Dan Warnick

U.S. Presidential Elections Status - Electoral Votes

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Too bad, chum.  I tell it as I see it.  You have not had to suffer under the indignities of this clown over the last year.  I call him out. 

indignities? over the last year? what are you babbling about. Your post says it all you should be kicked off this site.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sling insults get down arrows, simple  What suffering! 

Ego really that delicate?  I'll give you up-votes to make you feel better.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

Perhaps he was immune at the time.

You chaps, however, are not immune...  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition#United_States

Hey, pal, stay in Canada and go worry about your own problems, including Ford and Trudeau. You have no clue.  From your won link:

"On 28 March 2010, nine members of the Hutaree Christian Patriot militia were arrested and charged with crimes including seditious conspiracy.[65] In August 2012, U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts dismissed all serious charges against the remaining defendants, including sedition, and rebuked prosecutors for bringing the case."

The idea that criticizing the Senate for running a charade, which they did, on these pages are going to be viewed as "sedition" is just laughable.  It demonstrates that you are hopelessly in some altered mental state. 

  • Great Response! 3
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Symmetry said:

Sling insults get down arrows, simple  What suffering! 

Ego really that delicate?  I'll give you up-votes to make you feel better.

Be sure you do that, chum. 

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, notsonice said:

you should be kicked off this site.

So go complain to the Oilprice owner. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

14 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

The idea that criticizing the Senate for running a charade, which they did, on these pages are going to be viewed as "sedition" is just laughable.

"It's only wrong if you get caught, charged and convicted" mentality.

Morality versus legality and technicalities.  I think Trump did something wrong and should be called out for it, by whatever means possible, despite the odds of success. 

Seven Republicans agreed - that itself shows merit.

Edited by Symmetry
  • Rolling Eye 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

"It's only wrong if you get caught, charged and convicted" mentality.

Morality versus legality and technicalities.  I think Trump did something wrong and should be called out for it, by whatever means possible, despite the odds of success. 

Seven Republicans agreed - that itself shows merit.

Ahh a moment of truth in the passion of conviction, fortunately the US constitution was written and adhered to for over the past 200yrs. Amendments and change have been administered 27 times over the course of those yrs.

It should be noted that those changes were accomplished and reviewed by the US congressional body along with the oversight of the US supreme ct. They are not subject to interpretation by any chemically imbalanced on line personality?

While Cosmic Back Round Noise is a phenomenon that may well influence a chosen few, even in the great white north howling at the moon is restricted to wilderness. Where the tree's are abundant and a open conversation's can be had with little or no impunity...Civilized societies to this day frown up such occurrence's along with intrusions of delusional self moderation..self worth or self appointed intellectualism..."Such Is Life" does come to mind.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2021 at 4:28 PM, LiamP said:

Why do the defence lawyers keep going on about due process? Correct me if I'm wrong, that is a constitutional protection against the power of law when someone's life and liberty are at stake in an actual criminal case. I.e. if you might lock someone up or even kill them, there needs to be a very high standard of procedures and proof to convict, and due process is one of the means of achieving that.

Impeachment, on the other hand, is really a glorified employment disciplinary hearing to determine if someone should be fired and, potentially, never re-employed again. He's not in a court. Senators act as jurors, but in a real trial literally all of them would not be allowed to be jurors due to bias, the outcome is by vote and the 'judge' has almost no power. This isn't a criminal trial, his life and liberty is not at stake. How can due process be relevant?

Is it just lawyers being lawyers and forgetting they're not in court?

If it is a legal proceeding then it has to proceed by a legal process. It did not. Hence no action was legitimate and the entire process was illegal. Which is what Obama will argue when put  in the same position, and would then go the Supreme Court and be told that he is right, thus establishing that the impeachment of Trump was illegal too. 

  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, notsonice said:

indignities? over the last year? what are you babbling about. Your post says it all you should be kicked off this site.

Says the sock puppet for Enthalpic, this is rich

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the patriots dot win website a normal voter who has been red-pilled by this election.

Quote

Preaching to the choir I know, but after listening to Mitch's little condescending talk yesterday, anyone else sick of hearing that it's Trump's fault we believe there was voter fraud. Its so insulting and untrue. Yes I voted for Trump (for the first time this election) and like all people who take the time to cast a vote I hoped that my pick would win. BUT (besides Trump actually winning this election) I've never I'm my history of voting ended up picking the ultimate winner, and I have ALWAYS been ok with that. In fact, I wasn't very invested in him winning, having only began to shifting my opinion to vote for Trump right before the election, and if anything I would have been considered a "reluctant" not "cult" Trump voter.

I know there was voter fraud because i stayed up to watch the election. I saw how weird they were calling / not calling states, that as things were looking like he was going to have it in the bag everything stopper, including weird excuses like the GA water leak hoax, that miraculously Biden got huge dumps of votes in the middle of the night and took the lead. I thought this was all suspect, but hey there could be a good reason, and I truly had an open mind about it. In fact, I wanted to lose if that meant that there was an innocent explanation, because having free and fair elections is more important than short turm victories in my mind.

But instead of answers I only found more questions... and witnesses, numerical irregularities, courts who would not hear the cases or look at evidence, as election officials who simply refused to heed senate subpoena, extreme social media censorship, treats and violence to lawyers, whistles blowers, voting integrity experts, gaslighting, non-audits that the media spammed us ignoring when they were debunked, and even forbidden words on youtube!

Y'all, even if trump never spoke a work about the stolen election, even if he conceded immediately, I still would believe that the most reasonable conclusion given the facts I've seen, (and wish were untrue) is that our sacred right to vote and elect our leaders has been compromised. No social media censorship, biased news reporting, rejected court cases count based on standing not merritt, or assurance from someone who would face charges if caught, will change that. I'm glad that trump never conceded to the fraudulent election, but with or without trump fighting for election integrity, we will be.

Frankly, many of the experts exposing these horrific fraud crimes were not Trump voters or republicans. I wonder if America isn't as divided as the some would like us to believe. I for one am optimistic that a huge bipartisan force for free and fair and transparent elections is growing too strong to be denied. America will not be gas lit into extinction.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ward Smith said:
16 hours ago, notsonice said:

indignities? over the last year? what are you babbling about. Your post says it all you should be kicked off this site.

Says the sock puppet for Enthalpic, this is rich

This seems to be a good place to post the next article by Glenn Greenwald, considering how NSN/Enthalpic/TakeYourPick belongs to the subject "class", that class being the Jr. High School class.

Demanding Silicon Valley Suppress “Hyper-Partisan Sites” in Favor of “Mainstream News” (The NYT) is a Fraud

(This one's not TOO long, so I'll post it in its entirety)

Demanding Silicon Valley Suppress “Hyper-Partisan Sites” in Favor of “Mainstream News” (The NYT) is a Fraud

The corporate news organizations masquerading as reliable and non-partisan are, in fact, as hyper-partisan as any sites on the internet, and spread as much misinformation.

https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-43
Nov 25, 2020 415 196  
 

The most prolific activism demanding more Silicon Valley censorship is found in the nation’s largest news outlets: the media reporters of CNN, the “disinformation” unit of NBC News, and especially the tech reporters of The New York Times. That is where the most aggressive and sustained pro-internet-censorship campaigns are waged.

https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-43

 

Due in part to a self-interested desire to re-establish their monopoly on discourse by crushing any independent or dissenting voices, and in part by a censorious and arrogant mindset which convinces them that only those of their worldview and pedigree have a right to be heard, they largely devote themselves to complaining that Facebook, Google and Twitter are not suppressing enough speech. It is hall-monitor tattletale whining masquerading as journalism: petulantly complaining that tech platforms are permitting speech that, in their view, ought instead be silenced.

Subscribe
 
 

In Tuesday’s New York Times, three of those censorious tech reporters — Kevin Roose, Mike Isaac, and Sheera Frenkel — published an article on Facebook’s post-election deliberations over how to alter its algorithms to prevent the spread of what they deem “misinformation” regarding the election. The most consequential change they implemented, The New York Times explained, was one in which “hyperpartisan pages” are repressed in favor of promoting “a spike in visibility for big, mainstream publishers like CNN, The New York Times and NPR” — a change the Paper of Record heralded as having fostered “a calmer, less divisive Facebook.”

More alarmingly, the NYT suggested (i.e., prayed) that these changes, designed by Facebook as an election-related emergency measure, would instead become permanent. Marvel at these two paragraphs and all of tenuous and self-serving assumptions buried in them:

https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-43 New York Times article, “Facebook Struggles to Balance Civility and Growth,” Nov. 24, 2020

The conceit that outlets like The New York Times, CNN and NPR are the alternatives to “hyper-partisan pages” is one you would be eager to believe, or at least want to induce others to believe, if you were a tech reporter at The New York Times, furious and hurt that millions upon millions of people would rather hear other voices than your own, and simply do not trust what you tell them. Inducing Facebook to manipulate the algorithmic underbelly of social media to artificially force your content down the throats of citizens who prefer to avoid it, while rendering your critics’ speech invisible — all in the name of reducing “hyper-partisanship,” “divisiveness,” and “misinformation” — is of course a highly desirable outcome for mainstream outlets like the NYT.

The problem with this claim is that it’s a complete and utter fraud, one that is easily demonstrated as such. There are few sites more “hyper-partisan” than the three outlets which the NYT applauded Facebook for promoting. In the 2020 election, over 70 million Americans — close to half of the voting population — voted for Donald Trump, yet not one of them is employed by the op-ed page of the “non-partisan” New York Times and are almost never heard on NPR or CNN. That’s because those news outlets, by design, are pro-Democratic-Party organs, who speak overwhelmingly to Democratic readers and viewers.

It is hard to get more partisan than the news outlets which the NYT tech reporters, and apparently Facebook, consider to be the alternatives to “hyper-partisan” discourse. In April, Pew Research asked Americans which outlet is their primary source of news, and the polling firm found that the audiences of NPR, CNN and especially The New York Times are overwhelmingly Democrats, in some cases almost entirely so:

https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-43

As Pew put it: “about nine-in-ten of those who name The New York Times (91%) and NPR (87%) as their main political news source identify as Democrats, with CNN at about eight-in-ten (79%).” These outlets speak to Democrats, are built for Democrats, and produce news content designed to be pleasing and affirming to Democrats — so they keep watching and buying. One can say many things about these news outlets, but the idea that they are the alternatives to “hyper-partisan pages” is the exact opposite of the truth: it is difficult to find more hyper-partisan organs than these.

Then there is the question of who does and does not spread “misinformation.” It is rather astonishing that the news outlets that did more than anyone to convince Americans to believe the most destructive misinformation of this generation: that Saddam had WMDs and was in an alliance with Al Qaeda — The New York Times, The Atlantic, NBC and The New Yorker — have the audacity to prance around as the bulwarks against misinformation rather than what they are: the primary purveyors of it.

Over the last four years, they devoted themselves to the ultimate deranged, mangled conspiracy theory: that the Kremlin had infiltrated the U.S. and was clandestinely controlling the levers of American power through some combination of sexual and financial blackmail. The endless pursuit of that twisted conspiracy led them to produce one article after the next that spread utter falsehoods, embraced reckless journalism and fostered humiliating debacles. The only thing more absurd than these hyper-partisan, reckless outlets posturing as the alternatives to hyper-partisanship is them insisting that they’re the only safeguards against misinformation.

Note how insidiously creepy is The New York Times’ description of a censored, regulated internet. They call it “a vision of what a calmer, less divisive Facebook might look like,” and claim an unnamed Facebook employee described it as “a nicer news feed.”

Yes, discourse that is centralized and regulated, where no dissent is tolerated, where alternative voices are silenced, is always “calmer” and “less divisive.” That’s always the core goal of censorsing speech and ideas: to eliminate “divisiveness” and to pacify the population (“calmer” and “nicer”). That is always the result when orthodoxies imposed downward from the most powerful institutions of authority can no longer be meaningfully challenged.

The censorious mentality being peddled with increasing aggression is always chilling and dangerous. That it is media outlets — which ought to be the most vocal champions of free discourse — instead taking the lead in begging and pressuring Silicon Valley to censure the internet more and more is warped beyond belief. The internet should be free and left alone, especially by those with their record of deceit and propaganda.

Indeed, if we are to have it an internet controlled from above by unseen tech overlords in the name of eliminating “hyper-partisanship” and “disinformation” and fostering a “calmer” and “nicer” population, the sites now being artificially and manipulatively promoted are the absolute last ones who can credibly claim entitlement to that benefit.


I have an interview today on the dangers of online censorship with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, now President of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which, with an accompanying article, is now here.

  • Great Response! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Would you like to have your eyes opened?  Take 30 minutes or so and listen:

 

Edited by Dan Warnick
40 minutes to 30
  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will post the following video over on the Covid-19 Vaccines thread, since the title would normally drive one to think that's where it belongs, but I'm posting it here in line with the immediately previous discussion on this thread about freedoms of speech and expression, censorship and the roles of both Big Tech and the government, whichever government you call your own.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that our "friends" over at The Lincoln Project, one of the most hideously misnamed groups to come along in recent years, are breaking up.  There is also a good presentation regarding the support of the Biden campaign from the Cuomo organization, which did not get the payback from the Biden administration that it so richly deserved, for Cuomo personally at least.  Tucker in particular, and Fox News generally, may be the current targets of the "cancel culture" but he/they still lay it out there when and where they can.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2021 at 12:01 PM, Gerry Maddoux said:

As Mr. Warnick has shown above, our own people, dully elected to the United States House of Representatives, under oath to obey the rules and guidelines inherent in the Constitution of the United States, have become so overwhelmed by partisan politics and hatred of Mr. Trump, and so falsely protected by the "dome" of Congress, that they've been allowed to present falsified data to a kangaroo court whereby one senator is both judge and a member of the jury. One has to suspect that if a true judge--say the one mandated by the Constitution, the Chief Justice of the highest court in the land, Justice Roberts--were presiding over this august body, he would have sharply reprimanded the House impeachment managers for their nefarious, somewhat seditious intent. In a real court of law, for instance, these guys would probably be behind bars or at least severely sanctioned, and also subjected to an argument for disbarment. That didn't happen because we had an eighty-year-old, frail, (very likely cognitively-challenged) partisan Senate president pro tempore presiding--so very frail and likely scared pootless that he had to be hospitalized when he was being sworn in. This false judge is also a member of the jury, and had reached a decision before the trial began. YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS UP! 

 

You are making the grave error of thinking this is unusual or extreme behavior by the Dem leadership. It is not an extreme. It is what they do as a matter of course and have done for a century. The difference now is that they are so sloppy at it and it is so easy to find someone on alt. media to point it out now that MSM has shifted from pushing propaganda to actively hiding the truth so that most people are getting info from the peripheral media that is being censored.

This nefarious behavior is also taking place in courts across the land, particularly in Federal courts. Fabricated crimes, fabricated evidence, blackmailed judges and clerks on an external payroll. The entire Dem preparation for the election had officials writing illegal rules and consent decrees about things far outside their authority. The people within these operations know they are protected at the municipal, state and Federal levels, where either prosecutors (AGs), investigators, or judges, and even opposing majority leaders in legislatures are blackmailed bullied or bought off to come onside. , .

The corruption is prevalent. Not the exception but the rule. As the Q posts say, if they cleaned out all the criminals out of government they would only have 25-30% of positions left functioning. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

It appears that our "friends" over at The Lincoln Project, one of the most hideously misnamed groups to come along in recent years, are breaking up. 

 

They accomplished what they wanted, no reason to carry on. 

Feel free to continue campaigning for Trump even though the election is over. 

  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patrick Byrne on Telegram

About a week ago I published some preliminary numbers regarding vote slipping, prepared by some very deep diving dolphin-speakers. They had only located, analyzed, And reconstructed about 18 of them at the time. They had found just short of 300,000 votes flipped. Now they have worked further through the data, and they have locked down what 85 case, for over 2 million votes. They are most of the way but not yet completely all the way through the data, so this may increase a little more.

https://t.me/PatrickMByrne/100

 

Record of vote flipping work allocation among countries participating in the coup by election fraud. The IP addresses may have been faked by the likes of China and Russia who are known to produce virtual IP machines with fake signatures. 

There is far more than this across the country, about 7 mil in total as leaked by NSA. Joined with ballots from 13 mil fake ballots without voter registrations nationwide, 370k in GA alone.  That is without considering that there is a significant slug of fake voter registrations on the order of 10 mil. This is about double the size of the Hillary fake vote addition that didn't get her the slot in 2016.  

image.thumb.png.7b89fdef9bd41b0a59cdcc7f6f858b6e.png

The solution is to immediately recall by petition all those "unusually" elected in the last two election cycles. That should clean out most Dem governors and many mayors, 30-40 Congress reps and more than a handful of Dem Senators, as they had no majorities so would show more signatures recalling them than people that have "voted" for them. If they don't resign in response, then special elections would follow. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

As the Q posts say, if they cleaned out all the criminals out of government they would only have 25-30% of positions left functioning. 

Simple solution, stop seeking out and reading that trash.  You believe far too much of what you read on the internet.   Highly susceptible to conspiracy theories and paranoia.

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

The solution is to immediately recall by petition all those "unusually" elected in the last two election cycles. That should clean out most Dem governors and many mayors, 30-40 Congress reps and more than a handful of Dem Senators, as they had no majorities so would show more signatures recalling them than people that have "voted" for them. If they don't resign in response, then special elections would follow. 

Two election cycles?  Oh and only Democrats? Haha!   "Eliminate the opposition, re-run elections until we get elected!"

 

You are a criminal. 

Edited by Symmetry
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

Two election cycles?  Oh and only Democrats? Haha!   "Eliminate the opposition, re-run elections until we get elected!"

 

You are a criminal. 

I focus on Dems, but there are a few Reps that were fraudulently elected as well, but the main role of fraud in Rep led races are at the primary level where "appointed" candidates are selected by electoral fraud rather than an actual vote count. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Symmetry said:

Seven Republicans agreed - that itself shows merit.

That shows that they are no kind of Republican I know. Republicans don't participate in illegal proceedings and don't convict on fake evidence.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Symmetry said:

Two election cycles?  Oh and only Democrats? Haha!   "Eliminate the opposition, re-run elections until we get elected!"

 

You are a criminal. 

Recall petitions are legal. Electoral fraud is not.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

Recall petitions are legal. Electoral fraud is not.

Correct.

Start the legal recall petition processes if you want; but be honest, you are not actually going to do that.

 

Edited by Symmetry
  • Downvote 1

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.