|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 22 2026 08:13 Billyboy wrote:
So you don’t know? I think I more or less covered it in the post you quoted, but I can't know what you didn't understand if you don't tell me.
On October 22 2026 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 06:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. You go mull over the consequences of saying Republicans are trying to rig the election after Trump just got done saying Democrats are trying to rig the election. That is a very different point than the previous one. In your previous post, you said that Democrats and Trump were engaging in the same kinds of conspiracy theories about the other side cheating, implying that both sides were equally baseless / equally credible / equally likely to have happened / equally to be criticized. That's just flat-out wrong. In this second post, you're now criticizing Democrats for talking about Trump cheating - even though it's true - because it would appear hypocritical after everyone criticized Trump for lying about Democrats cheating. It's not hypocritical when one side is telling the truth about the other cheating, while the other side is lying about the other cheating. You're getting closer. The first instance was Trump both saying that "the only way we're going to lose this election is if this election is rigged" and later denying the results. The Democratic response was that questioning the election results before the election happens was a threat to our democracy, and had even more in that avenue after Trump lost and questioned the results. This was huge and pronounced and all kinds of people responded highly on "threats to democracy" on polls in 2024 etc. Now, the shift is that questioning election results before they even happen is fine when we do it, because when we do it, that means it really has substance. Sorry, but no matter how carefully you frame that argument and draw on substance, you lose. Your message to the public is that it's ok when we do it, but not when they do it. I know you have this dream of proving to the world that the substance is on your side, but that will clearly and definitely be lost in the eyes of the public. Do as I say, not as I do. Ironically, people here are very willing to acknowledge that the public receives news and issues very differently than this corner of the internet in different topics. That is not my message. I will repeat my message: It's okay to call out cheating when cheating is actually happening; it's not okay to assert cheating when there is no cheating. I believe in this message, regardless of who is doing the honest calling-out and who is just being a sore loser or fabricator. Just because the past decade has shown the former to be my political side and the latter to be the opposing side doesn't make my message any less important to me. Your message is lost in the context that you're sending it out in, and will be received (to a certain extent, ought to be received) as it's ok when we do it. I'm not disputing that you have the very best intentions when you want to say it.
On October 22 2026 08:43 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:
[The mainstream Christian view simply doesn't allow human sexual expression to transcend biology in the way that God transcends human existence. So it is true to say that God does "not have a biological sex" for mainstream Christians, but false to imply that God's transcendence also means humans can do the same thing (and anybody familiar with theology should be reminded of the "you shall be as Gods."
When Talarico tried to walk it back, "When I said that I was being provocative," it made perfect sense. He wasn't stating acknowledged Christian theology or cultural Christianity truth, he said something wrong and spun it as simply desiring to provoke. It still damaged the brand (along with the things in the rest of my earlier post, respond if you want) Lol, you REALLY should have quit the first time you demonstrated you have no idea what you're talking about. Now your opinions about everything else is suspect because you probably aren't very well informed about those things you confidently talk about either. Similar to my feelings as well.
On October 22 2026 08:58 Introvert wrote:
We all know why Talerico used that phrase, and it wasn't for the sake of academic precision (don't think I've ever seen an academic theologian use that phrase). So besides the fact that God is constantly referred to with male pronouns, Talerico is trying to make a political point with a bit of footwork. It's hard to believe it's anything but dishonesty to defend the narrowest plausible interpretation. Besides it totally misses the point that in Christian theology God made them "male and female" God may not be gendered but the humans he made are. That's I think how your average religious Texan, or most Christians, would see it. What God is isn't even the most relevant thing. But it's funny Talerico isn't even being allowed to make the point he actually wanted to make because it's rediculous On October 22 2026 09:04 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 09:00 LightSpectra wrote:
Genesis says God made night and day, doesn't say anything about dawn and dusk. Those must be godless abominations against his perfect design.
Shall we talk about Jesus praising eunuchs in the Gospel of Matthew next? The point (besides that Talerico was not giving an academic lecture) is that saying God is non-binary (or not sexed to be even more general) is not really something you can drop down and apply to humans, whether humans have 2 genders, 47 or infinite. So it's pointless
Talarico tried to walk it back, but LightSpectra doesn't know why. It was theologically and culturally accurate, and mainstream Christians would know! (Luckily for Democrats, whoever's advising him on that campaign is smarter than LightSpectra on the issues).
Which *ahem* one of the big problems with the Democratic Party these days is that it spouts ignorant religious-y sounding bullshit, and doubles down that it's everybody else's fault for misunderstanding how right they were in the first place. The Clinton years and early Bush years was the height of the Democratic Party's ability to speak into those cultural contexts without falling flat on their face.
|
That Talerico's use of the phrase was not helpful and to be generous to him was as he put it "provocative." He was trying to score brownie points. If he was trying to make the more narrow point, and he didn't want to be misunderstood by his enemies *and* his friends, he would have said just about anything else. But I don't think he ever dreamed of having a shot at a senate seat when he said that in 2021.
|
On October 22 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2026 06:11 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 05:24 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Ah, if it isn't our favorite self-described "Democrat" uncritically repeating Republican talking points yet again.
Not sure what's supposed to be odd about "God is nonbinary," do you think Christians generally believe the Holy Spirit has male genitalia? And do you think that sentence was somehow a worse crime than Paxton giving sweetheart deals to child molesters and campaigning on "Christian values" while openly taking vacations with his mistress? Do you have any idea of mainstream Christian beliefs, let alone Texas? On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. You go mull over the consequences of saying Republicans are trying to rig the election after Trump just got done saying Democrats are trying to rig the election. You'll have to expand on the alleged actual successful election cheating that happened in the 2020 election from the left's point of view. On October 22 2026 04:34 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat.
Now, the other option (thankfully you present one) misses a few key things. First, republicans can "win the election in any way" by holding the Senate. There are only a few Senate seats that are up for vote in every election. In this election, the map leans favorable to Republicans.
On top of that, the Democrats ran a candidate credibly accused of sexual assault and rape and sporting a Nazi tattoo in Maine. After the accusations worsened, they swapped in another candidate that has little time to establish himself as an alternative. The Democratic candidate in Michigan is busy trying to distance himself from a letter he signed supporting the Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian president to "purge the media and the police" and his family's social media posts describing long-time Muslim Brotherhood support that El-Sayed denies. Talarico (Texas dem candidate) has his odd "God is nonbinary," Mary's example supports abortion for Christians, and "Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country." Not exactly a good message in very white and pretty religious Texas. If Republicans hang on to the Senate, it will be in part due to candidate quality as well as a favorable map.
No need to count America out if this election goes poorly. Did you miss how i posted an article about Trump trying to get CISA to hack voting machines, not tell the manufacturer, and only tell the white house? On the last page? It stops being a conspiracy theory once they actually do it. Trump tried an insurrection the last time he lost. Do you really think he wouldn't rig the election if he thought he could do it? The only reason the election might not get rigged is Trumps incompetence. And yeah, you will always find some attack angle on everyone. That is what the republican shitthrowing machine does. Did you miss my post on anonymously sourced articles and how much trust should be placed in them? Pro Publica is a big Democrat-funded operation that has had a string of obvious hit pieces, but see my previous post on that. oBlade also remarked on the obvious point on penetration testing and validation. You didn't respond, but you should if you're serious about the point. It should go without saying that each side pointing to the other about having the *REAL* example of a stolen election if they lose is a terrible message to voters. I think this is self-explanatory, but please let me know if it isn't for you. I have muted oBlade thanks to the wonderful uBlock Origin code someone posted a while back. I can greatly recommend doing that. As such, i do not see their posts, and even if i did, i would have zero interest in talking to them. They are the very worst debatelord i have ever seen, and talking to them is both exhausting and pointless, because they have absolutely no convinctions or beliefs, they just want to win the discussion. Do not expect me to ever reply to anything the post. I believe in a truth separate from the person or persons talking about it. Even the most hardcore pro-tariff 2020-election-conspiracy-believer Trump supporter sometimes brings up a good point every once in a while. But that's your business on who you read and why. I limit it to the extreme trolls that don't actually believe a word they say and prove it again and again and are additionally bad-mannered. And yeah, it is really bad if you cannot trust your elections. But that is all on Trump and his republican enablers. He constantly cries about election fraud, and at the same time tries to cheat in elections in any way he can. He also tried to coup the government when he lost.
If you want people to trust their elections, maybe you should do something about the guy who constantly cheats at them and accuses other people of cheating?
Or make the process so transparent that it is very obvious no one is cheating. Like, for example, paper ballots with good procedures instead of utterly intransparent voting machines that no one can really trust, ever. Or at least allow in some international observers. But someone banned them for this election. I wonder who? Well I'm not getting through to you on the obvious problem just pointing at each other and saying they're the true election denier/if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated. It's like constantly going back to restating that the problem in America is Trump supporters, and every time somebody proposes ways to manage it or fix it or move past while accounting for it, you lash out and restate that the problem is Trump supporters. Ok, cool, but maybe slow your roll next time you parrot Trump on the "if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated?" I can agree with you that it doesn't feel fair in the information ecosystem and politics to have a reason not to repeat the claims in reverse. On October 22 2026 05:32 LightSpectra wrote:On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Ah, if it isn't our favorite self-described "Democrat" uncritically repeating Republican talking points yet again.
Not sure what's supposed to be odd about "God is nonbinary," do you think Christians generally believe the Holy Spirit has male genitalia? And do you think that sentence was somehow a worse crime than Paxton giving sweetheart deals to child molesters and campaigning on "Christian values" while openly taking vacations with his mistress? Do you have any idea of mainstream Christian beliefs, let alone Texas? I'm obviously not an expert in anything, so sometimes I read posts in this forum that talk about things I'm not super informed about like specific tactics and equipment used in modern warfare, and I can't really agree with or dispute those points. In this case you decided to opine about an issue I am very well informed on, and it couldn't be more obvious you aren't. If you'd like me to talk in great detail about how not only do the First and Third Persons of the Holy Trinity not have a biological sex (they aren't even made of matter and therefore cannot have genitalia or chromosomes), but also that God is described in explicitly female terms several times throughout the Bible in ways that are often missed if you don't know biblical Hebrew and/or Greek. Anyone who has a strong negative opinion about "God is nonbinary" is both grossly uninformed about basic orthodox theology, and was probably never going to vote for a Democrat anyway because they're likely carrying around a thousand other theological misconceptions fomented by Christian nationalism and fundamentalism. I noticed that you used "not have a biological sex" and transitioned, without comment, to "God is nonbinary." Any particular reason why you'd lead with the one? Or let me put it another way. Is there a cultural Christianity and theological difference between the statements that God does not have a biology to have biological sex and humans have crafted a socially constructed sexual identity that simply says not man or woman? What do you think non-binary means? Please write something responsive to I noticed that you used "not have a biological sex" and transitioned, without comment, to "God is nonbinary." Any particular reason why you'd lead with the one? Or let me put it another way. Is there a cultural Christianity and theological difference between the statements that God does not have a biology to have biological sex and humans have crafted a socially constructed sexual identity that simply says not man or woman? The deity angle/difference is important. Also, state whether you already agree with the final clause of the last sentence. On October 22 2026 06:28 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:
I noticed that you used "not have a biological sex" and transitioned, without comment, to "God is nonbinary." Any particular reason why you'd lead with the one? Or let me put it another way. Is there a cultural Christianity and theological difference between the statements that God does not have a biology to have biological sex and humans have crafted a socially constructed sexual identity that simply says not man or woman? Happy to help: orthodox (little-o) Christians do not believe any Person of the Trinity has a gender in any sense of the English word, except the incarnate Son. A person (or in this case Person) who has no gender or biological sex and therefore does not belong to the binary categorization of gender or sex is nonbinary. "God is nonbinary" is so plainly true that the Pope could say it without controversy. The only reason to complain about it would be if you're a grifter trying to invoke wrath from ignorant transphobes. The mainstream Christian view simply doesn't allow human sexual expression to transcend biology in the way that God transcends human existence. So it is true to say that God does "not have a biological sex" for mainstream Christians, but false to imply that God's transcendence also means humans can do the same thing (and anybody familiar with theology should be reminded of the "you shall be as Gods." When Talarico tried to walk it back, "When I said that I was being provocative," it made perfect sense. He wasn't stating acknowledged Christian theology or cultural Christianity truth, he said something wrong and spun it as simply desiring to provoke. It still damaged the brand (along with the things in the rest of my earlier post, respond if you want) On October 22 2026 06:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. You go mull over the consequences of saying Republicans are trying to rig the election after Trump just got done saying Democrats are trying to rig the election. That is a very different point than the previous one. In your previous post, you said that Democrats and Trump were engaging in the same kinds of conspiracy theories about the other side cheating, implying that both sides were equally baseless / equally credible / equally likely to have happened / equally to be criticized. That's just flat-out wrong. In this second post, you're now criticizing Democrats for talking about Trump cheating - even though it's true - because it would appear hypocritical after everyone criticized Trump for lying about Democrats cheating. It's not hypocritical when one side is telling the truth about the other cheating, while the other side is lying about the other cheating. You're getting closer. The first instance was Trump both saying that "the only way we're going to lose this election is if this election is rigged" and later denying the results. The Democratic response was that questioning the election results before the election happens was a threat to our democracy, and had even more in that avenue after Trump lost and questioned the results. This was huge and pronounced and all kinds of people responded highly on "threats to democracy" on polls in 2024 etc. Now, the shift is that questioning election results before they even happen is fine when we do it, because when we do it, that means it really has substance. Sorry, but no matter how carefully you frame that argument and draw on substance, you lose. Your message to the public is that it's ok when we do it, but not when they do it. I know you have this dream of proving to the world that the substance is on your side, but that will clearly and definitely be lost in the eyes of the public. Do as I say, not as I do. Ironically, people here are very willing to acknowledge that the public receives news and issues very differently than this corner of the internet in different topics. On October 22 2026 06:37 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 05:24 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Ah, if it isn't our favorite self-described "Democrat" uncritically repeating Republican talking points yet again.
Not sure what's supposed to be odd about "God is nonbinary," do you think Christians generally believe the Holy Spirit has male genitalia? And do you think that sentence was somehow a worse crime than Paxton giving sweetheart deals to child molesters and campaigning on "Christian values" while openly taking vacations with his mistress? Do you have any idea of mainstream Christian beliefs, let alone Texas? On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. You go mull over the consequences of saying Republicans are trying to rig the election after Trump just got done saying Democrats are trying to rig the election. You'll have to expand on the alleged actual successful election cheating that happened in the 2020 election from the left's point of view. On October 22 2026 04:34 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat.
Now, the other option (thankfully you present one) misses a few key things. First, republicans can "win the election in any way" by holding the Senate. There are only a few Senate seats that are up for vote in every election. In this election, the map leans favorable to Republicans.
On top of that, the Democrats ran a candidate credibly accused of sexual assault and rape and sporting a Nazi tattoo in Maine. After the accusations worsened, they swapped in another candidate that has little time to establish himself as an alternative. The Democratic candidate in Michigan is busy trying to distance himself from a letter he signed supporting the Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian president to "purge the media and the police" and his family's social media posts describing long-time Muslim Brotherhood support that El-Sayed denies. Talarico (Texas dem candidate) has his odd "God is nonbinary," Mary's example supports abortion for Christians, and "Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country." Not exactly a good message in very white and pretty religious Texas. If Republicans hang on to the Senate, it will be in part due to candidate quality as well as a favorable map.
No need to count America out if this election goes poorly. Did you miss how i posted an article about Trump trying to get CISA to hack voting machines, not tell the manufacturer, and only tell the white house? On the last page? It stops being a conspiracy theory once they actually do it. Trump tried an insurrection the last time he lost. Do you really think he wouldn't rig the election if he thought he could do it? The only reason the election might not get rigged is Trumps incompetence. And yeah, you will always find some attack angle on everyone. That is what the republican shitthrowing machine does. Did you miss my post on anonymously sourced articles and how much trust should be placed in them? Pro Publica is a big Democrat-funded operation that has had a string of obvious hit pieces, but see my previous post on that. oBlade also remarked on the obvious point on penetration testing and validation. You didn't respond, but you should if you're serious about the point. It should go without saying that each side pointing to the other about having the *REAL* example of a stolen election if they lose is a terrible message to voters. I think this is self-explanatory, but please let me know if it isn't for you. I have muted oBlade thanks to the wonderful uBlock Origin code someone posted a while back. I can greatly recommend doing that. As such, i do not see their posts, and even if i did, i would have zero interest in talking to them. They are the very worst debatelord i have ever seen, and talking to them is both exhausting and pointless, because they have absolutely no convinctions or beliefs, they just want to win the discussion. Do not expect me to ever reply to anything the post. I believe in a truth separate from the person or persons talking about it. Even the most hardcore pro-tariff 2020-election-conspiracy-believer Trump supporter sometimes brings up a good point every once in a while. But that's your business on who you read and why. I limit it to the extreme trolls that don't actually believe a word they say and prove it again and again and are additionally bad-mannered. And yeah, it is really bad if you cannot trust your elections. But that is all on Trump and his republican enablers. He constantly cries about election fraud, and at the same time tries to cheat in elections in any way he can. He also tried to coup the government when he lost.
If you want people to trust their elections, maybe you should do something about the guy who constantly cheats at them and accuses other people of cheating?
Or make the process so transparent that it is very obvious no one is cheating. Like, for example, paper ballots with good procedures instead of utterly intransparent voting machines that no one can really trust, ever. Or at least allow in some international observers. But someone banned them for this election. I wonder who? Well I'm not getting through to you on the obvious problem just pointing at each other and saying they're the true election denier/if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated. It's like constantly going back to restating that the problem in America is Trump supporters, and every time somebody proposes ways to manage it or fix it or move past while accounting for it, you lash out and restate that the problem is Trump supporters. Ok, cool, but maybe slow your roll next time you parrot Trump on the "if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated?" I can agree with you that it doesn't feel fair in the information ecosystem and politics to have a reason not to repeat the claims in reverse. I know that this argument makes sense to you in your post-truth mindset. And i can even understand that constant accusations of the election being rigged are bad for trust in democracy. I can understand that you have problems building a mental model for how the general American public incorporates political claims and controversies into their political viewpoint and voting, but you'll have to develop yours further. It's ignorance and doomerism that yields "or the US is just completely lost." My problem with it is threefold:
-Trump has been saying "the others cheat" for years now. Somehow when he said it, that wasn't a problem for you. But suddenly when people accuse Trump of cheating, they are going to far for you?
-People actually rigging the election is even worse for trust in democracy.
-We already know that Trump doesn't care about elections if he loses. He tried to overthrow the government the last time that happened. Do you really think he wouldn't cheat if he thought he could get away with it?
I know that you cannot understand this, but there is not just different perspectives and different sides saying stuff for strategic reasons. Sometimes there is actual truth, and both sides are not equal.
Imagine a starcraft tournament with some guy who both constantly accuses everyone else of being a maphacker, and who has a history of cheating himself, who then does a lot of majorly suspicious moves in that tournament and wins. Would you not agree that saying that he probably cheated again is reasonable? Or would you say that one should not say that, because it reduces the trust in the tournament?
The problem is the cheater. Him constantly shouting that everyone else is a cheater does not mean that you cannot call the cheater a cheater. You should move past the naive problem-oriented thinking or fixation that redirects all means of managing an imperfect society and news/culture/society environment back to restating the problems again and again and again. We don't need to re-define for the hundredth time that what Trump does is bad. We need to seek next moves and vet messages as they are understood by the listener. These are either "It's okay when we do it/Now these kinds of questions aren't bad for democracy" or "The difference is I'm right he's wrong/I'm good he's evil." If only politics and political campaigning were so easy! I want to live in your world, because in your world there's no way 2016 and 2024 happen! Let's export that population to Antarctica and make electioneering so, so easy. If the 2026 Midterm and 2028 Election were already in the bag, I wouldn't care about people whose messaging is so counterproductive and stupid that it might as well be featured in GOP ads. I have a feeling you're ignoring or dismissing bad candidate quality in this cycle by intention. If Democrats fail to take the Senate, it's this cycle's bad Senate map and poor candidate quality. Not that Americans are lost and otherwise it's Stolen Election 2: Electric Boogaloo. Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
anyone that's been to Democrats' organizing meetings at pretty much any level in pretty much any state knows what I'm saying about dyhb type Democrats to be true. It's probably because the ticklish/Kwizach type Democrats stopped posting shortly after Hillary blew it.
The disconnect between that reality and this forum actually explains a lot. Forum has too few moderate Democrats. Still too many, but I'd prefer Democrats like yourself actually be Republicans instead of stopping Democrats from sucking less.
|
He didn't walk it back. He admitted he said it to be provocative, but a minister saying something provocative to get people's attention is probably the most-used rhetorical device in the history of Christianity, including by Jesus himself in the Bible.
"The first comment about God not being defined by gender, when I said that, I was being provocative," Talarico replied. "I think what I was saying is actually not controversial theologically."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/talarico-god-nonbinary-remark-being-114927456.html
I guess you thought you could get away with blatantly lying about that too huh? Lmao.
|
On October 22 2026 09:46 Introvert wrote:
That Talerico's use of the phrase was not helpful and to be generous to him was as he put it "provocative." He was trying to score brownie points. If he was trying to make the more narrow point, and he didn't want to be misunderstood by his enemies *and* his friends, he would have said just about anything else. But I don't think he ever dreamed of having a shot at a senate seat when he said that in 2021.
There are right-wing Christians in America right now that deny the rights and humanity of trans (including nonbinary) people because they erroneously think the Bible teaches humans can only be two genders. Talarico making a perfectly correct orthodox statement about how God is beyond gender is provocative but I'd say it's very helpful. It's about time people start pushing back against Christian nationalists hijacking the Gospel.
|
On October 22 2026 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2026 06:11 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 05:24 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Ah, if it isn't our favorite self-described "Democrat" uncritically repeating Republican talking points yet again.
Not sure what's supposed to be odd about "God is nonbinary," do you think Christians generally believe the Holy Spirit has male genitalia? And do you think that sentence was somehow a worse crime than Paxton giving sweetheart deals to child molesters and campaigning on "Christian values" while openly taking vacations with his mistress? Do you have any idea of mainstream Christian beliefs, let alone Texas? On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. You go mull over the consequences of saying Republicans are trying to rig the election after Trump just got done saying Democrats are trying to rig the election. You'll have to expand on the alleged actual successful election cheating that happened in the 2020 election from the left's point of view. On October 22 2026 04:34 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat.
Now, the other option (thankfully you present one) misses a few key things. First, republicans can "win the election in any way" by holding the Senate. There are only a few Senate seats that are up for vote in every election. In this election, the map leans favorable to Republicans.
On top of that, the Democrats ran a candidate credibly accused of sexual assault and rape and sporting a Nazi tattoo in Maine. After the accusations worsened, they swapped in another candidate that has little time to establish himself as an alternative. The Democratic candidate in Michigan is busy trying to distance himself from a letter he signed supporting the Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian president to "purge the media and the police" and his family's social media posts describing long-time Muslim Brotherhood support that El-Sayed denies. Talarico (Texas dem candidate) has his odd "God is nonbinary," Mary's example supports abortion for Christians, and "Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country." Not exactly a good message in very white and pretty religious Texas. If Republicans hang on to the Senate, it will be in part due to candidate quality as well as a favorable map.
No need to count America out if this election goes poorly. Did you miss how i posted an article about Trump trying to get CISA to hack voting machines, not tell the manufacturer, and only tell the white house? On the last page? It stops being a conspiracy theory once they actually do it. Trump tried an insurrection the last time he lost. Do you really think he wouldn't rig the election if he thought he could do it? The only reason the election might not get rigged is Trumps incompetence. And yeah, you will always find some attack angle on everyone. That is what the republican shitthrowing machine does. Did you miss my post on anonymously sourced articles and how much trust should be placed in them? Pro Publica is a big Democrat-funded operation that has had a string of obvious hit pieces, but see my previous post on that. oBlade also remarked on the obvious point on penetration testing and validation. You didn't respond, but you should if you're serious about the point. It should go without saying that each side pointing to the other about having the *REAL* example of a stolen election if they lose is a terrible message to voters. I think this is self-explanatory, but please let me know if it isn't for you. I have muted oBlade thanks to the wonderful uBlock Origin code someone posted a while back. I can greatly recommend doing that. As such, i do not see their posts, and even if i did, i would have zero interest in talking to them. They are the very worst debatelord i have ever seen, and talking to them is both exhausting and pointless, because they have absolutely no convinctions or beliefs, they just want to win the discussion. Do not expect me to ever reply to anything the post. I believe in a truth separate from the person or persons talking about it. Even the most hardcore pro-tariff 2020-election-conspiracy-believer Trump supporter sometimes brings up a good point every once in a while. But that's your business on who you read and why. I limit it to the extreme trolls that don't actually believe a word they say and prove it again and again and are additionally bad-mannered. And yeah, it is really bad if you cannot trust your elections. But that is all on Trump and his republican enablers. He constantly cries about election fraud, and at the same time tries to cheat in elections in any way he can. He also tried to coup the government when he lost.
If you want people to trust their elections, maybe you should do something about the guy who constantly cheats at them and accuses other people of cheating?
Or make the process so transparent that it is very obvious no one is cheating. Like, for example, paper ballots with good procedures instead of utterly intransparent voting machines that no one can really trust, ever. Or at least allow in some international observers. But someone banned them for this election. I wonder who? Well I'm not getting through to you on the obvious problem just pointing at each other and saying they're the true election denier/if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated. It's like constantly going back to restating that the problem in America is Trump supporters, and every time somebody proposes ways to manage it or fix it or move past while accounting for it, you lash out and restate that the problem is Trump supporters. Ok, cool, but maybe slow your roll next time you parrot Trump on the "if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated?" I can agree with you that it doesn't feel fair in the information ecosystem and politics to have a reason not to repeat the claims in reverse. On October 22 2026 05:32 LightSpectra wrote:On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Ah, if it isn't our favorite self-described "Democrat" uncritically repeating Republican talking points yet again.
Not sure what's supposed to be odd about "God is nonbinary," do you think Christians generally believe the Holy Spirit has male genitalia? And do you think that sentence was somehow a worse crime than Paxton giving sweetheart deals to child molesters and campaigning on "Christian values" while openly taking vacations with his mistress? Do you have any idea of mainstream Christian beliefs, let alone Texas? I'm obviously not an expert in anything, so sometimes I read posts in this forum that talk about things I'm not super informed about like specific tactics and equipment used in modern warfare, and I can't really agree with or dispute those points. In this case you decided to opine about an issue I am very well informed on, and it couldn't be more obvious you aren't. If you'd like me to talk in great detail about how not only do the First and Third Persons of the Holy Trinity not have a biological sex (they aren't even made of matter and therefore cannot have genitalia or chromosomes), but also that God is described in explicitly female terms several times throughout the Bible in ways that are often missed if you don't know biblical Hebrew and/or Greek. Anyone who has a strong negative opinion about "God is nonbinary" is both grossly uninformed about basic orthodox theology, and was probably never going to vote for a Democrat anyway because they're likely carrying around a thousand other theological misconceptions fomented by Christian nationalism and fundamentalism. I noticed that you used "not have a biological sex" and transitioned, without comment, to "God is nonbinary." Any particular reason why you'd lead with the one? Or let me put it another way. Is there a cultural Christianity and theological difference between the statements that God does not have a biology to have biological sex and humans have crafted a socially constructed sexual identity that simply says not man or woman? What do you think non-binary means? Please write something responsive to I noticed that you used "not have a biological sex" and transitioned, without comment, to "God is nonbinary." Any particular reason why you'd lead with the one? Or let me put it another way. Is there a cultural Christianity and theological difference between the statements that God does not have a biology to have biological sex and humans have crafted a socially constructed sexual identity that simply says not man or woman? The deity angle/difference is important. Also, state whether you already agree with the final clause of the last sentence. On October 22 2026 06:28 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:
I noticed that you used "not have a biological sex" and transitioned, without comment, to "God is nonbinary." Any particular reason why you'd lead with the one? Or let me put it another way. Is there a cultural Christianity and theological difference between the statements that God does not have a biology to have biological sex and humans have crafted a socially constructed sexual identity that simply says not man or woman? Happy to help: orthodox (little-o) Christians do not believe any Person of the Trinity has a gender in any sense of the English word, except the incarnate Son. A person (or in this case Person) who has no gender or biological sex and therefore does not belong to the binary categorization of gender or sex is nonbinary. "God is nonbinary" is so plainly true that the Pope could say it without controversy. The only reason to complain about it would be if you're a grifter trying to invoke wrath from ignorant transphobes. The mainstream Christian view simply doesn't allow human sexual expression to transcend biology in the way that God transcends human existence. So it is true to say that God does "not have a biological sex" for mainstream Christians, but false to imply that God's transcendence also means humans can do the same thing (and anybody familiar with theology should be reminded of the "you shall be as Gods." When Talarico tried to walk it back, "When I said that I was being provocative," it made perfect sense. He wasn't stating acknowledged Christian theology or cultural Christianity truth, he said something wrong and spun it as simply desiring to provoke. It still damaged the brand (along with the things in the rest of my earlier post, respond if you want) On October 22 2026 06:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. You go mull over the consequences of saying Republicans are trying to rig the election after Trump just got done saying Democrats are trying to rig the election. That is a very different point than the previous one. In your previous post, you said that Democrats and Trump were engaging in the same kinds of conspiracy theories about the other side cheating, implying that both sides were equally baseless / equally credible / equally likely to have happened / equally to be criticized. That's just flat-out wrong. In this second post, you're now criticizing Democrats for talking about Trump cheating - even though it's true - because it would appear hypocritical after everyone criticized Trump for lying about Democrats cheating. It's not hypocritical when one side is telling the truth about the other cheating, while the other side is lying about the other cheating. You're getting closer. The first instance was Trump both saying that "the only way we're going to lose this election is if this election is rigged" and later denying the results. The Democratic response was that questioning the election results before the election happens was a threat to our democracy, and had even more in that avenue after Trump lost and questioned the results. This was huge and pronounced and all kinds of people responded highly on "threats to democracy" on polls in 2024 etc. Now, the shift is that questioning election results before they even happen is fine when we do it, because when we do it, that means it really has substance. Sorry, but no matter how carefully you frame that argument and draw on substance, you lose. Your message to the public is that it's ok when we do it, but not when they do it. I know you have this dream of proving to the world that the substance is on your side, but that will clearly and definitely be lost in the eyes of the public. Do as I say, not as I do. Ironically, people here are very willing to acknowledge that the public receives news and issues very differently than this corner of the internet in different topics. On October 22 2026 06:37 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 05:24 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Ah, if it isn't our favorite self-described "Democrat" uncritically repeating Republican talking points yet again.
Not sure what's supposed to be odd about "God is nonbinary," do you think Christians generally believe the Holy Spirit has male genitalia? And do you think that sentence was somehow a worse crime than Paxton giving sweetheart deals to child molesters and campaigning on "Christian values" while openly taking vacations with his mistress? Do you have any idea of mainstream Christian beliefs, let alone Texas? On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. You go mull over the consequences of saying Republicans are trying to rig the election after Trump just got done saying Democrats are trying to rig the election. You'll have to expand on the alleged actual successful election cheating that happened in the 2020 election from the left's point of view. On October 22 2026 04:34 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat.
Now, the other option (thankfully you present one) misses a few key things. First, republicans can "win the election in any way" by holding the Senate. There are only a few Senate seats that are up for vote in every election. In this election, the map leans favorable to Republicans.
On top of that, the Democrats ran a candidate credibly accused of sexual assault and rape and sporting a Nazi tattoo in Maine. After the accusations worsened, they swapped in another candidate that has little time to establish himself as an alternative. The Democratic candidate in Michigan is busy trying to distance himself from a letter he signed supporting the Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian president to "purge the media and the police" and his family's social media posts describing long-time Muslim Brotherhood support that El-Sayed denies. Talarico (Texas dem candidate) has his odd "God is nonbinary," Mary's example supports abortion for Christians, and "Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country." Not exactly a good message in very white and pretty religious Texas. If Republicans hang on to the Senate, it will be in part due to candidate quality as well as a favorable map.
No need to count America out if this election goes poorly. Did you miss how i posted an article about Trump trying to get CISA to hack voting machines, not tell the manufacturer, and only tell the white house? On the last page? It stops being a conspiracy theory once they actually do it. Trump tried an insurrection the last time he lost. Do you really think he wouldn't rig the election if he thought he could do it? The only reason the election might not get rigged is Trumps incompetence. And yeah, you will always find some attack angle on everyone. That is what the republican shitthrowing machine does. Did you miss my post on anonymously sourced articles and how much trust should be placed in them? Pro Publica is a big Democrat-funded operation that has had a string of obvious hit pieces, but see my previous post on that. oBlade also remarked on the obvious point on penetration testing and validation. You didn't respond, but you should if you're serious about the point. It should go without saying that each side pointing to the other about having the *REAL* example of a stolen election if they lose is a terrible message to voters. I think this is self-explanatory, but please let me know if it isn't for you. I have muted oBlade thanks to the wonderful uBlock Origin code someone posted a while back. I can greatly recommend doing that. As such, i do not see their posts, and even if i did, i would have zero interest in talking to them. They are the very worst debatelord i have ever seen, and talking to them is both exhausting and pointless, because they have absolutely no convinctions or beliefs, they just want to win the discussion. Do not expect me to ever reply to anything the post. I believe in a truth separate from the person or persons talking about it. Even the most hardcore pro-tariff 2020-election-conspiracy-believer Trump supporter sometimes brings up a good point every once in a while. But that's your business on who you read and why. I limit it to the extreme trolls that don't actually believe a word they say and prove it again and again and are additionally bad-mannered. And yeah, it is really bad if you cannot trust your elections. But that is all on Trump and his republican enablers. He constantly cries about election fraud, and at the same time tries to cheat in elections in any way he can. He also tried to coup the government when he lost.
If you want people to trust their elections, maybe you should do something about the guy who constantly cheats at them and accuses other people of cheating?
Or make the process so transparent that it is very obvious no one is cheating. Like, for example, paper ballots with good procedures instead of utterly intransparent voting machines that no one can really trust, ever. Or at least allow in some international observers. But someone banned them for this election. I wonder who? Well I'm not getting through to you on the obvious problem just pointing at each other and saying they're the true election denier/if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated. It's like constantly going back to restating that the problem in America is Trump supporters, and every time somebody proposes ways to manage it or fix it or move past while accounting for it, you lash out and restate that the problem is Trump supporters. Ok, cool, but maybe slow your roll next time you parrot Trump on the "if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated?" I can agree with you that it doesn't feel fair in the information ecosystem and politics to have a reason not to repeat the claims in reverse. I know that this argument makes sense to you in your post-truth mindset. And i can even understand that constant accusations of the election being rigged are bad for trust in democracy. I can understand that you have problems building a mental model for how the general American public incorporates political claims and controversies into their political viewpoint and voting, but you'll have to develop yours further. It's ignorance and doomerism that yields "or the US is just completely lost." My problem with it is threefold:
-Trump has been saying "the others cheat" for years now. Somehow when he said it, that wasn't a problem for you. But suddenly when people accuse Trump of cheating, they are going to far for you?
-People actually rigging the election is even worse for trust in democracy.
-We already know that Trump doesn't care about elections if he loses. He tried to overthrow the government the last time that happened. Do you really think he wouldn't cheat if he thought he could get away with it?
I know that you cannot understand this, but there is not just different perspectives and different sides saying stuff for strategic reasons. Sometimes there is actual truth, and both sides are not equal.
Imagine a starcraft tournament with some guy who both constantly accuses everyone else of being a maphacker, and who has a history of cheating himself, who then does a lot of majorly suspicious moves in that tournament and wins. Would you not agree that saying that he probably cheated again is reasonable? Or would you say that one should not say that, because it reduces the trust in the tournament?
The problem is the cheater. Him constantly shouting that everyone else is a cheater does not mean that you cannot call the cheater a cheater. You should move past the naive problem-oriented thinking or fixation that redirects all means of managing an imperfect society and news/culture/society environment back to restating the problems again and again and again. We don't need to re-define for the hundredth time that what Trump does is bad. We need to seek next moves and vet messages as they are understood by the listener. These are either "It's okay when we do it/Now these kinds of questions aren't bad for democracy" or "The difference is I'm right he's wrong/I'm good he's evil." If only politics and political campaigning were so easy! I want to live in your world, because in your world there's no way 2016 and 2024 happen! Let's export that population to Antarctica and make electioneering so, so easy. If the 2026 Midterm and 2028 Election were already in the bag, I wouldn't care about people whose messaging is so counterproductive and stupid that it might as well be featured in GOP ads. I have a feeling you're ignoring or dismissing bad candidate quality in this cycle by intention. If Democrats fail to take the Senate, it's this cycle's bad Senate map and poor candidate quality. Not that Americans are lost and otherwise it's Stolen Election 2: Electric Boogaloo. On October 22 2026 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
anyone that's been to Democrats' organizing meetings at pretty much any level in pretty much any state knows what I'm saying about dyhb type Democrats to be true. It's probably because the ticklish/Kwizach type Democrats stopped posting shortly after Hillary blew it.
The disconnect between that reality and this forum actually explains a lot. Forum has too few moderate Democrats. Still too many, but I'd prefer Democrats like yourself actually be Republicans instead of stopping Democrats from sucking less. Nah in the age of Trump, I'm not voting Republican for any elected national office. There's no real Dems get too left-wing for me to switch sides until currently acute issues are rectified (though there is a level of left-wing idiocy where I'll stay home or go third party).
|
On October 22 2026 09:49 LightSpectra wrote:He didn't walk it back. He admitted he said it to be provocative, but a minister saying something provocative to get people's attention is probably the most-used rhetorical device in the history of Christianity, including by Jesus himself in the Bible. Show nested quote +"The first comment about God not being defined by gender, when I said that, I was being provocative," Talarico replied. "I think what I was saying is actually not controversial theologically." https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/talarico-god-nonbinary-remark-being-114927456.htmlI guess you thought you could get away with blatantly lying about that too huh? Lmao. "when I said that, I was being provocative" - Talarico, trying to walk it back
"I think what I was saying is actually not controversial theologically." - Talarico, simultaneously trying to have it both ways
Democratic candidate quality still shit, but its a favorable environment so they might still win.
LightSpectra's next target: This ABC News Headline that deliberately posts the fake news that "Talarico walks back comments on religion and gender." Subhead: "you can't use human categories to define God" and why the Talarico campaign knows less about mainstream Christianity than LightSpectra, who knows he was absolutely fine to say that.
|
The ABC main headline says it's a "walk back" but the subheading is about how he doubled down on the statement and reinforced it. Obviously a bad headline and you have to be almost illiterate to defend it.
|
On October 22 2026 10:07 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2026 06:11 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 05:24 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Ah, if it isn't our favorite self-described "Democrat" uncritically repeating Republican talking points yet again.
Not sure what's supposed to be odd about "God is nonbinary," do you think Christians generally believe the Holy Spirit has male genitalia? And do you think that sentence was somehow a worse crime than Paxton giving sweetheart deals to child molesters and campaigning on "Christian values" while openly taking vacations with his mistress? Do you have any idea of mainstream Christian beliefs, let alone Texas? On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. You go mull over the consequences of saying Republicans are trying to rig the election after Trump just got done saying Democrats are trying to rig the election. You'll have to expand on the alleged actual successful election cheating that happened in the 2020 election from the left's point of view. On October 22 2026 04:34 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat.
Now, the other option (thankfully you present one) misses a few key things. First, republicans can "win the election in any way" by holding the Senate. There are only a few Senate seats that are up for vote in every election. In this election, the map leans favorable to Republicans.
On top of that, the Democrats ran a candidate credibly accused of sexual assault and rape and sporting a Nazi tattoo in Maine. After the accusations worsened, they swapped in another candidate that has little time to establish himself as an alternative. The Democratic candidate in Michigan is busy trying to distance himself from a letter he signed supporting the Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian president to "purge the media and the police" and his family's social media posts describing long-time Muslim Brotherhood support that El-Sayed denies. Talarico (Texas dem candidate) has his odd "God is nonbinary," Mary's example supports abortion for Christians, and "Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country." Not exactly a good message in very white and pretty religious Texas. If Republicans hang on to the Senate, it will be in part due to candidate quality as well as a favorable map.
No need to count America out if this election goes poorly. Did you miss how i posted an article about Trump trying to get CISA to hack voting machines, not tell the manufacturer, and only tell the white house? On the last page? It stops being a conspiracy theory once they actually do it. Trump tried an insurrection the last time he lost. Do you really think he wouldn't rig the election if he thought he could do it? The only reason the election might not get rigged is Trumps incompetence. And yeah, you will always find some attack angle on everyone. That is what the republican shitthrowing machine does. Did you miss my post on anonymously sourced articles and how much trust should be placed in them? Pro Publica is a big Democrat-funded operation that has had a string of obvious hit pieces, but see my previous post on that. oBlade also remarked on the obvious point on penetration testing and validation. You didn't respond, but you should if you're serious about the point. It should go without saying that each side pointing to the other about having the *REAL* example of a stolen election if they lose is a terrible message to voters. I think this is self-explanatory, but please let me know if it isn't for you. I have muted oBlade thanks to the wonderful uBlock Origin code someone posted a while back. I can greatly recommend doing that. As such, i do not see their posts, and even if i did, i would have zero interest in talking to them. They are the very worst debatelord i have ever seen, and talking to them is both exhausting and pointless, because they have absolutely no convinctions or beliefs, they just want to win the discussion. Do not expect me to ever reply to anything the post. I believe in a truth separate from the person or persons talking about it. Even the most hardcore pro-tariff 2020-election-conspiracy-believer Trump supporter sometimes brings up a good point every once in a while. But that's your business on who you read and why. I limit it to the extreme trolls that don't actually believe a word they say and prove it again and again and are additionally bad-mannered. And yeah, it is really bad if you cannot trust your elections. But that is all on Trump and his republican enablers. He constantly cries about election fraud, and at the same time tries to cheat in elections in any way he can. He also tried to coup the government when he lost.
If you want people to trust their elections, maybe you should do something about the guy who constantly cheats at them and accuses other people of cheating?
Or make the process so transparent that it is very obvious no one is cheating. Like, for example, paper ballots with good procedures instead of utterly intransparent voting machines that no one can really trust, ever. Or at least allow in some international observers. But someone banned them for this election. I wonder who? Well I'm not getting through to you on the obvious problem just pointing at each other and saying they're the true election denier/if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated. It's like constantly going back to restating that the problem in America is Trump supporters, and every time somebody proposes ways to manage it or fix it or move past while accounting for it, you lash out and restate that the problem is Trump supporters. Ok, cool, but maybe slow your roll next time you parrot Trump on the "if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated?" I can agree with you that it doesn't feel fair in the information ecosystem and politics to have a reason not to repeat the claims in reverse. On October 22 2026 05:32 LightSpectra wrote:On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Ah, if it isn't our favorite self-described "Democrat" uncritically repeating Republican talking points yet again.
Not sure what's supposed to be odd about "God is nonbinary," do you think Christians generally believe the Holy Spirit has male genitalia? And do you think that sentence was somehow a worse crime than Paxton giving sweetheart deals to child molesters and campaigning on "Christian values" while openly taking vacations with his mistress? Do you have any idea of mainstream Christian beliefs, let alone Texas? I'm obviously not an expert in anything, so sometimes I read posts in this forum that talk about things I'm not super informed about like specific tactics and equipment used in modern warfare, and I can't really agree with or dispute those points. In this case you decided to opine about an issue I am very well informed on, and it couldn't be more obvious you aren't. If you'd like me to talk in great detail about how not only do the First and Third Persons of the Holy Trinity not have a biological sex (they aren't even made of matter and therefore cannot have genitalia or chromosomes), but also that God is described in explicitly female terms several times throughout the Bible in ways that are often missed if you don't know biblical Hebrew and/or Greek. Anyone who has a strong negative opinion about "God is nonbinary" is both grossly uninformed about basic orthodox theology, and was probably never going to vote for a Democrat anyway because they're likely carrying around a thousand other theological misconceptions fomented by Christian nationalism and fundamentalism. I noticed that you used "not have a biological sex" and transitioned, without comment, to "God is nonbinary." Any particular reason why you'd lead with the one? Or let me put it another way. Is there a cultural Christianity and theological difference between the statements that God does not have a biology to have biological sex and humans have crafted a socially constructed sexual identity that simply says not man or woman? What do you think non-binary means? Please write something responsive to I noticed that you used "not have a biological sex" and transitioned, without comment, to "God is nonbinary." Any particular reason why you'd lead with the one? Or let me put it another way. Is there a cultural Christianity and theological difference between the statements that God does not have a biology to have biological sex and humans have crafted a socially constructed sexual identity that simply says not man or woman? The deity angle/difference is important. Also, state whether you already agree with the final clause of the last sentence. On October 22 2026 06:28 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:
I noticed that you used "not have a biological sex" and transitioned, without comment, to "God is nonbinary." Any particular reason why you'd lead with the one? Or let me put it another way. Is there a cultural Christianity and theological difference between the statements that God does not have a biology to have biological sex and humans have crafted a socially constructed sexual identity that simply says not man or woman? Happy to help: orthodox (little-o) Christians do not believe any Person of the Trinity has a gender in any sense of the English word, except the incarnate Son. A person (or in this case Person) who has no gender or biological sex and therefore does not belong to the binary categorization of gender or sex is nonbinary. "God is nonbinary" is so plainly true that the Pope could say it without controversy. The only reason to complain about it would be if you're a grifter trying to invoke wrath from ignorant transphobes. The mainstream Christian view simply doesn't allow human sexual expression to transcend biology in the way that God transcends human existence. So it is true to say that God does "not have a biological sex" for mainstream Christians, but false to imply that God's transcendence also means humans can do the same thing (and anybody familiar with theology should be reminded of the "you shall be as Gods." When Talarico tried to walk it back, "When I said that I was being provocative," it made perfect sense. He wasn't stating acknowledged Christian theology or cultural Christianity truth, he said something wrong and spun it as simply desiring to provoke. It still damaged the brand (along with the things in the rest of my earlier post, respond if you want) On October 22 2026 06:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. You go mull over the consequences of saying Republicans are trying to rig the election after Trump just got done saying Democrats are trying to rig the election. That is a very different point than the previous one. In your previous post, you said that Democrats and Trump were engaging in the same kinds of conspiracy theories about the other side cheating, implying that both sides were equally baseless / equally credible / equally likely to have happened / equally to be criticized. That's just flat-out wrong. In this second post, you're now criticizing Democrats for talking about Trump cheating - even though it's true - because it would appear hypocritical after everyone criticized Trump for lying about Democrats cheating. It's not hypocritical when one side is telling the truth about the other cheating, while the other side is lying about the other cheating. You're getting closer. The first instance was Trump both saying that "the only way we're going to lose this election is if this election is rigged" and later denying the results. The Democratic response was that questioning the election results before the election happens was a threat to our democracy, and had even more in that avenue after Trump lost and questioned the results. This was huge and pronounced and all kinds of people responded highly on "threats to democracy" on polls in 2024 etc. Now, the shift is that questioning election results before they even happen is fine when we do it, because when we do it, that means it really has substance. Sorry, but no matter how carefully you frame that argument and draw on substance, you lose. Your message to the public is that it's ok when we do it, but not when they do it. I know you have this dream of proving to the world that the substance is on your side, but that will clearly and definitely be lost in the eyes of the public. Do as I say, not as I do. Ironically, people here are very willing to acknowledge that the public receives news and issues very differently than this corner of the internet in different topics. On October 22 2026 06:37 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 05:24 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Ah, if it isn't our favorite self-described "Democrat" uncritically repeating Republican talking points yet again.
Not sure what's supposed to be odd about "God is nonbinary," do you think Christians generally believe the Holy Spirit has male genitalia? And do you think that sentence was somehow a worse crime than Paxton giving sweetheart deals to child molesters and campaigning on "Christian values" while openly taking vacations with his mistress? Do you have any idea of mainstream Christian beliefs, let alone Texas? On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. You go mull over the consequences of saying Republicans are trying to rig the election after Trump just got done saying Democrats are trying to rig the election. You'll have to expand on the alleged actual successful election cheating that happened in the 2020 election from the left's point of view. On October 22 2026 04:34 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat.
Now, the other option (thankfully you present one) misses a few key things. First, republicans can "win the election in any way" by holding the Senate. There are only a few Senate seats that are up for vote in every election. In this election, the map leans favorable to Republicans.
On top of that, the Democrats ran a candidate credibly accused of sexual assault and rape and sporting a Nazi tattoo in Maine. After the accusations worsened, they swapped in another candidate that has little time to establish himself as an alternative. The Democratic candidate in Michigan is busy trying to distance himself from a letter he signed supporting the Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian president to "purge the media and the police" and his family's social media posts describing long-time Muslim Brotherhood support that El-Sayed denies. Talarico (Texas dem candidate) has his odd "God is nonbinary," Mary's example supports abortion for Christians, and "Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country." Not exactly a good message in very white and pretty religious Texas. If Republicans hang on to the Senate, it will be in part due to candidate quality as well as a favorable map.
No need to count America out if this election goes poorly. Did you miss how i posted an article about Trump trying to get CISA to hack voting machines, not tell the manufacturer, and only tell the white house? On the last page? It stops being a conspiracy theory once they actually do it. Trump tried an insurrection the last time he lost. Do you really think he wouldn't rig the election if he thought he could do it? The only reason the election might not get rigged is Trumps incompetence. And yeah, you will always find some attack angle on everyone. That is what the republican shitthrowing machine does. Did you miss my post on anonymously sourced articles and how much trust should be placed in them? Pro Publica is a big Democrat-funded operation that has had a string of obvious hit pieces, but see my previous post on that. oBlade also remarked on the obvious point on penetration testing and validation. You didn't respond, but you should if you're serious about the point. It should go without saying that each side pointing to the other about having the *REAL* example of a stolen election if they lose is a terrible message to voters. I think this is self-explanatory, but please let me know if it isn't for you. I have muted oBlade thanks to the wonderful uBlock Origin code someone posted a while back. I can greatly recommend doing that. As such, i do not see their posts, and even if i did, i would have zero interest in talking to them. They are the very worst debatelord i have ever seen, and talking to them is both exhausting and pointless, because they have absolutely no convinctions or beliefs, they just want to win the discussion. Do not expect me to ever reply to anything the post. I believe in a truth separate from the person or persons talking about it. Even the most hardcore pro-tariff 2020-election-conspiracy-believer Trump supporter sometimes brings up a good point every once in a while. But that's your business on who you read and why. I limit it to the extreme trolls that don't actually believe a word they say and prove it again and again and are additionally bad-mannered. And yeah, it is really bad if you cannot trust your elections. But that is all on Trump and his republican enablers. He constantly cries about election fraud, and at the same time tries to cheat in elections in any way he can. He also tried to coup the government when he lost.
If you want people to trust their elections, maybe you should do something about the guy who constantly cheats at them and accuses other people of cheating?
Or make the process so transparent that it is very obvious no one is cheating. Like, for example, paper ballots with good procedures instead of utterly intransparent voting machines that no one can really trust, ever. Or at least allow in some international observers. But someone banned them for this election. I wonder who? Well I'm not getting through to you on the obvious problem just pointing at each other and saying they're the true election denier/if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated. It's like constantly going back to restating that the problem in America is Trump supporters, and every time somebody proposes ways to manage it or fix it or move past while accounting for it, you lash out and restate that the problem is Trump supporters. Ok, cool, but maybe slow your roll next time you parrot Trump on the "if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated?" I can agree with you that it doesn't feel fair in the information ecosystem and politics to have a reason not to repeat the claims in reverse. I know that this argument makes sense to you in your post-truth mindset. And i can even understand that constant accusations of the election being rigged are bad for trust in democracy. I can understand that you have problems building a mental model for how the general American public incorporates political claims and controversies into their political viewpoint and voting, but you'll have to develop yours further. It's ignorance and doomerism that yields "or the US is just completely lost." My problem with it is threefold:
-Trump has been saying "the others cheat" for years now. Somehow when he said it, that wasn't a problem for you. But suddenly when people accuse Trump of cheating, they are going to far for you?
-People actually rigging the election is even worse for trust in democracy.
-We already know that Trump doesn't care about elections if he loses. He tried to overthrow the government the last time that happened. Do you really think he wouldn't cheat if he thought he could get away with it?
I know that you cannot understand this, but there is not just different perspectives and different sides saying stuff for strategic reasons. Sometimes there is actual truth, and both sides are not equal.
Imagine a starcraft tournament with some guy who both constantly accuses everyone else of being a maphacker, and who has a history of cheating himself, who then does a lot of majorly suspicious moves in that tournament and wins. Would you not agree that saying that he probably cheated again is reasonable? Or would you say that one should not say that, because it reduces the trust in the tournament?
The problem is the cheater. Him constantly shouting that everyone else is a cheater does not mean that you cannot call the cheater a cheater. You should move past the naive problem-oriented thinking or fixation that redirects all means of managing an imperfect society and news/culture/society environment back to restating the problems again and again and again. We don't need to re-define for the hundredth time that what Trump does is bad. We need to seek next moves and vet messages as they are understood by the listener. These are either "It's okay when we do it/Now these kinds of questions aren't bad for democracy" or "The difference is I'm right he's wrong/I'm good he's evil." If only politics and political campaigning were so easy! I want to live in your world, because in your world there's no way 2016 and 2024 happen! Let's export that population to Antarctica and make electioneering so, so easy. If the 2026 Midterm and 2028 Election were already in the bag, I wouldn't care about people whose messaging is so counterproductive and stupid that it might as well be featured in GOP ads. I have a feeling you're ignoring or dismissing bad candidate quality in this cycle by intention. If Democrats fail to take the Senate, it's this cycle's bad Senate map and poor candidate quality. Not that Americans are lost and otherwise it's Stolen Election 2: Electric Boogaloo. On October 22 2026 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
anyone that's been to Democrats' organizing meetings at pretty much any level in pretty much any state knows what I'm saying about dyhb type Democrats to be true. It's probably because the ticklish/Kwizach type Democrats stopped posting shortly after Hillary blew it.
The disconnect between that reality and this forum actually explains a lot. Forum has too few moderate Democrats. Still too many, but I'd prefer Democrats like yourself actually be Republicans instead of stopping Democrats from sucking less. Nah in the age of Trump, I'm not voting Republican for any elected national office. There's no real Dems get too left-wing for me to switch sides until currently acute issues are rectified (though there is a level of left-wing idiocy where I'll stay home or go third party).
What would be your ideal Democratic platform / Who would be an example of a Democratic politician (could be one from the past) that you really resonate with?
|
On October 22 2026 10:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 10:07 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2026 06:11 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 05:24 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Ah, if it isn't our favorite self-described "Democrat" uncritically repeating Republican talking points yet again.
Not sure what's supposed to be odd about "God is nonbinary," do you think Christians generally believe the Holy Spirit has male genitalia? And do you think that sentence was somehow a worse crime than Paxton giving sweetheart deals to child molesters and campaigning on "Christian values" while openly taking vacations with his mistress? Do you have any idea of mainstream Christian beliefs, let alone Texas? On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. You go mull over the consequences of saying Republicans are trying to rig the election after Trump just got done saying Democrats are trying to rig the election. You'll have to expand on the alleged actual successful election cheating that happened in the 2020 election from the left's point of view. On October 22 2026 04:34 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat.
Now, the other option (thankfully you present one) misses a few key things. First, republicans can "win the election in any way" by holding the Senate. There are only a few Senate seats that are up for vote in every election. In this election, the map leans favorable to Republicans.
On top of that, the Democrats ran a candidate credibly accused of sexual assault and rape and sporting a Nazi tattoo in Maine. After the accusations worsened, they swapped in another candidate that has little time to establish himself as an alternative. The Democratic candidate in Michigan is busy trying to distance himself from a letter he signed supporting the Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian president to "purge the media and the police" and his family's social media posts describing long-time Muslim Brotherhood support that El-Sayed denies. Talarico (Texas dem candidate) has his odd "God is nonbinary," Mary's example supports abortion for Christians, and "Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country." Not exactly a good message in very white and pretty religious Texas. If Republicans hang on to the Senate, it will be in part due to candidate quality as well as a favorable map.
No need to count America out if this election goes poorly. Did you miss how i posted an article about Trump trying to get CISA to hack voting machines, not tell the manufacturer, and only tell the white house? On the last page? It stops being a conspiracy theory once they actually do it. Trump tried an insurrection the last time he lost. Do you really think he wouldn't rig the election if he thought he could do it? The only reason the election might not get rigged is Trumps incompetence. And yeah, you will always find some attack angle on everyone. That is what the republican shitthrowing machine does. Did you miss my post on anonymously sourced articles and how much trust should be placed in them? Pro Publica is a big Democrat-funded operation that has had a string of obvious hit pieces, but see my previous post on that. oBlade also remarked on the obvious point on penetration testing and validation. You didn't respond, but you should if you're serious about the point. It should go without saying that each side pointing to the other about having the *REAL* example of a stolen election if they lose is a terrible message to voters. I think this is self-explanatory, but please let me know if it isn't for you. I have muted oBlade thanks to the wonderful uBlock Origin code someone posted a while back. I can greatly recommend doing that. As such, i do not see their posts, and even if i did, i would have zero interest in talking to them. They are the very worst debatelord i have ever seen, and talking to them is both exhausting and pointless, because they have absolutely no convinctions or beliefs, they just want to win the discussion. Do not expect me to ever reply to anything the post. I believe in a truth separate from the person or persons talking about it. Even the most hardcore pro-tariff 2020-election-conspiracy-believer Trump supporter sometimes brings up a good point every once in a while. But that's your business on who you read and why. I limit it to the extreme trolls that don't actually believe a word they say and prove it again and again and are additionally bad-mannered. And yeah, it is really bad if you cannot trust your elections. But that is all on Trump and his republican enablers. He constantly cries about election fraud, and at the same time tries to cheat in elections in any way he can. He also tried to coup the government when he lost.
If you want people to trust their elections, maybe you should do something about the guy who constantly cheats at them and accuses other people of cheating?
Or make the process so transparent that it is very obvious no one is cheating. Like, for example, paper ballots with good procedures instead of utterly intransparent voting machines that no one can really trust, ever. Or at least allow in some international observers. But someone banned them for this election. I wonder who? Well I'm not getting through to you on the obvious problem just pointing at each other and saying they're the true election denier/if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated. It's like constantly going back to restating that the problem in America is Trump supporters, and every time somebody proposes ways to manage it or fix it or move past while accounting for it, you lash out and restate that the problem is Trump supporters. Ok, cool, but maybe slow your roll next time you parrot Trump on the "if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated?" I can agree with you that it doesn't feel fair in the information ecosystem and politics to have a reason not to repeat the claims in reverse. On October 22 2026 05:32 LightSpectra wrote:On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Ah, if it isn't our favorite self-described "Democrat" uncritically repeating Republican talking points yet again.
Not sure what's supposed to be odd about "God is nonbinary," do you think Christians generally believe the Holy Spirit has male genitalia? And do you think that sentence was somehow a worse crime than Paxton giving sweetheart deals to child molesters and campaigning on "Christian values" while openly taking vacations with his mistress? Do you have any idea of mainstream Christian beliefs, let alone Texas? I'm obviously not an expert in anything, so sometimes I read posts in this forum that talk about things I'm not super informed about like specific tactics and equipment used in modern warfare, and I can't really agree with or dispute those points. In this case you decided to opine about an issue I am very well informed on, and it couldn't be more obvious you aren't. If you'd like me to talk in great detail about how not only do the First and Third Persons of the Holy Trinity not have a biological sex (they aren't even made of matter and therefore cannot have genitalia or chromosomes), but also that God is described in explicitly female terms several times throughout the Bible in ways that are often missed if you don't know biblical Hebrew and/or Greek. Anyone who has a strong negative opinion about "God is nonbinary" is both grossly uninformed about basic orthodox theology, and was probably never going to vote for a Democrat anyway because they're likely carrying around a thousand other theological misconceptions fomented by Christian nationalism and fundamentalism. I noticed that you used "not have a biological sex" and transitioned, without comment, to "God is nonbinary." Any particular reason why you'd lead with the one? Or let me put it another way. Is there a cultural Christianity and theological difference between the statements that God does not have a biology to have biological sex and humans have crafted a socially constructed sexual identity that simply says not man or woman? What do you think non-binary means? Please write something responsive to I noticed that you used "not have a biological sex" and transitioned, without comment, to "God is nonbinary." Any particular reason why you'd lead with the one? Or let me put it another way. Is there a cultural Christianity and theological difference between the statements that God does not have a biology to have biological sex and humans have crafted a socially constructed sexual identity that simply says not man or woman? The deity angle/difference is important. Also, state whether you already agree with the final clause of the last sentence. On October 22 2026 06:28 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:
I noticed that you used "not have a biological sex" and transitioned, without comment, to "God is nonbinary." Any particular reason why you'd lead with the one? Or let me put it another way. Is there a cultural Christianity and theological difference between the statements that God does not have a biology to have biological sex and humans have crafted a socially constructed sexual identity that simply says not man or woman? Happy to help: orthodox (little-o) Christians do not believe any Person of the Trinity has a gender in any sense of the English word, except the incarnate Son. A person (or in this case Person) who has no gender or biological sex and therefore does not belong to the binary categorization of gender or sex is nonbinary. "God is nonbinary" is so plainly true that the Pope could say it without controversy. The only reason to complain about it would be if you're a grifter trying to invoke wrath from ignorant transphobes. The mainstream Christian view simply doesn't allow human sexual expression to transcend biology in the way that God transcends human existence. So it is true to say that God does "not have a biological sex" for mainstream Christians, but false to imply that God's transcendence also means humans can do the same thing (and anybody familiar with theology should be reminded of the "you shall be as Gods." When Talarico tried to walk it back, "When I said that I was being provocative," it made perfect sense. He wasn't stating acknowledged Christian theology or cultural Christianity truth, he said something wrong and spun it as simply desiring to provoke. It still damaged the brand (along with the things in the rest of my earlier post, respond if you want) On October 22 2026 06:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. You go mull over the consequences of saying Republicans are trying to rig the election after Trump just got done saying Democrats are trying to rig the election. That is a very different point than the previous one. In your previous post, you said that Democrats and Trump were engaging in the same kinds of conspiracy theories about the other side cheating, implying that both sides were equally baseless / equally credible / equally likely to have happened / equally to be criticized. That's just flat-out wrong. In this second post, you're now criticizing Democrats for talking about Trump cheating - even though it's true - because it would appear hypocritical after everyone criticized Trump for lying about Democrats cheating. It's not hypocritical when one side is telling the truth about the other cheating, while the other side is lying about the other cheating. You're getting closer. The first instance was Trump both saying that "the only way we're going to lose this election is if this election is rigged" and later denying the results. The Democratic response was that questioning the election results before the election happens was a threat to our democracy, and had even more in that avenue after Trump lost and questioned the results. This was huge and pronounced and all kinds of people responded highly on "threats to democracy" on polls in 2024 etc. Now, the shift is that questioning election results before they even happen is fine when we do it, because when we do it, that means it really has substance. Sorry, but no matter how carefully you frame that argument and draw on substance, you lose. Your message to the public is that it's ok when we do it, but not when they do it. I know you have this dream of proving to the world that the substance is on your side, but that will clearly and definitely be lost in the eyes of the public. Do as I say, not as I do. Ironically, people here are very willing to acknowledge that the public receives news and issues very differently than this corner of the internet in different topics. On October 22 2026 06:37 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 05:24 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Ah, if it isn't our favorite self-described "Democrat" uncritically repeating Republican talking points yet again.
Not sure what's supposed to be odd about "God is nonbinary," do you think Christians generally believe the Holy Spirit has male genitalia? And do you think that sentence was somehow a worse crime than Paxton giving sweetheart deals to child molesters and campaigning on "Christian values" while openly taking vacations with his mistress? Do you have any idea of mainstream Christian beliefs, let alone Texas? On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. You go mull over the consequences of saying Republicans are trying to rig the election after Trump just got done saying Democrats are trying to rig the election. You'll have to expand on the alleged actual successful election cheating that happened in the 2020 election from the left's point of view. On October 22 2026 04:34 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat.
Now, the other option (thankfully you present one) misses a few key things. First, republicans can "win the election in any way" by holding the Senate. There are only a few Senate seats that are up for vote in every election. In this election, the map leans favorable to Republicans.
On top of that, the Democrats ran a candidate credibly accused of sexual assault and rape and sporting a Nazi tattoo in Maine. After the accusations worsened, they swapped in another candidate that has little time to establish himself as an alternative. The Democratic candidate in Michigan is busy trying to distance himself from a letter he signed supporting the Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian president to "purge the media and the police" and his family's social media posts describing long-time Muslim Brotherhood support that El-Sayed denies. Talarico (Texas dem candidate) has his odd "God is nonbinary," Mary's example supports abortion for Christians, and "Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country." Not exactly a good message in very white and pretty religious Texas. If Republicans hang on to the Senate, it will be in part due to candidate quality as well as a favorable map.
No need to count America out if this election goes poorly. Did you miss how i posted an article about Trump trying to get CISA to hack voting machines, not tell the manufacturer, and only tell the white house? On the last page? It stops being a conspiracy theory once they actually do it. Trump tried an insurrection the last time he lost. Do you really think he wouldn't rig the election if he thought he could do it? The only reason the election might not get rigged is Trumps incompetence. And yeah, you will always find some attack angle on everyone. That is what the republican shitthrowing machine does. Did you miss my post on anonymously sourced articles and how much trust should be placed in them? Pro Publica is a big Democrat-funded operation that has had a string of obvious hit pieces, but see my previous post on that. oBlade also remarked on the obvious point on penetration testing and validation. You didn't respond, but you should if you're serious about the point. It should go without saying that each side pointing to the other about having the *REAL* example of a stolen election if they lose is a terrible message to voters. I think this is self-explanatory, but please let me know if it isn't for you. I have muted oBlade thanks to the wonderful uBlock Origin code someone posted a while back. I can greatly recommend doing that. As such, i do not see their posts, and even if i did, i would have zero interest in talking to them. They are the very worst debatelord i have ever seen, and talking to them is both exhausting and pointless, because they have absolutely no convinctions or beliefs, they just want to win the discussion. Do not expect me to ever reply to anything the post. I believe in a truth separate from the person or persons talking about it. Even the most hardcore pro-tariff 2020-election-conspiracy-believer Trump supporter sometimes brings up a good point every once in a while. But that's your business on who you read and why. I limit it to the extreme trolls that don't actually believe a word they say and prove it again and again and are additionally bad-mannered. And yeah, it is really bad if you cannot trust your elections. But that is all on Trump and his republican enablers. He constantly cries about election fraud, and at the same time tries to cheat in elections in any way he can. He also tried to coup the government when he lost.
If you want people to trust their elections, maybe you should do something about the guy who constantly cheats at them and accuses other people of cheating?
Or make the process so transparent that it is very obvious no one is cheating. Like, for example, paper ballots with good procedures instead of utterly intransparent voting machines that no one can really trust, ever. Or at least allow in some international observers. But someone banned them for this election. I wonder who? Well I'm not getting through to you on the obvious problem just pointing at each other and saying they're the true election denier/if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated. It's like constantly going back to restating that the problem in America is Trump supporters, and every time somebody proposes ways to manage it or fix it or move past while accounting for it, you lash out and restate that the problem is Trump supporters. Ok, cool, but maybe slow your roll next time you parrot Trump on the "if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated?" I can agree with you that it doesn't feel fair in the information ecosystem and politics to have a reason not to repeat the claims in reverse. I know that this argument makes sense to you in your post-truth mindset. And i can even understand that constant accusations of the election being rigged are bad for trust in democracy. I can understand that you have problems building a mental model for how the general American public incorporates political claims and controversies into their political viewpoint and voting, but you'll have to develop yours further. It's ignorance and doomerism that yields "or the US is just completely lost." My problem with it is threefold:
-Trump has been saying "the others cheat" for years now. Somehow when he said it, that wasn't a problem for you. But suddenly when people accuse Trump of cheating, they are going to far for you?
-People actually rigging the election is even worse for trust in democracy.
-We already know that Trump doesn't care about elections if he loses. He tried to overthrow the government the last time that happened. Do you really think he wouldn't cheat if he thought he could get away with it?
I know that you cannot understand this, but there is not just different perspectives and different sides saying stuff for strategic reasons. Sometimes there is actual truth, and both sides are not equal.
Imagine a starcraft tournament with some guy who both constantly accuses everyone else of being a maphacker, and who has a history of cheating himself, who then does a lot of majorly suspicious moves in that tournament and wins. Would you not agree that saying that he probably cheated again is reasonable? Or would you say that one should not say that, because it reduces the trust in the tournament?
The problem is the cheater. Him constantly shouting that everyone else is a cheater does not mean that you cannot call the cheater a cheater. You should move past the naive problem-oriented thinking or fixation that redirects all means of managing an imperfect society and news/culture/society environment back to restating the problems again and again and again. We don't need to re-define for the hundredth time that what Trump does is bad. We need to seek next moves and vet messages as they are understood by the listener. These are either "It's okay when we do it/Now these kinds of questions aren't bad for democracy" or "The difference is I'm right he's wrong/I'm good he's evil." If only politics and political campaigning were so easy! I want to live in your world, because in your world there's no way 2016 and 2024 happen! Let's export that population to Antarctica and make electioneering so, so easy. If the 2026 Midterm and 2028 Election were already in the bag, I wouldn't care about people whose messaging is so counterproductive and stupid that it might as well be featured in GOP ads. I have a feeling you're ignoring or dismissing bad candidate quality in this cycle by intention. If Democrats fail to take the Senate, it's this cycle's bad Senate map and poor candidate quality. Not that Americans are lost and otherwise it's Stolen Election 2: Electric Boogaloo. On October 22 2026 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
anyone that's been to Democrats' organizing meetings at pretty much any level in pretty much any state knows what I'm saying about dyhb type Democrats to be true. It's probably because the ticklish/Kwizach type Democrats stopped posting shortly after Hillary blew it.
The disconnect between that reality and this forum actually explains a lot. Forum has too few moderate Democrats. Still too many, but I'd prefer Democrats like yourself actually be Republicans instead of stopping Democrats from sucking less. Nah in the age of Trump, I'm not voting Republican for any elected national office. There's no real Dems get too left-wing for me to switch sides until currently acute issues are rectified (though there is a level of left-wing idiocy where I'll stay home or go third party). What would be your ideal Democratic platform / Who would be an example of a Democratic politician (could be one from the past) that you really resonate with?
GH question of the same type and conversation flowing from there.
|
On October 22 2026 10:30 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 10:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 10:07 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2026 06:11 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 05:24 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Ah, if it isn't our favorite self-described "Democrat" uncritically repeating Republican talking points yet again.
Not sure what's supposed to be odd about "God is nonbinary," do you think Christians generally believe the Holy Spirit has male genitalia? And do you think that sentence was somehow a worse crime than Paxton giving sweetheart deals to child molesters and campaigning on "Christian values" while openly taking vacations with his mistress? Do you have any idea of mainstream Christian beliefs, let alone Texas? On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. You go mull over the consequences of saying Republicans are trying to rig the election after Trump just got done saying Democrats are trying to rig the election. You'll have to expand on the alleged actual successful election cheating that happened in the 2020 election from the left's point of view. On October 22 2026 04:34 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat.
Now, the other option (thankfully you present one) misses a few key things. First, republicans can "win the election in any way" by holding the Senate. There are only a few Senate seats that are up for vote in every election. In this election, the map leans favorable to Republicans.
On top of that, the Democrats ran a candidate credibly accused of sexual assault and rape and sporting a Nazi tattoo in Maine. After the accusations worsened, they swapped in another candidate that has little time to establish himself as an alternative. The Democratic candidate in Michigan is busy trying to distance himself from a letter he signed supporting the Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian president to "purge the media and the police" and his family's social media posts describing long-time Muslim Brotherhood support that El-Sayed denies. Talarico (Texas dem candidate) has his odd "God is nonbinary," Mary's example supports abortion for Christians, and "Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country." Not exactly a good message in very white and pretty religious Texas. If Republicans hang on to the Senate, it will be in part due to candidate quality as well as a favorable map.
No need to count America out if this election goes poorly. Did you miss how i posted an article about Trump trying to get CISA to hack voting machines, not tell the manufacturer, and only tell the white house? On the last page? It stops being a conspiracy theory once they actually do it. Trump tried an insurrection the last time he lost. Do you really think he wouldn't rig the election if he thought he could do it? The only reason the election might not get rigged is Trumps incompetence. And yeah, you will always find some attack angle on everyone. That is what the republican shitthrowing machine does. Did you miss my post on anonymously sourced articles and how much trust should be placed in them? Pro Publica is a big Democrat-funded operation that has had a string of obvious hit pieces, but see my previous post on that. oBlade also remarked on the obvious point on penetration testing and validation. You didn't respond, but you should if you're serious about the point. It should go without saying that each side pointing to the other about having the *REAL* example of a stolen election if they lose is a terrible message to voters. I think this is self-explanatory, but please let me know if it isn't for you. I have muted oBlade thanks to the wonderful uBlock Origin code someone posted a while back. I can greatly recommend doing that. As such, i do not see their posts, and even if i did, i would have zero interest in talking to them. They are the very worst debatelord i have ever seen, and talking to them is both exhausting and pointless, because they have absolutely no convinctions or beliefs, they just want to win the discussion. Do not expect me to ever reply to anything the post. I believe in a truth separate from the person or persons talking about it. Even the most hardcore pro-tariff 2020-election-conspiracy-believer Trump supporter sometimes brings up a good point every once in a while. But that's your business on who you read and why. I limit it to the extreme trolls that don't actually believe a word they say and prove it again and again and are additionally bad-mannered. And yeah, it is really bad if you cannot trust your elections. But that is all on Trump and his republican enablers. He constantly cries about election fraud, and at the same time tries to cheat in elections in any way he can. He also tried to coup the government when he lost.
If you want people to trust their elections, maybe you should do something about the guy who constantly cheats at them and accuses other people of cheating?
Or make the process so transparent that it is very obvious no one is cheating. Like, for example, paper ballots with good procedures instead of utterly intransparent voting machines that no one can really trust, ever. Or at least allow in some international observers. But someone banned them for this election. I wonder who? Well I'm not getting through to you on the obvious problem just pointing at each other and saying they're the true election denier/if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated. It's like constantly going back to restating that the problem in America is Trump supporters, and every time somebody proposes ways to manage it or fix it or move past while accounting for it, you lash out and restate that the problem is Trump supporters. Ok, cool, but maybe slow your roll next time you parrot Trump on the "if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated?" I can agree with you that it doesn't feel fair in the information ecosystem and politics to have a reason not to repeat the claims in reverse. On October 22 2026 05:32 LightSpectra wrote:On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Ah, if it isn't our favorite self-described "Democrat" uncritically repeating Republican talking points yet again.
Not sure what's supposed to be odd about "God is nonbinary," do you think Christians generally believe the Holy Spirit has male genitalia? And do you think that sentence was somehow a worse crime than Paxton giving sweetheart deals to child molesters and campaigning on "Christian values" while openly taking vacations with his mistress? Do you have any idea of mainstream Christian beliefs, let alone Texas? I'm obviously not an expert in anything, so sometimes I read posts in this forum that talk about things I'm not super informed about like specific tactics and equipment used in modern warfare, and I can't really agree with or dispute those points. In this case you decided to opine about an issue I am very well informed on, and it couldn't be more obvious you aren't. If you'd like me to talk in great detail about how not only do the First and Third Persons of the Holy Trinity not have a biological sex (they aren't even made of matter and therefore cannot have genitalia or chromosomes), but also that God is described in explicitly female terms several times throughout the Bible in ways that are often missed if you don't know biblical Hebrew and/or Greek. Anyone who has a strong negative opinion about "God is nonbinary" is both grossly uninformed about basic orthodox theology, and was probably never going to vote for a Democrat anyway because they're likely carrying around a thousand other theological misconceptions fomented by Christian nationalism and fundamentalism. I noticed that you used "not have a biological sex" and transitioned, without comment, to "God is nonbinary." Any particular reason why you'd lead with the one? Or let me put it another way. Is there a cultural Christianity and theological difference between the statements that God does not have a biology to have biological sex and humans have crafted a socially constructed sexual identity that simply says not man or woman? What do you think non-binary means? Please write something responsive to I noticed that you used "not have a biological sex" and transitioned, without comment, to "God is nonbinary." Any particular reason why you'd lead with the one? Or let me put it another way. Is there a cultural Christianity and theological difference between the statements that God does not have a biology to have biological sex and humans have crafted a socially constructed sexual identity that simply says not man or woman? The deity angle/difference is important. Also, state whether you already agree with the final clause of the last sentence. On October 22 2026 06:28 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:
I noticed that you used "not have a biological sex" and transitioned, without comment, to "God is nonbinary." Any particular reason why you'd lead with the one? Or let me put it another way. Is there a cultural Christianity and theological difference between the statements that God does not have a biology to have biological sex and humans have crafted a socially constructed sexual identity that simply says not man or woman? Happy to help: orthodox (little-o) Christians do not believe any Person of the Trinity has a gender in any sense of the English word, except the incarnate Son. A person (or in this case Person) who has no gender or biological sex and therefore does not belong to the binary categorization of gender or sex is nonbinary. "God is nonbinary" is so plainly true that the Pope could say it without controversy. The only reason to complain about it would be if you're a grifter trying to invoke wrath from ignorant transphobes. The mainstream Christian view simply doesn't allow human sexual expression to transcend biology in the way that God transcends human existence. So it is true to say that God does "not have a biological sex" for mainstream Christians, but false to imply that God's transcendence also means humans can do the same thing (and anybody familiar with theology should be reminded of the "you shall be as Gods." When Talarico tried to walk it back, "When I said that I was being provocative," it made perfect sense. He wasn't stating acknowledged Christian theology or cultural Christianity truth, he said something wrong and spun it as simply desiring to provoke. It still damaged the brand (along with the things in the rest of my earlier post, respond if you want) On October 22 2026 06:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. You go mull over the consequences of saying Republicans are trying to rig the election after Trump just got done saying Democrats are trying to rig the election. That is a very different point than the previous one. In your previous post, you said that Democrats and Trump were engaging in the same kinds of conspiracy theories about the other side cheating, implying that both sides were equally baseless / equally credible / equally likely to have happened / equally to be criticized. That's just flat-out wrong. In this second post, you're now criticizing Democrats for talking about Trump cheating - even though it's true - because it would appear hypocritical after everyone criticized Trump for lying about Democrats cheating. It's not hypocritical when one side is telling the truth about the other cheating, while the other side is lying about the other cheating. You're getting closer. The first instance was Trump both saying that "the only way we're going to lose this election is if this election is rigged" and later denying the results. The Democratic response was that questioning the election results before the election happens was a threat to our democracy, and had even more in that avenue after Trump lost and questioned the results. This was huge and pronounced and all kinds of people responded highly on "threats to democracy" on polls in 2024 etc. Now, the shift is that questioning election results before they even happen is fine when we do it, because when we do it, that means it really has substance. Sorry, but no matter how carefully you frame that argument and draw on substance, you lose. Your message to the public is that it's ok when we do it, but not when they do it. I know you have this dream of proving to the world that the substance is on your side, but that will clearly and definitely be lost in the eyes of the public. Do as I say, not as I do. Ironically, people here are very willing to acknowledge that the public receives news and issues very differently than this corner of the internet in different topics. On October 22 2026 06:37 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 05:24 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 05:16 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Ah, if it isn't our favorite self-described "Democrat" uncritically repeating Republican talking points yet again.
Not sure what's supposed to be odd about "God is nonbinary," do you think Christians generally believe the Holy Spirit has male genitalia? And do you think that sentence was somehow a worse crime than Paxton giving sweetheart deals to child molesters and campaigning on "Christian values" while openly taking vacations with his mistress? Do you have any idea of mainstream Christian beliefs, let alone Texas? On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. You go mull over the consequences of saying Republicans are trying to rig the election after Trump just got done saying Democrats are trying to rig the election. You'll have to expand on the alleged actual successful election cheating that happened in the 2020 election from the left's point of view. On October 22 2026 04:34 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat.
Now, the other option (thankfully you present one) misses a few key things. First, republicans can "win the election in any way" by holding the Senate. There are only a few Senate seats that are up for vote in every election. In this election, the map leans favorable to Republicans.
On top of that, the Democrats ran a candidate credibly accused of sexual assault and rape and sporting a Nazi tattoo in Maine. After the accusations worsened, they swapped in another candidate that has little time to establish himself as an alternative. The Democratic candidate in Michigan is busy trying to distance himself from a letter he signed supporting the Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian president to "purge the media and the police" and his family's social media posts describing long-time Muslim Brotherhood support that El-Sayed denies. Talarico (Texas dem candidate) has his odd "God is nonbinary," Mary's example supports abortion for Christians, and "Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country." Not exactly a good message in very white and pretty religious Texas. If Republicans hang on to the Senate, it will be in part due to candidate quality as well as a favorable map.
No need to count America out if this election goes poorly. Did you miss how i posted an article about Trump trying to get CISA to hack voting machines, not tell the manufacturer, and only tell the white house? On the last page? It stops being a conspiracy theory once they actually do it. Trump tried an insurrection the last time he lost. Do you really think he wouldn't rig the election if he thought he could do it? The only reason the election might not get rigged is Trumps incompetence. And yeah, you will always find some attack angle on everyone. That is what the republican shitthrowing machine does. Did you miss my post on anonymously sourced articles and how much trust should be placed in them? Pro Publica is a big Democrat-funded operation that has had a string of obvious hit pieces, but see my previous post on that. oBlade also remarked on the obvious point on penetration testing and validation. You didn't respond, but you should if you're serious about the point. It should go without saying that each side pointing to the other about having the *REAL* example of a stolen election if they lose is a terrible message to voters. I think this is self-explanatory, but please let me know if it isn't for you. I have muted oBlade thanks to the wonderful uBlock Origin code someone posted a while back. I can greatly recommend doing that. As such, i do not see their posts, and even if i did, i would have zero interest in talking to them. They are the very worst debatelord i have ever seen, and talking to them is both exhausting and pointless, because they have absolutely no convinctions or beliefs, they just want to win the discussion. Do not expect me to ever reply to anything the post. I believe in a truth separate from the person or persons talking about it. Even the most hardcore pro-tariff 2020-election-conspiracy-believer Trump supporter sometimes brings up a good point every once in a while. But that's your business on who you read and why. I limit it to the extreme trolls that don't actually believe a word they say and prove it again and again and are additionally bad-mannered. And yeah, it is really bad if you cannot trust your elections. But that is all on Trump and his republican enablers. He constantly cries about election fraud, and at the same time tries to cheat in elections in any way he can. He also tried to coup the government when he lost.
If you want people to trust their elections, maybe you should do something about the guy who constantly cheats at them and accuses other people of cheating?
Or make the process so transparent that it is very obvious no one is cheating. Like, for example, paper ballots with good procedures instead of utterly intransparent voting machines that no one can really trust, ever. Or at least allow in some international observers. But someone banned them for this election. I wonder who? Well I'm not getting through to you on the obvious problem just pointing at each other and saying they're the true election denier/if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated. It's like constantly going back to restating that the problem in America is Trump supporters, and every time somebody proposes ways to manage it or fix it or move past while accounting for it, you lash out and restate that the problem is Trump supporters. Ok, cool, but maybe slow your roll next time you parrot Trump on the "if we lose, it's because the other guy cheated?" I can agree with you that it doesn't feel fair in the information ecosystem and politics to have a reason not to repeat the claims in reverse. I know that this argument makes sense to you in your post-truth mindset. And i can even understand that constant accusations of the election being rigged are bad for trust in democracy. I can understand that you have problems building a mental model for how the general American public incorporates political claims and controversies into their political viewpoint and voting, but you'll have to develop yours further. It's ignorance and doomerism that yields "or the US is just completely lost." My problem with it is threefold:
-Trump has been saying "the others cheat" for years now. Somehow when he said it, that wasn't a problem for you. But suddenly when people accuse Trump of cheating, they are going to far for you?
-People actually rigging the election is even worse for trust in democracy.
-We already know that Trump doesn't care about elections if he loses. He tried to overthrow the government the last time that happened. Do you really think he wouldn't cheat if he thought he could get away with it?
I know that you cannot understand this, but there is not just different perspectives and different sides saying stuff for strategic reasons. Sometimes there is actual truth, and both sides are not equal.
Imagine a starcraft tournament with some guy who both constantly accuses everyone else of being a maphacker, and who has a history of cheating himself, who then does a lot of majorly suspicious moves in that tournament and wins. Would you not agree that saying that he probably cheated again is reasonable? Or would you say that one should not say that, because it reduces the trust in the tournament?
The problem is the cheater. Him constantly shouting that everyone else is a cheater does not mean that you cannot call the cheater a cheater. You should move past the naive problem-oriented thinking or fixation that redirects all means of managing an imperfect society and news/culture/society environment back to restating the problems again and again and again. We don't need to re-define for the hundredth time that what Trump does is bad. We need to seek next moves and vet messages as they are understood by the listener. These are either "It's okay when we do it/Now these kinds of questions aren't bad for democracy" or "The difference is I'm right he's wrong/I'm good he's evil." If only politics and political campaigning were so easy! I want to live in your world, because in your world there's no way 2016 and 2024 happen! Let's export that population to Antarctica and make electioneering so, so easy. If the 2026 Midterm and 2028 Election were already in the bag, I wouldn't care about people whose messaging is so counterproductive and stupid that it might as well be featured in GOP ads. I have a feeling you're ignoring or dismissing bad candidate quality in this cycle by intention. If Democrats fail to take the Senate, it's this cycle's bad Senate map and poor candidate quality. Not that Americans are lost and otherwise it's Stolen Election 2: Electric Boogaloo. On October 22 2026 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
anyone that's been to Democrats' organizing meetings at pretty much any level in pretty much any state knows what I'm saying about dyhb type Democrats to be true. It's probably because the ticklish/Kwizach type Democrats stopped posting shortly after Hillary blew it.
The disconnect between that reality and this forum actually explains a lot. Forum has too few moderate Democrats. Still too many, but I'd prefer Democrats like yourself actually be Republicans instead of stopping Democrats from sucking less. Nah in the age of Trump, I'm not voting Republican for any elected national office. There's no real Dems get too left-wing for me to switch sides until currently acute issues are rectified (though there is a level of left-wing idiocy where I'll stay home or go third party). What would be your ideal Democratic platform / Who would be an example of a Democratic politician (could be one from the past) that you really resonate with? GH question of the same type and conversation flowing from there.
Thanks! Klobuchar and the like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
