DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Republicans continue the narrative that the election was fraudulent.

Like I said - you play semantics. The rest of us will have an adult conversation. I don't actually believe you for an instant believe that I meant that there was no fraud anywhere by any individual. At this point I just think you are being obtuse.

* Edit - the title of the thread is about a narrative of a fraudulent election... different than individual cases of voter fraud that did not impact the election.

I'm confused, and I'm not trying to pile on here. The thread is about Republicans continuing the narrative that the election was fraudulent. I suppose that could be further qualified by specifically pointing to Trump supporters, as there are notable Republicans who believe the election was fair (Sasse, Kinzinger, McConnell, etc.). It just so happens - from deductive reasoning - that all the people who were behind the assertion of a fraudulent election were also Republicans.

I'm fine with the notion that we should always call our systems into question and look for improvement, but it depends on the context. Are we doing it because we genuinely want to improve our systems, or are we doing it because our guy lost.

In this case, given the nature of a lot of the suits, inquiries, groups involved, and wild assertions that were made, combined with the fact that there was no valid evidence presented to back the claims, it would be a very dangerous precedent - at the very least - to say "Hey, yeah, maybe we should look at our systems."

I think it was very important to dispel what ended up being garbage assertions of mass voter fraud.

Now, if we wanted to say "We need to examine our systems to both ensure their integrity AND to invalidate any sort of erroneous assertions being made in the future" then I could get on board with having a conversation on that front.

This in a nut shell. Thank you.

That's kind of the conversation I was trying to have.

It's a bit more examining our systems in order to figure out how we can better make them do what they're supposed to do, in addition to what you said. I suppose it's really the whole reasoning we can't look at it because it could shake confidence that irks me. Why shouldn't confidence be shaken? The system doesn't seem to be working very well. When the best people can say about the selection is that they had to make sure it was not the other guy, something rotten is in the works.

That's somehow getting twisted into supporting there was mass voter fraud. My pathological need for accuracy may be getting in the way a bit.

Yes but ...

[1] The thread is about the lie of mass voter fraud.
[2] You missed the part of dawglovers post that talked about it being dangerous to focus on ""Hey, yeah, maybe we should look at our systems."
[3] You missed and have yet to clearly state as fact or opinion that the election was not stolen and there was no mass voter fraud. And again you skate over the part in Dawglover's post where it says "I think it was very important to dispel what ended up being garbage assertions of mass voter fraud."

You seem to just want to twist the agenda and would rather debate semantics and be 'technically right' than talk about the substance. Somebody somewhere omitted "mass" - whoop de freak doo. Not the point. Not the context. But carry on.

Poster 1- At no point did I say "No fraud" in a past post.

Poster 2- Here is your past post saying "No fraud" (post is shared). I'll even give you an out and say you meant "mass voter fraud", not "No fraud".

Poster 1- You are soooooo playing semantics bro. It's so obvious. The rest of us are going back to an adult conversation where we say something rather directly and then call someone challenging us "obtuse" later.

I realize context is clearly something you don't grasp. But thanks for playing. Crawl back under your rock now. Your gotcha moment isn't.

1. This thread started about voter fraud. Threads change. Despite you only wanting to talk about mass voter fraud, some people think that horse is dead and it is time to move in a more productive direction.

2. I happen to disagree with that sentiment. I'd argue it's dangerous to not look at a system that has led to Trump as a result and then nearly did it again despite the evidence of his mental capacity or lack thereof.

3. It's been my repeated opinion that there was no mass voter fraud. At least not in the manner that Trump and the Republicans have alleged. Whether the whole system has become effectively fraudulent, there I have concerns.

Was it an omission? Or was it a carefully crafted, deceitful choice in message designed to subliminally stroke it's writer's ego or whatever nonsense you claimed I did earlier?

Oversimplifying things to tie them up in a neat bow so you can feel good about being on the right side of an issue leads to extremism. Yes, you're on the right side of your carefully constructed theoretical/"black and white" argument. Unfortunately, you keep trying to steam roll more complex externalities and cram them into your simplified argument. You refuse to look at anything except your rhetoric that you apparently can't help but repeat despite the fact that no one is arguing to the contrary.

Maybe try out some new thoughts and quit acting like a state-sponsored parrot. Let me guess, "But, but... there was no mass voter fraud," eh?

To me it wasn’t about shaking confidence in the system, but standing up to those who sought to undermine it for foul, corrupt, self-preserving reasons.

If only that would happen for all our current politicians/both parties instead of just one (admittedly worth standing up to) outlier.

I don’t disagree with that. This was more of a dire straits, acute situation. Overturning the machine at large involves divorcing a lot of the voters from preconceived notions, echo chambers and media reinforcements. I’m not sure how to tackle all of that.

What about it "isn't working so well"? If you're speaking about our choices of candidates I agree. But we were talking about the actual voting process. There has been so little voter fraud shown to exist, and none of it organized or on a mass scale that I think all the previous noise about it is nonsense.

Now if on the other hand you wish to talk about campaign financing and the stranglehold the two party system has on our election process we may agree more than you would imagine.

The only disagreement I might have is on the 2 party system. If you start having more than 2 choices, you start to divide the country in to thirds or whatever rather than halves.

If we have discord now, with things basically divided equally, what sort of chaos will be created if you have winning results with possibly nearly 2/3rds of the country not in favor?

I'm not sure, either. I am fairly sure that the answer isn't to twist every attempt at discussion into rambling about mass voter fraud or the lack thereof, filled with preconceived notions, echo chambers, and media reinforcements.

I kind of think Trump's initial election was a symptom of a "dire straits, acute situation" where people just needed to try to change the system because it hasn't been working. Obviously, Trump wasn't the change that was needed, but something still has to give.

...If 2/3 weren't in favor, the person wouldn't get elected. We'd still have to winnow things down eventually, and a majority would be needed in the end. There just wouldn't be a near certainty that those final candidates would be from the same two parasitic parties every time.

This whole setup of "having to" belong to one of two parties appears to me to be a byproduct of living in a digital age. Computers operate in binary. Unfortunately, not everything can or should be reduced to an either/or situation. There is no good reason to limit things to two options that really don't accurately reflect what any particular individual actually wants. How does limiting options reflect freedom, liberty, or (when you get right down to it) democracy itself?

This is kind of the "problem" with democracy. It's not easy. It needs the input of an informed and engaged populace. Unfortunately, in a lot of ways we've got an infantilized, distracted populace used to being fed simplified answers/choices. The 2 party system is one of those true democracy destroying oversimplifications. In other words, it's a shortcut to a dead end.

People actually having to think about what's best for the country rather than simply having to pick between two bad options was kind of the whole basis of democracy.

We've talked about this before, but I still disagree. Many other places have multiple parties. It forces negotiations and it takes away leverage from lobbyists. We also wouldn't have the same type of "seniority" leverage that you see within both parties right now. The huge problem is that you see obstructive stances right now because there are only two parties. Nothing is getting done because the other party knows they can just hold out. Don't have that same type of leverage if their numbers are smaller.

It also has become much more easier for demagogues and self-promoters in media to brainwash the public at large because they only have to divide themselves into two.

It's essentially a two-party oligarchy in a system where the members of both can milk the system for all it's worth.

You might be letting the conversations of this thread get to you, but you will find (and I know you know this) that every political issue is going to be filled with preconceived notions, echo chambers and media reinforcements. That's part of the bigger machine that you and I have been discussing.

I think that Trump was the reflection of a mixture of anger, anti-establishmentism, desperation, marketing, ire, and a whole bunch of other undercurrents that were/are still continuing to build.

Something absolutely has to give, but it'll be in a good way or a bad way (obviously). My concern on the Republican side is the growing movement to perpetuate what he started. My concern on the Democrat side is their push to maintain a system that led to Trump in the first place, and carrying on with the notion that they had no culpability in his rise.

Like I said before, I don't know how to get things to the point where they give "in a good way."

Sadly there is one huge obstacle in all of this. The entire way election finance and the system itself is set up. With lobbying being legal and "corporations are people too", the huge amount of money special interests funnel into the two major parties will make it nearly impossible for a third party to break through and compete in any meaningful way.

To accomplish any measure of success of that third party at the very least, which many of us seem to want, it will take a complete overhaul of that system. And the people who hold all the power, our current two party system, has zero reason to gamble sharing the power they currently hold.

Yeah, that's really the conundrum. It's sad and very frustrating.

I'm going to stick with this and ignore the other stuff - especially the "state sponsored" comments which I have no idea where that comes from....

If the title of the thread is not clear - I apologize. It does seem that most posters followed the intent but to expand on something I mentioned earlier:

This thread was not about voter fraud in general. This thread was written solely with regard to the narrative that the "election was fraudulent". Using that phrase my meaning was that the GOP is pushing a narrative that there was mass voter fraud that stole the election away from Trump. . . . the original post any any subsequent post by me is not about individual fraudulent voter events that (as mentioned) are on record all over the country as having happened. It is 100% [1] about the idea the election was stolen [2] it is about a strategy by some parts of the GOP to continue to promote the stolen election / mass voter fraud narrative that has provided no evidence to support or back up these claims. None.

I don't see individual cases of voter fraud resulting in a fraudulent election - because that would (probably ) mean every election in history was 'fraudulent' ... to be called a 'fraudulent election' in my eyes the result must have been altered by fraud.

As a conversation it is certainly possible to move on to how to make the system better period. And to talk about faults with the system generally. About the failings/issues of a 2 party system ... All valid issues and topics. But you dived right into what I considered non-thread issues right from the get go. Again, going back to dawglovers post that you seemed to agree with - he was specific in suggesting they were good topics to move onto after first addressing/dismissing the mass voter fraud / fraudulent election topic. And even if you don't see it as absolute - it's certainly a simple thing to state that your opinion does or does not believe there was fraud that changed the result of the election. You can have a non absolute opinion on the strategy to undermine confidence in the election result even though there is no evidence to support that position.

* In case you missed it - there was an article posted in a different thread the other day where Steve Bannon is talking about a strategy he promoted to de-legitimize the Biden admiration by promoting and pushing the stolen election narrative no matter what. . . Sine then we have states like TX which Trump won - wanting to carry out Audits without any merit other than to undermine confidence. In case you missed it the Cyber Ninjas completed their joke of an 'Audit' and found Biden won by more votes than the official results.

It definitely is getting to me. Those things don't need to be (and shouldn't be) a part of the bigger machine, though. That's a big part of my/the issue. Fabricated group-think repeated over and over until it becomes "reality" isn't good. Ignoring anything that doesn't coincide with the group-think isn't good.



Agreed



Yup, I definitely feel this.

I don't think we can overly worry about whether it's a "good" way or a "bad" way. It seems that if we do nothing, it's only going to get worse until the "bad" way is the only possibility.

I don't think more parties are the answer. I think getting rid of parties needs to happen. We need personal accountability and individuality-- Not conformity to agendas to keep the money flowing.

Elected officials can form voting blocs on issues, but the groups shouldn't be "fixed" for all issues.

I'm not sure if an anti-trust/monopoly case can be made, but it definitely seems worth looking into to me.

Which is exactly what I've noticed, been bothered by, predicted more of, and tried to show the short-sightedness of, AND you seem incapable of getting out of the rut you're stuck in.

Maybe try to re-read the last post. I stuck with one point because it *appears* you misunderstood the intent of the thread and we were having a conversation based on 2 different premise. You assumed the conversation was about any type of voter fraud - while I was talking about voter fraud that was sufficient to change the outcome of the election ... either you don't think talking about two different topics and thinking they are the same is important, or you choose to ignore and still attack my reasoning, rationale and shortsightedness. Or maybe you just like being an ass and I am giving you too much credit when I suggest rereading my last post.

I also didn't want to get into the other garbage where you continually assume and make character claims without knowing anything about my positions on other issues. A bit like this last attack. A bit like suggesting the thread was a carefully crafted deceitful manipulation ...

Have at it. I tried to explain where there might have been a misunderstanding. Not going to continue making an effort.

* Edit. And kind of ironic that you criticize me for picking out an important point (and elaborating on it in detail) ... and then you cherry pick a line from my post and think that's game to claim short sighted etc. Well done.

I didn't misinterpret your intent for the thread. You are misinterpreting my intent in attempting to re-direct the thread in a seemingly more productive direction. You weren't having a conversation. You were ranting about there not being mass voter fraud over and over again and ignoring anything that didn't talk about there not being mass voter fraud. That's not a conversation, that's a tiresome soliloquy.

My joking suggestion that the thread was a carefully crafted deceitful manipulation was me trying to mirror your weak logic back at you, in the hope that you'd see how ridiculous that was. (referring back to the post where you complained about my "carefully constructed arguments") I should have known that if I wasn't proclaiming a lack of mass voter fraud you wouldn't try to understand what I was saying.

I am not making character claims. I am stating how your actions seem from my perspective. Admittedly some sarcasm has slipped in as my frustration has built.

You not making an effort-- I am shocked. Your seeming willfull blindness/myopia appears to be an example of one of the big issues in our country. People can't seem to see the forest for the trees. People are so caught up in their point being right, they disallow the possibility that any other points can be made simultaneously. It seems like narcissism.

I'm not criticizing you for picking an important point. I'm criticizing you for your avoidance of discussing any other point. Pretending your point is the only one that exists or is important seems to border on megalomania.

I could get on board with no parties.

We're all in this together. Fabricated divides seem to be counter-productive to me.

I agree. It has become the opposite of what the intent was. Originally, we had a construct of people who were sharing thoughtful ideas and engaged in a forum where thoughts became goals and became movement. The movements/parties were influenced by the constituents. Now, it's just the opposite. The constituents are fed their beliefs by the party.

Got it. So you understood I was not talking about "voter fraud" but "mass voter fraud" ... yet you still chose numerous times to suggest that I was talking about something I wasn't.

Also get that you don't think that it is that big a deal that, as a strategy, parts of the GOP continually claiming there was was voter fraud even though they have yet to provide any substance or anything remotely close to 'evidence'.

Get that their are other areas to discuss where change and issues could be topics.

I happen to think the 'Big Lie' and a strategy to continually undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the election and use it to push through restrictive voter reforms and as the catalyst for Jan 6th are big issues and endemic of real problems with the system and specifically the Trump supporting branch of the GOP. That's why I started the thread. If you don't agree that's fine. Calling me blind, short sighted, myopic and a state sponsored and all the other stuff? Not so much. But you act like you know what I think on all those other issues etc and dig deeper with the insults.

I don't act like I know what you think on all those other issues. I'm frustrated that you continuously refuse to address those other issues. I have no idea what you think on other issues because you're only willing to talk about one specific issue that we don't disagree about.

I'm not a parrot. I see no need to repeat things I agree with ad nauseam. When an issue we agree on ties into other issues, it makes more sense to move onto the other issues, to me, instead of constant mutual/self rhetorical fellatio.

So you choose not to engage in one conversation and that's cool .. but I don't engage in your alternate conversation because I think it's a different subject than the one I initiated and personally feel like it deflects from an important issue ... and you get to call me lots of names ... and we'll forget about the part where you say you knew the topic is mass voter fraud but choose to nit pick on whether 'mass' was included every time fraud was mentioned? Classy.

I engaged in the conversation and then moved on to something else. You seem to refuse to move on. Your hypocrisy is pretty lame. Your not using mass is fine, but my not using mass is some kind of heinous crime? I asked you to clarify once because it looked like you were overgeneralizing. You're the one that keeps bringing up mass. Gahhhh, I must be a sadist for continuing to try to get you to see reason.

Have I actually called you any names? I've definitely commented on your behavior and how it seems to me, but I don't think I've stooped to name calling despite some major temptation. But you can try to "deflect."

The way these audits are going so far, it wouldn't surprise me

You are now claiming that it is me that keeps making this about the "mass" - omitted or included - but I am responding to your posts about it.



This is your first reply to the thread. And there are others that talk about 'mass' vs incidents of fraud. You now claim to know what the context was but you still chose multiple times to simply play semantics.

And just me - I don't actually see any engagement on the topic. I see it being dismissed with a "maybe" and then moving right along - WHICH IS FINE. But while you want to talk about other - perhaps broader and more productive conversations - on this thread I chose to focus on the one issue.... AND apparently it's cool for you to dictate what you expect me to focus on and you get to make derogatory "observations" (a new name for insults) when I choose to focus in this thread on one topic...

Again - just me - but if we are talking about racism and racial inequality and someone, as they always do, wants to talk about black on black crime, or rates of single parent families, education levels, reverse racism or whatever ... not wanting to engage on those topics while talking about racial injustice doesn't mean those other topics are not important and are not being considered or discussed elsewhere .... it's that talking about those other issues deflects from what is an important topic in and of itself. And often when you talk about the one important topic it is the "Yeah but what about xxx" that is used to deflect.

We clearly see things differently. Go ahead and call me all those "observations" and feel superior or smug or whatever it is that you feel when you judge others in those absolutes that you claimed so strenuously to not like.

Yes, I asked you to clarify in my first post before you made it abundantly clear that no matter what you actually wrote you were talking about mass voter fraud.

You're like the Geico gecko with the overly dramatic, "Somebody help me I have a flat tire." Except your flat tire is mass voter fraud. Someone can ask how it happened, give suggestions about how to deal with it now, and try to figure out how to avoid it happening again, but you insist on doing another take repeating the obvious that the tire is flat and avoid any conversation about how to actually address the issue. Everybody has said there was no mass voter fraud, you don't have to keep saying it.

There was NO mass voter fraud. There WAS no mass voter fraud. There was no MASS voter fraud. There was no mass voter fraud. *Squawk* Sorry, have I said it enough yet?

Can you stop stating the obvious and move on to some constructive conversation on what to do about it?

Doing nothing but restating the problem doesn't actually do anything to resolve the problem. I'd prefer to actually talk about how to fix/avoid the problem instead of just complaining about the problem and blaming other people for it.

If you're unwilling to do anything but constantly point at the problem in outrage, you're part of the problem.

Rudy Giuliani admits under oath that he got some of his 'evidence' of alleged election fraud from social media


Rudy Giuliani has been sued by former Dominion employee Eric Coomer for promoting election fraud conspiracy theories.

Giuliani admitted under oath that he did not verify the claims about Coomer before naming him in a press conference.

In the deposition, Giuliani said some of his evidence was based on Coomer's social media posts.



Rudy Giuliani admitted under oath that his "evidence" of voter fraud in the 2020 election came partly from social media and that he did not interview or fact-check his sources, reports say.

Donald Trump's former personal lawyer made the comments in a deposition on August 14 in relation to a defamation lawsuit brought by a former Dominion Voting Systems employee, Eric Coomer, first published by The Colorado Sun.

Coomer is suing the Trump campaign and others for promoting baseless conspiracy theories that he helped "rig" the election for Joe Biden.

In the deposition, Giuliani admitted that he got some of his information about Coomer's alleged role in the election fraud from his social media posts but couldn't be sure if it was Facebook or another platform.


"Those social media posts get all one to me," Giuliani said.

When questioned about whether he saw any other evidence linking Coomer with election fraud, he responded, "Right now, I can't recall anything else that I laid eyes on."

The conspiracy theories about Coomer were sparked by accusations made by right-wing podcast host Joe Oltmann.

Oltmann claimed to have infiltrated an Antifa conference call in which someone who identified themselves as "Eric from Dominion" boasted about preventing Trump from winning the election, The New York Times reported. Oltmann offered no proof of his claims.


The podcast host then found Eric Coomer's Facebook profile, on which he supposedly had written anti-Trump messages.

Giuliani and other Trump allies seized upon Oltmann's allegations, repeating them in a now-infamous November 19 press conference.

" One of the Smartmatic patent holders, Eric Coomer, I believe his name is, is on the web as being recorded in a conversation with ANTIFA members saying that he had the election rigged for Mr. Biden," Giuliani said.

But according to court papers filed by Coomer's lawyers, Giuliani spent "virtually no time" investigating the claims.


The filings said that Giuliani did not speak to Oltmann about the claims and did not reach out to Coomer or Dominion about them.

Giuliani said he was too busy when asked why he repeated Oltmann's accusations without verifying them.

"It's not my job in a fast-moving case to go out and investigate every piece of evidence that's given to me," Giuliani said in the deposition, reported by MSNBC.

"Why wouldn't I believe him? I would have to have been a terrible lawyer… gee, let's go find out it's untrue. I didn't have the time to do that."

After being named by Giuliani and lawyer Sidney Powell in the November press conference, Coomer briefly went into hiding.

Trump and his allies have continued to promote baseless conspiracy theories that the 2020 presidential election was rigged.

The Justice Department has said it found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the election, and dozens of lawsuits challenging the results of the 2020 election have failed.

https://www.businessinsider.com/rudy-gui...acebook-2021-10

This time you definitely missed the point of my last couple of posts. I wasn't going on about mass fraud as I was highlighting how you knew what I was talking about but chose to write multiple posts that suggested I was talking about something else. There's probably a name for that, or a label that could be phrased as an observation. In essence I was pointing out your "style" and how you clearly like to manipulate the discussion.


As for how obvious something is or isn't and whether it's worthy of mentioning when it's SO flaming obvious??? I guess when a majority of one political party believe something that you and I both agree isn't true... I don't know that i would consider it truly obvious. But we're not going to talk about it, I can't stand anymore of your manipulation and you've got more important topics to address.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/24/republicans-2020-election-poll-trump-biden

Bottom line Bull is that if someone can't say (simply) that there was NOT mass Voter/election fraud, they are part of the problem..

It's clear and is simple, this was drummed up by Trump and his idiot supporters to cast doubt for the long game.. The long game in this instance is to rile people up, get them to change voting laws, in most cases, making it harder for those that don't support a dictator to vote.

The actions of Trump and his many minions (elected and not elected) is destroying this country and the principals it was founded on. They claim to love America but somehow it comes out that they HATE some Americans. (the ones that don't vote for dictators, biggots and racists)