Re: Glenn V. *Still* Won't Answer
Bud <[email protected]> 31 Mar 2021 23:30:26 -0000
| Newsgroups | alt.assassination.jfk |
|---|---|
| Organization | PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 9:20:46 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote: > On Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 12:32:41 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: > > On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 8:35:12 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote: > > > On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 8:33:14 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote: > > > > On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 4:01:54 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote: > > > > > On Friday, March 26, 2021 at 6:41:44 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 9:52:05 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote: > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 1:10:17 AM UTC+1, BT George wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, March 21, 2021 at 11:09:59 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, March 21, 2021 at 6:33:39 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, March 20, 2021 at 5:26:16 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 21 Mar 2021 02:03:44 -0000, BT George <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia > > > > > > > > > > >> >> to help feed voters in line? How is reducing the number of polling > > > > > > > > > > >> >> stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and > > > > > > > > > > >> >> registered voters? > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> Do you understand that those are important questions? > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >John I admittedly haven't followed every post in this thread, or even the > > > > > > > > > > >> >details of the Georgia issue very much. ...Though I would agree feeding > > > > > > > > > > >> >voters in line might well prove a way of "manipulating" votes from the > > > > > > > > > > >> >very poor and hungry, especially if the "feeders" would be able to > > > > > > > > > > >> >identify or show support as Dems or Republicans. But I cannot see much > > > > > > > > > > >> >legitimate reason to reduce polling stations only in certain districts. > > > > > > > > > > >> Do you even know that is true? > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >No I don't. As I said I haven't followed the Georgia issue closely, > > > > > > > > > > >largely because I take it for granted that if it's anything is too crazy > > > > > > > > > > >it won't get too far, and of course, you know my general sympathies are > > > > > > > > > > >not with making voting virtually standardless as the Democrats have shown > > > > > > > > > > >every predilection to do. Do you have knowledge that it is *not* only in > > > > > > > > > > >certain districts? (I can look it up, but since you and Glenn are arguing > > > > > > > > > > >the Georgia, I assumed you would had already dug into it enough to > > > > > > > > > > >validate his claim.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Glenn made the charge. I'm not going to answer a question *assuming* > > > > > > > > > > that what was asserted it true > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> And there could be no legitimate reason? Like maybe, turnout is low > > > > > > > > > > >> in those districts, or there are plenty of polling stations even after > > > > > > > > > > >> the number is reduced? > > > > > > > > > > >> >So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head > > > > > > > > > > >> >on your take of the motivation behind this. > > > > > > > > > > >> Nonsense. I don't even know it is true, and I certainly don't know > > > > > > > > > > >> what the motivation is, if it is true. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump > > > > > > > > > > >> called white supremacists "good people." > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Come on .John. This is still *me*. I believe by now you know me well > > > > > > > > > > >enough to know I am *well* aware the MSM often lies and distorts > > > > > > > > > > >right-wing stands! (Fact: So does some a the right wing > > > > > > > > > > >media---depending on the source.) incidentally Glenn knows very well I > > > > > > > > > > >feel form private conversations that I fell that way and am *passionate* > > > > > > > > > > >about the injustice and he has even agreed he has seen that too sometimes > > > > > > > > > > >and also disapproves. But as my other comments make clear, I would think > > > > > > > > > > >since you and he are debating this at particular *issue* at length, this > > > > > > > > > > >should be something your own research would have confirmed or denied. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an evasion, since I'm not going to give an answer that > > > > > > > > > > *assumes* something that might be untrue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well not answering him---even if it is to show he is full of it---could > > > > > > > > > look as much like an evasion on your part as his failure to answer you > > > > > > > > > will look if he doesn't follow through. His claim is he is waiting for > > > > > > > > > you to meet his challenge and then he will give a direct answer (see my > > > > > > > > > further comments below on that demand). But again, at this point I am > > > > > > > > > simply taking a friend's word on why he isn't answering you yet. I > > > > > > > > > consider you a friend as well, so I am happy to accept your word on why > > > > > > > > > you aren't responding. But FWIW, this touches on several things brought > > > > > > > > > up or hinted at in this long exchange: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/controversial-voting-bill-heads-to-georgia-house-floor > > > > > > > > > > Why are you making excuses for his failure to answer? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because my time and correspondence with Glenn convinces me he is a good > > > > > > > > > person and (hopefully) is not answering for the reason he gave: "You > > > > > > > > > still haven't answered him." Now if you think you have a superior right > > > > > > > > > to get his answer first, the two of you just might be at an impasse. But > > > > > > > > > since *both* of you took this *particular* issue on, the call on how to > > > > > > > > > proceed is yours, not mine. My stance is clear: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Standards like providing a photo ID are perfectly fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Measures to make it harder to vote by mail are fine provided all > > > > > > > > > parties have the same restrictions, and adequate allowance is made for > > > > > > > > > persons legitimately unable to vote in person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) No changes should be made that appear directly motivated only towards > > > > > > > > > erecting uneven and/or onerous barriers to one side's constituents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Not a fan of "feeding anyone" period as this would allow more room for > > > > > > > > > manipulation than any good it would do in increasing turnout. > > > > > > > > > Categorically opposed to it if any partisan affiliations can be > > > > > > > > > reasonably made. > > > > > > > > > > He was refusing to answer *long* before he brought up the "closed > > > > > > > > > > polling places" claim about Georgia. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Glenn doesn't deny that Twitter and Facebook have banned Trump. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If he will post evidence that "certain districts" have had voting > > > > > > > > > > places reduced, *and* that there was some nefarious motive, I'll > > > > > > > > > > respond. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has made the charge, let him support it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. I think this is probably part of the early rumors and > > > > > > > > > mischaracterization. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being > > > > > > > > > > >> bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher. > > > > > > > > > > >> >If you answer that, then he will > > > > > > > > > > >> >be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump > > > > > > > > > > >> >and other Conservatives. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim > > > > > > > > > > >> is true. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Why do you think he won't answer? > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I am withholding judgement for now---because I know on past discussions. > > > > > > > > > > >Based on those, I believe it unlikely he has a good feeling about that > > > > > > > > > > >kind of censorship. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then why won't he answer? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He probably doesn't like the *left* being censored. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll let him say. All I want is for him to express here what my previous > > > > > > > > > convos with him would imply. I am hoping you two work the impasse out as I > > > > > > > > > want to see. > > > > > > > > > > >His point seems to be he is still awaiting your > > > > > > > > > > >answer to his questions and then he will address yours, because he is > > > > > > > > > > >accusing you of changing the subject. Regarding the answers he says he > > > > > > > > > > >wants, if he is right about it targeting certain districts, it's a valid > > > > > > > > > > >question that wouldn't hurt you to answer and leave him *no excuse* to > > > > > > > > > > >remain silent on this point. Of course, if he is wrong about it being > > > > > > > > > > >only in certain districts, then he is missing a key justification for why > > > > > > > > > > >the Republican efforts in Georgia are so bad. (And as I already said, > > > > > > > > > > >feeding hungry voters is generally suspect; all the more so if it can be > > > > > > > > > > >done by partisans who want to influence a vote, so that doesn't bother me > > > > > > > > > > >much on the Republican effort.) So maybe then all you need to do is point > > > > > > > > > > >out how that is a misrepresentation of the Republican effort. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let him produce evidence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But just to show you how silly this is, the leftist WASHINGTON POST > > > > > > > > > > admitted the following: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <Quote on> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Janine Eveler, Cobb County elections director, said she > > > > > > > > > > doesn’t have enough staff trained in advance voting to operate the > > > > > > > > > > same number of polling places for the runoff, which has taken on national > > > > > > > > > > significance because it will determine which party controls the Senate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > “We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers > > > > > > > > > > due to the holidays, the workload and the pandemic,” Eveler responded > > > > > > > > > > in a letter to the groups. She added that “the remaining team members > > > > > > > > > > who agreed to work would do so only if the hours were less onerous. … > > > > > > > > > > We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just > > > > > > > > > > unwilling to work so hard, especially during this time of year.” > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In an interview Monday, Eveler said the workers are seasonal employees > > > > > > > > > > hired and trained for statewide elections. She said that many of them > > > > > > > > > > were “not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three > > > > > > > > > > weeks.” > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eveler said the county will add more check-in stations that were used in > > > > > > > > > > the general election, which should get voters into the booth more quickly. > > > > > > > > > > She also noted that voters will have only three contests on the runoff > > > > > > > > > > ballot: the two Senate races and a seat on the Georgia Public Service > > > > > > > > > > Commission. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eveler said she did not think voters of color would be adversely affected. > > > > > > > > > > She said the early-voting sites are located in “each quadrant of > > > > > > > > > > the county,” and while acknowledging that some voters will be > > > > > > > > > > inconvenienced, she said that “there are other options for > > > > > > > > > > voting.” She said voters could use absentee ballots or show up on > > > > > > > > > > Jan. 5, when all of the county’s 145 precincts will be open. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <end quote> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So it seems it's only EARLY VOTING stations that have been closed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good that the leftist WASHINGTON POST actually presented the other > > > > > > > > > > side of the story. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, delving into the issue a bit---which I honestly wasn't interested > > > > > > > > > enough till now to do personally since I knew anything truly crazy would > > > > > > > > > never become law--it looks like the "only in certain places" (aimed at > > > > > > > > > voter suppression) was one of those early misinformation rumors. I hope > > > > > > > > > Glenn will read this, and either clarify why this is a valid claim or > > > > > > > > > admit it was not as might have been advertised to him. I, for one, cannot > > > > > > > > > say there was not at some level an effort at "soft" suppression here. > > > > > > > > > But that alone doesn't exercise my soul greatly because mere > > > > > > > > > *inconvenience* is NOT a valid excuse not to vote. And as I said in the > > > > > > > > > other thread, I think mere inconvenience would turn away more Democratic > > > > > > > > > voters (especially young voters) than Republicans, and such voters should > > > > > > > > > disenfranchise themselves regardless of Party. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .John > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm > > > > > > > > Hi Glenn, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do hope you are planning to respond, even if it is to not continue to > > > > > > > > "play ball". But having shown confidence that you would respond with > > > > > > > > transparency, I would really appreciate a formal response---or even a > > > > > > > > formal exit to the discussion based on impasse. The silence is your > > > > > > > > right, of course, but the risk is that it allows your antagonists to be > > > > > > > > easily cast you as just another stupid Leftist who "ran" from the > > > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, as I said in my last reply to .John, I do believe there was likely > > > > > > > > at list some initial thought of "soft" forms of Democratic voter > > > > > > > > suppression. (Really more "dissuasion.") But would you likewise concede > > > > > > > > that the extent and depth of claimed "suppression" was being significantly > > > > > > > > exaggerated by many media outlets, and that, in fact, some of the things > > > > > > > > in the Bill (e.g., requiring a valid Voter ID) are neither unfair or > > > > > > > > unreasonable requirements? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brock > > > > > > > Of course I will respond. Even though I don't appreciate John's dishonest > > > > > > > way to debate and even though I also don't like his way of using > > > > > > > whataboutism here. I will respond also this posting of yours Brock, > > > > > > > certainly. But right now I just don't have the energy do this, as I'm very > > > > > > > busy with other things. Probably by beginning of next week, things should > > > > > > > have eased up a bit. > > > > > > You could have responded yes or no in a lot less time than it took you to > > > > > > type out that paragraph. > > > > > Only if he plans a yes or no answer. Some questions require more. > > > > > (E.g., "Did you stop beating your wife senselessly lately?" But yes or no > > > > > don't work when you haven't been beating her at all.) In this case > > > > > Glenn's position is he was avoiding a simple answer because he didn't > > > > > believe he had received one to one or more of his questions. If he never > > > > > comes back and dodges eternally, then no skin off anyone's back but mine > > > > > for defending him. > > > > John's question certainly wasn't a loaded question. It was straight > > > > forward and it's a binary choice. Either Glenn approves of the social > > > > media companies banning Trump or he doesn't. > > > Agreed. And if Glenn had told me he didn't answer yet because it was > > > loaded, I would have told him he was full of it. Rather, he was saying he > > > felt he could withhold his answer till John answered something he asked to > > > his satisfaction. Since then John has provided some additional posts and > > > commentary, so I am giving taking Glenn at his word and letting him come > > > back and address the question as well as point out where he feels he is > > > still being evaded as it sounds like he wants to post carefully and cannot > > > with divided attention. (I do know he recently got involved as an elected > > > official locally in Sweden, so any politician who actually wants to handle > > > his elected job first before continuing to post endlessly on the Net has > > > my applause!) > > > > > > BTW, though I *blanket* disapprove of any politically-oriented media bans, > > > I can imaging a classic Liberal (as I peg Glenn to be as opposed to an > > > aggressive Progressive Left activist) taking a somewhat more nuanced > > > approach. E.g., perhaps still thinking a "time out" for Trump in the > > > midst of a *perceived* armed rebellion could be tolerable, as long as not > > > permitted to go on indefinitely. Though even *if* I could excuse the > > > latter, I would *still* think that crisis time had now passed and would be > > > calling on the Left Coast "Net Police" to drop the bans and restore him > > > and others with an opinion they don't like immediately. > > The social media companies have been granted immunity from libel on the > > basis that they are a pass through platform and not responsible for the > > content that gets passed through. However, once they start making > > decisions about what they will and will not allow, they cease to be a pass > > through platform. They have taken on the responsibility of editing their > > content and should lose the liability protection they had been granted. I > > believe they have every right to decide what what permit on their platform > > just as every newspaper publisher can decide what appears on their pages. > > However, they shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways. Either they > > should allow unfettered access or they should be held legally liable for > > what appears on their platform. > Yes, they shouldn`t have it both ways, when you control the content you > should be responsible for it. > > It is getting so blatant on youtube. First you weren`t allowed to > question the official doctrine on COVID-19. Then you weren`t allowed to > question the election results. Now Steven Crowder sent an investigative > team to Nevada to look into voting irregularities. The video was pulled > and he has been banned on youtube for a week for this... > > https://youtu.be/MGcEf3vikCE Apparently youtube has shut down his secondary account on youtube "Crowder Bits". The video that I linked to that youtube removed can be seen here... https://www.mediamatters.org/steven-crowder/after-being-suspended-youtube-steven-crowder-announces-his-plan-evade-it-his-other > The powers that be are doing everything they can to stop people from > doing an "end around" that bypasses their narratives.