How this election was stolen which is great news for 2024....

Are you saying there was enough voter fraud to sway the election in favor of Biden? If yes, can you please provide the evidence? Thank you.

 

That Gorka and Giuliani are clowns is blatantly obvious to a number of republicans, as well, particularly those who understand that Trump is a threat to the national security of the United States, let alone a threat to the health of it's citizens.

 

No credible evidence of 'massive voter fraud' has been presented to the courts.

Saying **** on TV is not evidence, it's just noise.

So, if you got something that will actually help Giuliani and Team Trump win at least one lawsuit, noting that they haven't won any that proved their allegation ( that Dems 'stole the election' ) please offer it now. I'll be waiting.

 

Exactly. I'll add that it's fine to identify irregularities, so that they can be corrected and so process improvements can be made in the future. What's irrational is to begin with a conspiracy theory, and treat irregularities as confirming it.

Months ago, before a single vote was cast, Trump asserted he could only lose if there was fraud. Many of his supporters seem to have absorbed that irrational premise, and proceeded to "confirm" it with every reported irregularity.

 

Qualifying one's statement is not 'switching'.

All along, Trump has alleged 'dems are stealing the election, they are committing fraud'

So, when dems say 'there is no fraud' ( refuting Trump's allegation )

repubs say ' well there is fraud, here here and here, pointing to ad hoc irregularities, none of which prove 'dems stealing the election'

so, in response to this nitpicking, dems qualify their statement, 'No we mean there is no massive voter fraud proving Trump's allegation that dems are stealing the election'.

And now we have you, in furtherance of this bullshit, accuse us of 'switching'.

All along there is one constant theme with republicans:

they are unable to distinguish salient facts from the unimportant facts

 

It baffles me as to why Trump supporters would harp on this silly issue. Isolated cases of fraud do not imply a widespread conspiracy and cannot possibly overturn the election. I guess nit-picking of words is the only thing they have left.

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1327791250112532480

 

There is a problem with your premise. There was a lot of election fraud. Probably not enough to overturn the election. We will never know how much fraud there was.

 

Your blinders are showing.

 

Incompetent rebuttal; non argument

Incompetent rebuttals are arguments where the salient premise is based on: [highlighted pertains to your comment]
non arguments, a non argument isn't really debatable or they are not worthy of debate owing to any of the following types noting the fact they all have one thing in common--they lack sufficient dignity worthy of a response, they come in many different flavors, especially those which contain vacuous declarations and/or allegations (which cannot be substantiated, i.e., 'making stuff up'), rebuttals rife with weasel words ( improper use of generalities such as 'some people are saying' 'everyone knows' 'well-established fact'.) ad hominems, loaded terms & phrases,, off topic/irrelevant deflections, sentiments (words that reveal emotional attitude devoid of fact, logic and reason) off point arguments/deflections (off point is a sibling to off topic, where off topic is attempting to highjack the thread. It's done a lot in internet forums, and if the person to whom you directed the topic change accepts it, then you're off into a new direction, but, as such, of course, doesn't refute the original premise offered), egregious strawman arguments, egregious cynicism, off-the-charts ill-logic, 'kill the messenger" tactics, i.e., attacking the person presenting the argument rather than the argument, itself ( the only time kill the messenger is valid is for a well-established discredited source, such as Alex Jones, David Duke, etc, ), childish remarks, trivialising your opponent's argument -- cheap shot, childish or sophomoric comments/logic arising from ignorance (for example, NYTimes is a 'radical leftist rag' -- that's a remark born out of ignorance, it's also an 'kill the messenger' tactic) and then there is the classic thought-terminating cliché; these are cult-tropes, born out of groups who have a demagogue leader who is the master of implanting them in his flock. See, the demagogue doesn't like dissent, so when anyone challenges someone in his flock, he, being a master mind manipulator, will have planted a number of thought-terminating clichés into the minds of his subjects ( via repetition) so they will toss it up to the opponent in an attempt to kill the conversation ( wrongfully thinking it improves their argument ) so TTCs are simple terms catch phrases or words whose sole purpose is, to kill the conversation, such as 'TDS' "NeverTrumper" "Leftist Loony" (noting that the terms are not necessarily devised by the demagogue himself, they could be created by other believers, or have already been around and adopted by and they catch on with the group ) etc., pithy aphorisms assumed to be always true ( aphorisms exist because empirical observations tend to be true, but cannot be used as the salient premise to refute an argument as they are not, nor cannot be, absolute), last, but not least, and a significant debate sin, is posturing; posturing type comments, come in two basic categories, one is where you flaunt, i.e, for example, your military service, but of course if the argument can be improved by your qualifications of expertise in a field, that is okay, what I mean is something like 'I served while you were dodging the draft" whereupon your service doesn't improve your argument about whether dodging the draft was moral, or not, or flaunting your education, or authority of some kind, unless it's pertinent to the argument, and the other type of posturing are those comments which are motivated by puffing oneself up, and this is done by shaming, belittling, mocking, patronizing, 'mansplaining', flaming, where one talks down to ones opponent in order to puff oneself up.

 

The only issue that matters is what Team Trump is alleging, which is "Democrats stole the election".

Moreover, very little 'fraud' has been offered as evidence, but NONE presented proves 'Democrats stole the election".

But, some has been found, both republican and democratic, but not enough to alter the outcome. If it is not enough to alter the outcome, then there is no point in all of this. there never was in any prior election, so why this election?

Donald Trump. That is why. He is trying to trump up normal election irregularities into order to cast doubt on democracy in the hopes he can persuade state legislatures to set aside the popular vote and install a slate of Trump electors. This is an unprecedented move by a sitting president.

So, when dems respond with 'no fraud" it is to counter Trump's allegation, NOT to counter normal election irregularities, the kind which are normal to ALL elections.

 

Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

When lawyers for Trump get hold of the Dominion software used, we'll see if there was widespread election fraud.

 

Are you unable to wait and see what the software allegations are? That software has been used to defraud other elections, why not here? We must determine the algorithms attributed to Dominion.

 

I agree but it doesn't relate to my post.

 

Glad to see the rebuttal police are in the house.

 

Sorry, I don't think so. I think Ms Powell is repeating nonsense that she has heard from someone who doesn't know anything about it.

I'm trying to understand why a supplier of voting systems would engage in surreptitious vote tampering. It would simply put them out of business. Going out of business is not what businesses want to do. The Dominion system has a paper trail so it isn't hard to determine if the system can tamper. Expensive and time consuming to find out but not hard.

There is no question that there was voter fraud in this election and even more than is normal for election cycles. But there is little question that it wasn't enough to overturn the election.

As long as we maintain congressional gridlock everything will be OK. Keep your fingers crossed for a good result in Georgia in January.

 

We already know there wasn't. Trump's supporters need to deal with the reality that Trump lost the election.

 

Hey, if Trump finally concedes and we carry on our skepticism and resist for four years it would be no different than what the current Administration experienced. That could be the reality.

 

I'm pretty sure that will be the reality, probably beyond just the next four years.

 

Rebuttals which are, in essence, non arguments not worthy of a thoughtful response, get what they deserve.....

a boiler plated response with highlighted pertinent items.

 

Regarding your post, There was a lot of election fraud. Probably not enough to overturn the election. We will never know how much fraud there was,

I answered another post more robustly, which, essentially, is the same as yours in that it shared the same sentiment:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...much-like-fraud.581636/page-3#post-1072240341

 

All I can tell you is that in 30+ lawsuits filed thus far, in front of judges appointed by Trump and by Obama, no evidence of fraud to support the notion that 'dems stole the election' has been provided.

My opinion, therefore, arises from that salient fact that, if Trump's lawyers can't provide it, then it doesn't exist.

"They promised 'bombshells' at press conference and 'nothing happened' " -- Rush Limbaugh, responding to the hour long Giuliani/Powell televised news conference.

 

This is forty nine minutes...... and even though I am Canadian I found this extremely interesting and informative on this topic.

"The Kraken Is About To Be Released, No Escape, It’s Going To Be Biblical - Ep. 2335b"

 

Glad to see you are thinking straight.