Dan Warnick

U.S. Presidential Elections Status - Electoral Votes

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Hotone said:

I am no expert, but I think their currency is already in line with the market.  The yuan has been strengthening against the US dollar over the last year, and accelerated its gain over the last six months due to Coronavirus.  Moreover, money has been flooding into China, due to its safe haven status.  At the moment, it is the darling of global investors.

https://amp.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3107854/beijing-embraces-rising-capital-inflows-rivalry-us

IMG_20201110_114711.jpg

If you are on Twitter, I recommend you view the thread on twitter (yesterday) by Adam Townsend. Explains how the Chinese currency really works, esp the difference between the "offshore yuan" and the "onshore yuan". May also help you to understand what Oro is saying about Chinese desperation for foreign capital, I highly recommend you read the thread before it disappears 2 miles down the timeline, it is very informative.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wombat said:

If you are on Twitter, I recommend you view the thread on twitter (yesterday) by Adam Townsend. Explains how the Chinese currency really works, esp the difference between the "offshore yuan" and the "onshore yuan". May also help you to understand what Oro is saying about Chinese desperation for foreign capital, I highly recommend you read the thread before it disappears 2 miles down the timeline, it is very informative.

https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fadamscrabble%2Fstatus%2F1094717028009689089&widget=Tweet

Don't know if that helps?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

As to your first 4 para, yes I know what it requires, we await judicial level investigation.

The ability to challenge each ballot as it is counted is not required that I know of. Please provide a citation for your claim.

Para 6, yes, this will be investigated by the courts.

Your basic impression is yours to have but it does in no way dictate reality.

I am not interested in the media narrative and have clearly said and shown I am interested in actual investigation and determination of the facts. I can just as easily say of you that I can't believe you are so naive to accept a media narrative that has been entirely one sided since Trump was elected (right wing social and network media). Right wing business interests are just as much driven by right wing money as those on the left are driven by left money.

Censorship can only be done by the government, and they have done no such thing! Yeah, I am a pain in the butt about that point of legal reality. If you guys don't like Twitter then go make your own, it is the great capitalistic way!

 

Censorship can only be done by the govt?!? What about Twitter and FB and the mainstream media? 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

28 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Censorship can only be done by the govt?!? What about Twitter and FB and the mainstream media? 

"In its broadest sense [censorship] refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. . . . In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced. Thus writers who 'censor' themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, nor are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows. Yet all of these restraints have the effect of limiting the diversity that would otherwise be available in the marketplace of ideas and so may be considered censorship in its broadest sense."
        -- Academic American Encyclopedia

 

I am firmly in the narrow camp per my training. Everything else is simply the every day battle in the marketplace of ideas and capital, AKA marketing.

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Like 1
  • Rolling Eye 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I was disgusted with Obama getting the Nobel just for getting elected, utter BS. Obama was a rather crappy president - no prosecutions for the financial meltdown, extreme hypocrisy on marijuana, utter buffoonery on obamacare, etc, etc. 

What pissed me off about Trump is how it was all about him and how he would say things like he knows more about solar than anyone else, yes he said that... etc. etc.

I am very concerned about the age of irrationalism but are you sure you understand what Dawkins was talking about? He was talking about Trump and crazy cults of personality. 

In your new book’s introduction you allude to Donald Trump’s election, and say that now “more than ever, reason needs to take center stage.” What would you say to Trump if you had his ear? Do you think you could reason with him?
Mr. Trump, you appear to be laboring under the delusion that you have the necessary qualifications to be president. The manifest failure of almost everything you have attempted during your first six months, coupled with the anarchic chaos that pervades your White House, should give you pause—or would give pause to any person of normal sensitivity.

What advice would I give? Get your news, not from FOX but from all the sources available to a president, many of them not available to the rest of us. Announce your decisions after due consideration and consultation, not impulsively on Twitter. Cultivate common good manners when dealing with people. Do not be misled by the crowds that cheer your boorish rudeness: they are a minority of the American people.

Listen to experts better qualified than you are. Especially scientists. Be guided by evidence and reason, not gut feeling. By far the best way to assess evidence is the scientific method. Indeed, it is the only way if we interpret “scientific” broadly. In particular—since the matter is so urgent and it may already be too late—listen to scientists when they tell you about the looming catastrophe of climate change.

No I don’t think I could reason with Trump. Why would I succeed where so many have failed?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/richard-dawkins-offers-advice-for-donald-trump-and-other-wisdom/

HaHa, I advised Trump early in his Presidency to go with his gut coz he has great instincts. This has been true on almost every foreign policy matter to date. Yes, he made a huge mistake by exiting the TPP and trying to cut ALL trade deficits with a variety of countries, rather than help me just focus on isolating China and reduce the LARGEST trade deficit first. Apart from that, he has been superb, especially re Middle East, Venezuela, Eastern Europe, North Korea, Vietnam, and India, Australia, Japan (ie: the Quad). UK too. Once he realised that he was silly to think he would ever get fair trade from China, he has really made up for it and worked his butt off to prepare not only the USA, but the rest of the world, for the new reality. Along with Pompeo, he has single-handedly led the pushback to China's "new world order". This is despite all the pressure he copped from the US oil industry to "open up" the Chinese market to them, as if that were ever gonna happen. Even the US oil execs have finally cottoned on that China would never allow itself to become dependent on US oil and LNG. That China would rather start a pandemic and risk a war than let that happen. If Biden thinks he can do better than Trump on the China front, he is nuts.

As for Dawkins assessment of Trump, it sounds as though he doesn't understand the climate problem properly either. It is only cost that matters in the end. That relies on new technology. And business must be on board. Only now are all the stars to align for EFFECTIVE action on climate change. Trump may have been a spoiler on this matter, but I did not mind because he was completely irrelevant in the scheme of things. Solar is gettin cheaper, batteries gettin there, wind turbines gettin larger and more efficient etc etc. I always knew that Trump didn't have a hope in hell of saving the coal industry so it was the last of my concerns, even tho I am passionate about climate change. As I said, I am practical and a realist. I always get my way, no matter who is in power, and I don't need the Paris Accord or Greta to make my point for me. Whether or not you believe in climate change, we live on a finite world and unless we practise sustainability, it will become very hostile to us. It is not just energy, it is ALL resources that we better think of recycling as much as darn possible or future generations will curse us. We don't want our grandkids grandkids to go back to the stone age coz we wasted all our most precious resources, whatever they may be. 

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

"In its broadest sense [censorship] refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. . . . In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced. Thus writers who 'censor' themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, nor are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows. Yet all of these restraints have the effect of limiting the diversity that would otherwise be available in the marketplace of ideas and so may be considered censorship in its broadest sense."
        -- Academic American Encyclopedia

 

I am firmly in the narrow camp per my training. Everything else is simply the every day battle in the marketplace of ideas and capital, AKA marketing.

Yes, you said it, like most academics you are very narrow-minded indeeeeeeed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Yes, you said it, like most academics you are very narrow-minded indeeeeeeed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't take that personally Jay, I have always been a bit of a rebel and never had much respect for "legalese" :)

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wombat said:
6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I was disgusted with Obama getting the Nobel just for getting elected, utter BS. Obama was a rather crappy president - no prosecutions for the financial meltdown, extreme hypocrisy on marijuana, utter buffoonery on obamacare, etc, etc. 

What pissed me off about Trump is how it was all about him and how he would say things like he knows more about solar than anyone else, yes he said that... etc. etc.

I am very concerned about the age of irrationalism but are you sure you understand what Dawkins was talking about? He was talking about Trump and crazy cults of personality. 

In your new book’s introduction you allude to Donald Trump’s election, and say that now “more than ever, reason needs to take center stage.” What would you say to Trump if you had his ear? Do you think you could reason with him?
Mr. Trump, you appear to be laboring under the delusion that you have the necessary qualifications to be president. The manifest failure of almost everything you have attempted during your first six months, coupled with the anarchic chaos that pervades your White House, should give you pause—or would give pause to any person of normal sensitivity.

What advice would I give? Get your news, not from FOX but from all the sources available to a president, many of them not available to the rest of us. Announce your decisions after due consideration and consultation, not impulsively on Twitter. Cultivate common good manners when dealing with people. Do not be misled by the crowds that cheer your boorish rudeness: they are a minority of the American people.

Listen to experts better qualified than you are. Especially scientists. Be guided by evidence and reason, not gut feeling. By far the best way to assess evidence is the scientific method. Indeed, it is the only way if we interpret “scientific” broadly. In particular—since the matter is so urgent and it may already be too late—listen to scientists when they tell you about the looming catastrophe of climate change.

No I don’t think I could reason with Trump. Why would I succeed where so many have failed?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/richard-dawkins-offers-advice-for-donald-trump-and-other-wisdom/

HaHa, I advised Trump early in his Presidency to go with his gut coz he has great instincts. This has been true on almost every foreign policy matter to date. Yes, he made a huge mistake by exiting the TPP and trying to cut ALL trade deficits with a variety of countries, rather than help me just focus on isolating China and reduce the LARGEST trade deficit first. Apart from that, he has been superb, especially re Middle East, Venezuela, Eastern Europe, North Korea, Vietnam, and India, Australia, Japan (ie: the Quad). UK too. Once he realised that he was silly to think he would ever get fair trade from China, he has really made up for it and worked his butt off to prepare not only the USA, but the rest of the world, for the new reality. Along with Pompeo, he has single-handedly led the pushback to China's "new world order". This is despite all the pressure he copped from the US oil industry to "open up" the Chinese market to them, as if that were ever gonna happen. Even the US oil execs have finally cottoned on that China would never allow itself to become dependent on US oil and LNG. That China would rather start a pandemic and risk a war than let that happen. If Biden thinks he can do better than Trump on the China front, he is nuts.

As for Dawkins assessment of Trump, it sounds as though he doesn't understand the climate problem properly either. It is only cost that matters in the end. That relies on new technology. And business must be on board. Only now are all the stars to align for EFFECTIVE action on climate change. Trump may have been a spoiler on this matter, but I did not mind because he was completely irrelevant in the scheme of things. Solar is gettin cheaper, batteries gettin there, wind turbines gettin larger and more efficient etc etc. I always knew that Trump didn't have a hope in hell of saving the coal industry so it was the last of my concerns, even tho I am passionate about climate change. As I said, I am practical and a realist. I always get my way, no matter who is in power, and I don't need the Paris Accord or Greta to make my point for me. Whether or not you believe in climate change, we live on a finite world and unless we practise sustainability, it will become very hostile to us. It is not just energy, it is ALL resources that we better think of recycling as much as darn possible or future generations will curse us. We don't want our grandkids grandkids to go back to the stone age coz we wasted all our most precious resources, whatever they may be. 

What the hell it this?  A reasonable, sane discussion?  Excellent, gentlemen, excellent.  Please do continue.  Wonderfully refreshing reading.  Thank you both.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Thanks.  At first glance it is reporting of news and events that appears at least somewhat bereft of opinion, which is what I like to read.  Worthy of a bookmark, I think.

Edited by Dan Warnick
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Thanks.  Worthy of a bookmark, I think.

You might like this one too Dan. The official site to report fraud and also to study it. Just got it through Parler.

https://everylegalvote.com/country

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple questions for all. Why did the battleground states take so long to count all their votes even when their vote total is less than half of that of larger states such as CA, TX, NY and FL who got it all done in 5-6 hours?

Why did the Democrats want to drag out vote counting in these battle ground states?

Why did they count the mail in ballots last, and did not start counting those earlier in the day?

Why did they suddenly stop counting after midnight in ALL battleground states at the same time when the election was going to be called for Trump within 1 hour?

Was it so that they knew exactly how many additional mail in ballots they had to "find" over night?

How is it that by 6 am (only 5 hours later), hundreds of thousands of mail in ballots had suddenly been counted, and they were virtually all for Biden? Looks like a pre-counted batch to me.

There are dozens of other questions to ask and irregularities to investigate. If they find serious criminal activity, let's hope someone goes to jail. Otherwise, we can declare that the US is one of the worst banana republics on the planet now.

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Key word in all of this is LEGAL votes. Just watch.

  • Great Response! 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I believe the detailed and extensive research done. How is an official report from the state of South Carolina misinformation? You discredit yourself.

If a tree falls down in the forest and no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound? 

If voter fraud occurred and no one investigates, was a crime committed? 

The person in charge of investigating voter fraud for the DOJ just made a very public resignation. There is evidence that person (a Deep State operative if there ever was one) refused to investigate voter fraud when the evidence was piled on his desk! Because "tradition". Read his resignation letter, he incriminated himself. 

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Georgia, Arizona and Pennsylvania are now within 1% . . . which means that a recount can be requested. The DOJ is not on hand: nobody gets to tell anyone to stand twenty feet back and the Dominion Voting Machines--those mysterious monsters that can be easily connected to the internet--will not be used. This is a hand job. 

The Democrats are terrified of this, but they're even more terrified of the 12th amendment, which would give a majority Republican delegation the ability to choose the next president. Gee, I wonder how that would go. 

The United States is so divided and there is so much suspicion and acrimony that this process--a legal challenge of the process--is actually good for the future of the Republic in general and the election process specifically. I find it so ironic that when George W. Bush's future was on the line he held out until the Supreme Court found in his favor but now is so eager to congratulate "President-Elect Joe Biden" that he calls him up before the election has been certified. 

It is noteworthy that Presidents Obrador and Putin have kept their powder dry, while the Labrador Retriever in the UK has jumped the gun. If somehow Donald J. Trump pulls a rabbit out of his hat, Boris is probably going to regret that one. It should be further noted that the savviest of them all, President Xi Jinping, has also kept his powder dry.  

Democracy has never been messier!

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You claim that the fraud is so overwhelmingly obvious that it can't be proven in 70 days? Please listen to yourself.

Nothing like creating a straws Strawman to shoot it down. Just like your heroes in the MSM you started by purposely misquoting then shot that down. He said proven in court in 70 days and you damn well knew it when you mendaciously misquoted. 

I thought you were supposed to be a PhD economist, but you outed yourself by saying you're a J.D. which means you're a lawyer. As a lawyer you know exactly how slow the wheels of justice turn. 70 days is light speed for courts. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, Radha said:

Simple questions for all. Why did the battleground states take so long to count all their votes even when their vote total is less than half of that of larger states such as CA, TX, NY and FL who got it all done in 5-6 hours?

Why did the Democrats want to drag out vote counting in these battle ground states?

Why did they count the mail in ballots last, and did not start counting those earlier in the day?

Why did they suddenly stop counting after midnight in ALL battleground states at the same time when the election was going to be called for Trump within 1 hour?

Was it so that they knew exactly how many additional mail in ballots they had to "find" over night?

How is it that by 6 am (only 5 hours later), hundreds of thousands of mail in ballots had suddenly been counted, and they were virtually all for Biden? Looks like a pre-counted batch to me.

There are dozens of other questions to ask and irregularities to investigate. If they find serious criminal activity, let's hope someone goes to jail. Otherwise, we can declare that the US is one of the worst banana republics on the planet now.

Those states did not finish counting in 6 hours. As of right now, a week after the election, CA is at 89% and NY at 84%,. Democrats didn't want to drag out the vote counting. In Pennsylvania for example the Democrats tried to have the mail in vote count started before election day but the Republican legislature refused. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pennsylvania-counting-votes-election-day/story?id=73993649

The rest of your concerns are going to be looked at by investigators. The real question is are you going to believe the DOJ investigators when they tell you that no fraud occurred?

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Nothing like creating a straws Strawman to shoot it down. Just like your heroes in the MSM you started by purposely misquoting then shot that down. He said proven in court in 70 days and you damn well knew it when you mendaciously misquoted. 

I thought you were supposed to be a PhD economist, but you outed yourself by saying you're a J.D. which means you're a lawyer. As a lawyer you know exactly how slow the wheels of justice turn. 70 days is light speed for courts. 

I have explained my academic background several times in detail. Not my problem if you can't keep up. But I will point out that I am not a lawyer, I have never practiced law.

In an ultra high priority issue such as the election the court will drop everything and all resources allocated appropriately. 70 days is plenty of time for a court to make a finding in such a case. The Supreme Court took one day to decide Bush v. Gore.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

If a tree falls down in the forest and no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound? 

If voter fraud occurred and no one investigates, was a crime committed? 

The person in charge of investigating voter fraud for the DOJ just made a very public resignation. There is evidence that person (a Deep State operative if there ever was one) refused to investigate voter fraud when the evidence was piled on his desk! Because "tradition". Read his resignation letter, he incriminated himself. 

I'd love to read his resignation letter, but I could not find the full text anywhere.  I was only able to find Barr's letter (you'll have to scroll down to find it):

Bill Barr's Letter to the Justice Department

Do you have a link to or a copy of Richard Pilger's resignation letter?  If so, please share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Wombat said:

Yes, you said it, like most academics you are very narrow-minded indeeeeeeed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I prefer to describe it as highly defined with rigorous constraints. Not loosey goosey all over the place with undefined mental shamblings. ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

16 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

I'd love to read his resignation letter, but I could not find the full text anywhere.  I was only able to find Barr's letter (you'll have to scroll down to find it):

Bill Barr's Letter to the Justice Department

Do you have a link to or a copy of Richard Pilger's resignation letter?  If so, please share.

Pilger was a central figure in the IRS scandals targeting Tea Party/Conservative groups. The IRS commissioner stood down and took the 5th amendment to avoid prosecution.

Apparently this DOJ investigation has some legs, what a day in America.

 

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

If a tree falls down in the forest and no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound? 

If voter fraud occurred and no one investigates, was a crime committed? 

The person in charge of investigating voter fraud for the DOJ just made a very public resignation. There is evidence that person (a Deep State operative if there ever was one) refused to investigate voter fraud when the evidence was piled on his desk! Because "tradition". Read his resignation letter, he incriminated himself. 

That tradition is called state's rights and the US Constitution. (a couple things I am sure you don't care about)

A cornerstone of who and what we are as a nation is that the federal gov't leaves voting issues up to the states and only intervenes if absolutely necessary. 

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Pilger was a central figure in the IRS scandals targeting Tea Party/Conservative groups. The IRS commissioner stood down and took the 5th amendment to avoid prosecution.

Apparently this DOJ investigation has some legs, what a day in America.

 

It is exciting.  I want investigations where necessary.  I want to know the truth.  I can accept either Trump or Biden as winner.  The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round.  Just let us smell the truth from time to time.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.