Posts made by Calatar

Not a problem - life and all that!

I do have some of the SlaveBoy Training videos… I'll have a little look through and see what I can find for you!

Maybe they initially shared only a snippet? I’ve had a listen to the full thing now - it’s really good and sensible. Probably won’t work though sadly.

I should imagine because of bandwidth costs… why not use a platform designed specifically for sharing videos that you don't have to pay for... instead of your own which you do? Makes a lot of sense.

Hi @rayban099 - hope all is well with you?

Keen to see about updating this setup, if you're around.  Maybe you can drop me a PM so we don't have to fill the forum space up with too much specific stuff for one user?  Happy to chat it through publically too if you want

I've sort of cheated with my uploading… I set my max uploads to 2500 torrents and now I'm uploading 1,224 of them... meaning I'm finally getting some ratio back!  But that's still within qBittorrent... so I keep getting asked to reseed things and it just... won't

Do you mean this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHRkkeecg7c

Or is there another one?  This is from the WEF - titled 'COVID-19 - The Great Reset'…

@raphjd:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/texas-charges-social-worker-with-134-felony-counts-involving-election-fraud

How many more cases are there that we don't know about or haven't caught?

So I'm afraid this is another logical fallacy… "well this happened once... so it might have happened lots of times! How could we know?!"... (aka the composition/division fallacy)

Well, the story kind of disproves your worry.  This person got caught.  As do most people who commit some form of fraud.

And you really do need to provide evidence to support your fear... you can claim anything you want, but if you want it to hold up in a court of law... or convince someone else, you need to provide evidence that is conclusive.  So I'm not convinced by your arguments yet that there is voter fraud... you have this opportunity to convince me... but you'll have to provide evidence to do so.  I won't believe it just because someone claims it.

At the moment there is no evidence to support wide-spread voter fraud in the states... and attempting to use minor incidents of voter fraud to point to wide-spread is a logical fallacy and you shouldn't do it.  It is easy to pick apart... (burden of proof!).  So won't help you convince people of your rightness.  indeed it will give them too many opportunities to disagree with you!  To prove wide-spread voter fraud, you would need evidence of wide-spread voter fraud... and no, picking up an example here, and an example there... doesn't do that.

Also, you might want to carefully think about your worry too... if you want Trump to win... as (as is a perfect example in the article shared here), it does not tell you who the fraudulent ballets supported... indeed, you'll find one of the other cases of voter fraud (singular) was a fraudulent vote for Trump (this was a few months back... they caught him too!).  So your test becomes actually even more difficult... you need not only show wide-spread voter fraud, you need to show wide-spread voter fraud that supported Biden in becoming the Preseident elect.  If you found wide-spread voter fraud that supported Trump, that would be... unfortunate!!!

@raphjd:

Pennsylvania is a pretty crap state when it comes to voter fraud, even before Trump ran for President.   It's also traditionally a DNC state.

It does matter when outlets like CNN constantly lie about things, such as Chris Cuomo having C-19 only to be busted out jogging and getting into an argument with a cyclist because Cuomo was in the cycling lane, faked a protest in London and countless other things.

We discussed that fat black chick "fact checker" from The New Yorker a while back who lied about a disabled vet having nazi tattoos.  They were US military tattoos of awards he won (2 Navy Crosses and others) plus places he went to, etc.    On social media, she constantly bragged about lying in her fact checking to suit her liberal narrative.  She wasn't fired when this all came out.   She is also part of the social media fact checkers used by Facebook and Twitter.

The NYT still insists that Sarah Jeong isn't a racist, despite her massive amount of anti-white racist social media posts.

I posted after the election about Wikipedia and it not being trustworthy.  I pointed to the fact that they clearly don't post facts.  I proved this with the last member of the Kennedy clan in public office.

Let's not forget that Wikipedia has annual feminist edit-athons to make articles have a feminist slant.

Snopes has also been caught lying.

++++

Trump could have encouraged masks, sure.

Pelosi could have not gone to China Town and told people to hug a Chinese person.   She also could have not declared Trump racist for shutting down flights from China.

Even the WHO has flip-flopped on masks, as has the CDC and countless other organizations.  Let's not forget that China and the WHO kept C-19 secret for 6 months.

The DNC has constantly been about whatever is the opposite of what Trump wants.

++++

The DNC is dirty.  We know that from 2016 and what happened to Bernie.

We also know that Obama and Biden knew from the beginning that Hillary was using fake Russian crap against Trump.

Also, a victory like you are saying wouldn't make sense since Biden performed worse in 2020 than Hillary did in 2016.  He got a lower % of the votes than Hillary and won.  It makes no sense.

Wow… OK... lots to unpack here.  One thing at a time...

@raphjd:

Pennsylvania is a pretty crap state when it comes to voter fraud, even before Trump ran for President.   It's also traditionally a DNC state.

Sure… but even if there was as much fraud as has been caught, convicted and proven (we can't use maybes or claims that haven't been proven), the election result would not meaningfully change.   As I said above.  So it really doesn't matter beyond you and I both wanting there to be much better election results that everyone can be confident and sure of.  So kind of immaterial, no?

It does matter when outlets like CNN constantly lie about things, such as Chris Cuomo having C-19 only to be busted out jogging and getting into an argument with a cyclist because Cuomo was in the cycling lane, faked a protest in London and countless other things.

We discussed that fat black chick "fact checker" from The New Yorker a while back who lied about a disabled vet having nazi tattoos.  They were US military tattoos of awards he won (2 Navy Crosses and others) plus places he went to, etc.    On social media, she constantly bragged about lying in her fact checking to suit her liberal narrative.  She wasn't fired when this all came out.   She is also part of the social media fact checkers used by Facebook and Twitter.

The NYT still insists that Sarah Jeong isn't a racist, despite her massive amount of anti-white racist social media posts.

I posted after the election about Wikipedia and it not being trustworthy.  I pointed to the fact that they clearly don't post facts.  I proved this with the last member of the Kennedy clan in public office.

Let's not forget that Wikipedia has annual feminist edit-athons to make articles have a feminist slant.

Snopes has also been caught lying.

Well yes, it matters… but not to a specific fact check.  You check the facts... and if they don't provide them and they aren't verifiable, then yes, you should indeed pause for thought.

But none of this means you should ignore any outlet and dismiss them immediately.

Let me give you an example: Trump has been caught lying... constantly.  But you believe that his claims about voter fraud are true, even without evidence.  If you are willing to dismiss sources of 'truth' because they may have lied occasionally - or have indeed lied - then you surely must be dismissing Trump's claims too.  No?  To do otherwise would be cognitive dissonance.

So I don't recommend you do that - instead checking each claim and counter claim fully.  You can see and find the evidence for yourself - or ask for it - and fact check things yourself.

Trump could have encouraged masks, sure.

Pelosi could have not gone to China Town and told people to hug a Chinese person.   She also could have not declared Trump racist for shutting down flights from China.

Even the WHO has flip-flopped on masks, as has the CDC and countless other organizations.  Let's not forget that China and the WHO kept C-19 secret for 6 months.

The DNC has constantly been about whatever is the opposite of what Trump wants.

OK so this… is a bit confusing.  Glad you've accepted that Trump could have (and indeed should have) supported mask wearing to have improved the likelihood that his voters would have turned up if that were the way the election was going to be run.

Not sure what the others have to do with it... Pelosi going to China town and encouraging social integration wouldn't have made any different to the spread of the virus (obviously).  Trump shutting down flights from China was... silly... as by that point the virus had already spread beyond China and what he needed to do was to shut down flights from every other country (as the countries with more successful COVID-19 responses did).  So I don't really see where you're going with these comments...

For clarity, the WHO has never flip-flopped on mask wearing.  They encouraged it from the start and all the way through - and lately with very strong and clear evidence to support it (not that I can understand why that would have been needed... should have been obvious to anyone thinking about it for half a second...).

And sure - you would expect the DNC to oppose Trump... that's kind of their job in politics, isn't it?   If Trump had supported mask wearing and the DNC had insisted that this was bad, maybe then I could understand their being a problem... but they didn't.  They opposed Trump opposing, in the end, the very clear scientific evidence that supports mask wearing... so them being in opposition is hardly a matter that we need to worry about, is it?

The DNC is dirty.  We know that from 2016 and what happened to Bernie.

We also know that Obama and Biden knew from the beginning that Hillary was using fake Russian crap against Trump.

Also, a victory like you are saying wouldn't make sense since Biden performed worse in 2020 than Hillary did in 2016.  He got a lower % of the votes than Hillary and won.  It makes no sense.

Again, I don't really see what "the DNC is dirty" adds to this discussion?  You can believe that all you like - and show evidence of it - but it doesn't mean there was voter fraud.  It does mean we should be vigilant - of course… but that's the civic duty of all Americans (and indeed anyone in a democracy!).  But it does not = fraud at the ballot.

Again, your beliefs about what Obama and Biden knew are kind of immaterial to the whole issue of whether there was electoral fraud in this election.  Let's stick to the topic at hand?

I'm not sure I follow at all your final comment... are you saying that people couldn't change their mind, vote differently or perhaps more people would vote between one election and another? I don't understand I'm afraid... at all... unless you're trying to say that the voter fraud amount was somehow more than 4m votes (plus a lot more if you're saying Biden couldn't have got so many because he should have got less than Clinton did in the previous election???) - and yet somehow the only pieces that people are pointing to don't even seemingly add up to 100,000, let alone...

@raphjd:

https://thespectator.info/2020/10/23/pennsylvania-supreme-court-rules-signatures-do-not-have-to-match-on-mail-in-ballots-twitchy-com/

https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/spl/pa-mail-ballot-signature-match-supreme-court-ruling-20201023.html?utm_medium=social&cid=Philly.com+Twitter&utm_source=t.co&utm_campaign=Philly.com+Twitter+Account

I'm not sure who debunked it, but I'm guessing it's some leftist outlets.

What precautions were taken to prevent fraud?  I see none, especially in light of Pennsylvania.

Governors coulld require masks.  It's blamed on Trump because the liberal media doesn't want DNC governors to get the blame for C-19 numbers.

Apologies - I meant debunked in the sense that it doesn't mean there was fraud and signature comparison has never been part of the electoral system.  The High Court ruling on it was unanimous (including Democrats and Republicans).  This doesn't support any case that there was fraud, doesn't mean there was fraud and is not one of the controls/mitigations for fraud that was used.

Here is a better article on it: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/pennsylvania-court-ballot-signatures-431794

Again, if an outlet is left leaning or right leaning is irrelevant to a debunking.  You have to look at the information that is provided to debunk the claim.  This is not a reason to dismiss a claim - it's an ad hominem logical fallacy. Making these fallacies undermines your argument (it doesn't mean your argument is wrong, it just makes it look weaker than it need do).

Governors could have indeed required masks.  But as Trump was fond of encouraging people NOT to wear them… and many of his supporters are anti-mask wearing, it was feared that if ballots insisted on mask wearing, there would either be unrest at the ballots or Trump voters wouldn't turn up.  This was seen as too partisan and so they decided not to do it... A tricky situation to be sure.  But I'm certain that neither of you want to have had even fewer votes for Trump/unrest at ballot boxes... would you?  And yes, I'm certain the Democrats would equally not like to be blamed for higher COVID-19 numbers... although, if what you're claiming is true (that masks would provide sufficient protection), then this claim doesn't really make sense... as they would have felt that the numbers wouldn't have gone up.

So I think your gist is that: Democrats ignored evidence that masks would prevent COVID-19 from spreading, instead preferring mail-in ballots so that they could 'rig' an election...
I hope you feel that this is an extraordinary claim - and so would require extraordinary proof?  There's a few things that immediately make one think this might not be reality... such as... how come the Democrats, if they have the ability to create a nation wide coup like this, didn't simply win hands down?  Surely they would have made it unequivocal? Another area that this has a problem with is that there is demonstrable counter narratives which would easily provide explanation for these events... which also feel more believable?  And don't raise follow-on questions like this?

@raphjd:

Pennsylvania counts votes where the signature doesn't match or the postmark is missing or unclear and other (lawd, please forgive me) problematic things.

Even during Obama, the Carter/Baker commission on voting clearly found that the system of just sending out ballots was the worst way to do it.   And here we are with it being the DNCs voting method of choice.

Remember, the DNC claims we must do exactly what Faucci says, but we can ignore him as the village idiot when he says that voting in person is safe if masks are required.

Could you back this up with evidence please? I’ve done a quick check about the claim that Pennsylvania votes were counted when the signature doesn’t match… and it was debunked. So need evidence to support this...
Likewise, with regards the postal mark missing or unclear... they have said that they don’t want to penalise voters for problems with the Postal system... surely that’s fair?
Also, neither of these two things would, inherently, mean that more votes would go to Trump or Biden... indeed they would both be affected by this equally, no?

So please correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the Carter-Baker report said that mail in voting has the highest potential for voter fraud...? That doesn’t mean it has voter fraud... just the risks are greater. If you’re taking a sensible approach to this then, you would put in place effective risk mitigations and controls, which surely must be what was done for this election?  If you can point to this not having been done, that would indeed be very interesting! (Again, evidence please... not just a random claim!)

I’m pretty sure masks are not yet required in the USA... as Trump didn’t want to make that mandatory? So... they couldn’t exactly go down that route...

@ManHandler:

@Calatar:

Indeed so! These things, as you say, have been going on for ages… and don’t swing elections. They’re well known about, usually get caught (as your own knowledge of them shows) and are not the sort of mass conspiracy that would be required to make an electoral change of president.

You can find the data that the OP is referring to here in a way that’s acceptable to share: https://data.pa.gov/Government-Efficiency-Citizen-Engagement/2020-General-Election-Mail-Ballot-Requests-Departm/mcba-yywm

As you can see, right at the top, there’s yet another reason for why the DoB on these lists is listed as 1800.

In short, I’m sure there was voter fraud... to a very small extent, as there always is in every election. It’s tiny, will be caught, and won’t make any difference to the election result. It’s not close enough that this small number of votes will make a difference. If I’m wrong and it’s proven in court, fantastic! But I will need that level of proof to believe anything other than the norm happened. Republican and Democrat election officials have both said that this was one of the best elections they have ever had in terms of fraud.

Let's go on a hunt for crystals. Let me check my pocket! Nope… no crystals in there... I guess crystals don't exist. Yea this is what you're doing. You're pretending that the evidence isn't in your face and acting like it's harmful. It's so transparent and pathetic and lame. Hmmm... I don't see any China collusion under THIS rock... I guess it doesn't exist. Shut up. We know what you're doing.

We're talking about just one of the examples. 1600 in North Carolina. Imagine how many more there are, and people who died in 1920, 1930, 1940. I guarantee it's more than 1600. Interesting that number.

This is spurious… you’re creating a straw man (another logical fallacy... doesn’t look good for your argument). Indeed it rather makes you look like you don’t have an argument and are getting desperate... so, I really wouldn’t do that if I were you...

You have provided no evidence at all so far. Just a list of voter data. That’s not evidence... and would get thrown out of any court in any decently developed legal system. I would encourage you not to take that to court on it’s own... the other side would be able to tear it apart very very easily. And you don’t want that! You want to win, don’t you? So I’ve explained in another post above the way you do that... so once you have done that and collected actual evidence, let me know!

Contrary to what you think, I would very much like that any voter fraud is identified and gotten rid of. But, at the moment, I have no evidence to suggest there is - only your not-backed-up claims.

And your last claim... you “guarantee” it... great! Then you must have evidence to support this. Please provide it... and bear in mind it must be actual evidence. So if you, when you’re checking your own evidence, can pull it apart with a few simple questions... then I wouldn’t run with it as your support. I would get more evidence and share it (and you might think about taking it through your courts... as you should if you have full evidence that is irrefutable, as you claim! You would make a fortune!)

@ManHandler:

@Calatar:

ManHandler I complete agree with you - if their birth certificate says they are born in 1800, we can be pretty sure they shouldn’t be voting. So do you have these birth certificates? Have you checked them personally and confirmed that they are indeed the persons you claim?

I also hope you mean post 1900, not pre… as pre would make them old indeed...

They are there on the government link that you thought was a data breach and had it flagged

Um, no… they weren’t. A birth certificate is a physical document - which certainly could be scanned in, but that would be an image. That list was just a list... no images attached. No scanned documents. I could have made a list like that up... easily. (To be fair, I could also doctor an image of a birth certificate). But this is why you would need to go and do the research - you would need to take your list (I would recommend taking only a sample of the items on said list... else you’ll be at this a while), ascertaining whether the person in your sample on the list voted, then finding their birth certificate... and then coming to a conclusion.

Without any of those steps... it’s just a list... with claims of validity around it that are unproven.

@raphjd:

The Mirror is left-leaning and then uses leftist CNN as their source.

FactCheck.org is also left-leaning, though not as blatantly as mot.  They "fact check" opinions and lean left.   As an example, what is 4 months in government time too slow or is it faster than usual?  I ask this because they flip-flopped on that very same question, depending on the situation and who it was being criticized.

Sure… but this doesn’t mean they are wrong? This doesn’t mean anything apart from their political leaning... and sure, you might need to be careful and check their information for unconscious bias... but again, it doesn’t make them wrong.

Indeed this is a logical fallacy if you use it to try and claim they are wrong, purely because they are left leaning.

@ManHandler:

They do swing elections. You state that as a fact. Just gonna stop you right there before you continue. That’s 1600 votes. It swings. Cuz that's just in North Carolina.

Ok, let’s check this one together… can you tell me of any historical vote that has been changed based on electoral fraud?

ManHandler I complete agree with you - if their birth certificate says they are born in 1800, we can be pretty sure they shouldn’t be voting. So do you have these birth certificates? Have you checked them personally and confirmed that they are indeed the persons you claim?

I also hope you mean post 1900, not pre… as pre would make them old indeed...

Indeed so! These things, as you say, have been going on for ages… and don’t swing elections. They’re well known about, usually get caught (as your own knowledge of them shows) and are not the sort of mass conspiracy that would be required to make an electoral change of president.

You can find the data that the OP is referring to here in a way that’s acceptable to share: https://data.pa.gov/Government-Efficiency-Citizen-Engagement/2020-General-Election-Mail-Ballot-Requests-Departm/mcba-yywm

As you can see, right at the top, there’s yet another reason for why the DoB on these lists is listed as 1800.

In short, I’m sure there was voter fraud... to a very small extent, as there always is in every election. It’s tiny, will be caught, and won’t make any difference to the election result. It’s not close enough that this small number of votes will make a difference. If I’m wrong and it’s proven in court, fantastic! But I will need that level of proof to believe anything other than the norm happened. Republican and Democrat election officials have both said that this was one of the best elections they have ever had in terms of fraud.

If your best comeback is “shut up”, I think we are at an impasse.

Have a read of the articles I’ve shared - you are incorrect in your assertion that those people are 120 years old UNLESS you go out and check those people and can verify they are. Have you done this? Can you do this and report back please? As other people have and have found this claim to be incorrect.

So…

Please don’t misquote me. If you don’t understand what I’m saying, ask… I’ll be happy to explain it another way.

So, to be clear... I am very happy with you running around making claims that there was voter fraud. You’ll be asked for evidence, which - if it’s publicly available information - I’m very happy for you to share it (although, if it is, I’m fairly sure it would be well known about enough to have been dealt with by now, removing any need for you to be running around panicking...).

I do not and will not abide by people spreading data which is not publicly available which has sensitive and private information about idividuals on it.

Hopefully the distinction, whilst obvious, is clear now for you?

If you like, you may want to read a few of the sites which have thoroughly debunked your various claims already:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/no-dead-people-voting-not-23004835
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/thin-allegations-of-dead-people-voting/

As I say, I’m very hopeful that any voter fraud will be turned up and dealt with. This will go through the proper legal procedures - as it should. It doesn’t need you to spread lists of private personal data about individuals you know nothing about online - and it certainly doesn’t belong here.

I’m sure that, if you’re right, the truth will out, as we say here - and you’ll get all the court cases through. Surely, after all, if freely available public data (as you claim) is so easily visible that even someone like you could find it and prove it, the courts will have no problem, will they? So don’t worry, calm down, and let’s see what happens.

In the mean time, the information shouldn’t be spread (that was electoral roll information - no it’s not public ally available - and no, an atourney probably doesn’t know more about it than I do… as you have no idea what I do or what I know, I would recommend you don’t make assumptions about it...).

Best of luck with your various cases! I hope, if there is fraud it is proven so - and if there isn’t fraud, likewise. And you accept either result, from people you are very happy to defer to (the atourneys).

To the OP - this data should NOT be publically shared like this.  It has a huge amount of sensitive and private data and this could be something you are at the minimum fined for sharing.  It's also clearly come from a data breach - which is not what these forums or boards are about.  Please do remove it.

Also there are numerous reasons why this data would include people who look like they are 120 years old - for example, they put their DoB incorrectly on a form or census.  This doesn't mean anything… it's all around the quality of the data.  As any data scientist will tell you.

So please try not to spread conspiracy theories around... let the people who are looking into all the various allegations of voter fraud do their jobs and don't prejudice the cases against your side unneccesarily.

@rayban099

Thank you SO much - it's been driving me nuts.  I realise you are probably taking time to expedite my own experience gaining on this… so I really appreciate your time on this.

Is there a guide to the setup of Transmission anywhere?  I can install the image from Linuxserver (that's great, I know that one! Haha!).  But looking for a setup guide for it...
Looking here: https://hub.docker.com/r/linuxserver/transmission - I'm thinking I need to set a folder for Watch, a folder for Config and a folder for Downloads.  Might I ask how you did these?  I would love my setup to be as yours... I have a bunch of different folders (I try to be organised!) and qBittorrent has meant that it can only see the /Downloads folder (and not even sub-folders... you just add a torrent and it downloads to /Downloads  :-[ - no sub-folder selection at all...).

I've got a VPN (IPVanish) - but I gave up using it as my downloads and uploads would frequently stop... if I disconnected and reconnected from the VPN, then restarted the qBittorrent docker image, all the torrents would run again... it was frustrating!  And I never managed to track down what the issue was.  Anyway, the VPN is there... so would be great to use it (for the reason you are!).

Thank you once again!  I do so appreciate the help.