I replied (correctly) that her case won’t be heard.
what did You think I meant“At that time I didn’t read her file – so I didn’t know that her motion contained her evidence.”
Lol. so when you said “she will provide evidence” You were lying correct? ( To be c lear: you are big on calling people liars, I dont think you were lying (then) . I think you were simply mistaken, and perhaps hopeful that somehow things would go your way. but inexplicably view it ias a weakness to admit it now, and instead come up with increasingly bizarre explanations and redefinition.
“Btw, the case is Still pending,”
Yes, as I told you confrence is scheduled fro 2/19 (note: nOT a court case)
” but you know that the SCOTUS will give a Judgement of “Moot”.”
no not a judgment of moot, but they will dismiss it without judgment (probably for being moot)How do you know that?”
What can I say, these are things we learn in kindergarten
“If you had a drop of honesty – you’d ask her.”
I dont have any questions for her. I do have a question for you though : When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
Will you then agree that she liedThe part I don’t get Is he wasn’t impeached before leaving office . He was impeached (for the 2nd time) on Jan 13, he left office on Jan 20 (at noon) , he was impeached before leaving office, period.
(Though I do think the impeachment is silly, a better idea would have been censure they probably wouldve had a few decent Republicans (yes there are some) joining )
Health
” that your interpretation ”
Interpretation of what?
“Moot is a judgment”
not in the sense that we have been discussing for months. And it certainly isnt a “court case” being heard. It is literally the opposite .
And you really thought all this time I was saying the court was just going to ignore the case , without formally dismissing it?
cmon, even for you that is a stretch ,
(Furthermore Your claim, of what you meant isn’t plausible since AFTER her briefs were submitted, you still insisted she would reveal more evidence in court when her “case is heard” (an event I told you wouldn’t happen) Even if the conference counts as a court case, no new information will be provided by her, so your claim is still wrong)but, Ok
So lets pretend a case being dismissed as moot, is the same as a case that is heard. (though even typing those words out as a hypothetical is bizarre)Fine moving on, back to the subject at hand
When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
Will you then agree that she liedHealth
“This is called having a Court Case.”
It what language?
definitely not English nor Yiddish , French or Hebrew, In none of those languages is ruling a case as moot called “having a court case”I don’t know what the rest of your post about “PC law” has to do with anything
And again, although you are redefining words to try to fit your wrong point. It STILL doesn’t help you. You said she would be hard in court. Surely you must grant she won’t b invited to said conference. So even if we suspend English, and redefine “having a court case” to include “dismissing a case for being moot”
I STILL didn’t lie when I told you (over and over) that her case wouldn’t be heardso back to the topic at hand
When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
Will you then agree that she liedHealth
Lets keep it simple
On 12/20 you said ““Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards””today are you saying:
1) that there was/ will be a court case (on the topic in question)
2) there wasn’t/wont be and this is a historic development – “first time in history”
3) Your assertion on 12/20 was mistakenI cant think of another option
Health
“Who do you think dismisses cases – you or the Court?!?”
The court does. The court doesn’t rule on theoretical cases neither on issues that have not materialized (ripeness) nor on things that already happened, and cant be undone (mootness) in Both of these situations, the court does not issue a judgment. Instead the case is dismissed
““provided it does not fall within one of the recognized exceptions””
Lol! I told you (months ago) that it did. you called me a liar. You only YESTERDAY said that. Way back on 12/20 you said ““Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards””
I told you then (and many times since) there would be no court case, you called me a liar.
You did not mention any exception until yesterday.Of course time proved me correct. Do you have the resolve to say “Wow Ubiq you were right when you said the curt wouldn’t issue a ruling, I’m sorry I called you a liar” ?
Lol! of course not. Instead you redefine basic words“I think I explained it so well, even a First Grader can understand my posts!!!”
You do! I understood every word of all that you’ve posted. Do not worry
Repeating my new questions
When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
Will you then agree that she liedMadeAliyah
you wish
Health
new question
When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
Will you then agree that she lied“Do you have a problem understanding simple posts?!?”
Nope
“She put all her proofs in her Files/Motion.”
You changed to this position later, at first you insisted (over and over) that she would have a hearing. and that if her case was dismissed it would be the first time in history remeber when yo said this “Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards!”
It is quite a redefinition of ” a court case” to include a case being thrown out as moot, as coun
“So either you are too Lazy to read the File”
read it already“Is it because that you have a Lot of Gaiva?!?”
No. It is becasue I find our discussions fascinating.
“I tried to explain this before to you – if the SCOTUS decides that a case is Moot – that is a judgment.”
Yes, I got your new definition of judgment. And I suppose it is also “hav[ing] a court case” correct?
I’m not sure why you are copying wikipedia. I know what a moot case is, As I told you months (literallly) ado that the case wouldn’t be heard since would be moot.
There was no judgment and will be none.
As You correctly quote from Wikipedia …a moot case must be dismissed,…” there is no decision, there is no judgment it is “dismissed”See later on in Wikipedia whci h YOU quoted) where they compared t to “ripeness” where it is even more explicit “..that holds that judges SHOULD NOT RULE on cases based entirely on anticipated disputes…”
The question posed was whether enough evidence to support claims of violations of elections (among other things)
What did the court decide?
What will they decide?They of course won’t (as I’ve ben saying for months)
They aren’t “deciding” it is moot. That wasn’t (and isn’t) the question
The case will be dismissed (because it is now moot)Health
Putting aside the fact that you are flat out wrong. As there is no defitnion of a case being heard that includes a case being thrown out as moot (can you please provide a source for this new definition)
That was not what we were disagreeing about.
I’ll remind you:
This conversation began with your post 1928872 on 12/15 when you said that Sydney Powell Would prove fraud. I said not to take anything she says seriously since she is a proven liar.
The lie I identified was that she claimed she would release evidence “soon” and “soon” had already past.
You redefined “soon” to include at a supreme court case (whenever that may be) putting aside the fact tht NO defintion of soon” includes “at her supreme court case” (this is a recurring theme of yours redefining words instead of just admitting your error, its fascinating really)
To which I replied, her court case would never be heard
To which you replied (as late as Jan 7 !!!) that she was still “… going to SCOTUS and I even posted the 2 case numbers here, because you were too Lazy to look for them yourself!” (note NOT that she went already and submitted her briefs, but that there would still be a hearign in the old, ordinary defintion of the word)
To which I replied, that no her case would never be heard
To which You called me a liar.
And as late as Jan 18 still thought Trump had a chance.I have to say, I thought when her case is finanly thrown out You’d have to admit that I wasn’t lying when I said her case wouldn’t be heard. Never in a million years did I dream you would go so far as to redefine “case being heard” (See I’m not so smart I can be wrong sometimes)
Though I’m not sure If I should be impressed or disappointed with your dishonestyHealth
“Btw, this is called a judgment.
You sure don’t know legal terms!”Lol!
for months the right has been saying that dismissing a case on procedural grounds doesnt count as a judgment . but fine its a juddgement.
However that was not our disagreement. I told you over and ovver that her case would not get heard, and that she would not be releasing any evidence she claimed she had , making her a liar.
You called me a liar for saying that.
I stand by that claim, her case will not get heard. She lied to you
“I just posted that I was just quoting from the Evangel Xitians.
They believe that Trump will still be president for 4 more years.
They think Biden will be removed.”yes, and like almost everything you post, that is nonsense.
“I personally don’t have an opinion either way,”
Lol Sure you do. And you express your wrong opinion quite strongly, with lots of name calling.
“But if they end up being right, are you going to Sue Some DemonCrats for Traumatizing Your Hopes?!?”
what hopes? I’m not traumatized. I dont still harbor any irrational beleiefs that Trump will still win . you have us mixed up again
Health
In case your wondering it was distributed for conference 2/19.
When case will be thrown out as moot (previous statement was fact, this is opinion (for now)).
Sydney Powell tricked you.
I’m curious to see how much she settles her case with dominion for.
You shopuld try suing her, her lies prevented you from properly processing the elction and reality as late as mid January you thought Trump still had hope, it must have been very traumatizing for you to watch your hope quashed.Unless you still think The election will be overturned ?
Amazon has every right to shut down Parler
You have every right to boycott Amazon, twitter and Facebookaoish you need both a math refresher and a civics refresher
The math checks out. In fact it is mathematically possible to lose ALL 19 of thsoe counties by 100% and still win the election (need to win other counties STATES determine electoral winner not counties)
Civics:
The President is chosen by the Electoral college. The electoral college voted for Joe Biden on Dec 14 and was certified on Jan 6. These facts are not in dispute.I’m not sure the chidush of this thread.
Of course Democrats are scared of Trump. He is an unhinged (something many of his supporters agree too!) liar with a lot of support. That is dangerous
He said it best “I could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose any support” (parpahrasing)
That statement is probably true. and It is scary.Health
you seem a bit confused about the constitution
1. The constituion protects you from the government. Twitter (and YWN) can silence nay view they want. In fact those who oppose this right and insist on usint the government to force Twitter (or YWN) being forced to publicize views that they don’t want to , are in fact agaisnt the 1st amendment2. The 2nd amendment for the 1st 2 centuries of its existence was understood as applying to States not an individual. Granted in 2008 this original interpretation was overthrown by 5 activist justices legislating from the bench So currently that is the law and any attempt by Congress to regulate (dont forget “Well-regulated milita” ) will need to conform to that. It is disingenuous to say that the original 200 year interpretation before it was overthrown by what Burger described as a “fraud” is “destroying the 2nd Amendment”
Syag
“I can’t for the life of me figure out how impeaching someone soley to prevent american citizens from having their choice of president isn’t interfering in an election.”
Here to help!
There is nothing wrong with “interfering in an election”
Every time a politician says “vote for me” he or she is “interfering in an election” certainly endorsements from other politicians from newspapers etc is all “interfering in an election”
Nobody ever said interfering in an election is bad.
What they did say is bad is FOREIGN interference in an election. The idea being that Americans care best for American interests, and Russians/Chinese/Israelis/Togolese would put their interests first possibly underming American interests. (you can of course disagree with this argument and say there is nothing wrong With foreign interference, but that has nothing to do with impeachment)
Of course ILLEGAL interference is bad too, such as illegally making it difficult for people to vote .
But “interfering” in of itself when done legally isn’t really a thing . let alone wrong.
“The burden of proof is [supposed to be] on the accuser,”
Yes I provided proof. His words that Literally said to “go fight”. that you reinterpret them is without question your right.
But the proof is there if you want to see itIn the quote you provided he said “And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
Of course there are other quotes as well “Republicans are, Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder.”
another one
“And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
Yw
“The way i interpret the above, is that he meant everyone should protest ORALLY with “gevald” in similar fashion as lib’s do, … If you and other lib’s choose to interpret it otherwise, that’s your opinion,”
That’s great that you interpret it that way. And as I told DY in a court of law he can probably claim thats what he meant
But You an I are not the only ones who heard (read) the speech. His supporters many of whom DID FIGHT heard it too. how did THEY interpret it. and is fighting a reasonable interpretation of “go fight” ?
Shady
“…is no less hashkofically flawed to state a future event as if it is fact. I agree that it is incredibly more likely, but it’s still hashkofically wrong to state it like a nevuah.”
Thats silly. If I tell you don’t drop the glass it will break, don’t forget to charge your phone it will die. There is nothing hashkaficly wrong wit that. Yes you are technically predicting the future, but we know how the world works, glass breaks when it hits floor phones don’t work when they lose charge. similarly Elected presidents get sworn in on inauguration day
“but I’m not being fair to him if I don’t bother to consider the “facts” he’s asking us to look at”
There is no fact that he mentioned to “look at”Health
“Stop with your Kefira. I didn’t say I believe the Goyishe Prophets.”you did on more than one occasion, quoting them as a way to hedge your bets.
You think Trump has a chance becasue “goyish prophets” claim he doesTo be fair I assumed you were joking, but don’t claim you didn’t say it
“Are you saying that they won’t give a Judgment?”
Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying (and have been for > 2 months)
Health
Lol!
did you really write both of these statements :
“You have a very serious problem with any reality.”
and
“‘Do you mean you think Trump will get sworn in Jan 20 2021?’ – I have no idea.”Amazing stuff!
Well I have an exact idea of what will happen next, and I don’t lie.
The case “pending” doesn’t mean anything
On Jan 20 (tomorrow) it will certainly be irrelevant (arguably it was irrelevant on Jan 6 or even Dec 14 (this is one argument made by the City of Detroit and the Governor in their briefs )
This is why they were hoping for an expedition, it was denied.
The case will not be heard.
I’m sorry you have been relying on Goyishe Prophets. you really shouldn’t. youve been lied too, and sadly you can’t even see it.
“Look – I told you many times that the Goyishe Prophets …”
I don’t care about Goyishe prophets
You have said On more than one occasion, that she would have her case heard by the Supreme court . you called me a Liar when I said she wouldn’t .
I’m curious if YOU have changed your mind.
It sounds like you haven’t “but I don’t count them out – that they aren’t telling the Truth!”
Do you mean you think Trump will get sworn in Jan 20 2021?
I did see a report from Q that biden was arrested and his face switched with Trump, so that “Biden” who will get sworn in on Jna 21 is actually Trump. Thsi is why he will stutter alot becasue Trump is adjusting to biden’s voice . Is this your view?
Health
“And why not?”
They won’t as I’ve been trying to tell you for months.
Even if someone was in denial until now. That denial should be gone. The Supreme court doesn’t hear cases that are moot, ie theoretical cases with no practical ramification (Article III section 2 of the constitution limits court’s scope to “cases & controversies” . Any election litigation is now theoretical Biden won (even if unfairly) There is a zero percent chance that the case will be heard.
Zero.
Health
Got it
so you still think they’ll hear it.
correct?The short answer is “We” wouldn’t. None of us (at least most of us) Do not have the the ability to investigate claims ourselves. Sure We can see a lcip claiming to show Discarded ballots for Trump as “proof” that those were illegally discarded or accept the explanation that those were improperly filled out therefore discarded, bu t none of us really know.
The longer answer is to put all the facts together and come to the more reasonable conclusion:
Scenario A. A President whose approval rating has never crossed 50%, who “oversaw” the deaths of hundreds of thousands in a pandemic that he admitted to have downplayed (if he was actually responsible for deaths is irrelevant) , where most economic markers are worse than when he started office (Not necessarily his fault), actually lost the election as was predicted by almost all polls going into the election. and in order to save face, as he said “I Don’t lose well” alleged fraud took place as he said he would before the election took place both in 2020 AND in 2016 as well as in primary races he lost.
or
Scenario B. The Democrats coordinated efforts to steal 6 states elections, but left the Senate in deadlock (not to raise suspicion I guess) lost seats in the house. Trump’s AG, head of election cybersecurity, as well as many Republican appointed judges not to mention most senators and congressmen, As well As Republican officials in those stolen states are in on to too.
Trump of course knew the election was being stolen, yet Inexplicably instead of hiring real lawyers to litigate these cases, perhaps people who specialize in election law (Like Gore and Bush did during a real case) Trump chose to hire incompetent Showboaters who are great and talking big but clearly were not going to deliverIs scenario B POSSIBLE? of course!
is it more likely ? of course notHealth
“She is going to SCOTUS and I even posted the 2 case numbers here,”
As I told you over and over she isn’t going to the Supreme court- Her motion to expedite was denied on Jan 14
To which you replied “Ok – she isn’t Lying – You are! Now why would you lie? Are you Afraid she’ll win those cases?!?”
Do you still think a court case will take place? Or are we witnessing history in the making ““Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards!”” ?
Now granted she will be sued for the lies she told (that you fell for) Though I doubt a court case will take place there either, she will probably settle.
You may have seen the apology from Right wing American thinker:
“American Thinker and contributors Andrea Widburg, R.D. Wedge, Brian Tomlinson, and Peggy Ryan have published pieces on www. AmericanThinker .com that falsely accuse US Dominion Inc., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation (collectively “Dominion”) of conspiring to steal the November 2020 election from Donald Trump. These pieces rely on discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories about Dominion’s supposed ties to Venezuela, fraud on Dominion’s machines that resulted in massive vote switching or weighted votes, and other claims falsely stating that there is credible evidence that Dominion acted fraudulently.
These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims.
It was wrong for us to publish these false statements. We apologize to Dominion for all of the harm this caused them and their employees. We also apologize to our readers for abandoning 9 journalistic principles and misrepresenting Dominion’s track record and its limited role in tabulating votes for the November 2020 election. We regret this grave error. ” *
I’m so sorry you had to find out this way. I know how deeply you beleived her eyes and were hoping things would turn out different, and hoping that her obviously blatant lies would be true.
Maybe Secret Supreme court will still hear her case?
(* note no copyright violation 1) because I am telling you what I am quoting, if I pretended it was may own it MAY be copyright violation, 2) a small Quote like this is protected under “fair use”)
“…, and never mind the gross election fraud. … the so-called “non-proof” of fraud wouldn’t hold up in a real court”
Lol, Trump (and his goons) tried in court! and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and a few more times
“When people have their minds set, they’re often set in stone.”
Truer words have ever been spoken
ywnjudy
“Syag, thanks for taking on ubiquitin’s response, as i couldn’t tackle it!”
she didnt sorry to let you down
Here is my response again“Seriously though they aren’t interested in debate. and we dont need them:
I provided quotes and context.
If you think when Trump said “Go fight” he meant a friendly pillow fight say so. IF you think he meant “Go right ” (ie towards the lincoln memorial) but his word slurring tendency make it sound like “Go fight” say so. I’m trying to understand what you think he meant:”(note “seriously though”, the pervious part wasn’t serious)
Thanks Flowers, DY, and Avram
I was confused by some of the accusations.
That isn’t to say I am completely innocent of cranking up the rhetoric further (I’m not)
rightwriter
“wrote suggesting that if someone wants privacy then theh must be doing or saying something wrong.”
I did not mean to suggest that.
and your bathroom analogy is getting me confused again. My question was NOT about the desire to “take back” something that was said. We have all (at least most) been there. Nor about the need for privacy. My confusion was when you said that 80% of what you text are things that you later want to “take back”
worth noting , that if a person spends 80% of his time in the bathroom something is wrong. That doesn’t make him a bad person, and I am not judging. A doctor MAY be able to help, but should definitely be consulted.
similarly if 80% of what a person texts are things he later regrets, that isn’t typical. Again it isnt “bad” but something is atypical. That is what prompted my question. I couldn’t imagine why a person wanted to retract so much of what was saidYou response answered it, now I see
“-then why is it ok to request it for a picture but not message isn’t it the same concept?”
Pictures are different for several reason
(Note not all these differences apply to all texts vs all pictures just generally speaking)
1- Text that you sent – by definition – was wit h your consent. If you later regret it that is “your problem” not mine , as opposed to a picture we I take where you look “unflattering” you never agreed to the picture in the first place
2- You cant control how you look in picture maybe you were scratching your nose and from angle looks more embarrassing , certainly a person should delete that and wouldn’t be weird for someone to ask . Text YOU composed you have no one else to blame (I’m not sure that this is different than #1)
3- Picture is unmistakably you. Thus You “own it” more than words which even if I were to forward it would lose their connection to you .
4- Pictures have a tendency to live on, words are typically forgotten about. I cant imagine someone scrolling back to laugh at the time so-an-so was constipated. If they dont look for it they wont find it. Pictures get saved in album, often transferred to cloud, and live on on a computer pop up when google reminds you of this day 8 years later etc etcIf you don’t think any of these differences are real, thats ok to of course.
The gist is the same. In both cases you cant FORCE them to delete it and in both cases they should delete it“I don’t see what the big deal is or why someone would get offended.”
Its not a big deal, and I dont think people would get offended, it is just “odd” ie atypical. I text 20 people daily probably another 30 people I “chat” with in groups. I can recall 1 time someone asked to delete something that was sent and a handful of times that a message was deleted from the group. It isnt typical that things are later deleted. and certainly not near 80% (for most people) which is what prompted my question
rightwriter
Since you so patiently addressed why you want 80% of your text s deleted .
I will answer some of your questions although not addressed to me.
“Now do you understand the concept of how some things are meant to be momentary but we use texting which is a great way to send material, but the drawback is that its saved.”
YOU have to understand the concept. WE all get it. Once sent you cannot retrieve it period. If you want it to be “momentary” do not text it.
YES You cCAN ask people to delete it ( Though ” Would that also be an “odd” request on your part to ask them to delete it? ” – unquestionably Yes )
and nice people would oblige your request. But they don’t have to as you correctly point out “which I can see is a bit intrusive”
“Personally I dont like clutter. That includes digital clutter which includes conversation and messaging threads. So I basically delete messages daily. Thats one reason”
That has nothing to do with other people’s deleting.
“Would it be odd for you to request that they delete a picture in which you dont look too flattering, or at least crop you out?”
YEs, though not as odd (depends on how unflattering) Though I dont think its odd to ask them not to send it around, regardless if they are decent person they wouldnt send around such a picture and would delete it.I’m sorry I upset you (though I’m still not quite sure what it was) I hope we can be friends again
rightwriter
“quite simple, ubiquitin wanted to share with us that he can only think dirty.”
for the life of me I don’t understand how you got that from my question.
I asked “why is t 80% of what you are saying stuff that you wouldn’t want a record of?
Even 20% seems like too much””When I first saw your question, I thought back to maybe 2 texts over the course of a year that I wanted retracted. considering I text multple times daily (aside from Shabbos and Y”T) Your question related to < 1% of things I texted.
I didn’t reply, because Flower’s points seemd so obvious (namely if yo uwant people to delete it they should but they don’t have to, they dont belong to you)
I asked my question when you said that 80% of what you want to text are things you had to withold if they wont be deleted. This baffled me. So I asked what you were referring to.
You answered in a needlessly hostile and angry way. Though you did answer. so thank you.