951–960 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the paradox of tolerance. We can tolerate having a free internet but if it leads to the intolerant taking over and making everything worse, we need to be intolerant of them now, not later.
Calls to violence were not, and are not, protected speech. It is a false argument to say they should be now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, the women's march protests were far more dangerous. At the recent "storming", all of the representatives were evacuated, and nobody was directly threatened. The one women who came a little too close to breaking into where some VIPs were was shot in the neck and died. Meanwhile, the media and law enforcement approved of the women's march protestors. They were free to roam around the capitol and physicall…
> nobody was directly threatened next sentence: > one women who came a little too close to breaking into where some VIPs were was shot in the neck and died the shot heard round the trailer park!
As if smashing doors and climbing through them while armed guards tell you not to with congress fleeing on the other side is not "directly threatened".
The absurdity of these arguments is astounding. What's worse, they seem to be thinking that they are making sense and that there is some global conspiracy on the left to "silence them".
The rest of the world is standing in awe and shock at the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Prove it in court or shut up. I don't think you read my comment. My point is not to prove anything in court, or to argue that anything related to the election can be proved in court. It is to argue that it's completely reasonable for right-leaning people to doubt the integrity of the election. Probably you are aware that a lot of crimes are very difficult to prove in court. That doesn't mean they didn't happen, or t…
> That doesn't mean they didn't happen, or that people should not believe they happened. Sure. But in this case, a known liar with a lot of motivation to lie is alleging the crime. And there's no evidence, even though you'd need thousands of mostly ordinary people to coordinate the crime and subsequent coverup. If even one of them breaks ranks, everyone else is going to jail. Look at it completely objectively: taking…
Maybe some would. But I'll tell you, if the democrats wanted it to look like they were running a fair election despite their vitriolic hatred of Trump, they could have done quite a few things differently. For one, the measures they put in place to reduce the spread of the coronavirus were an absolutely unprecedented obstruction of the ability of observers to watch the process. An election observer should be able to see everything every election worker does as closely as the election worker sees it. If they wanted the other party to believe the results, they would have found some other way.
>This whole election fraud this is a Trump invention.
How does your assertion that Trump said election fraud first mean my statements of fact rely on his word for their validity? Can you answer the actual question I asked? (You can't)
>He knew he was going to lose
According to the official tallies, he lost by a combined total of 42,976 votes across three states (if AZ, GA, and WI went Trump, it would have resulted in a 269-269 tie). How could anyone have known he was going to lose, unless they were part of a coordinated effort to fix the election against him?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Remember when this was OK? https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1047935416182235136?s=19
> Exactly. Remember when this was OK? https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1047935416182235136?s=19 Did they break into the offices and steal things?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And do we really believe that a Trump-led dictatorship would be more friendly towards dissenting views or permissive of media platforms that broadcast them? How is this relevant? We don't have a Trump-led dictatorship in the US. And since when is "Well it's not as bad as a " a well thought out argument?
> How is this relevant? We don't have a Trump-led dictatorship in the US. Precisely what would we have gotten if those insurrectionists had succeeded in neutralizing the legislative branch? > And since when is "Well it's not as bad as a " a well thought out argument? It's an argument that is sufficiently well thought out when we are literally faced with a choice between A and B. We can do whatever we can now to preve…
Oh please. This is pure delusion. There was 0 path for a group of a few hundred to “neutralizing the legislative branch”. What happened at the capitol was bad, but pretending there was any chance in it ending in a Trump dictatorship is simply hyperbole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It doesn't matter whether the containers were "hidden" Then don't write hidden? Just write 'ballots'. Or write 'ballots that were sealed because the counting stopped, but then re-opened when the counting resumed'. > You didn't read the other sources I linked, which contain sworn statements from two observers, as well as articles published by several news stations stating that observers (and news) were told to go ho…
> The source that you cited contradicted your claim of 'hidden ballots'. You are a liar. This is false. You need to also look up the definition of "liar" - it exclusively refers to intentional deception . I did not intentionally deceive you - I just thought that they were hidden when they were not. You're zero for two while acting in the most malicious way possible. Perhaps try taking a step back and not only looking…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no evidence for election fraud due to a combination of officials and media intentionally not searching for it, and events that make it difficult or impossible to determine that fraud actually ocurred. As an example of the latter: Georgia election officials intentionally deceived journalists and (Republican) observers into leaving a vote-counting event by lying to them and telling them that they were done for…
> Georgia election officials intentionally deceived journalists and (Republican) observers into leaving a vote-counting event by lying to them and telling them that they were done for the night, then pulling out hidden containers of ballots and counting them[1] This is a joke, right? Did you even watch the video from the tweet you're citing? The video states that ballots were placed in containers because counters tho…
I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/896/censorship > In general, sedition is defined as trying to overthrow the government with intent and means to bring it about; the Supreme Court, however, has been divided over what constitutes intent and means. > These acts made it a federal crime to speak, write, or print criticisms of the government that were false, scandalous, or malicious. It is frightening to me tha…
>Their sources include the content of speeches made by the President of the United States, news anchors and journalists of conversatively-biased news, and perhaps most importantly, peers they trust liking and sharing those same speeches and articles with them as a stamp of acceptance. Their sources also include the statements and behaviors of news anchors and journalists and politicians and political activists and ot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If service providers want to deplatform centers of radicalization, I think that's ok. The fact that there is widespread support, let alone demand, for subjective, unaccountable censorship is frightening. You don't understand this, "war on domestic terror" will include legislative attacks on encryption? That bad actors always use, create and amplify perceived crisis to expand their power and permanently erode our rig…
There was this blogpost a while back which I can't seem to find, suggesting that the division is between: * people who view democracy as a set of values, and if you do not share those values then you are against democracy. * people who view democracy as the democratic principles (voting, representation, freedom of assembly, and so on)... In my world (I belong to the second group) democracy is freedom of speech, the e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, holding a proper/legal election that is fully transparent and fully observed, without changing rules, disregarding the legislature, etc... precludes the need for any "proof" whatsoever. However, lacking that, yes, the election officials should be made to prove that the procedures that were actually used were fair. It's a retroactive proving of the process . A security audit in light of a system change. If that ca…
The rule changes weren't reason to toss out votes. That quibbling that was shot down by judges. In particular, the rule changes were neutral with respect to any candidate. Your objection about the rule changes is, of course, that it allowed more of the wrong kind of people to vote legally. It's naked anti-democratic BS, attempting to masquerade as a valid concern.
Complete nonsense that somehow manages to stay somewhat intelligible.