Supporters of trump storm congress.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,865
493
88
Country
USA
Gender
Male
It seems like certain people don't like to think that I could just be a normal, reasonable person. Because then it would mean that my opinions are normal and reasonable as well. And certain people have already made up their minds and dug their trenches, and anyone with opinions that differ from theirs must be held by unhuman monsters without compassion or decency.
No. That's really more a problem with you specifically. I'm just going to go out and say it, House: You're probably the most textbook example of a pseudointellectual that I've ever had the displeasure of encountering. You routinely enter discussions from a position of ignorance with absolutely no intention of educating yourself on the subject even for the sake of improving your own arguments. You rarely read beyond tweets or headlines, and only begrudingly look for more information after being called out. Even then you only ever seem to come away with the most superficial of understandings, seemingly stopping your research the moment you find a sentence that you think you can leverage to make even the pettiest of 'gotcha' allegations irrespective of the surrounding context even of the source you're citing, much less the post you're responding to. So many exchanges with you essentially boil down to us explaining why the things you're ignorantly clinging to either do not imply what you claim or are simply false, and you in turn plugging your fingers in your ears, and effectively yelling "nuh-uh" before simply restating your then-debunked argument. You seem to bank on the idea that if you simply ignore the flaws pointed out in your argument then others would as well, but at the same time you also hypocritically seem to labor under the delusion that if you can find the slightest inconsistency (which, mind you, you often fabricate through quote mines, equivocation and seemingly willful misinterpretation) in the other speaker's posts that constitutes grounds to dismiss everything they say. Not to mince words, you are legitimately terrible at argumentation. You have a child's understanding of its purpose and methodology, and your tactics basically boil down to acting like a passive aggressive moron who tries to 'win' the discussion by being as frustratingly obtuse as possible so as to turn what's supposed to be a discussion into a battle of attrition. You paradoxically seem to revel in your ignorance but also act as if you believe yourself the resident expert on subjects that by your own admission you have no understanding of or interest in learning about.

You show no intellectual curiosity, and never vet your own sources or do your due diligence. You demand that everyone else meet the burden of disproving your allegations to beyond unreasonable doubt; that unless they conclusively and definitively prove to you that the figurative Russell's Teapot not only doesn't exist but that it's literally impossible for any teapot to exist in such circumstances, and insist that if they cannot prove the latter then the teapot's existence must be treated as a given and at least investigated. You know, the old "teach the controversy" angle? You then, however, accept no explanations and call foul whenever someone questions the veracity of your sources (such as they are) as a matter of principle. And let's get into that last one a bit, because it seems you actually scoff at the idea of an objective reality, instead treating information as necessarily partisan and therefore the truth of reality simply a matter of ideological preference. More than a few times now, you've tried to call someone a hypocrite for daring to judge different claims on individual merit rather than treating all claims as having necessity equal veracity. This has been seen both in you implying hypocrisy when people have different opinions on different cases, and when - in response to people patiently explaining why the propaganda pieces and yellow journalism you like to cite is not credible - you claim it unfair and hypocritical that people dared to actually critically evaluate your sources and find them lacking, as if the simple fact that they appealed to you meant that they should be seen as necessarily holding at least equal validity to any other source, like the credibility of sources was a matter of pure fatih and independent verification was a foreign concept to you. There's a reason that so many people doubt that you argue in good faith, and that reason is your conduct.

It brings to mind an old adage about playing chess with a pigeon; the pigeon doesn't play the game, it just knocks over the pieces, craps on the board and then struts around like it won. If you ever wonder why so many people get so enormously frustrated with you, it's because your posting habits (general ignorance, reliance on equivocation and appeals to incredulity as the foundation of your 'arguments', flipping between deliberate obtuseness and not-so-subtle insinuation, passive aggressive habits, pretentiousness, etc) make you roughly analogous to that pigeon, and we've sick and tired of you constantly crapping on the board.
 
Last edited:

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,880
381
88
Clearly until a complete audit and investigation of the mob and their actions leads to clear evidence there was no terrorist or anti democratic motivations what you say holds no value. Guilty until proven otherwise, that has been your moto during the whole "voter fraud" nonsense, no?
One question for now, for you and anyone else in this thread who wishes to answer

In you belief was there any voter fraud that occurred in the 2020 US election?
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
12,187
1,392
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Once again, that has no relation to what we were talking about.
We were talking about transparent elections.
It certainly has relation to what we are talking about. You are taking things that are easily manipulated and assuming fact. I'm telling you that you are wrong to do that. If there was any legitimacy to these claims why are all the court cases being thrown out?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaitSeith

Fieldy409

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
266
85
33
Country
Australia
No, I literally did not. I said "no, none of them were openly carrying firearms."
I would be a fool to claim that absolutely none of them had guns concealed on their person.



I'm looking at, and just showed you, video evidence of individuals counting ballots, while nobody is standing over their shoulder to check that things are being done properly. This was posted in response to your claim that the elections were transparent.

Okay so what are you saying? I read this as you're arguing they didn't have the guns out but hidden? What does this distinction achieve practically as an argument for you?
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,880
381
88
Apples, oranges.

No one said that Trump's 2016 victory didn't happen. They might have said it was due to Russian interference and Comey being a rat, but no one said he secretly didn't win the electoral college.
Oh right in 2016 with the same systems and same procedures in place it was stolen because some-one else won...............

Hell people weren't saying he didn't win the EC. Just that the win wasn't legitimate or the EC would vote against him.

Or hell there were those fantasies about a revolution to overthrow him

 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,880
381
88
Yeah, that might seem problematic... Well, here's lesson for the future.
Maybe people could lobby for a change of the law, so you could avoid those shades of doubt in next elections. Too bad, that'd not change the current outcome since lex retro non agit etc.
Stop denying reality you fascist clearly there was absolutely 0 fraud in the elections and they were perfect and if you don't agree you deserve to be beaten up then forcefully dragged to a re-education camp until you learn to speak the truth we tell you ./s
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,880
381
88
It's super easy to just want to revel in how 'horrible' the 'others' are at this moment. But we can't get on everyone else's case for just saying heresy tweets without any back up.

If there's a video of a woman saying that, then a morbid sense of vindication will be had. Until then, I'll await the evidence.
Sanity, I was beginning to lose hope here. There is Sanity left.
 

MrCalavera

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2020
691
619
98
Country
Poland
Stop denying reality you fascist clearly there was absolutely 0 fraud in the elections and they were perfect and if you don't agree you deserve to be beaten up then forcefully dragged to a re-education camp until you learn to speak the truth we tell you ./s
Nice try lib
You and your satanic pedophile cabal mightve stole these elections, but in 4 years or sooner well take America back from the antifa. Soros money wont save you then.
#TrustThePlan #WWGOMGBBQ
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Hades

Elite Member
May 7, 2020
1,220
474
88
Country
The Netherlands
Did they?

Or did they do something stupid and desperate?
They certainly did something stupid. They have no real cause for desperation though. Imagine being desperate because an openly corrupt businessman can't abuse his power for the benefit of himself and his cronies anymore. That's probably what's most pathetic about this all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,880
381
88
They certainly did something stupid. They have no real cause for desperation though. Imagine being desperate because an openly corrupt businessman can't abuse his power for the benefit of himself and his cronies anymore. That's probably what's most pathetic about this all.
I know instead it'll just but a slightly corrupt politician helping his son get positions and various companies and hiding all those photos of hookers and crack smocking......
 

Hades

Elite Member
May 7, 2020
1,220
474
88
Country
The Netherlands
I know instead it'll just but a slightly corrupt politician helping his son get positions and various companies and hiding all those photos of hookers and crack smocking......
Firstly that's somewhat hypocritical to bring up by a side who zealously supported a man personally installing his children in important positions by virtue of being his children. And secondly no matter how hard the Trump campaign they never really succeeded in linking Biden to corruption. That's why they went all in on Hunter. They lacked any alternative.

But since Trump's cult lionized Trump for his nepotism then these alleged charges against Biden shouldn't be a problem for them.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
761
118
No. That's really more a problem with you specifically. I'm just going to go out and say it, House: You're probably the most textbook example of a pseudointellectual that I've ever had the displeasure of encountering. You routinely enter discussions from a position of ignorance with absolutely no intention of educating yourself on the subject even for the sake of improving your own arguments. You rarely read beyond tweets or headlines, and only begrudingly look for more information after being called out. Even then you only ever seem to come away with the most superficial of understandings, seemingly stopping your research the moment you find a sentence that you think you can leverage to make even the pettiest of 'gotcha' allegations irrespective of the surrounding context even of the source you're citing, much less the post you're responding to. So many exchanges with you essentially boil down to us explaining why the things you're ignorantly clinging to either do not imply what you claim or are simply false, and you in turn plugging your fingers in your ears, and effectively yelling "nuh-uh" before simply restating your then-debunked argument. You seem to bank on the idea that if you simply ignore the flaws pointed out in your argument then others would as well, but at the same time you also hypocritically seem to labor under the delusion that if you can find the slightest inconsistency (which, mind you, you often fabricate through quote mines, equivocation and seemingly willful misinterpretation) in the other speaker's posts that constitutes grounds to dismiss everything they say. Not to mince words, you are legitimately terrible at argumentation. You have a child's understanding of its purpose and methodology, and your tactics basically boil down to acting like a passive aggressive moron who tries to 'win' the discussion by being as frustratingly obtuse as possible so as to turn what's supposed to be a discussion into a battle of attrition. You paradoxically seem to revel in your ignorance but also act as if you believe yourself the resident expert on subjects that by your own admission you have no understanding of or interest in learning about.
That's a great description of the people who argue with me. For example:

You are taking things that are easily manipulated and assuming fact. I'm telling you that you are wrong to do that.
The notion that "our elections aren't transparent" isn't based on this one video, or any other. It's based on the actual laws and rules for these crucial states.
In Georgia, it is the law that observers are not required to be present and cannot object to ballots. It is not based on this one video. It is a fact.

Here's the actual law: https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2015/title-21/chapter-2/article-11/part-1/section-21-2-408/
(d) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, a poll watcher may be permitted behind the enclosed space for the purpose of observing the conduct of the election and the counting and recording of votes. Such poll watcher shall in no way interfere with the conduct of the election
"Watchers" are just that in Georgia, watchers. They stand in an enclosed space, far away from the ballots, and just watch and can't do anything about what they're seeing.

This has nothing to do with any lawsuits or accusations of fraud.

If there was any legitimacy to these claims why are all the court cases being thrown out?
Again, you're confusing the issues. The court cases are not "these elections weren't run transparently enough!"
One of them actually was, and they won that case, and a court order was issued, forcing them to follow their own rules and allow observers their right to observe.

But most of the cases are not objecting to the transparency of the election, but the legality of certain last-minute rule changes and other things.

Elections being transparent is a different issue.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
12,187
1,392
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Oh right in 2016 with the same systems and same procedures in place it was stolen because some-one else won...............

Hell people weren't saying he didn't win the EC. Just that the win wasn't legitimate or the EC would vote against him.

Or hell there were those fantasies about a revolution to overthrow him
Oh GASP, there were people who wanted the EC to not vote for him and vote for Hillary instead? They must have been high up in government... Noooooooo? It was just some randoes on twitter and Hillary conceded the next day. But, that would mean this narrative was bullshit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaitSeith and Hades

Nick Calandra

Editor-in-Chief of The Escapist
Administrator
Moderator
Escapist +
Mar 13, 2020
485
507
98
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Alright, this thread is closing. Too much personal attacks, no actual citing of legitimate sources at this point. It's a crapshoot. Wanna continue the discussion, do it somewhere else at this point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.