Locke, Social Contract Theory, and the Citizens Right to Revolt

[Turtlesoup]

" John Locke wrote in his Two Treaties on Government that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments."
- Stanford University Plato
What we saw at the citadel of political corruption (The Congress) was people keeping their end of the social contract and storming the center of a crime syndicate. Power ultimately rest in the hands of the people. The citizens have every right to revolt against governments that do not rule in a just manner.

And a duly elected government has a right defend itself from sedition.

If it was legitimately elected.

and it was.

Only a blithering nincompoop would believe this election was legitimate.

Only a blithering nincompoop would believe it wasn't.

Throw out the corrupted mail-in ballots and what result do you get slow in the head boy?

They weren't corrupted..

Then let's look at the signatures in the voter registration log book. Oh, that's right, we can't. Rest my fucking case.

The ballots were gathered, examined, tallied, and certified. Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your delusions. Trump lost. Bigly. Get over it and move on.

No they weren't examined--how do I know---because many didn't even have signatures or addresses or were missing other information so there would have been nothing to examine.

 

[9thIDdoc]

" John Locke wrote in his Two Treaties on Government that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments."
- Stanford University Plato
What we saw at the citadel of political corruption (The Congress) was people keeping their end of the social contract and storming the center of a crime syndicate. Power ultimately rest in the hands of the people. The citizens have every right to revolt against governments that do not rule in a just manner.

So you're cool with BLM attacking any government building then?

Nope. They are hard core Marxist wanting to overthrow our whole way of life. Patriots love the Constitution and simply want to restore power back to the people.

Aren't they 'the people' in your argument? Wouldn't any attack they make against the government be justified per your own reasoning?

Again, no. Patriots want to change the direction of the United States back to the original Constitution. BLM and Antifa want to burn the Constitution.

So only the folks that agree with you are the 'people'.....and thus justified in killing cops, attacking the government and trying to overthrow our democracy?

Absolutely not. Patriots want to restore the Constitution.

" John Locke wrote in his Two Treaties on Government that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments."
- Stanford University Plato
What we saw at the citadel of political corruption (The Congress) was people keeping their end of the social contract and storming the center of a crime syndicate. Power ultimately rest in the hands of the people. The citizens have every right to revolt against governments that do not rule in a just manner.

So you're cool with BLM attacking any government building then?

Nope. They are hard core Marxist wanting to overthrow our whole way of life. Patriots love the Constitution and simply want to restore power back to the people.

Aren't they 'the people' in your argument? Wouldn't any attack they make against the government be justified per your own reasoning?

Again, no. Patriots want to change the direction of the United States back to the original Constitution. BLM and Antifa want to burn the Constitution.

So only the folks that agree with you are the 'people'.....and thus justified in killing cops, attacking the government and trying to overthrow our democracy?

So the seditionists sent by Trump killed that cop to 'restore the constitution'?

It was spontaneous and there are casualties to any war. You seemed to like dead cops during the 4 years of communist marches.

What war?

If you're waging war against the United States, that's treason. Its the only crime defined in the Constitution.

Is that what you're doing?

You might want to keep in mind that those who wrote the Constitution had just committed treason against their legitimate English government and believed that treason against an oppressive government was not only a right but the duty of a Patriot.

And then stomped on Shay with both feet when he tried the same.

Treason is the only crime defined in the constitution for a reason.

OK. And what do you think that reason is?

 

[Care4all]

" John Locke wrote in his Two Treaties on Government that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments."
- Stanford University Plato
What we saw at the citadel of political corruption (The Congress) was people keeping their end of the social contract and storming the center of a crime syndicate. Power ultimately rest in the hands of the people. The citizens have every right to revolt against governments that do not rule in a just manner.

And a duly elected government has a right defend itself from sedition.

If it was legitimately elected.

It was.

When you have ballot dumps in the middle of the night with the nefarious "mail in ballots" it violates the social contract rendering the government illegitimate.

There were no ballot dumps in the middle of the night.... absentee ballots were not processed and counted until the middle of the night.... and the next few nights, it took a while to process, then count them all.

You can't have an absentee ballot without an envelope, an envelope that was processed, including whether it was a legitimate registered voter, and one that put in a request for that mail ballot... in all of the battle ground states, except one, which had election law in their state, that permitted them to mail ballots to registered voters, without a request.


In the Checks and Balance process of elections, the count of how many mail in ballots were processed by the machine, has to match the count of absentee ballot envelopes received.

You can not stuff the ballot count with absentee ballots, nor can you run a ballot through more than once, with both times it counting.....because the total of ballots, would be more than the total of envelopes, and it would be CAUGHT.

And what exactly stops a machine from counting a vote for Trump as a vote for Biden if secretly rigged to do so? When I voted I pushed a series of buttons on a machine and have no way of knowing what the machine actually registered or whether that information was passed on correctly. I expect some proof that my vote was actually counted as intended before I would consider the election legitimate. Why should States have an opportunity to make laws that make it easier for them to cheat? The President elected is supposed to be the President of every one in the Nation so the rules for his election should apply equally to all citizens. But ONLY actual living breathing citizens.

State legislatures write their election laws, with both democratic and republican legislatures, to make elections, as secure and safe as possible.... machines are audited before elections to make certain they are working correctly.....

Also, the voting machines are not connected to the internet, they are contained within each voting precinct....

And every one of these 6 battleground states gave a printed receipt of your votes for the election that you could check..... if you voted in person..... Trump didn't question the in person voting that you are concerned about, he was a happy camper with those election results because he was way ahead in the election day, in person votes.

In ADDITION, Democrats voted mostly by mail.... and every single ballot is a hand-filled ballot.... there was a paper trail.... and on the recounts requested by president trump, these hand counted absentee ballots, matched the machine scanned counts.....!

 

[Skylar]

OK. And what do you think that reason is?

Because they didn't want anyone doing to them what they did to the British.

As demonstrated by the army Washington lead to put down Shay.

 

[Care4all]

" John Locke wrote in his Two Treaties on Government that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments."
- Stanford University Plato
What we saw at the citadel of political corruption (The Congress) was people keeping their end of the social contract and storming the center of a crime syndicate. Power ultimately rest in the hands of the people. The citizens have every right to revolt against governments that do not rule in a just manner.

And a duly elected government has a right defend itself from sedition.

If it was legitimately elected.

and it was.

Only a blithering nincompoop would believe this election was legitimate.

Only a blithering nincompoop would believe it wasn't.

Throw out the corrupted mail-in ballots and what result do you get slow in the head boy?

They weren't corrupted..

Then let's look at the signatures in the voter registration log book. Oh, that's right, we can't. Rest my fucking case.

The ballots were gathered, examined, tallied, and certified. Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your delusions. Trump lost. Bigly. Get over it and move on.

No they weren't examined--how do I know---because many didn't even have signatures or addresses or were missing other information so there would have been nothing to examine.

and exactly HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT if they were never examined silly one?

 

[9thIDdoc]

OK. And what do you think that reason is?

Because they didn't want anyone doing to them what they did to the British.

As demonstrated by the army Washington lead to put down Shay.

Probable and understandable. But that doesn't mean that they didn't consider treason necessary under certain circumstances. They stated so quite bluntly in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Skylar]

OK. And what do you think that reason is?

Because they didn't want anyone doing to them what they did to the British.

As demonstrated by the army Washington lead to put down Shay.

Probable and understandable. But that doesn't mean that they didn't consider treason necessary under certain circumstances. They stated so quite bluntly in the Declaration of Independence.

There were no provisions for treason against the United States in their constitution or their laws. Treason is the only crime the constitution goes to the trouble of defining and defining exclusively.

So they clearly didn't consider treason against the United States to be necessary....under any circumstance. Treason against Britain? Yes.

Is that inconsistent and deeply hypocritical of them? Also yes.

 

[Turtlesoup]

" John Locke wrote in his Two Treaties on Government that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments."
- Stanford University Plato
What we saw at the citadel of political corruption (The Congress) was people keeping their end of the social contract and storming the center of a crime syndicate. Power ultimately rest in the hands of the people. The citizens have every right to revolt against governments that do not rule in a just manner.

And a duly elected government has a right defend itself from sedition.

If it was legitimately elected.

It was.

When you have ballot dumps in the middle of the night with the nefarious "mail in ballots" it violates the social contract rendering the government illegitimate.

There were no ballot dumps in the middle of the night.... absentee ballots were not processed and counted until the middle of the night.... and the next few nights, it took a while to process, then count them all.

You can't have an absentee ballot without an envelope, an envelope that was processed, including whether it was a legitimate registered voter, and one that put in a request for that mail ballot... in all of the battle ground states, except one, which had election law in their state, that permitted them to mail ballots to registered voters, without a request.


In the Checks and Balance process of elections, the count of how many mail in ballots were processed by the machine, has to match the count of absentee ballot envelopes received.

You can not stuff the ballot count with absentee ballots, nor can you run a ballot through more than once, with both times it counting.....because the total of ballots, would be more than the total of envelopes, and it would be CAUGHT.

And what exactly stops a machine from counting a vote for Trump as a vote for Biden if secretly rigged to do so? When I voted I pushed a series of buttons on a machine and have no way of knowing what the machine actually registered or whether that information was passed on correctly. I expect some proof that my vote was actually counted as intended before I would consider the election legitimate. Why should States have an opportunity to make laws that make it easier for them to cheat? The President elected is supposed to be the President of every one in the Nation so the rules for his election should apply equally to all citizens. But ONLY actual living breathing citizens.

State legislatures write their election laws, with both democratic and republican legislatures, to make elections, as secure and safe as possible.... machines are audited before elections to make certain they are working correctly.....

Also, the voting machines are not connected to the internet, they are contained within each voting precinct....

And every one of these 6 battleground states gave a printed receipt of your votes for the election that you could check..... if you voted in person..... Trump didn't question the in person voting that you are concerned about, he was a happy camper with those election results because he was way ahead in the election day, in person votes.

In ADDITION, Democrats voted mostly by mail.... and every single ballot is a hand-filled ballot.... there was a paper trail.... and on the recounts requested by president trump, these hand counted absentee ballots, matched the machine scanned counts.....!

But we know that is a lie a big fucking lie about the voting machines not be connected to the internet--------

Dominion came out and blamed the first vote flipping on the human error because the operator did not connect the voting machine to the internet for a download.

 

[Turtlesoup]

" John Locke wrote in his Two Treaties on Government that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments."
- Stanford University Plato
What we saw at the citadel of political corruption (The Congress) was people keeping their end of the social contract and storming the center of a crime syndicate. Power ultimately rest in the hands of the people. The citizens have every right to revolt against governments that do not rule in a just manner.

And a duly elected government has a right defend itself from sedition.

If it was legitimately elected.

and it was.

Only a blithering nincompoop would believe this election was legitimate.

Only a blithering nincompoop would believe it wasn't.

Throw out the corrupted mail-in ballots and what result do you get slow in the head boy?

They weren't corrupted..

Then let's look at the signatures in the voter registration log book. Oh, that's right, we can't. Rest my fucking case.

The ballots were gathered, examined, tallied, and certified. Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your delusions. Trump lost. Bigly. Get over it and move on.

No they weren't examined--how do I know---because many didn't even have signatures or addresses or were missing other information so there would have been nothing to examine.

and exactly HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT if they were never examined silly one?

How do you examine NOTHING-----------if a ballot doesn't have signature addresses etc--------you can see that NOTHIng is there and therefore it can't be examined for accuracy so ergo the ballots with blank validation areas could not be examined.

 

[Skylar]

" John Locke wrote in his Two Treaties on Government that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments."
- Stanford University Plato
What we saw at the citadel of political corruption (The Congress) was people keeping their end of the social contract and storming the center of a crime syndicate. Power ultimately rest in the hands of the people. The citizens have every right to revolt against governments that do not rule in a just manner.

And a duly elected government has a right defend itself from sedition.

If it was legitimately elected.

and it was.

Only a blithering nincompoop would believe this election was legitimate.

Only a blithering nincompoop would believe it wasn't.

Throw out the corrupted mail-in ballots and what result do you get slow in the head boy?

They weren't corrupted..

Then let's look at the signatures in the voter registration log book. Oh, that's right, we can't. Rest my fucking case.

The ballots were gathered, examined, tallied, and certified. Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your delusions. Trump lost. Bigly. Get over it and move on.

No they weren't examined--how do I know---because many didn't even have signatures or addresses or were missing other information so there would have been nothing to examine.

and exactly HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT if they were never examined silly one?

How do you examine NOTHING-----------if a ballot doesn't have signature addresses etc--------you can see that NOTHIng is there and therefore it can't be examined for accuracy so ergo the ballots with blank validation areas could not be examined.

How do you know the ballot doesn't have a signature....if its never been examined?

 

[Care4all]

" John Locke wrote in his Two Treaties on Government that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments."
- Stanford University Plato
What we saw at the citadel of political corruption (The Congress) was people keeping their end of the social contract and storming the center of a crime syndicate. Power ultimately rest in the hands of the people. The citizens have every right to revolt against governments that do not rule in a just manner.

And a duly elected government has a right defend itself from sedition.

If it was legitimately elected.

and it was.

Only a blithering nincompoop would believe this election was legitimate.

Only a blithering nincompoop would believe it wasn't.

Throw out the corrupted mail-in ballots and what result do you get slow in the head boy?

They weren't corrupted..

Then let's look at the signatures in the voter registration log book. Oh, that's right, we can't. Rest my fucking case.

The ballots were gathered, examined, tallied, and certified. Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your delusions. Trump lost. Bigly. Get over it and move on.

No they weren't examined--how do I know---because many didn't even have signatures or addresses or were missing other information so there would have been nothing to examine.

and exactly HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT if they were never examined silly one?

How do you examine NOTHING-----------if a ballot doesn't have signature addresses etc--------you can see that NOTHIng is there and therefore it can't be examined for accuracy so ergo the ballots with blank validation areas could not be examined.

the envelopes that the ballots are returned in, have the registered voter's name and address on a printed label on the absentee ballot envelope. Once the envelope and voter is identified and approved, the ballot inside is removed and prepared for being counted.

the ballot itself would never ever have a voter's name on it, because in America, we have a secret ballot

what country are you from? don't they have a secret ballot?

 

[Bush92]

" John Locke wrote in his Two Treaties on Government that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments."
- Stanford University Plato
What we saw at the citadel of political corruption (The Congress) was people keeping their end of the social contract and storming the center of a crime syndicate. Power ultimately rest in the hands of the people. The citizens have every right to revolt against governments that do not rule in a just manner.

And a duly elected government has a right defend itself from sedition.

If it was legitimately elected.

and it was.

Only a blithering nincompoop would believe this election was legitimate.

Only a blithering nincompoop would believe it wasn't.

Throw out the corrupted mail-in ballots and what result do you get slow in the head boy?

They weren't corrupted..

Then let's look at the signatures in the voter registration log book. Oh, that's right, we can't. Rest my fucking case.

The ballots were gathered, examined, tallied, and certified. Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your delusions. Trump lost. Bigly. Get over it and move on.

No they weren't examined--how do I know---because many didn't even have signatures or addresses or were missing other information so there would have been nothing to examine.

and exactly HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT if they were never examined silly one?

How do you examine NOTHING-----------if a ballot doesn't have signature addresses etc--------you can see that NOTHIng is there and therefore it can't be examined for accuracy so ergo the ballots with blank validation areas could not be examined.

How do you know the ballot doesn't have a signature....if its never been examined?

Because they do not idiot

 

[Skylar]

" John Locke wrote in his Two Treaties on Government that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments."
- Stanford University Plato
What we saw at the citadel of political corruption (The Congress) was people keeping their end of the social contract and storming the center of a crime syndicate. Power ultimately rest in the hands of the people. The citizens have every right to revolt against governments that do not rule in a just manner.

And a duly elected government has a right defend itself from sedition.

If it was legitimately elected.

and it was.

Only a blithering nincompoop would believe this election was legitimate.

Only a blithering nincompoop would believe it wasn't.

Throw out the corrupted mail-in ballots and what result do you get slow in the head boy?

They weren't corrupted..

Then let's look at the signatures in the voter registration log book. Oh, that's right, we can't. Rest my fucking case.

The ballots were gathered, examined, tallied, and certified. Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your delusions. Trump lost. Bigly. Get over it and move on.

No they weren't examined--how do I know---because many didn't even have signatures or addresses or were missing other information so there would have been nothing to examine.

and exactly HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT if they were never examined silly one?

How do you examine NOTHING-----------if a ballot doesn't have signature addresses etc--------you can see that NOTHIng is there and therefore it can't be examined for accuracy so ergo the ballots with blank validation areas could not be examined.

How do you know the ballot doesn't have a signature....if its never been examined?

Because they do not idiot

So if they ballots don't have signatures.......why would the lack of signatures on the ballots be an indication of fraud, little one?

 

[9thIDdoc]

" John Locke wrote in his Two Treaties on Government that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments."
- Stanford University Plato
What we saw at the citadel of political corruption (The Congress) was people keeping their end of the social contract and storming the center of a crime syndicate. Power ultimately rest in the hands of the people. The citizens have every right to revolt against governments that do not rule in a just manner.

And a duly elected government has a right defend itself from sedition.

If it was legitimately elected.

It was.

When you have ballot dumps in the middle of the night with the nefarious "mail in ballots" it violates the social contract rendering the government illegitimate.

There were no ballot dumps in the middle of the night.... absentee ballots were not processed and counted until the middle of the night.... and the next few nights, it took a while to process, then count them all.

You can't have an absentee ballot without an envelope, an envelope that was processed, including whether it was a legitimate registered voter, and one that put in a request for that mail ballot... in all of the battle ground states, except one, which had election law in their state, that permitted them to mail ballots to registered voters, without a request.


In the Checks and Balance process of elections, the count of how many mail in ballots were processed by the machine, has to match the count of absentee ballot envelopes received.

You can not stuff the ballot count with absentee ballots, nor can you run a ballot through more than once, with both times it counting.....because the total of ballots, would be more than the total of envelopes, and it would be CAUGHT.

And what exactly stops a machine from counting a vote for Trump as a vote for Biden if secretly rigged to do so? When I voted I pushed a series of buttons on a machine and have no way of knowing what the machine actually registered or whether that information was passed on correctly. I expect some proof that my vote was actually counted as intended before I would consider the election legitimate. Why should States have an opportunity to make laws that make it easier for them to cheat? The President elected is supposed to be the President of every one in the Nation so the rules for his election should apply equally to all citizens. But ONLY actual living breathing citizens.

State legislatures write their election laws, with both democratic and republican legislatures, to make elections, as secure and safe as possible.... machines are audited before elections to make certain they are working correctly.....

Also, the voting machines are not connected to the internet, they are contained within each voting precinct....

And every one of these 6 battleground states gave a printed receipt of your votes for the election that you could check..... if you voted in person..... Trump didn't question the in person voting that you are concerned about, he was a happy camper with those election results because he was way ahead in the election day, in person votes.

In ADDITION, Democrats voted mostly by mail.... and every single ballot is a hand-filled ballot.... there was a paper trail.... and on the recounts requested by president trump, these hand counted absentee ballots, matched the machine scanned counts.....!

I am aware that States write their own election laws which is just as it should be for State elections. But the rules should be the same nationwide for national elections because no one deserves special privileges because of where they live. We are are supposed to be about equality and we should practice equality in our elections. A receipt from my local voting site doesn't mean much without a permanent certified record of how my vote was counted that can be checked against my receipt at any time in the future. With computers, the cloud, and such this should be doable.
Seems to me that machines do what they are told to do including lie and cheat. Whose assurances that they have been properly maintained and audited can I believe?

 

[Skylar]

" John Locke wrote in his Two Treaties on Government that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments."
- Stanford University Plato
What we saw at the citadel of political corruption (The Congress) was people keeping their end of the social contract and storming the center of a crime syndicate. Power ultimately rest in the hands of the people. The citizens have every right to revolt against governments that do not rule in a just manner.

And a duly elected government has a right defend itself from sedition.

If it was legitimately elected.

It was.

When you have ballot dumps in the middle of the night with the nefarious "mail in ballots" it violates the social contract rendering the government illegitimate.

There were no ballot dumps in the middle of the night.... absentee ballots were not processed and counted until the middle of the night.... and the next few nights, it took a while to process, then count them all.

You can't have an absentee ballot without an envelope, an envelope that was processed, including whether it was a legitimate registered voter, and one that put in a request for that mail ballot... in all of the battle ground states, except one, which had election law in their state, that permitted them to mail ballots to registered voters, without a request.


In the Checks and Balance process of elections, the count of how many mail in ballots were processed by the machine, has to match the count of absentee ballot envelopes received.

You can not stuff the ballot count with absentee ballots, nor can you run a ballot through more than once, with both times it counting.....because the total of ballots, would be more than the total of envelopes, and it would be CAUGHT.

And what exactly stops a machine from counting a vote for Trump as a vote for Biden if secretly rigged to do so? When I voted I pushed a series of buttons on a machine and have no way of knowing what the machine actually registered or whether that information was passed on correctly. I expect some proof that my vote was actually counted as intended before I would consider the election legitimate. Why should States have an opportunity to make laws that make it easier for them to cheat? The President elected is supposed to be the President of every one in the Nation so the rules for his election should apply equally to all citizens. But ONLY actual living breathing citizens.

State legislatures write their election laws, with both democratic and republican legislatures, to make elections, as secure and safe as possible.... machines are audited before elections to make certain they are working correctly.....

Also, the voting machines are not connected to the internet, they are contained within each voting precinct....

And every one of these 6 battleground states gave a printed receipt of your votes for the election that you could check..... if you voted in person..... Trump didn't question the in person voting that you are concerned about, he was a happy camper with those election results because he was way ahead in the election day, in person votes.

In ADDITION, Democrats voted mostly by mail.... and every single ballot is a hand-filled ballot.... there was a paper trail.... and on the recounts requested by president trump, these hand counted absentee ballots, matched the machine scanned counts.....!

I am aware that States write their own election laws which is just as it should be for State elections. But the rules should be the same nationwide for national elections because no one deserves special privileges because of where they live.

The only way a national election would make sense is if it were a popular vote.

 

[Care4all]

" John Locke wrote in his Two Treaties on Government that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments."
- Stanford University Plato
What we saw at the citadel of political corruption (The Congress) was people keeping their end of the social contract and storming the center of a crime syndicate. Power ultimately rest in the hands of the people. The citizens have every right to revolt against governments that do not rule in a just manner.

And a duly elected government has a right defend itself from sedition.

If it was legitimately elected.

It was.

When you have ballot dumps in the middle of the night with the nefarious "mail in ballots" it violates the social contract rendering the government illegitimate.

There were no ballot dumps in the middle of the night.... absentee ballots were not processed and counted until the middle of the night.... and the next few nights, it took a while to process, then count them all.

You can't have an absentee ballot without an envelope, an envelope that was processed, including whether it was a legitimate registered voter, and one that put in a request for that mail ballot... in all of the battle ground states, except one, which had election law in their state, that permitted them to mail ballots to registered voters, without a request.


In the Checks and Balance process of elections, the count of how many mail in ballots were processed by the machine, has to match the count of absentee ballot envelopes received.

You can not stuff the ballot count with absentee ballots, nor can you run a ballot through more than once, with both times it counting.....because the total of ballots, would be more than the total of envelopes, and it would be CAUGHT.

And what exactly stops a machine from counting a vote for Trump as a vote for Biden if secretly rigged to do so? When I voted I pushed a series of buttons on a machine and have no way of knowing what the machine actually registered or whether that information was passed on correctly. I expect some proof that my vote was actually counted as intended before I would consider the election legitimate. Why should States have an opportunity to make laws that make it easier for them to cheat? The President elected is supposed to be the President of every one in the Nation so the rules for his election should apply equally to all citizens. But ONLY actual living breathing citizens.

State legislatures write their election laws, with both democratic and republican legislatures, to make elections, as secure and safe as possible.... machines are audited before elections to make certain they are working correctly.....

Also, the voting machines are not connected to the internet, they are contained within each voting precinct....

And every one of these 6 battleground states gave a printed receipt of your votes for the election that you could check..... if you voted in person..... Trump didn't question the in person voting that you are concerned about, he was a happy camper with those election results because he was way ahead in the election day, in person votes.

In ADDITION, Democrats voted mostly by mail.... and every single ballot is a hand-filled ballot.... there was a paper trail.... and on the recounts requested by president trump, these hand counted absentee ballots, matched the machine scanned counts.....!

I am aware that States write their own election laws which is just as it should be for State elections. But the rules should be the same nationwide for national elections because no one deserves special privileges because of where they live. We are are supposed to be about equality and we should practice equality in our elections. A receipt from my local voting site doesn't mean much without a permanent certified record of how my vote was counted that can be checked against my receipt at any time in the future. With computers, the cloud, and such this should be doable.
Seems to me that machines do what they are told to do including lie and cheat. Whose assurances that they have been properly maintained and audited can I believe?

We have a secret ballot.... i'm not certain how that could be done....? unless we all go back to a paper ballot like the absentee ballots, and then in a hand count, could be compared to the scanned machine count if there were any questions?

at one time, i remember having a paper ballot that we ourselves fed in to an optical scanner that counted our vote and shot back a receipt or showed on a monitor how we voted to make certain it captured it correctly.....? maybe something like that??? i dunno i dunno i dunno?

this is why poll workers are both republicans and democrats, working side by side, and are volunteers, when counting.... to keep shenanigans from happening, along with a gazillion other checks and balances put in place....

our founders left it up to the states with purpose... each being different was fine.....

if we try to nationalize it for federal elections then you would also have to take states rights away and make them all the same for everything federal election law....

like my state, lets prisoners vote while in prison, but Texas doesn't......etc..

my state lets you register and vote the same day as the election, others stop new registration weeks in advance...... but my state has so few people, it's easier for them to do.....

my state on elector allocation allows each contestant the ability to earn electors.... all other states but one, are winner takes ALL Electors......

then you'd have to make all voting machines the same and all kinds of things like that to make it fair etc etc etc etc....

it would really be a nightmare to try to agree on how a federal election should be run in all states and crush States rights...

 

[9thIDdoc]

OK. And what do you think that reason is?

Because they didn't want anyone doing to them what they did to the British.

As demonstrated by the army Washington lead to put down Shay.

Probable and understandable. But that doesn't mean that they didn't consider treason necessary under certain circumstances. They stated so quite bluntly in the Declaration of Independence.

There were no provisions for treason against the United States in their constitution or their laws. Treason is the only crime the constitution goes to the trouble of defining and defining exclusively.

So they clearly didn't consider treason against the United States to be necessary....under any circumstance. Treason against Britain? Yes.

Is that inconsistent and deeply hypocritical of them? Also yes.

Disagree. From the Declaration of Independence:

"-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,..."

I don't see how that limits what they clearly describe as a Right of the People to any particular government or even any form of government much less to just the British of their time. Note the "whenever". Seems clear to me that for the People to alter or abolish their government is invariably considered treason by the ruling government. What makes you think the US government was meant to be exempt from that sentiment? What is it you consider deeply hypocritical and inconsistent? It would only be so if your interpretation is correct which I don't believe.

 

[Skylar]

OK. And what do you think that reason is?

Because they didn't want anyone doing to them what they did to the British.

As demonstrated by the army Washington lead to put down Shay.

Probable and understandable. But that doesn't mean that they didn't consider treason necessary under certain circumstances. They stated so quite bluntly in the Declaration of Independence.

There were no provisions for treason against the United States in their constitution or their laws. Treason is the only crime the constitution goes to the trouble of defining and defining exclusively.

So they clearly didn't consider treason against the United States to be necessary....under any circumstance. Treason against Britain? Yes.

Is that inconsistent and deeply hypocritical of them? Also yes.

Disagree. From the Declaration of Independence:

"-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,..."

I don't see how that limits what they clearly describe as a Right of the People to any particular government or even any form of government much less to just the British of their time. Note the "whenever". Seems clear to me that for the People to alter or abolish their government is invariably considered treason by the ruling government. What makes you think the US government was meant to be exempt from that sentiment? What is it you consider deeply hypocritical and inconsistent? It would only be so if your interpretation is correct which I don't believe.

And when they'd won their revolution and established their own government the Founders shut the 'revolution' door behind them and wrote this:

It is the only crime that they ever defined in the entirety of the constitution. They left no provisions for making war against the United States. And put down every rebellion violently and thoroughly.

The founders did NOT believe in treason against the United States. And created no laws, no amendments, no provisions in the constitution for citizens of the United States to wage war against their own nation.

The founders were hypocrites of course. But successful ones.

 

[9thIDdoc]

OK. And what do you think that reason is?

Because they didn't want anyone doing to them what they did to the British.

As demonstrated by the army Washington lead to put down Shay.

Probable and understandable. But that doesn't mean that they didn't consider treason necessary under certain circumstances. They stated so quite bluntly in the Declaration of Independence.

There were no provisions for treason against the United States in their constitution or their laws. Treason is the only crime the constitution goes to the trouble of defining and defining exclusively.

So they clearly didn't consider treason against the United States to be necessary....under any circumstance. Treason against Britain? Yes.

Is that inconsistent and deeply hypocritical of them? Also yes.

Disagree. From the Declaration of Independence:

"-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,..."

I don't see how that limits what they clearly describe as a Right of the People to any particular government or even any form of government much less to just the British of their time. Note the "whenever". Seems clear to me that for the People to alter or abolish their government is invariably considered treason by the ruling government. What makes you think the US government was meant to be exempt from that sentiment? What is it you consider deeply hypocritical and inconsistent? It would only be so if your interpretation is correct which I don't believe.

And when they'd won their revolution and established their own government the Founders shut the 'revolution' door behind them and wrote this:

View attachment 440474

It is the only crime that they ever defined in the entirety of the constitution. They left no provisions for making war against the United States. And put down every rebellion violently and thoroughly.

The founders did NOT believe in treason against the United States. And created no laws, no amendments, no provisions in the constitution for citizens of the United States to wage war against their own nation.

The founders were hypocrites of course. But successful ones.

That article limits how the government defines treason and in no way speaks to the issue of whether they considered it necessary in certain circumstances. Of course treason is illegal always has been everywhere and that is especially true in times and places where it is necessary. That doesn't make it any less necessary as the FF were well aware.

 

[Skylar]

OK. And what do you think that reason is?

Because they didn't want anyone doing to them what they did to the British.

As demonstrated by the army Washington lead to put down Shay.

Probable and understandable. But that doesn't mean that they didn't consider treason necessary under certain circumstances. They stated so quite bluntly in the Declaration of Independence.

There were no provisions for treason against the United States in their constitution or their laws. Treason is the only crime the constitution goes to the trouble of defining and defining exclusively.

So they clearly didn't consider treason against the United States to be necessary....under any circumstance. Treason against Britain? Yes.

Is that inconsistent and deeply hypocritical of them? Also yes.

Disagree. From the Declaration of Independence:

"-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,..."

I don't see how that limits what they clearly describe as a Right of the People to any particular government or even any form of government much less to just the British of their time. Note the "whenever". Seems clear to me that for the People to alter or abolish their government is invariably considered treason by the ruling government. What makes you think the US government was meant to be exempt from that sentiment? What is it you consider deeply hypocritical and inconsistent? It would only be so if your interpretation is correct which I don't believe.

And when they'd won their revolution and established their own government the Founders shut the 'revolution' door behind them and wrote this:

View attachment 440474

It is the only crime that they ever defined in the entirety of the constitution. They left no provisions for making war against the United States. And put down every rebellion violently and thoroughly.

The founders did NOT believe in treason against the United States. And created no laws, no amendments, no provisions in the constitution for citizens of the United States to wage war against their own nation.

The founders were hypocrites of course. But successful ones.

That article limits how the government defines treason and in no way speaks to the issue of whether they considered it necessary in certain circumstances. Of course treason is illegal always has been everywhere and that is especially true in times and places where it is necessary. That doesn't make it any less necessary as the FF were well aware.

Waging war against the United States is the definition they chose. With Treason being the ONLY crime they felt necessary to include in the Constitution.

And the founders didn't provide any provision, any law, any means of 'legally' waging war against the United States for its citizens.

Every rebellion that rose up they brutally put down. With Washington leading those armies personally.

The Founders shut the door of revolution behind them. And did not EVER support treason against the United States.

Only treason against Britain.