The ban on those two apps was put forward a while ago, but blocked by court order. Not one other app was even brought up during that period.
A pointless token gesture.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
President Biden Signs Executive Order Revoking Trump-Era Ban on TikTok and WeChat
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The ban on those two apps was put forward a while ago, but blocked by court order. Not one other app was even brought up during that period.
A pointless token gesture.
If two giants get a hammer majority will adjust on their own VERY quickly.
Then you can involve the turtle paced government and get the rest on board.
It's better than doing nothing and thinking that it will fix anything.
Same way stopping one drunk diver won't fix the problem. Potentially lives were saved though.
Is that a token gesture too and we should allow drunks to roam our roads freely till there is a solutions to make humans immune to the negative effects of alcohol consumption?
Last edited:
So all the money funneled through Hunter Biden is finally paying off (just like the good old days when banks would pay Dementia Joe through Hunter for the decades he was the senator for MBNA)!
really?
first security meeting, which many more to follow cannot read the security briefs (critical to the safety of the American ppl btw) comes out with his lips sweating!!
what car do you think trump owns or chauffeured in.
biden owns a Chevy corvette c6 his own money where his mouth is - more for Americans (workers built that car, buying it helps their jobs when he bought it)
stock market trump galavanting - most that made money during his term are not USA citizens nor residents.
oh and fooling hundreds of thousands of supporters for donations on a failed (64 court cases not 1 stated voting fraud in hearings by his lawyers btw) and none of them will ever get that money back again lol. Yeah more for the American ppl = hands in your pockets.
Ok. What you said is incredibly significant because, in a couple of sentences, you summarise why millions of people are satisfied to "move on". So it has to be addressed.
As you said, the witness testimony was easy for people, like yourself, to blow off as "that's just your opinion".
Remember, think of layers of evidence.
When Melissa Carone said she saw modem cables connected to voting machines, it was easy to slur her as a drunk who didn't know what she was seeing. Now, in June 2021, the Maricopa audit will examine the modems that have record of where the data went. In Jan 2021 it was easy to blow off. Now, in May 2021, the information will be more detailed.
When the poll worker from Fulton County, Georgia said she saw paper that looked different to normal ballots, in January 2021 it was easy to blow off as "just her opinion" - as you say. Now, in May 2021, the Maricopa audit is using Jovan Pulitzer's technology to scan the paper fibers that can tell if it is the same as the official paper stock.
I now address the big assumption that the lawyers did not "say under oath there was fraud". I recall it was the Pennsylvania case where the Judge asked Rudy Giuliani to clarify if said it was fraud, and Giuliani said no. Rebuttal: Many of the cases were very specific. For instance, the Pennsylvania case was on the constitutionality of the mail-in votes, and so in that case, when the judge asked whether it was about fraud, the answer is: no, the Pennsylvania case was about constitutionality. But the Media jumped on that statement, and used it as a blanket case to say the lawyers never said there was fraud.
In January 2021, fraud was one of the hardest things to prove, and so the lawyers went with angles that they felt were easier to prove in January 2021.
Now, in May 2021, the evidence for fraud is being gathered in Maricopa AZ.
Now we turn to the notion, as you said, that not once did the lawyers submit evidence. Response: you have to divide the cases into those where the courts were willing to look at evidence, and those where the courts were not.
Example: you recall the case brought by the Texas Attorney General that was joined by several states, and over a hundred Congresspeople. There, the Supreme Court "threw it out" on lack of standing. So it was thrown out on a technicality, such that they Supreme Court never got to even test the evidence.
What does "lack of standing mean"? Most people, who are not trained in the law, think that means they court said your case is pathetic. No. "Lack of standing" is a specific legal concept. It means you do not have the prerequisite to bring the law suit. For example, to bring a law suit, often you need to show that you are a party that has been damaged by the alleged crime. So, for instance, if you see John cheating Andrew, you bring a law suit to sue John. The case is dismissed on "lack of standing" because you don't have the prerequisite to file the law suit, since you were not a person that was damaged by the alleged crime. By throwing it out on a technicality, the judge never gets to look at the evidence at all. It is blocked at the start by the technicality.
Many of the law suits were filed by individuals. What person has standing to bring a law suit on election fraud? So the judges threw out the cases on technicalities, and never looked at the evidence. The cases never got through the door, so to speak, because of technicalities.
People think that if the cases were dismissed on technicalities, then the cases must have been weak. But to use the above example, if you saw John cheat Andrew - and you had strong evidence - the fact that your case was dismissed on lack of standing, does not mean you didn't have strong evidence. It means you were not entitled to be the one to present that strong evidence in court.
I downloaded a few of the court's written decisions. The data shows that most of the court cases, the judges refused to even look at the evidence. And where a few of them did, the Trump side won about 70%. For example, in a single-judge case, the judge said that the evidence showed a strong likelihood of proving fraud. So it went on appeal, and the appeal court refused to look at the evidence.
By over 60 judges refusing to see evidence, the American people feel comfortable there was no fraud sufficient to swing an election.
The wheels of justice turn slowly.
Last edited:
i’ve always wondered about that band that Trump did about TickTock. I somehow kind of thought he was so pissed off at his youngest son being on TickTock not listening to him that he’s just out right had to ban it LOL
Modems don't record where the data went. Phone records do. Is all the knowledge of the Maricopa recount as accurate?
This is all nonsense. Carl Sagan once said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Neil De Grasse Tyson said that eyewitrness testimony is the lowest form of scientific ewvidence. These recounts have no extraordinary evidence and no credible eyewitness testimony.
And Trump lost all 61 cases. Where did you see this imaginary 70 percent? LOL.
Your research is only based on you looking for what you want to find. If you looked at all of it fairly, you would realize how resiculous and gullible you look. I'm done with this.
Why don't you go nuke a hurricane. You can take off from the revolutionary era airport. But watch out for windmills, or you might get cancer, which you can cure by injecting bleach. Dementia Don told us all this, from the hereditary medical knowledge he was born with.
thank you for that post, that phrase you quote was stuck in my head for 3 minutes today.
the banter has been horrible these 5 years.
good luck!
If you buy into faulty-paradigms, and don't question them, you end up with a faulty world view.
What sort of extraordinary evidence would satisfy you? Don't say that as a blow-off statement, but actually answer it. You'll find that crimes are proved by a weight of many pieces coming together.
As you said, people like you - quoting Neil De Grasse Tyson will never believe eye witness testimony (even though, if you had to prove your own innocence, you would change your tune). That is why we need layers of evidence. In January 2020 we had eye witness evidence. Now, 1.5 years later, we are collecting forensic evidence. And when the forensic evidence matches the eye witness evidence, people who refuse to look at evidence will be recognized as "people who refuse to look at evidence".
In January 2020, if you refuse to look at evidence, people can say you are just being cautious because how can you rely on what people said they saw. Now, 1.5 years later, the pieces of the jigsaw are assembling. When the witness accounts matches the technical forensics, people like you can still blow off the Arizona evidence.
But what if the witness and forensic evidence from Arizona, will match the forthcoming witness+forensic evidence from other States.
This is why hard skeptics need, not just one piece of evidence, but a mass of connecting evidence.
Even then, you know there are people that will refuse to see any evidence, no matter what evidence you place before them. And from your personal experience, you know that the people who refuse to see evidence are ones who consider themselves fair-minded. Who are these people? Likely, they are people who are strongly motivated to reject evidence that does not help their desired outcome. For many people, their desired outcome is just to move on and get on with life.
You see this in News commentators who attack the audit because "it will undermine confidence in the election". For these people, their desired outcome is where the masses have "confidence" in elections. So even if there was fraud, their desired outcome is for the people to be confident in the fraudulent election. These people are not motivated by justice. They want peace and stability, irrespective of whether there was fraud.
Ask this test question: if you loathe Trump, would you still be happy to see him get justice, if he was wronged? If you cannot say you'd be happy, then no amount of evidence can convince you to even start to look at the evidence that is already out there.
For data on how the cases were lost, I suggest you search for the website and rumble- com channel of the law professor from the University of New Mexico who analysed all the cases. I read some of the case reports, but not all).
In summary:
- eye witness reports
- internet data collection
- forensic testing of machines
- forensic testing of the paper, at micro fiber level
- the above for Arizona, matching the results of Antrim, Michigan
- later, when similar audits done in other battleground states, and matching the eye witness and forensic.
I do believe, given human nature, than even when the above evidence is gathered, there will still be some people who will say "there is no evidence". I guess it is about 30% of the nation.
It is said that about 30% will vote Left, and 30% will vote Right, no matter what evidence is put to them. That leaves the rest of the people to sift through the evidence.
Last edited:
Biden does have a speech impediment, and is not ashamed by it. He can help a child overcome this, while the other Guy chooses to insult those that have mental acuity challenges are not that theyaf fault for _ and he himself not Biden) shill cannot mead or speak well publicly on many ocassions!!
Damn! I was going to mention that I’m actually very curious about what the outcome would be from the currently ongoing investigation regarding sensitive and private data security of the aforementioned apps and companies. However, this? The collection and potentially crafty use of children data?
Bear with me on this one, independently of political inclination, why would anyone want to associate or let alone take a defense stance in favor of it before waiting to see what any of these investigations and allegations reveal? I wouldn’t touch this with a ten foot stick.
If you take a piece of paper, draw a line to make two columns, and list down the characteristics of a true dictator, and then ask yourself, is Trump or the other side behaving like dictators.
- Banning free expression of opinions on the pretence that it is false information
- imprisoning their opposition for merely making political protests
Of course, most people are unlikely to do this exercise. True dictatorships use propaganda to convince the masses that the other side are the baddies.
Perhaps they then should examine why courts made this decision. It was because nothing that was claime
So you're calling evidence hearsay and reports from non-expert witnesses about things they didn't understand that had perfectly innocent explanations. And you're claiming there will be future evidence from the clown show in Arizona.
I stand by my position that those claiming fraud don't know what evidence is. And the courts seem to agree with me.
Rather than generalities, let's take a specific example.
A "direct witness" is a person who witnesses something done. Whereas "hearsay" is if a person hears someone else say that they saw something.
In the Georgia Senate Committee Hearings, dated 3 December 2020, @1:52:04 in the online video - the poll worker (initials S.V.) said she had 20 years of managing election precincts in Fulton County, Georgia. She said she saw ballots that were not folded, and had markings that were identical across hundreds of these pristine ballots, almost all being for Biden, as if one ballot had been reproduced hundreds of times. She also said the paper-stock of these ballots felt completely different to the usual ballots. In her 20+ years of managing elections, she had never seen such pristine ballots.
That is not hearsay. That is a person telling what she saw.
You can hold if for further investigation, or dismiss it.
Now, over in Maricopa, for the first time ever, this audit is using Jovan Pulitzer's technology that examines the ballots using microscopic techniques that examine the paper fibers. It can tell if the paper-stock is from the same authorised paper-stock. It can also tell if the markings were created by hand - which would damage the paper fibers in a different way compared to if the markings had been fraudulently created by a printer.
Sometimes, this level of evidence was not able to be produced before the Inauguration, because it took all this time for the Arizona Senate to fight to get the audit done. (That's a story in itself).
So, you can dismiss everything with "there is no evidence".
What level of evidence do you require?
Last edited:
There is no realistic solution. No app store is going to ban China. It's up to the consumer to decide whether they want to take the risk.
So you are saying that implementing measures that will make certain data mining illegal would not work?
And this is not JUST about Chinese operated apps. This is about making sure that developers all over the globe have solid legal ground they can operate on and if they cross the line just ban them until they revise at least.
I said "realistic" solution. No, there is no way to make data mining illegal worldwide.
Xiden is not the President. We in Ukraine, and Europe know this as we all know who is the true President of the USA. My prayers go to the Americans in trying to get rid of Communist tyranny and cancel culture/woke in their nation.