The Post-Trump World

[AsherO]

“Civil disobedience” is the liberal MO, riots are allowed as long as it furthers their agenda, simple voter fraud to defeat literally Hitler is a piece of cake for them. Still I don’t think any states are close enough that it will matter.

Please stop with the hyperbole, these are peaceful protests.

/s

[Lurker]

I'm not understanding why this conversation took this turn. If there was fraud, would that justify armed militia taking to the streets to enforce whatever their version of fairness is? Taking the law into your own hands destroys the system we have in place. It is imperfect, but anarchy is not the answer.

There was fraud this year. There is fraud every year. Maybe a little more this year than usual, given the circumstances. But don't pretend it only happened on one side and not the other. By all means, call it out and do whatever you can to make the system better. Excusing potential violence is a dangerous road, though.

Back to the initial point, there is no armed right-wing militia taking over the streets. I don't think there will be. If/when there is, @PlatinumGuy can take a bow and do the I-told-you-so tour. Til then, there's nothing to talk about.

[CountValentine]

I'm 100% sure people with more animosity towards a specific candidate didn't hesitate to submit both.

You are wrong and that is a fact!!!

[Mordyk]

You are wrong and that is a fact!!!

so you are saying no voter fraud? are you kidding?

are you saying there aren't any people that would double vote? or submit a vote for a deceased relative?

[CountValentine]

Fraud should bother you even if it isn't leaning in any specific direction, it erodes your trust in the entire system/process.

How about when the president constantly claims fraud when there is none? What does that do for the trust of the system?

[CountValentine]

so you are saying no voter fraud? are you kidding?

are you saying there aren't any people that would double vote? or submit a vote for a deceased relative?

You made a point of saying "100%" and I personally know that is wrong.

[Lurker]

You made a point of saying "100%" and I personally know that is wrong.

He didn't say 100% of people. He said he's 100% sure that some people committed fraud. You agree with that statement.

[CountValentine]

He didn't say 100% of people. He said he's 100% sure that some people committed fraud. You agree with that statement.

The spin is unbelievable around here but is expected when it comes to my posts. 

I'm 100% sure people with more animosity towards a specific candidate didn't hesitate to submit both.

[Lurker]

The spin is unbelievable around here but is expected when it comes to my posts. 

I see why you think he meant 100% of people with more animosity didn't hesitate to commit fraud. I didn't read it that way, and I'm sure that's not how it was intended. No spin necessary.

[aygart]

You know better.

Based on recent comments this is either untrue or biases are getting in the way between what he knows and what he says.

[CountValentine]

I see why you think he meant 100% of people with more animosity didn't hesitate to commit fraud. I didn't read it that way, and I'm sure that's not how it was intended. No spin necessary.

You can read it any way you want. You can say it wasn't intended that way. Or you can try and spin it anyway you want but that doesn't change the facts. This is what you and others do all the time when I post. There are plenty of my posts to attack for not being correct. But when you troll my posts and attack correct ones you just reinforce your picture. All we need now is @aygart to jump in out of nowhere.

[Mordyk]

You made a point of saying "100%" and I personally know that is wrong.

i said 100% sure that people would, not 100% of the people would

[Lurker]

You can read it any way you want. You can say it wasn't intended that way. Or you can try and spin it anyway you want but that doesn't change the facts. This is what you and others do all the time when I post. There are plenty of my posts to attack for not being correct. But when you troll my posts and attack correct ones you just reinforce your picture. All we need now is @aygart to jump in out of nowhere.

I attack incorrect posts. You often word things in ways that can be misunderstood, and when you clarify, I don't double down. You want to be a butthurt victim, by all means, go ahead. You don't get treated any differently than anyone else here. Controversial or ambiguous statements will get attacked. I make them and expect the backlash. I don't know why you think you deserve special treatment.

[aygart]

i said 100% sure that people would, not 100% of the people would

100% sure that there exist people who would commit fraud? Is anyone arguing about that? is that what you meant to say?

[CountValentine]

I attack incorrect posts. You often word things in ways that can be misunderstood, and when you clarify, I don't double down. You want to be a butthurt victim, by all means, go ahead. You don't get treated any differently than anyone else here. Controversial or ambiguous statements will get attacked. I make them and expect the backlash. I don't know why you think you deserve special treatment.

I don't want special treatment. The treatment is expected. I would like you take your blinders off.

[Lurker]

I don't want special treatment. The treatment is expected. I would like you take your blinders off.

Pot, kettle.

[aygart]

I see why you think he meant 100% of people with more animosity didn't hesitate to commit fraud. I didn't read it that way, and I'm sure that's not how it was intended. No spin necessary.

Even without reading it as 100% it is ridiculous.

[Mordyk]

100% sure that there exist people who would commit fraud? Is anyone arguing about that? is that what you meant to say?

obviously.  if you are reading my words so deeply since I wrote that I didn't commit fraud doesn't that show that not 100% of people committed fraud. why twist my words?

[CountValentine]

Pot, kettle.

Except we have thousands of pots and only one kettle. Blinders, blinders, blinders. 

[CountValentine]

Can we all agree somethings are not going to change in a post-Trump world?