Survey Claims Half of Leftists Justify Violence Against Trump, Musk, Tesla. Is this true?

[scourge165]

35 minutes ago, jross said:

 

hyperbole and assumptions... goes both ways.
 

That's the problem with mail-in ballots.

There's...no problem with mail in ballots other than Trump told his voters to not use them and he lost...and then they were a problem. 

People log on using their ID# and vote in Australia and there's nearly 100% participation and no fraud.

 

But this isn't new. The more voters, the worse it is for the GOP. That's been the case for 60 years. The higher the voter participation...the more likely the Dems are to win. 

It takes me...at most 20 minutes on the day of to walk in and vote. It takes people 30 minutes away from me 7-8 hours. And now it's illegal to hand them water while they wait in line. Why? Because it's better if fewer people vote. 

It's not that complicated... 

[scourge165]

1 hour ago, jross said:

Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden, and he’s aware of that. He thought the process was shady and unethical (rigged, stolen), if not illegal.  His actions make sense in regards to that view.

That's...amazing. This election was lost by every swing state going the other way.

Al Gore oversaw HIS election that he ALMOST certainly got more votes in, but legally lost because of ONE state. Did they have an illegal slate of electors?

 

That bolded part says basically it's alright to break the law if you REALLY think something happened(and to be clear, we now know based on testimony from his lawyers, even THAT wasn't the case). 

 

-Starting a needless trade war that harms this Country because you've long held the belief that tariffs are a way to make this Country better is bad, but at LEAST it's not in service of nobody but yourself. 

-Trying to coordinate illegitimate representatives of states who certified the vote for the Democratic nominee in order to try and have your Vice President certify the election for you...is something you'd be hung for in the past in this country. It's treason. 

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

That's...amazing. This election was lost by every swing state going the other way.

Al Gore oversaw HIS election that he ALMOST certainly got more votes in, but legally lost because of ONE state. Did they have an illegal slate of electors?

 

That bolded part says basically it's alright to break the law if you REALLY think something happened(and to be clear, we now know based on testimony from his lawyers, even THAT wasn't the case). 

 

-Starting a needless trade war that harms this Country because you've long held the belief that tariffs are a way to make this Country better is bad, but at LEAST it's not in service of nobody but yourself. 

-Trying to coordinate illegitimate representatives of states who certified the vote for the Democratic nominee in order to try and have your Vice President certify the election for you...is something you'd be hung for in the past in this country. It's treason. 

It’s gonna be a long 3.5 years for you brother.  

[scourge165]

14 minutes ago, Caveira said:

It’s gonna be a long 3.5 years for you brother.  

Because I'm responding to false equivalencies?

Or because you don't know if Trump is going to keep doing things like...tanking the Economy and then trying to walk it back?

[jross]

23 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

That bolded part says basically it's alright to break the law if you REALLY think something happened(and to be clear, we now know based on testimony from his lawyers, even THAT wasn't the case). 

For the 47th reminder, that’s not what I said. I didn’t claim it’s “alright” legally or morally; I said it’s understandable from Trump’s perspective.

Trump's actions and statements imply he STILL rejects anyone who says the election wasn't rigged, regardless of court outcomes.

[Caveira]

16 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Because I'm responding to false equivalencies?

Or because you don't know if Trump is going to keep doing things like...tanking the Economy and then trying to walk it back?

Because I know everything Mr t and Elon does grinds your gears to the max.  

[scourge165]

3 minutes ago, jross said:

 

For the 47th reminder, that’s not what I said. I didn’t claim it’s “alright” legally or morally; I said it’s understandable from Trump’s perspective.

Trump's actions and statements imply he STILL rejects anyone who says the election wasn't rigged, regardless of court outcomes.

Ok. Well, for the 47th time, I don't think it's "understandable," no matter how you justify his beliefs. 

 

Lets go back to your original question here. I BELIEVE Trump is very bad for this Country and I believe he has authoritarian leanings and...actually admires them.

So with that belief, what would I be justified in doing?

 

If you start just dismissing the law, ESPECIALLY how the things that Govern our Nation, the things that have made us....the United States, you're going to see this Country fall apart pretty quickly. 

[scourge165]

2 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Because I know everything Mr t and Elon does grinds your gears to the max.  

Elon? LOL...what have I even said about Elon?

I actually love how Elon has spent on Nvidia GPUs and...don't particularly care about him. I sold Tesla and I'm glad after the last earnings because...he didn't sound well(and yes, I do listen to the earnings reports of most of the companies I invest in or companies that impact them). He was kinda rambling and incoherent.

 

Trump? No, not everything. I LOVED that he saw how terrible his policy was and he was able to reverse course. 

 

Again, are you missing how this started? A stupid question that obviously jross posed in an intellectually dishonest manner as he phrased as though he wanted feedback on what the liberals on this board thought of it and I said what? Was I in favor of EVER using violence in politics? No. I said I didn't believe that just as I didn't believe the % of Republicans that I've seen in polls talk about Civil War or justify Jan6 or other extremist views. 

 

So yeah, I don't like Trump but don't have everything he does.
Musk is...I'm indifferent beyond his role as a CEO. I don't think he's super relevant. If he can ACTUALLY find waste, that's great. I think we need to cut the deficit.

 

I think you and others of your ilk like to just kinda lump anyone who is NOT MAGA in the same group, don't you?

[jross]

Do you believe fake electors would cast their vote for Trump, and Trump voters would support victory that way?  Nah... many supporters would support putting him in jail if it was an authoritarian power grab.  The electors mess was about stalling... more time for court cases or deferring to Congress to pick the president.  

Imagine if the courts had heard the cases rather than throwing them out for "being to late" and "no one was harmed."  If fraud was found, there would be a supporter celebration, consequences, and moves to secure future elections.  If Trump won as result, it would be acceptable.  If fraud was not found, but all the cases were transparent to the people, Trump would take a brand hit and people would increase faith in the election process.  If Trump won because of congress selection, his support would be mixed... nobody really happy.

[jross]

20 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

If you start just dismissing the law, ESPECIALLY how the things that Govern our Nation, the things that have made us....the United States, you're going to see this Country fall apart pretty quickly. 

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in a crisis when he felt the ends justified the means.

Trump won in 2024 in part because of how laws were dismissed and abused.

All the anti-Trumpers needed to do to win in 2024 was not talk about Trump, not allow him any media attention for any reasons.

[Caveira]

39 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

So with that belief, what would I be justified in doing?

Nothing.  Just go about your day boss.  It will all work out.  

[jross]

29 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

I don't think it's "understandable," no matter how you justify his beliefs. 

'Understanding' = seeing why. 'Agreeing' = saying it’s right. Mixing them confuses logic with approval. Conflating is how you invent points... twisting ‘I get it’ into ‘I back it’ or 'He backs it.'

I can understand why  Gary Plauche shot and killed Jeffrey Doucet, the man who had kidnapped and raped his 11-year-old son, Jody Plauche.  Note that no part of that statement says that I support crime, or that Gary supports crime.  

If you want to know if I agree, then ask...

[scourge165]

26 minutes ago, jross said:

Do you believe fake electors would cast their vote for Trump, and Trump voters would support victory that way?  Nah... many supporters would support putting him in jail if it was an authoritarian power grab.  The electors mess was about stalling... more time for court cases or deferring to Congress to pick the president.  

Imagine if the courts had heard the cases rather than throwing them out for "being to late" and "no one was harmed."  If fraud was found, there would be a supporter celebration, consequences, and moves to secure future elections.  If Trump won as result, it would be acceptable.  If fraud was not found, but all the cases were transparent to the people, Trump would take a brand hit and people would increase faith in the election process.  If Trump won because of congress selection, his support would be mixed... nobody really happy.

Yes. 

And you can say it was about stalling, they'd stalled. The clock had run out. 

Also, the Court DID hear cases. Not all just as you're not going to have a criminal trial if you the judge doesn't find probable cause at a hearing. That's largely what people are complaining about. There was no evidence but they  They heard cases at the time, they heard cases afterward, that's just nonsense. They had nothing.

You think all these Trump supporters, Bowers, Reffensperger, etc...

And then they went by a person by person audit in a couple counties and...it wasn't there. They just did not find it. 

 

Finally, Trump and his team, we now know, they KNEW how this was going to play out broadly speaking. That in States like Florida, they'd have the Democrats up early. In States they wait(because of the GOP's laws) and count the day of vote first, he'd be up early.

 

Back to the first question, yes, unequivocally, yes. There were people who wanted him reinstalled. 

 

 

[scourge165]

3 minutes ago, jross said:

'Understanding' = seeing why. 'Agreeing' = saying it’s right. Mixing them confuses logic with approval. Conflating is how you invent points... twisting ‘I get it’ into ‘I back it’ or 'He backs it.'

I can understand why  Gary Plauche shot and killed Jeffrey Doucet, the man who had kidnapped and raped his 11-year-old son, Jody Plauche.  Note that no part of that statement says that I support crime, or that Gary supports crime.  

If you want to know if I agree, then ask...

Yeah, you think you're making it better and you're just describing mens rea. I don't care.

 

You want to say you "understand" why a pedophile is a pedophile because they are inherently attracted to underage kids? Sure. You can be the most understanding of criminals as you'd like. But what do you want here?

1-AS I've said, from testimony from both legal and Civil Trials, Trump KNEW he'd lost and there wasn't widespread voting. He didn't believe it.

2-Understanding WHY someone murders someone or attempts treason...is that really an argument you're trying to make like it's some really nuanced thinking?

 

There aren't many ways to make money in urban areas. People don't see a way out. I understand WHY they turn to drugs and how that leads to turf wars and kids getting shot in the crossfire. I mean, Christ, how far do you want to go with this, "I understand" nonsense?

[jross]

6 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Back to the first question, yes, unequivocally, yes. There were people who wanted him reinstalled. 

Nutjobs but it wouldn't have happened that way.  Its like MAPs becoming mainstream... nah.

[scourge165]

48 minutes ago, jross said:

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in a crisis when he felt the ends justified the means.

Trump won in 2024 in part because of how laws were dismissed and abused.

All the anti-Trumpers needed to do to win in 2024 was not talk about Trump, not allow him any media attention for any reasons.

1-Cool. So did Bush and so did FDR. They were wrong. The Constitution isn't there for convenance. 

2-Sure Sheryl Crow. If it makes you happy...to believe that, I don't care. 

As long as you 'understand' why he asked GA to just "find me 11,800 votes."

What is the point of this? What is your end goal here beyond justifying him attempting to circumvent the constitution in an attempt to stay in power(while people on this board just dismiss the notion that he may try and run again in '28)?

 

[scourge165]

13 minutes ago, jross said:

Nutjobs but it wouldn't have happened that way.  Its like MAPs becoming mainstream... nah.

And as I've found on this thread...that seems to be the majority of his party. 

 

Also, explain the second part. You're saying they'd never actually go mainstream, right?

Not that they have? Because...there are...well, as you said, 'nutjobs,' who think that "MAPs" have actually become mainstream. 

Edited Thursday at 05:06 PM by scourge165

[jross]

7 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Also, the Court DID hear cases. Not all just as you're not going to have a criminal trial if you the judge doesn't find probable cause at a hearing. That's largely what people are complaining about. There was no evidence but they  They heard cases at the time, they heard cases afterward, that's just nonsense. They had nothing.

Have you looked into how many cases were dismissed because they were filed post-election (laches), and how many were dismissed for lack of standing? About 30? 

You lean on cases where proof fell short, but what about Favorito v. Wan, dragging on since December 2020? It’s still alive after the Georgia Appeals Court revived it in 2023, pushing for a look at Fulton County’s 147,000 absentee ballots. Why the delay? Endless appeals and Fulton stonewalling. And why won’t officials hand over those ballots for an independent check, even after a judge ordered them unsealed? 

I've brought up this case repeatedly, so I apologize if you have acknowledged and I overlooked it.

[scourge165]

1 minute ago, jross said:

Have you looked into how many cases were dismissed because they were filed post-election (laches), and how many were dismissed for lack of standing? About 30? 

You lean on cases where proof fell short, but what about Favorito v. Wan, dragging on since December 2020? It’s still alive after the Georgia Appeals Court revived it in 2023, pushing for a look at Fulton County’s 147,000 absentee ballots. Why the delay? Endless appeals and Fulton stonewalling. And why won’t officials hand over those ballots for an independent check, even after a judge ordered them unsealed? 

I've brought up this case repeatedly, so I apologize if you have acknowledged and I overlooked it.

Yup. I have looked into it. That's less than half the cases and I JUST addressed that. 

You can't just pick the court you want...but he went to Court 60+ times. 

 

As for why is Fulton County not turning over 147,000 ballots to a 3rd party? I don't know, do you think we should make it public how everyone votes? Just turn over all that information to further undermine the uncertainty that Trump started in '20 and you continue to do so here?

[jross]

1 minute ago, scourge165 said:

And as I've found on this thread...that seems to be the majority of his party. 

I've never met or spoken with anyone who supports taking control of the presidency by power... not anyone that supports any ideology.  Trump... nobody ever. 

I've only read about it in social media... support to oust Trump by any means and that cheating is worth it... even killing is worth it.  And only on social media have I heard that Trumps wants to 'seize power' and be a 'dictator.'  Gab was too nuts for me... maybe there were right-of-center calling for it.  We at least know there were a few radicals texting about it.  Not mainstream to my knowledge... 

[scourge165]

Just now, jross said:

I've never met or spoken with anyone who supports taking control of the presidency by power... not anyone that supports any ideology.  Trump... nobody ever. 

I've only read about it in social media... support to oust Trump by any means and that cheating is worth it... even killing is worth it.  And only on social media have I heard that Trumps wants to 'seize power' and be a 'dictator.'  Gab was too nuts for me... maybe there were right-of-center calling for it.  We at least know there were a few radicals texting about it.  Not mainstream to my knowledge... 

Ok. I didn't think you'd be among those who'd be passing off this election denialism but...here we go. 

You'd have taken to the streets in protest? But then when those people actually did, I mean...there was so much propaganda and it really wasn't that bad. There weren't even guns...when they arrested people later...

 

Proof Trump KNEW he lost.

 

Yes, several of former President Donald Trump's attorneys have acknowledged that they were aware he lost the 2020 election. For instance, during a press conference on August 3, 2023, Trump's attorney, Alina Habba, stated, "I think that everybody was made aware that he lost the election." UPROXX+1indy100+1

Additionally, Jenna Ellis, another attorney who represented Trump in his post-election challenges, admitted in March 2023 to misrepresenting evidence of election fraud. She acknowledged making false public statements, including claims that Trump had won the election and that it was "stolen" from him. The Hill+1Politico+1Wikipedia+1indy100+1

Furthermore, a federal judge noted that Trump signed legal documents challenging the 2020 election results that included voter fraud claims he knew to be false. AP News

These admissions indicate that key members of Trump's legal team were aware that the election fraud claims lacked merit.

[jross]

1 minute ago, scourge165 said:

As for why is Fulton County not turning over 147,000 ballots to a 3rd party? I don't know, do you think we should make it public how everyone votes? Just turn over all that information to further undermine the uncertainty that Trump started in '20 and you continue to do so here?

I'm certain that its third-party looking for unfolded ballots, evidence of fraud as result of...

Affidavits: 

• Susan Voyles, a recount auditor, claimed she saw “pristine” ballots... uncreased, perfectly marked, unlike typical mailed ballots. 
• Barbara Hartman, Sonia-Francis Rolle... confirmed, noting ballots didn’t look folded or hand-marked. 

This suggests machine printing or fraud. 

[jross]

5 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Ok. I didn't think you'd be among those who'd be passing off this election denialism but...here we go. 

You'd have taken to the streets in protest? But then when those people actually did, I mean...there was so much propaganda and it really wasn't that bad. There weren't even guns...when they arrested people later...

Proof Trump KNEW he lost.

Yes, several of former President Donald Trump's attorneys have acknowledged that they were aware he lost the 2020 election. For instance, during a press conference on August 3, 2023, Trump's attorney, Alina Habba, stated, "I think that everybody was made aware that he lost the election." UPROXX+1indy100+1

Additionally, Jenna Ellis, another attorney who represented Trump in his post-election challenges, admitted in March 2023 to misrepresenting evidence of election fraud. She acknowledged making false public statements, including claims that Trump had won the election and that it was "stolen" from him. The Hill+1Politico+1Wikipedia+1indy100+1

Furthermore, a federal judge noted that Trump signed legal documents challenging the 2020 election results that included voter fraud claims he knew to be false. AP News

These admissions indicate that key members of Trump's legal team were aware that the election fraud claims lacked merit.

This is a repeat of earlier discussion.  Trump knew he lost.  I'm just going to repeatedly respond that he knew it was rigged.  We still don't know all the ways it was rigged, but some we do.  

Every election has been rigged by both sides, and we can't really know if the 'will of the people' is the election winner.  

[scourge165]

4 minutes ago, jross said:

I'm certain that its third-party looking for unfolded ballots, evidence of fraud as result of...

 

Affidavits: 

• Susan Voyles, a recount auditor, claimed she saw “pristine” ballots... uncreased, perfectly marked, unlike typical mailed ballots. 
• Barbara Hartman, Sonia-Francis Rolle... confirmed, noting ballots didn’t look folded or hand-marked. 

This suggests machine printing or fraud. 

Awesome. They said the Ballots were too neatly folded.

It suggests nonsense.

Remember when that 79 year old women wasn't allowed to vote...and that was their big evidence and they held a whole press conference? Oh and the signature didn't match. That was a smoking gun!

 

And then...turns...she was legally blind, the vote was for Trump and she'd just forgotten. 

Remember when they were bringing in "suitcases" of ballots...into the BALLOT room?

 

[scourge165]

2 minutes ago, jross said:

This is a repeat of earlier discussion.  Trump knew he lost.  I'm just going to repeatedly respond that he knew it was rigged.  We still don't know all the ways it was rigged, but some we do.  

Every election has been rigged by both sides, and we can't really know if the 'will of the people' is the election winner.  

Oh...ok...so you think it was rigged, but you ALSO don't think people would have objected to Trump having stayed in power on Jan6th had Pence accepted the illegal electorates?

 

That's some...impressive mental gymnastics.

 

Is there really anything more you believe we can get out of this conversation?