5 ms·

However, what if the election really was fraudulent? I mean the video in Georgia after the election observer were sent home, were pretty incriminating. Also se

However, what if the election really was fraudulent? I mean the video in Georgia after the election observer were sent home, were pretty incriminating. Also seeing how BLM got backing and did way more damage, makes this all look pretty one-sided. It's only okay if they do it.

alwayseasy 6y ago
Interestingly, the democrats would have fixed the elections but only managed to win the Senate in a tight run-off? After spending $100 million, the Trump campaign's legal team found no admissible evidence of election fraud, just videos they can use for future campaigns attacking democracy.
- confidantlake 6y ago
  What is happening to this site? The comment above is alleging election fraud, which has been debunked by multiple court rulings from judges across the political spectrum. It is not downvoted, flagged, nothing. The comment responding it to it gets downvoted?
  - edbob 6y ago
    My best guess is that liberals stopped reading higher in the thread. I would hope that moderates and conservatives would not find those claims very credible, but perhaps they do or are not so offended as to downvote. I was personally fine with the integrity of the election right up until censorship ramped up. Now I have zero confidence that I would hear about any problems. I still don't think the election was "stolen" or anything, but I'm no longer confident enough to downvote such an opinion. How are we supposed to really know what's true or not when we only hear one side of the story?
    - yongjik 6y ago
      What censorship? The president himself was saying the election was stolen from him for two months and that was basically the only thing the nightly news talked about (other than COVID) every day. At some point we should be able to say "Enough, evidence or GTFO," without being accused of silencing discussion. We're way past that point.
      - antibuddy 6y ago
        How is the video in Georgia debunked? They sent observers home (even a big newslet posted this on Twitter at that time), counted the ballots afterwards and Biden had a spike. And btw I am from Germany, so I am on neither "camp".
        alwayseasy 6y ago
        No you saw a conspiracy theory peddled by Rudy Giuliani, the man in charge of the Trump legal challenge to the election. The video is so wrongly interpreted, Republicans were the first one to debunk it. It's important to note, in a video, when someone leaves the screen or the room... you can't assume they've been sent home. More info here: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/facebook-posts/no-georgia-election-workers-didnt-kick-out-observe/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/facebook-p...
      - edbob 6y ago
        I don't know anything about what the nightly news ran. All I know is that when my news sources got around to talking about it, a couple days later it's "oh I have to be very careful what I say about this, I already got a notice threatening a ban". From my perspective, the period of free discussion was extremely limited. I'm not at all sympathetic to the "we have to crush this viewpoint" camp since they amplified Hillary's claims of a "stolen election" for years. [0] You can't tell just one side "evidence or GTFO" and expect anyone to take you seriously. Especially when the new narrative is that elections are fair and unstealable, which directly contradicts the claims of an unfair stolen election in 2016. [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019...
        yongjik 6y ago
        > I'm not at all sympathetic to the "we have to crush this viewpoint" camp since they amplified Hillary's claims of a "stolen election" for years. Clinton never claimed the counting of the votes were rigged, and I know of no serious politician claiming that Clinton should be installed as president because of the claimed Russian meddling, whether they believed it or not. So, on one hand, we have a candidate who was pretty much dropped like a hot potato by fellow Democrats the moment she lost the election. On the other hand, we have mainstream media giving hundreds of hours of coverage to a president insisting he actually won the election, when all evidence says he didn't. ...And you're saying who is censored?
  - alwayseasy 6y ago
    From experience, evidence-based conversations here are limited when it comes to politics unfortunately.
vkou 6y ago
Let's take this a step further. What if the Democrats are, as QAnon suggests, indeed baby-blood-drinking monsters who perform human sacrifices for the glory of Beelzebub, and the only way to stop them is immediate action by patriots? Sure, there's no systemic evidence that this is taking place, but what if there was? Surely, baselessly and self-servingly casting doubt on the legitimacy of the electoral process in a democracy is a small price to pay, to protect ourselves from the possibility that our immortal souls will be handed over to an Ekronic demon.

alwayseasy 6y ago

Interestingly, the democrats would have fixed the elections but only managed to win the Senate in a tight run-off? After spending $100 million, the Trump campaign's legal team found no admissible evidence of election fraud, just videos they can use for future campaigns attacking democracy.

confidantlake 6y ago
What is happening to this site? The comment above is alleging election fraud, which has been debunked by multiple court rulings from judges across the political spectrum. It is not downvoted, flagged, nothing. The comment responding it to it gets downvoted?
- edbob 6y ago
  My best guess is that liberals stopped reading higher in the thread. I would hope that moderates and conservatives would not find those claims very credible, but perhaps they do or are not so offended as to downvote. I was personally fine with the integrity of the election right up until censorship ramped up. Now I have zero confidence that I would hear about any problems. I still don't think the election was "stolen" or anything, but I'm no longer confident enough to downvote such an opinion. How are we supposed to really know what's true or not when we only hear one side of the story?
  - yongjik 6y ago
    What censorship? The president himself was saying the election was stolen from him for two months and that was basically the only thing the nightly news talked about (other than COVID) every day. At some point we should be able to say "Enough, evidence or GTFO," without being accused of silencing discussion. We're way past that point.
    - antibuddy 6y ago
      How is the video in Georgia debunked? They sent observers home (even a big newslet posted this on Twitter at that time), counted the ballots afterwards and Biden had a spike. And btw I am from Germany, so I am on neither "camp".
      - alwayseasy 6y ago
        No you saw a conspiracy theory peddled by Rudy Giuliani, the man in charge of the Trump legal challenge to the election. The video is so wrongly interpreted, Republicans were the first one to debunk it. It's important to note, in a video, when someone leaves the screen or the room... you can't assume they've been sent home. More info here: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/facebook-posts/no-georgia-election-workers-didnt-kick-out-observe/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/facebook-p...
    - edbob 6y ago
      I don't know anything about what the nightly news ran. All I know is that when my news sources got around to talking about it, a couple days later it's "oh I have to be very careful what I say about this, I already got a notice threatening a ban". From my perspective, the period of free discussion was extremely limited. I'm not at all sympathetic to the "we have to crush this viewpoint" camp since they amplified Hillary's claims of a "stolen election" for years. [0] You can't tell just one side "evidence or GTFO" and expect anyone to take you seriously. Especially when the new narrative is that elections are fair and unstealable, which directly contradicts the claims of an unfair stolen election in 2016. [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019...
      - yongjik 6y ago
        > I'm not at all sympathetic to the "we have to crush this viewpoint" camp since they amplified Hillary's claims of a "stolen election" for years. Clinton never claimed the counting of the votes were rigged, and I know of no serious politician claiming that Clinton should be installed as president because of the claimed Russian meddling, whether they believed it or not. So, on one hand, we have a candidate who was pretty much dropped like a hot potato by fellow Democrats the moment she lost the election. On the other hand, we have mainstream media giving hundreds of hours of coverage to a president insisting he actually won the election, when all evidence says he didn't. ...And you're saying who is censored?
- alwayseasy 6y ago
  From experience, evidence-based conversations here are limited when it comes to politics unfortunately.

vkou 6y ago

Let's take this a step further. What if the Democrats are, as QAnon suggests, indeed baby-blood-drinking monsters who perform human sacrifices for the glory of Beelzebub, and the only way to stop them is immediate action by patriots? Sure, there's no systemic evidence that this is taking place, but what if there was? Surely, baselessly and self-servingly casting doubt on the legitimacy of the electoral process in a democracy is a small price to pay, to protect ourselves from the possibility that our immortal souls will be handed over to an Ekronic demon.