Strauss-Howe Fourth Turning discussions

[John]

** 09-Jan-2021 World View: Coming constitutional crisis

> My point is that there is substantial evidence of alleged fraud,
> which has yet to be disproven by independent scrutiny. A five
> minute video or high level overview does not do this justice in my
> opinion. When somebody says there is no evidence, I know they have
> not watched the hours of footage in various subcommittee settings,
> or the documentation compiled with this information which is
> available publicly. I know that going into this level of detail is
> not for everyone but, considering what is at stake here, I believe
> more people should look at the source material.

> In the interests of brevity, here is a 15 page summary of the
> video link I provided:

> https://got-freedom.org/wp-content/uplo ... -on-GA.pdf

> This link provides far more evidence:

> https://got-freedom.org/evidence/

> If you look at the material listed under number three (the super
> appendix), there is 1,400 pages of evidence. The table of contents
> lists what is covered.

> There are still five outstanding lawsuits: three in the Supreme
> Court; one in Georgia; and one in Wisconsin. There are also still
> attempted state hearings in Georgia, Pennsylvania and Arizona. It
> remains to be seen whether the evidence of the alleged fraud will
> be given due scrutiny in court or at a state hearing. Perhaps this
> is unlikely considering what has happened so far.

> So to anybody that says there is no evidence, there is actually a
> lot of evidence.

> There is a constitutional crisis. It seems like this
> constitutional crisis will only get worse. The current situation
> is that circa 74 million people do not have trust in the outcome
> of the election and the actions being taken by social media
> companies will only entrench this viewpoint. The remedy to this
> problem would have been to have full independent scrutiny in court
> or in the state legislatures. But this did not happen and, if it
> does take place now, it could make things worse if there are
> "unpalatable" findings, i.e. there has been fraud.

Thanks for posting those links. The evidence of election rigging is
overwhelming, but has not been tested because the Democrats have been
successful in blocking every attempt to test it.

There is no constitutional crisis yet, but I agree with you that it
may be coming. The Democrats have gotten away with too much, and at
some point the chickens will come home to roost. That's why the
Democrats are so totally desperate to use censorship and threats to
control Trump and the 75 million Trump supporters.

[Bob Butler]

You keep saying there is no evidence of alleged electoral fraud. This is not true. The courts have rejected the lawsuits on standing or procedural grounds, and the merits of the lawsuits have not been looked at. There are sworn affidavits and documentary evidence totalling thousands and thousands of pages.

Have you actually looked at any of the evidence? There is plenty to see. For example, this is a stream from Georgia's Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, and is worth a watch: https://livestream.com/accounts/2602152 ... /214364915

If this evidence can be disproved so easily, why has it not been subjected to independent scrutiny? Surely, by doing this, it would solve the problem that currently circa 74 million people do not trust the outcome of the election.

I started onto that file, and soon had the same problem as John. I was not going to dedicate that much time to the problem. I skipped to a point near the end, and landed in the middle of a presentation of a woman working under the Secretary of State who was actually in charge of implementing the state’s election laws. She was going through each complaint, and repeating how she was following the law and how many of the laws were intended to detect and prevent fraud. The big deal was that the number of votes in the machine vote matched the number of votes in the manual recount. Oh, there was a small number of flaws found, but no more than you would expect of any process that involves people and the real world. Nothing near big enough to flip the state. She came to much the same result as Barr, the Georgia Secretary of State, the Georgia governor, that there was little to no systematic election fraud. She gave information to the various legislators that would help them answer the complaints of those who elected them. There was then a series of ‘in conclusion’ speeches about the investigation overall, but none contested her explanation of her office following Georgia law.

So while the link is interesting and if you only listen to the first part paints a picture that shows valid concerns, you have to get to the account of what was done and why.

[Guest]

You keep saying there is no evidence of alleged electoral fraud. This is not true. The courts have rejected the lawsuits on standing or procedural grounds, and the merits of the lawsuits have not been looked at. There are sworn affidavits and documentary evidence totalling thousands and thousands of pages.

Have you actually looked at any of the evidence? There is plenty to see. For example, this is a stream from Georgia's Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, and is worth a watch: https://livestream.com/accounts/2602152 ... /214364915

If this evidence can be disproved so easily, why has it not been subjected to independent scrutiny? Surely, by doing this, it would solve the problem that currently circa 74 million people do not trust the outcome of the election.

I started onto that file, and soon had the same problem as John. I was not going to dedicate that much time to the problem. I skipped to a point near the end, and landed in the middle of a presentation of a woman working under the Secretary of State who was actually in charge of implementing the state’s election laws. She was going through each complaint, and repeating how she was following the law and how many of the laws were intended to detect and prevent fraud. The big deal was that the number of votes in the machine vote matched the number of votes in the manual recount. Oh, there was a small number of flaws found, but no more than you would expect of any process that involves people and the real world. Nothing near big enough to flip the state. She came to much the same result as Barr, the Georgia Secretary of State, the Georgia governor, that there was little to no systematic election fraud. She gave information to the various legislators that would help them answer the complaints of those who elected them. There was then a series of ‘in conclusion’ speeches about the investigation overall, but none contested her explanation of her office following Georgia law.

So while the link is interesting and if you only listen to the first part paints a picture that shows valid concerns, you have to get to the account of what was done and why.

The conclusion of Senator Matt Brass was that:

We have heard evidence that State law was not followed, time after time after time.

The Subcommittee found that:

The Secretary of State and the State Elections Board failed to enforce the law as written in the Georgia Code, and furthermore, created policies that contravened State law.

The recount did not include a forensic audit of the ballots. In particular, the issues with absentee ballots have not been resolved.

[Bob Butler]

The conclusion of Senator Matt Brass was that:

We have heard evidence that State law was not followed, time after time after time.

The Subcommittee found that:

The Secretary of State and the State Elections Board failed to enforce the law as written in the Georgia Code, and furthermore, created policies that contravened State law.

The recount did not include a forensic audit of the ballots. In particular, the issues with absentee ballots have not been resolved.

There was no conclusion of systematic voter fraud, of anything of a scale that would have flipped the state. The number of votes cast as counted initially by the machines matched the number of votes in the recounts.

[JCP]

Bob Butler wrote:

The Chinese Revolution was from one perspective the people trying to shake off their oppressors.

Is that how you view it? Is that how you view what is happening in America today?

P.S. I skip your long posts. You write way too much to say less than nothing.

[Bob Butler]

Bob Butler wrote:

The Chinese Revolution was from one perspective the people trying to shake off their oppressors.

Is that how you view it? Is that how you view what is happening in America today?

P.S. I skip your long posts. You write way too much to say less than nothing.

I suspect Mao saw it that way. Of course, the communist theory mucked up other things. I hardly support what was done in the so called Great Leap Forward. I would have been on the expert's side, not the reds.

In America today the blacks are definitely trying to shake off the remnants of hundreds of years of slavery. So, in part, you can say the resistance of racial violent policing and other systematic racism elements are an attempt to overthrow oppression. The extreme division of wealth could also be seen that way. A few elites benefit from the labor of others. Oppression doesn't seem the ideal word to choose for that. Capitalism in America has been successful enough that few would actually call themselves oppressed. Still...

Not surprised to see someone ignore threats to his worldview. People tend to reject threats to their perspective. It is hardly surprising that you simply do not read them.

[Bob Butler]

Bob Butler has to be the most delusional person I have ever heard speak.

Have you ever heard me speak? When?

Blues commonly consider Trump to lie frequently. The Washington Post has been counting them, and are well over 29,000 since 2017. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... -database/ I obviously haven’t looked into them all, but will concentrate on three that were ridden hard. Obama was not born in the US. That went on for quite a while before they discovered a birth announcement in an old archived Hawaii newspaper. Mexico will pay for the wall. It eventually become clear that the wall would not be built and that Mexico would not pay for it. There was voter fraud in the 2020 election.

Thing is, the Trump lies have a shelf life. You wait so long and they become obviously false. The third is going to be confronted. It was central to the president’s pre capital insurrection speech. You can only fool people by promising evidence of the claim for so long. How long can he pretend to sit on the evidence? How long can he blame the one win fifty plus loss court record on the judges, many of which he appointed?

Sure. Talk about how deluded people are.

[spottybrowncow]

Bob, no one on this forum believes anything you say, and most skip your posts because they know there's nothing intelligible in them. This forum has been populated for many years by mostly extremely well-educated people who have keen noses for BS - you don't have a ghost of a prayer of fooling anyone. The fact that John hasn't banned you yet is in itself evidence that this forum is really about truth, which can be discerned even above a very high noise floor. That's your position here, Bob - you're just noise.

[Guest]

Bob Butler has to be the most delusional person I have ever heard speak.

#Me too

[Bob Butler]

Bob, no one on this forum believes anything you say, and most skip your posts because they know there's nothing intelligible in them. This forum has been populated for many years by mostly extremely well-educated people who have keen noses for BS - you don't have a ghost of a prayer of fooling anyone. The fact that John hasn't banned you yet is in itself evidence that this forum is really about truth, which can be discerned even above a very high noise floor. That's your position here, Bob - you're just noise.

I am accustomed to various turning forums where people of all different beliefs are present. This one is rare for me, with people primarily interested in one perspective. As I have often staid, people seldom if ever change their perspective. That folks when unable to argue facts and logic just ignore the criticism is nothing to boast about.

In The Righteous Mind, Haidt argues that people are metaphorically similar to a rational rider of an intuitive instinctive elephant. Moral judgements are just made by the elephant, instinctively, emotionally. I can’t touch that level. I can perhaps improve the rationalizations of the instinctive emotional decisions people make. Even that is pretty difficult for people who cling to their intuitive emotional aspects so tightly that they just stop rationalizing.