• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

List of attempts to overturn election

ashurbanipal said:
Out of the eight you list, only two were attempts to overturn the election results. Riots, protests, Russian hacking reports, etc. all have vanishingly little chance of overturning the election.
Click to expand...

Still they were intended to be attempts. So far none of them had any chance to be successful.
 
EvMetro said:
Defecating where one stands is lefty activity.
Click to expand...

The citizens of Santa Cruz, Kalifornia, are quite familiar with this. The Occupiers movement had 200 lbs of movement in public. So much so city officials had a massive steaming pile of it they had to declare a HazMat incident. P/U. But this isn't the first time leftists have shat on America.
 
EvMetro said:
Protests
Riots
Recounts
Wait for and pressure EC to overturn the election
Claim Russian hacking is why Trump won
Dossier-gate
Ranted and pouted
Demand invalidation of actual EC vote
Suggest martial law
Paid strike
Click to expand...

All fake news.

trumposters should be looking forward and learning how to say YES to each other on policy like REPLACE .
 
DamnYankee said:
The citizens of Santa Cruz, Kalifornia, are quite familiar with this. The Occupiers movement had 200 lbs of movement in public. So much so city officials had a massive steaming pile of it they had to declare a HazMat incident. P/U. But this isn't the first time leftists have shat on America.
Click to expand...

I grew up out in the country, and we had chickens that were free to roam. I noticed that they never cared if I was looking at them, or if there were other chickens present, they would just sh*t right there where they were standing. I was just a kid, but seeing how animals sh*t where they stand helped me to see a big difference between the conscience of animals vs humans. I always have that distinct difference in my mind, along with the literal picture in my mind of chickens sh+ting where they stand, and this has really helped me to accept lefties for what they are. You are quite correct that lefties sh*t where they stand in Santa Cruz and many big cities, but I also see them do it on political forums. The nine items on the list that this thread are about are the sh*t that lefties stand in, but they do not see anything wrong with it. It is squishing between their toes, but they see nothing wrong. They will sh*t while they are calling this a troll thread, and they will look you straight in the eyes while they are doing it.
 
EvMetro said:
Protests
Riots
Recounts
Wait for and pressure EC to overturn the election
Claim Russian hacking is why Trump won
Dossier-gate
Ranted and pouted
Demand invalidation of actual EC vote
Suggest martial law
Paid strike
Click to expand...

It's a frightening lot this insecure that now is commander in chief .
 
EvMetro said:
I grew up out in the country, and we had chickens that were free to roam. I noticed that they never cared if I was looking at them, or if there were other chickens present, they would just sh*t right there where they were standing. I was just a kid, but seeing how animals sh*t where they stand helped me to see a big difference between the conscience of animals vs humans. I always have that distinct difference in my mind, along with the literal picture in my mind of chickens sh+ting where they stand, and this has really helped me to accept lefties for what they are. You are quite correct that lefties sh*t where they stand in Santa Cruz and many big cities, but I also see them do it on political forums. The nine items on the list that this thread are about are the sh*t that lefties stand in, but they do not see anything wrong with it. It is squishing between their toes, but they see nothing wrong. They will sh*t while they are calling this a troll thread, and they will look you straight in the eyes while they are doing it.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO

The unnerving aspect of this whole thing is the left would use any one of the listed to actually overthrow the gov't if they could. So, what does it say for a people who would sh*t on our republic like that? Are we to call this good? Or evil?
 
DamnYankee said:
ROTFLMAO

The unnerving aspect of this whole thing is the left would use any one of the listed to actually overthrow the gov't if they could.
Click to expand...


Spot on. Ironically, this thread could get flushed before we ever get a lefty to answer to the truth that you just posted. That is what will NEVER be talked about. Trying to get them to discuss what you just posted is like trying to force a cat into a bath tub. It is an ugly fight that you can't win, and you need leather gloves if you even try. They will choose one of the items on my list of ways to evade: dodge, divert, invert, flush, censor, redefine, replace, or otherwise evade.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Still they were intended to be attempts. So far none of them had any chance to be successful.
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical of this view. Were there likely some pothead Bernie Bros somewhere who thought they could join two hundred other guys holding placards on a college campus somewhere who thought they might somehow start a revolution? Surely there's someone somewhere who is that delusional.

When Obama was elected, I'm sure there was also some tweaker crankhead in the hills of Missouri who thought he could make Obama's head explode via radio waves. But would that count as a serious attempt to assassinate Obama? Of course not.

Anyway, I doubt very seriously most protestors thought they would, by their actions, overturn the election. That would be a downright crazy view. Similarly, Rosie O'Donnell calling for martial law is not a serious attempt to overturn the election.

The recounts could possibly have done so--the vote counts were close enough that sufficiently sizable errors could have occurred. Persuading electors to vote differently might also work, though I think that would lead to some serious chaos had the EC not voted more or less in accord with the will of the people in their respective states. Actually, even though I really don't like Trump, I'd have sided with his supporters in opposing that kind of move.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I'm skeptical of this view. Were there likely some pothead Bernie Bros somewhere who thought they could join two hundred other guys holding placards on a college campus somewhere who thought they might somehow start a revolution? Surely there's someone somewhere who is that delusional.

When Obama was elected, I'm sure there was also some tweaker crankhead in the hills of Missouri who thought he could make Obama's head explode via radio waves. But would that count as a serious attempt to assassinate Obama? Of course not.

Anyway, I doubt very seriously most protestors thought they would, by their actions, overturn the election. That would be a downright crazy view. Similarly, Rosie O'Donnell calling for martial law is not a serious attempt to overturn the election.

The recounts could possibly have done so--the vote counts were close enough that sufficiently sizable errors could have occurred. Persuading electors to vote differently might also work, though I think that would lead to some serious chaos had the EC not voted more or less in accord with the will of the people in their respective states. Actually, even though I really don't like Trump, I'd have sided with his supporters in opposing that kind of move.
Click to expand...

An attempt is an attempt regardless of whether anybody seriously thinks it has a chance to succeed. And the motive could be something entirely different than what is stated--i.e. pretending that Trump's election should be invalidated when the true motive is to simply to make sure his life is made as miserable as possible and he is unable to govern.
 
AlbqOwl said:
An attempt is an attempt regardless of whether anybody seriously thinks it has a chance to succeed. And the motive could be something entirely different than what is stated--i.e. pretending that Trump's election should be invalidated when the true motive is to simply to make sure his life is made as miserable as possible and he is unable to govern.
Click to expand...

If this is how you are defining terms, this thread has sunk even lower than I ever thought possible.
I wonder, according to your accounting standards, how many on the Right attempted to end the Obama presidency by suggesting his assassination.
 
AlbqOwl said:
An attempt is an attempt regardless of whether anybody seriously thinks it has a chance to succeed.
Click to expand...

So, then, I have a right to kill someone who threatens to kill me by arranging flowers a certain way (assume this person is under the delusion that flower arranging is a deadly art)? After all, it's an attempt to kill me by your definition, and I have a right to kill someone who's attempting to kill me.

Clearly, something is wrong with that view. What appears to be wrong with it is that it's not really an attempt to kill me, because it would be almost impossible to kill someone that way. Of course, we could probably imagine some way that a flower arrangement could kill someone, but it would have to be a ridiculous and very unlikely scenario. Similarly, we could imagine some ways that a protest on a college campus could prevent Trump being sworn in, though it would again have to be a ridiculous and very unlikely scenario.

AlbqOwl said:
And the motive could be something entirely different than what is stated--i.e. pretending that Trump's election should be invalidated when the true motive is to simply to make sure his life is made as miserable as possible and he is unable to govern.
Click to expand...

I do think the protestors want to make it more difficult for Trump to govern, for the same reason that conservatives wanted to make it difficult for Obama to govern. Of course, they have a right to protest. As I recall, there were protests after Obama was elected the first time. Fox news anchors got really fired up about the fact that Roberts flubbed the lines of the oath, and had to re-administer it in the hallway in the White House. I remember watching them for three days talking about how that might form the basis of a legal challenge to Obama's presidency, since at the appointed time he hadn't technically taken the right oath (despite the fact that he took the right oath half an hour later). Folks on both sides engage in this kind of idiocy--and I agree it's mostly idiocy.
 
ashurbanipal said:
So, then, I have a right to kill someone who threatens to kill me by arranging flowers a certain way (assume this person is under the delusion that flower arranging is a deadly art)? After all, it's an attempt to kill me by your definition, and I have a right to kill someone who's attempting to kill me.

Clearly, something is wrong with that view. What appears to be wrong with it is that it's not really an attempt to kill me, because it would be almost impossible to kill someone that way. Of course, we could probably imagine some way that a flower arrangement could kill someone, but it would have to be a ridiculous and very unlikely scenario. Similarly, we could imagine some ways that a protest on a college campus could prevent Trump being sworn in, though it would again have to be a ridiculous and very unlikely scenario.



I do think the protestors want to make it more difficult for Trump to govern, for the same reason that conservatives wanted to make it difficult for Obama to govern. Of course, they have a right to protest. As I recall, there were protests after Obama was elected the first time. Fox news anchors got really fired up about the fact that Roberts flubbed the lines of the oath, and had to re-administer it in the hallway in the White House. I remember watching them for three days talking about how that might form the basis of a legal challenge to Obama's presidency, since at the appointed time he hadn't technically taken the right oath (despite the fact that he took the right oath half an hour later). Folks on both sides engage in this kind of idiocy--and I agree it's mostly idiocy.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I simply do not recall any mobs of conservatives taking to the streets to vandalize, terrorize, commit arson, loot, destroy, obstruct. Certainly not in the last 20 years or so. Perhaps you can find some instances of that in recent years, but I don't recall any. You can find photos of people supposedly insulting Obama or whatever on the left, but it has been our experience here in Albuquerque that those are surely almost all, if not all, leftists posing as protesters for the benefit of the media cameras.

As for your first comment here, that is one of those non sequitur, absurd straw man deflections from the point that is being made.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I'm sorry, but I simply do not recall any mobs of conservatives taking to the streets to vandalize, terrorize, commit arson, loot, destroy, obstruct.
Click to expand...

Obama election spurs race threats, crimes - US news - Life - Race & ethnicity | NBC News

Anyway, I'm not sure I get your point. I know there were some protestors who set fires and vandalized some property. It seems comparable screwiness happened eight years ago.

AlbqOwl said:
Certainly not in the last 20 years or so. Perhaps you can find some instances of that in recent years, but I don't recall any. You can find photos of people supposedly insulting Obama or whatever on the left, but it has been our experience here in Albuquerque that those are surely almost all, if not all, leftists posing as protesters for the benefit of the media cameras.
Click to expand...

That's a claim that would require a great deal of evidence to back up. Do you understand how unlikely that is? How unlikely it would be that literally all instances (or even the vast majority) of instances of political violence are committed by one group of people, while another is entirely, or almost entirely, blameless? Much more likely that you're in the grip of in-group bias. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism

Leftists do it too. Everyone does. I try to correct for it in my thinking. I invite you to consider carefully and do the same.

AlbqOwl said:
As for your first comment here, that is one of those non sequitur, absurd straw man deflections from the point that is being made.
Click to expand...

You wrote:

AlbqOwl said:
An attempt is an attempt regardless of whether anybody seriously thinks it has a chance to succeed.
Click to expand...

Presumably, on your view, what makes something an attempt is the intent of the person making that attempt. What else could it be? You've said it isn't whether anyone thinks the action might succeed--and from this and the context of the conversation so far, we can infer that the actual chances of success are also irrelevant. Intent is all that is left. So what I said follows directly from your position, and is not a straw man.

The only sensible alternative that I see is my analysis, which is that chance of success matters. It would be no attempt to, say, blow up Japan by naming my goldfish Alvin, because so naming my goldfish could have nothing to do with whether Japan is blown up, whatever my intentions might be.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Obama election spurs race threats, crimes - US news - Life - Race & ethnicity | NBC News

Anyway, I'm not sure I get your point. I know there were some protestors who set fires and vandalized some property. It seems comparable screwiness happened eight years ago.



That's a claim that would require a great deal of evidence to back up. Do you understand how unlikely that is? How unlikely it would be that literally all instances (or even the vast majority) of instances of political violence are committed by one group of people, while another is entirely, or almost entirely, blameless? Much more likely that you're in the grip of in-group bias. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism

Leftists do it too. Everyone does. I try to correct for it in my thinking. I invite you to consider carefully and do the same.



You wrote:



Presumably, on your view, what makes something an attempt is the intent of the person making that attempt. What else could it be? You've said it isn't whether anyone thinks the action might succeed--and from this and the context of the conversation so far, we can infer that the actual chances of success are also irrelevant. Intent is all that is left. So what I said follows directly from your position, and is not a straw man.

The only sensible alternative that I see is my analysis, which is that chance of success matters. It would be no attempt to, say, blow up Japan by naming my goldfish Alvin, because so naming my goldfish could have nothing to do with whether Japan is blown up, whatever my intentions might be.
Click to expand...

I think your reading comprehension needs a little work as you are reading a whole bunch into a simple statement that simply is not there.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I think your reading comprehension needs a little work as you are reading a whole bunch into a simple statement that simply is not there.
Click to expand...

I took the GRE just for fun last year and made perfect scores on the language section and on the analytic section. So no, I don't think I need any help with reading comprehension. What I wrote is a logical consequence of what you wrote. If you find what I wrote weird or absurd, you should look to your own position, as, if you are committed to what you wrote, you must also be committed to the consequences I pointed out. Either that, or you're actually confused about what you believe...which wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Most people are.
 
NIMBY said:
All fake news.

trumposters should be looking forward and learning how to say YES to each other on policy like REPLACE .
Click to expand...

Trump is already set to deal with "REPLACE". Come Inauguration Day, a whole lot of swamp dwellers will be replaced.
 
EvMetro said:
I want to compile a list of all the things that lefties have done in attempt to overturn the election that they lost. I will name a few, but I ask others to chip in and post the ones that I have missed.

Protests
Riots
Recounts
Wait for and pressure EC to overturn the election
Claim Russian hacking is why Trump won
Dossier-gate

Please add any that I have missed!
Click to expand...

The last two are not attempts to overturn the election, and both are still to be addressed fully by Congress and the Intelligence Community, they are not going away because of the seriousness of the acts. Oh, and yes, the last one could still end up with trump being walked out the door after he is sworn in and the VP assuming power.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I took the GRE just for fun last year and made perfect scores on the language section and on the analytic section. So no, I don't think I need any help with reading comprehension. What I wrote is a logical consequence of what you wrote. If you find what I wrote weird or absurd, you should look to your own position, as, if you are committed to what you wrote, you must also be committed to the consequences I pointed out. Either that, or you're actually confused about what you believe...which wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Most people are.
Click to expand...

I will stand by what I wrote and will not agree to dishonest interpretations imposed by somebody who wants what I wrote to be something I didn't write.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I'm skeptical of this view. Were there likely some pothead Bernie Bros somewhere who thought they could join two hundred other guys holding placards on a college campus somewhere who thought they might somehow start a revolution? Surely there's someone somewhere who is that delusional.

When Obama was elected, I'm sure there was also some tweaker crankhead in the hills of Missouri who thought he could make Obama's head explode via radio waves. But would that count as a serious attempt to assassinate Obama? Of course not.

Anyway, I doubt very seriously most protestors thought they would, by their actions, overturn the election. That would be a downright crazy view. Similarly, Rosie O'Donnell calling for martial law is not a serious attempt to overturn the election.

The recounts could possibly have done so--the vote counts were close enough that sufficiently sizable errors could have occurred. Persuading electors to vote differently might also work, though I think that would lead to some serious chaos had the EC not voted more or less in accord with the will of the people in their respective states. Actually, even though I really don't like Trump, I'd have sided with his supporters in opposing that kind of move.
Click to expand...

All of the items on the list have an equal value, since none of them had any chance of working. Our country's founders did a pretty good job setting things up. The thought of any one of those items getting more traction over another is ridiculous.
 
Casper said:
The last two are not attempts to overturn the election, and both are still to be addressed fully by Congress and the Intelligence Community, they are not going away because of the seriousness of the acts. Oh, and yes, the last one could still end up with trump being walked out the door after he is sworn in and the VP assuming power.
Click to expand...

Give up, it's over. Trump won. Hillary lost. When the next lefty attempt happens, you will dismiss those last two items just as quickly as you dismissed the other items on that list.
 
EvMetro said:
Give up, it's over. Trump won. Hillary lost. When the next lefty attempt happens, you will dismiss those last two items just as quickly as you dismissed the other items on that list.
Click to expand...

Well then, aren't you the little whiner. Hey there, Buckaroo, I did not vote for or support Hillary. But, yes, You Are Dismissed.
 
Casper said:
Well then, aren't you the little whiner. Hey there, Buckaroo, I did not vote for or support Hillary. But, yes, You Are Dismissed.
Click to expand...

This forum is loaded with the guys who inspired my signature. There is something about your posts that tells me you omitted something very relevant. I may be wrong here, but I think you may have omitted that you did to actively block Hillary's plan to assemble a lefty scotus.
 
EvMetro said:
This forum is loaded with the guys who inspired my signature. There is something about your posts that tells me you omitted something very relevant. I may be wrong here, but I think you may have omitted that you did to actively block Hillary's plan to assemble a lefty scotus.
Click to expand...
First off I have no idea what you are even yammering about, umm, hillary lost, I did not support her, and unless one is elected they have little to say about the scotus.
Secondly, your signature means squat to me, I turned off viewing peoples sigs, not worth the bandwidth, you were saying?
 
Casper said:
First off I have no idea what you are even yammering about, umm, hillary lost, I did not support her, and unless one is elected they have little to say about the scotus.
Secondly, your signature means squat to me, I turned off viewing peoples sigs, not worth the bandwidth, you were saying?
Click to expand...

You did the lefty dodge in post 47. Look what you quoted, and then look what you wrote, and you will see what you omitted. That is the lefty dodge. Look in post 48 and see where I suspected that you did not actively block Hillary. You never actually dispute this. Onto post 49, and all you can do is say you did not vote for Hillary, as if that alone means you did not support her. You know good and we'll what I am talking about. You are a lefty, which is one of the reasons why you didn't watch the Trump press conference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom