Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Houseman]

Well, of course, he already did use that option, but:

DOJ finds no evidence of voter fraud that would change 2020 election outcome

Rudy Giuliani dismisses attorney general’s statement, claiming there ‘hasn’t been any semblance of an investigation’

www.independent.co.uk

He didn't actually. Look carefully at your sources, and you'll see that nowhere does it state that
A) Trump ordered an investigation
B) They actively investigated.

What Barr said was that they were following up on specific complaints, but that those complaints didn't turn up anything. That's not an investigation. That's reactionary.

So no, I don't think he has used that option, and I don't think he has the power to do that either. I imagine the states would rightly complain if federal authorities swarmed their departments, ransacked their offices, and started detaining people. My gut feeling is that there's a "states rights" legal issue with doing that.

 

[Avnger]

He didn't actually. Look carefully at your sources, and you'll see that nowhere does it state that
A) Trump ordered an investigation
B) They actively investigated.

What Barr said was that they were following up on specific complaints, but that those complaints didn't turn up anything. That's not an investigation. That's reactionary.

So no, I don't think he has used that option, and I don't think he has the power to do that either. I imagine the states would rightly complain if federal authorities swarmed their departments, ransacked their offices, and started detaining people. My gut feeling is that there's a "states rights" legal issue with doing that.

"What Barr said was that they were following up on specific complaints, but that those complaints didn't turn up anything."

That is literally the definition of investigation. The DoJ investigated complaints as is its remit.

What you're actually in favor of is called a "fishing expedition." That's where you start an investigation with a pre-determined outcome (fraud existing) and continue it until you get enough evidence (or in this case "evidence") to back it up.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

The days the day when voting in Georgia ends. and we will know who controls the Senate

How much longer until this farce is concluded?

The ride never ends

 

[Silvanus]

I imagine the states would rightly complain if federal authorities swarmed their departments, ransacked their offices, and started detaining people. My gut feeling is that there's a "states rights" legal issue with doing that.

Yet you saw no issue with the federal government deploying the US military to every polling station, when election rules are under state jurisdiction?

 

[ObsidianJones]

I'm counting Brawlman's Post on November 7th as the first time we counted that Trump lost. That was page 61.

Between some aspects of this forum's population, we're now at the 244 page of this thread. These elements are using their trolling powers to stay relevant and trying to change the narrative, like they always do. Speaking of impartiality but never presenting anything but one side of things. Which is the definition of not impartial. Believing one side to tell the truth more and going out of their way to let everyone know that is the very definition if not impartial. It's the height of dishonesty and yet we engage it, giving it legitimacy.

Why? We have pleads every new page to stop it. You give them power by humoring them. They have nothing but feelings, and they do EVERYTHING to rile yours up. We've all seen IT. Instead of Fear, our Pennywise feeds on your responses. Why do it?

 

[tippy2k2]

I'm counting Brawlman's Post on November 7th as the first time we counted that Trump lost. That was page 61.

Between some aspects of this forum's population, we're now at the 244 page of this thread. These elements are using their trolling powers to stay relevant and trying to change the narrative, like they always do. Speaking of impartiality but never presenting anything but one side of things. Which is the definition of not impartial. Believing one side to tell the truth more and going out of their way to let everyone know that is the very definition if not impartial. It's the height of dishonesty and yet we engage it, giving it legitimacy.

Why? We have pleads every new page to stop it. You give them power by humoring them. They have nothing but feelings, and they do EVERYTHING to rile yours up. We've all seen IT. Instead of Fear, our Pennywise feeds on your responses. Why do it?

We've got cotton candy and rides, all sorts of surprises down here! And 11,000 votes! All colors! They float Obsidian. They float...

and when you're down here with Trump...

YOU'LL FLOAT TOO!!!!

 

[Houseman]

"What Barr said was that they were following up on specific complaints, but that those complaints didn't turn up anything."

That is literally the definition of investigation. The DoJ investigated complaints as is its remit.

I would think that "an investigation" would involve going out and finding evidence, rather than waiting for it to come to you. Like raiding a location. Tracking down suspects. Staking out locations. Interviewing people. Stuff like you see in shows and movies. Just sitting around waiting for phone calls isn't an investigation.

Yet you saw no issue with the federal government deploying the US military to every polling station, when election rules are under state jurisdiction?

As a ideal hypothetical scenario, no, there's no problem with that.
When discussing the realities of actual powers that people currently have, the rules are no longer hypothetical and malleable.


---

Navarro Report pt 2

https://navarroreport.com/#b7231c7c-dfe7-4f2e-aa3e-637bf9610b2a

 

[Kwak]

...

Why? We have pleads every new page to stop it. You give them power by humoring them. They have nothing but feelings, and they do EVERYTHING to rile yours up. We've all seen IT. Instead of Fear, our Pennywise feeds on your responses. Why do it?

I'm honestly interested in each new weak claim they attempt, and Houseman's jacked into the rightwing conspiracy pipeline so it's a convenient way to keep up with the farce of those who choose to live in an alternate reality.

 

[Houseman]

Speaking of which, 'pedes are gathering in DC for the 6th.

Also, Democrats, including Bernie Sanders, talking about voting fraud, counting every vote, etc for two minutes. Basically, hypocrites.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Speaking of which, 'pedes are gathering in DC for the 6th.

Also, Democrats, including Bernie Sanders, talking about voting fraud, counting every vote, etc for two minutes. Basically, hypocrites.

Are they called Pedes because they're all pedophiles?

 

[Houseman]

Are they called Pedes because they're all pedophiles?

it's short for centipedes.

 

[Avnger]

it's short for centipedes.

HowtoKnowYourePartofaCult.jpeg

 

[Trunkage]

I'm counting Brawlman's Post on November 7th as the first time we counted that Trump lost. That was page 61.

Between some aspects of this forum's population, we're now at the 244 page of this thread. These elements are using their trolling powers to stay relevant and trying to change the narrative, like they always do. Speaking of impartiality but never presenting anything but one side of things. Which is the definition of not impartial. Believing one side to tell the truth more and going out of their way to let everyone know that is the very definition if not impartial. It's the height of dishonesty and yet we engage it, giving it legitimacy.

Why? We have pleads every new page to stop it. You give them power by humoring them. They have nothing but feelings, and they do EVERYTHING to rile yours up. We've all seen IT. Instead of Fear, our Pennywise feeds on your responses. Why do it?

I'm just going to point out that this sort of stuff happened in 2016. It does NOT get better just because you ignore it. In fact, it gets way worse. Ignoring trolls gives them power

 

[Hades]

So I'm wondering about something.

Lets say that in 2024 Ivanka Trump becomes the first female president after defeating Biden in the election.

Would it then suddenly be acceptable if Biden just insists he won and claim that there was massive fraud in Ivanka's favor? Would it be okay if he wanted to stop counting the votes when he was in the lead? Should we all give credibility when Biden and co double down on conspiracy theories and hearsay when no court agrees there was any fraud? Would begging Kamala not to count the electoral votes suddenly not be completely pathetic?

I have a feeling that the very same people who so strongly support Trump in all this would immediately react in disgust if Biden were to pull the same stunts. Yet that's the very thing they are risking. If Trump is allowed to go try steal the election then future president will feel entitled to go try steal the election when they lost too. Maybe one of them will even succeed.

 

[Houseman]

Would it then suddenly be acceptable if Biden just insists he won and claim that there was massive fraud in Ivanka's favor? Would it be okay if he wanted to stop counting the votes when he was in the lead? Should we all give credibility when Biden and co double down on conspiracy theories and hearsay when no court agrees there was any fraud? Would begging Kamala not to count the electoral votes suddenly not be completely pathetic?

Sure, if they have as much or more evidence than we do now.

If Trump is allowed to go try steal the election then future president will feel entitled to go try steal the election when they lost too.

More like, if Republicans are convinced that the election was stolen, then they're going to use the same tricks to steal the election next time.

It's in everyone's best interest if everyone were convinced that this was a fair election. Otherwise, it's bad for everybody.

 

[Hades]

More like, if Republicans are convinced that the election was stolen, then they're going to use the same tricks to steal the election next time.

Yeah that's kind of my expectation. That Republicans will pretend they actually believe Biden cheated to try and legitimize their own cheating.

t's in everyone's best interest if everyone were convinced that this was a fair election. Otherwise, it's bad for everybody.

In other words its in everyone's best interest that Trump just keeps his mouth shut and stops the charade. The fact he even started the charade shows how unworthy of the office he really was.

 

[tstorm823]

Why? We have pleads every new page to stop it. You give them power by humoring them. They have nothing but feelings, and they do EVERYTHING to rile yours up. We've all seen IT. Instead of Fear, our Pennywise feeds on your responses. Why do it?

Because they're all just as bad. Half the board makes Houseman arguments, you just might not notice when the general sentiments of someone's argument are agreeable to you. It takes two to tango, and there is a small brigade of people here waiting excitedly for a Houseman to tango with them.

 

[ObsidianJones]

I'm just going to point out that this sort of stuff happened in 2016. It does NOT get better just because you ignore it. In fact, it gets way worse. Ignoring trolls gives them power

I discuss things with Gorfias. He and I don't see eye to eye politically at all. But there is discourse and there is trying to meet halfway.

There's a reason why Houseman is on ignore for me. I don't think it will get better if you ignore it. I do think people are actively trying to make it worse.

I judge my engagement with an individual by how much they are being honest with a situation. I see no honesty here. I do not see malleable minds here that will fall for this rhetoric. In fact, in 183 pages from the declaration of Biden's victory, I've seen almost everyone dig into their stance. With only Gorfias's admittal of Biden's victory be the only difference.

Please believe, I would never willful ignore someone who wants to be heard because they have actual grievance. Can you look at this display and say that these last 183 pages were actual grievances, or trolling?

The fact is, Houseman isn't convincing anyone here and he knows it. Are we going to follow him everywhere he goes to make sure he doesn't do this anywhere else?

Don't ignore your family members, your co-workers, your friends, or your neighbors. Never do that. Engage them. Don't speak down to them. Bring facts and ask why must they believe things counter. I encourage that and I've said that many times.

But we shouldn't ignore someone who's admitted to doing all this for fun?

 

[Houseman]

In other words its in everyone's best interest that Trump just keeps his mouth shut and stops the charade. The fact he even started the charade shows how unworthy of the office he really was.

Or it could also be that it's not a charade. It could be people acting on genuinely held beliefs. Why not give all of these people the benefit of the doubt? Why just assume that everything they say is wrong right off the bat? They have evidence and are willing to show it to you. I've been posting it.


Also Obsidian put me on ignore because he read a sign that said "teach 'don't rape', not 'don't get raped'!" to mean "teach women not to get raped!" and couldn't explain to me how he got to that conclusion, so don't fall for it.

 

[Hades]

Or it could also be that it's not a charade. It could be people acting on genuinely held beliefs. Why not give all of these people the benefit of the doubt?

Well they all kinda lost the benefit of the doubt. Trump is an obvious conman who is willing to do or say anything in order to keep himself in power. He has a reputation of untrustworthiness that predates his political career by decades, and his term as president was just a continuation of that reputation. And Trump's base has developed a reputation of just uncritically following and excusing everything the great leader says no matter how horrid.