Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

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 by kaputt
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Lord Ratner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by SurelySerious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Sua Sponte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...