« First « Previous Comments 83 - 122 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
I just simply don't take the losing guy saying "the other guy cheated" at face value when 50 secretaries of state representing the whole swath of political spectrum are all agreeing that trump lost. That's just how I process and contextualize information. I weigh the motives of who said it along with the statement.
I voted by absentee ballot, and put it in the mailbox for the mailman to pick up. Should my mailman go to jail?
DeficitHawk says
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 ...
I consider that very shallow thinking. And again naive. You don't seem to be able to grasp or even ask why the Georgia or the AZ Secstate would not be credible. That being because both were part of the election compromise. You also seem to think the dissemination of information is a "position". You also seem ignorant of what is happening to the country in an overall sense. That you mention "trump supporters" without capitalizing Trump's name is a clue that you are in fact a leftist. That you still say that there is no clear evidence only points to a HUA position held by many leftists.. It is this seemingly low iQ approach leftists use, like you are doing showing your lack of give a shit for the country. Recounts in which the same ballots are counted again are not going to give any new information. But to the low IQ leftist that is just too far over their heads. Quirks in data are important just not to leftists as they are all programmed by the same retard bot programmer having a Fetterman level stroke. They under no circumstance want to ask questions or even act curious about things far more obvious that "quirks" like the FBI furthering the Hillary instigated Russia hoax or the FBI calling the Hunter Biden laptop "Russian misinformation". Nor do they care that social media platforms are interfering with political speech. In fact I consider every leftist on the planet either so corrupt or so stupid that removing them would be the best thing for all.
Maybe a secretary can be corrupt, sure... But not 50.
Only hard proof will make me reconsider, and no one has any.
In 2000 we all were hyper focused on hanging chads in 1 state for a couple week. But at the end of the day it was a super close election and one person won and one person lost. And it has to be that way for the government to function.
In 2020, it wasn't anywhere near as close. But still the debate rages. And still the truth is it was a close election and one person won and one person lost and it has to be that way for the government to function.
Mell, it's not. Sorry. I have multiple hypotheses of people stacking ballots in piles and feeding them to machines by bins, and aggregating them that I outlined above. I don't know what happened there. I didn't investigate. But it is definitely not hard proof. It is circumstantial evidence that can be cast with allegation, or explained with no fraud.
Not really, this discussion is fairly easy. If you don't support changing the election from cheating banana republic style to in person, id-verified, ballot/paper supported elections only, you have lost the argument and support the cheating by the left. You can be left leaning without supporting the cheating by purposely obfuscating the election process.
mell says
Not really, this discussion is fairly easy. If you don't support changing the election from cheating banana republic style to in person, id-verified, ballot/paper supported elections only, you have lost the argument and support the cheating by the left. You can be left leaning without supporting the cheating by purposely obfuscating the election process.
Discussion here is about proving that Trump was screwed out of Presidency by election night shenanigans. Evidence is circumstantial yet (in my mind) compelling. Changing election process is a different issue and it seems that no one in zir right mind would oppose it unless they want to cheat, but opposing is not direct evidence of cheating again.
About vaxx and shutdowns there is plenty direct evidence.
DeficitHawk is a Democrat debating, so he's an existence proof of at least one.
But I agree that in general Democrats do not seem to be interested into digging into anything which might lead to an uncomfortable conclusion.
OK, @DeficitHawk do you think it is acceptable to mandate the injection of drugs with no long-term safety data into healthy people?
That is a loaded question.
I don't know how to get to the point more directly. It is the question I want to ask, because it is the essence of my complaint about mandates.
I want to see the reply of True The Vote
Huh, that video won't play for me.
the only way forward is to adopt stringent voter id laws with in person id-verified voting with paper ballots only to prevent cheating in the future and restore trust in fair elections. The fact that democrats oppose this underscores they have been and are actively cheating.
I'm anti deliberately-insulting speech.
If someone happens to be offended when you did not intend to offend them, that's their problem.
But if you're deliberately offending someone, then you're not debating at all, and in fact have just made it completely impossible to have a debate.
« First « Previous Comments 83 - 122 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.