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

Yes faith has nothing to do with the concept of an Election .. my faith can not do anything to change 2+2 Into 5. Wether you believe it or not 2+2 = 4 and 80 million is more then 72million. Your feels mean squat to facts

 

Explain how it's a strawman then? Was it the lack of evidence you have despite claiming there is some? Is saying that election was false because you personally believe it was wrong the strawman?

Also, how is it a bandwagon when I already thought you were a baseless conspiracy theorist to begin with?

 

Read it again. Tell me the the part where there needs to be a conspiracy theory. Getting you accept evidence is not even on my agenda. You won't even acknowledge that there is evidence unless it is definitive, irrefutable proof--and that's clearly giving you the benefit of the doubt.

"Because all evidence is contested by opposing parties, ignored, or obstructed. Getting your stamp of approval is not my point. My point, which I made several times already, is that the election system needs to inspire faith in its constituents. You made an appeal to an authority that has history of deceit and misrepresentation. You called that a conspiracy theory.

So yeah, good on you to circle all the way back to my original assessment. I have no faith that such an election has happened. I don't have to prove that. Elections are a matter of faith, and what is more transparent than ever before, is the total lack of it. Electing a president who promised to weed out corruption in a rigged system, as absurd as that was, was tantamount to admitting that the system is bankrupt on its credibility. You want to try to recover that from that with Biden? Ok. Nice choice."

No theory here. Just a lack of belief, which is why I don't vote and why I don't think your vote matters.

 

- Trump winning the 2016 election isn't evidence of 2020 election "rigging."
- Your lack of faith isn't evidence of 2020 election "rigging."

When I challenged you to provide evidence regarding foreign election interference, you cited a Wikipedia article as evidence. When I challenged you regarding your claim of 2020 election rigging, you posted no evidence at all. Color me unimpressed.

 

You keep losing any creditably in your argument. Number and facts “Trump” your feelings and faith..

 

This right here has to be the only thing you have said as true.

Who the actual fuck would believe in anything unless it is 100% definitive and irrefutable?

The only people I can think of are the religious (not a dig just a fact) and conspiracy nuts.

 

Great, now show me where I said that. I said America lacks credibility. I have said that the election is probably rigged and that I believe it was rigged (staged). But I have also have acknowledged that I am not trying to convince you that it was. I can't change what you believe.

You called my statement a conspiracy theory which was easy enough to remedy.

I don't need you to believe it, or even care if you do. I already believe that it is likely.

 

Putting all faith into one person to 'weed out corruption in a rigged system' might have been too much to ask for to begin with.

Here is how its set up roughly. Lobbying (corruption within certain confines) is seen as good. Because it informs the political class on 'matters of importance' from the perspective of the interests that also matter most to everyone living a 'decent life'. "If corp is happy, everyone is happy."

That contract kind of got broken along the way. But 'getting rid of corruption' - isnt going to solve the underlying issue. Its kind of a 'diminishing returns' issue. So of course as an institution you need to be held accountable, and for that you need transparency, and thats the 'job' of certain (underfinanced) NGOs, but if you get rid of 'all corruption' nothing much is gained.

So system is set up to allow for some amount of corruption (/collusion), but 'if it gets too much' and people notice, you are getting voted out.

In the US you now had pretty much only 'change' elections for some time now - but if they arent 'decisive' enough (you also getting the power in senate), or if people decide to f*ck over a certain sentiment (Obama, once in office - everything was 'retain the status quo') things stay the same. Even moreso - if there is no accepted vision of what should change - people wont even attempt it.

So two points.

1. People wanted to be like Trump, and liked that he told them, you could do it, just believe in me, and I'll get rid of corruption. Were lead completely astray. Putting all power in one person, and 'hoping for the best' is about the worst thing you can do.

If you want political change in a democracy, you dont do it by 'voting' you do it by coming up with a compelling program - that makes sense, that people would like - and you make it popular. If the best you could come up with is 'drain the swamp' (and 'build a wall' and...), you might be SOL on creating a working society.

(The entirety of capitalism is about creating 'rails' for human self interest and the will to not care about others, before caring about yourself. If your perspective is 'eliminate all the bad parts of peoples power drive' and you are left with all the good parts, you might be naive.)

2. Democracy can be seen as 'merely' a system for peaceful transition of power. If people dont vote - they passively condone the status quo, if not voting is all they do. If they try to 'delegitimize' the current system, than there always is the question 'against what alternative'. And if there is no alternative ('party', societal vision, ...) even elections with only 40% of people turning up for the vote can be seen as 'perfectly legitimate'.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections

 

People who don't know everything.

Nobody lives by,"if I can doubt it, then I will."

There's no evidence that a free and fair election happened btw.

 

I don't know everything, but I would rather have all the answers with definitive proof first instead of just believing or making assumptions based on how I feel.

I can observe that the world is flat from my point of view and I could go on and believe it to be so, but I don't want to wallow in baseless beliefs and ignorance, and if you wish to please feel free, just don't expect everyone to follow you down into the muck.

 

I suppose that's an ideal.

/checks thread.

If you say so.

 

*Checks signature*

Oh the Irony.

 

How so?

Sounds like you are self-loathing.

 

That someone that wants to believe in things based on their gut feelings alone would have the audacity to try to call someone out like you just did is laughable.

You've spent this whole topic presenting cases for fraud and unfairness based off your feels, and you're trying to say I am the one with baseless beliefs and ignorance? Please.

I can see why no one wants to argue with you, your mental gymnastics and hypocrisy is absolutely astoundingly exhausting.

 

There you go, strawmanning again. You being in this thread is the act of wallowing in baseless beliefs and ignorance. Enjoy your stay.

 

Study English a bit more, because it seems you don't actually know what a strawman is.

You literally just said not even a moment ago that you don't believe the election is fair and therefore don't believe that your vote is worth anything. How the is that strawman, honestly? I just repeated your exact point.

Your best retort is summed up as a "No U", you didn't actually refute anything either.

Now you're just boring me.

 

Actually, it was earlier today when you claimed that widespread voter fraud is "likely." When I listed every government agency, state, and court that claimed or demonstrated that the election was fair and secure, you responded by labeling those groups "the arms and legs, apart of a single government, that rigs elections." If you claim that widespread voter fraud is likely then attack the agencies I cite as evidence, while alleging their involvement in a potential conspiracy, I have every right to challenge you for evidence. You have none -- end of story.

 

Big nothing from soomeone who wont reveal who they accept as a reliable news source and do nothing other endlessly shitpost

— Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

Evidence of what?

— Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

Fact check: No you don't, You're projecting your crackpipe.


https://www.headcount.org/voting-faq/what-do-i-need-to-register-t-vote/
In most states, if you have neither a current driver’s license or state-issued ID, and have never been issued a social security number, you can still register by indicating on the registration form that you have neither identification number. Some may require an affidavit or other documentation.

 

That's a fair take on its decisiveness - I'm also unsure if the presented claims would be enough for a legal victory for Trump. On the other hand, there are still ongoing lawsuits, so the real score won't be known until they are all over. In my opinion, such fraud allegations, let it be testimonial, material or statistical, are indeed serious, and should be properly examined. Finally, it is possible that the results were indeed reversed due to fraud but that it isn't provable by the legal standard (the same way an innocent might be pronounced guilty in court and vice-versa).

I think this bit is probably not true: "crowd-sourced blog where anyone can add anything they want". I couldn't find the purposefully fake entry another user tried to add as a test, not even among the 1000 unverified claims which are clearly separated from the others (and which, I don't deny, have a lower bar for acceptance).

And it is indeed almost certainly the person(s) behind the website are pro-Trump and are collecting and curating info from other sources; it doesn't make it an illegitimate enterprise (as the tone of the post might suggest - I might be mistaken), nor it makes them the sole subject of the matter with instantanous dismissal of the evidence presented (which I don't accuse you of).

 

You didn't repeat anything, exactly. You said what sounds easier to dispute--strawman.