Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election
-
@jolly said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@jolly said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@larry said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@larry only those who truly believed will be trusted with the sacred knowledge.
Nah. All it takes is someone who stays informed.
Right, but it’s not the sort of evidence that a court could see. Or that could be posted on an Internet forum like this one.
Again, listen to Ted Cruz talk about election law. I'll think you'll find it interesting...
I’ll listen to his podcast. I’ve listened to multiple Trump sympathetic podcasts lately to understand how they’re propping up this voter fraud thing. Any episode in particular?
You'll have to find it, as it was done back in early November, but Cruz talks about how hard election fraud is to prove and the almost impossible standard to be met to overturn or revote an election.
I don’t doubt that. But I’ve not seen any plausible evidence or fraud at all. Have you? Why are the republicans governors and administration (e.g. Georgia) - pushing back against the fraud theories so hard? Their constituents would see them as heroes if they delivered the goods.
-
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@jolly said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@jolly said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@larry said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@larry only those who truly believed will be trusted with the sacred knowledge.
Nah. All it takes is someone who stays informed.
Right, but it’s not the sort of evidence that a court could see. Or that could be posted on an Internet forum like this one.
Again, listen to Ted Cruz talk about election law. I'll think you'll find it interesting...
I’ll listen to his podcast. I’ve listened to multiple Trump sympathetic podcasts lately to understand how they’re propping up this voter fraud thing. Any episode in particular?
You'll have to find it, as it was done back in early November, but Cruz talks about how hard election fraud is to prove and the almost impossible standard to be met to overturn or revote an election.
I don’t doubt that. But I’ve not seen any plausible evidence or fraud at all. Have you? Why are the republicans governors and administration (e.g. Georgia) - pushing back against the fraud theories so hard? Their constituents would see them as heroes if they delivered the goods.
You haven't seen it because the media you get your info from controls what you can and cannot see. You want to hear what they tell you anyway, so that's as deep as you go. Then you rationalize your limited view by asking what seems to you to be logical questions, but youre missing so much information that you can't get beyond the point that satisfies you.
-
@larry said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@jolly said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@jolly said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@larry said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@larry only those who truly believed will be trusted with the sacred knowledge.
Nah. All it takes is someone who stays informed.
Right, but it’s not the sort of evidence that a court could see. Or that could be posted on an Internet forum like this one.
Again, listen to Ted Cruz talk about election law. I'll think you'll find it interesting...
I’ll listen to his podcast. I’ve listened to multiple Trump sympathetic podcasts lately to understand how they’re propping up this voter fraud thing. Any episode in particular?
You'll have to find it, as it was done back in early November, but Cruz talks about how hard election fraud is to prove and the almost impossible standard to be met to overturn or revote an election.
I don’t doubt that. But I’ve not seen any plausible evidence or fraud at all. Have you? Why are the republicans governors and administration (e.g. Georgia) - pushing back against the fraud theories so hard? Their constituents would see them as heroes if they delivered the goods.
You haven't seen it because the media you get your info from controls what you can and cannot see. You want to hear what they tell you anyway, so that's as deep as you go. Then you rationalize your limited view by asking what seems to you to be logical questions, but youre missing so much information that you can't get beyond the point that satisfies you.
Where did you get your information about where I get my information?
-
@jolly said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@larry said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@larry only those who truly believed will be trusted with the sacred knowledge.
Nah. All it takes is someone who stays informed.
Right, but it’s not the sort of evidence that a court could see. Or that could be posted on an Internet forum like this one.
Again, listen to Ted Cruz talk about election law. I'll think you'll find it interesting...
Ted Cruz is a different kind of slime ball than Trump, but a slime ball just the same. It just oozes out of him. Almost feel sorry for Texans.
-
@larry on climate change - completely different topic. But there is a high degree of confidence that human activity is contributing to increasing temps because:
- carbon in the atmosphere has historically been linked to higher temps
-there’s been a very quick rise in carbon over the past several decades
- there’s been a very quick rise in temp over the past several decades
We have a large historical data set to compare these levels against. It’s is not 100% certain that human activity is causing the rise in temps. It could be a coincidence. But it’s be very unlikely it’s a coincidence. You can read more here:
-
Xenon, you really need to make OAN or Newsmax your home page. You'll see the world in a whole different light. There is so much hidden agenda out there it will make your head spin.
-
@nobodyssock said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@jolly said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@larry said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@larry only those who truly believed will be trusted with the sacred knowledge.
Nah. All it takes is someone who stays informed.
Right, but it’s not the sort of evidence that a court could see. Or that could be posted on an Internet forum like this one.
Again, listen to Ted Cruz talk about election law. I'll think you'll find it interesting...
Ted Cruz is a different kind of slime ball than Trump, but a slime ball just the same. It just oozes out of him. Almost feel sorry for Texans.
He is a very smart man. But he has zero spine and self-respect. Trump deeply insulted his wife and took jobs at his dad - and did not apologize.
I guess power is more important to some folk than those sorta things.
-
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@larry on climate change - completely different topic. But there is a high degree of confidence that human activity is contributing to increasing temps because:
- carbon in the atmosphere has historically been linked to higher temps
Actually, no it hasn't.
-there’s been a very quick rise in carbon over the past several decades
- there’s been a very quick rise in temp over the past several decades
We have a large historical data set to compare these levels against. It’s is not 100% certain that human activity is causing the rise in temps. It could be a coincidence. But it’s be very unlikely it’s a coincidence.
YES, it's a different topic. But you justify it as fact with points that cannot be proven. Then you turn right around and demand that I give you "the big fact" that will prove voter fraud. No one with any understanding of the situation denies there was voter fraud. Except you, of course. According to you, I'm crazy for questioning the election because I can't offer proof that will give you no way to get around it - but I'm also crazy for questioning man causing "climate change" even though YOU can't offer proof of it other than theories, theories you even admit might just be coincidence... theories that do not hold water when actual science is applied to them.
I've given you proof of voter fraud several times. Each time, you dismiss it and "shoot it down" with arguments straight from the very same media sources that are proven Leftwing propagandists.
-
@nobodyssock said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@jolly said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@larry said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@larry only those who truly believed will be trusted with the sacred knowledge.
Nah. All it takes is someone who stays informed.
Right, but it’s not the sort of evidence that a court could see. Or that could be posted on an Internet forum like this one.
Again, listen to Ted Cruz talk about election law. I'll think you'll find it interesting...
Ted Cruz is a different kind of slime ball than Trump, but a slime ball just the same. It just oozes out of him. Almost feel sorry for Texans.
And the best part of you ran down your mama's leg. But I don't feel sorry for Californians...You seem to be about par for the course out there.
-
-
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@larry your analogy would work if there were millions of years of voting patterns and voting choice was governed by scientific principles.
And even then - at most you’d have high confidence that something may have happened. Not proof.
See what I mean? I don't think you even realize you do it.
-
-
@larry said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@larry it’s your analogy man. I’m telling you it doesn’t work.
I know, cupcake. You just enjoy your delusion.
Now if you wanna talk about proof. You haven’t posted any. You posted a link to a truck driver a few days ago. I went beyond that and watched his vid conference and gave my thoughts. You didn’t reply.
I rarely post news links when talking to you. It’s generally futile
-
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2020/12/mr-hawleys-challenge-is-not.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Mr. Hawley’s challenge is not unprecedented... Democrats in both the House and Senate challenged certification of the 2004 election results...""... and House Democrats tried on their own to challenge the 2016 and 2000 outcomes, though without Senate support. ... Senator Barbara Boxer of California... briefly delayed the certification of George W. Bush’s victory... cit[ing] claims that Ohio election officials had improperly purged voter rolls... which Mr. Bush carried by fewer than 120,000 votes. Nancy Pelosi, then the House Democratic leader, supported the challenge.... The House voted 267 to 31 against the challenge and the Senate rejected it 74 to 1... After the 2016 election, several House Democrats tried again, rising during the joint session to register challenges against Mr. Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in various states. The Democrats cited reasons ranging from long lines at polling sites to the Kremlin’s election influence operation."
So... in the last three decades, every time a Republican won, Congressional Democrats challenged the certification of the election, and every time a Democrat won, Congressional Republicans did not challenge the certification.
That certainly puts a different light on what Josh Hawley is doing!
Either challenging the certification is the norm or it is not. It can't be the norm for Democrats and abnormal when a Republican does the same thing. Either Congress has a role in looking into the workings of the state elections or it does not. It can't be that the role is to question Republican victories and rubber-stamp Democratic victories.
I can see — in the NYT write up — the basis for arguing that there actually should be a lopsided role. To fill out something I elided above: "In challenging those results Democrats cited claims that Ohio election officials had improperly purged voter rolls and otherwise disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of voters in the state...."
The argument that's hinted at is that there should be heightened scrutiny where the challenge has to do with discrimination against a traditionally discriminated against group.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Emphases in original.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@george-k said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
Either challenging the certification is the norm or it is not.
Seems like the wrong framing?
Seems like it can be a symbolic protest that nobody ever takes as anything but, or it can be an organized attempt to actually overturn an election result.
The former might be a yawn-worthy norm. The latter isn't.
And it should be obvious that an organized attempt to overturn an election result that fails, isn't the same as the symbolic gesture.
-
@jon-nyc said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@george-k said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
Either challenging the certification is the norm or it is not.
Seems like the wrong framing?
Seems like it can be a symbolic protest that nobody ever takes as anything but, or it can be an organized attempt to actually overturn an election result.
The former might be a yawn-worthy norm. The latter isn't.
And it should be obvious that just because the latter fails that doesn't put it in the symbolic camp.
You know it’s been four years of chicken little. It sounds so much like the boy who cried wolf. But but but this time the Russian agent is going to end democracy. Yawn.
-
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@larry said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@xenon said in Pence refused to sign on to Jan 6 plan to steal election:
@larry it’s your analogy man. I’m telling you it doesn’t work.
I know, cupcake. You just enjoy your delusion.
Now if you wanna talk about proof. You haven’t posted any. You posted a link to a truck driver a few days ago. I went beyond that and watched his vid conference and gave my thoughts. You didn’t reply.
You weren't the only one who dug into that case. But when someone looks at the "proof" behind it and points out it has more holes in it than Swiss cheese, there's nothing but crickets to be heard. Same with the "1 in a quadrillion" statistic.
The strategy seems to be:
- throw around some nice sounding assertions as if they are undisputable facts, no matter how thin the actual proof is
- if it is pointed out that the proof is extremely weak or nonexistent, ignore it
- when you're starting to run out of assertions, just move on to the next set
- whatever happens, keep claiming that anyone who denies that the election was stolen simply has no understanding of the situation or gets his/her info from the wrong sources
- when asked to present further proof, just throw smoke by introducing another topic like climate change which has plenty of misinformation that you can abuse to show how ignorant your opponent is
