Are Trump protests finished?

[Yambo]

Vote harvesting is simply a fact, especially in ethnic communities.
I remember our company shop steward getting all the apprentices together and telling how to fill out ballot cards in, anyone not voting the right way would be in for a bashing.

I've been intimidated a few times by unions to side with them on left-wing policy, but never from the right wing.

That's why elections are secret and vote counting is carried out behind semi-closed doors with only controlled observers.

Wasn't it Ol' Maggie who brought in secret ballots for Union action, strikes etc? "We can't afford secret ballots!" cried the unions "That's OK" said Maggie "the state will meet the cost." First secret ballot for strike action? No strike. Slowsider's maybe right. You can't trust the voters.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I was born in a coalminers strike.

Technically true, if a little misleading.

[DEADPOOL]

All I'm gonna say is that you might want to try reading that document you linked and follow the context around the selected quotes you made.

Similarly, I saw lots of these YouTube videos that purport to show 'something' back in November and I saw lots of those graphs which show 'anomalies'. In the former case you're selectively looking at 3s of footage out of context and in the latter the results weren't even anomalous - there were plenty of Trump only vote jumps etc. too.

I'm not gonna get into a massive multi quote reply string though.

They are not "selective quotes", I have "quoted" the entire document and I am going to take a flying guess it is the first time you have seen it. Therefore I have highlighted the relevant areas which I suggest makes mail in voting the default for the entire country, legitimises ballot harvesting (despite the Dems claiming they didn't do it, now they inexplicably want to legalise it) and removing the need for formal identification for absentee ballots.

Plenty other shenanigans like allowing undocumented migrants (illegal aliens for those who can't keep up with left wing doublespeak) to be "counted" which bumps up the electoral count for those States with the most illegals.

You are suggesting that allowing absentee ballots from unidentified persons is fine by you and I need to "follow the context" for some unspecified reason. If you have something to say, say it because my take away is that the Dems are simply making those things they were were furiously denying doing illegally, now legal.

I sincerely doubt you looked though the statistical data to the extent that I did and I am not referring merely to the sudden spikes. I also refer to inexplicable drops in incremental vote counts. How is it possible for an incremental count to be negative? Did someone make a "mistake" (several thousand times!) or perhaps it would be so obvious no-one could get away with it?

The answer is easy. All you have to do is make sure the overall vote count goes up but change the unmonitored "batch votes" so that those changes are not flagged. They only exist in the deep data. Votes removed from Trump and assigned to Biden. You avoid the situation where you see the incremental count for Trump going negative (which no-one can argue is impossible) but it is hidden behind the overall count which inexplicably "spikes" for one candidate over another. That data is published by each relevant sate and is there for anyone to see if only they would look.

It is pretty obvious and the reason I am so preoccupied with this nonsense is because people simply refuse to even see it. Relying on rhetoric like "it's been debunked" or "it's been through court" neither of which is true.

Show me ONE example where a court has made a decision on voter fraud. What you will discover is the "decision" was made not to even consider it.

[JackyJoll]

If people such as Mr Dazzle demonstrated that I was lying quite this many times, I’d be too embarrassed to post up more lies.

[DEADPOOL]

If people such as Mr Dazzle demonstrated that I was lying quite this many times, I’d be too embarrassed to post up more lies.

“Many times”. Ok show me one.

[cheb]

What was Zuckerberg promised in return?

[Horse]

What was Zuckerberg promised in return?

All the benefits for Fb of a Democrat government? Errr ... hang on ...

[JackyJoll]

If people such as Mr Dazzle demonstrated that I was lying quite this many times, I’d be too embarrassed to post up more lies.

“Many times”. Ok show me one.

Cap fits, then?

[Horse]

If people such as Mr Dazzle demonstrated that I was lying quite this many times, I’d be too embarrassed to post up more lies.

“Many times”. Ok show me one.

Cap fits, then?

I took the bait and looked for other inauguration photos. One find was a news video during the time people were arriving, recorded at the opposite end from the podium.
Those huge white areas across the Mall? Sheeting for people to stand on.

Note that in DP's 'fact!' photo they are clearly visible, which would not be possible with a packed audience.

They you are DP, fat chicken at its best


Edit: oh gawd, the black SUVs will be here soon! Just realised that I've found some of this famously redacted 'proof' material and video. Hold on, someone at the door ...

[cheb]

What was Zuckerberg promised in return?

All the benefits for Fb of a Democrat government? Errr ... hang on ...

Maybe he wants to get into politics and this is just the start of his contributions. I don't know why he'd give that much money away for no return, he doesn't seem to me to be the altruistic type.

[Horse]

What was Zuckerberg promised in return?

All the benefits for Fb of a Democrat government? Errr ... hang on ...

Maybe he wants to get into politics and this is just the start of his contributions. I don't know why he'd give that much money away for no return, he doesn't seem to me to be the altruistic type.

There were rumours that he wanted to. DP will know.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Zuckerberg has given more than $2 billion to charity IIRC and has pledged to give away 99% of his wealth.

[Wreckless Rat]

Zuckerberg has given more than $2 billion to charity IIRC and has pledged to give away 99% of his wealth.

He could give me 1% if he liked.

[Mr. Dazzle]

But then he'd be left with nothing.

I honestly don't know how much he's actually given away beyond the easy to find figure of a few billion, it's just a reply to the comment he "doesn't seem the altruistic type".

[Wreckless Rat]

But then he'd be left with nothing.

I was thinking about being in the 99% tbh.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Just as a little musing on why he'd donate £350 million...I have no idea if this is the case, it's just one scenario I can imagine.

Facebook get alot of stick over political posts on their site, fack checking (or lack of) and spreading hatred...much of said stick is well deserved IMO. if you wanted to show you're a supporter of democracy and freedom you could donate hundreds of millions to the organisation which organises voting in the US (note that Facebook didn't actually donate anything, Zuckerberg did - and he didnt' donate it to the voting machine company) so that more people can vote more easily.

Is that marketing?
Is that Facebook trying to lobby against government censorship of their site?
Is that Zuckerberg directly trying to buy political favour?

Who knows, but I suspect it's not as simple as "Facebook buying the election by paying for vote switches".

[cheb]

In lieu of the avoided tax?

[Taipan]

Vote harvesting is simply a fact, especially in ethnic communities.
I remember our company shop steward getting all the apprentices together and telling how to fill out ballot cards in, anyone not voting the right way would be in for a bashing.

I've been intimidated a few times by unions to side with them on left-wing policy, but never from the right wing.

I remember being at a presentation from a UNISON shop steward. He droned on about the benefits, united we stand etc blah. When he asked if there were any questions I replied, I'm happy to sign up if I can drop the political fund contribution. You could have heard a pin drop!

[JackyJoll]

I remember being at a presentation from a UNISON shop steward. He droned on about the benefits, united we stand etc blah. When he asked if there were any questions I replied, I'm happy to sign up if I can drop the political fund contribution. You could have heard a pin drop!

It made perfect sense in TU doublethink, that Tory voters among the membership should be compelled to fund the Labour Party.

[DEADPOOL]

I took the bait and looked for other inauguration photos. One find was a news video during the time people were arriving, recorded at the opposite end from the podium.
Those huge white areas across the Mall? Sheeting for people to stand on.

Note that in DP's 'fact!' photo they are clearly visible, which would not be possible with a packed audience.

They you are DP, fat chicken at its best

Edit: oh gawd, the black SUVs will be here soon! Just realised that I've found some of this famously redacted 'proof' material and video. Hold on, someone at the door ...

No. What you are doing is conflating two issues. One is the nonsense regarding the size of the crowds and the other is trolling to suggest I have been "proved me wrong many times"

Firstly, my actual comment on the photo:

The reason the media want you to believe there was "nobody there" is because of the bluster and hype of Trumps "biggest crowd ever" nonsense. The truth is, as usual, somewhere in the middle. In some ways this is a paradigm for the entire Trump/anti-Trump campaign: one of polar opposites.

This is the greatest thing ever: no it's the worst thing possible. On the one side Trump with his self publicising hyperbole, on the other the left wing biased media painting everything as black as soot. A battle of fake news vs. alt. facts.

The upshot is, nothing is ever true. both sides have to use ever increasing levels of deception and the left wins largely due to the overwhelming power of big tech and mainstream media. The best liars won.

The comparative photos you post show that far fewer people attended the Trump inauguration than Obama (in 2009), which they do. Curious though that they would also "blow out" the Trump image so that the new pavilion and warehouse size building (not present in 2009) look like empty space when they are in fact rooftops! Interesting too that the comparative image uses the 2009 inauguration rather than the 2013 version which does include the same "space" for one of the buildings.

I am still waiting for some of the "many" occasions where I have been proved to be lying. This is not one of them.