Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13968
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition

Post by Rate This » Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:32 pm

bmw wrote:
Wed Nov 02, 2022 10:55 pm
Honeyman wrote:
Wed Nov 02, 2022 10:49 pm
Christ, beemer......you'd look like less of a fool if you stayed with the "vaccines don't work" obsesssion.
I'm foolish for pointing out that Democrats have been at this for 22 years? Again, I have plenty more, these quotes from 2000 are just the beginning.

The problem with your premise is that the claim that Trump staged an insurrection is utter BS. You and I have watched the same video, I believe, so how we each reach such different conclusions as to what Trump said and what he encouraged people to do is beyond me.
We watch as folks who see that a crowd armed with weapons that went from his speech to the capitol and then broke in probably didn't go there for a tour of the place. You watch as someone with blinders on so big its a wonder you can leave your house.



User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13968
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition

Post by Rate This » Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:33 pm

bmw wrote:
Wed Nov 02, 2022 10:50 pm
Rate This wrote:
Wed Nov 02, 2022 10:40 pm
So why not have our illustrious referees establish uniform standards? That's what a referee does. They don't go "game over its not fair. Adios!"... They try to figure out what happened so it's correct. There must have been proper standards each county could have used. I also seem to recall it was 5-4... I seem to further recall it was along party lines. None of that is a "gee we know the law better and here's the right answer!" coincidence.
LOL, the referee doesn't establish the rules; he/she interprets and applies the rules. Which was exactly what the Supreme Court did. The fact that it was a 5-4 ruling is irrelevant just like again in football, a 21-20 loss is a loss as much as 49-0 loss is a loss.

As to whether there was a "proper" standard each county could have used, that was the fault of the state for not creating one. It also didn't help matters that at least one county (Palm Beach) actually changed their standard several times during the recount.
How can you apply rules if there is no standard... ie.. rules? Also courts don't just interpret rules... they offer remedies to settle disputes.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition

Post by Bryce » Thu Nov 03, 2022 8:25 am

bmw wrote:
Wed Nov 02, 2022 10:39 pm


Uhhh...you might want to reserve judgement on that until after you've read my 2004 thread when I get around to it.
Here is really all you need to see regarding 2016...



New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

bmw
Posts: 6729
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition

Post by bmw » Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:51 am

Rate This wrote:
Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:30 pm
Trump is a man who speaks in dog whistles and subtleties so he can say "I didn't say that!" when the reality is that he blurred the lines in an implication so he can claim innocence.
At least we're making progress. We've gone from claims of him outright inciting violence to him subtly encouraging violence via dog whistles.

So here's the thing. If you're going to argue that Trump is using dog whistles to encourage his supporters to engage in violence, then you also have to agree that the people in your party are doing the same thing. Are you going to tell me that there was no subtle encouragement from certain party leaders (and quite frankly, the media as well) for the violence that occurred in the summer riots of 2020? You know, setting cars and buildings on fire, looting, shooting and killing people, etc? Or did those people all act on their own accord?



User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13968
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition

Post by Rate This » Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:53 am

bmw wrote:
Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:51 am
Rate This wrote:
Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:30 pm
Trump is a man who speaks in dog whistles and subtleties so he can say "I didn't say that!" when the reality is that he blurred the lines in an implication so he can claim innocence.
At least we're making progress. We've gone from claims of him outright inciting violence to him subtly encouraging violence via dog whistles.

So here's the thing. If you're going to argue that Trump is using dog whistles to encourage his supporters to engage in violence, then you also have to agree that the people in your party are doing the same thing. Are you going to tell me that there was no subtle encouragement from certain party leaders (and quite frankly, the media as well) for the violence that occurred in the summer riots of 2020? You know, setting cars and buildings on fire, looting, shooting and killing people, etc? Or did those people all act on their own accord?
Absolutely not… who was suggesting violence was something that was a great idea? Who was even hinting that they wanted to see that? I can’t think of a single example.

And no we are not making progress… they took it as instructions to go down there and raise hell. So they got the message loud and clear like a bullhorn even if most of us not in that mindset missed it.



bmw
Posts: 6729
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition

Post by bmw » Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:55 am

So whenever leftists engage in political violence, it is completely on their own accord. Whenever people on the right do the same, it is in response to dog whistles from their heroes. Got it.



bmw
Posts: 6729
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition

Post by bmw » Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:57 am

Rate This wrote:
Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:53 am
Who was suggesting violence was something that was a great idea? Who was even hinting that they wanted to see that? I can’t think of a single example.
Let's start with Chuck Schumer.
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday surrounded by abortion rights supporters and delivered a pointed message aimed at President Trump’s appointees to the court, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer said while the justices were hearing arguments in a critical Louisiana abortion case. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... eme-court/

That sounds more direct than anything Trump ever said.



bmw
Posts: 6729
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition

Post by bmw » Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:01 am

Imagine if Trump, surrounded by supporters on January 6th had said the following:

"I want to tell you, Pence. I want to tell you, all of Congress. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with the certification of Joe Biden as President."

Are you seriously going to tell me that that wouldn't have fallen into the "dog whistle" category?



bmw
Posts: 6729
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition

Post by bmw » Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:09 am

Or how about the following tweet from Kamala Harris in the wake of the 2020 summer riots:
If you're able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.
Is that a dog whistle, in your opinion? She explicitly tweeted, in a tweet that has been either quoted or re-tweeted over 15,000 times, support for "those protesting on the ground," the implication going further than that, as bail is only needed for people actually arrested for committing a crime. She's basically saying, "if you get arrested for your protests going too far, I support you."



bmw
Posts: 6729
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition

Post by bmw » Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:12 am

How about Lori Lightfoot - mayor of Chicago:
To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community—the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms.
Is that the type of riling up of people you're talking about? Directly sending a message to a specific group of your supporters, saying the people with whom you disagree are out to get you, and that this requires a "call to arms." Is that a dog whistle?



User avatar
craig11152
Posts: 2034
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:15 am
Location: Ann Arbor

Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition

Post by craig11152 » Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:48 am

"Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd,” she instructed. “And you push back on them! And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere!”

Maxine Waters dog whistling?


I no longer directly engage trolls

Deleted User 9015

Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition

Post by Deleted User 9015 » Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:24 am

I can see a rationale for people to believe more due diligence should have been done in Florida in 2000. The results were pretty damn tight. But Gore did concede. I think it was rational for Gore to have taken his challenge to the lengths he did pretty much before conceding.

Sure, there were "deniers" in 2000, but Gore accepted the results. I don't think that the problem in the current situation is that people deny the results, its the content of their denial and their behavior. One would have to be very selective in how they interpret the denial behaviors of Gore v. Trump to attempt to say that the behavior is the same.



bmw
Posts: 6729
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition

Post by bmw » Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:43 am

Trump did concede though. This from CNN on January 7th, 2021:
President Donald Trump conceded publicly for the first time Thursday that he will not serve a second term, stopping short of congratulating President-elect Joe Biden but acknowledging a transfer of power is now underway.
Trump's exact quote was "A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20. My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics ... index.html



User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13968
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition

Post by Rate This » Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:00 pm

bmw wrote:
Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:09 am
Or how about the following tweet from Kamala Harris in the wake of the 2020 summer riots:
If you're able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.
Is that a dog whistle, in your opinion? She explicitly tweeted, in a tweet that has been either quoted or re-tweeted over 15,000 times, support for "those protesting on the ground," the implication going further than that, as bail is only needed for people actually arrested for committing a crime. She's basically saying, "if you get arrested for your protests going too far, I support you."
I’m not playing along with this if you are going to use the “drown them in so many statements they can’t respond to all of them” technique.



Deleted User 9015

Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition

Post by Deleted User 9015 » Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:07 pm

I thought beemer said he had me blocked. I guess there is a glitch in the buzzboard.

Anyways!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsole ... 1ce3cb5c61
Feb 17, 2021,01:59pm EST
ut Trump also praised Limbaugh for espousing his false claim the 2020 election was stolen through widespread voter fraud, stating “Rush thought we won” and “Rush felt we won and he was quite angry about it."

“And so do I, by the way,” Trump added to little pushback from Fox hosts Harris Faulkner and Bill Hemmer – the latter widely seen as one of Fox’s “straight news” personalities – adding, “I think we won substantially.”
Of course, there's more!

I have to get back to work though.



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic