Election 2020 - Page 588 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15158013
Yggdrasill wrote:By the way, risible is spelled with two "i"s. It's a great word and deserves to be spelled correctly.


And I usually do spell it properly. I do alright for a fellow with a mild dyslexia... At least I think it's mild, lol.

But you place far too much trust in the intelligence agencies and the American political elite; it's in their interest to have enemies even if they have to manufacture one.
#15158018
Yggdrasill wrote:Well, I just joined this forum and I hope that the above post does not represent the typical level of discourse here. "Blanket assertion" followed by "you are stupid and wrong if you don't agree with me."


Istanbuller is an insane Fox News echo chamber libertarian and Annatar straight up logiced himself into believing that the election must have been rigged against Trump. Because the most likely reason that an unpopular president would lose is because he was so widely disliked that it would force people to cheat to keep the unpopular president from winning.

PoFo's rightwing members are insane. There's also the Christian nazi and the guy who posts videos of black people being murdered by the police for fun. Have fun meeting them.
User avatar
By Verv
#15158023
SpecialOlympian wrote:What a shocker that Verv, a guy who unironically used the term "final solution" for immigration and has posted obscure fascist Twitter accounts he mysteriously knows about, loves the nazi Gab platform.


You gotta tag me in these things.

I value all of our interactions. :lol:

You used to just outright stalk me in threads until the moderators took down your repetitive posts -- I kind of miss this behavior, it really revealed a part of who you are.

SpecialOlympian wrote:PoFo's rightwing members are insane. There's also the Christian nazi and the guy who posts videos of black people being murdered by the police for fun. Have fun meeting them.


Are you trying to reference me here, too?
User avatar
By SpecialOlympian
#15158024
I dunno Verv, are you the Christian who talks about final solutions for immigration and posts obscure nazi shit that one could only find by actively seeking it out?
User avatar
By Verv
#15158026
SpecialOlympian wrote:I dunno Verv, are you the Christian who talks about final solutions for immigration and posts obscure nazi shit that one could only find by actively seeking it out?


I am a Christian, and I have zero memory of talking about a final solution for immigrants, and definitely have never implied mass murder about anyone.

I do remember the Twitter account debacle :lol:, and you having your repetitive posts trying to corner me with the "HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS ACCOUNT?!" deleted as they were off topic.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15158028
Verv wrote:I have zero memory of talking about...

Seeing as you were busy pickling your brain in alcohol at the time, it doesn't surprise me.


:)
User avatar
By Verv
#15158029
That is true. Many years spent drinking, 3 to 4 nights a week drunk, sometimes even clearing five nights a week. Those really were wild days back then. :hmm: :lol:

Sometimes I imagine them as a really beautifully, youthful period, lots of exploration and testing of limits. This isn't untrue. Some of that did exist. But it really was just a lot of alcoholism and hanging out with an interesting crowd.

Just a couple years ago,one of my friends told me that I had changed the most from those days. At first I was offended by this observation, like it was an attack on my integrity (lol), but I've learned that this was necessary. Change was necessary.

And it still is necessary.

I ask forgiveness for the stupid things I've said. I'll do my best to make up for it in the 2020s with some high effort, mediocre sober posting.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15158107
@Potemkin Good to know. :)

Yes. I renewed my auto insurance once I read that clarification.

@Yggdrasill Yggdrasill

Hearty welcome to you. I have enjoyed your first few posts. Stick around.
User avatar
By SpecialOlympian
#15158136
Verv wrote:I am a Christian, and I have zero memory of talking about a final solution for immigrants, and definitely have never implied mass murder about anyone.

I do remember the Twitter account debacle :lol:, and you having your repetitive posts trying to corner me with the "HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS ACCOUNT?!" deleted as they were off topic.


Here's you regurgitating white replacement bullshit in an OP you created. This was 2019 btw, or less than 1.5 years ago.

And yes, you never did answer why you follow multiple white nationalist Twitter accounts. How do you know multiple nazi Twitter accounts with followers in the 200 or less range? Why are you actively seeking them out and regurgitating the same white replacement conspiracy theory bullshit?

You know what they say. If it steps like a goose.
User avatar
By Verv
#15158140
SpecialOlympian wrote:Here's you regurgitating white replacement bullshit in an OP you created. This was 2019 btw, or less than 1.5 years ago.

And yes, you never did answer why you follow multiple white nationalist Twitter accounts. How do you know multiple nazi Twitter accounts with followers in the 200 or less range? Why are you actively seeking them out and regurgitating the same white replacement conspiracy theory bullshit?


(1) Oh, the only reference to final solution there is you.

So, you should consider dropping that line.

It just isn't true.

It's a boring post about SCOTUS and immigration law. The most damning thing there is suggesting we shouldn't have our demographics fundamentally altered.

I also do not know how it is a conspiracy theory -- the demographics of America have dramatically changed over the last half century.

However, I do not think of it as a designed replacement, but rather it's just the pattern that you see in pretty much every developed country, even in Korea & Japan (who now have even worse birth rates than Western states).

But I suppose that this would be a topic for debate, something that yuo are not interested in, as yuo showed us in the thread you brought up, lol, look at this stunning contribution to political discussion:

SO wrote:]Lmbo at this thread. Verv starts it off with "The Jews will not replace us, a final solution is coming" and then Igor goes into full Jewish conspiracy mode.

The shining diamonds of PoFo's rightwing: "Debate me!!" fash and 4chan fash


(2) I follow a lot of NRx / Frog twitter / Groyper accounts, which has me occasionally brush shoulders with more unsavory characters. The guy in question I remember starting following because he had posted extensively on Iran. Now, I do not even remember why I had shared the specific Tweet of his here, but it was not Nazi material.
By Doug64
#15158141
Image
Drlee wrote:Then they refused to hear the Pennsylvania and Wisconsin cases.

A huge mistake on the Supreme Court's part, this was probably their best chance to get in the obvious ruling that the Constitution gives the authority to make the laws governing state elections to Congress and the state legislators, not state officers or judges, all without being seen as siding with currently active candidates. I guess Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett are hoping and praying that there aren't any cases next year that will require them to pass judgment on Biden's legitimacy.

Yggdrasill wrote:I get what you're saying but I don't agree. I think that Democrats by and large considered Trump to be the legitimately elected President, but felt the electoral process to have been surreptitiously and "unfairly" influenced by certain events.

Here's a Rasmussen poll of Likely Voters from April 2017. I don't think the numbers ever changed much over the years:

Did Donald Trump win the presidential election fairly last November?

  • Yes 55%
  • No 33%
  • Not sure 11%

Republicans
  • Yes 87%
  • No 9%
  • Not sure 4%

Independents
  • Yes 59%
  • No 27%
  • Not sure 14%

Democrats
  • Yes 23%
  • No 61%
  • Not sure 15%
User avatar
By SpecialOlympian
#15158144
Verv wrote:It's a boring post about SCOTUS and immigration law. The most damning thing there is suggesting we shouldn't have our demographics fundamentally altered.

I also do not know how it is a conspiracy theory -- the demographics of America have dramatically changed over the last half century.


Wow, you sure are defensive. And suspiciously keen to avoid the "and our voices silenced" part. Whose voices, Verv? Who benefits from the "final victory?" Lets pretend it's not obvious who you're referring to when you're talking about demographic shifts.

I follow a lot of NRx / Frog twitter / Groyper accounts, which has me occasionally brush shoulders with more unsavory characters. The guy in question I remember starting following because he had posted extensively on Iran. Now, I do not even remember why I had shared the specific Tweet of his here, but it was not Nazi material.


Multiple Tweets, and you just admitted you follow a bunch of nazis for some reason. Multiple flavors of nazi, in fact, to the point where you're regurgitating their talking points and consider them to be good sources of information.

It steps like a goose.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15158148
...the Constitution gives the authority to make the laws governing state elections to Congress and the state legislators, not state officers or judges, all without being seen as siding with currently active candidates.


Nooooo. That is not even in question. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that to not extend the deadlines would have violated the state constitution and rendered the requirements in the law moot. You really need to dig into this stuff. Whether or not the legislature can write election law was never in doubt. What was in doubt was the constitutionality of the laws they wrote in the light of extraordinary circumstances. Covid brought to light the fact that a dogged adherence to the law that the state legislature wrote would have put that law in violation of the state constitution.

Turn off Fox News, stop listening to Republican pundits and start listening to the judges involved.
User avatar
By Verv
#15158151
SpecialOlympian wrote:Wow, you sure are defensive. And suspiciously keen to avoid the "and our voices silenced" part. Whose voices, Verv? Who benefits from the "final victory?" Lets pretend it's not obvious who you're referring to when you're talking about demographic shifts.


I understand you have to ignore the part where I point out that this "final solution" statement is completely incorrect; it's what your bad memory inserted into it.

Now, what did I just explain?

However, I do not think of it as a designed replacement, but rather it's just the pattern that you see in pretty much every developed country, even in Korea & Japan (who now have even worse birth rates than Western states).

This is an event that people have much control over. Sure, we can make an effort to do what they are doing in Hungary to increase the birth rate and that's desirable, but it would really require total legislative and judicial capture in the US to be able to do any of this. It's quite unlikely.

Whose voices? Historic Americans that dominate middle America.

Multiple Tweets, and you just admitted you follow a bunch of nazis for some reason. Multiple flavors of nazi, in fact, to the point where you're regurgitating their talking points and consider them to be good sources of information.

It steps like a goose.


You clearly have a moronic & ideological understanding of the contemporary right, which is why it is obvious to anyone that whenever you call someone a Nazi, it'd require further investigation, because 9 times out of 10 it's just someone who is right wing & not some mainstream conservative or Libertarian.

You could really benefit yourself if you decided to stop wasting your time being butt hurt about what right wingers post on PoFo, and actually try to go and learn some political philosophy and thus be able to talk about the right wing with any amount of depth.
User avatar
By Yggdrasill
#15158159
Doug64 wrote:Image

A huge mistake on the Supreme Court's part, this was probably their best chance to get in the obvious ruling that the Constitution gives the authority to make the laws governing state elections to Congress and the state legislators, not state officers or judges, all without being seen as siding with currently active candidates. I guess Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett are hoping and praying that there aren't any cases next year that will require them to pass judgment on Biden's legitimacy.


Here's a Rasmussen poll of Likely Voters from April 2017. I don't think the numbers ever changed much over the years:

Did Donald Trump win the presidential election fairly last November?

  • Yes 55%
  • No 33%
  • Not sure 11%

Republicans
  • Yes 87%
  • No 9%
  • Not sure 4%

Independents
  • Yes 59%
  • No 27%
  • Not sure 14%

Democrats
  • Yes 23%
  • No 61%
  • Not sure 15%


Doug, thanks for posting these numbers. They seem about right to me, but what do I know for certain about how millions of people think and why? I don't want to come across like I'm splitting semantic hairs, but "winning the election fairly" and being "legitimately elected" are to my mind two very different things. The former has to do with everything being above board and working equally for both candidates. The latter has to do with the integrity of the process. For me, the outcome of an election is always secondary to the integrity of the process; it HAS to be that way for the rule of law to prevail and allow for peaceful and orderly transfer of power.

For example, I never felt that Bush won the election fairly against Gore (subsequent research showed that Gore in fact won Florida, had the Supreme Court not weighed in and the ballots been properly counted). However, the process played out as it was supposed to and Gore did not further challenge the Florida count, though he could have. And I accepted George W. as my/our President, though a very distasteful one. Them's the breaks.

Most of the people I know are Democrats, and they pretty much all agree that Trump was elected in 2016 through an imperfect but properly functioning process and was legitimately President, though a bunch of things fell ("unfairly") his way (Comey's last minute statement, Russian election disinformation), without which the election might have more accurately reflected the will of the people. The fact that Trump lost the popular vote doesn't help either. But all this is miles from the Republicans' claims that the process was broken and subverted in multiple states, that substantial and consequential election and voter fraud were rampant, and from continuing to maintain said view in the face zero evidence to support it - and overwhelming evidence against it - just because their guy lost.

How do you move forward if people think that the electoral process itself is broken, when it isn't? If you can't identify the problem, you can't fix it.
User avatar
By Yggdrasill
#15158161
annatar1914 wrote:And I usually do spell it properly. I do alright for a fellow with a mild dyslexia... At least I think it's mild, lol.

But you place far too much trust in the intelligence agencies and the American political elite; it's in their interest to have enemies even if they have to manufacture one.


Hey, I'm sorry about the dyslexia. I have friends with that condition to varying degrees and it can be really challenging. Good news is that it means you are likely smarter than average and have really good spatial skills and right brain processing.

I don't know what to make of your comment. First you say that the notion of a Russian disinformation campaign in 2016 is "risible and insane", - a pretty dramatic indictment - then tell me that I place too much trust in intel agencies. How much trust is too much? If more than zero, than how far can I go? And does it matter the issue in question?

If you're saying that the intelligence community writ large had motive to dissemble and misrepresent or fabricate their findings, then be specific about what findings exactly and why and how. Or at the very, very least, supply a substantiated motive. Otherwise, it's just paranoid conspiracy theory, which doesn't advance the conversation towards any better understanding.
By Doug64
#15158164
Yggdrasill wrote:Doug, thanks for posting these numbers. They seem about right to me, but what do I know for certain about how millions of people think and why? I don't want to come across like I'm splitting semantic hairs, but "winning the election fairly" and being "legitimately elected" are to my mind two very different things.

Ask any sports fans that have had their team lose a game because a ref blew a call whether the other team "legitimately won" the game. You're confusing "officially" with "legitimately"--Biden officially "won" the election because he had sufficient states certify that he won a majority of their validly cast votes. The fact that a number of those states lied about that, that the Supreme Court refused to step in and correct it (admittedly,at least in part because Republican state legislators hadn't challenged the unconstitutional actions of the state executive officers and judges in a timely manner), and that Congress had no choice but to accept those lies because all the Constitution allows them to do is to count those Electoral College votes, doesn't change the fact that Biden did not receive a majority of valid votes--meaning votes cast in accordance with the laws as instituted by the state legislatures--and therefore was not legitimately elected and never will, no matter what the official record says. Like Rutherford B. Hayes, for all of time going forward there will be an asterisk after "President" Biden's name. And unlike Hayes's Republicans, today's Democrats don't have massive voter fraud on the part of the Republicans as an excuse.

For example, I never felt that Bush won the election fairly against Gore (subsequent research showed that Gore in fact won Florida, had the Supreme Court not weighed in and the ballots been properly counted). However, the process played out as it was supposed to and Gore did not further challenge the Florida count, though he could have.

If the process had played out in 2020 as Florida state law required, it would have been over much faster--but Florida judges tried to step in and give the state to Gore. The interesting thing is that, according to the statewide recount carried out by the press after it was all over, the only way Gore could have won was a statewide recount ... and according to Florida law, that couldn't happen because for any recount to occur one of the campaigns had to request it within a set time limit, and the Gore campaign tried to get cute by only asking for recounts in a couple counties favorable enough to Democrats that they hoped to pick up enough votes to put them over the top. If Gore had acted the statesman instead of the politician, he probably would have been president. Mind, the only reason the election was that close was likely because some news stations called the state for Gore while the polls in the Florida panhandle--traditionally more conservative--were still open and a bunch of voters walked away without voting.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15158168
Yggdrasill wrote:Hey, I'm sorry about the dyslexia. I have friends with that condition to varying degrees and it can be really challenging. Good news is that it means you are likely smarter than average and have really good spatial skills and right brain processing.

I don't know what to make of your comment. First you say that the notion of a Russian disinformation campaign in 2016 is "risible and insane", - a pretty dramatic indictment - then tell me that I place too much trust in intel agencies. How much trust is too much? If more than zero, than how far can I go? And does it matter the issue in question?

If you're saying that the intelligence community writ large had motive to dissemble and misrepresent or fabricate their findings, then be specific about what findings exactly and why and how. Or at the very, very least, supply a substantiated motive. Otherwise, it's just paranoid conspiracy theory, which doesn't advance the conversation towards any better understanding.


@Yggdrasill ;

Countering a paranoid conspiracy theory is now branded a paranoid conspiracy theory...

Motive? In 2016, Hillary Clinton, an uninspiring, fake, loathsome and basically unlikable to anyone candidate, wins the democratic nomination and is cynically if dutifully anointed the front-runner by a captive liberal corporate media. The GOP nominee Donald Trump is elected President by being the not-Hillary Clinton and the not-Jeb Bush. Clinton retaliated by inferring that the Russian government must have helped the GOP nominee win, and for a number of reasons the establishment runs with the idea (President Trump ironically being the most Anti-Russian President in action if not words in history to date). This is echoed by Clinton's historical attempt to torpedo Barack Obama's candidacy in 2008 by her campaign's creation of the ''Birther'' story which also dogged Obama's Presidency. Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination and then the Presidency also by not being Hillary Clinton or John McCain (who was earnestly running for second place anyway).
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15158170
Yggdrasill wrote:For example, I never felt that Bush won the election fairly against Gore (subsequent research showed that Gore in fact won Florida, had the Supreme Court not weighed in and the ballots been properly counted). However, the process played out as it was supposed to and Gore did not further challenge the Florida count, though he could have. And I accepted George W. as my/our President, though a very distasteful one. Them's the breaks.

The Democrats sued and won to get nearly 8k military ballots thrown out on a technicality, about 3/4 of which went to Bush. If those ballots were counted, there's no doubt Bush won Florida.

Doug64 wrote:Ask any sports fans that have had their team lose a game because a ref blew a call whether the other team "legitimately won" the game. You're confusing "officially" with "legitimately"--Biden officially "won" the election because he had sufficient states certify that he won a majority of their validly cast votes. The fact that a number of those states lied about that, that the Supreme Court refused to step in and correct it (admittedly,at least in part because Republican state legislators hadn't challenged the unconstitutional actions of the state executive officers and judges in a timely manner), and that Congress had no choice but to accept those lies because all the Constitution allows them to do is to count those Electoral College votes, doesn't change the fact that Biden did not receive a majority of valid votes--meaning votes cast in accordance with the laws as instituted by the state legislatures--and therefore was not legitimately elected and never will, no matter what the official record says. Like Rutherford B. Hayes, for all of time going forward there will be an asterisk after "President" Biden's name. And unlike Hayes's Republicans, today's Democrats don't have massive voter fraud on the part of the Republicans as an excuse.

I think the establishment knows this, but they are desperate for people not to point out that we aren't dealing with a democratically elected president. Michael Anton wrote about this need of theirs that we accept that the outcome of the election was legitimate and fair.

Why Do the Election’s Defenders Require My Agreement?
Michael Anton wrote:The 2020 election came down to a narrower margin than the 2016 contest: fewer than 43,000 rather than 77,000 votes in just three states. In 2016, nothing fishy in Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin—the states on which 2016 turned—was detected. Certainly nothing like:

  • Counting shutdowns in five states, in which one candidate was ahead, only to lose after the counting resumed;
  • “Found” tranches of ballots going overwhelmingly—sometimes exclusively—to one candidate, the eventual “winner”;
  • Sworn affidavits alleging the backdating of ballots;
  • Historically low rejection rates—as in, orders of magnitude lower—of mail-in ballots, suggesting that many obviously invalid ballots were accepted as genuine;
  • Mail-in and absentee ballots appearing without creases, raising the question of how they got into the envelopes required for their being mailed in;
  • Thousands upon thousands of ballots all marked for one presidential candidate without a single choice marked for any down-ballot candidate.
  • The absolute refusal to conduct signature audits—indeed, the discarding of many envelopes which alone make such audits possible—i.e., of the kind of recounts which are performed not merely to get the math right but to evaluate the validity of ballots;
  • Other statistical and historical anomalies too numerous to mention here.

All of which, and much more, did occur in 2020. Any one of these things would have caused Hillary Clinton to march into court in 2016 with an army of lawyers larger than the force Hannibal brought to Cannae.

They simply were not prepared for the fact that Trump would gain 12M more votes, and the Republicans would pick up 11 seats in the House, flip state legislatures and governors chairs. It's just too obvious that it was rigged. The stonewalling makes it all the more obvious. It also leaves them with no moral high ground to attack political leaders like Vladimir Putin when they do the same things they claim he does.
  • 1
  • 586
  • 587
  • 588
  • 589
  • 590
  • 595
Atheism is Evil

Funny thing is, I actually took up bible (sic) st[…]

There are Commandments which order our lives. Th[…]

Undocumented Aliens and Crime

Breaking: Undocumented + excluded workers have shu[…]

The EU ordered European vaccines which turned out[…]