• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Left, or Underhanded, Election Denial.

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
I would support the change to using the majority vote to decide national elections.....Whatever system we use to select our President, the opposing parties should have the right to challenge the vote count if necessary. If Trump wins, Trump should be respected as our President....If someone else wins, they should be respected as the President..Sometime, it is necessary to state the obvious...

We have a national problem when one of our political party's power and influence is entrenched too deeply into the machinery of state, or when the machinery of state has a political bias that they're willing to enforce using the machinery of state.

We have another problem when the voters of one of the parties are ok with the machinery of state trying to tilt the election in the direction they, and the voters of one party, want the election to go.

We have a further problem when the media outlets of the nation link up with the machinery of state, and the voters of one party, to knowingly tilt the vocabulary, and focus, of the news media, to back up the machinery of state, and the party of preference, in order win elections the old fashion way that has always been the problem with democracy.

Democracy in the USA has run it's course. Something else is on the wings. Amen.

Republicans can pivot easily and naturally. Not so democrats whose only power comes from the nature and machinery of democracy. While for republicans the collapse of democracy will likely be a good thing (in the long run), for democrats it's fatal. Which is why the stakes are so high for the democrats that their biases have become absolute blinders to anything but whatever will keep their cornucopia of redistribution of power, wealth, and self-esteem ---i.e., democracy --- intact.

It's one thing to chain and beat the goose that lays the golden egg. It's quite another to gang rape it and threaten to slay it when the other party refuses to abort the offspring of the crime so that a family resemblance can convict the perp (the 2020 election in a nutshell). The FBI went into the sanctity of a man's temple to attempt to locate and abort the evidence of one of the most damning crimes in the history of the USA. They then have the audacity to attempt to accuse him (and anyone who agrees with him) of the crime of calling their abortion of justice a crime. Worse, democrats applaud such abortions of justice and literally make the crime of abortion their rallying cry.



John
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
But isn't that protect by free speech. Censorship is not how Democracy works. That is how third world dictators stay in power.

Why didn't the Biden Administration set up an independent Federal commission to address voter fraud? This was a very serious charge by lots of people. If you recall the computers went down for a few hours late at night with Trump ahead. When they restarted, Biden was ahead. This was not normal or typical. I can see how this could be confusing.

Such an investigation could have settled this, similar to when Trump agreed to the Mueller investigation with 20 Democrat lawyers, into the serious charges of Russian collusion. Once that investigation was over, all you heard from the accusers was the sound of crickets. A bright light scarred away the thieves.

If Trump had avoided the Mueller investigation, doubt about Russian collusion would still be lingering. Now the Democrats try to avoid the Russian Collusion Coup discussion, since they feel edgy for that scam. Trump allowed his investigation, because he felt he was innocent and was a victim of a Coup. He was right but no justice was done. Would those who ran the Coup try to steal an election, knowing if Trump won, they will now be under investigation for the Coup. There was motive to win then election by any means, based on political and personal survival.

Biden did not even try to silence the critics who claimed voter fraud, with a full scale federal investigation. We could have used Mueller again with 20 Republican Lawyers. Instead, election fraud was deemed refuted without any major tax payer funded investigation.

All the court cases for voter fraud were civil cases payed for by private citizens. There was no federal case that started within the Government, that had more power to dig into classified materials and drag people to court and put then in jail of they perjure Lack of due process by the Democrats have left the door of doubt open. This may need to be addressed in the future, to help lower the political tension.

If the Democrats lose the midterms and claim steal or fraud, they will have to get in line for their due process, since there are already election deniers in front on them, still waiting for their due process.
The claims and reported evidence of voter fraud have been extensively investigated -- with nothing found. Historically, Democrats havebeen conciliatory, and will bow out even when results are in question.
What we do have is voter suppression -- by multiple means, exclusively from the Right.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
The claims and reported evidence of voter fraud have been extensively investigated -- .

By the perps. That's not a real investigation. . . The fundamental, fatal, problem, is that the machinery of state is being used to tilt elections and then being used to investigate the tilted election. And the media is being used to whitewash the hoax by designing semantics "election denier" and "the Big Lie" and using these terms so often, and in such odd contexts, that any fair-minded person has to be thinking they protesteth too much and too rabidly.



John
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It is fascinating when left and right move so far away from each other that they actually start resembling each other.
Now that is the truth.

For decades, people have been saying the duopoly are mirror images of each other.

Not surprising, givin the historical fact that both Democrats and Republicans were, at one time, one party that had splintered.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
You say tomato, I say tomahto...
It's definitely not that.
Like me, I don't claim anyone to by my president, governor or anything such thing. I've never met them, I don't know them, they tend to mostly not even exist in my head in my day to day life. But that's not a denial of the election. It's a rejection of the notion that these people deserve some sort of upfront and special respect due to their position of authority.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
By the perps. That's not a real investigation. . . The fundamental, fatal, problem, is that the machinery of state is being used to tilt elections and then being used to investigate the tilted election. And the media is being used to whitewash the hoax by designing semantics "election denier" and "the Big Lie" and using these terms so often, and in such odd contexts, that any fair-minded person has to be thinking they protesteth too much and too rabidly.



John
It hasn't been the perps but many, many groups amd states including those who were utterly convinced in this nonsensical fairytale.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The claims and reported evidence of voter fraud have been extensively investigated -- with nothing found. Historically, Democrats havebeen conciliatory, and will bow out even when results are in question.
What we do have is voter suppression -- by multiple means, exclusively from the Right.
Yup. It's just not the people doing the fraud but politicians denying the vote. That's the way it's always been in America.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
It's definitely not that.
Like me, I don't claim anyone to by my president, governor or anything such thing. I've never met them, I don't know them, they tend to mostly not even exist in my head in my day to day life. But that's not a denial of the election. It's a rejection of the notion that these people deserve some sort of upfront and special respect due to their position of authority.

If you are a US citizen, the American president is your President. Whether you've met them, like them, agree with them, or acknowledge them. The rejection of some on the left of Trump as "not their President" is explicitly an assertion that he was not legitimately the President of the US.

Arguing it's something other than that on some weird semantic technicality is not plausible. Let's call a spade a spade here. I think Trump is a terrible human being and was a terrible President, but he won. He was our President. And he may win again. And in that case he'll be our President again.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
If you are a US citizen, the American president is your President. Whether you've met them, like them, agree with them, or acknowledge them. The rejection of some on the left of Trump as "not their President" is explicitly an assertion that he was not legitimately the President of the US.

Arguing it's something other than that on some weird semantic technicality is not plausible. Let's call a spade a spade here. I think Trump is a terrible human being and was a terrible President, but he won. He was our President. And he may win again. And in that case he'll be our President again.
That wasn't my understanding of why some said that "Trump isn't my president", it was because Trump was so extremely corrupt and refused to honor his oath, and follow the constitution with a peaceful transition of power.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
That wasn't my understanding of why some said that "Trump isn't my president", it was because Trump was so extremely corrupt and refused to honor his oath, and follow the constitution with a peaceful transition of power.

And so because of those things he...wasn't legitimately the President to those people. I don't see how any other meaning can plausibly be derived.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
It hasn't been the perps but many, many groups amd states including those who were utterly convinced in this nonsensical fairytale.

Semantics are important. It's easy to erect a straw man called "election denier" by pretending that this straw man is fixated on miscounted ballots, or false ballots.

But what any fair-minded person shouldn't be able to deny is that the FBI was out to get a republican and was willing to use the machinery of state to make the voting populace believe this republican candidate was in deep with the Russians.

That the democratic candidate at the time encouraged this election farce, and was abetted by the FBI, is far more concerning than false ballots and dead people voting, such that the media utterly ignores it (purposely) and paints a picture of an "election denier" as someone exclusively fixated on ballots, so they (the media) can whitewash the true source of angst, which is the undeniable fact that the FBI, DOJ, and numerous other machines of state (and mainstream media too), are in cahoots with the democrats and serving the needs of the democratic party as though they work for them exclusively.

When a republican, or independent, sees, clearly, with their own eyes, that they can't trust the FBI, DOJ, mainstream media, etc., then they can hardly be faulted to start wondering just how deep this oligarchial, incestuous, relationship actually goes since it's pretty likely that what we actually get to see is only the tip of a large iceberg that rather than melting as global warming would imply, just keeps getting bigger and bigger.



John
 
Last edited:

F1fan

Veteran Member
And so because of those things he...wasn't legitimately the President to those people. I don't see how any other meaning can plausibly be derived.
More of a case of Trump not fulfilling his duties as president. The people didn’t change their high, ethical standards for presidents. Trump failed to meet them. The voters agreed in 2020. Let that be a lesson for future candidates: ethics and competence matters.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Semantics are important. It's easy to erect a straw man called "election denier" by pretending that this straw man is fixated on miscounted ballots, or false ballots.

But what any fair-minded person shouldn't be able to deny is that the FBI was out to get a republican and was willing to use the machinery of state to make the voting populace believe this republican candidate was in deep with the Russians.
Not a single mention about Comey announcing their reopening of an investigation on Hilary 11 days before the election? They found nothing but the damage was done.

And Trump? Well his campaign had 111 meetings with Russians during the 2016 campaign. That certainly raised a lot of questions, especially since the Russians were hacking the dnc and the rnc, but only sabotaged the democrats. In addition there was a massive Russian influence campaign against Clinton that was very effective in spreading misinformation.

Your hostility towards democracy and facts is notable. Da, Comrade?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
When a republican, or independent, sees, clearly, with their own eyes, that they can't trust the FBI, DOJ, mainstream media, etc., then they can hardly be faulted to start wondering just how deep this oligarchial, incestuous, relationship actually goes since it's pretty likely that what we actually get to see is only the tip of a large iceberg that rather than melting as global warming would imply, just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
Even those who believed Trump had the election stolen from him couldn't find the evidence of fraud when they looked.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
If you are a US citizen, the American president is your President. Whether you've met them, like them, agree with them, or acknowledge them. The rejection of some on the left of Trump as "not their President" is explicitly an assertion that he was not legitimately the President of the US.

Arguing it's something other than that on some weird semantic technicality is not plausible. Let's call a spade a spade here. I think Trump is a terrible human being and was a terrible President, but he won. He was our President. And he may win again. And in that case he'll be our President again.
Doesn't matter. I don't view or accept such people as over me. The President is the President, but he's nothing to me personally, not someone who deserves anymore respect than any body else, not anyone I'd obey just because everyone else thinks they need a ruler over them.
It is a rejection of authority, nit the election.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Not a single mention about Comey announcing their reopening of an investigation on Hilary 11 days before the election? They found nothing but the damage was done.

Comey felt impelled to do what he did for not having charged Hillary with what was clearly a crime when she destroyed her hard-drive so she couldn't be investigated for a different crime (than destroying evidence). Comey all but admitted it was a crime, and then, amazingly, stated that in his opinion no one would bring a case (particularly since it would all but hand the election to someone he was hoping would lose).

The outrage and out-roar from that move so threatened Comey that he clumsily (in a what you sow you'll reap kinda way) tilted the election toward Trump though, as we all know, that was furthest from his mind and actions since his wife and daughters protested against Trump his first day in office.

And Trump? Well his campaign had 111 meetings with Russians during the 2016 campaign. That certainly raised a lot of questions, especially since the Russians were hacking the dnc and the rnc, but only sabotaged the democrats. In addition there was a massive Russian influence campaign against Clinton that was very effective in spreading misinformation.

No argument there. That's all factual.

Your hostility towards democracy and facts is notable. Da, Comrade?

Interesting statement. And ironic too. Since democracy is a generally acceptable, and accepted, form of communism and socialism. It's clearly a means for minority groups to band together into a political "commune" or "collective" (of sorts), say gays, Jews, Blacks, women, so that they have clout against the majority (in the USA, Wasps ---- or at least that used to be the case prior to illegal immigration).

Western democracy is communism mixed with republicanism in primarily Judeo/Christian environments where the majority white Protestant males were wont to see the dangers and moral peril where majority rule took advantage of (and worse) the very minority groups republican-communism (Western democracy) empowered for the good of all.

The Founding Fathers of the USA knew a day would come when the minorities who banded together to have a say against the white Protestant majority would begin to see themselves as the majority, or indeed become, in a communist sense, the majority (outnumber the previous majority by the power of multiplication and addition, combining into a multiglotinous whole).

They (the Founding Fathers) knew what republicans today know: when that day arrives it will signal the end of democracy as it's been practiced since the foundation of the nation.

When, having been given the bad news about the polls, President Biden immediately responds that it will take days or weeks to count all the ballots (implying in his unfiltered senile way that in the same way he beat Trump democrats can still win larger majorities in the house) you can be assured that the day the Founding Fathers, and knowledgeable republicans knew would one day come, has in fact arrived. Which is to imply that the communized-majority won't be as willing to give up power based on moral imperatives (and even legalities) as easily and willingly as the Wasps did in the genesis and construction of the Western democracies.



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Even those who believed Trump had the election stolen from him couldn't find the evidence of fraud when they looked.

Mark Zuckerberg publicly announced that the FBI informed him that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation that Facebook, along with Twitter, and the mass media operation, should all silence and label false-content.

We now know the FBI told Zuckerberg that, when they were already well-aware the laptop was Hunter Biden's, and that what was found on it, though rather unbelievable for a President's son, was in fact (swallowing hard . . .) indeed the President's sire's idea of being a bad dude.

Polls have confirmed that had voters know about the laptop, and or that it was indeed the candidate's son's laptop, they would have voted the other way in numbers that would have confirmed the election for the existing President.

Do you suppose the same kinds of people running the FBI, and the DOJ, might have their hand on the levers of the political machinery used for voting such that we can believe them that there's no evidence of fraud in the same way we could believe the FBI that Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation?



John
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Mark Zuckerberg publicly announced that the FBI informed him that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation that Facebook, along with Twitter, and the mass media operation, should all silence and label false-content.

We now know the FBI told Zuckerberg that, when they were already well-aware the laptop was Hunter Biden's, and that what was found on it, though rather unbelievable for a President's son, was in fact (swallowing hard . . .) indeed the President's sire's idea of being a bad dude.

Polls have confirmed that had voters know about the laptop, and or that it was indeed the candidate's son's laptop, they would have voted the other way in numbers that would have confirmed the election for the existing President.

Do you suppose the same kinds of people running the FBI, and the DOJ, might have their hand on the levers of the political machinery used for voting such that we can believe them that there's no evidence of fraud in the same way we could believe the FBI that Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation?



John
Hunter? He's didn't run for anything, wasn't on the ballot and isnt an elected official.
And Zuckerberg isn't a model of integrity himself.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Hunter? He's didn't run for anything, wasn't on the ballot and isnt an elected official.

You're just saying that cuz you like the scratched-back tatto. It proves how much all the ladies like him.

Hunter_Biden-640x480.jpg


This is the man President Biden said was the smartest person he knows. Who am I to doubt that? The smartest man President Biden knows isn't the one he sees in the mirror everyday but a crackhead and womanizer who gets tatoos of women scratching his back. And we wonder why electing someone not as smart as Hunter is causing problems in the most powerful Country on earth?

At a recent Fetterman speech, right when he said, "I'm here to offer myself as your leader" . . . five large American flags simultaneously blew away in the wind. The image above (of the smartest man in the world), is like that in that the smartest man in the world is staring into (though it's blurred out in the image) the place his deepest thoughts evolve.





John
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
You're just saying that cuz you like the scratched-back tatto.
Does he have one? I know next to nothing about him.
He didn't run for president, he's not an office holder, he's someone's kid and that makes up the majority of what I known about him. Seriously, I don't even know if that is him in the picture.
So, it goes without saying I don't like him. I don't dislike him either. More or less neutral feelings, just like anybody else I don't really know anything about.
 
Top