MXS Twitter

[TeamHavocRacing]

It must be pretty disappointing that JLV isn't just another part of the rabble that will easily roll over and sin by silence, let alone condone or turn a blind eye to blatant Nazi-esque messaging and behavior. "There's fine folks on both sides." How about flatly denying to condemn white sumpremists? You all for that too Mason? Refuse to condemn it here too.

[TeamHavocRacing]

Are you having a bad day because Tickle replaced Hill on MCR?

This is gold right here. Talk about crapping themselves. Hill is just fine. He'll land on his feet, like always. Maybe even break a toe or two.

...would Havoc admit was actually good for our country... You could argue (and I'm sure Havoc would) that this are effectively crapping himself...these major city cesspools... ...simply stating 306-232 as a certified result is down right wrong... ...at the end of the day Trump is an American citizen(Russian agent)...some right wing nut job Trumpeteer as Havoc would like to believe I am....I will have a different tune.

After going back and reading back everything(HILARIOUS!), I only have one question. The question I have is... Who's squatting in whose brain now? I didn't quote every mention you gave me(a dozen maybe), but thanks for blowing me up. Sweet dreams!

[m121c]

So you would happily watch Trump disenfranchise 1.2 million in Michigan because a poll watcher felt intimidated by a big black man's presence? He's not asking to remove fraudulent votes because he hasn't found a single fraudulent vote. He's asking for mass disenfranchisement over nonsense. I can't get over how quickly Trump has degraded the Republican party to the point where we support banana republic BS like that.

Pretty good article on Trump's lawsuits here BTW. Here's a quote relevant to your comments:

"Moreover, election practices need to be carefully examined prior to the next election. Rules cannot be changed at or near the time of voting. If mail-in voting is a bad idea (I think it is), and if voter-identification and vote-tabulation procedures should be tightened up (I’m all for that), the time to do that is before an election happens. It was state laws that permitted the procedures under which the 2020 election took place — state laws that the Republicans, right now, are asking the Supreme Court to rule can’t be changed close to an election. It is too late at this point to claim that the rules were too lax, even if they were."

I read your linked article. I can concede to the idea that is wrong the Trump campaign is trying to take advantage of the circumstances to widely disenfranchise whole lumps of votes. However, the legal process is still not a threat to democracy. It is playing out as it should. If one side is trying to discount lumps of votes based on the legality of some of those votes, and the courts feel that is disenfranchising votes; it is being shut down. Again, you won't see me going out and rioting, that is also not something I would want to see.

I want to be clear as it seems to me there are assumptions being made as to my viewpoint, I am okay with pursuing legal options to: 1) Get answers to the various irregularities that transpired on and after election day. 2) To ensure every legal vote is counted and the identification thereof can be verified. 3) Investigations to the various allegations that have been made to ensure confidence in the elections practices.

"If it could be established that procedures in the big cities were so lax that large-scale fraud probably occurred, the Trump campaign would, at most, get an opportunity to scrutinize ballots to show individual instances of fraud or other impropriety. That is, the remedy would be surgical."

If after scrutiny the mail ins prevail for Biden (or Trump in the case of AZ).. then so be it. I'm not wanting this legal battle to prevail for Trump, I am wanting this legal process to prevail for Americans like me, who are sitting here scratching our heads at a complete shit show that is the election. So to answer Puma's questions: no the quality of the vote does not depend on the side I support. With allegations of back dating ballots within the USPS system... I wonder how we can do a surgical audit. I do not want to see any vote disenfranchised, but IF allegations hold to be true, how do we ensure that the law abiding votes are not effectively diluted with these potential fraudulent votes?

I agree with this: "Rules cannot be changed at or near the time of voting. If.... vote-tabulation procedures should be tightened up (I’m all for that), the time to do that is before an election happens."

The rules were changed and heavily debated right up to the election in many states. It was not a surprise to literally anyone this election was not going to be like any other with our current situation. I would argue those laws didn't get their time to be thoroughly scrutinized. Is that okay with you? If it is, at what point would it not be okay? I see that being a potentially dangerous standard moving forward. Democrats seemingly have a problem rushing a SCOUTS appointment, yet seem to have no problem rushing election laws in the eleventh hour in PA.

Is it wrong to challenge these laws against the constitution after the fact? If hypothetically those laws do not hold up to the constitution, is it disenfranchising the votes cast under those laws, simply because that was the law in that moment? My line of thinking is if the law is found to be unconstitutional than the those votes are unconstitutional. I'm open to a counter viewpoint though. Take the highly political aspect of who the candidates are for a moment.

[m121c]

It must be pretty disappointing that JLV isn't just another part of the rabble that will easily roll over and sin by silence, let alone condone or turn a blind eye to blatant Nazi-esque messaging and behavior. "There's fine folks on both sides." How about flatly denying to condemn white sumpremists? You all for that too Mason? Refuse to condemn it here too.

I am not disappointed at all. I enjoy debating alternating viewpoints, I think it's healthy. With that said, I have no respect for you and civility has run it's course long ago. I find it a rather fun game to see how senile you can be. Clearly your Trump derangement syndrome is making this a bit of a one sided and unfair game though... I should stop at some point.

I'll bite the bait on this wild one though. How predictable of you to cherry pick a very out of context quote CNN. I know it's hard for you, but let's not conflate the administrations unwillingness to bow to the far-left biased media machines at every moment with Trump not wanting to condemn white supremacy. Which, by the way, he and his admin have done repeatedly (even did so with your badly out of context quote).

If you need some help understanding that situation here is Politico to help break it down for you: https://www.politifact.com/article/2020 ... rlottesvi/. They have many articles stating the statement needs full context... that's not as convenient though. If you want to debate whether he should of done it sooner you won't get a debate from me, I agree. I am willing to bet you are much quicker to condemn white supremacy than you would of the hateful and Marxist lead BLM and Antifa organizations. I for one, condemn all of them, how about you?

You thinking Trumps behavior as Nazi-esque is no different then the far-right thinking Biden's actions are Nazi-esque. I would really like some substantive response out of you rather than unsubstantiated attacks of me... are you capable of that? If you are going to go on the attack, you should bring some material to the conversation. You keep saying "you are out" yet you repeatedly are coming back and sometimes double posting? Okay dude.

[TeamHavocRacing]

Every post in direct response to you has been full of pertinent subject matter followed by a jab. You finally tried making some valid points, however. I fully condemn destructive rioting, especially when it's anarchists mixing in with peaceful protestors, only to split off and destroy anything they can. Also, to then have local chicken-shit politicians let it go on unabated and unchallenged. That's total BS. I'm all for proper riot control. Not just pepper-spraying those that protest left-leaning causes. I also didn't like what a lame duck Obama was. He didn't politicize everything anywhere near the level your Orange Man has. Nor did he have help from Putin. Notice this is the first time I brought up Trump's puppet master and paymaster. Giving Putin a closed-door meeting without any other administration officials in the room? That alone is treason. I thought the left were supposed to be the commies. The tables have turned. Good luck selling racism and isolationism next election.

[Racers52]

It must be pretty disappointing that JLV isn't just another part of the rabble that will easily roll over and sin by silence, let alone condone or turn a blind eye to blatant Nazi-esque messaging and behavior. "There's fine folks on both sides." How about flatly denying to condemn white sumpremists? You all for that too Mason? Refuse to condemn it here too.

I think what you really meant to say Havoc, is that you are glad jlv showed up so you don't have to write a post that has a real argument.

Also I'm not sure if you know how google works, it might be a little complicated for you possibly, who knows but, regardless I put in just a little bit of effort and here it is.

[TeamHavocRacing]

Extra lolz. I don't need JLV for anything other than this platform(Thanks!) and occasional link to the download. I was refreshed by his non-rabble responses and grievances. Bonus if he gives good arguments against his own side. I've got enough ammo here without any help from a pundit. If you're trying to assert that anyone thinks Trump is sincere when saying anything like that just once, let alone 38 times, then you're also just mindless rabble. If you think he has your back, then you are sorely mistaken. Next?

[jlv]

I read your linked article. I can concede to the idea that is wrong the Trump campaign is trying to take advantage of the circumstances to widely disenfranchise whole lumps of votes. However, the legal process is still not a threat to democracy. It is playing out as it should. If one side is trying to discount lumps of votes based on the legality of some of those votes, and the courts feel that is disenfranchising votes; it is being shut down. Again, you won't see me going out and rioting, that is also not something I would want to see.

I want to be clear as it seems to me there are assumptions being made as to my viewpoint, I am okay with pursuing legal options to: 1) Get answers to the various irregularities that transpired on and after election day. 2) To ensure every legal vote is counted and the identification thereof can be verified. 3) Investigations to the various allegations that have been made to ensure confidence in the elections practices.

"If it could be established that procedures in the big cities were so lax that large-scale fraud probably occurred, the Trump campaign would, at most, get an opportunity to scrutinize ballots to show individual instances of fraud or other impropriety. That is, the remedy would be surgical."

If after scrutiny the mail ins prevail for Biden (or Trump in the case of AZ).. then so be it. I'm not wanting this legal battle to prevail for Trump, I am wanting this legal process to prevail for Americans like me, who are sitting here scratching our heads at a complete shit show that is the election. So to answer Puma's questions: no the quality of the vote does not depend on the side I support. With allegations of back dating ballots within the USPS system... I wonder how we can do a surgical audit. I do not want to see any vote disenfranchised, but IF allegations hold to be true, how do we ensure that the law abiding votes are not effectively diluted with these potential fraudulent votes?

I agree with this: "Rules cannot be changed at or near the time of voting. If.... vote-tabulation procedures should be tightened up (I’m all for that), the time to do that is before an election happens."

The rules were changed and heavily debated right up to the election in many states. It was not a surprise to literally anyone this election was not going to be like any other with our current situation. I would argue those laws didn't get their time to be thoroughly scrutinized. Is that okay with you? If it is, at what point would it not be okay? I see that being a potentially dangerous standard moving forward. Democrats seemingly have a problem rushing a SCOUTS appointment, yet seem to have no problem rushing election laws in the eleventh hour in PA. :|

Is it wrong to challenge these laws against the constitution after the fact? If hypothetically those laws do not hold up to the constitution, is it disenfranchising the votes cast under those laws, simply because that was the law in that moment? My line of thinking is if the law is found to be unconstitutional than the those votes are unconstitutional. I'm open to a counter viewpoint though. Take the highly political aspect of who the candidates are for a moment.

Challenging the late arriving votes in PA is reasonable. But that won't get him anywhere near winning PA so he's going after 680,000 perfectly valid mail-in votes. That's not reasonable. It's like the difference between suing a coffee shop for your money back on some bad coffee vs. suing them for a million dollars because you spilled hot coffee on yourself. You might have the legal right to do both but morally you only have the right to the former.

[m121c]

Every post in direct response to you has been full of pertinent subject matter followed by a jab. You finally tried making some valid points, however. I fully condemn destructive rioting, especially when it's anarchists mixing in with peaceful protestors, only to split off and destroy anything they can. Also, to then have local chicken-shit politicians let it go on unabated and unchallenged. That's total BS. I'm all for proper riot control. Not just pepper-spraying those that protest left-leaning causes. I also didn't like what a lame duck Obama was. He didn't politicize everything anywhere near the level your Orange Man has. Nor did he have help from Putin. Notice this is the first time I brought up Trump's puppet master and paymaster. Giving Putin a closed-door meeting without any other administration officials in the room? That alone is treason. I thought the left were supposed to be the commies. The tables have turned. Good luck selling racism and isolationism next election.

I am glad we can have an agreement involving the riot behavior. Did Trump politicize things or did the media? I think that is an important distinction. I think on the surface yes, Obama well was sharp in both appearance, in action, and in word. A wolf in sheeps clothing if you will. I think there is evidence of this political polarization with what has surfaced from the inner workings of our various top government agencies since then.

Now you started to lose me towards the end. I can agree with you that I highly dislike Trump being to cozy with bad leaders, as I said earlier. However, here is my issue. We should establish standards as to how we and the news evaluate things... in your closed door example. Had it been a Democrat, the news media would be saying there is no such evidence of any treason taking place, and that it was "perfectly normal", then you would have others saying it's all too suspicious and where there is smoke there is fire.

Fast forward to now, we are seeing smoke (probably more Republicans.. but I would imagine the more central Dems have to see it as well) of possible irregularities and fraud in our election systems. News media and the "left" chalk it up to conspiracy and lack of evidence. You see my problem right? We can't change the standards depending on the candidate we like. If we can automatically assume Trump did something nefarious on the grounds it seems suspicious... well why is not okay to assume that Biden was nefarious with China/Ukraine? Why is not okay to assume that maybe our election wasn't as secure as it was let on?

The difference here, is Trump got the investigation into him. Millions of dollars and multiple years of investigation, meanwhile around the clock borderline propaganda thrown at his administration over it. If we want to establish that standard then fine. Let's fire up an investigation into the election (as we are), and let's fire up an investigation into Biden and his families dealings. You are against Russian influence, as am I, yet you seemingly can't agree or notice the wrongful corruption that is right here at home with the MSM, big tech, and the Dems?

Finally your jab. What was the racist and isolationist sell? Please explain.

[m121c]

Challenging the late arriving votes in PA is reasonable. But that won't get him anywhere near winning PA so he's going after 680,000 perfectly valid mail-in votes. That's not reasonable. It's like the difference between suing a coffee shop for your money back on some bad coffee vs. suing them for a million dollars because you spilled hot coffee on yourself. You might have the legal right to do both but morally you only have the right to the former.

That is fair. Does having a significantly smaller rejection rate for mail in ballots this election (in PA), with a significantly higher number of mail ins, make you question the validity of either 1) The processing of the votes or 2) The actual votes themselves? Or is it that not suspicion enough to audit them?

PA aside, what other states does Trump not have a morally right or just reason to challenge?

[TeamHavocRacing]

Our racist president, blowing the dog whistle right at Proud Boys etc. is obvious and overt. Isolating us from our allies while befriending despots as I said before. Got it? How about undermining the election before it got under way? How about completely discrediting the USPS, meddling and sabotaging it's ability to carry out the election efficiently? That is what should be looked into, not the dozens of frivolous and baseless scattershot lawsuits. Amateurish and small handed.

[jlv]

That is fair. Does having a significantly smaller rejection rate for mail in ballots this election (in PA), with a significantly higher number of mail ins, make you question the validity of either 1) The processing of the votes or 2) The actual votes themselves? Or is it that not suspicion enough to audit them?

PA aside, what other states does Trump not have a morally right or just reason to challenge?

I'd say he has a right to audit everywhere if he wants to. If you do a good audit I'd be surprised if more than .01% is fraudulent. Look at Florida in 2000. The Democrats had to "find" 500 votes to win and couldn't do it. Out of the 5.8 million votes that's .009% and they couldn't pull it off.

I'm not saying the Democrats are honest and trustworthy. What I'm saying is Biden won well beyond the margin of fraud. That's why instead of asking for audits Trump is going for an outright theft here by asking to eliminate hundreds of thousands of valid votes. It'll be interesting to see if he's too cheap to pay for the Wisconsin recount tomorrow. He'll probably not bother and figure the rubes won't notice.

[m121c]

[quote=m121c post_id=887329 time=<a href="tel:1605632144">1605632144</a> user_id=4369]
I'd say he has a right to audit everywhere if he wants to. If you do a good audit I'd be surprised if more than .01% is fraudulent. Look at Florida in 2000. The Democrats had to "find" 500 votes to win and couldn't do it. Out of the 5.8 million votes that's .009% and they couldn't pull it off.

I'm not saying the Democrats are honest and trustworthy. What I'm saying is Biden won well beyond the margin of fraud. That's why instead of asking for audits Trump is going for an outright theft here by asking to eliminate hundreds of thousands of valid votes. It'll be interesting to see if he's too cheap to pay for the Wisconsin recount tomorrow. He'll probably not bother and figure the rubes won't notice.

I think in a normal time, with a normal election, and 2 less polarized sides, you would absolutely be right. You still might be right, but with our situation now, the alleged irregularities, and unprecedented laws/election handling from the states, I just can’t agree that there isn’t a possibility for more.

Again, going after valid votes is not what Im for. Im not holding it to Trump as hard because I feel anyone on the losing side in a tight race would also do so. Probably my own bias because I voted that ticket. He can challenge though... the courts will do their thing.

The real troubling part about this is the suspicious handling by many states. Then they get offended that we question it?

[m121c]

I hit submit on accident.

The Carter Center advocated for expansion of mail in voting to US govt. In that same communication, they state, "voting by mail creates increased logistical challenges and the potential for vote fraud, especially if safeguards are lacking or when candidates or political party activists are allowed to handle mail-in or absentee ballots." .

Evidence prior, during, and after election day has show that latter of that statement is very possible to have happened. I think at the very least this has to be looked at.

I think there will hopefully be good things that come out of this. There are millions of Americans that deserve answers, and I think this will also shed a light on possible weak points in our elections that we can look at for the future. Good discussion JLV. I get your points, and have made me think of some of the actions of Trump in another light. Still hasn't swayed me away from the fact the election was a mess and needs an audit across the board regardless if there is no chance at a win for my vote or not.

I will ask this. IF somehow Trump can make case that certain states either 1) implemented unconstitutional election laws 2) irregularities occurred to effectively make a recount useless or 3) There is fraud amongst the legal mail in votes but can not be ensured which is which; and either of these 3 reasons end up getting lumps of votes thrown out. Would you see that as an outright theft?

[m121c]

Our racist president, blowing the dog whistle right at Proud Boys etc. is obvious and overt.

Surely you can come up with a better example of an overt racist then some subjective political spin. Maybe some policy? Directive racist action? I mean there has to be something if it's that pronounced. The only presidential candidate to meet with black celebrity influencers regarding policy on their Platinum Plan for Black Economic Development is overtly racist? Clearly minorities in this country did not fall for the media buzz words... he increased his numbers with minority voters by numerous of points. Is it proof he isn't a racist? No, not necessarily. But you are going to have to try again to make the presumption his campaign was a sell of racism, especially in comparison to the others.

Members apart of woke left and the so called party of inclusion/diversity were tweeting some pretty blatant racist commentary about the minority votes for Trump. The self proclaimed head of the Democrat party, now media projected President-elect, wouldn't meet to discuss action on the Premium Plan for Black Economic Empowerment... much like answering packing the courts, he wanted to push that to the future. Huh.

Isolating us from our allies while befriending despots as I said before. Got it?

Soft in words, tough on action says NPR:
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/20/63065937 ... -on-russia

As far as our allies go, I'm okay with being tougher on them. They don't seem too keen on cozying up to our ideals until it lines their pockets or provides them military protection. You see that as isolationism, I'll agree to disagree on this point.

That is what should be looked into, not the dozens of frivolous and baseless scattershot lawsuits.

You had a good argument with the USPS.. should of stuck with that. However, the USPS (the mode of transportation for the votes) should be the sole focus of what should be looked at??? Come on you are reaching.

But yes, I agree, let's look at the USPS. Should we start with your side, presumably the issue with DeJoy, or should we look at the allegations of back dating late ballots?