How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

[dneal]

This is a genuine question with no agenda or judgement.

I am reading a news article on significant images of the past administration and saw this pic of Melania wearing a jacket with a message whilst visiting a migrant camp.



Without fear of contradiction could anyone tell me what message you think she sought to give out by wearing this jacket and why would she do so when visiting a migrant camp, I don't know but I assume she visited the camp on compassionate grounds.

I am English, I have no axe to grind, I am just curious about the objective.

Thank you.

This message

Probably a fair explanation HERE. A former friend and aide on a not-friendly network. Essentially a faux-pas where she intended to say to the media that she didn’t care what they thought, but missed the potential narrative that it could mean she didn’t care about migrant children.

[dneal]

What makes you so certain that these ballot irregularities weren't investigated already during the recounts?

It’s an issue of perceived credibility. Same election officials. There’s video of auditors questioning ballots and being told to just go ahead and get the totals first (by the official), over their objections of the propriety of that methodology. Like many other video clips, we only see part of the situation and can’t be sure if there’s something critical omitted.

Judge for yourself.

[Fermata]

This is a genuine question with no agenda or judgement.

I am reading a news article on significant images of the past administration and saw this pic of Melania wearing a jacket with a message whilst visiting a migrant camp.



Without fear of contradiction could anyone tell me what message you think she sought to give out by wearing this jacket and why would she do so when visiting a migrant camp, I don't know but I assume she visited the camp on compassionate grounds.

I am English, I have no axe to grind, I am just curious about the objective.

Thank you.

This message

Probably a fair explanation HERE. A former friend and aide on a not-friendly network. Essentially a faux-pas where she intended to say to the media that she didn’t care what they thought, but missed the potential narrative that it could mean she didn’t care about migrant children.

Thank you.

[Lloyd]

What makes you so certain that these ballot irregularities weren't investigated already during the recounts?

It’s an issue of perceived credibility. Same election officials. There’s video of auditors questioning ballots and being told to just go ahead and get the totals first (by the official), over their objections of the propriety of that methodology. Like many other video clips, we only see part of the situation and can’t be sure if there’s something critical omitted.

Judge for yourself.

Ok, that showed that there were procedures that they followed methodically. First sorting and counting without analyzing. That doesn't look irregular at all.... Unless someone starts to pitch it in some conspiratorial way.
In the end, either you believe all these people that were repeatedly tasked to do this job were scheming (I don't even recall any whistle blowers) or you believe the results.

[dneal]

What makes you so certain that these ballot irregularities weren't investigated already during the recounts?

It’s an issue of perceived credibility. Same election officials. There’s video of auditors questioning ballots and being told to just go ahead and get the totals first (by the official), over their objections of the propriety of that methodology. Like many other video clips, we only see part of the situation and can’t be sure if there’s something critical omitted.

Judge for yourself.

Ok, that showed that there were procedures that they followed methodically. First sorting and counting without analyzing. That doesn't look irregular at all.... Unless someone starts to pitch it in some conspiratorial way.
In the end, either you believe all these people that were repeatedly tasked to do this job were scheming (I don't even recall any whistle blowers) or you believe the results.

Were they? Were the ballots claimed to have identical signatures addressed at some point? We don't know. Would republicans trust the democrat local or state leadership to say it was accounted for? I doubt it.

In the end, it depends on what "the end" is. Biden's inauguration? A credible explanation or investigation? Yes, in the end you either believe or not. I'm not sure we're at "the end" yet.

Four months after the Trump inauguration, Nancy Pelosi tweeted this:

Screen Shot 2021-01-19 at 2.10.36 PM.png

Are republicans also entitled to have their "conspiracy theory" investigated?

[Lloyd]

It's been investigated in... how many court cases, many presided by judges appointed under right-wing governments?

[Lloyd]

Until a few elections back, these type of large scale voting disputes didn't happen.... Is this the power of the internet to allow support to all conspiracies?

[Sphere]

Mr Neal, your unceasing penchant for beating a dead horse is wearing thin. If you or anyone has actual proof that will stand up in court - produce it. As has been pointed out by me and others, no judges (including recent Trump appointees on the Supreme Court and lower courts) found any evidence of widespread fraud. I get it that you either don't understand, or have no respect for the basic tenets or American law. But, as I said before, the burden of proof is on the accuser.
I am looking forward to noon on January 20th. It can't come soon enough. So, if you want to closet yourself in the delusions of the past - go ahead, the rest of the world will move on.

[dneal]

It's been investigated in... how many court cases, many presided by judges appointed under right-wing governments?

So that seems to have become a left talking-point, and I tend to agree more with the right when they assert that the majority of courts did not hear the evidence. The vast majority of the 50+ cases were settled procedurally. Cases were withdrawn, denied on standing, denied on laches, etc...

Exacerbating the problem was the timeline. There was no way the GOP was going to discover and assemble the evidence and present a conclusive argument, which is why they tried to delay the electoral process. The democrats certainly fought discovery at every turn. Never-Trump GOP factions are just as obstinate. I'm tracking that Maricopa county is still ignoring the subpoena from the AZ senate. Anyway, the courts, whether for partisan or other political reasons (like simply not wanting to be involved in a political issue), found their way around hearing the cases - the SC declining the Texas case being a prime example.

But as interesting or boring as that is to most folks (and I find the legal arguments interesting), that's not really the question. The question is how to convince the people who doubt the results of the election (particularly when there is a large amount of circumstantial evidence to fuel their doubt)? Four years ago, it took a special counsel, several years and tens of millions of dollars; and some still aren't convinced. Is the GOP entitled to have their "conspiracy theory" investigated? Saying it has, by the court system, is hardly a fair comparison of the effort or attention of the two situations.

For some reason posing the question and positing answers turns into an argument about what actually happened instead of what people believe happened. I don't know how many times I've made that point, and watched it be ignored. Circumstantial evidence is just that. It's not direct evidence. It's not proof. A lot of circumstantial evidence is cause for question. For further examination. That's not the same as arguing that a lot of circumstantial evidence is - in and of itself - cause to overturn an election.

Until a few elections back, these type of large scale voting disputes didn't happen.... Is this the power of the internet to allow support to all conspiracies?

Good question. Looking back at the history of disputed elections, contested voters and whatnot; Adams certified Vermont's electoral votes (to his benefit) when they were in question. Jefferson (his opponent at the time) recommended he do just that. Jefferson certified Georgia's votes (again, to his benefit). There are other examples. Were those "large scale voting disputes" for the time? I'm not really sure. It seems to have settled down until Bush v Gore, and has become worse since then. Hillary's loss and the insanity that resulted was a milestone, only surpassed by Trump's loss.

The internet does indeed have a lot of power to dispense information, good and bad.

[Lloyd]

Drneal, have you thought about how many would have to work together, without interference by whistle blowers, to get the counts in several states, and their courts, to stick with their initial electoral decisions? Is that the Dark State at work?

[dneal]

Mr Neal, your unceasing penchant for beating a dead horse is wearing thin. If you or anyone has actual proof that will stand up in court - produce it. As has been pointed out by me and others, no judges (including recent Trump appointees on the Supreme Court and lower courts) found any evidence of widespread fraud. I get it that you either don't understand, or have no respect for the basic tenets or American law. But, as I said before, the burden of proof is on the accuser.
I am looking forward to noon on January 20th. It can't come soon enough. So, if you want to closet yourself in the delusions of the past - go ahead, the rest of the world will move on.

Maybe you should move on. No one is twisting your arm and making you read any of this. No one made you the hall monitor. I know it sounds crazy, but you might find that there are whole other sections of FPG that don't involve politics. You should go to the pen photos section and tell those folks "enough with the pictures already!!!"

I suspect your discomfort is just typical leftist authoritarian / control-freak attitudes. You're like AOC declaring "I'm the boss". Protip: you're not, and she's not.

[dneal]

Drneal, have you thought about how many would have to work together, without interference by whistle blowers, to get the counts in several states, and their courts, to stick with their initial electoral decisions? Is that the Dark State at work?

Yes, actually I have and that's why I posted that the construct of Ted Cruz's panel is a decent framework, although I disagreed with his proposal that we hold off the electoral count. Most of my responses to you I have already posted. I'm happy to answer again, even if appearing to "beat a dead horse", but Sphere clearly has their panties in a bunch over my responding to you.

I don't know what the rest of your post is about with the "dark state" and whatnot. There are entrenched bureaucrats that will protect their self-licking ice cream cones, but there's no "deep state" or "dark state".

[Lloyd]

Mr Neal, your unceasing penchant for beating a dead horse is wearing thin. If you or anyone has actual proof that will stand up in court - produce it. As has been pointed out by me and others, no judges (including recent Trump appointees on the Supreme Court and lower courts) found any evidence of widespread fraud. I get it that you either don't understand, or have no respect for the basic tenets or American law. But, as I said before, the burden of proof is on the accuser.
I am looking forward to noon on January 20th. It can't come soon enough. So, if you want to closet yourself in the delusions of the past - go ahead, the rest of the world will move on.

Maybe you should move on. No one is twisting your arm and making you read any of this. No one made you the hall monitor. I know it sounds crazy, but you might find that there are whole other sections of FPG that don't involve politics. You should go to the pen photos section and tell those folks "enough with the pictures already!!!"

I suspect your discomfort is just typical leftist authoritarian / control-freak attitudes. You're like AOC declaring "I'm the boss". Protip: you're not, and she's not.

Unless you're a mod here, neither are you, drneal. The OP posed a question about getting those at odds with the election to accept it. No one knows for certain the true results... Who would have the time and access to personally verify every voting form? However, an election winner has been decided and, if the country can re-unify (or get reasonably close to this), many election deniers will need to accept the vote.

[dneal]

=Lloyd]Unless you're a mod here, neither are you, drneal.

That's right, and that's why I don't run around the forum telling people what they can post and when.

I'm thinking I misunderstood your signature. I thought it was humorous. I'm beginning to think it's your method.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

It's Monty Python - a quite amusing sketch.

[Chuck Naill]

Mr Neal, your unceasing penchant for beating a dead horse is wearing thin. If you or anyone has actual proof that will stand up in court - produce it. As has been pointed out by me and others, no judges (including recent Trump appointees on the Supreme Court and lower courts) found any evidence of widespread fraud. I get it that you either don't understand, or have no respect for the basic tenets or American law. But, as I said before, the burden of proof is on the accuser.
I am looking forward to noon on January 20th. It can't come soon enough. So, if you want to closet yourself in the delusions of the past - go ahead, the rest of the world will move on.

Maybe you should move on. No one is twisting your arm and making you read any of this. No one made you the hall monitor. I know it sounds crazy, but you might find that there are whole other sections of FPG that don't involve politics. You should go to the pen photos section and tell those folks "enough with the pictures already!!!"

I suspect your discomfort is just typical leftist authoritarian / control-freak attitudes. You're like AOC declaring "I'm the boss". Protip: you're not, and she's not.

He must have hit a nerve. Are you going to resort to name calling and insults?

[Lloyd]

You're like AOC declaring "I'm the boss". Protip: you're not, and she's not.

and in less than 24 hours, neither will Donald. Unfortunately, many Americans will have a very tough time accepting this.

[dneal]

Mr Neal, your unceasing penchant for beating a dead horse is wearing thin. If you or anyone has actual proof that will stand up in court - produce it. As has been pointed out by me and others, no judges (including recent Trump appointees on the Supreme Court and lower courts) found any evidence of widespread fraud. I get it that you either don't understand, or have no respect for the basic tenets or American law. But, as I said before, the burden of proof is on the accuser.
I am looking forward to noon on January 20th. It can't come soon enough. So, if you want to closet yourself in the delusions of the past - go ahead, the rest of the world will move on.

Maybe you should move on. No one is twisting your arm and making you read any of this. No one made you the hall monitor. I know it sounds crazy, but you might find that there are whole other sections of FPG that don't involve politics. You should go to the pen photos section and tell those folks "enough with the pictures already!!!"

I suspect your discomfort is just typical leftist authoritarian / control-freak attitudes. You're like AOC declaring "I'm the boss". Protip: you're not, and she's not.

He must have hit a nerve. Are you going to resort to name calling and insults?

Chuck - please stop being a hall monitor and shit stirrer. Go revisit your "empathy" thread.

[Lloyd]

Odd... Your words could be used to describe you, too.

[dneal]

Odd... Your words could be used to describe you, too.

What, shit-stirrer? Sure. Not a hypocrite about it though.

Hall monitor? Never. Do what you want and I'll do what I want.