Posts made by Calatar

@ManHandler:

Dude you don't know what you're talking about. You're just another gaslighter. We already had one seat flipped due to fraud in MI.  Go ahead and deny. Just wait. I don't think you realize what's going on in any of the states. It's looking very bad for your side.

You telling someone they don’t know what they’re talking about, whilst at the same time still using a term incorrectly is not a very good look… and indeed doesn’t make you very believable or credible.

How long will I need to wait exactly? Can you please tell me the specific seat that was flipped so I can check this information from the official sources to confirm it?

Let’s have a reliable source then please.

Infowars makes stuff up so often it’s not even worth bothering with for one second, let alone long enough to find an article there.

Still no reliable journalists reporting this apparent news story - from either side…

@ManHandler:

You're joking right? Harris wants to pack the court with more judges. She wants to get rid of the electoral college. That's most definitely an authoritarian type of mentality. Denial of the obvious.

Or sensible logical policy…

Trump packed the Supreme Court with his judges... so are you saying that was also a bad thing to do? (I would be inclined to agree with you if you’re saying both of them doing this is a bad thing and that judges should be a-political!)

And the electoral college system is antiquated and very outdated. Do you know why it was introduced?

I can defend liberalism easily. It’s not hard at all.

Just because you both haven’t come across anyone who can, doesn’t mean it’s not possible I’m afraid. That’s a very naive way of looking at things..

Hi guys,

A couple of us are looking for 3 videos, which are currently shared across Google and also in torrents on this site - but which are all corrupt.

They are: SlaveBoyTraining - Mike - Houseboy Training 4, 5 and 6

These files are under 10mb in each of the torrents on this site (and also everywhere I could find them on Google).  When viewed in a video editor, they claim to be the right length and aspect ratios, but they are not and end after a short amount of time (far before the length reported in the file when opened).

So - does anyone have these 3 clips in their non-broken form?  Would welcome a share if you do!

Thanks

@ManHandler:

Well, yea, it will. Because the People know there was fraud. The idea that you guys deny any wrong or anything is ludicrous. You're just stating your opinion and not facts. You don't like my posts because they're not telling you what you want to hear: "Joe Biden won, get over it Trump supporters." No he didn't win, and I'm not a Trump supporter. I don't want to be on the side of cheaters. Your team clearly cheated, the evidence is mind-boggling.  You're finally investigating the subject cuz I kept informing you of it. You probably picked a source that reconfirms your confirmation bias. PA is going to Trump.

You're misrepresenting our arguments - which I can only assume is because you know that your own arguments are fallacious.

At no point have we denied anything - that is not our job, nor what we need to do.  What you have done is made claim after claim - and what we have done is asked for the evidence of those claims.  You've provided some things which you claim are evidence, but which on reviewing them with a little more curiosity, show themselves to not be conclusive - or to be demonstrably wrong.

This still does not mean we are saying there is no widespread voter fraud. All we are asking for is the proof of it that stands up to scrutiny.  This hasn't appeared in any of the court cases so far, hasn't happened in any of your posts about it so far.  When you do, you will convince us.  That's the only test you have to pass.

If, however, you can't do this, then the only conclusion anyone can have is that the allegation is made up and is simply a matter of you and Trump being sore losers.

So this is not how debate works… or, rather, not how decent debates work.  It's how people who don't know very much about things argue... but that's not really that interesting to be a part of.

If you want to state your argument, state your supporting evidence and beliefs as to why that argument is the case, and state how you've got to that point of view, then we might have a useful debate.

Unfortunately not many come here, so not many are going to participate in this one…

I certainly hope not.  But I can understand why many won't bother to come here.

I can list loads of faults that Biden has…

Now, if you can't list the faults Trump has, then you must also worship him, by your same logic.  Or if you can't list one flaw, then you must think he was perfect.  And if you don't criticise Trump at all, then you are also... a sheep.

Care to confirm you also can list loads of faults that Trump has?

Could you share the source of this?  Was it announced on the Georgia or Pennsylvania state legislature sites?  I'm looking all over for this, but I'm not finding it anywhere?

@raphjd:

Umm, fascism didn't kill jews as that was the wrong country.   The National Socialists (sound familiar) of Germany killed them.

Modern fascism is what we see from antifa and liberals.   They set an occupied building on fire because they didn't want someone to give a talk.  A professor smashed at least 11 people over the head with his bike lock.  They attacked an older driver because he didn't bow and scrape to them when they decided to shut down the city.   Antifa has used violence to get their way.

This is a common misunderstanding from those who didn’t study the history of the rise of the Nazi party.

It was labelled a socialist party in name… but it was not one in action or creed. It was a right-wing party. Always was. But you really have to have looked into it more than just looking at the name to know this - or examine what they did (which were all typically right-wing actions).

This sort of thing gets confusing as people on the extremes (far right or far left) are often very similar in action, but different in creed. They do the same things all the time - but claim it’s for a different reason.

And liberal or conservative - is another misnomer. In the U.K. you have liberal conservatives - and they are the most right-wing. In the USA, you conflate liberal with left-wing. It’s really no where near this simple - and trying to discuss it in this way makes it meaningless. So it’s pointless - and I would encourage you to desist.

Also, if you really want people to come here and debate you guys, then you’ll need to be more open to having that debate. Atm, you’re not. It’s clear that’s the case from reading only a few of the most interacted with posts. Indeed, you’ll say now that this is a dig at you (an ad hominem attack) - but it’s not. I’m not attacking you to disprove your argument - I’m explaining why people don’t bother to come here or bother with you. If you truly want that to change, then you need to first change the only thing you can: yourself. Until then, most people (even if they could prove you wrong over and over again) simply won’t bother. You’re not worth their time.

@ManHandler:

Oh please. We knew this would go this way and go the SCOTUSl You're acting like all this is a surprise and just off the cuff. We conservatives said this would happen months ago. And it's happening exactly as we said it would. Too much evidence. You ignore all that.

I’m sorry… I have no clue what you’re talking about here.

As far as I’ve seen, there was a whole bunch of people, led by Trump, who claimed (without evidence) that the democrats would try the to steal the election. And now, post Trump losing the election, they are claiming the Democrats have have stolen the election... and are still not providing any evidence for this (hence all the court cases being effectively thrown out). The recounts haven’t helped him (indeed have increased Biden’s lead...) and he just seems a bit like he’s desperately trying to con people into paying his campaign expenses for him with his funding pleas.

So, until someone can provide real evidence that will stand up in court (not stuff cooked up by a bunch of internet sleuths who evidently don’t know what they’re talking about) - then there doesn’t seem like any evidence at all that the democrats stole the election.

This constant crying of “no fair” really doesn’t fit with the image that you’re trying to portray of yourself either...

Are you aware ManHandler that the Trump administration is beginning the transition? Biden is receiving the reports that is normal for him to receive, his picks for cabinet are being briefed in, etc etc? Which is exactly what the OP posted about them saying they would do?

This doesn’t mean anything else than that… just that. If you want to read into it, that’s kind of your call... but just doesn’t mean anything else.

Sadly Trump is being Trump still and public ally denying conceding. Even though all his legal options are exhausted and he’s now just hoping there will be enough faithless electors to switch the election for him. I suspect this is a long shot... but we’ll see.

Again, still not gaslighting… you really aught to look up what that term means before you keep using it. By all means, don’t believe me when I’ve already told you you’re using it incorrectly.. but at least look it up and check. ATM, your usage of it makes you sound like you don’t know the language we’re speaking in...

I agree enteritis! It will indeed be up to the courts! So far, they have thrown out every single case.

Hearings are very different things - and don’t have perjury issues within them (you can say what you like in a hearing!). But if the hearing decides that legal action should be taken, then the perjury issue comes to bear. You know this...

Similarly, you can say whatever you like in a sworn affidavit - it’s only when they go into a court proceeding and your sworn in that it matters if you believe you’re lying or not... and affidavits are all about belief. If the person believes they aren’t lying, then that’s ok! But it doesn’t mean it won’t get thrown out (there are sworn affidavits that have gone to court with people who believe that they’re the second coming of Jesus Christ... for example...). Again, you should know this...

So, so far, every court case for this has been thrown out of court for lack of evidence for what is being claimed. And yet, you still think that, for some reason, those court cases weren’t the ones that will matter... that, for some reason, the people pursuing those court cases decided to ignore all the “obvious” evidence that you claim is evidence (yet falls woefully short of what real evidence is to anyone else)... and yet you still think there will be a court case that suddenly decides in your favour... because of a bunch of people who make claims in their affidavits?

Doesn’t sound terribly credible to me...

@ManHandler:

Ok bye. "If you were trying to convince anyone here that voter fraud exists… you failed." Well problem with that is that it's already been proven, multiple times. It's actually on the record hundreds of times. So you're a liar and a fraud yourself.  Everyone knows how easy it is to just look that info up, voter fraud... it does exist... hundreds of examples.

And now you're either being willfully dishonest or incredibly simple…

As I've said, numerous times (if you had bothered to read what I had written), you would have seen I have indeed said that there is plenty of instances of small fraud that has been caught, prosecuted and dealt with.  And I have also said there is no wide-spread fraud and no evidence of it.  And, as I have also said, the one does not mean the other is happening (for clarity, as you seem to need it, small occasional fraud that gets caught does not mean that there is some wide-spread fraud having occurred).

As we can see these cases have all been thrown out - with prejudice - I think we can all be content with the reality that there as no wide-spread voter fraud in this election, the claims that there was were all complete nonsense and spurious... and the USA now has a new president-elect.

I do hope all this crying wolf will not dissuade people from being cautious in future and being mindful of and watchful for any sort of voter fraud.  A very dangerous thing to go around making spurious, nonsense claims that get thrown out in court over and over again... as that might indeed disuade people from listening in the future when there might be voter fraud.

Well then, I’m sorry to say but it looks like we can’t go any further with this.

You’re not understanding what I’m saying, you don’t want to understand and you yourself say you don’t read anything I’ve written. As that’s extremely rude and you’re not a very good interlocutor, I’m going to stop this conversation.

If you were trying to convince anyone here that voter fraud exists - you’ve failed.

If you’re just here to shout and scream your views… I don’t think you should be here.

Oh dear…

OK... where to begin...

So to start, these claims you're making now have nothing to do with the original post you made.  You're now claiming that voter turnout was greater than the number of people possible to vote in the state... instead of what you claimed originally, which was the people voting in the state should be dead because their birthdates were in the 1800s.

I'm sure you might have valid evidence to support your accusations that more people voted in the election than should have been able to - but that's not what this thread is about.  If you want to create a thread that's just accumulating all your beliefs about the election in one place so that people can debate those, I'm sure people will be happy with that.  But this is not the place for one new theory after another.

You might even start a new thread all about the extra people in the states that shouldn't be possible based on voting numbers.  You could then provide your evidence and we could all evaluate it.  But let's please not derail this conversation about this particular piece of evidence you're claiming proves something.

Why do I suggest this?  Well, it makes your argument look bad... it seems to me (and I'm sure others) that you're trying to avoid the topic of this issue being not believed by me.  This is not a good look... so please, do provide the evidence I've requested - and answer those questions.  If not, we're not really having a conversation... you're just stating your beliefs and not convincing anyone of them.

Secondly, and this one is very very important.  You've attempted to reverse the burden of proof with the latter part of your statement.  This is another logical fallacy... and is not a great way of getting to a result that will favour you, if I might say so.  You've also constructed a straw man in order to try and support your argument... let me show you what I mean:

Straw man: if the oxygen was tested in Maylaysia 10 years ago - should I believe that there is oxygen in Malaysia today?  Well... I think you can see, as you're certainly bright enough, that - unless you provide more information - no one can answer this question in any way that's meaningful.  For example, let's say you also added the much needed caveat that: there are people living in Malaysia, they are still living in Malaysia and no odd or weird atmospheric conditions had happened which might cause the oxygen in Malaysia to disappear.  If those caveats were also given - then of course, I could happily say "yes, I believe there is oxygen in Malaysia today" - without being unduely concerned about that prediction.  If, on the other hand, you were to tell me that there was a mass extinction event in Malaysia, humans and animals and everyone died out... and you believed it was a lack of oxygen that was at fault... I would then ask you for evidence of this belief.  I would also consider all other claims for the cause... and weigh up which one is most likely to be correct.

Can you see now why this is an impossible question to answer at all in any way that would be meaningful?  And indeed, you can see that you only designed that question to try to prove your point (this is a straw man argument... can be in the form of a question).

As to reversing the burden of proof... the person who makes a claim is the person who has to prove it.  No, just making a claim does not immediately validate it as true - and no, people do not have to disprove your claim... this would be impossible.  For the example for this, you will have heard of no doubt, we take the chocolate tea pot... I might claim that there is a chocolate tea pot orbiting the earth at 100,000,000 miles above sea level.  You would, rightly, ask me to prove it... if I said to you: "no, you must disprove it!"... you can see how you might feel.  Not terribly impressed I should think!!

OK... and the last logical error you made is conflating many things together to try and say your view is correct.  Afraid that won't work - for me at least!  So you're right - no one denies there is occasional voter fraud.  But... I do deny having seen any evidence of any form of wide-spread voter fraud - or any evidence at all of voter fraud which would change the outcome of the election.  When that evidence comes to light, I will be very happy to change my mind!  (and sad as well, as that will be a terrible inditement on the democratic system in the USA). But again, this is not the topic of this post (at least as far as I understand it!).

Please do not accuse me of gaslighting - I think that's demonstrably not true.  To gaslight someone, I would need to be doing something to try and make you second guess what you saw or did... NOT what you believe.  Now I'm making an assumption here... it could be that you did go and commit voter fraud in the way that you've described in this post (registering a lot of dead relatives, using them to vote for Biden etc)... and if that's so, I would welcome you claiming it and I will, of course, stop this conversation (as I don't wish to gaslight your experience at all).  But questioning your beliefs and asking you for evidence of them is not gaslighting - at all.  This is how we achieve a better society and it is also how republic or a democracy - any of them - work effectively.

And I must ask... if you don't want your beliefs questioned (which is a perfectly reasonable stance to take...), then why on earth would you put them out publically on an open forum where, no doubt, people will disagree with you and question your beliefs?  Wouldn't it be easier for you to simply not do that?

I’m sorry, there’s too much here to respond to that just has nothing to do with the OP.

I’m afraid you’re also not applying Occam’s Razor correctly as a principle… it’s really not what you’re suggesting here (which is more like: ‘I believe it so it must be true...’). This is not how the legal tests work for this.

Yes we can say this election, so far, has had less fraud in it than in 2016. No, that doesn’t mean more fraud won’t be unconverted (too many negatives... it’s still possible for more fraud to be discovered, and for 2020 to become more fraudulent than 2016, but it hasn’t happened yet!).

It’s worth reading the judgement of the latest case of the Trump party vs the result in Pennsylvania... it effectively says the same thing I did:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

As you can see, the burden of proof of the claims that this election was somehow rigged are… non existent. So far. (I’m struggling to think of any reason why the Trump Campaign wouldn’t bring all their most valuable evidence before the judge in Pennsylvania... as it’s quite an important state for him...).

So burden of proof still rests with those who believe this to be the case...

And just for the avoidance of doubt:
No, people posting videos online of people doing things is not conclusive proof - although it could be, if they are complete enough (do share the videos you’re referring to, would be interesting to see!).

I’m afraid the rest of your post is effectively whataboutery - which makes your case look worse, not better. Sorry. Please stick to the topic at hand - that will make it much easier to understand the claims and review the evidence for those claims. Bringing up loads of other topics is... unhelpful, at best. And could be seen as trying to avoid detailing with the topic that you started... at worst (which I’m sure you’ll agree isn’t a good look!).

@ManHandler:

It's not a fallacy. It's a question. You should always question everything. You should question anyone or any institution that claims to be an authority. Otherwise it's blind following like sheep.

There is plenty of evidence. You're pretending it doesn't exist. It does. And I actually posted plenty of it, including a spreadsheet of thousands of votes discovered in counting glitches in multiple counties. You'll just have to wait to see, I don't have to prove the case for you because you'll deny it anyway, you already have. So it don't matter as far as me trying to convince you with proof. We'll see what the courts determine.

Oh… sorry... I guess you haven't come across logical fallacies before. Apologies for using it - I should have explained.  Questions can indeed be logical fallacies - because the logic used to derive the question is faulty. It doesn't mean the question is wrong (indeed, that's another fallacy!).  It just means the logic used to get there was.

So yes - I agree with you entirely. We should question.  We should check and recheck.  That's our civic duty and something I would always support you doing.

But... that's very different from claiming there's evidence (which you state in your next para) and then not actually having the evidence.  Or the evidence not showing what you claim it does (which is this case).

So to help understand where I'm coming from... because your claim is extraordinary (mass voter fraud that would enable Biden to win by more than 6m votes and 306 to 232 electoral collage votes) - it requires an extraordinary level of proof.  So far, we have not seen this.  And, as I mentioned above, a bunch of small incidents of minor voting fraud (which happens in every election - and which this election was actually the best for that in a long time... so far 2016 had more fraud issues than this election... proven) do not amount to a conspiracy large enough to do what you're claiming. Equally, a list of 1,600 voters in NC would again not show this.

That's the first burden of proof you require - not yet met.

The second is that the information you provide is actually robust - and can't be explained by any other (sensible) explanations.  So far... for your data dump.... we have:
1. The dates for women who have had domestic violence cases have their birthdates recorded as 1800 to obscure their data
2. There are errors in that database
3. If pollsters can not read the date on the registration form, they set it to 1800
4. The people aren't dead - very much alive - and there's some administrative error
5. Father and Son have the same name at the same address - and has confused the database
6. Birthdate is a placeholder when actual DoB not provided
7. On rare occasions (small %) it is on behalf of a dead person... who has died in between the postal ballot being sent in and the election

These could all explain most of those 1,600 voters.  So if you want anyone to believe that these are actually 1,600 fraudulent voters, your burden is to prove that all these explanations are NOT the case for each of them (or a sufficient % of them to be a representative sample).

And lastly, the burden of proof is on you... not anyone else.  It's your claim so you must do it.

Please note - this is not dismissing your claims... it's just asking the questions that need to be asked to prove the case you're saying you are making with the evidence you're using.  The list on its own is insufficient to persuade anyone because of those 7 items which might explain it.

Without this... I'm going to stick with the principle of Occam's Razor, if you have heard of it? Between the two explanations, I will pick the one that requires the smallest number of assumptions... and to believe in your explanation for the vote, I would need to assume that all 7 of the other explanations above are incorrect, as well as assume there was some overarching plot for wide-spread voter fraud... where as to believe in my explanation only requires me NOT to assume there was some overarching plot for wide-spread voter fraud...

I promise never to dismiss your claims - and to never ever stop you from doing your civic duty to check and challenge those in power.  Please - please - continue to do that.