qwerty12345678
qwerty12345678 on Hacker News
It doesn't say they were "blocking" the entrance, it says they gathered at the entrance holding signs.
Let's be fair, as long as they were peaceful, they were perfectly within their first amendment rights whether you agree with their message or not (i.e. the entire point of the first amendment).
> There's an election process with many layers of oversight, that's the 'proof'.
In what world do you live in where this statement constitutes as proof.
> Just because there are what might appear to be opaque elements to us plebes, doesn't mean there is any material lack of integrity.
This is extremely naive. Politicians take shits just like you and me, power is an illusion.
I believe I've touched on most of your other points in my other replies. (may need to have HN settings set to showdead=yes to view them)
If the alleged fraud did take place (and I'm not sure if it did or didn't), it was likely only a handful of string-pullers and lots of useful-idiots. There was so much emotion in this election cycle (based around hatred of Trump and people not realizing that different groups of people have different values), that they didn't have to look too hard to find the useful-idiots willing to help. A very well-orchestrated and strategic plan utilizing division and caps on information to those people could have pulled it off, all while minimizing loose ends.
It's in everyone's best interest to make sure this doesn't ever happen. I think in the short term it (at the very least) needs to be discussed to make more people aware. You need to keep in mind that a majority of the population is blind to many of the relevant FACTS that exist, thanks to the corrupt state of our mass media. The next-steps should be to see what actions can be taken to add transparency, decentralization, and public verification for elections moving forward. And we need to begin holding ALL politicians accountable when they lie or abuse their office for political or personal gains.
I replied to this on multiple other comments in this thread. (they may be flagged or dead so may not be visible unless you have your settings set to show dead)
"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply here since it's not a specific individual being accused of a crime. This is a PUBLIC process within a constitutional republic (which means we use a public process known as an election to decide who makes decisions), and I believe the results of aforementioned PUBLIC process should be PUBLICLY verifiable. That isn't an unfair statement.
Think about it, how do you know that Biden won? Considering you cannot prove that Biden won, and I cannot prove he didn't win, I'd say we have a pretty broken process.
I forgot to touch on this in my reply...If what I mentioned in my reply did in fact occur, you now understand why "recounts" wouldn't make any difference.
"Innocence until proven guilty" is relating to an individual being formally accused of a crime in a court of law. We are talking about a PUBLIC PROCESS, which in my opinion doesn't fall into the same category. The
burden of proof shouldn't fall on either side, it should be publicly
verifiable.
If a third-world country controlled by rebels ran a "free and fair" election, where they "counted" the presidential ballots behind closed doors and eventually determined that the rebel dictator won the election....then by your logic, it would be absurd and unfair of the citizens to question those election results.
Also, here's some evidence you can look into that should have been enough to trigger more formal investigations: https://depernolaw.com/uploads/2/7/0/2/27029178/antrim_michi...
Since you bring up technical backgrounds, how do you feel about the voting machines having logs erased for 2020 but not 2016? And would you be against analyzing all election machine logs related to server-activity/internet-usage/usb-activity/code-execution-activity/etc? If you really claim that they were
bullshitting, why is everyone so afraid to release that data? And not question why it was deleted?
Giuliani was jockeying for time trying to dig up more hard evidence. He apparently wasn't able to find enough in time, and judges didn't want to get involved for political reasons.
You're referring to Hitchens's Razor, which I believe is a flawed mindset that's used selectively as it suits people. The situation here is that the proof is very well hidden, and therefore the situation has been rendered un-falsifiable. This is now essentially a Russell's Teapot[1] statement.
I'd say when people start storming the US Capitol, it's time to stop ignoring the underlying issue. Why are you so afraid of confirming the facts via evidence? I think the clear answer is that you're afraid it might not be what you want to hear.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Debating with the left on this is like debating with a brick wall. You try to have a logical conversation about the basic security aspects involved here and they respond by calling you a conspiracy theorist and change the underlying subject.
Between server logs disappearing, servers themselves disappearing, USB devices being plugged into voting machines throughout election night, voting machines being connected to the internet, quick destruction of paper ballots, routing of vote data through multiple foreign countries, Dominion refusing to allow inspection of source code, and Dominion apparently being controlled by Chinese companies: Why do you assume he's lying?
Please provide references that she was in fact "telling the truth".
Technically, it IS violating
free speech when anything is censored. That doesn't mean that particular speech is condoned. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that, you just don't want to understand it.
Apple isn't simply moderating misc examples of speech they don't condone, they're attempting to install your (incorrect) version of what free speech means. This is some serious 1984 stuff in action, and a lot of smart people are too ignorant to see what's happening in front of their eyes.
So if your private water utility company decides to cut off your water access because they don't agree with your politics, would you say "welp, they're a private company and they can do as they please."?
Cutting communication channels is historically an act of war.
Exactly. And Apple is in bed with the government. And many of us carry around Apple branded microphones (or telescreens I should say?) in our pocket. And Apple allows indirect government backdoors (unencrypted iCloud "backups", etc).
This is absurd and infuriating that people are sheepishly agreeing with a mega-corporation as they literally attempt to change the definition of something in front of our eyes. Has no-one read 1984? All based around selectively curated emotional political topics. Do you really think the gun won't be turned on you as soon as it suits them? Time to tear the entire fucking system down and redistribute power.