Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Silvanus]

Oh so we've gone from "There is no fraud" to "There's not enough fraud found yet to be worth suggesting maybe Biden would do good to say he wants to make sure his win was fair and make sure Trump is in no doubt he lost?"

As has already been pointed out, nobody said there was literally zero fraud. No election on the planet has zero attempted fraud.

There is no evidence of widespread fraud.

Lack of evidence is one thing but realise those lawsuits can and will be refiled again and again if evidence is found and it's entirely possible it could well be found.

...but it hasn't. If evidence comes up, then we investigate it. Without evidence, its just a pathetic attempt to discredit the result because the narcissistic man-child cannot take the fact he lost.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

without resorting to Political exterminations

Your only response to "they tried passing the bad thing" is "and you should have let them"

I don't I'm pointing out the law you seem to want to push as making sure there can be no Sharia law has let through other religious influence already lol

And that's failure due to having a christIan supremest mindset, *and* it's one we're slowly weeding out.

This has what to do with the 1% of the US population that's Muslim, most of whom won't push laws anything like this? Why make a big show of how much you're gonna ban it and show those Muslims who's boss on behalf of "real Americans"?

C'mon man, pull the other one

Trump Virtually Cuts Off Refugees as He Unleashes a Tirade on Immigrants (Published 2020)

The Trump administration said it would lower the annual cap on refugees further into rock-bottom record territory as President Trump pursues pre-election xenophobic attacks.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Asita]

So what about the Muslims who would happily see sharia banned because they hate the more extreme members of their religion too and would see themselves as real Americans?

They're already covered! The First Amendment and the Lemon Test already preclude Sharia law! The point of getting the specific ban on the books is not the legislation itself (which, for the upteenth time, is redundant) but the anti-muslim narrative that the legislation helps to further through the suggestion that Muslims were only just stopped from turning the US into a theocracy and that it's only through constant vigilance and scrutiny of Islam that we prevent it from taking over. I don't know how I can make this any more clear: banning Sharia is not the end goal, it's a means towards painting Islam as antithetical to Western values. They get it on the books, then they point to it as proof of how much of a threat Islam is, and how dangerous Muslims are, treating them as a monolith in support of that system.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

They're already covered! The First Amendment and the Lemon Test already preclude Sharia law! The point of getting the specific ban on the books is not the legislation itself (which, for the upteenth time, is redundant) but the anti-muslim narrative that the legislation helps to further through the suggestion that Muslims were only just stopped from turning the US into a theocracy and that it's only through constant vigilance and scrutiny of Islam that we prevent it from taking over. I don't know how I can make this any more clear: banning Sharia is not the end goal, it's a means towards painting Islam as antithetical to Western values.

He knows. I'm guessing he thinks it's a good thing to do that

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

As has already been pointed out, nobody said there was literally zero fraud. No election on the planet has zero attempted fraud.

There is no evidence of widespread fraud.



...but it hasn't. If evidence comes up, then we investigate it. Without evidence, its just a pathetic attempt to discredit the result because the narcissistic man-child cannot take the fact he lost.

yeh that wasn't what was being said it wasn't specifically widespread election fraud being claimed to not happen but election fraud in general

Trump’s False Election Fraud Claims Split Republicans (Published 2020)

Die-hard loyalists declared total support for President Trump while others issued generalized statements about vote counting or condemned him outright.

www.nytimes.com

US election official: 'There is no evidence of any kind of voter fraud'

A top election official has dismissed US President Donald Trump's fresh claims of voter fraud as rival Joe Biden edges closer to victory.

www.scotsman.com

US election official: 'There is no evidence of any kind of voter fraud'

Not Widespread Any kind is the specific words used.

Donald Trump warns people to beware of non-existent voter fraud

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump issued a stern warning about attempts to tamper with the 2018 midterm election vote.

edition.cnn.com

Donald Trump warns people to beware of non-existent voter fraud

Non-existant being a key word there.

So you can arguing it was overblown rhetoric being thrown out there and that was wrong to do but using the exact words being said yes there is evidence because even small scale voter fraud is still voter fraud.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Your only response to "they tried passing the bad thing" is "and you should have let them"

Because the only people it's bad for ultimately is a tiny bunch of radicals even most regular Muslims reject Sharia law..........So are you for the radicals?

And that's failure due to having a christIan supremest mindset, *and* it's one we're slowly weeding out.

This has what to do with the 1% of the US population that's Muslim, most of whom won't push laws anything like this? Why make a big show of how much you're gonna ban it and show those Muslims who's boss on behalf of "real Americans"?

C'mon man, pull the other one

Trump Virtually Cuts Off Refugees as He Unleashes a Tirade on Immigrants (Published 2020)

The Trump administration said it would lower the annual cap on refugees further into rock-bottom record territory as President Trump pursues pre-election xenophobic attacks.

www.nytimes.com

Because sometimes you have to actually address things people see as problems to be able to move forward and alleviate fears over things other find are problems to be more easily able to tackle things you see as problems.

If you view those who disagree with you automatically as monsters and go on the offense attacking them as such why should they not see you as that too? Because you're the good guys?

I'm sure plenty of people thought they were the good guys for quite a while too

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

They're already covered! The First Amendment and the Lemon Test already preclude Sharia law! The point of getting the specific ban on the books is not the legislation itself (which, for the upteenth time, is redundant) but the anti-muslim narrative that the legislation helps to further through the suggestion that Muslims were only just stopped from turning the US into a theocracy and that it's only through constant vigilance and scrutiny of Islam that we prevent it from taking over. I don't know how I can make this any more clear: banning Sharia is not the end goal, it's a means towards painting Islam as antithetical to Western values. They get it on the books, then they point to it as proof of how much of a threat Islam is, and how dangerous Muslims are, treating them as a monolith in support of that system.

and now they can say they haven't been stopped anyway so you handed them more ammo really lol.

Once the law is in place you can point to it and go "This law is in place to stop it you fear of what could happen now is legally not possible anyway"

 

[Asita]

and now they can say they haven't been stopped anyway so you handed them more ammo really lol.

Once the law is in place you can point to it and go "This law is in place to stop it you fear of what could happen now is legally not possible anyway"

You do realize that what I've been telling you this entire time can adequately be paraphrased as "The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is in place to stop it you fear of what could happen now is legally not possible anyway", do you not?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

He knows. I'm guessing he thinks it's a good thing to do that

So you know how I pointed out many pages ago about moves to try and smear people and push claims about them.................

You just proved that's what happens despite claiming it doesn't and trying to present it as just "The Republicans are big evil"

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

You do realize that what I've been telling you this entire time can adequately be paraphrased as "The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is in place to stop it you fear of what could happen now is legally not possible anyway", do you not?

which would only protect speech and actions by the government.

Which lets say it's pretty easy to see plenty of ways round that.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Alright, let's take a look at this shitshow.

We got a war criminal for secretary of state, par for the course.
Small steps guy for AG (but might repeal 3 strike laws, which is pretty okay if true)
Governor "getting rid of private health insurance is scary" for HHS, so if you thought for some reason there was still a chance for M4A, haha what did you expect?
A man in transport that I wouldn't trust literally anywhere else, but don't have enough info to know how he'd be in transport
Commerce will be headed by a CEO or executive of half a dozen companies, so haha what did you expect?
Energy by a buddy of Saudi Arabia and BP
Agriculture by a woman who fought to have the Keystone XL pipeline
And Pete fuckin' Buttigieg

 

[Shadyside]

 

[Shadyside]

I'm just wondering who will be her VP pick.

 

[Asita]

which would only protect speech and actions by the government.

Which lets say it's pretty easy to see plenty of ways round that.

...Excuse you? You're trying to convince us of the necessity of making a law saying that a specific religious legal system cannot be implemented...and you're actually saying that the constitutional law saying that religious laws - or even laws that unduly favor one religion over another - are forbidden has little bearing on whether or not a religious legal system can be implemented?

 

[Trunkage]

Please, for the love of god, stop saying Jefferson's wall. It's common knowledge, but I don't care, "here's a non-descriptive term, look it up" is the most annoying "debate" tactic on the internet.

So, instead of using common parlace, we should write paragraphs

And also, we've been over this territory with Dwarvenhobble. Remember that thing from a few pages back about TERFs. It's the exact same issue. We argued our point previously. Now we are using shorthand to not repeat the exact same thing over and over. When did this become not acceptable? Because its twice in the same thread

 

[Trunkage]

I dunno maybe with an automatic timer to shut the thing off he could spend a bit of time in one sleeping

Oh, he's probably got one in a jet. He can snooze between visits. You're right

 

[Shadyside]

 

[Thaluikhain]

I can't help but worry nothing will change all that much during Biden's presidency, and a more competent version of Trump will win in 2024.

The fact that this race was as close as it was shows that Trump was no fluke.

That's a concern, yes, but if the options are Trump now or Trump in 4 years time, advance warning and time to dig in isn't bad.

Would be nice to solve the social issues of the US/the world so that didn't happen, but I'll take what I can get.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

...Excuse you? You're trying to convince us of the necessity of making a law saying that a specific religious legal system cannot be implemented...and you're actually saying that the constitutional law saying that religious laws - or even laws that unduly favor one religion over another - are forbidden has little bearing on whether or not a religious legal system can be implemented?

Full on laws can be applied such that private corporations have to abide by them too.

1A only protects from government action not private actions.

I'm just wondering who will be her VP pick.

Hillary

Oh, he's probably got one in a jet. He can snooze between visits. You're right

I mean he does apparently have a golden shower in there

No really

HuffPost is now a part of Verizon Media

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Hillary

Sounds like a surefire way to lose, but I somehow wouldn't be surprised.