|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Can legislators deny the fraudulent electoral votes ?
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Bob |
|||||||||||
|
Stal 01:11 Although I am not a conspiracy nut, I have also read a bit about him. For example, after the sinking of the Lusitania, he reported that he went to bed that night well satisfied. He was that much closer to bringing an ally into the war. I have also read that it was a long-standing French-British policy to deny Russia a warm-water port. They fought the Crimean War to allow Turkey to keep the Bosphorus closed to Russian ships. Yet in 1915 they promise Russia that they will force Turkey to grant access through to the Mediterranean. They invade Gallipoli to show that they mean it! Why the change in policy? Answer:- to ensure Russia stays in the war, tying up German and Austrian forces and supplies that would otherwise be used to roll over France. Sure, the Allies land on the Gallipoli peninsula and make rapid advances. I have been there in 2007 and walked over the terrain, and I'm stunned at how hard it was! Yet great advances were made and some troops landing on undefended beaches were in position to take the defenders on the other beaches from the rear for the sake of a two-hour advance. But those unopposed troops were called back, a process taking most of the day, and fed in as 'reinforcements' on the contested beaches. And so throughout the entire campaign; whenever it looked like the Turks would be broken, there would be a delay and the chance would be lost! And that's not counting the obvious and clumsy naval 'reconnaissance' and other penetrations, enough to let the Turks know that something was in the wind. It is hard to escape the thought that the Allied High Command was applying every possible pressure short of doing enough to actually win. The poor grunts were being fed into the mincer for no better reason than to keep Russia in the War. So yes, Churchill was exactly what the British war effort needed. A man with great intelligence, nerves of steel, a forehead of brass and no qualms. If that's a 'Great Man', then Churchill fits the specification. |
|||||||||||
|
Thumper Surely you are aware of bad men in uniform. I know I don’t know what battle is like. I’m glad. But men who do know combat believe that what these men did was illegal and unwarranted. A war crime. You can disagree. You can rightfully claim I don’t know what it’s like. Still. 37 civilian casualties. |
|||||||||||
|
thumper Only God knows someone's heart. Yet you make claim to know those men's hearts? And how did we get from talking about one mercenary who had zero fire discipline to encompass all former military? I.E. the ones you worked personally with? Did they also work for Blackwater or was that back in the day when they were enlisted men? You do realize the difference right? Also mercenaries have generally been hated since time in memorial. Especially the one be who worked for the Roman Empire. When those men and women became soldiers of fortune (for personal profit) they work for the highest bidder. They may or may not work for America and I'm sure if the price was right they would kill American soldiers. The only and I mean only fact that keeps them from that is it would be suicide to go up against the US. But if it wasn't sir. US soldiers would be on the menu! From wiki and I find it to be accurate. A mercenary, sometimes known as a soldier of fortune, is an individual who takes part in military conflict for personal profit, is otherwise an outsider to the conflict, and is not a member of any other official military.[1][2] Mercenaries fight for money or other forms of payment rather than for political interests. Beginning in the 20th century, mercenaries have increasingly come to be seen as less entitled to protections by rules of war than non-mercenaries. Indeed, the Geneva Conventions declare that mercenaries are not recognized as legitimate combatants and do not have to be granted the same legal protections as captured service personnel of a regular army.[3] By the way, The two former Navy seal's who died in the line of duty and service to their country at Benghazi, were contracted by the CIA and still working for their country! It is not even a comparison in any way shape or form! Here is a good read free of left wing bias, and also free from your right wing bias. www.google.com |
|||||||||||
|
Extra point question: Do you know any? |
|||||||||||
|
dmaestro 31-Dec-20, 11:03 |
I oppose the whole Blackwater concept of outsourcing to mercenaries. Furthermore it needs to be clear upfront to any ex-military contracted in dangerous operations that they are now civilians. Furthermore for the most part military deployment to intensive combat operations should be limited to a defined tour; not sequential tours. Studies show that repeat exposures to violent military operations exponentially increases the risk of lifetime PTSD and snapping into illegal behavior under stress. We spend a lot of money to have the best military and to be able to get them home safe and adjust to life as a productive civilian with due honor. We should not be wearing our military out or encouraging ex-military to push those exposure limits by mercenary contracts. The military itself routinely applies ORM en.m.wikipedia.org to its operations while mercenary contracts do not. |
|||||||||||
|
Thumper Respond to any of the several comments made to you. |
|||||||||||
|
Mocking Churchill Who mentioned Churchill? |
|||||||||||
|
Thumper There is no difference between a soldier of fortune and a mercenary. They are synonymous. A private military contractor is a mercenary who was hired and paid by an organization like Blackwater who serves as a middleman between the mercenary and the government or other organization hiring the mercenaries. They all fight for $$ |
|||||||||||
|
DM Absolutely. It’s a horrible idea |
|||||||||||
|
Z |
|||||||||||
|
Thumper Only fools don’t fear. Bravery is doing what is right in spite of fear, not absence of fear. |
|||||||||||
|
thumper There isn't a difference when you boil it down. Of course some people think that a tweak in name is a tweak in definition. The result is the same, not that I blame them for trying to make more money in their chosen profession good for them! Also I am sure that with anything else in life like Police etc, there are those who are upstanding and those who just like to bully or have the ultimate adrenaline rush of killing with impunity. The difference is this. The honorable ones should be held to esteem, the ones who lack fire discipline and indiscriminately kill civilians should have a consequence for their actions. I don't candy coat misdeeds, there are consequences for f'ing up. mercenary [ˈmərsəˌnerē] ADJECTIVE (of a person or their behavior) primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics. "she's nothing but a mercenary little gold digger" synonyms: money-oriented · grasping · greedy · acquisitive · avaricious · covetous · rapacious · bribable · venal · materialistic · money-grubbing NOUN a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army. synonyms: soldier of fortune · professional soldier · hired soldier · hireling · private army · merc · hired gun · freelance · condottiere · adventurer · lance-knight |
|||||||||||
|
also cudos |
|||||||||||
|
stalhandske 01-Jan-21, 07:47 |
What happens on January 6th? This video was quite good for me to understand the remaining choreography in the US Presidential Election. To me, this is mostly a show, a Hollywood farce by now, some Republicans still maintaining "foul play", but unable to show any reliable evidence for it. |
|||||||||||
|
stalhandske 01-Jan-21, 09:22 |
Bad losers <With all these things available to read and see, HOW do you know that Biden won fairly? Where is YOUR proof that it was all legit?> I think the proof (of fraud) is for the dissidents to produce! Not the other way around. When that has proved impossible, remaining complaints are just ridiculous complaining and a pure example of bad losers. |
|||||||||||
|
Republicans will fight Democrats' injustice to US voters. Jan. 3: New Congress is sworn in. Jan. 5: Senate runoff election in Georgia. Jan. 6: Congress will count and certify the electoral results in a joint session. Jan. 20: Inauguration of Biden, who will take the oath of office. Democrats did injustice to US voters by, 1. Disinformation, 2. Deception and 3. Double standard of law. and steal the election. |
|||||||||||
|
Guilty Until Proven Innocent Disappointed his efforts to cheat failed, Trump is now pursuing every other means at his disposal to avoid a lebpngthy prison sentence once he is dragged out of office. |
|||||||||||
|
Stål |
|||||||||||
|
Thumper Stal is correct. It is actually impossible to prove the absence of fraud. It is incumbent upon those claiming fraud to put forth convincing evidence. If 100 million folks believe the moon is made of cultured milk product, it doesn’t make it true. They’d need to show me some cheese. They have failed utterly and totally. |
|||||||||||
|
Indeed, are those concerns honest? Because they are predicated on Trump's lies. He lied about the 2016 elections, and he is lying now. If 100 million people choose to believe Trump's baseless lies, does that serve as any kind of genuine indictment of the most safe and secure national election ever conducted on US soil? |
|||||||||||
|
Evidence of Fraud Quote: Dominion Voting Systems has sent a cease-and-desist letter to a witness who accompanied Rudy Giuliani in contesting the presidential vote in Michigan. Lawyers representing the company told Mellissa Carone, a former contractor for Dominion, to “cease and desist making defamatory claims” and to preserve documents associated with her “smear campaign against the company,” according to the letter obtained by The Hill on Monday. Carone is one of more than a dozen people who received letters warning about litigation from Dominion. The company says that she knowingly made false statements about the company and voter fraud, describing her mockingly as Giuliani's "star witness." “Without a shred of corroborating evidence, you have claimed that you witnessed several different versions of voter fraud—ranging from one story involving a van, to other accusations that votes were counted multiple times,” the letter said. “You published these statements even though you knew all along that your attacks on Dominion have no basis in reality.” Attorneys Thomas Clare and Megan Meier sent Carone’s letter on Dec. 22. They wrote that they were reaching out because Carone has made herself “a prominent leader of the ongoing misinformation campaign by pretending to have some sort of ‘insider knowledge’ ” on Dominion’s activities. But the letter addressed to Carone said, “IN REALITY YOU WERE HIRED THROUGH A STAFFING AGENCY FOR ONE DAY TO CLEAN GLASS ON MACHINES AND COMPLETE OTHER MENIAL TASKS." [Emphasis mine]. So Giuliani's star witness, this drunk cleaning woman, has evidence no one has yet seen establishing rampant fraud? IT HAS BEEN TWO MONTHS since the election, almost. WHY CAN'T THEY PUBLISH THEIR EVIDENCE? For the LOVE OF GOD, PUBLISH! Tucker Carlson asked for evidence over and over again, finally tossing up his hands on this issue. If you can't sell Tucker, a man who WANTS to be deceived, then you really ought to hang it up. The only folks buying this vapid stupidity are the same folks who think Biden is a lizard alien from an alternate dimension. You know, the la-la folk. While you may choose to believe the following link is partisan, there is no denying they have faithfully quoted the content of Dominion's letter. thehill.com |
|||||||||||
|
stalhandske 02-Jan-21, 08:33 |
Thumper Are those concerns honest, to start with? As far as I have seen and read there actually is no evidence, which is why every try falls flat in the police (FBI) and the courts. Votes have been counted and - on demand - recounted, with no practical change in results. I strongly suspect that there aren't quite 100 million bad losers even though there are many - just as there were in the last election. I am surprised that you - known to be a cautious and critical man - align yourself with the bad losers. |
|||||||||||
|
Murkoski nails it "I think it's quite interesting that he has demanded a loyalty test from so many Republicans and then when they are loyal to him -- and there is one incident, one statement -- and he is the first one to throw those loyal individuals under the bus," Murkowski told CNN. "That's not loyalty as I know loyalty," added the Alaska Republican, who's no stranger to internecine contests, having been defeated in a 2010 GOP primary only to win another term in a write-in campaign that year. It is, however, precisely how Trump understands the concept |
|||||||||||
|
Z |
|||||||||||
|
BC Both houses need at least one objection. Easy. If that happens, they have some specific hours of debate. Then both houses would have to vote yes. I think straight majority. The House will never do that. I doubt very much the Senate would. Murkowski, Sasse, Romney, Collins and more I think have enough backbone. Ask someone who knows 😁 |
|||||||||||
|
President's Lawyer Jim Wright: This is Trump's lawyer threatening Trump's VP with Trump's AG to overthrow an election Trump lost. And this isn't even CLOSE to the craziest thing he has said recently. |
|||||||||||
|
Shiva |
|||||||||||
|
That comment by Murkowski is deadly accurate. The only sort of loyalty that Trump respects is loyalty to TRUMP. And he sets an excellent example of that, himself being loyal to no-one but TRUMP. He is quite happy to call tens of thousands of those who trust him into maskless rallies so they can all share COVID, certain that many of them will die. That shows how unshakeably loyal he is to himself, and not distracted by any competing loyalty to those who trust him. But what's new here? Everyone has already known that for at least six years. And there are still idiots out there who tell themselves something different. |
|||||||||||
|
Athena 10:13 A chance in Hell? Yes. All it would take is a majority of both Houses to vote for it to be so. That is the proverbial snowflake's chance in Hell, which is what you asked for. But is it likely? I think the risk of Biden being trampled to death by a flock of Dodos should be of more concern to you. |
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
