Not sure if you remember me commenting to you the other day, but I absolutely agree. I like that we are agreeing more than disagreeing lately!

I'm not either! I argue that conspiracy theorist's usually use divergent thinking, which can be a hit or a miss.. some people are more accurate at finding patterns that others miss.. but none of us are crazy for simply looking for patterns within the chaos of the huge amount of information there is to sift through!

Last time I mentioned we had talked before, you didn't remember where we had interacted before, and you asked me to give you a link.. I was simply too lazy to try to find it.

But basically we talked about your post, what you were trying to accomplish from a kind of philosophical standpoint, and when we were done, you decided to delete your post..

I didn't think you should, but the very idea that we had a debate and you conceded rather than argue into oblivion is the very simple basis that you aren't crazy.. and neither am I, if I'm wrong or someone shows me my perspective is flawed, I concede.

I really wish more people in this sub see themselves as fallible, and every idea they put out there as an opportunity to grow by learning how they're fallible. I'll even say, the fact that you didn't simply reassert yourself as correct, despite evidence that you weren't.. that's a true symbol of intelligence.

Too lazy to find the quote, but the truly wise realize they know nothing. I'm drinking and feeling lazy or I'd put in more effort :D

Assuming you mean the deep state?

I saw this truth bomb as a comment in another thread, and seeing how many people were completely unaware in response to it, I figured it needed it's own post.

I don't personally subscribe to the pizzagate idea, but someone who blatantly calls am entire idea lies.. in my opinion, it seems like he's more focused on keeping our attention on what he's saying, than investigating more recent things that can lead to a conviction.

Maybe he will name names.. but the fact that he's looking for 10 million before he does.. to name people from over 20 years ago, while claiming anything newer is lies.. yes. It reeks to me.

I'm a conservative, so while I recognize that the popular vote matters, when it comes to the electoral college.. if there's actually voters fraud happening, it makes it far less likely that an election can actually be stolen..

That said, I also realize the reason the electoral college exists is because it was too hard to track the numbers of votes, when back when it was implemented, it relied on people on horse back dragging information very slowly across the country..

It's far from a perfect system by any means.

I don't disagree actually. It's just that the original idea was based on the idea of checks and balances. California is the state that seems most often attacked about voter fraud. If we go purely off of the popular vote, any one state can influence the election.

The only way the electoral college negates that, is that each state is given a different amount of influence.

But I'll concede, no one man or womens voice should count more or less than another's, based on where they live. That's simply absurd. But.. there still needs to be a better system to make sure no one can game the system.. and I don't think that's voter ID. But.. there has to be something.

The reason I'm against it, is simply because I'm a technology guy.. there's plenty of ways to track people, that's how companies like Google or Amazon can accurately guess at most of are life, from aggregate data.

I feel like physically creating new forms of tracking us is moving a step closer to having microchip implants.

Put it this way, your argument that we should be able to track data technologically is on point, and my only argument is that if the data can be manipulated simply on numbers alone, it destroys the system.

But from a tech guys perspective, you can be recognized based on your speech patterns alone, whether spoken or typed. While people are arguing about whether Facebook is listening to you.. the real question should be about the chip in your credit card that is legally required.

The more we try to physically track people, the simpler it is to control people. No analysis required, you simply had your bar code (prisoner number in Nazi days) scanned, and you can be identified as.. what?

When our credit cards can already be used against us, any form of physical identification is already sliding towards the same.

I will literally kill myself the day mandatory microchips are required, and I feel like voter ID is simply a step in the direction.

But I'm just a tech guy, what do I know?

It's late, I'm tired, but if you want me to give evidence about how the new credit card laws, or more accurately how the credit cards are being used against the people.. I'll link it tomorrow.

Simply put, creating another way of physically tracking people, like voter ID, is just another way of skipping over the red tape. Why would they use a lesser jumping off point, than the easily hackable information already legally required by credit cards?

Given our already legally required physical tracking, why would voter ID start at a lesser jumping point?

Bottom line, voter ID is already going to start at the technological point we are at. So.. how is this not a step towards transdermal microchips that can easily be logged?

That's my entire point, making our info easier to track isn't better for us. Want to walk into a gas chamber? Make it easier to categorize you. That's how so many Jews did it.

I literally copied and pasted the actual tweet. This rule seems kind of ridiculous when you're attempting to be as accurate as possible about the source. Do I have to retype every word they said to be able to post? Or can you click the first link and see that's literally how the information was presented?

Thanks, I don't agree with what they said, so it would feel like even more of a punishment to have to retype it in non angry words, lol.

Also, I feel like their tweet belongs in r/totallynotrobots

But honest question, can the rule be modified for cases like this, where you're literally quoting verbatim? No offense, but if you clicked the first link, you'd see the robot posting exactly what I posted.

I will, that's a good point.

I'm not saying he doesn't have a legitimate claim either.. it's simply the idea of cognitive dissonance. There's many people here likely promoting the idea that they should fund him.. while he's possibly trying to promote the idea that they are wrong.

Do you want to contribute money to someone that's trying to get money to fund what happened two decades ago? Or are you better off trying to talk about crimes happening, right now, by people that aren't asking you to donate money.

I'm totally all for Corey to name names right now, maybe help corroborate ongoing investigations.. but he's being dismissive of anything that's currently happening.