chrysostom

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
It's interesting, the way you lie. Interesting from a psychological standpoint. You're obviously a psychopathic narcissist, but you must have some OCD in there as well because of the way your lies are so predictably repeated. It's like you have this little rolodex of lies in your brain, and each of your rote lies are dog-eared and worn, yet you pull them out and caress the creases lovingly before you lay them out again.

So fascinating...

It's fascinating on several levels, if also somewhat sickening.

:thumb:
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
It's interesting, the way you lie. Interesting from a psychological standpoint. You're obviously a psychopathic narcissist, but you must have some OCD in there as well because of the way your lies are so predictably repeated. It's like you have this little rolodex of lies in your brain, and each of your rote lies are dog-eared and worn, yet you pull them out and caress the creases lovingly before you lay them out again.

So fascinating...

Rarely is such a devastating smackdown delivered so equanimously. Well done.
 

Idolater

Well-known member

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Are you claiming to have listened to the entire show?

Up to a point and then I'd heard enough. There's nothing "shocking" about what happened in Michigan and any claims about fraud have been summarily dismissed. Even Trump's law firm have withdrawn from challenging the election results in Pennsylvania.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/13/trump-law-firm-withdraws-pennsylvania-election-case

Regarding the election, it's over. Biden won by a landslide.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
There's too many irregularities for the president to concede. It would be irresponsible for him to concede. He needs to make sure that the Supreme Court weighs in and can certify that our election was free and fair.

No, there aren't. State and federal officials have thrown these claims of fraud out so why would the supreme court weigh in? If there'd been evidence at a state level then sure, but these have been dismissed because there wasn't any. As above, Trump's own law firm have withdrawn from challenging the results in Pennsylvania and even Trump himself has come the closest yet to acknowledging that he hasn't won in an earlier public briefing.

It's done, it was done a while ago but now it's concrete.

Trump lost, big style.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
JudgeRightly: Are you claiming to have listened to the entire show?

Up to a point and then I'd heard enough.

In other words, you, Arthur, did NOT listen to the entire show. Which means you are blatantly ignoring the evidence presented in the show that supports the claims of voter fraud.

All because you'd "heard enough".

Heard enough of what? It certainly wasn't evidence, which wasn't even discussed until later in the show.

Here's a challenge for you, Arthur, instead of dismissing an argument because you don't like what you hear, or think it's irrational, or any other fallacious reason for dismissing an argument, try listening to the entire argument first, and the evidence that is presented.

Otherwise you're just intellectually dishonest at best, or just plain dishonest.

And no, that's not me just making a point. I actually do want you to listen to the entire show.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
JudgeRightly: Are you claiming to have listened to the entire show?



In other words, you, Arthur, did NOT listen to the entire show. Which means you are blatantly ignoring the evidence presented in the show that supports the claims of voter fraud.

All because you'd "heard enough".

Heard enough of what? It certainly wasn't evidence, which wasn't even discussed until later in the show.

Here's a challenge for you, Arthur, instead of dismissing an argument because you don't like what you hear, or think it's irrational, or any other fallacious reason for dismissing an argument, try listening to the entire argument first, and the evidence that is presented.

Otherwise you're just intellectually dishonest at best, or just plain dishonest.

And no, that's not me just making a point. I actually do want you to listen to the entire show.

No, I didn't. Around the half way mark was enough because as expected, it was just the typical far right wing rhetoric with a whole load of personal dismissal for anyone who isn't on that side of the political/religious spectrum and bluster in want of any sort of support. I've listened to some of Enyart's podcasts before and pretty much knew what to expect going in. So, no, there was nothing intellectually dishonest or just plain dishonest about shutting it off.

Now, I've listened to the rest of the thing and that's another fifteen minutes of my life I won't get back. As predicted, once he'd got past tax or non tax deductible donations to Denver Baptist Church, he had absolutely nothing but baseless allegations and debunked garbage about fraud in the state of Michigan. He had nothing of any substance whatsoever, just some digs at "the left".He most certainly didn't have any "evidence" to bolster these personal claims.

Meanwhile, all such claims have been summarily thrown out in that particular state, Pennsylvania has been given up and Trump has been soundly beaten in this election.

FTR, nobody is obliged to listen to any of these podcasts you may post in future, they aren't "evidence" of any sort. I'm not far right wing and thankfully have never been indoctrinated into such ideology. The actual facts are that there has been no such thing as democratic fraud in this election and it's over and done with.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
It's done, it was done a while ago but now it's concrete.
It's done when the states choose their electors. Just by definition. And unless and until then, the president has the right to challenge the vote counts. The idea is that this unprecedented election, featuring an enormous change to voting rules making mail-in ballots far, far easier to use, due to a crisis based on an emergency (pandemic situation), that didn't ultimately pan out (we were able to have a real in-person election), and that wound up favoring one candidate's party by a margin of 4-to-1, wasn't completely free and fair, because of said enormous change. How do you fit this into a case that won't be dismissed? That's going to take good lawyers, but the idea is at least plausible, that due to the easing of mail-in rules, and the fact that the Democrat party has an advantage over Republicans when it comes to ballot harvesting, because so many cities are Democrat strongholds, conveniently with far more population density than exurban and rural territory, which are almost uniformly more Republican, that the election was not free and fair, not how Americans want and presume our elections to be.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
It's done when the states choose their electors. Just by definition. And unless and until then, the president has the right to challenge the vote counts. The idea is that this unprecedented election, featuring an enormous change to voting rules making mail-in ballots far, far easier to use, due to a crisis based on an emergency (pandemic situation), that didn't ultimately pan out (we were able to have a real in-person election), and that wound up favoring one candidate's party by a margin of 4-to-1, wasn't completely free and fair, because of said enormous change. How do you fit this into a case that won't be dismissed? That's going to take good lawyers, but the idea is at least plausible, that due to the easing of mail-in rules, and the fact that the Democrat party has an advantage over Republicans when it comes to ballot harvesting, because so many cities are Democrat strongholds, conveniently with far more population density than exurban and rural territory, which are almost uniformly more Republican, that the election was not free and fair, not how Americans want and presume our elections to be.

It's done already. Even Trump's own law firm have quit in Pennsylvania so what does that tell you? Just accept it, Trump lost and there's been no fraud.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
It's done already. Even Trump's own law firm have quit in Pennsylvania so what does that tell you? Just accept it, Trump lost and there's been no fraud.
:AMR: I really don't know why you seem to care so much, and I didn't mention anything about fraud.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
You say it wasn't free and fair. It was.
I didn't say that it wasn't, I said we need to know that it was. And you just saying it of course doesn't, really matter.
There's no challenge for Trump to make
Possible. I'll trust his lawyers to make that determination.
and even he's backing away from it now.
That's not exactly how he looks on the twitter.
It's done.
Again, you saying it doesn't mean anything, and still leaves me wondering why you appear to care so much, being a Nonamerican.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
I didn't say that it wasn't, I said we need to know that it was. And you just saying it of course doesn't, really matter.

Well of course. It's not just me. All of these cases of anything interfering with a fair election process are being dismissed on a state and federal level.

Possible. I'll trust his lawyers to make that determination.

They already have in Pennsylvania and Trump isn't fighting it.

That's not exactly how he looks on the twitter.

I could care less about how he looks like on Twitter.

Again, you saying it doesn't mean anything, and still leaves me wondering why you appear to care so much, being a Nonamerican.

It's not just me, it's across the board from network to network. Believe it or not, what happens in America doesn't just concern Americans, or hadn't you heard?
 

Idolater

Well-known member
Well of course. It's not just me. All of these cases of anything interfering with a fair election process are being dismissed on a state and federal level.



They already have in Pennsylvania and Trump isn't fighting it.
He's got time on the clock, he doesn't have to just yet throw a Hail Mary, but it's getting down there. It looks like Rudy Giuliani's up at the plate. He has to hit a homerun to get a case before the Supreme Court. I don't know if he can do it. But it has to do with conception that they're going to try to promote as the truth. The truth is that the Democrat party was already set up to exploit a relaxing of mail-in ballot rules. They already had the organization working on that, but people needed a reason to mail-in vote before, now, you didn't need a reason, so this Democrat apparatus was able to streamline, and harvested ballots, in neighborhoods, in apartment complexes, making it so simple and easy for all these voters to vote. And since cities tend toward Democrat, where these ballot harvesters operated the Democrat advantage in the ballots was like 9-to-1. And there were truckloads of them, coming out of cities.

The Republicans were not already set up to help exurban and rural voters vote by mail like how the Democrats were in the cities, before the pandemic brought about a rules change, in the election year itself, that helped the Democrat party at the expense of the Republican party. So is this a free and fair election? It just doesn't smell like one. If the Republicans had already established apparatus to assist exurban and rural Americans with mailing in ballots, then this rules change would have maintained the free and fair nature of the election, but this last minute change benefited one party at the other's expense, and I'm not at all convinced that this didn't influence the election's outcome. I think that the president would have been reelected if not for this rules change. I think that Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia are clear cases of where the advantage in Democrat ballot harvesting influenced and overturned the election's outcome in those states. I think that had Republicans had a similar organization for assisting exurban and rural voters, like how Democrats did for city dwellers, that Republicans would have won, and that means that the will of the people was overturned, basically by accident.

And I think that Giuliani needs to find a way to argue that, or something like that, before the Supreme Court. If he can, then this election isn't over. If not, then it is. But that's what we're waiting on, is whether Rudy's going to hit a homerun, or complete the Hail Mary pass. I don't know cricket, so I don't know what the equivalent would be in that sport. In soccer I guess it would be scoring a goal.
I could care less about how he looks like on Twitter.
If what you say is directly contradicted by behavior in tweets, then I don't think it matters if you don't care about the twitter and what happens on it.
It's not just me, it's across the board from network to network. Believe it or not, what happens in America doesn't just concern Americans, or hadn't you heard?
We're told by our own countrymen and women that "American exceptionalism" is bad. I'm just acting as if that's true. Very interesting feedback.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
@Arthur Brain


Real Science Radio interviews a data security analyst about the security flaws in the Dominion Voting System at the center of a 2020 election scandal. RSR host Bob Enyart was hired by Microsoft in the 1980s because of Bob's writings and work in computer security. Daniel Hedrick is a long-time friend of RSR. This data security analyst to government agencies and some of the world's leading firms lists ways that the Dominion system actually enables election fraud.



In other words, more evidence that the election results are fraudulent.

Also:
 
Top