Left, or Underhanded, Election Denial.

[Subduction Zone]

By the perps. That's not a real investigation. . . The fundamental, fatal, problem, is that the machinery of state is being used to tilt elections and then being used to investigate the tilted election. And the media is being used to whitewash the hoax by designing semantics "election denier" and "the Big Lie" and using these terms so often, and in such odd contexts, that any fair-minded person has to be thinking they protesteth too much and too rabidly.



John

No, quite often it was Republican controlled states that did the investigation and found no voter fraud.

Doesn't it such when thee are still some honest people in your party that does not allow them to cheat?

Many Republicans honor the constitutions, both state and US. So when the politicians in their own party try to cheat they do not back them up. That is what a true patriot would do. And you should be proud that the Republican party still has a good number of them.

 

[Valjean]

And so because of those things he...wasn't legitimately the President to those people. I don't see how any other meaning can plausibly be derived.

Many of us don't acknowledge the traditional government-subject system. By what sorcery does one born in a certain place become obligated to support whatever coercive monopoly of force happens to hold regional sway? Do people not have freedom of conscience?
If I'm born in a region controlled by government X or gang Y, why am I bound to support them? If I've signed no contract between a president and myself, no obligation or allegiance obtains, he's "my president" only as long as I choose to support him.
If I prefer the policies of an opposing regime, I'm free to shift allegiance.

 

[Left Coast]

Many of us don't acknowledge the traditional government-subject system. By what sorcery does one born in a certain place become obligated to support whatever coercive monopoly of force happens to hold regional sway? Do people not have freedom of conscience?
If I'm born in a region controlled by government X or gang Y, why am I bound to support them? If I've signed no contract between a president and myself, no obligation or allegiance obtains, he's "my president" only as long as I choose to support him.
If I prefer the policies of an opposing regime, I'm free to shift allegiance.

I didn't say you had to support him. I said he's your president if he's the president of your country. Let's not play a semantic game. I think you understand the obvious point being made.

 

[Valjean]

I didn't say you had to support him. I said he's your president if he's the president of your country. Let's not play a semantic game. I think you understand the obvious point being made.

But it is semantics. I think you're assuming country, citizenship and allegiance as axiomatic, as premises. Granted, they're deeply enculturated, but they are enculturated.

I don't have a country -- or a president. The USA has a president, but what does that have to do with me? I'm a terrestrial. I was born where I was born by chance, and incurred no burden of allegiance. I've signed no contracts of allegiance with any country. I behave eusocially because it's my wont, not out of obligation.

 

[Left Coast]

But it is semantics. I think you're assuming country, citizenship and allegiance as axiomatic, as premises.

If you are born here, citizenship and country are assumed/premises. They are automatic, unless and until the rules of citizenship or the borders of the country change.

I don't have a country -- or a president. The USA has a president, but what does that have to do with me? I'm a terrestrial. I was born where I was born by chance, and incurred no burden of allegiance. I've signed no contracts of allegiance with any country. I behave eusocially because it's my wont, not out of obligation.

The President remains the President of your country (the country you live in and are citizen of) whether you like him or pledge allegiance to him or not. He retains all the same power and privileges and authority he would if you liked him and pledged an oath to him. Again, you're trying to make a weird semantic point on a technicality to avoid the obvious here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

By the perps. That's not a real investigation. . . The fundamental, fatal, problem, is that the machinery of state is being used to tilt elections and then being used to investigate the tilted election. And the media is being used to whitewash the hoax by designing semantics "election denier" and "the Big Lie" and using these terms so often, and in such odd contexts, that any fair-minded person has to be thinking they protesteth too much and too rabidly.



John

Bill Barr and the DOJ looked into a bunch of them. They all led absolutely no where. Many, (if not most) of the claims were truly absurd. Some were just misinformed.
They were heard in court - over 60 times! - and it became plain there was no evidence of mass voter fraud.
Time to face facts.

 

[Valjean]

Bill Barr and the DOJ looked into a bunch of them. They all led absolutely no where. Many, (if not most) of the claims were truly absurd. Some were just misinformed.
They were heard in court - over 60 times! - and it became plain there was no evidence of mass voter fraud.
Time to face facts.

Alas, we're not going to talk a cult member out of his delusions.

 

[John D. Brey]

Bill Barr and the DOJ looked into a bunch of them. They all led absolutely no where. Many, (if not most) of the claims were truly absurd. Some were just misinformed.
They were heard in court - over 60 times! - and it became plain there was no evidence of mass voter fraud.
Time to face facts.

The point is probably moot since those in this forum arguing against evidence of mass voter fraud have often stated that if it did occurred they would applaud it. Under those circumstances the objectivity and concern necessary to discuss it in a serious manner seems to be absent.

Secondarily, I've stated that miscounted ballots is not the most damning problem; it's the machinery of state, FBI, DOJ, the courts, tilting elections in one direction: the mechanisms of state being biased and ready to use that bias in elections.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Alas, we're not going to talk a cult member out of his delusions.

You seem to have poked yourself in the eye with the thumb of your fist as you drew back to hit the puny "election denier" since it seems positively "cultish" to say election fraud didn't occur and then admit if it did you wouldn't notice or care.

What a peculiarly cultish position: dogmatic denial of the claim of the election denier under the auspices of utter denial that it matters or that you'd care if it did occur.



John

 

[Mock Turtle]

You're just saying that cuz you like the scratched-back tatto. It proves how much all the ladies like him.

This is the man President Biden said was the smartest person he knows. Who am I to doubt that? The smartest man President Biden knows isn't the one he sees in the mirror everyday but a crackhead and womanizer who gets tatoos of women scratching his back. And we wonder why electing someone not as smart as Hunter is causing problems in the most powerful Country on earth?

At a recent Fetterman speech, right when he said, "I'm here to offer myself as your leader" . . . five large American flags simultaneously blew away in the wind. The image above (of the smartest man in the world), is like that in that the smartest man in the world is staring into (though it's blurred out in the image) the place his deepest thoughts evolve.

John

Perhaps he's just acknowledging the basis of political life - you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

 

[Valjean]

The point is probably moot since those in this forum arguing against evidence of mass voter fraud have often stated that if it did occurred they would applaud it. Under those circumstances the objectivity and concern necessary to discuss it in a serious manner seems to be absent.

Secondarily, I've stated that miscounted ballots is not the most damning problem; it's the machinery of state, FBI, DOJ, the courts, tilting elections in one direction: the mechanisms of state being biased and ready to use that bias in elections.

What is this evidence you speak of? I've heard all sorts of claims, but they've all been debunked.
FBI? DOJ? These are hardly left-wing organizations. I'd expect any meddling on their part would favor the Republicans.

This election fraud nonsense reminds me of a magician's stage show, where the attention is drawn to one area, while the actual sleight-of-hand is occurring elsewhere.
Republicans' outrage over voter fraud diverts attention from their very real voter suppression.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

To be fair, quite a few people on the left did adopt slogans like "Not My President" when Trump was elected the first time. Didn't rise to the level of breaking and entering the Capitol, but the sentiment that Trump's win was illegitimate has been there.

I'm sure some meant it that way, but I always read that as more 'Dont blame me, I didn't vote for him' rather than 'The election was illegitimate'.

Having said that, there was a sudden spike in people decrying the electoral college system, often in pretty broad and unsophisticated ways.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The point is probably moot since those in this forum arguing against evidence of mass voter fraud have often stated that if it did occurred they would applaud it. Under those circumstances the objectivity and concern necessary to discuss it in a serious manner seems to be absent.

I've said no such thing and I've yet to see anyone else say any such thing. This isn't a response to my post.

Secondarily, I've stated that miscounted ballots is not the most damning problem; it's the machinery of state, FBI, DOJ, the courts, tilting elections in one direction: the mechanisms of state being biased and ready to use that bias in elections.


John

This is what I was responding to in my last post to you. Hence my reference to Bill Barr.

And the evidence for this is ... where?

You want me to believe Bill Barr, who was handpicked by Trump, carried out Trump's bidding on almost every occasion (and only drew the line, FINALLY, when it came to lying about the election), lied about the Mueller Report to the public, etc., etc. is biased against Trump? Is out to get Trump?
And all those judges appointed by Trump himself, who heard his cases in court, over and over again, and kept asking where the evidence was ... those guys are against Trump too? Out to get Trump?

Come on. The level of delusion you have to reach to believe these things is beyond comprehension.

 

[sayak83]

Semantics are important. It's easy to erect a straw man called "election denier" by pretending that this straw man is fixated on miscounted ballots, or false ballots.

But what any fair-minded person shouldn't be able to deny is that the FBI was out to get a republican and was willing to use the machinery of state to make the voting populace believe this republican candidate was in deep with the Russians.

That the democratic candidate at the time encouraged this election farce, and was abetted by the FBI, is far more concerning than false ballots and dead people voting, such that the media utterly ignores it (purposely) and paints a picture of an "election denier" as someone exclusively fixated on ballots, so they (the media) can whitewash the true source of angst, which is the undeniable fact that the FBI, DOJ, and numerous other machines of state (and mainstream media too), are in cahoots with the democrats and serving the needs of the democratic party as though they work for them exclusively.

When a republican, or independent, sees, clearly, with their own eyes, that they can't trust the FBI, DOJ, mainstream media, etc., then they can hardly be faulted to start wondering just how deep this oligarchial, incestuous, relationship actually goes since it's pretty likely that what we actually get to see is only the tip of a large iceberg that rather than melting as global warming would imply, just keeps getting bigger and bigger.



John

Nonsensical conspiracy theory.
Since not one of the courts or investigating agencies found any evidence of any kind of significant election frauds, instead of believing them, you believe that they are all conspirators to preserve your delusions.