I don't see where I made any claim about Russian interference. As such this is not a valid response to me.
Yet you parrot the talking points of those who have. Who have utterly discredited themselves over their demented obsession with Trump.
Hm? Recounts are perfectly fine. Georgia's going to have a recount, and I have no objections. Close results should have multiple counts. That's just good practice.
I don't see how that changes anything I said? It is vanishingly unlikely that any recount would swing a state, much less enough states to make Trump win the election. As such, given the facts on the ground - that there is no real evidence of fraud, and that the chances of recounts altering anything are so infinitesimal - I think that Trump ought to do the right thing and formally concede.
And if it is vanishing unlikely that the bellweather states would be so wrong. Trump has the penchant for doing the impossible, an
It isn't the right thing. It is the wrong thing, and would be to betray the American people. Letting people cheat to win if you think they cheated is morally wrong. To not stand up against what you think is unjust is wrong. So no, you think Trump should do the
wrong thing.
We are in an age of hyper-polarisation and negative partisanship. It's not surprising that turnout was high. Remember that Trump is also one of the most hated American presidents of all time, and barring a short period slightly after inauguration,
has never had a net positive approval rating.
Over fifty percent of the country consistently disapproved of the way he did his job, over years. As such it is entirely plausible that there was massive turnout in order to get rid of him. That is to say that Trump is such a polarising figure that this election featured significantly boosted turnout, both for and against him.
And you keep throwing statistics at me, that any sensible person knows are wrong and biased. In this climate how many people would admit to supporting Trump when that will get you attacked?
However, I think the deeper issue here is that this and other arguments you make in the same post essentially boil down to, "Trump can't have lost the election because it feels wrong to me. I feel like he ought to have won. Therefore he won." See also:
No. Trump couldn't have lost the election, because it contradicts
reality. And no, that describes
you. "There cannot be any voter fraud, because it feels wrong to me. I feel like there is no voter fraud, therefore there is none."
We have already explained our logical reasons, yet you keep on claiming it is emotional. Therefore, I must conclude you are projecting, because if someone was being genuine they would have accepted that this is based in logic and in a concrete understanding of reality.
This is absurd. You find it implausible that Biden might have won Georgia, therefore... what? No. Only one thing will determine whether or not Biden won Georgia, and that thing is the
number of votes. So far it
looks like Biden won Georgia, but there will be a recount, as it's really razor-thin and I don't know which way it will go.
But the point is that your gut feeling is not a reliable guide to election outcomes. See also:
Therefore the result is suspect and should be investigated.
And this isn't a gut feeling, this is actually based on actual thought and analysis combiend
I note that I looked up polling data, made a quick calculation, clearly stated all my assumptions, and then chucked a 10% bonus for Trump on to the end just for the lulz. You... are citing anecdotes. Okay? I mean, you've seen a MAGA hat, congratulations. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. Do you disagree with my conclusion that Canadians overwhelmingly dislike Trump, and that at a rough guess, only a quarter to a third of Canadians at most are likely to be sympathetic to claims of voter fraud?
Make Canadian Great Again, I messed up the ancronym, but I am sure you'd be intelligent enough to know that each country has its own riff.
What proof? You mean biased polls? You are an Australian that lives in an obvious urban bubble.
My guess would be that Trump's foreign policy has been unusually pro-Israel (cf. the embassy in Jerusalem), and that Israelis are unlikely to care that much about American domestic politics, so from their perspective Trump has been quite good for them.
Going back a bit now...
So people who can actually see the good Trump as done support him. How very interesting, it is almost as if the good he has done has been papered over.
I said that he and the National Review are correct that it would be disastrously awful if state legislatures were to ignore the votes and appoint electors in defiance of the will of the people. I explicitly said that I was not encouraging violence. Yeesh.
It is not in defiance, it is in support. And the fact that you'd even try to use this as an example points to yes, and the fact you are standing for a person that called for violence is a yes.
As Joe Biden himself might say, "C'mon, man."
Denying reality again I see. Just because you can say a pithy quote does not make things the opposite of what they are. This site is for everyone who wants to be a productive member of the community. That is by no means make a forum right-wing, unless being inclusive of those who think differently is a right-wing virtue.
In fact what you are saying is an obvious thought-stopping cliche. It is no counterargument at all.
I don't think you are using numbers? The closest you came above was saying that you don't find the turnout for Biden believable, but that's not an estimate you're basing on any actual numbers of data. It's based on your estimate of what's realistic for Biden, which is to say, another gut feeling.
Because it does not make any logical sense. And it is not a gut feeling, as we well established
...I cited Trump's lawsuits in
my opening post.
Here's
the link I included there. The vast majority of Trump's lawsuits have been dismissed. The one victory in Pennsylvania is too small to change the result of the election.
To be clear, he's filed over a dozen lawsuits. It looks like about eight have been outright rejected, a few are currently ongoing, and the only two victories are a trivial suit in Pennsylvania about standing a few feet closer to vote-counters, and one about ballots that didn't receive supplemental identification by the 9th. This will not change the result.
So people with every motive to outright lie. Pass. And neither of those are trivial, they are important, since they show that there are in fact irregularities. The fact that you understate this tell us much.
One thing ISIS, Antifa, and the Hong Kong protests have in common is that none of them were trying to execute an extremely complex and subtle operation, in secret, across an entire nation of more than three hundred and twenty million people. Antifa doesn't have coordination problems because there's nothing to coordinate: all you have to do to be part of Antifa is put on a black hoodie and a mask and go punch some people.
*woosh* I am saying that they can operate on a massive scale without being coordinated. And that this is the case for this election, you don't need a massive conspiracy, you just need people to act like they do. Indepently towards a greater goal. And it is apparent what I meant. It seems to be odd that you keep on "misinterpreting" what I say, to your advantage of course. I am rapidly being unconvinced of you not debating in good faith. What are you going to do next as your debate strategy, argue that justice is the advantage of the stronger? And that since Biden's side is stronger their cause is just?
But beyond that, it's important that none of those groups are secret. ISIS has not been able to convince anyone that it doesn't exist. The Hong Kong protesters have not silently manipulated the Hong Kong Legislative Council from the shadows with impunity. The thing about the protests or Antifa or the like is that they don't require massive coordination, because the main thing they're doing is turning out in public, being seen, and showing discontent. That is the opposite of what a giant, covert electoral fraud organisation would need to be.
See above. And it becomes clearer and clearer. Stop being dishonest. It is clear you know what I meant and then decided to not argue against my real point. But to create a strawman.
If you check back, you will notice that I consistently said "no significant voter fraud and no election fraud". One random guy on Twitter alleging an individual irregularity is not evidence of widespread election fraud. Over a hundred and fifty million people voted in this election. You need to take scale into account: if, say, 0.01% of all votes are cast fraudulently, which is probably believable for clerical error, that's still fifteen thousand mistakes.
You can keep on saying that, yet all the evidence says otherwise. No matter who testifies, it is "one random guy on twitter". And funny you mention that, there has been over fifteen thousand mistakes.
