criticalcircuit

@Tribunul1 Who am I? I'm a faithful Catholic who understands the history and teachings of the Church. Who are you to sling insults without, apparently, an elementary understanding of Canon Law?

@CritEngineering >who critiques church messaging who are you to make the difference between messaging and church authority? at least the protestants are honest about it

Sorry to any Catholic followers but this is comically unserious. Childish “let’s just be heckin nice” nonsense.

@Tribunul1 @ArtemisConsort 🤣 ah, yes. Because anyone who critiques church messaging is a sedevecantists. Big brain over here.

@CritEngineering @ArtemisConsort >The Vatican increasing preaches European globalism over Catholicism y'all sedevecantists are such subversive weasels and funny enough , more protestant/anti-pope than the actual protestants

Muslims and their useful idiots keep repeating this “Greater Israel” fantasy as if saying it enough times will make it real. It won’t. If Israel were truly driven by a grand expansionist vision, it would be the most incompetent empire in history. Decades of military strength, repeated battlefield victories, and yet no lasting expansion. That’s not how conquest works. In 1947–48 The United Nations proposed a partition plan, two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Jewish leadership accepted. The Arab states rejected it and chose war instead, launching a coordinated attack through the Arab League. Israel’s first war was not a war of expansion, it was a war of survival. From 1948 to 1967, twenty years, Israel did not expand. No “Greater Israel,” no creeping conquest. Just a small country under constant threat. Then came 1967. Gamal Abdel Nasser openly called for Israel’s destruction, massed troops, and closed the Straits of Tiran. Facing annihilation, Israel struck preemptively and took control of the West Bank (then under Jordanian control), Gaza (under Egyptian control), Sinai, and the Golan Heights. That was a security response to an existential threat. And here is where the “Greater Israel” myth completely collapses. 1979: Israel signs peace with Egypt under Anwar Sadat. It returns the entire Sinai Peninsula, territory several times its own size. In 1994, Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty, and Israel returned disputed lands as part of that agreement. A Lebanon: In 1982, Israel entered southern Lebanon not to expand, but because Palestinian militias had effectively taken over parts of the country and were launching constant attacks across the border. Lebanon had become a base of operations against Israel. Israel pushed in to remove that threat. And then in 2000, it withdrew. No annexation. No “Greater Israel.” Just left. Gaza: In 2005, Israel withdrew completely. Every soldier, every settlement removed. That territory was not kept, not annexed, given up. The Golan Heights: Strategic high ground overlooking northern Israel, used repeatedly to shell Israeli communities before 1967. Its control is about preventing that from happening again. Security, not hegemony. Yet still, according to the testimony of former Egyptian President Muhammad Hosni Mubarak, Israel offered Hafez al-Assad a withdrawal in exchange for peace, but he refused. Every territorial move Israel made was driven by security threats, not expansionist ideology. And when those threats were credibly reduced, Sinai, Lebanon, Gaza, Israel withdrew. So where is the “Greater Israel”? Where is this supposed empire? It exists only in propaganda. Israel has repeatedly traded land for peace, withdrawn from territory, and avoided permanent expansion even when it had the power to do so. Meanwhile, the same voices pushing this myth ignore the actual history of conquest and domination in the region, where expansion was not defensive, but ideological. Withdrawing from the West Bank today, under current conditions, would not be peace, it would be suicide. It would mean creating another Gaza overlooking Israel’s core population centers. No serious country does that. No nation hands strategic ground to forces committed to its destruction. So again: where is the “Greater Israel”? It doesn’t exist. It’s a narrative, useful, repeated, and detached from reality.

@JohnCleese What is going to stop them? Brits surrendered a decade ago.

Is their confidence justified that they will take over Britain, or is it the extreme confidence of the really stupid

@WhitePapersPol I agree with your general point, but comparing Mexican culture and Muslim culture is like comparing the COVID vs Ebola.

We should ban Islamic immigration, however Mexico has as many child brides <15 as Iran. Mexico has more violence against women (incl murder & rape) than the Middle East. And Mexico is - literally - our back yard. There are ~4.5 million Muslims and 40 million Mexicans in America. Banning Islamic immigration is necessary but a mere band aid on the third world cultures we have been importing for 60 years.

@jared_shult So you support removal of the filibuster then, right Jared?

Republicans control the house and senate you dumb fuck

@cabsav456 @BradSanJuan @Sroneous

@cabsav456 @BradSanJuan @Sroneous You didn't answer the question. Either you don't understand what a chokepoint is or you're evading the question. Explain how submitting voter rolls - something the states already maintain - creates a "chokepoint".

The SAVE Act has gotten even worse since this post. It now faces even more constitutional challenges, especially with the requirement that states turn over their entire voter rolls to the federal government via DHS. "Each State shall submit each individual in the official list of eligible voters for Federal office in the State to the Department of Homeland Security through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (‘SAVE’) system for the purposes of identifying individuals who are not citizens of the United States and taking the necessary steps to remove such individuals who are not citizens from the official list." This is a massive step toward federalizing elections and centralizing power in D.C. This is federal overreach and is exactly what conservatives have always opposed. Hard pass.

No, liar. You do realize this entire exchange is public and just a scroll away, right? Right...? The reply was one in a chain of 13 consecutive replies directly between you and me. In reply to my post listing election insecurities the legislation seeks to address, you replied directly to me, claiming those aren't real insecurities - they're simply 'decentralized by design.' That's embarrassingly bad wordsmithing, but you were clearly arguing the legislation is unnecessary because it seeks to alter what is intentionally decentralized. And I'll go ahead and explain this to you, since you don't seem to be capable of connecting the dots anywhere else, but the opposite of decentralized is centralization. Is this all you've got left? You're just going to deny reality? While I do enjoy deconstructing logical fallacies and checking entitled pricks, it's not nearly as entertaining dealing with compulsive liars.

@CritEngineering @Sroneous @cabsav456 @grok I was having a conversation with a separate person stating that I believe decentralization is inherently more secure than centralization. You injected everything else.

🤣 You're a dishonest douche. This entire discussion is focused on the SAVE Act. You argued against the legislation, stating that election "decentralization was by design." The only reason to make that argument is if you believe the legislation runs contrary to decentralization. You're now just quibbling semantics, and doing that poorly as well.

@CritEngineering @Sroneous @cabsav456 @grok Never said the Save Act centralized elections.

Oy... Buddy. It's tough enough when you pretend not to understand anything I state. If you're going to pretend not to understand the things you state immediately after stating them, it's going to be a long day. You're also shifting to a red herring now that your previous fallacies didn't pan out, but I'll play along. Exhibit A, x.com/i/status/20361…, in which you suggest the legislation encroaches on state authority over its voters and the process for tabulating said votes, implying it will be replaced by a single centralized federal system. None of which is true. Exhibit B: x.com/i/status/20361…, in which you suggest that legislation which requires zero federal dollars and which does nothing to shift election administration from states to the federal government is "wasteful spending" and contrary to the principle of limited government.

@CritEngineering @Sroneous @cabsav456 @grok Explain why you don’t think I understand The Save Act and what changes if implemented.

🤣 - You're doing the typical leftist thing, pretending not to understand. - Those cases do not represent all instances. The are representative of vulnerabilities in the system. - The Heritage Foundation came to the identical conclusion I did even though I wasn't aware of their position, which... LOL. - I love that I forced you to use Grok's public reply feature by calling you out for your previous manipulation and it blew up in your face. Also LOL. - Yes, Conservatives are generally opposed to increased federal control and wasteful spending. This doesn't represent a major departure from either of these principles. The bill doesn't "centralize elections" as you and Lauren have repeatedly suggested, it doesn't represent a significant national expenditure, and it protects one of the most sacred acts of democracy. At this point, it's obvious you haven't actually read the proposed legislation and you are reactively opposing it because, "Guhvament bad!"

Sure 1620 cases of election fraud since the 40’s (which is mostly citizens) based on billions and billions of overall votes in the same timeframe is an accuracy rate of over 99.9999%. Republicans all my life have claimed to stand for fiscal responsibility and limited government yet here you are demanding more goverment involvement and wasteful spending. Strange times indeed.

@BradSanJuan @Sroneous @cabsav456 @grok 🤣 Got an update, Brad?

@Sroneous @CritEngineering @cabsav456 @grok what does the Heritage Foundation say about election security in USA.

@BradSanJuan @Sroneous @cabsav456 Pointing out obvious insecurities is not nonsensical. It's nonsensical to dismiss obvious insecurities based on a position that they aren't real because you don't think you have adequate proof that they are actively being exploited to a sufficient degree. That's insane.

@CritEngineering @Sroneous @cabsav456 If you can prove they are insecure you are welcome to do so and you should. Until then you are just another nonsensical person that is offering solutions to a problem that does not exist.

@BradSanJuan @Sroneous @cabsav456 "Elections are secure. Even though they aren't. But that part is a non-issue. Because they are secure."

Elections are secure, this has been heavily studied and researched by credible sources on both sides of the political spectrum. While certain functions may not be as secure as some would like (or should be), as a whole every challenge to election security has proved it’s a non-issue.

@BradSanJuan @Sroneous @cabsav456 The proposed legislation does not remove state authority over voter rolls or change the process of votes to a single federal system. Have you considered reading it?

@Sroneous @CritEngineering @cabsav456 Disagree. The decentralized approach of giving each state authority over its voters and the process for tabulating said votes is inherently more secure than a single centralized federal system.

No, no, no. You see.... It's "secure" because they say it's secure. Even though there are known, obvious, specific, exploitable insecurities. Because successful exploitations of those insecurities have not identified in sufficient quantity. Even though that threshold quantity is undefined. And even though inspection of those insecurities are limited and after-the-fact. And even though the nature of those insecurities makes identification of issues difficult. Because it's secure, you see.

@CritEngineering @BradSanJuan @cabsav456 As someone that's worked in the software security industry, I assure you the default state of ANY system is INSECURE. Don't take my word for it; check industry literature or ask anyone working in security. The onus of proof is on those claiming it's secure.

@cabsav456 @BradSanJuan @Sroneous What "chokepoint", specifically, does the proposed legislation create?

@BradSanJuan @CritEngineering @Sroneous Exactly. Going from 50 different chokepoints to 1 chokepoint would be insanely STUPID

1. They are, by definition, insecurities. Just because an insecurity hasn't been exploited to some arbitrary threshold that you personally hold doesn't mean they aren't insecurities. 2. You can have a decentralized elections with high-level critical requirements to address these insecurities. States decide the default rules, but Congress can alter those rules via federal law. By design. 3. Two can play your games. Look at what you can do when you're manipulative and dishonest: x.com/i/grok/share/8…

@CritEngineering @cabsav456 @Sroneous They are not insecurities it’s decentralized by design.