| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 01:18 - Sep 29 with 234997 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Who will be watching? First one kicks off in 24 hours time.
The Democrats have pulled Joe back from his campaign trail recently to get him prepared, so hopefully it will be a decent exchange.
Unfortunately they don’t seem to have great confidence as they have spent the last month looking for any dirt they can dig up so Joe can use if he gets stuck.
It’s no coincidence that this vote influencing Facebook algorithm story is being shamelessly and inaccurately made into a race issue on the eve of the debates. So transparent and disingenuous, it’s a shame politics has come to this on this level where black people are being used in this way to score political points. I would be furious if I was them, but it does seem a lot of people are not falling for this one and calling it out for what it is.
People finally seem to be getting wise to this political race baiting which is refreshing to see.
It’s also telling that in the week of the debate they try and paint Trump as a tax evasion offender. I think that’s what they wanted the tax returns to show, they seem to have got annoyed when it turns out his tax returns were fine in accordance to what his companies profits were - but decided to run with it anyway. Any news is good news in their mind as it’s another thing Joe can use when in a tricky spot.
But I hope the discussions remain political and doesn’t turn into some form of gossip peddling reality TV episode.
Although I think there should be some kind of drinking game involved if it does turn that way, how many times Biden completely loses his thread of thought and blurts out “I mean, think about it...” you have to take a shot. 
I will be watching with great interest anyway.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 02:03 - Nov 21 with 1307 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 01:57 - Nov 21 by Groo |
You mean this Alex Halderman
By the way, the quote I was referencing was by Jocelyn Benson, the Secretary of State of Michigan. |
Yep, him.
Who on here is saying it was hacked? He has not been presented any evidence, neither have we, so of course he hasn't seen any. I am certainly not saying it was if that is what you are incorrectly implying.
He is mirroring exactly what I have been saying. Millions and millions of people doubt the election results, with good reason. It's hardly a secure one.
My quote was from the above guy who stated quite clearly the software did not work as it did not have the update it needed. So yet another ''error'' which helped Biden.
I wonder at what point it may twig with you that the rate of error and who it is benefiting each and every time is a little odd. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 2:19]
| |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 02:20 - Nov 21 with 1286 views | Groo |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 02:03 - Nov 21 by Dr_Parnassus |
Yep, him.
Who on here is saying it was hacked? He has not been presented any evidence, neither have we, so of course he hasn't seen any. I am certainly not saying it was if that is what you are incorrectly implying.
He is mirroring exactly what I have been saying. Millions and millions of people doubt the election results, with good reason. It's hardly a secure one.
My quote was from the above guy who stated quite clearly the software did not work as it did not have the update it needed. So yet another ''error'' which helped Biden.
I wonder at what point it may twig with you that the rate of error and who it is benefiting each and every time is a little odd. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 2:19]
|
If you are not responding to the quote I was referring to, which led me to believe that the issue could be a pure operator error, not software, why make the comments you did? |  |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 02:25 - Nov 21 with 1282 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 02:20 - Nov 21 by Groo |
If you are not responding to the quote I was referring to, which led me to believe that the issue could be a pure operator error, not software, why make the comments you did? |
Because I corrected your quote to one more fitting by someone more qualified who clearly stated it was a software update (or lack of) that caused the error.
However you seemed fixated on your one which was vague at best. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 02:55 - Nov 21 with 1267 views | Groo |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 02:25 - Nov 21 by Dr_Parnassus |
Because I corrected your quote to one more fitting by someone more qualified who clearly stated it was a software update (or lack of) that caused the error.
However you seemed fixated on your one which was vague at best. |
Well, not only did I miss your quote by Alex Halderman, looking back a few pages I cannot see where you put a quote by Alex Halderman.
I was quite clearly taking a quote from the link I put in, which was by Jocelyn Benson.
This specific one.
"Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said in a statement that the misreporting was not a software issue, but a “user human error” and noted that the “correct results always were and continue to be reflected on the tabulator totals tape and on the ballots themselves."
"The equipment and software did not malfunction and all ballots were properly tabulated," she said. "However, the clerk accidentally did not update the software used to collect voting machine data and report unofficial results."
Benson added that even if the error in the reported unofficial results had not been quickly noticed, "it would have been identified during the county canvass.”"
By that quote it could be a software glitch or it could be just not pressing a button. I had not seen Alex Halderman's explanation, nor did I see you showing a quote by him.
Here is his explanation.
Which wasn't an issue with the actual software, they noticed some local candidates were missing so reconfigured the candidates list, this changed the columns assosciated with each candidate, which meant they needed to update all stations to ensure the columns lined up.
This configuration wasn't updated in that one station, which meant that station counted correctly but the data was in the wrong columns for the master system.
The received data from each station is compared to a print out at the station as a cross check, hence they found it. | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 03:10 - Nov 21 with 1256 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 02:55 - Nov 21 by Groo |
Well, not only did I miss your quote by Alex Halderman, looking back a few pages I cannot see where you put a quote by Alex Halderman.
I was quite clearly taking a quote from the link I put in, which was by Jocelyn Benson.
This specific one.
"Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said in a statement that the misreporting was not a software issue, but a “user human error” and noted that the “correct results always were and continue to be reflected on the tabulator totals tape and on the ballots themselves."
"The equipment and software did not malfunction and all ballots were properly tabulated," she said. "However, the clerk accidentally did not update the software used to collect voting machine data and report unofficial results."
Benson added that even if the error in the reported unofficial results had not been quickly noticed, "it would have been identified during the county canvass.”"
By that quote it could be a software glitch or it could be just not pressing a button. I had not seen Alex Halderman's explanation, nor did I see you showing a quote by him.
Here is his explanation.
Which wasn't an issue with the actual software, they noticed some local candidates were missing so reconfigured the candidates list, this changed the columns assosciated with each candidate, which meant they needed to update all stations to ensure the columns lined up.
This configuration wasn't updated in that one station, which meant that station counted correctly but the data was in the wrong columns for the master system.
The received data from each station is compared to a print out at the station as a cross check, hence they found it. |
A couple of posts up from the last page I said the following:-
''Being a software engineer doesn't mean you can read any better.
and I quote
"Because the clerk did not update software, even though the tabulators counted all the ballots correctly, those accurate results were not combined properly when the clerk reported unofficial results'' the Nov. 6 statement said.
Taken from the following:-
J. Alex Halderman, a University of Michigan professor and voting systems expert, dug into the problem and told our partners at the Detroit Free Press that county elections officials had left an old version of a key file on some machines in their digital voting system. As a result, those machines failed to properly match votes to candidates when tallies at some precincts were added to the county total.
"Because the clerk did not update software, even though the tabulators counted all the ballots correctly, those accurate results were not combined properly when the clerk reported unofficial results,"
So of course it is the software, it needed an update in order to work correctly. It did not get that update and failed to work properly - hence why they went to the hand count. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 03:45 - Nov 21 with 1242 views | Groo |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 03:10 - Nov 21 by Dr_Parnassus |
A couple of posts up from the last page I said the following:-
''Being a software engineer doesn't mean you can read any better.
and I quote
"Because the clerk did not update software, even though the tabulators counted all the ballots correctly, those accurate results were not combined properly when the clerk reported unofficial results'' the Nov. 6 statement said.
Taken from the following:-
J. Alex Halderman, a University of Michigan professor and voting systems expert, dug into the problem and told our partners at the Detroit Free Press that county elections officials had left an old version of a key file on some machines in their digital voting system. As a result, those machines failed to properly match votes to candidates when tallies at some precincts were added to the county total.
"Because the clerk did not update software, even though the tabulators counted all the ballots correctly, those accurate results were not combined properly when the clerk reported unofficial results,"
So of course it is the software, it needed an update in order to work correctly. It did not get that update and failed to work properly - hence why they went to the hand count. |
The quote was similar to the one I linked and you ommitted
"Taken from the following:-
J. Alex Halderman, a University of Michigan professor "
That whole bit at the bottom was missing. So how was I to know what or who you are quoting if you don't specifically say.
In the twitter thread I linked he goes into in detail as I stated above, it was a configuration error, not the software.
These machines are not supposed to be on the internet, therefore they cannot update centrally and download to all clients, instead someone has to update the configuration manually.
The machine counted perfectly, when they transferred it to the central system the columns were out.
They had contingency for such things happenning, as again stated above had checks in place to catch this type of thing and catch it they did.
Quite a statement from you though regarding intent, how would the clerk know where each column would end up.
There was no intent, an operator error, safety checks in place to catch such things and it was caught.
A republican caught wind and shouts fraud.
There is no fraud, no intent, no cheating. | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 03:52 - Nov 21 with 1237 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 03:45 - Nov 21 by Groo |
The quote was similar to the one I linked and you ommitted
"Taken from the following:-
J. Alex Halderman, a University of Michigan professor "
That whole bit at the bottom was missing. So how was I to know what or who you are quoting if you don't specifically say.
In the twitter thread I linked he goes into in detail as I stated above, it was a configuration error, not the software.
These machines are not supposed to be on the internet, therefore they cannot update centrally and download to all clients, instead someone has to update the configuration manually.
The machine counted perfectly, when they transferred it to the central system the columns were out.
They had contingency for such things happenning, as again stated above had checks in place to catch this type of thing and catch it they did.
Quite a statement from you though regarding intent, how would the clerk know where each column would end up.
There was no intent, an operator error, safety checks in place to catch such things and it was caught.
A republican caught wind and shouts fraud.
There is no fraud, no intent, no cheating. |
It is not similar at all.
By saying it was widely debunked I had assumed you had at least done your research into it and known what I was talking about.
You have no idea of intent, that is the whole point of our discussion. The difference between ''error'' and ''fraud'' is the intent, which is essentially un-provable. However, the result of each is the same.
What we can do however is look at the pattern of errors and see correlations. Currently errors seem to have 100% helped Biden. Which is a stat in itself... as I am sure you agree, right? [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 3:58]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 04:37 - Nov 21 with 1218 views | Groo |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 03:52 - Nov 21 by Dr_Parnassus |
It is not similar at all.
By saying it was widely debunked I had assumed you had at least done your research into it and known what I was talking about.
You have no idea of intent, that is the whole point of our discussion. The difference between ''error'' and ''fraud'' is the intent, which is essentially un-provable. However, the result of each is the same.
What we can do however is look at the pattern of errors and see correlations. Currently errors seem to have 100% helped Biden. Which is a stat in itself... as I am sure you agree, right? [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 3:58]
|
Did my research?
I'm chatting on an internet forum not studying for finals. I actually stated numerous times that I didn't have any in depth knowledge or all the facts. Is this what you do, study hard to get one over someone on a chatroom.
You have no idea of intent either, I'm just more open that it was a mistake with no intent. Again I don't know facts, but the fact that it was a column issue because a few names were added at the central computer, it meant that Biden's votes went elsewhere if indeed Trump's votes went to Biden. How many did each get?
So how many issues have been found in total? and how many were likely to be in the final official count? the Michigan one wouldn't have made it as the checks in place found it.
The one fact that sticks out is that there is no wide spread fraud and cheating that Trump states. | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 04:57 - Nov 21 with 1213 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 04:37 - Nov 21 by Groo |
Did my research?
I'm chatting on an internet forum not studying for finals. I actually stated numerous times that I didn't have any in depth knowledge or all the facts. Is this what you do, study hard to get one over someone on a chatroom.
You have no idea of intent either, I'm just more open that it was a mistake with no intent. Again I don't know facts, but the fact that it was a column issue because a few names were added at the central computer, it meant that Biden's votes went elsewhere if indeed Trump's votes went to Biden. How many did each get?
So how many issues have been found in total? and how many were likely to be in the final official count? the Michigan one wouldn't have made it as the checks in place found it.
The one fact that sticks out is that there is no wide spread fraud and cheating that Trump states. |
Yes Groo, research. Yes that’s exactly what I do, it’s my job to know exactly what is going on, I’m paid to know.
When you make a point like the following, “and of course that claim of 6000 is false, of course it is.” and then follow it up making a point that others wouldn’t understand as you are more qualified in the field, then you damn well need to make sure you know the subject matter being discussed - which you clearly didn’t.
You don’t need to tell me I also don’t know the intent, I’m not the one making the claims. You made the claims “no intent, no cheating and no fraud” which implies that you DO know the intent. Or at least are claiming to.
I am making the probability and statistical point that while it’s difficult to attribute intent to isolated incidents, you can start to make certain observations when you see patterns on things that should be random and sporadic in nature. The fact every single error helped Biden until found and corrected is a statistical anomaly.
Even more so when these checks are in place anyway because that very side claimed they were being wronged, essentially predicting the unpredictable adds another layer of improbability to it. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 5:16]
| |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 08:41 - Nov 21 with 1176 views | FieryJack |
"Being a key figure in political markets such as myself..." 😂
Brilliantly, sniffily said.
A key figure?
Not an inconsequential, minor, peripheral figure, then?
Don't let your innate modesty hold you back, lad. |  | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 08:42 - Nov 21 with 1172 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 08:41 - Nov 21 by FieryJack |
"Being a key figure in political markets such as myself..." 😂
Brilliantly, sniffily said.
A key figure?
Not an inconsequential, minor, peripheral figure, then?
Don't let your innate modesty hold you back, lad. |
No, a key figure.
Thanks for asking for the clarification.
Happy to give it.  | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 09:07 - Nov 21 with 1148 views | nantywatcher |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 08:42 - Nov 21 by Dr_Parnassus |
No, a key figure.
Thanks for asking for the clarification.
Happy to give it. |
Dr_P
Just to clear my mind from any further confusion, you believe that a man with a visibly low IQ, a limited intellect and feeble grasp of his native language should continue to be POTUS. A man who when the Covid death toll hits 250,000, disappears for the day to hack a ball around a golf course. You surely cannot believe that any alternative to Trump is a positive for the U.S., can you? |  | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 09:09 - Nov 21 with 1144 views | Gwyn737 |
Looks like Michigan is following Georgia. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 09:57 - Nov 21 with 1117 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 09:07 - Nov 21 by nantywatcher |
Dr_P
Just to clear my mind from any further confusion, you believe that a man with a visibly low IQ, a limited intellect and feeble grasp of his native language should continue to be POTUS. A man who when the Covid death toll hits 250,000, disappears for the day to hack a ball around a golf course. You surely cannot believe that any alternative to Trump is a positive for the U.S., can you? |
Well I don’t agree with your description.
But I don’t think anybody “should” be President of America other than the person that wins a democratic election to do so. Once that is confirmed then whoever the winner is should be the President regardless of if I agree with their politics or not.
As for who I think would be better for America, then that would be Donald Trump, by a country mile. It isn’t even close. I have explained why on this thread several times from the social benefits to the economic benefits.
I’m not sure what playing golf has to do with anything though. His administration has just overseen the fastest vaccine ever created (by 5 fold I believe) and the 2 million death toll that was predicted looks like it will get nowhere near even a quarter of that. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 09:58 - Nov 21 with 1116 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 09:09 - Nov 21 by Gwyn737 |
Looks like Michigan is following Georgia. |
Every state will be the same.
These are the first steps that have to be completed before taking it to Supreme Court. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 10:22 - Nov 21 with 1103 views | Gwyn737 |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 09:58 - Nov 21 by Dr_Parnassus |
Every state will be the same.
These are the first steps that have to be completed before taking it to Supreme Court. |
And while we wait the popular vote margin continues to increase.
This will either end up showing the most sophisticated and widespread fraud imaginable, or an attempt by Trump against democracy.
As I’ve said before, this is really important stuff and needs to play out. It has to be a yardstick for improving democracy.
If it’s wide scale election fraud that has impacted on the result of the election It should be overturned. On the other hand, if there are unfounded accusations and spurious charges then those responsible should be held to account.
Can’t have it both ways. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 10:31 - Nov 21 with 1096 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 10:22 - Nov 21 by Gwyn737 |
And while we wait the popular vote margin continues to increase.
This will either end up showing the most sophisticated and widespread fraud imaginable, or an attempt by Trump against democracy.
As I’ve said before, this is really important stuff and needs to play out. It has to be a yardstick for improving democracy.
If it’s wide scale election fraud that has impacted on the result of the election It should be overturned. On the other hand, if there are unfounded accusations and spurious charges then those responsible should be held to account.
Can’t have it both ways. |
The popular vote is irrelevant, there are 6% more democrats in America than republicans.
Again I don’t really agree with your summary/ultimatum. There isn’t just two options. Whether it is enough to overturn the election is not the yard stick. The question is, “is the election currently democratic and fair?”. The Republicans are rightly skeptical.
I would argue there has already been enough “error” to justify recounts and legal action. A 5 figure lead being cut by 10%+ after an audit with all “errors” helping Biden, is not a democratic process, especially when only a certain amount can then be recounted.
I am not sure what you mean by “held to account”. Nobody should be held to account for seeking a democratic outcome in an unprecedented and poorly managed election. If he refuses to concede after all avenues have been exhausted then I would agree, but there is not even a slight suggestion that would be the case.
Where as Biden was under the instructions to “not concede under ANY circumstance”. Key word being “any”. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 10:47]
| |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 10:39 - Nov 21 with 1092 views | AndyCole |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 10:53 - Nov 19 by Dr_Parnassus |
Right, now the usual lot have had their usual frustrated meltdowns and let off some much needed steam, back to the thread.
More reports emerging of what forced the GOP reps to buckle after their initial refusal to certify the vote after multiple discrepancies discovered.
This is an area that needs to be looked at going forward. Media driven, leftist bullying cannot be something that can be tolerated or have any part in politics.
It’s essentially state sanctioned corruption.
|
The way in which you constantly and consistently swat away some of the stupidity, bile and abuse deserves a medal. Bravo.
Your ability to do this with calm, collected dignity should be a lesson to many. Most especially to those that only seem to post to have a dig at you, fail miserably, get angrier and shoutier and slope off (the common trait amongst the loonies). | |
| Pro free speech and alternative opinions -
Anti gang-bullying and poor modding thereof -
Will always make a stand against those who consistently choose to turn a blind eye |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 10:51 - Nov 21 with 1074 views | Highjack |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 09:07 - Nov 21 by nantywatcher |
Dr_P
Just to clear my mind from any further confusion, you believe that a man with a visibly low IQ, a limited intellect and feeble grasp of his native language should continue to be POTUS. A man who when the Covid death toll hits 250,000, disappears for the day to hack a ball around a golf course. You surely cannot believe that any alternative to Trump is a positive for the U.S., can you? |
“ a man with a visibly low IQ, a limited intellect and feeble grasp of his native language should continue to be POTUS”
The problem for the American voter is all this demonstrably also applies to Biden. |  |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 10:52 - Nov 21 with 1073 views | Gwyn737 |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 10:31 - Nov 21 by Dr_Parnassus |
The popular vote is irrelevant, there are 6% more democrats in America than republicans.
Again I don’t really agree with your summary/ultimatum. There isn’t just two options. Whether it is enough to overturn the election is not the yard stick. The question is, “is the election currently democratic and fair?”. The Republicans are rightly skeptical.
I would argue there has already been enough “error” to justify recounts and legal action. A 5 figure lead being cut by 10%+ after an audit with all “errors” helping Biden, is not a democratic process, especially when only a certain amount can then be recounted.
I am not sure what you mean by “held to account”. Nobody should be held to account for seeking a democratic outcome in an unprecedented and poorly managed election. If he refuses to concede after all avenues have been exhausted then I would agree, but there is not even a slight suggestion that would be the case.
Where as Biden was under the instructions to “not concede under ANY circumstance”. Key word being “any”. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 10:47]
|
By ‘held to account’, I mean those who have made unfounded accusation to help their cause are as accountable in the attack on democracy as any involved in any actual fraud.
Making unsubstantiated accusations should come with a consequence. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 10:56 - Nov 21 with 1069 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 10:39 - Nov 21 by AndyCole |
The way in which you constantly and consistently swat away some of the stupidity, bile and abuse deserves a medal. Bravo.
Your ability to do this with calm, collected dignity should be a lesson to many. Most especially to those that only seem to post to have a dig at you, fail miserably, get angrier and shoutier and slope off (the common trait amongst the loonies). |
Thanks AC.
The great thing about taking the common sense position is it really is a position that cannot logically be attacked - which is why most don’t even try. Abuse is far safer because it has no depth to explore.
Which is why most of the usual mob tend to come across as a bit emotional, reactionary (however you would like to describe it) then do their best to portray you as such.
I often notice when one of the mob comes over here to rant, it almost always coincides with nipping back to the other forum to look for validation (“I just told him this”) while controlling their own narrative by projecting their shortcomings onto the object of their frustrations (“he’s really mad”).
But a debate is not their intention, they know they lose any logical debate out of hand. That has little to do with my ability as a participant and more to do with the position I take. Emotional arguments will never beat logical ones, they just won’t. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 11:05]
| |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:00 - Nov 21 with 1067 views | Gwyn737 |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 10:56 - Nov 21 by Dr_Parnassus |
Thanks AC.
The great thing about taking the common sense position is it really is a position that cannot logically be attacked - which is why most don’t even try. Abuse is far safer because it has no depth to explore.
Which is why most of the usual mob tend to come across as a bit emotional, reactionary (however you would like to describe it) then do their best to portray you as such.
I often notice when one of the mob comes over here to rant, it almost always coincides with nipping back to the other forum to look for validation (“I just told him this”) while controlling their own narrative by projecting their shortcomings onto the object of their frustrations (“he’s really mad”).
But a debate is not their intention, they know they lose any logical debate out of hand. That has little to do with my ability as a participant and more to do with the position I take. Emotional arguments will never beat logical ones, they just won’t. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 11:05]
|
Just for clarity in this current exchange - I’ve never used a abusive language and have never accused you of anything. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:02 - Nov 21 with 1065 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 10:52 - Nov 21 by Gwyn737 |
By ‘held to account’, I mean those who have made unfounded accusation to help their cause are as accountable in the attack on democracy as any involved in any actual fraud.
Making unsubstantiated accusations should come with a consequence. |
Like what consequence?
“Unsubstantiated” is open to interpretation. Is it unsubstantiated to say officials were holding back uploads of votes from Trump strongholds?
Fact shows that to be true, as court ordered audits found batches of them (all for Trump) but the intent cannot be proven.
A judge not agreeing does not mean something is unsubstantiated. It means there hasn’t been sufficient levels of persuasive evidence, something notoriously difficult when dealing with the notion of intent.
Hence my point that all that should matter is the question of “are there unacceptable errors here?”.
So far that answer has been yes. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:03 - Nov 21 with 1063 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:00 - Nov 21 by Gwyn737 |
Just for clarity in this current exchange - I’ve never used a abusive language and have never accused you of anything. |
I’m not referring to you. You are one of the better posters willing to exchange views sensibly without emotion. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
