Source: Twitter X

  • THE 2020 ELECTION CONTROVERSY VS “THE NARRATIVE” At the time, because the court

    THE 2020 ELECTION CONTROVERSY VS “THE NARRATIVE”
    At the time, because the court would not intervene, Trump and a very large (and still reluctant) percentage of voters believed that the election had been stolen because of the late night data shift in votes in key districts. Upon full investigation it was an effect of ballot harvesting overwhelming the staffs and their ability to input data. So it was rationally suspicious. And it led a significant population to show up on January 6th. Had the court simply ordered an audit everyone would have been happy. We did the audit. It turned out reasonably legit (if you assume ballot harvesting is legitimate) and the case was made.

    In other words, Trump voters, and Trump were of the belief that the election had been stolen and that the court needed to stall and force an investigation. This was not an irrational belief given the evidence at the time in particular the involvement of Dominion Voting and their machines. And the political regions in which the behavior was observed. My opinion was that it was statistically impossible for those votes to have changed that late at night. However, it was possible because of the vote harvesting and the boxes of harvested votes that were used for the first time. It was the most suspicious way of doing such things, and conservatives were against vote harvesting specifically because they were aware of the possibility of this tactic being used to skew the results.

    To say the case for the legitimacy of the 2020 election was made sufficiently in advance to achieve the legal term ‘settlement’ (public perception of legitimacy) then you are simply in error as demonstrated by the vast evidence of conservative voter behavior in at the time. It’s not an opinion that people weren’t convinced. It’s just your bias and conviction despite the evidence.

    The court was afraid to intervene because the court believes the entire government other than the court, and increasingly the military, has lost sufficient legitimacy that they must preserve what they have, while at the same time reversing mid to late 20th lawfare and activism that abused the court, because we have been far too close to our cold civil war turning hot.

    Unfortunately, they probably should have taken the risk. But, as expected, the public reaction to those events combined with the past four years caused the radical change in our electors and their strategy, fully reforming the republican party as an evolution of the Tea Party under Trump, as a populist middle and working class majority, that broke the race-marxist strategy of causing racial division.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @RaveCozensHardy


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-13 01:07:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856504054874288131

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856500492311871541

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @tbailey1976 @gspeth @RichardDawkins FWIW: I do, and our orga

    RT @curtdoolittle: @tbailey1976 @gspeth @RichardDawkins FWIW: I do, and our organization does, study public perception that deviates from t…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-13 00:53:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856500650760445981

  • FWIW: I do, and our organization does, study public perception that deviates fro

    FWIW: I do, and our organization does, study public perception that deviates from the rather mundane facts that have been converted to propaganda.

    So you know, it kind of goes with the job:
    Y’all say something that’s not correct, manipulative, or hyperbolic.
    We try to understand why you think as such.
    We state the mundane.
    We watch your response.
    We gauge your capacity to adapt or tendency to double down.
    We record the results.
    It’s our job. 😉

    Kind of fun job really. 😉

    Reply addressees: @tbailey1976 @gspeth @RichardDawkins


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-13 00:53:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856500630921338883

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856496028347937045

  • It was a deterrent. It was meant to stop them from coming. It was a good idea. B

    It was a deterrent. It was meant to stop them from coming. It was a good idea. But as you suggest the deterrence was insufficient and so the consequences of separation outmoded the strategy.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-13 00:50:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856499881973821619

    Reply addressees: @annaclarity1 @RichardDawkins

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856497679523844252

  • WHY THEY STILL SEPARATE CHILDREN AND WHY THERE ARE CAGES REASONING The policy of

    WHY THEY STILL SEPARATE CHILDREN AND WHY THERE ARE CAGES

    REASONING
    The policy of separating children from their parents at the U.S. border was part of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” approach to immigration enforcement, which began in 2018.

    Here are the main reasons cited for this policy:

    Deterrence: The policy was initially framed as a deterrent to illegal immigration. The idea was that if the consequence of illegal entry included family separation, fewer families would attempt to cross the border illegally.

    Prosecution of Parents: Under the zero-tolerance policy, all adults crossing the border illegally were to be criminally prosecuted. Since children cannot be held in criminal facilities, they were separated from their parents for this reason.

    Verification of Relationships: There was indeed an aspect where officials needed to verify the familial relationship between adults and children due to concerns over human trafficking, smuggling, and the use of children by unrelated adults to gain entry or better treatment in the immigration process. This verification process sometimes led to separations when the relationship couldn’t be immediately confirmed.

    Logistical and Legal Challenges: The separation also occurred because of logistical issues, such as insufficient family detention facilities, and due to legal interpretations of how to handle minors under laws like the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which mandates special handling for unaccompanied minors.

    However, the implementation of this policy led to widespread criticism for causing significant trauma to children, for lacking adequate procedures to track and reunite families, and for not having a comprehensive plan for reunification post-separation. The policy was reversed in June 2018 via an executive order, but the reunification process has been complex and ongoing, with some children still not reunited with their parents years later due to various reasons including parents being deported without their children.

    The policy of family separation as a deterrent for illegal immigration was officially ended by an executive order in June 2018. However, here are some key points regarding its current status:

    Legal Prohibition: A federal judge has prohibited the separation of migrant families at the U.S. border for eight years as part of a settlement, aimed to prevent the reimplementation of family separations for deterrence purposes. This prohibition was set to last until December 2031.

    Limited Circumstances: Separations can still occur, but under very limited circumstances. These include situations where there’s suspicion of child abuse, if the parent is convicted of serious crimes, or if there are doubts about the familial relationship between the adult and child.

    Ongoing Separations: Despite the formal end of the policy, there have been reports and instances where family separations have continued to occur, sometimes due to misinterpretations of the policy, new policies like Title 42 which led to children being sent back alone if their families were expelled, or when children are deemed unaccompanied due to various reasons like the lack of immediate proof of kinship.

    Reunification Efforts: The Biden administration has been working on reuniting families who were separated under the Trump policy, with some success, but there are still children who remain separated from their parents, many of whom were deported without their children.

    Public and Legal Scrutiny: The practice and its aftereffects continue to be a point of contention, legal battles, and public discourse, focusing on human rights, immigration policy, and the welfare of migrant children.

    While the policy as it was under the Trump administration has been legally curtailed, the broader issues of family unity, verification of relationships at the border, and how children are handled in immigration processes remain complex and subject to ongoing policy adjustments and legal oversight.

    Reply addressees: @annaclarity1 @RichardDawkins


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-13 00:48:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856499368003809280

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856497679523844252

  • Male vs Female (sex), -vs- Masculine vs Feminine (behavior). Behavior can demons

    Male vs Female (sex),
    -vs-
    Masculine vs Feminine (behavior).
    Behavior can demonstrate sex differences in cognitive bias across the distribution.
    When someone teaches consider learning.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-13 00:41:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856497637564002472

    Reply addressees: @RichardDawkins

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856427574693691823

  • (Ok. That was good. ) 😉 lol

    (Ok. That was good. ) 😉 lol


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-13 00:36:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856496218970698188

    Reply addressees: @tbailey1976 @gspeth @RichardDawkins

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856496028347937045

  • (Adaptation to Information) Brandon listens to videos and audio at 2x. I often l

    (Adaptation to Information)
    Brandon listens to videos and audio at 2x. I often listen at 1.25 to 1.5 simply because classroom rates of speech are irritating on the web. But it’s turned out that I find I listen to two or three at a time. A skill I’ve developed by accident. Informational density just isn’t there.

    Now for informational density read one of Luke Weinhagen’s posts…lol


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-13 00:35:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856496054201643008

  • Since X(Twitter) Includes Grok, and most of the nonsense that people spew here c

    Since X(Twitter) Includes Grok, and most of the nonsense that people spew here can be answered in Grok, it’s surprising how much of that nonsense isn’t countered with answers from Grok. And Grok is the least biased AI available even if it has a small context window so…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-13 00:32:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856495336526884872

  • Understood. 😉

    Understood. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-13 00:27:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856494153838014873

    Reply addressees: @LukeWeinhagen @JoshuaLisec @MichaelGuimarin

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856493814300410080