Down goes the Dow

Racket wrote:

VS-SJW-IR-TS idiot wrote:

I admit complete lack of expertise and understanding in your system, and am prepared to be found completely wrong. Some may be interested to listen to the following Radiolab podcast:

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/what-if

I would put the actual chances at .01%-.05%.

If it somehow does happen (and I don't even know how it could) then you'll likely see quite an uprising.

Okay, I heard a segment on PBS radio, can't remember exactly which show, but this guy wrote a book on the subject and the take away is this: Electors were historically and by law appointed by the state legislators and an election was their means of gauging public preference. But the public a long time ago was rather put off by this and pressured the legislature so that the system be more direct in that the voters chose the electors, and in practice, that has been how it is in practice and has been for along time. But this is the important part- the legislature still has the right to appoint electors. And they may be called in to do so in cases of apparent crisis.

So, the fear is that enough confusion and question would be raised for the Trump administration to petition state legislators to intervene and appoint a set of electors simply because of the voting results being called into question. Again, the legislature does absolutely have the right to appoint a different set of electors to the electoral college for their state. And the fear is that Republican controlled state legislatures would appoint electors who would vote Republican (for Trump).

Going one step further, if that state were run by a Democratic Governor, the Governor might dispatch the electors that were voted on by the voters in the general election. At that point, two sets of electors would show up to the electoral college convention and Congress would be asked to intervene to settle which are the legitimate electors. But if the Governor were Republican and there wasn't the original set of electors dispatched, the state appointed electors would be free to vote as instructed by their Republican state legislature.

When the book's author was asked how likely he thought this was (and this was just slightly before the election), he said essentially that he thought Trump would do it if it came down to it, but he was skeptical if it would get traction at the state level. But he didn't rule it out and made that clear.

It is about neither the Electoral College, nor changing rules ex post facto—it is about adjudicating claims.

We await the results of legal process. There is as yet no final and legally-binding result.

In other news, I submitted the documentation to permit dealing in crypto via Paypal. Will try $100 when I get verified. I was actually denied by Gemini, something to do with my state of residence. I thought they were authorized here, maybe not. No matter.

Yes Paypal is a trust arrangement and one does mot hold cryptos directly.

wondering wrote:

The Unkle wrote:

This covid is being used for a massive transfer or wealth from the majority to a small minority of economic elites. Just look at the numbers. It is not debatable. You are incredibly naive if you think the powers that be are doing these lockdowns out of concern for our well being. Just absured

Please show us those numbers. Thanks!

Take your pick.

seattle prattle wrote:

Das Unkle wrote:

Oh please. Spare me the piety when these lockdowns are doing far more damage to far more people than this virus is.

It isn't a 'one way or the other' dichotomy.

Get with the program, cut the transmission, then we can open up all the faster and with less infections. Other countries have done so much better than us, it's not too hard to see what we've been doing wrong. Or learn the hard way, and that involves a drawn out process like we are seeing.

You have any thoughts of your own? I can get the official narrative you are pushing from any mainstream news source

The Unkle wrote:

seattle prattle wrote:

It isn't a 'one way or the other' dichotomy.

Get with the program, cut the transmission, then we can open up all the faster and with less infections. Other countries have done so much better than us, it's not too hard to see what we've been doing wrong. Or learn the hard way, and that involves a drawn out process like we are seeing.

You have any thoughts of your own? I can get the official narrative you are pushing from any mainstream news source

Don’t belittle Seattle’s god, CNN. It’s straight from God’s lips to Fredo’s ears as far as he is concerned.

strong work, dickhead. I wouldn't care one sh!t what you think except that undeserving people will suffer and perhaps die because of your unwillingness to take even the simplest and most commonsense precautions.

the media is corrupt wrote:

Don’t belittle Seattle’s god, CNN. It’s straight from God’s lips to Fredo’s ears as far as he is concerned.

Have you seen Gov Cuomo lately?

The poor Cuomo family. Two Fredos in one family

Racket wrote:

VS-SJW-IR-TS idiot wrote:

I admit complete lack of expertise and understanding in your system, and am prepared to be found completely wrong. Some may be interested to listen to the following Radiolab podcast:

I would put the actual chances at .01%-.05%.

If it somehow does happen (and I don't even know how it could) then you'll likely see quite an uprising.

In case it does happen, I've been saving my celebratory champagne bottles to use as Molotov cocktails.

Meanwhile, file under he who pays the piper calls the tune.

First Sheldon Adelson's paper had that huge "Biden Wins" headline. Today, it has a brutal editorial telling Trump he lost:"(Trump) does a disservice to his more rabid supporters by insisting that he would have won the Nov. 3 election absent voter fraud. That’s simply false."

"There is no evidence, however, that fraud cost Mr. Trump the election, no matter how much the president tweets the opposite and his supporters wish it so...He would remain well behind Mr. Biden in NV even if unverified GOP claims of thousands of illegal votes were dropped..."

"...rhetoric from Trump surrogates alleging widespread illegal activity has been devoid of detailed evidence supporting the charge that there was a concerted effort to 'steal' the election through corruption."

"An electoral system that involves the participation of 150 million Americans will have its share of issues, but it’s an insult to reason and logic to argue that isolated irregularities constitute proof of a grand national conspiracy."

The coup de grace: "Mr. Trump lost this election because he ultimately didn’t attract enough votes and failed to win a handful of swing states that broke his way in 2016."

Adelson is like Reagan emissary Paul Laxalt sent to tell Ferdinand Marcos: "Cut and cut cleanly."

H/T @RalstonReports

So I guess we can assume Adelson will not be contributing to the legal defense fund?

The Unkle wrote:

You have any thoughts of your own? I can get the official narrative you are pushing from any mainstream news source

You literally just posted three MSM sources as “thoughts of your own” in the post prior to the one I quoted.

Where is that irony guy when you need him?

seattle prattle wrote:

strong work, dickhead. I wouldn't care one sh!t what you think except that undeserving people will suffer and perhaps die because of your unwillingness to take even the simplest and most commonsense precautions.

Hahahaha ..... quite the leap there lefty. But I’m sure you’re kind of pleased to get to show your righteous indignation again!

Now don’t forget your monthly check to Planned Parenthood to keep the baby killing machines operating!

Yutre wrote:

[quote]The Unkle wrote:

You have any thoughts of your own? I can get the official narrative you are pushing from any mainstream news source

You literally just posted three MSM sources as “thoughts of your own” in the post prior to the one I quoted.

I did so literally?

You cannot distinguish between facts and narrative?

Nio killing it.

Up over 12% yesterday.

8% in pre-trading today

The Unkle wrote:

Nio killing it.

Up over 12% yesterday.

8% in pre-trading today

Shady Chinese state owned company that's been the meme stock of the month on all the forums.

If you bought two weeks ago - congrats. If you buy now - you're just an idiot

The Unkle wrote:

I did so literally?

You cannot distinguish between facts and narrative?

Yes, you literally did so.

Why can’t you quote posts correctly? It’s not really difficult.

Racket wrote:

The Unkle wrote:

Nio killing it.

Up over 12% yesterday.

8% in pre-trading today

Shady Chinese state owned company that's been the meme stock of the month on all the forums.

If you bought two weeks ago - congrats. If you buy now - you're just an idiot

I bought a month ago and have made a killing.

If you bought a year ago and put in ten thousand, you would now have $4 million

Yutre wrote:

The Unkle wrote:

I did so literally?

You cannot distinguish between facts and narrative?

Yes, you literally did so.

Why can’t you quote posts correctly? It’s not really difficult.

Let's review.

I noted that the Oligarchs have done very well financially during the "pandemic".

Of course this was immediately challenged and I was called on to produce proof. Which I did, posting four MSM sources.

Which for some reason this triggered you and caused you to attack me for "literally" posting from Mainstream media. Not sure how I could have posted figuratively.

For some reason known to nobody but yourself, you feel this is somehow some kind of effective attack.

You must somewhere in that feeble brain of yours sense that this is not going well for you. Hence, you are now moving onto the misuse of quote posts to deflect attention away from the previous exchanges

The Unkle wrote:

Yutre wrote:

Yes, you literally did so.

Why can’t you quote posts correctly? It’s not really difficult.

Let's review.

I noted that the Oligarchs have done very well financially during the "pandemic".

Of course this was immediately challenged and I was called on to produce proof. Which I did, posting four MSM sources.

Which for some reason this triggered you and caused you to attack me for "literally" posting from Mainstream media. Not sure how I could have posted figuratively.

For some reason known to nobody but yourself, you feel this is somehow some kind of effective attack.

You must somewhere in that feeble brain of yours sense that this is not going well for you. Hence, you are now moving onto the misuse of quote posts to deflect attention away from the previous exchanges

I find it interesting that you consider my post to be an attack. You must be very thin-skinned. I merely pointed out that you had just done what you claimed you could (get the official narrative you were pushing from the MSM). Try not to be so sensitive.