« First « Previous Comments 43 - 82 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
It all boils down to money; liberals think it's okay to take our money and spend it to "help others".
Don't you think it's super-sketchy how Trump was way ahead all night, and then there were sudden ballot drops almost all for Biden in key states? I'm talking about the famous graph with the jumps right at the end.
Patrick, I'd lock this thread so only you and DeficitHawk would be able to debate. Otherwise it will degenerate into fact-free name calling
I take it as a joke or talking point.
I imagine that is some batch of votes getting added as the count goes on. I don't really know. Maybe someone was sorting into piles and the feeding into machines. But if all the votes are counted and tallied, then I'd go with the outcome, even if I lose.
To be honest, I take the statements from the secretaries of state who manage elections at higher value than my own speculations on how counting/batches is done.
I tend to interpret information by discounting people who highlight information that would benefit their position, and putting more weight on neutral parties. Even more weight on the statements by people who's interests are not served by information they highlight. Such as the secretary of state of Georgia etc. So given all the motivated trump supporters who never found any clear evidence... And gop secretaries of state affirming that the allegations are not true, I am not really investigating the matter any further.
I imagine that is some batch of votes getting added as the count goes on. I don't really know. Maybe someone was sorting into piles and the feeding into machines. But if all the votes are counted and tallied, then I'd go with the outcome, even if I lose.
I imagine that is some batch of votes getting added as the count goes on. I don't really know. Maybe someone was sorting into piles and the feeding into machines. But if all the votes are counted and tallied, then I'd go with the outcome, even if I lose.
So given all the motivated trump supporters who never found any clear evidence...
What would count as clear evidence for you?
But I definitely have observed an increase in political one sidedness on this site over the years. I do feel it is becoming an echo chamber with only similar political mindset people contributing, and becoming hostile to other views. That's why I offered to take you up. I liked the old days of what this forum stood for, and would like to see it return.
DeficitHawk says
So given all the motivated trump supporters who never found any clear evidence...
What would count as clear evidence for you?
IRL when I discuss this with left-leaning persons, they just run away and don't talk to me about this topic any more.
An easier to comprehend and more factual discussion could be about vaxx, shutdowns
Trump and the Republicans take blame here as well for - as soon as the leftoid shenanigans started - not having the back-bone to hold in person, id-verified elections only via executive order, backed by the military if necessary, paper ballots only, and making the ballots observable for everyone.
The reality is there was never an actual investigation into the 2020 election.
mell says
Trump and the Republicans take blame here as well for - as soon as the leftoid shenanigans started - not having the back-bone to hold in person, id-verified elections only via executive order, backed by the military if necessary, paper ballots only, and making the ballots observable for everyone.
At the state level, yes, but Trump could not have personally enforced election integrity because the "time and manner" of elections is explicitly left to the states in the Consitution, iirc.
I think that is one of the many good things about our constitution. I don't think you want the president meddling with the election methods.
Patrick says
were dismissed for lack of standing, not lack of evidence.
What is lack of standing?
At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).
In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue:
The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
The topic of whether we can improve the election process to build transparency and trust without violating anonymity or systematically excluding groups of potential voters is important and constructive.
But throwing allegations that "I only lost because you cheated" is quite a different thing.
« First « Previous Comments 43 - 82 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
By polite, I mean refraining from attacking the person in either direction, but sticking to points of argument instead. So no "You are a (whatever)" will not be allowed. The only appropriate use of "you" will be "Here you said..."
I just ran into an old guy in a cafe who pointed in the newspaper to the governor results in California, which added up to 110%. I said, "well, that's California" and so he accused me of being an "election denier". I asked if he'd seen "2000 Mules" and he said he hadn't "because it's been debunked". Uh, it's the same people who committed the election fraud who are claiming that "2000 Mules" was debunked.
Nor had he heard what was on Hunter's laptop, since he watches only corporate news.
I think I might have made a dent in his wall of denial, and I'd like to try with others.