Thanks to the voters who defeated the "red wave"

[Shadow Wolf]

Because we all know that Democrats would never, ever be partisan nor underhanded, right?

It's the fact that anyone who doesn't have partisan rabies sees the vast legions of recounts and realizes there are very few examples of voter fraud and certainly nothing significant enough to sway an election. You had your time to show the world it's going on, but you fell flat on your faces a couple years ago.

 

[Father Heathen]

Because we all know that Democrats would never, ever be partisan nor underhanded, right?

Sure they could, but accusations need to be logically plausible and substantiated by evidence before they deserve any consideration. Otherwise, it sounds like nothing more than sour grapes and butthurt. Sometimes, candidates and their platforms are simply garbage. No kooky spooky conspiracy theory needed to explain their defeat.

 

[Shaul]

It's the fact that anyone who doesn't have partisan rabies sees the vast legions of recounts and realizes there are very few examples of voter fraud and certainly nothing significant enough to sway an election. You had your time to show the world it's going on, but you fell flat on your faces a couple years ago.

So you think the Democrats are pure as the driven snow and could never, ever do any wrong. Such trust.

 

[Shaul]

Sure they could, but accusations need to be logically plausible and substantiated by evidence before they deserve any consideration. Otherwise, it sounds like nothing more than sour grapes and butthurt. Sometimes, candidates and their platforms are simply garbage. No kooky spooky conspiracy theory needed to explain their defeat.

No, it sounds like common sense. People will cheat unless you are vigilant to guard against it.

 

[Father Heathen]

No, it sounds like common sense. People will cheat unless you are vigilant to guard against it.

So by your logic it's perfectly sensible to blame every democratic party loss on republicans cheating?

 

[Father Heathen]

So you think the Democrats are pure as the driven snow and could never, ever do any wrong. Such trust.

Nobody is saying or implying that.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I revel in the pain and discomfort this must be causing Trump.

At the same time, I'm cognizant of the fact that reducing the wave to a shallow tide was largely the result of the laughably bad candidates selected by Trump and endorsed by the GOP. Only a fool could believe that the GOP will not learn from this as well as it moves past ugly internal leadership questions and turns its attention to 2024.

Trump is more symptom than cause, and the next election could well be challenging yet pivotal for those concerned with human rights.

You're assuming they will be introspective and open to improvement. I don't think they will learn a thing. I hope they prove me wrong though.
,

 

[Twilight Hue]

You align yourself with a theocratic movement that seeks to suppress science and erode the rights, freedoms, and equality of the American people, so your judgement regarding what's destroying this country is rather questionable.

Yea. I don't side with the party that leads with the most oppressive states in the nation.

Your definition of freedom is rather questionable.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nobody is saying or implying that.

Really? Could of fooled me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You're assuming they will be introspective and open to improvement. I don't think they will learn a thing. I hope they prove me wrong though.
,

You seriously misunderstand my meaning.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't have a definition for "woke," personally, as I think it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. I usually find it self-aggrandizing when used in a positive sense and demonizing when used in a negative one, since it can refer to anything from merely supporting LGBT rights to being a bona fide Marxist-Leninist.

Ok, apologies on my assumption. I still think he'd define it different to you, but I acknowledge you don't see it as a positive term, particularly. For what it's worth, my view basically matches your around this.

It's a weaponized term that the likes of DeSantis use without a clear definition, and it's convenient to that end precisely because it can be used to demonize or dismiss anything they disagree with. We're talking about the same person who opposed mask mandates at the height of the pandemic, after all.

Yes...but I'm talking about him more from a political strategy point of view. So opposing mask mandates and pushing back on 'wokeness' is actually pretty consistent, and an easily understood message.

I think pressing further, and removing funding from schools who didn't actively ban masks is where he crosses over into what I'll call Trump-style idiocy (in terms of political strategy), but I haven't been able to work out if that was pure pandering, or not. Certainly his more recent 'Stop WOKE Act' stuff was pandering, and pretty hard to understand when held up alongside his 'Free Florida' messaging.

Yeah, that he's less prone to errors than Trump makes him scarier when coupled with his harmful politics, in my opinion.

I wouldn't see him as scarier (I figured Trump had the capacity to actually break democracy in the US), but looking ahead I think he's scarier because I don't think Trump-style bulldust will work. DeSantis is a little more evolved.

His messaging was simple and coherent, but he did cross the line a few times in terms of consistency. And I don't know what effect a bloodbath GOP primary will have, but it could happen, and it could be very impactful.

If the Dems continue to be a little frayed at the edge, he's exactly the sort of politician who can pick at that, whilst combining it with a very broadly positive message. It's popularism, but not as hysterical as Trump's version. We shall see.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So you think the Democrats are pure as the driven snow and could never, ever do any wrong. Such trust.

I'm not saying that at all.
I'm saying these claims of rampant election fraud coming from Republicans is false.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I have voted Red since 1976 to 2016. Trump turned me. I split my vote in 2020. In 2022 I voted Blue straight down the ticket. I live in a Red county that seems to be turning purple since about 2000.

I was a lifelong conservative and Republican from 1992 until 2018. I voted for the third party in the 2016 presidential election because I refused to vote for Trump and I wasn't quite ready to vote Democratic yet. But I eventually left the Republican Party and registered as a Democrat shortly before the 2018 midterms. I voted for Biden in the 2020 election, and he was the first Democratic candidate that I've ever voted for in any election, presidential or otherwise. I also voted straight blue in the midterms, and I will vote blue in the 2024 presidential election as well. I live in a small town in North Texas, and I'm surrounded by MAGA Republicans. I live in a rural area with MAGA slogans, "Let's Go Brandon" bumper stickers, and American and Confederate flags either flapping in the wind on the side of pickup trucks or hoisted on a flagpole in someone's front yard. So, it's almost like wearing a bullseye on your back to disclose that you are a Democrat, that you voted for President Biden, and that you politically support Biden and other Democratic politicians.

 

[Shaul]

So by your logic it's perfectly sensible to blame every democratic party loss on republicans cheating?

That doesn't follow logically from what I said at all.

 

[Shaul]

I'm not saying that at all.
I'm saying these claims of rampant election fraud coming from Republicans is false.

Feel free to attempt to prove there was no rampant election fraud.

 

[Father Heathen]

That doesn't follow logically from what I said at all.

It's precisely the same thing, just flip the parties.

 

[Father Heathen]

Feel free to attempt to prove there was no rampant election fraud.

The burden of proof is on you since you made the assertion. It would be like me accusing you of being a coprophiliac and then insisting that you prove you're not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Feel free to attempt to prove there was no rampant election fraud.

That's not how it works. You are claiming there is fraud thus you must furnish the evidence.
And, by the way, the ocean of recounts is evidence of enough there is no rampant voter fraud. 2020 especially well demonstrated this, because it was a heavily scrutinized election but yet there was no evidence of such fraud revealed.
Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.[2]
...
One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.[8][9]

 

[Shaul]

That's not how it works. You are claiming there is fraud thus you must furnish the evidence.
And, by the way, the ocean of recounts is evidence of enough there is no rampant voter fraud. 2020 especially well demonstrated this, because it was a heavily scrutinized election but yet there was no evidence of such fraud revealed.
Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

No I didn't claim that there was fraud. I claim the following:
If it is possible to cheat it is inevitable that some people will.
Democrats are people.
Therefore if the conditions allow Democrats to cheat sooner or later some of them will.
So which claim to do you not accept, that cheating will occur if possible or that Democrats are people?

I am not the one making an unsubstantiated claim. You are! You claim that there has been no rampant voter fraud. But that claim is not supportable. You cannot say for sure how much fraud exists. That is because the system has been design to prevent the collection of the necessary facts and evidence.

The burden of proof is on you. Prove that no rampant fraud has occurred. You made the claim. Now prove it.

 

[Shaul]

The burden of proof is on you since you made the assertion. It would be like me accusing you of being a coprophiliac and then insisting that you prove you're not.

Wrong! Those claiming that no fraud occurred have the burden of proof.