Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bernardo de La Paz

Bernardo de La Paz's Journal
Bernardo de La Paz's Journal
December 31, 2020

On phones they sign over tracking rights but they're scared shitless about a vaccine nanochip

Smart phones have large antennae inside and powerful batteries users keep constantly charged.

They have no concept of technology because they reject science and logical reasoning in favour of emotions and especially fears jacked up by bad disruptors like Putin and white male hard-right terrorists.

Have no doubt: stirring up irrational antivax fears is terrorism.

People die because of irrational antivax fears. Though not as many as killed by the orange terrorist.

December 31, 2020

Personal liberty does not include endangering others. They do not get to decide what is endangerment

Science (medicine) gets to decide what is the endangerment in a pandemic. They have spoken.

No, personal liberty does not give you an unobstructed right to build a 100 story tower on a suburban or urban house sized plot.

Because physics.

No, personal liberty does not give you the right to store a moving van full of explosives in a urb/sub neighborhood. Not if you are an expert explosives technician or a guy whose experience is reloading bullets with gunpowder.

Because chemistry.

No, personal liberty does not give you the right to drive 100 mph in a populated neighborhood even if it is a wide straight road on a clear day.

Because statistics.

December 22, 2020

Deadly to CTs: counter-assertion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Shuts up online trumpanzees while they scurry away and find some epochtimes, zerohedge, or ONAN link. Then you shoot that down because they will contain either 1) internal inconsistencies or 2) factoids that are verifiably false, or both. Then they shut up for a much longer period.

Also, in general, you can't prove a negative. Even so, the nationwide certification of the vote by Republicans and Democrats and urbanites and rurals and christians and non-christians is tremendous evidence that there is no widespread voter fraud or electoral fraud.

Regardless, it is still the case that claiming widespread fraud is an extraordinary claim and so requires extraordinary proof. That means it must be logical, grounded in reality (stuff happens), and based on verifiable facts. As a minimum. But it also requires multiple factual support of EACH claim: high quality facts, numerous facts, and pertinent facts. It is a fallacy the way they think that a hundred claims makes it so "obvious and blatant", despite each claim being based on flimsy evidence and/or made by shady characters, often in shady circumstances. Hence, for example, claims of servers being seized in Germany do not automatically support claims of cross-stateline ballot shipments and all the rest.

December 22, 2020

As I understand, House would block each challenge, Senate disagree, then Governor's certs rule

As I understand it, each state's Electoral College certification would have to be challenged, one by one, by a Representative and a Senator. Any state that is challenged gets thrown to the whole House and whole Senate to debate and vote on the certification by full member vote.

If the House and Senate disagree (as might be expected), then the certification signed by the Governor is not blocked and becomes the EC vote. Expect the House to uphold all state's certifications. What the Senate would do is hard to fathom, but if they vote to block a certified EC vote it will have no effect and the certified EC vote will stand.

There is a lot of talk and many, especially dimwit MAGAts, think that all it takes is one Rep and one Senator to throw the whole US election into a "one state one vote" scenario. It does not work like that.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15 (emphasis added, note esp. last bolding)

3 U.S. Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 675.)

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Fri Jul 16, 2004, 10:36 PM
Number of posts: 47,534

About Bernardo de La Paz

Canadian who lived for many years in Northern California and left a bit of my heart there. (note to self: https: //images.dailykos.com/images/1043361/original/2016.09.19_sunflowers_header.jpg . https://i.imgur.com/1VKgdmc.jpeg)

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»Bernardo de La Paz's Journal