- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Kari lake refuses to concede , yet repubs won 6 of 9 congressional seats in Arizona
Posted on 11/18/22 at 10:25 am to Indefatigable
Posted on 11/18/22 at 10:25 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Along with increased GOP enthusiasm in rural areas.
Did conservatives put a magic potion in the water in these rural areas that made their voters more enthusiastic, and turn around and forget to do the same in metro areas? Or is there some invisible forcefield barrier in between these area types that adds/removes voter enthusiasm when people cross it? Both of those make equally as much sense as what you’re saying
quote:
Who said their decision had anything to do with policy?
Because moderates and independents are not tribal and vote on the issues?
quote:
Lake was too Trumpian and too dismissive of moderate Republicans for the fence sitters to vote for her.
Will this be the time you explain what hobbs did to make this group vote for her?
quote:
When will you understand that it does not matter?
Probably shortly after you understand that you saying this doesn’t make it true.
quote:
Not be the unlikeable candidate” is all Hobbs had to do for PHX fence sitting suburbanites.
Because not campaigning, refusing to debate any of your opponents, hiding in a bathroom when asked about actual stances, and falsely accusing your opponent of breaking into your headquarters isn’t unlikable? Not doing nothing to secure the border or fix the shitshow elections that you’ve been overseeing isnt unlikable?
It never won’t be amusing to watch yall fail at crawfishing your way out of the unlikable candidate boxes you put yourselves in
Posted on 11/18/22 at 10:44 am to lsunurse
This post has been marked unreadable!
Posted on 11/18/22 at 10:56 am to Open Your Eyes
I love Lake and would have voted for her 3 times if I could. That said, she probably should have tamped down the anger and snarkiness until she was elected. Your random, uninformed voter is easily swayed by tone and attitude.
Posted on 11/18/22 at 10:56 am to Lsut81
quote:
Wouldn’t the fact that Repubs won over 60% of the congressional races lend credence to her claims
Or it lends credence to the fact that she is a terrible individual candidate running for governor as a far-right Republican (which is fine by itself) in a purple state.
Posted on 11/18/22 at 11:51 am to tigerdude12
You have a huge disconnect with reality
This post was edited on 11/18/22 at 11:52 am
Posted on 11/18/22 at 12:14 pm to lsunurse
quote:
All I care about is I don’t have to call Kari Lake MY governor
You must live in the suburbs.
Posted on 11/18/22 at 12:14 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:Someone should have found a way to vote for her 300,000 times.
I love Lake and would have voted for her 3 times if I could.
Posted on 11/18/22 at 12:21 pm to Lsut81
quote:
Wouldn’t the fact that Repubs won over 60% of the congressional races lend credence to her claims
No. Not even a little bit.
Posted on 11/18/22 at 12:34 pm to UFMatt
quote:
The Dem-witts on this board would like for you to believe that all these Republican voters voted for their congressional candidates but didn't vote for a Republican Gov.
She was a Qanon lunatic who was a hardcore believer that Trump didn't lose the 2020 election. That shite might fly around here and with your friends at the bar, but irl moderates don't masturbate to trump posters or spend their time reposting Drudge and Infowars - in fact that shite turns them off.
Who were the Republican gubernatorial candidates who outperformed their predictions? Why that would be Ron Desantis and Lee Zeldin, two men who are not all in on "stop the steal". I'm sure they both reference Hunter Biden occasionally and even raise some questions about election integrity, but they're not all out election result deniers.
Posted on 11/18/22 at 12:38 pm to Lsut81
quote:
Wouldn’t the fact that Repubs won over 60% of the congressional races lend credence to her claims
Every result lends credence to election deniers claims.
Dems win 6 of 9 seats - there obviously is rampant cheating. How else could the Dems win so big? Lake is another victim
Repubs win 6 of 9 seats - see how big Repubs won? Lake was cheated, no other explanation for how she could lose in a state so ready for repubs
The narrative will always shift to satisfy the worldview I want to have
This post was edited on 11/18/22 at 12:40 pm
Posted on 11/18/22 at 12:45 pm to Powerman
quote:
"Yet" the GOP won 6 of 9?
Weird take.
Election frickery is clear, and the numbers show that winning 6 of 9 should have translated to an easy Lake victory.
Guessing you've never heard of gerrymandering. I'll wager the margin of victory in those districts was low, while the margin of victory in other 3 was high.
You dilute enough of your opponents views to win as many districts as you comfortably can while packing as many of their people in as few districts as possible.
Both teams do it, Arizonas legislature is Republican do does this to maintain power.
Posted on 11/18/22 at 12:47 pm to tigerdude12
quote:
a trump election denier
The more you soft brains use this, the more meaningless it is, especially considering the hypocrisy of the left's election denying. Election denier is almost as silly as you simple bastards that keep saying "climate change denier".
Posted on 11/18/22 at 1:14 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
random, uninformed voter
is either purposefully ignorant, evilly partisan, unacceptably apathetic, or a parasite.
There is no universe where a rational argument can be made to choose Hobbs over Lake base on any pertinent issue.
Posted on 11/18/22 at 1:19 pm to Tigerfan56
Sorry for the long cut and paste, I read this on the internet 20 years ago when I was a much younger man and if anything it's more true now
quote:
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
Posted on 11/18/22 at 1:33 pm to Texaggie96
quote:
Guessing you've never heard of gerrymandering. I'll wager the margin of victory in those districts was low, while the margin of victory in other 3 was high.
In two districts, Democrats didn’t even run candidates. That’s how close they were.
Posted on 11/18/22 at 2:01 pm to SoFlaGuy
1. Removal of classified documents, for his own personal use
2. Inciting an insurrection
If found guilty of either, or both, by a jury of his peers, lock 'em up. He can't be out there running for president.
2. Inciting an insurrection
If found guilty of either, or both, by a jury of his peers, lock 'em up. He can't be out there running for president.
Posted on 11/18/22 at 2:02 pm to the808bass
quote:
In two districts, Democrats didn’t even run candidates. That’s how close they were.
If they weren't suburbs you might have a point. But just 2 of the districts the Democrats ran in had a Margin of Victory that was higher than the other 4 combined Republican districts combined. Decent Gerrymandering honestly, although they could probably tweak the 5th a little bit more. I'm sure they'll fix that the next census. :)
Posted on 11/18/22 at 2:21 pm to tarzana
quote:
1. Removal of classified documents, for his own personal use 2. Inciting an insurrection
Part of me wants your team to keep pushing this BS because it’ll result in some blood being spilled by people that desperately need it.
What did Trump do in either of those cases that has not been done before?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News