President Joe Biden

Grace T. said:
But that's the nature of a warning. If we continue to go down this road (by the actions of BOTH political parties), there's going to be bad things happen. We have to be very clear about what the consequences are if we stumble into it, and ignoring that reality isn't doing anyone any favors....it only makes an accidental trigger even more likely because no one is ready for it (just like no one was ready for what happened at the Capitol because they didn't think it could happen). I'm just approaching this like an adult, and treating you as one, by saying "look this is what's at stake here" instead of a child and saying "let's shield you from the harsh realities of the world".

I wish you would be honest with yourself that there are certain things you don't like to look at. This isn't the first time you've done this.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between a warning and encouragement.

You don’t need to hint at agreement with the fanatics if you’re providing a warning. Espola caught one of them when he asked you about the Penn comment.

It’s not necessary. If you’re providing a centrist warning against extremism, you can do it without hinting at lunatic theories of a stolen election.
 
Grace T. said:
No I just don't want to go down another rabbit hole with you. It's not worth it.

Let's review the original point. HR1 is divisive and will destroy what remains of Republican faith in elections (which dad extrapolated to more violence).

The only thing you need to understand that is to watch the tucker carlson interpretation (because the rest is irrelevant unless you can advance an alternate interpretation of how the Rs will react to it), It's here.

If you paid more attention to the road, you'd go into fewer roller coasters

Click to expand...

To your credit, your opinion is less coocoo than Tucker's.
 
dad4 said:
There is a difference between a warning and encouragement.

You don’t need to hint at agreement with the fanatics if you’re providing a warning. Espola caught one of them when he asked you about the Penn comment.

It’s not necessary. If you’re providing a centrist warning against extremism, you can do it without hinting at lunatic theories of a stolen election.
Click to expand...

I've made the Penn point before. There's a difference between free and fair. There's a distinction between the election was stolen: we know there was fraud but it's never been proven there was fraud in sufficient numbers to overturn the election. But that doesn't mean the Rs regard it as "fair". There was plenty in Pennsylvania for the Rs to not consider fair including the lack of signature verification, the various changes in the rules and how they went about, and the mass unsolicited balloting. There's more for the Rs to complain about Pennsylvania beyond that it was stolen, and that's just you not looking critically at the arguments raised by Hawley and Cruz about Pennsylvania and just dismissing them. Solidifying this system (which the Rs found so objectionable and is almost the direct opposite of the reform the Rs want for ballot security) just blows up the election system.

You don't like the history analogy so here's a soccer one. Everything in the game seems according to the rule. There's suspicion some of the players (who are awfully tall) may not have been legit, we know a couple of them were brought down from the A team, but the way that ref was calling it was in no way fair. Do it one game, o.k. everyone still wants to play...sometimes the call is not going to go your way. Do it repeatedly, fewer people will want to play. Memorialize it so that the ref calls it every time like you want it called, they are just going to walk away and form their own splinter league.

Soccer analogies are permissible right? Not too violent for you?
 
Grace T. said:
I've made the Penn point before. There's a difference between free and fair. There's a distinction between the election was stolen: we know there was fraud but it's never been proven there was fraud in sufficient numbers to overturn the election. But that doesn't mean the Rs regard it as "fair". There was plenty in Pennsylvania for the Rs to not consider fair including the lack of signature verification, the various changes in the rules and how they went about, and the mass unsolicited balloting. There's more for the Rs to complain about Pennsylvania beyond that it was stolen, and that's just you not looking critically at the arguments raised by Hawley and Cruz about Pennsylvania and just dismissing them. Solidifying this system (which the Rs found so objectionable and is almost the direct opposite of the reform the Rs want for ballot security) just blows up the election system.

You don't like the history analogy so here's a soccer one. Everything in the game seems according to the rule. There's suspicion some of the players (who are awfully tall) may not have been legit, we know a couple of them were brought down from the A team, but the way that ref was calling it was in no way fair. Do it one game, o.k. everyone still wants to play...sometimes the call is not going to go your way. Do it repeatedly, fewer people will want to play. Memorialize it so that the ref calls it every time like you want it called, they are just going to walk away and form their own splinter league.

Soccer analogies are permissible right? Not too violent for you?
Click to expand...

p.s. I think in the ideal both sides need to sit down and do a bipartisan committee on election reform and security. I don't see though any chance of agreement. The Rs want voter verification (prove who you are), limited mail in ballots for only certain circumstances (to preclude avoiding the verification issue), states drawing up the districts, are opposed to ballot harvesting, and generally no automatic enrollment. The Ds want to furnish a ballot to anyone who might possibly be a voter, limited voter identification (if any), wide mail in ballot options, federalizing election oversight, are generally o.k. or neutral to ballot harvesting and support automatic enrollment. The positions are just too disparate so I don't think such a commission could ever get results. That leaves 3 options on the table: the status quo (fighting elections out state by state), a peaceful divorce due to irreconcilable differences, the entire Republic falls apart. There's nothing more fundamental to the existence of the Republic than how elections are conducted, and it requires a buy in from both sides to work, or the entire thing just collapses.
 
Grace T. said:
I've made the Penn point before. There's a difference between free and fair. There's a distinction between the election was stolen: we know there was fraud but it's never been proven there was fraud in sufficient numbers to overturn the election. But that doesn't mean the Rs regard it as "fair". There was plenty in Pennsylvania for the Rs to not consider fair including the lack of signature verification, the various changes in the rules and how they went about, and the mass unsolicited balloting. There's more for the Rs to complain about Pennsylvania beyond that it was stolen, and that's just you not looking critically at the arguments raised by Hawley and Cruz about Pennsylvania and just dismissing them. Solidifying this system (which the Rs found so objectionable and is almost the direct opposite of the reform the Rs want for ballot security) just blows up the election system.

You don't like the history analogy so here's a soccer one. Everything in the game seems according to the rule. There's suspicion some of the players (who are awfully tall) may not have been legit, we know a couple of them were brought down from the A team, but the way that ref was calling it was in no way fair. Do it one game, o.k. everyone still wants to play...sometimes the call is not going to go your way. Do it repeatedly, fewer people will want to play. Memorialize it so that the ref calls it every time like you want it called, they are just going to walk away and form their own splinter league.

Soccer analogies are permissible right? Not too violent for you?
Click to expand...

What fraud do we know of in Pennsylvania?
 
espola said:
What fraud do we know of in Pennsylvania?
Click to expand...
We've had this discussion before. You can't seriously be arguing there was no fraud in Pennsylvania at all, not a single instance. Even the Ds in Congress have admitted no election is perfect. Again, you are missing forest through the trees. It could very well be de minimis for all we know.

www.shorenewsnetwork.com

Trump Campaign Shows Proof: Dead People Voted in Pennsylvania Election

PHILADELPHIA, PA - Despite the mainstream media's attempt to coverup voter fraud and tech giants Facebook and Twitter squelching the truth on their platform, the political campaign of President Donald J. Trump has delivered proof that dead people voted in Pennsylvania's election. Trump's...
www.shorenewsnetwork.com
 
Grace T. said:
We've had this discussion before. You can't seriously be arguing there was no fraud in Pennsylvania at all, not a single instance. Even the Ds in Congress have admitted no election is perfect. Again, you are missing forest through the trees. It could very well be de minimis for all we know.
Click to expand...

Inadvertent mistakes are not fraud.

All I am aware of is a bunch of whiny losers with no proof of anything.
 
espola said:
It appears you have nothing concrete.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by concrete? You want a conviction? A charge? There actually is one....it was a Trump voter who double voted for his dead mom.

But once again, you've run your cute little car off the road and have gone down another rabbit hole. Don't care if it was the 1 Trump voter or more....there's no proof there was fraud in levels sufficient to overturn the election. That might make it legal, but it doesn't make it "fair".
 
Grace T. said:
What do you mean by concrete? You want a conviction? A charge? There actually is one....it was a Trump voter who double voted for his dead mom.

But once again, you've run your cute little car off the road and have gone down another rabbit hole. Don't care if it was the 1 Trump voter or more....there's no proof there was fraud in levels sufficient to overturn the election. That might make it legal, but it doesn't make it "fair".
Click to expand...

It's telling (in a poker sense of "telling") when you signal the emptiness of your arguments with your Magoo taunts.
 
espola said:
It's telling (in a poker sense of "telling") when you signal the emptiness of your arguments with your Magoo taunts.
Click to expand...

Naw,, it just means you've gone deeper down the rabbit hole and are more lost. If you watch the cartoon series, even he was capable of moments of brilliance...the sad thing is he was just getting continuous lost and was incapable of admitting it to himself because he was too stubborn. It really is the perfect analogy for you. Someone else made it first, so can't take full credit for it.
 
Grace T. said:
Naw,, it just means you've gone deeper down the rabbit hole and are more lost. If you watch the cartoon series, even he was capable of moments of brilliance...the sad thing is he was just getting continuous lost and was incapable of admitting it to himself because he was too stubborn. It really is the perfect analogy for you. Someone else made it first, so can't take full credit for it.
Click to expand...

q.e.d.
 
Grace T. said:
We've had this discussion before. You can't seriously be arguing there was no fraud in Pennsylvania at all, not a single instance. Even the Ds in Congress have admitted no election is perfect. Again, you are missing forest through the trees. It could very well be de minimis for all we know.

www.shorenewsnetwork.com

Trump Campaign Shows Proof: Dead People Voted in Pennsylvania Election

PHILADELPHIA, PA - Despite the mainstream media's attempt to coverup voter fraud and tech giants Facebook and Twitter squelching the truth on their platform, the political campaign of President Donald J. Trump has delivered proof that dead people voted in Pennsylvania's election. Trump's...
www.shorenewsnetwork.com
Click to expand...
You want to be taken seriously when you quote Shore News Network?

They can’t even write a headline. What self respecting newspaper uses the word “proof” in a headline about politics? In a high school journalism class, they would mark it all up in red and hand it back to you.

Go back to a decent conservative rag. WSJ maybe. Someone with a style sheet and standards for what they do and do not claim in the newsroom.

Yes, trash news brings out my condescension in full force.
 
Grace T. said:
Not trying to inflame here. I disagree with the bill, but it's the bill itself which is doing the inflaming. It will shatter any R confidence in the election system. If we don't have confidence in the election system, where does it go from there? Sounds to me like you are making a prediction as well and connecting that logical loop.

My message is simple: if HR1 were to pass it would destroy whatever confidence the Rs have left in the election system.
Click to expand...
It will.

Because what is being proposed is a gutting of any semblance of verification of voters.

It makes cheating easy.

Take ballot harvesting. Having people go around and collect and help people fill out ballots makes it too easy to compromise those ballets. If there is money and power involved...there will always be a big incentive to cheat.

When one says...well that wont affect a national election. Just think back to FL in 2000. The state was won with less than 600 votes.

Now think about local elections where the margins for many races is even less.

Vote by mail? After the 2k election there was a commission put together of high ranking Ds and Rs. They concluded mail in voting is generally a bad idea because it is so easy to manipulate.

Ask yourself this. Why would there be a push to NOT identify people by ID when they vote? Why would we NOT want to know if a person voting is the actual registered voter.

And so on.

All the changes that were done for the recent election and what are being proposed loosen actual oversight on what is going on.
 
Not sure why the link says Are you a robot.

Their story however is about the fact that Biden took in HUGE sums of dark money. The kind of money Ds pretend to be worried about.

www.bloomberg.com

‘Dark Money’ Helped Pave Joe Biden’s Path to the White House

President Joe Biden benefited from a record-breaking amount of donations from anonymous donors to outside groups backing him, meaning the public will never have a full accounting of who helped him win the White House.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top