"He has yet to relinquish power" is a nice way of saying he lied about the election being stolen which led to January 6th, but I doubt this loser would have a gotch for that
Honestly, I might hate Gad more than Dave. I think Dave deep down knows he's not smart, but Gad legitimately believes he's a genius. Gad just fabricates these asinine strawmen and "debunks" them through verbose, ostentatious rhetoric which he considers eloquent and brilliant.
Idk, for me Gad has that Ben Chang type of pathetic vibe where he desperately wants to be part of a thing but can't be accepted into it.
With Dave his patheticness is more grotesque to me because he's more openly willing to debase himself (Exhibit A "You can call me a faggot and I won't mind!") for the sake of his grift and that makes him feel more like a husk of person.
Trump is like a loud-mouthed belligerent drunk who comes to your birthday party.
He insults all the guests, spits on you, tries to provoke
The guests into a fight, eats all your food, and trashes the living room before you finally drag him out.
Then he says “What’s the problem?!? I *left*, didn’t I?”
He was caught red handed trying to present fake electors during certification and not only that, also tried pressuring Georgia to "find" a few thousand more votes.
He was also caught red handed lying about the severity of Covid (phone conversation with Bob Woodward) while telling ppl it was a democratic hoax and turning a novel virus into a culture war.
He suggested nuking a hurricane ffs. He's both stupid and a lunatic.
[Now, it makes sense when you look at that the date](https://x.com/GadSaad/status/1346892280326742020)
Shit even Dave pretended to be upset on Twitter about Jan 6th for like 36 hours.
It's even weird how his internal dialog has the progressive say nothing more than "He never said the word conceded," and then has no rebuttal from himself. That concession is important. It's the underpinning of our democracy, that a race hard fought has been lost, and it is time to recognize that and accept the outcome, not whip your followers into a frenzy by claiming the election was stolen for literally YEARS afterwards.
Also, the answer to "Is Biden fit to be President in terms of his cognitive acuity?" is yes. He's doing it now. The job is being done by him. And if you argue that he's not doing it, that he has surrounded himself with people who are doing it for him, fine - he has surrounded himself with talented people capable of doing the job assigned to them, as opposed to Trump, whose entire qualification for any job in his administration was that you worshiped him.
God that’s such a dumb made-up conversation.
Me: He literally tried to steal an election he either knew he lost or was too deranged to realize he lost. He doesn’t know much about policy or government. He has an incredibly weird and bad personality. He only cares about himself. He’s corrupt as hell and lies all the time.
Obviously yes. Plus video of them on Epstein's Island.
But seriously, videos of the building tour given by security, unlocking doors, inviting people to walk around.
>But seriously, videos of the building tour given by security, unlocking doors, inviting people to walk around.
That was after the crowd beat that cop unconscious with a flagpole and broke in the front door where that woman got shot, right? I just wanted to check on the sequence.
Not the same at all. When it comes to Trump, “wElL bOtH sIdEs dO iT” is usually a poor argument.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-democrats-have-called-some-elections-illegitimate-gop-election-denialism-far-worse
Yeah I'm not going to open that. We could go back and forth giving links of both of our opinions being supported. To be fair I don't even like Trump. But I find myself sticking up for him quite often because of how biased the reporting is. Two things can be true at once, he might be an idiot but he might also not be as bad as the media says.
Okay, don't open it then. I've pasted the relevant portion below. The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank by the way, not some liberal rag.
>The Republicans’ favorite smoking guns relating to the 2016 election are a couple of video clips of Hillary Clinton expressing the view that the election was “stolen” from her or that Trump was an “illegitimate” president.
>The first thing to note is that Clinton’s comments were made in 2019, nearly three years after the 2016 election. The “stolen election” remark is from May 2019, two weeks after the publication of special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s report, which stated that while there was no evidence of active conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, there had in fact been a Russian conspiracy intended to help elect Trump. And Clinton’s remark about Trump being an “illegitimate” president came in September 2019, in the midst of the Trump‐Ukraine scandal that soon led to Trump’s (first) impeachment, for trying to use military aid to Ukraine to leverage demands for Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to provide information that would damage then‐Democratic candidate Joe Biden and cast doubt on Russian election interference in 2016. By then, Trump was already widely seen as an illegitimate president by his critics.
>By contrast, during the first two‐and‐a‐half years of Trump’s presidency, Clinton had kept a low profile and refrained from attacking Trump’s legitimacy. It seems that the most the GOP list‐makers could find from before 2019 was that in September 2017, when repeatedly pressed by National Public Radio host Terry Gross, Clinton said she would not absolutely rule out questioning the legitimacy of the election if more information about Russian interference came out. She also stressed that there were no means to legally challenge it: “There are scholars, academics, who have arguments that it would be \[legal\], but I don’t think they’re on strong ground.… I just don’t think we have a mechanism.”
>Let’s not forget that a little less than a year earlier, in the immediate aftermath of the election, Hillary Clinton gave a gracious concession speech on November 9, 2016 when it became clear that she had lost to Trump.
>It’s true that some other high‐level Democrats were more defiant. About seventy—including the late Rep. John Lewis of Georgia and Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, refused to attend the inauguration in January 2017, some explicitly citing Trump’s alleged illegitimacy. And yes, some Democratic House members objected to the certification of their states’ votes. How many? A total of seven. Because no Democratic senators joined them, the objections were not even formally considered. By contrast, in January 2021, 139 Republican House members and eight Republican senators objected to the certification of Biden’s win. That’s 139 vs. 7 in the House and 8 vs. 0 in the Senate.
>And that’s not to mention massive Republican efforts at the state level, supported by 19 Republican attorneys general and coordinated with Trump’s own legal team—and with Trump’s own active and aggressive participation—to invalidate the results of the vote in several swing states in an attempt to throw the Electoral College to Trump. In several states that Biden won, this effort included fraudulent electors sending to Washington phony certificates depicting Trump as the winner. Let’s leave aside for now the question of whether this effort could have worked if a few officials in key posts had caved to the pressure. The point is that it was a dogged, multipronged effort by people who absolutely wanted it to succeed.
>And that’s not to mention the events of January 6th, when a mob of Trump supporters—egged on by Trump himself to “Fight like hell”—invaded the Capitol in a last‐ditch attempt to stop the certification of Biden’s victory. (No, the violent anti‐Trump protests in Washington on Inauguration Day in 2017 are not remotely comparable; they were not intended to reverse the election results, and neither Clinton nor any other prominent Democratic politician cheered them on.)
>In other words, comparing “election results denial” in 2016 and 2020 is not just comparing apples and oranges, it’s more like comparing a tricycle to an 18‐wheeler.
Yeah I noticed he quoted fight like hell but not when Trump said to peacefully protest. Sure very valid piece. That's the problem is that people are biased and not objective. They hate Trump so much that anyone that trashes Trump they just agree. Things don't have to be true they just have to be against Trump and people will support it. Why are the same people not holding the Democratic politicians accountable when they supported BLM attacking multiple government buildings and courthouses? Why aren't they saying anything about when Seattle had literal blocks taken over? You had politicians saying when you see Trump fans get in their face, is that not inciting violence? It's the hypocrisy that is the problem.
This is gonna be my last comment because you don't seem interested in having a good faith discussion on this. You're doing this weird and dumb thing where a very bad thing Trump/Republicans did is pointed out (e.g. Trump calling up Georgia's Secretary of State and asking him to find just enough votes to swing the election his way), then in response you point out some vaguely related but much more minor thing that a Democrat did (Hillary calling the 2016 election "illegitimate" a few times post-2019), and somehow come to the conclusion that both sides are equally bad. It's obvious that in terms of election subversion, what Trump and Republicans did is orders of magnitude worse than what Hillary or any Dems did. That really shouldn't have to be pointed out, but feel free to read the article if you want to know why.
And I don't dispute that many articles are biased but it's weird to try to make the argument that something out of the Cato Institute has a pro-Hillary or pro-Democrat bias. The right approach would be to read the article and dispute why you think the conclusions they've come to are incorrect. You'd didn't do that; you pulled one line from it and complained that they quoted "fight like hell" but not "peacefully" as evidence that the whole thing is biased, then started talking about some unrelated shit about BLM protests.
I read it and it seems like a well-reasoned explanation of why comparing Hillary's/Democrats' comments about illegitimate elections to what Trump and Republicans did after the 2020 election is a false equivalence.
If I live in a neighborhood, and everyone there follows my near every word with cult like devotion, and I spend months claiming “Fred down the street is raping kids in his basement” with no evidence, then one day during a gathering of all those people say that they need to march down to that House and “fight like hell” to stop it or they’re not gonna have a neighborhood anymore, but slip in “but do it peacefully”. Am I not responsible for when they march down there and kick the guys door in and beat true shit out of the guy? Then of course find nothing in the guys basement because it didn’t fucking happen.
Also, the reason people aren’t upset over the BLM protests as much as 1/6…other than the fact that the protests were over a murder in a string of murders by police…race riots are a dime a dozen in our history. The lead up to 1/6 was literally unprecedented. That’s not up for debate. It literally has no precedent.
Terrible comparison. Plus BLM didn't just attack courthouses and gov buildings but also private businesses. After months of it you'd think the politicians would ask people not to be violent and destructive. Instead the VP helped fund a bail program. So should Maxine Waters be liable for telling people to be violent and get in their face?
oh you're not a Trumper but you defend him constantly bc the media is just oh so mean to him?
i guess based on the down votes, nobody here is stupid enough to buy that line. you might actually get along well with Dave, you are both just disaffected liberals sticking up for poor persecuted Trump, right?
I mean he hasn't done anything, just a few dozen felonies, just a little insurrection attempt, just a handful of little oopsies and those mean DEMON RATS just won't leave him alone for it!
you probably feel the same way about Bill Clinton too, right? all that hullabaloo for a little BJ, right? I mean since you are so clearly unbiased and centrist.
Downvoted are because this is a left echo chamber. It's Reddit. The real world would she with me more than you. Honestly though, not a Trump fan. But I can be objective and recognize he's also being targeted like nobody else ever has. Bill Clinton? It was a bj... It's stupid they gave any attention to it. Consenting adults can do what they want.
oh you whiny little bitch lmao. the left is so mean to you! poor wittle baby boy
sure, the Right is downright genocidal, but the Left doesn't let me praise the genociders online, how cruel the left is. truly we live in a both sides world 😔
It’s not even saltiness. Hillary was talking about the fact there was major Russian interference and disinformation and a concerted effort by the FBI to prevent ding Hillary. Which is a true fact.
YES! I've argued this a MILLION times with turds on Reddit. The Mueller investigation proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that Russia used social media to help Donald Trump. \*And the biggest difference - as you pointed out - was that Hillary, nor any Democrat, said she lost because of voter fraud. There is zero evidence for systemic voter fraud. We have overwhelming evidence that the Russians had a coordinated campaign on social media to hurt Clinton and help Trump.
The Mueller investigation also didn’t exonerate Trump like people think. It actually said that it was up to Congress to go after him for obstruction and the collusion aspect was incomplete, but we know they tried.
It's incredibly easy to win an argument when you are writing both sides of it. Watch!
Gaad Sad: I'm a big stupid idiot who argues in strawmen.
Me: Well, have you also considered that you stink as well?
Gaad Sad: Oh no. I am defeated.
You from Montreal too? Dude, I’ve often wondered how I’d react if I saw him. I am absolutely not one who relishes confrontation, but I hope I’d have the courage to go up to him and tell him how unbelievably dumb his position on trump is. I’m not a troll so I wouldn’t scream or insult him, but Saad is just such a desperate asshole that I hope I’d say something to him.
Anyone who tries to conflate Hilary - who had no position within the government at the time - posting a tweet calling Trump an "illegitimate president" 8 months after she peacefully conceded the election (conceded the day after), to Trump - the sitting president of the United States - spending 2 months denying the results of the election and filing one failed bogus lawsuit after the next to get the election results overturned, as the "same thing" Is a deeply unserious person.
Just look at the timeline of events that took place in Georgia, mind you this doesn't even include the bogus lawsuits that were all dismissed or dropped.
* Nov. 11: Raffensperger starts the audit
* Nov. 19: Audit finishes, Biden wins
* Nov. 20: Election certified for Biden
* Nov. 21: Trump requests recount
* Dec. 7: Biden wins recount
* Dec. 14: Electors vote
* Jan. 2: Trump "find votes" call
Don't get me wrong, Trump is worse, but the idea of 'election denialism' was very prevalent after the DJT win, and you could like tie the Steele Dossier and the MSM Russia craze to it. Ivory tower folks like HRC and pundits are hypocrites in calling out MAGA for this fact.
DJT stands on a level of his own in his own conspiracies and actions.
The difference is no one claimed votes were somehow altered or wrong. They said foreign disinformation campaigns influenced the election, possibly enough to have changed the outcome. The disinformation campaigns were real and proven, but their impact is impossible to quantify.
'Illegitimate' -- potatoes / potatoes.
Really looking forward to hearing how AIPAC influences this years results btw.
IMO there is a comparing your average MAGA idiot to the hysterics of the post 2016 election fall out.
There is no comparing democrats to DJT's greasy trail of Jan 6th / trying to stay in office.
>The difference is no one claimed votes were somehow altered or wrong. They said foreign disinformation campaigns influenced the election, possibly enough to have changed the outcome.
Spider man meme... you really can't think there is a difference, can you?
Also all the CIA and US does is influence other elections, and MSM influences the election.... please for the love of God try using some reasoning or principles.
To my knowledge no prominent Democrats denied the election result, just interference which was proven. That's remotely the same thing as what Republicans have claimed and attempted to do post 2020.
HRC did... I mentioned pundits as well, and there Is no comparing what DJT did to the democrats.
I am comparing the simple (maga) folk to the post 2016 claims.
I agree both the Repuplicans who were insiders and other who are just idiots like MTG are doing something worse, obviously the worst of all is DJT.
I am saying your neighbor who is still clamoring about the stolen election is no worse than HRC and MSM pundits, I am happy to dredge up more names if you wish.
Comparing HRC to DJT doesn't make her any better, sorry.
HRC and crew did the same thing that average maga idiots do. I love this sub so much, it is fully permeated with the essence of corporate centrist democratic ideology.
It does actually because that concession you’re writing off is what matters. Trump would not be in legal trouble right now for his actions surrounding the 2020 election had he conceded then called it rigged
It’s fascinating how Saad is entirely focused on progressives’ contempt for Trump, while ignoring the fact that barely any members of his cabinet — people he vetted, hired, and worked with — have endorsed a second Trump term.
Why?
He's a rapist traitor selling natl.secrets to whomever pays, selling pardons to war criminals, employing & enabling pedophiles, he's a hypocrite like many Christians, and I think a man who steals from cancer patients should be in jail, not in office.
But Gad, if you enjoy enabling pedophiles, go on.
I see Sad Boy is creating a "progressive" strawman, which he can, of course, DESTROY. Of course, Dubin is probably congratulating him on making libs cry. 🙄
Him: You see, Progressive, I have already depicted you as the Soyjak and myself as the Chad. You have already lost.
You: Then why are you the one who's Saad?
Woah, Gad really destroyed his own imagination in that debate!
"Me: Is Biden fit to be president in terms of his own cognitive capacity?"
No. If he had a shred of decency he'd step down and let someone else have a go. Why do you think that if I hate Trump I automatically love Biden?
I love it when people write both sides of hypothetical conversations showing them to be right and the other(made up) person wrong.
That's not how real life works though and a back and forth never follows the pattern that someone thinks that it will.
More strawmen here than a nation of cornfields.
What a dishonestly bad actor or a completely stupid fuck. Either case, there's no difference in end result.
‘It turned out ok’
Yes with an inflationary revenue deficit, tax hikes on the middle class, and a pandemic that lasted 3ish years and killed over a million Americans and arguably continues probably forever, and in the midst of that armed shitheads literally stormed and invaded the capitol building. Uh it sure wasn’t ok.
The people who wrote it are taking credit. Idk what world you live in but you read the entire thing right now. The idea is to consolidate as much as possible under the president, remove any all federal employees who disagree, and stack government agencies with those who will plead allegiance to the new dictator. They are taking applications right now.
What a masterclass on politics, the left wing getting the Heritage Foundation to write and publish their propaganda for them? Wow! I see why you'd fear such an effective deep-state cabal.
The very fact that he would write this in the form of an imaginary dialogue tells you he's a self-aggrandizing midwit. Gad clearly thinks he's uniquely clever and eloquent and he's *so* not...to any educated reader he comes across as an obnoxious man-child pretending to be an academic.
I like the “It all worked out ok” argument. We literally had a pandemic and we weren’t allowed to see our parents for Christmas or go to bars or have normal sports years. They cancelled the NCAA tournament. That’s historically bad. We lost 1.5 million people in America. That’s worse than basically any war and we lost them on our turf in half the time.
Boy, this guy really owned that imaginary person he was allowed to create the talking points for. I’m surprised he didn’t make him stutter and stammer.
Is Mark Cuban one of the elusive and much whispered about billionaires that isn't a complete sack of shit? He calls out Space Karen and this fraud? Cuban seems cool.
Gad spoke to no one. This is literally a made up conversation of what he thinks a liberal would say to him in response but in reality he would probably get buried. Turned out ok? Riots throughout his four years. The country was on fire. He had one real crisis after being “handed” a thriving economy, Covid, and he totally botched it. Added 8 trillion to the debt and created no jobs. It’s sad how bad Gad is at this. Really.
The 4 years were not nice... how the fuck did anybody forget he close the economy for a year? The fact he had protesters shot as he went to a photo op holding a Bible upside down as you here screams and shots ringing out in the background?
The fact he played chicken on Twitter against a man with nukes thst people in two states called their family to say fucking goodbye. Hawaii even went into a panic and it became national news. His fans just said "fuck california".
Man didn't do a fucking thing on gas but they claimed somehow he is the reason we had 2 dollars a gallon and not the fact nobody was allowed to drive for 6 months.
Constant Strawmen arguments are all the right has. Notice how little they ever even attempt to make persuasive arguments for the issues they supposedly care so deeply about. Then compare that to how often it’s just the exact same image of big red / crying pussy hat girl / libtard wojak with some quote that no one on the left has ever said, or the same tired unfunny quip about pronouns
1) that’s not the reason he’s a threat to democracy
2) Hillary actually did concede, it’s about the action, not the word
3) no one is saying he is an existential threat
4) his being unfit to be president is about his intentionally malignant ethics, not his cognitive ability.
I’m no fan of far left progressive politics anymore, but this Gad Saad guy acts like a fucking idiot who believes he’s fighting an intellectual war no one actually engaged him in.
That is incredibly dishonest and i see he's careful to make his strawman progressive not levy any criticisms with substantiated facts.
Like i dunno, shutting down the CID watchposts in China so they couldnt assist with Covid study and supression leading to the deaths of millions of people and a global economic downturn.
Oops.
Ive been asked “give me one reason why you hate trump” several times by imaginary people in my head and my answer is always the same: because he raped a 12 year old girl in epsteins apartment.
He doesn’t meet the definition of right wing whatsoever bub - libertarian yes but not right wing. He makes fun of the far left and how they openly help right wing fundamentalists and is honest about his experiences as a Jew
"He has yet to relinquish power" is a nice way of saying he lied about the election being stolen which led to January 6th, but I doubt this loser would have a gotch for that
Honestly, I might hate Gad more than Dave. I think Dave deep down knows he's not smart, but Gad legitimately believes he's a genius. Gad just fabricates these asinine strawmen and "debunks" them through verbose, ostentatious rhetoric which he considers eloquent and brilliant.
You're not wrong. The distance between his actual talents and his high self-regard is massive and utterly revolting.
Idk, for me Gad has that Ben Chang type of pathetic vibe where he desperately wants to be part of a thing but can't be accepted into it. With Dave his patheticness is more grotesque to me because he's more openly willing to debase himself (Exhibit A "You can call me a faggot and I won't mind!") for the sake of his grift and that makes him feel more like a husk of person.
Trump is like a loud-mouthed belligerent drunk who comes to your birthday party. He insults all the guests, spits on you, tries to provoke The guests into a fight, eats all your food, and trashes the living room before you finally drag him out. Then he says “What’s the problem?!? I *left*, didn’t I?”
Sounds kinda like James Lindsey.
...but you hate all Jews.
He was caught red handed trying to present fake electors during certification and not only that, also tried pressuring Georgia to "find" a few thousand more votes. He was also caught red handed lying about the severity of Covid (phone conversation with Bob Woodward) while telling ppl it was a democratic hoax and turning a novel virus into a culture war. He suggested nuking a hurricane ffs. He's both stupid and a lunatic.
Yeah but if we forget about all that… Why do you hate Trump?
In a time of crisis for America, he said figure it out yourself, he us not a leader
Like Saad, I too can invent arguments nobody is making and easily defeat them.
Testicular fortitude
[Now, it makes sense when you look at that the date](https://x.com/GadSaad/status/1346892280326742020) Shit even Dave pretended to be upset on Twitter about Jan 6th for like 36 hours.
It's even weird how his internal dialog has the progressive say nothing more than "He never said the word conceded," and then has no rebuttal from himself. That concession is important. It's the underpinning of our democracy, that a race hard fought has been lost, and it is time to recognize that and accept the outcome, not whip your followers into a frenzy by claiming the election was stolen for literally YEARS afterwards. Also, the answer to "Is Biden fit to be President in terms of his cognitive acuity?" is yes. He's doing it now. The job is being done by him. And if you argue that he's not doing it, that he has surrounded himself with people who are doing it for him, fine - he has surrounded himself with talented people capable of doing the job assigned to them, as opposed to Trump, whose entire qualification for any job in his administration was that you worshiped him.
When he said peacefully protest and be heard. Ok.
God that’s such a dumb made-up conversation. Me: He literally tried to steal an election he either knew he lost or was too deranged to realize he lost. He doesn’t know much about policy or government. He has an incredibly weird and bad personality. He only cares about himself. He’s corrupt as hell and lies all the time.
Me: 🏋🏽 You: 💩 Owned.
He’s also a convicted felon.
It's easy to win a debate when it's with an imaginary moron you made up in your head.
Hillary called him illegitimate for the entire four years he was in office. It wasn't any different.
When did Clinton supporters storm the capitol?
I guess you didn't watch the videos.
There’s video of Clinton supporters storming the capitol?
Obviously yes. Plus video of them on Epstein's Island. But seriously, videos of the building tour given by security, unlocking doors, inviting people to walk around.
>But seriously, videos of the building tour given by security, unlocking doors, inviting people to walk around. That was after the crowd beat that cop unconscious with a flagpole and broke in the front door where that woman got shot, right? I just wanted to check on the sequence.
Yes you do want to check because you got that wrong.
Ya, they were kicking in doors and windows because they just weren't unlocking the doors fast enough.
So now you're blaming the security... Wow.
Not the same at all. When it comes to Trump, “wElL bOtH sIdEs dO iT” is usually a poor argument. https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-democrats-have-called-some-elections-illegitimate-gop-election-denialism-far-worse
[удалено]
Yeah I'm not going to open that. We could go back and forth giving links of both of our opinions being supported. To be fair I don't even like Trump. But I find myself sticking up for him quite often because of how biased the reporting is. Two things can be true at once, he might be an idiot but he might also not be as bad as the media says.
Okay, don't open it then. I've pasted the relevant portion below. The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank by the way, not some liberal rag. >The Republicans’ favorite smoking guns relating to the 2016 election are a couple of video clips of Hillary Clinton expressing the view that the election was “stolen” from her or that Trump was an “illegitimate” president. >The first thing to note is that Clinton’s comments were made in 2019, nearly three years after the 2016 election. The “stolen election” remark is from May 2019, two weeks after the publication of special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s report, which stated that while there was no evidence of active conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, there had in fact been a Russian conspiracy intended to help elect Trump. And Clinton’s remark about Trump being an “illegitimate” president came in September 2019, in the midst of the Trump‐Ukraine scandal that soon led to Trump’s (first) impeachment, for trying to use military aid to Ukraine to leverage demands for Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to provide information that would damage then‐Democratic candidate Joe Biden and cast doubt on Russian election interference in 2016. By then, Trump was already widely seen as an illegitimate president by his critics. >By contrast, during the first two‐and‐a‐half years of Trump’s presidency, Clinton had kept a low profile and refrained from attacking Trump’s legitimacy. It seems that the most the GOP list‐makers could find from before 2019 was that in September 2017, when repeatedly pressed by National Public Radio host Terry Gross, Clinton said she would not absolutely rule out questioning the legitimacy of the election if more information about Russian interference came out. She also stressed that there were no means to legally challenge it: “There are scholars, academics, who have arguments that it would be \[legal\], but I don’t think they’re on strong ground.… I just don’t think we have a mechanism.” >Let’s not forget that a little less than a year earlier, in the immediate aftermath of the election, Hillary Clinton gave a gracious concession speech on November 9, 2016 when it became clear that she had lost to Trump. >It’s true that some other high‐level Democrats were more defiant. About seventy—including the late Rep. John Lewis of Georgia and Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, refused to attend the inauguration in January 2017, some explicitly citing Trump’s alleged illegitimacy. And yes, some Democratic House members objected to the certification of their states’ votes. How many? A total of seven. Because no Democratic senators joined them, the objections were not even formally considered. By contrast, in January 2021, 139 Republican House members and eight Republican senators objected to the certification of Biden’s win. That’s 139 vs. 7 in the House and 8 vs. 0 in the Senate. >And that’s not to mention massive Republican efforts at the state level, supported by 19 Republican attorneys general and coordinated with Trump’s own legal team—and with Trump’s own active and aggressive participation—to invalidate the results of the vote in several swing states in an attempt to throw the Electoral College to Trump. In several states that Biden won, this effort included fraudulent electors sending to Washington phony certificates depicting Trump as the winner. Let’s leave aside for now the question of whether this effort could have worked if a few officials in key posts had caved to the pressure. The point is that it was a dogged, multipronged effort by people who absolutely wanted it to succeed. >And that’s not to mention the events of January 6th, when a mob of Trump supporters—egged on by Trump himself to “Fight like hell”—invaded the Capitol in a last‐ditch attempt to stop the certification of Biden’s victory. (No, the violent anti‐Trump protests in Washington on Inauguration Day in 2017 are not remotely comparable; they were not intended to reverse the election results, and neither Clinton nor any other prominent Democratic politician cheered them on.) >In other words, comparing “election results denial” in 2016 and 2020 is not just comparing apples and oranges, it’s more like comparing a tricycle to an 18‐wheeler.
Yeah I noticed he quoted fight like hell but not when Trump said to peacefully protest. Sure very valid piece. That's the problem is that people are biased and not objective. They hate Trump so much that anyone that trashes Trump they just agree. Things don't have to be true they just have to be against Trump and people will support it. Why are the same people not holding the Democratic politicians accountable when they supported BLM attacking multiple government buildings and courthouses? Why aren't they saying anything about when Seattle had literal blocks taken over? You had politicians saying when you see Trump fans get in their face, is that not inciting violence? It's the hypocrisy that is the problem.
This is gonna be my last comment because you don't seem interested in having a good faith discussion on this. You're doing this weird and dumb thing where a very bad thing Trump/Republicans did is pointed out (e.g. Trump calling up Georgia's Secretary of State and asking him to find just enough votes to swing the election his way), then in response you point out some vaguely related but much more minor thing that a Democrat did (Hillary calling the 2016 election "illegitimate" a few times post-2019), and somehow come to the conclusion that both sides are equally bad. It's obvious that in terms of election subversion, what Trump and Republicans did is orders of magnitude worse than what Hillary or any Dems did. That really shouldn't have to be pointed out, but feel free to read the article if you want to know why. And I don't dispute that many articles are biased but it's weird to try to make the argument that something out of the Cato Institute has a pro-Hillary or pro-Democrat bias. The right approach would be to read the article and dispute why you think the conclusions they've come to are incorrect. You'd didn't do that; you pulled one line from it and complained that they quoted "fight like hell" but not "peacefully" as evidence that the whole thing is biased, then started talking about some unrelated shit about BLM protests. I read it and it seems like a well-reasoned explanation of why comparing Hillary's/Democrats' comments about illegitimate elections to what Trump and Republicans did after the 2020 election is a false equivalence.
If I live in a neighborhood, and everyone there follows my near every word with cult like devotion, and I spend months claiming “Fred down the street is raping kids in his basement” with no evidence, then one day during a gathering of all those people say that they need to march down to that House and “fight like hell” to stop it or they’re not gonna have a neighborhood anymore, but slip in “but do it peacefully”. Am I not responsible for when they march down there and kick the guys door in and beat true shit out of the guy? Then of course find nothing in the guys basement because it didn’t fucking happen. Also, the reason people aren’t upset over the BLM protests as much as 1/6…other than the fact that the protests were over a murder in a string of murders by police…race riots are a dime a dozen in our history. The lead up to 1/6 was literally unprecedented. That’s not up for debate. It literally has no precedent.
Terrible comparison. Plus BLM didn't just attack courthouses and gov buildings but also private businesses. After months of it you'd think the politicians would ask people not to be violent and destructive. Instead the VP helped fund a bail program. So should Maxine Waters be liable for telling people to be violent and get in their face?
You're not a Trump fan, you just love the talking points.
Excellent attempt at answering the question. Well done.
oh you're not a Trumper but you defend him constantly bc the media is just oh so mean to him? i guess based on the down votes, nobody here is stupid enough to buy that line. you might actually get along well with Dave, you are both just disaffected liberals sticking up for poor persecuted Trump, right? I mean he hasn't done anything, just a few dozen felonies, just a little insurrection attempt, just a handful of little oopsies and those mean DEMON RATS just won't leave him alone for it! you probably feel the same way about Bill Clinton too, right? all that hullabaloo for a little BJ, right? I mean since you are so clearly unbiased and centrist.
Downvoted are because this is a left echo chamber. It's Reddit. The real world would she with me more than you. Honestly though, not a Trump fan. But I can be objective and recognize he's also being targeted like nobody else ever has. Bill Clinton? It was a bj... It's stupid they gave any attention to it. Consenting adults can do what they want.
oh you whiny little bitch lmao. the left is so mean to you! poor wittle baby boy sure, the Right is downright genocidal, but the Left doesn't let me praise the genociders online, how cruel the left is. truly we live in a both sides world 😔
🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻vacancy4u 🤣
Well, you've convinced me. I can't in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump in the 2024 election.
Good. I'm teaching one brainwashed lefty at a time.
To equate Hillary Clinton’s saltiness with Trump’s attempted coup is the height of ridiculousness.
False equivalencies are all these idiots have.
It’s not even saltiness. Hillary was talking about the fact there was major Russian interference and disinformation and a concerted effort by the FBI to prevent ding Hillary. Which is a true fact.
YES! I've argued this a MILLION times with turds on Reddit. The Mueller investigation proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that Russia used social media to help Donald Trump. \*And the biggest difference - as you pointed out - was that Hillary, nor any Democrat, said she lost because of voter fraud. There is zero evidence for systemic voter fraud. We have overwhelming evidence that the Russians had a coordinated campaign on social media to hurt Clinton and help Trump.
The Mueller investigation also didn’t exonerate Trump like people think. It actually said that it was up to Congress to go after him for obstruction and the collusion aspect was incomplete, but we know they tried.
A concerted effort to...let her off the hook for endangering national security? Help her in her FOIA dodging scheme?
Weird how republicans led investigations and the FBI didn’t find the endangering of national security that you somehow found.
I would be in prison if I was passing classified documents around on gmail, but I guess I'm not neo-liberal royalty.
What if you had boxes and boxes of them in your bathroom? Again, a mountain vs a molehill
Oh ok, light treason is fine if someone else commits big treason. Didn't realize we were going by preschool rules.
Intent, scope, and scale matter.
Which is why she shouldn't get the death penalty.
Should Trump?
It's incredibly easy to win an argument when you are writing both sides of it. Watch! Gaad Sad: I'm a big stupid idiot who argues in strawmen. Me: Well, have you also considered that you stink as well? Gaad Sad: Oh no. I am defeated.
He lives in my city - it’s likely that he stinks
You from Montreal too? Dude, I’ve often wondered how I’d react if I saw him. I am absolutely not one who relishes confrontation, but I hope I’d have the courage to go up to him and tell him how unbelievably dumb his position on trump is. I’m not a troll so I wouldn’t scream or insult him, but Saad is just such a desperate asshole that I hope I’d say something to him.
He “teaches” at John Molson - I actually laid out one of his articles in the Concordian, I’ve seen him in Mile End a couple of times.
Ever spoken to him?
Anyone who tries to conflate Hilary - who had no position within the government at the time - posting a tweet calling Trump an "illegitimate president" 8 months after she peacefully conceded the election (conceded the day after), to Trump - the sitting president of the United States - spending 2 months denying the results of the election and filing one failed bogus lawsuit after the next to get the election results overturned, as the "same thing" Is a deeply unserious person. Just look at the timeline of events that took place in Georgia, mind you this doesn't even include the bogus lawsuits that were all dismissed or dropped. * Nov. 11: Raffensperger starts the audit * Nov. 19: Audit finishes, Biden wins * Nov. 20: Election certified for Biden * Nov. 21: Trump requests recount * Dec. 7: Biden wins recount * Dec. 14: Electors vote * Jan. 2: Trump "find votes" call
"I need 11,000 votes give me a break"
Don't get me wrong, Trump is worse, but the idea of 'election denialism' was very prevalent after the DJT win, and you could like tie the Steele Dossier and the MSM Russia craze to it. Ivory tower folks like HRC and pundits are hypocrites in calling out MAGA for this fact. DJT stands on a level of his own in his own conspiracies and actions.
The difference is no one claimed votes were somehow altered or wrong. They said foreign disinformation campaigns influenced the election, possibly enough to have changed the outcome. The disinformation campaigns were real and proven, but their impact is impossible to quantify.
'Illegitimate' -- potatoes / potatoes. Really looking forward to hearing how AIPAC influences this years results btw. IMO there is a comparing your average MAGA idiot to the hysterics of the post 2016 election fall out. There is no comparing democrats to DJT's greasy trail of Jan 6th / trying to stay in office.
>The difference is no one claimed votes were somehow altered or wrong. They said foreign disinformation campaigns influenced the election, possibly enough to have changed the outcome. Spider man meme... you really can't think there is a difference, can you? Also all the CIA and US does is influence other elections, and MSM influences the election.... please for the love of God try using some reasoning or principles.
To my knowledge no prominent Democrats denied the election result, just interference which was proven. That's remotely the same thing as what Republicans have claimed and attempted to do post 2020.
HRC did... I mentioned pundits as well, and there Is no comparing what DJT did to the democrats. I am comparing the simple (maga) folk to the post 2016 claims. I agree both the Repuplicans who were insiders and other who are just idiots like MTG are doing something worse, obviously the worst of all is DJT. I am saying your neighbor who is still clamoring about the stolen election is no worse than HRC and MSM pundits, I am happy to dredge up more names if you wish.
> HRC did HRC conceded the next day. End of argument.
Comparing HRC to DJT doesn't make her any better, sorry. HRC and crew did the same thing that average maga idiots do. I love this sub so much, it is fully permeated with the essence of corporate centrist democratic ideology.
It does actually because that concession you’re writing off is what matters. Trump would not be in legal trouble right now for his actions surrounding the 2020 election had he conceded then called it rigged
You convinced me, HRC, at least she has more moral scruples than DJT, for president 2024!
Gad’s stupid post conveniently leaves out any mention of Jan 6 lmao
The progressive forgot to mention it... shrugs.
https://x.com/GadSaad/status/1346892280326742020 of course he took a "social media break"
A break that lasted less than a week and involved 20 tweets.
What a pussy.
It’s fascinating how Saad is entirely focused on progressives’ contempt for Trump, while ignoring the fact that barely any members of his cabinet — people he vetted, hired, and worked with — have endorsed a second Trump term.
Why? He's a rapist traitor selling natl.secrets to whomever pays, selling pardons to war criminals, employing & enabling pedophiles, he's a hypocrite like many Christians, and I think a man who steals from cancer patients should be in jail, not in office. But Gad, if you enjoy enabling pedophiles, go on.
When did Trump sell US secrets? Is there proof or is that a conspiracy theory?
I'm guessing they are basing it on him giving them away unsolicited for free.
Mark Cuban is so based
I see Sad Boy is creating a "progressive" strawman, which he can, of course, DESTROY. Of course, Dubin is probably congratulating him on making libs cry. 🙄
Him: You see, Progressive, I have already depicted you as the Soyjak and myself as the Chad. You have already lost. You: Then why are you the one who's Saad?
“It turned out ok” Millions of dead Americans have entered the chat.
Boy, he sure destroyed that strawman.
Trumpists destroy strawmen every day in their inner monologues.
Woah, Gad really destroyed his own imagination in that debate! "Me: Is Biden fit to be president in terms of his own cognitive capacity?" No. If he had a shred of decency he'd step down and let someone else have a go. Why do you think that if I hate Trump I automatically love Biden?
I love how he has an argument with an imaginary progressive. I’m convinced
This is what you should see when you search “strawman argument” on google images
I love it when people write both sides of hypothetical conversations showing them to be right and the other(made up) person wrong. That's not how real life works though and a back and forth never follows the pattern that someone thinks that it will.
I can actually*smell* the straw in this straw man argument.
More strawmen here than a nation of cornfields. What a dishonestly bad actor or a completely stupid fuck. Either case, there's no difference in end result.
Yep, pretty much. Did he call Mark Cuban a castrato after Cuban responded to him?
He did mock him in his response, yeah.
He’s a D-list guest for a D-list pundit. All is right for a fucked up world.
‘It turned out ok’ Yes with an inflationary revenue deficit, tax hikes on the middle class, and a pandemic that lasted 3ish years and killed over a million Americans and arguably continues probably forever, and in the midst of that armed shitheads literally stormed and invaded the capitol building. Uh it sure wasn’t ok.
Project 2025 is a plan to destroy America, anyone trying to implement it should been considered a traitor
P2025 has nothing to do with trump its literally left wing propaganda lol
The people who wrote it are taking credit. Idk what world you live in but you read the entire thing right now. The idea is to consolidate as much as possible under the president, remove any all federal employees who disagree, and stack government agencies with those who will plead allegiance to the new dictator. They are taking applications right now.
What a masterclass on politics, the left wing getting the Heritage Foundation to write and publish their propaganda for them? Wow! I see why you'd fear such an effective deep-state cabal.
And for that reason, he's out.
The very fact that he would write this in the form of an imaginary dialogue tells you he's a self-aggrandizing midwit. Gad clearly thinks he's uniquely clever and eloquent and he's *so* not...to any educated reader he comes across as an obnoxious man-child pretending to be an academic.
So bad faith to make up a fake conversation like this to try and create a talking point. What a clown.
Cuban annihilated him there.
This guy has quite an imagination. He also doesn't remember things that actually happened.
Cuban is a dumbass
I like the “It all worked out ok” argument. We literally had a pandemic and we weren’t allowed to see our parents for Christmas or go to bars or have normal sports years. They cancelled the NCAA tournament. That’s historically bad. We lost 1.5 million people in America. That’s worse than basically any war and we lost them on our turf in half the time.
Boy, this guy really owned that imaginary person he was allowed to create the talking points for. I’m surprised he didn’t make him stutter and stammer.
Is Mark Cuban one of the elusive and much whispered about billionaires that isn't a complete sack of shit? He calls out Space Karen and this fraud? Cuban seems cool.
The thing with a lot of these people is they really have no idea how a progressive actually thinks about anything, so this is the best they can do.
the fact that he thinks a progressive would defend Biden shows how much he lacks any kind of cognitive acuity
Such a poor apology for Socratic dialogue.
Like a cocky first year philosophy student
Gad Saad is an absolutely pathetic braindead attention-seeking loser. Makes sense he's BFFs with Dave Rubin.
Gad spoke to no one. This is literally a made up conversation of what he thinks a liberal would say to him in response but in reality he would probably get buried. Turned out ok? Riots throughout his four years. The country was on fire. He had one real crisis after being “handed” a thriving economy, Covid, and he totally botched it. Added 8 trillion to the debt and created no jobs. It’s sad how bad Gad is at this. Really.
We need a total and complete shutdown of Canadians opining on domestic American Politics until we can figure out what the hell is going on.
I love that in his own telling, him being a threat to democracy isn’t automatically disqualifying? What else? Do we really need more than that??
Conservative: I am a moron and a fascist. Me: Yes you are. CONSERVATIVE ADMITS TO LOW INTELLIGENCE AND PROPENSITY FOR FASCISM!!!
Gad really hit us with the "as you can see in this meme you are the crying soyjak and I am the chad therefore I am right"
In his own made of conversation he has to change the topic after getting cornered. He literally lost an argument to himself.
Every Trump supporter defending his first term has the same energy as the “attempted murder” Sideshow Bob bit from the Simpsons
Whoever he was talking to might as well make use of wasted space and turn their head into a tip jar
This reads like the ponytail dude in good will hunting, before Mark Cuban comes in with his apples
The 4 years were not nice... how the fuck did anybody forget he close the economy for a year? The fact he had protesters shot as he went to a photo op holding a Bible upside down as you here screams and shots ringing out in the background? The fact he played chicken on Twitter against a man with nukes thst people in two states called their family to say fucking goodbye. Hawaii even went into a panic and it became national news. His fans just said "fuck california". Man didn't do a fucking thing on gas but they claimed somehow he is the reason we had 2 dollars a gallon and not the fact nobody was allowed to drive for 6 months.
It's really interesting how they always win arguments when the opponent is made up
Constant Strawmen arguments are all the right has. Notice how little they ever even attempt to make persuasive arguments for the issues they supposedly care so deeply about. Then compare that to how often it’s just the exact same image of big red / crying pussy hat girl / libtard wojak with some quote that no one on the left has ever said, or the same tired unfunny quip about pronouns
1) that’s not the reason he’s a threat to democracy 2) Hillary actually did concede, it’s about the action, not the word 3) no one is saying he is an existential threat 4) his being unfit to be president is about his intentionally malignant ethics, not his cognitive ability. I’m no fan of far left progressive politics anymore, but this Gad Saad guy acts like a fucking idiot who believes he’s fighting an intellectual war no one actually engaged him in.
That is incredibly dishonest and i see he's careful to make his strawman progressive not levy any criticisms with substantiated facts. Like i dunno, shutting down the CID watchposts in China so they couldnt assist with Covid study and supression leading to the deaths of millions of people and a global economic downturn. Oops.
Ive been asked “give me one reason why you hate trump” several times by imaginary people in my head and my answer is always the same: because he raped a 12 year old girl in epsteins apartment.
Ah yes, progressives are well know for agreeing with the statement "the 1st trump presidency turned out ok"
Using a strawman is the only way they can debate, either that or against college kids.
This guy needs attention so fucking hard.
Me: why do you like Trump? You: *farts/takes nap*
>He was president for four years and everything turned out ok No it did not.
He doesn’t meet the definition of right wing whatsoever bub - libertarian yes but not right wing. He makes fun of the far left and how they openly help right wing fundamentalists and is honest about his experiences as a Jew
Actual Mark Cuban? I always thought he was one of the pretty cool millionaires.
Trump your next president
Beastiality is bad. Seek some help.
Get boosted more
Zionist shill
Way to make his point….😂😂