2020 Election Thread

[Nodack]

There you go again. Anything connected to government must be crooked.

[In2ition]

There you go again. Anything connected to government must be crooked.

Because, we have never had evidence or examples of this in the history of the country? Do I have that right? Is that what you are claiming? And I didn't say "anything connected to the government", that was you.

[Indy]

To be fair, anything connected to people is crooked. Some more than others.

But I would say it is uncommon for a DA to bring charges against sitting election officials. There must be a lot of pretty clear evidence.

[Nodack]

I am saying if you post anything here there is a 99.9999999% chance it’s either pro-Trump, pro-Russia, anti-Dem or anti-US government. We have had examples of crooked people in every sector of anything but, you always assume that anyone working for any local, state or federal government agency is corrupt. You have that right to assume all the media and all the government employees in the US are corrupt and that the only people you can trust for the truth is some dude on Twitter.

[In2ition]

To be fair, anything connected to people is crooked. Some more than others.

But I would say it is uncommon for a DA to bring charges against sitting election officials. There must be a lot of pretty clear evidence.

I think for the most part, that is true. In this case, it's entirely politically motivated and this will become obvious.

[Indy]

To be fair, anything connected to people is crooked. Some more than others.

But I would say it is uncommon for a DA to bring charges against sitting election officials. There must be a lot of pretty clear evidence.

I think for the most part, that is true. In this case, it's entirely politically motivated and this will become obvious.

OK. But again you are unwilling to share any of your info. So it is hard to believe what you are saying. "Trust me guys, I know a lot more than I am sharing on this!" sounds like more bullshit. If you have facts to share, share them.

[In2ition]

I am saying if you post anything here there is a 99.9999999% chance it’s either pro-Trump, pro-Russia, anti-Dem or anti-US government. We have had examples of crooked people in every sector of anything but, you always assume that anyone working for any local, state or federal government agency is corrupt. You have that right to assume all the media and all the government employees in the US are corrupt and that the only people you can trust for the truth is some dude on Twitter.

So you are the exact opposite in every description, but do you see me complain about you posting it? One of us is wrong. Maybe the examples that I post are true, but not everyone in government or every case is by corrupt officials. Or, all government officials and people in the government, and all Dems are 100% honest, saintly, and honorable. The Government and people in government are like the shining light of all that is good and right in the world.

I wonder which one is more realistic?

[In2ition]

To be fair, anything connected to people is crooked. Some more than others.

But I would say it is uncommon for a DA to bring charges against sitting election officials. There must be a lot of pretty clear evidence.

I think for the most part, that is true. In this case, it's entirely politically motivated and this will become obvious.

OK. But again you are unwilling to share any of your info. So it is hard to believe what you are saying. "Trust me guys, I know a lot more than I am sharing on this!" sounds like more bullshit. If you have facts to share, share them.

I'm not unwilling. I will in time. It's just not the time.

[Nodack]

I am saying if you post anything here there is a 99.9999999% chance it’s either pro-Trump, pro-Russia, anti-Dem or anti-US government. We have had examples of crooked people in every sector of anything but, you always assume that anyone working for any local, state or federal government agency is corrupt. You have that right to assume all the media and all the government employees in the US are corrupt and that the only people you can trust for the truth is some dude on Twitter.

So you are the exact opposite in every description, but do you see me complain about you posting it? One of us is wrong. Maybe the examples that I post are true, but not everyone in government or every case is by corrupt officials. Or, all government officials and people in the government, and all Dems are 100% honest, saintly, and honorable. The Government and people in government are like the shining light of all that is good and right in the world.

I wonder which one is more realistic?

My main point is you don’t own it. You are afraid to say you are pro-Trump even though you defend him and attack anything apposing him. You say you are anti-Russia but all your posts are pro-Russia. I don’t think all Dems or all government employees are saints. I just don’t think all of them are evil and corrupt like you do. I know some of the media slants the news to fit their agenda of pro or anti whatever party. I just don’t think they are lying about everything 100% of the time like you do. When I see Trump on five stations saying the same stupid thing on video, I don’t automatically assume they all doctored the video to make Trump say what he did maliciously.

Your post just now where you tell Indy now is not the time to share your secret info is typical In2ition. Make a claim and then don’t back it up with anything. “The Russian tank swerving to hit the Ukrainian car was actually avoiding being shot at by Ukrainians”. “And if that story doesn’t pan out then it was probably a Ukrainian military vehicle that did it.” What is my evidence? Now is not the time for that evidence….

[Indy]

To be fair, anything connected to people is crooked. Some more than others.

But I would say it is uncommon for a DA to bring charges against sitting election officials. There must be a lot of pretty clear evidence.

I think for the most part, that is true. In this case, it's entirely politically motivated and this will become obvious.

OK. But again you are unwilling to share any of your info. So it is hard to believe what you are saying. "Trust me guys, I know a lot more than I am sharing on this!" sounds like more bullshit. If you have facts to share, share them.

I'm not unwilling. I will in time. It's just not the time.

lol now you just use trump's talking points

[In2ition]

I am saying if you post anything here there is a 99.9999999% chance it’s either pro-Trump, pro-Russia, anti-Dem or anti-US government. We have had examples of crooked people in every sector of anything but, you always assume that anyone working for any local, state or federal government agency is corrupt. You have that right to assume all the media and all the government employees in the US are corrupt and that the only people you can trust for the truth is some dude on Twitter.

So you are the exact opposite in every description, but do you see me complain about you posting it? One of us is wrong. Maybe the examples that I post are true, but not everyone in government or every case is by corrupt officials. Or, all government officials and people in the government, and all Dems are 100% honest, saintly, and honorable. The Government and people in government are like the shining light of all that is good and right in the world.

I wonder which one is more realistic?

My main point is you don’t own it. You are afraid to say you are pro-Trump even though you defend him and attack anything apposing him. You say you are anti-Russia but all your posts are pro-Russia. I don’t think all Dems or all government employees are saints. I just don’t think all of them are evil and corrupt like you do. I know some of the media slants the news to fit their agenda of pro or anti whatever party. I just don’t think they are lying about everything 100% of the time like you do. When I see Trump on five stations saying the same stupid thing on video, I don’t automatically assume they all doctored the video to make Trump say what he did maliciously.

Your post just now where you tell Indy now is not the time to share your secret info is typical In2ition. Make a claim and then don’t back it up with anything. “The Russian tank swerving to hit the Ukrainian car was actually avoiding being shot at by Ukrainians”. “And if that story doesn’t pan out then it was probably a Ukrainian military vehicle that did it.” What is my evidence? Now is not the time for that evidence….

LOL, I honestly tried to find those videos for you. I should have saved them prior, clairvoyantly knowing that you would reflexively post that it was a Russian tank. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything and just let you believe that it was a Russian tank, so that you could continue to propagate misinformation. My bad.

I think Dems are ALL evil and are lying ALL of the time? Settle down with the absolutes. Do I need to have it in my signature so that it's a reminder?

I do not believe ALL Dems are evil.
I do not believe ALL Reps are good.
I do not believe ALL unelected government officials are evil.
I do not believe ALL information that the government gives is false.
I do not agree with EVERYTHING that Trump says.
I do not endorse EVERY move that Trump makes.
I do not think that Trump is INFALLIBLE.
I do not SUPPORT Putin.
I do not think the media is lying 100% of the time.
I do not believe that ANY of the posters here on phx-suns.net are bad people or my enemy.(My only absolute)

[Nodack]

I posted the video of the armored vehicle swerving to run over the car. You posted that it was all misinformation and didn’t post any evidence to back your claim. You say now you saw a video someplace that gave you your version of the story but, didn’t post it and can’t find it now. My guess was because it came from someone named Hillarysucks Twitter account. That story was posted in a lot of mainstream places and none of them had your version of the story. They were all spreading misinformation and you are positive about that. You just aren't able to provide any evidence to back your claim. The armored vehicle swerved to run over the car. It stopped on top of the car. Then it backed up and continued on it’s way.

You signature until very recently was “Let’s go Brandon”.

[Mori Chu]

She is innocent until proven guilty. But the indictment implies some body of evidence. A jury or grand jury typically hands down an indictment, and in order for them to do so they have to have seen some sufficient evidence to decide that the case is not completely without merit. That doesn't mean she is guilty, but it does mean that somebody took a look at the evidence in question and felt it merited further examination.

I do think we are quick to extend the presumption of innocence to folks on our own "team" and quick to assume guilt of folks on other "teams" when they are accused of wrongdoing. We should all try to be consistent in that regard.

[In2ition]

I posted the video of the armored vehicle swerving to run over the car. You posted that it was all misinformation and didn’t post any evidence to back your claim. You say now you saw a video someplace that gave you your version of the story but, didn’t post it and can’t find it now. My guess was because it came from someone named Hillarysucks Twitter account. That story was posted in a lot of mainstream places and none of them had your version of the story. They were all spreading misinformation and you are positive about that. You just aren't able to provide any evidence to back your claim. The armored vehicle swerved to run over the car. It stopped on top of the car. Then it backed up and continued on it’s way.

You signature until very recently was “Let’s go Brandon”.

You apparently took that personally, and it wasn't meant to be a personal jab at you. I thought I said that you should be careful that it may be misinformation and it's disputed that it's a Russian tank.

BTW, I still have that in my signature.

[Nodack]

I didn’t take it personally. I was proud you owned it for once. Now you hid your true feelings in the form of some other language so nobody could read it I guess.

[In2ition]

I didn’t take it personally. I was proud you owned it for once. Now you hid your true feelings in the form of some other language so nobody could read it I guess.

I'm not trying to trigger people(which seemed to be the case when it was in English), but I still don't like what the guy is doing to the US. I do appreciate that he hasn't gotten us into direct conflict with Russia though.

[Nodack]

I appreciate that.

[Indy]

I know that if my signature said "Fuck Donald Trump" I would be told that isn't appropriate for the main board where we are not supposed to talk about politics.

[Mori Chu]

I know that if my signature said "Fuck Donald Trump" I would be told that isn't appropriate for the main board where we are not supposed to talk about politics.

I definitely went back and forth on whether to ask In2 to remove "Let's Go Brandon" from his .net signature. I ultimately decided I shouldn't ask him to remove it. While it has an arguably vulgar meaning, and is explicitly political in nature, it is not an actual profanity and only has a colloquial meaning to folks who are let's say "very online" and follow some of these mostly-on-social-media twitter trends and things. And if I'm on the fence about something I would generally like to err on the side of letting people express themselves vs explicitly censoring them. So long as it is not an explicit attack on another board member.

I think if the site had such functionality, I would have asked In2 to set his sig to show "Let's Go Brandon" only for posts in the Politics area. But that isn't really supported as far as I know.

[Indy]

Even if it wasn't vulgar, if I had "Donald Trump is a sick and awful human being" in my sig, I would be asked to change it.