2020 Election MEGAthread

[BlackBellamy]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Except it's being flagged because we're in a highly delicate state as a country where you can't have someone causing tensions to flare based on completely misleading comments that then go viral. I've always generally thought you were a pretty good guy, but gimme a break on this man.

Oh thanks! My concern is that "delicate" and "misleading" and all the reasons being articulated about whether someone's opinion should be allowed to circulate are specious.

Like I'm not seeing anything about Matt Walsh's post that's misleading. He's expressing his opinion about the statistical improbability mentioned below, which is documented. And if he's inflaming passions to an undue degree that he deserves to be censored, that's just a matter of opinion. For example I don't think he's doing that at all.

What I wouldn't mind is Twitter's counterpoint. Because it's THEIR opinion about whether something is inflaming or misleading. So if I can't see Matt's post without two extra clicks that's fine but part of that clicking should involve a reasoned explanation why he's misleading or what is factually incorrect. But I don't get that so it's just twitter telling me this guy is a liar but all they're doing is calling him a liar.

I also understand Twitter can do whatever it wants, so I'm not telling them they can't.

I just find it amusing how weak 'some of the content is disputed and might be misleading' is as an explanation. Who is disputing? Are they better or worse than Matt? I don't know. I don't know anything except when I want to read something sometimes the technocrats let me read it and sometimes they seed my mind that I'm about to be lied to by making me take positive physical action to affirm that I understand I am being subjected to operant conditioning.

[cd288]

Originally Posted by BlackBellamy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh thanks! My concern is that "delicate" and "misleading" and all the reasons being articulated about whether someone's opinion should be allowed to circulate are specious.

Like I'm not seeing anything about Matt Walsh's post that's misleading. He's expressing his opinion about the statistical improbability mentioned below, which is documented. And if he's inflaming passions to an undue degree that he deserves to be censored, that's just a matter of opinion. For example I don't think he's doing that at all.

What I wouldn't mind is Twitter's counterpoint. Because it's THEIR opinion about whether something is inflaming or misleading. So if I can't see Matt's post without two extra clicks that's fine but part of that clicking should involve a reasoned explanation why he's misleading or what is factually incorrect. But I don't get that so it's just twitter telling me this guy is a liar but all they're doing is calling him a liar.

I also understand Twitter can do whatever it wants, so I'm not telling them they can't.

I just find it amusing how weak 'some of the content is disputed and might be misleading' is as an explanation. Who is disputing? Are they better or worse than Matt? I don't know. I don't know anything except when I want to read something sometimes the technocrats let me read it and sometimes they seed my mind that I'm about to be lied to by making me take positive physical action to affirm that I understand I am being subjected to operant conditioning.

I get what you're saying but I do think it's very misleading to say that no one can look at this and think something normal etc. is going on. Because it is normal. Nothing fraudulent is occurring. So alluding otherwise is very misleading and completely unhelpful and undermines the legitimate election process.

[BlackBellamy]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I get what you're saying but I do think it's very misleading to say that no one can look at this and think something normal etc. is going on. Because it is normal. Nothing fraudulent is occurring. So alluding otherwise is very misleading and completely unhelpful and undermines the legitimate election process.

But vote fraud is a normal part of our political system!

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In 1960 Kennedy carried Illinois by 8.5k votes against Nixon.

Three Chicago election workers were later convicted for fraud.

In Chicago, where Kennedy won by more than 450,000 votes, local reporters uncovered so many stories of electoral shenanigans--including voting by the dead--that the Chicago Tribune concluded that "the election of November 8 was characterized by such gross and palpable fraud as to justify the conclusion that [Nixon] was deprived of victory." (emphasis mine)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-9da6d36a65dc/

There is definitely 100% no doubt about it voter fraud that occurred a week ago, yesterday, last night and it's happening right now. Because that's part of our tradition. The only debatable point is whether it's material enough to affect the election.

Matt Walsh's post didn't say "Yes this is definitely proof, look at this fraud HALP THE DEMS ARE STEALING ELECTION!". No he said "hmmmm these numbers just don't look right".

[Jibartik]

I see Twitter ID laws are really twisting the conservative's undies. lol

Why cant you afford to go get a thumb to click, eh? Maybe get a job!

ITT: IM libertarian

also ITT: But twitter should not be allowed to moderate their own platform

LOL

[BlackBellamy]

TIL Twitter has ID laws.

[Jibartik]

Do you think spiderman is real?

[Mblake81]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you think spiderman is real?

Prefer computer games, Like EQ. No, spiderman is not real but living 20 years in the past is.

[Jibartik]

We should have laws where the fake media is forced to write at least one true, patriotic article, once a day!

Wont be long folks, if it happens I told you so! lol

[magnetaress]

It really doesn't matter who is wrong. TechnoPhilhuxdicklyian Utopistopiyaya. Is just right around the f'ckn corner mates.

Hate won't save ourselves or our families but it sure is one hell of a massive doparush when we already, the majority of us suffer some kinda wierdo psycho PTSD thoughtloop.

Once one objectively realizes how much money and power the tech guys really have and how they basically founded our modern demarkations and limits imposed on the real states, not the big states, but the state states that really truly govern ourselves, and our masters and lords of corporate borders and hoarders. Then we realize how picking a side is really fucking retarded mates. And I'm using that word thought pollution is just as bad as real pollution and causes real brain damage. Feels bad man.

And none of that is to endorse any of the fucking shenanigan's going on right now. If thats what you think I'm doing seek christ. or whatever.

[Cecily]

I really miss not giving a shit about these elections. I made it up till 2016, completely apolitical besides I was sorta ok with Trump winning because of all the chaos he'd bring. That got old. Now I do care and it sucks.