2020 Election Fraud Roundup

Post Reply New Topic

What turnout should be considered "normal"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout
Over 90% turnout is not something unseen in the democratic world. 70% is absolutely normal with such an attention-hoarding figure starting.
Last presidental election here had 68% turnout on the second turn, without that noisy candidate.

Apparently, calling members liars is not a violation of the TOS, when clearly it should be considered an ad hominem attack.

Since there is also no rule against posting lies on WrongPlanet, why should calling someone a liar even matter?

It's character assasination, in my opinion, and really bad form for a discussion or debate.

Well, there is that; but you would have to prove that the claim was a lie without badgering the liar for proof.

Good luck with that.

In the quoted tex, there is no instance of one person actually calling another a liar.

Now, interpretations are a tricky thing. In an autism community, miscommunications are inevitable.

I wouldn't bother. Once someone has called, or insinuated that I was a liar, there is really no point to continuing the discussion.

What would happen if someone insinuated you were wrong about something (but not conciously, so not a liar)?

I know the feeling.  There is no point in defending the truth around here anyway.

It certainly was insinuated, though. When one member claims to not like either side, and another claims that those who oppose both sides equally are "always" Republicans, that's passively agressively calling someone a liar.

The accuser in this thread is just flat out wrong, but I wouldn't call him a liar. I'd just point out the number of well respected proggressive independent journalists who have no love for either of our corrupt, bough and paid for parties.

I disagree with The_Walrus’s law, either. It's a problem of where different people believe "the center" to be. It varies enormously.
Some people have doubts about virtually everything. When confronted with people with some partisan-aligned opinions, they get interpreted as having the opposite opinion. I've experinced it on my own skin. "I doubt the sources of <X>" - "You deny <X>!"

I don’t think someone can credibly be described as a progressive if they don’t prefer a lifelong social reformer like Joe Biden to a wannabe dictator like Donald Trump. I don’t think someone can credibly be called a progressive if they try to equivocate between a party that consistently argues for expanding voting rights and one which attempts to suppress the vote. There are still many good people in the Republican Party, particularly in New England, and there are many not-so-good people in the Democratic Party (communist sympathisers, apologists for dictators, antisemites), but there is no moral equivalence between the two parties’ Presidential candidates or Congressional leadership.

Now maybe someone says “look, Trump bombed Assad and lowered corporation tax and lots of good things that the Democrats probably wouldn’t have done.” And sure, if you want to go down that root then be my guest. But I think that argument can only realistically come from either a place of very incomplete information, or from a set of values that are at best liberal conservative. Yes, Trump did some good things, but those pale in comparison to the damage he did to domestic and foreign institutions, and the negative impact he had on the lives of Americans and others. Separating immigrant children from their parents, betraying the Kurds, trying to repeal the ACA, banning trans people from the military - these are not policies which the Biden administration will continue, and nor can they be defended from a progressive point of view. His attacks on democracy, the media, the judiciary and the UN should be unforgivable to people who care about liberal democracy.

It does seem bit ironic that earlier in this thread I was told: "I would politely suggest that you refrain from insulting other users, as this is against WrongPlanet’s rules."

Indeed.

!	magz wrote:
	Could we please stop picking at each other and derailing another thread?

But derailing the conversation is the objective, near as I can tell. Side arguments and distractions prevent substantive discussion that might reveal actual truth. As long as they can keep the pool full of mud, nothing is clear.