What we must believe.
-
There is something odd and disingenuous in, on one hand pushing for investigations and legal redress, and at the same time basically saying even without the damming evidence, the election was a still a fraud.
I think my position is consistent. By all means investigate. By all means bring decisions to courtrooms if one side feels aggrieved.
But then have the honesty to accept what ever the evidence and/or courts say.If the expected result is not to ones liking, then why bother with the courts?
Seems to me that’s an inconsistent position.
wrote on 19 Nov 2020, 11:55 last edited by@bachophile There is something odd and disingenuous in, on one hand pushing for investigations and legal redress, and at the same time basically saying even without the damming evidence, the election was a still a fraud.
Speaking of disingenuity, there's this article listed in the bar on the right: Targeting People With Mental Illness and Dementia for Euthanasia by Wesley J. Smith.
Probably a coincidence.
-
On October 30, he was writing that Democrats were delusional if they thought they were going to win.
On October 5, he wrote that Democrat bile will re-elect Trump.
On September 15, he wrote that Trump led Biden on "top voter issue", the state of the economy
On September 4, he wrote about "the inevitable implosion of Biden's campaign"
On August 31, "Trump campaign, as Biden hits the skids"
On August 21 "Kamala won't motivate minority voters"
On August 11, "Debates will be Biden's undoing"
On August 4, "Why voting by mail imperils Biden more than Trump"
You know, I'm starting to notice a bit of a pattern.
wrote on 19 Nov 2020, 12:29 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in What we must believe.:
On October 30, he was writing that Democrats were delusional if they thought they were going to win.
On October 5, he wrote that Democrat bile will re-elect Trump.
On September 15, he wrote that Trump led Biden on "top voter issue", the state of the economy
On September 4, he wrote about "the inevitable implosion of Biden's campaign"
On August 31, "Trump campaign, as Biden hits the skids"
On August 21 "Kamala won't motivate minority voters"
On August 11, "Debates will be Biden's undoing"
On August 4, "Why voting by mail imperils Biden more than Trump"
You know, I'm starting to notice a bit of a pattern.
Don't like The Spectator?
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in What we must believe.:
On October 30, he was writing that Democrats were delusional if they thought they were going to win.
On October 5, he wrote that Democrat bile will re-elect Trump.
On September 15, he wrote that Trump led Biden on "top voter issue", the state of the economy
On September 4, he wrote about "the inevitable implosion of Biden's campaign"
On August 31, "Trump campaign, as Biden hits the skids"
On August 21 "Kamala won't motivate minority voters"
On August 11, "Debates will be Biden's undoing"
On August 4, "Why voting by mail imperils Biden more than Trump"
You know, I'm starting to notice a bit of a pattern.
Don't like The Spectator?
wrote on 19 Nov 2020, 12:37 last edited by@Jolly said in What we must believe.:
@Doctor-Phibes said in What we must believe.:
On October 30, he was writing that Democrats were delusional if they thought they were going to win.
On October 5, he wrote that Democrat bile will re-elect Trump.
On September 15, he wrote that Trump led Biden on "top voter issue", the state of the economy
On September 4, he wrote about "the inevitable implosion of Biden's campaign"
On August 31, "Trump campaign, as Biden hits the skids"
On August 21 "Kamala won't motivate minority voters"
On August 11, "Debates will be Biden's undoing"
On August 4, "Why voting by mail imperils Biden more than Trump"
You know, I'm starting to notice a bit of a pattern.
Don't like The Spectator?
Those articles aren't simply Spectator articles, they're all written by the same person. It's a little hard to take his analysis seriously when you look at the body of work.
-
@Jolly said in What we must believe.:
@Doctor-Phibes said in What we must believe.:
On October 30, he was writing that Democrats were delusional if they thought they were going to win.
On October 5, he wrote that Democrat bile will re-elect Trump.
On September 15, he wrote that Trump led Biden on "top voter issue", the state of the economy
On September 4, he wrote about "the inevitable implosion of Biden's campaign"
On August 31, "Trump campaign, as Biden hits the skids"
On August 21 "Kamala won't motivate minority voters"
On August 11, "Debates will be Biden's undoing"
On August 4, "Why voting by mail imperils Biden more than Trump"
You know, I'm starting to notice a bit of a pattern.
Don't like The Spectator?
Those articles aren't simply Spectator articles, they're all written by the same person. It's a little hard to take his analysis seriously when you look at the body of work.
wrote on 19 Nov 2020, 12:42 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in What we must believe.:
@Jolly said in What we must believe.:
@Doctor-Phibes said in What we must believe.:
On October 30, he was writing that Democrats were delusional if they thought they were going to win.
On October 5, he wrote that Democrat bile will re-elect Trump.
On September 15, he wrote that Trump led Biden on "top voter issue", the state of the economy
On September 4, he wrote about "the inevitable implosion of Biden's campaign"
On August 31, "Trump campaign, as Biden hits the skids"
On August 21 "Kamala won't motivate minority voters"
On August 11, "Debates will be Biden's undoing"
On August 4, "Why voting by mail imperils Biden more than Trump"
You know, I'm starting to notice a bit of a pattern.
Don't like The Spectator?
Those articles aren't simply
SpectatorNYT articles, they're all written bythe same personMaureen Dowd. It's a little hard to take his analysis seriously when you look at the body of work. -
wrote on 19 Nov 2020, 12:44 last edited by
Sorry, I don't read the NYT either.
Are you suggesting it's OK for the Spectator to post a load of rubbish because other people do?
-
Sorry, I don't read the NYT either.
Are you suggesting it's OK for the Spectator to post a load of rubbish because other people do?
wrote on 19 Nov 2020, 12:48 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in What we must believe.:
Sorry, I don't read the NYT either.
Are you suggesting it's OK for the Spectator to post a load of rubbish because other people do?
I believe The Spectator has a consistent view. It's up to the individual as to whether he thinks it is rubbish.
In this case, the writer is referring to a series of somewhat incredulous acts surrounding Biden's election. I happen to think there is a point there.
-
wrote on 19 Nov 2020, 12:51 last edited by
I believe there is a silent majority of people that would be willing to entertain the subject if only there was a smoking gun somewhere.
Jolly the consolation prize is that many don’t go for the horseshit evidence that the media trebucheted at us over the last four years... Russian collusion, Kavanaugh the rapist, I swear we could go back and see a lie a week and my list would be over 200 major fabricated stories that we were told we MUST believe.
-
I believe there is a silent majority of people that would be willing to entertain the subject if only there was a smoking gun somewhere.
Jolly the consolation prize is that many don’t go for the horseshit evidence that the media trebucheted at us over the last four years... Russian collusion, Kavanaugh the rapist, I swear we could go back and see a lie a week and my list would be over 200 major fabricated stories that we were told we MUST believe.
wrote on 19 Nov 2020, 12:52 last edited by@Loki said in What we must believe.:
trebucheted
Remember when IT said something about "verbing nouns?"
But that's a perfect description, I might add.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in What we must believe.:
Sorry, I don't read the NYT either.
Are you suggesting it's OK for the Spectator to post a load of rubbish because other people do?
I believe The Spectator has a consistent view. It's up to the individual as to whether he thinks it is rubbish.
In this case, the writer is referring to a series of somewhat incredulous acts surrounding Biden's election. I happen to think there is a point there.
wrote on 19 Nov 2020, 12:55 last edited by@Jolly said in What we must believe.:
believe The Spectator has a consistent view. It's up to the individual as to whether he thinks it is rubbish.
If you look at the headlines I posted, he was repeatedly wrong in his predictions. Predictably enough, the only reason he can find for this catalogue of error is the fact that the Democrats cheated.
There's a point at which we just need to acknowledge we're wrong. I was completely wrong in 2015 and 2016 when I said there's no way somebody as unspeakably awful as Donald Trump could ever be elected President of the United States. What I didn't do at any point was try claim that the guy cheated. I never thought that for an instant.
-
I believe there is a silent majority of people that would be willing to entertain the subject if only there was a smoking gun somewhere.
Jolly the consolation prize is that many don’t go for the horseshit evidence that the media trebucheted at us over the last four years... Russian collusion, Kavanaugh the rapist, I swear we could go back and see a lie a week and my list would be over 200 major fabricated stories that we were told we MUST believe.
wrote on 19 Nov 2020, 12:57 last edited by Doctor Phibes@Loki said in What we must believe.:
I believe there is a silent majority of people
There's pretty much always a silent majority of people that just happen to think exactly like I do. If only they'd speak up, the world would be such a better place.
-
@Jolly said in What we must believe.:
believe The Spectator has a consistent view. It's up to the individual as to whether he thinks it is rubbish.
If you look at the headlines I posted, he was repeatedly wrong in his predictions. Predictably enough, the only reason he can find for this catalogue of error is the fact that the Democrats cheated.
There's a point at which we just need to acknowledge we're wrong. I was completely wrong in 2015 and 2016 when I said there's no way somebody as unspeakably awful as Donald Trump could ever be elected President of the United States. What I didn't do at any point was try claim that the guy cheated. I never thought that for an instant.
wrote on 19 Nov 2020, 13:01 last edited by Catseye3@Doctor-Phibes said in What we must believe.:
I was completely wrong in 2015 and 2016 when I said there's no way somebody as unspeakably awful as Donald Trump could ever be elected President of the United States.
Me, too. I mostly laughed.
I'll go you one better. I was completely confident that the GOP would put a spoke in his wheel forthwith because geez.
Imagine my surprise.
-
wrote on 19 Nov 2020, 13:07 last edited by
In addition, the reason we have elections is that they're pretty much the only way to find out what the silent majority actually want, as opposed to what we'd like them to think.
And now, we're being told to disregard this, as it doesn't make sense with what the voices in our head are telling us.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in What we must believe.:
I was completely wrong in 2015 and 2016 when I said there's no way somebody as unspeakably awful as Donald Trump could ever be elected President of the United States.
Me, too. I mostly laughed.
I'll go you one better. I was completely confident that the GOP would put a spoke in his wheel forthwith because geez.
Imagine my surprise.
wrote on 19 Nov 2020, 13:15 last edited by Doctor Phibes@Catseye3 said in What we must believe.:
@Doctor-Phibes said in What we must believe.:
I was completely wrong in 2015 and 2016 when I said there's no way somebody as unspeakably awful as Donald Trump could ever be elected President of the United States.
Me, too. I mostly laughed.
I'll go you one better. I was completely confident that the GOP would put a spoke in his wheel forthwith because geez.
Imagine my surprise.
In 2016, at least one person here said that his campaign was so bad they believed he was deliberately trying to lose. And it wasn't a liberal making this claim, if memory serves.
-
In addition, the reason we have elections is that they're pretty much the only way to find out what the silent majority actually want, as opposed to what we'd like them to think.
And now, we're being told to disregard this, as it doesn't make sense with what the voices in our head are telling us.
wrote on 19 Nov 2020, 14:57 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in What we must believe.:
In addition, the reason we have elections is that they're pretty much the only way to find out what the silent majority actually want, as opposed to what we'd like them to think.
And now, we're being told to disregard this, as it doesn't make sense with what the voices in our head are telling us.
Almost 50 million voters think this election was rigged. That's not a silent majority, but it's a damn good percentage...