There are election deniers running in almost every state in the US.

[steve_bank]

No it isn't an evasion, but you need to have sufficient ability to understand the response.

I asked "who do you think won the 2020 Presidential election - Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump? " It doesn't matter if you think the elections are fair or not. You claim the elections exclude all options is false because the 2020 election offered voters a number of different candidates for POTUS.

It is clear you continue to evade answering that question. You claim to understand it. You claim to have actually answered it. Your posts respond to the question but they do not answer it. There are 3 possible relevant answers: 1) Mr. Biden won the 2020 election, 2) Mr. Trump won the 2020 election, or 3) Neither won the 2020 election.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

It is a faulty question. The election was tainted even before the first vote was cast, for reasons I have already explained (many times over the years no less). I don't know why you can't understand that, unless your inability is intentional.

Every election is tainted to some degree. That doesn't change the fact that somebody wins.

Tainted is a pejorative implying results are suspect.

It is better to say there are always mistakes and fraud in elections, but there is no evidence anything that impacted the ourcome of any election.

JFK may have actually stolen an election

1960 United States presidential election in Illinois - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jason: you always attack one side (democrats, Ukraine, Nato, or whatever) then are surprised when people assume that you favor the other side.

There is only one side on this forum, so who am I supposed to argue with?

The only neocon on this forum (a seer of some sorts apparently with a racist screen name) stopped posting regularly, and when he did post he pretended he was the opposite and people fell for the act. The few conservatives on this forum, while not my allies, tend to get banned right quick.

Yea, there aren't many conservatives on this forum. But not many people on the very far left either (like socialists). I remember "Communist Dave" many years ago. Couldn't be a person more opposite of me. But we actually got along. We disagreed but were respectful. But he was banned. The issue here is sometimes those on the more extreme side get very upset and can't argue without making it personal. We disagree a lot, but I'm glad to hear your opinion and hope that you don't go away.

Red Dave?

 

[laughing dog]

No, it is vile question. It reveals more about the asker than it does about the person to whom it is directed.

It would be a vile question were it not a trope. If you were to tell me you had never heard about this classic trope though, I would believe you.

Tropes can be vile. It is vile to imply someone is a wife beater. But I understand why you feel different.

But the "have you stopped beating your wife" isn't about vile, it's about questions that assume something to be true.

That misses the point - there are plenty of ways to indicate that a question assumes something to be true. There is no need to choose one that is implies something vile on the part of one questioned.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, it is vile question. It reveals more about the asker than it does about the person to whom it is directed.

It would be a vile question were it not a trope. If you were to tell me you had never heard about this classic trope though, I would believe you.

Tropes can be vile. It is vile to imply someone is a wife beater. But I understand why you feel different.

But the "have you stopped beating your wife" isn't about vile, it's about questions that assume something to be true.

That misses the point - there are plenty of ways to indicate that a question assumes something to be true. There is no need to choose one that is implies something vile on the part of one questioned.

Isn’t it used as a counter to a false accusation against oneself? It is implied to not be true, a rhetorical device.

 

[Ford]

Looks like Nevada, Georgia, and Arizona are going to decide control of the Senate. On the election denial front, the Grand Canyon state is on track to reject the nutter Oath Keeper for Secretary of State. Fontes (D) the former county recorder is up by 5% at this writing. In the other big races, Mark Kelly (former astronaut) is up over Blake Masters (alien in a human suit) by just over 5%, and Trump-endorsed former news biscuit Kari Lake is trailing current Secretary of State Katie Hobbs by almost 20k votes.

It's not over yet, but things are looking up.

A local columnist made a good point today. If you think the AZ election process is rigged, or too slow, or otherwise faulty? Blame Republicans. For 22 of the last 30 years, the GOP had a "trifecta" in state government...House, Senate, and Governor. The only exceptions were when Janet Napolitano was Governor (she left to join the Obama administration), and two years where the state Senate was split.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it is vile question. It reveals more about the asker than it does about the person to whom it is directed.

It would be a vile question were it not a trope. If you were to tell me you had never heard about this classic trope though, I would believe you.

Tropes can be vile. It is vile to imply someone is a wife beater. But I understand why you feel different.

But the "have you stopped beating your wife" isn't about vile, it's about questions that assume something to be true.

That misses the point - there are plenty of ways to indicate that a question assumes something to be true. There is no need to choose one that is implies something vile on the part of one questioned.

Isn’t it used as a counter to a false accusation against oneself? It is implied to not be true, a rhetorical device.

So? Rhetorical devices can be vile.

And there was not even a hint of any false accusation in my question.

 

[Tigers!]

Well Jason, I am an independence centrist who runs afoul of the left on the forum from time to time. One told me I am entirely wrong on all my postsI have on social issues.

Consider that a point in your favour.

If at all possible please spare me the 'the left on the forum does not like me'. I equally disdain both the left and the right.

Indeed I concur

 

[ZiprHead]

Stop calling them election deniers. Call them what they are, election liars.

 

[Patooka]

36 fucking post was all it took. I stand by my analogy.

Yeah, I answered it like 36 times.

Wrong. You know what the point is. Let me know if you are too confused

 

[Harry Bosch]

Jason: you always attack one side (democrats, Ukraine, Nato, or whatever) then are surprised when people assume that you favor the other side.

There is only one side on this forum, so who am I supposed to argue with?

The only neocon on this forum (a seer of some sorts apparently with a racist screen name) stopped posting regularly, and when he did post he pretended he was the opposite and people fell for the act. The few conservatives on this forum, while not my allies, tend to get banned right quick.

Yea, there aren't many conservatives on this forum. But not many people on the very far left either (like socialists). I remember "Communist Dave" many years ago. Couldn't be a person more opposite of me. But we actually got along. We disagreed but were respectful. But he was banned. The issue here is sometimes those on the more extreme side get very upset and can't argue without making it personal. We disagree a lot, but I'm glad to hear your opinion and hope that you don't go away.

Red Dave?

Crap, you're right! It was Red Dave! He would sure get heated. But we had a good back and forth. I'd be bored to death if everyone agreed with me. Although getting very difficult for me to politely debate Trumpers.

 

[Elixir]

getting very difficult for me to politely debate Trumpers

Jen-yew-wine proud Trumpers are increasingly rare, though maybe that's just my limited vantage.

 

[steve_bank]

Well Jason, I am an independence centrist who runs afoul of the left on the forum from time to time. One told me I am entirely wrong on all my postsI have on social issues.

Consider that a point in your favour.

If at all possible please spare me the 'the left on the forum does not like me'. I equally disdain both the left and the right.

Indeed I concur

As a pragmatist I reject political polarization that prevents problem solving..

Please do not confuse me with anti left or right ranters. I tend to go with Freethought, try to avoid being bound by ideology and -isems.

I was speaking more tongue in cheek to Jason's whining about it being a leftist forum who doesn't get his drift.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yea, there aren't many conservatives on this forum. But not many people on the very far left either (like socialists). I remember "Communist Dave" many years ago. Couldn't be a person more opposite of me. But we actually got along. We disagreed but were respectful. But he was banned. The issue here is sometimes those on the more extreme side get very upset and can't argue without making it personal. We disagree a lot, but I'm glad to hear your opinion and hope that you don't go away.

Red Dave?

Crap, you're right! It was Red Dave! He would sure get heated. But we had a good back and forth. I'd be bored to death if everyone agreed with him. Although getting very difficult for me to politely debate Trumpers.

Yeah, I've posted here too long. I remember you going by Stinger... back in the days when you were one of the "conservatives" here. But politics has gone so lopsided, you and Loren Pechtel seem like economic communists at this point. Wasn't there another in elwoodblues? I find it funny how the alt-right'ers here think they are "conservatives", especially when they attack actual conservatives. Like I said, I've posted here way too long.

Back to Red Dave, he seemed to have just broken down. His posting out of the blue got very very disruptive and then he was banned. I'm not certain what happened.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yea, there aren't many conservatives on this forum. But not many people on the very far left either (like socialists). I remember "Communist Dave" many years ago. Couldn't be a person more opposite of me. But we actually got along. We disagreed but were respectful. But he was banned. The issue here is sometimes those on the more extreme side get very upset and can't argue without making it personal. We disagree a lot, but I'm glad to hear your opinion and hope that you don't go away.

Red Dave?

Crap, you're right! It was Red Dave! He would sure get heated. But we had a good back and forth. I'd be bored to death if everyone agreed with him. Although getting very difficult for me to politely debate Trumpers.

Yeah, I've posted here too long. I remember you going by Stinger... back in the days when you were one of the "conservatives" here. But politics has gone so lopsided, you and Loren Pechtel seem like economic communists at this point. Wasn't there another in elwoodblues? I find it funny how the alt-right'ers here think they are "conservatives", especially when they attack actual conservatives. Like I said, I've posted here way too long.

Back to Red Dave, he seemed to have just broken down. His posting out of the blue got very very disruptive and then he was banned. I'm not certain what happened.

Good memory! BTW: I meant to say above that I'd be bored if everyone agreed with me! I changed from Stinger because that Stinger has cultural significance that my tribe. Harry Bosch is my favorite detective in a book series. I've always mostly voted democrat. But like a lot of people, I'm conservative on business issues, left on social. I'm pro-business, pro-capitalist, pro police. But I'm also very pro environment, pro-choice, and believe in science! Not sure what happened to Red Dave, wish he would come back. Probably not easy to debate people when you are constantly in the minority.

 

[ZiprHead]

getting very difficult for me to politely debate Trumpers

Jen-yew-wine proud Trumpers are increasingly rare, though maybe that's just my limited vantage.

I don't think full on Trumpers go anywhere where their views might seriously be questioned

 

[Elixir]

getting very difficult for me to politely debate Trumpers

Jen-yew-wine proud Trumpers are increasingly rare, though maybe that's just my limited vantage.

I don't think full on Trumpers go anywhere where their views might seriously be questioned

Right... comparing them to creationists (lots of overlap in those circles), MAGAts seem to lack the fervor, the True Belief of Creationists, which they had - or seemed to have - back in the 'You lost get over it" glory days of 2017. That would indicate that some of the veil has fallen from their eyes regarding the Saintliness of their idol.
Surely this is not lost on the self interested Republican leadership, and it will be interesting to see their slow walk away from the tangerine threat that Trump has become. If they can't keep pace with the rate of the base's disinfatuation, their Party is in dire trouble. They will never disavow or condemn Trump, but will eventually need to make clear that they were never under his thumb, no matter how obviously untrue that is.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

HOW WAS BIDEN's 2020 VICTORY "TAINTED", JASON?

Hm, now how many times have I answered it? Here we go again.

Ballot access restrictions. Debate access restrictions. Fundraising restrictions. The game is rigged against outsiders.

There, I've answered it again. I'll bet you will claim I haven't answered it at all.

So you have never heard of it. It is such a classic that it even has a Wikipedia article.

Tropes can be vile. There are plenty of methods to point out a loaded question (which my question was not), but you choose to use a vile trope.

Report that post then.

When grilled by a reporter and evading a question a polirician will say something like 'I think I have answered your quetion'.

And yet I've answered "ballot access restrictions, debate access restrictions, fundraising restrictions" several times. Do you also refuse to see it?

 

[ZiprHead]

Ballot access restrictions. Debate access restrictions. Fundraising restrictions.

I would say these are more campaign restrictions than election restrictions. So no election taint.

 

[laughing dog]

So you have never heard of it. It is such a classic that it even has a Wikipedia article.

Tropes can be vile. There are plenty of methods to point out a loaded question (which my question was not), but you choose to use a vile trope.

Report that post then.

Choices are revealing. Reactions are revealing.

 

[Politesse]

Do you all think these people really believe the shit they are spouting or are they simply using these conspiracy theories to manipulate the more ignorant voters

The only thing that matters is what they'll do when they get Trump's call. A few honest Republicans stopped the theft of the 2020 election, choosing fidelity to country over loyalty to Trump. So, now their party is gunning for them, trying to replace them with less principled men and women.

But there's hope, in that I think plenty of these candidates, election volunteers, etc., aren't actually in on the con. In fact, I think that most probably genuinely believe that 2020 was stolen and that they are there to safeguard the vote for the next time. If it's not just their cover story, but their true motivation, there's still reason to hope they'll refuse to commit outright fraud when the faux-president's call comes and asks them to deliberately miscount, "lose" votes, refuse to certify votes they know to be legit, etc. Things people know are wrong, when it is themselves in the hot seat. There's a certain logistical problem a would be conspiracy can have when every agent is a sleeper agent, and I think the GOP may be facing it. That's why a lot of these forced recounts haven't gone their way, either. When you recruit someone to "stop the steal", then order them to knowingly steal, a significant number will simply refuse to.

I hope.