Gold Supporting Member
- Apr 17, 2009
- Reaction score
- in between
You bring up a whole lot of stuff. Stuff that has nothing to do with the argument. Out of all that, you do't ONCE address the ISSUE I brought up.I've found a lot of things odd about our entire gov and the bullshit way both sides try and get things done.Oh good grief Iceberg. You are an intelligent man. I just don’t get why you keep resorting to these type highly personal arguments. Get over it. I'm trying to. Can you?here we go again.Your claims are unsubstianted and laughed out of the courts of law.My claims are not false, you just don't like them.When we have a record turn out election, with both candidates getting a record number of votes, EVER in our history, and an interesting mixture of results that send out some pretty strong messages, then yes, I think we can honestly call this a reflection of the electorate’s feelings.get pretty tired of this "will of the people" when neither extreme viewpoint seems to give a damn about "the will of the people" - it's simply a phrase they use to try and gain sympathy for THEIR viewpoint.
What did they say?
1. This isn’t a referendum on either party’s platform. It is a referendum on Trump personally with strong feelings for and against.
2. Take away for the Dems: you still aren’t getting it right.
3. Take away for the Republicans: Trump May control your base, but your base isn’t enough to win a Presidential election.
The people could not have been more clear.
It absolutely was legitimate and your claims are false.this is not a legitimate election. the entire mail out ballot scenario were never tested, never secured, and so on. your assuming all is well. how come you're OK with totally redoing our voting process in favor of YOUR candidate yet suddenly are worried about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
1. It was never tested.
Yes, it has been tested. A number of states have had no-excuse absentee ballots and mail in ballots for years as have members of the military.
2. “Never secured”
Also untrue. States utilize a number of procedures (varying by state) to secure the integrity of the ballot. These include signature verification, ballot tracking procedures, etc.
3. How come...blah blah blah. I never questioned the results of the 2016 election when “your guy won”, despite it totally upending the polls, with Trump winning some states with even more narrow margins than Biden and Trump, and, when he thought he might lose, seeding the field with allegations of rigging and fraud, just like he did this time. “How come” you never questioned the results?
Conclusion: we have a system for adjudicating election disputes. Each candidate has every right to dispute it, ask for recounts, apply to the courts. As we have seen, Trump has done that,and over and over, NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD FRAUD has materialized. The election is only illegitimate because “your guy” lost, and is taking it to the Court of Public Opinion, since he lacks the evidence to win in court. His own lawyers even had to admit they couldn’t show fraud.
My opinion: Trump and his supporters are hoping to run out the clock on the certification through endless lawsuits, and have electors chosen by (the mostly Republican) state legislatures who would, of course vote Trump.
My question to you: is the above acceptable to you?
And since 5his is YOUR OPINION, what difference does it make if I find it acceptable?
The left spent 3 years chasing RUSSIA when they created most of the evidence. They felt it valid to look into.
Great. Now the right finds this worth looking into and should be given the opportunity.
I want to make sure our elections and TRUE will of the people isn't being danced around cause you really really really really hate Trump.
But but but Russia!
no point in talking to you because you do this *every single time*. i try to establish what we're talking about and your clear opinion and you tell me i'm trolling and choose to ignore me for a week.
"deflection"? not at all. in 2016, "precedent" was set that if you question an election you can go nuts to attack the winner and make accusations. you can't allow 1 side to do something and the other NOT to do it as well. this is where we get our divides. different sets of rules for people based on "feelz".
i've tried to take out the "but whatever" and for a brief moment, we BOTH agreed to not do that anymore. you went right back to doing it and got mad at me for calling you on it.
now i try to do it and you again get mad.
in fact, i reply, you get mad. maybe it's not me.
You and I have some very distinct and different perspectives. You see Trump as uniquely and viciously attacked from day one. I don’t. I see Obama as uniquely and viciously attacked from day one (and on throughout Trump’s presidency). We do not agree here. That should be ok. I am ok with it.
When I answered your post I made a real effort to address the claims (not get personal) you made about legitimacy. From my perspective, 2016 was legitimate. Yes, the Russians attempted and did interfere, but they did not alter voting machines and there is no way to quantify what effect their disinformation might have had on the electorate. Fast forward to 2020. Trump starts seeding fraud claims as soon as it starts to look like he really might lose. None of those claims hold up in our courts. The fact that you, and others continue to push those claims is, IMO, disturbing.
We have a process of settling election disputes. And that is through our courts. But what I seem to be hearing is...the courts are wrong.
When you involve the judiciary in those evergrowing conspiracy...where does it stop Iceberg? You have a populist president, unwilling to accept defeat, slowly but surely destroying public trust in our very institutions of democracy.
In my view, even though it is highly unlikely, I find it incredibly disturbing that Trump and other Republicans would even attempt to have state legislatures override the vote and pick electors favorable to Trump hugely disturbing. Don’t you? This time it is Republican...next time it could be Dems. Precedents are set.
I find it disturbing we use a voting system that got the Venezuela press elected. I find it disturbing the left refuses to believe ANYTHING in this election was even a little off or improper.
I seldom fight for "Trump" per se, but more the process by which people get so emotional they are willing to lie about what he says and who he is and get very upset if you don't agree.
ie, trump never said to drink bleach. yet the left swears he did.
biden can say flat out they have an elaborate voting fraud scheme but somehow that's not what he meant.
speculate what was said by one side and deny what the other flat out says.
names and people here don't matter. sides don't matter.
when you make up evidence to frame someone in a RUSSIA attack and look the other way cause you hate Trump, how can I think you are being objective to an election you feel you won?
you simply refuse to give the idea the dems are trying to pull a fast one but would rather believe someone who couldn't pull 20 people to a rally got more. votes than Obama.
I find that odd. yet if I question it, I'm a troll or being stupid.
or defending Trump.
I want to define what we are talking about not jump around constantly on the attack.
I'd rather talk issues, not people.
but we can't do that these days in identity politics.
Partisan LEGISLATURES picking electors to overturn an election.