Biden Losing It

[arewethereyet]

So, are we talking about the 2016 or the 2020 election?

From what I have been reading here she denies the outcome of the 2016 election.  Which has fuck all to do with the 2020 election.

Denying an election is denying an election. Doesn't matter what year it was. Undermining democracy and the democratic process and all.

Reread the question and answer that.

[Irreligious Atheist]

So you'd be fine with someone who posted that they think Trump won the 2020 election being the Press Secretary of the next Repub administration, and you don't think that type of disinformation should disqualify them? As long as you're consistent, but damn, that's surprising. Are you ok with her shooting puppies too? As long as it's in her own time, right? Doesn't impact her reading talking points, right

Nope believing in THE BIG LIE instantly disqualifies them from any government office. Karine Jean-Pierrehe's belief about 2016 is a personal opinion. THE BIG LIE is a political rallying cry for insane anti-democratic forces and insurrectionists and having someone in that position gives those loons credibility they shouldn't have. Also committing animal abuse and holding an opinion are two different things.

Ok. What if she said, as an adult, that dog fighting is awesome and that Michael Vick is a cool guy for participating in said activities. Would that opinion disqualify her for the job? No laws have been broken. It's just a personal opinion, right? No. That's silly, and you know it, so quit it. I'm really surprised that you're sitting here saying that you are fine with election deniers being in such positions. Yes, the Trump election denials were even worse, but so many people on the other side of the aisle questioning the results of the 2016 election was also a pretty decent blow to trust in the electoral system and the democratic process, so let's not act like that all had zero impact.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Denying an election is denying an election. Doesn't matter what year it was. Undermining democracy and the democratic process and all.

Reread the question and answer that.

And no one said the 2016 election has anything to do with the 2020 election. The point is, she undermined the democratic process. Doesn't matter if she did it 2 years ago or 6 years ago. Either is still very recent.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Ok. What if she said, as an adult, that dog fighting is awesome and that Michael Vick is a cool guy for participating in said activities. Would that opinion disqualify her for the job? No laws have been broken. It's just a personal opinion, right? No. That's silly, and you know it, so quit it. I'm really surprised that you're sitting here saying that you are fine with election deniers being in such positions. Yes, the Trump election denials were even worse, but so many people on the other side of the aisle questioning the results of the 2016 election was also a pretty decent blow to trust in the electoral system and the democratic process, so let's not act like that all had zero impact.

Advocating animal cruelty while abhorrent is not a disqualifier nor is believing the 2016 election being stolen as that personal opinion. Being a member of the BIG LIE movement a dangerous anti-democratic group should be as it lends that group credibility. The overall impact of questioning 2016 was minor at best and didn't create a radical anti-democratic movement  on a scale anywhere even remotely on par with the BIG LIE so don't even try to compare the two. They are apples and oranges...

[The Architect Of Fate]

Reread the question and answer that.

And no one said the 2016 election has anything to do with the 2020 election. The point is, she undermined the democratic process. Doesn't matter if she did it 2 years ago or 6 years ago. Either is still very recent.

No, she didn't she stated an opinion. This sad attempt to compare her to the BIG LIARS is hilarious. The brain rot of Bothsidesism strikes again.

[Rev. Rye]

So, are we talking about the 2016 or the 2020 election?

From what I have been reading here she denies the outcome of the 2016 election.  Which has fuck all to do with the 2020 election.

Denying an election is denying an election. Doesn't matter what year it was. Undermining democracy and the democratic process and all.

There’s different issues at play in each election.

2016, Trump managed to win despite having 2,868,686 fewer votes than Hilary Clinton because the US has a bullshit system called the Electoral College, which, at this point, seems to exist solely to give the Republican Presidential nominee the White House so he doesn’t have to win the popular vote. This (at least the part where Trump won despite having fewer votes than his opponents) is an undeniable fact. Though given that the most reasonable rationale I’ve heard for keeping an electoral college (protecting the American People from themselves if they’re dumb enough to elect a tyrant) failed to pan out when it was most needed, and that, of the three Presidential Elections since I was born that the Republicans won, they only took the popular vote in 2004, it’s a reasonable extrapolation.

2020, Joe Biden wins the Presidential Election with the most votes of any Presidential Candidate in history. Donald Trump and his sycophants claim the election was rigged, and none of his arguments to support this claim hold up to any scrutiny. I think the one time he actually succeeded in the courts, he got a couple dozen votes in Pennsylvania to flip. This was a strategy that he actually hinted at years in advance. Hell, he’s outright stated that he wants to be in power for the rest of his life. With this in mind, it’s hard to imagine this election denial as anything but a ploy to just keep Trump in power as long as possible. Especially after he cajoled his followers into storming the Capitol on the day Congress was to certify the vote count.

Edit: oh, you’re talking about Russia’s involvement in the election. That’s even more well-documented. At least, if you’re not deranged enough to read something like “ As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out asocial media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” And think “it’s totally debunked.”

[Irreligious Atheist]

And no one said the 2016 election has anything to do with the 2020 election. The point is, she undermined the democratic process. Doesn't matter if she did it 2 years ago or 6 years ago. Either is still very recent.

No, she didn't she stated an opinion. This sad attempt to compare her to the BIG LIARS is hilarious. The brain rot of Bothsidesism strikes again.

What you are doing is worse than bothsidesism. You are saying that your side is completely fine for denying elections and the other side are fascists for doing the same. And now you admit to being completely fine with the hypothetical of the Press Secretary openly supporting animal cruelty AKA dog fighting on a social media platform. Speechless. I just had to give you enough room and you hung yourself. At least you're being honest. I can at least respect the honesty, but we're learning some wild things today about you, Helios. Jeez.

[The Architect Of Fate]

What you are doing is worse than bothsidesism. You are saying that your side is completely fine for denying elections and the other side are fascists for doing the same. And now you admit to being completely fine with the hypothetical of the Press Secretary openly supporting animal cruelty AKA dog fighting on a social media platform. Speechless. I just had to give you enough room and you hung yourself. At least you're being honest. I can at least respect the honesty, but we're learning some wild things today about you, Helios. Jeez.

I'm saying one person wrote a tweet about an opinion on an election  that in no way has anything to do with their job vs a fascist political movement that wants to end democracy as we know it. I have said nothing controversial nor incorrect and the only her who has is you nutter because think these are in any way the same thing 

[The Architect Of Fate]

Denying an election is denying an election. Doesn't matter what year it was. Undermining democracy and the democratic process and all.

There’s different issues at play in each election.

2016, Trump managed to win despite having 2,868,686 fewer votes than Hilary Clinton because the US has a bullshit system called the Electoral College, which, at this point, seems to exist solely to give the Republican Presidential nominee the White House so he doesn’t have to win the popular vote. This (at least the part where Trump won despite having fewer votes than his opponents) is an undeniable fact. Though given that the most reasonable rationale I’ve heard for keeping an electoral college (protecting the American People from themselves if they’re dumb enough to elect a tyrant) failed to pan out when it was most needed, and that, of the three Presidential Elections since I was born that the Republicans won, they only took the popular vote in 2004, it’s a reasonable extrapolation.

2020, Joe Biden wins the Presidential Election with the most votes of any Presidential Candidate in history. Donald Trump and his sycophants claim the election was rigged, and none of his arguments to support this claim hold up to any scrutiny. I think the one time he actually succeeded in the courts, he got a couple dozen votes in Pennsylvania to flip. This was a strategy that he actually hinted at years in advance. Hell, he’s outright stated that he wants to be in power for the rest of his life. With this in mind, it’s hard to imagine this election denial as anything but a ploy to just keep Trump in power as long as possible. Especially after he cajoled his followers into storming the Capitol on the day Congress was to certify the vote count.

Edit: oh, you’re talking about Russia’s involvement in the election. That’s even more well-documented. At least, if you’re not deranged enough to read something like “ As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out asocial media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” And think “it’s totally debunked.”

Good points actually

[Irreligious Atheist]

What you are doing is worse than bothsidesism. You are saying that your side is completely fine for denying elections and the other side are fascists for doing the same. And now you admit to being completely fine with the hypothetical of the Press Secretary openly supporting animal cruelty AKA dog fighting on a social media platform. Speechless. I just had to give you enough room and you hung yourself. At least you're being honest. I can at least respect the honesty, but we're learning some wild things today about you, Helios. Jeez.

I'm saying one person wrote a tweet about an opinion on an election  that in no way has anything to do with their job vs a fascist political movement that wants to end democracy as we know it. I have said nothing controversial nor incorrect and the only her who has is you nutter because think these are in any way the same thing 

Yes, attempted murder is not as bad as actual murder, but we still punish both acts and they are both serious acts. If it makes me a nutter to think that someone posting on twitter that dog fighting is awesome should probably disqualify them from representing the leader of the free world, then I'll be a proud nutter. The depths you will sink to to defend a propagandist who's job is to lie. You have commitment. I'll give you that at least, but wow.