The Next President is...

[gearhog]

59 minutes ago, slackline said:

You’re absolutely right. John Oliver is a very humorous entertainer. Thanks for the share.

I think we should absolutely listen to him vs a credible expert in the cybersecurity field: https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election

I beg to differ on burden of proof. I am on the side of the elections being within the bounds of normal error, acceptable inconsistencies that would not turn the outcome of the election. You are claiming it was fraud and citing (maybe not recently) things like epochtimes, gatewaypundit, Rudy Giuliani, and yes, the most truthful man of them all, the President. Let’s not forget John Oliver, a paid entertainer that I agree is absolutely worth a watch, but doesn’t quite meet the level of professional journalism. Jimmy Fallon and Trevor Noah are also hilarious, but you won’t find me using them to back my point other than tongue in cheek. Let’s just go ahead and cite Tucker Carlson while we’re at it. Oh by the way, he’s on the record in a court of law saying his viewers should not see him as a source of truth and facts...
 

From your link: "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."

Yet you are saying there were inconsistencies. Which is it? None or Some?

Now this is the frustrating thing: You go on to claim that I've quoted the above sources you listed. I didn't. Now you'll go back and check, and maybe post something like "My Bad." Once Again. How many times are you going to falsely attribute things to me just to score a debate point? For someone who seems so concerned about fact finding and truth, you sure seem to fire from the hip anything that suits your narrative, valid or not.

Why is it you didn't correctly attribute the sources which I actually did link to: New York Times, CBS, CNN? You're being disingenuous. Are you dismissing the contents of those articles as well?

Edited November 20, 2020 by torqued

[gearhog]

14 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Yes. 
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9740535009

CLAIM: Dominion Voting Systems, one of the most widely used election technology firms in the United States, is owned by the company Smartmatic through an intermediary company called Indra. 

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Both Dominion and Smartmatic have released statements saying no ownership relationship exists between the two competing firms. Indra Sistemas, a Spanish company, told The Associated Press in an email it has never developed any project or had a commercial, contractual or corporate relationship with either firm.

And yes, I chose to trust AP over the “community journalism” of Medium. 

"We asked the companies if there were any incriminating relationships and they said 'No'."

LOL.

[gearhog]

6 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Oh btw, the article you posted was written in January of 2018 and Medium is leading off today with the headline: I Refused to Accept My Child’s Apology, and It Made Everyone Happier.  In fact, I don’t see a single article regarding this year’s election on their website. It appears that the amateur journalism website has wisely chosen to stay out of politics. I wonder if they would stand by the nearly three year old article you are using to make your case?

Let me make it easy for you. Each and every claim in that article is numbered. Each numbered paragraph has a link to the source of the information, many of them being from .gov websites, CNN, The Guardian, etc.

If I were to ask you to find a single false truth in the article, the probability that you'd switch the subject, "butwhatabout...", or stick to the "Nuh-Uh!" tactic is extremely high.

Here's how I know that you, also, are not interested in finding the truth: You don't have any disputes about the contents of the article, which is merely a compilation of other sources you'd otherwise call solid.

[Prozac]

Ok, I’ll play. Which one of the claims in the Medium article actually supports the narrative that Hugo Chavez had a hand in the 2020 election? I read the article. It looks to me like a very loose association of “facts” are being used to support a claim that voting machines used in the US “could” be compromised. Much of the information dates back to the early 2000s. So again, which facts, exactly, point to fraud in 2020?

[slackline]

31 minutes ago, torqued said:

From your link: "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."

Yet you are saying there were inconsistencies. Which is it? None or Some?

Now this is the frustrating thing: You go on to claim that I've quoted the above sources you listed. I didn't. Now you'll go back and check, and maybe post something like "My Bad." Once Again. How many times are you going to falsely attribute things to me just to score a debate point? For someone who seems so concerned about fact finding and truth, you sure seem to fire from the hip anything that suits your narrative, valid or not.

Why is it you didn't correctly attribute the sources which I actually did link to: New York Times, CBS, CNN? You're being disingenuous. Are you dismissing the contents of those articles as well?

No, I won't say, "my bad" because what's the difference between you, Sim, Seadogs or anyone else claiming this garbage.  Royal You...

I already discredited your legitimate links because they were 4 years old.  Maybe 1 year old link in there with John Oliver...

Don't play lawyer with the words.  Standard irregularities that happen with every election, not big enough to change results.  Evidence has been posted over and over again of that.  Not my fault if you refuse to acknowledge it.  

[Prozac]

22 minutes ago, torqued said:

 

Here's how I know that you, also, are not interested in finding the truth: You don't have any disputes about the contents of the article, which is merely a compilation of other sources you'd otherwise call solid.

Huh? You make whatever deductions you want man. Fact is, if you’re going to make claims about widespread fraud, it’s up to you to prove them. We’ve seen how the courts have treated the Trump campaign’s “evidence” so far and it’s claims have become no less dubious over time. It’s pretty obvious that they’re just saturating the system with garbage at this point in a blatant attempt to delay certification and try and steal this thing in the House of Representatives. The fact that you and about 70 percent of Republicans are rooting for the shit throwing orangutan worries me. 

[Guardian]

Those who don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it

[Negatory]

Ooh, quotes! Let me do one for you:

“In a way, the world−view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.”

Heres one more:

”The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

This is fun.

[Pooter]

Bottom line: extraordinary allegations require extraordinary evidence. If you're going to claim a nationwide voter fraud conspiracy, you're gonna need to do a hell of a lot better than stream-of-consciousness rants from Rudy Giuliani. 
 

You're also going to have to answer why the trump camp isn't actually alleging fraud in the court cases even though they won't stop talking about it in pressers. There is a complete mismatch between their public messaging and the court filings.  (It's almost like they're completely aware they're full of s***)

[Negatory]

True, some portions of the narrative on the left are abhorrent. Basically everything you said, I agree with. You can’t defund the police, you can’t tell every 30 year old white dude he’s racist and sexist just for existing, and “cancel culture” is doing quite a bit of driving people to be even more partisan than before.

I believe the far right’s attacks on science, the government (intelligence, HHS, etc), and media are more damaging to the country, though. Not far more - but more. This is literally becoming the party that is proud to see evidence and reject it just to reject it - not because there is logic or morality. A literal normalized saying right now is “fake news,” and I know people that are proud to say that to anything that doesn’t align with their current worldview. If you think about it, how can you ever reason with people like this?

 

Edited November 20, 2020 by Negatory

[Negatory]

Along those lines, I don’t usually watch Bill Maher, but I did happen to see this clip of him calling out some of the delusions of the current Democratic Party and why they didn’t do as well as they thought they would in the elections. I thought this really hit the nail on the head when it came down to what is wrong with “woke” culture.

 

Edited November 20, 2020 by Negatory

[gearhog]

2 hours ago, Prozac said:

Ok, I’ll play. Which one of the claims in the Medium article actually supports the narrative that Hugo Chavez had a hand in the 2020 election? I read the article. It looks to me like a very loose association of “facts” are being used to support a claim that voting machines used in the US “could” be compromised. Much of the information dates back to the early 2000s. So again, which facts, exactly, point to fraud in 2020?

Prozac, are you no longer beating your wife? Invalid question. Why would I frame a question like that unless I was trying to be deceptive? You're asking which article supports the narrative that Hugo Chavez had a hand in the 2020 election. No one said Hugo Chavez had a hand in the 2020 election. I know it's easier to attack your own mischaracterization of what was said than attacking what was actually said. But it's also obvious, and dishonest.

However, I'm not sure if you're intentionally creating a false statement that a narrative exists in which people believe Hugo Chavez interfered in the election, or if you're lazily summarizing what you think was said.

I've provided links to mainstream media sources in 2019 that said electronic voting fraud is possible and probable. If you ignored them earlier, would it change anything if I posted the same ones again, or more of them?

2 hours ago, Prozac said:

Huh? You make whatever deductions you want man. Fact is, if you’re going to make claims about widespread fraud, it’s up to you to prove them. We’ve seen how the courts have treated the Trump campaign’s “evidence” so far and it’s claims have become no less dubious over time. It’s pretty obvious that they’re just saturating the system with garbage at this point in a blatant attempt to delay certification and try and steal this thing in the House of Representatives. The fact that you and about 70 percent of Republicans are rooting for the shit throwing orangutan worries me. 

What were my claims? I have claimed that fraud exists. I've made no indication as to the extent, because I simply do not know. However, I believe it entirely possible, even probable that it could exist in ways that could have changed some of the results.

You seem to be saying election fraud simply does not exist. Am I misunderstanding?

As for the about "70%" of Republicans rooting for the "shit throwing orangutan", your derangement is showing. How is it you expect a civil conversation with regard to election security when you can so easily devolve into profane insults and emotional hysterics? Again, invalid question. You don't expect a civil conversation.

 

[gearhog]

3 hours ago, slackline said:

No, I won't say, "my bad" because what's the difference between you, Sim, Seadogs or anyone else claiming this garbage.  Royal You...

I already discredited your legitimate links because they were 4 years old.  Maybe 1 year old link in there with John Oliver...

Don't play lawyer with the words.  Standard irregularities that happen with every election, not big enough to change results.  Evidence has been posted over and over again of that.  Not my fault if you refuse to acknowledge it.  

Again, does election fraud exist in any form? It's a yes or no. I'm not asking you how much, only if it does.

I posted links to the the New York Times from 2019. You seem to be saying the age of an article is a discredit in itself. It's not. Updated controverting information is. You have none.

Believe me, I fully understand why you have a problem with precise language. If you believed precision was important, you wouldn't have much to say.

[slackline]

13 minutes ago, torqued said:

Again, does election fraud exist in any form? It's a yes or no. I'm not asking you how much, only if it does.

I posted links to the the New York Times from 2019. You seem to be saying the age of an article is a discredit in itself. It's not. Updated controverting information is. You have none.

Believe me, I fully understand why you have a problem with precise language. If you believed precision was important, you wouldn't have much to say.

You seem to disregard things people say.  Irregularities can include anything from fraud to a line of coding that made it read the wrong way.  Either way, fraud or not, they exist on a very small scale.  No one ever denied that.  Stop trying to act like anyone on here ever did.  You ignore what other people say that contests your point while sticking to arguments that don't further yours.  

The age of an article is absolutely relevant when the head of election security, a known and respected expert in the field says, as recently as 2-3 weeks ago that this was the most secure election we've had.  Does that negate the possibility of any minor amounts of fraud?  No. Does it negate the conspiracies and lies coming from this admin on fraud on a massive scale?  You bet.

You can make your petty statements and insults on why you "fully understand" your perceived problems of other people, but it doesn't make them true.  Just shows you attack the person instead of the point.  I'm done, you're becoming the new guardian...

 

ETA: and you're clearly not the only one throwing around personal insults.  It's childish and doesn't help anyone's argument.  I'll try to leave that out as much as possible.  I'll fully admit to allowing the ignorance shown on here (both sides) frustrate the crap out of me.

Edited November 20, 2020 by slackline

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, torqued said:

Prozac, are you no longer beating your wife? Invalid question. Why would I frame a question like that unless I was trying to be deceptive? You're asking which article supports the narrative that Hugo Chavez had a hand in the 2020 election. No one said Hugo Chavez had a hand in the 2020 election. I know it's easier to attack your own mischaracterization of what was said than attacking what was actually said. But it's also obvious, and dishonest.

However, I'm not sure if you're intentionally creating a false statement that a narrative exists in which people believe Hugo Chavez interfered in the election, or if you're lazily summarizing what you think was said.

Here’s what Sydney Powell said at the press conference:

 WHAT WE ARE REALLY DEALING WITH AND UNCOVERING MORE BY THE DAY IS THE MASSIVE INFLUENCE OF COMMUNIST MONEY THROUGH VENEZUELA, CUBA, AND LIKELY CHINA AND THE INTERFERENCE WITH OUR ELECTIONS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES. THE DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS, SMART-MATIC TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE AND SOFTWARE THAT GOES IN OTHER COMPUTERIZED VOTING SYSTEMS AS WELL, NOT JUST DOMINION, WERE CREATED IN VENEZUELA AT THE DIRECTION OF HUGO CHAVEZ TO MAKE SURE HE NEVER LOST AN ELECTION AFTER ONE CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM CAME OUT THE WAY HE DID NOT WANT IT TO COME OUT. 
 

She certainly seems to be insinuating that communist money paid for voting software produced in Venezuela at the direction of Chavez to be used in US elections. For proof, she offers, you guessed it, an affidavit from some guy who’s apparently seen this trickery at work. 

[gearhog]

1 hour ago, slackline said:

You seem to disregard things people say.  Irregularities can include anything from fraud to a line of coding that made it read the wrong way.  Either way, fraud or not, they exist on a very small scale.  No one ever denied that.  Stop trying to act like anyone on here ever did.  You ignore what other people say that contests your point while sticking to arguments that don't further yours.  

The age of an article is absolutely relevant when the head of election security, a known and respected expert in the field says, as recently as 2-3 weeks ago that this was the most secure election we've had.  Does that negate the possibility of any minor amounts of fraud?  No. Does it negate the conspiracies and lies coming from this admin on fraud on a massive scale?  You bet.

You can make your petty statements and insults on why you "fully understand" your perceived problems of other people, but it doesn't make them true.  Just shows you attack the person instead of the point.  I'm done, you're becoming the new guardian...

 

ETA: and you're clearly not the only one throwing around personal insults.  It's childish and doesn't help anyone's argument.  I'll try to leave that out as much as possible.  I'll fully admit to allowing the ignorance shown on here (both sides) frustrate the crap out of me.

Stop trying to act like anyone here ever did? Once again, from the single link you've provided to support your argument: "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."

But you're saying that fraud does, in fact, exist. Great. Now that we've made progress agreeing that it does, all that is left is determining to what extent. What constitutes "small"? 1%?

We're no longer disagreeing that there is fraud in the election. Can you provide evidence as to the amount of fraud you're claiming? It cannot be "no fraud" because that doesn't support your argument.

What were the childish insults I've used? I didn't call anyone a shit throwing orangutan, so I'm not sure to what you're referring.

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, torqued said:

What were my claims? I have claimed that fraud exists. I've made no indication as to the extent, because I simply do not know. However, I believe it entirely possible, even probable that it could exist in ways that could have changed some of the results.

You seem to be saying election fraud simply does not exist. Am I misunderstanding?

As for the about "70%" of Republicans rooting for the "shit throwing orangutan", your derangement is showing. How is it you expect a civil conversation with regard to election security when you can so easily devolve into profane insults and emotional hysterics? Again, invalid question. You don't expect a civil conversation.

 

Of course fraud exists. It always will. Guess what? The one solid piece of evidence I’ve seen so far in this election was a guy who voted twice in Pennsylvania......for Donald Trump! Of course there are more cases than that, and there will be Democrats who committed fraud as well.
 

The question of whether fraud exists is irrelevant. The question in play is whether widespread fraud exists at a scale that would affect the election. It doesn’t. The Right has claimed it does for a long time and never produced any evidence to back that claim up. This election is no different. The Trump campaign knows widespread fraud didn’t take place. His lawyers are taking great care to avoid claiming actual fraud in court. His endgame is to torpedo America’s faith in the pillar of our democracy without proof that it is broken. He is doing this because he is a petty, pathetic human being. And it is working. The damage being done right now, today, will be felt by our children and grandchildren. 

 

You say I’m deranged for calling him a shit slinging orangutan, but I think that’s probably too good for him at this point. He’s actively subverting our system from the inside. There’s a word far worse than orangutan for people who do that. 

[gearhog]

39 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Here’s what Sydney Powell said at the press conference:

 WHAT WE ARE REALLY DEALING WITH AND UNCOVERING MORE BY THE DAY IS THE MASSIVE INFLUENCE OF COMMUNIST MONEY THROUGH VENEZUELA, CUBA, AND LIKELY CHINA AND THE INTERFERENCE WITH OUR ELECTIONS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES. THE DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS, SMART-MATIC TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE AND SOFTWARE THAT GOES IN OTHER COMPUTERIZED VOTING SYSTEMS AS WELL, NOT JUST DOMINION, WERE CREATED IN VENEZUELA AT THE DIRECTION OF HUGO CHAVEZ TO MAKE SURE HE NEVER LOST AN ELECTION AFTER ONE CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM CAME OUT THE WAY HE DID NOT WANT IT TO COME OUT. 
 

She certainly seems to be insinuating that communist money paid for voting software produced in Venezuela at the direction of Chavez to be used in US elections. For proof, she offers, you guessed it, an affidavit from some guy who’s apparently seen this trickery at work. 

I see we've stopped accusing anyone of making claims, and are now saying she "seems to be insinuating...." Backpedal much? Still, no one ever claimed Chavez himself interfered in this election. Words matter.

If there were evidence that communist money paid for Smartmatic voting software produced in Venezuela at the direction of Chavez, what evidence would you find acceptable?

Can you think of any government agencies that might provide an official report to that effect that you would find credible? Could you list just a few off the top of your head? Do you think that such a report exists? Would you deny it if were presented to you?

Edited November 20, 2020 by torqued
effect vs. affect

[gearhog]

5 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Of course fraud exists. It always will. Guess what? The one solid piece of evidence I’ve seen so far in this election was a guy who voted twice in Pennsylvania......for Donald Trump! Of course there are more cases than that, and there will be Democrats who committed fraud as well.
 

The question of whether fraud exists is irrelevant. The question in play is whether widespread fraud exists at a scale that would affect the election. It doesn’t. The Right has claimed it does for a long time and never produced any evidence to back that claim up. This election is no different. The Trump campaign knows widespread fraud didn’t take place. His lawyers are taking great care to avoid claiming actual fraud in court. His endgame is to torpedo America’s faith in the pillar of our democracy without proof that it is broken. He is doing this because he is a petty, pathetic human being. And it is working. The damage being done right now, today, will be felt by our children and grandchildren. 

 

You say I’m deranged for calling him a shit slinging orangutan, but I think that’s probably too good for him at this point. He’s actively subverting our system from the inside. There’s a word far worse than orangutan for people who do that. 

I think this is fantastic progress. Not only do you agree with both myself and slackline that fraud exists, but you go one step further in specifying that it is committed by Democrats.

How is this fraud perpetrated?

Give one example, please. Just one. Maybe two if you can think of two.

[Prozac]

14 minutes ago, torqued said:

I think this is fantastic progress. Not only do you agree with both myself and slackline that fraud exists, but you go one step further in specifying that it is committed by Democrats.

How is this fraud perpetrated?

Give one example, please. Just one. Maybe two if you can think of two.

I think it’s obvious at this point that you and I aren’t going to get each other to budge from our prospective positions. Cheers. 🍻 

[kaputt]

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

True, some portions of the narrative on the left are abhorrent. Basically everything you said, I agree with. You can’t defund the police, you can’t tell every 30 year old white dude he’s racist and sexist just for existing, and “cancel culture” is doing quite a bit of driving people to be even more partisan than before.

I believe the far right’s attacks on science, the government (intelligence, HHS, etc), and media are more damaging to the country, though. Not far more - but more. This is literally becoming the party that is proud to see evidence and reject it just to reject it - not because there is logic or morality. A literal normalized saying right now is “fake news,” and I know people that are proud to say that to anything that doesn’t align with their current worldview. If you think about it, how can you ever reason with people like this?

 

(Speaking on the bolded part) I mean to be fair, that describes the Democrats as well. The Kavanaugh hearing was one of the most egregious examples of this, but some other fine examples are 4 years of BS Russian collusion and Poland impeachment. The shit volcano is honestly flowing down both sides of the mountain but I still see far more hypocrisy coming from the left. 
 

To segway a little bit here; I do not believe that there was actually widespread election fraud.I think Biden won and this election was a referendum on Trump.  But I find it hilarious that high level democrat politicians as well as normal people I see on social media are now desperately clamoring for unity and saying that those going along with Trump’s election fraud claims are tearing this country apart. All coming from the same people that spent 4 years throwing temper tantrums and essentially trying to overthrow a sitting president all because of some strange orange man bad obsession. 
 

It’s the same level of hypocrisy that leads to people saying “no large gatherings due to covid!”, but then all of a sudden massive BLM protests and Biden election celebrations are okay. 

FWIW I’m actually glad that Trump lost because it removes his polarizing personality from the picture and now the democrats have to stand on their own with a garbage policy and a fractured party that can’t decide if it wants to go back to the mid 90s USA or to mid 60s Cuba. 

Edit: I realize that was a bit rambling and maybe had nothing to do with the current flow of conversation so my apologies. 

Edited November 20, 2020 by kaputt

[gearhog]

13 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I think it’s obvious at this point that you and I aren’t going to get each other to budge from our prospective positions. Cheers. 🍻 

Wait a sec... you were all to eager to engage the past few pages. What's changed?

If you believe I cannot budge from my position, that's false. I can and I'd like to. It's just my position hasn't been sufficiently challenged. I'm open minded to reason and logic.

However, if you believe you, yourself, cannot be budged from your position, that says to me that you'll stand by it no matter what. That's closed minded.

Listen, I asked a few easy to answer questions. If you're a smart person, and I'll give you credit and say that you likely are, you see that my line of questioning will yield answers that will follow a path of logic that's detrimental to your position. That's why you're not going to answer them.

Bye, I guess.

[Sua Sponte]

6 hours ago, dream big said:

What were some of his notable legislative achievements in either Illinois or US senate..??

More than Trump’s legislative achievements as a Senator.

[Prozac]

14 minutes ago, kaputt said:

(Speaking on the bolded part) I mean to be fair, that describes the Democrats as well. The Kavanaugh hearing was one of the most egregious examples of this, but some other fine examples are 4 years of BS Russian collusion and Poland impeachment. The shit volcano is honestly flowing down both sides of the mountain but I still see far more hypocrisy coming from the left. 
 

To segway a little bit here; I do not believe that there was actually widespread election fraud.I think Biden won and this election was a referendum on Trump.  But I find it hilarious that high level democrat politicians as well as normal people I see on social media are now desperately clamoring for unity and saying that those going along with Trump’s election fraud claims are tearing this country apart. All coming from the same people that spent 4 years throwing temper tantrums and essentially trying to overthrow a sitting president all because of some strange orange man bad obsession. 
 

It’s the same level of hypocrisy that leads to people saying “no large gatherings due to covid!”, but then all of a sudden massive BLM protests and Biden election celebrations are okay. 

FWIW I’m actually glad that Trump lost because it removes his polarizing personality from the picture and now the democrats have to stand on their own with a garbage policy and a fractured party that can’t decide if it wants to go back to the mid 90s USA or to mid 60s Cuba. 

Edit: I realize that was a bit rambling and maybe had nothing to do with the current flow of conversation so my apologies. 

You’ve got some fair points & the Dems certainly have a history of overestimating and overplaying their hand. I think the Kavanaugh thing stemmed from McConnell’s refusal to even give Merrik Garland a hearing. Not saying it’s right, just that the one-upmanship has been going on for a long time and both sides are complicit. As for the impeachment, well it’s hard to argue they didn’t overplay that one too. I think there were some legitimate points regarding the 2016 campaign’s connections to foreign would-be influencers, but they were never going to get the needed buy-in from the other side. Of course they relied heavily on the outrage of their base. They don’t get a free pass from me on that. 

The one thing I’ll say that’s a significant difference, & the thing that has me fired up right now is that the Dems actually conceded in 2016. At that point there were actual serious questions about the security of the election and whether there had been foreign interference in what was a very close race. Clinton would’ve been well within her rights to litigate (and many of her allies pleaded with her to). Yet she didn’t. She didn’t because she knew that the potential damage that could be done to the country far exceeded her own desire for power. Same in 2000 with Al Gore. Same in 1960 with Nixon. Trump has no such compunction. I really believe that he is doing lasting damage to the country right now. 

[Lord Ratner]

14 minutes ago, Prozac said:

She didn’t because she knew that the potential damage that could be done to the country far exceeded her own desire for power. Same in 2000 with Al Gore. Same in 1960 with Nixon. Trump has no such compunction. I really believe that he is doing lasting damage to the country right now. 

You had me till there. She quit because she didn't see a path to victory.

 

And Gore didn't concede until December 13th, *after* the supreme court had to weigh in!

 

This is exactly the double standard that the right is constantly whining about, and they're correct.

Edited November 20, 2020 by Lord Ratner