Disputing Trump, Barr says no widespread election fraud

I'm saying that we and by we I mean you, me and every other person on the planet (with the exception of that % of the human race who are phyco/sociopathic) as a rule can only strive to live up to our individual personal ideals (or at least should). I'm saying that no-one succeeds, not every day and perhaps not even every hour of every day. The important thing is that we try.

And since nations are, in the end nothing more than the collective decisions made every day by the members of that nation those nations must, by default be equally flawed. What more do you want me to say, how much clearer can I be?

 

So we sometimes DO live up to them?

 

What am I omnipotent? How would I know whether 'we' (every other person on the planet) manages to sometime achieve their ideals. I can only assume some do and some don't. For that matter does failing to meet your ideals once mean you can never achieve that ideal again? That you've lost that opportunity forever? So a heavily qualified 'yes' I suppose.

In any event I fail to see the need for continued debate on the point. My original comment alluded to the fact that since people are imperfect and a nation is nothing more than the collective will of its members then by default all nations must be imperfect. Which is not a criticism BTW just a fact. By default then that also means all nations can only strive to achieve their stated ideals. For that matter whether they do ever live up to them, even for some brief moment, is probably a subjective opinion anyway.

In fact if history tells us anything its that any nation state that falls into the trap of uncritically accepting that it is somehow 'perfect' or 'the best' or superior etc to all others in every (or most) ways is, in the long term generally heading for a fall.

 

Well let's take our country for example. Do you think that we have at times lived up to our ideals?

 

No. But somebody is always trying, and they won't go to jail for doing it. That's the Great Experiment. In a nutshell.

 

Why do you assume that our country is your country?

 

Because that is what "our" means. Yours and mine. It is a one syllable word. I expect you to know it.

 

I see. So what country are you thinking that it is?

 

If you accept the possibility that there is evidence of fraud somewhere out there, then there is no reason to not also accept the possibility that there is evidence of fraud "on a grand scale" somewhere out there.

Sure, but it's not been very long has it? The election was only 5 weeks ago.

Except such a decision would very much NOT be constitutionally valid!

If a candidate wanted to reinstate slavery in violation of the Constitution, therefore TOTALLY violating the right's of people by making them slaves, and there seemed to be sufficient support for that candidate for them to win, then SCREW those questions of yours!

 

I've pretty much already answered this question when I said (in post 78 ) that 'since people are imperfect and a nation is nothing more than the collective will of its members then by default all nations must be imperfect' which pretty means the US is included in the list long with every other nation on the planet!

 

OFGS! Pure pedantry/world play. I made it quite clear there was no evidence of fraud being committed on any kind of scale remotely capable of influencing the outcome of the election. That ends this part of the discussion. You not debating the issue you just rephrasing the same questions over and over again.

Five weeks is enough time to do multiple recounts, both digital and physical of the vote. It's also enough time for any preliminary evidence of fraud to be referred to the appropriate authorities for investigation. And the result to date? Nothing. What more do you want?

Exactly. And yet your the one who raised the question of slavery in the first place. Why do so if you already knew the answer? Other than to engage stupid word games.

So you get to ask (redundant) questions based on fanciable scenarios you set up (you not me). All the while knowing in advance (as I did) that they were constitutionally invalid and therefore at best hypothetical? Yet at the same time apparently expecting an honest answer none the less. But when I do respond and throw questions arising from that same scenario strait back at you your only answer is 'screw you'?

Well done. Based on your performance to date I can only conclude you are either a 'bot' or else on the spectrum. All in all one of the lamest, most redundant debates I have ever had the misfortune to engage in.

 

It is the united states. What country did you mistakenly think i meant?

 

Yes, but how do you know that the US is my country?

I didn't try to guess!

 

Barr already tainted his reputation with the stink of Trump, trying to wash it off now is not gonna work

I think now that Trump is on his way out, many are starting to realize what they have done and are ashamed inside...

 

I assumed. Instead of 10 posts of theater to get attention, just correct it in a sentence, if i am wrong. Thanks in advance.

 

Yeah, you assumed wrong. It's interesting that everyone thinks that this is a forum with only American members.

 

Is the Left Wing Deep State, or the Right Wing?

 

You could complain about it for 5 pages. Or you could just correct me.

 

Yeah, I was just challenging you.

 

You don't understand. We're talking about the POSSIBILITY of evidence!

Yes, the scenario is that some dictatorial candidate says that they will overturn the constitution and reinstate slavery by force using the military. I am saying that I would do everything in my power to stop that candidate from winning. Wouldn't you?

 

What possibility? One in ten? One in a hundred, a thousand, a million, a billion? At what point are you going to draw the line?

Firstly their not 'dictatorial' until they get elected in the first place and then proceed to pervert the democratic process to cement their position. Before that they're just a 'candidate'. They have to be in power to abuse it.
Secondly they have to actually do the things you describe or at least attempt to do them before anyone has the right to stand up and oppose them.

No-one has the right to intercede in the democratic process just because they 'think' someone might do those things if given the chance at some unspecified point in the future (unless of course that person is Dr Who - in which case game on!'

But absent time travel interceding to prevent someone lawfully winning an election (assuming you could) because you detest what you think he or she might do if they win makes you the Dictator not him/her. Whats the difference between you if you are prepared to do exactly what they would do once they win?

Or to put it another way you don;y get to make decisions on behalf of the rest of the electorate, even if you think the decision they are making is a bad one. And if that is not the case then no election in history would ever come to a democratic conclusion and democracy wouldn't exist.

 

But the reality is that Barr never said what AP says he said in the headline of the article that you linked to.

It's not called fake news for nothing.

 

One in a billion is still a possibility. There is no line.

Well, the candidate says that they WILL do it. I'm not saying that it would merely be my speculation that they would do it.

The difference is that I wouldn't be proposing to reinstate slavery!

Well that assumes that it would be possible to tell whether or not those efforts were enough to swing an election.

 

No ? Correct the body of the article I linked to with actual quotes. The headline may be incomplete due to size restrictions, but the body of the article is accurate.

 

One in a billion is possibility, so what then? Do you weigh the probabilities logically or not? You probably have a one in a one hundred million chance of winning your State lottery tomorrow. So by your logic are you going out to buy that new house you wanted today? Or are you going to assume the odds are so remote it might be better to leave things be?

Same thing for an election. At what point do you decide any election result is valid - you tell me! How many recounts, inquiries, investigations are enough for you to be satisfied and move on? Cause if you don't make that decision at some point there will never be a President of the United States.

Gee, a politician says he will definitely 'do' something if he gets elected, cross his heart and hope to die, pinkie swear! I means when has a politician ever lied about something like that? (Sorry not 'lied', had to renege on their promise due to unforeseen changes in circumstances).

Your still acting as a Dictator (or would be Dictator) by interfering with the electoral process. Just like anyone else who decides they would willingly destroy the votes of any fellow citizen if that vote was cast for a candidate they didn't approve of. What gives them the right to play God? And if someone was actually standing on such a heinous platform AND the majority of the population actually voted in support then its too late, that nation is lost to democracy already. It doesn't need your help.

Every vote 'swings' a fair election. Beside that, what would be the point of destroying votes you thought wouldn't impact on the outcome?? Your framing (and asking) some pretty ridiculous questions. Time to move on.