Post New

A 269-269 electoral tie?

OR


Trump winning the popular but losing the electoral.


I know both are only a little possible but I like thinking about how it would speed up certain trends in your so-called nation state :)

Dunno.
If Trump wins - no matter in what form - the left riots. That’s baked into the cake.

If Trump wins - no matter in what form - the left riots. That’s baked into the cake.

What do you think the right does if Trump loses?

If Trump wins - no matter in what form - the left riots. That’s baked into the cake.

Riots? I say you're wrong. We'll see.

I hope there would be non-violent protests at having a fascistic Trump elected to POTUS. And if there are protests, it's not hard to imagine Trump finding a way to use violence against them.

Given past experience and what those on the right are saying, it is very hard to imagine the MAGAs not rioting if Trump loses.

Guess we'll find out soon enough.

What do you think the right does if Trump loses?

Depends on how he loses. If Harris blows him out by 10 points and she sweeps all the swing states - then nothing.

If Trump is leading in the ballot counts by a point or two on Tuesday night and then we all wake up Wednesday morning to learn that - miraculously - Harris was able to earn something like 90% of the freshly counted ballots to eke out a victory...then we'll see.

But if Trump wins, by 1 or by 5 million, the left riots. Book it.

Depends on how he loses. If Harris blows him out by 10 points and she sweeps all the swing states - then nothing.

And I expect that if Trump blows out Harris by 10 points, the left won't riot either.

What if Trump loses by 1-2 points, in a close election? What does the right do? Anything different than from when Trump lost in 2020?

And I expect that if Trump blows out Harris by 10 points, the left won't riot either.

Disagree. 2017 is the evidence, with Inauguration Day riots after Hillary! lost. That's why I can say no matter what, in any Trump victory scenario, the left riots.

What if Trump loses by 1-2 points, in a close election? What does the right do? Anything different than from when Trump lost in 2020?

Again, depends how it goes down.
Recall that in 2020 we all went to bed thinking Trump won, only to wake up the next day seeing Georgia flip to blue and hearing stories of "water leaks" at ballot stations:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pipe-bursts-atlant...

A pipe burst in State Farm Arena in Atlanta on Tuesday morning, causing a four-hour delay in processing election ballots, according to deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs.

Now this "burst pipe" turned out to be a...leaky urinal...but was reported as a burst pipe. What's never been explained is why a leaky urinal that somebody sponged up would cause a 4-hour delay.

So during counting, let's say this scenario plays out: Ballot counting is going on in Pennsylvania and the results show a Trump lead. Then at 3AM, the power suddenly goes out in several ballot processing facilities across the state. At 4AM the power comes back on and Harris has the lead and is declared the winner. I can see the right not liking that case.

If Trump is leading in the ballot counts by a point or two on Tuesday night and then we all wake up Wednesday morning to learn that - miraculously - Harris was able to earn something like 90% of the freshly counted ballots to eke out a victory...then we'll see.

Why "miraculously" Dope? It's happened before so it doesn't take a miracle. What you are telling me is that you don't understand enough of the state's election processes to avoid coming to a conclusion that the processes protect against any significant deliberate fudging of the vote by either party. It seems that if the vote doesn't go your way, you have predetermined that you are going to jump on the bandwagon of accusations of cheating by Dems as it goes by if Trump doesn't win. I'm very unsure whether the Dems are going to win, but resigned that we may not win and what that entails. See the difference?

Again, depends how it goes down.
Recall that in 2020 we all went to bed thinking Trump won,

Who's "we all"? No one had called the race for Trump, and every media outlet was observing that there were still ballots to be counted.

Because there are several states that do not start counting mail-in ballots until after the polls close, it is almost guaranteed that in a close election, the winner will not be known until the next day in 2024. If Trump loses a close election, it will undoubtedly be under the same scenario - the race will not be called before mail ballots are processed in the states that wait, and that won't be until the following day at the earliest.

Note that "close" in this context can mean that Harris has won by as many as four points, in the national popular vote. Biden won 2020 with a 4.5% margin in the popular vote.

So in a close election, what does the right do? Meekly accept that Trump has lost a close race? Or insist that he really won and that it was stolen from him again? Does the right refrain from its own rioting only if Harris wins a blowout popular vote by five points or more?

Who's "we all"?
Trump voters who had watched the returns and were following the ballot counts state by state. One can look at the ballots counted, see who was ahead, then deduce what percentage of the remaining ballots Candidate X would need to catch up.

So in a close election, what does the right do? Meekly accept that Trump has lost a close race? Or insist that he really won and that it was stolen from him again? Does the right refrain from its own rioting only if Harris wins a blowout popular vote by five points or more?

I gave you a scenario where the right might riot already. If the outcome is perceived as fair and the count accurate, the right will accept it; any perceived glitches will amplify the distrust.

The left riots in any Trump-winning scenario.

Question for you:

If Trump wins, do Congressional democrats attempt to invoke the 14th Amendment and overturn the election? Before you dismiss the scenario you might want to look up what Rep. Raskin has been saying.

Trump voters who had watched the returns and were following the ballot counts state by state. One can look at the ballots counted, see who was ahead, then deduce what percentage of the remaining ballots Candidate X would need to catch up.

Perhaps you should take responsibility for watching “news” stations that have admitted that they lie to you. In fact, they volunteered to pay $787,500,000 because of their admitted lies.

The news stations I watched reported in great detail about votes casted on Election Day and those remaining to be counted. They even broke it down by voting district for certain states. Because I watch news stations that are trustworthy, I went to bed not knowing who won the election.

Your misinformation was no one’s fault but your own.

If Trump wins, do Congressional democrats attempt to invoke the 14th Amendment and overturn the election?

You’re being silly, of course they won’t. According to Republicans, the Vice President has the authority to name the next President. Harris will just invoke Trump’s rule and name herself President.

Again, depends how it goes down.
Recall that in 2020 we all went to bed thinking Trump won, only to wake up the next day seeing Georgia flip to blue

We've been through that multiple times already. The gist is that Trump knew ahead of time that he would likely lose, and he had cautioned against using mail in votes which may have cost him votes in Georgia. But he knew he would see a red wave and then the blue votes would get counted, so he led you to believe something nefarious happened. Guiliani is now losing his condo, etc.., over unpaid fronting for Trump in this regard. There were journos that said there would be a read wave and then the blue votes would get counted later - it was known. Yet, somehow in you mind, no matter how many times this is pointed out, it is evidence that something nefarious happened - even though if you look at the actual detail, nothing happened worth talking about.

Who's "we all"? No one had called the race for Trump, and every media outlet was observing that there were still ballots to be counted.

I beg to differ.

At about 11 pm, Trump called the election for himself.

And therein lies the secret at the heart of the problem.

What you are telling me is that you don't understand

That pretty much sums up Dope on everything

I gave you a scenario where the right might riot already. If the outcome is perceived as fair and the count accurate, the right will accept it; any perceived glitches will amplify the distrust.

Is there any scenario where the outcome will be perceived as fair and the count accurate?

Again, Biden won the 2020 election by 4.5 points in the popular vote. There were no material problems with the vote counting. At no point were any of Trump's lawyers able to walk into any federal courtroom and even allege that there was any fraud or tampering with the vote counting.

Yet the right perceived it as not fair and the count not accurate.

If Trump wins, do Congressional democrats attempt to invoke the 14th Amendment and overturn the election? Before you dismiss the scenario you might want to look up what Rep. Raskin has been saying.

No, they don't.

These statements are always hard to answer, because saying "Congressional democrats" can mean:

- one Congressional democrat
- two Congressional democrats
- a small number of Congressional democrats
- a sizable number but less than half of Congressional democrats
- a majority of Congressional democrats
- all Congressional democrats

(This problem comes up when someone says things like, "Liberals believe that guinea pigs should have the same rights as humans," which is not true of liberals generally but you can probably find at least three liberals on earth that believe that statement.)

So I certainly believe that there may be a least one or two Democrats who keep banging on the 14th Amendment drum. I do not think "Congressional democrats" will attempt to invoke the 14th Amendment. Any more than I believe that "Senate Republicans" tried to block certification of the 2020 election, even though a handful of individual Senators did protest some of the certifications.

Can't plan it.

Keep pre-written 3 liners ready to copy and paste depending who is winning and who is losing.

I've got 4 of them ready to go.

They are made to be "calming"......

Is there any scenario where the outcome will be perceived as fair and the count accurate?

For Trump and MAGA, the only "fair and accurate" count is the one where Trump wins 90% of the popular vote and 100% of the electoral college.

Back in the real world and not Dope's fantasy, I'm sticking with an earlier prediction: Harris will win the popular vote - the electoral college is still a toss up.

If Trump is leading in the ballot counts by a point or two on Tuesday night and then we all wake up Wednesday morning to learn that - miraculously - Harris was able to earn something like 90% of the freshly counted ballots to eke out a victory...then we'll see.


So you believe the BIG LIE? Despite all the factual evidence to the contrary?

I gave you a scenario where the right might riot already. If the outcome is perceived as fair and the count accurate,

Thus is a dishonest hedge by using the word "perceived" - a variation on the One True Scotsman fallacy.

Perhaps you should take responsibility for watching “news” stations

Sorry, I watch state web sites for ballot data.
Some of us dig for information. People like you wait to be told what to think. Be a better citizen.

You’re being silly, of course they won’t.

Heh. Take it up with Raskin.

You people object to *every* election. It's a bald faced lie to say you don't, so let's not waste any pixels on obvious lies, shall we? Do the board a favor and at least make an attempt to be clever about it.

Is there any scenario where the outcome will be perceived as fair and the count accurate?

Sure. If
-There are no games being played on ballot count watchers
-democrat secretary of States don't change the voting rules
-There are no mysterious boxes 'o ballots found under a table
-There are no power outages, water main breaks, sudden eruptions of ebola at the counting sites

...then most would agree things are fair.

You might ask, "How can someone play games with ballot watchers?" Like this:

https://www.whidbeynewstimes.com/news/police-escor...

There is no mask mandate in WA state.

Again, Biden won the 2020 election by 4.5 points in the popular vote.
The popular vote is irrelevant.

There were no material problems with the vote counting. At no point were any of Trump's lawyers able to walk into any federal courtroom and even allege that there was any fraud or tampering with the vote counting.

You're asking me about conditions for a riot. Any riot would occur as a spur of the moment thing; it's not going to play out in a courtroom first.

They are made to be "calming"......

In any Trump winning scenario, the left is going to go nuts. First on election night and then at his inauguration.

And here's an example of dumb things that erode public trust:

https://www.9news.com/article/news/politics/electi...

Colorado Secretary of State posted spreadsheet with voting system passwords
The passwords are one part of a multi-step security process.

Ooops.
“The Department took immediate action as soon as it was aware of this and informed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which closely monitors and protects the county’s essential security infrastructure,” the spokesperson said.

On Tuesday morning, Colorado Republican Party Vice Chair Hope Scheppelman shared the hidden tab discovery in a mass email, along with an affidavit from someone who claims they had downloaded the Excel file from the Colorado Secretary of State’s website and discovered the hidden tab by simply clicking “unhide.” The name on the affidavit was blacked out in the Republican Party email.

The only reason this was noticed was because the state GOP was on top of it.

Harris was able to earn something like 90% of the freshly counted ballots to eke out a victory...then we'll see.

Let’s jump into the wayback machine, shall we?

All through late 2020, COVID deaths were rising- eventually killing over 1 million Americans.

The Biden campaign hammered a consistent message to all voters: Be safe. Think seriously about voting by mail or ballot drop boxes.

Meanwhile Trump was encouraging his followers to avoid the crooked drop boxes and flood the polling places on election day. COVID was increasingly being portrayed by Republicans as a joke, a deep state ploy to keep people at home……

So sure enough, a large proportion of Democrats opted for safety and dropped their ballots in the mail. My wife and I certainly did. Remember, vaccines weren’t available yet.

And Republicans, many without masks, flooded polling places on election day. It was their way, I suppose, of owning the libs.


So what happened when the votes were counted?

As expected, AND AS HAD BEEN CAREFULLY EXPLAINED AND PREDICTED, the majority of votes cast on election day were counted first in most states, and Trump took the lead on election night. It was at that point, before midnight, that Trump Declared victory, and declared that the absentee ballots were crooked as hell and Tge vote count should be stopped.

The overall percentage of Democratic votes AMONG the absentee votes may not have been 90%, but it was high, AS HAD BEEN EXPECTED.

We wondered why Trump hammered away at the message for his followers to vote in person while a pandemic was raging, and we strongly suspect that one of his many pronged strategy to overturn the election was to THROW OUT THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS.

This time he realizes that that particular strategy doesn’t work, so now he’s alternating between telling his base to vote in person/vote by mail. So I suspect that this time the vote count of absentee ballots will be more evenly distributed between Dems/Repubs.

A lot of the avenues that were open to him in 2020 to subvert the election have been closed, so it will be interesting to see how he tries to pull off the steal this time if he loses. That comment he dropped at MSG about the secret he shared with Mike Johnson (to be revealed) suggests an attempt may be coming to involve the Congress.

But who knows? Trump has already revealed himself to be someone willing to use any means, legal or illegal, to retain power.

We must be ready for anything.

We must be ready for anything.

And you will! You won't but your compatriots will burn stuff if Trump wins.

PS: the quote you took out of context and launched into a rant over was from a scenario I was speculating over.

But since most people here don't really read...

Sure. If
-There are no games being played on ballot count watchers
-democrat secretary of States don't change the voting rules
-There are no mysterious boxes 'o ballots found under a table
-There are no power outages, water main breaks, sudden eruptions of ebola at the counting sites

...then most would agree things are fair.

So then there will be riots from the right, and they will not agree that things are fair.

There are always things that people will claim are "games" being played on ballot count watchers. There's thousands and thousands of polling places and canvassing boards, and all of them have rules and procedures - and some people somewhere won't follow them and be escorted out. There were no mysterious boxes o' ballots found under a table (see below link). The election is conducted in literally thousands and thousands of buildings, ranging from old municipal buildings like libraries and schoolhouses to brand new government offices - there will be stuff that happens in some building, somewhere no matter what.

So if you're already prepared to seize on any of that sort of stuff - which happens in every national election and will happen again for certain - as evidence that things aren't fair, you're just saying ahead of time that the right won't believe that the election is fair unless Trump wins.

You're asking me about conditions for a riot. Any riot would occur as a spur of the moment thing; it's not going to play out in a courtroom first.

Right. But you set out a whole bunch of things that would set off a riot from the right. Most of those things didn't happen in 2020, but the right claimed the election was unfair - because people claimed they happened, and by the time it got into a court and the parties were forced to admit in court that there wasn't any fraud in the counting, it was too late. A huge chunk of the right believed it anyway. It didn't matter that those things didn't actually happen - the right believed it (you still believe some of it), so they think the election wasn't fair.

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-tr...

Would Democrats say "he's not my President!"

"He was selected not elected!"

"Diebold Machines! Ohio! Bush stole!"


Putin elected him!


Ummmmm yeah, they did.

They delegitimized elections.

So now, whomever wins, I so hope your country doesn't accept the new President all over again. Even if Trump wins - I hope 49-51% of America doesn't consider him legit. Ditto Harris.

And I hope Bibi and Vladdy know it - that they are dealing with a 50.1% leader, who is answering to an even more tribal Congress and Senate- many of whom can be bought off (see AIPAC for starters)

YOU people did this, not me,

I'll do my little part on social media to fan the flames when the times arise :)

Trust me - once in awhile a post hits - and people get fired up

So then there will be riots from the right, and they will not agree that things are fair.

So of the list of examples, you think 1 or more is likely?

There are always things that people will claim are "games" being played on ballot count watchers.

I just gave you an example of a game being played. To recap, the local democrat running ballot counting a in Washington state election office had a Republican tossed out of there for not wearing a mask.

This didn't happen during COVID, this happened a couple of days ago. Monday, to be exact.
The local democrat claimed that "50% of his staff got COVID" or something and claimed authority to institute a mask mandate.

Can you not see how bad this looks?

So if you're already prepared to seize on any of that sort of stuff - which happens in every national election and will happen again for certain - as evidence that things aren't fair, you're just saying ahead of time that the right won't believe that the election is fair unless Trump wins.

I don't accept this framing. left wingers riot as a matter of course and despite all the caterwauling about J6 the ratio left wing riots to right wing riots is about 1,000 to 1.

I also note that no one has pushed back on the notion that left wingers riot in any scenario where Trump wins.

Most of those things didn't happen in 2020, but the right claimed the election was unfair - because people claimed they happened, and by the time it got into a court and the parties were forced to admit in court that there wasn't any fraud in the counting, it was too late.

You're doing the conflating thing again. Riots are spontaneous acts; saying "so and so wasn't proven in court" comes after the fact.

left wing "news" media is 100% on board with propagandizing for the democrats. Literally no one trusts what they say, even the people that literally own them.

So now, whomever wins, I so hope your country doesn't accept the new President all over again. Even if Trump wins - I hope 49-51% of America doesn't consider him legit. Ditto Harris.

democrats were proud to loudly call for "The Resistance" and posters on this board well all for harassing Trump officials in restaurants and loud protests at their homes. This is also in play for a theoretical 2nd Trump admin.

They delegitimized elections.

Enough of the playing my previous "high and mighty" games. You claim wisdom, but you're just plain stupid. Or worse, you know exactly what happened and you are joining in the lies and misinformation to cover it up.

Did a few democrats complain about the 2000 election? Of course they did. It was a close election that was eventually decided by the USSC and not the voters. Or perhaps it was decided by Gore deciding to stop the fight and concede defeat for the good of the country.

But let's not put that on the same level as Trump's delegitimizing of both the 2016 and 2020 elections. His complaints started in 2016 even though he won the election. He got butt hurt that he didn't win the popular vote as well as the electoral college. But he took it to an entirely different level in 2020, and he's laid the ground work to do far worse in 2024.

Get off your high horse - it's just a wooden hobby horse anyway - and join the real world. Quit playing games. This is serious shit, not a play time for your sick mind games.

And here are more games:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elect...

Nevada Supreme Court: count mailed ballots 3 days after Election Day even without postmark

Okay, board libs. Let's say this was Ohio or Texas, and the state apparatus is firmly under the control of a rabidly partisan Republican. A judge then rules, "No postmark, no date, count that ballot 3 days after the election!"

You folks would *not* be cool with that.

But the state’s Supreme Court upheld the August decision by District Court Judge James Russell, who refused to block the counting of ballots without postmarks because of the importance of counting all eligible votes. Russell also found Republicans wouldn’t be irreparably harmed by counting late-arriving ballots because few votes were at stake.

I just gave you an example of a game being played. To recap, the local democrat running ballot counting a in Washington state election office had a Republican tossed out of there for not wearing a mask.

Oh Please! Do not attempt your false equivalency crap with this compared to Republicans stacking multiple local election boards in multiple states with people who have committed to refusing to certify their local elections if things aren't going Trump's way.

THAT is the real game being played here.

--Peter

-There are no mysterious boxes 'o ballots found under a table

That's where they stored the ballots. In containers under the table so it takes up less room. And it was a 2hour delay, not 4hours. There's nothing mysterious there.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-indict...

Read it for yourself.

Read it for yourself.

I'm posing a hypothetical for unsecured ballots appearing.

Not sure why multiple posters aren't getting that.

I'm posing a hypothetical for unsecured ballots appearing.

Don't try to dress up your lies by pretending its a hypothetical question. This was a oft-repeated lie that simply never happened, and never will. There are far too many controls on ballots for someone to just dump a bunch into the counting system and not notice.

But the garbage you seem to be reading on the internet assumes that their readers are too dumb, too gullible, too stupid to figure out that they're being lied to and manipulated. Be better than that.

--Peter

So of the list of examples, you think 1 or more is likely?

I think it is inevitable that something will happen that right wing partisans will characterize as nefarious, even though it is not. They are already deeply suspicious of the entire process to the point where they see conspiracies around every corner.

You're doing the conflating thing again. Riots are spontaneous acts; saying "so and so wasn't proven in court" comes after the fact.

That's not what I'm saying.

You're saying that the right wing will riot only if X happens. But that's not entirely accurate. At best, your statement is that the right wing will riot only if they believe that X has happened. It doesn't matter whether X actually happened - if they believe it happened, they will not accept the outcome as fair.

I refer to court, because there were a lot of "X" events in 2020 that the right wing believed happened, but were subsequently evaluated in court and found not to have happened. In several proceedings, judges pointedly asked lawyers for the Trump campaign whether they were alleging that there were any fraudulent acts with respect to actually counting the ballots; the parties admitted there were not. In Giuliani's proceedings, the court evaluated whether or not his claims of mishandling ballots and/or fraud were factually accurate; the court ruled they were not. In Mike Lindell's case, he was sued over his claims that he had evidence of voter fraud, and the court ruled that the plaintiff had demonstrated that he did not.

But all of those things were falsely believed to have happened by the right wing, which got them all into a lather in the 2020 elections.

So whether the right wing "riots" or not doesn't depend on whether any of the things actually happen, but whether someone tells the right wing that they happened.

I'm posing a hypothetical for unsecured ballots appearing.

Not sure why multiple posters aren't getting that.

We get it. It's just that, as I explained in my last post, it doesn't matter whether any unsecured ballots actually appear. None did in the last election cycle, but because prominent Republicans and right-wing media figures said that they did, vast swathes of the right wing believed that it was true. It wasn't, but it didn't matter.

So going into 2024, it doesn't mean anything to say that the right wing won't "riot" unless unsecured ballots appeared - because that didn't happen last time, but they rioted anyway. Because they believed it happened, even though it didn't.

So going into 2024, it doesn't mean anything to say that the right wing won't "riot" unless unsecured ballots appeared - because that didn't happen last time, but they rioted anyway. Because they believed it happened, even though it didn't.

The very beating heart of the issue

I think it is inevitable that something will happen that right wing partisans will characterize as nefarious, even though it is not. They are already deeply suspicious of the entire process to the point where they see conspiracies around every corner.

That's right. And why is that? Because sketchy stuff *does* in fact happen.
You have to AT LEAST grant that some of these things at a minimum look bad when viewed with a jaundiced eye.

You're saying that the right wing will riot only if X happens. But that's not entirely accurate. At best, your statement is that the right wing will riot only if they believe that X has happened. It doesn't matter whether X actually happened - if they believe it happened, they will not accept the outcome as fair.

That is what I'm saying, yes.

So whether the right wing "riots" or not doesn't depend on whether any of the things actually happen, but whether someone tells the right wing that they happened.

That's entirely possible, because perception drives what people conceive of reality.

Flipping this around, left wingers believe the MSG rally was a Nazi lovefest and that Trump is a fascist hellbent on suspending the Constitution. Because that's what they've been told. Hence, a left wing riot is a 99% certainty after a Trump win.

We get it.

You get it. Others clearly aren't.

So going into 2024, it doesn't mean anything to say that the right wing won't "riot" unless unsecured ballots appeared - because that didn't happen last time, but they rioted anyway. Because they believed it happened, even though it didn't.

And I'm not disputing this point.

So the question becomes - how best to avoid right wing rioting?
Overindex on transparency and election integrity.

That's right. And why is that? Because sketchy stuff *does* in fact happen.
You have to AT LEAST grant that some of these things at a minimum look bad when viewed with a jaundiced eye.

Sketchy stuff doesn't happen. If it happened, then the many observers from both parties would be able to walk into a court and tell the judge about the sketchy stuff.

What does happen is ordinary, non-sketchy stuff that people either mistakenly or deliberately say is sketchy. Not because they are looking at it with a "jaundiced" eye, but because they are seeing what they want to see - or have already decided they will see.

A national election is conducted over many tens of thousands of precincts, with over three thousand county canvassing boards, with several tens of thousands of election workers, with more than a hundred million ballots - all trying to get it done (for the most part) within a less than 24-hour period. With all those people in all those buildings with all those ballots, there will be things that happen that someone can claim is suspicious - even though it's just the law of large numbers.

If you have literally tens of thousands of polling places, it's actually very likely that at least one of those buildings will have a power outage. Or a pipe burst. Or that someone from Parks and Rec gave the wrong key to Elections. Or whatever. Because there's just so many of them, it is inevitable that there will be some glitches or mistakes or accidents.

If people weren't being told - falsely - over and over again that the other side was always cheating (again, even though none of the observers who had the opportunity to watch them would ever say they were cheating), then people wouldn't be falsely believing that all these things were malfeasance or perfidy, rather than the inevitable result of such a sprawling process.

But since those events are inevitable, and you're telling me that you think the right will riot if they happen, then you're basically just saying the right will riot if Trump loses. Which is exactly what you're claiming will happen with the left.

So the question becomes - how best to avoid right wing rioting?
Overindex on transparency and election integrity.

We have that. Every single stage of the process is open and transparent to the other party. Nothing happens in the election process except under the eye of the GOP and the Trump campaign. Their reps are in every room, their lawyers have access to every document, etc.

None of that matters if the GOP candidate goes out and tells people that the election was rigged, even though it wasn't. Or if prominent and influential third party conservatives go out and tell people that the election was rigged, even though it wasn't.

Our current overindexing on transparency and election integrity relies on the campaigns and parties honestly informing their supporters about the election process that they observe. One of the reasons why concessions are so important. If nominees and parties are out there dishonestly portraying the election as fraudulent or rigged, then there's nothing that can be done.

Dope1: Flipping this around, left wingers believe the MSG rally was a Nazi lovefest and that Trump is a fascist hellbent on suspending the Constitution. Because that's what they've been told.

I believe Trump is a fascist because he talks and acts like a fascist: "enemy of the people," "poisoning the blood of our country," and "vermin."

Trump talks about America as an occupied country he is going to liberate and he had said he will use the military on Americans -- that's straight out of fascism and the tradition of military dictatorships.

He's also repeatedly called his political opponents "the enemy within." When the Nazis built Dachau in 1933 they didn't put Jews in it at first but the political opposition, liberals and leftists. You know, "the enemy within."

There are many more examples, of course.

No, we don't need to be told Trump is a fascist; it's clear he's a fascist.

Sketchy stuff doesn't happen.

You can say this with 100% certainty? Bold statement.

What does happen is ordinary, non-sketchy stuff that people either mistakenly or deliberately say is sketchy. Not because they are looking at it with a "jaundiced" eye, but because they are seeing what they want to see - or have already decided they will see.

Uh, huh.
So it's all a matter of perception, and Republicans are just lied to all the time?

If people weren't being told - falsely - over and over again that the other side was always cheating (again, even though none of the observers who had the opportunity to watch them would ever say they were cheating), then people wouldn't be falsely believing that all these things were malfeasance or perfidy, rather than the inevitable result of such a sprawling process.

Hmmm. Perhaps if the democrats - from their Presidential candidates on down - didn't constantly let the mask slip and weren't doing things...like, say:

-Illegally sourcing bogus intelligence reports from foreign agents
-Collude with Big Tech to throttle/censor/suppress information harmful to the democrat party
-(plus a bunch of stuff I typed, then deleted, for brevity)

I'm sorry to have to say this, but I see zero reason to assume any democrat politician -or- left-leaning media outfit operates with a shred of integrity. That's done with; when it comes to truth-telling I automatically assume every democrat I'm listening to is either wrong, lying, obfuscating, taking things out of context or leading with a dishonest premise.

So to your point I extend that all the way down the stack. Rotten apples spoil the entire barrel, after all. It's not just the ones on top that are bad.

I believe Trump is a fascist because he talks and acts like a fascist: "enemy of the people," "poisoning the blood of our country," and "vermin."

And you're the living example of albaby is talking about: You believe what you're told to believe.
Thanks for playing!

left wingers believe ... that Trump is a fascist hellbent on suspending the Constitution. Because that's what they've been told.

No. It's because that's what Trump **said** he would do.

You can say this with 100% certainty? Bold statement.

It comes from the system that we have in place. Every part of the ballot counting process is observed by the GOP and the campaigns. Same for the Democrats. This part of the elections process is transparent and subject to real-time review at every location. It's implausible to the extreme that one could engage in enough "sketchy" behavior to actually change the outcome of a Presidential election, which even in the tightest races is almost always decided by tens or hundreds of thousands of votes. There's no actual opportunity to gain anything by engaging in sketchy dealings - anything big enough to matter would certainly get caught, and anything small enough to get caught isn't going to matter.

So yeah - pretty confident that regardless of whether you think the poll workers and canvassers are good people or evil black-hearted scoundrels that hate America, the measures we have in place make it implausible that they're engaging in sketchy behavior.

Uh, huh.
So it's all a matter of perception, and Republicans are just lied to all the time?

You don't understand how unique the attacks on the ballot counting process were? Republicans aren't lied to all the time - they were lied to in connection with the 2020 election. In almost every other election - and certainly every other Presidential election - the votes are cast and counted, and the losing candidate concedes without accusing the other side of rigging the ballot counting. Because the losing candidate knows that his campaign staff - all the poll watchers and canvass monitors and lawyers and what not - were watching every step of the counting process, and if anything actually untoward had happened in the counting process they would have duly run off to court and said so to a judge. So that even if random third party folks were out there complaining about crazy stuff, the person in charge of all of the monitoring of the counting - ie. the candidate - would have given the word that the counting was legit.

Trump was different. Uniquely different. He insisted that the Democrats cheated in the counting process. He didn't acknowledge that if the Democrats had cheated in counting the ballots, his team would have seen it happen. No, he just went out and told everyone the election was being stolen from him.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but I see zero reason to assume any democrat politician -or- left-leaning media outfit operates with a shred of integrity. That's done with; when it comes to truth-telling I automatically assume every democrat I'm listening to is either wrong, lying, obfuscating, taking things out of context or leading with a dishonest premise.

So again, we're back to the point you were trying to deny. The right wing is going to assume that the election wasn't fair, that the count wasn't fair. It doesn't matter whether there's any evidence that it happens, or the irrationality of thinking that someone could rig the count given the level of opposing-party monitoring. So any election where Trump loses was unfair and rigged, and only an election that he wins can be fair. Which - I'm not going to be able to disabuse you of that, but you do see where that shows that it doesn't really matter whether any sketchy things actually happen, but flows inexorably from the starting position of the right wing that the Democrats are ever and always cheaters?

Great posts, albaby.

But I’ve discovered Dope1’s super power.

He’s impervious to logic.

Republicans aren't lied to all the time - they were lied to in connection with the 2020 election. In almost every other election - and certainly every other Presidential election - the votes are cast and counted, and the losing candidate concedes without accusing the other side of rigging the ballot counting.

Hmmm. I'm sure if you pumped a bunch of truth serum into a lot of folks here they'd swear up and down that we should have had President Al Gore in 2001.

So again, we're back to the point you were trying to deny. The right wing is going to assume that the election wasn't fair, that the count wasn't fair.

Maybe, maybe not.

Which - I'm not going to be able to disabuse you of that, but you do see where that shows that it doesn't really matter whether any sketchy things actually happen, but flows inexorably from the starting position of the right wing that the Democrats are ever and always cheaters?

I will happily grant that point, yes. The democrats have earned the mistrust, disrespect and outright scorn that millions of Republicans have for them. And why not? You can only piss on someone and tell them it's raining so many times before they walk away or do something else.

I invite you to spend some time in Gaslight Central, otherwise known as Washington State. Even you would share my opinion of some of these guys after about a year here.

Lulz.
So many Statler and Waldorfs on this board, left only to comment from the rafters, never from the stage itself.

...and at the end of the day, are muppets through and through.

I'm sure if you pumped a bunch of truth serum into a lot of folks here they'd swear up and down that we should have had President Al Gore in 2001.

Sure, but they don't believe that Republicans were secretly stealing filled out ballots from the rooms in which the counting took place. They may have reasonable disagreements about some of the decisions and choices that were openly and publicly made - which counties to recount, how the recount was conducted. But not that Republicans were sneaking in suitcases of unsecured ballots to fraudulently inflate Bush's vote count.

I will happily grant that point, yes. The democrats have earned the mistrust, disrespect and outright scorn that millions of Republicans have for them. And why not? You can only piss on someone and tell them it's raining so many times before they walk away or do something else.

And there's lots of Democrats that feel the same way about Republicans - that they're nothing but lying liars who lie, who are constantly trying to convince people of false things. Democrats also believe that Republicans are doing lots of unfair things in setting the rules for elections, the way they implement those rules, the behavior they engage in during campaigns, etc.

But you know what high-ranking Democrats don't do? They don't try to claim that the process for counting duly cast ballots is being fraudulently cheated. Because they know that's not true. That any such perfidy would be caught by their own monitors in the room. That any cheating that was big enough to matter would be caught, and any cheating small enough not to get caught wouldn't matter. And they say so, in their concession speeches and in telling their supporters to move on once the election is done.

That's why your assertions that the right wing won't riot if the election is fair are simply untrue. It won't matter whether the election is or is not fair. The right wing will believe that it's not fair, because the current Republican upper level (Trump and his allies) has been falsely telling them that the actual counting of ballots is rigged. Which is both false and unique to this specific instantiation of the GOP.

I refer to court, because there were a lot of "X" events in 2020 that the right wing believed happened, but were subsequently evaluated in court and found not to have happened. - albaby

---------------------

Lets not forget that the evidence regarding many "X" events was never evaluated by the court because the case was dismissed for lack of standing by the plaintiffs.

Lets not forget that the evidence regarding many "X" events was never evaluated by the court because the case was dismissed for lack of standing by the plaintiffs.

Not for any of the Trump cases.

Third parties often don't have standing in disputes over the elections process. But the major-party candidate always does. All of the allegations about the counting of the ballots could have been brought by Trump and/or the GOP as the party. Every single one of them.

So the state of Texas, as a state, doesn't have standing to challenge the election results in Georgia (to use one example of a case dismissed on standing). But all of the candidates in that Georgia race absolutely had standing. So if there was any evidence that an "X" event had happened in Georgia, then Trump's lawyers could have run to the courts with it. They didn't, because no "X" events actually happened in Georgia - the reports of them happening were lies, and those lies ended up costing Rudy Giuliani....well, everything.

Dope1: Flipping this around, left wingers believe the MSG rally was a Nazi lovefest and that Trump is a fascist hellbent on suspending the Constitution. Because that's what they've been told.

You're funny Dope.

Trump HAS told us. Are you deaf?

Trump was different. Uniquely different. He insisted that the Democrats cheated in the counting process.

Even though those close to him have testified that he KNEW he lost the election. Ivanka came out and said he lost the election.

But this is standard Trump, lie and keep on lying; never admit you're wrong.

And, sadly, this is working for him.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but I see zero reason to assume any democrat politician -or- left-leaning media outfit operates with a shred of integrity. That's done with; when it comes to truth-telling I automatically assume every democrat I'm listening to is either wrong, lying, obfuscating, taking things out of context or leading with a dishonest premise.

You might want to take a closer look at the party you support. It is led now by a liar and the right wing media supports every damned lie he tells.

You live in inverse world.

Hmmm. I'm sure if you pumped a bunch of truth serum into a lot of folks here they'd swear up and down that we should have had President Al Gore in 2001.

No need for actual truth serum. I do think that the count was stopped prematurely and the USSC, in effect, declared that BUSH WON.

But notice what happened next:
Gore conceded rather than treading the same path that Trump walked in 2020 and seems laying the groundwork to walk again in 2024.

Stay with me dope, because this is important…..

Gore gave a masterful concession speech. He was there at Bush’s inauguration. He pledged his support for the new administration, and I don’t know about you, but after the USSC ISSUED ITS RULING, I never heard him say once that he was robbed of the presidency. Now…. I may have thought he got robbed.Millions of people thought he got robbed. But you know what? We followed Gore’s example and made our peace with his defeat. To do otherwise would to throw out our Constitutional order for the sake of our feelings.

Every single election (2016, 2020, 2024 and the 2016 Texas Republican primary) Trump has leveled the charge of fraud- accusing Ted Cruz of fraud, Hillary of fraud, Joe Biden of fraud, and I’m sure he will accuse Kamala of fraud as well. And a growing number of Republican politicians as well as Republican voters have succumbed to that nonsense.

In December/January, if Trump calls on his MAGA followers to “fight like hell” for their country, you might remember this conversation and wonder why Trump’s strategy remains as it always was- win at any cost, whether that cost be the truth, the lives of his followers, the rule of law, or the country itself.

No need for actual truth serum. I do think that the count was stopped prematurely and the USSC, in effect, declared that BUSH WON.

Aaaaaaand there it is.

Gore conceded rather than treading the same path that Trump

Only after dragging it out as long as he could, all the way up through the Florida courts and to the Supreme Court.

And to date, most liberals have their facts incorrect on what exactly the Supreme Court Ruled and how the ballot count went.

But you know what? We followed Gore’s example and made our peace with his defeat. To do otherwise would to throw out our Constitutional order for the sake of our feelings.

And then rather than accept the fact that Hillary! lost, democrats launched a coordinated effort to take down Trump's Presidency using foreign agents, illegal behavior in the DOJ, lying to FISA court judges and violating the hell out of individual Americans' Constitutional Rights.

In short, they did everything in their power to overturn an election. What they did was 100x worse than a few goobers taking selfies at Nancy Pelosi's desk on 1/6/21. To add insult to injury, every single board lib has the temerity to claim piety on this issue.

Give me a fVcking break. Rings hollow, homie.

The rest of what you're saying is you making assumptions based on what you've been told about Trump. You're making albaby's point for him, and that's the really hilarious feature in this thread.

So then there will be riots from the right, and they will not agree that things are fair.

That's a given, IMHO.

If the convict wins, there will be sobbing and probably some protests. If Harris wins, I expect full-on riots at least to the level of Jan 6, 2020. Probably worse. Because the right will say that the left "cheated" in some manner, and the convict will take to the airwaves to declare that he really was the winner.

<If the convict wins, there will be sobbing and probably some protests

Sorry, man.
The left rioted last time. They'll riot again if Trump wins.

Lets not forget that the evidence regarding many "X" events was never evaluated by the court because the case was dismissed for lack of standing by the plaintiffs.

Which could have been cured in a matter of hours to a couple of days by a competent attorney. There have to be hundreds if not 10s of thousands of people who would have standing to bring the cases. Finding one of those folks willing to become the plantiff is not at all difficult.

So why didn't the Trump attorneys find a plantiff who did have standing?

Come to think of it, standing is a pretty basic concept for a competent attorney. Why would the attorney even bring the case if there were questions about the plantiff's standing? Or at least be prepared to address the question of standing that the defense would surely raise?

--Peter

Sure, but they don't believe that Republicans were secretly stealing filled out ballots from the rooms in which the counting took place.

No, but they believe some other nefarious thing took place. A distinction without a difference.

And there's lots of Democrats that feel the same way about Republicans - that they're nothing but lying liars who lie, who are constantly trying to convince people of false things. Democrats also believe that Republicans are doing lots of unfair things in setting the rules for elections, the way they implement those rules, the behavior they engage in during campaigns, etc.

Welp when Republicans weaponize the federal government against US citizens and abuse FISA for political gain, I might be willing to listen. Until then...

But you know what high-ranking Democrats don't do? They don't try to claim that the process for counting duly cast ballots is being fraudulently cheated.

No, they illegally direct campaign funds to foreign agents and use the information to try and overthrow a sitting President.

Took 50 posts to spring this trap, and here we are.

No, but they believe some other nefarious thing took place. A distinction without a difference.

It's not a distinction without a difference. If the nefarious thing wasn't part of the counting of the ballots, then the counting of the ballots was fair.

No, they illegally direct campaign funds to foreign agents and use the information to try and overthrow a sitting President.

Took 50 posts to spring this trap, and here we are.

It's not a trap, though. It disproves your point.

If what you're complaining about makes the election invalid...then what? It's already happened. If impropriety before the election makes the election "rigged," then there can't be a fair election. So what - Trump has to win, no matter who the voters actually vote for? We cancel the election?

That can't be the right outcome. Even if stuff happens before the election that shouldn't have happened, if the ballots that are cast are fairly counted, then that person is the one who has won the election. There can be other sanctions for the "other nefarious thing" - but the winner of the election is the one who received the most ballots of the ballots cast.

That's why your "trap" isn't a trap at all. If the right wing is going to claim that the a Trump loss doesn't count because of the FISA/foreign agents/campaign funds things that happened years earlier, then they're going to reject the election outcome no matter what happens. It's not going to be contingent on whether the conduct of the election itself is fair and honest - we know now they're going to riot if Trump loses. Because the thing that will make them riot if he loses has already happened.

If the nefarious thing wasn't part of the counting of the ballots, then the counting of the ballots was fair.

Everybody believes that something is illegitimate. You're harping on the election integrity thing, and that's fine.

It's not a trap, though. It disproves your point.

This oughta be good.

If what you're complaining about makes the election invalid...then what? It's already happened. If impropriety before the election makes the election "rigged," then there can't be a fair election. So what - Trump has to win, no matter who the voters actually vote for? We cancel the election?

Ask the democrats, who did everything in their power to effectively cancel the 2016 election and distract the sitting President such that the people who really run the government - non-Senate appointed department chairs and mid-level career bureaucrats - could keep on keeping on absent the directives of a President they personally loathed and weren't about to take orders from.

If the right wing is going to claim that the a Trump loss doesn't count because of the FISA/foreign agents/campaign funds things that happened years earlier,

Yeah nobody's claiming that.
In this thread you folks are trying to create a scenario where only Trump supporters are guilty of Election Interference and Denialism and tie it back to "misinformation" or some such. What you're ignoring are the years 2017-2020, where we saw what a real attempt to overthrow a government looked like.

Not some riot, not some protest gone bad. This was an active conspiracy theory on the part of a failed Presidential Candidate, Congressional democrats and Deep State holdovers upset at the changing of the guard. Every one of these people violated their oaths of office and took the country down a dark path fueled by lies and misinformation. Kind of ironic that democrats today are accusing Republicans of only consuming...misinformation.

I'll also note that you're taking my theoretical scenarios and extrapolating those into what the right wing thinks writ large. That won't fly either.

And I'll still note that no one's contesting the fact that a Trump win == left wing riots.

So why didn't the Trump attorneys find a plantiff who did have standing?

Come to think of it, standing is a pretty basic concept for a competent attorney. Why would the attorney even bring the case if there were questions about the plantiff's standing? Or at least be prepared to address the question of standing that the defense would surely raise?

They didn't need to. Again, Trump had standing in every case.

The cases that were dismissed based on standing were not cases where Trump was involved. They were brought by third parties. A lot of them were brought by outside folks (like Sidney Powell) that wanted to make allegations that the Trump lawyers wouldn't bring. Because Trump's election lawyers were mostly competent elections counsel, and knew there wasn't any evidence to support the allegations. And didn't want to get sanctioned by the courts for doing that (as Powell eventually was) or brought up on bar disciplinary complaints.

The remaining cases were just procedural ploys. They were brought by the State of Texas on behalf of the State, against four of the swing states, re-litigating arguments that the Trump campaign had made (and lost) in lower courts. Why bother doing that? Because unlike litigation brought by Trump (an individual), cases that involve a State suing another State automatically go straight to the Supreme Court. The Court's jurisdiction isn't discretionary, but mandatory. Since SCOTUS had refused to hear any of the Trump complaints being brought up through the other cases, the Texas AG tried a little procedural ploy to get a case in front of them that they didn't have the discretion not to hear.

Ask the democrats, who did everything in their power to effectively cancel the 2016 election and distract the sitting President such that the people who really run the government - non-Senate appointed department chairs and mid-level career bureaucrats - could keep on keeping on absent the directives of a President they personally loathed and weren't about to take orders from.

They didn't try to effectively cancel the election. They always acknowledged that Trump held the office of President - that Hillary lost, he won, and he held the office.

They opposed his policies. They tried to block his efforts. They used all of the checks and balances available to them - the checks and balances deliberately put into the Constitution so that the President had to answer to the other branches of government rather than simply having unfettered power by virtue of winning a single election.

That's fundamentally different than claiming that Hillary actually won the 2016 election.

And I'll still note that no one's contesting the fact that a Trump win == left wing riots.

There will be protests - and if the protests get really huge, you'll call them a riot. But they won't be a riot that's trying to stop the peaceful transition of power from Biden to Trump.

They didn't try to effectively cancel the election. They always acknowledged that Trump held the office of President - that Hillary lost, he won, and he held the office.

Again, a distinction without a difference. They pursued a deliberate strategy of disrupting his administration using the impeachment as a cover for their illegal launch of the inquiry.

That's fundamentally different than claiming that Hillary actually won the 2016 election.

Heh. "Not my President". "Illegitimate". Hillary! Herself still brays on about it to this day. Are you sure you want to run up this hill?

There will be protests - and if the protests get really huge, you'll call them a riot. But they won't be a riot that's trying to stop the peaceful transition of power from Biden to Trump.

It won't be for lack of trying. They tried like hell to disrupt his inauguration in 2017 and should he win next Tuesday...will do the same in 2025.

So any election where Trump loses was unfair and rigged, and only an election that he wins can be fair. Which - I'm not going to be able to disabuse you of that,

Too many words. Let me put a finer point on it for whoever it is you were responding to. Heads I win, tails you cheated and my eyes are shut, ears plugged and just screaming "stop the steal" over and over. It's absolute non-sensical knuckledragging BULLs!!t.

Again, a distinction without a difference. They pursued a deliberate strategy of disrupting his administration using the impeachment as a cover for their illegal launch of the inquiry.

Not a distinction without a difference. It is permissible - even expected - for the opposition party to use their elected positions in the other branches to....well, to oppose the President. We don't have a Parliamentary system in the U.S. We have separately elected Executive and Legislative Branches. Elected officials in Congress have the ability to, and always do, try to curtail the policies that the opposing party is trying to implement if they hold the Executive.

Heh. "Not my President". "Illegitimate". Hillary! Herself still brays on about it to this day. Are you sure you want to run up this hill?

Yep. Does anyone argue that Hillary actually won the 2016 election? That she was "really" the person who obtained the most votes in the electoral college that day?

It's one thing to argue that she should have won the election. It's another thing to claim that she did win the election. She didn't. She lost the election - she had fewer votes cast for her in the states that mattered for the electoral college. She never disputed that, and the party didn't either. At no point did the party try to stop the orderly transfer of power from Obama to Trump - they recognized that Trump was the winner of the election, and that the choice of the people to place him in office meant that he should take office.

Do you really not see the difference between claiming that Trump shouldn't have won and claiming that he didn't win? That criticizing Trump winning the election is entirely different from arguing that Hillary was the actual winner, and that she should have been inaugurated in 2017?

A lot of them were brought by outside folks (like Sidney Powell) that wanted to make allegations that the Trump lawyers wouldn't bring. Because Trump's election lawyers were mostly competent elections counsel, and knew there wasn't any evidence to support the allegations.

That's my point.

BHM complains that some "evidence" was not heard because of standing. So find someone with standing. If the one obvious person with standing refuses, PARTICULARLY when that obvious person is desperate to find a way to win, it probably means your "evidence" is crap (or in legal terms, not admissible) or is a lie that no competent lawyer would put their name to. (Hence Powell's sanctions and Rudy's dismissal from the bar.)

But BHM continues his whining because a judge wouldn't listen to the crap before tossing it out of court. It's still crap. It's lies. It's make believe.

--Peter <== tiring of politeness when the same things have been explained over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and

If you have this much patience with the albaby-babies, they're going to turn out very well-adjusted. :-)

And I'll still note that no one's contesting the fact that a Trump win == left wing riots.

You're not paying attention.

Several of us have already said there would likely be protests. Less likely any significant rioting.

OTOH, a Trump loss is much more likely to result in rioting as it did last time. And Trump will do all he can to encourage it.

Too many words. Let me put a finer point on it for whoever it is you were responding to. Heads I win, tails you cheated and my eyes are shut, ears plugged and just screaming "stop the steal" over and over. It's absolute non-sensical knuckledragging BULLs!!t.

Trump infected our political system with distrust of elections. And the right wing media have amplified his lies.

I was phone calling in AZ today for the Democratic Party and one of the guys I called started lecturing me about how the last election was stolen and so he had to vote for Trump to right that wrong. I would hazard a guess that a majority of Republicans in AZ feel similarly.

If you have this much patience with the albaby-babies, they're going to turn out very well-adjusted. :-)

It’s called “a debate”. I realize the msnbc version requires the Republican to be bound and gagged.

Do you really not see the difference between claiming that Trump shouldn't have won and claiming that he didn't win? That criticizing Trump winning the election is entirely different from arguing that Hillary was the actual winner, and that she should have been inaugurated in 2017?

Are you seriously arguing about this? democrats believed the Russia collusion hoax, that algore won the 2000 election, that Joe Biden had no cognitive issues and that Hunter's laptop had "all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation".

I'm not sure what point is even being made in this thread (other than revealing who wants to debate and who wants to sit up in the rafters and say random things).

Are you seriously arguing about this? democrats believed the Russia collusion hoax, that algore won the 2000 election, that Joe Biden had no cognitive issues and that Hunter's laptop had "all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation".

You’ve been mind melding again with those folks over at gstewaypundit, haven’t you?

This is your brain on gateway pundit and hot air. Any questions?

"Uh, huh.
So it's all a matter of perception, and Republicans are just lied to all the time?" Dope.

Yes. You constantly use poor sources of information that lie to you. Even worse, they admit it court they lie to you but you still uise them (dumbest thing ever....).

"Hmmm. Perhaps if the democrats - from their Presidential candidates on down - didn't constantly let the mask slip and weren't doing things...like, say:

-Illegally sourcing bogus intelligence reports from foreign agents
-Collude with Big Tech to throttle/censor/suppress information harmful to the democrat party
-(plus a bunch of stuff I typed, then deleted, for brevity)"

See? Again, the only place you would get this idiocy from is sources of information that take advantage of you and lie to you.

Stop being a Dope and do better, This country cannot afford to have so many idiots like you being able to vote.

'Ask the democrats, who did everything in their power to effectively cancel the 2016 election and distract the sitting President such that the people who really run the government - non-Senate appointed department chairs and mid-level career bureaucrats - could keep on keeping on absent the directives of a President they personally loathed and weren't about to take orders from." - Dope.

Dope is engaging in his usual dishonesty.

The Democrats didn't storm the Capital and try and overturn the 2016 election. They didn't try and submit a false slate of electors implying they won the 2016 election. You saying that they did everything in their power to effectively cancel the 2016 election is flat out wrong. So wrong that only a dishonest person would say it.

You try and conflate political opposition with illegal behavior. Sure, after 2016 the Democrats opposed Trump. They did everything in their legal power to oppose him. However that is no different than in 2008 when Republicans did everything in their legal power to oppose Obama. Or in 2000 when Democrats did everything in their power to oppose Bush.

You are dishonestly trying to conflate political opposition to illegal behavior (all while ignoring your own political opposition).

Sop being an asshole and do better.

"In this thread you folks are trying to create a scenario where only Trump supporters are guilty of Election Interference and Denialism and tie it back to "misinformation" or some such. What you're ignoring are the years 2017-2020, where we saw what a real attempt to overthrow a government looked like."

Again, to believe what you believe requires either delusion or dishonesty. Stop being an asshole. Do better.

"Not some riot, not some protest gone bad. This was an active conspiracy theory on the part of a failed Presidential Candidate, Congressional democrats and Deep State holdovers upset at the changing of the guard. Every one of these people violated their oaths of office and took the country down a dark path fueled by lies and misinformation. Kind of ironic that democrats today are accusing Republicans of only consuming...misinformation."

Nobody does unintentional irony like a nutter. There is only one president with a well documented history of using the apparatus of the state to attack their political opponents. You might want to ignore the mountains of evidence showing this, but that doesn't change the fact. It just makes you willfully to ignore the obvious.

Again, stop being an asshole and do better.

"And I'll still note that no one's contesting the fact that a Trump win == left wing riots."

One of the reasons you constantly get laughed at is your ability to willingly look like a fool and ignore the obvious and to project your own failures on to your opponents. There is only one CULT that has rioted over the transition of power. The one you belong to.

Again, stop being an asshole and do better.

Now I know that if you read this you would whine about insults and such (all while ignoring your own insulting behavior), but we have gotten beyond the point of insults mattering. It is far past the point where people treat you politely while you constantly insult them by lying to their face and dishonestly ignore the obvious. Time to call it like it is.

Grow up, stop being an asshole and do better. Stop destroying this country with your ignorance and dishonesty.

"That's why your assertions that the right wing won't riot if the election is fair are simply untrue. It won't matter whether the election is or is not fair. The right wing will believe that it's not fair, because the current Republican upper level (Trump and his allies) has been falsely telling them that the actual counting of ballots is rigged. Which is both false and unique to this specific instantiation of the GOP."

There is literally no way any sane, rational, and stable person can believe what Dope asserted. In just the most recent presidential election the right wing rioted over a clearly fair election. The fact that Dope refuses to acknowledge this reflects more upon him than anything else.

The fact that you continuously try and rationalize with someone so delusional reflects poorly upon you (Albaby). No matter how many fact you throw in front of him, he will ignore them. No matter how patiently you explain reality, he will ignore the explanations. Why are you trying to teach pigs to sing?

Why are you trying to teach pigs to sing?

Because I want to understand what conservative/right wing people believe, and why they believe it.

I have no illusions about being able to change someone's mind on the internet. It almost never happens. I'm not engaging in these discussions because I imagine that I will write something on a message board that will cause someone who fervently believes in something to change their mind about it.

I do it because it helps me get a better understanding of what someone who has that mindset believes, and how they respond to the counterarguments.

I do it because it helps me get a better understanding of what someone who has that mindset believes, and how they respond to the counterarguments.

I applaud your ability and stamina. No one does it better than you, marshalling both facts and logical reasoning.

Based on this, then, what understanding and insight have you discerned from all of the back and forth with the Dope (that you otherwise did not know beforehand)?

Pete

This is your brai

And yet…you fell for all that stuff.

The fact that you continuously try and rationalize with someone so delusional reflects poorly upon you (Albaby). No matter how many fact you throw in front of him, he will ignore them. No matter how patiently you explain reality, he will ignore the explanations. Why are you trying to teach pigs to sing?

Wrong. It reflects very favorably on albaby. His rebuttals may not make much impact on a cult member, but they are illuminating and I hope he does not despair of trying to educate the benighted.

Based on this, then, what understanding and insight have you discerned from all of the back and forth with the Dope (that you otherwise did not know beforehand)?

Insight into the rationalizations that the right wing will use to assert that the 2024 election was stolen, if Trump loses. Dope enumerated several contingent events which he believes would justify a conclusion that the election wasn't fair. Since it's a dead certainty that at least some of those things will happen somewhere (our election is sprawling and involves tens of thousands of people in sometimes ramshackle conditions, so the law of law numbers means that something will go wrong a little bit somewhere), it helps to know that that's one of the things the right wing will be focusing on.

It's also helpful to know that despite the fact that this is essentially just saying that if Trump loses it means the election wasn't fair, that this is the rationalization structure that the right wing is building for itself. Not just that they'll point to the inevitable hiccups in the election process as signs of deliberate perfidy, but also that they genuinely won't acknowledge to themselves the difference between being upset at a true thing that the left wing acknowledged as true (Donald Trump won the 2016 election) and being upset at a false thing that the right wing refuses to see is false (Donald Trump won the 2020 election).

It's also helpful to know that despite the fact that this is essentially just saying that if Trump loses it means the election wasn't fair, that this is the rationalization structure that the right wing is building for itself. Not just that they'll point to the inevitable hiccups in the election process as signs of deliberate perfidy, but also that they genuinely won't acknowledge to themselves the difference between being upset at a true thing that the left wing acknowledged as true (Donald Trump won the 2016 election) and being upset at a false thing that the right wing refuses to see is false (Donald Trump won the 2020 election).

While I’m flattered that you think I speak for millions of people, the reality is that we’re discussing a hypothetical.

-Illegally sourcing bogus intelligence reports from foreign agents

What are you talking about here Dope? Since this is a lie, and I'm not using your bad sources, I have little to go by. Could you be talking about the Steele Dossier? That wasn't a foreign intelligence report, it was political opposition research ordered by Hillary's party. And it was never asserted to be anything more than that.

SNIP The Steele dossier, also known as the Trump–Russia dossier,[1] is a controversial political opposition research report compiled by Christopher Steele. It was published without permission in 2017 as an unfinished 35-page compilation of "unverified, and potentially unverifiable"[a] memos that were considered by Steele "to be raw intelligence — not established facts, but a starting point for further investigation".[3][4][5]

The dossier was written from June to December 2016 and contains allegations of misconduct, conspiracy, and cooperation between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the government of Russia prior to and during the 2016 election campaign.[6] Several key dossier allegations made in June 2016 about the Russian government's efforts to get Trump elected, were later described as "prescient"[7] because they were corroborated six months later in the January 2017 report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence[8][9] and the Mueller Report, namely that Vladimir Putin favored Trump over Hillary Clinton;[8][10] that he personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's campaign and to "undermine public faith in the US democratic process"; that he ordered cyberattacks on both parties;[8] and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had numerous secretive contacts with Russian officials and agents.[11][12] SNIP

So how is that illegal sourcing ( hint: It isn't) and how does opposition research become intelligence reports? Nothing to do with our intelligence agencies.

Or is it that you are thinking the classified documents found at Mar a Lago are opposition research by foreign governments?

"I have no illusions about being able to change someone's mind on the internet"

You actually have changed my mind on certain things. Your ability to remain
dispassionate about topics that both the right and the left run hot on is important.

I do not let anybody make my opinion for me, but I do appreciate reading your thoughts
on all of what I honestly consider looney-tunes arguments that posters on my ignore list make.
Hopefully those posters are reading and considering what you write. I feel the same about
the arguments that you raise that I don't like. It is important that even though I despise Trump, I need to hear rational opinions on why his supporters might actually support him, as incredulous as it may seem to me. I do not care to read any of the absolute proven-it's-BS arguments that
his supporters throw out there, do not think it's healthy mentally to read that crap over and over and over again, for me anyways.

The fact that you continuously try and rationalize with someone so delusional reflects poorly upon you (Albaby).

No, it does not. Rational discussion with the irrational (such as the recent exchanges between Dope and albaby) are not meant to convince or convert the irrational. That's a job for the mental health profession. They are engaged in to highlight to other readers the sharp contrast between the rational and irrational. As a side benefit, they could also help sharpen the debate skills of the rational, testing their abilities to continue to form rational arguments in the face of relentless but irrational opposition. Such skills might be useful to someone in the legal profession, where actual adjudication of the arguments happens.

I don't think this reflects poorly at all on albaby. Rather, I find it impressive at how calm he remains throughout. And I almost always learn something from his well-reasoned arguments.

--Peter

What are you talking about here Dope? Since this is a lie, a

You don't follow the news, do you? Tell me you don't know anything about current events without tell me you don't know anything about current events.

And are you citing Wiki here? LOLOLOLOLOLOOL.

You don't follow the news, do you?

Specify and link or it didn't happen.

Because I want to understand what conservative/right wing people believe, and why they believe it.

In the case of the current discussion, the "why" is simple: they have been fed lies about voting security by their extremely biased sources. So it's not just differing positions, which is fine, but it is also being fed false information. Though it might be interesting if we could dig-out why they are so entrenched in demonstrably false beliefs (e.g. the entire discussion about false and/or unsecure ballots, which you just explained they aren't, but your opponent persists).

It's appears to be almost a religious belief: held without reason and against all reason and evidence.

Because I want to understand what conservative/right wing people believe, and why they believe it.

They clearly don’t believe in democracy, in fact they’re frightened by it. Their goal is to have fewer people vote, not more. They don’t believe in democratic institutions like voting, unless they win. They believe their minority party is entitled to win every election and to enforce their draconian rules on the majority of Americans. They believe the ends justify the means to ensure they retain power.

Don’t listen to what they say. Watch what they do.

In the case of the current discussion, the "why" is simple: they have been fed lies about voting security by their extremely biased sources. So it's not just differing positions, which is fine, but it is also being fed false information. Though it might be interesting if we could dig-out why they are so entrenched in demonstrably false beliefs (e.g. the entire discussion about false and/or unsecure ballots, which you just explained they aren't, but your opponent persists).

Interesting. Which of my "beliefs" is false and entrenched?
Bear in mind the entire thread is a hypothetical.

They clearly don’t believe in democracy, in fact they’re frightened by it.

I don't believe that.

I believe that the followers of Trump started off being a bit frustrated that they see their ideas being implemented less and less in the national stage. They felt like their voices aren't being heard. And while I think that is wrong - their voices ARE heard and they are just a minority of the voices on a national basis - it can certainly FEEL like their voices aren't heard.

That frustration met up with a serial liar in Trump, who was willing to play off their frustrations and tell them some lies to fashion himself as the "champion of the little guy". The problem came when Trump started committing crimes (or perhaps continued committing them, just on a larger stage). As a well-known, but still small time real estate developer, he was able to use his inherited fortune to get away with most of his crimes. Once he became President, those crimes become fair game for his political opponents and started getting closer scrutiny - scrutiny that a President cannot avoid. But by the time those opponents could properly develop their cases, Trump had quite literally become a cult icon. He told so many lies, and got those lies to be echoed around both a corner of the traditional media as well as on social media, that those lies became Truth to his followers. We all know the story from there.

The big problem with the lies is that they basically painted a story that their base frustrations came not from being a minority, but because democracy itself was broken. He fabricated lies about voting processes to cast doubt on the basics of democracy and secure his place as a leader. To cement his power, he convinced his followers that their problems were due to faults in the democratic process. That also lets them rationalize their embrace of autocracy - they became the majority in their own eyes, and the autocrats are doing nothing more than fixing the errors that democracy was making. After all, if you are a majority, you should be winning elections and seeing your policies enacted on a national level.

So deep down, I think that the rank and file conservatives/right wing/Republican/MAGA folks really DO believe in democracy. They've just accepted two basic lies that sound good to anyone in a minority - that you're not really a minority and that we (as in the leaders tickling their ears) can fix this injustice by dispensing with a few democratic process that are "broken".

--Peter

I believe that the followers of Trump started off being a bit frustrated that they see their ideas being implemented less and less in the national stage.
****

The Democrats in Congress, Dems in the Senate, and KAMALA HARRIS trying to get what THEY admit is most of Trump wanted in an immigration /border bill is hardly from the podium of Hillary Clinton or Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama. It's TRUMPY.


Going from "Medicare for all" and "we're gonna get rid of all that" when talking private insurance companies.....to hello Aetna and united - is TRUMPY


Going from "ban fracking" to "pro fracking" and bragging about record oil drilling is Trumpy, and George W Bushy too.


Much less hyphenated-American talk from the candidate's acceptance speech from Harris, versus tons of hyphenated Americanism in Hillary's nomination speech - just words - or lack of - but Trumpy.

So - the Left has had to once again hide itself - and in some cased be Trumpy.


OH - big defense spending, aggressive posture on Russia. Ok, fine - not Trumpy. But here's to Reagan and the Left falling in line.

Democracy is actually working.....

So deep down, I think that the rank and file conservatives/right wing/Republican/MAGA folks really DO believe in democracy.

I hope you're right but their seems to be a lot of 'yearning for fascism' on the political right.

And if they have the slightest regard for democracy they should be able to see what a threat Trump is.

Don’t listen to what they say. Watch what they do.

True.

But I recall someone moderately prominent (forget who) saying that any votes for Democrats are illegitimate by definition. A quick google couldn't identify the source. It wasn't the convict, I don't think, but someone like a governor or senator from a state back east. Pretty sure I read that less than a year ago. So there is that attitude in the Republican/MAGA mix.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.