lee wrote on Jan 12^th, 2021 at 2:50pm:


You seem like a sharp guy, but looks can be deceiving...

I reckon you're actually a troll, just here to stir up sh*t.

Why else would you be raising doubts about "just because it was the most secure election in history, doesn't mean it wasn't rigged", and then go on to say "Where did I say it was rigged?"

If you don't think it was rigged, why are you casting doubts about it?

Personally, I reckon you're full of it.

One of those people who enjoys taking snide potshots, but never takes "a position".

English is my first language.

It's "your", not "you", BTW.

Your English?

Mix_Master wrote on Jan 12^th, 2021 at 3:02pm:



Perhaps you can give me the source of your first quote "just because it was the most secure election in history, doesn't mean it wasn't rigged"? It wasn't mine. perhaps you thought you were paraphrasing?

Mix_Master wrote on Jan 12^th, 2021 at 3:02pm:



Where have I cast doubts petal? be specific.

Mix_Master wrote on Jan 12^th, 2021 at 3:02pm:



Poor petal.  typed too fast and missed a letter? Cry me a river.

Mix_Master wrote on Jan 12^th, 2021 at 3:02pm:



Yes petal. My English?

Mix_Master wrote on Jan 12^th, 2021 at 3:41pm:


It is exactly as written. It does not prove there was no vote rigging; pure and simple.

Mix_Master wrote on Jan 12^th, 2021 at 3:41pm:



So you can't understand the written word? And it is my fault.

Try just reading and stop trying to interpret.

Mix_Master wrote on Jan 12^th, 2021 at 3:41pm:



Yes. poor proof reading. That MUST be a hanging offence.

Mix_Master wrote on Jan 12^th, 2021 at 3:41pm:


See what happens when you write with clarity? I can understand you. 

English is my first language.

Frank wrote on Jan 12^th, 2021 at 4:17pm:



Stochastic terrorism.

Canonise Trump.

lee wrote on Jan 12^th, 2021 at 3:55pm:



Were you questioning the legitimacy of Trump's election win, back in 2016?

You must have been, right?

Quote:


Perhaps there was vote rigging in that election, too, given it was "less secure" than the one in 2020? I mean, no-one's come out and proved - definitively - that there wasn't any vote rigging in that election, right?

Of course, they don't have to. It just means that the 2020 election, as "the most secure in history", was more secure than elections past. (Including the one Trump won).

Those same elections that people didn't have issues with.

Those same elections that the loser conceded gracefully, soon afterwards. Yep, even the 2000 one.

Those same elections where people weren't "wound up" to continue to believe the election was "stolen", months after the fact. (They still are, BTW).

Those same elections after which people didn't "storm" the Capitol building, on baseless claims of a "stolen" (or "rigged") election.

The onus, as I noted earlier, is not on anyone to "prove there was no vote rigging", but rather on those who "think there was" (or, indeed, "might have been"), to prove there was, right?

Yet there has been exactly how much "proof" of vote rigging?

Sweet FA, last time I checked. Sixty-odd Court cases with next to no merit, and in some cases zero standing. (Great way to raise money, as a by-the by).

Sucks for some.

But the election was still free and fair, and wasn't "rigged".

No?

Proof please.

OR

We can circle around to the beginning again, and debate about:

- Why people are questioning the integrity - and hence outcome - of this election, when they had no issue with previous elections. (Hint: It's 'cos they didn't get the outcome they wanted in this one )

- "What constitutes a percentage difference between "the most secure election in history", and previous, by-definition, less-secure elections, because THAT makes all the difference when it comes to people picking and choosing which election to have "issues" with. (Actually, no it doesn't).

lee wrote on Jan 12^th, 2021 at 1:06pm:



it doesn't say what you wish it said either

lee wrote on Jan 12^th, 2021 at 4:59pm:


It just seems a bit "two bob each way", when someone says, on the one hand "I have no issues whatsoever with the 2020 election". Then, when someone notes that it was "the most secure election in history", goes on to say "...doesn't prove there was no vote rigging."

Still, at least we agree that it doesn't need to...

lee wrote on Jan 12^th, 2021 at 5:31pm:


So - again - what did you say?

Was it "I am not questioning the legitimacy of Trump's loss, but just because the election was "the most secure in history", doesn't mean there was no vote rigging"?

Or was it something else?

- No question about the election being legitimate
- But there may have been vote rigging ('cos "the most secure election in history" doesn't preclude the possibility).

Quote:
I said nothing, because there was nothing to be said.

Why?

Because we were talking about you and your confused thoughts about the legitimacy or otherwise of the 2020 election.

We weren't talking about Nancy. Why did you bring her up? To deflect from your confused position on the 2020 election?

Are you confused about her, too?

[Edit] You are definitely a confused individual...

On the one hand:

Quote:
[/quote]

Where did I say I "was on top of it", or indeed say/infer that there was any vote rigging?

And on the other:

Quote:


I'd say that you are inferring here that you agree that Biden won legitimately, but some vote rigging/other "fixing" occurred, which did not affect the outcome.

At least, I "would" say that...

...but it would only be a cue for another "I didn't say that."

No, you didn't.

I'm standing by the assertion that you're having a bob each way. The bold bit above might give you a clue as to why.