Jump to content

Question for Trump Supporters Who Support the Overthrow of the US Government


Recommended Posts

I'm happy to have a civil discussion, but after some point, you recognize it becomes impossible to "prove" certain things like:

 

"Prove we actually landed on the moon"

 

There is footage and lots of evidence of it, but the folks who doubt it will always demand more evidence and move the goalposts further back. In the end, they will believe what they want to believe.

 

"Ships will sail around the world, but the Flat Earth Society will continue to flourish." --Buffett

 

Yeah. I've deleted half my responses in this forum with the thought of "what's the point?" And seriously, what's the point of arguing with people who's source material is QAnon-adjacent.

 

Like FFS, the dominion voting machines have a paper trail. They hand counted the votes. The hand count confirmed the machine count. The process was run by Republicans. Barr says there's no evidence of widespread fraud. Chris Krebs (Trump appointee) says it's the most secure election in US history. Your answer to this can't just be "deep state" every time.

 

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I'm happy to have a civil discussion, but after some point, you recognize it becomes impossible to "prove" certain things like:

 

"Prove we actually landed on the moon"

 

There is footage and lots of evidence of it, but the folks who doubt it will always demand more evidence and move the goalposts further back. In the end, they will believe what they want to believe.

 

"Ships will sail around the world, but the Flat Earth Society will continue to flourish." --Buffett

 

Yeah. I've deleted half my responses in this forum with the thought of "what's the point?" And seriously, what's the point of arguing with people who's source material is QAnon-adjacent.

 

Like FFS, the dominion voting machines have a paper trail. They hand counted the votes. The hand count confirmed the machine count. The process was run by Republicans. Barr says there's no evidence of widespread fraud. Chris Krebs (Trump appointee) says it's the most secure election in US history. Your answer to this can't just be "deep state" every time.

 

I suspect our resident Trump friendly members come to their views mostly through Libertarian ideology. It's a glaring example of the dangers to rational thinking of ideological commitment!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I normally mostly ignore politics.  I will probably will return to that policy.  I got sucked into this election because I think some of the shenanigans that probably happen every election were pointed out and made more public than ever before.

 

I don't ignore politics, but I look forward to no longer posting in the politics portion of CoB&F in the near future.

 

I think there are a lot of issues with the left, and I will be sorely tempted to say something about it, but generally I think it is impolite to discuss and not the way I want to spend my time anyway. The only reason I have made an exception in this case is that I believe that Trump was an existential threat. Recent events have proven that to be the case. If you are not shocked by what has transpired in the last two months, think about what would have happened four years from now had he won. The US system of checks and balances would likely have been so diminished by that point that there would have been no resistance to his fascistic ways.

 

In your search for the truth about this election, it might be worthwhile to consider the opinion of the US Justice Department and Trump's AG as presented in Off the Rails, Episode 4: Trump turns on Barr:

 

It was Dec. 1, nearly a month after the election, and Barr had some sharp advice to get off his chest. The president's theories about a stolen election, Barr told Trump, were "bullshit."

 

White House counsel Pat Cipollone and a few other aides in the room were shocked Barr had come out and said it — although they knew it was true. For good measure, the attorney general threw in a warning that the new legal team Trump was betting his future on was "clownish."

 

Trump had angrily dragged Barr in to explain himself after seeing a breaking AP story all over Twitter, with the headline: "Disputing Trump, Barr says no widespread election fraud." But Barr was not backing down. Three weeks later, he would be gone.

 

But Barr's respite ended after Election Day, as Trump teamed up with an array of conspiracy theorists to amplify preposterous theories of election interference, arguing that Biden and the Chinese Communist Party, among others, had stolen the election from him.

 

On Nov. 29, Trump told Fox News that Barr's Department of Justice was "missing in action." Barr was furious. In fact, the attorney general had jettisoned department precedent to speed up federal investigations of election fraud allegations. The Justice Department wasn't missing in action — there just wasn't any evidence of major fraud.

 

Barr gave an interview to the AP's beat reporter, Michael Balsamo, making this clear on the record. It would bring things to a head.

 

As he headed to the White House for meetings on Dec. 1, Barr knew Balsamo's story might go live while he was there. He soon found himself in the president's private dining room, along with Meadows, Cipollone, Trump and others. They sat at a long table under a glittering chandelier, amid Trump paraphernalia that was framed by floor-to-ceiling windows.

 

Trump was positioned in his usual seat at the head of the table, facing a huge flat-screen TV with the sound on low. On the screen, the conspiracy-drenched One America News network was playing a Michigan Senate hearing on election fraud.

 

Trump had seen Balsamo's story, and he was fuming. "Why would you say such a thing? You must hate Trump. There’s no other reason for it. You must hate Trump,” the president charged, speaking about himself in the third person.

 

"These things aren't panning out," Barr told the president, standing beside his chief of staff Will Levi. “The stuff that these people are filling your ear with just isn’t true.” Barr explained that if Trump wanted to contest the election results, the president's internal campaign lawyers would have to do it.

 

The Justice Department, he continued, had looked at the major fraud allegations that Trump's lawyers had leveled. "It's just bullshit," Barr told the president. Cipollone backed up Barr by saying the DOJ was investigating these claims.

 

Barr reiterated that the Justice Department was not ignoring the allegations, but that Trump's outside lawyers were doing a terrible job.

 

"I'm a pretty informed legal observer and I can't fucking figure out what the theory is here," he added. "It's just scattershot. It's all over the hill and gone."

 

Off the Rails, Episode 4: Trump turns on Barr

https://www.axios.com/trump-barr-relationship-off-the-rails-b33b3788-e7e9-47fa-84c5-3a0016559eb5.html

 

So according to this reporting. Barr quit because he could stand all the lying regarding election fraud. Also, it points out that the Justice Department was more aggressive and permissive than ever in allowing the investigation of fraud, but that permissiveness did not bear any fruit.

 

Here's the article referenced above that was one of the final straws with Barr and The Justice Department disagreeing with the conspiracy theories.

 

Disputing Trump, Barr says no widespread election fraud

https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d

 

And here are a couple of quotes from the December 1, 2020 article:

 

Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

 

Last month, Barr issued a directive to U.S. attorneys across the country allowing them to pursue any “substantial allegations” of voting irregularities before the 2020 presidential election was certified, despite no evidence at that time of widespread fraud.

 

That memorandum gave prosecutors the ability to go around longstanding Justice Department policy that normally would prohibit such overt actions before the election was certified. Soon after it was issued, the department’s top elections crime official announced he would step aside from that position because of the memo.

 

So the standards were so relaxed that it lead to at least one resignation, and yet still no investigations.

 

It's important to note that this article was dated before the reports of post election tampering by Trump and trumpists  in Georgia and possibly five other states. It's not clear how Barr or the Justice Department has responded to those events.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy to have a civil discussion, but after some point, you recognize it becomes impossible to "prove" certain things like:

 

"Prove we actually landed on the moon"

 

There is footage and lots of evidence of it, but the folks who doubt it will always demand more evidence and move the goalposts further back. In the end, they will believe what they want to believe.

 

"Ships will sail around the world, but the Flat Earth Society will continue to flourish." --Buffett

 

Yeah. I've deleted half my responses in this forum with the thought of "what's the point?" And seriously, what's the point of arguing with people who's source material is QAnon-adjacent.

 

Like FFS, the dominion voting machines have a paper trail. They hand counted the votes. The hand count confirmed the machine count. The process was run by Republicans. Barr says there's no evidence of widespread fraud. Chris Krebs (Trump appointee) says it's the most secure election in US history. Your answer to this can't just be "deep state" every time.

 

I suspect our resident Trump friendly members come to their views mostly through Libertarian ideology. It's a glaring example of the dangers to rational thinking of ideological commitment!

 

I find many facets of libertarianism appealing. I don't see much - if anything - Trump has done to fit the ideology. But yes I do see a lot of people misunderstanding libertarianism, especially with respect to the pandemic and first amendment rights, which is ultimately its greatest problem: it's complicated and typically requires an economics degree to understand correctly.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...