America - The Official Thread

[huskeR32]

I will say some of Trump’s rhetoric is ridiculous and I wished he’d tone it down in certain scenarios, but that’s hardly anything compared to this.

What exactly is wrong about what he's saying? He's absolutely right; the notion that individuals could use firearms to protect themselves from the government is ludicrous. We could probably defeat half the world at once, but Militia Joe is going to pose an insurmountable challenge?

--

And Trump is the problem...

I'm really not sure what your objection here is. Surely it's not that you're a staunch constitutionalist; you've stated you'd gladly toss out the right to vote for nothing more than writing the wrong year down.

 

[ryzno]

What exactly is wrong about what he's saying? He's absolutely right; the notion that individuals could use firearms to protect themselves from the government is ludicrous. We could probably defeat half the world at once, but Militia Joe is going to pose an insurmountable challenge?

--



I'm really not sure what your objection here is. Surely it's not that you're a staunch constitutionalist; you've stated you'd gladly toss out the right to vote for nothing more than writing the wrong year down.

Yep, and incorrect addresses, misspelled names and Jesus on Heaven St.
Would you accept Jesus ballot?

 

[huskeR32]

Yep, and incorrect addresses, misspelled names and Jesus on Heaven St.
Would you accept Jesus ballot?

If there was someone named Jesus who lived on Heaven St., and if Heaven St. was a real place, and he was old enough to vote, and had already successfully registered, then yes, I'd accept his ballot.

 

[TexRex]

If there was someone named Jesus who lived on Heaven St., and if Heaven St. was a real place, and he was old enough to vote, and had already successfully registered, then yes, I'd accept his ballot.

It seems to me that a ballot attributed to "Jesus on Heaven St." (funny that the argument keeps circling back to that, when it obviously was not and would not have been counted) was merely an attempt to express indifference toward the electoral system, which is rather sad but doesn't amount to much.

 

[ryzno]

If there was someone named Jesus who lived on Heaven St., and if Heaven St. was a real place, and he was old enough to vote, and had already successfully registered, then yes, I'd accept his ballot.

Does all of this require another round of voting?
Edit: In her press conference that is live now she just called his office the "handwriting police". This is hysterical.
Edit 2: Now she just called Kemp votes evil lol!
Edit 3: Kemp is our Governor even though she refuses to concede and will continue to take this to court.

 

[huskeR32]

Does all of this require another round of voting?

That's an entirely different question.

The call for another vote isn't due to the question about accepting (or not) too many Jesus ballots. It's about concerns that Kemp flagrantly abused the power of his office.

 

[ryzno]

That's an entirely different question.

The call for another vote isn't due to the question about accepting (or not) too many Jesus ballots. It's about concerns that Kemp flagrantly abused the power of his office.

Uh hu... Check my edits and feel free to Google her conference soon. You know how FB is...

 

[huskeR32]

Uh hu... Check my edits and feel free to Google her conference soon. You know how FB is...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[ryzno]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Seriously?

 

[huskeR32]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. As the article you posted in the election thread says, the impetus behind a re-vote would be Kemp's abuse of his office. None of your edits above have anything to do with that, you're just posting random thoughts that you're having as you watch, as near as I can gather. But you didn't address that central point.

 

[ryzno]

Yes, seriously. As the article you posted in the election thread says, the impetus behind a re-vote would be Kemp's abuse of his office. None of your edits above have anything to do with that, you're just posting random thoughts that you're having as you watch, as near as I can gather. But you didn't address that central point.

She lost, called voters evil and wants a reelection.
I don't know how she thought calling a group of people a name would help her...
Abrams: Kemp=Evil
Hillary Trump=Evil
See a common narrative there?

 

[huskeR32]

She lost

Possibly due to unethical, or even illegal conduct by her opponent. I'm not going to join you in thinking that's just no big deal. I'm fairly sure you'd feel a bit differently if the parties were reversed in this situation.

called voters evil

What was the exact quote here? I kinda doubt she walked up to that microphone and said "voters are evil."

and wants a reelection

Well, again, if some unethical and/or illegal stuff cost her the election, then who in her position wouldn't want a re-vote?

Abrams: Kemp=Evil

Wait, I thought she called the voters evil. It was actually Kemp? You're all over the place here.

And if he did, indeed, abuse the power of his office to swing the election in his own favor, then I'd say assigning him some unfavorable labels is fair play.

Hillary Trump=Evil

Who is Hillary Trump?

See a common narrative there?

Yes, I see another thing I want a source for. When did Hillary say "Trump is evil?" I tried finding it myself, but could only find the opposite - Trump calling Hillary evil.

 

[TexRex]

What was the exact quote here?

"But those who fear change pushed back, and so we waited for the whole truth of this election--good and evil."

That is the only time she used the word "evil" in her speech.

35:44

 

[ryzno]

"But those who fear change pushed back, and so we waited for the whole truth of this election--good and evil."

That is the only time she used the word "evil" in her speech.

35:44

She called the votes evil. Are you 🤬 deaf?

 

[TexRex]

She called the votes evil. Are you 🤬 deaf?

I heard it just fine, thank you.

How about you show your work there? How did you interpret that as her calling votes evil?

 

[Rallywagon]

Well, first it was Kemp, then it was voters, now its votes?
I heard only what Tex quoted myself. Though, tbf, I didn't give that whole speech a very thorough listen

 

[ryzno]

I heard it just fine, thank you.

How about you show your work there? How did you interpret that as her calling votes evil?

What do you mean by show my work?
She in her own video called us evil and it's more around the 35:50 mark...

 

[TexRex]

What do you mean by show my work?

Break it down for me, long division-style...no calculator.

The election was plagued with what has been referred to as malfeasance ("those who fear change pushed back"), with many fighting to show that to be the case ("the whole truth of this election--good and evil").

Edit to address the edited post:

She in her own video called us evil and it's more around the 35:50 mark...

Her use of the word may have been there, however the sentence in which she used the word--which is to say the "exact quote" that was requested--began at 35:44 as I indicated.

 

[Novalee]

She says good and evil in regards to the way the vote went down. She did not call anyone or voters evil.

 

[huskeR32]

She in her own video called us evil and it's more around the 35:50 mark...

Nope, she said exactly what TexRex quoted her as saying, and it certainly wasn't calling voters evil.

I'm still waiting for evidence of Hillary calling Trump evil, by the way.

 

[ryzno]

Nope, she said exactly what TexRex quoted her as saying, and it certainly wasn't calling voters evil.

I'm still waiting for evidence of Hillary calling Trump evil, by the way.

"Deplorables".

 

[huskeR32]

"Deplorables".

So she didn’t say “evil,” and wasn’t talking about Trump. Got it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So she didn’t say “evil,” and wasn’t talking about Trump. Got it.

But she did call 31,492, 414 Americans deplorable. So there's that

 

[Dotini]

Let's face it. Our society is divided, polarized and politically contested by many strongly differing factions. Religious and secular, pro and anti-abortion, pro and anti-gun control, very rich and very poor with fewer in the middle, right on down to male and female on nearly countless issues. In this contest, some resort to name-calling including good and evil. It's easy and tempting for all sides. Plus it is free speech. Plus there may actually be real evil at work. There is an evil in the various forms of crime and violence amongst us. There is an evil in outside interference, from beyond our borders from those who would bring us down or otherwise threaten our existence. Yet are there not even more evils? One is time; the time that divides generations living under economic and cultural paradigms evolving much more rapidly than the generations are prepared for or able to adapt to. Even the young can complete expensive college education which is inadequate preparation for changing employment requirements including technology. This may be a hint that there is a social problem with over-rapid change, so yet another evil. Related to this are our genetics, DNA, and any inherited instincts, atavisms, traits, tendencies, traditions, cultural memories, memes, etc. right on down to morphic resonance . The human being evolved to being durably what we are after numberless generations. Predictably, some of us often react poorly to very rapid social change. This is not to say that some social change may not warranted or even overdue, but only that it inherently brings conflict, some of which may be characterized as evil.

 

[ryzno]

I heard it just fine, thank you.

How about you show your work there? How did you interpret that as her calling votes evil?

Show what work? You like that line for some reason. I listened to it live and that is what I heard. So you can't say I was brainwashed by Rush or Hannity and spewing their agenda or ask for a link to my opinion. That is what I hear.
That's what I heard and after watching it 50 more times that is what I hear.
Why can't you just accept someone's opinion however wrong it is to you and leave them alone?
You remind me of a friend I have on FB he's a retired professor oddly enough. He complains every day of seeing "irrational angry comments". And loves to use the 10 rules to debate image.
My thing is if it bothers him so much why does he continue to log on every day?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Show what work? You like that line for some reason. I listened to it live and that is what I heard. So you can't say I was brainwashed by Rush or Hannity and spewing their agenda or ask for a link to my opinion. That is what I hear.
That's what I heard and after watching it 50 more times that is what I hear.
Why can't you just accept someone's opinion however wrong it is and leave them alone?

It's what I hear too but it isn't direct, it's indirect, basically trolling. By not directly calling voters evil but making subtle, thinly veiled insinuations, she can get away with it. I would assume most Democrats learned from Hillary's "basket of deplorables" guffaw although probably not all of them got the memo. I mean after all, in one sentence you're referring to "those who fear change", which obviously means people who don't agree with her party's agenda which is obviously Republicans and then refers to good and evil coming forth. Well the evil aren't the Democrats that voted for her are they? Of course not, by default it must be the Republicans that didn't vote for her that must be the evil ones.

She didn't have to use the word evil, it was most definitely deliberate. She could have just said, "and so we waited for results to come forth" and left ouf the good and evil part. What is "evil" about determining the outcome of the election if not the Republicans?

 

[PocketZeven]

She lost, called voters evil and wants a reelection.
I don't know how she thought calling a group of people a name would help her...
Abrams: Kemp=Evil
Hillary Trump=Evil
See a common narrative there?

Trump supports Kemp and visa versa. So there is a recurring theme. Trump had a history of backing controversial candidates like Roy moore. And if you do some digging in Kemp it seems he has a very incompetent (which isnt illegal) history of 2012 with running elections. Either he really is incompetetent or either he does it on purpose just enough to supress votes and keep it legal.
- unusual high rate of voter purging through exact match
- Voting machines without powercords or broken
- accidently exposing sensitive personal voter information
- strategically closing polling locations (coincidently areas with minorities) long lines duting recent election
- more then 10 year old voting machines
- After accusation of security breach, databases and backups were wiped "accidently".
etc.

https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/brian-kemp-georgia-governor-race-voter-suppression.html
or


That said. In Florida Brenda Snipes seems even more incompetent if possible.

 

[huskeR32]

That's what I heard and after watching it 50 more times that is what I hear.

“Show your work” means, for example, that you could do like @TexRex and provide the exact time in the video that you heard the phrase “voters are evil,” so that the rest of us could also go and hear it.

- -

It's what I hear too but it isn't direct, it's indirect, basically trolling.

It’s funny to take note of the times you’re “above the rhetoric” and a man who only cares about the facts, and when you suddenly dig in and look for the hidden messages. It’s almost like you’re biased, despite your repeated attempts to establish yourself as one of the few wise and impartial sages around here.

What is "evil" about determining the outcome of the election if not the Republicans?

The evil part would be abusing the power of one’s office to swing an election in your own favor, when you should have relinquished the obvious conflict of interest. Nothing is evil about one party or the other.

 

[TexRex]

Show what work?

Explain to me how you came to the conclusion that that's what she meant. Thus far you've only said that that's what you heard, and have made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it.

I was gracious enough to explain how I came to my interpretation of the words, assuming that doing so would demonstrate what I was requesting.

You like that line for some reason.

It was [figuratively] beaten into me growing up and I think it works quite well as an analogy here. Simply stating that 3 goes into 36 a total of twelve times doesn't demonstrate that you know how to come to that conclusion, so you break it down.

And to continue with the metaphor; it'll be obvious if you look at the desk next to yours for the answer.

So you can't say I was brainwashed by Rush or Hannity and spewing their agenda or ask for a link to my opinion.

I believe what you mean to say is I can't say you've been told by them, which I hadn't done...though it's peculiar that you should reject that assertion without my having made it.

I could suggest you've been conditioned to come to such a conclusion, though, and while I'm not, making an effort to explain to me how you came to it could make such a suggestion more difficult to justify.

That is what I hear.

You said that.

That's what I heard and after watching it 50 more times that is what I hear.

Repeating it absent of explanation really isn't helping your cause.

Why can't you just accept someone's opinion however wrong it is and leave them alone?

Why can't you just accept that making your opinions known opens them up to being addressed? That's how discussion works.

Of course I'm not suggesting that you keep your opinions to yourself, rather that you hang up your hang-ups and actually participate instead of pitching a fit any time someone quotes you.

 

[ryzno]

Explain to me how you came to the conclusion that that's what she meant. Thus far you've only said that that's what you heard, and have made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it.

I was gracious enough to explain how I came to my interpretation of the words, assuming that doing so would demonstrate what I was requesting.


It was [figuratively] beaten into me growing up and I think it works quite well as an analogy here. Simply stating that 3 goes into 36 a total of twelve times doesn't demonstrate that you know how to come to that conclusion, so you break it down.

And to continue with the metaphor; it'll be obvious if you look at the desk next to yours for the answer.




View attachment 780535

I believe what you mean to say is I can't say you've been told by them, which I hadn't done...though it's peculiar that you should reject that assertion without my having made it.

I could suggest you've been conditioned to come to such a conclusion, though, and while I'm not, making an effort to explain to me how you came to it could make such a suggestion more difficult to justify.


You said that.


Repeating it absent of explanation really isn't helping your cause.


Why can't you just accept that making your opinions known opens them up to being addressed? That's how discussion works.

Of course I'm not suggesting that you keep your opinions to yourself, rather that you hang up your hang-ups and actually participate instead of pitching a fit any time someone quotes you.

I had a math teacher that failed me for not "showing my work" even though every answer was correct and I wasn't looking at the desk next to me. Oddly enough they'd be checking my answers to make sure they were right.
I have a problem with authority. Why should I break down a 12 step division when I can figure it out in 4 steps. Cause she said so?
Funny enough the same teacher said we'd never have a calculator we carry around with us every day...
I also have a problem explaining myself, which I've stated countless times here.
@Johnnypenso said it way better than I ever could. But then y'all break that down and continue to say he's incorrect or find some flaw in his post.
There is no debating here, it's literally trying to find whatever flaw in a post.
Here's a perfect example...

It’s funny to take note of the times you’re “above the rhetoric” and a man who only cares about the facts, and when you suddenly dig in and look for the hidden messages. It’s almost like you’re biased, despite your repeated attempts to establish yourself as one of the few wise and impartial sages around here.

It is nothing but taking a dig at him.
There is NO pleasing you 2.
You wonder why I'm not the only person who doesn't enjoy this section since you came around. I'm sure the same could be said about me but hey they leave me alone I leave them alone. A rather simple concept.