Official Election 2020 Doomsday Thread

[AcidityLiquidity]

Cross posting a bit but the logistical nightmare of a fraud this big would be well pretty big if they where trying to pull this off.

Considering the left is in full control of the institutions needed to not only commit the fraud, but also cover up their tracks- not as hard as you'd think.

 

[Corette]

Cross posting a bit but the logistical nightmare of a fraud this big would be well pretty big if they where trying to pull this off.

Wouldn't alleged servers on which voting machines are connected make it possible?

 

[treblehunter98]

Considering the left is in full control of the institutions needed to not only commit the fraud, but also cover up their tracks- not as hard as you'd think.

A lot of these states are controlled by the GOP and the incumbent is a republican, it looks like they would have the upper hand in these states, not the "left", as far as I know the fucking loonies of the CPUSA aren't even on the ballot.

 

[Affluent Reptilian]

Worth noting, the bill was passed with bipartisan support in a GOP majority state legislature. The PA Supreme Court essentially said they waited too long since the law was passed over a year ago, and only after the 2020 primary and general election results were in the candidate they supported lost, and that the remedy they were seeking -- to throw out the entire election -- was extreme and unprecedented.

It could have an effect on future elections in PA though.

I know. The problem with this was that if the case had been brought beforehand, the court would very likely have said the plaintiffs had no standing because they had not yet suffered an injury. There were in fact some cases that were brought challenging the validity of this provision beforehand, but I can't remember who the plaintiffs were or the exact grounds they were dismissed on - basically, though, the PA court didn't want to hear it.

Edit: To be clear I'm not saying the PA SC is necessarily doing anything especially partisan here (it has made some dubious rulings on election law like the decision to rewrite state law on the date by which mail-in ballots must be received, but putting that to one side). Even though it seems they are essentially refusing to hear the most easy to make out challenge to the election, this is something non-partisan courts might also do, purely because it's likely to draw a lot of scrutiny on the court and a ruling that turfed out the mail-in system would greatly harm the standing of the court in the eyes of a substantial part of the population. This would be cowardly and rather discreditable, but it's not as morally offensive as trying to rig things. At least that logic works for the new challenges - why those from before the election were turfed out is another matter.

 

[LinkinParkxNaruto[AMV]]

How about we don't fuck children, like, at all?

Even if they secretly are 1000 year old witches?

 

[EyelessMC]

How about we don't fuck children, like, at all?

Counter argument: Just because someone is a Minor Attracted Person doesn't mean they're gonna rape a child, bigot. Do you discriminate against gay people working around people of the same sex because, by your logic, since they're attracted to the same sex then they must be a threat of rape? Huh? Or maybe you also think men shouldn't be allowed to be nurses or doctors because they'll just rape the female patients?

Oh, what's that? You don't think any of that? Right, but you think it about MAPs though, MAPs who were never convicted of any crime except for their thoughts, which they struggle with constantly as being part of their sexual orientation--which people like you have tried to discriminate against them by forcing them into "conversion therapy" or making them pariahs of society.
"Change who you are or we'll never accept you!" HMMMM I wonder what THAT sounds like??

This is the reason why "pedophiles" are discriminated against socially and economically! They are restricted from so much of the marketplace, kept back from getting and keeping work remotely related to children, because of witch hunts caused by discrimination like yours. Pizzagate proved the obsessive discrimination against MAPs and how dangerous this kind of discrimination is not just for them but everyone assumed to be like them. It automatically disenfranchises them and inhibits society. We have to put this fearmongering to an end! We don't want more wasted lives! No more conspiracy theories! No more suicidal ideation! No more discrimination!
Say it with me now: "Minor Attracted People are PEOPLE". Equal lives! Equal rights! No more discrimination!
- Signed, Dick Masterson

 

[Vagrant]

Counter argument: Just because someone is a Minor Attracted Person doesn't mean they're gonna rape a child, bigot. Do you discriminate against gay people working around people of the same sex because, by your logic, since they're attracted to the same sex then they must be a threat of rape? Huh? Or maybe you also think men shouldn't be allowed to be nurses or doctors because they'll just rape the female patients?

Oh, what's that? You don't think any of that? Right, but you think it about MAPs though, MAPs who were never convicted of any crime except for their thoughts, which they struggle with constantly as being part of their sexual orientation--which people like you have tried to discriminate against them by forcing them into "conversion therapy" or making them pariahs of society.
"Change who you are or we'll never accept you!" HMMMM I wonder what THAT sounds like??

This is the reason why "pedophiles" are discriminated against socially and economically! They are restricted from so much of the marketplace, kept back from getting and keeping work remotely related to children, because of witch hunts caused by discrimination like yours. Pizzagate proved the obsessive discrimination against MAPs and how dangerous this kind of discrimination is not just for them but everyone assumed to be like them. It automatically disenfranchises them and inhibits society. We have to put this fearmongering to an end! We don't want more wasted lives! No more conspiracy theories! No more suicidal ideation! No more discrimination!
Say it with me now: "Minor Attracted People are PEOPLE". Equal lives! Equal rights! No more discrimination!
- Signed, Dick Masterson

Have you had this conversation with people close to you, like your family?

Yes, it's okay to discriminate pedophiles, even though a pedophile might not be a pederast. The reason for this is simple: it sucks that a mentally ill person who might have done nothing wrong gets rejected by society, but it sucks even more that children get sexually abused, by a large margin. Jesus, have you ever even considered the possibility that there might be things more important than one's sexual orientation? Children's safety is just something you cannot reason against, no child doesn't deserve to be safe. Even the slightest risk that a child might get hurt like that is unacceptable.

There is no reason to use MAP or NOMAP. There's already a word that perfectly describes people who are sexually attracted to children: pedophile.

If you can't see the logic behind why a pedophile might never be hired at something that involves being close to children, you're probably a lost cause though.

 

[EyelessMC]

If you can't see the logic behind why a pedophile might never be hired at something that involves being close to children, you're probably a lost cause though.

Mate, I was arguing the counter-argument to show its absurdity. I wasn't actually arguing the pedo's case.
Wylad is right and I agree with him, but I wanted to emphasize how a counter-argument, born from the Equality Act's imperative to anti-discrimination in all forms, could be made in favor of pedos in the future based on wedding "pedophilia as a sexual orientation" to "discrimination is bad".

My argument was not my argument but the counter-argument, one conveyed with only a little hyperbole for comedic value (edit: hence the blur on the last line).

So why is this always coming back to slippery slope argument & Jims slip in slide(corruption or influence of MAP or NMAP in LGBTQ Community).
All we wanted to not care if you called yourself one of 64 genders & had partner meen gay or same sex for health & tax reasons as long let us grill.

"Gay is the New Black" was the problem. It's the LGBTQ lobbyists and politicians using gays like any unwitting minority as a Trojan horse to get more control for their own personal ends, one of which seems to be the end-goal of legalized child abuse.
And agreed, the slippery slope was never a fallacy

The Equality Act is just the next slide down.

Arright, I'm gonna weigh in on this pedophilia shitshow, against my better judgement.

We're all autists down here.

So, if you see the world through the spergiest lens possible, where only logical consistency matters

You're moving from politics to philosophy. A lot of people are brainwashed in college to think "everything is political". It's not. Everything is "philosophical", in that every aspect of life is informed by one's philosophical presupposition, the bedrock of their worldview by which they identify and interpret "evidences" to come to a conclusion.

Spoiler: philosophy, presuppositionalism & logic

The only counter argument to this fundamental reality--that everyone innately has a presupposition--is the delusion of neutrality in philosophical methodism, ie "start from an objective standpoint and draw your conclusion from the evidences". This is delusional for the same reason as someone walking into a crime scene to interpret whether or not a crime took place but having no functional way of identifying what is/isn't evidence, let alone the capacity to draw conclusions from it.
Example: "Is that blood on the floor or paint?" isn't a neutral starting position since it presupposes differentiation between "blood" and "paint".

I have a funny little story about an apple counting machine to illustrate this better if you like.

Point is, it's factually impossible for people to have no presupposition of life. Rather they think they are neutral when in reality they are not and cannot be, if only for the basic fact that fact exists. Universal truth itself precludes universal subjectivity (and in the existence of universal truth there is the tacit acknowledgement of universal morality by differentiation of which is "correct"--the truth or the lie).

Presuppositionalism is the philosophical argumentation which brings us right down to epistemology and self-examination, etc. The Laws of Logic are universal (truth) and by their nature they are universally consistent (regardless of individuals' application of them).
So yes, logical consistency matters, but someone with a busted worldview won't be capable of identifying, let alone acknowledging, inconsistency, or even why that's bad.

TL;DR Philosophy says "When we try to be true neutral about anything are being retarded". And that's why your starting point about the consistency between pedos and gays regarding sexual orientation is already gimped--because you're starting from the presupposition that "sexual orientation" is not only somehow DNA hard-coded but also unchangeable.

That's provably untrue simply by the countless testimonies to the contrary and records of it going back thousands of years, yet anyone whose presupposition entails "there is no such thing as ex-gays" would refuse these evidences and instead argue "Well, they were always bisexual and didn't know it".

TL;DR for TL;DR You made the same mistake everyone, even myself, makes at first. Your earnest attempt at pure logical consistency failed before you started.
Autism Philosophy is fun

All sexual orientations - even the most absurdly prudish vanilla-hetero-onlyfuckthroughaholeinasheetforprocreation bs, carry with them the opportunity for people to get massively damaged, both emotionally and physically. We put up with it because sex is a powerful biological drive, and because it's simply flat out true that every culture that decides to enforce total celibate abstinence *dies out* after seventy years or so, for some weird reason.

Never heard of that but I could believe it. Mass repression, as opposed to even-handed suppression, leads to major problems. Just look at pedo priests.
Yet we also see what happens to civilizations which embraced the total opposite as well, and arguably in greater number since the fall of civilizations (last I checked) often coincide with looser restrictions, not tighter. Like Rome (though there was more going on there than "muh degeneracy" I know)

But all of this is moot since what we're originally talking about accepting pedophilic desire (child rape fantasy) as inherently unchangeable. If that was the case then Eugenics would be the answer, not progressive tolerance, as that would mean you have elements of society which are utterly incapable of not being a potential threat. There is nothing inherently dangerous about homosexuality or bisexuality, but the desire of pedophilia is by definition dangerous to children.

It'd be like saying, as the other poster mentioned, "rapists cannot change their sexual orientation of rape." Well if that's the case then there's no rehabilitation for them and only death would eliminate the threat and the genetic predisposition to being a threat.
And now we just argued ourselves into Hitler. lol

So, I think the hate-boners on pedos are probably misguided and counter productive. (The hate-boners on sociopaths who rape kids because they're helpless? That I *fully* endorse.)

I warned you. You've already fallen into the trap of differentiating between the two, a tactic used to garner your sympathy for evil after it's been pathologized.
The reason people aren't fully onboard with that yet is because for all the programming there is still the logical connection that evil is evil, not simply a pathology to be treated or tolerated.

People get into philosophical and largely theological arguments over sexual immorality/evil and what constitutes it, but "sexual harm" is a universally recognized trait. People argue about homosexuality not being evil because it doesn't inherently involve sexual harm in its desire, underpinning this is the much lauded and inflated emphasis on "consent".

The only way to excise "sexual harm" as a concept from pedophilia, and thus remove pedophilia from what is "sexual immorality/evil" so as to make it palatable for tolerance, is to bolster the consent of the child. But children can't consent because they're children and don't know better.

....Unless children are more sexually aware than previously believed. Unless "experts" want to change the record. Unless children are not just aware of their sexual orientation--which is innate and immutable, they argue--but can advocate for it to the point of HRT and irreversible genital surgery.

Now suddenly the idea of children being unable to consent becomes muddy, doesn't it?

 

[treblehunter98]

'ate pedophiles , they should be locked in asylums for their own wellbeing and the wellbeing of others.
simple as

 

[themembrane]

Pedos want to fuck kids and psychos want to kill people. Both things are bad, but just because pedos can feel bad about themselves it doesn't mean that they deserve sympathy. Some psychos recognise what they are and they don't act on their urges because generally it makes their life better to integrate into society. That shouldn't be praised, that should be expected. Pedos should recognise what they are, understand it's a shit situation and them chemically castrate themselves for the betterment of the world. It's really a shit position but sometimes life deals you a shitty hand but you just have to get on with it. Some people are born with debilitating diseases, but if they could somehow relieve their pain by inflicting it on others, would that be in any way justifiable? Obviously fucking not

 

[Erich Raeder]

It would probably be the most elaborate crime in human history, fraud on an individual level is already hard enough, falsifying about 100k votes in every major battleground state sounds like fiction.

The whole Dominion thing is probably a red herring, but how impossible would it really be for a few people to decide to drop a few thousand mail-in ballots in select counties in select swing states? The number of people who would need to truly know what's going on (organizing it and covering it up) would be like 50 at most. And it's probably not unreasonable to think you could find 50 people willing to do a tiny bit of election fraud to stop someone who they literally consider to be a ruthless dictator. It just seems too fucking easy to harvest a bunch of mail in ballots for dead people etc. and fill them out for Biden. The whole election really does not pass the smell test for me. I know that things like bellwether counties are more akin to reading tea leaves than actual science, but just the fact that we have a very similar election to 2016 with a very similar outcome that seems to be only skewed by statistically anomalous turnouts in a few cities makes me think something has to be wrong.

 

[EyelessMC]

Pedos should recognise what they are, understand it's a shit situation and them chemically castrate themselves for the betterment of the world.

Totally agree with everything but I just want to clarify something about this idea:
If sexual orientation was provably immutable (and pedophilia was a sexual orientation because there's infinite sexual orientations, genders etc.) then yes, castration (chemical or otherwise) would be the only alternative to killing them--though why we shouldn't just kill them in that instance rather than keeping them around is another matter.
Hence Null's "you put the rabid dog down, not invite it into your home" metaphor with Masterson.

But like I said, now we're talking ourselves into Hitler via Eugenics and certain moralism disguised as pragmatism.

Spoiler: power level

LGBTQ proponents don't realize their "immutable sexual identity" nonsense is unwittingly rubbing elbows with swastikas by tying it to an irremediable genetic cause, placing the blame for sexual preference on what is essentially genetic defect:

The above is about the genetically defective, which speaking purely biologically would include anyone whose genetics immutably orients them away from generative behavior (ie procreation, natural instinct) and, even especially, orients them towards harmful behavior--like child rape.

This is Eugenics. This resides at the bedrock of "sexual orientation is immutable and DNA hard-coded". The only difference is that the logical conclusion--killing off the defective--is totally reversed. Instead of eliminating them we are encouraged to be accepting, anti-discrimination and to be protective of them with almost coddling compassion and sympathy, much like the mentally retarded or crippled.

This is why to "discriminate" against someone's sexual orientation even by not adhering to pronouns is tantamount to punching someone with multiple sclerosis, viewed as such an outrageous evil.

But back to pedophiles in particular: Under Hitler "useless eaters" were slaughtered. We aren't Hitler! But neither are pedophiles merely useless eaters, merely drains on society. They aren't drains but perpetually potentially dangerous elements.
So, in this light and with the idea of sexual orientation being immutable, why not why not remove these dangerous elements indefinitely

Let's say sexual orientation was immutable. Let's say its immutability was due to a DNA component. Why not kill everyone sharing this genetic time bomb? Or alternatively forcibly genetically altering anyone who shares this genetic component?

However, both these kinds of pedo-pusher progressives and the Hitlers are wrong. Sexual "orientation" (ie sexual predilection) is not immutable and there's higher reasons than simply "it's mean" to not slaughter people who would be perceived to be "drains" or potential threats in this context.

Sexual orientation is not immutable. That's fundamental fact regardless of how many "experts" argue otherwise, just like it's fundamental fact that parading your kid around sexual deviants and pumping them full of hormones and/or putting them through irreversible genital mutilation surgery is child abuse. Doesn't matter what politician mandates it or what doctor flaunts their PhD to say otherwise, both being short-sighted deviants.

Spoiler: Also...

They are also wrong to view the world through a singularly materialistic lens while espousing immaterial notions of "virtue" and "morality", despite their presupposition making mankind literally nothing more transcendent than animated collections of matter which react to particular stimuli and which mutated over the course of innumerable years as a result of environmental circumstances, circumstances which arose through absolute cosmic happenstance.

I gotta stop my philosophy autism is breaking my sped-o-meter.

Anyway, just in case anyone is browsing the thread, remember that all of this came up from the Equality Act Biden's pushers want to push and all the immediate and lasting (by legal precedent) damage it will cause if passed. It's not a partisan issue, either, since we all know Reps are scared pissless about being labeled mean words so I have no doubt they could, if so inclined, alter a few things and pass it just to not seem politically incorrect or insensitive.

 

[BlackDragoons]

Wouldn't alleged servers on which voting machines are connected make it possible?

Paper ballots make it pretty much bunk.

I honestly have no idea why people believe the system has been compromised since we literally have a paper trail of the votes and that the Georgia hand recount proves this.


I'm sorry but the massive voter fraud isn't here.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

Here's the problem with the bill:

“(2) GENDER IDENTITY.—The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.

As far as I can tell, no evidence (e.x. medical history), etc is required for a person to "identify" as transgender, etc; so I see no reason why a 40-year old man couldn't just walk naked into the girl's locker room and then suddenly "discover" that he is trangender, and threaten to sue for discrimination if he is told to leave.

The way to consider this is that this bill does not necessarily allow that, but it does allow the legal arguments regarding that behavior to be fought. That is, I cannot imagine any judges outside of wokeistan ever signing off on "it's chill that this weirdass pedo strolled into a child's locker room," but the weirdass pedo will (probably with the support of wealthy orgs with some suspicious proclivities under the table) file appeals based on the language of the bill. The result of those lawsuits would be fairly simple: a more specific extrapolation as to what is intended of the text.

Spoiler: pseudolegalsperg

IE, what is "gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual?" IE, "what is gender?" A legal document that does not define its terms and instead relies on "common conception" is rife for abuse in the modern day and age. Ethnicity, race, and sex are all concrete concepts which are hard to wiggle around. Codifying something that is a fairly fluid concept is a shonky business - gender norms and behaviors change over the course of decades, after all.

For example, give a glance over at the social media trannies thread. Notice something? The vast majority of the folks in those threads dress in a way that no woman actually does. (Perhaps the trans people who actually try to imitate current fashion trends have the better sense not to post shit about themselves all over the place? They seem dwarfed by this more modern breed in any case.) I'm talking anime-looking, garish and gaudy grandma fashion, absurdly and stereotypically sex-doll "feminine" fashions which always seem bent to emphasize assets that the troons utterly and totally lack -- and which no woman with that body type would ever realistically wear. So is the "appearance" part related to gender as is actually expressed by members of that gender, or is it gender as is perceived by the individual transitioning? You could try to codify every single individual article of clothing, which is complete nonsense in parlance - how do I know if the potential perv trying to get into the shelter is wearing victoria's secret lingerie?

Very likely, you would have money pouring in to strike the "appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics" clause (ffs they would also be challenged to explain what other gender-related characteristics count, given that I would broadly put 'being of that sex' as a pretty fucking important one): all the way down until it's just identity. And THEN you need to define a proper metric to determine whether someone's self-identity is valid and genuine -- a hot potato which courts have thusfar just shrugged at. My best guess is that, as more states begin to allow you to 'identify' on your ID as whatever you prefer, that's going to be their requirement. After all, who would ever fib on that?

This also makes me realize why there's such a locus around the bathroom and locker room articles. When it comes to employment or admittance to a woman's shelter, you can judge the stability and risk that an individual poses by allowing them into that sphere. You could come up with some other excuse, pretty easily, to throw a lot of these walking time bombs out. You can't really make that same case with bathrooms or locker rooms, which rather depend on social norms than on someone actively letting you in. Yes, megacorp HR teams are not going to properly evaluate candidates in interviews for stability (don't I know), and some of these basket cases are going to be pretty good at keeping a lid on it until they're through the membrane - but at least it's something. You punish those social norms and beat them into a pulp, though, and there's really no recourse.

 

[StraightShooter2]

...

For what it's worth, the "Salon pedophile" was exposed as being a member of a pedophile group which openly supports child molestation:

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/09/22/salons-virtuous-pedophile-not-virtuous/

Note the verb tense of the final clause. Nickerson does not use child pornography, present tense. Did he ever? He doesn’t say, but he does admit to being a long-time member of a pedophile website which openly supported child molestation, something he describes with the euphemism “pro-contact.”

Pro-pedophile groups like NAMBLA were also accepted as members of LGBT organizations like ILGA at least up until the 1990s:

North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

The whole Dominion thing is probably a red herring, but how impossible would it really be for a few people to decide to drop a few thousand mail-in ballots in select counties in select swing states? The number of people who would need to truly know what's going on (organizing it and covering it up) would be like 50 at most. And it's probably not unreasonable to think you could find 50 people willing to do a tiny bit of election fraud to stop someone who they literally consider to be a ruthless dictator. It just seems too fucking easy to harvest a bunch of mail in ballots for dead people etc. and fill them out for Biden. The whole election really does not pass the smell test for me. I know that things like bellwether counties are more akin to reading tea leaves than actual science, but just the fact that we have a very similar election to 2016 with a very similar outcome that seems to be only skewed by statistically anomalous turnouts in a few cities makes me think something has to be wrong.

Yeah, except you still would have to have IDs and info of people to get their ballots. Voter fraud isn't as easy as Trumpers think it is

 

[Tad Loaf]

Yeah, except you still would have to have IDs and info of people to get their ballots. Voter fraud isn't as easy as Trumpers think it is

Considering teenagers in high school can pump out fake IDs to get into clubs/bars I'm going to go on a limb and say if an adult operation wanted to do it they wouldn't have much issue.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Considering teenagers in high school can pump out fake IDs to get into clubs/bars I'm going to go on a limb and say if an adult operation wanted to do it they wouldn't have much issue.

Except those fake IDs just need to be a fake ID. Voter registration requires proof of residence and other stuff. It's not even remotely comparable.

---

https://archive.md/d2KuK

It is notable that Dominion machines weren’t used in the counties that Trump has falsely claimed rigged the election: Allegheny and Philadelphia, where voters cast ballots in large numbers for Joe Biden.

So much for "mah kraken"

 

[Taco]

The whole Dominion thing is probably a red herring, but how impossible would it really be for a few people to decide to drop a few thousand mail-in ballots in select counties in select swing states? The number of people who would need to truly know what's going on (organizing it and covering it up) would be like 50 at most. And it's probably not unreasonable to think you could find 50 people willing to do a tiny bit of election fraud to stop someone who they literally consider to be a ruthless dictator. It just seems too fucking easy to harvest a bunch of mail in ballots for dead people etc. and fill them out for Biden. The whole election really does not pass the smell test for me. I know that things like bellwether counties are more akin to reading tea leaves than actual science, but just the fact that we have a very similar election to 2016 with a very similar outcome that seems to be only skewed by statistically anomalous turnouts in a few cities makes me think something has to be wrong.

So you need to
1: Find a registered voter for every ballot you wanted to forge or steal someone's identity and register them without their consent or knowledge.
2: Apply for a mail in ballot in each name to generate the sent record in the state DB.
3: Intercept the ballot after it's mailed.
4: Forge a signature on each mail in ballot that can pass the signature matching requirement. (The most common reason for a mail in ballot to be invalidated btw)
5: Send the ballot back in and hope the person you just voted for doesn't try to vote themselves.

Now do that a few hundred thousand times. IDK why you're asking about a few thousand, unless it's Bush v Gore in Florida a few thousand votes never mattered in a national election.

On the scale being alleged this year you'd really need an alphabet agency on your team to have a chance.

 

[Fox Fucker]

5: Send the ballot back in and hope the person you just voted for doesn't try to vote themselves.

While also at the same time telling literally everyone to start voting in themselves using that same method, by the way. It makes no sense to tell people to use the method you yourself are going to use to rig the election, since that just increases the chance they'd be like "Hey, how come this is my first time mailing in but I apparently already voted?"