The election is over. The thread is moot. Get it, or should I draw you a picture?
Free and fair elections
- Thread starter Evmetro
- Start date
The election is over. The thread is moot. Get it, or should I draw you a picture?
It is important to note that lefties evade answering these two questions:
Would you accept the results of anything besides a free and fair election? Do you have a good reason why Trump should accept results of anything besides a free and fair election?
The lefty evasion of these two questions is a picture worth a thousand words.
Would you accept the results of anything besides a free and fair election? Do you have a good reason why Trump should accept results of anything besides a free and fair election?
The lefty evasion of these two questions is a picture worth a thousand words.
saltydancin
Verified User
Still on that super ego compulsive mite makes rite obsession irregardless of whether it has anything whatsoever to do with lefties in some crayon colored supposedly inside the lines picture of free & fair elections pipe dream abstract.
It is important to note that lefties evade answering these two questions:
Would you accept the results of anything besides a free and fair election? Do you have a good reason why Trump should accept results of anything besides a free and fair election?
The lefty evasion of these two questions is a picture worth a thousand words.
Would you accept the results of anything besides a free and fair election? Do you have a good reason why Trump should accept results of anything besides a free and fair election?
The lefty evasion of these two questions is a picture worth a thousand words.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
The current question for them would be: If things were reversed here and Trump won, would you accept the results of the current election?
If Trump got enough votes in enough states to win, of course I would. See: 2016.
You sound like you have not switched to OAN and Newsmax yet. Pull the plug on Fox News my friend.
It is important to note that lefties evade answering these two questions:
Would you accept the results of anything besides a free and fair election? Do you have a good reason why Trump should accept results of anything besides a free and fair election?
The lefty evasion of these two questions is a picture worth a thousand words.
You have stepped up! You answered the opening post!
Yes. So do you have a point? Maybe you should make it.
saltydancin
Verified User
While this picture of anything but a free & fair election would be what that master race condescending arrogance in evasion certification as where anything but their master plan is inconsequential to the business of testing the electorate's cross conditioning thru a premeditated inquiry to determine just how lily brilliant white election propaganda Freudian slips in a more favorable result outcome occurred.....
When I started this thread in September, I was simply curious if lefties were ok with stealing or cheating the election instead of winning it. I kinda knew the answer, but all the lefty evasion confirmed what I suspected.
I guess the question is moot. The election was free and fair. Seems like the only ones who refuse to accept the result are the members of the Trump cult. So now we know.
Given that every lefty on this thread has indicated that they are fine with stealing or cheating the election instead of winning it, I do not recognize the declaration and opinion of a lefty forum junkie as proof that we just saw a free and fair election. Big tech censorship and Google-engineered reality suggest that there is something very big to hide too, probably something connected to why JPP lefties evade the opening post. Furthermore, the allegations and reports of fraud that the msm, big tech, and the left as a whole have not managed to suppress are very damning.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
I barely watch or read FOX. I generally look at a variety of sources, none in the MSM for the most part, to get an idea what's going on. I also read any source with a very critical eye to bias in it. Here's a good example of what I mean. This AP article, which should be neutral, takes a bias against Trump supporters:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...rotests-turn-into-violent-clashes/ar-BB1b1qTD
Some examples of this:
"...nighttime clashes with counterdemonstrators led to fistfights, at least one stabbing and more than 20 arrests."
This makes it sound as if the clashes were started by the Trump supporters when it is likely many were started by counterdemonstrators. A neutral tone would be "...nighttime clashes between counterdemonstrators and Trump supporters..." That doesn't take sides or make it appear one side caused the issue. (this is blame placing)
"The demonstrations in the nation's capital went from tense to violent during the night and early Sunday."
Compare that with the MSM calling Leftist protests that included looting, attacks on people, arson, and other serious violent crimes for months, "mostly peaceful..." Here the writers call the protest "violent" and even the non-violent portion, "tense." (this is using loaded words)
"Videos posted on social media showed fights, projectiles and clubs as Trump backers sparred with those demanding they take their MAGA hats and banners and leave."
No mention of who the counter-protesters are in whole or part. Why? Shouldn't we be given some idea of who's clashing with these Trump supporters? (this is hiding information unfavorable to the writer's position)
Then this is gratuitously added:
"A broad coalition of top government and industry officials has declared that the Nov. 3 voting and the following count unfolded smoothly with no more than the usual minor hiccups — “the most secure in American history,” they said, repudiating Trump's efforts to undermine the integrity of the contest."
It has nothing to do with the protests or counter-protests, but rather is just tossed in to discredit the Trump supporters. (card stacking)
It doesn't matter what position you, or I, take on this. Those are clear indications of bias that I at least ignore in reading about this event. I'll make my own mind up based on factual information, thank you.
Yes, it is all a form of propaganda when the writers take sides.
https://www.advergize.com/advertising/examples-of-propaganda/
So why ask? Did you think you just got some huge 'gotcha'? LOL at you. The people that run the elections say they were fair. There is no evidence that they aren't fair. The default position is that they are. If you believe some vast conspiracy exists you are mentally ill. It is what it is.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
the merit of the evidence will be decided by judges, not your dumb monkey ass.
No, they won't. Courts won't address a claim for which there is no evidence. Innuendo carries zero weight with the court. And so far, the court cases aren't even alleging fraud? Your bullshit can't even get off the starting line.
saltydancin
Verified User
Obviously missing USA elementary school civics class has your misconception of free & fair elections from the popular vote, which doesn't elect with recognition of there's no Electoral College in the equation; which might not approve of Democratic socialism of the popular vote.