The Big Lie: Continuing Fallout

[*Nately120*]

(06-25-2021, 03:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Eh, Hillary was toast after that regardless.  She was deeply unpopular (almost as much as Kamal Harris    ), so much so that she lost to possibly to most inexperienced candidate in US history.  Plus the Clinton's come with a ton of baggage at this point.

This all seens to apply to the current focus of the GOP, though.  I just can't imagine 3.5 more years of crying fraud is going to endear more people to Trump if 6 of 10 Republicans are on board with it now. 

Who knows who democrats run in 2024, though.  Lord knows they thought Nixon was buried after the 1960 election. 

[Au165]

(06-25-2021, 03:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, the answer to this is simple.  I'd like to see consistency in the opinions of others, not just outrage when someone I don't like does "X".  Did we ever hear anything about Clinton or Abrams "damaging our democracy" by claiming election fraud?  What person of prominence has called those two out for the exact same types of statement about the integrity of our election process?  You want your opinion or position to hold weight, keep it consistent.  I'd counter your argument by pointing out that this level of hypocrisy only serves to deepen the divide in this country, which is something we'd both like to avoid, yes?

I get your whataboutisim position but like most things it feels disingenuous. Did the election interference the Russians carried out in 2016 damage democracy? The answer is yes because it shook the confidence of the country. She was actually right, we will never know how much it helped Trump but it occurred. There was actually something that occurred then, there is nothing that occurred now, so comparing them as the same thing is nonsensical. Did Abrams or Clinton attempt 60 court cases where they lost each one in regards to their defeat and then STILL claim there was fraud? No, of course they didn't because these situations are nothing alike but you know that.

Hiding behind "both sides do it" is a disingenuous tactic to try to claim neutrality but disregards scale. Life isn't black or white, but when we see people like you play "both sides" you tend to throw away scale and just say A is same as B when no one really believes that it's just a way to try and appear rational and fair. 

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-25-2021, 02:45 PM)Dill Wrote: Clinton also offered copious criticism of President Trump, saying she warned the country about her former rival, and “it was even worse than I thought it was.”

“I really did feel sometimes like the tree falling in the forest. I believed he was a puppet of Putin. I believed that there was relevant, important information in his tax returns. I believed he did not have the temperament to be president, he was unfit—not a partisan comment, but an assessment of him,” the former secretary of state said.

Man, how many puppets does Putin have?

Didn't she accuse Tulsi Gabbard of being a "Russian asset" in the primaries?

This Putin guy is pulling on the strings.  He's got puppets all over the place.  Who was his Libertarian puppet?

[*Nately120*]

(06-25-2021, 03:12 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I will applaud them for that too.  Maybe the Republicans take take a page out of their book and go right into the impeachment stage of sore losing. 

Meh Republicans wanted a rule breaking ass as president but then want to play the "you're just arresting me because I'm a Republican" card as soon as he starts getting called out for it.  Can't have your cake and eat it too, I guess. 

If Hunter biden were the current president I'd expect a weekly impeachment, but Joe is reheated mashed potatoes by comparison.  

[*Nately120*]

(06-25-2021, 03:16 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Man, how many puppets does Putin have?

Didn't she accuse Tulsi Gabbard of being a "Russian asset" in the primaries?

This Putin guy is pulling on the strings.  He's got puppets all over the place.  Who was his Libertarian puppet?

The libertarians sat 2020 out.  No need to even interfere with that ticket, sadly. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-25-2021, 03:14 PM)Nately120 Wrote: This all seens to apply to the current focus of the GOP, though.  I just can't imagine 3.5 more years of crying fraud is going to endear more people to Trump if 6 of 10 Republicans are on board with it now. 

Who knows who democrats run in 2024, though.  Lord knows they thought Nixon was buried after the 1960 election. 

This point is why is don't think we'll see Trump in 2024.  Right now the smart money would be on DeSantis, but three years is an eternity in politics.  I'd still prefer Nikki Haley, but right now I don't see that happening.

(06-25-2021, 03:16 PM)Au165 Wrote: I get your whataboutisim position but like most things it feels disingenuous.

How so?  It's entirely accurate.

Quote:Did the election interference the Russians carried out in 2016 damage democracy? The answer is yes because it shook the confidence of the country. She was actually right, we will never know how much it helped Trump but it occurred. There was actually something that occurred then, there is nothing that occurred now, so comparing them as the same thing is nonsensical. Did Abrams or Clinton attempt 60 court cases where they lost each one in regards to their defeat and then STILL claim there was fraud? No, of course they didn't because these situations are nothing alike but you know that.

You're essentially conceding the point and arguing degree, which is something I already acknowledged.  You're essentially saying it's ok for Abrams and Clinton to damage our democracy to a lesser degree, but Trump took it too far.

Quote:Hiding behind "both sides do it" is a disingenuous tactic to try to claim neutrality but disregards scale.

This statement would only be accurate if I was defending Trump or minimizing his actions.

Quote:Life isn't black or white, but when we see people like you play "both sides" you tend to throw away scale and just say A is same as B when no one really believes that it's just a way to try and appear rational and fair. 

Again, this argument would hold more water if I hadn't already acknowledged the "scale".  They are the exact same actions, just on a different scale.  Either you believe questioning the integrity of our electoral process damages our democracy or it does not.  You want o argue scale, no problem, and I'd likely be close to your position in that regard.  I just find it interesting that you find an accurate comparison between the three to be "whataboutism" or an attempt to minimize Trump's actions.  To me, what you're doing is minimizing the actions of Clinton and Abrams.  Is that not damaging as well?

[Dill]

(06-25-2021, 03:02 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I've said this before but I find it both incredibly strange and completely disingenous when people pick and choose when to be outraged, concerned, or offended.  It sure would be nice if everyone took a consistent stance on things like this.  And until that happens, can we at least all agree that there is hypocracy abound?

What is the "outrage" about here? What is the discussion topic? 

Is the Department of Homeland Security being "hypocritical" in expressing concern over the most recent Trump conspiracy, but not a word on Hillary? Is it "picking and choosing" threats to national/election security?

This thread began on the premise not simply that Trump called "fraud" on the 2020 election, but that his base, and the politicians who want their approval, are using those claims to prepare disruption of the 2022 elections--despite their repeated debunking. And they are using the unsubstantiated/debunked claim of fraud to pass legislation designed to restrict voter access. All this after Trump's manifest attempts to pressure state officials to cheat on the count.

I pick and choose to be offended and outraged about THAT--the "Continuing Fallout" signaled in the thread title--but not about Hillary's continued claims something was not on the level about the 2016 election, which appears to have no effect on voters, was not accompanied by 60 lawsuits and jerry-rigged recounts, is not prepping Dems to challenge 2022 elections in swing states. 

As I said the last time you and I discussed this topic, merely claiming an election is fraudulent, questioning it, is not itself illegal or undemocratic. There can be such a thing as fraud, or appearance thereof, and people are right to object then. So far as I'm aware, no one here claims that questioning the legitimacy of an election is in itself wrong or a threat to democracy. Circumstances may sometimes require it. So "either questioning the integrity of our election process damages democracy or it does not" is a false either/or. 

The question is--when does that questioning goes beyond legitimacy, and itself become a fraudulent practice, intended to undermine legitimacy, poisoning the electoral process even before it can begin.

The Dem base is not convinced that 2016 election fraud can be demonstrated, or that the election itself was fraudulent--though most would grant a number of irregularities, most prominently Comey's re-opening of the email inquiry and Russian interference. For most Dems, the question is why, given the choice between competence and incompetence, incompetence won the electoral college. They know voter IDs and diminished polling hours won't fix that. 

To throw up a "Whattabout Hillary" here just deflects the actual topic under discussion with a false equivalence, as if we all assumed that any criticism of elections "damages" democracy while, hypocritically, only criticizing Trump for doing the "same thing" Hillary did. 

[Mer]

(06-25-2021, 02:09 PM)Au165 Wrote: You do realize Trump claimed there was fraud in the 2016 election right? Why was there fraud you ask? Well because he lost the popular vote and since that couldn't be true there must have been fraud. Trump set up a commission to find said fraud...and when they found none he disbanded them and moved on without saying anything. It was a sign four years ago he would make the same claims if he lost, which he did. At this point the DoJ, FBI, and many states and courts have looked at the claims of "fraud" and there has been no proof found. In reality even Trump's lawsuits never actually claimed fraud, even though his surrogates said in public they did, instead they tried to use technicalities because proving fraud in court is very hard and they could not do so. If he ACTUALLY believed there was fraud his lawsuits would have said such but they didn't and that is ALL that you need to know in terms of if the Trump campaign actually believed what they said outloud.

You are right, people are lying to themselves but it's the people who can't accept the dude who claims he was cheated every time he has lost at anything in life once again claimed he was cheated because he lost. The irony here is saying you want "fair" elections, while the Republican party is working at warp speed to try to keep as many people from voting as possible. There is nothing "fair" about restricting voter access,  the whole point of the tactic is to gain an advantage not to ensure that the democratic processes in place are available for every American to actually participate in.

Please tell me how the GOP is creating voter suppression? Because they want ID? You do realize it's normal to prove who you say you are when voting in an election.

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-25-2021, 05:09 PM)Dill Wrote: So far as I'm aware, no one here claims that questioning the legitimacy of an election is in itself wrong or a threat to democracy. Circumstances may sometimes require it. So "either questioning the integrity of our election process damages democracy or it does not" is a false either/or.

These are your own words from this thread (see post #10):


One side sees that Trump and the GOP continually generating fraudulent claims about a stolen election is a threat to the ability of every state to legitimize election results. I'd be lying to myself if I didn't recognize that, without that ability, fair and legal elections won't be regarded as such even when they are fair and legal.

[*Nately120*]

(06-25-2021, 05:31 PM)Mer Wrote: Please tell me how the GOP is creating voter suppression? Because they want ID? You do realize it's normal to prove who you say you are when voting in an election.

How is it normal if it isn't traditionally required?

[Dill]

(06-25-2021, 05:36 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Dill:  So far as I'm aware, no one here claims that questioning the legitimacy of an election is in itself wrong or a threat to democracy. Circumstances may sometimes require it. So "either questioning the integrity of our election process damages democracy or it does not" is a false either/or. 

These are your own words from this thread (see post #10):

One side sees that Trump and the GOP continually generating fraudulent claims about a stolen election is a threat to the ability of every state to legitimize election results. I'd be lying to myself if I didn't recognize that, without that ability, fair and legal elections won't be regarded as such even when they are fair and legal.

Yes, those are my own words, and they do not say that criticizing/questioning the integrity of an election is in itself wrong, illegal, a threat to democracy, or whatever. 

They say that Trump's "continually generating fraudulent claims about a stolen election" does threaten "the ability of every state to legitimize election results," and so is wrong, damaging to democracy, and likely illegal too. 

That's not a claim about ANY criticism of election integrity, but only the current GOP/Trump claims, which continue past debunking and refutation. So more of "my own words" are necessary to complete the point.

"The question is--when does that questioning go beyond legitimacy, and itself become a fraudulent practice, intended to undermine legitimacy, poisoning the electoral process even before it can begin."

So I hoped people would be discussing where the fraud claims go beyond legitimacy, as they have now to the point of becoming a national security concern, and not whether "Hillary did it too!" 

Imagine you are sitting around a table at the DHC attempting to assess Qanon and other Trump conspiracy threats, and there's a guy at the end of the table who keeps saying "Hillary claimed fraud too!" You explain that there is nothing illegal or threatening about just claiming fraud. You are tasked with discerning threats to security, and so far none are flowing from the Hillary camp. But the guy still won't stop: "Why are we focused on Trump when Stacy Abrams also called 'fraud' on a Georgia election. It's hypocrisy!"

For that guy, there is no big picture: only what Trump said and what Hillary and Stacy said.  And "hypocrisy."

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-25-2021, 05:09 PM)Dill Wrote: The Dem base is not convinced that 2016 election fraud can be demonstrated, or that the election itself was fraudulent--though most would grant a number of irregularities,

Are you speaking for as of right now?

I would argue a more proper and fair equivalent would be what they were, or weren't convinced of at the time of the election, and the months that followed.

There were many prominent democrats who were leading the charge for impeachment due to Russian collusion.  Hillary said that the election was stolen from her, and that Trump was an illigitimate President.  Nadler filed a resolution that started a whole chain of events that called into the question of election integrity. 

Maxine Waters said "get ready for impeachment" some 5 months after the election... https://twitter.com/RepMaxineWaters/status/844170858159636480

So if you say that the dem base isn't convinced fraud can be demonstated now then you might be correct.  But then?  That's going to be a tough sell.  Why would they go through all that they did if they didn't believe fraud could be proved or found?  Are we pretending all of those hearings didn't occur, all those statements weren't made, all of those news segments didn't happen, or that a ton of voters weren't up in arms about the election results?  Really????

There's no way to prove this, or to do this, but I would be willing to bet that the percentage of Republicans in 2021 who think the election was unfair or that fraud occured are almost identical to the Democrats that believed the same in 2017.  I remember just as many idiots back then going nuts as I'm seeing now.  The only difference is the party.  

[Mer]

(06-25-2021, 05:49 PM)Nately120 Wrote: How is it normal if it isn't traditionally required?

That would depend on the state you're in. It's down right negligent to the efficacy of our elections if some states don't require voter ID.

 But again, why is asking someone to prove who they are a bad thing? The only legitimate excuse would be because you're not who you say you are.

 For those that wanted to attach Trump to me earlier, that's a typical liberal response. I mentioned nothing of him in my first post so why try to pigeon hole me? 

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-25-2021, 05:09 PM)Dill Wrote: This thread began on the premise not simply that Trump called "fraud" on the 2020 election, but that his base, and the politicians who want their approval, are using those claims to prepare disruption of the 2022 elections--despite their repeated debunking. And they are using the unsubstantiated/debunked claim of fraud to pass legislation designed to restrict voter access.

Can you give me some examples, or define the bulltet points of this legislation that you feel is designed to restrict voter access?

You're not talking Voter ID and the free water bottles are you?  I'm assuming there must be something else you've seen proposed that is leading you to come to this conclusion.

I'll wait to comment further, just in case there is something I am missing.

[*Nately120*]

(06-25-2021, 06:03 PM)Mer Wrote: That would depend on the state you're in. It's down right negligent to the efficacy of our elections if some states don't require voter ID.

 But again, why is asking someone to prove who they are a bad thing? The only legitimate excuse would be because you're not who you say you are.

 For those that wanted to attach Trump to me earlier, that's a typical liberal response. I mentioned nothing of him in my first post so why try to pigeon hole me? 

There isn't much sense in worrying about voter ids now that the argument is that tens of millions of votes are being changed via computers by foreign agents.  This thread is about the acceptance of the big Trump/Lindell narrative that makes domestic voter fraud completely I significant. 

I show my ID when I vote but if that vote is being changed or no actual votes are counted, rather a plausible but fraudulent tally is given to achieve a desired outcome what does it matter?  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-25-2021, 05:53 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, those are my own words, and they do not say that criticizing/questioning the integrity of an election is in itself wrong, illegal, a threat to democracy, or whatever. 

They say that Trump's "continually generating fraudulent claims about a stolen election" does threaten "the ability of every state to legitimize election results," and so is wrong, damaging to democracy, and likely illegal too.

Typical Dill.  When people he likes do something he doesn't, he turns a blind eye. 

Quote:That's not a claim about ANY criticism of election integrity, but only the current GOP/Trump claims, which continue past debunking and refutation. So more of "my own words" are necessary to complete the point.

Of course, because the people questioning it are people you don't like.  Not that any of them were valid in the first place, mind you.

Quote:"The question is--when does that questioning go beyond legitimacy, and itself become a fraudulent practice, intended to undermine legitimacy, poisoning the electoral process even before it can begin."

Your answer is obviously when a Republican does it.  

Quote:So I hoped people would be discussing where the fraud claims go beyond legitimacy, as they have now to the point of becoming a national security concern, and not whether "Hillary did it too!" 

How about none of them are legitimate because none of them have tangible evidence to support them?

Quote:Imagine you are sitting around a table at the DHC attempting to assess Qanon and other Trump conspiracy threats, and there's a guy at the end of the table who keeps saying "Hillary claimed fraud too!" You explain that there is nothing illegal or threatening about just claiming fraud. You are tasked with discerning threats to security, and so far none are flowing from the Hillary camp. But the guy still won't stop: "Why are we focused on Trump when Stacy Abrams also called 'fraud' on a Georgia election. It's hypocrisy!"

Or, alternatively, we could discuss how all three claims damage our democracy to varying degrees instead of focusing on the one we don't like.  Actions and accusations don't take place in a vacuum.  When one politician claims fraud when they lose, ala Hillary and Abrams, and receive zero pushback, does it not embolden others to make the same claim?  After all, the previous "politicians who cried fraud" either received support or, at the very least, we're not at all condemned for their claims.  So why not do it yourself if you feel aggrieved?  And here is the mess that a utterly subservient press to the Democratic party has landed us in.  Look no further than Brian Stelter's obsequious interview with Psaki (how can we do better master?) to see firm evidence of this.  

Quote:For that guy, there is no big picture: only what Trump said and what Hillary and Stacy said.  And "hypocrisy."

Were you looking in a mirror when you typed this?  

[Mer]

(06-25-2021, 06:49 PM)Nately120 Wrote: There isn't much sense in worrying about voter ids now that the argument is that tens of millions of votes are being changed via computers by foreign agents.  This thread is about the acceptance of the big Trump/Lindell narrative that makes domestic voter fraud completely I significant. 

I show my ID when I vote but if that vote is being changed or no actual votes are counted, rather a plausible but fraudulent tally is given to achieve a desired outcome what does it matter?  

You have a valid point about software switching votes. It sounds like there needs to be a better way of doing things.

I just think the argument that asking someone to prove who they are is "voter suppression" is ridiculous.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(06-25-2021, 08:11 PM)Mer Wrote: You have a valid point about software switching votes. It sounds like there needs to be a better way of doing things.

I just think the argument that asking someone to prove who they are is "voter suppression" is ridiculous.

Because minorities don’t have the capacity to get any form of ID, and that’s not fair.

[*Nately120*]

(06-25-2021, 08:11 PM)Mer Wrote: You have a valid point about software switching votes. It sounds like there needs to be a better way of doing things.

I just think the argument that asking someone to prove who they are is "voter suppression" is ridiculous.

As soon as ID is required we are going to hear about how many democrats used fake IDs to vote. 

[Goalpost]

Latest poll from Monmouth, question 31, has a rather large majority...80 percent.

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_062121/