Episode 2519 CWSA 06/27/24 

Bingo!

There are arguments for both systems. In the days of the "Super Sized" mechanical voting machines, the votes were tabulated at each machine. All the watchers had access to the numbers and preliminary data could be telephoned to the county voting hq within minutes of the last vote being cast. Mark sense cards and "butterfly" cards are usually secured and counted at central locations with tight security. The mark sense ballots would be counted locally but the punch cards have to be counted with expensive machines whcih are too costly to have at each voting location.

Tell us why they didn't have "standing." They had posts deleted at the strong insistence of a govt agent.

Why would they take this case only to reject it later based on lack of standing. Either you’re incorrect, or they tried to send a message.

Bullshit answer. “Standing” is code language for “you’re fucked and shut up”.

If that is true, it is defacto permission. If a mother sees her kid , and the kid sees her watching him take a cookie and she doesn't stop him that is defacto permission

Did you know that typing the word not in all caps doesn’t make it more true or less untrue?

ad hominem

quando omni flunkus moratati

Well, for the first time we listened from the car using an audio cable between my cell on the radio. He definitely sounded out of it. (At home we usually run at 1.25X but I hadn't figured it out.) To us, most of the time he "sounds"bad at regular speed.

Exactly!

Because OBVIOUSLY, since it is perfectly auditable, there would be no incentive for anyone to engage in malfeasance. . Thus no reason to audit! 😀

Ambiguous statement?

ad hominem

I know bruh that Rachel Maddow dude is a real bummer.

Well, the banks were pressured by the federal government to make loans to folks that couldn't pay them back. (So called 'sub prime' loans.) A large insurance company took on a portion of that risk but when the losses exceeded the assets of the insurance company the banks and other mortgage holders were stuck holding the bag. IOW: the banks were essentially ordered to make the mortgages.

@@GilmerJohn Yes, but when their "investment" vehicles paid off early on, the banks started buying them up.

@@jkbrown5496 -- Well, most banks were in good shape. The government generated a "post" crisis by restricting the loans that banks could make. To keep them in business, the federal government let banks borrow money from on agency but they could only use that money to buy government bonds which paying a higher interest rate. Commercial credit dried up. Businesses could not get routine loans for inventory, or against receivables, or payroll.

But a dog CAN lick his own ..... Never mind.

Isreal killed alot of them!

"Hustle / Grind Alpha Bro vs. Random ChatGPT Guy" on UTube addresses that very topic. I thought it was pretty funny.

are you gaslighting?

@@killarneyguy Cut the fart tax :)

Ever lite a fart 💨? 🔥 Seems like a better system! Barter Town had the answer for methane and probably enjoyed incredible post apocalyptic bacon 🥓😝

4D outrage from TDSers!

What, the guy has no charisma and would turn off millions of people from voting.

@@michaelfrank5239 Junior is on top of his game, well loved and a shoe in for VP ...

I love that about you.

Your best feature

Well, it was a reasonable decision. Should the courts have the power to review every little action of the executive? Yeah, sometimes it goes too far but it's being corrected. Administrations routinely "had lunch" with the publishers and editors of important newspapers. That's between the official and the newspaper.

So much time and money goes into a case like this and they lacked a very specific example to illustrate the case? It almost seems “standing” is an excuse to avoid having to rule on cases.

No, it does not. Your credit score is not affected by posting something the government doesn't like...

@@TWO_PLUS_TWO_EQUALS_FOUR Have you actually read about what it is and how it works--outside of internet memes? They orig. based it off of our system lol

@@TWO_PLUS_TWO_EQUALS_FOUR what a stupid comment

I think he throws out concepts in a “correct me if wrong” way to engage his listeners and avoid sounding like a pedantic know it all.

Ben Carson

@1Mhoram9 I don't want to say that he's less capable because he's an extremely capable person, I think he's just little bit more mild mannered. I really don't mind Ben Carson for the role, but he's not my first choice because he seems like less of a fighter/insurance policy.

@@merc9ninehe’s a low talker 😊

@magpie3794 don't get me wrong, I love Ben and I like an understated genius. It amuses me when leftists call him dumb

I want Bannon

fergie the hateful foreigner here every with his nose in American affairs.

Your idea of reality is bitter!

@@gilianrampart8514 Your idea of reality is lies and hypocrisy are ok?

@fergalm4157 No,my idea of reality incorporates nuance,hyperbole, and just being wrong sometimes as being human. The liar/truth teller dichotomy is not a sensible approach to understanding,it's often just a way of disparaging someone from a person with a bitter point of view.

@@gilianrampart8514 So you have a high tolerance of bullshit, and you do not value truth. Fair enough but don`t lecture on that being a way to understanding anything.

OMG 😂

Of course you'd shill a charlatan like him

Why do you waist your time watching him? If you don't like the pod cast..you have a lack of intelligence.🧐

@@konaranger599Or, perhaps, “waste”…Siri’s not good with homonyms.

That's why context is important and not just the words.

​​@@epic103he said both things, knowing his fervent supporters would get the message that he considered participants on their side good people and he said the opposite also so that he could deny having supported the neonazis. Neonazis would hear his support, but he could also deny it. I heard it in full context. If you take either of the opposite statements he made by itself, that is out of context yes. He said both things, as he very often does. It's comical once you start hearing it.

@@JuliaPreseau - no, that's not what happened. When he made the statement about good people on both sides, he was referring the statue issue specifically not the marchers or the people fighting. Because when was specifically asked about the neo-nazi's he said that he wasn't referring to them and that they should be condemned totally.

​​What are the "both sides" then? they were for and against taking down statue; "both sides" ncludes pro and against taking down statues. He purposely speaks in his Ror​schach test style so that everyone can see what they want to see, and all options are open for him to claim he said this or that.@@epic103

He did not condemn them, he said they should be condemned which is not the same thing. And you are correct he said in that same speech - " There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee." The people the night before were the actual neo-Nazis with the tiki torches chanting "Jews will not replace us" and "blood and soil". So the neo-Nazis were "people protesting very quietly". And subsequently he was asked to condemn the far-right Proudboys and he said "stand back and stand by". And on Jan 6 he watched them lead the attack on the Capitol and then told them - "you are very special we love you". And in a follow up he said - "-"I’d like to begin by addressing the heinous attack on the United States Capitol. Like all Americans I am outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem... To demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol: you have defiled the seat of American democracy. To those who engage in the acts of violence and destruction: you do not represent our country. And to those who broke the law: you will pay.....My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power. This moment calls for healing and reconciliation."

1:04:24