2024 ELECTION THREAD

I'm not debating this didn't happen, I'm saying I agree with it. People and groups who push frivolous bullshit and conspiracy theories about widespread election fraud when there is absolutely no evidence for it and it has been explained to them time and time again that there is no evidence for it are either a) complete nutjobs incapable of critical thinking (deniers) or b) political operatives purposely trying undermine trust in the democratic process (bad for the democracy).

If you have specific evidence about election fraud, by all means, bring it forward. But that's not what happened here. What happened here is people who couldn't accept that their side lost screaming "cheating" for years on end with absolutely no evidence, in an attempt to sow confusion and throw doubt over an otherwise completely legitimate result.

This is no different if after every single sporting event, fans of the losing side accused the winning side of cheating (they don't know how, just that cheating must have happened, and after all, people have cheated at sports before), and insisting that they're "just asking questions for the good of the game." Why the **** would you take those people seriously?

this is why i come to the thread 😀

Wait a minute. Many, many lawsuits were brought forward regarding 2020 (every year), and not all of them were completely unsuccessful. Some of them shed light to the public on how election software works and how difficult it is to hack, some of them led to the changing of election rules in states, some of them led to criminal convictions for actual fraud, and so on. The RNC just won one in Bucks county that while didn't directly deal with voter fraud, dealt with voter suppression which is equally as bad. All of this would be impossible if everyone bringing claims of fraud or abuse was assumed, as you do here, a "complete nutjob." You seem to think the transparency of our system that allows people to claim in court that space lasers destroyed the WTC is a bad thing. I couldn't disagree more. Allowing a thousand frivolous lawsuits to be heard guarantees the non-frivolous ones will be heard too. But you can't hear anything when you're screaming names at people.

was ready to call you out on bs and while i'm still not ruling it out as there's a chance you're just really good at faking it

but...

Great. Sounds like the cases were heard and the system is working as designed, and some small portion of cases actually had merit to them and prevailed. So what's your issue? That there were some newspaper headlines calling these people nutjobs because 99% of them gave the rest a bad name? I assume the term "election denier" was reserved for those who claimed, with absolutely no evidence, that Trump lost due to widespread election fraud. There were plenty of those people (we have 2 right here), and none of them have prevailed in court on anything close to that claim. I'm sure there were some much narrower claims being made about quite specific election-related things that were heard on the merits, with some even being successful as you point out.

amazing you think I would/could fake this

i mean, you do have a lot of terrible posts 😀

Ya, I'm pretty much against ad-hominem, labeling and suppressing people's speech, especially regarding important stuff like elections.

Again, whose speech was being suppressed and how? You told me yourself that all these cases were heard by the courts. Your only beef seems to be that some headlines called these people "election deniers". Newsflash: my calling you an idiot or a nutjob is not suppressing your right to speech, it's exercising mine.

As for you being against ad hominem, I guess those who have seen your body of work here can judge that claim for themselves.

There are different kinds of intelligence. Obviously as far as science goes he's a stone moron.

I think he's a narcissist with the temperament of a 5 year old. He's a con man. But he absolutely is great at manipulating people and playing to his audience. He's a silver spoon spoiled rich dude who knew how to relate to broke white trash in back wash towns and rile them up. In a room full of intelligent successful people he's not speaking the same way he is to these broke down trotten people he's pandering too.

Now contrast to the nonsense of "he's like Hitler" "this is the end of democracy"? from the other side.

Who in the **** exactly was that targeted to?
Anyone who thinks Trump is like Hitler was already voting for Harris. There isn't a single person in the entire country that was voting trump or not voting at all who heard this nonsense and said "oh **** other than the lack of a mustache and concentration camps this guy is just like Hitler. I'm gonna vote for Harris".

And I'm sure on a small level it sent some undecideds/ non voters Trump way because it's just insulting.

The dumbest person in this country has a vote that's worth the same as the smartest persons in the country (adjusted for electoral college stuff.)

No need to rub it in.

I mean, it's propaganda, but one of the run-off effects is suppression of speech or the content of an argument/claim. Digital media is like having a nation-wide megaphone. When was the last time someone heard you over a megaphone?

ELECTION DENIER

Insulting people isn't necessarily an ad-hominem. Ad-hominem usually refers to using an insult or name-calling in place of an argument, which is something I rarely, if ever, do.

Male seahorses carry the young to term in their species, so carrying children is not what defines what male or female is.

What you are describing is a medical procedure that might make a man look more like a woman. We do plenty of those already, but it doesn't change their sex or create a new third sex.

Conservatives seem to confuse freedom of speech with freedom from the consequences of speech. Yes, you are free to accuse others of cheating or say pretty much whatever other dumb **** you dream up, subject so some minimal restrictions. No, nobody is obligated to listen to you, not ridicule you, not call you an idiot, etc. etc. If enough of you get together to say the same dumb **** or make the same meritless accusation, you'll get on the radar of someone with a megaphone who feels the need to respond. Why is the concept that freedom to say what you want without government interference is not the same thing as everyone else being obligated to respect your opinion so difficult for conservatives to grasp?

You can call it "propaganda" if you want, but I don't see anything propagandistic about calling a bunch of people making meritless accusations of cheating in an effort to undermine the democratic process out for exactly what they're doing. Ultimately though, that's semantics. I think you've conceded that nobody's speech was suppressed here, only that they were subject to the derision that, at least in my view, they rightly deserved.

Again, if you believe that suppression of someone's speech occurred here, please provide a specific example.

This is exactly what so many of his detractors fail to understand or admit.

The problem is that the people drawing the comparison don't know how to do it in a nuanced and constructive way.

I know about seahorses.

I'm just saying I wont argue semantics about your definition of a man if you're accepting they could be pregnant (after such a procedure).

Right. You don't do it in place of an argument. You do quite often do it in place of a good argument.

This old canard.

This

is nothing but a thinly veiled threat. Consequences (something that logically follows from an action) of speech (the act of speaking) are those things which are caused directly by speech, like the air between my mouth and your ears being compressed and flowing across your ear drums or the tickling of immature and underdeveloped emotions in progressives when a rational person makes an objectively true observation about reality. Being a dickhole isn't a consequence of someone's speech, it's just being a dickhole and is entirely your decision. Having your job, livelihood, or reputation tarnished by the system because you hold an opinion---that's tyranny, and it's something we don't take kindly to in the US of A. So if you don't like it, kindly **** off to another country where your progressive ideals are more welcome. Perhaps Saudi Arabia.

When I attack communists with argument or call them idiots, it's criticism and name calling. When Fox calls leftists communists, it's intentionally designed to limit their speech or obfuscate their claims, some of which are entirely valid--- that's propaganda.

He did his homework.

What the actual ****? No, it has nothing to do with tyranny, it has everything to do with how other people react to you, treat you, what they think of you, etc. As in "actions have consequences". Stop it with this disingenuous bullshit about veiled threats and tyranny. Ffs, you are not constitutionally protected from other people's opinions of you, snowflake. That's them exercising their right to free speech. If I don't like your opinions, I don't have to hire you and pay you my money, that's my ****ing free speech right there.

And you have yet to demonstrate any link between claiming that there was widespread election fraud in favour of Biden and any "objectively true observation about reality". As a more general observation, I don't think the party of "alternative facts" and Donald Trump really has much standing to be claiming to be making objectively true observations about anything at all.

A better question is what percentage of David Sklanskys think anyone in Trump's family can solve 17 * 6?

"Partisan loyalty is socially disastrous; but for individuals it can be richly rewarding — more rewarding, in many ways, than even concupiscence or avarice. Whoremongers and money-grubbers find it hard to feel very proud of their activities. But partisanship is a complex passion which permits those who indulge in it to make the best of both worlds. Because they do these things for the sake of a group which is, by definition, good and even sacred, they can admire themselves and loathe their neighbours, they can seek power and money, can enjoy the pleasures of aggression and cruelty, not merely without feeling guilty, but with a positive glow of conscious virtue. Loyalty to their group transforms these pleasant vices into acts of heroism. Partisans are aware of themselves, not as sinners or criminals, but as altruists and idealists. And with certain qualifications this is in fact what they are. The only trouble is that their altruism is merely egotism at one remove, and that the ideal, for which they are ready in many cases to lay down their lives, is nothing but the rationalization of corporate interests and party passions."

"Montaigne concludes with one of those golden sentences which deserve to be inscribed over the altar of every church, above the bench of every magistrate, on the walls of every lecture hall, every senate and parliament, every government office and council chamber. 'After all,' (write the words in neon, write in letters as tall as a man!) 'after all, it is rating one’s conjectures at a very high price to roast a man alive on the strength of them.'"

Both quotes are from Huxley's The Devils of Loudun

randos posting conspiracy theories = valid free speech

public figures slandering random people and companies = obviously craven bs

idc what you call it, election denialism or otherwise the latter is horrible for our country and depending on the reason for saying it (overturning an election) can be borderline fascistic