Michigan Primary

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-28-2024, 07:15 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'd say voters took issue with Hillary by throwing her aside and digging up Obama's VP.  I'm not sure what else you expect a political party and/or their voters to do other than move on.  Moving on is the most you can do in this case, I'd say.

What is the operational definition of "condemnation" in regards to a political sore loser?  I'm just saying that Hillary and lost and whined and the party moved on from her and Trump lost and whined and the party rallied around him, so in my mind one party condemned their loser candidate and the other didn't.

I'm speaking in regard to the people here.  I don't have much ability to address this behavior on the scale your talking about.

Quote:So tell me what I need to do to condemn Hillary and Hakeem Jefferies and Trump and I'll do it right now.

[*pally*]

There is also another notable difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. She never claimed there is any actual fraud in the voting process. Trump claims, without any actual credible evidence, the entire voting process is rampant with every type of fraud imaginable but only for Democrats and only against him. Keep in mind the Republicans who won (or lost) down the ballot weren't affected by any of the fraudulent actions....only he was.

Her contention was there were shenanigans in the campaign process...things like lies perpetuated through social media driven by Russian bots

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-28-2024, 07:44 PM)pally Wrote: There is also another notable difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.  She never claimed there is any actual fraud in the voting process.

Yes she did.  You don't even know what she actually said.

Quote:Trump claims, without any actual credible evidence, the entire voting process is rampant with every type of fraud imaginable but only for Democrats and only against him.  Keep in mind the Republicans who won (or lost) down the ballot weren't affected by any of the fraudulent actions....only he was.

We know what Trump claims.  You apparently don't know what Clinton and Jeffries claim.

Quote:Her contention was there were shenanigans in the campaign process...things like lies perpetuated through social media driven by Russian bots

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

“No, it doesn’t kill me because he knows he’s an illegitimate president,” she said. “I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did.”


Are you asserting that voter suppression and voter purging are not forms of voter fraud?  The knots you drones will tie yourselves into to avoid confronting your hypocrisy is endlessly fascinating.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-28-2024, 08:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Are you asserting that voter suppression and voter purging are not forms of voter fraud?  The knots you drones will tie yourselves into to avoid confronting your hypocrisy is endlessly fascinating.

I would say so. In my vocabulary. Fraud has an entirely different meaning than suppression and purging.

https://apnews.com/article/d094918c0421b872eac7dc4b16e613c7

“A bipartisan Senate report released Tuesday affirms the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusions that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election in a far-ranging influence campaign approved by Russian President Vladimir Putin and aimed at helping Donald Trump win the White House.

The report rejects Trump’s claims that the intelligence community was biased against him when it concluded that Russia had interfered on his behalf in the election. It says instead that intelligence officials had specific information that Russia preferred Trump in the election, that it sought to denigrate Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton and that Putin had “approved and directed aspects” of the Kremlin’s influence campaign.”

[*pally*]

purging and suppression is not fraudulent. It is unethical as it is oppression of the vote but it is not illegal.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-28-2024, 10:55 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I would say so. In my vocabulary. Fraud has an entirely different meaning than suppression and purging.

https://apnews.com/article/d094918c0421b872eac7dc4b16e613c7

“A bipartisan Senate report released Tuesday affirms the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusions that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election in a far-ranging influence campaign approved by Russian President Vladimir Putin and aimed at helping Donald Trump win the White House.

The report rejects Trump’s claims that the intelligence community was biased against him when it concluded that Russia had interfered on his behalf in the election. It says instead that intelligence officials had specific information that Russia preferred Trump in the election, that it sought to denigrate Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton and that Putin had “approved and directed aspects” of the Kremlin’s influence campaign.”

Are all attempts at voter suppression or purging of voter rolls fraud?  No.  Are some attempts to suppress votes or purge voting rolls fraud?  Yes.

Is suggesting that a POTUS is "illegitimate" the same as denying the election results?  Yes.  You're parsing hairs in order to not admit the obvious, and it's obvious.

(02-28-2024, 11:54 PM)pally Wrote: purging and suppression is not fraudulent.  It is unethical as it is oppression of the vote but it is not illegal.

This dude really should have had you on his defense team.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/twitter-influencer-sentenced-trick-clinton-supporters-voting-text/story?id=104096660

[*pally*]

(02-29-2024, 12:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Are all attempts at voter suppression or purging of voter rolls fraud?  No.  Are some attempts to suppress votes or purge voting rolls fraud?  Yes.

Is suggesting that a POTUS is "illegitimate" the same as denying the election results?  Yes.  You're parsing hairs in order to not admit the obvious, and it's obvious.


This dude really should have had you on his defense team.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/twitter-influencer-sentenced-trick-clinton-supporters-voting-text/story?id=104096660

Excuse me, but I thought you were referring to Republican legislators using suppressive laws to prevent perceived Democrats from voting which is absolutely unethical and yes in some cases in violation of the Constitution but that usually gets adjudicated before voting takes place

Actually committing fraud in an attempt to suppress the vote is always illegal.  I would still say that isolated attempts such as this influencer is a far cry from claiming millions of illegal votes from every state in the country 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-29-2024, 01:18 PM)pally Wrote: Excuse me, but I thought you were referring to Republican legislators using suppressive laws to prevent perceived Democrats from voting which is absolutely unethical and yes in some cases in violation of the Constitution but that usually gets adjudicated before voting takes place

Actually committing fraud in an attempt to suppress the vote is always illegal.  I would still say that isolated attempts such as this influencer is a far cry from claiming millions of illegal votes from every state in the country 

Again, you're only arguing a matter of degree.  I believe any attempt to cast the results of an election as fraudulent, especially when done by a high profile politician, is equally damaging.  Trump is wrong, Clinton is wrong and Jefferies is wrong.  There are others that could be included, but we're discussing these three.  You are attempting to mitigate the actions of Clinton and Jefferies for some odd reason I just can't put my finger on.  All three are incredibly damaging and yet you feel the need to defend these two.

[StoneTheCrow]

(02-29-2024, 01:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, you're only arguing a matter of degree.  I believe any attempt to cast the results of an election as fraudulent, especially when done by a high profile politician, is equally damaging.  Trump is wrong, Clinton is wrong and Jefferies is wrong.  There are others that could be included, but we're discussing these three.  You are attempting to mitigate the actions of Clinton and Jefferies for some odd reason I just can't put my finger on.  All three are incredibly damaging and yet you feel the need to defend these two.

Others, you say?

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-29-2024, 01:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, you're only arguing a matter of degree.  I believe any attempt to cast the results of an election as fraudulent, especially when done by a high profile politician, is equally damaging.  Trump is wrong, Clinton is wrong and Jefferies is wrong.  There are others that could be included, but we're discussing these three.  You are attempting to mitigate the actions of Clinton and Jefferies for some odd reason I just can't put my finger on.  All three are incredibly damaging and yet you feel the need to defend these two.

What actions did Jeffries and Clinton take to try and reverse election results?

[*Nately120*]

(02-29-2024, 11:16 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What actions did Jeffries and Clinton take to try and reverse election results?

I don't know about you, but when they certified the 2016 election I was dressed head to toe in Hillary merch and beating police offers with an I'M WITH HER flag.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-29-2024, 11:37 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't know about you, but when they certified the 2016 election I was dressed head to toe in Hillary merch and beating police offers with an I'M WITH HER flag.

Well yea. When she stood on stage and told us the election was stolen. And that we have to fight like hell, we have to take our country back. Or else we won’t have a country anymore. I knew exactly what she meant we needed to do. Well at least I thought that meant smearing poop on the capitol walls.?

[*Nately120*]

(02-29-2024, 11:57 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Well yea. When she stood on stage and told us the election was stolen. And that we have to fight like hell, we have to take our country back. Or else we won’t have a country anymore. I knew exactly what she meant we needed to do. Well at least I thought that meant smearing poop on the capitol walls.?

I mean I was there, but I'm pretty sure everyone else there was a Trump supporter and/or member of the KGB in Hillary merch rioting in order to make them look violent and frame them.  Luckily, Hillary promised to pardon all the KGM MAGAs who were arrested.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-29-2024, 11:16 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What actions did Jeffries and Clinton take to try and reverse election results?

I don't know how often this exact point needs to be reiterated for it to sink in.  You're arguing degree.  If you don't think it's damaging to our system of government for major political figures to label elections fraudulent and for the winners of said elections to be "illegitimate" than just say so.  If your bar for damaging faith in, and the integrity of, our system of government is set at direct (as yet unproven) action then label it as such and we know that you're comfortable with anything short of that line in the sand.  At the very least it would save us all a lot of time.  We can still go after Schumer for directly threatening the SCOTUS.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-01-2024, 03:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't know how often this exact point needs to be reiterated for it to sink in.  You're arguing degree.  If you don't think it's damaging to our system of government for major political figures to label elections fraudulent and for the winners of said elections to be "illegitimate" than just say so.  If your bar for damaging faith in, and the integrity of, our system of government is set at direct (as yet unproven) action then label it as such and we know that you're comfortable with anything short of that line in the sand.  At the very least it would save us all a lot of time.  We can still go after Schumer for directly threatening the SCOTUS.

What are you even talking about?

Of course degree matters.

I don’t know the law. Why are there different degrees of murder? Why is there grand theft and normal theft?

[GMDino]

(03-01-2024, 09:14 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What are you even talking about?

Of course degree matters.

I don’t know the law. Why are there different degrees of murder? Why is there grand theft and normal theft?

Clinton: "I believe that there was outside interference by people using disinformation to affect voters.  If asked I will continue to talk about how we need to protect our election integrity."


P01135809: "The machines were rigged. They brought in fake votes. I *really* got more votes. Let's meet at the Capital the day of certification and *encourage* congress and Mike Pence to do the right thing and reinstate me as POTUS. If that doesn't work I will file dozens of law suits to prove that *I* was cheated and that *I* really won.  And if that doesn't work and news companies lose their own lawsuits bigly for lying about the voting machines I will continue to say I won at my rallies because the people who love me believe it too."

Yeah, damn near the same thing.  Right? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2024, 09:14 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What are you even talking about?

It's rather clearly spelled out above.

Quote:Of course degree matters.

No one said it didn't.  But you and the other inconsistent people have a line in the sand that before you cross it, nothing they said matters.  Interestingly enough, that line is right at where prominent Dems wnet on this issue.

Quote:I don’t know the law. Why are there different degrees of murder? Why is there grand theft and normal theft?

Indeed.  Are they all crimes?

(03-01-2024, 10:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: Clinton: "I believe that there was outside interference by people using disinformation to affect voters.  If asked I will continue to talk about how we need to protect our election integrity."

Oh, silly GM.  Paraphrasing her statement in as innocuous a way as possible isn't going to fool anyone with half a brain.  She called him illegitimate, on many occasions on many shows.  She questioned the integrity of our elections.  She wasn't the only Dem to do so, not even close.  Left leaning people who aren't blinded by utter partisanship as you are realize this as well.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trumps-denial-second-big-lie-ask-hillary-clinton-rcna55764

Trump’s mendacity is arguably the Second Big Lie. Four years earlier, the Hillary Clinton campaign and leading Democrats refused to acknowledge the outcome of the 2016 election, by claiming Donald Trump was not a legitimate president. These actions, while certainly not as dramatic or as immediately damaging as the events leading to Jan. 6 (and today), helped bring us to our current situation.

Hmm, seems to me they realize it's just a matter of degree.  It may not be as bad, but it's still bad, and it's still the same thing.

Quote:P01135809: "The machines were rigged. They brought in fake votes. I *really* got more votes. Let's meet at the Capital the day of certification and *encourage* congress and Mike Pence to do the right thing and reinstate me as POTUS. If that doesn't work I will file dozens of law suits to prove that *I* was cheated and that *I* really won.  And if that doesn't work and news companies lose their own lawsuits bigly for lying about the voting machines I will continue to say I won at my rallies because the people who love me believe it too."

Yeah, damn near the same thing.  Right? 

Yes, it's exactly the same thing, just to a higher degree.  It's sincerely fascinating, because all of your labeling of MAGA adherents as cult members and rigid dogmatics perfectly reflects your own adherence to the Democratic party.  You're as blindly partisan as any red hat wearer, yet you feel superior to them and view them as ignorant Kool-Aid drinkers.  It's a really interesting microcosm of the modern left as a whole.