By:
Advanced search…

Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Election Aftermath

Spartanmack said:
LOL, 3 years later the NYT is joining the party...

The questions is why now? Do they finally care about the truth because they know Biden can't win again so they need to ruin him? Are they going to pretend this is some new revelation or will they admit they intentionally ignored Biden's decades of corruption and incompetence? I'm looking forward to the shock and surprise of the 81mm Biden voters - "who could have known?"
Click to expand...


Cuz the MSM goal was to help get trump out of there at any cost no matter what it might do to the country. Now that they accomplished that goal they saying oh shit now what do we do. I suspect Shillary will resurface to save the party. Unless Durham ever completes that string along and she isn't allowed to run for public office again. who knows..
 
sggatecl said:
You're really prepared to die on that hill aren't you?
Click to expand...

Looks that way, they are talking about her on waters world right now. I think I just heard her admit China WTO was a mistake and we have to bring it all back. Well holy balls
 
This has to be total nonsense because the election was already proved to be secure & accurate based on the claim that no one proved it wasn't.
 
tinselwolverine said:
Ha, ha.

I guess the same might be said about 1960, 2000, and 2016, along with a few others.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Click to expand...


The article is dumb & I'm not going to register to read all of it. Conflating 1860 and 2000 as "disputed" only makes sense if you think slave owners had a legitamate gripe because of Lincoln's election...
 
michchamp said:
The article is dumb & I'm not going to register to read all of it. Conflating 1860 and 2000 as "disputed" only makes sense if you think slave owners had a legitamate gripe because of Lincoln's election...
Click to expand...

I changed it to a link one doesn?t need to register to access. That said, they?re both a history of things everyone knows about. I didn?t write either article.

I looked it up and conflate doesn?t necessarily imply devious or nefarious intentions in a comparison.
 
michchamp said:
The article is dumb & I'm not going to register to read all of it. Conflating 1860 and 2000 as "disputed" only makes sense if you think slave owners had a legitamate gripe because of Lincoln's election...
Click to expand...

I wasn't around and haven't dug very deeply into the 1860 election to know what any disputes were about but it's total nonsense to say someone doesn't have a legitimate gripe because they were awful people. Again, I'm not saying they had a legitimate gripe, just that your take on why they don't is dumb.

Just look at you for instance, you're a horrible person but that's not what invalidates virtually all of your gripes and arguments. They're invalidated by their sheer stupidity, utter lack of evidence and mountains of facts to the contrary. Take this post here - the point is that their have been a lot of elections in dispute, including 1860. No one is conflating any of them and yet here you are, arguing against a point no one is making just to preen your moral vanity.
 
Last edited:
Spartanmack said:
I wasn't around and haven't dug very deeply into the 1860 election?
Click to expand...

I was thinking ? I wasn?t old enough to vote in the 1860 election. I wasn?t even old enough to vote in the 1960 election. If I had voted there is zero doubt that I would?ve voted for Lincoln. I would?ve been happy that he won and I would?ve been happy that the election results have been upheld.?
 
tinselwolverine said:
I was thinking ? I wasn?t old enough to vote in the 1860 election. I wasn?t even old enough to vote in the 1960 election. If I had voted there is zero doubt that I would?ve voted for Lincoln. I would?ve been happy that he won and I would?ve been happy that the election results have been upheld.?
Click to expand...

I don't think your vote would be enough to get Lincoln over the hump in 1960, plus he was already dead.

I think I've told this story about the 1960 election, my mom went with my grandmother to the polls on the south side of Chicago but my grandmother was turned away and told she had already voted.
 
Last edited:
Spartanmack said:
I don't think your vote would be enough to get Lincoln over the hump in 1960, plus he was already dead.

I think I've told this story about the 1960 election, my mom went with my grandmother to the polls on the south side of Chicago but my grandmother was turned away and told she had already voted.
Click to expand...

Wait, what?

Isn?t every voter in Chicago eventually someone who had already voted?
 
It's never been proved so it obviously never happened. And since it's never been proved, there's no need to take actions to secure our elections - the existence of a vulnerability isn't enough, we can't take steps to fix it until someone proves election fraud has happened.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

Founded in 2011, Detroit Sports Forum is a community of fanatics dedicated to teams like the Lions, Tigers, Pistons, Red Wings, Wolverines, and more. We live and breathe Detroit sports!

Stay Connected

Forum statistics

Threads
34,781
Messages
1,129,164
Members
978
Latest member
Kamakzie

Affiliates

    Discussion Hub
Back
Top