Biden has been declared the president-elect by all the reliable news organizations and will take office Jan 20, 20121
LOL. It is the mass media which decides about the winner?
When you sit back and enjoy the "current" show, it is an indication that something is really wrong here, and it is not the Democrats.
No, the current show is how the Dems have faked the elections. This effectively destroys one of the most powerful propaganda weapons of the West. That's real fun. There will be much more fun coming.
Having thought about the question what would be the worst case for the unipolar world order, I think a full win for the Dems will be the optimal result. So, I wish them to win in the court against Trump (of course, after Trump presents openly very good proofs for the fake, so that together with the elections also the court system will be damaged) and also to win the Senate. Why? Because in this case the inner split will increase much more than under a next Trump time, and one can hope for separatism leading to the US splitting into parts.
How? The Dems will take over the power completely, retaking the Supreme Court by increasing the numbers until they have the majority there, splitting California and giving Washington DC and Puerto Rico separate places in the Senate so that the Dems will rule the Senate forever, giving votes to all the immigrants and increasing immigration to secure their winning elections. After this, it will be certain for the Reps that they will never again (or at least for a long time) win federal elections. So, instead of fighting for winning at the federal level, they will either switch sides and become Dems, or they will concentrate on their states and start to support separatism, in particular by weakening central powers by nullification of federal laws.
Then, the Dems will try to disarm the population. They will do this seriously, much more seriously than now, in Blue states, but also on the federal level. But there will be resistance, especially because the BLM riots have shown the people that they really need weapons. This will lead to segregation - those who don't want to give up their weapons will emigrate to Red states, and fight there for nullification of federal anti-gun laws.
On the economic front, the Dems will heavily increase taxation, as on the state, as on the federal level, simply because this is what the Left always wants to do, but also because they have to. If they do it on state level, it will lead to firms migrating to Red states, on the federal level it will force firms to emigrate. Green politics has also a great potential of destroying the US economy as a whole. They will start to tax the rich, as measured in dollar income. All this on the background of a big economic crisis caused by the end of the dollar as the world currency, which will hit the US especially strong. Given that printing money is the "solution", and if the dollar stops to be world currency the US can no longer export them, this will end in hyperinflation, and, given that the heavy tax burden is defined by income in dollars, automatically everybody will be heavily taxed.
There is, of course, the other side: Dem ruling means more terrorist wars, more color revolutions. But, in fact, the difference may not been that important, given that the deep state has been able to influence most of foreign policy during Trump time anyway. So, I think the long term weakening of US economy by socialist economics and increasing confrontation will be more important.
In the news here this morning 14 men have been arrested for online child abuse activities... with many international referrals. Using social media, and encrypted communications to propagate their seriously perverse interests.
So the families of the children who were subject to abuse, potentially destroying their futures, obviously want the perpetrators caught so that they don't continue to destroy children's future and demand greater surveillance and web monitoring and in some cases even assist with funding their own "vigilante-isms".
The point being? There will be always some crime. Those cases have been real crimes, they will always happen because people will remain sexual beings. This defines no need for a surveillance state. BTW, without persecuting distribution and ownership of porn the police would have much more and easier access to video and picture evidence of such crimes.
Is it really little wonder that governments are legislating?
It is no wonder at all. Governments are attractive for control freaks, they like to control whatever they can. Big firms like to make it difficult for competitors, which can be reached with a lot of regulations. But the politicians are even more control freaks, they want to legislate out of personal lust. Of course, they will have to legitimate such things, but this is done for free by the media. Actually in Germany they had make a hysteria out of a few crimes, crimes close to the maximum penalty, to legitimize an increase in the minimum penalty. Thus, they don't even care if there is a relation between the crimes they are hysterical about and the legislation they propose.
When you abuse your freedom what do you think is likely to happen?
Incorrect question. What people really do is almost irrelevant to legislation. In the past, there may have been some relation. Today, if you want some legislation, tell the mass media to start a hysteria about some cases and everything will go as necessary.
And that was totally debunked.
LOL. That joepistole has said some bad words, without even making a single consistent argument, is something very different from debunking. He is, of course, as most of those here, unable to accept a defeat and will claim victory even if completely demolished.
I don't trust you or anything you have to say.
LOL. You think I care about being trusted by US propaganda victims?
You have denied your own responsibility for the bs you "shared" many times on this forum. You are one of the most frequent and flagrant deniers of responsibility for your sources on this forum - often in detail, explicitly and frequently explaining to us all why you haven't bothered to factcheck anything and why you don't need to trust the sources of your posted claims here.
Of course, I don't need. As if you would factcheck anything you post.
You have also defended that denial, when people pointed it out to you, right here, at length, in multiple threads on several different topics. Claiming irresponsibility for your own sources, when you get cornered in something so idiotic even you can't brush it off with a quip, is part of your standard schtick here (example of many: your continual defense of your idiotic claim that the Mueller Report contains no evidence of collusion between Trump and Putin).
Unfortunately, you have been unable to quote any evidence from this report which proves a collusion. There was no need for me to make or defend the claim that there is nothing because the burden of proof is on the side which claims existence of such things. And this has nothing to do with responsibility. It is simply pointing out your primitive failure.
So the verdict (from the earlier question here) is pretty solidly "dishonesty", i.e. lying, on your part, in the form of bad faith and bullshit;
As if a "verdict" of an established liar would matter. You have lied many times, I have proven this explicitly, with quotes, many times, and repeatedly, so that it is established that you have known that these are lies but nonetheless repeated them, thus, obvious evil intention.
Not Minnesota, or several other States. Not the centrist wing of the Democratic Party, which does have political influence.
LOL, you have really a state which is not corrupt? Or simply one possibly less corrupt than the others? Lobbyism (the name for legalized corruption) is illegal in Minnesota?
Whatever, Biden is obviously corrupt, but became candidate of the Dems. So, corruption is obviously so common that the Americans don't care, the obvious corruption is nothing one bothers about. Not sure who is really more corrupt, it may be as well the Reps, I have no statistics, but the most famous examples like Clinton and now Biden are Dems, bad luck for the Dems. And the choice of a candidate which is worldwide known to be corrupt and even in multiple cases (Ukraine as well as China) and then actively censoring the distribution of the proofs is a quality of corruption which is not widely distributed even in heavily corrupt states.
Propaganda fantasies about Putin disposed of.
If you choose to believe that a Russian government and economic establishment in willing collusion with the most corrupt officials in the US is not itself corrupt, that is your call - but you look like a fool to anyone familiar with US politics.
The collusion remains your fantasy, but of course the Russian diplomats have to face also various states with highly corrupt leadership.
Just for fun, in Germany there was a long time when firms were not only allowed to bribe in foreign states, but were allowed to declare those bribes as costs in their tax declarations.
