Insurrection fallout

[DevoHusker]

25 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Most of the things on that list are utter nonsense if used to try to show voter fraud. Which items on the list do you think are actually legitimate reasons to doubt the results?

I said I don't think they show evidence of any actual fraudulent singular event. 

 

But critical thinking would look at the entirety of his points and have doubt. Did you look at it from the mirror image...if it happened in reverse, and say that you would not doubt the outcome?

 

My point is that not everyone has been brainwashed that has doubts about the outcome. 

[Ulty]

15 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

But critical thinking would look at the entirety of his points and have doubt.

No, not at all, that would not be critical thinking. "Critical thinking" is defined as objective analysis and evaluation in order to form a judgment. There is nothing objective about your list that then leads to a logical, reasonable conclusion that there was voter fraud. Reaching some conclusion requires evidence and logical inference derived from said evidence.

 

Now, if someone looked at these circumstances and said, "Wow, why would so many people vote for a candidate like that?" (whether it is about Biden or Trump), that would be a reasonable question, but that question itself does not infer voter fraud.

[TGHusker]

As the video below notes, Trump said everything but 'bring Pence's head back to me on a platter".

 

The words he used regarding Pence along should be enough to convict him.  The real cowards are the

GOP senators not standing up for Pence. 

 

 

[DevoHusker]

43 minutes ago, Ulty said:

 

Now, if someone looked at these circumstances and said, "Wow, why would so many people vote for a candidate like that?" (whether it is about Biden or Trump), that would be a reasonable question, but that question itself does not infer voter fraud.

 

I agree with you here.

So, if you ask a reasonable question like that, without inference of voter fraud, how is the question viably put to rest? (and you are right, it could be asked both ways)

[Enhance]

47 minutes ago, Ulty said:

Now, if someone looked at these circumstances and said, "Wow, why would so many people vote for a candidate like that?" (whether it is about Biden or Trump), that would be a reasonable question, but that question itself does not infer voter fraud.

Good post. To the bolded point, I asked the same question about Trump in 2016 and again this year, based on the sheer volume of votes he received both times.

[Ulty]

23 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

So, if you ask a reasonable question like that, without inference of voter fraud, how is the question viably put to rest?

Well, you debate it ad nauseum on a message board, hopefully with a few thinly veiled insults and some snarky gifs and emojis, of course.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

I said I don't think they show evidence of any actual fraudulent singular event. 

 

But critical thinking would look at the entirety of his points and have doubt. Did you look at it from the mirror image...if it happened in reverse, and say that you would not doubt the outcome?

 

My point is that not everyone has been brainwashed that has doubts about the outcome. 

 

 

I don't agree. People with critical thinking skills can see that they are almost all stupid and not indicators, even on the whole, of anything untoward. And no I wouldn't doubt the outcome. I'm not an idiot. Most of the things on the list are so stupid so as to not be worth replying to, but to reply to one, rally size is not an indicator of how many people in the nation are going to vote for the person, and it was in the middle of the pandemic. Biden was a) being safe and/or b) trying to show he was being safe, as a political move to contrast Trump. In addition to that, more people who would vote for Biden would be people who would social distance and not want to attend a big rally during a pandemic. I'm not really understand why you, who seem to be pretty smart, think a list of easily refutable points somehow on the whole looks like it could be a good argument to a smart person that voter fraud happened.

 

Trump pounded it into people's heads over and over and unfortunately they fell for it. It's arguable that anyone who would believe it based on that list of points is brainwashed.

[Enhance]

10 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

So, if you ask a reasonable question like that, without inference of voter fraud, how is the question viably put to rest? (and you are right, it could be asked both ways)

I don't know if the question can be put to rest viably unless there's a willingness to accept or understand the answer.

 

In a way, it's kind of like football. Fans love to blame officiating and biased refs for why their team lost, yet they do so while often conveniently ignoring mistakes their team made throughout the game, mistakes that were in their control and could've helped win them the game.

 

It's a rough analogy, but I think the same thought process applies to people who doubt the validity of the election outcome. The "refs" i.e. the voting process were evaluated and found to be overwhelmingly fair under the scrutiny of law, but Trump supporters don't want to hear it... no matter what evidence is provided. They're being emotional, much like fans.

[DevoHusker]

11 minutes ago, Ulty said:

Well, you debate it ad nauseum on a message board, hopefully with a few thinly veiled insults and some snarky gifs and emojis, of course.

Haha...then we are all well versed in the process!

[Moiraine]

2 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I don't know if the question can be put to rest viably unless there's a willingness to accept or understand the answer.

 

In a way, it's kind of like football. Fans love to blame officiating and biased refs for why their team lost, yet they do so while often conveniently ignoring mistakes their team made throughout the game, mistakes that were in their control and could've helped win them the game.

 

It's a rough analogy, but I think the same thought process applies to people who doubt the validity of the election outcome. The "refs" i.e. the voting process were evaluated and found to be overwhelmingly fair under the scrutiny of law, but Trump supporters don't want to hear it... no matter what evidence is provided. They're being emotional, much like fans.

 

 

This is the #1 problem with political parties. People start to care about their team winning or losing regardless of whether they would agree with what their team is doing if they could step back for a second and think about it.

[knapplc]

10 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

I agree with you here.

So, if you ask a reasonable question like that, without inference of voter fraud, how is the question viably put to rest? (and you are right, it could be asked both ways)

 

 

Basic critical thinking. 

 

>Candidate is 47 year career politician that has done little or nothing other than be Obama's VP and a "nice guy". 

 

This is an untrue glossing over of Biden's career. It ignores his work on arms treaties and all his sponsored legislation. A simple google search dispels this.

 

>Candidate called racist and out of touch by other candidates during debates and is panned by Dem public. 

 

These were right-wing talking points, but polls indicate Biden was never harmed by the false allegations of racism, nor did the "Dem public" pan him. 

 

>Candidate is not Dem's public first choice, and is about to drop out of the race until S Carolina. Is "ordained" by the DNC. 

 

Biden was widely considered to be the Dem candidate. So much so that Russia's oppo nearly entirely focused on him, even when he trailed in early primaries.

 

>Picked running mate that is so unpopular she had to drop out before receiving a single vote during primaries. 

 

Not winning a primary isn't an indication of popularity. Her reception since being named Biden's Veep shows that she's a well-respected politician. If she was so unpopular she'd have dragged down Biden's ticket, but he led trump from convention to election.

 

>Candidate appears to have some sort of mental decline issues, and is "quarantined" the majority of the year and hear nothing from him.

 

Biden quarantined because of the pandemic. That trump did not is indicative of how poorly he responded to the pandemic. 

 

>Coverage of candidate campaign events show virtually no attendance and little to no interest.

 

Polls indicated Biden led trump the entire time. trump's rallies were comparatively poorly attended after the reality of the pandemic started hitting his followers.

 

Candidate then waffles on issues when questioned. 

 

This would be a red flag if a person had never watched a single election play out. Anyone who's spent much time watching the American electoral process wouldn't be surprised by this at all.

 

>Covid issues and BLM protests raise strife all year to pit left against right

 

I suppose that's one way of looking at the events of 2020. 

 

>Debate over use of and popularity of mail in ballots for first time in POTUS election.

 

The only reason there was a debate was one candidate tried to make it an issue once he realized his opponent's voters were going to utilize them. It was always a bogus issue - mail-in-ballots have been used forever, especially by the candidate who made the big stink about them. 

 

>On first night of coverage, it is reported that Trump is doing better than 2016.

 

Elections aren't decided on Election Night. trump getting more votes than 2016 is irrelevant since his opponent received the most votes in the history of American presidential elections. 

 

>Long delays with "ballot dumps" in critical States only.

 

This was a right-wing fabrication. If someone believes this happened, they're consuming the wrong news. 

 

>Trump receives 10 million MORE votes than 2016 even with large number of R's defecting and not voting for Trump. 

 

Yes. I'm not sure why this would be a reason to question the legitimacy of the election, especially from someone who paid attention to trump's antics the past four years. This would seem to be a pretty logical outcome of those antics. 

 

>Week/10 day trends show virtually all late ballots for D candidate.

 

I presume "late ballots" refers to mail-in ballots which were counted after Election Day. Again, not a surprise to anyone who paid attention to where those ballots were coming from and the fact that we were in the midst of a pandemic which made in-person voting unpopular. 

 

>Candidate receives more votes than any POTUS in history.  

 

The motivation to vote against the worst candidate in history was pretty strong. Again, the past four years should mean this isn't a surprise at all.

 

>Critical States carry the EC. 

 

Critical states carry the Electoral college every election. 

 

>R's start to circulate claims of voter fraud and indiscretions. 

 

A good reason not to listen to Republicans. 

 

>Trump claims he won.

 

A good reason not to listen to trump. 

 

 

[DevoHusker]

4 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I don't know if the question can be put to rest viably unless there's a willingness to accept or understand the answer.

 

In a way, it's kind of like football. Fans love to blame officiating and biased refs for why their team lost, yet they do so while often conveniently ignoring mistakes their team made throughout the game, mistakes that were in their control and could've helped win them the game.

 

It's a rough analogy, but I think the same thought process applies to people who doubt the validity of the election outcome. The "refs" i.e. the voting process were evaluated and found to be overwhelmingly fair under the scrutiny of law, but Trump supporters don't want to hear it... no matter what evidence is provided. They're being emotional, much like fans.

 

good analogy 

[DevoHusker]

4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

Basic critical thinking. 

 

>Candidate is 47 year career politician that has done little or nothing other than be Obama's VP and a "nice guy". 

 

This is an untrue glossing over of Biden's career. It ignores his work on arms treaties and all his sponsored legislation. A simple google search dispels this.

 

>Candidate called racist and out of touch by other candidates during debates and is panned by Dem public. 

 

These were right-wing talking points, but polls indicate Biden was never harmed by the false allegations of racism, nor did the "Dem public" pan him. 

 

>Candidate is not Dem's public first choice, and is about to drop out of the race until S Carolina. Is "ordained" by the DNC. 

 

Biden was widely considered to be the Dem candidate. So much so that Russia's oppo nearly entirely focused on him, even when he trailed in early primaries.

 

>Picked running mate that is so unpopular she had to drop out before receiving a single vote during primaries. 

 

Not winning a primary isn't an indication of popularity. Her reception since being named Biden's Veep shows that she's a well-respected politician. If she was so unpopular she'd have dragged down Biden's ticket, but he led trump from convention to election.

 

>Candidate appears to have some sort of mental decline issues, and is "quarantined" the majority of the year and hear nothing from him.

 

Biden quarantined because of the pandemic. That trump did not is indicative of how poorly he responded to the pandemic. 

 

>Coverage of candidate campaign events show virtually no attendance and little to no interest.

 

Polls indicated Biden led trump the entire time. trump's rallies were comparatively poorly attended after the reality of the pandemic started hitting his followers.

 

Candidate then waffles on issues when questioned. 

 

This would be a red flag if a person had never watched a single election play out. Anyone who's spent much time watching the American electoral process wouldn't be surprised by this at all.

 

>Covid issues and BLM protests raise strife all year to pit left against right

 

I suppose that's one way of looking at the events of 2020. 

 

>Debate over use of and popularity of mail in ballots for first time in POTUS election.

 

The only reason there was a debate was one candidate tried to make it an issue once he realized his opponent's voters were going to utilize them. It was always a bogus issue - mail-in-ballots have been used forever, especially by the candidate who made the big stink about them. 

 

>On first night of coverage, it is reported that Trump is doing better than 2016.

 

Elections aren't decided on Election Night. trump getting more votes than 2016 is irrelevant since his opponent received the most votes in the history of American presidential elections. 

 

>Long delays with "ballot dumps" in critical States only.

 

This was a right-wing fabrication. If someone believes this happened, they're consuming the wrong news. 

 

>Trump receives 10 million MORE votes than 2016 even with large number of R's defecting and not voting for Trump. 

 

Yes. I'm not sure why this would be a reason to question the legitimacy of the election, especially from someone who paid attention to trump's antics the past four years. This would seem to be a pretty logical outcome of those antics. 

 

>Week/10 day trends show virtually all late ballots for D candidate.

 

I presume "late ballots" refers to mail-in ballots which were counted after Election Day. Again, not a surprise to anyone who paid attention to where those ballots were coming from and the fact that we were in the midst of a pandemic which made in-person voting unpopular. 

 

>Candidate receives more votes than any POTUS in history.  

 

The motivation to vote against the worst candidate in history was pretty strong. Again, the past four years should mean this isn't a surprise at all.

 

>Critical States carry the EC. 

 

Critical states carry the Electoral college every election. 

 

>R's start to circulate claims of voter fraud and indiscretions. 

 

A good reason not to listen to Republicans. 

 

>Trump claims he won.

 

A good reason not to listen to trump. 

 

 

 

Thanks! I will cut and paste and email him.

 

I especially agree with, and have used the same argument with him "The motivation to vote against the worst candidate in history was pretty strong. Again, the past four years should mean this isn't a surprise at all." 

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Thanks! I will cut and paste and email him.

 

I especially agree with, and have used the same argument with him "The motivation to vote against the worst candidate in history was pretty strong. Again, the past four years should mean this isn't a surprise at all." 

 

Even if a person is a dyed-in-the-wool trump supporter, they have to recognize that he galvanized a lot of resistance against himself in his term. 

 

Your friend is right in that not a lot of people were motivated to vote for Biden. I suspect many, if not most, were motivated to vote against trump. I know I fall in that category. I don't have anything really against Biden, but he was never a guy I thought should be president. 

 

I think @BlitzFirst and @Frott Scost and @RedDenver and @JJ Husker and @BigRedBuster would agree that we all have disparate political beliefs - but I think all of us voted against trump. 

[deedsker]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

Even if a person is a dyed-in-the-wool trump supporter, they have to recognize that he galvanized a lot of resistance against himself in his term. 

 

Your friend is right in that not a lot of people were motivated to vote for Biden. I suspect many, if not most, were motivated to vote against trump. I know I fall in that category. I don't have anything really against Biden, but he was never a guy I thought should be president. 

 

I think @BlitzFirst and @Frott Scost and @RedDenver and @JJ Husker and @BigRedBuster would agree that we all have disparate political beliefs - but I think all of us voted against trump. 

Lump me in there too. I really don't like Biden, but you know what, in a two party system he wins not being Trump.