Biden allies say president is ‘sharp’

[Merrill]

So? None of them stormed the Capitol. Trump is STILL claims the election was stolen AND had his supporters storm the Capitol.

I didn't say Trump didn't deny the election. He did

I said Democrats have been denying elections for 23 years. Their supporters haven't stormed the US capitol, but they have rioted, and occupied the Wisconsin state house

2011 Wisconsin protests - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[childeye 2]

I didn't say Trump didn't deny the election. He did

I said Democrats have been denying elections for 23 years. Their supporters haven't stormed the US capitol, but they have rioted, and occupied the Wisconsin state house

The problem is the false equivalency of trying to make what Trump attempted to do, (void the official electoral count to stay in power), the same as what many others have done (claim an election was stolen).

A false equivalency: Make void the official Presidential electoral count to stay in power = complain the election was stolen.
A false equivalency: illegal=legal .

 

[Merrill]

The problem is the false equivalency of trying to make what Trump attempted to do, (void the official electoral count to stay in power), the same as what many others have done (claim an election was stolen).

A false equivalency: Make void the official Presidential electoral count to stay in power = complain the election was stolen.
A false equivalency: illegal=legal .

So now there are degrees of election denial?

The only difference between what we have seen from Democrats, and what we saw from Trump, is that some knuckleheads decided to break into the Capitol building

Every claim that Trump has made in regards to election denial have been made countless times by Democrats

1. Someone interfered with the election (the MSM, Russia, etc.)
2. Voting machines were tampered with
3. The sitting president is "illegitimate"
4. Voters were "disenfranchised" (through ballot-box stuffing, ballot harvesting, voter-id laws, voter suppression, whatever)

Trump engaged in election denial in 2020. The Democrats engaged in it on the federal and state level in 2000, 2004, and 2016

 

[JustOneWay]

I didn't say Trump didn't deny the election. He did

I said Democrats have been denying elections for 23 years. Their supporters haven't stormed the US capitol, but they have rioted, and occupied the Wisconsin state house

Wisconsin was not an election denying event. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Was a Democrat-led protest at the Wisconsin State Capitol in 2011 as violent as the U.S. Capitol protest in 2021? - Wisconsin Watch

No. Law enforcement officers and public officials present during the 2011 pro-union protests at the Wisconsin State Capitol in Madison have described them as largely peaceful. This contrasts with the characterization of the Jan. 6, 2021 protest at the U.S. Capitol. Numerous authorities, both...

wisconsinwatch.org

Was a Democrat-led protest at the Wisconsin State Capitol in 2011 as violent as the U.S. Capitol protest in 2021?​

NO.​

"During the Madison protests, while 16 people were arrested, none of the arrests were linked to violence or weapons. Madison Police characterized the protesters as assembling “peacefully” and “without violence.” Wisconsin politicians from both parties were harassed and received threats but were not physically harmed. An uncovered email and a secretly taped phone call showed Gov. Scott Walker had been advised to stage a violent “false flag” event to discredit the protests and considered it, but said he decided against the action."​

 

[childeye 2]

So now there are degrees of election denial?

My answer is no, as in that's not what I said nor meant, and I'm on the record.

I said:
This is a false equivalency---> Make void the official Presidential electoral count to stay in power = complain the election was stolen.
A related subtextual indicator of falsehood---> illegal=legal.

 

[probinson]

Reiteration of prior discourse to show consistency of my position: People have problems remembering as they get older.

OK. So your position is you believe Biden is having problems remembering things because he's getting older, and that is evidenced by his inability to remember being told that a congresswoman died just one month prior. And you don't find that at all problematic for the sitting President of the United States?

If Biden can't remember that a US Congresswoman died just a month ago (that is your position, which you reiterated to show consistency), what else is he forgetting?

 

[probinson]

Bernie Sanders is an Independent, not a Democrat.

That's a good point. I am also an independent, and Bernie does not in ANY way represent my views. So I often forget that he is an independent. I stand corrected.

Perhaps one day you will find some democrats who have said things to justify your "This ridiculous hyperbole is why most people don't take the Democrats seriously. " comment.

How about Biden? Biden didn't specifically say that it would be the end of democracy, but he did say that Trump is assaulting democracy.

“Trump’s assault on democracy isn’t just part of his past,” Biden declared. “It’s what he’s promising for the future.”​

​

Are Americans really committed to democracy in the 2024 election? - Georgia Recorder

Dissatisfaction with how democracy is performing is sky-high across the political spectrum with partisanship shaping attitudes.

georgiarecorder.com

​

​

I have no idea why you want to pretend like Democrats aren't employing ridiculous hyperbole when it comes to the reelection of Donald Trump. It's abundantly clear that they are.

You have stumbled onto a great talking point for democrats by showing republicans and independents both believe Trump is a disaster for America.

I won't pretend to speak for Independents or Republicans as a whole, but I can say for myself that I believe electing either Trump or Biden will be a disaster for America.

Other than that, I will remember that you accuse others of saying things they never said, without apologies.

You do that.

You can also continue to believe that Democrats aren't using ridiculous hyperbole about the election in your alternate reality.

 

[probinson]

Weird, I wasn't seeing or hearing the media do that, or Democrats doing that. I saw a begrudging acceptance that Trump was president, but no concerted campaign to claim that Trump's election was fraud.

Are you kidding?

Maybe I wasn't watching the right media or listening to the right Democrats. Perhaps there was some widespread campaign to claim Trump's election was fraudulent.

Not perhaps. Watch even the first 30 seconds of that video. Democrats did not begrudgingly accept that Trump won the election. They claimed the election was stolen and illegitimate. That resulted in violent protests all over the country.

Good grief, there was a growing movement of Californians calling for the state to secede because they were so incensed with the election results:

Trump victory gives impetus to California secession movement

The Yes California Independence Campaign hopes to put a question on the November 2018 ballot that would authorize a statewide independence vote for the spring of 2019

www.cbsnews.com

To be fair, the same thing happened in Mississippi after Biden won:

Mississippi legislator apparently floats secession after Biden victory: report

A Republican state lawmaker in Mississippi apparently floated the idea of secession after President-elect Joe Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election, The Washington Post&…

thehill.com

People are straight up nuts on every part of the political spectrum.

 

[probinson]

My answer is no, as in that's not what I said nor meant, and I'm on the record.

I said:
This is a false equivalency---> Make void the official Presidential electoral count to stay in power = complain the election was stolen.
A related subtextual indicator of falsehood---> illegal=legal.

What about when Clinton was elected and people were campaigning to have electors that would ignore their duty and make Hillary president? You good with that?

Could the Electoral College elect Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump?

Short answer: It's possible, but highly unlikely.

www.usatoday.com

You see, neither of those things happened. No one voided the electoral count to keep Trump in power, nor did the electoral college elect Hillary Clinton. Oh, there were plenty of people that wanted both things to happen, but neither did.

Trump's over-the-top rhetoric about the stolen election resulted in the January 6 riot.
Clinton's over-the-top rhetoric about the stolen election resulted in violent riots all over the country.

These are not false equivalencies. This is what happens when politicians of any stripe undermine people's trust in our democracy.

 

[JustOneWay]

​

I have no idea why you want to pretend like Democrats aren't employing ridiculous hyperbole when it comes to the reelection of Donald Trump. It's abundantly clear that they are.

You keep obsessing over what the democrats say, when the republicans are saying it too.​

​

Trump says ‘this country will die’ without him​

Trump says ‘this country will die’ without him

“This country will die if we have to go through another four years of this guy,” said former President Donald Trump, referring to sitting President Joe Biden.

www.audacy.com

“this country will die if we have to go through another four years of this guy.”

Both parties think the other will destroy America, NBC News poll finds​

Both parties think the other will destroy America, NBC News poll finds

Ahead of the midterms Democrats and Republicans really think the same issue is dominant: the fate of the nation.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[probinson]

You keep obsessing over what the democrats say, when the republicans are saying it too.​

Sure. Both parties are employing ridiculous hyperbole to try to sway voters. I've never denied that.

Does that make it any better?

Trump says ‘this country will die’ without him​

Trump says ‘this country will die’ without him

“This country will die if we have to go through another four years of this guy,” said former President Donald Trump, referring to sitting President Joe Biden.

www.audacy.com

“this country will die if we have to go through another four years of this guy.”

Both parties think the other will destroy America, NBC News poll finds​

Both parties think the other will destroy America, NBC News poll finds

Ahead of the midterms Democrats and Republicans really think the same issue is dominant: the fate of the nation.

www.nbcnews.com

View attachment 342821

Party loyalists believe that doom is imminent if "the other guy" wins. But I'll reiterate what Jon Stewart said in his return to The Daily Show on Monday.

"If your guy loses, bad things might happen, but the country is not over. And if your guy wins, the country is is no way saved."​

​

 

[childeye 2]

What about when Clinton was elected and people were campaigning to have electors that would ignore their duty and make Hillary president? You good with that?

Could the Electoral College elect Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump?

Short answer: It's possible, but highly unlikely.

www.usatoday.com

You see, neither of those things happened. No one voided the electoral count to keep Trump in power, nor did the electoral college elect Hillary Clinton. Oh, there were plenty of people that wanted both things to happen, but neither did.

Trump's over-the-top rhetoric about the stolen election resulted in the January 6 riot.
Clinton's over-the-top rhetoric about the stolen election resulted in violent riots all over the country.

These are not false equivalencies. This is what happens when politicians of any stripe undermine people's trust in our democracy.

This is a false equivalency---> Trump, as President, tried to get Vice President Pence to reject the official electoral count to stay in power = People were campaigning to have electors that would ignore their duty and make Hillary president.

A related subtextual indicator of falsehood---> illegal=legal.

 

[probinson]

This is a false equivalency---> Trump, as President, tried to get Vice President Pence to reject the official electoral count to stay in power = People were campaigning to have electors that would ignore their duty and make Hillary president.

A related subtextual indicator of falsehood---> illegal=legal.

You can repeat "this is a false equivalency" like a broken record if you think it helps your irredemably flawed argument, but the fact remains that in both instances, there was a subgroup of people perfectly fine with disregarding the results of an election and disenfranchising voters. in other words, both groups of people wanted THE. EXACT. SAME. THING.

 

[childeye 2]

You can repeat "this is a false equivalency" like a broken record if you think it helps your irredemably flawed argument, but the fact remains that in both instances, there was a subgroup of people perfectly fine with disregarding the results of an election and disenfranchising voters. in other words, both groups of people wanted THE. EXACT. SAME. THING.

Trump had a fake elector scheme with a false set of electors who would give their fraudulent votes to Trump. Trump himself wanted Pence, and asked Pence, his own Vice President, to betray the constitution and reject the official electoral votes so he could remain President, which Pence refused to do. Hillary never did anything like that.

 

[probinson]

Trump himself wanted Pence, and asked Pence, his own Vice President, to betray the constitution and reject the official electoral votes so he could remain President, which Pence refused to do. Hillary never did anything like that.

So what?

The bottom line is that there are far too many Democrats and Republicans alike that are more than willing to toss aside any election results when they don't like the outcome and disenfranchise voters. There is a smaller subset of those groups that is willing to violently riot if necessary. It is, to borrow the word from the article I quoted earlier in the week, "shameless".

 

[JustOneWay]

So what?

For all this talk about both sides doing it, so far only the republicans were the party which tried to violently overturn an election, and went through the back door to mess with the electoral votes and voting machines. That is the point. They crossed the line into criminality, and people are being jailed.

 

[probinson]

For all this talk about both sides doing it,

Which is true.

so far only the republicans were the party which tried to violently overturn an election,

Which is not true. There were violent protests all over the country in 2016 when Trump won. See the video I posted earlier in the thread.

and went through the back door to mess with the electoral votes and voting machines.

I'm not sure what "mess[ing] with the electoral votes" looks like to you, but trying to compel electors to vote for the loser (like Democrats proposed in 2016) sure seems to fit the bill.

That is the point.

Is it? I mean, you're making it sound like you're OK with the disenfranchisement of voters and disregarding election results as long as it's not violent. That can't be right, can it?

 

[childeye 2]

So what?

So that's a false equivalence.

The bottom line is that there are far too many Democrats and Republicans alike that are more than willing to toss aside any election results when they don't like the outcome and disenfranchise voters. There is a smaller subset of those groups that is willing to violently riot if necessary. It is, to borrow the word from the article I quoted earlier in the week, "shameless".

It's when you have a sitting president that tries to undermine the constitution with fake electors to stay in power is the issue.

 

[probinson]

So that's a false equivalence.

No, it's not.

Disenfranchised voters = Disenfranchised voters no matter how they would have been disenfranchised.

I get that you're trying to say that it's a "false equivalence" because of the methods employed. But the end result is EXACTLY the same. Both Republicans and Democrats alike would be quite happy to disenfranchise voters when the election doesn't go the way they want it to.

 

[childeye 2]

Disenfranchised voters = Disenfranchised voters no matter how they would have been disenfranchised.

Trump DID try to get somebody to reject votes.
Hillary DIDN'T try to get somebody to reject votes.

Saying there are subgroups of people on both sides who don't have a problem with disenfranchising voters will not make what Trump did the same as what Hillary didn't do.