|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Can legislators deny the fraudulent electoral votes ?
« Back to club forum
| |||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Can legislators deny the fraudulent electoral votes ?Yes, you bet. you can. Check the above video. Before Joe Biden can become president, both Houses have to verify and approve it. There are lots of evidence that the 2020 presidential election is a fraud and yet there were no proper investigations by government authorities. This is an insult to our law abiding citizens and threat to the integrity of our democracy. We should not let the criminals who steal our votes get away. Good News - Freedom Justice Liberty And Truth Are On The March and Winning This War!!! |
||||||||||
|
Ace Dude...Biden won. You’ve been sold an imaginary broken down bridge over a dry river bed. To copy someone else... So the voters can't be trusted, the poll workers can't be trusted, the voting machines can't be trusted, the media can't be trusted, the guy who was in charge of election security can't be trusted, the lower courts can't be trusted, the appellate courts can't be trusted, and the Supreme Court can't be trusted. But Donald Trump can be trusted. Roll that around in your head for about three minutes and realize how incredibly mind-bogglingly stupid that sounds. |
||||||||||
|
Ace Did you “become a patriot’ and send some of your hard earned money to support such a conman? I hope not, but suspect you did.... I know how gullible you are. How much did they con you out of? |
||||||||||
|
Zorro |
||||||||||
|
Ace You’re fantasizing. Sad to see an intelligent guy so deluded. Don’t take it too hard when President Elect Biden is sworn in three weeks. |
||||||||||
|
stalhandske 26-Dec-20, 06:19 |
On what basis do you make this statement? Give us at least ONE dependable reason! |
||||||||||
|
stalhandske 26-Dec-20, 20:53 |
The responsibility of GK clubs edition.cnn.com Control of what is reasonable posting in these clubs is a human responsibility, not censorship! If something bad happens to this employee of Dominion Voting System, I will hold the NG club and its leadership responsible. |
||||||||||
|
Vigilante "Justice" The underlying paradigm is that Americans on both sides have little genuine regard for the Rule of Law. It's the Wild West mindset, where God blesses the fastest draw. Unless the baddie wins, in which case we wait for another showdown. Even the idea of a 'posse' is not much more than mob rule dressed up as 'deputation'. It harks back to the thirteenth century's 'hue and cry' arrangements. It's only those 'Liberals' (aka Communists) who worry about words on paper when any TRUE American knows what's right and what's wrong without having to be told by the government! It also goes a long way to explaining their 'I own a gun for self-protection' mindset. You gotta protect your self and not rely on flimsy concepts such as Due Process or Constitutional Provisions. You can see this in NG club where the same people bang on forever about 'defending the Constitution' even if it means acting unconstitutionally. The reality in these minds is not the Constitution itself, but some vague concept of 'being an American like me, because it you're not like me you're not a true American, so you got NO rights'. This is how they can hold up such terrible examples of 'Patriotism', which are really text-book examples of the opposite. God Bless Ollie North! He did what he was told, and didn't worry about this Communist doublespeak about whether or not it was legal! If the President tells you to do it, then that MAKES it legal! Except, of course, if the President is a Democrat, in which case ANYTHING he tells you to do must bad for America, which makes it illegal. Isn't that obvious? Any questions? |
||||||||||
|
stalhandske 26-Dec-20, 22:34 |
Bob 22:25 Well, precisely! It is this type of behaviour that is so profoundly hypocritical that there is no better example! This attitude is typically American, or we should say United Statesian because it is not typical elsewhere in America! Nor elsewhere in the world! Of course, it does exist elsewhere but not with the US frequency. WHY?? Is it some kind of a historical, traditional, mindset? I know you don't like this, but it does correlate with excessive Christian fundamentalism. |
||||||||||
|
Stal 22:34 I think the answer is to some degree that both are consequences of a common cause. That common cause is what I would call 'New World Paradigm'. Others might call it 'American Exceptionalism', but the two are not exactly the same. The American Founding Myth is that of honest, upright settlers escaping from a corrupt 'Old World' where all authority was corrupt. Kings, the King's courts, the Established Church, it was all in the grip of corruption! Does that sound like some people we know, who say that Washington, the Congress, the SCOTUS, the electoral officials, etc are all corrupt? So they came to a New World to set up a New Righteous Society. This was God's Second Chance! It was the holy few alone against the world! Anyone who opposed them was opposing God's will, and therefore must be spawn of the devil, no matter how reasonable they might sound. Does this sound like 'Everyone who opposes Trump must be a Marxist, even if they lie about their real, hidden, evil intentions'? Of course, nothing ever goes to plan, and least of all a whole new society after two generations. The Salem witch trials were all about a society that can't understand why God hasn't blessed them when they KNOW that they are God's Chosen. It can only be because there must be some hidden uncleanness in our midst. We must root out these secret witches! Does that sound like McCarthyism? Appropriately enough, the body charged with rooting out Communists, the modern-day witches, was called the House Un-American Activities Committee, even though persecution on the basis of political belief was prohibited by the Constitution. Thus the HUAC was the most 'un-American activity' of all! Not the only time the Right of American politics has ignored the explicit provisions of the Constitution! This is where the Religious Right comes into the picture. If Americans are God's Chosen, and all 'unChristian' behaviour and sentiment must be stamped out, then we ned a clear, unambiguous definition of what is permitted and what is Satan's subversion. Suddenly Christianity becomes a faith of rules and definitions. No longer is it a gospel of free grace and personal liberation, to be explored in faith, hope and love as you mature. Theology (i.e., thinking about God, the Universe and Everything) is a no-go zone in case it leads to something not covered by the Rules. Which is perhaps why America has produced so few theologians. So I don't think Christian Fundamentalism has caused this disaster. Fundamentalism is just the consequence of their narcissistic Founding Myth. But strangely enough, this would at first sight suggest that Americans should be MORE concerned about the Rule of Law rather than less guided by it. This is because a second stream of influence is also at play. That second stream is the original distrust of 'worldly authority' (i.e., kings, parliaments, courts, etc) remains in play. The demand for strict obedience to rules is limited to 'God's Ministers', not any secular authority. Only charismatic preachers can be trusted. Any doubt is not 'legitimate scepticism', but 'sinful refusal to believe'. That is how America has such a strong tradition of revivalist meetings, with wandering preachers making a comfortable living by being 'hot gospellers'. All you need is a good line of patter, a convincing manner of delivery and absolutely no scruples about taking money under false pretences. Does that sound like someone else we know, who likes to play golf? This is perhaps why America is the cult capital of the world and so many televangelists can make a living. So long as the preacher is charismatic and says all the 'holy words', that is as much authoritative backing as anyone ever needs. Such Americans live by Faith in the latest Prophet, not by the Rule of Law. |
||||||||||
|
Gosh I sound bitter! I'm still purging myself of all the poisons absorbed during my time in another club where most members continued to post such absolute garbage. This has given me a good insight into the mentality of those specific members and their cultural background. Thankfully they are not representative of the majority of Americans who tend to be much more pragmatic. Such a shame that the small minority shout down anyone who dares to disagree with them. I'll get better soon! I promise! |
||||||||||
|
brigadecommander 26-Dec-20, 23:42 |
Deleted by brigadecommander on 27-Dec-20, 05:37.
|
||||||||||
|
stalhandske 27-Dec-20, 00:37 |
Bob 23:22 You know tat I am full aware of that! I put it forward as a hypothesis |
||||||||||
|
What is the " Deep State (DS) " that we know of them ? DS is the non elected government officials who has their own policy and agenda. They would like to control the duly elected politicians and would like to adopt the policies that will benefit for them. The usual DS is military industrial complex. A lot of capitalists have business interest and stakes in military industrial complex. They are merchants of deaths. If there is no war how can they sell their arms and ammunitions for profit ? Check the youtube link above for details. |
||||||||||
|
AOC blames Republicans for everything. To be fair and square, I present Democrat congresswoman AOC's ideas or opinions on, 1. To overturn the election 2. Healthcare 3. How to contain and spread of cv Pandemic. For discussion, please present your opinions first. |
||||||||||
|
Ace |
||||||||||
|
Ace 07:24 Let's work through this phrase-by-phrase, rather than being overwhelmed by too much detail all at once.... <DS is the non elected government officials> This is partly correct. The Deep State includes some elected representatives, but the overwhelming majority have never even been candidates for election. That's because the real 'Deep State' is the People themselves, of whom millions have sworn an oath to 'defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign or domestic'. Such people include many on both sides of the Aisle, and even more on both sides of political opinion outside government. Men like Thumper, Softie and Mo, who are worthy of respect for their service. <who has their own policy and agenda.> Indeed they do! They want a strong, free, prosperous and just United States, one that puts into practice the ideals it proclaims. There is a range of opinions on exactly how this should be done and who should be elected to oversee the process, but their policy and agenda is not summed up in any one party or politician. <They would like to control the duly elected politicians> Primarily by electing those whom they trust and deposing those who have failed them. But also through petitions, protests, rallies, and other political activities as permitted under 1A. <and would like to adopt the policies that will benefit for them.> As any citizen in a Democratic country has a right to expect. Yes, the Deep State consists of the whole citizenry of a mature democracy, those people who place the nation and the Constitution above secondary issues such as party politics. Not every nation on Earth has the blessing of such a deep and loyal citizenry. A republican constitution was imposed on Germany after WW1, but it had no depth of root. As soon as hard times came, the people looked for a Strong Leader who would solve all their problems for them and Make Germany Great Again. Russia in 1917 - 1921 was much the same; competing absolutisms instead of a mature democracy. So Americans should rejoice that a quarter of a millennium of (mostly) democratic public life has embedded democratic ideals so deeply into the fabric of their society. Except for a tiny handful of messianic idiots, Americans can place hand on heart and proudly boast "I have seen the Deep State, and the Deep State is Us!" |
||||||||||
|
dmaestro 27-Dec-20, 23:27 |
The fact is American conservatives have an obsession with opposing democracy. Which is why our divisions cannot be bridged. They proudly say America is a Republic but fail to understand a “republic” simply means the government is a public matter not a monarchy. They also falsely claim that democracy is by definition mob rule and majority tyranny; when in fact it simply means the public elects representatives to govern them and basic rights can’t be voted away. As long as the system gives them an unfair advantage they will oppose democracy. The right wing fallacy is clearly refuted here. www.google.com |
||||||||||
|
DM 23:27 Up until now I have seen people talk about 'republic, not democracy' and thought they were idiots. Now I see that they are just using definitions imposed by idiots. A word means what it means TODAY, not what it meant a quarter of a millennium ago! In the 1770's the only example of 'democracy' was Athens, a 'participatory democracy with no restrictions on what laws or decisions were permissible. For all practical purposes, no Constitution. I agree that a Constitutional democracy is nothing like that. If one restricts 'democracy' to what happened in Athens more than two thousand years ago, the I agree the USA is not an Athenian democracy. In fact, the Founding Fathers probably thought more of the Roman Republic when they wrote their own 'Constitution'. The Roman Republic was governed by a set of ancient laws referred to as the 'Mos Majorum' ("Customs of the Elders"), a form of constitution. The Senate, in which only the wealthiest 300 males were permitted a seat, ruled the city. (At least, for most of the period of the Republic, and changing only in the last period when activists like the Gracchi started to win concessions.) Just like the Founding Fathers designed the United States to be ruled by the wealthy; elections were meant to give the People a choice of which magnate they preferred to make decisions for them. (e.g., Electoral College) If this is the vision that such people want to uphold, then let them say it! Times have changed. Most advanced nations have managed to combine the best features of a 'Republic' with a democratic process for electing who has power within that Republic. I'm sure America could also manage to do this; they have plenty of examples to copy from. If anyone from the Right wanted to stand for election saying "Democracy has no place in America!", I would not expect him to win many votes. So they are driven to the hypocrisy of mouthing support for 'American Democracy' which they themselves reject. So now I understand what people like Thumper have been telling me. I am saddened. |
||||||||||
|
dmaestro 28-Dec-20, 00:23 |
|
||||||||||
|
Roman Republic If anyone wants a good idea of how the Roman Republic worked while enjoying a good read as if a novel, then get into Colleen McCullough's series 'The Masters of Rome'. These are good history written as though novels. She was awarded an Honorary Doctorate for them. I have put out a series of three books which are an 'alternative history', looking at how things might have worked out if one detail is changed; I assume that Marcus Livius Drusus the Younger survives the assassination which in real history killed him. Otherwise all the characters and all their political views are as we know them from history (within an acceptable range for interpretation. For example, I am much more respectful of Sulla and more cynical of Caesar, and I have the bulk of real experts on my side in both cases.) There is also a companion fourth volume which explores some interesting ideas about how communities evolve under unusual circumstances. This posits a Roman colony specifically set up by a merchant as a pirate base in case some competitors find his most profitable and secret monopoly. My books are available for FREE DOWNLOAD through the Goodreads website. Check under my pen-name Tito Kithes Athano. |
||||||||||
|
Wild West There are many in America who believe that it's okay to do ANYTHING in one's own home and many others who believe freedoms of speech include the right to advocate Civil War and spout conspi8racy theory lies over and over again for the purpose of gaining more following. |
||||||||||
|
bob |
||||||||||
|
DM 00:23 I think I have to disagree with you on that point. I suspect that the Founding Fathers' spirit was very much that of the mid-eighteenth century. Educated men of that time had no doubt at all that 'democracy' (i.e., the system of ancient Athens) would be a disaster. If laws were made, city policy decided and trials heard by whoever turned up on the day, there would be chaos because the next meeting the next day would be stacked by whoever could pay the most citizens to turn up on the next day to change those laws and policies. Long-term planning (which might mean only a week from now) would be a disaster! That's why the Founding Fathers settled on a model in which the educated, wealthy elite would make the decisions; the only 'democratic' aspect would be that the mases would be permitted to elect which of the elite would be in this oligarchy. That's why the President is elected by the Electoral College, not directly; and why the Constitution itself can only be amended by State legislatures, not by direct plebiscite. So I suspect the 'conservatives' are very much more in tune with the original framers than you are. But that begs the more important question:- should the United States still be governed like it was in the 18th century? Those who would answer 'yes' to those questions then need to explain why they allow any amendments at all, if the original document is 'good for all time'. In particular, they need to explain how they object today to any talk of 'updating the Constitution', but show no regrets that it has already been updated 27 times, the last being less than thirty years ago. That is why my comment was "I am saddened." I am saddened because these people accept, endorse and even treasure changes made in the past (for instance, the 'Bill of Rights' are all amendments), but refuse to even contemplate any discussion of changes in the future as though the mere idea is 'unAmerican'. They want the United States to NOT grow. |
||||||||||
|
Bob Mo |
||||||||||
|
A better question for Ace Ace, Softy, IHS, Isaac and other anti-American haters of democracy would like them to do so and make trump dictator for life. Thumper won’t advocate for that, but neither will he stand up to accept the legitimacy of the election, choosing instead to not take any stance, preferring to believe bizarre conspiracy theories instead. Democracy will win. This is my takeaway message. |
||||||||||
|
Even the NY Post The Post says: Give it up, Mr. President — for your sake and the nation’s By Post Editorial Board Mr. President, it’s time to end this dark charade. We’re one week away from an enormously important moment for the next four years of our country. On Jan. 5, two runoff races in Georgia will determine which party will control the Senate — whether Joe Biden will have a rubber stamp or a much-needed check on his agenda. Unfortunately, you’re obsessed with the next day, Jan. 6, when Congress will, in a pro forma action, certify the Electoral College vote. You have tweeted that, as long as Republicans have “courage,” they can overturn the results and give you four more years in office. In other words, you’re cheering for an undemocratic coup. You had every right to investigate the election. But let’s be clear: Those efforts have found nothing. To take just two examples: Your campaign paid $3 million for a recount in two Wisconsin counties, and you lost by 87 more votes. Georgia did two recounts of the state, each time affirming Biden’s win. These ballots were counted by hand, which alone debunks the claims of a Venezuelan vote-manipulating Kraken conspiracy. Sidney Powell is a crazy person. Michael Flynn suggesting martial law is tantamount to treason. It is shameful. We understand, Mr. President, that you’re angry that you lost. But to continue down this road is ruinous. We offer this as a newspaper that endorsed you, that supported you: If you want to cement your influence, even set the stage for a future return, you must channel your fury into something more productive. Stop thinking about Jan. 6. Start thinking about Jan. 5. If Republicans David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler win, they will prevent Biden from rolling back what you have accomplished. A Republican Senate can pressure Biden against returning to the old, failed Iran deal, can stop him from throwing open our southern border, will prevent him from packing the Supreme Court. Now imagine a government controlled by your nemeses — Nancy Pelosi in the House, Chuck Schumer in the Senate, Biden in the White House. How high will taxes go? How many of your initiatives will be strangled? And, on a personal note, do you think they won’t spend the next four years torturing you with baseless hearings and investigations? Consider this. You came out of nowhere to win the presidency. Not an elected official, not a lawyer, not beholden to any particular faction of the swamp. You took on the elites and the media who had long lost touch with average working people. You changed politics, which is something few in American history can say. If Georgia falls, all that is threatened. You will leave your party out of power, less likely to listen to what you have to say or to capitalize on your successes, such as expanding the Hispanic voting bloc for the GOP. Democrats will try to write you off as a one-term aberration and, frankly, you’re helping them do it. The King Lear of Mar-a-Lago, ranting about the corruption of the world. Securing the Senate means securing your legacy. You should use your considerable charm and influence to support the Georgia candidates, mobilizing your voters for them. Focus on their success, not your own grievances, as we head into the final week. If you insist on spending your final days in office threatening to burn it all down, that will be how you are remembered. Not as a revolutionary, but as the anarchist holding the match. |
||||||||||
|
stalhandske 28-Dec-20, 08:10 |
Zorro I think it is diagnostic that they not only ask the President to give up, but also make a clear comment about the general validity of the election procedure! This commentary, from the American Right Wing, is very good news in my opinion. NOT because "they gave up" but because they show that apparently quite many on the Republican side are decent realistic people! This is, unfortunately, not the impression one gets from the NG club. However, the latter may simply be because that club is almost totally dominated by two fanatics. |
||||||||||
|
Stal |
||||||||||
|
Stal |
||||||||||
| |||||||||||
