MXS Twitter

[TeamHavocRacing]

I understand if you can't bear it, but I implore you to watch this all of the way through so you get an idea of how much there is to unpack. IT'S FUCKING EMBARASSING!!! Those Aussies are fuckin' beauties!

[m121c]

I'm seeing some parallels here....


It's missing something.. Oh ya can't forget your official twitter disclaimer!


Solid argument from you as always Havoc!

[TeamHavocRacing]

Lol! You mad? Twitter finally found their limit. Just because you think hate speech and misinformation should be protected under "free speech" doesn't mean it should be freely distributed on social media. That's what Facebook is for. Zuckerberg has your back there.

[m121c]

Lol! You mad? Twitter finally found their limit. Just because you think hate speech and misinformation should be protected under "free speech" doesn't mean it should be freely distributed on social media. That's what Facebook is for. Zuckerberg has your back there.

Unfortunately on this platform, you can't swing in on Dorsey's cast away beard and have him "disrupt the distribution" of an argument against your own. Seeing how this is going for you with your desperate redirections, I'm not surprised you support censorship.

You are really bad at this.

[Andy_Hack]

The problem nowadays is that certain people think they have the power to force other people to follow their direction simply because of their personal opinion. That however is the problem, they're making their opinion sound like a fact, but at the end of the day it's just an opinion ...and you know what they say about opinions

In other words, no one should have the right or the power to tell anyone else what they're allowed to say and what not. Leftists, Liberals and Democrats seem to forget about that and actually try to censor everything they don't agree with, pathetic if you ask me.

If you like it or not, Trump wasn't a bad president.

[jlv]

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?

If PA passed a law that said white men can't vote I'm sure there'd be a problem with that. But nothing like that happened. Trump lost by a wide enough margin to leave no doubt. If the fraud existed to that extent Trump's lawyers would be showing huge numbers of mismatched signatures on voter rolls instead of making weak complaints about poll watchers. It really hurts the fraud case when you can't show a single example.

If he cared about his party or his country he'd have conceded already. This nonsense could easily cost us the senate. If Trump concedes Loeffler and Perdue get to run against Kamala Harris being the deciding vote on court packing and tax increases. If he continues this, they have to defend what is essentially a coup attempt.

[TeamHavocRacing]

If you like it or not, Trump wasn't a bad president.

What were you just saying about opinions? lol
Mason, concede already. I really have run my course arguing with kids.

[m121c]

Mason, concede already. I really have run my course arguing with kids.

Concede to what? You made no argument, just derangement.

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?

If PA passed a law that said white men can't vote I'm sure there'd be a problem with that. But nothing like that happened. Trump lost by a wide enough margin to leave no doubt. If the fraud existed to that extent Trump's lawyers would be showing huge numbers of mismatched signatures on voter rolls instead of making weak complaints about poll watchers. It really hurts the fraud case when you can't show a single example.

If he cared about his party or his country he'd have conceded already. This nonsense could easily cost us the senate. If Trump concedes Loeffler and Perdue get to run against Kamala Harris being the deciding vote on court packing and tax increases. If he continues this, they have to defend what is essentially a coup attempt.

A coup attempt is a bit of stretch, and you make a compelling argument about the senate, but we will have to just agree to disagree. I don't agree with the premise that we should accept the sshady-ness on the premise that he probably won't win any ways. Hard to prove fraud when you are not given the ability to do so.

The push right now is to stop with the questions and just accept the winner of an election that, at best, had very questionable irregularities and last minute rules, and at worst, has potential large fraud. I can't get onboard with that. I see conceding to be a disservice to our country and the millions that are questioning the integrity of the election.

Dems had 3 years and it took a highly partisan House to get their empty "win". I think 4 weeks is acceptable.

[Pumaxcs]

Its so hard to take this "fraud" claim seriously though when he has been using that excuse for literally every election result since 2012. He builds it up that if he loses, or his side loses it's because of fraud, then he either plays up that his favor overcame all the present fraud and doesn't do anything to fix it or he claims there was fraud as everyone loves him there is no way he could lose fairly and then does nothing about it.

When Romney was running against Obama in 2012, Trump believed the electoral college failed. However, had a much different tune towards them in 2016. Even though he clearly favors the election he still believed he would have won the popular vote then if it wasn't for voter fraud. Then there is also some of the earlier primaries in 2016 when he didn't win some states he blamed the GOP caucus races for being rigged. In around October in the 2016 elections, he made claims that people need to watch out because he was afraid the election may be stolen from them. Now, once again before the election process got underway he was pushing that mail-in voting was purely fraudulent even though for years it hasn't been. Once again, I find it hard to believe that someone who has had this many flip-flops for so long to be a believable person when it comes to certain subjects.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 94082?s=20
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 40864?s=20
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 09664?s=20
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 99424?s=20

There are other examples of him casting doubt on his own internal agencies because they made a statement that didn't align with his and those really bother me. As a federal contractor (I don't know if it's been mentioned yet but I work as a contractor to DISA in cyber-security, nothing that global or related to the subject but it is intrusion detection/protection on both an unclass/class network) hearing him call out these agencies for falsehood feels personal and I'm much more likely to believe the head of the private sector than him because I have a closer working with said sector and knowing how they work, the checks put in place to make sure they are run correctly. Even just recently firing the cybersecurity official Krebs, because he made a statement that they did everything right and they minimized fraud is total horseshit.

[Pumaxcs]

Also, the fact that he is whipping people into a frenzy so hard that they are planning state-level assassinations of officials and practicing how to clear buildings needs to end, full stop, absolutely no discussion.

[Racers52]

Also, the fact that he is whipping people into a frenzy so hard that they are planning state-level assassinations of officials and practicing how to clear buildings needs to end, full stop, absolutely no discussion.

People that abuse their power should be tried legally, so I agree the assassination attempts/plannings are wrong.

However, people have every right to be well-armed and have a regulated militia (regardless of their reasons or your reasonings) under the second admendment, just like we have the right to vote.

That precedent has stood for many years in the SCOTUS with the exception of specific weapon types.

And just because I don't want to be like Havoc and spew without actual evidence here was my source.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_ ... d%20scope.

[Pumaxcs]

Ok, neat. They will allow you to play pretend soldier but have you seen the equipment the military/police have access to? Organize all you want, if the government actually decides to show up and not let you win they can fully do so. The only reason that things like Portland and the Nevada Cattle Ranch are because they don't want to literally go in guns blazing against citizens, kind of a bad optics look against the current sitting party.

[Racers52]

Remember back in 1765 when some small colonies in the new world declared revolution against one of the largest and most well-equipped countries at the time and won?

Just because militias might not have the best equipment doesn't mean they can't be effective.

And if they have no chance against the equipment that the military and police have access to then who should you really be afraid of?

According to you, it is definitely not the militias....

[Pumaxcs]

I'm not sure how I can begin to compare the differences in 1765 and 2020 when in comes to militia vs military so we will leave that one.

If the guy who owns the military and the militia's "fighting oppression" are on the same side then yeah I can see some reason to be afraid.

[jlv]

A coup attempt is a bit of stretch, and you make a compelling argument about the senate, but we will have to just agree to disagree. I don't agree with the premise that we should accept the sshady-ness on the premise that he probably won't win any ways. Hard to prove fraud when you are not given the ability to do so.

The push right now is to stop with the questions and just accept the winner of an election that, at best, had very questionable irregularities and last minute rules, and at worst, has potential large fraud. I can't get onboard with that. I see conceding to be a disservice to our country and the millions that are questioning the integrity of the election.

Dems had 3 years and it took a highly partisan House to get their empty "win". I think 4 weeks is acceptable.

Complaining about shadyness won't get you anywhere in court. If there really was massive fraud, it should be easy to prove. The fraudulent votes will be signed with bad signatures. To expose it you need to go through the voter roll, find bad signatures, then find the people who the purported votes are from and get them to testify that they didn't vote. It shouldn't be hard if the cheating is on the scale they claim. They're claiming around 10 percent in Philadelphia, so for every 7 signatures you'd have a 50% (1-.9**7) chance of finding a fraudulent vote. The reason the Trump campaign isn't doing that is they don't actually believe what they're saying. They just want to sow chaos.