After watching the movie, ask yourself: Is stealing an election impossible? If not, what evidence would be necessary to prove it? How granular in detail should we demand the data be?
Excellent question.
Considering the outcome that is demanded by Trump's supporters... very high.
Look, what standard of proof would you require to believe that Q was a LARP and you were tricked by a nobody?
Also... very high. Right?
Considering the outcome?
Well, the AP isn’t the one making the claim, so I’d say the burden of providing that proof would be on the documentary. If they want their numbers to be credible, then they need to be the ones closing in these gaps in the data. It’s not up to me or the AP to validate their claims for them.
I too am interested in the range that this data was collected. I’ll see if I can track down a written report on which this documentary was based.
I guess kinda, but I think anyone who contests that is not necessarily contesting that LIFE begins at conception, but that HUMAN LIFE (as defined by our concept of human rights) begins at conception.
Nobody sane is going to say that two living cells combine and then immediately die, become nonlife, and then spontaneously become life again after developing, while not alive.
Abortion is absolutely killing a life. Whether it's killing a human being or not is what the abortion debate is about.
Semen is alive and contains human DNA, but no pro-life march defends the right of sperm to survive, nor do pro-choicers defend the right to masturbate.
I think this is a big reason that the pro-life and pro-choice people talk past one another. Not only are they not arguing the same issue, but they're not even agreeing on how they're defining the terms they're using.
I see what you did there.
The argument isn't that it's not life. The argument is that it's not a human being until a certain point of development.
I'm not defending the argument, but at least make sure you're responding to the argument they're actually making.
So to establish a crime, they'd need to tie an individual's phone number to the location. Then they'd need to have evidence of that individual dropping off multiple ballots. Then they'd need evidence that the individual was not allowed to drop off multiple ballots and/or that those specific ballots the individual dropped off were fake.
Then, if they can prove at least that level of crime, they have to connect that individual to a larger conspiracy, and that the individual was answering to someone specific (and not just a movement or philosophy). And then we have to connect that someone specific to an organization, and prove that handler was operating on behalf of that organization.
Then we have to show that the organization directed that individual to commit that crime, and connect it to an election fraud conspiracy.
We have to do all of this with hard evidence. And then we have to do it for another individual. And another individual. And another individual.
To date, the evidence I've seen of election fraud (AZ audit, Lindell, etc) has operated like this:
"Imagine if a Democratic operative was caught on camera going from Democratic offices to the drop boxes multiple times to drop off fake votes for Biden as part of a national conspiracy to steal the election. That would be pretty damning if we had evidence of that, right?
Well, we do have evidence that a bunch of people were near the Democratic offices and the dropboxes multiple times. And we have a video of some of those people dropping off multiple ballots. Some of them were doing suspicious stuff like wearing gloves.
We're going to assume they're fake ballots for Biden. We're going to assume they're Democratic operatives. We're going to assume they're doing this as part of a conspiracy. And based on those assumptions, this is REALLY damning evidence that the election was stolen."
If you take any random sample of thousands of people, start pulling targeted behaviors from individuals in this group, and then assume all these behaviors MUST be related to a single malicious motivation just because you drew lines between the behaviors, then yes, you can find evidence of whatever you want, I promise.
This is a basic correlation/causation error.
Like I said, I can't speak to the specifics of a video I haven't watched yet. But all of the big evidence releases so far have shown lot of data points I'm supposed to assume have a connection based on a correlation.
IF there is a connection between these data points, then yes, that would be concerning. But that's the evidence I'm looking for, and the evidence a court would be looking for. I won't assume a narrative just because a bunch of uncontextualized data points correlate in an interesting way.
I’ll look forward to seeing this RICO case, then.
It’s the motto of the 4th Psyop Group, who produced the video. Sensible motto for a psyop group.
Not sure there is a compromise on this issue, because again, the pro-life argument doesn’t really allow for it. Life above all else.
Pro-choice people want guarantees beyond mere words that women will be protected, will be able to full and free lives as men can, that they won’t be compelled into motherhood, and so forth.
Abortion is really the only way to guarantee this, right now. However, if Republicans invested in a technology that could safely extract a living zygote or fetus from a woman, and the public funding to provide a healthy and educated life for that child, and the medicine/technology that would safely, reversibly allow women to prevent pregnancy 100% of the time while still enjoying purposeless sex as men can, then yes, liberals could be convinced that women’s rights are protected while outlawing abortion.
But that technology doesn’t yet exist, and conservatives show little support for the public programs needed to fund these children, and as long as a woman can get accidentally pregnant or purposefully made pregnant against her will in a land where abortion is illegal, then fear of being made a second-class citizen again doesn’t seem unwarranted.
Abortion isn’t a solution I like, but we don’t have a lot of options yet. I keep hoping one of these conservative x-illionaires will invest in the technology to abort zygotes without killing them, as this would do wonders toward resolving the abortion debate.
I haven’t seen the film yet and can’t respond to its evidence.
Only the question as to why the cell phone location data was considered powerful evidence of criminal trespass and significantly less powerful (on its own) of proving that people were in the area to drop off fraudulent votes as part of a major criminal conspiracy.
Proving 2000 people were in areas he considered suspicious is fine. But if none of those areas are illegal, then he still has to match those 2000 data points with an actual crime.
I would hope the film presents compelling evidence proving each of those people actually committed a crime.I look forward to seeing it later.
Well, the cell phone data is good for proving where someone was, not what they were doing there.
Proving that somebody was within a few feet of where they were standing is pretty good proof they were at Trump’s rally for a precise amount of time, and where they traveled in that rally.
Being in certain areas (like the Capitol) during the rally was a crime, so a location is good enough to prove a crime occurred.
Proving that someone walked near a drop box a few times, when those drop boxes are deliberately placed on highly-trafficked areas, doesn’t prove a crime, because it wasn’t illegal to walk through public areas more than once. The location isn’t illegal.
So location data in this case doesn’t really prove a crime, because cell phone data can’t prove someone was dropping off fake votes. That would have to be corroborated by additional evidence for that specific individual.
I understand. It just doesn’t seem to offer you any way to determine whether Q was right about the coming Plan. If we get to 2025 and this Awakening hasn’t occurred, you can just say that things haven’t gotten bad enough yet. There doesn’t seem to be any way for you to verify your faith in Q was justified.
I can’t bring myself to sign on to theories that are impossible to disprove.
I know that frustrates people here, but falsifiability is the only way to separate a pseudoreligious belief from a scientifically-verifiable one. I am always in the market for new science, but not often for new religions. Q is going to remain hard-gated to a significant chunk of nonbelievers who are going to have similar concerns, and I feel it’s a problem that gets handwaved away more often than it should.
The explanation:
The judge did agree with the defense that three of the five guilty charges were similar and repetitive — claiming conspiracy — and reduced it to only one count, lowering Maxwell's sentence by 10 years. Counts one, three, and six were considered to be repetitious:
Count 1 – Guilty — Conspiracy to entice minors to engage in illegal sex acts
Count 2 – Not Guilty — Enticement of a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts
Count 3 – Guilty — Conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sex activity
Count 4 – Guilty — Transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sex activity
Count 5 – Guilty — Sex trafficking conspiracy
Count 6 – Guilty — Sex trafficking of children by force, fraud or coercion
This document could have leaked any month in the last fifty years and been suspiciously close to some abortion-related rally. It’s a big issue in this country and these things happen all the time.
There was a big pro-choice women’s march last year. The year before that, there was the March for Life.
Is there some evidence of causation here, or do we only have correlation?
What difference would it make if the Supreme Court "did the right thing"? It doesn't change the outcome.
Look at the different possibilities:
-
If SCOTUS doesn't bother addressing the alleged election fraud, then the military steps in.
-
If SCOTUS does address the alleged election fraud and finds nothing, then the military steps in.
-
If SCOTUS does address the alleged election fraud and overturns the election results, then what? The Cabal gives up because SCOTUS says it's illegal to steal 2/3rds of a government? Psh. The Cabal fights back, the country fractures, and the military steps in.
-
If SCOTUS does address the alleged election fraud and overturns the election, and the Cabal cooperates and lets Trump be President, then the military doesn't step in?
The only possibility that the military DOESN'T get directly involved is in possibility 4, where the Cabal gives up, peaceably hands over power, and Trump unceremoniously retakes the White House.
So does the Cabal get to go home and live out the rest of their lives after that? No? They get arrested for centuries of crime? Then no, this isn't an option, and the military isn't stupid enough to wait around for this.
The fact is that if the military WAS going to do something, I don't see what possible trigger they could be waiting for at this point. If 2/3rds of the government is compromised, which apparently includes military leadership, then there is no situation in which waiting around is the smart move, since waiting around is apparently getting people killed by the vaccine and so forth.
Why exactly do all three branches of government need to fail before the military steps in?
The judicial branch can’t run the country on its own. Nor can either of the other two branches. They couldn’t function if even one branch was severely compromised.
If the legislative and executive branches are both compromised, then that’s it. The country is compromised. There isn’t really any point for waiting for the last wheel to fall off the tricycle.
It’s good to have the thought that you need to change, but if you don’t follow it up with an action, it doesn’t become anything than a good idea.
And the action to stop doing something comfortable (like drinking) is going to be uncomfortable, by definition.
Keep that in mind when evaluating making new choices related to stopping drinking. It’s not going to be comfortable, but you’re making this choice for a reason.
Usually you aren’t forced to talk, it tends to be a low pressure environment. It should help to remember everyone is there with the same type of problem. Might be worth checking out. Hope it helps.
Don't try to do it on your own. Just having someone else that is holding you accountable, even someone anonymous, can be a miraculous boost to the process. It's very hard to remember why you want to stop when the cravings start to kick in, and it's good to have someone on the outside who can ground you.
I have heard good things about the AA program, and there is usually a chapter or two within driving distance of most people who aren't extremely rural. The only people who tend to get turned off are people who get weirded out by spirituality, but I suspect that isn't a problem around here.
It's a long process that involves ups and downs. The most vulnerable days for relapse are when you've been successfully clean for a couple of weeks and are feeling good about things. Negative emotions can trigger it. Positive emotions can trigger it. Physical pain can trigger it.
Seriously, whether you go the formal route or not, it's extraordinarily hard to beat with a decision alone. Finding someone who can anchor you to your own motivation and remind you of why you want to stop is going to be the fastest, quickest, and most surefire boost to quitting I could recommend.
Best of luck, truly.
I didn't say that at all. I simply said that "a fraction of a fraction" is too low, and I explained why. I also explained that this population is resistant to accurate data being taken.
"Hey, can you tell me if you're leaving this abortion clinic because you're trying to forget the most painful and destructive memory you have? I just want to know if you're trying to forget your rape or not."
Not really an easy way to get a high participation from the population on that one. No matter how you finesse it, it's tough enough to ask a woman to justify her reason for an abortion, and even tougher to get rape survivors to talk to you about the experience. The statistics on "people who admit they got an abortion to hide/recover from a rape" is never going to show as high a number as it probably should.
Just as well, we aren't ever going to get good statistics on women who are forced to get abortions by their abusive boyfriends or husbands. It's just a dataset that is going to be very hard to access, because the population, by definition, is hard to access.
As someone who has interacted with rape survivors in a professional setting, I can tell you firsthand that the vast majority of women who get an abortion in order to erase a rape from their lives are not usually going to take time to talk about that situation with someone taking statistics over it.
Data over sexual assault is incredibly hard to mine, because it requires people who want to talk about it (after taking measures to forget it completely), and so a lot of data involving this population is severely underreported.
There's not a good way to take reliable data over why a woman is getting an abortion in the US, so I'd be careful with statistics suggesting rape as such a low percentage.
I don't know what statistics you'd trust, but look up on your own how many women experience rape or rape attempts. The sources I'm seeing say between 1 in 5 or 1 in 6 women report this.
Now ask yourself if you honestly believe that with so many of those, the number that result in pregnancy is inconsequentially small. Your answer may agree with mine.
I mean this with absolutely no malice or negativity, but it's exactly that attitude that makes liberals dig their heels in so much on this.
Because these compromises aren't real compromises. Because your argument against abortion is absolutist, and doesn't permit compromises.
"The life of the unborn child is prioritized above anything that doesn't immediately threaten the life of the mother."
And if I accept that foundation as a valid legal basis, then yes, I not only can make the argument that babies from rape and incest must be protected from abortion, but I MUST make that argument.
Because it follows from the argument we already accepted, the one that justified banning abortion in the first place. There's no way to avoid going further with it. The argument itself demands to be taken as far as possible.
And so when Gaetz or Greene or someone else brave enough inevitably does introduce measures designed to outlaw abortion across the spectrum, the liberals know that not a single person offering us this compromise is going to fight to protect it.
Nobody around here is going to say, "Now wait a minute, we said we weren't going to do that. Even though we've accepted this is a life-or-death issue and the life of the baby comes before everything."
We know that, because the Justices that are voting in favor of overturning Roe pinky-swore that Roe was settled law during their hearings. It wasn't true, even if it felt true when they were saying it. It's called a "foot-in-the-door technique."
There was zero chance that they could ethically stand by their promise if they actually believed in their own pro-life absolutism.
So... yeah. I don't hold it against you. I just recognize that your argument doesn't allow you to protect a compromise. I wouldn't be able to in your position, if I was being loyal to my own argument.
For that reason, you really shouldn't be surprised that liberals are willing to fight hard for this. They know losing ground on this is going to cascade.
Because there isn't a world in which we can accept "the unborn baby comes before everything" and not eventually see in that same world men irreversibly tying themselves to a woman for life without her consent.
I don't blame women for being utterly terrified of such a world, even if you consider the possibility of such scenarios to be rare.
Which is why, despite not liking the cost of abortion, I am not uncomfortable voting liberal (for non-abortion related issues). I simply can't find a means of banning abortion that doesn't have potentially irreversible consequences for the rights of women in our society, given our current level of technology and resources.
I understand their argument. And I understand your argument. And I think that both sides don't really understand the argument of the other side. And until you admit they have a point, and until they admit you have a point, there will be no constructive progress made on this issue.
So here is a question.
Why should rape and incest be exceptions? The fetus didn’t rape anyone. Are we punishing the child for the sins of the father?
What did Q say that was illegal? What did he say that was violent?
Describing a world that requires extreme action and telling people it’s true isn’t illegal.
Lying to people isn’t illegal. Q didn’t direct people to do any of the things that has Q supporters under a microscope. He never told people to go to the Jan 6 rally or to enter the Capitol.
Q really isn’t a criminal, based on what we can see.
Just like you can’t hold Chuck Palahniuk responsible for people who start real life fight clubs. Just like you can’t hold Salinger responsible because some people decided to be murderers after reading it.
Besides, what good would it do anyone to haul Ron Watkins or some equally impressive nobody into court?
If this nobody had a full confession and connecting evidence that he was Q, who around here would believe it?
So the cops spend all this time tracking someone down and charging them with “being a troll” and “lying on the internet”, and that’s it? The Q movement is over?
Q people often make the mistake that to the outside world, Q is important. The outside world cares about Q because they’re worried you’re right.
The outside world doesn’t care about Q. It cares about Q supporters. It cares about the actions of real people. It cares what you believe, and what you’re willing to do with those beliefs, and what happens if those beliefs fail you.
Pursuing whoever wrote the Q posts isn’t really a priority. There’s nothing illegal in them, and arresting “the real Q” would have no real effect on this movement. I wouldn’t use “Q hasn’t been arrested” as a measure of his credibility.