-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Do a cost-benefit analysis on that. What if you're wrong, the right-tribe will submit to a real/proven democracy and you're just barreling on into a civil war for no good reason?
The left tribe are not the ones barreling towards a civil war. This kind of talk only exists in Rightwingville, because right wingers are obsessed with making themselves out to be the hero when the reality is that this is all because they know the world is moving past them.
The idea that we would barrel towards a civil war over disagreements in how far we should go to ensure ballot integrity is absolutely absurd. You have no evidence of widespread fraud, you have no legitimate reason to suspect widespread fraud, and most remarkably every study that has been done on this shows there is no correlation between voter fraud and political ideology. So even if there was voter fraud on a scale where fraudulent ballots surpassed the margin of victory, you still would have no reason to believe that fraud changed the outcome. Thus the idea that we should not accept and respect election outcomes over this is patiently absurd.
That "logic" of yours works just as well in reverse. "If the left-tribe really believed their ideology was popular, they wouldn't be afraid of accurate voting"
Complete strawman and you know that. Nothing I've argued implies in any way that the left is afraid of accurate voting.
Where in all of this do you address the fact that belief in god was nearly universal in certain societies for a long time?I don't because it has nothing to do with the conversation.Then I will consider all your statements about burden of proof as moot as you refuse to defend your implicit claims on the subject.
lol yep that sounds about right.
Step 1: Strawman my position. In this case by claiming that I argued believing something for a long time makes it the default position
Step 2: Ignore any response I give showing you how you strawmanned my position. Notice how the very next paragraph I wrote explained what my point actually was and how you didn't bother to include it here anywhere, as if it doesn't exist.
Step 3: Use your own made up version of what I said along with your intentional blindness to my response as an excuse to hand waive away a central point in this debate showing your position to be wrong.
This is what arguing with you is like. But that's fine because it's very illuminating to see the hoops people jump through to believe these things.
you are the one expecting us to proceed as if there is fraud.You are the ones expecting us to proceed as if there was an election.
Uh, yeah, it's hard to have fraud if no election took place, so looks like my burden of proof has been long satisfied.
Citation please.Be more specific.
You're arguing that legislators changed the laws to hide crucial election information, and this is what lead to distrust in elections. I'm telling you that's nonsense. There is an easy fix to this, provide the example you are talking about so we can take a closer look.
Yeah, for MAGA that's definitely right.You basically conceded that MAGA are the real americans.
No, I "conceded" that MAGA's definition of what it means to be a real American is to value guns over democracy. Why you think that's a good thing is beyond me along with the rest of the world.
Because the guy is a crackpot conspiracy theorist whose own family doesn't take his candidacy seriously.Notice how you get to disclaim RFK at will but refuse to allow me to do the same for Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensburger.
I get to disclaim RFK because he is in fact a crackpot conspiracy theorist and because his beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with anything I've argued.
That is not the case with your position and Kemp/Raffensburger. You are claiming the election was full of fraud and that those in charge of elections (like Kemp and Raffensburger) are actively working to hide the massive fraud that would show Biden lost. Except, aside from being extraordinary and completely baseless and therefore unworthy of being taken seriously, also completely goes against the known political ideology and more importantly against the political interests of these two individuals. So no you don't get to pretend that isn't a serious problem for your position.
