4 ms·

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVqsRUyrQ_k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVqsRUyrQ_k Better decide where you want to live for the next 25 years.

shadowgovt 6y ago
If the Deep State exists in the sense this conspiracy theorist believes it does, I guess it doesn't matter where we live, does it? The CIA bogeyman will get you anyway ;) Some fun tips from this video: * He completely misunderstands the information that came from the "Pennsylvania legislature." It came from the Republican caucus. And specifically, it was spearheaded by a member of the caucus that essentially has no political cachet in the state. He can do what he wants, it's a free country, but everyone knows he's a nutter and his belief in a conspiracy theory is about a surprising as somebody reporting the sky is blue on a clear day. He also completely misunderstands what's going to happen in Pennsylvania, because that Republican caucus doesn't have the political power to block either certification or the slate of electors in the electoral college. And it's all irrelevant because deadlock in the electoral college would result in a president Pelosi, as per the House nuclear option mentioned in the last video I cited. * The "pigtail lady" is the scandal du jour. It hasn't been presented in a court of law, and the simplest explanation for what the video shows is that nobody attempted to hide it (she didn't change her hair or top) because it was business as usual. I've worked elections, and I haven't seen anything in that video that looked out of sorts. When conspiracy theorists go looking for irregularities, they always find them. But that's more a psychological function of people finding what they're looking for than any particular changes in reality. * The law is a little unclear, but what Michael Flynn has done is probably actually sedition. It also ought not to be illegal. I don't think it's illegal. But Flynn is by no means the good guy in this story; he is openly calling for an illegal overthrow of the Constitutionally-mandated electoral process via the military. Right or wrong, that's fundamentally the end of American democracy were it to occur. If he wants to put himself on the side with people who have tried to overthrow America with military might, from Aaron Burr through Robert E. Lee onwards, that's his choice, and if he ever makes good on his threats, the US military is more than willing to remind him what happens to traitors. Anyway, this whole video is classic conspiracy theory claptrap, from the need to imagine a conspiracy so vast that it encompasses all possible counterindications to the need to invent an enemy the conspiracy is happening on behalf of (looks like he's dragged the old communist fear out of the woodwork and repurposed it for China; that's a fun one that Americans are fond of). Nothing in here is convincing unless you already believe the conspiracy theory, and then it's just reinforcing delusion. I plan to live in the US for the next 25 years, for what it's worth. ;)
- Fjolsvith 6y ago
  The video shows that for one hour, ballots were illegally counted without any observers allowed in the room. Trump's path to victory is described by Praying Medic: https://prayingmedic.com/2020/11/27/the-crisis-is-over-im-returning-to-normal/ https://prayingmedic.com/2020/11/27/the-crisis-is-over-im-re... You once wrote: States can't change their rules for certification of electors without a governor's signature. If a state tried to pull some nonsense like changing the selection of electors away from the process as encoded in law before Nov. 3, that'd be new law and (a) would require a governor's signature or a veto-proof majority and (b) may actually be ex-post-facto if the current law is structured such that it declares how electors related to the votes cast on Nov. 3, so could be stopped by state courts. [1] But Praying Medic counters your argument with a citation from the SCOTUS ruling in Bush v. Gore. Chief Justice Rehnquist summed it up: "Or put differently, when the legislature acted pursuant to the power granted to it by Article II, it stands above any limits imposed by state law." If it goes to SCOTUS again, the five conservative justices will likely follow the Constitution. All that has been needed to be done was that there was enough election fraud demonstrated that state legislators could feel they are not required to honor the popular vote when choosing electors, because the popular vote, as counted, is not reflective of the will of the people. I told you 23 days ago this was Trump's strategy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25078993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25078993 Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona will all send electors for Trump, giving him more than 270. Edit: And, you can be sure they will be arresting everyone involved in the fraud, right after they impose martial law to round them up. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25079610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25079610
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    Praying Medic misunderstands Bush v Gore. SCOTUS took the extraordinary step in that ruling of declaring the circumstances so unique that the case should not be cited as common-law precedent. Anyone citing it has to explain why the Court should disregard SCOTUS's own guidance not to cite it. Even if they do, its particulars don't generally apply to the cases the Trump campaign is bringing (https://theconversation.com/trumps-pennsylvania-lawsuits-invoke-bush-v-gore-but-the-supreme-court-probably-wont-decide-the-2020-election-149538 https://theconversation.com/trumps-pennsylvania-lawsuits-inv...). Imposing martial law would simply be the death of American democracy, not some master chess move. I don't dispute the President could try. I doubt it would succeed (if it came down to it, plenty of generals see him as a tyrant and would follow their oath to uphold the Constitution, not a President in breach of his oath), and it renders all this discussion irrelevant because it's a suspension of Constitutional law. But it proves nothing. We'd just be another nation where a tyrant tried military force to keep his power illegitimately. Sowing doubt in the legitimate process to justify a power grab is right out of the playbook. It's sad that you're falling for it, but there were suckers who supported Hitler too. Every modern dictator claims they're upholding the will of the people. Every modern dictator drums up a secret conspiracy opposed to the people to justify their extraordinary measures.

shadowgovt 6y ago

If the Deep State exists in the sense this conspiracy theorist believes it does, I guess it doesn't matter where we live, does it? The CIA bogeyman will get you anyway ;) Some fun tips from this video: * He completely misunderstands the information that came from the "Pennsylvania legislature." It came from the Republican caucus. And specifically, it was spearheaded by a member of the caucus that essentially has no political cachet in the state. He can do what he wants, it's a free country, but everyone knows he's a nutter and his belief in a conspiracy theory is about a surprising as somebody reporting the sky is blue on a clear day. He also completely misunderstands what's going to happen in Pennsylvania, because that Republican caucus doesn't have the political power to block either certification or the slate of electors in the electoral college. And it's all irrelevant because deadlock in the electoral college would result in a president Pelosi, as per the House nuclear option mentioned in the last video I cited. * The "pigtail lady" is the scandal du jour. It hasn't been presented in a court of law, and the simplest explanation for what the video shows is that nobody attempted to hide it (she didn't change her hair or top) because it was business as usual. I've worked elections, and I haven't seen anything in that video that looked out of sorts. When conspiracy theorists go looking for irregularities, they always find them. But that's more a psychological function of people finding what they're looking for than any particular changes in reality. * The law is a little unclear, but what Michael Flynn has done is probably actually sedition. It also ought not to be illegal. I don't think it's illegal. But Flynn is by no means the good guy in this story; he is openly calling for an illegal overthrow of the Constitutionally-mandated electoral process via the military. Right or wrong, that's fundamentally the end of American democracy were it to occur. If he wants to put himself on the side with people who have tried to overthrow America with military might, from Aaron Burr through Robert E. Lee onwards, that's his choice, and if he ever makes good on his threats, the US military is more than willing to remind him what happens to traitors. Anyway, this whole video is classic conspiracy theory claptrap, from the need to imagine a conspiracy so vast that it encompasses all possible counterindications to the need to invent an enemy the conspiracy is happening on behalf of (looks like he's dragged the old communist fear out of the woodwork and repurposed it for China; that's a fun one that Americans are fond of). Nothing in here is convincing unless you already believe the conspiracy theory, and then it's just reinforcing delusion. I plan to live in the US for the next 25 years, for what it's worth. ;)

Fjolsvith 6y ago
The video shows that for one hour, ballots were illegally counted without any observers allowed in the room. Trump's path to victory is described by Praying Medic: https://prayingmedic.com/2020/11/27/the-crisis-is-over-im-returning-to-normal/ https://prayingmedic.com/2020/11/27/the-crisis-is-over-im-re... You once wrote: States can't change their rules for certification of electors without a governor's signature. If a state tried to pull some nonsense like changing the selection of electors away from the process as encoded in law before Nov. 3, that'd be new law and (a) would require a governor's signature or a veto-proof majority and (b) may actually be ex-post-facto if the current law is structured such that it declares how electors related to the votes cast on Nov. 3, so could be stopped by state courts. [1] But Praying Medic counters your argument with a citation from the SCOTUS ruling in Bush v. Gore. Chief Justice Rehnquist summed it up: "Or put differently, when the legislature acted pursuant to the power granted to it by Article II, it stands above any limits imposed by state law." If it goes to SCOTUS again, the five conservative justices will likely follow the Constitution. All that has been needed to be done was that there was enough election fraud demonstrated that state legislators could feel they are not required to honor the popular vote when choosing electors, because the popular vote, as counted, is not reflective of the will of the people. I told you 23 days ago this was Trump's strategy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25078993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25078993 Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona will all send electors for Trump, giving him more than 270. Edit: And, you can be sure they will be arresting everyone involved in the fraud, right after they impose martial law to round them up. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25079610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25079610
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Praying Medic misunderstands Bush v Gore. SCOTUS took the extraordinary step in that ruling of declaring the circumstances so unique that the case should not be cited as common-law precedent. Anyone citing it has to explain why the Court should disregard SCOTUS's own guidance not to cite it. Even if they do, its particulars don't generally apply to the cases the Trump campaign is bringing (https://theconversation.com/trumps-pennsylvania-lawsuits-invoke-bush-v-gore-but-the-supreme-court-probably-wont-decide-the-2020-election-149538 https://theconversation.com/trumps-pennsylvania-lawsuits-inv...). Imposing martial law would simply be the death of American democracy, not some master chess move. I don't dispute the President could try. I doubt it would succeed (if it came down to it, plenty of generals see him as a tyrant and would follow their oath to uphold the Constitution, not a President in breach of his oath), and it renders all this discussion irrelevant because it's a suspension of Constitutional law. But it proves nothing. We'd just be another nation where a tyrant tried military force to keep his power illegitimately. Sowing doubt in the legitimate process to justify a power grab is right out of the playbook. It's sad that you're falling for it, but there were suckers who supported Hitler too. Every modern dictator claims they're upholding the will of the people. Every modern dictator drums up a secret conspiracy opposed to the people to justify their extraordinary measures.