Olivia
Online
KennisonDF
@DfKennison
Joined July 2022
93 Following
9 Followers
82 Posts
Pinned Tweet
Dodgers longtime play-by-play announcer, Hall of Fame inductee, Vin Scully, dead yesterday at 94. His voice, on a vacuum-tube AM/FM Zenith radio, was the soundtrack for games I "watched” in imagination, games in which the Brooklyn “Bums” rose from also-rans to World Champions. …
REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”.
In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified. Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical.
Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal. The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority.
Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”.
Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud, when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity.
By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions.
To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.
Libertarians, progressives, conservatives, and everyone in between has at some point needed a jury willing to vote its conscience. Those who forget this do so at their peril.
Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”.
In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified. Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical.
https://t.co/8U0kp7q4qj
According to election administrators and investigators, confirmed cases of unlawful voting are vanishingly rare. In a new Cato Podcast episode, @walterolson and @stephen_richer explore how voter roll audits work and what the evidence reveals about the scale of the problem.
Apple Podcasts: https://t.co/2qQDwfhLwV
Spotify: https://t.co/rGHhYpZtB8
Website: https://t.co/aswEccnlY4
Re your statement, “The Fourth Amendment is clear and I am well within my duties to educate people of their rights.”:
The First Amendment is clear. You are well within your rights to educate people of their rights. In fact, you are even within your rights to miseducate (except as an element of fraud) people of their rights.
According to Grok:
ATTN Department of Government Efficiency
First: Zero-based departmentalization.
Then: Zero-based budgeting.
“One of the biggest traps for smart engineers is optimizing something that shouldn't exist.” — Elon Musk
AGREED!
However, I also hope Vance is honest enough to reply that Trump's “loss” (and Biden's “win”) occurred in light of election procedures having been modified in several states in such a manner as to make it impossible to prove either election integrity or election fraud.
https://t.co/8U0kp7q4qj
REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”.
In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified. Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical.
Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal. The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority.
Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”.
Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud, when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity.
By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions.
To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.
@SkylarGwynn @floridanow1 @elonmusk @SkylarGwynn:
According to the tally below your posting, This should have been the 4th reply, but the previous 3 replies are not visible.
@elonmusk, @Support:
Is 𝕏 still infected with a censorship virus or is there some other explanation?
@DJcalligraphy https://t.co/zMnPLgP546
REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”.
In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified. Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical.
Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal. The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority.
Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”.
Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud, when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity.
By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions.
To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.
@AlanDersh https://t.co/zMnPLgPCTE
REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”.
In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified. Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical.
Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal. The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority.
Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”.
Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud, when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity.
By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions.
To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.
I had a mixed response to Rumble and Locals going public. I fear that going public creates serious vulnerabilities for pro free-speech enterprises. I encourage widespread premium membership as a viable means of minimizing the pressure on @elonmusk to have 𝕏 go public.
@elon_docs https://t.co/KxL0d6OTFW
It is wise to question the question before answering it. David Faber asked (and Elon Musk answered) the wrong question:
REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”.
In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified. Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical.
Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal. The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority.
Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”.
Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity.
By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions.
To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.
REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”.
In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional federal republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified. Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical.
Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal. The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority.
Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”.
Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud, when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity.
By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions.
To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.
REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”.
In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional federal republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified. Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical.
Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal. The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority.
Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”.
Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud, when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity.
By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions.
To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.
@RNCVoteProtect https://t.co/hIIFTTDxpC
REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”.
In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional federal republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified. Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical.
Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal. The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority.
Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”.
Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud, when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity.
By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions.
To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.
@Judgenap https://t.co/Xgwri5RHPX
REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”.
In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional federal republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified. Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical.
Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal. The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority.
Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”.
Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud, when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity.
By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions.
To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.
REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”.
In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional federal republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified. Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical.
Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal. The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority.
Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”.
Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud, when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity.
By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions.
To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.
It is wise to question the question before answering it. David Faber asked (and Elon Musk answered) the wrong question:
REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”.
In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified. Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical.
Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal. The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority.
Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”.
Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity.
By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions.
To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.
https://t.co/XRmA0irvV4
https://t.co/We3BW2QEGe
Nick's best version by far of his theory of consciousness:
the positive side of illusionism, with new lines of evidential support.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.7M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.6M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.2M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.4M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90.1M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
84M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.5M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.5M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.2M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.3M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers