LogFAQs > #953936402

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	How come it was anti-science to not follow CDC guidelines a year ago but
adjl 05/15/21 2:23:52 PM #66:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Looking back through Mead's posts the subject was "politicians that want people to believe the election was stolen?" This is not the same as it being unfair as Mead later changed it to, nor is discussion of the 2016 election a reflection on all elections. Trump may have wanted people to believe an aspect of that election was stolen or a different election was stolen. But we're discussing something else. I really don't see much point in creating a logical distinction between "Trump openly lied about a part of the 2016 election being stolen with no basis because he couldn't handle losing" and "Trump openly lied about the 2020 election being stolen with no basis because he couldn't handle losing." The obsessive, infantile narcissism is identical in both cases, as is the commitment to undermining the fair democratic process with abject falsehoods. Quite simply, in Trump's eyes, the 2016 election was also stolen from him, he just believes that he was amazing enough and inspired such devotion among his followers that he still managed to attain an electoral victory despite that theft. Then, from his perspective, the thieves just worked harder to take the actual victory away from him in 2020. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Unless you put it through Google translate into 4 different languages and back into English, then no, that's not what you're reading. Oh, I didn't know Google added Crackpot to Reality translation capabilities. That's new. I'll have to keep that in mind to save myself some effort next time I read such nonsense. The judges did not "shirk their duties." They were presented with cases whose entire basis was that Trump said something illegal must have happened, they asked the lawyers responsible if there was any actual evidence, and the lawyers said there was not because actual perjury carries much more significant consequences than lying outside of court. The judges did not accept the cases because there were no cases. Period. If a judge were presented with significant evidence and still rejected the case? Then you might have a basis for claiming that they shirked their duties. But that's not at all what happened, so you shouldn't believe that that's what happened. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:953936402] in How come i... [t:79459370]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Looking back through Mead's posts the subject was "politicians that want people to believe the election was stolen?" This is not the same as it being unfair as Mead later changed it to, nor is discussion of the 2016 election a reflection on all elections. Trump may have wanted people to believe an aspect of that election was stolen or a different election was stolen. But we're discussing something else.</quote> I really don't see much point in creating a logical distinction between "Trump openly lied about a part of the 2016 election being stolen with no basis because he couldn't handle losing" and "Trump openly lied about the 2020 election being stolen with no basis because he couldn't handle losing." The obsessive, infantile narcissism is identical in both cases, as is the commitment to undermining the fair democratic process with abject falsehoods. Quite simply, in Trump's eyes, the 2016 election was also stolen from him, he just believes that he was amazing enough and inspired such devotion among his followers that he still managed to attain an electoral victory despite that theft. Then, from his perspective, the thieves just worked harder to take the actual victory away from him in 2020. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Unless you put it through Google translate into 4 different languages and back into English, then no, that's not what you're reading.</quote> Oh, I didn't know Google added Crackpot to Reality translation capabilities. That's new. I'll have to keep that in mind to save myself some effort next time I read such nonsense. The judges did not "shirk their duties." They were presented with cases whose entire basis was that Trump said something illegal must have happened, they asked the lawyers responsible if there was any actual evidence, and the lawyers said there was not because actual perjury carries much more significant consequences than lying outside of court. The judges did not accept the cases because there were no cases. Period. If a judge were presented with significant evidence and still rejected the case? Then you might have a basis for claiming that they shirked their duties. But that's not at all what happened, so you shouldn't believe that that's what happened. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1