‘Prepare for war’: A local GOP official goes all-in with election conspiracy theories

[Dashinka 24,736]

6 minutes ago, laylalex said:

If true, this should be exposed. Both Chinese donations and money going from non-profits to politicians.

I don’t think the Chinese are simply cutting a check, they use people like Swalwell’s girlfriend and route the money in as complicated a way as possible.  Like I said, DC is a swamp, and it is not just the elected politicos.

[laylalex 7,300]

9 minutes ago, moxy said:

Nice. Trust fund?

Some of it is in trust, yes, and some of it I own and manage directly. I listened to my father when he told me to get a prenup when I married my first husband. I thought it wasn't very romantic, but both our parents pushed for it. I guess I did well out of it, and I also have some good people managing my money and property for me. When I got remarried, we did a prenup (he did NOT do one with his ex, and that bit him on the rear in the way he'd structured his property ownership) and we agreed to keep most of our earnings during the marriage our own separate property. I don't need his financial support and vice versa, and we keep joint accounts mostly for bill paying. And he owns property in the UK through a trust which we wanted to make sure I didn't get a right to own, just to live in during my lifetime if he passes away before me.

 

I got a Christmas tower of treats yesterday from my estate planning lawyer so I must be giving them enough business!  

[moxy 1,051]

3 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Some of it is in trust, yes, and some of it I own and manage directly. I listened to my father when he told me to get a prenup when I married my first husband. I thought it wasn't very romantic, but both our parents pushed for it. I guess I did well out of it, and I also have some good people managing my money and property for me. When I got remarried, we did a prenup (he did NOT do one with his ex, and that bit him on the rear in the way he'd structured his property ownership) and we agreed to keep most of our earnings during the marriage our own separate property. I don't need his financial support and vice versa, and we keep joint accounts mostly for bill paying. And he owns property in the UK through a trust which we wanted to make sure I didn't get a right to own, just to live in during my lifetime if he passes away before me.

 

I got a Christmas tower of treats yesterday from my estate planning lawyer so I must be giving them enough business!  

Very cool, and nice of you to answer. I was just being friendly/snarky, didn't expect an answer.

 

I spent 3 years in the UK in the 90s. Loved it, wish I could afford to live there.

[laylalex 7,300]

Just now, moxy said:

Very cool, and nice of you to answer. I was just being friendly/snarky, didn't expect an answer.

 

I spent 3 years in the UK in the 90s. Loved it, wish I could afford to live there.

No problem! UK and I have a mixed relationship, I love visiting, and I had a fantastic year abroad there in college. But it's not a good long term location for me. Whenever there are noises at home about moving back, I start hyperventilating.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

This is why I vote against incumbency.  Congress is not going to pass any laws to hurt their gravy train.  They should also have laws about hiring family members for campaigns, and setting up non-profits run by family, but that is not going to happen either.  DC is a swamp plain and simple, but people seem satisfied with this according to many and how they vote.

Also, where people generally should be having sirens go off is if they're saying Congress should save them from their own choices. As they often do for "reforms" such as campaign finance, "student loan forgiveness" and so on. I absolutely will not compromise on issues like that when people clearly refuse to address and accept responsibility for the actual, underlying problems.. them.

 

On incumbency, I've always known better than to listen to party fanatics tell me, an independent, every time I vote for a third party or write-in candidate that I'm throwing my vote away, that's their own insecurity speaking, and I know that this insecurity seeks to validate itself specifically by convincing others to join in. Sociopolitical cancer.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[moxy 1,051]

12 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

On incumbency, I've always known better than to listen to party fanatics tell me, an independent, every time I vote for a third party or write-in candidate that I'm throwing my vote away, that's their own insecurity speaking, and I know that this insecurity seeks to validate itself specifically by convincing others to join in. Sociopolitical cancer.

In our current system, voting third party IS throwing your vote away. The electoral system was basically designed for a two party system. Get rid of the electoral system and your vote will always count, no matter who you vote for, and then we can break the chains of a two party system.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

15 minutes ago, moxy said:

In our current system, voting third party IS throwing your vote away. The electoral system was basically designed for a two party system. Get rid of the electoral system and your vote will always count, no matter who you vote for, and then we can break the chains of a two party system.

A good attempt to try and pull me toward an issue and conclusion of your preference but that's only partially true. The number of parties was not set in stone, that is what one would call "design" and "intent". And while over time the two parties have had increasing control over the election system to disenfranchise third parties and write-ins from funding and participation, this has nothing at all to do with the electoral college, the college did not decide these things and do not decide it, these problems were created legislatively and administratively on the federal and local levels. Instead, it's precisely to do with people allowing parties to reduce their choices with wonderful ideas just like those mentioned in my prior post. And there's no compromising with that until people at minimum address and accept responsibility for the underlying problem.. them.

[nykolos 711]

3 hours ago, moxy said:

Russian collusion happened. Ukrainian "do me a favor" happened. 

  Really?

 

That's clearly NOT what the Mueller report found,  and if you want to interpret "do me a favor" as a crime,  then a fair minded person like yourself should be all over the Hunter Biden laptop emails,  where Joe Biden traveled across the world with his son, and used him to sell political influence in both Ukraine and China for personal PROFIT,   Unlike Russian collusion, there is actual physical and first hand evidence that this is what happened.

 

I'm willing to bet that Hunter was sweating it out big time on election day,  Hunter has nothing to worry about though, now that Daddy will be President and will end up pardoning his crackhead son when he's looking at 10 years in Federal prison for tax evasion. As for selling out America, Democrats can do that, why? because their Democrats and they have the backing of the left wing media to make excuses for them.

Edited December 18, 2020 by nykolos

[nykolos 711]

2 hours ago, laylalex said:

Trying to get around the language filter is a no no, btw. 

Did I spell out a word incorrectly?, sometimes I connect images with names and it just comes out that way. 

[moxy 1,051]

28 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

A good attempt to try and pull me toward an issue and conclusion of your preference but that's only partially true. The number of parties was not set in stone, that is what one would call "design" and "intent". And while over time the two parties have had increasing control over the election system to disenfranchise third parties and write-ins from funding and participation, this has nothing at all to do with the electoral college, the college did not decide these things and do not decide it, these problems were created legislatively and administratively on the federal and local levels. Instead, it's precisely to do with people allowing parties to reduce their choices with wonderful ideas just like those mentioned in my prior post. And there's no compromising with that until people at minimum address and accept responsibility for the underlying problem.. them.

Honestly, feel free to dial it back. I'm not trying to pull you toward any conclusions. You're an adult, I expect you can form your own conclusions. I'm sharing my own conclusions.

 

I understand the number of parties wasn't set in stone. In fact, there's nothing in the Constitution about two parties, and the founders were actually very unfriendly towards the idea of any parties. But the electoral system is by nature geared to a two party system. That's why you're "throwing your vote away" when you vote third party. The electoral college is winner take all per state. Third parties do not survive in that kind of squeeze. (I don't say "throwing away your vote" as a judgment, I say it as way of explanation that third parties do not thrive in the electoral college system. We have 200 years of data to show that)

 

You and I agree that people need to take responsibility for our political system. But it sure would be a lot easier to throw down the electoral college shackles. "One person, one vote" should mean something.

 

 

[moxy 1,051]

6 minutes ago, nykolos said:

  Really?

Really.

[nykolos 711]

Just now, moxy said:

Really.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

24 minutes ago, moxy said:

Honestly, feel free to dial it back. I'm not trying to pull you toward any conclusions. You're an adult, I expect you can form your own conclusions. I'm sharing my own conclusions.

 

I understand the number of parties wasn't set in stone. In fact, there's nothing in the Constitution about two parties, and the founders were actually very unfriendly towards the idea of any parties. But the electoral system is by nature geared to a two party system. That's why you're "throwing your vote away" when you vote third party. The electoral college is winner take all per state. Third parties do not survive in that kind of squeeze. (I don't say "throwing away your vote" as a judgment, I say it as way of explanation that third parties do not thrive in the electoral college system. We have 200 years of data to show that)

 

You and I agree that people need to take responsibility for our political system. But it sure would be a lot easier to throw down the electoral college shackles. "One person, one vote" should mean something.

 

 

That's like saying me as a white person, by nature, am geared to a white blonde haired blue eyed woman, by virtue of how one looks at prior decisions made by others. And that because I married a Canadian woman who doesn't have any of the other described features, I wasted my choice (vote). This is how people who are making a "social" choice attempt to validate their own wasteful choices (you wasted it by delegating it to others beyond your individual choice), by projecting it upon others, and the only validation for that is, like a ponzi scheme, to bring in as many other suckers as possible. In religion, it's the exact same thing. People have a social comfort, the more people that they get on board, the more it validates that belief, which is why after these thousands of years when western society finally had the sense to look inward and address that cognitive dissonance rather than throw a rug over it, it led to actual revolutionary change.

 

Anyways, the point is, and trust me, I'm glad we agree on that, most assuredly, one is not throwing their vote away by using their individual vote to vote as an individual with individual criteria. The suggestion that one instead utilize a "social" criteria is precisely a waste, one designed to usurp individual choices. And we see who that benefits, over and over and over. It's unfortunate you can't see that but I've spent my entire adult life dealing with this. I'm not under the impression now that I'm suddenly going to make people understand. I just can only hope one day that people can actually address that cognitive dissonance, they see themselves doing the same action over and over, the same results, and they want to do something differently. It's not like voting for someone without respect to party is really that difficult of a thing to do, people just make it seem like it is, and that's the design of social pressure on our psyche.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[laylalex 7,300]

Well, my husband married me and I'm a strawberry blonde, green-eyed woman, and some people think he wasted his choice. When it comes to voting, at least his third party (Liberal Democrats) are a viable party in the UK and it's not a throwaway vote.

[Ban Hammer 13,489]

1 hour ago, moxy said:

 "One person, one vote" should mean something.

 

yes, it means tyranny by majority to me - and the lesser populated states would be relegated to total insignificance. 

you know quite well why our country has the electoral college.
imo one of the worst things to happen to our constitution was the 17th amendment.