Bill O’Reilly and the Right’s Morality Problem

[Happy]

No substance to your reply. Are you saying "Not Guilty" is not the same as "innocent." If not what does it mean?

Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

Innocent is When a person is without any fault.
Not guilty is When there is not enough evidence to PROVE, without DOUBT, the person committed the crime.

Many GUILTY people, have received a "not guilty" verdict. (Because of lack of evidence or because of doubt.)

Seemingly unknowing to you, Statesmen WHO established this country, DID SO, on basic principles and standards of Biblical Scripture.

Rom 3
[10] As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

No one is INNOCENT, period.
Since No ONE "IS" innocent, there is NEVER an official court issued verdict of "innocence".
However IF one is "accused" of a SPECIFIC "crime", the findings is to discover, IF the person is
guilty or not guilty of that SPECIFIC "crime".

Jesus was "innocent", without "ANY" fault.
Men are born "in SIN".

 

[Happy]

I said Russia is the enemy of the United States. Do you agree or disagree/

I have already answered you.
However you have given no reason for your claim.

 

[FollowTheWay]

It was pointed out last November such a scenario was unlikely. Because the US voting system is so decentralized. There is not just a single system needing to be hacked. 51 systems need to be seamlessly hacked. Many of the various systems are not totally digital. Many like my county's system is a blend.

All of the systems did not need to be hacked, only the crucial ones in contested states. This was clearly demonstrated in Florida in the 2000 election. Only a few voting sites had to be hacked to change the result of that election. The same was true in Ohio in 2004. Actually this was also the case in the 1960 election which many believed was stolen by JFK in Chicago. This is one of the weaknesses of the outdated Electoral College system.

 

[FollowTheWay]

My Proof of what? You are the one making the claims.
More of your claims are in this post.
1) "Trump's Russian friends"....who specifically are you talking about?
2) "Putin wanted Trump..to win"....what is your evidence?

You think Votes can be changed but have no questions about Barry or Hilly with regard to collusion with your enemies (the Russians), why not?

Please read my reply. This is what I said. "have no questions about Obama or Hillary with regard to collusion with our enemies, the Russians. If you do please state your proof."

 

[HankD]

Clinton Foundation Key to giving Putin 20% of US Uranium

HankD

 

[Happy]

All of the systems did not need to be hacked, only the crucial ones in contested states. This was clearly demonstrated in Florida in the 2000 election. Only a few voting sites had to be hacked to change the result of that election. The same was true in Ohio in 2004. Actually this was also the case in the 1960 election which many believed was stolen by JFK in Chicago.

Thieves, Liars and Cheats ARE Thieves, Liars and Cheats. Nothing new, that Thieves, Liars and Cheats constantly have to be over-come by combating the Thieves, Liars and Cheats.....Stealing, Lying and Cheating.

This is one of the weaknesses of the outdated Electoral College system.

The Electoral College system is not weak or outdated.
The FLAW is in the Thieves, Liars and Cheats and those who REPEATEDLY sit Thieves, Liars and Cheats in offices of Honor.

But DO TELL; what is YOUR solution to YOUR VIEW ( the Electoral Collage system has weaknesses and is outdated).....Do TELL, how would you strengthen it or update it?

 

[FollowTheWay]

To you it makes no sense, and I agree, it makes no sense, to you.

Thieves, Liars and Cheats ARE Thieves, Liars and Cheats. Nothing new, that Thieves, Liars and Cheats constantly have to be over-come by combating the Thieves, Liars and Cheats.....Stealing, Lying and Cheating.



The Electoral College system is not weak or outdated.
The FLAW is in the Thieves, Liars and Cheats and those who REPEATEDLY sit Thieves, Liars and Cheats in offices of Honor.

But DO TELL; what is YOUR solution to YOUR VIEW ( the Electoral Collage system has weaknesses and is outdated).....Do TELL, how would you strengthen it or update it?

You didn't address my question about the vulnerability of the Electoral College system to hacks in just a few locations. An election by nationwide popular vote would not have this risk. That's why the Electoral college system needs to be replaced by a popular vote system because it is less vulnerable to hacking. The Electoral College system was put into place because in the late 1700's Americans really didn't have much information about national leaders but knew and trusted local electors to make the right decision. Today that situation is reversed. Voters know more about national candidates than local electors. The times have completely changed.

 

[HankD]

You didn't address my question about the vulnerability of the Electoral College system to hacks in just a few locations. An election by nationwide popular vote would not have this risk. That's why the Electoral college system needs to be replaced by a popular vote system because it is less vulnerable to hacking. The Electoral College system was put into place because in the late 1700's Americans really didn't have much information about national leaders but knew and trusted local electors to make the right decision. Today that situation is reversed. Voters know more about national candidates than local electors. The times have completely changed.

It has to do with numeric balances of population distribution among the congressional districts..

We have a street with 10 houses 6 of which have 1 person living in each and they are Republicans (6 people).

The remaining 4 have two people in each and they are Democrats (8 people).

Therefore by household count the Republicans win - 6 households to 4 households.

By population distribution Democrats win 8 people to 6 people.

substitute "congressional district" for "household".

Therefore by congressional district count the Republicans win - 6 congressional districts to 4 congressional households.

Republicans win in this case.

HankD

 

[Happy]

Please read my reply. This is what I said. "have no questions about Obama or Hillary with regard to collusion with our enemies, the Russians. If you do please state your proof."

When did I say "THEY" did?

Additionally, It has already been proved, both Obama and Hillary HAVE privately in person met and talked with "the Russians", and what has been proved Trump has ever met Putin in person?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Actually, if the system still worked like it did back in The Day, the Russians or whoever could not have electronically hacked an election. Why?

1. No secret ballot
2. All records were analog.
3. The electors met in their states. (If the electors weren't bound to vote for a given candidate, we wouldn't have this discussion.)

The Kennedy election (if it was stolen) was stolen the old fashioned way pure election fraud by Chicago's Democratic machine. As for the 2000 election, the ballots involved IIRC paper not electronic.

My point is the hotchpotch of voting systems across the US presents a magnitude of difficulty.

All of the systems did not need to be hacked, only the crucial ones in contested states. This was clearly demonstrated in Florida in the 2000 election. Only a few voting sites had to be hacked to change the result of that election. The same was true in Ohio in 2004. Actually, this was also the case in the 1960 election which many believed was stolen by JFK in Chicago. This is one of the weaknesses of the outdated Electoral College system.

 

[Happy]

You didn't address my question about the vulnerability of the Electoral College system to hacks in just a few locations. [ /QUOTE]

Sure I did, you simply do not comprehend ALL systems are subject to crafty thieves, liars and cheats.

An election by nationwide popular vote would not have this risk.

Of course it would. Much of the cheating is AT the voting booth and the counting and vote "buying" for money and favors..... And you think that would somehow change? Laughable.

That's why the Electoral college system needs to be replaced by a popular vote system because it is less vulnerable to hacking.

Laughable.

The Electoral College system was put into place because in the late 1700's Americans really didn't have much information about national leaders but knew and trusted local electors to make the right decision. Today that situation is reversed.

Yes it has changed.
Today some people appointed to cast the Electoral College Vote are just as sleezy as the next guy cheater.
Today a cheater, liar, thief can be proved, and still people will brazenly support them.

Voters know more about national candidates than local electors.

The things you say are ridiculous.

The times have completely changed.

Uh huh....they have. Who would have guessed people get more stupid with the passage of time...

 

[Happy]

It has to do with numeric balances of population distribution among the congressional districts..

We have a street with 10 houses 6 of which have 1 person living in each and they are Republicans (6 people).

The remaining 4 have two people in each and they are Democrats (8 people).

Therefore by household count the Republicans win - 6 households to 4 households.

By population distribution Democrats win 8 people to 6 people.

substitute "congressional district" for "household".

Therefore by congressional district count the Republicans win - 6 congressional districts to 4 congressional households.

Republicans win in this case.

HankD

Gerrymandering.... ugh!

 

[HankD]

Gerrymandering.... ugh!

Yes.

But it is currently thought to be the lesser of 2 evils. Electoral vote vs popular vote.

HankD

 

[Happy]

Yes.

But it is currently thought to be the lesser of 2 evils. Electoral vote vs popular vote.

HankD

Effected through manipulating district boundaries; ie cheating.

Every political party seeks to gain an edge, BECAUSE, simply relying on the public to vote according to Constitutional limits, is VOID when it is well known the public at large, haven't a clue what the Constitutional limits are, AND they regularly vote for a "letter", smile, gender, sexual preferences, race and religion.

In the end regardless of WHO is seated to represent, they always represent the government, not the people.

 

[HankD]

Effected through manipulating district boundaries; ie cheating.

Every political party seeks to gain an edge, BECAUSE, simply relying on the public to vote according to Constitutional limits, is VOID when it is well known the public at large, haven't a clue what the Constitutional limits are, AND they regularly vote for a "letter", smile, gender, sexual preferences, race and religion.

In the end regardless of WHO is seated to represent, they always represent the government, not the people.

"Gerrymandering" (electoral college procedure) here in America is not cheating.

If it is decided that deuces are wild its not cheating to treat deuces as wild.

If the electoral college procedure needs to be changed then the people must make redress to congress to effect that change.


HankD

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I beg to differ. Instead of multiple decentralized points, you gain a single system to hack. Further, if the electors were allowed to do their proper job without being bound (with the "popular" vote being strictly advisory), then they'd just meet in their capitals and vote. They could be bribed but not ahcked.

You didn't address my question about the vulnerability of the Electoral College system to hacks in just a few locations. An election by nationwide popular vote would not have this risk. That's why the Electoral college system needs to be replaced by a popular vote system because it is less vulnerable to hacking. The Electoral College system was put into place because in the late 1700's Americans really didn't have much information about national leaders but knew and trusted local electors to make the right decision. Today that situation is reversed. Voters know more about national candidates than local electors. The times have completely changed.

 

[HankD]

[QUOTE="Happy, post: 2314253, member: 13148"

In the end regardless of WHO is seated to represent, they always represent the government, not the people.[/QUOTE]
It's a two sided coin. the governed and the governing.

HankD

 

[FollowTheWay]

Voters know more about national candidates than local electors.
The things you say are ridiculous.

***********************************************************************************************

OK. What were the names of the electors you voted for in the Presidential election? I assume you know more about the national candidate, Trump. Right? Say something that makes sense.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

Innocent is When a person is without any fault.
Not guilty is When there is not enough evidence to PROVE, without DOUBT, the person committed the crime.

Many GUILTY people, have received a "not guilty" verdict. (Because of lack of evidence or because of doubt.)

Seemingly unknowing to you, Statesmen WHO established this country, DID SO, on basic principles and standards of Biblical Scripture.

Rom 3
[10] As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

No one is INNOCENT, period.
Since No ONE "IS" innocent, there is NEVER an official court issued verdict of "innocence".
However IF one is "accused" of a SPECIFIC "crime", the findings is to discover, IF the person is
guilty or not guilty of that SPECIFIC "crime".

Jesus was "innocent", without "ANY" fault.
Men are born "in SIN".

OK. If you want to make that distinction, then innocent is a verdict that can opnly be pronounced by The Lord at the Final Judgement. No court in America or anywhere else in this world can do that.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 4 AM Pacific.