2000 Mules: A tour de force exploring the limits of how many suckers there are willing to pay for fantasy.

[homersapien 11,440]

56 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Bring back the republic…..👍

"The Republic" never left. We're still governed by an elected congress.

(I got the impression you weren't pleased with the representation you were getting.)

Perhaps you're not wealthy enough.

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

Republicans have zero interest in changing the role money plays in our politics. 

Just the opposite.

Neither do Democrats.  

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1.  I would be willing to bet that not a single poster completely dismissing the movie has actually seen it.  So talk about constructing an argument to support a pre-conceived prediction.

2.  Aren't there pretty tight time constraints involved in contesting an election?  So collecting data like this to present wouldn't really be feasible to actually contest an election (for those using the, "Well if there really was evidence, why didn't it get presented?" argument).

3.  And if so, it would appear that the FFs either didn't anticipate finding evidence well after the election that fraud had occurred or they figured even if that happened it would be better for the country to just move forward regardless.

4.  Did the movie claim the "100 foot" perimeter or is that just the popular criticism?  Geotracking is quite accurate...it's what Uber and Lyft drivers use and it tells you what side of the street a fare is on.  It brings you right to them.  So if the movie is the one using the "100 feet" criteria then I would think that would significantly weaken their case.  If it's just the popular criticism, it's a BS criticism.

5.  I'm not saying that the election was stolen and I don't think this movie proves that it was.  However, if you can't at least admit that the behavior in the movie looks shady as hell—to paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy—you might be a tribal partisan.

[homersapien 11,440]

2 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Neither do Democrats.  

Wrong

HR 1 and more. Rethuglicans keep blocking them.

Do your homework. 

Edited May 24, 2022 by homersapien

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

2 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

1.  I would be willing to bet that not a single poster completely dismissing the movie has actually seen it.  So talk about constructing an argument to support a pre-conceived prediction.

You're correct that i've never seen it. Give me a free link to it and i'll go ahead and give it a watch, but I'm not going to pay money to watch a fundraising propaganda film from a Republican fraudster. 

 

I have been basing my view of the movie based on the opinions and reviews of people who have watched it though. 

2 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

2.  Aren't there pretty tight time constraints involved in contesting an election?  So collecting data like this to present wouldn't really be feasible to actually contest an election (for those using the, "Well if there really was evidence, why didn't it get presented?" argument).

That and the fact that this data isn't evidence of anything except that people were walking around in public spaces near voting boxes. The "Well why didn't they present the evidence" argument is usually referring to the dozens of court cases and state legislative sessions between election night and congressional certification where Republicans were saying the election was stolen and it was obvious...but had nothing to show for it. 

 

2 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

5.  I'm not saying that the election was stolen and I don't think this movie proves that it was.  However, if you can't at least admit that the behavior in the movie looks shady as hell—to paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy—you might be a tribal partisan.

If Democratic voting fraud was as prevalent or widespread as so many Republicans want to believe then there'd be actual evidence. You couldn't perpetrate a scheme as complex and widespread as fixing an entire national election without paper trails..without some of the thousands upon thousands of people it'd take to pull it off presenting evidence...without something. 

We are actually finding instances of election fraud....look at recent cases in Arizona and Florida....except these are mostly Republicans who are committing the fraud...either voting multiple times...voting for their dead wife...etc. We're finding actual hard evidence of these cases happening. 

We'd be finding the same if any of this "election fraud" fantasy from the Right had any validity to it. 

[homersapien 11,440]

18 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

You're correct that i've never seen it. Give me a free link to it and i'll go ahead and give it a watch, but I'm not going to pay money to watch a fundraising propaganda film from a Republican fraudster. 

 

I have been basing my view of the movie based on the opinions and reviews of people who have watched it though. 

That and the fact that this data isn't evidence of anything except that people were walking around in public spaces near voting boxes. The "Well why didn't they present the evidence" argument is usually referring to the dozens of court cases and state legislative sessions between election night and congressional certification where Republicans were saying the election was stolen and it was obvious...but had nothing to show for it. 

 

If Democratic voting fraud was as prevalent or widespread as so many Republicans want to believe then there'd be actual evidence. You couldn't perpetrate a scheme as complex and widespread as fixing an entire national election without paper trails..without some of the thousands upon thousands of people it'd take to pull it off presenting evidence...without something. 

We are actually finding instances of election fraud....look at recent cases in Arizona and Florida....except these are mostly Republicans who are committing the fraud...either voting multiple times...voting for their dead wife...etc. We're finding actual hard evidence of these cases happening. 

We'd be finding the same if any of this "election fraud" fantasy from the Right had any validity to it. 

I'd be willing to bet that none of these MAGAs who are so convinced of massive voter fraud know nothing about the actual vote counting/validation process.

This "movie" is a perfect example.

They see someone depositng a handful of ballots in a collection box and assume they are all fake, and will be counted as if there is no process to validate them against registered voter lists.

It's laughable.

Meanwhile we've got Trump on record demanding the Georga secretary of state to "find" him 10,700 more votes because that's all he needs.  But they'll make excuses for that. 

[WDavE 332]

Biden's campaign received 174 million dollars in dark money from anonymous donors during the 2020 election. Trump received 25 million. So, maybe Democrats are the hesitant ones to limiting the donations.

Zuckerberg spent over 400 million in 49 states to finance local elections. Which many states have now banned due to it being a form of influencing the actual vote. The last time I looked he was a liberal Democrat.

But regardless Biden is doing a incredible job of making Jimmy Carter look good!

[homersapien 11,440]

1 hour ago, WDavE said:

Biden's campaign received 174 million dollars in dark money from anonymous donors during the 2020 election. Trump received 25 million. So, maybe Democrats are the hesitant ones to limiting the donations.

Zuckerberg spent over 400 million in 49 states to finance local elections. Which many states have now banned due to it being a form of influencing the actual vote. The last time I looked he was a liberal Democrat.

But regardless Biden is doing a incredible job of making Jimmy Carter look good!

Do, you really expect Democrats to penalize themselves by playing with more restrictive rules than rethuglicans?  

Nevertheless it's Democrats are trying to toughen the rules while rethuglicans oppose every effort to do so.

So that means your thesis is BS and/or Rethuglicans are really stupid.  (I'd say both.)

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by homersapien

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

3 hours ago, WDavE said:

Biden's campaign received 174 million dollars in dark money from anonymous donors during the 2020 election. Trump received 25 million. So, maybe Democrats are the hesitant ones to limiting the donations.

 Yes, Democrats play the game by the rules given because not doing so would put them at a massive disadvantage, but look at the Citizens United decision that paved the way for Corporations, non-profits and super PACS to flood money into our election system with few restrictions. Mitch McConnell and Republicans praised the decision. Obama and Democrats disliked it. 

Put to vote any given legislation to attempt to limit the influence of money in our elections in politics and many Democrats will vote in favor while almost every single Republican will oppose it. Every time. 

 

 

3 hours ago, WDavE said:

 The last time I looked he was a liberal Democrat.

 

Might want to look again. Zuckerberg has never identified as a member of either party. He's hosted fundraisers for both Republican and Democrat politicians. Donated to both parties, and When he first registered to vote in 2002 in New York he registered as an independent. 

Zuckerberg is pretty much hated equally by both sides of the isle. 

Edited May 24, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[icanthearyou 4,463]

7 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Neither do Democrats.  

That is a lie.

[autigeremt 6,686]

Democrats, Republicans....it's like choosing between the Mongols and the Germans (1930's). 

Edited May 24, 2022 by autigeremt

[icanthearyou 4,463]

19 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Democrats, Republicans....it's like choosing between the Mongols and the Germans (1930's). 

Understand but, disagree.  One party understands the role of government.  The other wants almost no government.

 

[jj3jordan 2,060]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

Understand but, disagree.  One party understands the role of government.  The other wants almost no government.

 

And there it is. Well put ICHY.

Democrats “understand the role of government”. To control and regulate every single aspect of your life. And make you pay out the ying Yang for the privilege.

Republicans want smaller less intrusive government. “Almost no government”…Ok we’ll take it.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

And there it is. Well put ICHY.

Democrats “understand the role of government”. To control and regulate every single aspect of your life. And make you pay out the ying Yang for the privilege.

Republicans want smaller less intrusive government. “Almost no government”…Ok we’ll take it.

You've got it.  "Small" government, weak government, now owned by the super rich.  The government has been getting relatively smaller for decades, we have privatized many of it's functions.  It continues to get measurably smaller in almost every way except, COST.

Conservatism lost credibility in economics with inane ideas like blaming the poor, trickle down, laffer curve.  But, conservatism admitted that "fiscally responsible" meant nothing to them.  Republican presidents will spend any amount in order to buy a good economy.  Democrats have done better.

Your statement about "less intrusive" is purely false.  Conservative government is just as intrusive, just on other issues. 

[jj3jordan 2,060]

12 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

You've got it.  "Small" government, weak government, now owned by the super rich.  The government has been getting relatively smaller for decades, we have privatized many of it's functions.  It continues to get measurably smaller in almost every way except, COST.

Conservatism lost credibility in economics with inane ideas like blaming the poor, trickle down, laffer curve.  But, conservatism admitted that "fiscally responsible" meant nothing to them.  Republican presidents will spend any amount in order to buy a good economy.  Democrats have done better.

Your statement about "less intrusive" is purely false.  Conservative government is just as intrusive, just on other issues. 

Nice try but hard fail. Gov’t is bloated beyond imagination. Whoever told you it is getting smaller is just delusional. Any attempt at reducing the size of govt by Republican presidents in my lifetime has been roadblocked by democrats who say a modest increase in budget is actually a cut. Typical democrat technique. Democrats have never, ever, done better than republicans on the economy.  Conservative governments are not intrusive. What planet are you on?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

4 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Nice try but hard fail. Gov’t is bloated beyond imagination. Whoever told you it is getting smaller is just delusional. Any attempt at reducing the size of govt by Republican presidents in my lifetime has been roadblocked by democrats who say a modest increase in budget is actually a cut. Typical democrat technique. Democrats have never, ever, done better than republicans on the economy.  Conservative governments are not intrusive. What planet are you on?

Nothing above is true.  Sorry.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

12 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

You're correct that i've never seen it. Give me a free link to it and i'll go ahead and give it a watch, but I'm not going to pay money to watch a fundraising propaganda film from a Republican fraudster. 

 

I have been basing my view of the movie based on the opinions and reviews of people who have watched it though. 

That and the fact that this data isn't evidence of anything except that people were walking around in public spaces near voting boxes. The "Well why didn't they present the evidence" argument is usually referring to the dozens of court cases and state legislative sessions between election night and congressional certification where Republicans were saying the election was stolen and it was obvious...but had nothing to show for it. 

 

If Democratic voting fraud was as prevalent or widespread as so many Republicans want to believe then there'd be actual evidence. You couldn't perpetrate a scheme as complex and widespread as fixing an entire national election without paper trails..without some of the thousands upon thousands of people it'd take to pull it off presenting evidence...without something. 

We are actually finding instances of election fraud....look at recent cases in Arizona and Florida....except these are mostly Republicans who are committing the fraud...either voting multiple times...voting for their dead wife...etc. We're finding actual hard evidence of these cases happening. 

We'd be finding the same if any of this "election fraud" fantasy from the Right had any validity to it. 

"That and the fact that this data isn't evidence of anything except that people were walking around in public spaces near voting boxes."

Dozens of times (they didn't even qualify as a "mule" unless they had gone to a voter box at least 23 times).  Usually between 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.  And mysteriously wearing latex gloves only after a voter fraud indictment came down in Arizona with the key piece of forensics being fingerprinting the ballots.  And ping analytics from 2020 identifying many of them as the same people involved in riots during the 2020 runs who were associated with Antifa groups and BLM.  And video from the collection sites showing "mules" taking pictures so as to get paid to deliver ballots—which is illegal in and of itself.  And interviews with some of the "mules" confirming the payment and revealing that non-profits were the source of the funding, which is also illegal in and of itself.  And confirmation of inflated voter rolls in the states and counties investigated.

Again, if you haven't seen the movie you simply don't know what you're talking about.  

Doesn't mean the election was stolen.  Doesn't mean there was enough of this that it resulted in a needle move, just like the voter fraud you mentioned.  There's always voter fraud in every election with dead people voting and people voting multiple times and the like.  From both parties.

But this was very shady.  Like I said earlier, if you can watch it and still refuse to admit that there was some shady !#$@ going on here, you're just a partisan tribseman who wouldn't admit fault for your team no matter what evidence was presented.  I find several posters here to be of that character.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

On 5/24/2022 at 8:32 AM, homersapien said:

Wrong

HR 1 and more. Rethuglicans keep blocking them.

Do your homework. 

No, it's correct, and the one who hasn't done his homework is you.  Either that or you are very gullible.

Name a bill the Democrats have introduced that ONLY addresses campaign finance without bundling it with other stuff that they know Republicans won't pass.  In the case of HR-1, a bunch of stuff making voter fraud easier.

The Republicans do the same thing.  They introduced what—6 different bills to dismantle Obamacare...when they knew there was no chance for them to pass.  As soon as they got a majority they magically couldn't agree on a single one.  So how serious were they about overturning Obamacare?  Not at all is my answer.  Same with this.

You introduce legislation you know won't pass so that you can claim to be battling the evil other party who won't cooperate.  It's just a PR campaign.  And it looks like you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[AU9377 5,035]

On 5/24/2022 at 11:44 AM, WDavE said:

Biden's campaign received 174 million dollars in dark money from anonymous donors during the 2020 election. Trump received 25 million. So, maybe Democrats are the hesitant ones to limiting the donations.

Zuckerberg spent over 400 million in 49 states to finance local elections. Which many states have now banned due to it being a form of influencing the actual vote. The last time I looked he was a liberal Democrat.

But regardless Biden is doing a incredible job of making Jimmy Carter look good!

I am all for getting rid of PACS altogether.  We should look to what has worked in the U.K. and in Australia.  They publicly fund campaigns and allow no dark money whatsoever. They outlaw PACS.  That is how you remove influence.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

6 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I am all for getting rid of PACS altogether.  We should look to what has worked in the U.K. and in Australia.  They publicly fund campaigns and allow no dark money whatsoever. They outlaw PACS.  That is how you remove influence.

But the Citizens United ruling upheld the right of corporations and citizens to spend as much money on their own campaigns as they want to support (or oppose) a candidate as long as they aren't giving the money directly to the candidate and operate independently of the candidate's official campaign.

So even if PACs went away, you'd still have influence.

[AU9377 5,035]

3 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

But the Citizens United ruling upheld the right of corporations and citizens to spend as much money on their own campaigns as they want to support (or oppose) a candidate as long as they aren't giving the money directly to the candidate and operate independently of the candidate's official campaign.

So even if PACs went away, you'd still have influence.

We need to change that, even if it takes a constitutional amendment to get it done. We all know how "independently" things get done.  It is a fairy tale with real world implications.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

6 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

We need to change that, even if it takes a constitutional amendment to get it done. We all know how "independently" things get done.  It is a fairy tale with real world implications.

I understand why you say what you say, but we're really going to censor citizen's speech when it comes to political candidates?

If it is illegal for me to take out a billboard that says, "AU9377 for President!" then how can it be legal for me to post that very same thing on a message board or on Facebook?  Arguably more people will see it online than on the billboard.

It doesn't even seem possible to do what you're saying we should do.

Also—and I don't mean any offense by this—but you seem awfully dismissive of not just the constitution, but the whole notion that liberty has a price, for a lawyer.

[AU9377 5,035]

2 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I understand why you say what you say, but we're really going to censor citizen's speech when it comes to political candidates?

If it is illegal for me to take out a billboard that says, "AU9377 for President!" then how can it be legal for me to post that very same thing on a message board or on Facebook?  Arguably more people will see it online than on the billboard.

It doesn't even seem possible to do what you're saying we should do.

Also—and I don't mean any offense by this—but you seem awfully dismissive of not just the constitution, but the whole notion that liberty has a price, for a lawyer.

Liberty is at risk due to the influence that special interest money has on our system.  We are on a path to completely bankrupt this country with deficit spending. Quite literally, everybody wants to feed from the plate of of the federal government.  We pretend that government isn't subsidizing  nearly every industry, but the reality is that it does. 

From state universities raising tuition and depending on the federal student loan program to provide the money, to farmers that can't sustain their farms without federal programs to insure their crops, to the military complex that is made up of defense contractors that make millions building weapons systems in addition to the millions they were provided to research and develop the same.  The pharmaceutical industry that is raping the taxpayers twice, once by demanding grants for research and development and again when they sell retail, the health care industry that demands 6 times the expenditure per American citizen as other similar countries pay with better outcomes, the oil and gas industry that sits on half the leased land they have leased drilling rights on now and demands that more land be leased at sub market rates with not guarantees that they will drill and increase production.  Every segment of our society is touched by government funding. 

Those stakeholders too often value their own interests above all else. Public policy cannot be shaped by special interest money alone.

The constitution is a guiding document. It isn't a spiritual document and it can be amended to reflect the needs of an always evolving Republic. The original document failed to recognize women as full citizens.  Black men were partial men.  The country grew and the needed amendments were passed to correct those failures.  The attempt to form a more perfect union is ongoing. 

People in Australia are just as free as Americans.  They simply realized the danger that special interests were posing to the well being of their country.  We would need no laws if everyone would do the right thing, but we know that will not happen.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

58 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Liberty is at risk due to the influence that special interest money has on our system.  We are on a path to completely bankrupt this country with deficit spending. Quite literally, everybody wants to feed from the plate of of the federal government.  We pretend that government isn't subsidizing  nearly every industry, but the reality is that it does. 

From state universities raising tuition and depending on the federal student loan program to provide the money, to farmers that can't sustain their farms without federal programs to insure their crops, to the military complex that is made up of defense contractors that make millions building weapons systems in addition to the millions they were provided to research and develop the same.  The pharmaceutical industry that is raping the taxpayers twice, once by demanding grants for research and development and again when they sell retail, the health care industry that demands 6 times the expenditure per American citizen as other similar countries pay with better outcomes, the oil and gas industry that sits on half the leased land they have leased drilling rights on now and demands that more land be leased at sub market rates with not guarantees that they will drill and increase production.  Every segment of our society is touched by government funding. 

Those stakeholders too often value their own interests above all else. Public policy cannot be shaped by special interest money alone.

The constitution is a guiding document. It isn't a spiritual document and it can be amended to reflect the needs of an always evolving Republic. The original document failed to recognize women as full citizens.  Black men were partial men.  The country grew and the needed amendments were passed to correct those failures.  The attempt to form a more perfect union is ongoing. 

People in Australia are just as free as Americans.  They simply realized the danger that special interests were posing to the well being of their country.  We would need no laws if everyone would do the right thing, but we know that will not happen.

Total agreement.  We have starved society in order to feed the capitalists.  The answer has always been to balance the interests of the two.  With the destruction of the unions, corporate money took over politics.  Then, took over the government.  Our "government of the people" is practically gone.

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

6 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Liberty is at risk due to the influence that special interest money has on our system.  We are on a path to completely bankrupt this country with deficit spending. Quite literally, everybody wants to feed from the plate of of the federal government.  We pretend that government isn't subsidizing  nearly every industry, but the reality is that it does. 

From state universities raising tuition and depending on the federal student loan program to provide the money, to farmers that can't sustain their farms without federal programs to insure their crops, to the military complex that is made up of defense contractors that make millions building weapons systems in addition to the millions they were provided to research and develop the same.  The pharmaceutical industry that is raping the taxpayers twice, once by demanding grants for research and development and again when they sell retail, the health care industry that demands 6 times the expenditure per American citizen as other similar countries pay with better outcomes, the oil and gas industry that sits on half the leased land they have leased drilling rights on now and demands that more land be leased at sub market rates with not guarantees that they will drill and increase production.  Every segment of our society is touched by government funding. 

Those stakeholders too often value their own interests above all else. Public policy cannot be shaped by special interest money alone.

The constitution is a guiding document. It isn't a spiritual document and it can be amended to reflect the needs of an always evolving Republic. The original document failed to recognize women as full citizens.  Black men were partial men.  The country grew and the needed amendments were passed to correct those failures.  The attempt to form a more perfect union is ongoing. 

People in Australia are just as free as Americans.  They simply realized the danger that special interests were posing to the well being of their country.  We would need no laws if everyone would do the right thing, but we know that will not happen.

Yeah, I already knew why you were saying what you were saying, but you didn't address the practical reality of what you want to do.  You'd make it illegal to type "AU9377 FOR PRESIDENT!" on the internet?

And people in Australia are not as free as Americans.  They do not protect the right to bear arms either.