Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Republican civil unrest, after the Democratic win.

Page 7 of 9 [ 142 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

01 Dec 2020, 10:54 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:
If I were trying to make biden look bad, I'd wait until he was inaugurated before I started causing trouble again. Trouble NOW would be on trump's watch. If I wait till the torch passes, then I can say it's all biden's fault when I rile up my army of kobolds again. Basic strategy.


If it happens, post it, here.
There is no censorship in this thread, unlike Twitter. :mrgreen:



Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,450
Location: Derby, UK

01 Dec 2020, 11:01 pm

I notice everyone chose to ignore the link I posted previously, about threatening behaviour towards officials and contractors engaged in vote counting.

Gabriel Sterling spoke about this earlier with considerable feeling, so here's another link you can all ignore:



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

01 Dec 2020, 11:51 pm

Redd_Kross wrote:
I notice everyone chose to ignore the link I posted previously, about threatening behaviour towards officials and contractors engaged in vote counting.

Gabriel Sterling spoke about this earlier with considerable feeling, so here's another link you can all ignore:



I also posted this before but it was also ignored because doesn't fit into the narrative of the democrats "planning to flood the electorate with fake votes" and other assorted right wing conspiracies.



Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,450
Location: Derby, UK

01 Dec 2020, 11:59 pm

I think he does a very good job of keeping his cool while still conveying his anger.

He's got more integrity than most of the people I've seen getting airtime in this election.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

02 Dec 2020, 12:12 am

Gabriel Sterling comes across as very credible. Waiting for the usual naysayers to obfuscate the news as per normal.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

02 Dec 2020, 12:31 am

cyberdad wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
I notice everyone chose to ignore the link I posted previously, about threatening behaviour towards officials and contractors engaged in vote counting.

Gabriel Sterling spoke about this earlier with considerable feeling, so here's another link you can all ignore:



I also posted this before but it was also ignored because doesn't fit into the narrative of the democrats "planning to flood the electorate with fake votes" and other assorted right wing conspiracies.


Could you provide evidence of where in this thread you posted this, given you are asserting you "posted this before but it was also ignored", noting that people will not address posts in other threads to that in which they begin, and so posts in other threads are irrelevent to this discussion?

To refresh your memory of what you have posted in this thread since before that video was released:
Show Spoiler
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Looking backwards for similar historical conditions, one example, with a number of similarities to now (particularly should some states send 2 sets of electors through the legislature concluding there was fraud which altered their state's legitimate winner), would be 1824..


You might recall I cracked a joke about your propensity to compare apples with oranges drawing on examples from the 1800s......and...you've done it again!

Honestly how is politics in 1824 relevant to 2020??

Source: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=392582&p=8663581#p8663581

Show Spoiler
cyberdad wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
They're just so deplorable *sigh*


Hillary Clinton was absolutely correct. The MAGAs were deplorables.


A war mongering, corrupt piece of s**t like Hillary has no right to call anyone else "deplorable." That's like Michael Jackson calling someone "crazy."


Regardless of what she's accused of, she's correct in surmising that Trump inspires the worst traits in people to come up to the fore. Any wonder really, his hand picked chief strategist Steve Bannon is far-right with known sympathies for neo-Nazi groups. Trump's legacy will be always enshrined by his choices.


It would be nice if you actually had a f*****g clue what the Democrats have gotten up to, but you don't. Stick to Australian politics.


According to unbiased sources the baseless attacks on Clinton came from a small but noisy radical tendency on the fringes of the Republican Party in the 2016 election.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36992955

Meanwhile Trump was using Megaphone politics to throw slurs about Clinton which were carefully crafted by his neo-Nazi sidekick Steve Bannon tapping into the disgruntled fringe of the republican party.

However the tactic was wildly successful as it sucked in 46.1% of voters

After 4 years there are still 70million Americans who haven't learned a thing.

Source: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=392582&p=8663584#p8663584

Show Spoiler
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Looking backwards for similar historical conditions, one example, with a number of similarities to now (particularly should some states send 2 sets of electors through the legislature concluding there was fraud which altered their state's legitimate winner), would be 1824..


You might recall I cracked a joke about your propensity to compare apples with oranges drawing on examples from the 1800s......and...you've done it again!

Honestly how is politics in 1824 relevant to 2020??


Curious: Focuses on the year mentioned rather than the entire post's content.

This would indicate either 1) poster ignored everything else presented in the post through not reading it in their haste to post a snide remark, or 2) they did read it and felt compelled to focus on the year referenced as a way to attempt to disparage the rest of the original post through being unable to refute its content.

Sadly, neither of those options reflect well on the poster of the above responce.

Quote:
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” - George Santayana


Oh brother! let me spell it out for you. Your conclusion is false.

A valid argument cannot have all true premises and a false conclusion. So if a valid argument does have a false conclusion, it cannot have all true premises. Thus at least one premise must be false.

You drawing on elections from 1824 are meaningless to how elections are conducted in 2020.

Imagine trying to compare how elections take place in Queensland now with how they were conducted when right wing nutjobs ran the state just a few years ago in the 1970s and engaged in real voter fraud and gerrymandering and used police to intimidate protestors.

Source: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=392582&p=8663623#p8663623

Show Spoiler
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
The fact there is a claim that the reply was "justified" based on differences in "how elections take place", when the original post made no reference to the election process (which is irrelevent to what followed in that post) and was solely related to the result of the respective elections and subsequent aftermath was quite telling in this respect...


The outcome of an election in 1824 is not relevant to an outcome of an election in 2020.

Source: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=392582&p=8663963#p8663963

It would be a shame to think you were trying to give the deceptive impression that posters in this thread had ignored something you posted in this thread...



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

02 Dec 2020, 12:35 am

Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
I notice everyone chose to ignore the link I posted previously, about threatening behaviour towards officials and contractors engaged in vote counting.

Gabriel Sterling spoke about this earlier with considerable feeling, so here's another link you can all ignore:



I also posted this before but it was also ignored because doesn't fit into the narrative of the democrats "planning to flood the electorate with fake votes" and other assorted right wing conspiracies.


Could you provide evidence of where in this thread you posted this, given you are asserting you "posted this before but it was also ignored", noting that people will not address posts in other threads to that in which they begin, and so posts in other threads are irrelevent to this discussion?

To refresh your memory of what you have posted in this thread since before that video was released:
Show Spoiler
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Looking backwards for similar historical conditions, one example, with a number of similarities to now (particularly should some states send 2 sets of electors through the legislature concluding there was fraud which altered their state's legitimate winner), would be 1824..


You might recall I cracked a joke about your propensity to compare apples with oranges drawing on examples from the 1800s......and...you've done it again!

Honestly how is politics in 1824 relevant to 2020??

Source: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=392582&p=8663581#p8663581

Show Spoiler
cyberdad wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
They're just so deplorable *sigh*


Hillary Clinton was absolutely correct. The MAGAs were deplorables.


A war mongering, corrupt piece of s**t like Hillary has no right to call anyone else "deplorable." That's like Michael Jackson calling someone "crazy."


Regardless of what she's accused of, she's correct in surmising that Trump inspires the worst traits in people to come up to the fore. Any wonder really, his hand picked chief strategist Steve Bannon is far-right with known sympathies for neo-Nazi groups. Trump's legacy will be always enshrined by his choices.


It would be nice if you actually had a f*****g clue what the Democrats have gotten up to, but you don't. Stick to Australian politics.


According to unbiased sources the baseless attacks on Clinton came from a small but noisy radical tendency on the fringes of the Republican Party in the 2016 election.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36992955

Meanwhile Trump was using Megaphone politics to throw slurs about Clinton which were carefully crafted by his neo-Nazi sidekick Steve Bannon tapping into the disgruntled fringe of the republican party.

However the tactic was wildly successful as it sucked in 46.1% of voters

After 4 years there are still 70million Americans who haven't learned a thing.

Source: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=392582&p=8663584#p8663584

Show Spoiler
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Looking backwards for similar historical conditions, one example, with a number of similarities to now (particularly should some states send 2 sets of electors through the legislature concluding there was fraud which altered their state's legitimate winner), would be 1824..


You might recall I cracked a joke about your propensity to compare apples with oranges drawing on examples from the 1800s......and...you've done it again!

Honestly how is politics in 1824 relevant to 2020??


Curious: Focuses on the year mentioned rather than the entire post's content.

This would indicate either 1) poster ignored everything else presented in the post through not reading it in their haste to post a snide remark, or 2) they did read it and felt compelled to focus on the year referenced as a way to attempt to disparage the rest of the original post through being unable to refute its content.

Sadly, neither of those options reflect well on the poster of the above responce.

Quote:
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” - George Santayana


Oh brother! let me spell it out for you. Your conclusion is false.

A valid argument cannot have all true premises and a false conclusion. So if a valid argument does have a false conclusion, it cannot have all true premises. Thus at least one premise must be false.

You drawing on elections from 1824 are meaningless to how elections are conducted in 2020.

Imagine trying to compare how elections take place in Queensland now with how they were conducted when right wing nutjobs ran the state just a few years ago in the 1970s and engaged in real voter fraud and gerrymandering and used police to intimidate protestors.

Source: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=392582&p=8663623#p8663623

Show Spoiler
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
The fact there is a claim that the reply was "justified" based on differences in "how elections take place", when the original post made no reference to the election process (which is irrelevent to what followed in that post) and was solely related to the result of the respective elections and subsequent aftermath was quite telling in this respect...


The outcome of an election in 1824 is not relevant to an outcome of an election in 2020.

Source: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=392582&p=8663963#p8663963

It would be a shame to think you were trying to give the deceptive impression that posters in this thread had ignored something you posted in this thread...


Not on this thread Sherlock, on another thread I posted that election officials were getting their lives threatened by MAGAs



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

02 Dec 2020, 12:41 am

cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
I notice everyone chose to ignore the link I posted previously, about threatening behaviour towards officials and contractors engaged in vote counting.

Gabriel Sterling spoke about this earlier with considerable feeling, so here's another link you can all ignore:



I also posted this before but it was also ignored because doesn't fit into the narrative of the democrats "planning to flood the electorate with fake votes" and other assorted right wing conspiracies.


Could you provide evidence of where in this thread you posted this, given you are asserting you "posted this before but it was also ignored", noting that people will not address posts in other threads to that in which they begin, and so posts in other threads are irrelevent to this discussion?

To refresh your memory of what you have posted in this thread since before that video was released:
Show Spoiler
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Looking backwards for similar historical conditions, one example, with a number of similarities to now (particularly should some states send 2 sets of electors through the legislature concluding there was fraud which altered their state's legitimate winner), would be 1824..


You might recall I cracked a joke about your propensity to compare apples with oranges drawing on examples from the 1800s......and...you've done it again!

Honestly how is politics in 1824 relevant to 2020??

Source: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=392582&p=8663581#p8663581

Show Spoiler
cyberdad wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
They're just so deplorable *sigh*


Hillary Clinton was absolutely correct. The MAGAs were deplorables.


A war mongering, corrupt piece of s**t like Hillary has no right to call anyone else "deplorable." That's like Michael Jackson calling someone "crazy."


Regardless of what she's accused of, she's correct in surmising that Trump inspires the worst traits in people to come up to the fore. Any wonder really, his hand picked chief strategist Steve Bannon is far-right with known sympathies for neo-Nazi groups. Trump's legacy will be always enshrined by his choices.


It would be nice if you actually had a f*****g clue what the Democrats have gotten up to, but you don't. Stick to Australian politics.


According to unbiased sources the baseless attacks on Clinton came from a small but noisy radical tendency on the fringes of the Republican Party in the 2016 election.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36992955

Meanwhile Trump was using Megaphone politics to throw slurs about Clinton which were carefully crafted by his neo-Nazi sidekick Steve Bannon tapping into the disgruntled fringe of the republican party.

However the tactic was wildly successful as it sucked in 46.1% of voters

After 4 years there are still 70million Americans who haven't learned a thing.

Source: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=392582&p=8663584#p8663584

Show Spoiler
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Looking backwards for similar historical conditions, one example, with a number of similarities to now (particularly should some states send 2 sets of electors through the legislature concluding there was fraud which altered their state's legitimate winner), would be 1824..


You might recall I cracked a joke about your propensity to compare apples with oranges drawing on examples from the 1800s......and...you've done it again!

Honestly how is politics in 1824 relevant to 2020??


Curious: Focuses on the year mentioned rather than the entire post's content.

This would indicate either 1) poster ignored everything else presented in the post through not reading it in their haste to post a snide remark, or 2) they did read it and felt compelled to focus on the year referenced as a way to attempt to disparage the rest of the original post through being unable to refute its content.

Sadly, neither of those options reflect well on the poster of the above responce.

Quote:
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” - George Santayana


Oh brother! let me spell it out for you. Your conclusion is false.

A valid argument cannot have all true premises and a false conclusion. So if a valid argument does have a false conclusion, it cannot have all true premises. Thus at least one premise must be false.

You drawing on elections from 1824 are meaningless to how elections are conducted in 2020.

Imagine trying to compare how elections take place in Queensland now with how they were conducted when right wing nutjobs ran the state just a few years ago in the 1970s and engaged in real voter fraud and gerrymandering and used police to intimidate protestors.

Source: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=392582&p=8663623#p8663623

Show Spoiler
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
The fact there is a claim that the reply was "justified" based on differences in "how elections take place", when the original post made no reference to the election process (which is irrelevent to what followed in that post) and was solely related to the result of the respective elections and subsequent aftermath was quite telling in this respect...


The outcome of an election in 1824 is not relevant to an outcome of an election in 2020.

Source: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=392582&p=8663963#p8663963

It would be a shame to think you were trying to give the deceptive impression that posters in this thread had ignored something you posted in this thread...


Not on this thread Sherlock, on another thread I posted that election officials were getting their lives threatened by MAGAs


Interesting that you "neglected" to include that pertinent detail, then, leaving it to readers to believe that it was posted in this thread through the wording selected...



Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,450
Location: Derby, UK

02 Dec 2020, 12:44 am

Brictoria wrote:
Interesting that you "neglected" to include that pertinent detail, then, leaving it to readers to believe that it was posted in this thread through the wording selected...

"I also posted this before"??

There's nothing misleading in that, he's posted it before.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

02 Dec 2020, 1:08 am

Redd_Kross wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Interesting that you "neglected" to include that pertinent detail, then, leaving it to readers to believe that it was posted in this thread through the wording selected...

"I also posted this before"??

There's nothing misleading in that, he's posted it before.


Nothing misleading..Until someone attempts to verify the accuracy of the statement and cannot find the post in the thread, at which point the reader would be likely to question the trustworthiness of the person who claimed to have posted it earlier, given it wasn't posted in the thread, and they therefore have no way to confirm the statement regarding an earlier post was truthful, let alone that it was "ignored" by others.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

02 Dec 2020, 1:54 am

Brictoria wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Interesting that you "neglected" to include that pertinent detail, then, leaving it to readers to believe that it was posted in this thread through the wording selected...

"I also posted this before"??

There's nothing misleading in that, he's posted it before.


Nothing misleading..Until someone attempts to verify the accuracy of the statement and cannot find the post in the thread, at which point the reader would be likely to question the trustworthiness of the person who claimed to have posted it earlier, given it wasn't posted in the thread, and they therefore have no way to confirm the statement regarding an earlier post was truthful, let alone that it was "ignored" by others.


why are you obsessed about where I posted it? all that matters is I did and (If I recall) you carefully sidestepped the content of the post (as you usually do) to go after your pet hates which involves the left, democrats, Antifa or BLM.



Tempus Fugit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Oct 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,545

02 Dec 2020, 2:43 am

cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Interesting that you "neglected" to include that pertinent detail, then, leaving it to readers to believe that it was posted in this thread through the wording selected...

"I also posted this before"??

There's nothing misleading in that, he's posted it before.


Nothing misleading..Until someone attempts to verify the accuracy of the statement and cannot find the post in the thread, at which point the reader would be likely to question the trustworthiness of the person who claimed to have posted it earlier, given it wasn't posted in the thread, and they therefore have no way to confirm the statement regarding an earlier post was truthful, let alone that it was "ignored" by others.


why are you obsessed about where I posted it? all that matters is I did and (If I recall) you carefully sidestepped the content of the post (as you usually do) to go after your pet hates which involves the left, democrats, Antifa or BLM.


Actually he's painfully thorough in going over things.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

02 Dec 2020, 5:45 am

cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Interesting that you "neglected" to include that pertinent detail, then, leaving it to readers to believe that it was posted in this thread through the wording selected...

"I also posted this before"??

There's nothing misleading in that, he's posted it before.


Nothing misleading..Until someone attempts to verify the accuracy of the statement and cannot find the post in the thread, at which point the reader would be likely to question the trustworthiness of the person who claimed to have posted it earlier, given it wasn't posted in the thread, and they therefore have no way to confirm the statement regarding an earlier post was truthful, let alone that it was "ignored" by others.


why are you obsessed about where I posted it? all that matters is I did and (If I recall) you carefully sidestepped the content of the post (as you usually do) to go after your pet hates which involves the left, democrats, Antifa or BLM.


Let's just say that different people place different values on facts, honesty, and integrity, as well as having differing opinions on misleading others (whether by design or accident)...

For example, stating what another person's "pet hates" are, never having discussed with them what they may be, and making a categorical (and factually incorrect) claim regarding them would be considered an offensive\unconscionable thing to do by some people, while others apparently see no problem with doing such a thing.



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

02 Dec 2020, 4:06 pm

That's because we see a problem with unending screeds across WP equating the statement that someone's life matters with aimless violence. They're not the same thing.


_________________
"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 :mrgreen:


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

02 Dec 2020, 5:44 pm

Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Interesting that you "neglected" to include that pertinent detail, then, leaving it to readers to believe that it was posted in this thread through the wording selected...

"I also posted this before"??

There's nothing misleading in that, he's posted it before.


Nothing misleading..Until someone attempts to verify the accuracy of the statement and cannot find the post in the thread, at which point the reader would be likely to question the trustworthiness of the person who claimed to have posted it earlier, given it wasn't posted in the thread, and they therefore have no way to confirm the statement regarding an earlier post was truthful, let alone that it was "ignored" by others.


why are you obsessed about where I posted it? all that matters is I did and (If I recall) you carefully sidestepped the content of the post (as you usually do) to go after your pet hates which involves the left, democrats, Antifa or BLM.


Let's just say that different people place different values on facts, honesty, and integrity, as well as having differing opinions on misleading others (whether by design or accident)...

For example, stating what another person's "pet hates" are, never having discussed with them what they may be, and making a categorical (and factually incorrect) claim regarding them would be considered an offensive\unconscionable thing to do by some people, while others apparently see no problem with doing such a thing.


Your claims I intended to mislead are amusing. BTW you have the tenacity to make a terrific defence lawyer. I am sure Lin L Wood would benefit from having somebody skilled in the art of obfuscation to help defend many of the criminals he has defended in recent history.



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 69,482
Location: Over there

02 Dec 2020, 6:04 pm

 ! Cornflake wrote:
"No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition!" <kof> Brictoria <kof>


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.