The Next President is...

[Pooter]

@torqued perhaps he's losing interest because you're playing stupid semantic games: acknowledging the existence of isolated cases of voter fraud is very different from saying the entire system is compromised. 
 

This is really quite simple. We don't throw out nationwide elections for 1 case of fraud, or 100, or 1000.  If you want the election results invalidated, then prove (with concrete evidence) that fraud happened on large enough scale that it would have changed the outcome.  If you need concrete numbers to hang your hat on, this would mean you need to show fraud numbers in the tens of thousands (for the close states) and fraud numbers in the hundreds of thousands to millions everywhere else. 
 

But we know you can't do that, and neither can the group of accidental comedians trump calls his legal team.

[gearhog]

21 minutes ago, Pooter said:

@torqued perhaps he's losing interest because you're playing stupid semantic games: acknowledging the existence of isolated cases of voter fraud is very different from saying the entire system is compromised. 
 

This is really quite simple. We don't throw out nationwide elections for 1 case of fraud, or 100, or 1000.  If you want the election results invalidated, then prove (with concrete evidence) that fraud happened on large enough scale that it would have changed the outcome.  If you need concrete numbers to hang your hat on, this would mean you need to show fraud numbers in the tens of thousands (for the close states) and fraud numbers in the hundreds of thousands to millions everywhere else. 
 

But we know you can't do that, and neither can the group of accidental comedians trump calls his legal team.

Here we go yet once again. Over and over again. Forum Debate 101: When you can't argue against a point, mischaracterize the point, and argue against that instead. Did I ever say the entire system is compromised?

I don't think you know the definition of semantics. Semantics would be arguing, for example, the differences between a mischaracterization, a falsehood, and a lie.

You want concrete evidence? I bet I can get you to also "lose interest" before we get there. Here's how: I'll ask you to establish what "concrete evidence" is. Give me an example that you wouldn't outright dismiss.

 

[Pooter]

30 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

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

 

And Gore didn't concede until December 13th!

 

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

The final certified margin between bush and gore in Florida was 537 votes.  Gore didn't concede immediately because a state with enough electors to swing the entire election was hanging in the balance by a margin of a few hundred votes. When the legally mandated Florida recount proceedings finished, gore conceded.
 

In contrast, Trump is behind by 10,000+ votes in the closest states.  None of which are large enough on their own to change the overall election outcome. 
 

It's only a double standard if the situations are actually similar. Which they aren't. 

[Pooter]

25 minutes ago, torqued said:

Here we go yet once again. Over and over again. Forum Debate 101: When you can't argue against a point, mischaracterize the point, and argue against that instead. Did I ever say the entire system is compromised?

I don't think you know the definition of semantics. Semantics would be arguing, for example, the differences between a mischaracterization, a falsehood, and a lie.

You want concrete evidence? I bet I can get you to also "lose interest" before we get there. Here's how: I'll ask you to establish what "concrete evidence" is. Give me an example that you wouldn't outright dismiss.

 

I'm not a legal expert but a good start might be the trump team having enough confidence in their own supposed evidence to actually file fraud allegations in court. 

[gearhog]

44 minutes ago, Pooter said:

I'm not a legal expert but a good start might be the trump team having enough confidence in their own supposed evidence to actually file fraud allegations in court. 

I'll try another way:

What is a specific example of the fraud you acknowledge exists and what would you say evidence of that fraud would look like?

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

The final certified margin between bush and gore in Florida was 537 votes.  Gore didn't concede immediately because a state with enough electors to swing the entire election was hanging in the balance by a margin of a few hundred votes. When the legally mandated Florida recount proceedings finished, gore conceded.
 

In contrast, Trump is behind by 10,000+ votes in the closest states.  None of which are large enough on their own to change the overall election outcome. 
 

It's only a double standard if the situations are actually similar. Which they aren't. 

Then why mention it?

And there was no legally mandated recount, the supreme court stopped it before it could finish, and only then did Gore concede.

 

Trump is a fool for what he's doing, but let's not pretend like the others were noble leaders who conceded for the good of the country. They concede when they run out of options. 

[slackline]

Then why mention it?
And there was no legally mandated recount, the supreme court stopped it before it could finish, and only then did Gore concede.
 
Trump is a fool for what he's doing, but let's not pretend like the others were noble leaders who conceded for the good of the country. They concede when they run out of options. 

I 100% agree on that last sentence. No honor in those specifically cited examples. They simply didn’t see a way forward, but at least they stopped at the legal ways and didn’t try all of this BS.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[slackline]

I'm not a legal expert but a good start might be the trump team having enough confidence in their own supposed evidence to actually file fraud allegations in court. 

Knock it off. He’s got you playing his game... Pointless.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SurelySerious]

2 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

More than Trump’s legislative achievements as a Senator.

Sooooo your lack of addressing the question and deflecting says being a Senator didn’t qualify/prep Obama to be a president from a leadership and decision making perspective, copy. 

Edited November 20, 2020 by SurelySerious

[gearhog]

3 minutes ago, slackline said:

Knock it off. He’s got you playing his game... Pointless.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

LOL. My game?

I'm asking a basic straightforward question that requires a simple answer. Relax. I'm not trying to trick you.

We both agree there is election fraud. What is an example of the fraud you're referring to and what would be evidence of it?

[Pooter]

28 minutes ago, torqued said:

I'll try another way:

What is a specific example of the fraud you acknowledge exists and what would you say evidence of that fraud would look like?

A court case that actually alleges fraud, which is then successfully prosecuted to completion. Like we've had in literally every election in modern history. This isn't complicated. 
 

After that it's just a numbers game. Find me 10,000 of those cases and we can start talking about throwing out the vote in Georgia. Find me a few million more in other states and then we can talk about a total election mulligan. 

[gearhog]

Just now, Pooter said:

A court case that actually alleges fraud, which is then successfully prosecuted to completion. Like we've had in literally every election in modern history. This isn't complicated. 
 

After that it's just a numbers game. Find me 10,000 of those cases and we can start talking about throwing out the vote in Georgia. Find me a few million more in other states and then we can talk about a total election mulligan. 

Right. It shouldn't be complicated. I believe you're saying evidence of fraud is... a court case that alleges fraud.

Okay... Okay. I'm willing to hear you out on that one, but let's back up.

Once more: What is an example of fraud that you believe exists?

 

[Sim]

The "Office of President Elect" (fake office, illegal) needs your help! 🤣

I guess Trump listened to Hillary Clinton. 

Quote

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don't give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is,” Clinton said 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clinton-says-biden-should-not-concede-2020-election-under-n1238156 

[Air_Space]

So where do we go from here? 

If POTUS feels he has a valid claim of voter fraud that'll overturn the election results he should pursue every legal option available to him. The problem is we have yet to see concrete evidence of this and unfortunately the burden of proof is on him/his legal team. If the fight is kept up till inauguration day we end up with 2 options as a nation.

A. Half the nation believes Trump was cheated out of a fair election by the democrats and the democrats have organized well enough to take any Republicans out of office when they need to

B. Trump stays in office and confidence that a peaceful transfer of power can ever occur again goes out the window. No one now believes in the election process 

Either way the real losers are you and I. The American people, because no matter what happens faith in the election system has been damaged and our faith in both political parties has been depleted. At the end of the day I like to think everyone on this forum puts country before any political party which have both failed us in their pursuit for power. At this point I am just disappointed 

 

 

 

[Sua Sponte]

5 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

Sooooo your lack of addressing the question and deflecting says being a Senator didn’t qualify/prep Obama to be a president from a leadership and decision making perspective, copy. 

I answered an asinine question with an asinine, but factually true, answer. Obama met the basic qualifications to be President. Being “qualified/prepped” for leadership and decision making ability is subjective, not objective. Obama is also the guy who ordered the executive of Neptune Spear against Bin Laden, even when Biden told him to wait. 

That’s one of the great parts of America. You can have an actor, peanut farmer, governor, lawyer, and now a con-artist be President. All bring pros and cons to the office. You’ll disagree, but that’s like, your opinion man.

Edited November 21, 2020 by Sua Sponte

[Sua Sponte]

5 hours ago, torqued said:

Right. It shouldn't be complicated. I believe you're saying evidence of fraud is... a court case that alleges fraud.

Okay... Okay. I'm willing to hear you out on that one, but let's back up.

Once more: What is an example of fraud that you believe exists?

 

How many of Trump’s legal filings have been successful in proving fraud?

[SurelySerious]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

I answered an asinine question with an asinine, but factually true, answer. Obama met the basic qualifications to be President. Being “qualified/prepped” for leadership and decision making ability is subjective, not objective. Obama is also the guy who ordered the executive of Neptune Spear against Bin Laden, even when Biden told him to wait. 

That’s one of the great parts of America. You can have an actor, peanut farmer, governor, lawyer, and now a con-artist be President. All bring pros and cons to the office. You’ll disagree, but that’s like, your opinion man.

You didn’t answer anything. 

[17D_guy]

13 hours ago, Negatory said:

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.

 

I'm going to watch this every time it's posted.

[slackline]

The "Office of President Elect" (fake office, illegal) needs your help! 

You're right it is very stupid, but if only there were some normal way to fund what he's trying to do...

Please, enlighten us as to why it's illegal to say that. Maybe not official, certainly not illegal. If you slapped a label on your house saying "Office of the conspiracy pusher in Chief" it wouldn't be official, but it also wouldn't be illegal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

7 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

How many of Trump’s legal filings have been successful in proving fraud?

Slow down, brother. We'll get there, I promise.

I believe you, Pooter, Prozac, and slackline are smart dudes. I'm not going to be able jedi-mindtrick any of you, so I can't quite understand the reluctance to answer if we are all genuinely interested in having an intellectually honest exchange. Maybe I put a little snark in my earlier posts, and I shouldn't have, because I really want to figure out what, if anything, is happening to our democratic process without pissing everyone off. I'm not willing to take it at face value that "Everything is Fine." because I like my way of life and my country, and I don't want it fucked up because I was complacent and implicitly trusted the system when I shouldn't have.

However, if the path of logic dictates that everything is fine, Great! The old quote comes to mind: "It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so." So what if I dispensed with my assumptions and preconceived notions about the reliability of our process, tried to make an accurate assessment of the risks, and then attempted to determine if the proper mitigations were in place? Is that wrong? A bad idea?

I think it's reasonable to begin with asking the simple question:

Does election fraud exist and what would the evidence be?

 

 

 

[slackline]

Hidden Brain podcast episode from Oct 26 is a fascinating listen. Super interesting. Says the bigger problem and divide in the US isn't so much between Rs and Ds, but people who love to talk about politics and those that don't. Point taken, I'm backing out of this world for a while. Gotta stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guardian]

Torqued it seems that people who don’t want trump just want to censor and say get on with your life and the whole thing wasn’t rigged so stop. Seems like the opposing side says all we want to do is discuss and investigate. There is evidence. Affidavits are evidence. Statements are evidence. And if it comes back in favor of no fraud and Biden won then they will accept it and move on. It’s my personal opinion that History will record Trump as one of the most successful presidents to run the county to a lot of prosperity but even in light of that he was very Divisive, said a lot of egregious and offensive things that made people not look past the words to the actions of the man.

What is true tolerance? Having a different view point but accepting that view point isn’t others view points and life continues. It’s pretty obvious over the last 12-20 years that the right is the side of tolerance, freedom, and equality.

Remember Democrats founded the KKK. Republicans were founded on equality for all men and to give women equal rights and are true to that end today. Obama planted or cultivated the seeds of racial division that we are still feeling the effects of today. The democrats scare lots of minorities into voting for them with scare tactics, victim hood, and free stuff. That’s scary and not the American dream. Now Biden and his transition team have already said they will implement very radical, immoral social policy and force the country to pay. I think paying for everyone’s college is pure theft and is going to do a lot to hurt this country. Thank goodness the Supreme Court leans right. At least we have that.

Guess what true to the last four years, zero republican or right riots. What if on the less than1% chance trump wins? Hell it’s very likely trump lost and that doesn’t stop domestic terrorism from occurring from BLM and Antifa. Scary.

Cant say that is the case with the left or liberals, that they are tolerant. There is zero tolerance for any opinions but their own. And in fact I could accept it if it was liberal thought. But the left as a large percentage has gone progressive which in our society is becoming synonymous with socialist. That’s why the right or people who agree with trump are fighting so hard. We happen to like our land of the free and equal opportunity the way it mostly is. And the right thinks it’s immoral to steal and murder. And that if you make money it should largely stay your money.

I really have a very large difficulty understanding why people think republicans or conservatives are so evil.

And to sum it up torqued, I don’t have a good answer why they can’t simply look at the things we are saying, not assume or try to read between lines that aren’t there, and have civil discourse. I realize they would disagree. But it doesn’t seem like they can answer directly.

[gearhog]

32 minutes ago, slackline said:

I'm backing out of this world for a while. Gotta stop.

Bye, I guess.

[Negatory]

3 hours ago, torqued said:

I think it's reasonable to begin with asking the simple question:

Does election fraud exist and what would the evidence be?

You aren't being a genuine or honest debate partner. Every person has already said election fraud exists, just that there is absolutely no evidence that it is of any magnitude that would be even close to mattering. See here's an example of a terrible citizen voting twice:

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article246971357.html

I recommend we throw him in jail. Or maybe he was just following what a political leader said? Maybe it's his fault?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-vote/trump-encourages-supporters-to-try-to-vote-twice-sparking-uproar-idUSKBN25U0KK

The burden of proof is on you to prove something exists - not the normal system to prove something doesn't exist. That's how things work. You have circumstantial evidence, AT BEST, and you are mad that no one is listening. It's childish and embarrassing. Sorry the judges in every state keep telling you no, your lawsuits don't work.

And you still need to address the easy question that you still haven't: How did republicans keep the senate when mass coordinated voter fraud against your party was conducted? The party of cognitive dissonance has spoken!

7 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Remember Democrats founded the KKK. Republicans were founded on equality for all men and to give women equal rights and are true to that end today. Obama planted or cultivated the seeds of racial division that we are still feeling the effects of today. The democrats scare lots of minorities into voting for them with scare tactics, victim hood, and free stuff. That’s scary and not the American dream. Now Biden and his transition team have already said they will implement very radical, immoral social policy and force the country to pay. I think paying for everyone’s college is pure theft and is going to do a lot to hurt this country. Thank goodness the Supreme Court leans right. At least we have that.

This is actually the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If you think politics haven't changed in 155 years, I've got literally nothing for you.

In case you're wondering, David Duke, the current leader of the KKK in 2020, publicly endorsed the person you voted for, multiple times. Here's a few more: Don Black (former grand wizard), Rachel Pendergraff (Knights Party organizer), Matthew Heimbach (leader of the White Nationalist Traditionalist Worker Party). Almost every white supremacist group in America publicly endorsed Trump. I guess by the circular logic in your post, you guys are officially 100% the party of racists. Sorry brother. There's a fact for you that you can try to wrap your mind around.

But of course that's not how this works. It's not how anything works. Just because racists support Trump doesn't make all republicans racist. But definitely moreso just because "democrat" used to mean something entirely different 155 years ago doesn't mean it has any impact to the current party.

And your decision to determine that black people only vote for dems because they were scared into it is terribly demeaning and oversimplifies a whole group's thought process. But I wouldn't expect any more from you.

14 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Guess what true to the last four years, zero republican or right riots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally

1 dead, 33 injured

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/14/855918852/heavily-armed-protesters-gather-again-at-michigans-capitol-denouncing-home-order

https://www.dw.com/en/fbi-stops-plot-to-overthrow-michigan-state-government-and-kidnap-governor/a-55208647

You're right, the right doesn't protest. They just go straight to literal domestic terrorism and capture and overthrow of the government. Because you can totally generalize actions of a few to an entire political party.

18 minutes ago, Guardian said:

There is zero tolerance for any opinions but their own.

Same for you, brother. You literally can't even accept things that you write as facts, as was evidenced by the last couple days.

[Guardian]

What fact is that. That there are racists on both sides. That democrats 155 years ago are racist and that Harris is incredibly racist? Yeah. I’m sure some racists voted for trump. Just like I’m positive racists voted for Biden. Equal outcome and equity are inherently racist.

Armed protesters aren’t riots caused by riots. And maybe there was one riot caused by the right. There were something like 90 straight days in Portland of multiple riots throughout the city not caused by the right. So one compared to how many?

Don’t worry man. I hold you and SLACK on the same level of incoherence and in ability to rationalize or answer questions. You twist, manipulate and try to justify something other than what is being talked about. At least it doesn’t seem that you are reverting to name calling like others. But just because you don’t want the left to be a party of racists or ones that support systematic racism doesn’t mean they aren’t. They absolutely are.