A few thoughts about January 6, 2021

[Worgen]

Do love how the insurrectionists respected the red velvet ropes!

I love how you pick and choose someone with a hugely vested interest in lying to you. Not to mention that a president trying to hold onto power is some dictator shit right there. I am amused you think its not, are you sure you are an American? Cause you seem pretty damn unamerican right now. Then again, I am sure you would love to have a dictator, I'm sure they would be exactly what you want.

 

[gorfias]

I love how you pick and choose someone with a hugely vested interest in lying to you. Not to mention that a president trying to hold onto power is some dictator shit right there. I am amused you think its not, are you sure you are an American? Cause you seem pretty damn unamerican right now. Then again, I am sure you would love to have a dictator, I'm sure they would be exactly what you want.

A guy that says he'd be one for his first day so he can secure the border and drill baby drill? It was a joke, but it is what is expected of him day one: to do his job.
And remember: MAGA has been screaming at the top of their lungs for years now that Joe Biden has dementia. He refused to take tests Trump himself did take to test for cognitive decline. And team Biden lied about it, repeatedly. That's a lie with real consequences. Now you have as your nominee someone no one voted for while the Democrats have set a precedent: the party elite can just pull out a candidate if he's losing in the polls in the middle of an election.

Freedom loving people should be horrified by this stuff.

That's the rub though, isn't it? All of this is just guesswork, speculation and assumption, based on the allegations of a well-known liar and egotist. You've not actually got anything substantial or solid you can point to.

Uh huh. Like I've written elsewhere, a circumstantial case can be more convincing than one with direct evidence.



This is just a joke from the Bee but pretty funny:

 

[Worgen]

A guy that says he'd be one for his first day so he can secure the border and drill baby drill? It was a joke, but it is what is expected of him day one:

Remember, its always a joke till it happens, look at states being in a rush to ban abortion. But, its just a joke.

MAGA has been screaming at the top of their lungs for years now that Joe Biden has dementia.

Because that is the only thing they can scream about, other then trans people or Hunters cock which they don't love to gawk at at all.

He refused to take tests Trump himself did take to test for cognitive decline. And team Biden lied about it, repeatedly. That's a lie with real consequences.

It would be funny if he did lie, since a cognitive test isn't required for a president. Plus, can you be really sure that trump passed it? I mean we know that trump bragged about passing it, but he also likes to lie about crowd sizes. Can you prove that trump passed it?

Now you have as your nominee someone no one voted for while the Democrats have set a precedent: the party elite can just pull out a candidate if he's losing in the polls in the middle of an election.

I get that you have very little idea of how political parties work, especially the primary process. But try not to just be a conservative bot about things.

 

[Gordon_4]

I get that you have very little idea of how political parties work, especially the primary process. But try not to just be a conservative bot about things.

Man, the Westminster style of government would probably make his head explode.

 

[Silvanus]

Uh huh. Like I've written elsewhere, a circumstantial case can be more convincing than one with direct evidence.

More convincing to someone who wants to believe the former and wants to disbelieve the latter. Not to someone judging these things rationally.

And remember: MAGA has been screaming at the top of their lungs for years now that Joe Biden has dementia. He refused to take tests Trump himself did take to test for cognitive decline. And team Biden lied about it, repeatedly. That's a lie with real consequences.

Remember when the doctor who signed off on the "healthiest President ever" stuff admitted it was false?

What's really funny about that picture is that it provides evidence for the opposite of what the writer intends. The claim is that it's steep enough to obscure a sniper lying down, if viewing from the opposite side. In that picture, about ~2+ ft of that standing man is obscured-- more than enough to obscure someone lying down, or even potentially squatting low.

 

[gorfias]

Uh huh. Like I've written elsewhere, a circumstantial case can be more convincing than one with direct evidence.

More convincing to someone who wants to believe the former and wants to disbelieve the latter. Not to someone judging these things rationally.

From a simple web search:

"Can a Jury Convict Someone Based Solely on Circumstantial Evidence? Yes—actually, most criminal convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence. "

A joke from the Bee. But the reality is, the Sniper had plenty of time, in plain sight, to set up his shot and murder Trump.

Remember, its always a joke till it happens, look at states being in a rush to ban abortion. But, its just a joke.


Because that is the only thing they can scream about, other then trans people or Hunters cock which they don't love to gawk at at all.


It would be funny if he did lie, since a cognitive test isn't required for a president. Plus, can you be really sure that trump passed it? I mean we know that trump bragged about passing it, but he also likes to lie about crowd sizes. Can you prove that trump passed it?


I get that you have very little idea of how political parties work, especially the primary process. But try not to just be a conservative bot about things.

Lots of cope here.

I think this, for instance, tells me all I need to know about Biden vs. Trump's cognitive ability:

 

[Silvanus]

From a simple web search:

"Can a Jury Convict Someone Based Solely on Circumstantial Evidence? Yes—actually, most criminal convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence. "

Uhrm, yes, but A conviction is obviously more achievable if direct evidence is available. That sentence simply means that for most cases, it isn't.

You're ignoring much stronger evidence, and focusing on insubstantial accusations instead, solely because of your political inclinations.

 

[Agema]

From a simple web search:

"Can a Jury Convict Someone Based Solely on Circumstantial Evidence? Yes—actually, most criminal convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence. "

The trick here is that to convict, the circumstantial evidence must be strong - lots of it, of high relevance, and uncontested by other evidence.

The problem with circumstantial evidence is that it's often relatively easy to contest with other evidence. If a criminal's DNA is found at a crime scene (they otherwise would not expected to be at aside from crime) or they are caught on camera, identifiably, committing a crime, that's pretty hard to refute. The danger then with circumstantial evidence is considering a lot of the circumstance to support a crime without considering the circumstance against. This is what a lot of conspiracy theories are: someone who has massed up a pile of weak circumstantial evidence and will not consider the contrary evidence.

 

[gorfias]

Uhrm, yes, but A conviction is obviously more achievable if direct evidence is available. That sentence simply means that for most cases, it isn't.

You're ignoring much stronger evidence, and focusing on insubstantial accusations instead, solely because of your political inclinations.

No. Direct evidence can be extremely unreliable (i.e. witness testimony that can be wrong, or a photo that was completely arranged by the FBI to bolster the case).

The trick here is that to convict, the circumstantial evidence must be strong - lots of it, of high relevance, and uncontested by other evidence.

Why I liken circumstantial evidence to a rope rather than a chain. One link in a chain breaks, you have something that doesn't hold.
A rope is in strands. Even if one breaks, with enough remaining, you have something that does hold.

The problem with circumstantial evidence is that it's often relatively easy to contest with other evidence. If a criminal's DNA is found at a crime scene (they otherwise would not expected to be at aside from crime) or they are caught on camera, identifiably, committing a crime, that's pretty hard to refute. The danger then with circumstantial evidence is considering a lot of the circumstance to support a crime without considering the circumstance against. This is what a lot of conspiracy theories are: someone who has massed up a pile of weak circumstantial evidence and will not consider the contrary evidence.

Again, another from a simple web search: " In fact, there may be situations where circumstantial evidence is stronger than direct evidence, especially when the person testifying about what they directly witnessed is unreliable or has been shown to be untrustworthy. "

Recently some poor kid was stabbed to death in NYC on camera. The cops grabbed a suspect meeting the description of the killer. The victim's girl friend admitted she couldn't be sure if it was him or not. Had she lied in an effort to make someone, anyone pay, between her testimony (direct) and the camera footage (direct) and if, for the sake of argument they had the wrong guy? Direct evidence would have gotten some poor kid, innocent of this crime, sent away for life.

Cases can be blown if people ignore circumstantial evidence claiming the lack of direct evidence should be a proof. Example was the Central Park 5. Ton of circumstantial evidence but 20 years after the fact, with no new credible evidence, pro CP5ers stated that lacking DNA evidence shows they were innocent. It didn't as the evidence used to convict never claimed to have DNA evidence. They, lawyers, pols, even judges then gave themselves a taste of $42 million in tax payer funds.

 

[Silvanus]

No. Direct evidence can be extremely unreliable (i.e. witness testimony that can be wrong, or a photo that was completely arranged by the FBI to bolster the case).

Gorfias, I really shouldn't have to point out that circumstantial evidence is far easier to falsify or fabricate. Case in point would be yours, which is of the flimsiest possible nature-- Trump failed to get any evidence to convince 50+ different courts, including Judges he appointed himself. None of it was considered compelling or relevant.

There is zero indication the records of Trump requesting fake electors and "finding" votes were fabricated. They're on the record. They're not seriously disputed. You're only disbelieving them because you want them to not be true, and I suspect you know that.

 

[BrawlMan]

Jan. 6 officers hit the road for Harris, hoping to make Trump lose another election

Police officers who defended the Capitol from Trump supporters after his 2020 election lies want to stop him in November.

www.google.com

Harris shutting down 'lock him up' chants shields Trump's federal Jan. 6 case from even more delays

Any comments Kamala Harris makes that could be seen as referencing the federal charges against Donald Trump could affect his election interference case.

www.google.com

 

[Satinavian]

Ok, first about the stolen election :

Half the country and many powerful and wealthy people and organizations looked for the fraud for years. And found absolutely nothing despite many recounts etc. It is absolutely impossible to hide such a large scale election manipulation that well. There is a reason i compared it to the fake moon landing : Both have exactly the same credibility.

Likelihood of common conspiracy theories being true goes something like this :

Twin Towers were CIA false flag > Moon landing was fake = Democrats stole the 2020 election > Aliens built the Pyramids > Earth is flat.






As for the assassination attempt :

That is more possible, while still incredibly unlikely. However that guy was way too young to be a trusted agent for such a delicate mission.

And more importantly, why even kill Trump ? The candidate Biden was the reason the Democrats were losing. Trump is the reason the Republicans are losing now. Killing him would have made republican chances better, not worse.

 

[Worgen]

Lots of cope here.

I think this, for instance, tells me all I need to know about Biden vs. Trump's cognitive ability:

You really need some prune juice to help with your problem. You whined about Harris earlier, now your back on Biden, who isn't the nominee anymore, mainly because of people whining about his cognitive ability.

 

[gorfias]

You really need some prune juice to help with your problem. You whined about Harris earlier, now your back on Biden, who isn't the nominee anymore, mainly because of people whining about his cognitive ability.

I'm whining about Biden due to them lying about him is what allowed them to select their next nominee while not running a legit primary and they're getting away with it. Again, I don't think there's been a legit Democratic party primary since Bill Clinton. When your party fails, it costs me. I don't get to tell my own party to screw when they fail, which they adore doing.

 

[Worgen]

I'm whining about Biden due to them lying about him is what allowed them to select their next nominee while not running a legit primary and they're getting away with it. Again, I don't think there's been a legit Democratic party primary since Bill Clinton. When your party fails, it costs me. I don't get to tell my own party to screw when they fail, which they adore doing.

You don't seem to care about trump lying, why would you care about them possibly be lying about Biden's cognitive ability? You don't want a two party system, you want a dictator, this is established.

 

[gorfias]

You don't seem to care about trump lying, why would you care about them possibly be lying about Biden's cognitive ability? You don't want a two party system, you want a dictator, this is established.

Again, we voted for Trump. No one voted for Kamala. Legal but very problematic. And very bizarre: we voted for him, you didn't vote for her, but Trump is the threat to democracy? That's some serious projection.

Me? I'm gonna try to drop politics again go focus on fun $hit.

 

[Agema]

Cases can be blown if people ignore circumstantial evidence claiming the lack of direct evidence should be a proof. Example was the Central Park 5. Ton of circumstantial evidence but 20 years after the fact, with no new credible evidence, pro CP5ers stated that lacking DNA evidence shows they were innocent. It didn't as the evidence used to convict never claimed to have DNA evidence. They, lawyers, pols, even judges then gave themselves a taste of $42 million in tax payer funds.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

The Central Park 5 were innocent - or at least, of the rape that they were jailed for, although they had potentially committed other crimes. The DNA evidence was not "lacking", it was tested and found to be not a match. (It was much later found to match a serial rapist who had confessed.)

The point being that the conviction of the five was always very unsafe, plus potential dodgy police procedure, extracting false confessions and judge who was very forgiving toward the prosecution. It stands as an example of how justice can be defrauded with unsafe evidence, irrespective of whether direct or circumstantial.

No one voted for Kamala. Legal but very problematic. And very bizarre: we voted for him, you didn't vote for her, but Trump is the threat to democracy?

1) What do you mean no-one has voted for Harris? The election hasn't happened yet. Anyone unhappy about her elevation to candidate can exercise their democratic right to object to her candidacy by not voting for her in November. (Broadly, as currently appears, voters prefer her to Biden: this implicitly means she has more democratic mandate than he did!)

2) Harris was Biden's appointed VP. Everyone knows if anything happens to the president, the VP takes over. Thus for a Democratic voter in a primary to vote for Biden (or any citizen in the formal election) is to vote for Harris as his replacement. So, actually, they did vote for her, conditional on Biden's loss.

3) The primaries are the means by which a political party selects a candidate according to their own rules. It's not set by the Constitution or legal statute that requires democratic process.

4) Given the latency between candidate selection and presidential election, the inevitability must exist of a candidate dying or withdrawing between the two. A party should therefore (relating to point 3) have the ability to replace a candidate outisde normal procedure.

5) Should Biden have been forced to run? Do you not think it a human right abuse to force an individual to run for an election unwillingly?

6) If a party were forbidden from replacing their candidate should a problem occur, do you think it advantageous to a nation's democracy to then insist a party cannot run a candidate? This is de facto barring them from the election: that sounds exceptionally undemocratic to me.

Saying "no-one voted for Kamala" is a convenient shorthand to mock the Democrats for colossally screwing up their candidate selection. It doesn't survive the slightest push as a serious argument that the Democratic party have been in some way "undemocratic" for their candidate stepping down and replacing him.

 

[Worgen]

Again, we voted for Trump. No one voted for Kamala. Legal but very problematic. And very bizarre: we voted for him, you didn't vote for her, but Trump is the threat to democracy? That's some serious projection.

Me? I'm gonna try to drop politics again go focus on fun $hit.

Texas’ DNC delegates vote 260-6 to back Kamala Harris

The delegates voted late Monday, a day after President Joe Biden exited the presidential race and endorsed Harris.

www.texastribune.org

You are better off dropping politics since you are really really conspiracy brained.

 

[gorfias]

I'm not sure what your point is here.

The Central Park 5 were innocent - or at least, of the rape that they were jailed for, although they had potentially committed other crimes. The DNA evidence was not "lacking", it was tested and found to be not a match. (It was much later found to match a serial rapist who had confessed.)

The point being that the conviction of the five was always very unsafe, plus potential dodgy police procedure, extracting false confessions and judge who was very forgiving toward the prosecution. It stands as an example of how justice can be defrauded with unsafe evidence, irrespective of whether direct or circumstantial.

The prosecution never claimed the semen was one of the 5s. One relative thought she was being helpful and called the police to say that one of the boys had only fondled the woman rather than penetrated her himself. Some tried to perform but there was so much blood they were grossed out and could not.

My point bringing it up: You too appear to be stating with that lack of direct evidence missing, that appears to be a proof of not guilty.

1) What do you mean no-one has voted for Harris? The election hasn't happened yet. Anyone unhappy about her elevation to candidate can exercise their democratic right to object to her candidacy by not voting for her in November. (Broadly, as currently appears, voters prefer her to Biden: this implicitly means she has more democratic mandate than he did!)

2) Harris was Biden's appointed VP. Everyone knows if anything happens to the president, the VP takes over. Thus for a Democratic voter in a primary to vote for Biden (or any citizen in the formal election) is to vote for Harris as his replacement. So, actually, they did vote for her, conditional on Biden's loss.

3) The primaries are the means by which a political party selects a candidate according to their own rules. It's not set by the Constitution or legal statute that requires democratic process.

5) Should Biden have been forced to run? Do you not think it a human right abuse to force an individual to run for an election unwillingly?

6) If a party were forbidden from replacing their candidate should a problem occur, do you think it advantageous to a nation's democracy to then insist a party cannot run a candidate? This is de facto barring them from the election: that sounds exceptionally undemocratic to me.

Saying "no-one voted for Kamala" is a convenient shorthand to mock the Democrats for colossally screwing up their candidate selection. It doesn't survive the slightest push as a serious argument that the Democratic party have been in some way "undemocratic" for their candidate stepping down and replacing him.

1. I got the opportunity to vote for Vivek, DeSantis, heck, even the monstrous Nikki Haley if I wanted to do so. The Democratic candidate was foisted upon her party. She didn't run in the primary. And they're saying they are pro-Democracy? A party can legally do this, and a precedent has been set but it isn't good for Democracy. Kamala seems to be doing well in the polls now, but the last time she actually had to face challengers in a primary? She got her butt waxed.
2. I could buy this for the remainder of Biden's term. Not for her to automagically be the nominee of the party.
True. Ann Coulter argued as much when they replaced Hillary with Obama in 2008 stating even if HRC legit won over Obama, it is their party and they can do as they please (sorta: I'm seeing some people asking out loud if the party at this point could be sued for fraud. They make a decent argument.)
4. But when I can vote for my party's nominee, and the other party, while arguing my party is anti-democratic, simply installs theirs, it is pretty dang hypocritical.
5. Like 2. above, the most proper thing to do would have been for Biden to step down before the primaries or announced his intention to not seek a 2nd term. Then Kamala runs in the primary with actual competitors or becomes incumbent POTUS and runs herself in the primaries should she so decide to do so. Not sure who would have made good opponents. Bernie himself is way too old and the party thinks he can't win a general. Would people want to gamble on HRC again? I don't know.
6. True. Again, I don't think there's anything illegal (save possibly fraud charges) in the order in which things have happened. But they made this happen. They ran a candidate they knew or should have known couldn't serve which took up the primary cycle. This has happened because of their deception. And if it is ultimately what they wanted, are these people we should want in charge of our democracy (representative republic). I intend to vote no.

One last thing: suppose a party doesn't do the requirements in time to be on a given ballot? Under current law, especially as it relates to small 3rd parties, they don't go on the ballot. I think in most if not all states, you can still do a write in but that is not a great way to win an election (counting on write ins).

 

[Satinavian]

Like 2. above, the most proper thing to do would have been for Biden to step down before the primaries or announced his intention to not seek a 2nd term.

Yes, that certainly would have been better.

But he was too proud for that. He tried to hang on until it was obvious to everyone that he could not last another term. And that is Bidens fault, not the Democrats fault or Harris fault. Those have to make the best out of the very poorly timed retreat.