Jump to content

For the love of God, certify the results already.


Flarb

Recommended Posts

These speeches are sometimes good. Some know their thoughts well and can express them well. Some read from paper after paper. 
 

Bombast, regardless. So much bombast. 
 

Just certify the shit so I can wear my new Titans hat. The one with the American flag on the side. 
 

Wearing my new hat depends on the certification of these goddamn results. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering how many Republicans are going to stand up and repeat the same stale arguments about how the PA election was unconstitutional, and how many Democrats are going to stand and not actually address those arguments.

We all know how it's going to turn out. Enough grandstanding

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, unauthorizedcinnamon said:

I'm wondering how many Republicans are going to stand up and repeat the same stale arguments about how the PA election was unconstitutional, and how many Democrats are going to stand and not actually address those arguments.

We all know how it's going to turn out. Enough grandstanding


I thought the main Democrat counter points were solid

  • Mail-in voting in PA was passed in bi-partisan legislation over a year ago
  • It had a 120 challenge period written into the law, and was unchallenged
  • It was used for state wide elections and the primaries without challenge
  • None of the electoral results besides the presidency is being challenged, including the elections for the PA representatives protesting the presidential results
  • The vast majority of the court cases did not allege fraud because there was no factual basis for the claim
  • Those court cases only objected to small numbers of votes on technicalities
  • Even if all those cases were won, and all the votes they threw out were Biden votes, it would not change the election
  • Only two cases alleged fraud
  • One of those two cases challenged mail in voting in mass, but as can be seen above had no basis in fact for disenfranchising millions of voters
  • The other case challenged the vote of all PA residents, had no basis in fact, and would have disenfranchised all voters in the state
  • The objections are simply the representatives disagreeing with the outcome of the election
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, patsplat said:


I thought the main Democrat counter points were solid

  • Mail-in voting in PA was passed in bi-partisan legislation over a year ago
  • It had a 120 challenge period written into the law, and was unchallenged
  • It was used for state wide elections and the primaries without challenge
  • None of the electoral results besides the presidency is being challenged, including the elections for the PA representatives protesting the presidential results
  • The vast majority of the court cases did not allege fraud because there was no factual basis for the claim
  • Those court cases only objected to small numbers of votes on technicalities
  • Even if all those cases were won, and all the votes they threw out were Biden votes, it would not change the election
  • Only two cases alleged fraud
  • One of those two cases challenged mail in voting in mass, but as can be seen above had no basis in fact for disenfranchising millions of voters
  • The other case challenged the vote of all PA residents, had no basis in fact, and would have disenfranchised all voters in the state
  • The objections are simply the representatives disagreeing with the outcome of the election

There was one main argument from the objectors: that The PA S. Ct. and administration changed the law by allowing ballots to be counted that were received after election day, not to requiring signature verification on mail-in ballots (so the first three points are red herrings), and allowing votes to be collected in unsecured dropboxes.

I didn't hear a single response to these specific claims (I admittedly missed about 5 minutes when I went to pee). All the "responses" about there being no proof of fraud, and the election law being the result of a bipartisan effort, were beside the point

 


If they had good, specific responses to these claims (and I suspect they did), they should have stated them, item-by-item, rather than playing hide-the-weiner, which will only give more fodder to the conspiracy nuts

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, unauthorizedcinnamon said:

There was one main argument from the objectors: that The PA S. Ct. and administration changed the law by allowing ballots to be counted that were received after election day, not to requiring signature verification on mail-in ballots (so the first three points are red herrings), and allowing votes to be collected in unsecured dropboxes.

I didn't hear a single response to these specific claims (I admittedly missed about 5 minutes when I went to pee). All the "responses" about there being no proof of fraud, and the election law being the result of a bipartisan effort, were beside the point

 


If they had good, specific responses to these claims (and I suspect they did), they should have stated them, item-by-item, rather than playing hide-the-weiner, which will only give more fodder to the conspiracy nuts


It's because those claims are patently false.  I saw at least one note that use of dropboxes is under the purview of the individual election districts.  The other two are just as likely to be utter bullshit, or they would have actually seen their day in court.

These assholes are fractally wrong.  No matter how close you zoom in, they are still going to be wrong.  It's not worth going line by line because that gives false legitimacy to their failed claims.  The first three points aren't red herrings, because all the objections were allowed under the law that was approved and in use for a year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, patsplat said:


It's because those claims are patently false.  

Yeah, that's the point. The Dems never actually addressed them. If they were so patently false, they should have demonstrated that. Instead, they danced around with a bunch of pointless red herrings. Not helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, unauthorizedcinnamon said:

Yeah, that's the point. The Dems never actually addressed them. If they were so patently false, they should have demonstrated that. Instead, they danced around with a bunch of pointless red herrings. Not helpful.

 

This is simply how debate works.  Responding point by point is a losing position even when right.

 

When Tux was posting all his spam did it make sense to disprove each assertion?  No, you don't feed the troll.

 

You only respond point by point in a conversation when you know the listener is proceeding in good faith.  Otherwise you are really just maintaining their discourse and framing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, patsplat said:

 

This is simply how debate works.  Responding point by point is a losing position even when right.

 

When Tux was posting all his spam did it make sense to disprove each assertion?  No, you don't feed the troll.

 

You only respond point by point in a conversation when you know the listener is proceeding in good faith.  Otherwise you are really just maintaining their discourse and framing.

There are 10s of millions of people in this country who believe they were proceeding in good faith. Failing to address their arguments head-on does nothing to disabuse them of that notion. It only makes matters worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, unauthorizedcinnamon said:

There are 10s of millions of people in this country who believe they were proceeding in good faith. Failing to address their arguments head-on does nothing to disabuse them of that notion. It only makes matters worse.

 

They did not come to this notion following a point by point refution of the Green New Deal.  10s of millions of people in this country support terrorists because it's been shouted at them, over and over and over.

 

I don't know why you think they'll let it go when presented with the facts this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, patsplat said:

 

They did not come to this notion following a point by point refution of the Green New Deal.  10s of millions of people in this country support terrorists because it's been shouted at them, over and over and over.

 

I don't know why you think they'll let it go when presented with the facts this time.

You (wrongly) assume that everyone is either 100% one way, or 100% another. That's a huge problem, in this case and in politics in general.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...