Sedition Defined
14 responses | 0 likes
Started by joj - Dec. 12, 2020, 2:39 a.m.

Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it.

By mcfarm - Dec. 12, 2020, 7:23 a.m.
Like Reply

good idea, lets start rounding up all the BLM people right now, today, this hour. And right behind them comes the "squad".....did you happen to catch one the squads husbands came in with a cool 500,000 in ppe. Yes that is what that program was for, enriching the elites

By TimNew - Dec. 12, 2020, 8:58 a.m.
Like Reply

I think he's talking about the dems and the MSM using disinformation and meta-constitutional abuses in an effort to overturn the will of the voters for the last 4 years in what can only be described as a coup.

And stuff Like this.

WATCH: Democrat Rep. Cynthia Johnson Threatens Trump Supporters: ‘Make Them Pay’ | The Daily Wire

and this.

Maxine Waters Calls on People to Harass Trump Officials Anywhere in Public - Bing video

Or any 100's of other examples, not to mention the sham investigations based on falsified data and a sham impeachment based on hearsay and supposition resulting in manufactured charges.

Right JOJ?

By metmike - Dec. 12, 2020, 1:19 p.m.
Like Reply

Naaaw, I don't think that joj meant that (-:

But he unintentionally described it and exactly what we witnessed all Summer long(still going on) in widespread fashion in many of the big cities.

2020 United States racial unrest

Clockwise from top:
DateMay 8, 2020 – ongoing
(7 months and 4 days)
Location United States
Caused bySeveral deaths related to police activity, notably the killing of George Floyd while being arrested by the Minneapolis Police,[1] police brutality,[1] lack of police accountability,[1] inequality and racism[2]
MethodsProtests, demonstrations, riots, looting, civil disobedience, civil resistance, strike action
United States Executive branch of federal government 
Local law enforcement

Death(s)at least 25[6]
Injuries400+ law enforcement officials and an unknown number of civilians[7]
ArrestedOver 14,000 (as of June 27, 2020)[5]
Damage$1–2 billion insured damages (as of September 17, 2020)[8]


This bears repeating:

Death(s)at least 25[6]
Injuries400+ law enforcement officials and an unknown number of civilians[7]
ArrestedOver 14,000 (as of June 27, 2020)[5]
Damage$1–2 billion insured damages (as of September 17, 2020)[8]


By joj - Dec. 12, 2020, 9:30 p.m.
Like Reply

As bad as those riots were MM they were not an attempt to "overthrow the legal authority".  We are not talking about social unrest (which was repeatedly condemned by Joe Biden).  We are talking about, having gone through all legal measures and failing, the President of the US asking legislators to override the will of the people as legally certified by the states.  

If sedition is the wrong description, I'll let you give the appropriate description.

Is it just "Trump saying something mean" as you and others here have often described his authoritarian antidemocratic behavior?

By TimNew - Dec. 12, 2020, 9:50 p.m.
Like Reply

JOJ..   I am profoundly amazed at  your response.  It baffeles my mind.   I am discombombulated.  How many adjectives and adverbs shall I use?

The riots your side of the aisle endorse are a mere symptom of the constitiutional disfunction you advocate. You appear to have once again "bypassed" my response and all it implys/documents.  

Will I  ever stop being suprised at your willful ignorance?  Appears not.    My bad.  

Joe Biden "ANTIFA is not an organization,   it's an idea"..   Yeah,  Great Idea.  Right JOJ?

By metmike - Dec. 13, 2020, 12:23 a.m.
Like Reply

"Is it just "Trump saying something mean" as you and others here have often described his authoritarian antidemocratic behavior?"


I can only guess that you are mischaracterizing my position so as to make it easier to attack it.

You bump heads here with others because they are conservatives and you are a liberal. I am very grateful to have you here expressing your liberal thoughts. We can use a few more of you here(that can express themselves without hateful, personal attacks which defined some in the past-but not you).

Maybe because of this, you are not used to somebody here agreeing with you on anything and so you can't recognize it when you see it.

Maybe you haven't noticed over the past month+, that my position on the election results and Trumps reaction has been much closer to yours (and WxFollowers) than anybody else's. 

We disagree on other things of course, which is wonderful too and I respect your opinions but maybe this too, is affecting how you are perceiving my position on this.

Regardless, I have mentioned numerous times that I strongly disapprove of Trump's behavior since the election and of his statements going well beyond just pursuing the legalities of challenging the results........but this has always defined President Trump.

Maybe you missed this, which is "not Trump saying SOMETHING mean"'s a pattern of behavior using the exact wrong verbiage to get along with people...... that continues to define him and it cost him the election. Do you not agree with this?

                Words Matter!            

                            Started by metmike - Dec. 12, 2020, 11:40 a.m.    

You can paint the extreme picture to describe Trump's behavior right now, using your personal feelings for him( I totally get where you are coming from) but should note that just because my position on this is not as extreme as yours,  please don't characterize my position in a way to maximize disagreement...........when there is agreement.

By joj - Dec. 13, 2020, 8:03 p.m.
Like Reply


I may have misremembered you for Tim or someone else who characterized Trump's attack on democracy  as "saying mean things".  Also, I hadn't read the post which aligned our viewpoints.

Anyway, back to the original question.  If not sedition, what would you call asking a legislature to overturn the will of the voters after all legal avenues had been exhausted?

By metmike - Dec. 13, 2020, 8:44 p.m.
Like Reply

"Also, I hadn't read the post which aligned our viewpoints."

Not post singular joj!


metmike: Agreeing to hearing this case would have just dragged this thing on longer because the chance of it succeeding was close to 0% based on the Constitution and separation of state powers.  When Trump tweeted out afterwards that the Supreme Court has "No wisdom, No courage" metmike was thinking "Mr. President, look no farther than your tweets to see the reason for why you just lost!"


Thanks for your sincere thoughts Wayne,

Wayne: "We have seen that in the past and look what happened"

metmike: The 2020 election should be judged based exclusively on the facts of the 2020 election. Bringing up  "this happened before" or "that happened before" only justifies having a position based on the facts of something totally unrelated when the facts this time don't support a position.

Wayne: "No: I do not believe Biden won a fair election. For every blustery PR statement made by Dominion machines there is another expert who claims to be able to prove Dominion is fraudulent"

metmike: We keep hearing about Dominion being fraudulent and the proof is there............just you wait, we'll have that proof.

Well, the election was 5 weeks ago and still no proof. 

Wayne: "I will wait to see what Sidney Powell brings to court

Other wise this is not a very productive back and forth debate"

metmike: Some of us have been learning things and found a recent thread  linked below to be very productive,............WxFollower, metmike and Tim at least. Often, it depends on what we are looking for. If we are only looking for evidence to prove ourselves right and the evidence that comes out, keeps proving ourselves wrong.....then, we ignore it because of that...................then you are right, it's not very productive. 

                Election Fraud in Ga            

                            27 responses |            

                Started by TimNew - Dec. 5, 2020, 5:14 a.m.    


"she explained that the only ballots that were scanned after the media and other observers had left were those that had already been opened in front of these observers."

This is also false based on afidavits."

metmike: Regardless of affidavids, WeatherFollower was able to give us the answer to the one huge question that I had about this. 

Which was........Where did the containers(referred to as suitcases from the accuser, which makes me not trust the source calling them that because they wanted people to think that they were snuck in from the outside vs just being regular containers filled with already opened ballots, waiting to be run thru the machines) come from.

Those perfectly legit containers were filled with already opened... while poll watchers witnessed it earlier....... perfectly legit ballots waiting to be run thru the machines.

The discrepancy over whether there was a burst pipe or an overflowing toilet means exactly zero. We have the entire thing on, including where those ballots came from which the accuser, conveniently did not tell us and dishonestly referred to as suitcases.

This is why I think its actually a good thing to encourage you guys to post your speculative theories and purported evidence of fraud here and open mindedly consider it.

If it's legit, then the evidence will show it, if it's not legit, then the evidence will not show it. In the events where its not legit and the evidence actually shows that but the sources  have twisted circumstances (or in other situations, like in MI and WI where its based on blatantly false information that I showed to be false) than it obliterates the credibility of those sources. 

Mucho thanks to Larry for providing the smoking gun evidence here that shows no fraud.

This is another example of mud slinging using a creative strategy that sounds convincing if you don't have all the evidence. Then, when the evidence comes proves to be false.

Every time this happens, I'm a little bit less likely to believe the next allegation. 

Do you guys not recognize what WxFollower and metmike are saying about this one? Your inability to process the facts which conclusively  bust the case for fraud  after they are presented on this one, tells us where your frame of mind is coming from.

On most of these, there will be no camera's to bust the case for fraud like cameras taping from earlier in the day did on this one. If you continue to believe in fraud after it was busted conclusively on numerous occasions here, you are just pawns being manipulated by one side that has captured your brains and convinced you to believe everything they say.


This previous statement becomes more relevant as we go along:

                the election.... "death by a thousand cuts"            


                Started by GunterK - Dec. 3, 2020, 1:10 a.m.    

metmike: I am going to use whats going on here as a lesson for people to help them decide on the truth in realms that they can't know themselves, other than to just read stories and statements from opposing sources.

If one entity/group is claiming that something happened and the other entity/group is claiming the exact opposite happened, and you were not there to witness it, how do you decide who to believe?

You look at their many statements. If one of those entities repeats numerous statements that end up being proven blatantly false beyond a shadow of a doubt, as I did myself in the thread above.........then you can't trust anything they state.  If they lie to you about things that you can prove are huge lies, why would you believe other things that you can't prove are lies?

But it is possible that in telling a ton of lies, there could be a few truths in there. Since their credibility was shot from telling the lies(about the election results), it means you need the evidence to prove when they are telling the truth. 

That would even be the case if they didn't lie to begin with here on the election fraud but now we have the history of verified lies from the accusers, which should just make any objective mind extremely skeptical of increasingly far fetched accusations that continue to have no evidence to show anything other than the usual isolated incidents of fraud and human errors......that happen during every election.

Again, my mind has been wide open to seeing that evidence for a month now. Show it and I will acknowledge it and post it from the MarketForum rooftops.


"It is my understanding that some law suits have succeeded in convincing judges to allow forensic audits of the Dominion machines"

     response by           By metmike - Dec. 7, 2020, 5:51 p.m.    

Dominion Voting Systems has been the target of election disinformation seeking to undermine confidence in the integrity of the 2020 election.  Here are the facts:

  • Dominion is a private American company that provides voting systems in 28 states, including "red" and "blue" jurisdictions.  Since its founding in 2003, Dominion has supported tens of thousands of elections in non-partisan fashion.
  • All Dominion systems are capable of producing paper records and are 100% auditable, with testing, reviews, audits, and recounts subject to oversight and verification by all political parties.
  • All 2020 election audits and recounts using Dominion technology have validated the accuracy and reliability of results, confirming the integrity of election outcomes.
  • Baseless claims about the integrity of the system or the accuracy of the results have been dismissed by election authorities, subject matter experts and third-party fact-checkers.
  • Malicious and misleading false claims about Dominion have resulted in dangerous levels of threats and harassment against the company and its employees, as well as election officials.



                By metmike - Dec. 7, 2020, 6:49 p.m.            

            Georgia secretary of state recertifies election results after recount    


                By metmike - Dec. 7, 2020, 7:42 p.m.            



We already established where those legal ballot holding containers came from...........and they weren't suitcases. They were from previously, legally opened ballots that were observed by poll watchers earlier in the day, who also observed them put those already opened ballots in those containers under the tables in those spots.

It's on the tape that WxFollower showed us several posts up.

It's a done deal. The evidence shows what really happened on tape from earlier that explains where they came from


                By metmike - Dec. 8, 2020, 5:21 p.m.            


Supreme Court rejects GOP bid to nullify Biden win in Pennsylvania


                By metmike - Dec. 8, 2020, 8:49 p.m.            

            Just to bust this latest false claim(again):

"The election officials of Michigan have already admitted that there was a computer glitch that caused 6000 votes to be switched from Trump to Biden. If I am not mistaken, this error was later corrected.

However, correcting the "glitch" is not the issue here. If it's impossible for the Dominion software to switch votes, there should have never been a "glitch" that did switch votes."

VERIFY: Software glitch did not switch votes to Biden, Michigan officials say



We discussed this one previously too.

I saw the stuff on the internet that showed this too. My thoughts at that time were that if somebody was going to try use a sophisticated algorithm strategy to sneak extra votes for Biden and not get caught, they would not do it showing up in a block of 20,000 votes suddenly  on national television for millions of people to see.

I can't give you an explanation for why that popped up briefly on just CNN. I could speculate wildly on some of the potential legit causes and would be no better than those that take any and every mistake or anomaly that ends up as explainable evidence of fraud, that they extrapolate and superimpose from an incident at one location to a theory that it occurred in numerous other places until its amplified to a large enough number that it flipped the election results. 


By metmike - Dec. 13, 2020, 8:51 p.m.
Like Reply


"Does anybody have a problem if alleged fraud by the Dominion machines is questioned and then decided by the Supreme Court"

metmike: The machines have been tested and checked over and over and over.

And its not up to the the Supreme Court to decide if they worked right or not.

    Fake Claims About Dominion Voting Systems Do Real Damage  


Our machines have no secret ‘vote flipping’ algorithm. We have no ties to dictator Hugo Chávez.


"Does anybody have a better solution for all 6 states in question. Not one state, all 6 states"

metmike: You said that this does not pass the smell test in a post last month.

Don't you think that its odd that all the fraud happened, only in states that Trump lost by a somewhat close margin? Last time I checked, there were 44 other states.

The reason for the majority of it, is that one side needs it for their narrative to overturn the elections in those states.

That's the smell test for me. Florida and North Carolina and Ohio were close and won by Trump...........but we are to believe there wasn't much fraud there?

This comes from Dominion today:

Dominion Voting Systems has been the target of election disinformation seeking to undermine confidence in the integrity of the 2020 election.  Here are the facts:


metmike: Wayne,

Last month, you asserted that since Dominion was not making any public statements defending themselves, they must be guilty.

What say you to their statements above?


metmike: I won't predict the results of this forensic audit of the Dominion machines. However, I will abide by the results/findings. How about you Wayne?

That is, as long as Trump's legal team doesn't try to put another bs spin on it like they have been doing in all these states about almost everything.

Seriously, this is getting old. Nothing big has turned up and its been almost 5 weeks. With President Trump now saying that the case has been made and with me looking as close as anybody for that case but seeing nothing big enough to come even close to overturning 1 state................I agree that the case has been made.

We'll use Trumps own words on this. The case has been made.

Trump lost, Biden won. 

By metmike - Dec. 13, 2020, 9:15 p.m.
Like Reply

That said joj,

What Trump and his team/supporters have been doing has been mostly legal, though at times absurd.  I described it numerous times as them just slinging mud and hoping to get some of it to stick.

They have also done it in the open, unlike the sneaky, law abusing Mueller investigation which was the corrupt response 4 years ago by his enemies to Trumps win by those trying to obliterate and overthrow him..... undo the results of the 2016 election. It's stated objective failed because he never colluded with Russia but it succeeded in giving the MSM and Dems 2.5 years of convincing us that he really did collude, so that when we found out that he really didn't do all those things.........those that considered him guilty until proven innocent had already convicted him and never believed the conclusions, instead, absurdly believing that him saying that Russia should turn over the Hillary emails in front of the entire world to hear,  was actually colluding with Russia.

If after 2.5 years and 35,000,000 and thousands of interviews, the main evidence that we have of him colluding with Russia was him saying in 2016, in front of the entire MSM and world "Russia, if you can hear me, give us Hillary Clintons illegal emails" then he had to be pretty dang clean and our DOJ pretty dang dirty. 

The evidence to this point to show that enough fraud to flip the election to Biden has been lacking and some of the assertions have been pretty silly, while some of them indicated the typical fraud that we usually see. Nothing coming to anywhere close to a fraction of what would be needed to overturn the results. 

Up until this point, to me its been very counterproductive and divisive because of the way it was handled and presented by President Trump. 

However, mcfarm brought something new to my attention earlier today.

Unlike everything else to this point, unless I'm totally missing something, what this guy says makes complete sense. 

You saw some of my dozen+ statements previously on this topic above and my position to this point can't be more clear now............even to you. 

But I would very much like to pursue the avenue that this guy describes to indisputably show whether there was major fraud or not.

There is no reason to not do what he is suggesting unless there is something to hide. This is the definitive way to prove there was no fraud or to prove there was big fraud. 

Why the Trump team has not gone down this legit path mystifies me but maybe somebody can clear that up. I can only guess that they were being led by some people that don't understand the machines enough to realize how to test them this way.

Or, it's possible that they know the results  will NOT show widespread fraud and they don't want that revealed.

By TimNew - Dec. 13, 2020, 9:37 p.m.
Like Reply

And the leftist cheerleaders say..    "Todays word is Sedition!!!!"  And all the leftist say. "Yeah..  Sedition.   We never knew what it meant before,  but this is sedition!!!"  And they all talk about sedition in every conversation on every platform.

And a while ago,  the leftist cheerleaders said "Todays word is emoluments!!!".  And all the leftist say" Yeah,  emoluments.  We never really knew what it meant before,  but this is a violation of the emoluments clause". And they all talk about emoluments in every conversation on every platform.

 And before that, the leftist cheerleaders said "Today's word is Collusion!!!",  And all the leftist say " We don't really know what collusion is,  but this is definitely collusion" and they talk about collusion in every conversation on every platform.

Anyone else noticing a pattern here?  

By metmike - Dec. 13, 2020, 10 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks Tim,

Group think definitely defines society today on both sides.

Using the scientific method, questioning my own belief about the results of this election, instead of looking for evidence to confirm it, I am revising my position slightly.

I would like to see this guys  method applied to prove once and for all that there was no fraud with the definitive test that he claims can be done.

This will erase all shadow of a doubt in everybody's mind and also show indisputably if there was big fraud. 

Since I do not understand the machines, like everybody else here, well enough to know that this was possible before and now do, based on this guy enlightening changes things.

If he is legit(looks like he is). Then a failure to apply the testing that he says is definitive and viable/practical and should be done suggests a problem. 

If one side refuses to cooperate in applying this test, then I will believe they are likely trying to hide something. 

If the Trump team is that side.................and after everything else they've done, don't push to use this guys testing procedure, then they don't want to get the definitive results.

By joj - Dec. 13, 2020, 10:12 p.m.
Like Reply

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

I ask for your opinion/description about a specific act.  I didn't ask what you thought of the merits of the dozens of legal cases that were struck down.  Yes they were legal to put up lame, baseless cases lacking evidence.  That is not what I asked.

I asked what you thought of asking a state legislature to illegally overturn the certification after all other legal avenues were pursued.  

A one paragraph response will suffice.  If it's 12 pages I promise you I will not read it.  I say that not as an insult but a plea for brevity and conciseness.  I have barely enough time in my day as it is.



By metmike - Dec. 14, 2020, 2:30 a.m.
Like Reply

"What we have here is a failure to communicate.

I ask for your opinion/description about a specific act.  I didn't ask what you thought of the merits of the dozens of legal cases that were struck down."

Maybe  not a failure to communicate as much as you still completely missing the point, even after 12 pages of evidence demonstrating it.

Which I will say another way. 

In most of your posts in this thread, you want to characterize my position vs your position  in a way that enables you to create and amplify any differences and ignore what has been a pretty strong agreement between us on most of it for the last 5 weeks. 

Those 12 pages were making that point. I understand that you are not used to somebody agreeing with you on so much for so long and maybe you would prefer to have debates/arguments but try to look for common ground, when possible.

I look for common ground in discussions.So whether you like it or not, I have agreed with you on almost all this stuff so far. 

Regarding you telling anybody here what form their answer should take (1 paragraph)  to meet your specifications and that if its too long, then you are too busy to read it. ...............that's an unreasonable request. I realize that I get too long winded but my previous posts intentionally went way overboard, bombarding you with all that evidence to show you the massive agreement that we've been in the last month+  after you used verbiage that stated otherwise.

One of the reasons that I enjoy your posts so much is that they give us a different opinion and a look/perspective from the liberal side that is usually lacking here.   Maybe you just are not used to another person agreeing with you so much on something here and don't know how to respond.  You tell me?