USA news & politics

[ncurd]

 

[dirty harry]

This whole thing started with you saying

The exact opposite, critical thought is king! The only person in the wrong in any argument, is the person who refuses to acknowledge any shred of credibility from their opponent (and Mctallsort)"

I disagreed with this statement as there are clearly instances where you shouldn’t acknowledge any credibility to opinions that have no basis in fact or reality. Not taking abint people who have concerns,
I then mentioned people that believe the election was stolen (and cited other examples like flat earth) I think this proves your statement to be categorically false but you tried to shift the goal posts by saying there were legitimate concerns. Firstly, there weren’t any legitimate concerns but even if there were that wasn’t my claim, I specifically said people that said the 2020 election was stolen.

As I say, I don’t know why you can’t say sometimes you’re right but most of the time it’s good to try and understand the other side, then you would’ve got no arguments from me.

In which is stayed categorically, the validity concerns of those leading up to and just after the 2020 elections led to valid opinions that the election was stolen.

We can look back now, and those whonstill make that claim aren't good faith, but those that thought that were absolutely valid, and had valuable contributions to the discussion. I literally listed a whole list of reasons that were given for the opinions, which I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge or refute. Calling it guff isn't an argument, either those reasons are factual, and led to those opinions being valid, or they don't exist. Which is it?

Stop trying so hard to win, there is no trophy, you will still go to bed tonight in the knowledge you refuse to live reality, just like MAGA when it comes to acknowledging validity of the other side. That's an impossible position to hold for anyone good faith, and you are behaving in the exact same way as them, making the exact same arguments, in the same way.

I heard the term TDS, bit also TDSS recently and thought it was brilliant, same coin different sides, delusion riddled Trump Derangement Syndrome Syndrome.

That which drives your opponent to not accept your message, is thay which drives you!

 

[dirty harry]

I don’t believe you when you say you’ve read it. What doesn’t say about machines being rigged

Why would I lie about reading a Hillary Clinton book? Hahaha that is the least cool and lamest flex on planet earth!!!

Infact, I lie, that's not the saddest flex on earth, admitting it was interesting and complimenting Clinton after reading it is hahahaha

She made the blame Michigan machines weren't broken, and she made the claim touch screens were vulnerable to corruption if I remember correctly. So ye kind of blamed machines lol.

 

[Welsh Exile]

In which is stayed categorically, the validity concerns of those leading up to and just after the 2020 elections led to valid opinions that the election was stolen.

We can look back now, and those whonstill make that claim aren't good faith, but those that thought that were absolutely valid, and had valuable contributions to the discussion. I literally listed a whole list of reasons that were given for the opinions, which I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge or refute. Calling it guff isn't an argument, either those reasons are factual, and led to those opinions being valid, or they don't exist. Which is it?

Stop trying so hard to win, there is no trophy, you will still go to bed tonight in the knowledge you refuse to live reality, just like MAGA when it comes to acknowledging validity of the other side. That's an impossible position to hold for anyone good faith, and you are behaving in the exact same way as them, making the exact same arguments, in the same way.

I heard the term TDS, bit also TDSS recently and thought it was brilliant, same coin different sides, delusion riddled Trump Derangement Syndrome Syndrome.

That which drives your opponent to not accept your message, is thay which drives you!

I’ve already said that the so called concerns isn’t the same thing as out right saying the election was rigged. But yes, as I’ve already said, those concerns weren’t, and aren’t, valid at all hence the opinion that the election was stolen was also invalid. If you’re going to be concerned about election fraud effecting the result of an election, the shape of the planet or whether vaccines are going to kill you then it’s probably a good idea that your opinion is based on fact. I think that’s fair.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Why would I lie about reading a Hillary Clinton book? Hahaha that is the least cool and lamest flex on planet earth!!!

Infact, I lie, that's not the saddest flex on earth, admitting it was interesting and complimenting Clinton after reading it is hahahaha

She made the blame Michigan machines weren't broken, and she made the claim touch screens were vulnerable to corruption if I remember correctly. So ye kind of blamed machines lol.

I just can’t believe anyone would read it. But I have clearly underestimated your desire to really delve into the inner thoughts of people you both agree and disagree with.

 

[dirty harry]

I’ve already said that the so called concerns isn’t the same thing as out right saying the election was rigged. But yes, as I’ve already said, those concerns weren’t, and aren’t, valid at all hence the opinion that the election was stolen was also invalid. If you’re going to be concerned about election fraud effecting the result of an election, the shape of the planet or whether vaccines are going to kill you then it’s probably a good idea that your opinion is based on fact. I think that’s fair.

Ok, so I'm going to struggle to breeze past the total and psychopathic lack of empathy for 70 odd million Americans.

You believe that there was no valid concerns for election fraud?

Are you pro or against voter ID?

 

[dirty harry]

I just can’t believe anyone would read it. But I have clearly underestimated your desire to really delve into the inner thoughts of people you both agree and disagree with.

Tbf I have reasons lol. You should see my book collection, its an embarrassment (and yes it involves Hensons book)

 

[Ddanno]

Jim Henson.

 

[General Melchett]

I assume the pause in fighting is due to a litter picking break.

 

[dirty harry]

Jim Henson.

Don't bring up that name, kermit from Omegle has ruined everything puppet for me!!!

 

[Ddanno]

I assume the pause in fighting is due to a litter picking break.

Strings broke on one of his strawman muppets

 

[dirty harry]

Another one?!?!?!

Not sure exactly what happened, seems he obstructed the arrest of someone?

The comment section though, and its Forbes! Not Fox!

 

[Welsh Exile]

Ok, so I'm going to struggle to breeze past the total and psychopathic lack of empathy for 70 odd million Americans.

You believe that there was no valid concerns for election fraud?

Are you pro or against voter ID?

I think there were no, and are no, valid concerns for election fraud having any kind of significant effect (or any effect really) on an election result.

The voter ID is a great question actually as it links to our morality discussion earlier in the week. In principle I'm not against the idea of voter ID but as I said to you earlier I would always look at the motivation behind anything like that. If the intention was there was a real, credible threat wrt to voter fraud to the point it would have significant impacts on elections then I could get behind it. However, if the intention behind it was to needlessly create an extra barrier to voting then that is obviously not good and I wouldn't support it.

You're trying to get me to say that voter fraud doesn't exist. It clearly does, but the question is does it pose a credible threat to the outcomes of elections and the answer to that is categorically no. This is why there's no credibility to saying the 2020 election was stolen and the so called concerns behind voter fraud having a significant impact on elections were also invalid.

 

[Seeker]

Yeah we know

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think there were no, and are no, valid concerns for election fraud having any kind of significant effect (or any effect really) on an election result.

The voter ID is a great question actually as it links to our morality discussion earlier in the week. In principle I'm not against the idea of voter ID but as I said to you earlier I would always look at the motivation behind anything like that. If the intention was there was a real, credible threat wrt to voter fraud to the point it would have significant impacts on elections then I could get behind it. However, if the intention behind it was to needlessly create an extra barrier to voting then that is obviously not good and I wouldn't support it.

You're trying to get me to say that voter fraud doesn't exist. It clearly does, but the question is does it pose a credible threat to the outcomes of elections and the answer to that is categorically no. This is why there's no credibility to saying the 2020 election was stolen and the so called concerns behind voter fraud having a significant impact on elections were also invalid.

Voter suppression and gerrymandering vastly eclipses voter fraud in terms of the impact upon elections, yet the right wing are always silent on that.

Republicans - Constantly pushing laws to make voting more difficult in the name of combating a non-existent voter fraud
Democrats - Pushing for laws to make voting easier to combat very existent voter suppression and gerrymandering

Only one side is actively doing things to try to boost democracy. Republicans have even gone as far as denying the entire electoral process now.

 

[Which Tyler]

Voter suppression and gerrymandering vastly eclipses voter fraud in terms of the impact upon elections, yet the right wing are always silent on that.

Silent?
Surely, they loudly cheer it

 

[dirty harry]

I think there were no, and are no, valid concerns for election fraud having any kind of significant effect (or any effect really) on an election result.

The voter ID is a great question actually as it links to our morality discussion earlier in the week. In principle I'm not against the idea of voter ID but as I said to you earlier I would always look at the motivation behind anything like that. If the intention was there was a real, credible threat wrt to voter fraud to the point it would have significant impacts on elections then I could get behind it. However, if the intention behind it was to needlessly create an extra barrier to voting then that is obviously not good and I wouldn't support it.

You're trying to get me to say that voter fraud doesn't exist. It clearly does, but the question is does it pose a credible threat to the outcomes of elections and the answer to that is categorically no. This is why there's no credibility to saying the 2020 election was stolen and the so called concerns behind voter fraud having a significant impact on elections were also invalid.

I.mean you say voter fraud has no validity concerns, then why do both parties ring that bell pre and post election every single time?

Look at Clinton saying that extreme far right are trying to steal 2024, its one hell of a tool to use in election season.

You would then acknowledge the Democrat line of 'save democracy' against Trump isn't credible, as fraud isn't credible?

Voter ID is essentially good when you agree with the team foing it though?

I'd be for voter ID these days, not always the case, but the only argument I hear against is is that non white people are too lazy, stupid or poor to get photo ID. That's just a wildly racist point of view IMHO.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I.mean you say voter fraud has no validity concerns, then why do both parties ring that bell pre and post election every single time?

Look at Clinton saying that extreme far right are trying to steal 2024, its one hell of a tool to use in election season.

You would then acknowledge the Democrat line of 'save democracy' against Trump isn't credible, as fraud isn't credible?

Voter ID is essentially good when you agree with the team foing it though?

I'd be for voter ID these days, not always the case, but the only argument I hear against is is that non white people are too lazy, stupid or poor to get photo ID. That's just a wildly racist point of view IMHO.

I already said it wouldn't be about what "team" wanted voter ID it would be the motivations behind it. That is the key thing for me. I'm not against voter ID on principle.

Can you point to any evidence that voter fraud poses any significant threat to the outcomes of elections? Here or anywhere in the west?

The only credible threat to any western democracy I've seen recently was Jan 6th funnily enough but that wasn’t voter fraud. That was the president, in part, using voter fraud as a tool for his own personal gain. But again, that's different to what we're talking about.

 

[dirty harry]

I already said it wouldn't be about what "team" wanted voter ID it would be the motivations behind it. That is the key thing for me. I'm not against voter ID on principle.

Can you point to any evidence that voter fraud poses any significant threat to the outcomes of elections? Here or anywhere in the west?

Just to state, when I regard voter fraud, I don't differentiate suppression in that, electoral fraud is probably a better phrase.

Who's making the claim that voter fraud poses significant threats, my claim is that opinions on it are valid, and if it poses no threat, why is it always such a major issue from both parties in every election cycle?

I would caveat the non threat, that mail in voting during covid presented an escalated threat in that context.

Like I said, i havnt come across an argument against voter ID that isn't racist, why not ensure everything is above board to every degree, just in case? The idea its suppression is merely political theatre IMO.

I'd agree the Jan 6th event was stupid, but I disagree it was the only credible threat to democracy, I see it more as reactionary to the BLM protests that spent a summer coercing Democrats, burning cities and threatening to over turn social fabric (Not that im completely damning of that, there were reasons for BLM also).

I'd argue that neither BLM or Jan 6th were actual threats, and that the biggest threat the west has ever seen isn't just modern day USA, but modern day west countries.

A study written a few years ago identified 4 threats to democracy, seen over the centuries, of recurring issues and the fragility of US democracy. But only in modern day has all 4 of these threats coincided...

Economic disparity
Polarisation
Presidential executive power
Conflict of political boundaries

Look at any western country and tell me which aren't seeing all 4 of these issues currently?

Economically the majority of the world is reeling from COVID, social media and political agendas have polarised people like never before, entrenched views and blaming the others, political boundaries have been blurred, parties courting votes based on race, or religion, immigration and far right used as scapegoats whenever possible, and what world leader isn't being accused by their opposition of over reach?

We desperately need some adults in the room, to stop fear mongering, stop benefiting from a scared population, and puting rational talking points forward, to an educated and informed population...

We are ******!

 

[Gavin]

Reports that Trump, from several news outlets in the USA, is considering joining Israel with strikes on Iran