1
gregariousbarbarian 1 point ago +1 / -0

You should really google the definition of "disingenuous" because you repeatedly use it incorrectly.

When I said "there was no precedent" regarding the FBI searching Trump's home, I was being literal and not talking about "unprecedented things"

But you were - I said there was no precedent for suing and winning a case against ballot harvesters. Those challenges were rejected. Your response was "but here's an example of something unprecedented happening!" You saw the word "unprecedented" and your low IQ, shiny-object distracted mind raced towards what happened to Trump instead of responding to my contention.

My point was that a BAN on ballot harvesting wouldn't matter to the Democrats because they would still continue to do it. Do you seriously believe that they only started doing after they legalized it?

Yes. Unless your argument is that the Democrats were able to win elections via ballot harvesting and then fought to legalize it so that their opponents, who were not abusing the practice, could do it without legal repercussion.

Again, you're deliberately missing the point. There is no material difference in the acts committed nor in the laws that said acts were said to fall under. Depsite this, both men were treated differently as a clear, evident incident of court political bias. Did not Biden state that he was interested in pursuing Federal charges against Rittenhouse? Why has Biden not made the same statements against the other guy?

Lmao @ "there were no material differences in these two disparate cases!" I've already explained why there were, and the fact that you're referencing Biden's statements proves that you simply did not read or comprehend what I said: the courts are not the same as comments made by partisan hacks, which includes Joe Biden.

No one gives a fuck that he was found guilty you moron.

Your argument was that the legal system treats Republicans and Democrats differently. My response was that Jussie was found guilty, which would not happen if the legal system was as easily manipulated as you contend. Your disagreement was with how Jussie was sentenced, which is in the hands of the jury.

Nevermind that he was only sentenced to 150 days in jail when one of the five felonies he was convicted of carried a max sentence of 3 years

You literally prove my point here - your disagreement is that the jury did not sentence him to the max.

Again, wrong. Out of the 92 cases on this matter, 41 were dimissed without an evidentiary hearing. https://election-integrity.info/

I don't think your link corroborates this. If your claim is actually true (and maybe you should substantiate it better if it is), why were those cases dismissed?

1
gregariousbarbarian 1 point ago +1 / -0

Irrelevant. There was no precedent for the FBI searching a former President's private home for vague documents of an unspecified nature, and yet here we are.

"There was no precedent for this other thing so..." No. We're not debating whether or not unprecedented things happen, we're debating whether or not Dems would legally challenge Republicans on the issue of ballot harvesting. I said there was no precedent because when Republicans made that challenge against Dems, it was rejected. Your argument would only make sense if Republicans sought a warrant to raid a former ex-President on the same grounds the FBI raided Trump and were denied. Republicans never did this, so your comparison is bad.

Again, irrelevant. They do not care about the law and will continue to do it anyway.

Huh? The ballot harvesting they engaged in was LEGAL because of legislation rammed through during the covid "emergency." Democrats would not sue to make those procedures illegal because they overwhelmingly benefit from them. Even if Republicans figured out how to abuse those same laws.

Again, irrelevant. See above.

Yeah, your "above" contention is highly flawed, so no, not irrelevant.

That is entirely bullshit. Why was Kyle Rittenhouse held on a $1 million bond for defending himself when the guy that murdered a teenager because the teenager was a "MAGA Republican extremist" was held on a much cheaper bond and is now back out in the rest of society?

Different states, different laws, different prosecutorial attitudes. We're debating legal challenges that would ultimately end up in front of the Supreme Court, for which there is established case law, that would be argued by the most high powered attorneys in the country.

Why is Jussie Smolllet not in prison for committing a clear hate crime against white people?

Jussie Smollett was found guilty - you are disagreeing with his sentencing, which is decided upon by the jury. Also, this is not even in the same universe as a lawsuit spanning multiple states for election infractions. Apples and oranges are more similar.

Why were numerous 2020 election cases brought by Republicans/conservatives/etc. not allowed to have an evidentiary hearing? Sure, some of them were making demands that weren't exactly rational (i.e. the case Trump's campaign brought up in Wisconsin where they demanded that all ballots counted for "indefinitely confined persons" be thrown out), but it sounds to me like the courts in these cases simply avoided the matter all together by dismissing them based on a clear political bias.

They were - the Republicans could not prove that ballots were being manufactured or voting machine totals were actually switched. They could prove that ballots were being harvested (a la 2000 Mules), but as I said earlier, this was made legal by the "emergency" legislation passed by many state governments that started mailing out absentee ballots to anyone and everyone which did not happen prior to 2020. And again, for this argument to make sense in the context of our disagreement, you would need to show me an instance where Dems alleged cheating and a court ruled in their favor. Florida 2000 disproves this. Ohio 2004 disproves this. Even the election challenges made by the Clinton campaign after Trump won in 2016 disprove this.

1
gregariousbarbarian 1 point ago +1 / -0

Rules for thee and not for me.

More like rules enforced for thee and not enforced for me. Did you see the GOP clamoring to imprison or levy charges against the BLMers that stormed the capitol in 2018 or whatever? Nope, and therefore nothing happened to them.

Assuming the GOP uses ballot harvesting to gain power, the only question is if they have the temerity to enforce the rules against their political opponents. That remains to be seen, but their lack of will to do so is not an argument against using the LEGAL mechanisms that Democrats exploit to win.

1
gregariousbarbarian 1 point ago +1 / -0

how will you enforce the ban when every position is held by someone who did it to get there or wants to do it for their own side to win more easily?

What? How will you enforce a ban on something for which a ban does not yet exist? Just like any other law is enforced.

Unless you assume that by ballot harvesting you could win ALL necessary positions to do so. In that case, why would you give up a proven, massively effective strategy in order to maybe win in a more noble way in the future?

I said this in my original comment. Ballot harvesting is necessary just to be competitive with Dems. The rationale is pretty simple: we exploit the rules our enemies use to win, we gain power, we ban those rules, it hurts them more than it hurts us. If the GOP harvests 100k ballots and Dems harvest 500k ballots and the GOP wins by 50k ballots, do you think the GOP will not want to ban ballot harvesting?

2
gregariousbarbarian 2 points ago +2 / -0

Cool. So first of all, there is no precedent for this. When the GOP tried their damndest to go after Dem ballot harvesters, they got nowhere.

And it also puts the Dems in a bad position because either:

a) They win, outlawing their own ballot harvesting strategy or

b) They lose, giving the GOP plenty of ammo to actually ban the practice when they do take power because it's now a "bi-partisan" issue.

However the reality is they would not dare sue the GOP for doing exactly what they're doing now. Before you say "but the courts treat Republicans different than Democrats!" no, they don't. The media does. Partisan politicos do. But our legal system is not so easily manipulated and the Dems know that if they create a precedent to ban their secret weapon, they are fucked.

1
gregariousbarbarian 1 point ago +2 / -1

Good. The boomers ushered in our current political order, they own this.

14
gregariousbarbarian 14 points ago +14 / -0

What do you mean, inane purity tests and pissing contests don't stop woke totalitarians?

4
gregariousbarbarian 4 points ago +4 / -0

The irony is that "science" is a repudiation of everything they believe. It is to assert that an objective reality exists and can be understood better through a process of examination that is inherently discriminatory, discarding theories that don't align with Truth (as best we understand it).

176
gregariousbarbarian 176 points ago +176 / -0

The left doesn't want black people to have guns or fathers.

2
gregariousbarbarian 2 points ago +2 / -0

You think any of this makes a difference.

Sam Harris said even if Hunter Biden had CP on his computer, it was right for the media to bury it. So you'll never convince the enemy class.

And as for the rest? These are mindless, lowest common denominators. They don't have a coherent morality or sophisticated grasp on politics, they just want to be told how to be "good." That's why the "current thing" narrative and relentless "good guy/bad guy" dichotomization by establishment media is so effective on them: they literally do not know or care enough to question it, they only want to know what they need to say and believe not to be ostracized by the dominant cultural hegemony.

view more: Next ›