You guys can stop already

[Ghost of a Rider]

What does Herman Cain have to do with anything?

You know, he went to Typhoid Donnie's Super Spreader Event in Tulsa and died a week later of Covid.

Good thing those K-Pop kids pranked them on attendance, or a lot more people would have probably died.

Seriously, what kind of malignant narcissist puts the lives of people who support him in danger so he can feel better and have a crowd in front of him?

Donald Trump, of course.

This is what a cult looks like, people.

Irrelevant. None of this has anything to do with your puerile penchant for playground insults like "Smirky McBitchslap" and the like. Again, this is why I can't take you seriously.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

I can't say there was fraud and there probably wasn't. However, it is passing strange that during the first six hours or so, states were being called for one candidate or the other with no apparent change in pace (sometimes even before all the votes had been reported) and then all of a sudden everything went to a virtual standstill. Is it just a coincidence that at the time everything came to a standstill, that of the few states yet to be declared, most had Trump leading? Is it also just a coincidence that at this time it looked like Trump might actually win, albeit by a slim electoral margin?

I don't know. But even Democrats have to wonder about the irregular way this election transpired, even if only for the sake of academics.

That's because the mail in, absentee, etc. ballots can't be counted until AFTER in person ballots are counted. You can thank your Republican governors and SOS for that.

Okay, but there's still the question as to why mail-in ballots favored Biden. It also begs the question as to why mail-in ballots favored Biden in all of the last four or five states. Why were so may Biden voters in multiple states unwilling to go to the polls?

Because of the coronavirus, duh.

Mail on ballots favored Biden, because many Democrats voted mail in instead in person. What is so hard about that.

Again, why were so may Biden voters in multiple states unwilling to go to the polls?

Again because of the coronavirus.

Also, if the majority of Biden votes were mail-in nationwide, then how did both New York and California - the two largest electoral states with a Democrat majority - get their mail-in ballots counted so quickly and declared for Biden so early in the election?

Because they could count them as soon as they came in.

If mail-in ballots are to be counted after in-person ballots and the majority of mail-ins favored Biden, New York and California should have been the last two states declared.

Depends on the state.

Sorry, but something just doesn't wash. If the pace of the ballot counting and reporting had remained relatively consistent then I (and we) probably wouldn't be asking these questions. For whatever reason, it appears that mail-in ballot counting became slower in states with fewer mail-in ballots.

Wow talk about following the herd.

The quote string got screwed up at some point so I'm putting your comments from your post in quoted italics and responding accordingly.

"Because of the coronavirus, duh."

Why was COVID a concern for Democrats during the election but not during the riots?

"Because they could count them as soon as they came in."

Then why did you tell me they had to be counted after the in-person ballots? And why were some states declared before all ballots were counted?

"Wow talk about following the herd."

Don't give me that "following the herd" bullshit. I never claimed there was fraud and even said there likely wasn't. All I'm doing is asking questions which is something everyone should do, especially for this election.

Ghost of a Rider said:
I can't say there was fraud and there probably wasn't. However, it is passing strange that during the first six hours or so, states were being called for one candidate or the other with no apparent change in pace (sometimes even before all the votes had been reported) and then all of a sudden everything went to a virtual standstill. Is it just a coincidence that at the time everything came to a standstill, that of the few states yet to be declared, most had Trump leading? Is it also just a coincidence that at this time it looked like Trump might actually win, albeit by a slim electoral margin?

I don't know. But even Democrats have to wonder about the irregular way this election transpired, even if only for the sake of academics.

That's because the mail in, absentee, etc. ballots can't be counted until AFTER in person ballots are counted. You can thank your Republican governors and SOS for that.

Okay, but there's still the question as to why mail-in ballots favored Biden. It also begs the question as to why mail-in ballots favored Biden in all of the last four or five states. Why were so may Biden voters in multiple states unwilling to go to the polls?

Because of the coronavirus, duh.

Mail on ballots favored Biden, because many Democrats voted mail in instead in person. What is so hard about that.

Again, why were so may Biden voters in multiple states unwilling to go to the polls?

Again because of the coronavirus.

Also, if the majority of Biden votes were mail-in nationwide, then how did both New York and California - the two largest electoral states with a Democrat majority - get their mail-in ballots counted so quickly and declared for Biden so early in the election?

Because they could count them as soon as they came in.

If mail-in ballots are to be counted after in-person ballots and the majority of mail-ins favored Biden, New York and California should have been the last two states declared.

Depends on the state.

Sorry, but something just doesn't wash. If the pace of the ballot counting and reporting had remained relatively consistent then I (and we) probably wouldn't be asking these questions. For whatever reason, it appears that mail-in ballot counting became slower in states with fewer mail-in ballots.

Wow talk about following the herd.

Can you point out where you spoke of riots in that conversation.

Um, I just did.

I'm pointing out the inherent contradiction in which Democrats supposedly voted by mail due to COVID concerns while saying nothing about the riots and protests. Also, while we can say that the majority of registered Democrats were not involved in the riots, some were. And given that so many Biden voters voted by mail, some of those registered Democrats involved in the riots also likely voted by mail out of COVID concerns.

My point here is not to make issue of liberal hypocrisy concerning COVID but to point out that Democrats voting by mail out of COVID concerns just doesn't ring true given that hypocrisy. On a conscious level they may very well have voted by mail out of real COVID concerns but it looks hollow at best and appears to be more of a token moral gesture than anything else.

What % of Democrats would you say were involved in a riot or protest?

I couldn't begin to guess. But you know as well as I do that unemployed career college students were not the only ones at these protests. I can think of a few news stories coming out during that time about lawyers and college professors participating and even committing violence. There was the case in Brooklyn of the two lawyers throwing molotovs into a police vehicle. Hell, the mayor of Portland himself joined the protests in the streets at one point.

So maybe .5% if that.

And? I fail to see your point here. On the one hand you (and Faun) are trying to distance Democrats from the rioting while at the same time fully defending and condoning the rioters' actions and their flaunting of COVID protocols because their cause is righteous.

Either their actions are wrong or they are not. If they are wrong then they are wrong whether Democrats are involved or not.

The folks rioting are not there because of the Democratic party, now the folks at the Trump Klan rallies are there for the Republican party.

Unless you're telling me that the risk of infection is less at a mass riot than at a political rally, I still fail to see your point.

The risk is less when folks are wearing masks as compared to those who are not. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[JoeB131]

Irrelevant. None of this has anything to do with your puerile penchant for playground insults like "Smirky McBitchslap" and the like. Again, this is why I can't take you seriously.

I know you have a pinup picture of Smirky in your bedroom. Look at him bravely mocking that elderly veteran.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Two things: 1.) It goes without saying that most Democrats were not directly involved in the riots. However, though they (the media and Democrat politicians for the most part) constantly criticized conservatives for so called "superspreader events", they had nothing to say about these liberal crowds massing in the streets. 2.) By the same token, the vast majority of Republicans were never directly involved in any superspreader events either.

There has been plenty of hypocrisy regarding COVID and the protests. However, I was pointing out that as most voters have not been involved in the protests, it isn't unreasonable to think that many Democrat voters would prefer to avoid in-person voting because of COVID.

There's also simple laziness to consider. You never have to leave the house if you use a mail-in ballot.

Perhaps. But to me the gesture rings hollow given the fact that many on the left are so quick to condemn Trump and his supporters for attending rallies while they say nothing about mass gatherings at these protests and riots.

Faun and Superbad have been trying to distance Democrats from the riots while at the same time condoning and justifying these gatherings on the dubious premise that their cause is more righteous and just than a Trump rally. However, what has apparently not even occurred to them is that when the protest is over, these people go home to their families, jobs and schools just like Trump supporters do after a rally. Thus, just like Trump supporters, they risk infecting people around them who chose not to attend the protest for various reasons, one of which, for some, is out of concerns for COVID. Is this any more fair, right or justified simply because the rallies are for someone they hate?

I can't say there was fraud and at this point there doesn't seem to be solid evidence to support it. But you have to remember, Democrats wasted four years and millions of dollars on a witch hunt trying to bring down the Trump administration. Due in part to this and a lot of other things, a lot of conservatives were convinced even before the election that Democrats would try to steal it.

They may have been way off base in this assumption but it was clear that there wasn't much the Democrat party would not do to bring Trump down. The very atypical nature of this election on top of this made these types of allegations inevitable.

The same sort of thing might be said about Republican investigations into Benghazi, or the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It's the sort of thing the two major parties do; try to hurt the 'other side'.

The difference here is that Republicans never consistently went after the Clintons for the entire fours years of their terms as President and Secretary of State. This level of persecution is unprecedented in our political history. At least, our modern political history.

I don't know if these kinds of accusations were inevitable. They may have been once Trump started laying the groundwork for the idea of a rigged election well before voting started, though.

I'm not sure what Trump may have said along these lines but in reality, he wouldn't have had to say much. His supporters were already convinced that the Democrats would stop at nothing to bring him down, considering that they had spent a solid four years trying to do just that.

There seems to be a lot of shouting but little real action. It's kind of unfortunate, really: if the Trump team could actually show evidence of large scale voter fraud, it might convince some people to actually think about breaking away from the duopoly. Probably not many, but I can dream.

Maybe. Like I said though, I can't say there was fraud and there probably wasn't. But due to the four year witch hunt against Trump and his administration and the highly unusual way this election transpired, it's understandable that some Republicans are a little jaded and paranoid.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I can't say there was fraud and there probably wasn't. However, it is passing strange that during the first six hours or so, states were being called for one candidate or the other with no apparent change in pace (sometimes even before all the votes had been reported) and then all of a sudden everything went to a virtual standstill. Is it just a coincidence that at the time everything came to a standstill, that of the few states yet to be declared, most had Trump leading? Is it also just a coincidence that at this time it looked like Trump might actually win, albeit by a slim electoral margin?

I don't know. But even Democrats have to wonder about the irregular way this election transpired, even if only for the sake of academics.

That's because the mail in, absentee, etc. ballots can't be counted until AFTER in person ballots are counted. You can thank your Republican governors and SOS for that.

Okay, but there's still the question as to why mail-in ballots favored Biden. It also begs the question as to why mail-in ballots favored Biden in all of the last four or five states. Why were so may Biden voters in multiple states unwilling to go to the polls?

Because of the coronavirus, duh.

Mail on ballots favored Biden, because many Democrats voted mail in instead in person. What is so hard about that.

Again, why were so may Biden voters in multiple states unwilling to go to the polls?

Again because of the coronavirus.

Also, if the majority of Biden votes were mail-in nationwide, then how did both New York and California - the two largest electoral states with a Democrat majority - get their mail-in ballots counted so quickly and declared for Biden so early in the election?

Because they could count them as soon as they came in.

If mail-in ballots are to be counted after in-person ballots and the majority of mail-ins favored Biden, New York and California should have been the last two states declared.

Depends on the state.

Sorry, but something just doesn't wash. If the pace of the ballot counting and reporting had remained relatively consistent then I (and we) probably wouldn't be asking these questions. For whatever reason, it appears that mail-in ballot counting became slower in states with fewer mail-in ballots.

Wow talk about following the herd.

The quote string got screwed up at some point so I'm putting your comments from your post in quoted italics and responding accordingly.

"Because of the coronavirus, duh."

Why was COVID a concern for Democrats during the election but not during the riots?

"Because they could count them as soon as they came in."

Then why did you tell me they had to be counted after the in-person ballots? And why were some states declared before all ballots were counted?

"Wow talk about following the herd."

Don't give me that "following the herd" bullshit. I never claimed there was fraud and even said there likely wasn't. All I'm doing is asking questions which is something everyone should do, especially for this election.

Ghost of a Rider said:
I can't say there was fraud and there probably wasn't. However, it is passing strange that during the first six hours or so, states were being called for one candidate or the other with no apparent change in pace (sometimes even before all the votes had been reported) and then all of a sudden everything went to a virtual standstill. Is it just a coincidence that at the time everything came to a standstill, that of the few states yet to be declared, most had Trump leading? Is it also just a coincidence that at this time it looked like Trump might actually win, albeit by a slim electoral margin?

I don't know. But even Democrats have to wonder about the irregular way this election transpired, even if only for the sake of academics.

That's because the mail in, absentee, etc. ballots can't be counted until AFTER in person ballots are counted. You can thank your Republican governors and SOS for that.

Okay, but there's still the question as to why mail-in ballots favored Biden. It also begs the question as to why mail-in ballots favored Biden in all of the last four or five states. Why were so may Biden voters in multiple states unwilling to go to the polls?

Because of the coronavirus, duh.

Mail on ballots favored Biden, because many Democrats voted mail in instead in person. What is so hard about that.

Again, why were so may Biden voters in multiple states unwilling to go to the polls?

Again because of the coronavirus.

Also, if the majority of Biden votes were mail-in nationwide, then how did both New York and California - the two largest electoral states with a Democrat majority - get their mail-in ballots counted so quickly and declared for Biden so early in the election?

Because they could count them as soon as they came in.

If mail-in ballots are to be counted after in-person ballots and the majority of mail-ins favored Biden, New York and California should have been the last two states declared.

Depends on the state.

Sorry, but something just doesn't wash. If the pace of the ballot counting and reporting had remained relatively consistent then I (and we) probably wouldn't be asking these questions. For whatever reason, it appears that mail-in ballot counting became slower in states with fewer mail-in ballots.

Wow talk about following the herd.

Can you point out where you spoke of riots in that conversation.

Um, I just did.

I'm pointing out the inherent contradiction in which Democrats supposedly voted by mail due to COVID concerns while saying nothing about the riots and protests. Also, while we can say that the majority of registered Democrats were not involved in the riots, some were. And given that so many Biden voters voted by mail, some of those registered Democrats involved in the riots also likely voted by mail out of COVID concerns.

My point here is not to make issue of liberal hypocrisy concerning COVID but to point out that Democrats voting by mail out of COVID concerns just doesn't ring true given that hypocrisy. On a conscious level they may very well have voted by mail out of real COVID concerns but it looks hollow at best and appears to be more of a token moral gesture than anything else.

What % of Democrats would you say were involved in a riot or protest?

I couldn't begin to guess. But you know as well as I do that unemployed career college students were not the only ones at these protests. I can think of a few news stories coming out during that time about lawyers and college professors participating and even committing violence. There was the case in Brooklyn of the two lawyers throwing molotovs into a police vehicle. Hell, the mayor of Portland himself joined the protests in the streets at one point.

So maybe .5% if that.

And? I fail to see your point here. On the one hand you (and Faun) are trying to distance Democrats from the rioting while at the same time fully defending and condoning the rioters' actions and their flaunting of COVID protocols because their cause is righteous.

Either their actions are wrong or they are not. If they are wrong then they are wrong whether Democrats are involved or not.

The folks rioting are not there because of the Democratic party, now the folks at the Trump Klan rallies are there for the Republican party.

Unless you're telling me that the risk of infection is less at a mass riot than at a political rally, I still fail to see your point.

The risk is less when folks are wearing masks as compared to those who are not. Wouldn't you agree?

Maybe, maybe not; the effectiveness of the masks is still open for debate. But in any case, why take the risk? Personally, if I was to weigh the risk of infecting a loved one and their possible death against the opportunity to take to the street shouting "**** the police!" which I can do at any time anyway, I'm staying home.

Having said that, I've seen the pics and videos and by my estimation, fully a third of those at these protests and riots were not wearing masks. Add to this the fact that these people were in almost constant physical contact with other rioters and police. In other words, social distancing is right out the window. Given this, the mask debate is a moot point.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Irrelevant. None of this has anything to do with your puerile penchant for playground insults like "Smirky McBitchslap" and the like. Again, this is why I can't take you seriously.

I know you have a pinup picture of Smirky in your bedroom. Look at him bravely mocking that elderly veteran.

Like I said...

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Focus on the Senate.
Our energy, money and resources needs to be concentrated on winning the two Senate seats in Georgia.
We can worry about fighting Biden's agenda later.

 

[Montrovant]

Two things: 1.) It goes without saying that most Democrats were not directly involved in the riots. However, though they (the media and Democrat politicians for the most part) constantly criticized conservatives for so called "superspreader events", they had nothing to say about these liberal crowds massing in the streets. 2.) By the same token, the vast majority of Republicans were never directly involved in any superspreader events either.

There has been plenty of hypocrisy regarding COVID and the protests. However, I was pointing out that as most voters have not been involved in the protests, it isn't unreasonable to think that many Democrat voters would prefer to avoid in-person voting because of COVID.

There's also simple laziness to consider. You never have to leave the house if you use a mail-in ballot.

Perhaps. But to me the gesture rings hollow given the fact that many on the left are so quick to condemn Trump and his supporters for attending rallies while they say nothing about mass gatherings at these protests and riots.

Faun and Superbad have been trying to distance Democrats from the riots while at the same time condoning and justifying these gatherings on the dubious premise that their cause is more righteous and just than a Trump rally. However, what has apparently not even occurred to them is that when the protest is over, these people go home to their families, jobs and schools just like Trump supporters do after a rally. Thus, just like Trump supporters, they risk infecting people around them who chose not to attend the protest for various reasons, one of which, for some, is out of concerns for COVID. Is this any more fair, right or justified simply because the rallies are for someone they hate?

I can't say there was fraud and at this point there doesn't seem to be solid evidence to support it. But you have to remember, Democrats wasted four years and millions of dollars on a witch hunt trying to bring down the Trump administration. Due in part to this and a lot of other things, a lot of conservatives were convinced even before the election that Democrats would try to steal it.

They may have been way off base in this assumption but it was clear that there wasn't much the Democrat party would not do to bring Trump down. The very atypical nature of this election on top of this made these types of allegations inevitable.

The same sort of thing might be said about Republican investigations into Benghazi, or the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It's the sort of thing the two major parties do; try to hurt the 'other side'.

The difference here is that Republicans never consistently went after the Clintons for the entire fours years of their terms as President and Secretary of State. This level of persecution is unprecedented in our political history. At least, our modern political history.

I don't know if these kinds of accusations were inevitable. They may have been once Trump started laying the groundwork for the idea of a rigged election well before voting started, though.

I'm not sure what Trump may have said along these lines but in reality, he wouldn't have had to say much. His supporters were already convinced that the Democrats would stop at nothing to bring him down, considering that they had spent a solid four years trying to do just that.

There seems to be a lot of shouting but little real action. It's kind of unfortunate, really: if the Trump team could actually show evidence of large scale voter fraud, it might convince some people to actually think about breaking away from the duopoly. Probably not many, but I can dream.

Maybe. Like I said though, I can't say there was fraud and there probably wasn't. But due to the four year witch hunt against Trump and his administration and the highly unusual way this election transpired, it's understandable that some Republicans are a little jaded and paranoid.

There may have been unprecedented persecution against Trump, but Trump was also an unprecedented president (speaking in modern terms). Trump acted in ways that modern presidents have not done before.

As to going after the Clintons, while I don't remember just how long the attacks on Bill Clinton went on (the impeachment process, at least, took quite some time), people on the 'right' side of the political spectrum have been going after Hillary Clinton for years and years. Benghazi, emails, pizzagate, she's been the target of conservative ire for a long, long time. Then there's the Obama presidency and McConnell saying the most important thing for Republicans to do was make Obama a one term president. Sure, things have gotten particularly intense with Trump, but this sort of partisan fighting is nothing new.

 

[JoeB131]

Like I said...

Yes, your obsession with Smirky is kind of weird.. you know your Sky Man doesn't approve of that sort of thing.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Like I said...

Yes, your obsession with Smirky is kind of weird.. you know your Sky Man doesn't approve of that sort of thing.

I'm an atheist, dumbass.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm an atheist, dumbass.

Sure you are... That's why you want the religious nutters to make laws in this country.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I'm an atheist, dumbass.

Sure you are... That's why you want the religious nutters to make laws in this country.

Nice try.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm an atheist, dumbass.

Sure you are... That's why you want the religious nutters to make laws in this country.

Are you saying all Republicans are religious nutters? Or maybe all Republican representatives? Or are you talking about Trump?

Or maybe I missed something where Ghost of a Rider made some sort of statements about religious nutters making laws?

 

[JoeB131]

Are you saying all Republicans are religious nutters? Or maybe all Republican representatives? Or are you talking about Trump?

Or maybe I missed something where Ghost of a Rider made some sort of statements about religious nutters making laws?

What I am saying is that at some point, the only way Republicans could get working class white people to go along with giving up everything they've won since the New Deal is to appeal to the Religious Nutbags.

And much like Dr. Frankenstein, the monster has gotten loose from the castle and is now rampaging the countryside yelling, "Abortion Bad! Arrrgggghhhh".

 

[Montrovant]

Are you saying all Republicans are religious nutters? Or maybe all Republican representatives? Or are you talking about Trump?

Or maybe I missed something where Ghost of a Rider made some sort of statements about religious nutters making laws?

What I am saying is that at some point, the only way Republicans could get working class white people to go along with giving up everything they've won since the New Deal is to appeal to the Religious Nutbags.

And much like Dr. Frankenstein, the monster has gotten loose from the castle and is now rampaging the countryside yelling, "Abortion Bad! Arrrgggghhhh".

Well that's a fun generalization of a whole crapload of people.

 

[JoeB131]

Well that's a fun generalization of a whole crapload of people.

And sadly accurate.

 

[Montrovant]

Well that's a fun generalization of a whole crapload of people.

And sadly accurate.

Sure it is. I'm sure you've had enough experience with each of those 10s of millions of people to know.

 

[JusticeHammer]

lol. Too bad right wingers are so, True Witness bearing challenged to take seriously.

Libs are idiots.

 

[JusticeHammer]

It's typical of the left to solely focus on the immediate results without ever seeing the serious consequences that inevitably follow their dumb decisions. Thinking they can cheat their way to a win in a fraudulent national election & not seeing what this will mean for them is just the most obvious & egregious example.
DT gave them the rope to hang themselves with

The same can be said of the right wing. Thinking y'all could continue "winning" with nothing but false witness bearing and practicing the abomination of hypocrisy. If MSM is fake news, right wingers are even worse.

You left-wingers are psycho idiots.

 

[freyasman]

It's not going to work, and we 're not going to drop it. We know this election was rigged and someone is going to answer for that.

Yes, yes, you'll be raving out your fraudulent butthurt conspiracy theories on your deathbeds, still enraged that your fascist coup didn't pan out.

Nobody cares. You're just a hopelessly brainwashed authoritarian lackey. We know we can't turn you away from the path of whimpering butthurt and treason, so we won't try. We're just going to laugh at you and marginalize you, to limit the harm you do to the nation and to decent people.

Yeah, I don't think that's what will happen.