• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged 2024 Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
kookbreaker said:
No mention of 2008 or 2012 in there? I guess you GOPpers are so full or honesty and light that none of you would ever question those elections. You all just ever-so graciously conceded the election.

Yeah, right.
Click to expand...

Haven't heard too much about 2008 or 2012 election "truthers"; did any of them post in this thread? Because there was a significant 2016 election "truther" post that didn't get a lot of pushback right here.
 
kookbreaker said:
No mention of 2008 or 2012 in there? I guess you GOPpers are so full or honesty and light that none of you would ever question those elections. You all just ever-so graciously conceded the election.

Yeah, right.
Click to expand...

Haven't heard too much about 2008 or 2012 election "truthers"; did any of them post in this thread? Because there was a significant 2016 election "truther" post that didn't get a lot of pushback right here.
 
kookbreaker said:
Put some wheels on those goalposts. They'll move easier.

Meanwhile, remember when almost 1/2 of Republicans thought ACORN stole the 2012 election for Obama, despite not existing by that year?
Click to expand...

ACORN having been shut down after a politically motivated hit/con job, for that matter, rather than any actual fault or bad behavior of their own. When Republicans were deeply outraged about ACORN doing what they were legally required to do (because of Republicans, I think it was, though I could be wrong and it's not really directly relevant), it was sorta pathetic, really, much as that isn't meant to diminish the harm they did with that pathetic behavior. Just one of the many, many Republican assaults on election integrity that long fed more assaults.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
So? Remember, a good half of both parties are below average in intelligence. I am not. Obama won fair and square in 2008 and 2012, Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020. Now there are some people HERE who want to argue one of those; take it up with the silly dragon.
Click to expand...

So, what part of "fair and square" is the part where Trump demonstrably engaged in illegal actions as he sought to win? Ones that got people sent to jail, even?
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
So, what part of "fair and square" is the part where Trump demonstrably engaged in illegal actions as he sought to win? Ones that got people sent to jail, even?
Click to expand...

Oh, look, you found a couple articles in the Grauniad that confirmed your bias. :thumbsup:

ETA should have read the articles first; much hilarity:

There is no domestic precedent for nullifying a presidential election; there is also no previous election like this one in the nature and range of its corruptions and the unanswered questions about its anomalies.

It is unlikely that it will be overturned, but that is not an argument against the case that it should be.
Click to expand...

Of course a British columnist can call for overturning elections, as long as it's a Republican's election.

ETA2: Perhaps this whole derail belongs in CT. Mods? (Just kidding).
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Oh, look, you found a couple articles in the Grauniad that confirmed your bias. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Once again, thanks for showing that you've got nothing. There's no hint of an actual argument in support of your contention here, just vague insults to try to distract from how utterly indefensible your preferred narrative is in light of the notably more complicated and unpleasant truth of the matter.
 
angrysoba said:
“Questioning” 2020 is the least of it. The actual clear attempts to first cheat by attempting to strongarn the governor of Georgia, then rally his supporters to stop the vote being rubber-stamped in Congress by having them invade the Capitol Building. That is what people are rightly concerned about. Trump fans like to pretend that what Gore or Kerry or Clinton did were the same, but they were not remotely the same.
Click to expand...

I guess people can say that until they're blue in the face but other will still repeat the mantra "Supposedly questioning the election is treason!"

It's like an instant fringe reset without the wait.
 
Brainster said:
That he won. Republicans are expected to lose and when they win despite expectations it's illegitimate. Remember Hillary was supposed to be the most qualified candidate in history (by those who don't know history).

I do love all the people who will say that questioning 2020's election is treason, while questioning 2016, 2004 and 2000 is just fine and dandy. Questioning any of those (including 2020) is not treason; it's moronic. You're welcome.
Click to expand...

not a lot of storming of The Capital in 2000, 2004 or 2016
 
Aridas said:
To hazard a guess, the part where Trump actively worked to use illegal methods to win would count as a good start? For example, repeatedly ordering his campaign staff to get him illegally obtained Hillary's e-mails from Russia for use as a political weapon.
Click to expand...

You're blaming him for Hillary's cock-up?

In a campaign, any tactic is fair; the vote is what matters.

Aridas said:
Also of note in the illegal actions direction is the Stormy Daniels stuff that ended up with his intermediary in jail, but not Trump somehow.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't make his win illegitimate.

Aridas said:
There's a lot of reasons to question the legitimacy of Trump's win from a lot of real angles, in short, and a lot of somewhat shakier ones that nevertheless warranted real scrutiny - scrutiny that was blocked to a rather notable extent by the Republican Party. That very much includes Trump's delvings into the illegal, but isn't even remotely limited to such.

There really is reason for how easily Trump's Stolen Election narrative spread, honestly. It's not like it's even remotely a secret that Republicans have been actively working to rig and cheat for quite a long while now.
Click to expand...

Looks a lot like sour grapes than any genuine reason to nullify the election, and you're playing into the Gerrymander Myth.


Mike! said:
I'd guess the simple answer would be, despite winning the Electoral College (The only thing that matters here) he lost the popular vote by some 3,000,000 votes.
Click to expand...

Srsly?

That's pathetic. Your system has no regard for popular vote and the fact Trump lost it is irrelevant.

Brainster said:
That he won.
Click to expand...

That's how I read it.

The guy should never have been on the ballot, far less winning the presidency, but there's no doubt his win was fair and square. The Democrats managed to pick the only candidate who was vulnerable to trump, then watched her **** on the constituency and lose accordingly.

Still hurts, obviously.
 
Ted Cruz is 2016 explained how Ted, Nikki and Trump are all disqualified to run for president. If the parents are not both born here you are disqualified. Trump's mom was born in Scotland.
 
Brainster said:
That he won. Republicans are expected to lose and when they win despite expectations it's illegitimate. Remember Hillary was supposed to be the most qualified candidate in history (by those who don't know history).

I do love all the people who will say that questioning 2020's election is treason, while questioning 2016, 2004 and 2000 is just fine and dandy. Questioning any of those (including 2020) is not treason; it's moronic. You're welcome.
Click to expand...

It's not treason to question the 2020 election. It's stupid, not treason. Treason is attempting a coup and overturning the election. Voting for someone who committed treason is voting for treason. Supporting Trump and working to get a traitor back in the White House is treason.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
You're blaming him for Hillary's cock-up?
Click to expand...

No, of course not, much as Russia did pointedly target Hillary when Trump made that request publicly, by the look of it. The more fundamental issue here has much more to do with him actively working to break the rules in play, especially in ways that seriously undermine the country. Violating both the letter and spirit is not particularly defensible. Wins that depend upon cheating are normally not treated as legitimate, as a general matter.

The Atheist said:
In a campaign, any tactic is fair; the vote is what matters.
Click to expand...

Mmm. Going by that logic, voting at gunpoint makes for legitimate elections, then? Carefully selecting who can vote to ensure victory for your preferred candidate makes for legitimate elections?

There's various issues wrapped up in the topic of legitimacy. You seem to be trying to invoke a particularly simplistic version to try to hand wave away all the complexities and real problems in play, without concern for anything further.



Craig4 said:
It's not treason to question the 2020 election. It's stupid, not treason. Treason is attempting a coup and overturning the election. Voting for someone who committed treason is voting for treason. Supporting Trump and working to get a traitor back in the White House is treason.
Click to expand...

To be clear, questioning the 2020 election itself (just like for various other elections) should be not be counted as stupid. There really is understandable grounds for concern in the US' elections and the need for vigilance against problems and bad actors is something inherent in human society. The stupid part was the sheer inanity of the questioning and how the brazenly bad faith nature of it was just expected to be treated as if it was valid and reasonable. The treason part of it was when that bad faith inanity was being created and used to try to pull off an autocoup.
 
Last edited:
Craig4 said:
It's not treason to question the 2020 election. It's stupid, not treason. Treason is attempting a coup and overturning the election. Voting for someone who committed treason is voting for treason. Supporting Trump and working to get a traitor back in the White House is treason.
Click to expand...

Another person who has not read the Constitution to see the definition of treason. BTW, I do not support Trump and will not work or vote to get him back in the White House.
 
Brainster said:
Another person who has not read the Constitution to see the definition of treason. BTW, I do not support Trump and will not work or vote to get him back in the White House.
Click to expand...

The fact that the attack on January 6th was incompetent and unsuccessful does not lessen that fact that the perpetrators waged war against the United States.
 
Brainster said:
Another person who has not read the Constitution to see the definition of treason. BTW, I do not support Trump and will not work or vote to get him back in the White House.
Click to expand...

Ahh, that old crap. The US Constitution does NOT, in fact, supply the only valid definition of treason. It provides a definition for usage in a very specific context, certainly, but trying to invoke that usage as the only valid definition outside of that very specific context is fundamentally dishonest.

In normal usage, the term is more general. For example, "the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government."
 
Aridas said:
Ahh, that old crap. The US Constitution does NOT, in fact, supply the only valid definition of treason. It provides a definition for usage in a very specific context, certainly, but trying to invoke that usage as the only valid definition outside of that very specific context is fundamentally dishonest.
Click to expand...

Well, let's just throw the Constitution out the window, eh?

In normal usage, the term is more general. For example, "the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government."
Click to expand...

What you mean to say is that when people are just flapping their lips, treason has some other meaning than the legal one. Terrific.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom