Shoot The Breeze

[ATCJoe85]

You need to check my post history.

If you truly fit in the "neither" category, my mistake. You could've just said so.

I wouldn't have presumed that was the case since you attempted to compare the sentiment of #notmypresident to the alt-fact claim that Biden is an illegitimate president.

 

[jamisjockey]

If you truly fit in the "neither" category, my mistake. You could've just said so.

I wouldn't have presumed that was the case since you attempted to compare the sentiment of #notmypresident to the alt-fact claim that Biden is an illegitimate president.

Literally the same.
The same people who said Trump was elected fraudulently are now claiming the 2020 election was the most secure in history.
For the record, both sides are absolutely guilty of this level of idiocy.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

Literally the same.
The same people who said Trump was elected fraudulently are now claiming the 2020 election was the most secure in history.
For the record, both sides are absolutely guilty of this level of idiocy.

Not really. No one ever claimed Trump lost the election and it was due to meddling by domestic gov officials and deliberate miscounting of votes based on zero verifiable proof, they showed evidence of foreign interference by foreign adversaries, who have since all but openly admitted that was the case.

Big, big difference there.

No, I'm not interested in debating the merits of this with you, just pointing out the flaw in your argument here.

 

[Logical_Mongoose]

For the record, both sides are absolutely guilty of this level of idiocy.

When idiots are so idiotic they don't realize they're the same kind of idiots.

 

[CF]

Not really. No one ever claimed Trump lost the election and it was due to meddling by domestic gov officials and deliberate miscounting of votes based on zero verifiable proof, they showed evidence of foreign interference by foreign adversaries, who have since all but openly admitted that was the case.

Big, big difference there.

No, I'm not interested in debating the merits of this with you, just pointing out the flaw in your argument here.

This. It’s one thing to call it bullshit that a guy who got millions less votes won fair and square according to the rules and completely different to say the election itself was fraudulent because you lost.

 

[32andBelow]

When idiots are so idiotic they don't realize they're the same kind of idiots.

Yah dude they are the same as the q anons that kill their kids cus they have serpent DNA

 

[ATCJoe85]

Both sides are idiots, but as PG noted, it is literally not the same.
The claim was always that Russia interfered (proven) and there were allegations that Trump colluded (unproven). Ties to Russian operatives by Trump campaign members were also found.

Hillary conceeded basically immediately, because she understood that at that point, even if it could be proven that Trump colluded, at most he would be impeached/prosecuted and Pence would take over.

Russia influenced the election, but everyone knew the votes themselves still came from the American people. Hence, there was never a claim of "fraud", there was never the expectation that Hillary would be in the White House in spite of the results.

A handful of claims from the Trump camp might have a bit of basis in reality... if states didn't follow their own laws, then that's B.S. But the states not following their own laws didn't prevent the American people from voting for who they wanted. (I.E, by not following their own laws, they made it easier for people to vote, not harder)

Meanwhile, those handful of *possibly legitimate* claims are overshadowed by two tons of absolute bullshit, ranging from truckloads of ballots to that a guy in Italy singlehandedly manipulated the entire election.

 

[Homsar]

If you truly fit in the "neither" category, my mistake. You could've just said so.

I wouldn't have presumed that was the case since you attempted to compare the sentiment of #notmypresident to the alt-fact claim that Biden is an illegitimate president.

I just wanted to call out the hilarity of people like you stereotyping others instead of just accepting that people can think even slightly different than you and aren't at the polar opposite of a spectrum.

Not really. No one ever claimed Trump lost the election and it was due to meddling by domestic gov officials and deliberate miscounting of votes based on zero verifiable proof, they showed evidence of foreign interference by foreign adversaries, who have since all but openly admitted that was the case.

Big, big difference there.

No, I'm not interested in debating the merits of this with you, just pointing out the flaw in your argument here.

This. It’s one thing to call it bullshit that a guy who got millions less votes won fair and square according to the rules and completely different to say the election itself was fraudulent because you lost.

Good lord. You two dropped these:



Both sides are/were arguing that election integrity was compromised and thus resulted in an illegitimate president, they just differ as to where that compromise came from, foreign or domestic. It's literally the same argument, four years apart. Anything inferred beyond that is a straw man so you can say "tHeY'rE NoT tHe SaMe!"

Both sides are idiots, but as PG noted, it is literally not the same.
The claim was always that Russia interfered (proven) and there were allegations that Trump colluded (unproven). Ties to Russian operatives by Trump campaign members were also found.

The claim was that election integrity was compromised and unfair due to unlawful interference (sound familiar?), and therefore Trump was "#notmypresident."

Hillary conceeded basically immediately, because she understood that at that point, even if it could be proven that Trump colluded, at most he would be impeached/prosecuted and Pence would take over.

I love how you had to had "basically," because she sure didn't show up at Javitz on election night to concede.

Russia influenced the election, but everyone knew the votes themselves still came from the American people. Hence, there was never a claim of "fraud", there was never the expectation that Hillary would be in the White House in spite of the results.

There were plenty of pundits/politicians that claimed Trump was an illegitimate president, which means he was elected fraudulently, and I found one calling for the possibility of Clinton to be installed instead:

One year on, Donald Trump is still an illegitimate president | Rebecca Solnit

It is unlikely that the presidential election will be overturned, but that is not an argument against the case that it should be

www.theguardian.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

Trump has called for a revote due to his fraud claims about the 2020 election, not a whisking of Biden out and him in instead.

Trump suggests election ‘revote’ and calls on Supreme Court to overturn result in bizarre Facebook video

‘If we are right about the fraud, Joe Biden can’t be president’

www.independent.co.uk

A handful of claims from the Trump camp might have a bit of basis in reality... if states didn't follow their own laws, then that's B.S. But the states not following their own laws didn't prevent the American people from voting for who they wanted. (I.E, by not following their own laws, they made it easier for people to vote, not harder)

Meanwhile, those handful of *possibly legitimate* claims are overshadowed by two tons of absolute bullshit, ranging from truckloads of ballots to that a guy in Italy singlehandedly manipulated the entire election.

I can agree here.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

Good lord. You two dropped these:

View attachment 6481

Both sides are/were arguing that election integrity was compromised and thus resulted in an illegitimate president, they just differ as to where that compromise came from, foreign or domestic. It's literally the same argument, four years apart. Anything inferred beyond that is a straw man so you can say "tHeY'rE NoT tHe SaMe!"

Exploring the president's and his staff's involvement in confirmed foreign interference and pressing charges where applicable (including possible impeachment and removal of a sitting president for said crimes possibly, had the investigation not been clearly neutered) is wholly different than lodging wild ass, unsupported claims about ballot rigging, which started months before they were even counted.

These two things are not the same, and frankly sifting thru your pile of sophomore level high school logical fallacies to find one you think may apply anytime someone brings up a point you can't justify is weak sauce, particularly when you don't even get the right fallacy attached.

Go ahead, hit me with that hunter biden cover up ignoratio elenchi now.

​

 

[32andBelow]

Cus don’t worry the pillow guy, Rudy, and the cyber ninjas will have this all sorted out soon. I always found it hilarious that trump supporters were so surprised he wasn’t more popular. The guy didn’t even get the most votes. How was it a surprisethat most people didn’t like him

 

[ATCJoe85]

I just wanted to call out the hilarity of people like you stereotyping others instead of just accepting that people can think even slightly different than you and aren't at the polar opposite of a spectrum.






Good lord. You two dropped these:

View attachment 6481

Both sides are/were arguing that election integrity was compromised and thus resulted in an illegitimate president, they just differ as to where that compromise came from, foreign or domestic. It's literally the same argument, four years apart. Anything inferred beyond that is a straw man so you can say "tHeY'rE NoT tHe SaMe!"



The claim was that election integrity was compromised and unfair due to unlawful interference (sound familiar?), and therefore Trump was "#notmypresident."





There were plenty of pundits/politicians that claimed Trump was an illegitimate president, which means he was elected fraudulently, and I found one calling for the possibility of Clinton to be installed instead:

One year on, Donald Trump is still an illegitimate president | Rebecca Solnit

It is unlikely that the presidential election will be overturned, but that is not an argument against the case that it should be

www.theguardian.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

Trump has called for a revote due to his fraud claims about the 2020 election, not a whisking of Biden out and him in instead.

Trump suggests election ‘revote’ and calls on Supreme Court to overturn result in bizarre Facebook video

‘If we are right about the fraud, Joe Biden can’t be president’

www.independent.co.uk

I can agree here.

"I love how you had to had "basically," because she sure didn't show up at Javitz on election night to concede."
Rough times. I was comparing to the guy who took two months, so I don't know how you even felt you had a legitimate criticism.

"Trump has called for a revote due to his fraud claims about the 2020 election, not a whisking of Biden out and him in instead."

Trump considered the insurrection act. His supporters basically begged for it. Not to mention that some of his more... devout.. followers are under the impression Biden gets whisked out today.

"I found one"
I found a thousand.

"I can agree here" and "just accepting that people can think even slightly different than you and aren't at the polar opposite of a spectrum"

Look, if you're the kind of guy that wants Biden out and a real conservative in (I.E, not Trump), if you're the kind of guy that's upset at foreign interference last time just like you're upset that states didn't follow their own laws this time, if you're the kind that has some vaccine skepticism and wants to wait for full FDA approval and doesn't approve of certain types of mandates.... Coolio. All that is within the realm of reason, all of that can be grounds for healthy debate/discussion.

I'm not under the impression that the vast portion of present day conservatives fit into that. You tell me if the polls don't adequately represent today's Republican party though.

The party is split amongst itself because there are the kind of people who support the Capitol breach Jan 6th, there are people who don't support it, and there are a whole other set of people who claim it wasn't actually what it was ("it was a tour" or "it was antifa dressed as Trump supporters")

At least you can argue with the first type, and have common ground with the second type, but I'm pretty sure the third type makes up a significant chunk of them. You can't change their minds or find common ground, they just stick to one story no matter what anyone anywhere says.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

Elections Official Accused of Helping Leak Data to QAnon Leader

The Stop the Steal-QAnon-MAGA-8chan singularity has been achieved in Colorado.

www.vice.com

ElEcTiOn InTeRfEReNcE JeR BeRdEn sToLe tHe eLeCtION aNd ThErEs PrOoF

 

[32andBelow]

Today is the day trump gets reinstated!!!!!!! MAGA!!!!!

Masks are back. Good job everyone

 

[ATCJoe85]

Where's that hazard pay thread again? Can I lawyer up, would there be a point?

Literally: this shit is so hazardous that we're mandating you take an Emergency Auth vaccine AND masking up. BTW, you're all gonna friggin die no matter what you do.

No, no, no, doesn't classify as a hazard for purposes of getting paid extra.

 

[Billybob]

Looks like masks are back on the menu boys

 

[32andBelow]

Where's that hazard pay thread again? Can I lawyer up, would there be a point?

Literally: this shit is so hazardous that we're mandating you take an Emergency Auth vaccine AND masking up. BTW, you're all gonna friggin die no matter what you do.

No, no, no, doesn't classify as a hazard for purposes of getting paid extra.

I can’t wait till the vaccine is fully approved next month. Then will you people shut the fuck up about it being experimental?

the NATCA email doesn’t say anything about the testing/vaccine part. Strange.

 

[Homsar]

Exploring the president's and his staff's involvement in confirmed foreign interference and pressing charges where applicable (including possible impeachment and removal of a sitting president for said crimes possibly, had the investigation not been clearly neutered) is wholly different than lodging wild ass, unsupported claims about ballot rigging, which started months before they were even counted.

These two things are not the same, and frankly sifting thru your pile of sophomore level high school logical fallacies to find one you think may apply anytime someone brings up a point you can't justify is weak sauce, particularly when you don't even get the right fallacy attached.

Go ahead, hit me with that hunter biden cover up ignoratio elenchi now.

​

Literally nothing you said invalidated my point. Well done. I’ll say it again: When you have to construct scenarios of your opponents to claim “iT’s NoT tHe SaMe,” you’re making a straw man. It’s not my fault that you can’t

"I love how you had to had "basically," because she sure didn't show up at Javitz on election night to concede."
Rough times. I was comparing to the guy who took two months, so I don't know how you even felt you had a legitimate criticism.

I would rather see Trump concede and focus on fixing election laws than continue to fight a losing battle. There’s more than enough evidence of shady stuff that went on during the election that should result in, but getting it overturned/forcing a redo is clearly not going to happen.

"Trump has called for a revote due to his fraud claims about the 2020 election, not a whisking of Biden out and him in instead."

Trump considered the insurrection act. His supporters basically begged for it. Not to mention that some of his more... devout.. followers are under the impression Biden gets whisked out today.

A non-sequi

"I found one"
I found a thousand.

A thousand examples of people calling for Trump’s removal and Clinton’s installing? I mean, thanks for backing up my point, I fuess

"I can agree here" and "just accepting that people can think even slightly different than you and aren't at the polar opposite of a spectrum"

Look, if you're the kind of guy that wants Biden out and a real conservative in (I.E, not Trump), if you're the kind of guy that's upset at foreign interference last time just like you're upset that states didn't follow their own laws this time, if you're the kind that has some vaccine skepticism and wants to wait for full FDA approval and doesn't approve of certain types of mandates.... Coolio. All that is within the realm of reason, all of that can be grounds for healthy debate/discussion.

I'm not under the impression that the vast portion of present day conservatives fit into that. You tell me if the polls don't adequately represent today's Republican party though.

It’s a tough call. I too believe it’s a case of the vocal minority over the more moderate majority, but we can see that on the Left as well. What’s worse, the vocal minority on both spectrums is pushing the parties as a whole to those fringes. While Democrats proudly stated “no one wants to take your guns” a decade ago, Beto gets onstage at a debate and proudly supports outright confiscation to a cheering crowd and no condemnation by anyone else on stage, or anyone after. Now that confiscation is actually on the table, people usually in the middle won’t ever consider voting for a Democrat.

The party is split amongst itself because there are the kind of people who support the Capitol breach Jan 6th, there are people who don't support it, and there are a whole other set of people who claim it wasn't actually what it was ("it was a tour" or "it was antifa dressed as Trump supporters")

There’s also another set of people who call it an attempted insurrection, a coup attempt, or other wild things, nevermind that the evidence nor criminal prosecutions don’t support such claims. It’s just another example of extremes on both sides setting the narrative, and moderates being srowned

At least you can argue with the first type, and have common ground with the second type, but I'm pretty sure the third type makes up a significant chunk of them. You can't change their minds or find common ground, they just stick to one story no matter what anyone anywhere says.

I still think it’s vocal minorities drowning out the majorities. I think the significant chunk lies in the middle, and a much smaller chunk is near the fringe

Masks are back. Good job everyone

Another white book reinstating maneuver supported by NATCA. Never mind that a growing number of medical experts say that herd immunity isn’t going to happen.

This better be Politifact’s lie of the year:

 

[32andBelow]

Literally nothing you said invalidated my point. Well done. I’ll say it again: When you have to construct scenarios of your opponents to claim “iT’s NoT tHe SaMe,” you’re making a straw man. It’s not my fault that you can’t



I would rather see Trump concede and focus on fixing election laws than continue to fight a losing battle. There’s more than enough evidence of shady stuff that went on during the election that should result in, but getting it overturned/forcing a redo is clearly not going to happen.



A non-sequi



A thousand examples of people calling for Trump’s removal and Clinton’s installing? I mean, thanks for backing up my point, I fuess



It’s a tough call. I too believe it’s a case of the vocal minority over the more moderate majority, but we can see that on the Left as well. What’s worse, the vocal minority on both spectrums is pushing the parties as a whole to those fringes. While Democrats proudly stated “no one wants to take your guns” a decade ago, Beto gets onstage at a debate and proudly supports outright confiscation to a cheering crowd and no condemnation by anyone else on stage, or anyone after. Now that confiscation is actually on the table, people usually in the middle won’t ever consider voting for a Democrat.



There’s also another set of people who call it an attempted insurrection, a coup attempt, or other wild things, nevermind that the evidence nor criminal prosecutions don’t support such claims. It’s just another example of extremes on both sides setting the narrative, and moderates being srowned




I still think it’s vocal minorities drowning out the majorities. I think the significant chunk lies in the middle, and a much smaller chunk is near the fringe



Another white book reinstating maneuver supported by NATCA. Never mind that a growing number of medical experts say that herd immunity isn’t going to happen.

This better be Politifact’s lie of the year:
View attachment 6484

The only lie is all the idiots that took their mask off without doing the vaxx part

 

[Homsar]

The only lie is all the idiots that took their mask off without doing the vaxx part

And for those who did do it, we got lied to. Why should I, or anyone, care what anyone else does?

 

[32andBelow]

And for those who did do it, we got lied to. Why should I, or anyone, care what anyone else does?

I agree that we should have to wear them… I’m all for just denying icu beds to them at this point but no ones is gonna go for that. So here we are with overcrowded hospitals again. I think the criteria should be linked to hospitalizations tho not cases. Cases mean nothing at this point