President Joe Biden

espola said:
Show me.
Click to expand...

This discussion, to make sense and not have you get lost again (you came awful close to running into that roller coaster). When the pandemic is over I'm happy to meet with you and give you one. My fee for first year is $150K. We will begin with the hairy hand. I'm sure dad will be very jealous because I'll get to hand out a grade to you.
 
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...

Here's an example of the Rs getting hoisted on their own petards with norm smashing. Norm smashing is not good. It undermines the pillars supporting the Republic.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1353911738744393728
 
Grace T. said:
This discussion, to make sense and not have you get lost again (you came awful close to running into that roller coaster). When the pandemic is over I'm happy to meet with you and give you one. My fee for first year is $150K. We will begin with the hairy hand. I'm sure dad will be very jealous because I'll get to hand out a grade to you.
Click to expand...

Bullshit evasion.
 
espola said:
Bullshit evasion.
Click to expand...

I gave you the summary. You're the one that wants the freebie (or more likely get me to waste my time since nothing I can ever say will ever convince you).

That's the fundamental distinction, BTW, of my distinction between dad and you. I at least respect him. You, not so much...which is a shame because you aren't a dumb dumb and occasionally have something interesting and of relevance to say.
 
Grace T. said:
I gave you the summary. You're the one that wants the freebie (or more likely get me to waste my time since nothing I can ever say will ever convince you).

That's the fundamental distinction, BTW, of my distinction between dad and you. I at least respect him. You, not so much...which is a shame because you aren't a dumb dumb and occasionally have something interesting and of relevance to say.
Click to expand...

You gave an opinion. When I pointed out that your opinion is not supported by the words in the Bill, you got evasive.

Here is my opinion -- after I pointed out your error, you took the time to read the relevant sections of the Bill (and not just some wingnut fantasy about the Bill) and realized your error. From that point on, you became evasive.
 
espola said:
You gave an opinion. When I pointed out that your opinion is not supported by the words in the Bill, you got evasive.

Here is my opinion -- after I pointed out your error, you took the time to read the relevant sections of the Bill (and not just some wingnut fantasy about the Bill) and realized your error. From that point on, you became evasive.
Click to expand...

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

 
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,
www.shorenewsnetwork.com 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".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top