Saturday, February 27, 2021

How to Reply If You Are Being Badgered by Leftists Insisting that You Accept the 2020 Outcome as Fair'n'Square


If you are being harassed by leftists asserting that the 2020 election was totally on the level, here is what you say.

FYI, the following post is based on Why Do the Election’s Defenders Require My Agreement? by Michael Anton (thanks to Ed Driscoll, read Mike's whole piece) with comments by Neo (thanks to Sarah Hoyt), who cuts to the chase:

The question they’re really asking is: how far gone are you? Have you lost your mind? Do you not see what’s obvious to every thinking and decent person who hasn’t been taken over by QAnon fantasies: that Joe Biden won fair and square and everything else is a baldfaced and pernicious lie?

Again, here is how you respond:

• No no, I think it's insane to believe that any kind of cheating was involved, and I think everybody should agree once and for all on who the victor is.

— Oh, good! 

• Yes. Enough with this nonsense!

— Wonderful! So, you accept Joe Biden as our president?

• Joe Biden as president? No, no. I wasn't talking about the White House at all.

— Huh?! What were you talking about?!

• About the Tour de France. I fully accept that Lance Armstrong is the winner of the Tour de France (not just once but seven times), and that anybody questioning his victory is a crank, a seditionist, and a conspiracy theorist, as well as a jealous sourpuss.

— The Tour de — wait a minute! Those events have nothing to do with each other!

• True, a sports event has little to do with a (with any) nation's election, but the reaction is similar: the politicians and media outlets all over the country were claiming that the election was fair and square the within half a dozen days! They — as well as just about everybody else — did the same for Lance Armstrong's (record seven) victories for a dozen years — yes, exactly 12 years (!) — before we all discovered that fraud was involved. 

So tell me: Who made the leftists of 2020 all-knowing? Who made 'em God? 

Update: Welcome, Instapundit readers. Note: A number of IP commenters have quipped "Why reply or argue with them at all?" and/or better to spit out "GFYS" which "is simpler and to the point." But the point is not just your interlocutor(s), but third parties listening in or, if you are being interviewed, the media audience. 

These listeners/viewers, a number of them independents or borderline Democrats — who are currently being force-fed Trump's "Big Lie", his "kooks" believing in "conspiracy theories", and the "domestic terrorists'" active attempts at "sedition" and at fostering a "coup d'état" against "Our Democracy™" — need to get a strong and unequivocal example of why the skeptics are in fact on the mark while the Joe Biden believers are the true gullible parties (if not outright participants in the voter fraud).
 
Related
: Voter Fraud — A Note to Leftists Who Claim that "Not a shred of hard evidence has been produced"

Dennis Prager: The Numerous (and Sweeping) Anomalies Regarding the 2020 Election That Cannot Be Ignored

• Inside of a month, Democrats have redefined riots and election challenges from the highest form of patriotism to an attack on democracy — And by “democracy”, they mean the Democrat Party

• The Mote in Thine Own Eye: Why Are Conservatives So Naïve That They Refuse to See the Beam in the Eye of Those Who Hate Their Very Existence? 

• The Take of Bill Maher's Coronavirus Expert Guests Happens to Apply Perfectly to the 2020 Election 

• One of Erik's French TV appearances: 99% of the Capitol Protestors Were Entirely Peaceful, as Were 99% of the Group Which Entered the Premises 

• Stare Decisis: The Areas that Precedent Is Not Supposed to Include and Be Concerned With 

How Would Reagan React to the November Election's Voter Fraud and the Riots of 2020? How About Abe Lincoln? 

• FYI, the current post is based on Americans Anonymous, one of my first (tongue-in-cheek) publications on the internet 18 years or so ago…

 …/… The most common frequently-asked question [asked] is: How do I respond to a group of smug [leftists] submitting me to a barrage of irony-laden questions, asinine comments, and demented accusations …/… ? Our main precept is this: Do your homework (i.e., know your facts, this being something you obviously prepare beforehand), and… agree with them. Agree with them wholeheartedly! …/… Then go "above and beyond the call of duty" …/…

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

The reaction I often get from Leftists regarding the stolen election is: "What news sources are you relying on?" "Can you give me a cite?". All of the main stream media have ignored or silenced these election fraud stories so I am left citing Fred's Basement Blog, or Boogaloo Times online. Even if you tell them to check the facts out they will simply ignore them and continue smugly embracing their narrative.

J in StL said...

A kingdom is ruled by a king

A principality is ruled by a prince

An empire is ruled by an emperor.

A democracy is ruled by the Democratic Party

Got it. That would explain why the Democrats are always screaming about "DEMOCRACY!!!"

Anonymous said...

It's a much better analogy then you realize. Several years after Armstrong confessed, NBC Sports brought him out as a commentator on the Tour. They thought that if they could wipe his odor off on the current riders and on the fans then somehow he would smell better. Few people bought it. The defenders of this past election are trying to do the same thing by making everyone accept the result. If they can wipe their odor off on the rest of us then they won't smell as bad. That doesn't work for me. I don't want their stink on me.

David said...

In these situations, I'm a big fan of the generic "Why is that?" If they then attempt to shrug off ("EVERYONE knows that!") the question, you follow up with "Explain it to me as you would a child, or a Cocker spaniel."

You can always egg them on with such questions as "So then, you're saying Bush/Gore 2000, Bush/Kerry 2004, and Trump/Clinton 2016 were all fair and square as well?"

And if they trot out the "No evidence!" talking point, remind them that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Play along, play dumb, and you'd be surprised how often and how quickly your adversaries are reduced to incoherence or sputtering rage.

Brad Hobbs said...

As for being badgered to cite sources, I'd just look straight at them and tell them YouTube - which is basically where I stitched together all the sources I've seen pointing out the various published stories referencing the shennanigans revealed in Anterim County, Michigan, the actual video of chicanery in Fulton County GA and Detroit, and the coverage of the various "see no evil" reactions and jaw dropping denials by various officials, that were essentially assertions without evidence. Not to mention the leads to reading the actual rational (technicalities, not examinations of evidence) of all of the court challenges that were uniformly thrown out.

Of course, I've yet to encounter, other than in online discussions, anyone really wanting to have such a discussion in real life, but then, I readily admit I do not get out much - and the few discussions I have had with live people have been stunning realizations that seem to indicate this was all pulled off because people just really are apathetic, and don't care.

bigpeteoz said...

A country is ruled by a ?

Ingot9455 said...

I took this from an excellent website:

"Nobody honestly believes Joe Biden won 10.5 million votes more than the previous record-holder, Barack Obama, while winning 45% less counties, most excess votes coming from four cities that shut down counting operations and suddenly found statistically-absurd Biden-only ballot dumps under the circumstances of a thousand affidavits and video evidence witnessing the same ballots being run through machines multiple times while observers were conveniently kicked out."

I just cut and paste it in over and over again.

Anonymous said...

Lance Armstrong was the strongest rider with the fastest time in each of his seven consecutive Tour de France victories. You could look it up.

askeptic said...

Lance's performance-enhancing drugs were superior to the performance-enhancing drugs used by his opponents.

Interested Bystander said...

True. That’s because they usually know very little about current events. They get their news from the late night shows’ monologues.

Frank Byrne said...

All I say is there was no widespread investigation, so how can we know?

Jester Naybor said...

The compromises in the election processes - junk-mail voting, hasty changes in election rules, and irregular activity in counting the votes; perpetrated by judges, governors and other unauthorized parties in haste in a crisis-not-to-waste - tainted the election as much as bad police procedure taints courtroom evidence that leads to its exclusion ... and the government, as opposed to its individual operatives, does not qualify for the presumption of innocence.

The compromises are all the evidence that is needed, that this election can't be trusted and should have been sent to the House per the Constitution to vote in a President, not merely certify a compromised election. Of course, that would have led to Trump winning a second term, and they couldn't validate 75 million deplorable people like that.

And it is reinforced by the courts ducking their duty to adjudicate the process on technicalities.

It is the job of government to prove that this election was on the up-and-up. And "because we say so" is not sufficient.

Anonymous said...

Ya’ll are forgetting the obvious, well-documented fraud: bypassing constitutionally mandated state legislated election laws.

In my state, election laws duly created by state legislation were ignored, or expanded, or changed illegally by not only the state election commission but by local county and city officials as well. Rules/procedures were made up on the fly, changed daily, added to/subtracted from.

It was basically a free-for-all to accommodate the ballot fraud in Democrat strongholds.

Anonymous said...

Whenever a lefty idiot (sorry, but I repeated myself) insists that the election was fair, and that there was "no evidence" of cheating, I ask them if they will play poker with me. I say that we can wager our cars or our houses against each other. But then I add that I get to play by using "Democrat rules." I say that after they (my opponent) has revealed their hand of cards, that I will then force them to leave the room for a minute or so. And when I let them back into the room, they will see that I now have a winning hand. They would say, "But you cheated!" And I would say, "But you didn't see me cheat by switching cards, therefore, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS, there is NO EVIDENCE of cheating!"

Rusty W

pst314 said...

"Update: Welcome, Instapundit readers. Note: A number of IP commenters have quipped 'Why reply or argue with them at all?' and/or better to spit out 'GFYS'..."

The acrimony in many Instapundit comment threads can be very off-putting. I sometimes wonder how many of those commenters are genuinely conservatives who have gone off the deep end, and how many are leftist trolls who are sowing division and distrust.

pst314 said...

Regardless, I have been reading your blog ever since its inception--possibly thanks to a link from Glenn Reynolds. Thanks for your excellent work.

Anonymous said...

Truth is the daughter of time.