15 Nov 22
@zahlanzi saidDisputing election results is not harmful to others.
"you want to make it illegal to dispute elections"
You can dispute it all you want. In court. With proof. If you lose your case though you don't get to yell fire anymore. Free speech doesn't cover that. Facts and feelings and all that
Free speech covers election disputes. Read the 1st amendment where it uses the word "redress" to government.
You are a constitution denier.
That is worse than an election denier, especially since you support making election disputes illegal. What better way of covering up election fraud?
wildgrass is just stupid for thinking it is constitutional to do what he is suggesting. This entire thread is an unwitting aspiration to violate the constitution.
17 Nov 22
@metal-brain saidRedress is not the same as accepting reality.
Disputing election results is not harmful to others.
Free speech covers election disputes. Read the 1st amendment where it uses the word "redress" to government.
You are a constitution denier.
That is worse than an election denier, especially since you support making election disputes illegal. What better way of covering up election fraud?
wildgrass is just stupid ...[text shortened]... do what he is suggesting. This entire thread is an unwitting aspiration to violate the constitution.
Feelings are not the same as constitutional rights.
You are equating things that are fundamentally different. And you are implying that failure to accept a political outcome (which has been custom for hundreds of years) is not harmful to the system of government. According to many political scientists, the peaceful transition of power, the concession of elections by the loser, is integral to the process. It's why our democracy has been successful.
17 Nov 22
@Metal-Brain
The whole basis of electoral college workers is to be INDEPENDENT of politics, Get the votes, count them, announce the results.
If some 'insert significant pejorative' state actually passes laws allowing them to make their own electors to achieve a POLITICAL goal, that is 1, Against the INDEPENDENT part of the electors and 2, did I mention the INDEPENDENT part of the electors? So said state does that and THAT is LITERALLY the end of democracy.
If red states can do it why can't blue states do the same?
So the bastardized version of democracy proceeds, Red states, 249 electors, No, update, 340 electors, sorry folks.
Blue states, 259 electors, WAIT, update, 350 electors.
What? Red states also updated?
And so forth.
Do you seriously think THAT is democracy?
17 Nov 22
@wildgrass saidWhose reality? Democrat election deniers or repub election deniers?
Redress is not the same as accepting reality.
Feelings are not the same as constitutional rights.
You are equating things that are fundamentally different. And you are implying that failure to accept a political outcome (which has been custom for hundreds of years) is not harmful to the system of government. According to many political scientists, the peaceful transi ...[text shortened]... n of elections by the loser, is integral to the process. It's why our democracy has been successful.
You will not accept the reality of the bill of rights. Either that or you really do want to repeal the 1st amendment. Which is it?
@metal-brain saidOh you're one of those "speak your own reality" folks.
Whose reality? Democrat election deniers or repub election deniers?
You will not accept the reality of the bill of rights. Either that or you really do want to repeal the 1st amendment. Which is it?
The reality ( there's only one) is that elections have winners and losers. Sometimes the politicians might think they were "treated very unfairly" or subject to some deep state conspiracy that hacked into voting machines.
But redress happens with recounts and lawsuits that confirm allegations are real. It requires evidence to prove cheating and stealing in those arenas.
After that, you lost. Admit defeat and walk away. Otherwise don't be a politician.
17 Nov 22
@metal-brain saidDo you really think that the "if I win I win but if I lose you cheated" message being puked out by these politicians is not fundamentally harmful to the election process?
Whose reality? Democrat election deniers or repub election deniers?
You will not accept the reality of the bill of rights. Either that or you really do want to repeal the 1st amendment. Which is it?
17 Nov 22
@Metal-Brain
So you have given up, you are unable to reply to my post.
I think you understand now how wrong you are. But of course that won't stop you from posing more BS will it?
18 Nov 22
@wildgrass said"But redress happens with recounts and lawsuits that confirm allegations are real."
Oh you're one of those "speak your own reality" folks.
The reality ( there's only one) is that elections have winners and losers. Sometimes the politicians might think they were "treated very unfairly" or subject to some deep state conspiracy that hacked into voting machines.
But redress happens with recounts and lawsuits that confirm allegations are real. It requires ...[text shortened]... those arenas.
After that, you lost. Admit defeat and walk away. Otherwise don't be a politician.
LOL! But redress requires an election fraud allegation. You want that to become illegal so redress is impossible. I think it is ironic that you said I am one who is a "speak your own reality" folks. You are denying the reality of the constitution. You want people to admit defeat even when an election is stolen.
Hillary Clinton conceded the election, but then later made election fraud allegations. Is that admitting defeat and walking away or is that admitting defeat and not walking away? You are confusing. Please explain how you would describe her election fraud claims. Also, should she be allowed to be a politician anymore? She called Trump an illegitimate POTUS. That is election denial, right?
18 Nov 22
@sonhouse saidYour post is unintelligible. Were you drunk when you wrote it? Perhaps you should write something that people understand other than yourself.
@Metal-Brain
So you have given up, you are unable to reply to my post.
I think you understand now how wrong you are. But of course that won't stop you from posing more BS will it?
18 Nov 22
@metal-brain saidLol what election was ever stolen ????
"But redress happens with recounts and lawsuits that confirm allegations are real."
LOL! But redress requires an election fraud allegation. You want that to become illegal so redress is impossible. I think it is ironic that you said I am one who is a "speak your own reality" folks. You are denying the reality of the constitution. You want people to admit defeat even wh ...[text shortened]... to be a politician anymore? She called Trump an illegitimate POTUS. That is election denial, right?
@metal-brain saidNo one except you is talking about fraud. Stolen or rigged elections only.
Hillary Clinton conceded the election, but then later made election fraud allegations. Is that admitting defeat and walking away or is that admitting defeat and not walking away? You are confusing. Please explain how you would describe her election fraud claims. Also, should she be allowed to be a politician anymore? She called Trump an illegitimate POTUS. That is election denial, right?
Politicians should admit defeat. That's all I'm asking.
18 Nov 22
@wildgrass saidSaddam Hussein never stole elections?
Lol what election was ever stolen ????
Do I have to list every dictatorship that holds elections in the world for you?
18 Nov 22
@wildgrass saidYou said this:
No one except you is talking about fraud. Stolen or rigged elections only.
Politicians should admit defeat. That's all I'm asking.
"Admit defeat and walk away. Otherwise don't be a politician."
Since Hillary didn't walk away and made election stealing allegations now you have changed to just admit defeat. Admit you only want to violate the constitution to ban republicans from running. You don't want democrats to be subjected to the same authoritarian election ban.
This thread is unconstitutional. Maybe you were not aware of that when you started this thread, but you are aware of it now. It will never happen. Nobody is going to repeal the 1st amendment.
18 Nov 22
@metal-brain saidHillary conceded. Embarrassingly so, but she admitted that she lost.
You said this:
"Admit defeat and walk away. Otherwise don't be a politician."
Since Hillary didn't walk away and made election stealing allegations now you have changed to just admit defeat. Admit you only want to violate the constitution to ban republicans from running. You don't want democrats to be subjected to the same authoritarian election ban.
This thread ...[text shortened]... ead, but you are aware of it now. It will never happen. Nobody is going to repeal the 1st amendment.
@metal-brain saidYour lying again Hilary Clinton never claimed the election was stolen even though she won the popular vote she conceded and walked away.
You said this:
"Admit defeat and walk away. Otherwise don't be a politician."
Since Hillary didn't walk away and made election stealing allegations now you have changed to just admit defeat. Admit you only want to violate the constitution to ban republicans from running. You don't want democrats to be subjected to the same authoritarian election ban.
This thread ...[text shortened]... ead, but you are aware of it now. It will never happen. Nobody is going to repeal the 1st amendment.
She was quite rightly concerned about the meddling of an aggressive foreign power but she accepted the result.
Trump who lost the popular vote twice and the electoral college once still hasn’t accepted that he lost.
Sure he can exercise free speech until he’s red in the face but the electorate are at liberty to reject his anti democratic stance at the ballot box and anyone can exercise their free speech by pointing out his anti democratic stance to the electorate