Evidence of Incitement

[AzogtheDefiler]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

#1) Absentee ballots are requested. So if I request a ballot it is one thing if one is sent to me and my wife without a request and someone else can grab it, it is another thing.

#2) Poll watchers could not see very well what was happening as I understand it and there are questions of ballot harvesting, ballot dumping, dead people voting, etc. When I vote in person I give my address, they then check my name off and give me a reference tag. I then upload by ballot via a machine. To me that is very straightforward and I also see that my ballot was processed. If someone steals mail in ballots and fills them out for me and my wife or I do so for my wife then there are no true checks and balances. Say I live with my parents and my wife. They are agnostic and don't vote. I receive four unsolicited ballots. I fill all four out for my candidate. My wife and parents either don't know or care and now instead of one vote, my vote counts as four. How do we police that?

#3) It is the Capital and the mob is angry because of the media. You watch CNN and you see a completely different reality from that of Fox. Traditional and Social media both have divided this country. This board is another example. We are at each others throats. BLM protests were not mostly peaceful and 19 people died. The police have been hamstrung and could not do much vs. BLM nor much vs. the Capital uprising. People are angry and I blame the media.

#1) Again a distinction without a difference. The principle is exactly the same. You send in your vote by mail. It's interesting though that too you putting up barriers to voting is considered making voting better. I understand it from a partisan standpoint but it makes the argument that you want elections to be fair ring hollow. The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

#2)If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts. I've actually read some of the rulings. It wasn't even close. To me, it says something that people make grand claims in places that carry no penalty for lying to then either tone down their claims to a fraction or not assert it all.

3#) Oh, so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt? Not for nothing Azog but that argument is not a little bit weird not to mention ironic since a few months ago we had an argument where you were blaming me for not convicting riots although I did not one time but several times in the OP and the Democrats as a whole although every single politician clearly condemned the violence. As to whom you blame, the media bears responsibility, although I personally am very careful before I accept anything from any media. That's why I try to see primary sources and am allergic to people both left and right who don't even try to nuance stuff. Having said that, leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

You didn't address my point so let us do it concretely. If the state sends me four blank voting envelopes. What stops me from filling out all four vs. just mine? Especially if my wife and parents don't know nor care. It is different if I REQUEST mine and they request theirs.

Address this specific example.

And they didn't condemn the violence. Seattle Mayor said it was the summer of love. Nadler called it a myth. Fredo Cuomo asked who said protests have to be peaceful. CNN called them mostly peaceful. Disgraceful.

Sure. First, your parents live with you? Ballots are sent by address. Second, you need to forge their signature, when in doubt election officials can and do call, better hope they don't reach them. Third, congratulations you just committed a felony in order to swing a grand total of TWO votes. Seems a bit risky. Fourth, the chances that that happened presupposes that every person who had their votes stolen either didn't find out or decided to cover for the felon since few actual examples of this happening on any scale are being alleged.

So now please answer my counterarguments.

#1) In my example they do.
#2) They are my wife and parents they would say sure and I doubt the FBI would call.
#3) Felony if you get caught and its tough to catch.
#4) Multiply that example by thousands.

In swing states elections can be divided by thousands or even hundreds. Ask John James. To me mail in ballots are a terrible idea. Absentee ballots, no issue at all.

I'll just answer 2 and 4. Signatures are checked by computer and flagged to be then checked, so yes not the FBI but election officials DO call. And if I multiply it by the thousands the chances that every single parent/sibling/offspring is willing to silently have their votes stolen, especially this day and age is essentially nil. Proof would have been found.

So you have seen the signatures? LOL. You trust the computers? To me it looks fishy that most of the mail in ballots lean Democrat. I find it fishy that BOTH sides garnered so many more votes while the Libertarian candidate garnered 3 mil fewer votes. I find it impossible that the officials check every signature with a computer. I find it odd when nursing homes have thousands of ballots suddenly. Easy to forge those signatures. So let's not pretend that the risk of fraud is not greater than if we all had either in person voting or REQUESTED ballots.

If we cannot agree there then we need to drop this and agree to disagree. To me the RISK of fraud is higher. Doesn't mean there was fraud but I am highly suspicious.

Be suspicious all you want, although I'll say now your suspicions don't seem to be not moored in anything concrete or are easily explained if you are willing to think things through. Libertarians have so much fewer votes for instance because Trump has been so divisive that he nearly eliminated the third party vote. You are for or against there is no middle ground.

So you have called me out because I didn't address your hypothetical. I have done you the courtesy of spending 3 posts on what is the least consequential of your arguments. Can you do me the courtesy of trying to rebut the points I made?

Nope. You still have yet to address the fact that the risk of fraud is significantly higher with mail in ballots. The Libertarian candidate received 3mil fewer votes when compared to 2016. Hard to swallow and Trump who as you say is divisive and a villain received 74.2 million votes. Something is rotten in Denmark. I believe there is fraud on both sides and the whole voting landscape needs to be revamped.

What points would you like me to address? Give me a specific example and I will happily address it.

I have addressed that claim. Again. Between rotty relationships between parents/siblings/offspring/significant other. The chance that there was massive fraud with mail-in ballots without any instance of it coming out that I'm aware of is nil. Show me any case presented in the sixty or so claims that assert it and I'll take it seriously. Until then you are simply giving an opinion without a good justification.

Why is it hard to swallow. Be honest have you ever talked about politics as much as in the last four years? I haven't and that's true for most anybody I know. More interest, more participation. Doesn't seem hard to swallow. Here are my points.

#1) Again a distinction without a difference. The principle is exactly the same. You send in your vote by mail. It's interesting though that too you putting up barriers to voting is considered making voting better. I understand it from a partisan standpoint but it makes the argument that you want elections to be fair ring hollow. The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

#2)If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts. I've actually read some of the rulings. It wasn't even close. To me, it says something that people make grand claims in places that carry no penalty for lying to then either tone down their claims to a fraction or not assert it all.

3#) Oh, so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt? Not for nothing Azog but that argument is not a little bit weird not to mention ironic since a few months ago we had an argument where you were blaming me for not convicting riots although I did not one time but several times in the OP and the Democrats as a whole although every single politician clearly condemned the violence. As to whom you blame, the media bears responsibility, although I personally am very careful before I accept anything from any media. That's why I try to see primary sources and am allergic to people both left and right who don't even try to nuance stuff. Having said that, leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

I never Cared about politics til my kids hit middle school (2018) and I noticed all the PC crap. You conflating Manson with Trump is laughable. And Trump was not the cause but the effect. That’s why he won in 2016.

What points would you like me to address? Give me a specific example and I will happily address it.

So much for that.

OK...so you won’t give me a specific example to address? I did it with you. Lol

I've distilled it some more for you. These are 4 distinct points I made I want you to adress.

The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts.

so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt?

leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

By the way I didn't compare Trump to Charles Manson. I engaged in a Reductio in Absurdum. What I'm saying is that it's absurd to try to not hold Trump responsible because he didn't personally engage in the riots. The fact that it was because of him and under his direction that it happened is enough to hold him responsible.

You’re making statements. Where is the question? To me I think mail in voting is subject to significant fraud. You disagree. And you did compare Trump to Manson for all intents and purposes. Trump didn’t brainwash young impressionable kids to kill. He got 74.2mil votes and many see him and not getting fair treatment from the media, both traditional and social. Our media is corrupt as hell.

Either Trump is lying or the courts aren’t interested but again to me and I am a logical human as I see it, mail in voting is subject to fraud.

Lastly, you see Trump as the cause of all this discord. I see him as the effect. And for your question. I would Have shot every single one of the “mob” once they started committing crimes. You shoot the first 50 and the rest with disperse.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited need to be removed.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

This thread is case in point. Our media is to blame for our division. Plain and simple. Both traditional and social media. We need to rise up against them not against one another.

A-fucking-men! (and a-fucking-women too!)

 

[Osiris-ODS]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

"Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference."

Congrats, this wins the award for the most uninformed statement of the week on USMB

 

[forkup]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

#1) Absentee ballots are requested. So if I request a ballot it is one thing if one is sent to me and my wife without a request and someone else can grab it, it is another thing.

#2) Poll watchers could not see very well what was happening as I understand it and there are questions of ballot harvesting, ballot dumping, dead people voting, etc. When I vote in person I give my address, they then check my name off and give me a reference tag. I then upload by ballot via a machine. To me that is very straightforward and I also see that my ballot was processed. If someone steals mail in ballots and fills them out for me and my wife or I do so for my wife then there are no true checks and balances. Say I live with my parents and my wife. They are agnostic and don't vote. I receive four unsolicited ballots. I fill all four out for my candidate. My wife and parents either don't know or care and now instead of one vote, my vote counts as four. How do we police that?

#3) It is the Capital and the mob is angry because of the media. You watch CNN and you see a completely different reality from that of Fox. Traditional and Social media both have divided this country. This board is another example. We are at each others throats. BLM protests were not mostly peaceful and 19 people died. The police have been hamstrung and could not do much vs. BLM nor much vs. the Capital uprising. People are angry and I blame the media.

#1) Again a distinction without a difference. The principle is exactly the same. You send in your vote by mail. It's interesting though that too you putting up barriers to voting is considered making voting better. I understand it from a partisan standpoint but it makes the argument that you want elections to be fair ring hollow. The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

#2)If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts. I've actually read some of the rulings. It wasn't even close. To me, it says something that people make grand claims in places that carry no penalty for lying to then either tone down their claims to a fraction or not assert it all.

3#) Oh, so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt? Not for nothing Azog but that argument is not a little bit weird not to mention ironic since a few months ago we had an argument where you were blaming me for not convicting riots although I did not one time but several times in the OP and the Democrats as a whole although every single politician clearly condemned the violence. As to whom you blame, the media bears responsibility, although I personally am very careful before I accept anything from any media. That's why I try to see primary sources and am allergic to people both left and right who don't even try to nuance stuff. Having said that, leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

You didn't address my point so let us do it concretely. If the state sends me four blank voting envelopes. What stops me from filling out all four vs. just mine? Especially if my wife and parents don't know nor care. It is different if I REQUEST mine and they request theirs.

Address this specific example.

And they didn't condemn the violence. Seattle Mayor said it was the summer of love. Nadler called it a myth. Fredo Cuomo asked who said protests have to be peaceful. CNN called them mostly peaceful. Disgraceful.

Sure. First, your parents live with you? Ballots are sent by address. Second, you need to forge their signature, when in doubt election officials can and do call, better hope they don't reach them. Third, congratulations you just committed a felony in order to swing a grand total of TWO votes. Seems a bit risky. Fourth, the chances that that happened presupposes that every person who had their votes stolen either didn't find out or decided to cover for the felon since few actual examples of this happening on any scale are being alleged.

So now please answer my counterarguments.

#1) In my example they do.
#2) They are my wife and parents they would say sure and I doubt the FBI would call.
#3) Felony if you get caught and its tough to catch.
#4) Multiply that example by thousands.

In swing states elections can be divided by thousands or even hundreds. Ask John James. To me mail in ballots are a terrible idea. Absentee ballots, no issue at all.

I'll just answer 2 and 4. Signatures are checked by computer and flagged to be then checked, so yes not the FBI but election officials DO call. And if I multiply it by the thousands the chances that every single parent/sibling/offspring is willing to silently have their votes stolen, especially this day and age is essentially nil. Proof would have been found.

So you have seen the signatures? LOL. You trust the computers? To me it looks fishy that most of the mail in ballots lean Democrat. I find it fishy that BOTH sides garnered so many more votes while the Libertarian candidate garnered 3 mil fewer votes. I find it impossible that the officials check every signature with a computer. I find it odd when nursing homes have thousands of ballots suddenly. Easy to forge those signatures. So let's not pretend that the risk of fraud is not greater than if we all had either in person voting or REQUESTED ballots.

If we cannot agree there then we need to drop this and agree to disagree. To me the RISK of fraud is higher. Doesn't mean there was fraud but I am highly suspicious.

Be suspicious all you want, although I'll say now your suspicions don't seem to be not moored in anything concrete or are easily explained if you are willing to think things through. Libertarians have so much fewer votes for instance because Trump has been so divisive that he nearly eliminated the third party vote. You are for or against there is no middle ground.

So you have called me out because I didn't address your hypothetical. I have done you the courtesy of spending 3 posts on what is the least consequential of your arguments. Can you do me the courtesy of trying to rebut the points I made?

Nope. You still have yet to address the fact that the risk of fraud is significantly higher with mail in ballots. The Libertarian candidate received 3mil fewer votes when compared to 2016. Hard to swallow and Trump who as you say is divisive and a villain received 74.2 million votes. Something is rotten in Denmark. I believe there is fraud on both sides and the whole voting landscape needs to be revamped.

What points would you like me to address? Give me a specific example and I will happily address it.

I have addressed that claim. Again. Between rotty relationships between parents/siblings/offspring/significant other. The chance that there was massive fraud with mail-in ballots without any instance of it coming out that I'm aware of is nil. Show me any case presented in the sixty or so claims that assert it and I'll take it seriously. Until then you are simply giving an opinion without a good justification.

Why is it hard to swallow. Be honest have you ever talked about politics as much as in the last four years? I haven't and that's true for most anybody I know. More interest, more participation. Doesn't seem hard to swallow. Here are my points.

#1) Again a distinction without a difference. The principle is exactly the same. You send in your vote by mail. It's interesting though that too you putting up barriers to voting is considered making voting better. I understand it from a partisan standpoint but it makes the argument that you want elections to be fair ring hollow. The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

#2)If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts. I've actually read some of the rulings. It wasn't even close. To me, it says something that people make grand claims in places that carry no penalty for lying to then either tone down their claims to a fraction or not assert it all.

3#) Oh, so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt? Not for nothing Azog but that argument is not a little bit weird not to mention ironic since a few months ago we had an argument where you were blaming me for not convicting riots although I did not one time but several times in the OP and the Democrats as a whole although every single politician clearly condemned the violence. As to whom you blame, the media bears responsibility, although I personally am very careful before I accept anything from any media. That's why I try to see primary sources and am allergic to people both left and right who don't even try to nuance stuff. Having said that, leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

I never Cared about politics til my kids hit middle school (2018) and I noticed all the PC crap. You conflating Manson with Trump is laughable. And Trump was not the cause but the effect. That’s why he won in 2016.

What points would you like me to address? Give me a specific example and I will happily address it.

So much for that.

OK...so you won’t give me a specific example to address? I did it with you. Lol

I've distilled it some more for you. These are 4 distinct points I made I want you to adress.

The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts.

so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt?

leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

By the way I didn't compare Trump to Charles Manson. I engaged in a Reductio in Absurdum. What I'm saying is that it's absurd to try to not hold Trump responsible because he didn't personally engage in the riots. The fact that it was because of him and under his direction that it happened is enough to hold him responsible.

You’re making statements. Where is the question? To me I think mail in voting is subject to significant fraud. You disagree. And you did compare Trump to Manson for all intents and purposes. Trump didn’t brainwash young impressionable kids to kill. He got 74.2mil votes and many see him and not getting fair treatment from the media, both traditional and social. Our media is corrupt as hell.

Either Trump is lying or the courts aren’t interested but again to me and I am a logical human as I see it, mail in voting is subject to fraud.

Lastly, you see Trump as the cause of all this discord. I see him as the effect. And for your question. I would Have shot every single one of the “mob” once they started committing crimes. You shoot the first 50 and the rest with disperse.

It is perfectly possible to make a counterargument without asking a question.

And no I didn't compare him to Manson. I find, and I often apply someone else's argument to the extreme. I find it helpful sometimes to point out the absurdity of them. Arguments like this.

#3) It is the Capital and the mob is angry because of the media. You watch CNN and you see a completely different reality from that of Fox. Traditional and Social media both have divided this country.

This is you NOT condemning violence but rather justifying it. I'm glad you changed that position. But there is no way I could have gotten that from your original comment.

Just because something sounds logical doesn't make it true Azog. Everything I said sounds logical to me. Yet you are arguing the opposite.

I've had an argument with my brother a few weeks ago. He believed in some conspiracy theory and couldn't fathom that I wasn't buying his logic for believing it. He kept on going back to saying it's logical. It took me an hour to try to explain to him the difference between an opinion and a fact. That and not the media is the fundamental problem. To many people, most of them Trump supporters feel their opinion is valid despite the available evidence not supporting it.

Take this comment.

Either Trump is lying or the courts aren’t interested

The courts presided by judges appointed by both parties universally rejected all election challenges. Few of those challenges even asserted any fraud. When asked point-blank by a judge if he knew of any widespread voter fraud a lawyer representing Trump said "not to my knowledge" yet you still can't straight up say that Trump lied. You hold on to your opinion not just without good reason but despite good reason to believe otherwise.

 

[forkup]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

"Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference."

Congrats, this wins the award for the most uninformed statement of the week on USMB

Are absentee votes and mail-in votes different? (apnews.com)

The two terms are used interchangeably with no legal distinction. The Trump campaign acknowledged this in a filing in a lawsuit it filed over Pennsylvania’s voting procedures.

 

[Bobob]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

"Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference."

Congrats, this wins the award for the most uninformed statement of the week on USMB

That statement is accurate and hardly uninformed. What, in your "informed" view is the difference? Mail-in ballots were generally used by voters who were unable to go to the polls, and it is perfectly legal, especially due to fear of the covid. I am sure that you wanted every eligible voter to cast his/her ballot that they applied for.

 

[Bobob]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

#1) Absentee ballots are requested. So if I request a ballot it is one thing if one is sent to me and my wife without a request and someone else can grab it, it is another thing.

#2) Poll watchers could not see very well what was happening as I understand it and there are questions of ballot harvesting, ballot dumping, dead people voting, etc. When I vote in person I give my address, they then check my name off and give me a reference tag. I then upload by ballot via a machine. To me that is very straightforward and I also see that my ballot was processed. If someone steals mail in ballots and fills them out for me and my wife or I do so for my wife then there are no true checks and balances. Say I live with my parents and my wife. They are agnostic and don't vote. I receive four unsolicited ballots. I fill all four out for my candidate. My wife and parents either don't know or care and now instead of one vote, my vote counts as four. How do we police that?

#3) It is the Capital and the mob is angry because of the media. You watch CNN and you see a completely different reality from that of Fox. Traditional and Social media both have divided this country. This board is another example. We are at each others throats. BLM protests were not mostly peaceful and 19 people died. The police have been hamstrung and could not do much vs. BLM nor much vs. the Capital uprising. People are angry and I blame the media.

#1) Again a distinction without a difference. The principle is exactly the same. You send in your vote by mail. It's interesting though that too you putting up barriers to voting is considered making voting better. I understand it from a partisan standpoint but it makes the argument that you want elections to be fair ring hollow. The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

#2)If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts. I've actually read some of the rulings. It wasn't even close. To me, it says something that people make grand claims in places that carry no penalty for lying to then either tone down their claims to a fraction or not assert it all.

3#) Oh, so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt? Not for nothing Azog but that argument is not a little bit weird not to mention ironic since a few months ago we had an argument where you were blaming me for not convicting riots although I did not one time but several times in the OP and the Democrats as a whole although every single politician clearly condemned the violence. As to whom you blame, the media bears responsibility, although I personally am very careful before I accept anything from any media. That's why I try to see primary sources and am allergic to people both left and right who don't even try to nuance stuff. Having said that, leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

You didn't address my point so let us do it concretely. If the state sends me four blank voting envelopes. What stops me from filling out all four vs. just mine? Especially if my wife and parents don't know nor care. It is different if I REQUEST mine and they request theirs.

Address this specific example.

And they didn't condemn the violence. Seattle Mayor said it was the summer of love. Nadler called it a myth. Fredo Cuomo asked who said protests have to be peaceful. CNN called them mostly peaceful. Disgraceful.

Sure. First, your parents live with you? Ballots are sent by address. Second, you need to forge their signature, when in doubt election officials can and do call, better hope they don't reach them. Third, congratulations you just committed a felony in order to swing a grand total of TWO votes. Seems a bit risky. Fourth, the chances that that happened presupposes that every person who had their votes stolen either didn't find out or decided to cover for the felon since few actual examples of this happening on any scale are being alleged.

So now please answer my counterarguments.

#1) In my example they do.
#2) They are my wife and parents they would say sure and I doubt the FBI would call.
#3) Felony if you get caught and its tough to catch.
#4) Multiply that example by thousands.

In swing states elections can be divided by thousands or even hundreds. Ask John James. To me mail in ballots are a terrible idea. Absentee ballots, no issue at all.

I'll just answer 2 and 4. Signatures are checked by computer and flagged to be then checked, so yes not the FBI but election officials DO call. And if I multiply it by the thousands the chances that every single parent/sibling/offspring is willing to silently have their votes stolen, especially this day and age is essentially nil. Proof would have been found.

So you have seen the signatures? LOL. You trust the computers? To me it looks fishy that most of the mail in ballots lean Democrat. I find it fishy that BOTH sides garnered so many more votes while the Libertarian candidate garnered 3 mil fewer votes. I find it impossible that the officials check every signature with a computer. I find it odd when nursing homes have thousands of ballots suddenly. Easy to forge those signatures. So let's not pretend that the risk of fraud is not greater than if we all had either in person voting or REQUESTED ballots.

If we cannot agree there then we need to drop this and agree to disagree. To me the RISK of fraud is higher. Doesn't mean there was fraud but I am highly suspicious.

Be suspicious all you want, although I'll say now your suspicions don't seem to be not moored in anything concrete or are easily explained if you are willing to think things through. Libertarians have so much fewer votes for instance because Trump has been so divisive that he nearly eliminated the third party vote. You are for or against there is no middle ground.

So you have called me out because I didn't address your hypothetical. I have done you the courtesy of spending 3 posts on what is the least consequential of your arguments. Can you do me the courtesy of trying to rebut the points I made?

Nope. You still have yet to address the fact that the risk of fraud is significantly higher with mail in ballots. The Libertarian candidate received 3mil fewer votes when compared to 2016. Hard to swallow and Trump who as you say is divisive and a villain received 74.2 million votes. Something is rotten in Denmark. I believe there is fraud on both sides and the whole voting landscape needs to be revamped.

What points would you like me to address? Give me a specific example and I will happily address it.

I have addressed that claim. Again. Between rotty relationships between parents/siblings/offspring/significant other. The chance that there was massive fraud with mail-in ballots without any instance of it coming out that I'm aware of is nil. Show me any case presented in the sixty or so claims that assert it and I'll take it seriously. Until then you are simply giving an opinion without a good justification.

Why is it hard to swallow. Be honest have you ever talked about politics as much as in the last four years? I haven't and that's true for most anybody I know. More interest, more participation. Doesn't seem hard to swallow. Here are my points.

#1) Again a distinction without a difference. The principle is exactly the same. You send in your vote by mail. It's interesting though that too you putting up barriers to voting is considered making voting better. I understand it from a partisan standpoint but it makes the argument that you want elections to be fair ring hollow. The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

#2)If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts. I've actually read some of the rulings. It wasn't even close. To me, it says something that people make grand claims in places that carry no penalty for lying to then either tone down their claims to a fraction or not assert it all.

3#) Oh, so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt? Not for nothing Azog but that argument is not a little bit weird not to mention ironic since a few months ago we had an argument where you were blaming me for not convicting riots although I did not one time but several times in the OP and the Democrats as a whole although every single politician clearly condemned the violence. As to whom you blame, the media bears responsibility, although I personally am very careful before I accept anything from any media. That's why I try to see primary sources and am allergic to people both left and right who don't even try to nuance stuff. Having said that, leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

I never Cared about politics til my kids hit middle school (2018) and I noticed all the PC crap. You conflating Manson with Trump is laughable. And Trump was not the cause but the effect. That’s why he won in 2016.

What points would you like me to address? Give me a specific example and I will happily address it.

So much for that.

OK...so you won’t give me a specific example to address? I did it with you. Lol

I've distilled it some more for you. These are 4 distinct points I made I want you to adress.

The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts.

so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt?

leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

By the way I didn't compare Trump to Charles Manson. I engaged in a Reductio in Absurdum. What I'm saying is that it's absurd to try to not hold Trump responsible because he didn't personally engage in the riots. The fact that it was because of him and under his direction that it happened is enough to hold him responsible.

Trump and Rudy both know how to rile an easily conned mob. That is what they did
and pointed the unruly mob in the right direction. Some president! He should be calming as a leader, rather than an instigator.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

#1) Absentee ballots are requested. So if I request a ballot it is one thing if one is sent to me and my wife without a request and someone else can grab it, it is another thing.

#2) Poll watchers could not see very well what was happening as I understand it and there are questions of ballot harvesting, ballot dumping, dead people voting, etc. When I vote in person I give my address, they then check my name off and give me a reference tag. I then upload by ballot via a machine. To me that is very straightforward and I also see that my ballot was processed. If someone steals mail in ballots and fills them out for me and my wife or I do so for my wife then there are no true checks and balances. Say I live with my parents and my wife. They are agnostic and don't vote. I receive four unsolicited ballots. I fill all four out for my candidate. My wife and parents either don't know or care and now instead of one vote, my vote counts as four. How do we police that?

#3) It is the Capital and the mob is angry because of the media. You watch CNN and you see a completely different reality from that of Fox. Traditional and Social media both have divided this country. This board is another example. We are at each others throats. BLM protests were not mostly peaceful and 19 people died. The police have been hamstrung and could not do much vs. BLM nor much vs. the Capital uprising. People are angry and I blame the media.

#1) Again a distinction without a difference. The principle is exactly the same. You send in your vote by mail. It's interesting though that too you putting up barriers to voting is considered making voting better. I understand it from a partisan standpoint but it makes the argument that you want elections to be fair ring hollow. The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

#2)If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts. I've actually read some of the rulings. It wasn't even close. To me, it says something that people make grand claims in places that carry no penalty for lying to then either tone down their claims to a fraction or not assert it all.

3#) Oh, so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt? Not for nothing Azog but that argument is not a little bit weird not to mention ironic since a few months ago we had an argument where you were blaming me for not convicting riots although I did not one time but several times in the OP and the Democrats as a whole although every single politician clearly condemned the violence. As to whom you blame, the media bears responsibility, although I personally am very careful before I accept anything from any media. That's why I try to see primary sources and am allergic to people both left and right who don't even try to nuance stuff. Having said that, leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

You didn't address my point so let us do it concretely. If the state sends me four blank voting envelopes. What stops me from filling out all four vs. just mine? Especially if my wife and parents don't know nor care. It is different if I REQUEST mine and they request theirs.

Address this specific example.

And they didn't condemn the violence. Seattle Mayor said it was the summer of love. Nadler called it a myth. Fredo Cuomo asked who said protests have to be peaceful. CNN called them mostly peaceful. Disgraceful.

Sure. First, your parents live with you? Ballots are sent by address. Second, you need to forge their signature, when in doubt election officials can and do call, better hope they don't reach them. Third, congratulations you just committed a felony in order to swing a grand total of TWO votes. Seems a bit risky. Fourth, the chances that that happened presupposes that every person who had their votes stolen either didn't find out or decided to cover for the felon since few actual examples of this happening on any scale are being alleged.

So now please answer my counterarguments.

#1) In my example they do.
#2) They are my wife and parents they would say sure and I doubt the FBI would call.
#3) Felony if you get caught and its tough to catch.
#4) Multiply that example by thousands.

In swing states elections can be divided by thousands or even hundreds. Ask John James. To me mail in ballots are a terrible idea. Absentee ballots, no issue at all.

I'll just answer 2 and 4. Signatures are checked by computer and flagged to be then checked, so yes not the FBI but election officials DO call. And if I multiply it by the thousands the chances that every single parent/sibling/offspring is willing to silently have their votes stolen, especially this day and age is essentially nil. Proof would have been found.

So you have seen the signatures? LOL. You trust the computers? To me it looks fishy that most of the mail in ballots lean Democrat. I find it fishy that BOTH sides garnered so many more votes while the Libertarian candidate garnered 3 mil fewer votes. I find it impossible that the officials check every signature with a computer. I find it odd when nursing homes have thousands of ballots suddenly. Easy to forge those signatures. So let's not pretend that the risk of fraud is not greater than if we all had either in person voting or REQUESTED ballots.

If we cannot agree there then we need to drop this and agree to disagree. To me the RISK of fraud is higher. Doesn't mean there was fraud but I am highly suspicious.

Be suspicious all you want, although I'll say now your suspicions don't seem to be not moored in anything concrete or are easily explained if you are willing to think things through. Libertarians have so much fewer votes for instance because Trump has been so divisive that he nearly eliminated the third party vote. You are for or against there is no middle ground.

So you have called me out because I didn't address your hypothetical. I have done you the courtesy of spending 3 posts on what is the least consequential of your arguments. Can you do me the courtesy of trying to rebut the points I made?

Nope. You still have yet to address the fact that the risk of fraud is significantly higher with mail in ballots. The Libertarian candidate received 3mil fewer votes when compared to 2016. Hard to swallow and Trump who as you say is divisive and a villain received 74.2 million votes. Something is rotten in Denmark. I believe there is fraud on both sides and the whole voting landscape needs to be revamped.

What points would you like me to address? Give me a specific example and I will happily address it.

I have addressed that claim. Again. Between rotty relationships between parents/siblings/offspring/significant other. The chance that there was massive fraud with mail-in ballots without any instance of it coming out that I'm aware of is nil. Show me any case presented in the sixty or so claims that assert it and I'll take it seriously. Until then you are simply giving an opinion without a good justification.

Why is it hard to swallow. Be honest have you ever talked about politics as much as in the last four years? I haven't and that's true for most anybody I know. More interest, more participation. Doesn't seem hard to swallow. Here are my points.

#1) Again a distinction without a difference. The principle is exactly the same. You send in your vote by mail. It's interesting though that too you putting up barriers to voting is considered making voting better. I understand it from a partisan standpoint but it makes the argument that you want elections to be fair ring hollow. The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

#2)If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts. I've actually read some of the rulings. It wasn't even close. To me, it says something that people make grand claims in places that carry no penalty for lying to then either tone down their claims to a fraction or not assert it all.

3#) Oh, so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt? Not for nothing Azog but that argument is not a little bit weird not to mention ironic since a few months ago we had an argument where you were blaming me for not convicting riots although I did not one time but several times in the OP and the Democrats as a whole although every single politician clearly condemned the violence. As to whom you blame, the media bears responsibility, although I personally am very careful before I accept anything from any media. That's why I try to see primary sources and am allergic to people both left and right who don't even try to nuance stuff. Having said that, leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

I never Cared about politics til my kids hit middle school (2018) and I noticed all the PC crap. You conflating Manson with Trump is laughable. And Trump was not the cause but the effect. That’s why he won in 2016.

What points would you like me to address? Give me a specific example and I will happily address it.

So much for that.

OK...so you won’t give me a specific example to address? I did it with you. Lol

I've distilled it some more for you. These are 4 distinct points I made I want you to adress.

The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts.

so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt?

leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

By the way I didn't compare Trump to Charles Manson. I engaged in a Reductio in Absurdum. What I'm saying is that it's absurd to try to not hold Trump responsible because he didn't personally engage in the riots. The fact that it was because of him and under his direction that it happened is enough to hold him responsible.

You’re making statements. Where is the question? To me I think mail in voting is subject to significant fraud. You disagree. And you did compare Trump to Manson for all intents and purposes. Trump didn’t brainwash young impressionable kids to kill. He got 74.2mil votes and many see him and not getting fair treatment from the media, both traditional and social. Our media is corrupt as hell.

Either Trump is lying or the courts aren’t interested but again to me and I am a logical human as I see it, mail in voting is subject to fraud.

Lastly, you see Trump as the cause of all this discord. I see him as the effect. And for your question. I would Have shot every single one of the “mob” once they started committing crimes. You shoot the first 50 and the rest with disperse.

It is perfectly possible to make a counterargument without asking a question.

And no I didn't compare him to Manson. I find, and I often apply someone else's argument to the extreme. I find it helpful sometimes to point out the absurdity of them. Arguments like this.

#3) It is the Capital and the mob is angry because of the media. You watch CNN and you see a completely different reality from that of Fox. Traditional and Social media both have divided this country.

This is you NOT condemning violence but rather justifying it. I'm glad you changed that position. But there is no way I could have gotten that from your original comment.

Just because something sounds logical doesn't make it true Azog. Everything I said sounds logical to me. Yet you are arguing the opposite.

I've had an argument with my brother a few weeks ago. He believed in some conspiracy theory and couldn't fathom that I wasn't buying his logic for believing it. He kept on going back to saying it's logical. It took me an hour to try to explain to him the difference between an opinion and a fact. That and not the media is the fundamental problem. To many people, most of them Trump supporters feel their opinion is valid despite the available evidence not supporting it.

Take this comment.

Either Trump is lying or the courts aren’t interested

The courts presided by judges appointed by both parties universally rejected all election challenges. Few of those challenges even asserted any fraud. When asked point-blank by a judge if he knew of any widespread voter fraud a lawyer representing Trump said "not to my knowledge" yet you still can't straight up say that Trump lied. You hold on to your opinion not just without good reason but despite good reason to believe otherwise.

I said either so it’s possible he is lying but I would bet there was fraud. Not enough maybe to impact this election but close town races, definitely could. Mail in voting is a terrible idea. If you can’t see that then I cant help you. It’s funny people would never send $10k in cash via mail but we trust our votes to go through mail. Craziness

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

"Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference."

Congrats, this wins the award for the most uninformed statement of the week on USMB

Are absentee votes and mail-in votes different? (apnews.com)

The two terms are used interchangeably with no legal distinction. The Trump campaign acknowledged this in a filing in a lawsuit it filed over Pennsylvania’s voting procedures.

So for absentee votes you have to request them and I see no issue with that. Mass mailings when people don’t request them, that I have issue with.

 

[forkup]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

#1) Absentee ballots are requested. So if I request a ballot it is one thing if one is sent to me and my wife without a request and someone else can grab it, it is another thing.

#2) Poll watchers could not see very well what was happening as I understand it and there are questions of ballot harvesting, ballot dumping, dead people voting, etc. When I vote in person I give my address, they then check my name off and give me a reference tag. I then upload by ballot via a machine. To me that is very straightforward and I also see that my ballot was processed. If someone steals mail in ballots and fills them out for me and my wife or I do so for my wife then there are no true checks and balances. Say I live with my parents and my wife. They are agnostic and don't vote. I receive four unsolicited ballots. I fill all four out for my candidate. My wife and parents either don't know or care and now instead of one vote, my vote counts as four. How do we police that?

#3) It is the Capital and the mob is angry because of the media. You watch CNN and you see a completely different reality from that of Fox. Traditional and Social media both have divided this country. This board is another example. We are at each others throats. BLM protests were not mostly peaceful and 19 people died. The police have been hamstrung and could not do much vs. BLM nor much vs. the Capital uprising. People are angry and I blame the media.

#1) Again a distinction without a difference. The principle is exactly the same. You send in your vote by mail. It's interesting though that too you putting up barriers to voting is considered making voting better. I understand it from a partisan standpoint but it makes the argument that you want elections to be fair ring hollow. The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

#2)If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts. I've actually read some of the rulings. It wasn't even close. To me, it says something that people make grand claims in places that carry no penalty for lying to then either tone down their claims to a fraction or not assert it all.

3#) Oh, so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt? Not for nothing Azog but that argument is not a little bit weird not to mention ironic since a few months ago we had an argument where you were blaming me for not convicting riots although I did not one time but several times in the OP and the Democrats as a whole although every single politician clearly condemned the violence. As to whom you blame, the media bears responsibility, although I personally am very careful before I accept anything from any media. That's why I try to see primary sources and am allergic to people both left and right who don't even try to nuance stuff. Having said that, leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

You didn't address my point so let us do it concretely. If the state sends me four blank voting envelopes. What stops me from filling out all four vs. just mine? Especially if my wife and parents don't know nor care. It is different if I REQUEST mine and they request theirs.

Address this specific example.

And they didn't condemn the violence. Seattle Mayor said it was the summer of love. Nadler called it a myth. Fredo Cuomo asked who said protests have to be peaceful. CNN called them mostly peaceful. Disgraceful.

Sure. First, your parents live with you? Ballots are sent by address. Second, you need to forge their signature, when in doubt election officials can and do call, better hope they don't reach them. Third, congratulations you just committed a felony in order to swing a grand total of TWO votes. Seems a bit risky. Fourth, the chances that that happened presupposes that every person who had their votes stolen either didn't find out or decided to cover for the felon since few actual examples of this happening on any scale are being alleged.

So now please answer my counterarguments.

#1) In my example they do.
#2) They are my wife and parents they would say sure and I doubt the FBI would call.
#3) Felony if you get caught and its tough to catch.
#4) Multiply that example by thousands.

In swing states elections can be divided by thousands or even hundreds. Ask John James. To me mail in ballots are a terrible idea. Absentee ballots, no issue at all.

I'll just answer 2 and 4. Signatures are checked by computer and flagged to be then checked, so yes not the FBI but election officials DO call. And if I multiply it by the thousands the chances that every single parent/sibling/offspring is willing to silently have their votes stolen, especially this day and age is essentially nil. Proof would have been found.

So you have seen the signatures? LOL. You trust the computers? To me it looks fishy that most of the mail in ballots lean Democrat. I find it fishy that BOTH sides garnered so many more votes while the Libertarian candidate garnered 3 mil fewer votes. I find it impossible that the officials check every signature with a computer. I find it odd when nursing homes have thousands of ballots suddenly. Easy to forge those signatures. So let's not pretend that the risk of fraud is not greater than if we all had either in person voting or REQUESTED ballots.

If we cannot agree there then we need to drop this and agree to disagree. To me the RISK of fraud is higher. Doesn't mean there was fraud but I am highly suspicious.

Be suspicious all you want, although I'll say now your suspicions don't seem to be not moored in anything concrete or are easily explained if you are willing to think things through. Libertarians have so much fewer votes for instance because Trump has been so divisive that he nearly eliminated the third party vote. You are for or against there is no middle ground.

So you have called me out because I didn't address your hypothetical. I have done you the courtesy of spending 3 posts on what is the least consequential of your arguments. Can you do me the courtesy of trying to rebut the points I made?

Nope. You still have yet to address the fact that the risk of fraud is significantly higher with mail in ballots. The Libertarian candidate received 3mil fewer votes when compared to 2016. Hard to swallow and Trump who as you say is divisive and a villain received 74.2 million votes. Something is rotten in Denmark. I believe there is fraud on both sides and the whole voting landscape needs to be revamped.

What points would you like me to address? Give me a specific example and I will happily address it.

I have addressed that claim. Again. Between rotty relationships between parents/siblings/offspring/significant other. The chance that there was massive fraud with mail-in ballots without any instance of it coming out that I'm aware of is nil. Show me any case presented in the sixty or so claims that assert it and I'll take it seriously. Until then you are simply giving an opinion without a good justification.

Why is it hard to swallow. Be honest have you ever talked about politics as much as in the last four years? I haven't and that's true for most anybody I know. More interest, more participation. Doesn't seem hard to swallow. Here are my points.

#1) Again a distinction without a difference. The principle is exactly the same. You send in your vote by mail. It's interesting though that too you putting up barriers to voting is considered making voting better. I understand it from a partisan standpoint but it makes the argument that you want elections to be fair ring hollow. The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

#2)If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts. I've actually read some of the rulings. It wasn't even close. To me, it says something that people make grand claims in places that carry no penalty for lying to then either tone down their claims to a fraction or not assert it all.

3#) Oh, so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt? Not for nothing Azog but that argument is not a little bit weird not to mention ironic since a few months ago we had an argument where you were blaming me for not convicting riots although I did not one time but several times in the OP and the Democrats as a whole although every single politician clearly condemned the violence. As to whom you blame, the media bears responsibility, although I personally am very careful before I accept anything from any media. That's why I try to see primary sources and am allergic to people both left and right who don't even try to nuance stuff. Having said that, leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

I never Cared about politics til my kids hit middle school (2018) and I noticed all the PC crap. You conflating Manson with Trump is laughable. And Trump was not the cause but the effect. That’s why he won in 2016.

What points would you like me to address? Give me a specific example and I will happily address it.

So much for that.

OK...so you won’t give me a specific example to address? I did it with you. Lol

I've distilled it some more for you. These are 4 distinct points I made I want you to adress.

The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts.

so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt?

leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

By the way I didn't compare Trump to Charles Manson. I engaged in a Reductio in Absurdum. What I'm saying is that it's absurd to try to not hold Trump responsible because he didn't personally engage in the riots. The fact that it was because of him and under his direction that it happened is enough to hold him responsible.

You’re making statements. Where is the question? To me I think mail in voting is subject to significant fraud. You disagree. And you did compare Trump to Manson for all intents and purposes. Trump didn’t brainwash young impressionable kids to kill. He got 74.2mil votes and many see him and not getting fair treatment from the media, both traditional and social. Our media is corrupt as hell.

Either Trump is lying or the courts aren’t interested but again to me and I am a logical human as I see it, mail in voting is subject to fraud.

Lastly, you see Trump as the cause of all this discord. I see him as the effect. And for your question. I would Have shot every single one of the “mob” once they started committing crimes. You shoot the first 50 and the rest with disperse.

It is perfectly possible to make a counterargument without asking a question.

And no I didn't compare him to Manson. I find, and I often apply someone else's argument to the extreme. I find it helpful sometimes to point out the absurdity of them. Arguments like this.

#3) It is the Capital and the mob is angry because of the media. You watch CNN and you see a completely different reality from that of Fox. Traditional and Social media both have divided this country.

This is you NOT condemning violence but rather justifying it. I'm glad you changed that position. But there is no way I could have gotten that from your original comment.

Just because something sounds logical doesn't make it true Azog. Everything I said sounds logical to me. Yet you are arguing the opposite.

I've had an argument with my brother a few weeks ago. He believed in some conspiracy theory and couldn't fathom that I wasn't buying his logic for believing it. He kept on going back to saying it's logical. It took me an hour to try to explain to him the difference between an opinion and a fact. That and not the media is the fundamental problem. To many people, most of them Trump supporters feel their opinion is valid despite the available evidence not supporting it.

Take this comment.

Either Trump is lying or the courts aren’t interested

The courts presided by judges appointed by both parties universally rejected all election challenges. Few of those challenges even asserted any fraud. When asked point-blank by a judge if he knew of any widespread voter fraud a lawyer representing Trump said "not to my knowledge" yet you still can't straight up say that Trump lied. You hold on to your opinion not just without good reason but despite good reason to believe otherwise.

I said either so it’s possible he is lying but I would bet there was fraud. Not enough maybe to impact this election but close town races, definitely could. Mail in voting is a terrible idea. If you can’t see that then I cant help you. It’s funny people would never send $10k in cash via mail but we trust our votes to go through mail. Craziness

You said either. This implies you think there is reason to doubt the courts. It's an opinion of course and everybody can have any opinion they want. My point is that I have plenty of facts supporting my opinion. You on the other hand have no valid reason I can discern to doubt the court rulings, yet you seemingly do.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

#1) Absentee ballots are requested. So if I request a ballot it is one thing if one is sent to me and my wife without a request and someone else can grab it, it is another thing.

#2) Poll watchers could not see very well what was happening as I understand it and there are questions of ballot harvesting, ballot dumping, dead people voting, etc. When I vote in person I give my address, they then check my name off and give me a reference tag. I then upload by ballot via a machine. To me that is very straightforward and I also see that my ballot was processed. If someone steals mail in ballots and fills them out for me and my wife or I do so for my wife then there are no true checks and balances. Say I live with my parents and my wife. They are agnostic and don't vote. I receive four unsolicited ballots. I fill all four out for my candidate. My wife and parents either don't know or care and now instead of one vote, my vote counts as four. How do we police that?

#3) It is the Capital and the mob is angry because of the media. You watch CNN and you see a completely different reality from that of Fox. Traditional and Social media both have divided this country. This board is another example. We are at each others throats. BLM protests were not mostly peaceful and 19 people died. The police have been hamstrung and could not do much vs. BLM nor much vs. the Capital uprising. People are angry and I blame the media.

#1) Again a distinction without a difference. The principle is exactly the same. You send in your vote by mail. It's interesting though that too you putting up barriers to voting is considered making voting better. I understand it from a partisan standpoint but it makes the argument that you want elections to be fair ring hollow. The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

#2)If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts. I've actually read some of the rulings. It wasn't even close. To me, it says something that people make grand claims in places that carry no penalty for lying to then either tone down their claims to a fraction or not assert it all.

3#) Oh, so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt? Not for nothing Azog but that argument is not a little bit weird not to mention ironic since a few months ago we had an argument where you were blaming me for not convicting riots although I did not one time but several times in the OP and the Democrats as a whole although every single politician clearly condemned the violence. As to whom you blame, the media bears responsibility, although I personally am very careful before I accept anything from any media. That's why I try to see primary sources and am allergic to people both left and right who don't even try to nuance stuff. Having said that, leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

You didn't address my point so let us do it concretely. If the state sends me four blank voting envelopes. What stops me from filling out all four vs. just mine? Especially if my wife and parents don't know nor care. It is different if I REQUEST mine and they request theirs.

Address this specific example.

And they didn't condemn the violence. Seattle Mayor said it was the summer of love. Nadler called it a myth. Fredo Cuomo asked who said protests have to be peaceful. CNN called them mostly peaceful. Disgraceful.

Sure. First, your parents live with you? Ballots are sent by address. Second, you need to forge their signature, when in doubt election officials can and do call, better hope they don't reach them. Third, congratulations you just committed a felony in order to swing a grand total of TWO votes. Seems a bit risky. Fourth, the chances that that happened presupposes that every person who had their votes stolen either didn't find out or decided to cover for the felon since few actual examples of this happening on any scale are being alleged.

So now please answer my counterarguments.

#1) In my example they do.
#2) They are my wife and parents they would say sure and I doubt the FBI would call.
#3) Felony if you get caught and its tough to catch.
#4) Multiply that example by thousands.

In swing states elections can be divided by thousands or even hundreds. Ask John James. To me mail in ballots are a terrible idea. Absentee ballots, no issue at all.

I'll just answer 2 and 4. Signatures are checked by computer and flagged to be then checked, so yes not the FBI but election officials DO call. And if I multiply it by the thousands the chances that every single parent/sibling/offspring is willing to silently have their votes stolen, especially this day and age is essentially nil. Proof would have been found.

So you have seen the signatures? LOL. You trust the computers? To me it looks fishy that most of the mail in ballots lean Democrat. I find it fishy that BOTH sides garnered so many more votes while the Libertarian candidate garnered 3 mil fewer votes. I find it impossible that the officials check every signature with a computer. I find it odd when nursing homes have thousands of ballots suddenly. Easy to forge those signatures. So let's not pretend that the risk of fraud is not greater than if we all had either in person voting or REQUESTED ballots.

If we cannot agree there then we need to drop this and agree to disagree. To me the RISK of fraud is higher. Doesn't mean there was fraud but I am highly suspicious.

Be suspicious all you want, although I'll say now your suspicions don't seem to be not moored in anything concrete or are easily explained if you are willing to think things through. Libertarians have so much fewer votes for instance because Trump has been so divisive that he nearly eliminated the third party vote. You are for or against there is no middle ground.

So you have called me out because I didn't address your hypothetical. I have done you the courtesy of spending 3 posts on what is the least consequential of your arguments. Can you do me the courtesy of trying to rebut the points I made?

Nope. You still have yet to address the fact that the risk of fraud is significantly higher with mail in ballots. The Libertarian candidate received 3mil fewer votes when compared to 2016. Hard to swallow and Trump who as you say is divisive and a villain received 74.2 million votes. Something is rotten in Denmark. I believe there is fraud on both sides and the whole voting landscape needs to be revamped.

What points would you like me to address? Give me a specific example and I will happily address it.

I have addressed that claim. Again. Between rotty relationships between parents/siblings/offspring/significant other. The chance that there was massive fraud with mail-in ballots without any instance of it coming out that I'm aware of is nil. Show me any case presented in the sixty or so claims that assert it and I'll take it seriously. Until then you are simply giving an opinion without a good justification.

Why is it hard to swallow. Be honest have you ever talked about politics as much as in the last four years? I haven't and that's true for most anybody I know. More interest, more participation. Doesn't seem hard to swallow. Here are my points.

#1) Again a distinction without a difference. The principle is exactly the same. You send in your vote by mail. It's interesting though that too you putting up barriers to voting is considered making voting better. I understand it from a partisan standpoint but it makes the argument that you want elections to be fair ring hollow. The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

#2)If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts. I've actually read some of the rulings. It wasn't even close. To me, it says something that people make grand claims in places that carry no penalty for lying to then either tone down their claims to a fraction or not assert it all.

3#) Oh, so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt? Not for nothing Azog but that argument is not a little bit weird not to mention ironic since a few months ago we had an argument where you were blaming me for not convicting riots although I did not one time but several times in the OP and the Democrats as a whole although every single politician clearly condemned the violence. As to whom you blame, the media bears responsibility, although I personally am very careful before I accept anything from any media. That's why I try to see primary sources and am allergic to people both left and right who don't even try to nuance stuff. Having said that, leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

I never Cared about politics til my kids hit middle school (2018) and I noticed all the PC crap. You conflating Manson with Trump is laughable. And Trump was not the cause but the effect. That’s why he won in 2016.

What points would you like me to address? Give me a specific example and I will happily address it.

So much for that.

OK...so you won’t give me a specific example to address? I did it with you. Lol

I've distilled it some more for you. These are 4 distinct points I made I want you to adress.

The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts.

so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt?

leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

By the way I didn't compare Trump to Charles Manson. I engaged in a Reductio in Absurdum. What I'm saying is that it's absurd to try to not hold Trump responsible because he didn't personally engage in the riots. The fact that it was because of him and under his direction that it happened is enough to hold him responsible.

You’re making statements. Where is the question? To me I think mail in voting is subject to significant fraud. You disagree. And you did compare Trump to Manson for all intents and purposes. Trump didn’t brainwash young impressionable kids to kill. He got 74.2mil votes and many see him and not getting fair treatment from the media, both traditional and social. Our media is corrupt as hell.

Either Trump is lying or the courts aren’t interested but again to me and I am a logical human as I see it, mail in voting is subject to fraud.

Lastly, you see Trump as the cause of all this discord. I see him as the effect. And for your question. I would Have shot every single one of the “mob” once they started committing crimes. You shoot the first 50 and the rest with disperse.

It is perfectly possible to make a counterargument without asking a question.

And no I didn't compare him to Manson. I find, and I often apply someone else's argument to the extreme. I find it helpful sometimes to point out the absurdity of them. Arguments like this.

#3) It is the Capital and the mob is angry because of the media. You watch CNN and you see a completely different reality from that of Fox. Traditional and Social media both have divided this country.

This is you NOT condemning violence but rather justifying it. I'm glad you changed that position. But there is no way I could have gotten that from your original comment.

Just because something sounds logical doesn't make it true Azog. Everything I said sounds logical to me. Yet you are arguing the opposite.

I've had an argument with my brother a few weeks ago. He believed in some conspiracy theory and couldn't fathom that I wasn't buying his logic for believing it. He kept on going back to saying it's logical. It took me an hour to try to explain to him the difference between an opinion and a fact. That and not the media is the fundamental problem. To many people, most of them Trump supporters feel their opinion is valid despite the available evidence not supporting it.

Take this comment.

Either Trump is lying or the courts aren’t interested

The courts presided by judges appointed by both parties universally rejected all election challenges. Few of those challenges even asserted any fraud. When asked point-blank by a judge if he knew of any widespread voter fraud a lawyer representing Trump said "not to my knowledge" yet you still can't straight up say that Trump lied. You hold on to your opinion not just without good reason but despite good reason to believe otherwise.

I said either so it’s possible he is lying but I would bet there was fraud. Not enough maybe to impact this election but close town races, definitely could. Mail in voting is a terrible idea. If you can’t see that then I cant help you. It’s funny people would never send $10k in cash via mail but we trust our votes to go through mail. Craziness

You said either. This implies you think there is reason to doubt the courts. It's an opinion of course and everybody can have any opinion they want. My point is that I have plenty of facts supporting my opinion. You on the other hand have no valid reason I can discern to doubt the court rulings, yet you seemingly do.

Of course I do. I do not Trust them and you’re wrong. Either means that Trump could be lying or just not accepting the truth. Courts have made mistakes before. Because “courts” are just people interpreting the law. It’s interesting how you try to use big words and fancy language but in the end you’re just another brainwashed person. Brainwashed by whom? Our media. Both traditional and social. You don’t even apply your own logic and level of skepticism. Pretty sad. You should reflect on that.

 

[JoeB131]

I said either so it’s possible he is lying but I would bet there was fraud. Not enough maybe to impact this election but close town races, definitely could. Mail in voting is a terrible idea. If you can’t see that then I cant help you. It’s funny people would never send $10k in cash via mail but we trust our votes to go through mail. Craziness

Your vote isn't worth $10,000.

If you don't live in a swing state, it isn't worth much at all.

The complaint you guy have isn't "Fraud", it's that mail in voting makes the franchise more accessible to poor people and people of color.

Of course I do. I do not Trust them and you’re wrong. Either means that Trump could be lying or just not accepting the truth. Courts have made mistakes before. Because “courts” are just people interpreting the law.

They are interpreting the law as written based on facts. The problem here is that Trump claimed there MIGHT have been POTENTIAL Fraud. He didn't actually prove that there was any actual fraud or that the fraud was signifigent enough to change the results in the five swing states that decided this thing. This is why even judges he nominated couldn't go along with his challenges.

It’s interesting how you try to use big words and fancy language but in the end you’re just another brainwashed person. Brainwashed by whom? Our media. Both traditional and social. You don’t even apply your own logic and level of skepticism. Pretty sad. You should reflect on that.

Here's the thing. Media isn't the problem, we are.

If you look at Fox News and MSNBC, they are both reporting mostly the same stories. The only real difference is the packaging. Fox is packaging to a conservative audience, MSNBC is packaging to a liberal one. That's it.

If you want unbiased reporting of just the facts, with actual analysis, watch PBS. You'll be massively bored in about 20 minutes because they have no pizazz.

We complain about Congress, but only 37% of us can name our Congressman. Only 20% of us vote in primaries, and because of Gerrymandering, 90% of districts are either D or R districts. Any given cycle, only 6 of the 33 Senate Seats are actually competitive.

 

[forkup]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

#1) Absentee ballots are requested. So if I request a ballot it is one thing if one is sent to me and my wife without a request and someone else can grab it, it is another thing.

#2) Poll watchers could not see very well what was happening as I understand it and there are questions of ballot harvesting, ballot dumping, dead people voting, etc. When I vote in person I give my address, they then check my name off and give me a reference tag. I then upload by ballot via a machine. To me that is very straightforward and I also see that my ballot was processed. If someone steals mail in ballots and fills them out for me and my wife or I do so for my wife then there are no true checks and balances. Say I live with my parents and my wife. They are agnostic and don't vote. I receive four unsolicited ballots. I fill all four out for my candidate. My wife and parents either don't know or care and now instead of one vote, my vote counts as four. How do we police that?

#3) It is the Capital and the mob is angry because of the media. You watch CNN and you see a completely different reality from that of Fox. Traditional and Social media both have divided this country. This board is another example. We are at each others throats. BLM protests were not mostly peaceful and 19 people died. The police have been hamstrung and could not do much vs. BLM nor much vs. the Capital uprising. People are angry and I blame the media.

#1) Again a distinction without a difference. The principle is exactly the same. You send in your vote by mail. It's interesting though that too you putting up barriers to voting is considered making voting better. I understand it from a partisan standpoint but it makes the argument that you want elections to be fair ring hollow. The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

#2)If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts. I've actually read some of the rulings. It wasn't even close. To me, it says something that people make grand claims in places that carry no penalty for lying to then either tone down their claims to a fraction or not assert it all.

3#) Oh, so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt? Not for nothing Azog but that argument is not a little bit weird not to mention ironic since a few months ago we had an argument where you were blaming me for not convicting riots although I did not one time but several times in the OP and the Democrats as a whole although every single politician clearly condemned the violence. As to whom you blame, the media bears responsibility, although I personally am very careful before I accept anything from any media. That's why I try to see primary sources and am allergic to people both left and right who don't even try to nuance stuff. Having said that, leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

You didn't address my point so let us do it concretely. If the state sends me four blank voting envelopes. What stops me from filling out all four vs. just mine? Especially if my wife and parents don't know nor care. It is different if I REQUEST mine and they request theirs.

Address this specific example.

And they didn't condemn the violence. Seattle Mayor said it was the summer of love. Nadler called it a myth. Fredo Cuomo asked who said protests have to be peaceful. CNN called them mostly peaceful. Disgraceful.

Sure. First, your parents live with you? Ballots are sent by address. Second, you need to forge their signature, when in doubt election officials can and do call, better hope they don't reach them. Third, congratulations you just committed a felony in order to swing a grand total of TWO votes. Seems a bit risky. Fourth, the chances that that happened presupposes that every person who had their votes stolen either didn't find out or decided to cover for the felon since few actual examples of this happening on any scale are being alleged.

So now please answer my counterarguments.

#1) In my example they do.
#2) They are my wife and parents they would say sure and I doubt the FBI would call.
#3) Felony if you get caught and its tough to catch.
#4) Multiply that example by thousands.

In swing states elections can be divided by thousands or even hundreds. Ask John James. To me mail in ballots are a terrible idea. Absentee ballots, no issue at all.

I'll just answer 2 and 4. Signatures are checked by computer and flagged to be then checked, so yes not the FBI but election officials DO call. And if I multiply it by the thousands the chances that every single parent/sibling/offspring is willing to silently have their votes stolen, especially this day and age is essentially nil. Proof would have been found.

So you have seen the signatures? LOL. You trust the computers? To me it looks fishy that most of the mail in ballots lean Democrat. I find it fishy that BOTH sides garnered so many more votes while the Libertarian candidate garnered 3 mil fewer votes. I find it impossible that the officials check every signature with a computer. I find it odd when nursing homes have thousands of ballots suddenly. Easy to forge those signatures. So let's not pretend that the risk of fraud is not greater than if we all had either in person voting or REQUESTED ballots.

If we cannot agree there then we need to drop this and agree to disagree. To me the RISK of fraud is higher. Doesn't mean there was fraud but I am highly suspicious.

Be suspicious all you want, although I'll say now your suspicions don't seem to be not moored in anything concrete or are easily explained if you are willing to think things through. Libertarians have so much fewer votes for instance because Trump has been so divisive that he nearly eliminated the third party vote. You are for or against there is no middle ground.

So you have called me out because I didn't address your hypothetical. I have done you the courtesy of spending 3 posts on what is the least consequential of your arguments. Can you do me the courtesy of trying to rebut the points I made?

Nope. You still have yet to address the fact that the risk of fraud is significantly higher with mail in ballots. The Libertarian candidate received 3mil fewer votes when compared to 2016. Hard to swallow and Trump who as you say is divisive and a villain received 74.2 million votes. Something is rotten in Denmark. I believe there is fraud on both sides and the whole voting landscape needs to be revamped.

What points would you like me to address? Give me a specific example and I will happily address it.

I have addressed that claim. Again. Between rotty relationships between parents/siblings/offspring/significant other. The chance that there was massive fraud with mail-in ballots without any instance of it coming out that I'm aware of is nil. Show me any case presented in the sixty or so claims that assert it and I'll take it seriously. Until then you are simply giving an opinion without a good justification.

Why is it hard to swallow. Be honest have you ever talked about politics as much as in the last four years? I haven't and that's true for most anybody I know. More interest, more participation. Doesn't seem hard to swallow. Here are my points.

#1) Again a distinction without a difference. The principle is exactly the same. You send in your vote by mail. It's interesting though that too you putting up barriers to voting is considered making voting better. I understand it from a partisan standpoint but it makes the argument that you want elections to be fair ring hollow. The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

#2)If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts. I've actually read some of the rulings. It wasn't even close. To me, it says something that people make grand claims in places that carry no penalty for lying to then either tone down their claims to a fraction or not assert it all.

3#) Oh, so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt? Not for nothing Azog but that argument is not a little bit weird not to mention ironic since a few months ago we had an argument where you were blaming me for not convicting riots although I did not one time but several times in the OP and the Democrats as a whole although every single politician clearly condemned the violence. As to whom you blame, the media bears responsibility, although I personally am very careful before I accept anything from any media. That's why I try to see primary sources and am allergic to people both left and right who don't even try to nuance stuff. Having said that, leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

I never Cared about politics til my kids hit middle school (2018) and I noticed all the PC crap. You conflating Manson with Trump is laughable. And Trump was not the cause but the effect. That’s why he won in 2016.

What points would you like me to address? Give me a specific example and I will happily address it.

So much for that.

OK...so you won’t give me a specific example to address? I did it with you. Lol

I've distilled it some more for you. These are 4 distinct points I made I want you to adress.

The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts.

so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt?

leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

By the way I didn't compare Trump to Charles Manson. I engaged in a Reductio in Absurdum. What I'm saying is that it's absurd to try to not hold Trump responsible because he didn't personally engage in the riots. The fact that it was because of him and under his direction that it happened is enough to hold him responsible.

You’re making statements. Where is the question? To me I think mail in voting is subject to significant fraud. You disagree. And you did compare Trump to Manson for all intents and purposes. Trump didn’t brainwash young impressionable kids to kill. He got 74.2mil votes and many see him and not getting fair treatment from the media, both traditional and social. Our media is corrupt as hell.

Either Trump is lying or the courts aren’t interested but again to me and I am a logical human as I see it, mail in voting is subject to fraud.

Lastly, you see Trump as the cause of all this discord. I see him as the effect. And for your question. I would Have shot every single one of the “mob” once they started committing crimes. You shoot the first 50 and the rest with disperse.

It is perfectly possible to make a counterargument without asking a question.

And no I didn't compare him to Manson. I find, and I often apply someone else's argument to the extreme. I find it helpful sometimes to point out the absurdity of them. Arguments like this.

#3) It is the Capital and the mob is angry because of the media. You watch CNN and you see a completely different reality from that of Fox. Traditional and Social media both have divided this country.

This is you NOT condemning violence but rather justifying it. I'm glad you changed that position. But there is no way I could have gotten that from your original comment.

Just because something sounds logical doesn't make it true Azog. Everything I said sounds logical to me. Yet you are arguing the opposite.

I've had an argument with my brother a few weeks ago. He believed in some conspiracy theory and couldn't fathom that I wasn't buying his logic for believing it. He kept on going back to saying it's logical. It took me an hour to try to explain to him the difference between an opinion and a fact. That and not the media is the fundamental problem. To many people, most of them Trump supporters feel their opinion is valid despite the available evidence not supporting it.

Take this comment.

Either Trump is lying or the courts aren’t interested

The courts presided by judges appointed by both parties universally rejected all election challenges. Few of those challenges even asserted any fraud. When asked point-blank by a judge if he knew of any widespread voter fraud a lawyer representing Trump said "not to my knowledge" yet you still can't straight up say that Trump lied. You hold on to your opinion not just without good reason but despite good reason to believe otherwise.

I said either so it’s possible he is lying but I would bet there was fraud. Not enough maybe to impact this election but close town races, definitely could. Mail in voting is a terrible idea. If you can’t see that then I cant help you. It’s funny people would never send $10k in cash via mail but we trust our votes to go through mail. Craziness

You said either. This implies you think there is reason to doubt the courts. It's an opinion of course and everybody can have any opinion they want. My point is that I have plenty of facts supporting my opinion. You on the other hand have no valid reason I can discern to doubt the court rulings, yet you seemingly do.

Of course I do. I do not Trust them and you’re wrong. Either means that Trump could be lying or just not accepting the truth. Courts have made mistakes before. Because “courts” are just people interpreting the law. It’s interesting how you try to use big words and fancy language but in the end you’re just another brainwashed person. Brainwashed by whom? Our media. Both traditional and social. You don’t even apply your own logic and level of skepticism. Pretty sad. You should reflect on that.

I do apply skepticism. But skepticism has to have a valid basis.
Here's the thing. If those that agree with me and those that disagree say the same thing, what do you base your skepticism on? Doesn't matter who did the nominating all claims got rejected. If the assertions that are made on behalf of Trump in court don't really claim voter fraud, what do you base your skepticism on? If the DOJ, led by an overtly partisan AG flat out states there was no widespread voter fraud what do you base your skepticism on?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I said either so it’s possible he is lying but I would bet there was fraud. Not enough maybe to impact this election but close town races, definitely could. Mail in voting is a terrible idea. If you can’t see that then I cant help you. It’s funny people would never send $10k in cash via mail but we trust our votes to go through mail. Craziness

Your vote isn't worth $10,000.

If you don't live in a swing state, it isn't worth much at all.

The complaint you guy have isn't "Fraud", it's that mail in voting makes the franchise more accessible to poor people and people of color.

Of course I do. I do not Trust them and you’re wrong. Either means that Trump could be lying or just not accepting the truth. Courts have made mistakes before. Because “courts” are just people interpreting the law.

They are interpreting the law as written based on facts. The problem here is that Trump claimed there MIGHT have been POTENTIAL Fraud. He didn't actually prove that there was any actual fraud or that the fraud was signifigent enough to change the results in the five swing states that decided this thing. This is why even judges he nominated couldn't go along with his challenges.

It’s interesting how you try to use big words and fancy language but in the end you’re just another brainwashed person. Brainwashed by whom? Our media. Both traditional and social. You don’t even apply your own logic and level of skepticism. Pretty sad. You should reflect on that.

Here's the thing. Media isn't the problem, we are.

If you look at Fox News and MSNBC, they are both reporting mostly the same stories. The only real difference is the packaging. Fox is packaging to a conservative audience, MSNBC is packaging to a liberal one. That's it.

If you want unbiased reporting of just the facts, with actual analysis, watch PBS. You'll be massively bored in about 20 minutes because they have no pizazz.

We complain about Congress, but only 37% of us can name our Congressman. Only 20% of us vote in primaries, and because of Gerrymandering, 90% of districts are either D or R districts. Any given cycle, only 6 of the 33 Senate Seats are actually competitive.

Please stop stalking me. Thank you. You cannot read my mind so you don’t know what my complaint is. Also I said it can elect local elections like town elections where one or two votes can and do make a difference. Go stalk someone else. I do not deal with tattle tales.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

#1) Absentee ballots are requested. So if I request a ballot it is one thing if one is sent to me and my wife without a request and someone else can grab it, it is another thing.

#2) Poll watchers could not see very well what was happening as I understand it and there are questions of ballot harvesting, ballot dumping, dead people voting, etc. When I vote in person I give my address, they then check my name off and give me a reference tag. I then upload by ballot via a machine. To me that is very straightforward and I also see that my ballot was processed. If someone steals mail in ballots and fills them out for me and my wife or I do so for my wife then there are no true checks and balances. Say I live with my parents and my wife. They are agnostic and don't vote. I receive four unsolicited ballots. I fill all four out for my candidate. My wife and parents either don't know or care and now instead of one vote, my vote counts as four. How do we police that?

#3) It is the Capital and the mob is angry because of the media. You watch CNN and you see a completely different reality from that of Fox. Traditional and Social media both have divided this country. This board is another example. We are at each others throats. BLM protests were not mostly peaceful and 19 people died. The police have been hamstrung and could not do much vs. BLM nor much vs. the Capital uprising. People are angry and I blame the media.

#1) Again a distinction without a difference. The principle is exactly the same. You send in your vote by mail. It's interesting though that too you putting up barriers to voting is considered making voting better. I understand it from a partisan standpoint but it makes the argument that you want elections to be fair ring hollow. The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

#2)If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts. I've actually read some of the rulings. It wasn't even close. To me, it says something that people make grand claims in places that carry no penalty for lying to then either tone down their claims to a fraction or not assert it all.

3#) Oh, so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt? Not for nothing Azog but that argument is not a little bit weird not to mention ironic since a few months ago we had an argument where you were blaming me for not convicting riots although I did not one time but several times in the OP and the Democrats as a whole although every single politician clearly condemned the violence. As to whom you blame, the media bears responsibility, although I personally am very careful before I accept anything from any media. That's why I try to see primary sources and am allergic to people both left and right who don't even try to nuance stuff. Having said that, leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

You didn't address my point so let us do it concretely. If the state sends me four blank voting envelopes. What stops me from filling out all four vs. just mine? Especially if my wife and parents don't know nor care. It is different if I REQUEST mine and they request theirs.

Address this specific example.

And they didn't condemn the violence. Seattle Mayor said it was the summer of love. Nadler called it a myth. Fredo Cuomo asked who said protests have to be peaceful. CNN called them mostly peaceful. Disgraceful.

Sure. First, your parents live with you? Ballots are sent by address. Second, you need to forge their signature, when in doubt election officials can and do call, better hope they don't reach them. Third, congratulations you just committed a felony in order to swing a grand total of TWO votes. Seems a bit risky. Fourth, the chances that that happened presupposes that every person who had their votes stolen either didn't find out or decided to cover for the felon since few actual examples of this happening on any scale are being alleged.

So now please answer my counterarguments.

#1) In my example they do.
#2) They are my wife and parents they would say sure and I doubt the FBI would call.
#3) Felony if you get caught and its tough to catch.
#4) Multiply that example by thousands.

In swing states elections can be divided by thousands or even hundreds. Ask John James. To me mail in ballots are a terrible idea. Absentee ballots, no issue at all.

I'll just answer 2 and 4. Signatures are checked by computer and flagged to be then checked, so yes not the FBI but election officials DO call. And if I multiply it by the thousands the chances that every single parent/sibling/offspring is willing to silently have their votes stolen, especially this day and age is essentially nil. Proof would have been found.

So you have seen the signatures? LOL. You trust the computers? To me it looks fishy that most of the mail in ballots lean Democrat. I find it fishy that BOTH sides garnered so many more votes while the Libertarian candidate garnered 3 mil fewer votes. I find it impossible that the officials check every signature with a computer. I find it odd when nursing homes have thousands of ballots suddenly. Easy to forge those signatures. So let's not pretend that the risk of fraud is not greater than if we all had either in person voting or REQUESTED ballots.

If we cannot agree there then we need to drop this and agree to disagree. To me the RISK of fraud is higher. Doesn't mean there was fraud but I am highly suspicious.

Be suspicious all you want, although I'll say now your suspicions don't seem to be not moored in anything concrete or are easily explained if you are willing to think things through. Libertarians have so much fewer votes for instance because Trump has been so divisive that he nearly eliminated the third party vote. You are for or against there is no middle ground.

So you have called me out because I didn't address your hypothetical. I have done you the courtesy of spending 3 posts on what is the least consequential of your arguments. Can you do me the courtesy of trying to rebut the points I made?

Nope. You still have yet to address the fact that the risk of fraud is significantly higher with mail in ballots. The Libertarian candidate received 3mil fewer votes when compared to 2016. Hard to swallow and Trump who as you say is divisive and a villain received 74.2 million votes. Something is rotten in Denmark. I believe there is fraud on both sides and the whole voting landscape needs to be revamped.

What points would you like me to address? Give me a specific example and I will happily address it.

I have addressed that claim. Again. Between rotty relationships between parents/siblings/offspring/significant other. The chance that there was massive fraud with mail-in ballots without any instance of it coming out that I'm aware of is nil. Show me any case presented in the sixty or so claims that assert it and I'll take it seriously. Until then you are simply giving an opinion without a good justification.

Why is it hard to swallow. Be honest have you ever talked about politics as much as in the last four years? I haven't and that's true for most anybody I know. More interest, more participation. Doesn't seem hard to swallow. Here are my points.

#1) Again a distinction without a difference. The principle is exactly the same. You send in your vote by mail. It's interesting though that too you putting up barriers to voting is considered making voting better. I understand it from a partisan standpoint but it makes the argument that you want elections to be fair ring hollow. The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

#2)If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts. I've actually read some of the rulings. It wasn't even close. To me, it says something that people make grand claims in places that carry no penalty for lying to then either tone down their claims to a fraction or not assert it all.

3#) Oh, so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt? Not for nothing Azog but that argument is not a little bit weird not to mention ironic since a few months ago we had an argument where you were blaming me for not convicting riots although I did not one time but several times in the OP and the Democrats as a whole although every single politician clearly condemned the violence. As to whom you blame, the media bears responsibility, although I personally am very careful before I accept anything from any media. That's why I try to see primary sources and am allergic to people both left and right who don't even try to nuance stuff. Having said that, leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

I never Cared about politics til my kids hit middle school (2018) and I noticed all the PC crap. You conflating Manson with Trump is laughable. And Trump was not the cause but the effect. That’s why he won in 2016.

What points would you like me to address? Give me a specific example and I will happily address it.

So much for that.

OK...so you won’t give me a specific example to address? I did it with you. Lol

I've distilled it some more for you. These are 4 distinct points I made I want you to adress.

The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts.

so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt?

leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

By the way I didn't compare Trump to Charles Manson. I engaged in a Reductio in Absurdum. What I'm saying is that it's absurd to try to not hold Trump responsible because he didn't personally engage in the riots. The fact that it was because of him and under his direction that it happened is enough to hold him responsible.

You’re making statements. Where is the question? To me I think mail in voting is subject to significant fraud. You disagree. And you did compare Trump to Manson for all intents and purposes. Trump didn’t brainwash young impressionable kids to kill. He got 74.2mil votes and many see him and not getting fair treatment from the media, both traditional and social. Our media is corrupt as hell.

Either Trump is lying or the courts aren’t interested but again to me and I am a logical human as I see it, mail in voting is subject to fraud.

Lastly, you see Trump as the cause of all this discord. I see him as the effect. And for your question. I would Have shot every single one of the “mob” once they started committing crimes. You shoot the first 50 and the rest with disperse.

It is perfectly possible to make a counterargument without asking a question.

And no I didn't compare him to Manson. I find, and I often apply someone else's argument to the extreme. I find it helpful sometimes to point out the absurdity of them. Arguments like this.

#3) It is the Capital and the mob is angry because of the media. You watch CNN and you see a completely different reality from that of Fox. Traditional and Social media both have divided this country.

This is you NOT condemning violence but rather justifying it. I'm glad you changed that position. But there is no way I could have gotten that from your original comment.

Just because something sounds logical doesn't make it true Azog. Everything I said sounds logical to me. Yet you are arguing the opposite.

I've had an argument with my brother a few weeks ago. He believed in some conspiracy theory and couldn't fathom that I wasn't buying his logic for believing it. He kept on going back to saying it's logical. It took me an hour to try to explain to him the difference between an opinion and a fact. That and not the media is the fundamental problem. To many people, most of them Trump supporters feel their opinion is valid despite the available evidence not supporting it.

Take this comment.

Either Trump is lying or the courts aren’t interested

The courts presided by judges appointed by both parties universally rejected all election challenges. Few of those challenges even asserted any fraud. When asked point-blank by a judge if he knew of any widespread voter fraud a lawyer representing Trump said "not to my knowledge" yet you still can't straight up say that Trump lied. You hold on to your opinion not just without good reason but despite good reason to believe otherwise.

I said either so it’s possible he is lying but I would bet there was fraud. Not enough maybe to impact this election but close town races, definitely could. Mail in voting is a terrible idea. If you can’t see that then I cant help you. It’s funny people would never send $10k in cash via mail but we trust our votes to go through mail. Craziness

You said either. This implies you think there is reason to doubt the courts. It's an opinion of course and everybody can have any opinion they want. My point is that I have plenty of facts supporting my opinion. You on the other hand have no valid reason I can discern to doubt the court rulings, yet you seemingly do.

Of course I do. I do not Trust them and you’re wrong. Either means that Trump could be lying or just not accepting the truth. Courts have made mistakes before. Because “courts” are just people interpreting the law. It’s interesting how you try to use big words and fancy language but in the end you’re just another brainwashed person. Brainwashed by whom? Our media. Both traditional and social. You don’t even apply your own logic and level of skepticism. Pretty sad. You should reflect on that.

I do apply skepticism. But skepticism has to have a valid basis.
Here's the thing. If those that agree with me and those that disagree say the same thing, what do you base your skepticism on? Doesn't matter who did the nominating all claims got rejected. If the assertions that are made on behalf of Trump in court don't really claim voter fraud, what do you base your skepticism on? If the DOJ, led by an overtly partisan AG flat out states there was no widespread voter fraud what do you base your skepticism on?

Hmmm...I saw an interesting documentary. When Magic Johnson tested positive for AIDS, many so called friends abandoned him, including Isiah Thomas, his so called best friend. They said he was gay and would die and were afraid he was contagious. You know who said it was all BS? Larry Bird. The hick from French Lick. It made them closer friends. And look, he didn’t die, he isn’t gay, etc.


IDC what Barr or Trump say. To me, mail in votes have a greater risk of fraud than in person voting. In a town election the example I gave you would have a meaningful impact. You think in my town people scrutinize signatures? Come on. This is why we don’t allow it. We have in person voting. Optics matter. Mail in voting has a greater risk of fraud. Period.

 

[Seawytch]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail in ballots are the EXACT SAME THING as absentee. One is not more difficult to "audit" than the other. than

But you're right, some fraud was found.

Pennsylvania Man Charged With Voter Fraud For Casting Ballot For Trump Under Dead Motherâs Name

The Republican said he voted illegally “to reelect President Donald Trump.”

www.forbes.com

 

[Anomalism]

Somehow it only works one way, in our corrupt media.

What about Fox and all those right wing websites?

 

[DBA]

Not sure if it has already been mentioned, but what about Biden’s tweet saying that if the people who stormed Capitol Hill were not mostly white, it would have ended differently? How is that not stoking a racial divide, particularly when it clearly isn’t true?. The Portland police turned over their station and a couple of city blocks to thugs for a couple of months and did nothing.

The hypocrisy from the left is over the top. Biden is already getting a pass.

 

[forkup]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

#1) Absentee ballots are requested. So if I request a ballot it is one thing if one is sent to me and my wife without a request and someone else can grab it, it is another thing.

#2) Poll watchers could not see very well what was happening as I understand it and there are questions of ballot harvesting, ballot dumping, dead people voting, etc. When I vote in person I give my address, they then check my name off and give me a reference tag. I then upload by ballot via a machine. To me that is very straightforward and I also see that my ballot was processed. If someone steals mail in ballots and fills them out for me and my wife or I do so for my wife then there are no true checks and balances. Say I live with my parents and my wife. They are agnostic and don't vote. I receive four unsolicited ballots. I fill all four out for my candidate. My wife and parents either don't know or care and now instead of one vote, my vote counts as four. How do we police that?

#3) It is the Capital and the mob is angry because of the media. You watch CNN and you see a completely different reality from that of Fox. Traditional and Social media both have divided this country. This board is another example. We are at each others throats. BLM protests were not mostly peaceful and 19 people died. The police have been hamstrung and could not do much vs. BLM nor much vs. the Capital uprising. People are angry and I blame the media.

#1) Again a distinction without a difference. The principle is exactly the same. You send in your vote by mail. It's interesting though that too you putting up barriers to voting is considered making voting better. I understand it from a partisan standpoint but it makes the argument that you want elections to be fair ring hollow. The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

#2)If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts. I've actually read some of the rulings. It wasn't even close. To me, it says something that people make grand claims in places that carry no penalty for lying to then either tone down their claims to a fraction or not assert it all.

3#) Oh, so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt? Not for nothing Azog but that argument is not a little bit weird not to mention ironic since a few months ago we had an argument where you were blaming me for not convicting riots although I did not one time but several times in the OP and the Democrats as a whole although every single politician clearly condemned the violence. As to whom you blame, the media bears responsibility, although I personally am very careful before I accept anything from any media. That's why I try to see primary sources and am allergic to people both left and right who don't even try to nuance stuff. Having said that, leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

You didn't address my point so let us do it concretely. If the state sends me four blank voting envelopes. What stops me from filling out all four vs. just mine? Especially if my wife and parents don't know nor care. It is different if I REQUEST mine and they request theirs.

Address this specific example.

And they didn't condemn the violence. Seattle Mayor said it was the summer of love. Nadler called it a myth. Fredo Cuomo asked who said protests have to be peaceful. CNN called them mostly peaceful. Disgraceful.

Sure. First, your parents live with you? Ballots are sent by address. Second, you need to forge their signature, when in doubt election officials can and do call, better hope they don't reach them. Third, congratulations you just committed a felony in order to swing a grand total of TWO votes. Seems a bit risky. Fourth, the chances that that happened presupposes that every person who had their votes stolen either didn't find out or decided to cover for the felon since few actual examples of this happening on any scale are being alleged.

So now please answer my counterarguments.

#1) In my example they do.
#2) They are my wife and parents they would say sure and I doubt the FBI would call.
#3) Felony if you get caught and its tough to catch.
#4) Multiply that example by thousands.

In swing states elections can be divided by thousands or even hundreds. Ask John James. To me mail in ballots are a terrible idea. Absentee ballots, no issue at all.

I'll just answer 2 and 4. Signatures are checked by computer and flagged to be then checked, so yes not the FBI but election officials DO call. And if I multiply it by the thousands the chances that every single parent/sibling/offspring is willing to silently have their votes stolen, especially this day and age is essentially nil. Proof would have been found.

So you have seen the signatures? LOL. You trust the computers? To me it looks fishy that most of the mail in ballots lean Democrat. I find it fishy that BOTH sides garnered so many more votes while the Libertarian candidate garnered 3 mil fewer votes. I find it impossible that the officials check every signature with a computer. I find it odd when nursing homes have thousands of ballots suddenly. Easy to forge those signatures. So let's not pretend that the risk of fraud is not greater than if we all had either in person voting or REQUESTED ballots.

If we cannot agree there then we need to drop this and agree to disagree. To me the RISK of fraud is higher. Doesn't mean there was fraud but I am highly suspicious.

Be suspicious all you want, although I'll say now your suspicions don't seem to be not moored in anything concrete or are easily explained if you are willing to think things through. Libertarians have so much fewer votes for instance because Trump has been so divisive that he nearly eliminated the third party vote. You are for or against there is no middle ground.

So you have called me out because I didn't address your hypothetical. I have done you the courtesy of spending 3 posts on what is the least consequential of your arguments. Can you do me the courtesy of trying to rebut the points I made?

Nope. You still have yet to address the fact that the risk of fraud is significantly higher with mail in ballots. The Libertarian candidate received 3mil fewer votes when compared to 2016. Hard to swallow and Trump who as you say is divisive and a villain received 74.2 million votes. Something is rotten in Denmark. I believe there is fraud on both sides and the whole voting landscape needs to be revamped.

What points would you like me to address? Give me a specific example and I will happily address it.

I have addressed that claim. Again. Between rotty relationships between parents/siblings/offspring/significant other. The chance that there was massive fraud with mail-in ballots without any instance of it coming out that I'm aware of is nil. Show me any case presented in the sixty or so claims that assert it and I'll take it seriously. Until then you are simply giving an opinion without a good justification.

Why is it hard to swallow. Be honest have you ever talked about politics as much as in the last four years? I haven't and that's true for most anybody I know. More interest, more participation. Doesn't seem hard to swallow. Here are my points.

#1) Again a distinction without a difference. The principle is exactly the same. You send in your vote by mail. It's interesting though that too you putting up barriers to voting is considered making voting better. I understand it from a partisan standpoint but it makes the argument that you want elections to be fair ring hollow. The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

#2)If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts. I've actually read some of the rulings. It wasn't even close. To me, it says something that people make grand claims in places that carry no penalty for lying to then either tone down their claims to a fraction or not assert it all.

3#) Oh, so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt? Not for nothing Azog but that argument is not a little bit weird not to mention ironic since a few months ago we had an argument where you were blaming me for not convicting riots although I did not one time but several times in the OP and the Democrats as a whole although every single politician clearly condemned the violence. As to whom you blame, the media bears responsibility, although I personally am very careful before I accept anything from any media. That's why I try to see primary sources and am allergic to people both left and right who don't even try to nuance stuff. Having said that, leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

I never Cared about politics til my kids hit middle school (2018) and I noticed all the PC crap. You conflating Manson with Trump is laughable. And Trump was not the cause but the effect. That’s why he won in 2016.

What points would you like me to address? Give me a specific example and I will happily address it.

So much for that.

OK...so you won’t give me a specific example to address? I did it with you. Lol

I've distilled it some more for you. These are 4 distinct points I made I want you to adress.

The fairest election you can possibly have is the one that has all eligible voters cast their vote and the person who gets the most be declared the winner. I'm willing to grant that the constitution provides an impediment for the second one but you also object to the first.

If you have things to contest fine. All the things that you are claiming happened have either been rejected by the courts or have simply not been asserted to the courts.

so as long as a mob is angry, whatever they do can be forgiven, including making a coup attempt?

leaving out the person who clearly was the reason for the crowd being so mad by both propagating and directing their anger at other people and simply blaming it on the media seems not credulous. To put it bluntly, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody but that didn't make him any less responsible for what happened.

By the way I didn't compare Trump to Charles Manson. I engaged in a Reductio in Absurdum. What I'm saying is that it's absurd to try to not hold Trump responsible because he didn't personally engage in the riots. The fact that it was because of him and under his direction that it happened is enough to hold him responsible.

You’re making statements. Where is the question? To me I think mail in voting is subject to significant fraud. You disagree. And you did compare Trump to Manson for all intents and purposes. Trump didn’t brainwash young impressionable kids to kill. He got 74.2mil votes and many see him and not getting fair treatment from the media, both traditional and social. Our media is corrupt as hell.

Either Trump is lying or the courts aren’t interested but again to me and I am a logical human as I see it, mail in voting is subject to fraud.

Lastly, you see Trump as the cause of all this discord. I see him as the effect. And for your question. I would Have shot every single one of the “mob” once they started committing crimes. You shoot the first 50 and the rest with disperse.

It is perfectly possible to make a counterargument without asking a question.

And no I didn't compare him to Manson. I find, and I often apply someone else's argument to the extreme. I find it helpful sometimes to point out the absurdity of them. Arguments like this.

#3) It is the Capital and the mob is angry because of the media. You watch CNN and you see a completely different reality from that of Fox. Traditional and Social media both have divided this country.

This is you NOT condemning violence but rather justifying it. I'm glad you changed that position. But there is no way I could have gotten that from your original comment.

Just because something sounds logical doesn't make it true Azog. Everything I said sounds logical to me. Yet you are arguing the opposite.

I've had an argument with my brother a few weeks ago. He believed in some conspiracy theory and couldn't fathom that I wasn't buying his logic for believing it. He kept on going back to saying it's logical. It took me an hour to try to explain to him the difference between an opinion and a fact. That and not the media is the fundamental problem. To many people, most of them Trump supporters feel their opinion is valid despite the available evidence not supporting it.

Take this comment.

Either Trump is lying or the courts aren’t interested

The courts presided by judges appointed by both parties universally rejected all election challenges. Few of those challenges even asserted any fraud. When asked point-blank by a judge if he knew of any widespread voter fraud a lawyer representing Trump said "not to my knowledge" yet you still can't straight up say that Trump lied. You hold on to your opinion not just without good reason but despite good reason to believe otherwise.

I said either so it’s possible he is lying but I would bet there was fraud. Not enough maybe to impact this election but close town races, definitely could. Mail in voting is a terrible idea. If you can’t see that then I cant help you. It’s funny people would never send $10k in cash via mail but we trust our votes to go through mail. Craziness

You said either. This implies you think there is reason to doubt the courts. It's an opinion of course and everybody can have any opinion they want. My point is that I have plenty of facts supporting my opinion. You on the other hand have no valid reason I can discern to doubt the court rulings, yet you seemingly do.

Of course I do. I do not Trust them and you’re wrong. Either means that Trump could be lying or just not accepting the truth. Courts have made mistakes before. Because “courts” are just people interpreting the law. It’s interesting how you try to use big words and fancy language but in the end you’re just another brainwashed person. Brainwashed by whom? Our media. Both traditional and social. You don’t even apply your own logic and level of skepticism. Pretty sad. You should reflect on that.

I do apply skepticism. But skepticism has to have a valid basis.
Here's the thing. If those that agree with me and those that disagree say the same thing, what do you base your skepticism on? Doesn't matter who did the nominating all claims got rejected. If the assertions that are made on behalf of Trump in court don't really claim voter fraud, what do you base your skepticism on? If the DOJ, led by an overtly partisan AG flat out states there was no widespread voter fraud what do you base your skepticism on?

Hmmm...I saw an interesting documentary. When Magic Johnson tested positive for AIDS, many so called friends abandoned him, including Isiah Thomas, his so called best friend. They said he was gay and would die and were afraid he was contagious. You know who said it was all BS? Larry Bird. The hick from French Lick. It made them closer friends. And look, he didn’t die, he isn’t gay, etc.


IDC what Barr or Trump say. To me, mail in votes have a greater risk of fraud than in person voting. In a town election the example I gave you would have a meaningful impact. You think in my town people scrutinize signatures? Come on. This is why we don’t allow it. We have in person voting. Optics matter. Mail in voting has a greater risk of fraud. Period.

As I said Azog, you have your opinion. This opinion is immune to being changed by facts. You feel that just because something sounds logical to you it is valid. I don't think your dumb or a bad person. I do think that you have invested so much in defending Trump that anything that doesn't fit your wheelhouse can be rejected.