I heard it becomes more true the more you repeat their spin.

I heard it becomes more true the more you repeat their spin. — NOS4A2

You heard wrong.

sounds like a fascinating read. Too many articles behind paywalls these days.

Don’t bother. I only wished to note the glittering generalities at work here.

I don't know about Spain (and I can't read Spanish) but the US postal service is quite reliable.

Regarding rejected votes due to human errors in mail-in voting, as well as mail-in votes lost in the mail, both would seems to favor Republicans.

I've often heard people claim that Trump won the 2020 election or that the election was rigged against him, but I never hear any of the details that convince people why they believe these things. — GRWelsh

They went by, or still go by, the likes of (ordered by timestamp) ...

Despite election results showing Biden win, Pompeo said he expects 'transition to a second Trump administration' (Deirdre Shesgreen · USA TODAY · Nov 10, 2020) — expectations

Press Conference: Election Whistleblowers Come Forward (Amistad Project via PRNewswire · Dec 1, 2020)

Peter Navarro releases 36-page report alleging election fraud 'more than sufficient' to swing victory to Trump (Andrew Mark Miller · Washington Examiner · Dec 17, 2020)

What’s the real evidence for 2020 Election Fraud? (John Berea · winteryknight.com · Jan 18, 2021)

Tucker Carlson Addresses 2020 Election Issues In Fulton County, Georgia (DEEP STATE [2] · Jul 14, 2021 · 6m:59s)

'I Personally Witnessed It': Witness Describes Seeing Voter Fraud To Alex Padilla (Forbes · Jun 9, 2023 · 4m:59s)

Georgia poll workers accused in Trump-backed conspiracy theories cleared of election fraud allegations (Lucien Bruggeman · ABC · Jun 20, 2023) — exonerated

Fish Tank Paradox; a simple explanation of how our elections are rigged using arithmetic. (Edward Solomon · Aug 14, 2023 · 1h:37m:56s)

Some of this stuff is lengthy, tedious, confusing, ambiguous, ... Venture down Alice's proverbial rabbit hole at your own risk.

There has been responses to much of this of course ^{(e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)}, but conspiracy theorists dismiss fact-checkers and whatever else, yet express certainty that the Clown won.

EDIT: my underworld informants slipped me another few sources :)

New "hybrid" voting system can change paper ballot after it's been cast (Salon · Mar 28, 2019)
An Election Security Disaster - Hybrid Voting Machines (Part 1: Dominion vs. The Experts) (Shugah Works · Apr 27, 2019 · 5m:21s)
An Election Security Disaster - Hybrid Voting Machines (Part 2: What's Behind This Deal?) (Shugah Works · Jun 2, 2019 · 6m:55s)
Exclusive: Philadelphia's new voting machines under scrutiny in Tuesday's elections (Reuters · Jun 1, 2020)
Georgia Havoc Raises New Doubts on Pricey Voting Machines (New York Times · Jun 11, 2020)
Laptop, USB drives stolen from Philly election-staging site (AP · Oct 1, 2020)

The sorts of things they went by or still go by

Regarding rejected votes due to human errors in mail-in voting, as well as mail-in votes lost in the mail, both would seems to favor Republicans. — praxis

One of the main interesting things about this amazing debate we are having, is that you folks are given for granted that I root for Republicans when I am not even American. Speaking frankly, yes, I am right wing (if my attitude has not already proved it). On the other hand, that statistic proves it all. 58 % is a big percentage of mail-in votes. Why did they have such confidence in this system when it is clear that it is flawed? A lot of unknowns remain. I appreciate your effort in showing the evidence, but the system is still opaque to me. It is not only about who is benefited by this, I am talking about a guaranteed system. Maybe I look like a stubborn in my opposition to mail-in votes, but at least you would agree with me that it is not a perfect system which we should believe in blindly.

Conspiracy theories? Just because we show a system which lacks guarantees? I never thought that being sceptic would be a big deal.

I'm sorry for using force on you. Did I harm you or did I just make you feel threatened that harm would happen? — flannel jesus

I didn't feel threatened, I just wanted to discuss your obsession with the mail-in vote system. I think you would be very happy working in a post office, and counting votes.

I just wanted to discuss who is forcing you to think a certain way. You said it was me. If I didn't make you feel threatened, did I physically harm you? Or did I bring harm to you in some sort of social or financial way?

One of the main interesting things about this amazing debate we are having, is that you folks are given for granted that I root for Republicans when I am not even American. — javi2541997

I know you're not American. This is a discussion about American politics, or rather, a discussion about an American politician, so of course it will default to that. I know practically nothing about the current politics in Spain although I know there is a general distinction between socialism and conservatism. I would be surprised, actually, if you were a Trump supporter, even though Trump is very anti-socialist.

Why did they have such confidence in this system when it is clear that it is flawed? — javi2541997

It's not at all clear that American mail-in voting is significantly flawed. Have you in any way shown that it is?

, there's likely always a bit of vote fraud. No material evidence of what the conspiracy theorists claimed, though.

These candidates lost badly, but now are claiming fraud
^{— Stephen Fowler · NPR · Jul 2, 2022}

My vote to just remain a no isn't based on any evidence. It's not based on any facts, it's only based on my gut feeling and my own intuition, and that's all I need. — Couy Griffin

This is a discussion about American politics, or rather, a discussion about an American politician, so of course it will default to that. I know practically nothing about the current politics in Spain although I know there is a general distinction between socialism and conservatism — praxis

It is comprehensible because we are not that interesting, and better for you because you will feel disappointed if you dive in our matters. Although this is an American political thread, it has an impact worldwide and the President of the United States is the leader of the Western world and NATO (where Spain is part of). I think that when Republicans are in power, Spain has a better position in the American radar. Bush and Aznar were good mates, but this story remains in the past. It is true that Obama's family have visited Spain a few times too, and we were also on your radar in our worst time (2008 - 2012). I understand that maybe some of you do not understand why we care if we are not Americans. Well, I want to highlight my words again: The USA has a big impact on the world and this is why we are interested. My participation in this thread is not with bad faith nor silliness. And, if you do not mind, I will keep in touch on this topic, and see how this matter ends up. Respecting your nation, of course!

It's not at all clear that American mail-in voting is significantly flawed. Have you in any way shown that it is? — praxis

OK, I see. Then, we can assume that the American postal service is reliable, but this doesn't mean that it works worldwide (it doesn't matter if you care about other nations or not).

If I didn't make you feel threatened, did I physically harm you? Or did I bring harm to you in some sort of social or financial way? — flannel jesus

Time to leave it there... I think you are starting to troll me.

there's likely always a bit of vote fraud. No material evidence of what the conspiracy theorists claimed, though — jorndoe

Interesting data, indeed. Well, your post just proves that I am - more or less - right.

I understand that maybe some of you do not understand why we care if we are not Americans. Well, I want to highlight my words again: The USA has a big impact on the world and this is why we are interested. My participation in this thread is not with bad faith nor silliness. And, if you do not mind, I will keep in touch on this topic, and see how this matter ends up. Respecting your nation, of course! — javi2541997

I did not mean to suggest in any way your participation in this topic is inappropriate or whatever. Honestly, I value the perspective of people from other countries, and there is certainly no need to show respect for America on my account.

I often feel a little embarrassed by how little I follow the politics of other countries when the world seems to pay so much attention to American politics.

Thanks! Your way of seeing things is dead good. :cool:

I suppose that's an accurate description, but it was focused trolling with a purpose. I'm demonstrating the absurdity of the claim you made that you're being "forced" to agree with something. Your only example of being "forced" was that you came across people online who disagreed with you.

Don't be such a snowflake. People are going to disagree with you here, that's acceptable and it's not force.

snowflake!?

You are the one who quickly felt intimidated when I disagreed with you regarding the counting mail-in votes. I have provided some arguments for why I consider it a flawed system. Maybe I lacked rigid evidence, but the point was not believing in such a system blindly. I hope you got the message at least.

On the other hand, You were "forcing" me to believe in mail-in votes, you even looked devastated. You found someone like me who doesn't follow up your argument plainly. Oh, here are the proofs, which are very popular in this thread: There's no casual connection for some reason in their minds., Fighting bad guys can feel terribly biased when the guy I want to win happens to be the bad guy., Did you know Donald trump himself does mail in voting? The latter is my favourite one. It is clear that you are a mail lover.

this is very funny

If you feel like you're being forced to believe something because someone says something you disagree with, yes I think you need to toughen up a little bit

Wasn't that your main purpose from the beginning? You were not using arguments trying to convince me, you just shared your amazement at my rejection of the mail-in system. Simple and plainly. Time to move on, and stick to the arguments and facts. Good night!

Hey guys, the Donald would not appreciate you talking about each other on a thread that is all about Him!
"That's very very bad folks! I will get you all back on topic, which is my greatness, or lock you all up and build a wall round you, that you will pay for.'

I think you should just let go of the "force" wording. When someone disagrees with you, on a philosophy forum of all places, they are not "forcing" you to agree with them. Do you understand that?

Indicted Trump Asks to Buy a Glock at Campaign Stop—Which Would Be Illegal

In a PR stunt gone terribly wrong, former President Donald Trump went gun shopping on Monday with Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and asked to buy a Glock pistol on camera—which would have brazenly violated the very same law that recently landed Hunter Biden criminal charges.

Federal law prohibits anyone under indictment from attempting to buy a firearm. Trump has been criminally indicted four times in as many jurisdictions—Atlanta, Miami, New York, and Washington—facing dozens of felony charges that could land him in prison for decades.

“I wanna buy one,” Trump said while taking a tour of Palmetto State Armory, a federally licensed gun dealer in South Carolina that's widely revered by firearm enthusiasts.

“Sir, if you want one, this one’s yours,” a person on the tour said, seeming to divert the president away from making an actual purchase.

“No, I wanna buy one,” Trump insisted.

It only added to the fiasco when those present pulled South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson into the photo op—as well as his brother, Julian Wilson, an executive at the private equity company that owns the gun dealer. They are both Republican Congressman Joe Wilson’s sons.

The disaster started when Trump's campaign spokesperson, Steven Cheung, tweeted that his boss actually went through with the sale.

"President Trump purchases a @GLOCKInc in South Carolina!" he posted Monday afternoon.

But the campaign went into damage control mode as soon as firearms journalist Stephen Gutowski and others pointed out that the entire transaction would be blatantly illegal.

“Did he actually go through with the purchase?” Gutowski asked openly in tweet.

Cheung later claimed to CNN that Trump never actually went through with the purchase—and deleted his original statement. The Daily Beast could not immediately independently confirm whether Trump finalized the deal.

:lol:

I did brief research on this legal matter. I think we should make a difference between the two concepts: conviction (to decide and state officially in court that somebody is guilty of a crime) and indictment (an official statement accusing somebody of a crime).

Donald Trump has not been convicted yet, so he can purchase a weapon if we interpret the Federal Law plainly.

Under the main federal gun law, 18 U.S.C. 922, does not appear to prohibit people under indictment from simply buying or possessing weapons... ATF Identify Prohibited Persons.

The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

who is a fugitive from justice;

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);

who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

who is an illegal alien;

who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;

who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

From the next section of the article you linked to:

The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition.

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.

As the news article says:

That law is why anyone buying a gun from a licensed dealer must fill out what's called an ATF Form 4473, which asks: “Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year, or are you a current member of the military who has been charged with violation(s) of the Uniform Code of Military?”

Answer “yes,” and no gun shop can legally sell you a gun. Trump, who is facing criminal charges across the eastern seaboard, would have to answer in the affirmative.

Trump would have had to lie on the form (much like Hunter Biden lied on his) to buy a gun.

Of course, perhaps this is all moot and Trump never bought a gun. Perhaps his spokesman was lying. This was probably just propaganda to appease the gun nuts.

True, it says so.

But, according to some district courts, such a section is unconstitutional:

“[a]lthough not exhaustive, the Court’s historical survey finds little evidence that § 922(n) — which prohibits those under felony indictment from obtaining a firearm — aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition. As a result, this Court holds that § 922(n) is unconstitutional. The Court said that the “Second Amendment is not a ‘second class right. In addition, the decision casts substantial doubt on whether 18 USC § 922(g) – which prohibits people convicted of felonies from possessing guns or ammo – is still constitutional in light of Bruen.
Bruen held that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government… must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms….” https://lisa-legalinfo.com/2022/09/26/district-court-decision-questions-everything-in-18-usc-922-update-for-september-26-2022/

So, let's see what the judges decide regarding this issue, and not some vacuous journalists. :smile:

Yeah, I think that's the ruling that Hunter Biden's lawyers are using in their defence.

Trump and GOP Rep. Gosar suggest Joint Chiefs boss Mark Milley deserves death.

Also Trump Goes Full Deranged, Suggests Charging People He Doesn’t Like With Treason

Bet he'd love to be a dictator.

Milley, broken with a moral panic, went around the back of duly elected president and informed the CCP about Trump in order to cool tensions. He violated his oath, ran contrary to the will of the people, and arguably committed treason.