What should Biden do after he wins? (1 Viewer)

moke123

AWF VIP
Local time
Today, 06:53
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,852
Is Biden beginning to show his "true colors"? Joe Biden transition official wrote op-ed advocating free speech restrictions
That is somewhat troubling on its face but also in the light of the recent Senate hearings were the issue of censorship by Facebook and Twitter was being discussed. I only saw a small tidbit. In that small segment, a Democratic Senator was making the case that censorship of so-called hate speech by platforms such as Facebook and Twitter was acceptable. So is Biden setting the stage for bastardizing the First Amendment by making so-called hate speech a crime (however that is defined).
Yet a Fake Cow in california can make fun of their senator on twitter and gets sued for $10 million.

So are you advocating that if AWF's most prolific troll were to spew hate speech, go off on a long and unintelligable sermon , or insult a new member that AWF's moderators should ignore it? You OK with doxing?

I hear that conservatives are having "Freedom" over at Parler.
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:53
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
7,305
So are you advocating that if AWF's most prolific troll were to spew hate speech, go off on a long and unintelligable sermon , or insult a new member that AWF's moderators should ignore it?
Hate speech according to who? Long unintelligible sermons are fine. I do them myself. More content for Googles bots! Insulting new members is not something I like, and I am in agreement with you regarding this. Sometimes it is tricky to determine if something is an insult or not. There is a bit of a continuum and a grey area. I'm not a fan of doxing.

Permanent ostracisation is not so much a Democrat position, I would believe, for a civil offence or minor crime. Unless I am wrong, or if you are a Republican facing Maxine Waters.
 

moke123

AWF VIP
Local time
Today, 06:53
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,852
Hate speech according to who? Long unintelligible sermons are fine. I do them myself. More content for Googles bots! Insulting new members is not something I like, and I am in agreement with you regarding this. Sometimes it is tricky to determine if something is an insult or not. There is a bit of a continuum and a grey area. I'm not a fan of doxing.

Permanent ostracisation is not so much a Democrat position, I would believe, for a civil offence or minor crime. Unless I am wrong, or if you are a Republican facing Maxine Waters.
My point is that you own this site, as do the owners of Facebook and twitter own their sites. Ultimately it is you who decides what can and can't be posted, not the first amendment.
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 03:53
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,828
My point is that you own this site, as do the owners of Facebook and twitter own their sites. Ultimately it is you who decides what can and can't be posted, not the first amendment.
Except Jon and AWF are not shielded from lawsuits like Facebook and Twitter. So the notion of first amendment only applies if the playing field is level, not skewed.
 

moke123

AWF VIP
Local time
Today, 06:53
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,852
Except Jon and AWF are not shielded from lawsuits like Facebook and Twitter. So the notion of first amendment only applies if the playing field is level, not skewed.
Jon is probably the best one to weigh in on that. It may differ from country to country.

I think he has the same protections under the dmca and 230 as FB and twitter although not the same exposure.
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:53
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
7,305
My point is that you own this site, as do the owners of Facebook and twitter own their sites. Ultimately it is you who decides what can and can't be posted, not the first amendment.
Gotcha. Yes indeed. Although I would say that in the UK we don't have First Amendment rights. Things seem to be a bit more different in the US, hence the news programs are way more vicious than in the UK.

I just do my best to try to let all voices get heard, while trying to keep things reasonable civil. It is easy for things to get a bit out of hand at times, but that is what the mods are for.
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:53
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
7,305
Jon is probably the best one to weigh in on that. It may differ from country to country.

I think he has the same protections under the dmca and 230 as FB and twitter although not the same exposure.
I think Facebook and Twitter's lawyers might fight a better case than me frantically looking up law on Wikipedia!
 

neuroman9999

Member
Local time
Today, 05:53
Joined
Aug 17, 2020
Messages
827
So are you advocating that if AWF's most prolific troll were to spew hate speech

prolific? obviously you have no clue who the hell you're talking about. =( do I look like an angry middle eastern person? =/ kind of like someone you've recently witnessed around here? I believe Richard mentioned it.

Long unintelligible sermons are fine. I do them myself.

yeah but they aren't christian oriented. they are business. sometimes they make no sense. kind of like people you know.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 06:53
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,981
There is a difference between personal attacks of private individuals and policy differences with public figures. The former could justifiably be banned because the private individual can't really defend himself but the latter has to be allowed because the public figure already has a forum. The attacks on Trump are rarely based on policy decisions though. They are primarily ad hominem personal attacks. However, with FB and Twitter removing the president's forum by blocking his posts, they should also be blocking the ad hominem attacks because he can't defend himself. Or at least they would remove them if they had ANY sense of fair play.
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 10:53
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
9,110
I appreciate that I am thick and stupid, or not very well read, according to some people here. But, here's a question that confuses me and most people I talk to - who must also be thick and stupid.
Ok, the authorities in the USA say Joe Biden won the presidential election and is now president elect. Why then, does the current president not accept that he has lost? He tweets on about election rigging yet produces no evidence. Yesterday (on the BBC news) he said he won the election. If so, how can the target of 270 electoral votes be surpassed by Biden. It also seems that recounts in various states still give Biden the win.
Who won the election, and is Trump acting like a spoilt child who can't have the sweets (candy).
It seems to me that the USA electoral procedure is a laughing stock, just a joke really. For example, Election Day was November 3rd, yet 90million voters had voted weeks before - either Election Day is 3rd Nov or it isn't. Can't Americans see what a joke it all is.
Col
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 06:53
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,618
Ok, the authorities in the USA say Joe Biden won the presidential election and is now president elect.
Technically, no. Trump/Biden do not formally win/lose until the Electoral College casts its votes. That is anticipated to occur on December 14, 2020.

Why then, does the current president not accept that he has lost?
Trump is entitled to dispute the election results. Things do not look good, but he has not yet formally lost. Disputing the election results is probably futile, but it is part of the process.

I don't do sports, but here is a scenario based on American football. The Trump team is on their one yard line. There are only a few of seconds left on the official clock. Fourth down, 100 yards to go for a touchdown. Team Trump is down by seven points, so they will need to get eight points to win. The probability that they can successfully throw a "Hail Mary" (100 yard) pass for six points (which leaves them one point short) is remote. But should they succeed they still would have one final opportunity to win through a "two-point conversion" for two points. Should that succeed team Trump would have accumulated eight points, enough for a win. Once again, the probability of success is low. For Trump to prevail in the election process he will need numerous micro-victories in court. Also don't forget Hillary Clinton's admonition to Biden to "never concede" should he be the one "losing" instead of Trump.

PS: I was astounded a few months back (pre-Covid) when I incidentally caught a successful "Hail Mary" pass while idly watching the TV. The quarterback was surrounded by members of the other team and was on the absolute verge of being sacked. He just tossed the ball into the air with no apparent receiver at the other end. Obviously, one did show-up to catch the ball and then make the touchdown.

For example, Election Day was November 3rd, yet 90million voters had voted weeks before - either Election Day is 3rd Nov or it isn't. Can't Americans see what a joke it all is.
Blame that "joke" on the Democrats. Democrats are exceptional at (false) messaging so many Americans can't see the "joke". The Democrats under the guise of "facilitating" voting have done everything possible to obfuscate the vetting of the voter. In Pennsylvania, even votes arriving late were (initially) allowed to be accepted. (I'm not sure how those votes are currently being handled considering the the results of lawsuits.)
 
Last edited:

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 10:53
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
9,110
Thanks Steve, I understood the first line! The rest with the American Football analogy may as well be written in Chinese, I'm afraid that sport is virtually unknown in the UK. But I appreciate you taking the time to explain.
Col
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 06:53
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,981
Recent recounts:

This year's election was especially troubling. Starting with 6 battleground states completely stopping the count around midnight on election day while Trump was leading. Stopping the count on election day is unheard of. Given the fact that the projected winner was well behind and going to loose the election if the votes stood at that point is just way too suspicious to let pass. Why did they need to stop counting? Whistleblowers came up with the answer - they needed to manufacture more ballots or their guy was actually going to loose.

Of course this is all conjecture (so don't yell at me) but the current thesis is:

These states were using the Dominion software and it's documentation mentions a "feature" that allows counts to be adjusted. The counting was adjusted to count each Biden vote as 1.1 and each Trump vote as .9. The problem was that Trump voters came out in such numbers that this wasn't going to be enough to swing the election for Biden so at midnight they stopped the count to give themselves time to mark up more ballots. Strangely enough, when the voting restarted the next morning, Biden was way ahead. Whistleblowers are also saying that trucks showed up in the middle of the night with boxes containing what??? Also, the contention is that they had to fill the ballots in so quickly that the only box filled was the one for Joe so there seem to be thousands of ballots that all came in together with only ONE box filled on the entire ballot. How probable is that?
And several final points.
1. In Michigan 71% of the precincts don't balance. This means that the vote count doesn't match the number of ballots or exceeds the number of registered voters, etc.
2. I many precincts, Republican election monitors were barred from entry or forced to stand so far from the ballots that it wasn't possible to even see the printing on the ballot let alone verify anything.
3. The security envelopes are separated from the ballot once the signature and post mark are verified. But in many places, the verification wasn't done and the received stamp was missing or after the legal receive by date requirements.
4. In other cases envelopes were destroyed or are just MIA. The envelops are a cross check of the number of ballots received. We shouldn't have 100,000 envelopes and 200,000 votes!!!.

I don't know if the American people were cheated but I sure want to know and I want the Democrats to shut up and stop obstructing the recount if they have nothing to worry about.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 03:53
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,738
So are you advocating that if AWF's most prolific troll were to spew hate speech, go off on a long and unintelligable sermon , or insult a new member that AWF's moderators should ignore it? You OK with doxing?
Without knowing (of course) the specificity of your scenarios, but just sort of generally referring to the situation:
....the LAW should ignore it. With very, very very few exceptions.

I'm NOT ok with doxxing. My impression has been that it is used much more against conservatives (under the guise of hate speech, whatever), but I'm sure both sides have had some share of guilty parties.

Doxing should be illegal. Like, you maliciously put someone's home address up on the internet with the clear purpose of stirring up the possibility of physical contact or showing up--you go to jail.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 03:53
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,738
When all other legal and legitimate avenues are exhausted, I'll accept a win by Biden.

Having said that, Republicans have EVERY.LEGAL.RIGHT. and expectations to follow up on any and every possible cause of fraud or shady things we don't KNOW are fraud but any reasonable person would conclude something bad happened.....Like Detroit papering over their windows in front of observers. Whether the election is turned or not, nobody - but nobody - should be OK with looking the other way and "moving on". That kind of corruption is not the way we want our country to work.

I mean, c'mon - nobody can convince me they're being reasonable when suggesting that shouldn't be looked into and is an obvious indication of something wrong.
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 03:53
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,828
This year's election was especially troubling. Starting with 6 battleground states completely stopping the count around midnight on election day while Trump was leading. Stopping the count on election day is unheard of.
That's really everything you need to know. This kind of behavior has a way of boomeranging back, It's how Trump got elected in the first place.
 

moke123

AWF VIP
Local time
Today, 06:53
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,852
1. In Michigan 71% of the precincts don't balance. This means that the vote count doesn't match the number of ballots or exceeds the number of registered voters, etc.
An affidavit filed as part of the suit argued that there were at least 19 precincts in Michigan where the number of presidential votes exceeded the number of estimated voters by 100 percent. It listed population statistics for those precincts but 17 of them were actually located in Minnesota. What’s more, the embarrassing stuff up was discovered by a pro-Trump blog, Powerline, which wrote that, “the affidavit was filed by Lin Wood in the Georgia lawsuit, but it relates entirely to Michigan, and it is a safe bet that it has been filed in one or more cases in that state as well.” Wood’s lawsuit was dismissed by a judge on Thursday.

This year's election was especially troubling. Starting with 6 battleground states completely stopping the count around midnight on election day while Trump was leading. Stopping the count on election day is unheard of. Given the fact that the projected winner was well behind and going to loose the election if the votes stood at that point is just way too suspicious to let pass. Why did they need to stop counting? Whistleblowers came up with the answer - they needed to manufacture more ballots or their guy was actually going to loose.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ground-states-did-not-stop-counting-votes-el/

Dominion software and it's documentation mentions a "feature" that allows counts to be adjusted.
Then why did the hand recount match the Dominion count? Also the Dominion Machines use different software in different states

And again The Red Mirage https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ware-of-early-u-s-election-wins-idUSKBN27H1A6

heres an extensive list from the NY Times
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/2020-election-misinformation-distortions
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom