Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election

[Mendel]

are you sure you want to generalize like this, considering the majority, even McConnell has said Biden won?

You said that "conservatives" think the "intent is justified"; I was replying to that and referring to these people. If you're now claiming that the majority of Republicans believe that an objection to certain electoral counts on January 6th is unjustified, that's great news; do you have a source for that?

On the constitutional issue: we've talked about how choosing electors is a "local" election for each state, governed by state laws, executed by the state objective, and checked by the state's judiciary. These have all been involved in the 2020 election; anyone who questions the outcome of this process questions that this system of checks and balances is working; they're questioning that democracy is working.

On laws: a law can be unconstitutional, but the constitution can't be unlawful. If the Supreme Court had taken on a case on the election and ruled on the concerns of the Republicans filing that amicus brief, it wouldn't have ruled on whether the executive's actions were covered by state laws (the state courts have already done that); it would have ruled on whether these actions were constitutional or not. This means that at that level, we're talking about the constitutional right to vote.

I wrote, There is *nothing* the Republicans have shown about the 2020 election that compares., and you haven't contradicted that; I'd be happy to discuss any concern you deem important enough to be the subject of an electoral count objection; I've given an overview of the concerns filed in the amicus brief for the Texas case here.

Since you did not choose a concern, let me pick one:

Article:

Nevertheless, the non-legislative Wisconsin Elections Commission ("WEC") and other local officials unconstitutionally created "hundreds of drop boxes to collect absentee ballots — including the use of unmanned drop boxes." Texas Complaint, para. 107. The fact that the WEC deems ballot drop boxes "secure" does not make them secure or lawful according to the will of the Wisconsin Legislature, which requires ballots to be taken to a normal "office for absentee ballot purposes" (not a mere drop box) and with professional and "adequate staff" (not left unstaffed and unguarded).

Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163550/20201211132250339_Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20126%20Representatives%20--%20corrected.pdf

They're not alleging any fraud concerning these drop boxes: for all we know, the absentee ballots dropped into these boxes and counted were cast by legitimate voters, and all of the ballots dropped into these boxes have been counted. The constitutional right to vote has not been infringed by putting these boxes up; on the contrary, it has made the vote more accessible to voters concerned for their health and who wanted to socially isolate while voting in a pandemic. (In California, the GOP insisted on placing their own unlawful drop boxes!)

Objecting to the use of drop boxes is "rules lawyering", as if playing a game, losing sight of the important (constitutional) issues: the important standard is to enable a free and fair election; that's the standard the Supreme Court would have applied. There is no concern being brought that these drop boxes have made the election less democratic.

Contrast that with the 2005 objection over the Ohio election: it was proven that precincts were under-equipped with voting machines, erecting an obstacle to voting in the form of a multi-hour wait for a group of precincts; and this obstacle applied more to poor and black voters than to others. This made the election in Ohio unequal and unfair. It violated a core democratic standard, even if the practice might have technically been lawful.

I'm glad Biden won but there were funky issues in a few states (as Barr said. Though, as Barr also said... not enough funky issues to change the election results.). I doubt any alleged suppression of the black vote in prior years was enough to change election results, but still most people would agree that any election integrity issues should be examined so people - of ANY color- feel confident in the election and post-election process.

Based on the facts and arguments I have seen so far, none of the "funky issues" rise to the level of constitutional concerns. Based on the court cases that have been brought, these " election integrity issues" *have* been examined, and anyone who still claims that the *should* be examined is denying that the democratic system of checks and balances is working; they're attacking this democracy. There is no rational reason to not "feel confident in the election and post-election process" other than throw doubt on core democratic institutions. The people who are stoking these irrational fears are irresponsible or undemocratic.

 

[deirdre]

If you're now claiming that the majority of Republicans believe that an objection to certain electoral counts on January 6th is unjustified, that's great news;

That's an incredibly odd leap you made.

i think Biden won. McConnell thinks Biden won. Barr thinks Biden won.

I cant imagine anyone of us thinks it is unjustified to stand up for election integrity. If some people in PA or Arizona think their state election officials are corrupt or broke the law (or whatever they feel), then their rights to a free and fair election are just as important as black people's rights to a free and fair election.
We dont stand up for majority black communities who feel the election is not fair, because they are black. We stand up for them and support their lawful rights to contest because they are AMERICANS. and all Americans have the same rights and all Americans should enjoy the same protections. I dont care if you are a white toxic male or a black transgender male or conservative or a liberal. ALL Americans are
ed to be afforded the same protections.

I'm not sure how to explain my point to you any clearer.

These have all been involved in the 2020 election; anyone who questions the outcome of this process questions that this system of checks and balances is working; they're questioning that democracy is working.

yes.

If the Supreme Court had taken on a case on the election and ruled on the concerns of the Republicans filing that amicus brief, it wouldn't have ruled on whether the executive's actions were covered by state laws (the state courts have already done that); it would have ruled on whether these actions were constitutional or not. This means that at that level, we're talking about the constitutional right to vote.

its going to take me a few days to decipher what you are saying here. Youre going to have to be more specific, because i cant tell if you are talking hypothetically or if you think something happened that didnt. or if you think the Supreme Court is more limited then it is? I dont understand what you are saying here, sorry.

There is *nothing* the Republicans have shown about the 2020 election that compares., and you haven't contradicted that;

The right to a free and fair election doesnt "compare". It is the same thing.

Since you did not choose a concern,

i mentioned the concern you are quoting. i just used a more general phrase because ballot boxes aren't the only issue where election officials broke state legislative law.

for all we know

exactly. voters don't know. that's why some of them are concerned.

You are arguing that democrat concerns over free and fair election issues are justified but conservative issues over free and fair elections are not justified because you dont think the conservative concerns are as important as your concerns. That's what i said the first time. Why are we reiterating it?

Based on the facts and arguments I have seen so far, none of the "funky issues" rise to the level of constitutional concerns.

Your opinion has been noted.

 

[Inti]

I doubt any alleged suppression of the black vote in prior years was enough to change election results

This puzzles and concerns me. Surely the whole point of the persistent voter suppression was to change the results in favour of the Republicans? At least, it's persistence must be evidence that the perpetrators belive that it is effective,. If not, why would the keep wasting valuable time, money and effort to do it?

 

[deirdre]

This puzzles and concerns me. Surely the whole point of the persistent voter suppression was to change the results in favour of the Republicans? At least, it's persistence must be evidence that the perpetrators belive that it is effective,. If not, why would the keep wasting valuable time, money and effort to do it?

what makes you think they are trying to do it? for instance the old florida law about felons not being able to vote after they serve their sentence, applied to white felons too.

and there are more white felons by sheer numbers. yes, there are may be disproportionally more black felons (since black sar eonly 13% of the population), but is that an election issue or a crime/poverty issue we need to address?

edit add... i'm saying WHY are there more black felons proportionally?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I cant imagine anyone of us thinks it is unjustified to stand up for election integrity. If some people in PA or Arizona think their state election officials are corrupt or broke the law (or whatever they feel), then their rights to a free and fair election are just as important as black people's rights to a free and fair election.
We dont stand up for majority black communities who feel the election is not fair, because they are black. We stand up for them and support their lawful rights to contest because they are AMERICANS. and all Americans have the same rights and all Americans should enjoy the same protections. I dont care if you are a white toxic male or a black transgender male or conservative or a liberal. ALL Americans are
ed to be afforded the same protections.

I'm not sure how to explain my point to you any clearer.

Last summer Trump and allies made up the stolen election narrative out of nothing. This was a proactive strategy to support overturning a legal election and to seat a president for life. If he steals one election, why would he not steal the next one?

After the election Trump and allies began a relentless campaign intended to strengthen the stolen election narrative. So many lies have been repeated so many times that people, with an agenda, believe the narrative, even though everything connected with it has been created out of nothing. That's a quirk of human psychology. Familiarity feels like truth.

The only reason people "have suspicions" is because they've been lied to relentlessly. Then the people who created the lie out of nothing, and created the suspicion out of nothing, cite the suspicion that they so carefully created out of nothing and call for an investigation. This is in furtherance of their effort to overturn a legal election and to establish a president for life.

Further they have carefully created and nurtured a culture of paranoid suspicion. Anyone and any agency that does not support the stolen election narrative is part of a vast conspiracy to subvert the constitution: the very thing that Trump and allies are doing. The enemies of the people now include the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, a long list of elected officials... your neighbor. The nature of a conspiracy theory culture is that their conspiracy theories cannot be falsified. Anyone that says the stolen election narrative is not true and shows evidence that it is false... has just revealed himself as an enemy who is trying to destroy you.

This cultivation of a conspiracy theory culture is a part of an effort to overturn a legal election and seat a president for life.

There is nothing to "investigate." The call for an investigation is a part of the effort to overturn a legal election and create a president for life.

At this point in the game, most Trump allies don't believe the effort to make Trump president for life will succeed. But a whole new list of bystanders has attached themselves to the effort because of the future utility of the stolen election narrative and the conspiracy theory culture. Maybe future local and state level elections can be overturned. Perhaps another man can legally win a presidential election by harnessing the anger and suspicion of this conspiracy theory culture; pointing to his opponent and naming him an enemy of the people. Maybe his name is Hawley?

Or maybe if the election comes down to the electoral votes in one state. Well, maybe the state legislature will appoint alternate electors.

This is naked authoritarianism, and is unique in U.S history. There's no one to point to and say, "What about..."? Because no one has ever plotted to overturn a legal election and establish a president for life. Not in this country. Agree or disagree?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

what makes you think they are trying to do it? for instance the old florida law about felons not being able to vote after they serve their sentence, applied to white felons too.

and there are more white felons by sheer numbers. yes, there are may be disproportionally more black felons (since black sar eonly 13% of the population), but is that an election issue or a crime/poverty issue we need to address?

edit add... i'm saying WHY are there more black felons proportionally?

Will you state that there is no evidence to support Republican efforts toward vote suppression in recent history?

(Let's define recent history as after The Voting Rights Act of 1965.)

 

[deirdre]

1965!!? c'mon man.

 

[NoParty]

...The only reason people "have suspicions" is because they've been lied to relentlessly. Then the people who created the lie out of nothing, and created the suspicion out of nothing, cite the suspicion that they so carefully created out of nothing and call for an investigation. This is in furtherance of their effort to overturn a legal election and to establish a president for life.

Republican Senator Ben Sasse described the Trump con of the last 8 weeks pretty eloquently:

"Right now we are locked in a destructive, vicious circle:

Step 1: Allege widespread voter fraud.

Step 2: Fail to offer specific evidence of widespread fraud.

Step 3: Demand investigation, on grounds that there are "allegations" of voter fraud."

 

[JMartJr]

This was a proactive strategy to support overturning a legal election and to seat a president for life.

I would agree with the first point, prior to "and."

The second, post-"and," while feasible in light of the first, is pure speculation. Unless you have evidence that this is indeed what is planned? (I would not consider "If one, why not the other" to be evidence of anything. Someone who robs a bank may well be planning to rob more, but they may also be planning to rob the one and retire on the proceeds. Someone who steals a car may intend to keep stealing cars for the rest of their life, or they may be stealing a car they want right now with no future plans at all.)

 

[deirdre]

Republican Senator Ben Sasse described the Trump con of the last 8 weeks pretty eloquently:

"Right now we are locked in a destructive, vicious circle:

Step 1: Allege widespread voter fraud.

Step 2: Fail to offer specific evidence of widespread fraud.

Step 3: Demand investigation, on grounds that there are "allegations" of voter fraud."

actually he described the whole situation quite well. Republicans should try to resist the urge to embrace the "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander" mentality.

Although to be fair, i'm quite shocked and surprised there aren't more Republican politicians giving the Democrats, that the media chose to highlight for 4 years, a taste of their own medicine. We had to listen to cries about Trumps illegitimate election for 4 years. I'm praying, but not hopeful, we wont have to listen to these guys whine about Biden for the full 4 years. Ten bucks says if Biden tries to pick a man to fill a Supreme Court seat, some woman will come forward with 30 year old allegations and we'll have to relive that shameful display too. smh.

Article:

We have a deep cancer in American politics right now: Both Republicans and Democrats are growing more distrustful of the basic processes and procedures that we follow...

...All the clever arguments and rhetorical gymnastics in the world won't change the fact that this January 6th effort is designed to disenfranchise millions of Americans simply because they voted for someone in a different party. We ought to be better than that. If we normalize this, we're going to turn American politics into a Hatfields and McCoys endless blood feud – a house hopelessly divided."

Source: https://www.3newsnow.com/news/local-news/ben-sasse-wrote-in-pence-for-president-denounces-attempts-to-overthrow-electoral-college-vote

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I would agree with the first point, prior to "and."

The second, post-"and," while feasible in light of the first, is pure speculation. Unless you have evidence that this is indeed what is planned? (I would not consider "If one, why not the other" to be evidence of anything. Someone who robs a bank may well be planning to rob more, but they may also be planning to rob the one and retire on the proceeds. Someone who steals a car may intend to keep stealing cars for the rest of their life, or they may be stealing a car they want right now with no future plans at all.)

You're talking about stealing a tangible. Stealing an election establishes an autocratic system. Not comparable.

What we are seeing right now is not a true effort to steal this election. This is an autocratic movement coming together in a dry run - a live-fire exercise. This has been brewing for decades - at least since Newt Gingrich initiated the tribalistic GOP era. So this is not coming out of nowhere, but it's quite shocking how many elected officials are embracing so radical a culture so rapidly. This is a crystallization in a supersaturated solution. Is this sedition or is this becoming a rebellion?

There are some mistakes we can make.

-This is not coming from the traditional Republican Party. This is a takeover by what used to be fringe elements. This is why traditional Republicans have been leaving the party. So don't blame the entire Republican party.

There's something of a showdown happening right now between the radicals and Mitch McConnell. Josh Hawley may find that he has overreached. McConnell is a veteran politician with a power base, not to be taken lightly.

-This is not just political posturing. This is a genuine autocratic movement. The goal is to take autocratic political power.

-Trump's gambit had no chance to succeed. He didn't have the political capital, he didn't have the competence and he didn't have the time. But Trump's failure may not be the end but the beginning. It remains to be seen. This rebellion may fall apart as quickly as it came together.

 

[Mendel]

The right to a free and fair election doesnt "compare". It is the same thing.

Agreed with your statement; but the point is that the Republicans have not *shown* any evidence that rises to this level.

exactly. voters don't know. that's why some of them are concerned.

Yes, and that's how you get a conspiracy theory: concerns arising from disinformation or misinformation (in the form of claims that the Trump legal team has evidence that they don't actually have). If those who have the information don't tell those who don't have the information, but instead fan those concerns, that's bad. And more litigation is not the answer to that.

You are arguing that democrat concerns over free and fair election issues are justified but conservative issues over free and fair elections are not justified because you dont think the conservative concerns are as important as your concerns. That's what i said the first time. Why are we reiterating it?

No, I haven't said that conservative issues aren't as important; what I'm saying is that there's no proof of these issues being anything but imaginary, compared to the actual proven facts about the Ohio election; and as far as the issues have been proven (e.g. "nonconforming ballot boxes"), they don't actually affect the elction being free and fair.

 

[deirdre]

If those who have the information don't tell those who don't have the information, but instead fan those concerns, that's bad.

actually i was gonna point that out. Micks link in the newest thread... that clearly and systematically debunked each issue in the Georgia lawsuit. It was a beautiful link. I actually did look for the debunk of the Georgia lawsuit claims (but since politics bore me to tears, i only gave a half hearted effort) and i couldnt find it.

i agree that our guys who have the information should tell people. but DO our guys have the information?

main stream media is not publishing the information. i have been clicking liberal sources in my news feed about lawsuits, because i am interested more in how media exacerbates misinformation then in all this election drama... and for weeks all the articles say is "that has already been debunked" or "claims that the court rejected" (when i just read on NPR that the claims were not rejected, the suit was rejected for no standing). sometimes the "already been debunked" has a hyper link and i click it but that only leads to another article that doesnt actually debunk anything.

I'm a debunker. It's in my nature to look things up. and i dont have the attention span to find these debunks* because God knows where they are.
You are assuming these congressmen know the debunks. or that the public can find these debunks. I'm not sure that is the case.

* most of the MB threads i just glance at and pass on, because numbers and weird charts i know will strain my brain too much to try to decipher... ugh.


I blame media and forums primarily (both party sides of media) for inciting division, hiding information, spreading misinformation etc etc. its like 80% of what comes across my news feed is just opinion pieces that give no actual facts. If journalists would do their actual job it would help immensely.

 

[deirdre]

No, I haven't said that conservative issues aren't as important; what I'm saying is that there's no proof of these issues being anything but imaginary, compared to the actual proven facts about the Ohio election;

were they proven at the time. or is hindsight 20/20. i read the wikipedia link for the 2004 election as well as washington post articles etc from that time and they all used the word alleged and the wiki page explains there was nothing odd going on.

i respect your right to your opinion, and our opinions are limited by what information we actual see. i'm not saying im not missing information, but my opinion after looking up the 2004 election issues is that its the same as what's happening now.

(actually... if the Dems KNEW that the electoral votes from Ohio werent enough to overturn the election, but they still rejected millions of Ohioans votes for a feeling/activism... isnt that worse then what Trumps doing? Trump is a conspiracy theorist. he probably really believes the votes are bad. That is my opinion.)

 

[Mendel]

I agree that our guys who have the information should tell people. but DO our guys have the information?

Deirdre, the Republicans who brought the lawsuit have the information. They're just lying about their BS guesses being fact. There's a reason they never filed their case properly before a court that would investigate these alleged facts.

Gohmert and the AZ Republicans who brought the suit against Pence were lying about what the AZ endorses.

The debunkers are not the ones responsible for the misinformation. Specific media outlets are responsible for the misinformation they propagate (hopefully inadvertantly), but they're not responsible for what other outlets do.

We ar not the ones who *should* tell people; it's nice that we do when we do it, but it's the responsibility of those who spread misinformation to be responsible with their communications.

 

[Mendel]

were they proven at the time. or is hindsight 20/20.

Again, you don't bring information to the debate, just speculative doubt.
Z.W.Wolf posted the video of the interview with Barbara Boxer, the senator who sponsored the 2005 objections. (You are misrepresenting her intentions when you say she wanted to "reject millions of Ohioans votes". This has been variously explained here.) In the video, senator Boxer states that she saw photographs of wait lines in some precincts and heard of wait times of up to 9 hours. She states that some poor precincts only had 2 voting machines while affluent districts had 20. These are facts; matters of record that can be checked, and if you want to doubt them, bring sources that disprove them.

Whether these facts constituted voter disenfranchisement is a matter of opinion. It's much harder to prove that voters who wanted to cast their vote did not do so because of these issues. I'll happily say that the voter disenfranchisement is "alleged" and not proven. But that obstacles to voting existed (wait lines, insufficient equipment) is open to proof or falsification. The objection in the joint session was to draw attention to these obstacles, and to discuss their impact on the election being free and fair.

As far as I'm aware, tHe issues that the Republican lawsuits allege fall in two categories:
1) either they're proven, then they don't impact the election being free or fair (e.g. additional ballot drop boxes),
2) or they're unproven (e.g. "massive fraud").

 

[Mendel]

are you sure you want to generalize like this, considering the majority, even McConnell has said Biden won?

Let's look at the data from the Ipsos poll I presented at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/poll-finds-many-believe-qanon-and-other-conspiracy-theories.11520/ ; this poll was conducted a week after the electoral colleges had met.

Article:

Source: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2020-12/topline_npr_misinformation_poll_123020.pdf

The "credibility interval" for the Republican responses is 5.9%, so maybe there wasn't even a majority of Republicans in favor of a peaceful transition; it'd be fair to say that Republicans are split on this issue.

The majority of Republican respondents did not accept the outcome of the election two weeks ago. That's the evidence.

I wrote, "That reads like the Republicans do not respect these checks", you objected to that, but according to this poll, my statement is true for the majority of Republicans (not all of them).

 

[deirdre]

The debunkers are not the ones responsible for the misinformation

i didnt say debunkers, i said journalists.

 

[deirdre]

We ar not the ones who *should* tell people; it's nice that we do when we do it, but it's the responsibility of those who spread misinformation to be responsible with their communications.

then what's the point of even having journalists? why would the people who want to spread misinformation not spread that misinformation? its the job of journalists to vet and investigate information and fact check if it is true of not.

 

[deirdre]

Again, you don't bring information to the debate, just speculative doubt.

youre free to look at the wiki page on the 2004 election.

 

[deirdre]

You are misrepresenting her intentions when you say she wanted to "reject millions of Ohioans votes"

i didnt say she wanted to. i said she did.

 

[deirdre]

this poll was conducted a week after the electoral colleges had met.

yea and i made my statement 10 days after that. so whats your point?

 

[Mendel]

youre free to look at the wiki page on the 2004 election.

You're obligated to link it and quote the relevant section, as per metabunk site policy.

yea and i made my statement 10 days after that. so whats your point?

My point is that you consistently fail to base your objections on evidence, your forum signature notwithstanding.

I said that Trump hasn't conceded yet (that's evidence), and I extrapolated, "That reads like the Republicans do not respect these checks." Your objection was, "the majority, even McConnell has said Biden won?", and that's not based on any evidence as far as "the majority" is concerned; and the available evidence contradicts your take (see above).

So please bring evidence -- either directly, or an argument based on evidence why the Republican opinion would have shifted in the 10 days between the poll and now. AFAIK Trump still hasn't conceded, and Mitch McConnell recognizing Biden's win was 5 days before the poll.

 

[deirdre]

My point is that you consistently fail to base your objections on evidence.

consistently? i accept your opinion that is not based on evidence and i disagee.

You're obligated to link it and quote the relevant section, as per metabunk site policy.

lol have you been reading this thread? i'm obligated to perform at a higher standard then everyone else? ok

 

[deirdre]

Let's try it this way,

look more closely at your own evidence. keep looking til you see it....

 

[deirdre]

either directly, or an argument based on evidence why the Republican opinion would have shifted in the 10 days between the poll and now.

sorry i just saw this bit. i'm only adding this tidbit to maybe help you understand my point of view better.

your own poll already shows im right (if we're believing your poll), but .. the poll was dec 21-22. on Dec 21st is when Barr said there was not enough fraud that would have changed the election outcome.

since I personally said "ok then that's that" when i read about Barr, and since many days later (cant remember exactly) my mom was surprised when i mentioned what Barr said.. ie. she hadnt heard.. i am assuming that Barrs pronouncement likely swayed more conservatives like me, who werent jumping to conclusions, as well.

anyway thats where im coming from.

 

[deirdre]

well... shit.

i was just looking up something else about barr and look!

apparently that did come out before the 21st (ie i was wrong about that bit). that's when i took a politic "vacation" because i was getting attacked about the dumb Biden laptop thing!

Personal confirmation to me anyway that when i said "DO they know this information?", i was more right then i knew. I was so happy when i saw the barr reporting before Christmas, i told several of my conservative friends and everything. we all could have known 20 days earlier if i was paying more attention to the news! oy.


anyway, i still stand by my opinion about the majority now.

 

[Mendel]

The "credibility interval" for the Republican responses is 5.9%, so maybe there wasn't even a majority of Republicans in favor of a peaceful transition; it'd be fair to say that Republicans are split on this issue.

The majority of Republican respondents did not accept the outcome of the election two weeks ago. That's the evidence.

Let's try it this way,

look more closely at your own evidence. keep looking til you see it....

53% are in favor of a peaceful transition, but that's +/- 5.9%, so it could be anywhere from 47.1% to 58.9%. Since it's possible that the true value is less than 50%, I write that "maybe there wasn't even a majority of Republicans in favor of a peaceful transition" and continued " it'd be fair to say that Republicans are split on this issue". Which is still pretty bad, if you ask me.

44% accept the outcome of the election, which means that 56% don't; with the credibility interval, that's 50.1%-61.9%, so we can (barely) say that a majority of the Republicans didn't accept the outcome of the election at the time of the poll.

That's what I'm seeing; what do you want me to see?

 

[JMartJr]

44% accept the outcome of the election, which means that 56% don't;

I went back to the report on that poll, as linked in the other thread, and could not find the tabulation of results. But normally there would be a "Undecided/DK/NA" value along with "Agree" and "Disagree." Without knowing that Undecided response, I can't really determine how many said they do not accept the results... the max would be 56%, but looking at how prevalent the undecided response was where reported for other questions, it maybe be significantly lower.

That said, 44% is worrisomely low.

 

[deirdre]

That said, 44% is worrisomely low.

it depends too on how people are interpreting that question. i still cant decide how i want to interpret that. if they didnt ask in the question before if i thought Biden should transition in in January, it would be less ambiguous.

meaning : obviously i "accept" it because i said yes he should be transiitioned in, but am i happy about it?

 

[deirdre]

the questions i think are asked in reverse. so the transition question is a check to make sure people understood the first question adequately. (a good thing)

topline_npr_misinformation_poll_123020.pdf (ipsos.com)

 

[NoParty]

actually he described the whole situation quite well. Republicans should try to resist the urge to embrace the "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander" mentality.

Although to be fair, i'm quite shocked and surprised there aren't more Republican politicians giving the Democrats, that the media chose to highlight for 4 years, a taste of their own medicine. We had to listen to cries about Trumps illegitimate election for 4 years. I'm praying, but not hopeful, we wont have to listen to these guys whine about Biden for the full 4 years. Ten bucks says if Biden tries to pick a man to fill a Supreme Court seat, some woman will come forward with 30 year old allegations and we'll have to relive that shameful display too. smh.

Article:

We have a deep cancer in American politics right now: Both Republicans and Democrats are growing more distrustful of the basic processes and procedures that we follow...

...All the clever arguments and rhetorical gymnastics in the world won't change the fact that this January 6th effort is designed to disenfranchise millions of Americans simply because they voted for someone in a different party. We ought to be better than that. If we normalize this, we're going to turn American politics into a Hatfields and McCoys endless blood feud – a house hopelessly divided."

Source: https://www.3newsnow.com/news/local-news/ben-sasse-wrote-in-pence-for-president-denounces-attempts-to-overthrow-electoral-college-vote

I have no idea what you're talking about, unless you're just regurgitating talking points from the
right wing websites per usual.

"what's good for the goose, is good for the gander" (???)

Hillary Clinton was the choice of the American voters in 2016, by about 2.86 million votes,
and yet she conceded the race immediately. Are you imagining that Dems were filing dozens
of lawsuits to overturn the E.C.?

 

[deirdre]

unless you're just regurgitating talking points from the
right wing websites per usual.

you are being impolite as usual.

 

[NoParty]

I apologize for acknowleging it...it's just become so very tiresome...

 

[deirdre]

I apologize for acknowleging it...it's just become so very tiresome...

you're the one who brought up sasse's quote. it's not my fault you only liked part of his quote.

 

[NoParty]

I cited what Sasse said articulately, that was spot on to what Wolf had said.

You decided to use that to--as you often do--springboard to a labored right-wing talking point
which (as often untrue as true) is delivered as if settled fact. It's your right...but it's soooo tiresome.

 

[Landru]

I cited what Sasse said articulately, that was spot on to what Wolf had said.

You decided to use that to--as you often do--springboard to a labored right-wing talking point
which (as often untrue as true) is delivered as if settled fact. It's your right...but it's soooo tiresome.

Please concentrate on the facts not who who-said/meant what.This is meant for everybody.

 

[NoParty]

My post (88) was a laser-focused narrow response (to post 85).

Then it was weirdly used to introduce some sketchy political talking points, yet again, and I was simply trying to discourage that.

 

[deirdre]

(as often untrue as true)

well snap. i consider a 50% true from you an incredible compliment and quite chivalrous. Thank you. (and im not being sarcastic, I do appreciate it)

 

[deirdre]

Republicans should try to resist the urge to embrace the "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander" mentality.

Although to be fair, i'm quite shocked and surprised there aren't more Republican politicians giving the Democrats, that the media chose to highlight for 4 years, a taste of their own medicine.

yea now things are more like i expected them to be

Article:

A group of 11 sitting and incoming Republican senators, led by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, announced in a joint statement Saturday that they will join Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and object to the certification of President Donald Trump's loss to President-elect Joe Biden when a joint session of Congress meets Wednesday.

Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-dozen-republican-senators-plan-to-object-to-certification-of-biden-s-election-win-over-trump/ar-BB1cqdjj?ocid=msedgntp