891–900 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Deplatforming works. A few people follow to other sites, but most don't. It also becomes harder to attract new cultists if one is shut out of major services. https://gnet-research.org/2020/05/11/weighing-the-value-and-...
If Deplatforming works, I can't wait for the right to start deplatforming leftists!
Is that what the right calls opening the trapdoor on the gallows?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where the onus lies is dependent on who you are and what your goals are. If you occupy an elected office, and you want people to believe that you were elected legitimately, then the onus is on you to convince the people of that, if they are skeptical. The burden of proof is not on them to convince themselves that you were elected legitimately. If you're arguing in a court case that the election was conducted illegiti…
What will make you think this election was fair? To me it seems like the only way Trump supporters and Trump will be convinced of the results is if they say he won.
That is not the only thing, but that is the big one for me.
Of course if Trump had won, I would have trusted that the election was not rigged in his favor by Democrats even given the restrictions on observers, because I don't know of any plausible reason why they might have done so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if a centrist in the UK would be halfway between current Labour and Conservative policies, that would probably make you close to a mainstream Democrat. Labour is left of the Democrats and the Conservatives are right of them (primarily economically), but neither by a huge margin.
I agree with you. I would go so far as to say that the Conservatives are to the left of the Democrats, even economically. Look at the extent of public borrowing funding all the furlough schemes etc. Not to mention both Labour and Tories are fully behind free public healthcare, which Democrats are having to be dragged kicking and screaming towards. Although that is rather a special case. Come to think of it I can't th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, the women's march protests were far more dangerous. At the recent "storming", all of the representatives were evacuated, and nobody was directly threatened. The one women who came a little too close to breaking into where some VIPs were was shot in the neck and died. Meanwhile, the media and law enforcement approved of the women's march protestors. They were free to roam around the capitol and physicall…
> You're right, the women's march protests were far more dangerous. This is beyond bad faith, this is an open "fuck you" to anyone that dares participate in this discussion. To shut it down, to make any sort of dialogue impossible. And you say the left wants to censor, what a laugh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you read my comment. We have much more than the word of Trump and his "sycophants". We know, and no one disputes, that the left and some individuals on the right want Trump out of power very badly. We don't need Trump to tell us that, they have said so themselves, loudly, for the past 5 years. We also know, and no one disputes, that the election officials in a number of key areas have their jobs because…
> We have much more than the word of Trump and his "sycophants". Prove it in court or shut up. Seriously, it's that simple. Don't spam us with links and tell us to "look at the evidence". That's what the courts are for. If Trump is so certain that he's right, he should say all he's saying under oath. Surely he's brave enough to do that right? You can choose to believe in shadowy conspiracies of "Democrat officials" a…
I don't think you read my comment. My point is not to prove anything in court, or to argue that anything related to the election can be proved in court. It is to argue that it's completely reasonable for right-leaning people to doubt the integrity of the election. Probably you are aware that a lot of crimes are very difficult to prove in court. That doesn't mean they didn't happen, or that people should not believe they happened.
>Don't spam us with links and tell us to "look at the evidence".
I did neither of those things.
>That's what the courts are for.
I have no standing in court to sue anyone over this.
>If Trump is so certain that he's right, he should say all he's saying under oath. Surely he's brave enough to do that right?
I don't know or care how certain Trump is of anything. I know many on the political right are certain, for excellent reasons, that the Democrats were motivated to bias the election against Trump, and had the ability to do so, and so many on the right are not going to trust the results.
>But compared to that complex story
Is cheating in elections really a complex story from your point of view? It happens all of the time across the globe.
>"liar continues lying" is far more likely.
Can you point out something I've said that relies on taking Trump's word for something?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you read my comment. We have much more than the word of Trump and his "sycophants". We know, and no one disputes, that the left and some individuals on the right want Trump out of power very badly. We don't need Trump to tell us that, they have said so themselves, loudly, for the past 5 years. We also know, and no one disputes, that the election officials in a number of key areas have their jobs because…
Wow you have means, motive, and opportunity. Now all you need is this pesky little thing called evidence of any such fraud occurring. It’s a big roadblock though, understandably, no one has managed to produce anything of note that could be accepted in court or any reputable investigation.
I don't have any reason to believe it would be possible to prove in a court that election fraud took place at this point, outside of confessions. That doesn't mean it didn't take place, or that it isn't reasonable to believe it took place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On what forums were specific plans discussed in public?
It didn't need to be. It was justified and encouraged and enabled by nearly every major corporation, media company, and high-ranking official. https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1347302588434284544
> The end goal is cessation of real and specific incitements to violence against people and property
You:
> So are we just pretending that March-September 2020 didn't happen in dozens of major cities across the US.
Apparently you are confused between "empathy" and "incitement".
That "supercut" didn't have anyone inciting violent behavior. No-one saying "Go out, damage and destroy property. Hurt people". It didn't have anyone saying "this is a good thing".
You have people saying "I can understand why this is happening", "I get why people are driven to it".
That's empathy. Not encouragement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
4 people died.
Five, actually. Officer Brian Sicknick died as a result of wounds suffered during the conflict [1]. Details beyond that are still hard to find. This after Giuliani demanded "trial by combat" from the gathered mob. Hard to believe he will face justice though, given that Trump plans to pardon everybody and their mother. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/01/08/capito...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What will make you think this election was fair? To me it seems like the only way Trump supporters and Trump will be convinced of the results is if they say he won.
If the local election officials wanted to convince me they ran the election fairly, they would have had to have allowed observers to do their job without imposing any restrictions on them that would impair their ability to observe. If that means equipping every worker and observer with personal safety equipment suitable for use in a lab that researches ebola, so be it. Outside observers are absolutely critical. That…