Trump's various attempts to challenge election results

Post Reply New Topic

That really just illustrates my point.

Trump supporters will argue that everything has been rigged against Trump, whether there's really any evidence or not. When you have religious nuts saying God wanted a Trump victory, and Q-Anon conspiracists suggesting the world is run by elitist paedophiles who all conveniently happen to be Democrats, simple things like spreadsheet cock-ups and machine calibration errors are bound to get blown out of proportion. Is there any real evidence of deliberate, calculated fraud? I've not seen any yet. Errors, undoubtedly. But errors have randomness on their side. If you accidentally lose 10,000 votes there's no guarantee who they were for. To deliberately deselect them based on the votes, you'd have to count them before you lost them so they couldn't be counted.

At the same time Democrats are naturally very wary of a President who appears to be riding roughshod over the whole democratic process because he can't accept defeat. I'm not a Democrat per se but I am very sceptical about Trump's motives, he is a known liar and exhibits narcissistic tendencies. The irony of the right-wing protests lies in their inability to view all this the other way round. What if Trump is just throwing s**t around to see if anything might stick? What if his intentions are entirely undemocratic and this IS a coup? There's nothing wrong with being sceptical or cynical but if you're going down that route it has to be applied equally. Being sceptical about the mainstream, mostly centre-right media is fine provided you're also prepared to be equally cynical about known far-right news sources. What's their agenda? Claiming one side is the Devil incarnate while the other side farts rose-scented glitter is just pathetic. Worse than that, I'd also suggest there's a deliberate element of discrediting facts, knowledge and expertise in order to spread disorder. Oooh you can't believe basic truths like addition or gravity, did you know the world is flat? It's popularist exploitation of the gullible. Again you can argue the opposite, "they" tell you everything is normal to control you. Ok, fine. But be equally sceptical both ways round. If you don't believe CNN that doesn't mean every alternative nutjob is automatically right.

I am not a fan of divide-and-conquer, binary politics based on hysterical BS.

I see no reason to believe in any greater conspiracy than the normal corrupting influence of money. On both sides. Follow the money, understand the motives. We need to rule that out before considering anything else. At present, is anyone doing anything that we wouldn't expect, based around the normal capitalist rules of engagement? Despite all the rhetoric, I don't think so. But trying to cut through the white noise to see it, is becoming increasingly difficult. Is that "smoke and mirrors" screen deliberate or accidental? And who is leading it? I'm only interested in demonstrable facts right now. Cold, hard evidence. Because the hyperbole and what-iffery that's being touted as The Truth is actually part of the Lie, as far as I can see. Evidence held admissable in Court is the best constant we've got, right now. Still flawed, potentially, but less flawed than anything else.

You however are running on the very same deny/counteraccuse broken record mentality we have seen a thousand times lately.

_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos

How am I not to perceive a hive mind groupthink is going on when I see comments like that?

Do you ever see me saying "we"? And indicate that the way I see things is in unison with others? Or indicate that I belong to any group? The answer is no. If you want to be part of a collective, that's fine. But don't try to put me in one. Stop deflecting with that routine and stick to the subject matter rather than deflecting by harping on the person.

It's interesting how often someone tries to put me in the position of defending my personal self, rather than the position I'm maintaining.

The only reason why I would make any claims about myself in the first place, is because someone was going after the person rather than the position they are maintaining. I never should have said what I wrote above, because it's just playing into the the distraction, deflection and derail of going after the person rather than their argument.

Btw fwiw I have said both good and bad things about both candidates.

And even if I'm not entirely neutral, that doesn't automatically make me a "kool-aid drinking alt-right cultist" as I've been called here, which others on the "certain posters" team thought was alright.

Federal court rejects Trump election lawsuit in Pennsylvania