Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[ghjfdtg]

When you tell them reality of things that Trump can't win, due to statistics regarding the votes being counted as of now. They say Trump can still win.

So they indirectly admit the numbers are real knowing he can only win by undermining democracy.

 

[Joom]

So they indirectly admit the numbers are real knowing he can only win by undermining democracy.

I mean, yeah. Trump is quite transparently trying to throw out actual legal votes by saying "only count the legal votes". For example, he's trying to throw out some 3,000 military votes in Nevada because those votes came from people who were re-stationed after mailing in their ballot. We also know the majority of mailed in ballots came from Democrat voters because Trump told his support not to vote by mail, all the while lying about ballots for him being found in rivers and other nonsense. It's beyond ridiculous to shoot yourself in the foot and then blame the gun.

 

[ghjfdtg]

Him replacing people in high positions of the pentagon with loyalists is also quite alarming.

 

[tabzer]

They continue still talking like that evidence didn't exist.

If that is a claim you are making of me, I would appreciate a reference of such a situation. If you aren't casting shade on my personal character then you can ignore this.

 

[notimp]

Their train of thought in a nutshell:

The reason you cant see it is because its done in ways that cant be proven - post facto.

So how about manipulation like gerrymandering and announing two weeks before election that student ids (with photo) are not a sufficient form of I.D., but gunclub membership cards are?

How about delisting voters, with a prison sentence to their name, unless they go through a convoluted and costly process, which impacts _mostly_ black peoples vote?

How about the electoral college system (which focuses mostly on countries in the rural south)? That still stands, because of a filibuster of three white supremacist members of congress, way back when (might remember that incorrectly).

How about the possibility, that when you push out the official declaration of the winner, past a certain date - states can announce who their electoral votes go to, based on the government for that state, which by then will be mostly republican?

How abou the fact, that the last time it came to this was at the end of the civil war, where a pro black rights candidate became president, but Northern Union forces had to leave the south as a compromise, which pushed back black civil rights for centuries?

None of that count?

edit:

But let me say this loud and clear. I believe that Trump will lose GOP support after the senate elections are over. The GOP support for his 'maybe we can still get this by delaying' efforts is _only_ a way to signal to the populist base 'GOP is with you', and 'your sensibilities matter'.

This notion will eventually be discarded going forward.

 

[Joom]

If anyone's interested, here's a debunking of the Eerie, PA whistle blower. Y'know, the ace in the hole that Project Veritas is gonna get sent to prison because of their own hubris.

How about delisting voters, with a prison sentence to their name, unless they go through a convoluted and costly process, which impacts _mostly_ black peoples vote?

I know of some black people without a criminal record that were delisted. They voted in the primaries, but had to re-register to vote in the election. This was in Atlanta, too, of course.

 

[Lacius]

You've tried to make me choose between Trump and Clinton as if it would have any impact on the current situation. I don't think that is rational. When I refused, you kept being disrespectful about it. What you want from this conversation is probably different from what I want.

That's not what I did. I suggest you re-read my posts, because that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

You are not an authority or someone that I would personally trust to decide what is and what is not evidence, as it seems as if you have already decided the outcome of all news cycles between now and Biden's anticipated transition. There is evidence. Whether that evidence is condemning, accurate, fraudulent, misconstrued, unnoticed, unsubmitted, or enough--it is the court process deciding "the truth".=

Your argument appears to be that there's evidence, but it's just really bad evidence. Cool. That's not exactly contrary to anything I've said.

I guess that's your opinion based on a lack of facts.

It's not my opinion. You objectively cannot articulate any evidence of widespread voter fraud, nor can anyone else. Put up or shut up.

Why would that make me a hypocrite? I wasn't on anyone's side. People thought Clinton could still win on a technicality or a recount, but she didn't. People think Trump could bring forth an earth shattering case of massive voter fraud. He still hasn't, to my knowledge. Will he? I don't know.

Did you acknowledge Trump's victory November 8-9, 2016? If so, you are a hypocrite for all of the reasons I already stated.

 

[tabzer]

That's not what I did. I suggest you re-read my posts, because that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

Ok. I see you just want me to say that I am a hypocrite. I am sometimes.

Your argument appears to be that there's evidence, but it's just really bad evidence. Cool. That's not exactly contrary to anything I've said.

A mixed bag of evidence that hasn't been fully processed, or possibly yet submitted. It is not a "zero evidence" confidence game. It's an annoying reality tv show with an obvious plot unfurling. I do not believe that you have seen the season finale.

It's not my opinion. You objectively cannot articulate any evidence of widespread voter fraud, nor can anyone else. Put up or shut up.

Can't, won't, haven't. Please respect the nuance if you are going to be technical. Trump refused to concede, made a bold claim, and it is up to him to back it up. Until he is completely struck down, it is not something I have confidence that you can be accountable for.

Did you acknowledge Trump's victory November 8-9, 2016? If so, you are a hypocrite for all of the reasons I already stated.

You are drawing a false equivalence. People were holding their breath until Clinton conceded. Regardless of how I feel, you are suggesting that I am misrepresenting myself because "history happened".

 

[IncredulousP]

The strongest argument for better healthcare in this country are Trump supporters themselves. They need all the professional help they can get.

 

[Deleted User]

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

officer in charge of defending our election from digital voter fraud just resigned

 

[omgcat]

remember what i said about veritas? https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkd...tent=link&ICID=ref_fark&utm_source=reddit.com

 

[SG854]

How many people did ForgotWhoIam ignore?

 

[UltraSUPRA]

remember what i said about veritas? https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkd...tent=link&ICID=ref_fark&utm_source=reddit.com

https://rottenwebsites.miraheze.org/wiki/VICE

 

[Jayro]

yes !! please let us fact check the ballots... in Philly, Atlanta. No Real American can believe that Minorities voted in record numbers.. but lets only check the places they voted ..no where else.

Minorities are sick of Trump's bullshit.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

Mayor De Blasio’s daughter slipped up and said Biden was able to STEAL the election..

Does she have some inside information?

🤔 pic.twitter.com/z1n6uXX8Sm

— Tariq Nasheed 🇺🇸 (@tariqnasheed) November 11, 2020

 

[djpannda]

https://mobile.twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/1326564689833234432

Yes. Some people say Me and @UltraSUPRA are the worst kind of hypocrites.. Christain hypocrites.. you know the ones just go through the motions but don’t understand the meaning of Jesus.. because Jesus never taught About “freedoms” or “superiority” .. Jesus mostly taught Us to be meek, subservient and considerate To each other but that means nothing to the televangelists we paid.. I mean follow !

 

[Joom]

https://rottenwebsites.miraheze.org/wiki/VICE

This is like sourcing Encyclopedia Dramatica, but shittier.

 

[tabzer]

Project Veritas has done some SJW stuff for the Right's cause, and isn't completely useless on a humanitarian level. They are still sensationalists, but a little more exposé and less "propagandic" than CNN. It's funny how fact checkers will rip on Veritas and not touch CNN. Of course, the mainstream fact checkers were established by democrats in attempt to maintain control over the election influencing news media. It seems kind of silly to refer to them as an authority simply based on name "fact checker". I'm a fact checker too, and while you may not be intentionally blind, you are perpetuating self-serving BS that was manufactured to deter understanding and further split society into two factions.

 

[notimp]

A mixed bag of evidence that hasn't been fully processed, or possibly yet submitted. It is not a "zero evidence" confidence game.

Lousy argument.

Evidence thats not looked into or not submitted - is no evidence. Either you have something or you have not.

And much more importantly. If you are trolling along the 'evidence' lines that got you 6 confirmed cases of voterfraud in past elections (some of them republican, as some people that changed their place of living voted twice!), and you lost by several hundreds of thousands of votes, in four states -- chances are that you are just doing it for show.

You depend on voters that can not tell if an accusation _can_ be proven, or if fraud along those lines would be 'structural' (statistically relevant), or could even theoretically be coordinated.

You only care about having your names next to 'investigation' in the paper for a while longer. For people without any education to feel better. This response is rigged.

Makes no sense. Only chance of success is to delay declaring a winner for so long, that states declare who their electoral votes go to, without consulting any of the voting results. Which is a method, never practiced in US history, and the only time it came close - was solved through a political compromise, that shafted black folks for centuries.


Now you are lying to people - telling them that there is a possibility, that youd find hundred thousands of votes through recounts. You are damaging democracy every day for the next two months, that the GOP keeps this game up to keep voters mobilized for the senate runoffs.

 

[tabzer]

Evidence thats not looked into or not submitted - is no evidence. Either you have something or you have not.

Obviously context matters. But you are defining context after the fact, which is shifting goal posts. Evidence is being garnered everyday, and what has been submitted to the courts has seemingly been rejected or rendered unsubstantial thus far. We aren't privy to all channels of information, so it is logically impossible to rule out the existence of evidence that we don't know about. (Which is what I felt was imprudent about the "zero evidence" claim--which makes it look more like a red herring)

Now you are lying to people - telling them that there is a possibility, that youd find hundred thousands of votes through recounts.

Possibility is as an outlier-which you aren't honoring in the way that you use the word. Also, I never said the thing that you are accusing me of lying about. But I will double-down, because I feel generous. There is a possibility that I will personally find hundreds of thousands of votes.

You are damaging democracy every day for the next two months, that the GOP keeps this came up to keep voters mobilized for the senate runoffs.

Oh ok. I'm damaging democracy for using my voice. My bad. Maybe I should regurgitate what I've been told instead.