LIVE COVERAGE of Rally for President Trump in DC! 01/06/2021

[Pat]

Deepstate/oligarchy acknowledgment of election rigging as a times article


https://t.co/hnbIrLN4ts

My favorite quote:

That's why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Rigging the election is fortifying democracy.

[shuddemell]

No, he was taken around by a collaborator. Who seems to have saved lives, so it's not a clear cut case. But most importantly, Soros was 13 or 14. A child, without full agency. A child can't be held responsible for the actions of their parents and the other adults who helped raise them.

There are tons of reasons to criticize Soros, based on what he came to believe as an adult, and what he's done as an adult. Why not stick to the real ones?

Nonsense. He actively participated in the removal of property from Jewish families... In his own words...

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

In other words, he was taken around by a collaborator. Did your Mom or Dad ever take you to work when you were a young teenager? If they worked for the central bank that inflated the money supply, does that make you complicit in the later crash? Of course not.

You mention later antisemitic acts. Criticize him for those. Or all terrible economic policies.

That's a wonderful false equivalence you've created there. Note it says PARTICIPATED in the removal of property, not that he was involuntarily drug around to watch the removal. You are implying his role was completely passive, but that is not what I took from his own statements on the issue. He never states he was afraid or coerced, only that he had no qualms about doing it. Also my intention was not to provide a detailed list of Soros crimes or misdeeds. That was only to provide context for my statement, not to get your permission to criticize his actions.

It's a true equivalence. Take your kid to work day usually involves some level of participation. But if you think it's real or significant participation, then you're either delusional, or you're the one creating the false equivalence.

I'm going with #2.

Criticize him for the reams of real shit he's done. Don't pretend he's the Red Skull.

Wrong. Here's why, he KNOWINGLY did something he knew was wrong. When daddy took you to work, even if you did participate, you didn't know or believe it was wrong. Soros admitted in the interview that he knew taking the property was wrong and still he participated in it. That's the salient difference. I am curious why you think his participation wasn't real when he himself claimed it was. I don't know about you, but by the time I was thirteen I had a clear picture of right and wrong. I think you are giving children too little credit for what they know, and Soros way too much credit for being an innocent. Either way, you have provided NO proof that he didn't participate, that he was drug along rather than willingly participated, whereas I provided his own words. When someone shows or tells you who they are, it's a good idea to believe them. At this point, it's likely we'll have to agree to disagree. As far as being the Red Skull... that's laughable, as the Red Skull at least is entertaining.

[Pat]

Wrong. Here's why, he KNOWINGLY did something he knew was wrong. When daddy took you to work, even if you did participate, you didn't know or believe it was wrong. Soros admitted in the interview that he knew taking the property was wrong and still he participated in it. That's the salient difference. I am curious why you think his participation wasn't real when he himself claimed it was. I don't know about you, but by the time I was thirteen I had a clear picture of right and wrong. I think you are giving children too little credit for what they know, and Soros way too much credit for being an innocent. Either way, you have provided NO proof that he didn't participate, that he was drug along rather than willingly participated, whereas I provided his own words. When someone shows or tells you who they are, it's a good idea to believe them. At this point, it's likely we'll have to agree to disagree. As far as being the Red Skull... that's laughable, as the Red Skull at least is entertaining.

Even very young children have moral codes, but they tend to be overly black and white and undeveloped. More importantly, they lack agency. They're not the ones going out starting businesses or taking jobs that involve confiscating property, they're just doing what they're told. There's a huge difference in both outlook and moral culpability.

And these are his own words, as quoted by you:

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that's — that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not — not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't — you don't see the connection. But it was — it created no — no problem at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c — I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was — well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets — that if I weren't there — of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would — would — would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the — whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the — I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt."

Guilt is the conscience's way of telling us something's wrong, and twice he said he had no guilt. That's the opposite of admitting he knew it was wrong. He's saying he didn't see the connection between his actions, and personal responsibility, because he was a child with no agency. The decisions of adults can be like witnessing a tsunami or earthquake to a child, a natural force they have no control over. Adults sometimes feel the same way; "I was just doing what I was told" is called the Nuremberg defense for a reason. But there's a vast difference between a child who is in the charge of adult guardians, and an adult who has to take legal, financial, and personal responsibility for their own life, regardless of their sense of being trapped or helpless.

[HappyDaze]

Greetings!

The Fox News channel has canceled the "Lou Dobbs Tonight" program from the business news department, despite the "Lou Dobbs Tonight" program having strong ratings and viewership. Lou Dobbs is well-known for being a supporter of President Donald Trump and President Trump's policies.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

He's also well-known for being a supporter of President Trump's post-election bullshit.

[shuddemell]

Wrong. Here's why, he KNOWINGLY did something he knew was wrong. When daddy took you to work, even if you did participate, you didn't know or believe it was wrong. Soros admitted in the interview that he knew taking the property was wrong and still he participated in it. That's the salient difference. I am curious why you think his participation wasn't real when he himself claimed it was. I don't know about you, but by the time I was thirteen I had a clear picture of right and wrong. I think you are giving children too little credit for what they know, and Soros way too much credit for being an innocent. Either way, you have provided NO proof that he didn't participate, that he was drug along rather than willingly participated, whereas I provided his own words. When someone shows or tells you who they are, it's a good idea to believe them. At this point, it's likely we'll have to agree to disagree. As far as being the Red Skull... that's laughable, as the Red Skull at least is entertaining.

Even very young children have moral codes, but they tend to be overly black and white and undeveloped. More importantly, they lack agency. They're not the ones going out starting businesses or taking jobs that involve confiscating property, they're just doing what they're told. There's a huge difference in both outlook and moral culpability.

And these are his own words, as quoted by you:

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that's — that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not — not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't — you don't see the connection. But it was — it created no — no problem at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c — I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was — well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets — that if I weren't there — of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would — would — would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the — whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the — I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt."

Guilt is the conscience's way of telling us something's wrong, and twice he said he had no guilt. That's the opposite of admitting he knew it was wrong. He's saying he didn't see the connection between his actions, and personal responsibility, because he was a child with no agency. The decisions of adults can be like witnessing a tsunami or earthquake to a child, a natural force they have no control over. Adults sometimes feel the same way; "I was just doing what I was told" is called the Nuremberg defense for a reason. But there's a vast difference between a child who is in the charge of adult guardians, and an adult who has to take legal, financial, and personal responsibility for their own life, regardless of their sense of being trapped or helpless.

Sociopaths also have no sense of guilt... Seriously, at what point do you suddenly have agency? He wasn't 6 or 7, he was 13 and in many places at that time, that was old enough to be expected to take on the role of a man. While I am not suggesting he get the same thing the Nuremberg crew got, he certainly was old enough to be criticized for that behavior. If he were 16, he  could have gotten the rope. I also doubt the veracity of his claims, as it would be in his best interest to minimize his behavior, and his behavior thereafter convinces me that he was quite aware of what he was doing, why and the fact it caused him no guilt.

[Pat]

Sociopaths also have no sense of guilt... Seriously, at what point do you suddenly have agency? He wasn't 6 or 7, he was 13 and in many places at that time, that was old enough to be expected to take on the role of a man. While I am not suggesting he get the same thing the Nuremberg crew got, he certainly was old enough to be criticized for that behavior. If he were 16, he  could have gotten the rope. I also doubt the veracity of his claims, as it would be in his best interest to minimize his behavior, and his behavior thereafter convinces me that he was quite aware of what he was doing, why and the fact it caused him no guilt.

There are developmental differences, and a brain doesn't become fully mature until the early 20s. But the difference in moral terms between a child and an adult is the degree of dependence or independence. Was he married? Did he have to pay rent or a mortgage? Was he the head of his own household? There have been many 13 year olds throughout history who were adults in that sense, but it's clear from his description that he was not. That's why I've been comparing it to a take your child to work day.

People only try to minimize their own behavior when they feel guilt for their actions, and you agree he didn't feel guilt. That lack of guilt could be pure sociopathy, but that's an extraordinary claim and thus places a significant burden of proof on you. The alternate explanation has a very low burden of proof: He didn't feel responsible because he was a child without agency, and didn't believe he had any control over the outcome.

[shuddemell]

Sociopaths also have no sense of guilt... Seriously, at what point do you suddenly have agency? He wasn't 6 or 7, he was 13 and in many places at that time, that was old enough to be expected to take on the role of a man. While I am not suggesting he get the same thing the Nuremberg crew got, he certainly was old enough to be criticized for that behavior. If he were 16, he  could have gotten the rope. I also doubt the veracity of his claims, as it would be in his best interest to minimize his behavior, and his behavior thereafter convinces me that he was quite aware of what he was doing, why and the fact it caused him no guilt.

There are developmental differences, and a brain doesn't become fully mature until the early 20s. But the difference in moral terms between a child and an adult is the degree of dependence or independence. Was he married? Did he have to pay rent or a mortgage? Was he the head of his own household? There have been many 13 year olds throughout history who were adults in that sense, but it's clear from his description that he was not. That's why I've been comparing it to a take your child to work day.

People only try to minimize their own behavior when they feel guilt for their actions, and you agree he didn't feel guilt. That lack of guilt could be pure sociopathy, but that's an extraordinary claim and thus places a significant burden of proof on you. The alternate explanation has a very low burden of proof: He didn't feel responsible because he was a child without agency, and didn't believe he had any control over the outcome.

NO, people do not only try to minimize their actions when they feel guilt. They usually minimize their actions to avoid punishment, and fearing punishment is NOT the same as guilt. Secondly, I had great aunts that were married at 13, and were expected to act like adults from that day onward. That said, I might agree with you, had not his attitudes and actions after that event show full well that he is likely a sociopath, and certainly a malevolent actor on the world stage. He wasn't a child without agency, he MAY have had limited agency, but once again, it's not a line, it's a gradient, and his subsequent behavior convinces me that your "merciful" interpretation is off.

[Pat]

NO, people do not only try to minimize their actions when they feel guilt. They usually minimize their actions to avoid punishment, and fearing punishment is NOT the same as guilt. Secondly, I had great aunts that were married at 13, and were expected to act like adults from that day onward. That said, I might agree with you, had not his attitudes and actions after that event show full well that he is likely a sociopath, and certainly a malevolent actor on the world stage. He wasn't a child without agency, he MAY have had limited agency, but once again, it's not a line, it's a gradient, and his subsequent behavior convinces me that your "merciful" interpretation is off.

Yes, people do try to minimize their actions when they feel guilt. It's call rationalization. And your great aunts were married at 13, which is exactly the point I'm making. The primary moral definition of adulthood is the degree to which someone is responsible for their own life and the life of others. Soros was not married at 13, was not the head of a household, and was not working a 5 to 9 job to support himself and his family. Instead, he was taken along and shown things by an adult. That demonstrates dependence.

I'd agree he's a bad actor, but I draw that conclusion based on his political and economic beliefs, and the actions he's taken based on them. You're starting with the idea that he's a sociopath, and explaining all his actions based on that axiomatic belief.

[shuddemell]

NO, people do not only try to minimize their actions when they feel guilt. They usually minimize their actions to avoid punishment, and fearing punishment is NOT the same as guilt. Secondly, I had great aunts that were married at 13, and were expected to act like adults from that day onward. That said, I might agree with you, had not his attitudes and actions after that event show full well that he is likely a sociopath, and certainly a malevolent actor on the world stage. He wasn't a child without agency, he MAY have had limited agency, but once again, it's not a line, it's a gradient, and his subsequent behavior convinces me that your "merciful" interpretation is off.

Yes, people do try to minimize their actions when they feel guilt. It's call rationalization. And your great aunts were married at 13, which is exactly the point I'm making. The primary moral definition of adulthood is the degree to which someone is responsible for their own life and the life of others. Soros was not married at 13, was not the head of a household, and was not working a 5 to 9 job to support himself and his family. Instead, he was taken along and shown things by an adult. That demonstrates dependence.

I'd agree he's a bad actor, but I draw that conclusion based on his political and economic beliefs, and the actions he's taken based on them. You're starting with the idea that he's a sociopath, and explaining all his actions based on that axiomatic belief.

I didn't say they don't, I said that is not the ONLY reason, which is what you claimed. Not really starting with that belief, I am basing my opinion of him on a lifetime of actions. Actions, which to me confirm, that his early misdeeds are not the actions of someone without agency, but someone acting on beliefs that have remained largely consistent over his whole life. Looks to me like he laid down with antisemites and got up a fascist.

[Pat]

NO, people do not only try to minimize their actions when they feel guilt. They usually minimize their actions to avoid punishment, and fearing punishment is NOT the same as guilt. Secondly, I had great aunts that were married at 13, and were expected to act like adults from that day onward. That said, I might agree with you, had not his attitudes and actions after that event show full well that he is likely a sociopath, and certainly a malevolent actor on the world stage. He wasn't a child without agency, he MAY have had limited agency, but once again, it's not a line, it's a gradient, and his subsequent behavior convinces me that your "merciful" interpretation is off.

Yes, people do try to minimize their actions when they feel guilt. It's call rationalization. And your great aunts were married at 13, which is exactly the point I'm making. The primary moral definition of adulthood is the degree to which someone is responsible for their own life and the life of others. Soros was not married at 13, was not the head of a household, and was not working a 5 to 9 job to support himself and his family. Instead, he was taken along and shown things by an adult. That demonstrates dependence.

I'd agree he's a bad actor, but I draw that conclusion based on his political and economic beliefs, and the actions he's taken based on them. You're starting with the idea that he's a sociopath, and explaining all his actions based on that axiomatic belief.

I didn't say they don't, I said that is not the ONLY reason, which is what you claimed. Not really starting with that belief, I am basing my opinion of him on a lifetime of actions. Actions, which to me confirm, that his early misdeeds are not the actions of someone without agency, but someone acting on beliefs that have remained largely consistent over his whole life. Looks to me like he laid down with antisemites and got up a fascist.

I don't think that's a useful distinction. In any case, we seem to disagree on fundamentals rather than reasoning or facts, so talking it out further seems futile.

But I'll bring up one final point, which I hinted at earlier but didn't directly state: I don't think claiming Soros is a Nazi helps. It's contentious and so loaded it tends to skews conversations, and there's plenty of reasons to dislike him without bringing it up.

[EOTB]

Deepstate/oligarchy acknowledgment of election rigging as a times article


https://t.co/hnbIrLN4ts

My favorite quote:

That's why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Rigging the election is fortifying democracy.

It's amazing, and should recalibrate all of us regarding where they see what they can freely say vs what we'd think someone would ever freely admit to; it tells us to remap mentally what and where we think the country is.

[jhkim]

There are hundreds of elections laws that differ by state and local jurisdiction, implemented across tens of thousands of polling places by hundreds of thousands of workers. It would not surprise me at all if there were some cases of failing to follow procedure, but I don't know of any specific cases where that was proven to be true.

But this sounds like more misdirection -- like saying that Republicans won the 7PM-to-8PM Nevada lawsuit somehow is evidence that there was widespread fraud in GA, MI, PA, and WI.

If you want to talk about evidence of widespread fraud, then talk about that. Where is the evidence and what are the sources?

Did anyplace that has a 'legal requirement to allow observation during vote tabulating' suspend their counting and tell said legal observers that the count would begin again at a specific time...then start the tabulating earlier than stated without informing said observers? 

I don't remember...maybe I should Google it or something...[/quote]

So you're talking about the State Farm Arena video in Fulton County, Georgia. Someone did put narration onto a security video making that claim -- but there has not been any testimony from the Republican legal observers to that effect. i.e. The observers who were supposedly lied to have not backed up this claim. If one claims that "Well, the Republican observers were corrupted - that's why they're not testifying" -- but if so, what good would they have done as observers in the first place?

The video narration also claimed that the workers started taking ballots out of surreptitious suitcases -- but investigators questioned the workers and looked over the tapes, and confirmed that those were the official ballot containers, and were openly placed there earlier in the day in front of observers (as shown on camera).

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-mystery-ballots-under-table-investigator-affidavit

[shuddemell]

NO, people do not only try to minimize their actions when they feel guilt. They usually minimize their actions to avoid punishment, and fearing punishment is NOT the same as guilt. Secondly, I had great aunts that were married at 13, and were expected to act like adults from that day onward. That said, I might agree with you, had not his attitudes and actions after that event show full well that he is likely a sociopath, and certainly a malevolent actor on the world stage. He wasn't a child without agency, he MAY have had limited agency, but once again, it's not a line, it's a gradient, and his subsequent behavior convinces me that your "merciful" interpretation is off.

Yes, people do try to minimize their actions when they feel guilt. It's call rationalization. And your great aunts were married at 13, which is exactly the point I'm making. The primary moral definition of adulthood is the degree to which someone is responsible for their own life and the life of others. Soros was not married at 13, was not the head of a household, and was not working a 5 to 9 job to support himself and his family. Instead, he was taken along and shown things by an adult. That demonstrates dependence.

I'd agree he's a bad actor, but I draw that conclusion based on his political and economic beliefs, and the actions he's taken based on them. You're starting with the idea that he's a sociopath, and explaining all his actions based on that axiomatic belief.

I didn't say they don't, I said that is not the ONLY reason, which is what you claimed. Not really starting with that belief, I am basing my opinion of him on a lifetime of actions. Actions, which to me confirm, that his early misdeeds are not the actions of someone without agency, but someone acting on beliefs that have remained largely consistent over his whole life. Looks to me like he laid down with antisemites and got up a fascist.

I don't think that's a useful distinction. In any case, we seem to disagree on fundamentals rather than reasoning or facts, so talking it out further seems futile.

But I'll bring up one final point, which I hinted at earlier but didn't directly state: I don't think claiming Soros is a Nazi helps. It's contentious and so loaded it tends to skews conversations, and there's plenty of reasons to dislike him without bringing it up.

Agreed, as I mentioned earlier, we will have to agree to disagree. No biggie. I would agree with your last point, and I was being hyperbolic to a degree to note that while Susan Roseberg (being a terrorist) is no longer involved with BLM, that it just is being handled by a Soros entity, and I don't think that is necessarily a move for the better. Nazi, fascist or just a run of the mill totalitarian cancer, I definitely am suspect of everything and anything he has his putrid little claws in.

[moonsweeper]

There are hundreds of elections laws that differ by state and local jurisdiction, implemented across tens of thousands of polling places by hundreds of thousands of workers. It would not surprise me at all if there were some cases of failing to follow procedure, but I don't know of any specific cases where that was proven to be true.

But this sounds like more misdirection -- like saying that Republicans won the 7PM-to-8PM Nevada lawsuit somehow is evidence that there was widespread fraud in GA, MI, PA, and WI.

If you want to talk about evidence of widespread fraud, then talk about that. Where is the evidence and what are the sources?

Did anyplace that has a 'legal requirement to allow observation during vote tabulating' suspend their counting and tell said legal observers that the count would begin again at a specific time...then start the tabulating earlier than stated without informing said observers? 

I don't remember...maybe I should Google it or something...

So you're talking about the State Farm Arena video in Fulton County, Georgia. Someone did put narration onto a security video making that claim -- but there has not been any testimony from the Republican legal observers to that effect. i.e. The observers who were supposedly lied to have not backed up this claim. If one claims that "Well, the Republican observers were corrupted - that's why they're not testifying" -- but if so, what good would they have done as observers in the first place?

The video narration also claimed that the workers started taking ballots out of surreptitious suitcases -- but investigators questioned the workers and looked over the tapes, and confirmed that those were the official ballot containers, and were openly placed there earlier in the day in front of observers (as shown on camera).

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-mystery-ballots-under-table-investigator-affidavit

I don't know about the video...never watched it.
I also didn't say anything about pulling out cases of fake ballots. 
I specifically said exactly what I meant to say...

[jhkim]

Did anyplace that has a 'legal requirement to allow observation during vote tabulating' suspend their counting and tell said legal observers that the count would begin again at a specific time...then start the tabulating earlier than stated without informing said observers? 

I don't remember...maybe I should Google it or something...

So you're talking about the State Farm Arena video in Fulton County, Georgia. Someone did put narration onto a security video making that claim -- but there has not been any testimony from the Republican legal observers to that effect. i.e. The observers who were supposedly lied to have not backed up this claim. If one claims that "Well, the Republican observers were corrupted - that's why they're not testifying" -- but if so, what good would they have done as observers in the first place?

The video narration also claimed that the workers started taking ballots out of surreptitious suitcases -- but investigators questioned the workers and looked over the tapes, and confirmed that those were the official ballot containers, and were openly placed there earlier in the day in front of observers (as shown on camera).

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-mystery-ballots-under-table-investigator-affidavit

I don't know about the video...never watched it.
I also didn't say anything about pulling out cases of fake ballots. 
I specifically said exactly what I meant to say...
[/quote]

Your claim, as I understand it, is that election officials lied to the legal observers. What is your evidence of that?