Do you think Trump and his kids should go to jail?
It is clear the kids and Trump have committed several federal crimes - otherwise Trump wouldn't feel a need to pardon them "preemptively", yet they are not under any federal investigation at the moment. So why pardon them if they have done nothing wrong.
I just found out today that Trump is an illegal resident of Florida and therefore voted (as did Melania) illegally as well. You see, the terms of the sale of Mar-a-Largo, prevent him from taking up residence there. Consequently, Trump is probably not a legal resident of Florida and the state (which it won't) or Palm Beach could press charges.
Then there is New York which has a slew of investigations against the Trump, his family, and his organization.
Then there is this civil action in D.C. surrounding Ivanka (Trump can't pardon her from that, as it turns out) for the shenanigans that were played with the Trump inauguration committee.I think the Trump crime family should go to jail (or suffer the appropriate consequence), if they are determined by a court of law to have committed crimes, just like anyone who commits a crime should serve whatever jail time or other consequence is required. He and his grifter clan should not be above the law.
Why not? Why shouldn't they get the same consideration Hillary did?
Really? That's your response?
I prefer they get the same consideration as Martha Stewart or Al Capone.
Oh, and was Hillary convicted of a crime? If the Trumps are not found guilty of a crime in a court of law, then they will get the same consideration as Hillary.
I'm not sure why it is necessary to state the obvious but there ya go.The "obvious" was that sufficient evidence was found of Hillary's crime to convict her, just as others committing the same crime were convicted, but she was never charged. So why shouldn't the Trump family be given the same consideration? Evidence or not, just shuttle it into the dark and forget about it.
(Before you twist my words, let me say that I do NOT advocate ignoring crimes, but if it is the "liberal way", then it should apply to everyone. Not just Hillary, not just rioters, not just illegal aliens...if we aren't going to enforce laws then don't enforce them for anybody.I'm pretty sure those who investigated Hillary were not all "liberal." In fact, Comey helped her lose the election.
I can't help it if they decided not to charge her, just as I will have no say in whether or not any of the Trumps get charged with a crime. All I said was, if they are convicted of a crime, they should receive the same punishment as anyone else. This doesn't seem like a controversial stance to me and has nothing to do with Hillary at all.Wilderness: The fact that Trump, his family, and Giuliani want to be pardoned is an admission of guilt. That's plain ass logic. Trump has 10 obstructions of justice charges levied against him, plus the Southern District of New York court.
Ivanka was deposed yesterday for violating the non-profit misuse of over a million dollars in funds and Kushner must have done something that requires being pardoned that we have yet to see and hear.
Giuliani is Trump's personal lawyer. He holds no government office, but yet he has acted in an official capacity in foreign government dealings.Interesting that you think they "want" to be pardoned. What evidence can you supply of that? A court affidavit, a begging letter to the next president? Videos over national media of him pleading for a pardon?
Then, too, it's interesting that you simply assume that charges will result in a guilty verdict - do you always make that assumption or is it just thrown out there as another way to divert attention from what the post you replied to was about? I especially like that Kushner "must have done something that requires being pardoned" without ever seeing anything at all indicating that.
Your propensity to make assumptions designed to degrade the President, and now his family, is amazing. Will Barron be next? Will you claim he is running a prostitution ring or something?Wilderness:
Do you deny that Trump has 10 obstruction of justice charges against him and it was ruled by AG Barr that as soon as he is no longer the sitting president that he can be tried for those charges?
Do you deny he is directly implicated in campaign finance crimes and is under investigation by both Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance and New York State Attorney General Letitia James for alleged fraud in his business dealings? On top of that, he faces civil defamation lawsuits from women accusing him of sexual assault.
Trump is the one who is making the assumptions that he and his family and others are going to be found guilty. Why would he want all those people and himself to be preemptively pardoned? Isn't that an admission of guilt? If you haven't done anything wrong, why would you need to be preemptively pardoned?
To answer the question of this forum, I don't know if they should go to jail. I agree with Biden...Leave it up to the next AG.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/0 … ons-442727Do you deny that you made a bald faced claim that "Trump, his family, and Giuliani want to be pardoned is an admission of guilt"? Do you deny that you have exactly zero evidence this is true; that it is purely your imagination producing such a statement? Do you deny that you declared them guilty based on nothing but that imagination? That you do so while at the same time saying you don't know if they should go to jail?
People, it is posts like this that make your comments so useless; you just make things up and then claim them to be true, building on them again and again.While I don't recall seeing reports that Ivanka, Jerad, Don Jr., and Erik have publically asked for a pardon, Trump and Giuliani have brought it up in public.
If I knew I were innocent then I would be begging daddy NOT to give me a pardon - yet there he is, instead of thinking about how to contain his self-made coronavirus crisis, he is wasting time and energy discussing pardons for his kids with staff and figuring out other ways to screw Biden and harm national security. (He is still refusing to let military intelligence talk to the Biden transition team. What a guy!)
If they accept a pardon, the Supreme Court has noted that that is effectively an admission of guilt.Link, please, where Trump has asked for a delayed action pardon. A video would be good, as long as it is more than a 3 second sound bite cutting off before/after the words. A transcript not so much as you do not have a good record of providing honest OR complete reports.
"He is still refusing to let military intelligence talk to the Biden transition team"
Odd - my local news + what I see on the net is that Biden is getting all the briefings. Are you uninformed or stretching the truth again?
This is getting comical. And it's obvious some thrive on it crazy --- if comes. Back away, no need to feed a frenzy.
Wilderness: Do you deny that you answered my questions by asking me questions. That is not an answer. A simple yes or no would be a sufficient answer.
https://youtu.be/o_xZxLeZTrsBut isn't that how it is supposed to work? I asked for evidence of your claims - you went off on a tangent without ever answering. You asked, I did the same, although my tangent was intended to accent that you failed to answer the question. Is that not correct procedure?
No, Wilderness, it isn't. You were asked a question and you were supposed to answer it. Then, if you feel the need to expand further, do so.
Then I should forget about getting answers and only give them? I should ignore that my questions remain unanswered?
I would disagree.
Wilderness: What didn't I answer? I think you have me mixed up with Scott.
While it is certainly possible that I, or perhaps both of us (
), are in left field wandering amongst the myriad of posts there, I believe that my question was what proof you had that Trump had asked for a delayed action pardon. The only answer you gave was to say that Trump was a criminal and that he assumed his family would be found guilty. No videos, not even a transcript of a tweet - nothing that indicated Trump wanted a pardon, except of course your statement that he does.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4164952This is what I posted a couple of days ago. Did you not look at the video link below or isn't that credible enough for you?
"Wilderness: Do you deny that you answered my questions by asking me questions. That is not an answer. A simple yes or no would be a sufficient answer."
https://youtu.be/o_xZxLeZTrsLet me pose a few questions, simple as they appear, let me ask --- Then I would like to point out something in regard to the video you posted.
Is "Whatifitist" running out of control with this media report? Has Trump pardoned any of the persons mentioned in the video? No
So why not just wait to pounce if the deed is done?
Does this form of mindset really benefit our society?
Now, let me point out in the very first seconds of Jakes's reporting I hear those all too often used words "a source" .. Have these words never made you suspicious of the report? Too often today we never hear a name.
This thread is a perfect example of what if... Smearing an entire family as well as a president on nothing but speculation.
I asked what crimes the mentioned were charged with, and had been arrested? I got crickets.
This makes me think we either have a very poor legal system where we just let people commit crimes to go unpunished, or we have some people that feel it appropriate to spread such unfounded accusations. Just because they can, with no proof of any crime, just their hopes that crimes were committed they seek to spread unfounded garbage.
I ask again what crimes have Trump's children committed, and have any of them been charged? Please don't bother with stories of investigations, I don't abide by if comes... What crimes, have they been arrested for?
And the Pardon rumor --- Has Trump pardoned any of his children or himself? Did I miss this or was it an unfounded report?You give me a link to a lying media that claims unidentified "sources" claim Trump spoke about pardoning people? And you think that is actual, real, evidence that he did so?
You have GOT to be kidding!
(I did miss that answer, though - apologies even if "unidentified people making unsupported claims" is hardly evidence of anything at all.)
"Sufficient evidence", LOL. Had there been, don't you think Trump wouldn't have told Barr to prosecute her? Oh, wait - he did! And Barr, in one of his rare moments of good sense, didn't do it because there was no case.
Agreed. Although I have to say from all that has been reported about them, it is unreasonable to think they have not committed both state and federal crimes - it is in their DNA.
oh gawddd . . . Now it is a matter of DNA. Who could ever argue with such irrefutable logic as "it's in their DNA."
I hope you never get jury duty My Esoteric. At least, never in any case involving my liberty or freedom.
GAI think "it's in their DNA" is a saying for "it runs in the family" Crime does run in families. Children of parents who commit crimes are almost twice as likely to also commit crimes.
LOL, I know. I just needed a target to poke at. ;-)
GAIn this case it does :-). So far, the only one that is clean is Melania, and any grandchildren under 18. More than likely Melania will have to take those kids under her wing while their parents are serving time.
I wonder how Ivanka will look in prison stripes.I like that you let Melania off the hook. I agree with that. I have this unfounded perception that she would like to kick her husband's butt for more than one reason.
GA
"It is clear the kids and Trump have committed several federal crimes -"
I must have missed something. What crimes, and why have they not been charged?
I can relive your worry about Trump being homeless, he owns 8 homes... So you can again sleep nights without fear.
If New York has any charges I am sure they are more than willing to arrest Trump. Guess that is a wait and see...
And please don't fret about Ivanka, she is a very accomplished woman, and I am very sure she can handle whatever comes her way.
Seems you dwell on the Trump family, maybe time to move on to the new president, and his family... If you have the fortitude.
Trump's will do just fine.I hate seeing the obviously guilty, even to the casual observer, get away with their crimes. We all know that O.J. committed a double murder but yet he walked free.
To hear Cohen tell it, and he knows Ivanka well, she is as bad as her father. (BTW, he only lied for his Boss. There is no other instance where he has been found to lie for any other reason).
I hope she can handle jail, because that is where she is likely to end up.
By the way, do you give the Giovanni crime family a pass to? Minus the hits they ordered, there isn't much difference in my mind.
Do you have any problem with Trump running around destroying democracy with his waterfall of lies about the election?
As to potential federal laws the kids may have broken are the Hatch Act, any crime that has to do with nepotism, several dealing with national security and inappropriate use of cell phones, whatever crimes are associated with the misuse of the inaugural funds, using telecommunications to commit fraud (mainly Erik and Don Jr.), campaign finance fraud that Mueller didn't charge, etc."I hate seeing the obviously guilty, even to the casual observer, get away with their crimes. We all know that O.J. committed a double murder but yet he walked free."
Oh my, I must say this had me laughing. OK, we had two dead bodies with a preponderance of the evidence, a murder... So let me asks once more what crime have Trump and his kids committed?
This is tiresome.
And what crime has Cohen claimed Ivanka committed? Do you know what I find a problem? A person that said anything they please without any knowledge of a crime just because he can. And I must add it would appear very hateful to want to condemn someone to "jail" again without any form of crime.
I have found a new problem keeping up with Biden's lies. I am pleased to say Politifact has done it for me... LOL
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/l … =joe-biden
https://gop.com/joe-bidens-list-of-coro … o-grow-rsr
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … ical-liar/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM3svGMR-pg
So, I guess we have another president that we can bash about telling the truth. It's getting a bit boring hearing the same old record --- Maybe time to start having a look at the new president instead of dwelling on the old. Plenty of material is there not? And more where that came from.
I am trying to make a very obvious point. So maybe time to drop it?"We all know that O.J. committed a double murder but yet he walked free."
Yep, we ll know that. The court failed because we believe otherwise.
That you place your opinion above that of a court of law is telling. I can only wish for your level of confidence. Do you comprehend the level of arrogance your comment portrays?
Forget the law, forget the rules of evidence, and forget the verdict of a jury, you alone,know the real truth.
Geesh My Esoteric, how is the air up there?
GAThere is no arrogance at all. You forget that he was found guilty in a civil trial. A lower level of certainty for sure, but guilty nevertheless. The jury in the criminal trial dealt with what they were given and the prosecution blew it. In this case, money bought his freedom.
Now I assume you will argue the prosecution did a perfect job and never missed a beat. That the police did a perfect job and did everything by the book.
Sometimes juries make a mistake (or do you think that is impossible?), they did in this case. So did the people when they voted for a con man as president (with the help of Comey and the Russians, of course). I am firmly convinced had neither happened, we would have had a real president to lead this country.
Finally, we do again.
You started this thread --- I have several times asked for clarification ---what Federal or any form of crime has President Trump and his children committed?
And when did president Trump state he was considering pardoning his children or himself? Has he done this? Can you provide a source where you found your information on the crimes you have stated are "clear"?
And do you find it fair to spread such information without
some evidence?Sharlee: You are very concerned about me posting that Trump and family may be pardoned without any proof to support that possibility other than people have heard him mentioned it.
However, you and others like you have not been concerned about Trump and his conspiracy theories that are really fantasy that he plays to his supporters.
He is the master of conspiracy theories. He started with one about Obama and he is ending with one about Biden and every fantasy in between.
In his last rally, he told his audience that radical liberals are socialists and communist and they hate America. What is a radical liberal? So I'm alright waiting to see if he actually uses pre-emptive pardoning power to get him and his cohorts and family a get-out-of-jail free card.
So you find it O.K. for him to spread a multitude of conspiracy theories without evidence, but it's not O.K. for me to post my credible sources. As you say, time will tell.To keep to the subject. This comment was not about the President pushing conspiracy theories. I would ascertain many of us are very aware of his history of pushing different conspiracy theories long before he became president. , I don't appreciate being stuck in a group."Others like me?" However, I forgive you due to your very evident propensity to lean toward groupthink.
My point, which I thought clear was My E. appeared to be spreading conspiracy theories, and not actually adding any form of facts to back up his statement. And yes, I did address your source and the fact the source did not have a face or a name. You are aware so many media reports are false, and some walked back when they are called out.
These conspiracy theories in my opinion do nothing but fuel arguments. We have plenty of fodder, maybe it's just time to move on to Biden, or do liberals just hope to keep Trump watching? Seem we have a new target at this point. There certainly is plenty of dirty launder on Joe.
But would it be fair to attack him just because I could? I think it would be fair play, due to all the conspiracy theories being bandied about Trump and his family.
And do you consider Tapper a CNN talk jock a good source. A good source would do their homework, have a name, not
"a source tells me". Unless I missed another source you posted?
Suggestion - don't ask for a list of Trump's (or his children's) crimes. You will get a list of 50. Or 500, depending on how much time is available. All unsupported, all without convictions, but hey - they're crimes and it is understood that you must take the word of the poster that they happened.
LOL --- So far Zip from MY E. I did get a response from PEOPLEPOWER73. He claimed Trump had been charged with 10 counts of obstruction. Nothing on his kids as of yet. I had thought I would get the old standby crime -- Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian spy at his office in Trump Tower. Last I heard he was free, and enjoying the Holidays.
I had really hoped we could switch gears, and give as good as we got... Bashing the president-elect for his every word. I mean it is very obvious the some here appreciate if comes, unproven slander, going after one's wife, and family. The field is so fertile. Hopefully, soon we can move on. You know like we have been asked to.
And yes, one must take the word of the poster.Now did I say they HAD been CHARGED with a crime? No. I just listed a set of likely crimes they committed once somebody starts investigating them ... sort of like what the Republicans are doing to Hunter Biden.
All I am asking is somebody investigates the federal crimes the kids probably committed. If they didn't find, but it sure seems like they did.Gotta love that "The kids "probably" committed crimes! Because, it seems, you hate anything or anyone connected to President Trump (what are you figuring on charging Barron with, bty?).
Good thing the justice system doesn't work that way or there wouldn't be a Democrat left on the Hill!Sharlee and Wilderness:
This is from wikipedia:
Mueller's testimony on July 24
Mueller testified before Congress on July 24, 2019, answering questions asked by Representatives. Democrat Ted Lieu asked Mueller whether the reason he did not indict Trump was that Department of Justice policy prohibits the indictment of sitting presidents. Mueller originally confirmed that this was the reason. However, later that day, Mueller corrected his comments, stating that his team did not determine whether Trump committed a crime.[378][379] Additionally, Mueller answered Republican Ken Buck that a president could be charged with obstruction of justice (or other crimes) after the president left office.[47]
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstructio … er-report/Setting aside your (extremely) subjective feelings and desires, you provide information that:
1) Mueller did not determine whether Trump committed a crime.
2) Mueller said that a president could be charged with crimes after leaving office. Any president, not limiting his statement to Trump.
And from these two statements you masterfully deduce that Trump committed a crime, and that his wife and children have also done so.
The obvious conclusion is that your statements come from your imagination and your hatred of anything connected to Trump; certainly not from what Mueller said.It was pretty clear from section 2, had he been allowed to, he would have.
2) does "2" have any meaning other than "hint, hint, hint"?
Here Wilderness reverts to making things up again. Where did anyone suggest that Malania committed a crime? I certainly didn't, in fact I specifically exonerated her, and I don't believe Mike did either. Why do you insist on making things up that aren't true?
Here is a quote from A Very Stable Genius I want to leave you with that describes what Trump, his supporters, and many Republicans have done to America:
"What we are discovering is that the Constitution is not a mechanism that runs itself. Ultimately, we are a government of men and not law. The law has no force without people who are willing to enforce it." - William A. Galston, a senior fellow in governance at the Brookings Institute.
Once upon a time four years ago we said that America was governed by the rule of law. It took Trump and his Republican enablers only 31/2 years to prove that is no longer true. Even to today as Trump tries to lie, cheat, steal, and bully his way to overturn the will of the people.
As he likes to say about almost everybody - a total disgrace."It was pretty clear from section 2, had he been allowed to, he would have."
Sure it does. To you, who has already decided that Trump and everyone that has ever spoken to him are criminals. If he could have found crimes he should have done so and reported them. That WAS his job, after all.
2) was a direct answer to a direct question. No "hint, hint, hint" involved. Now if he had simply made the statement out of the blue, without being asked for it, it might be different.
The wording was "Trump and family". Later it was modified to exclude Melania and grandchildren under the age of 18, but it didn't start that way.
LOLOLOLOL You can say, with a straight face, that it took Trump to prove we are no longer governed by rule of law? That's comical in the extreme: Hillary did it long before Trump did, and she wasn't the first. We have had, for decades/centuries a "law" that excuses the actions of the wealthy and powerful. And you know it as well as I do - you just can't resist making another pass at TRUMP BAD MAN and chose another ridiculous excuse to do so.Sharlee and Wilderness:
Fact: Trump started saying that if Biden wins the election, it is rigged. He poisoned the well in the very beginning. He had no proof. In fact he is the one who is trying to rig the election by his multitude of voter fraud claims. Again he and his lawyers have no proof. Even AG Barr says there is no proof...and yet he continues propagating these lies. While you and Sharlee believe what he says and I'm the one is using my fantasy imagination about TRUMP BAD MAN.
The irony is Trump is playing to his base's fantasies and you people are supporting him in return. It's the same game the GOP always plays, you are guilty until proven innocent. Do your realize that is what conspiracy is all about? Until it is proven, it leaves the issue open. That is what Trump has done with all of his conspiracies stories. And the GOP congress lets him play without a word about what he is doing and even acknowledge Biden won the election without any proven wide spread fraud. How long are they going to keep looking for wide spread fraud when in fact it has already concluded there is no wide spread fraud?
He is also using a scorched earth policy to leave things in shambles when Biden takes over. TRUMP IS A DISPICABLE BAD MAN.
This just in a few minutes ago:
https://fb.watch/2fS_5NuwRJ/
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/20/tr … -farewell/Turned out he was right, too, just as he was right about being bugged. The only question remaining is just how big the "rigging" was.
You say no one has proof, but you know just as well as I do that there IS proof of wrongdoing. Again, the only question is how widespread it is, and why you keep repeating there is no proof when it has been made public some time ago. Blinders, maybe, or is it something else?
No one here is supporting Trump...except in his effort to investigate criminal activities. That may not be in your agenda (because, I assume, Trump does not deserve protection under the law and a "fair" election is anything that removes him from the WH).
"It's the same game the GOP always plays, you are guilty until proven innocent."
This is comical coming from someone that has decided Trump (and family) is guilty of multiple crimes and should be jailed...before any court case has even been filed.
"Do your realize that is what conspiracy is all about?"
I'd have to say that it is you claiming a nefarious conspiracy - what other explanation can you offer for the dozens/hundreds of eyewitness accounts of fraud other than a massive conspiracy?
"How long are they going to keep looking for wide spread fraud when in fact it has already concluded there is no wide spread fraud?"
Well, they took 3 1/2 years for the witch hunt trying to show Trump colluded with Russia in a single example of possible fraud. Reasonably speaking, it could easily take 5 - 10 years to investigate all the different states and all the liberal collaboration to fix this election.So Wilderness is one of those so blinded by his radicalized beliefs that he thinks the Republicans in Georgia and Arizona rigged the election. You are funny Wilderness.
Well, someone is! It's comical that when you have no real rebuttal you so often end up putting words in someone else's mouth that were never there. Either that or imagining things that aren't there, such as Trump's guilt without a trial.
Wilderness: Please give me the proof of wide spread voting fraud in this election.
"I'd have to say that it is you claiming a nefarious conspiracy - what other explanation can you offer for the dozens/hundreds of eyewitness accounts of fraud other than a massive conspiracy?"
I don't have to offer any explanation for eye witness accounts, but you do. All of those eye witness accounts have been thrown out of court.
"Well, they took 3 1/2 years for the witch hunt trying to show Trump colluded with Russia in a single example of possible fraud. Reasonably speaking, it could easily take 5 - 10 years to investigate all the different states and all the liberal collaboration to fix this election."
You can't be serious. And you laugh at me about my imagination. Five to 10 years, that's reasonably thinking? You have drunk the Kool Aid my friend. You have just proved my point about open-ended conspiracy claims. Not only that, but Trump thinks he is going to get re-elected in 2024, why would he want the investigation to go on for 5 to 10 years?
Trump and his lawyers can't even prove it. How are you going to do it? SCOTUS just rejected Trump's claim 9 to 0 about mail in ballots being illegal in Pennsylvania. Here are the facts for you. TRUMP IS DISPICABLLY BAD
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/94423051 … on-resultsYou need to read the story you attached. The PA State Supreme Court didn't say the lawsuit didn't have merit. The court determined it was not filed in a timely manner. So, NO, the court did not make a ruling on the merit of the case. They made no determination about the validity of mail in ballots.
From your article....
"The state Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the lawsuit on Nov. 28, saying the GOP had waited too long to challenge the law."
Isn't it easy to see what you want to see rather than what is actually written?LOL Pretty typical, though - if you have no proof, it can be made up on the spot by just spinning something else a little bit. In this case, by leading the reader to believe it was found invalid rather than too late.
It the way of the mainstream media and the Democrat party.
Oh, I wouldn't go so far as to leave out GOP politicians. IMO they are all liars. But it gets rather silly to watch people exclaim to the heavens that TRUMP LIES...and then proceed to do the same thing.
"Wilderness: Please give me the proof of wide spread voting fraud in this election. "
PP: Please give me the proof that, in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary, there is NOT wide spread voting fraud in this election. You may find that a little difficult as SCOTUS has now docketed the Texas (+Missouri, now) court case to examine just what happened in the last election and if it was legal.
"I don't have to offer any explanation for eye witness accounts, but you do."
That would not be correct: if they offer their experience and you don't believe it, it is up to you to explain why you don't believe it. And because "We all know there is no fraud" is not an answer.
I watched as a court case was made a few years ago in my area. It took some 9 months to gather evidence of a simple crime with only a single perp and a single victim. What time frame do YOU think is reasonable to collect evidence from hundreds of perps, in a half dozen states, under half a dozen different state laws, from dozens or hundreds of witnesses?
Once more, it isn't about Trump being re-elected, it is about the fairness of the bedrock of our country: elections. I don't know why Trump would want an investigation to go on for 10 years: that is 100% from your imagination.
You haven't a clue what Trump and his lawyers can prove, yet here you are making the claim anyway. Back to the TRUMP BAD MAN instead of staying with the topic of illegal voting practices.Wilderness:
"You haven't a clue what Trump and his lawyers can prove, yet here you are making the claim anyway. Back to the TRUMP BAD MAN instead of staying with the topic of illegal voting practices."
TRUMP BAD MAN is also about illegal voting practices. You don't have a clue either, if you did, you would answer my questions without asking me questions. You have no proof and neither do Trump and his Trumplicans. You just keep drinking the Kool Aid. and I will see what is before me. TRUMP IS A DISPCABLE HUMAN BEING.
You can't convince me that he is not, but what you try to do is convince me that I'm wrong in thinking so. Make no mistake. Trump is for one person only and that is himself. He doesn't care about you or the country. All he cares about is winning for his twisted narcistic ego. There is no voter fraud, but you believe there is."You have no proof and neither do Trump and his Trumplicans."
We'll see, won't we? As SCOTUS has accepted the task of digging through it, it would seem on the face of it that you are completely wrong that there is no evidence. They may reject the evidence as not applicable, they may accept it but not do anything about it, or they may take action to change the election, or they may just hand-slap the specific states for not following the law, but whatever they do they appear to think there is enough to warrant looking at it. Something you do not.
As usual, you continue to take my words for something that isn't there: I have not attempted to change your mind about Trump at all (I realize that the TDS goes far too deep for that). Instead I only address your claims, pointing out that they are based on that hatred rather than factual information. Just like the (completely false) claim that there is no evidence of wrongdoing. Whereupon you again fall back on the TRUMP BAD MAN and insist that you're right because of that single opinion.
And, as usual, you make up your own designation for what I think, and again as usual, you are completely wrong. I do not feel, even at this point as we are given a good deal of evidence, that there is sufficient to change the election; that while there was fraud it was inconsequential. The difference is that I recognize that I could be wrong, that there WAS massive fraud (ethical if not legal fraud) and that it COULD change the election. You declare that there isn't...for the simple reason that TRUMP BAD MAN. Nothing else to offer, just TRUMP BAD MAN, and that means that the election was fair and legal.Wilderness: You started the TRUMP BAD MAN thing not me. I'm glad you believe you could be wrong. Trump is a master at creating open-ended conspiracy theories. Here is a list of his opened-ended conspiracy theories. At the end of the list is the link to the details of each conspiracy. I believe a person that could make up this many conspiracy theories about others is a bad person when none of them have come to fruition.
False Birther Conspiracy
ISIS and Obama
Ted Cruz’s Father and JFK’s Assassination
Questioning Cruz’s Eligibility
Celebration in New Jersey on 9/11
Scarborough Smear
Misrepresenting COVID-19 Deaths
Biden and SEAL Team 6
Biden and ‘the Dark Shadows’
Scalia’s Death
VinceEpstein and the Clintons Foster
DNC Server
Hydroxychloroquine
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump … -theories/Yes, I could be wrong and there might indeed be enough fraud to effect the election. How about you - do you see that as something reasonably possible (probability above, say, 10%) or is it just not going to happen (probability below .00001%)?
LOL You left out the Russian Collusion conspiracy, headed by Trump himself. And whatever it was he was impeached for. But I have to say that at least you are inventive in finding Trump's conspiracies, even going to the point that if he asks a question it MUST be a conspiracy. Nothing new there, though - the entire country is rife with conspiracy theories and they hardly all originate with Trump. Things like the Birther Conspiracy, for instance, Hydroxychloroquine, the DNC server, and Scalia's death.
(Although you list them, of course, as TRUMP'S theories, they were all there long before Trump mentioned them at all. I'm surprised you didn't include Hillary's emails as "Trumps conspiracy theory")Interesting that nothing mentioned rises to the seriousness of what Clinton/obama did including IRS scandal, Emails, Benghazi, etc. If this is all they have, they have nothing.
Well, it was supposed to be about conspiracy theories from Trump. Most of them did not originate there and were never actively supported by Trump, but that was the intent.
I read your list, the only thing I see all of these examples have in common one thing --- Trump make comments on each. Do you consider offering an off the shoulder opinion him supporting a conspiracy? Just by pointing out something he feels is perhaps interesting about a given conspiracy could be seen as perhaps as just participating with an opinion. He does seem to have a very open mind.
Sharlee: Are you kidding? He says these things over and over again until people actually believe him and then he continues on with them as if they are fact. He is never held accountable for any of them. What do you think him trying to overturn the election is about? It's' a huge conspiracy where he is trying to undermine and invalidate the sanctity of our elections process for his own benefit.
What do you think him calling the media fake news is about? Our country was divided before him came on the scene, but he has accomplished dividing it further, for his own benefit. According to him, he started that because he wanted to discredit them if he ever was caught doing something underhanded.
You may minimize what he has done and said, but to me it is very dangerous for our country. It's how Hitler came into power by creating conspiracies about the Jews and getting the populous to hate them. He calls democrats and the liberals, the radical left who are communists and socialists and hate America. He now has 74 million brainwashed people who believe his BS. That is dangerous for our democracy and the republic."He says these things over and over again until people actually believe him and then he continues on with them as if they are fact."
Isn't that the basis of your own pogrom against Trump? To simply repeat it over and over and over ad nauseum until (you hope) it is believed?
Like denying the media puts out fake news about Trump? Like declaring it is Trump further dividing the country when it fact is people like you spreading hatred? Like claiming over and over that there is no evidence of wrong doing during the last election, when in fact there has been considerable evidence presented?
You guys are comical, using the very tactics and actions that you so decry when Trump does it.Wilderness: That's the only comeback you have. You don't deny that Trump is what he is, but you say by me voicing what he really is makes me just like him. I'll tell you something about the difference between me and Trump, even if I'm lying but I'm not. Trump has lied and miss-informed over 10,000 times, documented. The difference is his lies are consequential. If I lied, it would not be to the extent that the president of the this country has lied and miss-informed over 10,000 times. Comparing me and Scott to Trump is comparing apples and oranges. But that is what you do and I'm getting tired of it. Maybe you should try another angle.
"Isn't that the basis of your own pogrom against Trump? To simply repeat it over and over and over ad nauseum until (you hope) it is believed? " -
The Difference, Wilderness, is that what we repeat over and over ad nauseum are Truths. It takes that to break through the brainwashing Trump supporters have undergone.
And this is the damage that Trump has done to America. Trump supporters have been done in by this supreme con man.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics … index.htmlLOLOLOLOLOL Of course they are "truths" to you and others repeating them! Or at least close enough to use them as a reason to spread the hatred and divisiveness we all see today.
I particularly liked the #3 statement near the top of your link (to probably the most biased organization in the country, no less!):
"As the country gets more tribal in its politics, people find satisfaction in blaming villains, regardless of facts."
They're right - that's exactly what I see in these forums.Wilderness...this reminds me of an old saying...
"Anything is possible when you don't know what you're talking about."Did you know the only reason the corrupt Texas AG is pushing this unAmerican fight trying to disenfranchise voters in other states to the Supreme Court is to get a Trump pardon to get out from under the federal investigation he is under.
OMG... Proof, please. Oh, and what about the other 17 AG that are supporting the case? In a separate brief, lawyers for 17 states led by Missouri’s Republican Attorney General Eric Schmitt also urged the justices to hear the case. You need to have some proof before making such a statement. Once again you are grasping onto conspiracy rumors. There is no current truth to your statement.
I do hope the Supreme Court uses the words in the PA AGs rebuttal about these charges and the people supporting them being seditious. Given their slapdown of the PA Trumplican case, there is no reason to suspect they won't do the same to this bogus case.
They will probably take the easy way out and just declare the Texas AG has no standing. BTW, if these 17 AGs you mention hate the Constitution so much, why don't they secede like the slave states did?
As to proof, it is simply common sense. The TX AG's case has zero merit, so there has to be another reason. The only one that would seem to apply is his desire for a Trump pardon. Why else would he do such a stupid thing? - https://apnews.com/article/criminal-inv … =DALLAS%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20The%20FBI,to%20benefit%20a%20wealthy%20donor.&text=Paxton%20has%20broadly%20denied%20wrongdoing,fight%20it%20out%20in%20court.
After glancing through the article, this guy is a real piece of work, up their on the level of Trump. Damn, Republicans will elect just about anybody if they support Trump.
Suuuuuuuure....riiiiiiight...you go ahead and believe that one. (Cue the sound from the Twilight Zone)
Who needs proof? Is so just because you say it's so...riiiiiight.
That's also the reason 17 other states joined the lawsuit.Read my response to Sharlee. As to those 17 other state AG's. they just didn't want to be on Trump's s..tlist and be primaried.
RMN: What Scott and I post for the most part is not our opinion but facts from verifiable, credible sources. My God, all you have to do is see Trump for what he really is, but you Trumplicans are in denial. It's called cognitive dissonance. In other words, it make you feel better to support Trump and insult us.
You said, "Anything is better when you don't know what you are talking about." Have you asked yourself, what are you talking about? Anybody can insult another person, but does that make them knowledgeable of the facts?
You can talk about Hillary all you want, but the facts are she conceded gracefully when she lost the election. That is not only the proper thing to do, but it is in the best interest of the country. Trump on the other hand and the Trumplicans can't accept the fact that he lost the election and now, he is trying to prolong the agony by getting 18 battle ground states AG's to overturn what has already been certified as greater than 270 electoral votes He is now planning on taking their case to SCOTUS where put his justices in power.
Obama gracefully worked with Trump during the transition phase and welcomed him to the White House. Trump on the other hand, not only put Biden in an awkward position, but he put the country in jeopardy by not allowing the GA funding to flow to Biden. In my opinion, he is throwing a temper tantrum because he did not win.
If you read Mary Trump's book, you will see how Trump learned this behavior from his father. He was inculcated with the idea that if you don't win, by any means then you are worthless and it all equates to money.
What if Hillary or Obama pulled this same stunt when they lost? We would never hear the end of it. There would be congressional investigations until the cows came home and the whole right wing would be ready to run them out of town.
Everything I mentioned here is verifiable facts, not my opinion. Have you ever asked yourself, why is Trump so hell bent on overturning the results of the election?
Could it be he is undermining the confidence in our democratic processes, in damaging President-elect Joe Biden’s ability to govern in the short term, and in raising questions in the minds of the faithful as to whether Trump’s defeat was real or not?Lets see your "facts."
Maybe you didn't watch the hearing in Georgia, but I did. witness after witness testifying to what they saw and experienced. The video...Georgia officials tried to say showed nothing...but the person in the video refusing to talk to investigators and getting an attorney. In Pennsylvania...when the polls closed President Donald Trump had over a 700,000 lead with 65% of the vote counted. They stopped counting...and then Biden magically won the state. That is statistically impossible.
Voting machines were tested by having the same number of votes for Biden and President Trump placed in them...and it calculated Biden as having a 29% lead. The list goes on and on and on. So...the integrity of the voting system in the United States is at stake.
You really can't compare this to any previous presidential campaigns because nothing like this has ever happened before.
Like I said...anything is possible when you don't know what you're talking about.RMN: Please read this.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54814101PP: Please read this.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … nting.html
Again...overcoming a 700,000 vote lead with 65% of the vote counted is a statistical impossibility.PP...here is a good article about Pennsylvania voter fraud. This is just ONE of the four states and the fraud is serious.
"An analytical look at votes cast for Joe Biden, as well as the turnout itself, show several anomalies that put the legitimacy of the votes in doubt as the mainstream media has nearly universally declared the Democrat to be the “president-elect” of the United States.
Two reports that together provide more than 10 pages of statistical analysis of raw voter data signal irregularities in the votes that boosted Biden’s vote tally in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania.
For example, in Philadelphia, the likelihood of the city’s voting outcome is as likely as someone flipping a coin 100 times and landing on heads every time, according to one of the reports."
https://thenewamerican.com/heres-why-bi … -concerns/RMN: First off your magazine is a right wing rag run by the John Birch Society. That article was written Nov. 8. As far as I know, everything has been settled with the voting issues in Pennsylvania. It's just Trump not accepting reality.
The John Birch Society (JBS) is an advocacy group supporting anti-communism and limited government. It has been described as a radical right and far-right organization. Businessman and founder Robert W. Welch Jr. (1899–1985) developed an organizational infrastructure in 1958 of chapters nationwide.
Secondly, you miss the whole point of my article or you ignored it. Guiliani is the one who started this façade. He is paid $2,000. per day to do Trump's dirty work. Did you read his email in the article?No wonder you don't present facts, your sources are far-right fake news sites. I think Mike already said this buy your source is dated Nov 8, which means it was probably written using Nov 7 data.
There problem is that, because of PA law, the vote count didn't end until several days later. Consequently, any so-called "statistical analysis" is IMPOSSIBLE since they didn't have all of the data.
Sheesh.
RMN and Sharlee: I don't understand this. "Again...overcoming a 700,000 vote lead with 65% of the vote counted is a statistical impossibility."
I read the article, but there is too much minutia. Please explain it to me like I'm a fifth grader.
Here is what Trump is doing in simple terms. Let's say you agree to play a card game with another person. Before you both starts he says, I'm so good at this card game, the only way I can lose is if you cheat. So I'm going to have people overseeing us playing and they will tell me if you cheated. So you win the game and your opponent says you cheated and all the witness say the same thing. You say prove it. So they don't really have any proof, but they start going through the card deck looking for marked cards, they don't find any, but they continue their investigation. They make you take your clothes off and check for hidden devices, but they find nothing they continue. They look under the table, and find nothing. It's getting late and you want to go home, but they continue. He says wait, I'm going to bring my parents in they can can be the judge. But the parents say you settle your own disputes. Do you get the picture?Here is the article you should have read that illustrated the "Statistical anomalies" that occurred.
"Two reports that together provide more than 10 pages of statistical analysis of raw voter data signal irregularities in the votes that boosted Biden’s vote tally in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania.
For example, in Philadelphia, the likelihood of the city’s voting outcome is as likely as someone flipping a coin 100 times and landing on heads every time, according to one of the reports.
One point of note is that Biden strangely beat Barack Obama’s popular vote record and received several tens of thousands of more votes than registered Democrats in numerous counties. In some counties, the hike in Biden support totaled over 65,000 votes.
In Montgomery County, where Obama/Hillary Clinton vote counts ranged from 233,000 to 256,000 votes, Biden received 313,000. Together, the 10 outlier counties provide 244,237 votes."
Two reports that together provide more than 10 pages of statistical analysis of raw voter data signal irregularities in the votes that boosted Biden’s vote tally in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania.
For example, in Philadelphia, the likelihood of the city’s voting outcome is as likely as someone flipping a coin 100 times and landing on heads every time, according to one of the reports.
One point of note is that Biden strangely beat Barack Obama’s popular vote record and received several tens of thousands of more votes than registered Democrats in numerous counties. In some counties, the hike in Biden support totaled over 65,000 votes.
In Montgomery County, where Obama/Hillary Clinton vote counts ranged from 233,000 to 256,000 votes, Biden received 313,000. Together, the 10 outlier counties provide 244,237 votes."
https://thenewamerican.com/heres-why-bi … -concerns/RMN: So what? They are comparing Biden's vote count with Obamas and Biden got more votes than Obama did in the same counties. So that tells me their expectations should have been the same or lower for Biden than Hillary or Trump.
Did you ever stop to think that the reason urban vote counts are higher than suburban and rural is because of population density and demographics. Places like Arizona, Georgia, and others have many more technical types moving into those areas. That affects the electoral college votes.
Trump played to his base as he usually does, Biden didn't. He played to everybody. It makes a big difference. Sorry they didn't meet your expectations, but that is reality for the Trumplicans whether they like it or not. If Hillary would have pulled these same antics, you have her locked up in a heart beat. When Trump won, the Trumplicans said live with it. But you people can't live with the results this time around.Sharlee and RMN: This is the whole story, whether you believe it or not is up to you.
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/ … d?icid=rssYou either didn't read the article or didn't understand the information presented.
That the only explanation for your response.
So, Sharlee, you then DO agree Biden won PA fair and square. Good for you for being sensible. THAT is what Read's link says. I never even saw the words "statistical impossibility". Probably because it wasn't.
Please show me the words "statistical impossibility" anywhere in that article. All it reports is that Biden won PA fair and square. It would REALLY be helpful it you present truth.
When you read what we write, you are, except where we are expressing an opinion, are facts, truths. So we don't need to repeat what we have already said.
Let's work this the other way. Give us what we presented as facts that you think are not true.
For example, you can pick on a fact that I stated - "Given their slapdown of the PA Trumplican case, ...". Now tell me how that is not true.
Your facts like "That is statistically impossible." are false. Biden won the state which the state certified making it official. Trump and his trolls have not presented one shred of evidence in court to back their fake claims. Why is that RMN? They have been roundly criticized for wasting the courts time by one Trump appointed judge after another. Why is that RMN?
I can answer that, because what you and Trump claim is from a universe with truth and facts have no meaning.
It really would be helpful if you did know what you are talking about, but, sadly you don't."When you read what we write, you are, except where we are expressing an opinion, are facts, truths. So we don't need to repeat what we have already said."
Thanks for the comic relief. This is funny. I enjoyed the laugh it gave me.
"For example, you can pick on a fact that I stated - "Given their slapdown of the PA Trumplican case, ...". Now tell me how that is not true."
It's not true because the court didn't provide a ruling on the merits of the case. They rejected the case because it was not filed in a timely manner. The SCOTUS agreed the lawsuit had not been filed in a timely manner.
So...the no court ruled on the merits of the case. If you don't understand what "merits of a case" are...I may work with you to help you understand.
"Your facts like "That is statistically impossible." are false."
No, statisticians who have reviewed voting in Pennsylvania believe it is impossible. I think they refer to it as a "Statistical anomaly."
Read about it.
https://thenewamerican.com/heres-why-bi … -concerns/
This is clear proof of voter fraud. It is obvious to anyone who is honest, PA manipulated their mail-in ballots for Biden. THAT is what the numbers show.RMN: I read your article and yes I'm dumb enough to not understand what a statistical anomaly is. However, I don't think you understand it as well. If you did, you could show me in fifth grader terms what they are talking about.
I clicked on the link in your article about the Irregularities in Votes and it took me to the source of your article. After reading through 10 pages of mumbo jumbo statistics, like I said before, they had certain statistical expectation based on previous voting profiles and in their analysis Biden's votes did not fit their expected profile, therefore they deemed the votes a statistical anomaly.
Here is their summary:
SUMMARY:
1. Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties are unusual. They have high Democratic registration. Allegheny precinct votes fail the Benford Law* test (a standard voter fraud method) whereas Trump does not
2. The votes for Biden are unusually high for eleven counties, reporting over 299,000 votes in excess of expectations. These deviations are legitimate reasons to insist on closely monitored recounts.
3. 70%± of registered PA Democrat voters vote in a national election. After elimination of AlleghenyCounty, 76% of PA registered Democratic voters voted in the nine suspect counties. That is an unexpected statistical aberration.
4. Another way to track down fraudulent votes is to look closely at how many of the votes did little or nodown-ticket voting. When manufacturing votes, it is too time consuming to vote for other office holders.
If you want to know what the Benford Law is, here is the link. So tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, but you do, because you accept all this BS on face value.
https://towardsdatascience.com/benfords … 1e17abbe75The Benford Law proves my point.
Here's the bottom line based on the numbers from the article.
"By contrast, if President Trump really does lose, he will be the first incumbent president to gain votes, almost seven million, and still lose reelection.
What’s more, in all the key battleground states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Florida) the president increased his vote from 2016, in some cases considerably. In the case of the above-mentioned four failed incumbents, their vote decreased in all of these key states.
As the old adage goes, “The numbers don’t lie.” There are more than enough aberrations to prompt anyone serious about election integrity to want to take a deeper look at the numbers — and the ballots."RMN: Welcome to the electoral college. It doesn't matter how many popular votes you have, if they don't reach over 270 electoral college votes, you lose.
Here is another saying: Liars figure and figures lie.
Trump and company have tried over 50 times to overturn the election and each time it has been thrown out of court. When is enough, enough?
Now he is getting the AGs of the battle ground states to present their case to the SCOTUS. I see this as a Hail Mary pass in the last few minutes of the game...and more than likely, it will be dismissed as well.
The reality is Trump is a sore loser and very vindictive He has made it awkward for Biden during the transition period and also for when he gets into office to do his job as president.
Further, McConnell and his gang of senators do nothing, not even acknowledgement of Biden winning the election. McConnell has placed party above country and will block every move that Biden tries to make, the same as he did with Trump..."Our job is to make him a one term president.""Trump and company have tried over 50 times to overturn the election and each time it has been thrown out of court. "
"Now he is getting the AGs of the battle ground states to present their case to the SCOTUS."
Outside of your own false statements (like those above), the fact is that much if not all of what Mike is saying is, while technically true in detail, false in the overall picture. Yes, Trump got more votes and lost...but the rest of the story is that there were far more votes cast. And his percentage of voters choosing him fell. Without that last tidbit - that there were far more votes cast - the numbers did lie.Wilderness: Do you mean Trump got more popular votes or electoral votes than Biden and yet his percentage of voters choosing him fell because all the ballots for Trump were not counted?
"Trump and company have tried over 50 times to overturn the election and each time it has been thrown out of court. " - TRUTH
"Now he is getting the AGs of the battleground states to present their case to the SCOTUS." - TRUTH
"the fact is that much if not all of what Mike is saying is, while technically true in detail, false in the overall picture. " - Oxymoronic
"Without that last tidbit - that there were far more votes cast - the numbers did lie." - non-sequitur.Scott: 9 to 0, even with the Trump appointees in SCOTUS. This gives me some hope about how they are going to handle any further Trump issues.
It has never been my fear that they are in Trump's pocket, no matter how much he thinks they are. My fear is regarding their political philosophy. It is the same set of beliefs that led a previous Supreme Court in the 1890s to reverse almost all of the laws implementing the 14th and 15th amendments.
It took us another 70 to 80 years to restore the civil rights of minority Americans. Since 1980, the court has been moving ever so slowly to the 1890 composition. In the process, more and more civil and voting rights have been taken away from minorities again. With the current court, that should accelerate significantly, much to the delight of conservatives who don't really believe in civil rights and liberty.Just saw where Trump called his puppet, AG Barr, a "Big Disappointment". This to the man that single-handedly saved his presidency from the Mueller report and the House investigation.
And now - wait for it - a roar building in the background to a crescendo from Trump supporters parroting Trump as they do by calling Bill Barr a "Big Disappointment". Louder, louder ....
(Why? The normal reason, Barr told the TRUTH about the election for a change)Scott: I just read this article and it makes sense to me about Trump and The Science of Addiction. I think I suffer from it as well in these forums. I often have told people I'm addicted to participating in them.
I think this article gives a pretty good explanation about why Trumplicans support him, even to hold rallies to protest and pray for him because the election was stolen from him and them.
Based on this article, he and they will never quit their grievances unless there is intervention. And I don't see that happening.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/what- … li=BBnb7KzThat was an interesting article.
"What can be done? When a friend or family member has an addiction, the first priority is to take care of yourself, and the next step is to encourage the addict to seek help. This gets complicated when we’re talking about a president and an entire nation, but we’re already on our way. We’ve recently held a nationwide electoral intervention with Trump, which has the dual benefit of helping to protect the country from further damage and shows him that his retaliatory behavior is no longer acceptable and needs to change. But addiction interventions are often risky and can backfire. That appears to be happening with Trump, who now seems even more aggrieved and more determined to use retaliation, raising the stakes."
As I stated months ago, Trump's mental illness will cause him to lash out if he loses the election. He failed to convince the country the election was stolen from him, even though his cult remains convinced. I am very worried about what he will do between now and January 20. He is a sick man in a powerful position. I must say, though, that I am a bit heartened that even his loyal henchman Barr was not willing to help him lie about election fraud.
The TDS is strong in this one. I take exception to your statement that you declare anyone not degrading the President to be his "company" and to your statement that Trump worked with the Texas AG to file a suit set aside, I agreed with you that the "statistical analysis" given showed a false picture.
And your response is that it is oxymoronic and a non-sequitur. Your hatred has destroyed any semblance of the ability to read and reason.Wilderness: Oh come on, we know you can still read and reason. Look at what you just wrote. Scott's reply is not hatred, It's logic. But you like to state it as hatred because it allows you to accuse him of hatred towards poor innocent Trump and his supporters.
I said Trump and company because that's what it is. His campaigning right after the election, has raised 207.5 million for his PAC to pay his debt for his previous election campaigns and to continue this stupid fight. How much he actually keeps is unknown, just like his taxes.Mike, I picked up A Warning by Anonymous (who now we know is the highly placed DHS Chief of Staff Miles Taylor and started reading again. It brought up how out of touch with reality Trump was then and is now. Let me quote a few things that should bring back some memories.
"The sheer level of intellectual laziness [something we see everyday when Trump opens his mouth] is astounding. I found myself bewildered how anyone could have run a private company on the empty mental tank President Trump relies upon every day to run the government"
This is to lead into Trump talking about his own intelligence.
"The president does claim to be highly intelligent, though. He has been touting his intellect for years and loves to boast about his great brain in private meetings [which Taylor often witnessed] at the White House. In 2013, he tweeted "Sorry losers an haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest - and you all know it!" Please don't feel stupid or insecure, it's not your fault." In 2016, when asked ... whom he was consulting for foreign policy, he responded: " I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain, ... My primary consultant is myself, and I have, you know, I have a good instinct for this stuff." On the contrary, outside advisors who helped him with debate prep were mortified by his lack of understanding on the subject. In 2018, he took to Twitter ... "My two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. ..." ... Trump is known to interrupt briefings with assertions along the line of, "Yeah, I get it, I'm pretty smart, okay?"
All of this then leads to his self-aggrandizing (and false) claims that:
"On campaign finance: 'I think nobody knows more about campaign finance than I do, because I am the biggest contributor'
On the courts: 'I know more about courts than any human being on Earth'
On trade: 'Nobody knows more about trade than me'
On taxes: 'Nobody knows more about taxes than I do'
On ISIS: 'I know more about ISIS than the generals' [his first assault on our military that hasn't ended to this day]
On the US government: 'Nobody knows more about the system better than I do'
On technology: 'Technology - nobody knows more about technology than me'
On drone technology, specifically: 'I know more about drones than anybody. I know about ever form of safety that you can have.'
On the contrary, I've seen the president fall flat on his face when trying to speak intelligently about most of these topics. You can see why behind closed doors his own top officials [most are gone now] deride him as being an 'idiot' and a 'moron' with the understanding of a 'fifth or sixth grader.' ... "
And his supporters lap this stuff up and get very mad and call you names when you point out that they are all big fat lies. But Trump, like God, can't lie so it must be the truth, they think. And 71 some odd million Americans voted for this numbskull. I just don't get it.Trump is the BIGGEST LOSER.
He lost the election
He lost 53+ frivolous lawsuits about the non-existent wide-spread voter fraud including two big slapdowns by his hand-picked conservative Justices.
He lost at disenfranchising multiple millions of voters, almost half of them who voted for Trump.
He lost to Science
He lost the trust of the democratic governments around the world
He lost his most powerful lapdog, William Barr - https://www.businessinsider.com/ag-barr … ng-2020-12
He lost at his trade policies, they failed badly with the trade deficit being much higher than when he took office.
He lost BIG TIME in containing the coronavirus making America's situation the worst in the world
What did he win at?
He won at destroying America
He won at seriously weakening American democracy
He won in turning the Republican party of values to the Trumplican party of no values
He won at turning enough Trumplican Senators into spineless men and women who voted, like the Simpson jury, to let a guilty man (Trump) go free
He almost won at making America look like Maduro's Venezuela but it turns out the three conservative Justices he appointed actually had some spine
He won at exposing those who oppose the Constitution and democracy
He won with Operation Warp Speed
"I take exception to your statement that you declare anyone not degrading the President to be his "company" - Where did I say or imply that?
"and to your statement that Trump worked with the Texas AG to file a suit set aside" - Where did I say or imply that?
What is "oxymoronic" (self-contradictory would have probably been better) but how can you have something "true in the detail" but "false in the overall picture". While some of the detail may be true, the majority must be false for the whole to be false. Consequently, I had no idea you were agreeing with me.
What was "non-sequitur" was trying to conjoin "that there were more votes cast" and "the number did lie". I don't see how one follows from the other. and since I don't know what "numbers" you are referring to, I can't comment on whether they lied or not.
Maybe you were trying to say that in the flawed statistical analysis that there were still many more votes to be counted after they did their work and that their numbers lied. if that is the case, then you are spot on.
Remember the how RMN and others like him totally disregarded the fact that Hillary beat Trump soundly in the popular vote. Strange, then it made no difference but now it does. Can you spell hypocrisy.
The Supreme Court slapped down the Republicans once again stating the obvious, Texas has NO STANDING to oppose how other states conduct their elections. Once upon a time, conservatives use to believe in States Rights - now they don't. Just another conservative principle tossed to the side of the road in their quest to destroy our democracy.
I looked at the source data itself as well and didn't get beyond the date - Nov 8, 2020. It is a totally incomplete dataset for 2020 and any analysis done using that data is Bogus period.
Because they are were still counting. I believe CNN finally called the election for Biden on the 12th or 13th, after they were certain Trump couldn't catch him. Remember, I think they had until then to count the military and other provisional ballots.
Also, it their report was on the 8th, then the data probably couldn't be more current than the 6th, to leave time for checking and analysis. Generally, when doing such things, I would take 3 or 4 days to recheck and verify my data when I did these kinds of things.Sorry, but the state of PA publishes their final totals in the newspaper soon after the election. By November 7th over 95 percent of the vote had been counted. All of the ballots cast election day were counted. Absentee ballots had been counted and the only thing left were the mail-in ballots.
No...the November 8 date was the right time to analyze the results and provide a conclusion.
Also...all of the statistical "anomalies" were obviously present.Try again, RMN. 91,000 mail-in ballots were not finally counted in one county until the night of Nov 9. That is a lot of votes and just one county.
Truths are truths, who hears them are beside the point. You can be a denier of truth, as you are, are a believer, as Mike and I are.
That was supposed to be a CNN link, one of the most trusted news sources in the world, not a repeat of the NPR.
On the other hand, polling shows clearly that your information sources Fox Opinion, Brietebart, Newsmax, and the admitted fake news site OAN are not trustworthy.
(Notice that I try to separate Fake Fox Opinion from the Real Fox News who tries, against corporate wishes, to present somewhat unbiased news.)
So, it sounds like your opinion is not to blame villains like Trump. Is that right? You would rather blame the good guys like Biden?
I predict that once the corrosive effect of Trump retreats from the scene (and finally dies), the country will start to become less polarized.
As I see it there were two camps of Trump voters. Those where money is their only concern and didn't want to take a chance that their 401Ks would decline under Biden (they will grow, a lot) and those who have lost their way and forgotten what American values are all about.
I have no doubt in my mind that many of the latter group would vote to bring back slavery if given the choice. They have already proven they are nativists and exclusive. They accept and appear to immolate all of the bad personality traits of Trump. I say that because if they didn't, they would be repulsed by Trump and his totally ugly behavior. Behavior which today has taken the form of shredding the Constitution in his attempted coup of our free and fair election.
BTW, here is one of the CNN reports on Trump's bragging about Operation Warp Speed that Sharlee falsely claimed CNN didn't publish.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics … index.html
Here is another one she falsely claimed they didn't publish
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/08/politics … index.htmlCNN a trusted news source? A trusted "news source? The only thing CNN can be trusted to do is present spun and twisted half-reports with an extreme bias against President Trump. This you know as well as I do.
Really, Eso, you should start a comedy club. You could be the star attraction with your political humor.Yes, that is what every poll on the subject shows. (FInd me just one reputable poll that says otherwise.)
It only "appears" as so-called bias because they are reporting the truth about Trump and you don't like it.
So, have you watched any of the actual hearings, and heard any of the whistleblowers in full? I have, so I must say I truly believe a ton of fraud was committed. So, I am pleased to see these citizens are having a chance to be heard. It's a shame that not one court in the land found the need to move to an evidentiary phase. No, I m not satisfied with any fraud.
He need not tell me the media is fake. Take my word I have done my own leg work on the media, and I am ashamed of what our media has become. No Trump need not point that out to me. In my opinion, Obama divided the country, he blew it all to hell IMO. Trump is a result of Obama in my view. You need not bother a back and forth about Obama, he discusses me.
Let me give an example of a fake Propaganda media. Yesterday we has a wonderful day-long Operation Warp Speed Summit. I listened to much of it. A day-long of information about the new vaccines and everything that will entail bringing those vaccines to we the citizens.CNN or MSNBC did not cover it. They covered Biden speaking about his three-step COVID plan. All of his plans were done long ago. But, the media choose to push crap instead of very good information. that was presented by a professional that has been involved in OWS. So, I can honestly say our media is nothing but talk jocks pushing propaganda to weak mined citizens that pretty much believe what they hear. I feel proud to say that's not me.
I need not minimize what the president has said and done. You see, I have really heard what he has said in the context he meant it to be stated. I have well witnessed his deeds. And for you to bring up Hitler...the hate he insisted. Think about the left, think about the hate they push 24/7 against a man that has really done a good job.
What is dangerous to our democracy are people that are so brainwashed they voted for a very old man with visible cognitive problems, and the cherry on top, he never even campaigned. He is told to put on his little blue blazer, told to run out a bit, and read a monitor. He then said whatever is on the monitor, and when he goes off -- OMG it's sad to watch. That's your guy, not mine. And oh yes our democracy is in big trouble due to all I mentioned. A man that did not campaign. LOL
I realize I sound like I am atop a pedestal and in this case, my butt is firmly placed. No chance of falling off.Sharlee: I'm going to list my replies by numbering your paragraphs.
1. The reason that the courts have not moved to an evidentiary phase is because they would have to be sworn under oath and they have no evidence and they know they would be creating perjury. By the way, Trump's lawyers no better. Even AG Barr is not playing this game anymore.
2. Trump doesn't point it out to you. If you watched something other than Fox News, you would see how Trump attacks people in press conferences who ask valid questions and he doesn't answer, but tells them they are fake news, or he just playing ass insults them.
3. As far as the media presenting crap and not allowing good information about the virus. Fauci and Brix were put out to pasture by Trump and he brought in people who had no background in epidemiology and turned it into a political exercise instead of following the science. As far as the presentation you watched yesterday, the day before he was spouting America first for the vaccine when the summit was in America, But that is the way he takes credit for something without doing nothing or takes
credit from others efforts by playing to his base.
4. While you have witnessed his deeds, I have witnessed his misdeeds. He hasn't done a good job. All he does is play to people's fantasies, That's what he did in February when he had knowledge that the virus was going to be a pandemic and he didn't want to panic the people. Why, because it would make him look bad. Now we are living with that misdeed.
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/the … es-1-1-004
5. Talk about cognitive problems...OMG are you serious. Trump can't even live in reality with losing the election. He plays to people's fantasies and they play to his. That's what narcists do. If you don't support him or agree with him, he fires your ass or makes you quit. Have you ever stopped to see how many people he has replaced with incompetent people who support him?
6. What are you talking about Biden never campaigned. He campaigned his ass off. As far as reading a monitor, Trump can't even do that or when he goes off script, he can't even put a coherent sentence together. That's your guy not mine.
He holds rallies that incite violence,...lock up the governor of Michigan, I could go on and on, but instead I'm posting this link. You are not very well educated about the Trump that I know and also the Biden that I know.
https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-viol … ate-speech
You maybe sitting on a pedestal, but the view you are getting from that pedestal is based on the distorted lens you are looking through. I'm looking through a lens as well, but I don't see the same things you do.He also holds rallies and parties that infect lots of people with covid. Sooner or later, someone close to will die, may Giuliani. There have been people who have died as a result of his rallies and parties - the statistics about covid makes this almost a certainty.
A Stanford Study who looks at these types of things concluded more than 30,000 have contract covid from those who attended a Trump rally. Of those, they estimate 700 have died.
https://khn.org/morning-breakout/study- … and-death/
I'll take Mike's approach and go paragraph by paragraph.
1) Mike covered it well although I have to ask - what formal hearings? What Sworn testimony. All I have seen is theater.
2) By "media" if you mean Bietbart, much of NewsMax, Fox Opinion, One America whatever it is - yes, that definitely is fake news. If you are talking about CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, BBC, and the like, then the ONLY ones who think that is fake news are Trump and his supporters. Also, give me some real examples of how Obama divided the country? I doubt you can since he didn't.
3) https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-v … d=74604381
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 488136002/
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronaviru … rus-summit
and finally CNN
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronaviru … rus-summit
So much for your example of MSM "propaganda" and lack of coverage.
Trump has done a very few good things in his four years, I won't deny that (even Hitler did as well). Operation Warp Speed was one of those and I give him credit for pushing it. That said, only about 20% of his time was spent talking about the vaccine and toothless executive order. The other 80% was yet another pity party and lies about how he won the election.
4) The "man" has done a terrible job and cost well over 200,000 lives with his incompetent leadership. No, I cannot applaud that like you can. Who is this "Left" you are talking about? The Democrats I listen to don't preach hate, 24/7 or otherwise. You must be thinking of Trump. I don't consider anarchists "the Left". I consider them anarchists.
5) You are right about people being brainwashed, 71,000,000 of you. Clearly, you only see the images that Fox Opinion and the other fake news right-wing outlets want you to see. That is definitely not the Biden I have watched over the last few decades. I have long thought he would be a great president and was sad he didn't run against Hilary (although I might have supported her anyway because it is time we had a women president and she was a competent and experienced as they come).
The real, imminent danger to our democracy is Trump and his futile attempt to overturn the will of the People and attempt a modern day coup.You are over your head with commenting on the OWS summit.. I watched much of the length summit it was hours long, and Trump although hosting it he gave a very short speech. The summit was composed of the OWS members a well as many companies that are involved one way or another. It was one after another providing information on the part they played or will play with bringing the vaccine to the public.
You list a bunch of Bias media articles that once again tried to turn this wonderful project into something negative about Trump. You know what, I find that discussing.
Maybe you should watch the Summit before making claims about how long Trumped talked and what he talked about.
I will only address the part of your comment about the Summit. Move on... We have a new guy to talk about.What was biased about their reporting. They just reported what happened. Besides, your claim was they reported nothing and of course they did cover the story.
Also, what I said was "That said, only about 20% of his time was spent talking about the vaccine and toothless executive order. The other 80% was yet another pity party and lies about how he won the election." where "his" means Trump's time.It's very clear you did not watch the Summit. I did, it went on for many hours. And Trump actually was not present. He gave a statement that lasted about 20 min. He did not bring up the Election until he took questions from the press. They opened up the subject, and he did then speak about it. There were no questions on the Summit. You need to get facts, not just offer such an untrue comment.
The summit had multiple speakers throughout the day, all offering their expertise on the part they played in Operation Wrap Speed. Like I said it is apparent you did not watch it.
I need not write a book here on this subject --- You have no proof Trump or his family have broken any laws. It would seem this is obvious. You do have tons of media fodder., I can understand how some do buy into media reports. But not all of us do. The individual thought process and mindset is key.
He is also soaking his radicalized supporters for millions of dollars to fund his lifestyle.
"That WAS his job, after all." - Your obtunness is simply stupendous WIlderness. His "job" was to investigate and he did that. His "job" was to follow the DOJ guidance (of course since you don't mind Trump breaking it all of the time, I have to surmise that you want him to break the law like Trump). And that DOJ guidance was that Mueller - read my bolding carefully now - could not indict Trump. Why do you continue to prove to everyone how radicalized you are by not recognizing that fact?
I will keep taking passes at the BAD MAN, since that is clearly what he is, until he is in jail. He deserves every bad thing that happens to him given how badly he has hurt America and democracy.
BTW, are you willing to die, as the Arizona GOP says they are willing to do, to keep Trump president.
Also, why do you support Trump's attempted coup of our government?
I am so tempted to write a long comment on your statement.
"Once upon a time four years ago we said that America was governed by the rule of law. It took Trump and his Republican enablers only 31/2 years to prove that is no longer true. "
Perhaps you need to reevaluate your opinion on just what Trump has brought to American's attention in regards to lawlessness. The lawlessness that has run out of control for many years. Start with the Obama FBI and CIA... LOL
Trump certainly kept a light on Hillary and all her crazy scams and lawbreaking Crap.
And when we speak of lawlessness, how about our "Summer Of Love"? Was that not eye-opening as cities burned and businesses were looted, our propaganda media with a backdrop of World War three in our streets claimed "these are peaceful protests... Although we carnage that resulted in multiple deaths. And every day Trump offered help to those cities, and every day he was turned down.
Well. IMO we have never had a more law and order president. What we now have is a man that has claimed on several occasions he would defund the police. Like I said, maybe time to reevaluate your opinion on Trump and his stand on law and order. In my view, all our law and order problems are centered in Democratic cities. Look to your party, point the finger at those politicians that are running those ruined cities.
It would seem we are at odds with the words you used...
"He has been charged with 10 counts of obstructions of justice as a result of the Mueller investigation".
Trump has not been charged with any forms of obstructions. It is well documented in the Mueller report that he was unsure if any of the "allegations " could be soundly proved in a court of law. So, why presume anything?Wilderness and Sharlee: I agree with you about being charged, my mistake. He has not been charged for those 10 allegations of obstruction of justice. But why do think he is trying so hard to overturn Biden's election, when he knows full well he has lost? Please give me real answers.
I believe he knows what the Mueller report says and he knows and/or thinks that the democrats are coming after him as soon as he is out of office. Additionally he knows that New York district courts are coming after him for tax evasion and fraud. There is his motivation for pardoning and getting re-elected, in my humble opinion. It's not rocket science. It's just not Fox News.I believe Trump is continuing his allegations of voter fraud because there has been voter fraud. The allegations are compelling. I hope the allegations will be investigated, and measures to stop these forms of fraud will be put in place. I also feel the Dominion voting system needs to be looked at by specialists to determine if fraud was committed. This machine inspection could be done very quickly within hours. All these accusations could be quickly proved or disproved. Many Poll watchers actually kept ballot numbers where they alleged fraud was committed. Also very easy to check... I am not willing to disregard hundreds of whistleblowers. These people have a right to be heard. Especially the ones that kept an account of ballots numbers that can be easily looked at to confirm or dismiss their allegation.
I can't dispute your belief. We are wired differently... I in no way will accuse anyone of a crime. I will leave that to our law enforcement agencies. And I trust if Trump broke laws as well as his children they will be charged if the evidence is available to prove crimes.
And we can all be assured they will try like hell to pin something on any one of them.
Did he evade taxes or did he take advantage as
I do of our tax laws? And I might add do most citizens... Has he in all his years been convicted of a tax crime? No
It would seem one of two things, he has not committed a tax crime or we have a very flawed crooked IRS. LOL Whatever, so far facts are on his side, he has no record of evading taxes.
And once again, Has he pardoned himself or any of his family? It has been rumored only and pushed by CNN and MSNBC. The keyword --- rumored. And no it is not rocket science that's facts.
Do you realize in any respect, that you might be grabbing on to media if comes? Does this form of thinking not to work to muddle facts, and in some respect even make one appear uninformed? No insult, just inquisitive."But why do think he is trying so hard to overturn Biden's election, when he knows full well he has lost?"
Because he thinks there was massive fraud. Because he thinks he would have won without that fraud. Because he wants to be President. That YOU claim he "knows full well he lost" means absolutely nothing and is pretty obviously another false statement as you pretend to read his mind.
Apparently he knows better than you do what the Mueller report says (that nothing was found). You're right - it is not rocket science. It is just that you believe what you want rather than what has been said.
Not true. Unlike you, apparently, I read and listen to real news. And in what has been reported over the years, and with what is known, the kids "probably" have commited federal crimes. They are currently being investigated for state crimes. So where there is smoke, there is probably fire.
As I said, you don't read - I excepted Barron and any grandkids under 18,Got it. An allegation equals a conviction in you eyes. At least if it has anything to do with anyone remotely connected to Trump.
Barron is not a grandchild, and you did NOT except him. I read your statement, whether you did or not.
First --- I was not quoting you... I was quoting Peoplepower'
Second, you did not provide a list of likely crimes you claim Trump and his family committed. You were very clear in your opening comment. I have asked you multiple times to provide me with the crimes you claimed they committed.
Here is your opening comment ---
"It is clear the kids and Trump have committed several federal crimes - otherwise Trump wouldn't feel a need to pardon them "preemptively", yet they are not under any federal investigation at the moment. So why pardon them if they have done nothing wrong.
I just found out today that Trump is an illegal resident of Florida and therefore voted (as did Melania) illegally as well. You see, the terms of the sale of Mar-a-Largo, prevent him from taking up residence there. Consequently, Trump is probably not a legal resident of Florida and the state (which it won't) or Palm Beach could press charges.
Then there is New York which has a slew of investigations against the Trump, his family, and his organization.
Then there is this civil action in D.C. surrounding Ivanka (Trump can't pardon her from that, as it turns out) for the shenanigans that were played with the Trump inauguration committee."
Yes, it is very acceptable if Trump or his children broke any laws they should be investigated. Which I am pretty sure they have been, my very point none of his children have been charged with anything. Yet we have people bashing and slandering them continually.
My point, why condemn anyone without cause, just because you can?I didn't claim they committed any crime. I claimed they "probably", based upon what I know and have read (which means I have "cause"), committed federal crimes. On the other hand, they are being investigated for state crimes. And then I provided you a list of potential federal crimes they may have committed. The only one that is certain, since I have seen it with my own eyes, is repeated violations of the Hatch Act by both Ivanka and Jerad.
BTW, who would have investigated the kids, Bill Barr, lol?
I think Trump knows that once he's out of office that they're going to come after him hard, so he's probably just taking whatever precautions he can to protect both he and his family right now. Honestly, I can see both sides of this situation honestly. On the one hand, if he's an innocent man, then none of this would be necessary. But on the other hand, the courts are corrupt. Look at what happened with Johnny Depp in the UK, when he tried to sue the Sun for libel. He lost that case in spite of all the witnesses and evidence all leaning towards his favor, so the system is a bit corrupt sometimes. It's hard to say. However, I do think he's just doing this in the off chance he can't get the vote overturned in the courts, which unlikely he will.
What makes you think the courts are corrupt? They are the ONLY thing keeping us from being another Venezuela or Russia right now.
Many Republicans apparently want an autocratic, non-democratic gov't given their insistence on trying to overturn a fair election, one where the Republicans basically trounced the Democrats - except for Trump. I guess they think there was two elections and two sets of ballots that were cast - one set for Biden against Trump and another set for Republicans against the Democrats.
That is the only way their theory makes since.
All that said, I agree with your other premises.We've seen wrongful convictions before in the courts, and just because someone is found innocent in a court of law doesn't mean they're necessarily innocent. Same thing if a person is found guilty.
As I pointed out with the Johnny Depp situation, Amber Heard literally said on tape not only admitting she abused Johnny Depp, but also claiming she'll get away with it because she's a woman and nobody will believe him. And in spite of this evidence being leaked, and all the witnesses from her family coming out against her along with her ex girlfriend, you'd think with that much overwhelming evidence that there's not a chance in hell Johnny Depp would lose a libel case against a magazine making him sound like an abusive husband when there's been no evidence of that other than her word.
Yes, I know this forum isn't about the Johnny Depp situation, but I'm using that as an example that sometimes the courts aren't always fair, and they can be corrupt sometimes.
I'm not a huge fan of Donald Trump either, but I will admit that it does seem rather odd that from day one of his presidency he was already being labeled by the media as the worst president in US history, yet he hadn't been fully in office for a full freaking day.
Again, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I will agree with him that the media has never been on his side from day one of his presidential campaign in 2016.I understand your Depp analogy but I disagree with your assertion the media started pronouncing Trump the "worst president in US History" - as best as I can tell, they didn't; that didn't start until about two years in.
In fact, I think the media was too restrained. It has only been in the last six months where they have had the guts to call Trump what he is - a liar (by using variations of the lie). Prior to that, they mostly used words like false, mistaken, incorrect, etc. Before that, they were even more respective.
Of course Trump laid the groundwork for being labeled the worst president while he was campaigning. But everyone hoped he would change after he was inaugurated. But what did he do on Day 1? Lie about his crowd size. It wasn't until later that his total lack of competence in being president became evident.
It was also about two years in where I noticed that those who rate presidents had Trump in the bottom two.
Now, of course, he is shredding democracy by trying to bully and lying his way into overturning the will of the people in a free and fair election. This should cement his place, probably forever, as the worst president who served a full term in US history. It will be a toss-up as to who harmed America more - him or Andrew Johnson, (who was also impeached but not convicted)
Hate to bring this up but ---- With all the breaking news on Hunter Biden being investigated that has been all over the news today I must ask ---
Do you think Biden and his kid should go to jail?
Fair play, is it not?
https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/t … can-people
https://nypost.com/2020/12/09/hunter-bi … tax-fraud/And exactly why do you think Joe Biden should go to jail? How is that Fair Play. Unlike Trump, Biden is not a criminal.
Hunter, on the other hand, may have to if the investigation (which, in this case, I think may be warranted) leads to a guilty verdict. I don't know the details but I trust the FBI (not the Justice Department) and the IRS. If it were JUST the federal prosecutors in Delaware, I would be suspect given their boss is Bill Barr, someone who has no credibility (in spite of his late in the game opposition to Trump's coup attempt)My E --- "And exactly why do you think Joe Biden should go to jail? How is that Fair Play. Unlike Trump, Biden is not a criminal."
Bingo! I have found why it is so hard to communicate with you.
You just don't find context in a sentence...
Read my comment. Have I in any respect claimed I think Joe Biden should go to jail?
I simply took your header on this thread and changed up the names.
"Do you think Biden and his kid should go to jail? "
Nowhere did I say or even give a hint of my opinion on if Biden committed a crime or should be jailed.
Please consider you are not in any respect understanding context, you are for some reason reading in your own attitudes. And let me add Joe now has many accusations to deal with that just may, and please note the words, just may. -- find him on the other side of the law.
I like facts, so far we do not have any facts on Joe committing a crime. We also have no given proof of Trump breaking the law. Hope I made my point.Here is your comment Sharlee. I will bold the relevant part.
"Hate to bring this up but ---- With all the breaking news on Hunter Biden being investigated that has been all over the news today I must ask ---
Do you think Biden and his kid should go to jail? "
Is there any other way to take that statement that because of Hunter Biden's investigation, Biden should go to jail?
As to Trump, there is a hoard of Republican former prosecutors who joined with Democratic ones saying that the evidence Mueller presented in Section 2 of the Mueller report was sufficient to get a conviction on Obstruction of Justice.
Enough evidence was presented in Trump's impeachment trial to get a conviction of abuse of power by a "fair minded" set of jurors although not enough to get a set of Trumplicans to convict him. Fortunately, Trump can be brought to trial on election interference after he gets out of office. While I haven't heard any talk that may happen yet, it is certainly a possibility.My question was about the Biden's as of this morning looks like Joe's brother is also deeply involved. Looks like they are t=running a crime family.
Sorry, we have discussed your question about Trump and his children's prospects of being brought up on criminal charges. Time to look at Biden and his son's Grand jury investigation. If one were to speculate it well appears Hunter is in big trouble.
Like I said you must move on it well appears we have a new president. One that in my opinion may face some real criminal allegations. This should keep us busy for a while... OMG James Biden now seems very much involved in Hunter's activities.
.Hopefully, perhaps we can impeach Joe quickly if he is proven to be involved in this China grift. Very scary stuff."Time to look at Biden and his son's Grand jury investigation. " - And I said I agree, remember? Unlike Trump, this doesn't include Joe Biden. Shall we start criticizing you just because you parents, brothers, or sisters get in trouble? Why are you bringing Joe Biden into this where again, unlike Trump, there is not even a whiff of impropriety.
Oh, btw, what is Hunter being investigated for? I heard the FBI read a report that Hunter put out about receiving a diamond as a gift, which he says he immediately gave away, and they think he evaded some gift taxes. Have you ever received an expensive gift that you didn't report to the IRS?
Are you suggesting Joe Biden tried to tamper with the election by getting a foreign government to intervene like Trump did (and is doing with is baseless attempts to overthrow a duly elected president)?"Are you suggesting Joe Biden tried to tamper with the election by getting a foreign government to intervene as Trump did (and is doing with his baseless attempts to overthrow a duly elected president)?"
I in no way inferred anything like that. I am referring to the allegations that have been reported in the last few days. My comment on Biden being impeached was a shot at being sarcastic.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/0 … xes-444139
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter … estigation
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house- … sel-letterUnderstood.
After reading the Politico article, Hunter may be in as much hot water as Trump and the Trump kids. I don't get any whiff that Trump or Barr are putting pressure on the prosecutors, FBI, or IRS.
I don't know about James as the article was very short on details. Now all Biden has to do is NOT what Trump did a lot and tell DOJ what to do.
I was going to say Hunter didn't learn his lesson, but then it occured to me that this took place several years ago.
BTW, there is this regarding the noose tightening around Trump and the kids.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/11/politics … index.html
Here is a new one that should put Jared Kushner (and Lara Trump and Mike Pence's nephew) in jail. Much worse than the allegations against Hunter Biden.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jared-kus … ays-report
"Jared Kushner approved the creation of a shell company that operated like a “campaign within a campaign” and secretly funneled millions of dollars in campaign cash to Trump family members, Business Insider reports. The company, American Made Media Consultants Corporation and American Made Media Consultants LLC, took more than half of the Trump campaign’s massive $1.26 billion war chest and was largely shielded from having to publicly report financial details. However, a source told Business Insider that Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump was the company’s president, Vice President Mike Pence’s nephew was its VP, and Trump campaign CFO Sean Dollman was treasurer and secretary."All I needed to see was The Daily Beast... LOL
Once again anyone charged with a crime? Anyone under investigation by the DOJ or the FBI? No that would be the Biden's.Sharlee: I hate to spoon feed you, since you won't read Scott's post. This is from the article:
Jared Kushner approved the creation of a shell company that operated like a “campaign within a campaign” and secretly funneled millions of dollars in campaign cash to Trump family members, Business Insider reports. The company, American Made Media Consultants Corporation and American Made Media Consultants LLC, took more than half of the Trump campaign’s massive $1.26 billion war chest and was largely shielded from having to publicly report financial details. However, a source told Business Insider that Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump was the company’s president, Vice President Mike Pence’s nephew was its VP, and Trump campaign CFO Sean Dollman was treasurer and secretary.
The mysterious company caused consternation among other campaign staffers, who had no idea how it was spending money, and the Campaign Legal Center filed a civil complaint with the FEC in June accusing the Trump campaign of laundering $170 million largely through it. A campaign spokesperson denied that AMMC paid Lara Trump or Pence’s nephew for being on its board.
This is from the Business Insider:
Legally, it’s unclear what the blowback on Kushner—reportedly in line for a presidential pardon—and other concerned parties could be, and it’s possible no laws were broken. As Business Insider notes, the FEC can issue fines to political committees if it’s determined they broke the law, while the Justice Department can open criminal investigations if it suspects a “knowing and willful” violation of election law. Such investigations are apparently uncommon, though former DOJ and FEC officials have told Business Insider they believe Justice officials could “already be discreetly investigating Trump’s reelection activity.” (While the situation differs, Kushner knows a little something about the violation of election laws, as his father, Charles Kushner, was sentenced to prison for up to 24 months after being convicted of illegal campaign contributions, in addition to tax evasion, and witness tampering, the latter involving Kushner the Elder’s brother-in-law, a prostitute, and a camcorder.)
A spokesman for Kushner did not respond to Business Insider’s request for comment. The Trump campaign said Friday that “Lara Trump and John Pence resigned from the AMMC board in October 2019 to focus solely on their campaign activities, however, there was never any ethical or legal reason why they could not serve on the board in the first place. John and Lara were not compensated by AMMC for their service as board members.”In regard to Jared Kushner approved the creation of a shell company. I have done some reading on the subject. Not sure any laws were broken? It well may be something that once again seems shady. However, due to our shady laws all is good.
I would guess if The Campaign Legal Center civil complaint with the FEC finds any wrongdoing they will pursue it. So, as of now, I have found nothing to indicate any laws were broken. I will also assume the Justice Department will open a criminal investigation if it suspects a “knowing and willful” violation of election law.
1. And this is why you live in a fantasy world Sharlee, you insulate yourself from the truth and listen only to known fake news like Hannity, Brietbart, Limbaugh, et al.
2. Now that the secret is out regarding Kushner's latest corruption, yes, I am sure he will be investigated for this as well along with other state investigations (pural) going on about him.I don't watch any network news. I on occasion will watch a network if they have been broadcasting a hearing or speech. It is clear to me due to your ideology you are watching talk jocks. What gives you away? Your comments are geared to what they push, and you add only bits and pieces of what they offered you.
In regards to Mr. Kushner, get back to me if he is charged. I just don't enjoy being fed up with "if comes". I do realize to each their own. I just don't ascribe to if comes.
You're lack in baiting skills. Come on Hannity, Limbaugh, that one's getting pretty old.My sources, for what it is worth, are CNN Headline News, the CNN web page, Politico, and sometimes The Hill. If I need detail, I read particular news articles from the Post and NYT.
I watch about 10 minutes some nights of Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo where, unlike the Fox equivalents, I have never caught them in a lie.
As a rule, I don't read opinion pieces unless I know the author is relatively unbiased and backs up their claims with facts.
I don't watch ABC, NBC, or CBS because I can get the same content from CNN. I don't watch MSNBC because they have the same faults as Fox and the other right-wing media.
I do listen to certain talking heads such as Dana Bash, Jim Acosta, Christiane Amanpour, Fareed Zakaria, John Avalon, Mike Rogers, Mia Love, Michael Smerconish, David Gergen, and similar knowledgeable news analyst.Again --- In regards to Mr. Kushner, get back to me if he is charged. I just don't enjoy being fed up with "if comes". I do realize to each their own. I just don't ascribe to if comes.
Yet you make aspirations on uncharged Hunter Biden, uncharged Joe Biden, uncharged Kamala Harris, etc. Do I sense a double standard there?
No, actually I have not made any allegations other than what has been reported. That he is and has been being investigated by the FBI, DOJ, since 2018 for tax evasion and POSSIBLE money laundering. It would seem we will have to see if he is charged with any crimes.
\NO DOUBLE STANDARD hear is my comment in regard to Kushner. I know of no law enforcement agency investigating Kushner.
In regard to Jared Kushner approved the creation of a shell company. I have done some reading on the subject. Not sure any laws were broken? It well may be something that once again seems shady. However, due to our shady laws all is good.
I would guess if The Campaign Legal Center civil complaint with the FEC finds any wrongdoing they will pursue it. So, as of now, I have found nothing to indicate any laws were broken. I will also assume the Justice Department will open a criminal investigation if it suspects a “knowing and willful” violation of election law.
Seems you have a problem with comprehension.And have I made any allegations other than what has been reported? I think not.
Now here is a few more. Do you agree with disgraced general Flynn and Crazy Sydney Powell in wanting to bring the military into a few battleground states to redo the election? Apparently, Trump is considering it.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/politics … index.html
Also did you read Trump's tweet where he through another of his supporters under the bus by effectively claiming Pompeo lied when he said Russia was responsible for the ongoing cyber attack of many Fortune 500 companies as well as multiple federal agencies? He claims 1) he has been fully briefed on it, 2) it is nowhere near as bad as mainstream media makes it out to be, 3) it might have been China (or how about Canada), and 4) that he has it well under control (like he does the coronavirus). Each and every one of those claims are a lie, btw. (btw, I think he also threw in there another lie that he won the election in a big way, lol)
Trump has also been musing, in some of his even more crazier moments, about not leaving the WH. I do hope he keeps that promise as I would love to see the Secret Service physically remove him from the White House, hopefully in cuffs.Trump's statement --- “The Cyber Hack is far greater in the Fake News Media than in actuality,” Trump said on Twitter on Saturday. “Russia, Russia, Russia is the priority chant when anything happens because Lamestream is, for mostly financial reasons, petrified of discussing the possibility that it may be China (it may!).”
What I get from his statement due to his leadoff sentence, his mood may have been sarcastic. He was addressing his anger at the media. His last words, "it may" leaves me to understanding --- maybe, maybe not.
I do not feel he set out to claim Pompeo as a liar.
At any rate, he should have learned by now his words matter, and what he said was IMO obnoxious, and uncalled for. Did his words undermind Pompeo? I would expect Pompeo is accustomed to Trump being sarcastic and most likely very sick of it.
I do not feel it would be prudent to redo the election. There has been nothing to indicate we need a redo.
I have not heard him claim he will not or is even considering not leaving the White House. I have heard pundit repeating the old "I have a source that claims Trump my not leave the WH". I don't respect most pundits.
You hope he is removed in cuffs. I hope he leaves and does not attend the swearing-in of Biden. If he does he will lose my respect. I can't stand phony political BS. That's one of the reasons he got my vote.I am glad you feel that way about the election. Not many on your side does.
What is the difference between Trump's famous "some people tell me" and a reporter's use of sources inside the WH (or elsewhere) who are sick of what they see and need to tell someone without losing their job.
I am surprised Trump got your vote a second time if you feel that way. There is no one in government more full of "phony political BS" than Trump. You should have been able to see that in 2016, the plurality of voters did. But after 4 years of a constant stream of BS, lies, craziness, hate-speech, maligning your gender, and so on and so on, I would think you would have been done with him.
I actually heard one of his musings about not leaving the WH on a video clip. I didn't think much of it but now that he has repeated it, I take it much more seriously.
I also hope he does not attend the inauguration. The embarrassment to the country for not going will be far less than the embarrassment he undoubtedly cause if he does show up. Remember, he must have the spotlight on himself.
Your comment about Lemon and Cuomo surprised me. I thought their nightly performance during the Portland protests and riots so were so outrageous that I haven't watched any of CNN since.
If you are familiar with their segments, Cuomo would spend the last couple of minutes of his show introducing and talking to Lemon. On several nights in a row during the protests/riots, they were superimposed over a split-screen of rioters looting stores—while both spoke of how the poor protesters were misunderstood. Were they unaware of what their network was broadcasting?
The final straw was when Lemon didn't have a problem when a spokesperson, (a woman that I think claimed to be a BLM spokesman), said that the looters of the high-end retail stores were essentially just getting reparations.
That was enough for me. I was never a Lemon fan but did occasionally watch Cuomo and several of CNN's news segments. but since those mentioned nights I haven't watched any CNN at all.
As a side note, I saw a commercial today saying Ex-Fox anchor Shepard Smith has moved to CNBC. I liked him and may check-out his new position.
GAI watched them to, but as I said, not that much. What I catch most often is the transition between Cuomo and Lemon and then maybe the first segment of Lemon after his monologue to catch what his commentators he brings on has to say. That said, I have never caught them in an outright lie or absurd exaggeration which seem to be the staple for their counterparts on Fox?
Have I disagreed with Lemon's monologues? Yes, occasionally because I think he is putting the wrong spin on things. But is he mostly honest about the issues he brings up? Yes, I think so.
I also like to listen to Anderson Cooper and Erin Burnett occasionally. Again, not to hear what they have to say but to hear what the talking heads I mentioned earlier have to say.
I think I recall having some good thoughts about Smith from reports I heard. But since I don't watch Fox (or MSNBC), I didn't see much of him.
Ironic anecdote. Just after the first US - Iraq war I attended Air War College. In the last couple months of the program they had media week where we discussed how to deal with the media. They brought in various reporters and assigned each to one seminar group or another to spend two or three days with My group got Wolf Blitzer; he had an interesting story to tell about how he became a fixture on CNN. I sure liked him much better then than I do now - I cannot stand his style of interviewing people. There are ways to do it without being rude, but he has lost his ability to not come across as a jerk.The storylines I recall hearing was that Shepard Smith was booted from Fox because he wouldn't follow the company line on reporting, as in refusing to mimick Hannity.
GA
More interesting headlines on why Trump needs to go to jail.
Trump is thinking (which is terrible in its own right) about martial law to steal the election.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/20/politics … index.html
Part of the radicalization process of the right-wing media got called out. (How is the radicalization of Republicans by the right-wing media any different than the radicalization of Muslims by ISIS?)
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/business … index.html
John Bolton, that darling of the Right, reacts to disgraced gen Flynn and crazy lawyer Sidney Powell pressure campaign on Trump to declare martial law (and Trump is so deranged that he is listening)
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … ot-vpx.cnn
There are reasons why Trump is beholden to Russia and Putin. Even a few conservative Republicans understand that.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/20/politics … /index.htm
This is what the hero of the Right did while occupying the presidency. It certainly wasn't providing leadership or good governance. Instead it was this -
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/18/politics … index.html
This guy, along with Hannity and Limbaugh, should have their free speech rights taken away for gross abuse of a precious gift.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/202 … n-orig.cnn
The radicalization of Republicans by the right-wing media -
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/15/94638152 … perts-warn
https://www.ssrc.org/programs/child-com … revention/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00546-3
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10 … 1418817755"There are reasons why Trump is beholden to Russia and Putin. Even a few conservative Republicans understand that."
You do realize there has never been a president that levied more sanctions on Russia than Trump? It would seem odd if Putin was not celebrating a Biden win. I have posted this link frequently, but once again it's a good reference to just how heavy-handed President Trump has been on Russia.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10779.pdf
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr … on-russia/
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/05/tr … nt-obamas/
Can't really waste time addressing your other queries. They just have not happened --- all If Comes and CNN Gruel (porridge) ---Yummy to some I realize, just unpalatable to me.It is sad you cut yourself off from legitimate reporting, all that does is let yourself be hoodwinked by the right-wing fake news. This is why you get so many things wrong, you have only the radicalized right-wing view of the world.
Those "other" things have not happened only in your fantasy world. They have ALL happened in the real world. While Fox, Britebart, and Newsmax may not report on them, every other legitimate news organization has. And since you blind yourself to them, how can you know about them?
Your first cite sort of supports my point about Trump on Russia, many of the sanctions he imposed were done unwillingly because he was forced to by Congressional action.
Your second source is useless for a point of comparison since it only talks about Trump and leaves out any context.
Your third source basically talks about everybody else but Russia. But it clearly shows he does not have a consistent, thoughtful, measured policy other than "if I do not like you, unless you are Putin, I will sanction you."OK, so you irrationally hate CNN, here are others:
MARTIAL LAW:
https://www.newsweek.com/mypillow-ceo-t … es-1556218
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … nd/617446/
https://www.kulr8.com/news/national/hea … 7cd6e.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-t … ts-2020-12
https://www.huffpost.com/topic/martial-law
CRAZY SIDNEY POWELL as Special Counsel
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/1 … sel-448694
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/19/us/p … fraud.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cons … -theories/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … e-n1251859
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 978054001/
ILLEGALLY CONFISCATING VOTING MACHINES:
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/ … achines-2/
https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2020 … -to-get-it
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5 … n-disputed
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video … tates.html
TRUMP BY THE NUMBERS
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng- … in-numbers
FOX DEBUNKS ITS OWN FAKE NEWS VOTER FRAUD STORY
https://www.newsweek.com/fox-host-lou-d … ow-1556143
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/ … smartmatic
https://deadline.com/2020/12/lou-dobbs- … 234659655/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 76863.html
You know who didn't report any of those stories? Fake Right-Wing Media.
So yes, it did happen. No wonder you get such a warped view of the world.
So now you know why I summarize the reporting using a real news source like CNN - to avoid redundancy since they all report the same REAL news.Oh my gosh, One after another left-leaning media... I can see why your comments are very rarely factual, only sensational if comes. You are all about conspiracy theories. I like the fact, a news report on something that actually happened in reality, not --- Well it could happen. It might happen... I guess I am funny that way.
Do you really think every one of those news outlets is reporting false information? Really?
Actually all but Fox is well known to be left-leaning bias outlets. Even the Arkansas Times.. And as a rule post-rumor-based articles. Now, this is the norm, all the articles he posted where rumor based. Note the words rarely factual. You seem to have taken my comment as stating all these outlets post false news all of the time. As I stated, "rarely are factual".
I am sure many of the outlets he posted have and do post-factual information at times. My comment context was clear, almost all the outlets he offered are well known to be left-leaning and RARELY post factual information. All are well known for rumor based articles. Just my view.I was referring to the multiple links provided in the post you responded to.
And yes in my answer to your question I find every one of the links MyE posted is left-leaning. I thought I was pretty clear? As I stated, his outlets are "rarely are factual", as a rule, they offer little fact. I find MyE's links all biased to the left with Fox right-leaning. I don't respect any of them, Zero. I guess that should clear up my opinion of the links he offered.
To began with My E listed all those links to deflect off the subject. Lots of Trump-bashing articles. Which just had nothing to do with the subject.
I listed three-- in my response. To My E. I prefer sites that list facts, use names, and show true research into a given subject. The conversation My E and I were having was about Trump and Russia. He claims Trump is "more or less" in Putin's pocket. My opinion after a lot of research tells me Trump was Putin's worst nightmare No other president has slammed Russia with more pain... Here are the three outlets I gleaned my opinion from. The same I offered MYE. He quickly deflected all kinds of crazy...
Brookings --- The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. Its mission is to conduct in-depth research and present facts. In regards to the article, I posted it merely gave very in-depth information on the Trump administration sanctions and actions taken against Russia.
Congressional Research Service--- This collection provides the public with access to research products produced by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) for the United States Congress. By law, CRS works exclusively for Congress, providing timely, objective, and authoritative research and analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of political party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for more than a century.
Foreign Policy --- I have always found this publication pretty straightforward in its analysis.Sharlee: I get your point, you are arguing that Trump has really been tough on Russia and Putin and Scott posted links about how Trump and his cohorts are off the rails on these topics:
MARTIAL LAW:
CRAZY SIDNEY POWELL as Special Counsel
ILLEGALLY CONFISCATING VOTING MACHINES
TRUMP BY THE NUMBERS
FOX DEBUNKS ITS OWN FAKE NEWS VOTER FRAUD STORY
I want you to know that I don't believe that main stream media for the most part is lying and providing fake news. The fake news gambit was setup by Trump. In an interview with Leslie Stahl, he told her he uses that term to get back to journalists who are attacking him.
If you ever have watched any of his press conferences and rallies that is what he does.
To tell you the truth, when I hear people including Trump call reputable news outlets garbage and fake news, it makes my skin crawl because I know better. Trump has created a support system that makes people think that MSM is fake news without substantial justification for those accusations other than him saying that.
How many times have you actually watched CNN or other MSM outlets and can prove that they are broadcasting fake news on a regular basis. Even anchors like Lou Dobbs and Shep Smith are fed up with the lies that the Fox night time shows put out, but yet Trump has the audacity to call MSM fake news. He even uses Hannity and Bortiromo as part of his propaganda machine. It appears very easy for you to dismiss what doesn't suit your agenda. I'm sure you do it to make yourself feel better. We all do that in these forums.You gotta love it!!! From Business Insider:
They finally found a guy in PA who tried to register his dead mother and mother-in-law to vote, he succeeded with his mother and was caught. His bail was $100,000 and faces 19 years in prison. He will probably be asking Trump for a pardon since that is who he voted for twice.
The very conservative Heritage Foundation maintains a voting fraud database. In the last 20 years they have recorded a whopping 193 cases of voter fraud where convictions were obtained.
Now, Trump supporters, tell me why again you believe Donald Trump.Now don't get me wrong, I prefer classical architecture over a modernistic style as well - but wasting an executive order on it? Give me a break. 2,000 people dying a day from covid and Trump can't find it in him to say one word about it, but here he is wasting more time signing meaningless EOs. What a guy.
Let me reorient you to the subject. We have been conversing on the subject of media bias, and proclivity to report unsubstantiated news. I see you quickly have deflected? I will admit the subject has been discussed at this point to clearly realize our differences on the subject.
No, I was quite on point. You claim CNN lies most of the time and always trashes Trump.
I just gave you a story that reports about a good thing Trump did but then had to observe that because you say CNN always lies and cannot be trusted, then neither can this positive Trump story. You can't have it both ways, Sharlee, no matter how hard to try."You claim CNN lies most of the time..."
"...because you say CNN always lies..."
LOL Has it gotten to the point that you can't even keep your own words straight if they're in different paragraphs? That's worse than your false tales about Trump!I just follow her lead as she switches from a qualifier (which I try to use unless I am certain) to a declarative. I figured you would recognized the switch because you do it an awful lot.
Speaking about switching - the evangelicals are FINALLY getting a clue about Trump and his other supporters. Pat Robertson finally declares that Trump is living in an alternate reality - something the rest of us already know.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … sr-vpx.cnnLOL If there is anyone in the country living in an "alternate reality" it would be the televangelists. Such as Pat Robertson. He makes up his own reality, just as you do.
Sure thing. You "follow her lead" by changing the text of what she said. You're pretty good at that, but unfortunately you DO get caught at it, too.
WE disagree with regard to left-leaning media outlets. I feel they take a bit of fodder (as a rule from someone they label as a "source") They take the fodder and report it as being factual. They spread chaos without cause by twisting context to most reports. Just my opinion. I prefer getting facts from sites that don't sensationalize a report and offer some semblance of truth. Most networks are opinion-oriented dredging out pundits that are clearly biased to the network they are being paid a bit to show up and give their opinion.
AS far as why Trump uses the words "fake news", He apparently finds it to be fake. I would think he would be very disturbed seeing his words as well as his deeds misrepresented. I don't consider it fake news, I consider it sensationalized news to suit a given network's agenda.
My, in regard to proving CNN and MSM, provide unproven bias reports. One only needs to tune in 24/7. LOL. I find most of the talk jocks unprofessional, and actually hard to watch due to their very demeanor. So dramatic to put it simply.
I must also point out... Please note the moment I offered MyE with facts on the subject we were discussing, he quickly deflected and headed off on a Trump tangent offer the very left-leaning outlets I find abhorrent. All offering nothing but Trump-bashing stories most offering as I mention reports that offered nothing but reports based on "sources". He seems to use a psychological mechanism to switch gears when faced with facts that he just does not want to hear.
The kinds of articles he offered don't interest me. If come, unproven dirty laundry. I find it odd so many do ascribe to this form of news.Sharlee MUST be speaking of Trump and his "some people tell me". She didn't respond the last time I mentioned it.
At least these reputable new outlets tell you where the source resides, e.g. staffers inside the White House. Trump, on the other hand, gets a pass from Sharlee and other Trump supporters for totally vague references.
Until she says she doesn't believe a word Trump says when he says words like "they said", "someone told me", "people say", etc then I have to assume she is being dishonest in her critique of MSN's use of better identified sources. It is sort of the goose and gander thing.
I am not sure what "talk jocks" you are referring to. Provide names and lies if you can. Just because they spin something in a way you do not like does not qualify as one of Trump's, Britebart's, Newsmax, and Fox Opinion's extremely frequent lies, disinformation, misrepresentations, falsehoods.
Well our organized crime president as started rolling out the pardons - legal? Yes, Corrupt? Yes, Abuse of Power? Yes.
Let's see who he has recently pardoned, including today:
Two sycophant Republican ex-Congressman felons whose fealty to Trump is unrelenting
Two convicted felons who were caught lying to the FBI to protect Trump
Earlier, the disgraced former general Flynn who lied pled guilty to lying to the FBI to protect Trump
Earlier, the mad-dog Stone who lied to Congress, threatened to kill a reporter in the process of working with the Russians to defeat Clinton
Two border guards who were convicted of shooting and wounding unarmed undocumented immigrants
Four mercenaries from Blackwater who were involved in an Iraq massacre. (Similar to the Navy Seal who murdered an unarmed enemy combatant.)
What a sick guy.But, his followers believe he loves America and is the savior who will keep us safe from globalism, socialism, and those who want enslave us and destroy our nation. He has made sacrifices because he loves America more than he loves himself. He walks with God and stands alone against unimaginable evil.
These are all sentiments shared recently by my FB friends I am seriously wondering if they are still in touch with reality. Seribusly.Totally agree, and now he is threatening to take away their Covid relief (which being good conservatives they don't think they should get). I will grant that one of his reasons is to increase the direct payments, which out of context, is a good thing IMO. But in context, he just wants to look good to the people he hurts by delaying the bill.
He's just trying to look good but only his cult members are buying it. If he truly wanted people to get more in direct payments, he would have openly and loudly directed Mitch to do it, so the Republicans would have had no choice.
He doesn't care about anything except furthering his own goals, which include maintaining the worship and loyalty of the Trump cult so he can continue to earn money off them.?? His reason is to increase direct payments, according to you. So what is this "context" that he just wants to look good? More of the unending imagination, where you simply make up whatever you wish?
How about a link showing this "context" you claim is there, where he says not that he wants to increase direct payments but that he wants to look good? It would go a long way to supporting your fallacious claim.Context: Did he tell Mitch in advance that he wouldn't sign the bill unless it provided "X" amount of dollars? Or, did he wait until a deal was reached and then say it wasn't acceptable?
Why would I need a link? It is there in all of the reliable news outlets for anyone to read. But the underlying context is that in the last four years, Trump rarely does anything that doesn't benefit him directly. The only people who don't recognize that are his sycophants who refuse to recognize the obvious.
Ah. You use 4 years of speech to "design" a context for all of his words. I understand. Completely.
"As I stated, his outlets are "rarely are factual", as a rule, they offer little fact. " - And of course that is patently untrue. Rarely have their facts been wrong and when they have been, unlike your president and others on the Right, they admit when they are wrong.
Tell me Sharlee, why do you consider articles that tell the truth about Trump as so-called "Trump bashing". When did telling the truth become bashing?
I do agree that Brookings, CRS, and FP are all fine organizations devoted to facts and the truth. They are no different than CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, and even Fox News when they can get away from their corporate bosses.
I see where the now disgraced, impeached, one-term president is having conversations the disgraced, convicted, looney-tunes Steve Bannon, the disgraced, washed-up, decrepit Rudy Giuliani, the disgraced, pled guilty, pardoned, former general Flynn, and crazy, conspiracy theorist, so-called lawyer Sidney Powell into the White House on multiple occasion to discuss ways he can abuse his power in order to remain a so-called president.
I certainly hope Pence and enough cabinet officials get together to remove him before he does something else terrible.
Was Trump Putin's "worst nightmare" when he turned Syria completely over to them?
Was Trump Putin's "worst nightmare" when Trump absolved him of election interference?
Was Trump Putin's "worst nightmare" when he stopped Ukraine from receiving critical military aid in order to coerce them into interfering with the 2020 election in favor of Trump?
Was Trump Putin's "worst nightmare" when recently absolved Putin of the Russian cyberattack on America?
Was Trump Putin's "worst nightmare" when Trump started attacking our allies in Europe?
Was Trump Putin's "worst nightmare" when Trump decided to denigrate and weaken NATO?
Was Trump Putin's "worst nightmare" when Trump started a trade war with Europe?
Was Trump Putin's "worst nightmare" when Trump tried to roll back, impede, and blunt the impact of sanctions at every step?
Was Trump Putin's "worst nightmare" when Trump tried to roll back, impede, and blunt the impact of sanctions at every step?
Was Trump Putin's "worst nightmare" when Trump publicly says that Crimea is part of Russia and calls for Russia to be welcomed back into the international community with no concessions?
Was Trump Putin's "worst nightmare" when Trump is shifting the Republican Party’s generations-long hawkish views on Russia?
Was Trump Putin's "worst nightmare" when Trump has repeatedly, and inexplicably, parroted Kremlin talking points, propaganda, and disinformation across a range of global issues?
Each and everyone of those are true and verifiable, yet you insist on calling this information "bashing" and insist on saying Trump is, lol, great.Now here is a Trump policy I can get behind, but since it is reported by CNN, it must be a lie and he really didn't do it.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/22/tech/smi … index.html
All three are reputable organizations, all three give vivid comprehensive counts of the sanctions Trump Ad. placed on Russia. Just straight forward facts. It is apparent you did not read any of the links, all sources I used are reputable, non-bias, and factual.
Again I don't ascribe to any far-left networks. CNN, MSNBC, are garbageActually, I read all three (in fact I read all three before you presented them to me) and my comments about them are factual, just as your sources are and just like CNN is (which is only far-left to you because you are so far-right). To me, CNN is left-biased, as are most news organizations who believe in reporting the truth.
It is only most (but not all, Fox News is and exception) of the right-wing media (I can't bring myself to call it news, since it is not) who do not tell the whole truth all of the time. Instead, they tell half-truths, provide Trump-style misinformation and distortion, and sometimes outright lies.Your article list "source" for the given information. My articles list actual actions the Trump administration has taken in regard to Russia. All factual, all actions that have been taken and are still in place. It would seem you are saying our Government did not that these actions against Russia, arguing the facts.
Your thought process appears to be skewed. To believe faceless, nameless reports over documented facts, I find that odd at best.
"many of the sanctions he imposed were done unwillingly because he was forced to by Congressional action."
Huh? Where do they come up with this stuff? I'd like to see proof an any Congressional action of this type. Geeze.They come up with due to being somewhat brainwashed. No really, many that dislike Trump, have lost the ability to even except clearly documented facts. At one point in the past, I was sad for anyone that had such a thought process. However, now I have become discussed it with them. It has become hard to placate their inability to see reality.
"No really, many that dislike Trump, have lost the ability to even except clearly documented facts." - We would certainly except "clearly documented facts" but your side rarely presents any.
Now, let's assume your Brookings reference is "clearly documented facts". I would agree. The problem you seem to purposefully ignore is we were talking about a comparison and all Brookings did was list actions that happened during Trump's tenure and didn't even limit them to things Trump did himself. Therefore, it was useless vis-a-vis the discussion at hand.
Apparently I need to read your own sources for you. FAS:
A series of executive orders issued in 2014 (EOs 13660,
13661, 13662, and 13685), based on national emergency
authorities and codified by the Countering Russian
Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017 (CRIEEA;
P.L. 115-44, Title II; 22 U.S.C. 9501 et seq.), establish a
framework for Ukraine-related sanctions on those the
President determines have undermined Ukraine’s security,
stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity, or
misappropriated state assets - OBAMA
EO 13694, as amended by EO 13757 (and codified by
CRIEEA), targets those who engage in cyberattacks (1)
against critical infrastructure, (2) for financial or
commercial gain, (3) to significantly disrupt the availability
of a computer or network, or (4) to interfere with U.S.
election processes and institutions. - OBAMA and Congress
Second, CRIEEA, §224, requires the President to impose
sanctions in response to a range of activities conducted on
behalf of the Russian government that undermine
“cybersecurity against any person, including a democratic
institution, or government.” - Trump fought this on his watch
Third, EO 13848 authorizes sanctions against foreign
persons that have “directly or indirectly engaged in,
sponsored, concealed or otherwise been complicit in foreign
interference in a United States election.” - OBAMA
The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of
2012 (P.L. 112-208, Title IV; 22 U.S.C. 5811 note) requires
the President to impose sanctions on those he identifies as
having been involved in a “criminal conspiracy” uncovered
by Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky and his subsequent
imprisonment and death. - OBAMA
I think I found two, maybe three references to Trump actions in "your" source.
And as I said about your FP citation. It talked about sanctions "in general" and not specifically to Russia. The articles main point was that Trump used sanctions as a bludgeon and indiscriminately against the world, while Obama was much more surgical and nuanced in his use of sanctions.
This is really easy stuff to find, RMN, but then I do understand you have your own limitations.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN1FI2V7
This is why staffers talk to the press - when the President goes off the rails (again).
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/20/media/st … index.htmlWhat is Trump's Florida address? Do you know, or just assume it is at Mar-a-Largo (and that he is violating a private contract by doing so)?
Do your research Wilderness, as you well know, I try not to assume anything. Palm Beach is suing Trump to have him move elsewhere. He is contractually not allowed (although we all know he doesn't give a damn about contracts) to use Mar-a-lago as his residence.
Again CNN... This should tell you something. You should follow facts, not media hype if comes. Have you not realized none of these crazy stories ever come to any kind of fruition.
MANY of your comments are rumors, never any proof of the accusations you are attempting to spread.
I saw one actual fact in the article you posted. An actual statement from a person involved with said meeting, and the only one that has a name ---
"Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
Dec 20
Martial law = Fake News. Just more knowingly bad reporting!"And have you not realized that almost all of these stories do come to fruition?
There you go believing the biggest liar the world has ever known - Donald Trump.Actually, no very few ever are proven to be accurate. And your left believing a rumor, an unsubstantiated accusation.
Like all of the things, you posted in your last comment they are based in no real sense on truth.Give me a few you think were proved inaccurate. I can't think of any. You keep saying it, but yet you keep saying Trump tells the truth all of the time when everybody knows he does not very often. So how am I to believe you when you have Trump so wrong?
Trump is losing his support. Now the very conservative [i]NY Post[/b] published a large headline telling Trump to "Stop the Insanity ... You Lost the Election".
But that presumes Trump really isn't insane. Insane people who don't recognize their illness Can't Stop It.Just an almost meaningless clarifucation. Trump is not insane but is mentally ill.
Even if Trump admits he lost (which he won't due to his mental ullness), his cult will continue to believe Sidney Powell's 200-page documentation of election fraud (posted in the internet for all to see the truth!)
If only we could boot the rest of the crazies out like we did Trump.
America did not miss the point that the violent Trump insurrectionists were treated with kid gloves, especially by the Capital Police, while BLM peaceful protesters (I am NOT talking about the rioters) were often mauled by the police.
Why the different treatment?????If you watch the reports you will note the majority were older people out to have a peaceful protest. No masks, just all their Trump wear... There certainly were those that showed up to take the Capitol. But the majority came to have a peaceful protest.
Let me share, here in Michigan in some communities every week after the election many peaceful protests take place every Saturday morning. These protests are made up of citizens that feel the election was stolen.
They come out in hundreds, they are older citizens, they cause no problems, but they are out every week. These people need to be respected, they need their concerns addressed, not by media but by our Government.
And in regards to being treated with kid gloves. Your memory is short. All summer the police were made to stand down, let the protesters run unfettered to loot, and burn, and beat up people, and kill.I don't think that killing an unarmed Air Force veteran is being treated with kid gloves.
Very little mention of the woman that was killed. Maybe if she had been black? Have you noted the media makes little mention of how many were killed in the summer left riots or the people that lost their businesses. And these fools in Washington wonder why the Capitol was breached I find it sickening how this is being covered by the media. The protesters were there for a reason, too bad all of them don't give that consideration.
This media is so dangerous, I truly blame them for much of what transpired yesterday. I have watched this for years and made every attempt on any occasion to point out their agenda. To little to late.
I am with the people that are demanding an investigation of the election.
Sharlee: You keep talking about your whistleblowers wanting answers. I would venture to say those domestic terrorists don't know or care about your agenda. They have been embolden by Trump's lies and constant drumbeat that if he lost the election it was rigged
They were there to stop the constitutional process of certifying the EC votes. That's why they entered the chambers. And for Trump, it confirmed to him that he is still in control with the monster he created.
It sounds like you are condoning what they have done, just because you think they want answers from the government. How is vandalizing our seat of democracy and the republic going to give them the answers you say they are seeking?I find your statement illogical... I keep addressing what Trump supporters have asked for weeks. My God how the hell can you be so hypocritical. One could see the majority of that crowd were older folks all dressed in their political gear to attend a rally and then a protest. Tell yourself whatever you feel makes you comfortable. There were some that caused trouble, and who knows their agenda. Many were arrested, hopefully, we can find out some info on who they were, and their agenda.
These people are not represented in Washington, their own representatives failed them. And you bet they came to try to stop the EC from being certified. They believe fraud was committed. And at this point looks like they are go8ng to fight for what they believe. How inconvenient.
You are reading into my view. I have stated I don't condone any form of violence. I would think your memory is short, what have I been saying over and over the past few weeks. People want an investigation, I felt if they were not heard they would hit the streets. They have,
and they are not going away. You have the opinion all Trump supporters are in some way deplorable, not worthy of being heard. Well, I want an investigation because we need to have all American's concerns put to rest. I never will understand how some on the left have become so emboldened to disregard other American's concerns. It's laughable you don't see this is part of the problem. In my view, many on the right have no respect for those on the left's very thought process or their flighty nonsensical ideologies. Take a look around there has been plenty of us out here tolerating, placating just due to our common sense.
I have been saying for some time, the right will push back hard. They are overall crazy, and they want answers. This is not your old Republican, in fact, most won't call themselves Republicans any longer.
I am not condoning violence, but I can see why it occurred, use common sense and you will understand too.My Gawd, Sharlee, it is not common sense to believe that election fraud occurred after the results of all the investigatiins, recounts, and court cases. Anyone who thinks there should be more investigations is out of touch with reality, just like Trump, who is seriously mentally ill. Those "protestors" were protesting a delusional idea planted by a lying charismatic demagogue.
If you Trumpers don't acknowledge this now, you are truly lost. Get a grip! Even Trump toadies loo like Mitch and Lindsay have had enough. Geez.Also,I have had it with Trumpers saying they don't condone violence while supporting a man so sick and so self-serving that he actively encourages violence from his supporters, culminating in yesterday's insurrection.. People who watched him yesterday said he was enjoying it. This is a man you enabled for four years and still want to be president, so don't give me that "I don't condone violence" BS. If you support Trump, you condone violence.
You certainly have a right to an opinion, I can see we are very far apart on many subjects. Would do little good to have a back and forth.
I agree. If you still believe more investigation is warranted, you are as delusional as our mentally ill president and, after yesterday's insurrection attempt, you are furthering the fantasies of a lying demagogue who is encouraging insurrection.
Investigations have already shown Trump to be a liar. Another one will show the same. His cult will still believe him.
Stop feeding the delusions of a mad man.
Enough!Nothing to do with what Trump has said... All about what 250 some American's have said. Just not willing as you to disregard their statements. That whistleblower at some point could be me or you...
I more than realize some are willing to ignore these citizens. Just not made of that type of cloth.For what must be the THOUSANDTH time, the citizens have already been heard. The claims were investigated by the appropriate bodies and debunked.
WHY can you not understand this simple concept?Because she believes Trump's lies almost totally. She lives in his fantasy world ... that is the only way she can keep up this charade.
If the floor is open to critique one another's personal attitudes, in my view MyE you live in a world of conspiracies "if comes". You appoint your opinion to be "the last word". You seem unable to decipher the context of my comments. These attributes display a form of nacissum.
You add whatever context you please to a given conversation. For instance in the above comment. I have not addressed Trump's beliefs or statement on voter fraud. I have been addressing my view of what could have occurred based on the 250 affidavits from citizens. Your claim that "she believes Trump's lies almost totally" is unfounded and not based on anything I have been discussing here. My concerns have zero to do with Trump's beliefs that widespread voter fraud occurred. I have stated my reasons over and over why I feel the Whistleblowers should be heard, and why I feel they have not been heard. We have argued our individual opinions on that subject. I have given my reasoning on why I do not agree with you. You have disputed my opinion as some others have. I accept your right to do so... I do not accept your right to claim I live in a fantasy world. This kind of language can open a door to me critiquing you. Is this the direction we should be going in? I can be polite until provoked. I have made an attempt to placate statements that I find uncalled for, but it has become tiresome.
Maybe we can both be civil, it certainly would be a better way of communicating.
It would seem it upsets you that I don't agree with you? Let's leave it this way, you have your sources, I have mine. They differ greatly. You grasp onto your belief, I will grasp mime.
You grasp onto propaganda, a Trump supporter until the bitter end.
So, when even Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, and Bill Barr (and a bunch of other staunch Trump enablers) all unequivocally state the election was not fraudulent in addition to multiple state investigators (many Republican), multiple court rulings (some Republican appointees), you still think more investigations are needed....at what point are your beliefs no longer rational? And, at what point do you stop feeding the highly destructive (people have died) fantasy that Trump will somehow remain in office?
Actually never could find any of them stating there was no fraud? Aa I said and will repeat --- Fraud is frau no matter how little. I never made the claim that I felt it was or would be enough to change the outcome of the election. Just want citizens' claims gone through and anyone that committed fraud prosecuted. If one or 20... You have in no respect understood the context of my posts. You are reading in your own context. My opinion has nothing to do with Trump's claims. Lets' leave it this way, I really don't care what you feel, I care about what I feel may have happened. Your opinion is irrelevant to me. Not to be rude, but true.
Why in the world would it bother you if the Whistleblower's complaints were fully addressed, and each one settled to be true or false? I think you protest too much... My lord We have a DOJ that could do an investigation, that is their job. Actually if one reads Barr's full statement they are still looking at claim's and they did find some fraud, not enough to sway the election.
I must ask could it be you and those that hold your group opinion be the once
experiencing cognitive dissonance?I know exactly what you are saying. You think citizens need to be heard, yet again.
I guess you didn't listen to Lindsay and Mitch speak at the election certification proceedings, and that was before Trump invited a violent job to storm the Capitol and kill people.
I will not let you Trumpers off the hook. Until you acknowledge that calling for further investigation is feeding into Trump's dangerous fantasy of a fraudulent election, I'll be here holding your feet to the fire.
Once again, I quote Lindsay Graham: "Enough!"Sharlee: I guess you didn't acknowledge my article or read it.
"I am no longer going to defend my opinion on the subject. Because I feel very good sticking to what I see as truth. My Dad always told me. "don't ever give up your truth or principles to fit a group narrative, if you do your opinion will soon just be what you are told it should be.""
Trump was told by his lawyer and long time mentor Roy Cohn, "Never admit you are wrong, no matter how deep in the muck you get" Look at where it got him? He is now being considered for impeachment and possibly being prosecuted for negligent homicide of a Capitol police officer...
MikeLOL We already saw the faux "impeachment" of Trump once, and now Idiot Pelosi is talking about doing it again...with congress on break until he is no longer President? And you want to call this political grandstanding "considered for impeachment"? C'mon, PP!
And then he might be prosecuted for negligent homicide of a cop during a riot? That's nearly as bad for someone that did not participate at all!Yes, they just can't stop spinning for a second or two to see or listen to what they are saying. this is such a scary problem. Now we have many on the right ready to push back and seem unwilling to just let the left graze in their pastures of all kinds of crazy.
Well, now we have two sides that clearly will and ready to fight. I felt it was coming. I would suppose it may be the only and last recourse. Had hoped some kind of common sense would prevail.
To be honest Mike I find it insulting that you feel I am experiencing Cognitive dissonance due to our differing opinions. Seems a bit presumptuous.
The subject was a simple subject in regard to my opinion in regards to an investigation I feel was and is necessary where 250 whistleblowers to get to the bottom of their claims. My opinion was and still is it would solve problems that have occurred, and most likely will continue to occur due to these people not being heard. You don't seem to get the point. Even if you feel they have been listening too, and their claims dismissed, many in the country don't have your opinion. my God, they stormed the Capitol...
So you are willing to be satisfied with the fact many in Government are stating there is no to little fraud. That's great. But many are not satisfied
And to address your feel that I am suffering from cognitive dissonance. this is so ridiculous. Where in the world do you have the right to say such a thing? I am sure I could come back with an insult, but your very statement said so much about your attitude.
My thoughts that preceded Jan 6th is that we would have violence due to many feeling voter fraud has not been fully addressed I had hoped to prevent what happened on Jan 6th. Our Government has ignored the fact that many still are not willing to accept the election.
You have not in any respect understood my point. Your simple way of thinking about such a large problem eludes me. "Just accuse all that don't have your opinion as suffering from Cognitive dissonance. This may wash with liberals that truly love groupthink. many out there just are not of that kind of thought process. You may not like this fact, but it is a fact.
I might also say we can continue to not hear the people that feel at this point they have not been heard, and let it brew, or we can simply listen to them, and maybe offer some answers to stop what could be more violence.
You may not or can't comprehend many on the right are done with all the as what they see as BS.Sharlee: As well as many on the left are done with all the BS that Trump has created and he will never ever accept the blame for and will gladly shift the blame to others.
We all suffer from cognitive dissonance in one form or another at some point in time. I'm not afraid to admit it. It's part of our human nature.
MikeIt odd throughout this thread, no one asked my opinion on what part Trump played in stirring up the problem about voter fraud. they just assumed whatever they assumed I thought. I was addressing actually one subject he needs for Whistleblowers to be given an investigation. To hopefully actually give answers and prevent this mess from contiuing.
It all came down to can I bash her for her opinion of Trump. Yet I made all attempts to keep on the subject thought needed addressing.
I would guess I should have added how we came to need the inverstigation. Yes partially to Trump screaming about voter fraud, some just thinking simply about WB's need to be listened to. And yes many thinking --- hey they listened to.
It would seem we come about looking at a given problem differently. I decipher it to the very bit of a root. Maybe just consider we have many people with different feelings about voter fraud, and some need a bit more proof. Even if some feel the proof is plentiful, and some just think it's a draw but we need to take everyone's feelings into consideration.
I am realistic, if we don't listen to those screaming they are just going to scream louder.Sharlee: I read all about McEnany and her presentation of the whistleblower affidavits. It's a matter of proportion. This is from
Reince Priebus in the article I read.
'You can bring every single vote that matters and every one of your complaints and appeal each to the court of appeal,' he said.
'Where things do get dicey is can I bring a complaint the to Supreme Court that alleges ten votes and the court is looking at it and you lost by 19,000, they're not going to take it. It's important at some point, fraud has to meet a certain point to bring to the Supreme Court.'
Trump and his campaign have yet to present no substantial evidence of abuse and as of Tuesday evening, had filed no new cases today."
Here is the link to the article:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … r-BB1aTMqKI never dispute the number of fraudulent events. In fact, I claimed time and again I was sure the number of fraudulent acts would not in any respect come close to changing the outcome of the election.
I think you're assuming I feel the election could be overturned due to fraud. This is not the case. I felt if the allegations were investigated it would clarify two things --- respecting whistleblowers, and if fraud occurred those that committed it would be punished per Federal law. It would also offer the numbers... Which would stop all the rumors that the election was stolen.
I would guess it's water under the bridge at any point.
You are very correct Trump has not proven his allegations, but we are left with so many that believe him, now don't we?
Would have a simple investigation just perhaps solved the problem? And do you think this unrest, and feelings of being ignored will just go away?
Mike,
It like arguing with someone whose opining that the earth is flat, isn't it. I doubt that it would be that hard to find 250 Trump supporters whose opinion is the earth is flat and will write affidavits stating so.
So now because we have 250 people who swear the earth is flat, other Trump supporters will demand an investigation into whether the earth is flat or not. That is [b\exactly[/b] what we have here with these massive fraud fairytales. There is no evidence that the earth is flat and plenty of evidence it is round. Likewise, there is no evidence that there was massive fraud and plenty of evidence that there was none.
I thought that was the pinnacle of fantasy and until Jan 6 (and today when Lindsey Graham was roundly booed by Trump supporters for having the audacity to criticize Trump for inciting an insurrection by the MAGA terrorists).
It is good to see they are starting to arrest all of these domestic terrorists.As to impeachment, since Pence doesn't have the balls to implement the 25th Amendment, the Democrats and, I suspect, many Republicans will vote for impeachment on a single count of Inciting an Insurrection on Wednesday.
Assuming McConnell actually takes it up (which I think he is too cowardly to do), the vote to convict will start at 52 (meaning the 48 Democrats and Independents plus Romney, Sasse, Murkowski, and Collins will vote to convict).
Conviction will rest on how many Senators are willing to sink with Trump into political oblivion.So it is very clear by your statement you believe the 250 American's(all of them) are not to be believed. And this is because --- you say so. It would be people with your very mindset that would say the earth is flat. Can't you realize your analogy is describing you? I am very serious.
Actually, many have been looked into and easily dismissed. It's not because he thinks so, it's because the claims have no actual evidence of fraud. Please, list one that is credible. You keep saying you have 250 claims, let's hear a few of your most credible ones. Make your case.
Nope, didn't say that did I? I said that if you found 250 people who signed affidavits that the earth was flat, you would call for an investigation even though you know the earth is not flat.
Since you don't yet deny there was massive fraud (the flat earth) and you are calling for investigations, it only makes sense you are calling for investigations into massive fraud.Please add the statement where I claimed there was or could be massive fraud? It would seem you are baiting. A bit obvious.
Why have you yet to state with clarity that there is no massive fraud, that it is one big Trump lie.
It is simple to do, try it.
Just so nobody forgets how poorly Trump did containing Covid, today America reached 22,447,407 people catching this deadly disease with 378,086 of those dying a horrible death of which probably 250,000 who didn't need to die - BUT FOR TRUMP. Of the 378,086 dead Americans, 4,245!!!! died yesterday alone.
All this while Trump unleashes his minions on the Capital building.Nope, not my say so. Right now they are just part of your imagination since you have provided no proof they all exist (save for the few that were part of lawsuits and found lacking of merit)
American entrusted a madman with the nuclear code yet Twitter can't trust him with a twitter account because he has proven himself to be too dangerous, lol. (Gen Millie assured Nancy Pelosi Trump couldn't start a nuclear war.)We've asked you multiple times now to show some evidence of validity that these 250 claims make. It's been two months. If they were so convincing, Trump would have published them everywhere. The fact that you cannot produce any of them undercuts your entire argument.
Perhaps you could check back when the conversation started I provided how I came about my opinion. Not willing to repeat me. I have claimed we all have opinions. And actually, if you don't care for mine that would be your problem. I have been polite, and on several occasions made an attempt to be polite and asked that we --- agree to disagree. At this point, I am no longer going to argue my opinion. It would seem futile.
And that's, again, our point. All you have is an opinion without fact. Allegations without proof. Actually, allegations you haven't really seen, just someone showing you a notebook with papers in it and alleging they are credible allegations.
To say it another way, an "opinion" based on delusion and fantasy, is not an "opinion" at all - it is just delusion and fantasy. And I have said this before - a REAL opinion has to be based on something REAL.
Scott: I think this started the whole thing about the whistleblowers. It was Kayleigh McEnany on Neil Cavuto's show. According to her, she was acting in a personal capacity and not Trump's press secretary. She presented a closed notebook of 250 affidavits from Michigan whistleblowers claiming there was voter fraud.
As she was making her presentation, Neil Cavuto shut her down and went to commercial because of the risk of presenting unsubstantiated claims as fact. The next day she was on Hannity's show making the same presentation.
Sharlee picked up on this and she feels if those claims were looked at, the rioters and she would be satisfied and there would be peace in Trump land once again. Here are several articles stating what really happened.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/12/tech … sults.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … fraud.html
https://www.newsweek.com/michigan-elect … mp-1546698
Sharlee, if I'm wrong, please correct me.Ah, I remember hearing about that from her.
"But Ms. Jacob’s affidavit was the only one of its kind from Detroit and contained no corroboration of her charges. " - Heard and found wanting.
"Ms. McEnany said, holding up a thick stack of documents. The documents, she claimed, were more than 200 pages of “sworn affidavits from real people” about to be filed in yet another case." - assuming each affidavit was one page, we are down from 250 to something close to 200.
What were those so-called "affidavits" from which "opinions" were formed? "the affidavits Ms. McEnany touted turned out to be largely a grab bag of complaints by Republican poll watchers who felt uncomfortable in Detroit or who said local elections officials had treated them unkindly." - So the 250 whistleblower complaints were apparently heard and thrown out.
I do have to agree with Sharlee about one thing - she has been polite in her responses while I have been uncharacteristically blunt.Scott: I hope this puts this to bed and we can rest. I'm so tired of Trump and company including Hannity, Carlson, Limbaugh, Levine, Ingram and all the other right wing radical MAGA media BS. I long for the days of the Fairness Doctrine.
I was originally opposed to impeaching Trump a second time but have come around to believe it must be done, whether he is convicted or not.
Since Pence doesn't have the balls to impose the 25th Amendment to protect America from Trump in these last few days, Trump's actions cannot go unpunished. Being the ONLY president to be impeached twice will be a blow to his extremely fragile ego and hopefully will make him suffer (not as much, I bet, as losing his twitter privileges).
The best outcome, of course, is the Senate convicts him after Biden is inaugurated and he is barred from ever running again.
I don't agree with those that say this will be too much of a distraction for Biden's first days. I argue that it will be more of a distraction as America deals with an unpunished insurrection. It just can't be ignored.
Of course the best justice will be if Trump dies in jail at the ripe old age of 100.
Another hope is Giuliani and Don Jr. will be investigated for their part in inciting an insurrection. I understand Alex Jones is in deep trouble now.
I became concerned about Whistleblowers first by hearing some of the people here in Michigan on our local news providing their claims, as well as our newspapers. I became more concerned as our local TV news showed what truly did go on at our Detroit Wayne Count counting center. The police had to be called several times due to poll watchers being first pushed out to counting areas, then after letting back in they were prevented from seeing the count due to cardboard being placed up to obstruct the views. I then followed the actual two lawsuits filed by poll watchers that had signed affidavits claiming fraud. The very two cases I offered here were dismissed due to a judge ruling lack of evidence.
I then continued daily to take time searching local papers in all the states Trump was filing lawsuits, just trying to find actual rulings To ascertain if what the media was implying that the multiple cases were not considered due to lack of evidence. I certainly knew this was not true, due to reading so many rulings. The majority of cases were ruled to be procedural problems and merit. Many cases were not at all about evidence but state laws Trump felt were not followed. To add to my aggravation, I watched the televised Legislative hearings in multiple states. And was able to hear firsthand Whistleblowers offer their claims of voter fraud. (none of which would have given numbers to change election outcone.
I just offered my opinion on what I saw and researched. I am not sure why so many have become concerned about my opinion. I certainly am not going to change my opinion due to it making some uncomfortable. I certainly have come to my opinion after research. I did not consider anything I may have picked up from talk jocks. I don't respect that form of news reporting.
This is one of the articles that really spurred me on to do some research.
We had over 100 citizens here in Michigan sign affidavits that claimed they witnessed voter irregularities.
https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/pol … explained/
I saw a problem brewing on social media due to the Whistleblowers allegations. I saw on my Own Facebook post from Trump to come to Washington on Jan 6th... I had hoped an investigation would prove perhaps all the screaming about large scale voter fraud could be proven to be incorrect. Trump's base truly believes there was widespread fraud. It is my hope they move on, but I think that even a short investigation would have served us all.
This mess has truly divided the country. We now have people that are willing to hit the streets with what they think is a very righteous porpose.
Once again it's Saturday, and here in Michigan, we have Trump rallies in our local towns. These rallies are held every Saturday morning. These people are peaceful, but madder than hell.
So would have an investigation helped? In my opinion,
it just might have.
This morning what I see on right-leaning social media --- Biden's speech where he claimes that the Jan 6th protesters were handled differently than the BLM protesters... What they see as Biden radebaiting. And words like that will heal the country? My Gosh, this kind of politicking is disgusting and dangerous. Pitting black against white. And his ploy worked as
I said now we have many looking at Biden as a race-baiter.
Maybe just maybe for Americans to step back and have a long hard look at what is being projected by our politicians as well as media.
Me, I am keeping my distance from both sides. I don't agree with either, I can see we are being turned against one another. IT is so clear it scares me so many don't see it. I am not willing to live in a man-made
frenzy.Sharlee, it is this kind of statement that drives me to being blunt. You claim "It is my hope they move on, but I think that even a short investigation would have served us all." as if no investigations have been done at all.
The fact is dozens and dozens of investigations have occurred but it appears you ignore them and will continue to do so until you see the specific kind of investigation that you will believe.
The most damning investigation of all were the ones conducted by Bill Barr and the Justice Department. Can you explain what you find objectionable to a Bill Barr investigation??
There were several other investigations, recounts, etc conducted by AZ, GA, WI, MI, and PA and what did each and every one of those find? There was no fraud, or if a couple of ballots were found, not enough fraud to make a difference. What did you find objectional about all of those investigations?
You have never explained why you find that no "merit" is not a sufficient answer to throw out affidavits. Can you explain why this is so?
Finally you have the ruling of dozens of judges who looked at the evidence presented and in all but one case, found them to be meritless. Why do you maintain there was merit and the affidavits are worth investigating?]/i].
I will grant you a very small handful of cases were tossed on "procedural grounds". [i]Why do you focus on those couple of three cases and ignore the dozens more where the evidence was looked at and found insufficient?
Why won't you answer these questions directly?
Now to race-baiting. You don't think Trump is that? And why do you have a problem with Biden pointing out the obvious? As I watched the response to the insurrectionists I commented to my wife now nice they were treating these terrorists. Is that not a problem for you?Sharlee: I read your article and basically, you are saying you don't trust the judges ruling on the affidavits and you want further investigations into the claims of voter fraud, only then will you be satisfied that everything has been done to validate their claims.
But you have stated, it doesn't matter what the outcome is, Joe Biden will still become president because there are not enough claims to change the outcome.
So your main concern is you want those 200 claims to be investigated, even if the judge says they are unsubstantiated. And you believe the rioting and vandalizing will then stop, because those people and the insurrectionists have heard that their claims were investigated?NoI did not imply I don't trust the judges, not at all. They gave their opinions, I was not availed of the information the couple WB's offered in their case. I was pointing out these were two cases out of multiple that was ruled on not even making mention of evidence. The media played the lack of evidence up to pretty much blanket in all cases. Just not a fact.
Do you realize only two cases actually made mention of lack of evidence?. My gosh, I can't be any clearer. It is you say the other claims were investigated. Offer proof of that. And please don't post links to the two I have cited as judges ruling on lack of evidence. It the media telling you all is fine, all have been investigated. Think what you please. I sure am not going to change my opinion. I have read a load of rulings.
I felt it did not have to come to rioting. If Trump was proved to be claiming hundreds of thousand committed fraud, and the truth was outed... It would serve to provide offer respect to those that wanted an investigation, and offer facts. The fact would have been, yes there was a fraud, as in all of our elections, but it was not enough to overturn the election.
You are just reading into my opinion. I am a very common sense person and saw this coming. It will only get worse. Many in Washington wanted a special counsel to investigate. This certainly would have helped.
And yes, I think if people are given facts, they would more likely see that Trump lost. I also think those that did commit voter fraud should be punished, and it would perhaps deter others in the future to do the same. Call me crazy, we have laws do we not?Mike, maybe it will help if we do them one at a time. I will keep a case count.
CASE 1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk … 5f93e112c4
The judge ruled there was no evidence: TOPLINE - A state judge in Nevada dismissed with prejudice the Trump campaign’s lawsuit trying to overturn the state’s election results Friday, ruling the campaign had no evidence to prove its allegations of voter fraud and thwarting the Trump campaign’s attempt to challenge President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the state.
Sharlee: Do you agree that 1) this is not one of the two cases you mentioned and 2) the judge ruled there was no evidence?
I'll wait on your response.Sharlee: I re-read the top article I posted and it sounds to me that the ball is in Mckanany's court. She said she is going to continue to pursue her claims, but that it is going to take time. So it seems the only thing we can do is wait and see what she does. But by then, in all likely hood, Biden will already be in office. Trump has already sued the courts for many of those claims, but they were dismissed for lack of evidence.
Mckanany certainly bears responsibility for holding the pile of affidavits on TV at least three times, one of which was at a White House press conference. She openly claimed she had over 259 sworn affidavits from American citizens that had complaints or alligations of some form of voter fraud. I had not heard she is intending to pursue their allegations. I have no reason not to believe Mckanany, she certainly made very clear statements about the affidavits.
As I have said I do not in any respect think the numbers would overturn the election. AG Barr's statement was also clear.
"To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election,” Barr told the news service."
I am pleased to hear Mckanany is going to look into the claims.
Question - would it still be "cognitive dissonance" if one refuses to consider evidence they fear they might like? If they pretend it doesn't exist, or that it is all fake without ever looking at it? Would that be "cognitive dissonance"?
Wilderness:
"Question - would it still be "cognitive dissonance" if one refuses to consider evidence they fear they might like?"
Sure people who believe the election was stolen are afraid to consider the evidence that they might like it, because it would conflict with their values and beliefs..
"If they pretend it doesn't exist, or that it is all fake without ever looking at it?
Sure that is precisely what happened when people think there is wide spread voter fraud without looking at the real evidence that was determined by all the judges, the AG, and counting and re-counting of the ballots ad nauseum. Again, it conflicts with their values and beliefs.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-co … ce-2795012I think Wilderness was actually referring to some who won't accept the fact we have 250 people that may just have evidence of fraud. They feel it just easier to dismiss them than to face what they might say. Actually a classic case of cognitive dissonance.
I am thinking, since none of those 250 people are raising a stink, they don't exist. You have offered no proof of their existence.
Trump just lost his honorary degree from LeHigh University
Trump has been permanently banned from Twitter, driving an already insane man more insane (they also band Mike Flynn and Sydney Powell)
Apple is threatening to kick Parlor out of its app store unless they crack down on all of the dangerous postings.
Many in Trump's cabinet, what is left of it, have said they will no longer follow his orders if they look illegal.This proves systemic racism exists in America
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/us/dc-po … index.htmlWhat is your problem? Now you bring up systemic racism?
It's clear you are trolling me. Hopefully, you stop. I will write HP's if necessary. I have no wish to communicate with you. This is a forum that one can clearly pick and choose who they communicate with, and they're actually are standards of communication. Read them. IT's clear we don't share the same ideology, and it's clear you are resorting to getting very personal with your insults.
For the record, I have no argument with you and do not wish to communicate on any subject. You are trolling.Please write HP. It is my forum and I can bring up what pertinent topics I want on it.
But it would help if you dealt in truth and facts rather than Trump fantasies.
I always felt people that have a problem with cognitive dissonance seem to feel very uneasy, and uncomfortable if there is a great difference between their beliefs and someone else's beliefs. They have the need to be right all of the time, no matter what. They need little more than the belief that they are right. Hence they really can't and feel they don't have to give support to their given belief. As a rule, this form of thinking is a psychological crutch to help one prop up their sense of self. And yes, it would apply to someone that refuses to even consider the evidence they fear they might be right if it threatens their original thought.
.Sharlee: That sounds so familiar to me. It sounds just like you with the 250 whistleblowers...sorry, but I had to say it.
I disagree, I won't name names. I feel very sure of my opinion in regard to the 250 Whistleblowers. It certainly would have no fear of hearing what they have to say or what it might look like if I was right or wrong. I truly believed any and all whistleblowers should be heard. I don't make exceptions be it a Col. Vindman or a retired engineer from Michigan that offered information on voter fraud. Guess I just did not get the memo --- when it does not suit a purpose write them off... This all seems like a no brainer. What difference did you find in the witnesses that spoke up at the impeachment proceedings. They all got the chance to give their secondhand information. Why does it make you uncomfortable that these WB's be given the chance to offer their firsthand allegations?
So funny, my statement seems familiar? I was referring to many here on the forum. So, you are in good company.
Sharlee: I have not heard or seen from any of those who participated in the storming of the Capitol state your reasons for doing it, even the ones who were interviewed did not state that they wanted the whistleblowers to be heard.
I believe the main reason they were there is to stop the certification process. And they were successful to a degree. They caused it to pause. But in the end, they were not successful and many of them are going to be held accountable for their actions. Maybe, at that time they will express what your beliefs are for their motivation, but until that time, I believe me and many others are not going to believe that to be the prime reason they stormed the Capitol.
I'm no shrink, but with all due respect, I think you are using cognitive dissonance to justify your beliefs about what really took place. We all use cognitive dissonance to justify our beliefs to one extent or another.
It may pay for you to read this.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326738"Sharlee: I have not heard or seen from any of those who participated in the storming of the Capitol state your reasons for doing it, even the ones who were interviewed did not state that they wanted the whistleblowers to be heard."
I have on social media, that's pretty much become their voice. I see it on my very own Facebook page. Many were backing Ted Cruz's idea of a short investigation.
I also agree that many were there to protest the certification to show force. And no they did not accomplish what they had hoped to. So, where does that leave us? IMO it leaves us with many American's up in arms feeling even more not heard than ever... The main reason they voted for Trump they wanted to be heard. And you are very correct some went there to storm the Capital. Should this not be enough to make some pause and think? (My God)...
I guess you can believe what you want about why I feel an investigation was and still believe it is needed. And once and for all here is why. I can not state it more clearly.
It's all about being heard, it's all about being respected. It's all about listening putting one's own beliefs aside to listen to others. IT was mainly about stopping just pretty much what happened on Jan 6th. This might have been prevented. More could come, we could prevent more violence. &0 million people for one reason or another voted for Trump, and yes many have felt for the first time in a very long time (true or not) that they have been heard.
I still feel the Whistleblowers need to be listened to, heard, and maybe at that point many will see the numbers will not overturn the election. There is one way to point that out, to point out Trump is not correct in his statements about huge voter fraud --- and that way would have been a short investigation. Guess it makes too much sense.
Anyone that committed violence should be held accountable. I don't condone violence in any form. I did not condone the months that many cities were burned and looted, and the many deaths that surrounded these protests. I don't condone what was done on Jan6th. I condone American's being heard in a peaceful manner, and always when they step up as Whistleblowers.
I am no longer going to defend my opinion on the subject. Because I feel very good sticking to what I see as truth. My Dad always told me. "don't ever give up your truth or principles to fit a group narrative, if you do your opinion will soon just be what you are told it should be."
Sharlee, it isn't a matter of seeing different sides of the same issue with different points of view which leads to different conclusions. That is not this!
We are not even looking at the same coin, in fact, people like Panther and I see the coin, you are looking at and believing in a figment of Trump's imagination. Why you would do that is beyond me for sure, I'll have to research it.Whatever.. Maybe give it a break, you seem to be speaking down to me. I don't know if you realize this, but I don't respect your opinion on the subject at all. I find you very ill-informed on the subject. Believe whatever you please. It is clear you either have not read my comments on the subject or once again you do not comprehend the context. ONCE AGAIN I HAVE NOT USED TRUMP'S OPINION OR STATEMENT IN REGARD TO VOTER FRAUD TO COME INTO MY FORMING MY OPINION ON WHAT VOTER FRAUD MAY HAVE OCCURRED. GOT IT?
I am stepping away from this subject. I am not going to argue my point, it is unimportant at this point. Just have come to disrespect your lack of knowledge on the actual subject.Lol, now this is truly sad. Sharlee versus all these knowledgeable people (election officials, judges, law experts) and she knows better.
Groupthink at its best... The word sad is being overused... Your lack of knowledge on the subject is what's showing. I almost think you are not reading or following the thread. CNN University can only get you so far. Move on your comments are not only sad but repeditive. I would think I truly get under your skin, odd.
My goodness, you are determined to be on the wrong side of history. Are you going to be like the cheerleaders for the Iraq War who mysteriously no longer existed once it was shown to be a massive error in judgment? "Me? I knew all along it was a bad idea." I
Riiighht.I guess you feel so superior that you feel I should take what you offer as truth. Get over yourself. Now you being in the Iraq war. Let me make this clear. And this will blow you away. I am for no wars on foreign grounds unless it is a war to stop a form of genocide. You know like the Syrian war where we did nothing to prevent 500 thousand innocent citizens from being killed. Just call me crazy...
Here's the thing. I have been on these forums for years, since Dubta was president, and I have watched the same type of right-winger swallow lie after lie after lie as though they are eating candy, some more than others. But they never learn from it. They just keep on believing stupid conspiracy theories and made-up scare tactics to keep them.loyal to their leaders.
Iraq has WMDs - WRONG
Death panels will pull the plug on Grandma - WRONG
Gay marriage will destroy heterosexual marriages - WRONG
Obama was born in Kenya - WRONG
Obama will take away our guns - WRONG
The 2020 election was stolen - WRONG
Y'all never learn.And you may never realize how your opinion washes with your own leaning group but with all. Your opinions to me just sound illogical. To put it politely. It would appear you really don't have the ability to look at people as individuals or have room for other opinions. Groupthink works for you, that's where you find a comfortable space. I don't put it Y'all in one basket, that would be pretty unintelligent on my part.
You're right. Sorta. If an opinion is based on reality, I respect it. If it is based on fantasy, lies, propaganda or misinformation, I don't. All of the above list are things that were easily proven wrong yet right wingers argued them as though they were true.
You're right. I cannot respect an opinion when it is not reality-based.
By the way, I left one very important one off the list. Trump is a man who cares about America. WRONG. If anyone still believes this, they are simply not living in reality.I may have missed her answer in all the back-and-forth, but did Sharlee ever affirmatively say there was no massive fraud?
I think at one time she said there was not enough fraud to overturn the election. Her continued insistence that further investigation is needed is, to me, is the same as saying she doesn't believe the state officials and judges who have debunked or dismissed every claim of massive fraud. She keeps saying the citizens need to be heard, but they already have been heard.
She is denying reality, because that's what one must do to remain a defender of Trump's fantasy of election fraud. But now, after the sad events at the Capitol, continuing to lend credence to this fantasy is dangerously irresponsible. It must stop. Even Mitch and Lindsay say so. But Sharlee is hanging on to Trump's fantasy, doing her part to continue the madness.
I think it will be finally settled by SCOTUS on whether a president can pardon him or her ( or in case of Trump) itself.
No question in my mind that federal prosecutors will conclude their investigation by finding that Trump will be tried for insurrection among many other charges.
" And at this point looks like they are go8ng to fight for what they believe. How inconvenient." - YET what is "inconvenient" is that these idiots' whole so-called belief system is based on lies and misinformation.
I "believe" someone should die because "I think" they cheated me. Apparently the logic you just laid out gives me the right to kill that somebody, simply because I "believe" it to be true.
For a "belief" to be real, it must be based on reality. Their "beliefs" are based on pure fantasy.
It would seem that is what yours is as well Sharlee. You appear to buy into all of Trump's lies and discerption. That is sad.Not sure where you would get that idea I believe all any and all Trump has said. I have been discussing what may have incited many of his supporters to protest yesterday. My feeling is that they feel they are not represented in Washington. This has nothing to do with my thoughts on what Trump has verbally said in the past or present.
And once again your analogy is hyperbolic. I find you are overstepping your bounds to accuse me of having beliefs that are based on fantasy. This is a personal insult, and I don't appreciate it. Let's not presume that we know each other well enough to know each other's beliefs. If I were to take the same privilege I don't think you would appreciate it.
This type of question is so bias. Considering the unreasonable vitriol that family has endured for years, at the hands of unrealistic comments such as the OP, the debunked conspiracy theories pushed by the left, the intolerable hatred spewed across all left platforms.....i don't wonder that they would like some peace and not be subjected to more hypocritical and unhinged attacks.
In our country people can accuse anyone of anything. Whether true, or not. If I had the power to preemptively ensure I didn't have to waste money to defend myself against people with a proven track record of spreading lies about me...no doubt I would.And tell me exactly why it is "biased"? It is not a true rendering of the facts? Are facts "biased"?
What "conspiracy theories" pushed by the Left? The only one whipping out CTs is the Right - e.g., Trump won the election.
"waste money" - that is Trump's MO. He sues people until they give up. Case in point, all of the frivolous lawsuits he has and is filing trying to overturn the will of the people.
I Don't understand why they should go to jail and Bidens son should roam free.
Maybe. Maybe not. But they will spend the rest of their lives in courtrooms.
It well seems you are very sure that they will spend their lives in courtrooms. Perhaps you have the knowledge to answer the reason why?
You seem so sure, so sure of your opinion. Perhaps you could answer the questions I posed?
I have several times asked for clarification ---what Federal or any form of crime has President Trump and his children committed?
And when did president Trump state he was considering pardoning his children or himself? Has he done this? Can you provide a source where you found your information on the crimes you have stated are "clear"?Sharlee: How about for openers that he has been charged with 10 counts of obstruction of justice as a result of the Mueller investigation. The only reason he hasn't been tried is because he was and still is a sitting president. That's according to AG Barr's ruling. Trump knows that as soon he is no longer president that he is fair game for the courts. That's one of the reasons he wants to overturn Biden's election results.
"He has been charged with 10 counts of obstructions of justice as a result of the Mueller investigation". WOW, I must have missed something? Charged?
Highlights from former U.S. Special Counsel Mueller's testimony--
"Democratic Representative Hakeem Jeffries said that in ordering Don McGahn, then the White House counsel, to fire Mueller and then lie about it, Trump had “committed an obstructive act,” connected it to an official proceeding and “did so with corrupt intent,” which constituted obstruction of justice."
"Mueller responded: “Let me just say ... I don’t subscribe necessarily to the way you analyze that. I’m not saying it’s out of the ballpark. But I’m not supportive of that analytical charge.”
And you say --- "Trump knows that as soon he is no longer president that he is fair game for the courts. "
I must ask how you know this? Is it once again information you obtained from a media report, an opinion of a pundit? I am aware of the Mueller report and that he gave a very good statement that explains obstruction and his thoughts on if the president obstructs justice and would it be something that could be proved beyond a doubt.
I will leave it to time to see if Trump is charged with any crimes. But you ---you have stated he has been charged... Curious.
This is absolute nonsense.
"Donald Trump’s press secretary has denied there has been any discussion of pardons for the president’s family.
Kayleigh McEnany insisted she had not heard any White House conversations about pardons except for former national security advisor Michael Flynn."
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-press-secr … 00438.html
I SERIOUSLY doubt any member of the White House has blatantly broken more laws than Hillary Clinton. She's not been formally charged with anything.
It is a joke to think the children of President Donald Trump have done ANYTHING even close to the criminal activity of Hillary Clinton.
PUH-LEEEEZE!yes, puh-leeeeeeze. Trump is an angel in comparison to the Clintons. We all know that the Clintons have a HISTORY......HMMM......
The hypocrisy of Democrats and the Democrat party is beyond belief.
Trump was probably mislead by his advisors. It must be a bitter pill for him as he had stacked the SC with conservative judges and must be hoping they support him
You forget, Trump listens only to Trump. Advisors are for show. He has said as much many, many times. One of the few true things that comes out of his mouth.
That would be true, he probably falsely thought they would be die-hard loyalist and throw the Constitution out the window like he does.
Facts show how Biden benefited from voting machines.
"Fraud Investigator Who Sought to Disprove Sidney Powell Says His Analysis Shows Biden Did 1.5% Better Where Dominion Machines Were Deployed. Expert Recommends Audit.
“Statistical analysis of past presidential races supports the view that in 2020, in counties where Dominion Machines were deployed, the voting outcomes were on average (nationwide) 1.5% higher for Joe Biden and 1.5% lower for Donald Trump after adjusting for other demographic and past voting preference.
For Dominion to have switched the election from Trump to Biden, it would have had to have increased Biden outcomes (with a corresponding reduction in Trump outcomes) by 0.3% in Georgia, 0.6% in Arizona, 2.1% in Wisconsin, and 2.5% in Nevada. The apparent average of 1.5% “Dominion Effect” is greater than the margin in Arizona and Georgia, and close to the margin for Wisconsin and Nevada. It is not hard to picture a scenario where the actual effect in Wisconsin and Nevada was greater than the national average and would have changed the current reported outcome in those two states.
Assuming the “Dominion Effect” is real, it is possible that an audit of these machines would overturn the election.
These results are scientifically valid and have a p-value of less than 1%, meaning the chances of this math occurring randomly are less than 1 in 100.”
https://electionwiz.com/2020/12/12/frau … nds-audit/With the conversation turning to the Dominion voting machines I thought you might be interested in the testimony from Col. Waltron in regards to what he felt was done, and even the time it was done. He gave a very good presentation on the system, and how easily one can adjust vote count. This link has his full testamony.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNX_ygC9p2sWas his testimony in one of the 40+ court hearings?
No Col Waltron's was hired to give expert evidence on the Dominion voter system. He gave testimony in several states before state legistrators. He was well-received, asked very appropriate questions. he gave very comprehensive testimony.
There were no in-person witnesses to offer evidentiary evidence in person at any of the court hearings that I know of. The decisions that have been offered by the multiple judges have derived without live witnesses. Some judge's rulings did not state a lack of evidence. In fact, most offered rulings that did not include anything about the evidence. Such as latches, filed in the wrong court, filed too late, etc ...
At any rate, if you want to become acquainted with the Dominion machine that is used in many of our states, and what can be done to promote massive fraud with ease, become acquainted with what Col. Waltron offered.Then why didn't the Trump lawyers use him for sworn testimony? I have no trust in the Republican legislature sideshows as they were just political theater. I say that because nothing developed in these so-called "hearings" were sworn testimony in a court of law where there are consequences if you are making it up.
Most of the decisions by those judges, both Trump appointed and others, made a big deal that the plaintiffs had no witnesses to present, or, any other factual evidence.
For example from Trump appointed judges:
From the rebuke regarding the frivolous lawsuit (by a Party who once (but not now) hated such suits) filed by the corrupt TX AG, 128 dubious Republican representatives, and 17 Red State AGs who don't believe in the Constitution anymore we have this observation:
"The big one was Friday’s Supreme Court decision, in which the court declined to even accept a dubious filing from 18 Republican state attorneys general and the Trump campaign seeking to overturn the results in four states. Two justices offered a slightly more nuanced view — that the case should be accepted — but none were Trump appointees Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch or Brett M. Kavanaugh. What’s more, the two justices (Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas) also said they wouldn’t grant the requested relief, which was a significant rebuke in and of itself." - WHY did they say that?
Judge Brett H. Ludwig, WI, “This court allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case, and he has lost on the merits. In his reply brief, plaintiff ‘asks that the Rule of Law be followed.’ It has been.”
Judge Stephanos Bibas, PA, said “Charges of unfairness are serious,” Bibas wrote on behalf of a three-judge panel. “But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
Judge Steven Grimberg, “It harms the public interest in countless ways, particularly in the environment in which this election occurred. To halt the certification at literally the 11th hour would breed confusion and potentially disenfranchisement that I find has no basis in fact or in law.”
Trump called these personally hand-picked judges "activists", lol.
Then, of course, there were a ton of other state and federal judges appointed by both Republicans and Democrats who said similar things regarding the lack of evidence.
As to the Dominion voting machine, not a shred of verifiable evidence has been presented in a court of law that even comes close to suggest there was a problem that wasn't corrected on the spot.Once again, not one court proceeding ever reached the phase where witnesses are called to give testimony. The cases were tossed out. And no As to the Dominion voting machine, not a shred of verifiable evidence has been presented in a court of law ... I would look at this very differently than you. I feel he should have been heard as should all the 250 whisleblowers been heard. I feel anyone, that committed voter fraud down to just voting twice should be charged and punished accordingly or we should do away with the laws they broke.
Sharlee: The reason the whistleblowers were not called to give testimony is because they would risk perjury under oath.
You last sentence makes a huge assumption that there was voter fraud. What is it going to take to convince you and others that there was no voter fraud/
Trump and his lawyers presented claims of fraud 51 times and the courts threw out their claims each time. Even AG Barr said there was no wide spread fraud and he has always been on Trump's side. When the AG says there is no fraud, either you believe him or you don't. And if you don't that means you think he is lying. Do you think AG Barr was lying?Mike, doesn't this epitomize how crazy Trump supporters really are?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/16/us/forme … index.html
Another step on the way to put Trump and the Kids in jail.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/15/politics … index.htmlMike, have you read this from a top Trump aide?
“We need to establish herd [immunity], and it only comes about allowing the non-high risk groups expose themselves to the virus. PERIOD. Infants, kids, teens, young people, young adults, middle aged with no conditions etc. have zero to little risk [a lie]…so we use them to develop herd…we want them infected.”
A few weeks later, he emailed Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn and nine other officials to say: “[i]t may be that it will be best if we open up and flood the zone and let the kids and young folk get infected” in order to reach “natural immunity…natural exposure.”
That fraud of a doctor Scott Atlas said much the same thing, just not quite as directly. Then of course, Trump repeated that idea from both of them.
Sharlee, Wilderness, RMN - do you understand this means that Trump wanted each of you to get sick with covid (assuming you are not in the high risk group) He also wanted your kids, cousins, spouses, parents, etc to catch Covid as well.
Now we know why Trump lied to America and downplayed Covid and why we have over 300,000 Americans dead today. And why we will have more than 500,000 dead soon after Biden takes office. Yet, with all that purposeful death, America will be far away from his fake "herd immunity".
Don't you Trump supporters feel totally used now?I recall as a child that parents intentionally exposed their children to chicken pox (I believe that was the disease) because everyone was going to get it one day and small children suffered very little from it. Older children and adults, on the other hand, had a very tough time when they caught it.
Were they wrong, evil incarnate as you find Trump is, in doing that? Do you know, somehow, that a vaccine will give unlimited protection (no one else does - do you)? Or do you believe that we can effectively cower in our homes forever and maintain a good life? What information are you using to declare that there WILL be a cure before economies collapse from shutdowns?Wilderness: Sick people can't work, so the economy will be shutdown anyway. Can you imagine how quickly the virus would spread and how many people would die or be too sick to work? Granted some would recover, but how much time would it take to bring the economy back?
Today over 5,000 people died from the virus in one day. In my opinion, it takes a strong work force to bring back the economy. Herd immunity does not make a strong economy.
You call it cowering in our homes. Survival is based on how well a system or people can adapt to change. When people think their freedoms are being taken away from them by following CDC guidelines, I think they do not want to adapt to change because it is too much work for them to adapt. You call it cowering and maintaining a good life."Sick people can't work, so the economy will be shutdown anyway." - There is that to.
"Herd immunity" the way Wilderness and Trump want to do it, will keep the economy in recession for a long time. Had Trump done his job, we might have been out of the recession already because:
1. Less people would be sick today and be able to work
2. Far less people would be dead today and be able to work
3. There would have been prescription rapid tests available many months ago for businesses to use on a large scale to contain coronavirus in the workforce (I am FINALLY getting my first shipment today for my staff so we can hold a xMas party for those who test negative)
4. There would have been OTC rapid tests available many months ago so that proper surveillance could be done - the FDA just approved one yesterday. If you buy one and use it, the results are reported to the FDA.
Why do that? Contact tracing and much more effective mitigation.
Trump did none of those things. Instead he wanted people to get sick with some of them dying, with more of them becoming "long-haulers", with many more of them getting really sick, with a lot of all of the those (except the dead ones) with temporary or permanent emotional and psychological problems. That is what Wilderness and Trump want.
In your last paragraph, what you are saying is those conservatives you are talking about simply do not care about the health of anyone else including their own loved ones. Sad, but it goes with being a conservative.today France +18,254 new cases today258 dead population 65,340,247
Today UK+35,383 new cases 532 dead population 68,050,379
today Italy +18,236 new cases 683 dead population 60,420,630
All three of the leaders from these countries have had COVID19
I could literally go on and on.
So if I was to ascribe to your attitude all of the leaders in most of the world seem to have set out to kill their population as you have accused our President. Are these leaders all conservative in nature? Do they not care for their citizens?
This statement makes no sense at all ---
"There would have been OTC rapid tests available many months ago so that proper surveillance could be done - the FDA just approved one yesterday."
This test needed to be developed for this particular BRAND NEW VIRUS. The company Ellume Ellume has been able to fast-track the development of its range of COVID-19 diagnostic tests with the support of a $30 million WP-2 grant from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH)’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) initiative. The information in regard to the at-home tests was handed over to the FDA as soon as the studies were complete. Our Government has literally put out billions of dollars for research and development projects to bring tests, vaccines, and pharmaceuticals to treat COVID. I become disgusted with hearing the Government has failed. In reality, I am so grateful for how the crisis is being handled. You seem more than ready to insult Trump for many things he has handled superbly. Perhaps you just don't understand what is required what is needed to truly treat or contain an unknown virus?
I hope you understand with a new virus we had nothing in regards to testing all had to be researched and developed. The virus strain was needed to create tests, meds, as well as vaccines. none of the above were as yet completely developed. So, please stop saying Trump should have been able to obtain any of the above.I hate hubpages sometimes. I had a lot of numbers for you then poof - gone. I will create it later and take the easy stuff now.
"This statement makes no sense at all ---" - Maybe this will help. Had Trump applied Operation Warp Speed to developing a rapid test, there would have been one months ago - but he didn't did he, NO. He focused only on developing a vaccine (which was a historic success!) He did nothing else. Even his self-vaunted so-called "ban" on travel was just a half measure. Tell me, why didn't he invoke the Defense Production Act in developing a rapid test?
"This test needed to be developed for this particular BRAND NEW VIRUS. " - AND that would be true. Problem is the same is true for developing a vaccine - except much, much harder.
Our gov't put out billions of dollars? Oh, and when did Trump start investing in a rapid test. Let me tell you it wasn't in Feb or Mar or Apr. It wasn't until late April 29th that NIH stood up that program and later when they funded it.
I am quite aware this was a "novel" virus. But they knew in January this was a deadly pandemic. They already had a plan in hand that gave them guidelines on how to act, but because it came from Obama they threw it in the trash can and
All the while Trump kept saying testing wasn't needed, in fact testing increased the number of cases. Face it, Trump did not want testing, let alone rapid testing. What did he want, he wanted people to get sick, he wanted you, Sharlee, to get sick so you can be part of his "herd".
From Feb on, the experts kept saying lots and lots and lots of testing of all types was needed to control the virus. Tell me, why did Trump actively oppose this? Why wasn't there an Operation Warp Speed for rapid tests? They had the virus strain in very early January, btw.Noting what you have stated makes any real sense to me. I have followed facts, deeds. You have followed snippets from media, it is very clear we will never agree on Trump's handling of the virus. There is just so much you are not aware of.
And I would say there is so much you ignore because it doesn't fit your Trump-view of the world. You simply do not deal with facts, even though you think you do. You have never stated one provable fact where Trump did the same things most of the rest of the world did to avoid the worst of the virus.
No one in the world, except Trump supporters, denies that Trump did the worst job of anybody, including Russia and Brazil, in protecting it citizens from coronavirus. There are simply no facts that fall your way to support a contrary claim.
Now to the numbers that disappeared.
To start with, the population of America is about 330 million, you need that to normalize the data you presented. Next, yesterday's new case count was 237,872 and new death count was 3,400.
Then one needs to convert your false equivalencies into numbers that compare with ours (I will use yesterday's numbers instead of yours, but they are similar).
France: Population 65 million; conversion factor 5.08.
-- Equivalent new case count - 18,254 x 5.08 = 92,703 (much, much smaller!)
-- Equivalent new death count - 376 x 5.08 = 1,910 (much, much smaller!)
UK: Population 68 million; conversion factor 4.85.
-- Equivalent new case count - 35,383 x 4.85 = 171,608 (much smaller!)
-- Equivalent new death count - 532 x 4.85 = 2,580 (much smaller!)
Italy: Population 60 million; conversion factor 5.5.
-- Equivalent new case count - 18,163 x 5.5 = 99,896 (much smaller!)
-- Equivalent new death count - 683 x 5.5 = 3,757 (a little larger - which begs the question as to why they are different)
Setting aside the Italian new deaths, I don't think these Facts support the assertion you were trying to make. It does support mine, however.
"I hate hubpages sometimes. I had a lot of numbers for you then poof - gone. I will create it later and take the easy stuff now.
"
I feel your pain. I stay logged into HP, and I can view and submit comments, (without previewing), yet, when I post a long comment I get no warning before the 'log in again' screen pops up and I lose the entire comment.
HP should be able to fix this. And, after repeated user comments I find it hard to believe they aren't aware of the problem.
GAI say I hate Hubpages but probably a more honest comment, at least for what happens to me, is I hate my computer - and maybe my fingers. Normally what seems to happen is I hit two keys at once or something or the heal of one had or the other rubs over the touchpad and the computer goes somewhere else. Most of the time when I get back to the forum, it is still there. But this time, after 10 minutes of putting numbers together, that happened and then 10 minutes are wasted. Frustrating to the max.
Yes, they were wrong. By doing that, they probably killed a few of their kids who reacted badly. (But then they were weak and some conservatives think they shouldn't anyway or, 'whats a few more deaths anyway, they happen all the time') I presume you are pro-life. Don't you find that ironic?
Of course you must make false statements such as "Or do you believe that we can effectively cower in our homes forever and maintain a good life? " - Besides you, who says that is even a possibility or even happening now? Get a grip on reality, Wilderness.
What shutdowns? Is it really you are afraid of overpopulation? Just asking as I am looking for a reason why a few hundred thousand more deaths have no meaning to you. Sorry to be blunt, but that is how you come across."Yes, they were wrong. By doing that, they probably killed a few of their kids who reacted badly. (But then they were weak and some conservatives think they shouldn't anyway or, 'whats a few more deaths anyway, they happen all the time') I presume you are pro-life. Don't you find that ironic?
"
Well, I knew I wouldn't have to look far. ;-)
poke . . . poke . .. Speaking of getting a grip on reality . . .
GA
Scott: That could be why Trump didn't want anybody following the CDC guidelines during his rallies. He wanted his supporters to become infected by the virus in order to propagate heard immunity.
It makes sense to me and he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Not that he would have cared, but he is lucky (and so are they) that no one has died yet in his immediate circle. (Of course if they do, he will call them losers)
Please read this article it gives a good description of the entire scenario in regards to the information you posted in regards to Paul Alexsander. It gives actually a good description of the fact Alexsander's theories were not respected or even considered. The facts show he gleaned no respect for his suggestion of using herd immunity on the population and was let go.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/1 … egy-446408
Throughout the pandemic, Dr. Fauci has stated the Trump
the administration has been very open to all of what he recommended in regards to mitigations for the virus.Sharlee: I call B.S., That's why Fauci and Birx were put out to pasture for many months. Trump did not want to hear the science. He wanted to politicize the virus for his own good, but it backfired.
I have developed my opinion in regards to what I heard from Fauci's multiple interviews, and his early on taskforce press conferences. He seemed to at times contradict Trump's opinion, but in the next breath claim, Trump listened to him, took his advice even it would appear he may not have agreed with him.
I really believe the task force did their very best to contain the virus, and that Operation Wrap speed was truly the only way to follow the science of a virus that was so virulent. The taskforce did their job recommending very good mitigations. The majority of the public, in my opinion, made good prudent decisions to follow the recommendations, some did not. This would have been expected in a society as large as our's in
America. It speaks poorly of some.
I don't feel anyone could or ever will be able to control a virulent brand new virus. I am very well acquainted with the science of viruses. And unfortunately, there would be very few methods to completely stop the thread. Complete quarantine, a lengthy period to build a huge herd or a vaccine that will promote less spread while we build a huge herd with the accompaniment of a vaccine that herd will be built quickly. So, in my opinion, Operation Wrap Speed is our savior and was the science we needed to follow. Again when dealing with an open and free society it would be very tough to control a virulent virus.
One can put blame on however they please in reality it was up to us as citizens to do what we could. I think the majority did a great job.
I live in Michigan, we had the most draconian mitigations, we still do. We have some of the worse stats anyone could dream of...
In my opinion, the media has spurred on a great division in regards to the virus, and actually we as citizens had come together to do our best. And all just to further bash Trump. Well, I for one kept my head on my shoulders, and I see all was done to stop this virus as quickly, in fact much quicker than science would predict. Just my view."I don't feel anyone could or ever will be able to control a virulent brand new virus. " - Sharlee, then why have many, many, many other countries done just that? Have they eradicated it? No. But, they have contained it orders of magnitude better than Trump did. Why?
Name one that is doing well? LOL
We are all in the same boat. Most leaders have also had the virus.Iceland, New Zealand, Australia, Thailand, Japan ... I will stop there as the list is too long. Let me put it this way, in terms of deaths per million there are 208 nations of various sizes that are doing better than Trump's America. If you assume that a death rate 1/2 that of ours as doing much better than us, then a whopping 180 nations are leaving America in the dust.
Looking at cases per million, now we have 213 (there are only a total of 220 nations) doing better than America. Again, looking at a case rate of 1/2 of ours, that means there are 168 nations doing MUCH better than America.
How is it, Sharlee, you can simply ignore such data and still say Trump has done a "great" job when the evidence CLEARLY shows he has done a crappy job and has been responsible for hundreds of thousands of excess deaths in America. How can you be so blind???She digs deep, does her research, and deals in facts, doncha know?
That's mean. We all dig, and we all hope to find support for what we are looking for. Whether one agrees with that supportive result is another matter, but your response was inappropriate. You could easily as just disagree without the petty barb.
GAMaybe. If one repeatedly proclaims oneself to be a person who digs deep and deals in facts, and also proclaims "this entire election has been a joke and showed that America has many citizens that have little some[sic] no common sense," and also repeatedly states that Trump has done a "wonderful job" handling the pandemic, doesn't that invite scrutiny of one's self-proclaimed research abilities?
But, that's okay. I guess because I haven't done as much research and I don't deal in facts I have this crazy notion that this election was just as secure as the last one and I inexplicably think Trump's pandemic response is the worst among civilized nations. No common sense, I guess.
I like to speak my criticisms directly and openly. I will own them. I've noticed certain others like to couch them and hide behind vague generalities. I guess I'm just mean.
Mike, I wonder if Trump supporters are wondering why their hero is so silent on his benefactor and role model's almost year long attack on the United States? I guess they think this is fake news and there is nothing there, there.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/17/politics … index.html
Oh yeah, he is totally silent on 17 million covid cases, almost 310,000 covid deaths, a rising unemployment, a continuing recession - in other words an America in total crisis. Nope, he only tweets fake news and lies. God, what a pathetic excuse for a human being he is.
Sharlee, I had previously read that article and was one of my sources. I read it again and I don't see where you drew your conclusion. I already provided Alexander's quotes from it about using you as on of the people in his herd. Here is what else I got out of it:
"Alexander was a top deputy of Caputo, who was personally installed by President Donald Trump in April to lead the health department's communications efforts. Officials told POLITICO that they believed that when Alexander made recommendations, he had the backing of the White House."
"Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), who chairs the coronavirus subcommittee, said in a statement that the documents "show a pernicious pattern of political interference by Administration officials."
"As the virus spread through the country, these officials callously wrote, 'who cares' and 'we want them infected,'" Clyburn added. "They privately admitted they ‘always knew’ the President’s policies would cause a ‘rise’ in cases, and they plotted to blame the spread of the virus on career scientists."
Now it also says in the article that people like Azzar, Fauci, and Redfield renounced Alexander's type of herd immunity as they should - but - that wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about Trump's acceptance of it and his subsequent actions and words in support of it.
Fauci and Redfield are why we should listen to scientists and not Trump.
As to what Fauci said, that was 1) necessary to keep the peace and 2) historic; he hasn't talked to Trump in months and months. Instead, Trump brought on that quack to listen to.
Once again, not one court proceeding ever saw enough prima facie evidence to get to that stage. Time and Time again, Trump appointed judges and others lambasted Trump, Giuliani, et al, that they had no facts and they had no evidence to present - only conspiracy theories.
To Repeat just one of those judges, in case you missed it, "Judge Brett H. Ludwig, WI, “This court allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case, and he has lost on the merits."
Why is that so hard for you to comprehend, Sharlee? Why do you buy into all of the fraud that Trump and his "legal" surrogates inundate you with? Can you explain that for it really confounds me.
On another note along the same line - MoscowMitch finally broke with you and Trump and belatedly congratulated Joe Biden on winning the election after 38 days of cowardly silence.
CNN's Anderson put it this way about the unAmerican Majority Leader:
"And for what? [waiting such an embarrassingly long time] As Anderson Cooper put it Tuesday, for acknowledging Biden's win "after six weeks, dozens of court cases, two Supreme Court rejections, one fascist rally, four stabbings, countless threats against officials who are just doing their jobs, and more than $200 million in deceptive Trump fundraising."
And I see no one could answer my question as to BTW, can someone tell me why various state officials and electors had to have police protection from Trump supporters.Anderson Cooper, come on... I would think you would know my reaction to anything he might say --- a mere talk jock...
Your question is a fair one, I must have missed it. In regards to why some officials and electors may need or have required police protection. I can only offer an opinion. many American's are angry for many reasons. Some protesting the election due to many reasons, such as possible fraud, a court system they may feel is failing the people, a man that became president with little campaigning and appearing confused winning the election. And add into that a general dislike for those on the left ideologies. Some citizens on the right are willing at this point to make threats, and yes get out and protest angrily. Perhaps to forwarn of what's to come if their concerns are not dealt with. Just as so many on the left have protested for many reasons in the last months and also threatened officials. It would seem some on the right are fighting fire with fire. Giving the left back what they have dished out.But Cooper, unlike your heroes, talks the truth. Yours lie incessantly - almost as much as Trump.
But here is the difference. Those on the Left who protested (not rioters, those aren't leftist, just criminals) had very good reason to.
Those on the Right have no reason. The election was fair and square, nobody disagrees with this. Was there a little bit of fraud? Of course there was - as there is in every election. Widespread fraud, on the other hand, is simply a conspiracy theory - no more, no less.
What they are angry at and the reason they are willing to do harm to others just doing their jobs is they hate the idea their man lost.
Also keep in mind, it is the extreme Right that has been declared terrorists by the Trump administration, none on the Left have. Why is that?
Why is it that it those Americans on the Right that have hurt and killed more Americans than those Americans on the Left?In regards to Cooper --- First, it is your opinion he tells the truth. Which I won't dispute. I have always found him inappropriate with inappropriate comments. Comments that were not fitting a Journalist or what I consider Cooper, a talk jock. A bit back on his show he referred to President Trump as --- "An orange turtle on his back kicking".
It would appear there was fraud committed using several methods. And the Senate hearing yesterday added even more light on the scope of the fraud., as well on the many court rulings being procedural and nothing to do with the evidence. As I have stated before, there actually were only a couple of rulings that even brought up "lack of evidence". Those were pounded by media used as tasty food for those that hoped to hear there was no evidence. The majority of the rulings were procedural -- latches, filling problems, and the court feeling the case was filed in the wrong court. I followed many of the cases as they were tossed out, so I was able to keep up with the rulings. I feel the evidence needs to be carefully looked at by the courts, and it has not been as of yet. And it is clear it will not be.
Most arrested were the most left protesters.
That speaks for itself. BLM is a left group, they are responsible for most of the riots we witnessed throughout the summer.Sharlee: So you watched many court proceeding about voter fraud being committed. I'm curious to know if in any of those proceedings were any of the claimants sworn under oath? I really don't know the answer, but if they were not, it is a pretty good indication that they would have perjured themselves under oath. Please let me know.
As far as Anderson Cooper being a talking head and saying one derogatory remark about Trump, how do you feel about all the right wing talk jocks on right wing shows? Hannity, Carlson, Ingram, Levine, Limbaugh and others having prostituted themselves for the big bucks they get paid to put down the left and liberals. Hannity alone earns over 30 million per year.
The night of the certification, I watched Hannity's show and all he could talk about is Hunter Biden. Then he brought Mc Kenany and Sanders on and all they talked about is how Trump has been victimized by the left for his time in office and all the left wanted to do was bring him down as president.
As far as talking heads go, you would be hard pressed to find an outlet on both sides that didn't have talking heads, unless you go all they way back to Walter Cronkite and the Huntley Brinkly Report.
That is the business model that both sides use because it brings in ratings and ratings equal money in their pockets. You can thank Reagan for removing the Fairness Doctrine and Rumpert Murdoch for Fox News. Before that, we truly did have fair and balanced news and it came on for one hour in the evening.Not the court proceedings, I never found one to be televised I watched each legislative hearing. These were the hearings that witnessed as well as one expert witness a Col Waldron did have the opportunity to offer the testimony from their individual affidavits. None of the witnesses have yet made it into a court of law. All cases have been tossed out most due to procedural problems I believe two or three were thrown out due to lack of evidence. I am not sure why you feel over 250 citizens would commit perjury. Many of these witnesses have provided handwritten documents where they actually listed ballots numbers that were tampered with in one way or another. It would be easy to prove the truth by checking the ballad for the said fraud the witness was claiming. I am not as a spectacle as you in the respect that our citizens would lie in a court of law.
We are in agreement that many if not all talk jocks all make derogatory remarks. And yes, Hannity has derogatory names for many. No argument there... I don't care for that kind of reporting. I find it sad for any networks that promote this kind of reporting. This is what the majority of American's seem to be attracted to. Razzle dazzle them... In my opinion, the media is leading American's down a dangerous path. "Just believe what I tell you" kind of journalism is very dangerous. To each their own.
Why Col. Waldron was not called as a witness. again not one court case was taken up, and hence none ever made it to the evidentiary phase. You need to consider the cases were tossed out. Please note that the rulings you offered did not mention anything about evidence.
I looked up this guys "testimony" and now understand where some of the conspiracy theories come from.
The Detroit News gets into 8 debunked claims by Waltron - https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ … 824210001/
Waldron can't back up his claims in Georgia - https://www.newsweek.com/trump-campaign … gs-1552257
BTW, can someone tell why various state officials and electors had to have police protection from Trump supporters. They even had to keep the AZ elector meeting location secret to protect them from attack by those who wanted Trump to win. You remember AZ don't you? They are the ones who were asking if these Trump stalwarts were willing to "lay down their lives" to keep Trump president. WOW!!As I have mentioned most cases were not heard due to procedural problems. I believe there were two that the judges mentioned lack of evidence.
RMN:
“Statistical analysis of past presidential races supports the view that in 2020, in counties where Dominion Machines were deployed, the voting outcomes were on average (nationwide) 1.5% higher for Joe Biden and 1.5% lower for Donald Trump after adjusting for other demographic and past voting preference."
What does this mean: "after adjusting for other demographic and past voting preferences." It sounds like weasel wording to me.
The Election Wiz is a blog. It's not even a credible source. Do you understand how the electoral college works? Trump won the last election by exactly the same number of electoral votes that Biden has and he also won the popular vote. Trump on the other hand lost the popular vote, but won because of the electoral college votes.
Do you think the statically insignificant numbers that the Wiz quoted would make a difference in the electoral college votes?
And besides, today the electoral colleges of all states will certify Biden's votes. At this point do you think they are going to stop that certification process to validate the Dominion machines?I agree Biden will have enough electoral votes to be president.
I think it is important to post all of the fraud allegations so that the congress holds a full investigation into the allegations. With all of the fraud that occurred, it must be investigated, a hearing before the Senate must occur and a full report must be generated for everyone to read.
This may then lead to corrections being made to avoid another person getting to the White House using fraudulent methods to win.
I don't think the numbers are insignificant. 1.5 percent can translate into hundred of thousands of votes.
Facts DO NOT show how Biden benefited from voting machines. If there had been any such "facts", Trump's lawyers would have presented them, they didn't. Why didn't they?
"These results are scientifically valid and have a p-value of less than 1%, meaning the chances of this math occurring randomly are less than 1 in 100.” - And this means nothing when you don't have the whole data set - and at the time they did their number crunching, they did not have the whole data set.
I think many people just keep repeating that Trump and his kids should go to jail. Sitting far away I can see the entire picture. Trump did a great job and he identified the source of the virus- China. He handled everything including the virus very well. But then some just want to keep flogging for nothing. The real culprit is Biden and I will die laughing on a bed of nails the day Kamla Harris holds the reins of power in the USA. The American goose will be cooked.
I will be laughing with you. Because this entire election has been a joke and showed that America has many citizens that have little some no common sense. Just my view. But it is commical in many respects.
Tell me, emge, beyond Operation Warp Speed, what were the great things Trump did? From where I sit, they are very few and far between (assuming you define "great" as moving the cause and values of America forward).
I fail to see how stating the obvious, that Covid-19 originated in China, is "great". Can you explain that conclusion? I am also curious to know that had this virus originated in America, you would be just as happy to call it the American virus?
Exactly how did Trump handle the virus well. Does America being in the worst shape vis-a-vis the virus in the world qualify has having done a "great" job? It would seem to me being last in the world of developed nations qualifies as just the opposite of "great".
Do you define yanking babies out of the arms of their mothers "great"?
Do you define feeding our allies, the Kurds, to the Turkish, Syrian, Russian meat grinder as "great"? Being a retired Army officer and Vietnam Vet, I define that as cowardice.
Yes, please tell me what you consider "great" about this traitor to America and our values. (Traitor takes on even more relevance as he seems to be very happy that his buddy Putin is rummaging around in our nation's servers. The coward hasn't said even one word about it.) And now Trump is once again putting America's national security in danger by stopping the military transition with the Biden team.
Boy, speaking of laughing. Un and Xi and Putin and Assad and all of the other dictator friends of Trump who are enemies of America must be laughing their murderous asses off as I write watching Trump destroy everything America stands for.I forgot to mention to emge that Trump already "cooked America's goose" - worse than any president in the history of our country.
You see, the differences between Harris and Trump are:
1. She is demonstrably competent, Trump is demonstrably not.
2. She actually cares about America. Trump ONLY cares about Trump.
3. She has lots of experience in governing. Trump, even after four years sitting in the seat, still has none.
4. She is mentally stable. Trump proves every day he is not.
5. She is not a criminal. Trump is.You are batting Zero from 1 to 5... Laughable.
Kamal has never demonstrated any form of competence. Bailing out Antifa.
There is nothing to prove she loves America.
She has a couple of years in Washington, and a poor record at that.
Not sure she is mentally stable. She certainly cackles a lot when she can't answer a question. Seems to have an odd demenor.
Trump has never been charged with a crime. And her background is stained with cheap scandals.
Please note my opinion is different than yours. And your opinion is no more important than mine.1. Then you clearly haven't looked into her background (independent of the far-right fake news sites you seem to follow)
2. There is nothing to prove YOU love America but there is much to prove that Trump does not.
3. That is how much you know. She has as much time in Washington as your hero which she put to great use while your guy did not (save for Operation Warp Speed). Trump was stiffing contractors and employees, going into multiple bankruptcies (I know, you think that is good business), lying to people (e.g. Trump U), cheating people (e.g. Trump U and multiple real estate deals), and a whole host of disreputable actions prior to that. Harris, on the other hand, spent time as:
* District Attorney for Alameda CA
* Asst District Attorney for San Francisco
* District Attorney for San Francisco (where she created the Environmental Crimes unit)
* Attorney General of California
* US Senator.
Trump and the Law:
* Been involved in over 3,500 federal and state lawsuits
** Defendant in 1,450 of them
** Plaintiff in 1,900 of them
** Party to 150 bankruptcies (yeah, a real good businessman, lol)
* The legal cases include contract disputes, defamation claims, tax fraud, sexual assault, and sexual harassment
* Trump has been involved on at least three dozen occasions where the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has obtained tax liens against Trump properties for nonpayment of taxes
* On January 17, 2017, Summer Zervos filed a defamation suit against President-elect Donald Trump for claiming that she had lied in her public sexual assault allegations against him. It is still on-going
* As of 2019, investors are suing Donald Trump and his family for fraud, false advertising, and unfair competition. They allege that Trump recommended the multi-level marketing company ACN as a good investment and that Trump did not disclose that he was being paid by ACN.
* Trump's niece, Mary L. Trump, opened a lawsuit against the president and his siblings Robert and Maryanne Trump, alleging that they conducted fraud to keep her and her brother out of the will of Fred Trump (Donald's father), including by conspiring with a trustee assigned to her, and acted to devalue her interests in the family business—effectively defrauding her of tens of millions of dollars.
* In 2016, a lawsuit accuses Donald Trump of inciting violence against protesters in Louisville, Kentucky. The suit is against Trump, his campaign, and three Trump supporters. One supporter, who was wearing a Veteran's uniform in a video, apologized to the Korean War Veterans Association immediately after the event, writing that he "physically pushed a young woman down the aisle toward the exit" after "Trump kept saying 'get them out, get them out.". On Friday, April 1, 2017, Judge David J. Hale in Louisville ruled against Trump's request for dismissal of the lawsuit, stating there was ample evidence to support that the injuries of the protesters were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's words and actions. This is still on-going as far as I know.
* In waiting for Trump to leave office is the election fraud case that his lawyer pled guilty to for paying off Stormy Daniels regarding Trump's affair with her.
* During the 2016 U.S. presidential election, media began reporting in detail on how the Donald J. Trump Foundation was funded and how Donald Trump used its funds. The Washington Post in particular reported several cases of possible misuse, self-dealing and possible tax evasion. The State of New York forced the corrupt Trump foundation to close its doors.
* There are too many more to list, so I will stop there and let you contemplate why you love this crook so much. (none of those are opinions, btw)
You call "cackling" an odd demeanor, lol. I call Trump flailing his arms all about while demeaning a handicapped reporter "odd demeanor". I suspect though you will rationalize his bullying of that reporter away.
The only thing I have to say to the people on this post is....
I hope everybody has a great holiday season.
No matter what is said on these forums I hope at the end of the day we all realize it doesn't matter. We control nothing. This is just for fun. The decision makers don't pay attention to any of us and this is why we have to pay attention to one another.
Peace and happiness to all.
(Please...no political responses)President Trump does look good and so does Bernie Sanders who fought for the Direct payment of $2,000.00 per adult. It is not the party--it is the good people on both sides that cares about the American people and our country.
I have read a lot of the statements from you which are mostly negative. I wish you would take a sugar pill and be nice for a few days while we are trying to enjoy Christmas. I know you are a very smart man--so maybe you will get this message. Merry Christmas.A merry Christmas to all. It isn't long now - the grandchildren and I will be cooking desserts tomorrow. The fun begins!
Everybody:
Wishing everybody a Christmas that's merry and bright!, Have a safe and relaxing holiday season. Don't think about this forum. We will pick it up when we come back..Bah, humbug! What if I want to have a grouchy Christmas? I suppose all you goody-goody well-wishers will criticize that too.
Presents for the kiddies, bah, lumps of coal to all. Forgiveness for past grievances, not on your life, you said it—you own it. Plum pudding and Figs? Have you seen the cholesterol and salt content of those goodies? What, you wish me a Merry Christmas and a heart attack in the same breath?
Don't even get me started on who is naughty or nice. . . And Santa . . . all dressed in red, as if he were a Conservative! Bah, this fat man gives freebies to everybody! Let's take a look at his taxes. Or his employment practices. I bet the Elves would have a thing or two to say about that. And speaking of Elves, can there be any discriminatory practice worse than that? Want a job at the North Pole, show me your Elf credentials. Where is the Derpt. of Labor on this issue? Where are the Court cases about legal discrimination? I am a great toymaker, but can I get a job with Santa? Noooo .... They are all reserved for the Elves . . . bless their tiny tribal hearts. How can that be legal?
How about Santa's transportation? Have you given any thought to those poor reindeer? Stuck in their stables for 11 months of the year, bored to death watching It's a Wonderful Life' over and over and over, and then required to defy the laws of physics for a brief 12-hour outing. Fair? Sure, if you aren't a reindeer. And the myth of Rudolf . . come on folks. Santa doesn't have to worry about fog or visibility. That whole Rudolf thing was just a nod to the ADA and a path to free grant money. Santa ain't no dummy, he knows who butters his bread.
And, what about this 'have a safe holiday' baloney? What if I want to go skydiving or ski jumping? Noooo, you say. I have to have a safe holiday. Take no chances, no risk of having fun. Guess what, I'm gonna go do some snow-slide donuts in a Walmart parking lot just to piss you off. And then I'm going to do some naked snow angels just to prove I am invincible to 'normal' folk's concerns. Metamucil, vitamins, and take care of your health? The hell with that. I will be twenty forever, so stick that in your pipe.
*oh gawwddd . . . I just freaked myself out with a mental image of an old man doing naked snow angels. Ugh!
So, have a Merry Christmas yourself. I will have whatever kind of Christmas I want and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it!
GAI want vdeo! I want pics! I see a viral moment in your future!
Okay...I laughed until I cried. Your bit about the holidays was some of the funniest things I've read in a long time. Ah, you should writer humor...you have a real gift. I'm impressed.
Thanks and how about I hope you have a happy holiday season?And Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you too MIke. I am glad you enjoyed my little diatribe.
I have written humor before, (and I enjoy such writing), but alas, there is just no Google love in that type of writing. I ended up moving it all to my own site just for archiving. Maybe if I ever learned how to entice a following I could get more exposure, but so far I only exist on the net' as a Curmudgeon.
GA
:-) Hey, don't knock skydiving until you tried it. I think in many ways it is better than sex (unless neither of your chutes don't open, of course).
Ha! I have tried skydiving. And here is a thought for you. In just the past 48 hrs., (after watching a WWII vet tandem skydiving), I was pondering which forum to post a thought about my skydiving experience.
Since you provide the opportunity, here is the story I wanted to tell.
My first skydiving experience was back in the late 70s. A couple of friends and myself went to a private airstrip, (this was in Maryland), where for $90, (I distinctly remember the $90 part, that was a lot of money in the 70s), you got 30 minutes of training jumping out of a 20-foot tower to teach you how to anticipate your landing and bend your knees and roll to absorb the impact of landing. (remember folks, this was the 70s, well before the 'parasail' parachutes we all see nowadays where the skydivers land in a walk—my parachute was the typical WWII-style round one.
30 minutes of how to land and off we went. No tandem jumps. Our first jumps were all single static line jumps. Meaning you attached your chute ripcord to a static line in the plane that automatically deployed your chute when you jumped out of the plane.
So, we are in the plane and taking off. The adrenalin is pumping and I am ready to go. Our plane wasn't one of those big 20-guy skydiver outfits, it was really a rather small Cessna-type that held five divers—including myself.
So we are all crammed in behind the pilot's seat, and there is no door on the right side of the plane—just an open doorway.
The sequence goes like this; the divemaster, (the copilot), gives three commands; in the door, out the door, release!
In the door means you sit on the open doorway sill, put your feet on the pedestal step outside the door, and snap your static line to the door's static line hooks.
Out the door means you pick up your butt and move outside the plane, standing on the doorstep pedestal—while holding on to the wing strut that is just in front of the door opening. In other words, you step out of the plane.
On the Release! command you are supposed to let go of the strut and fly off, away from the plane. After 10 feet, or so, the static line connection automatically pulls your ripcord and your chute opens.
Easy-peasy right? Nooooo . . . let me give you the 411.
First. For a first-time skydiver, the thought of jumping out of a plane is scary. And, when your butt is setting in that open doorway feeling a hundred knots of wind in your face and the view of the earth 8000 or 9000 feet below is all the reason anyone needs to say "Hell no!" And crawl back into the plane and hide in a corner until it lands.
But . . . I had a problem. At this time I was in my twenties. A rural Eastern Shore of Maryland boy, (just short of being a Redneck), full of piss and vinegar and more male testosterone than should be legal. And the jumper in front of me . . . was a girl!
So here I am. Just after take-off, I have already decided skydiving isn't for me. You know the old joke; "What kind of idiot jumps out of a perfectly good airplane."
So, we reach altitude. The first jumper is a guy. Boom, he follows the three commands and jumps. The second jumper is a guy. Three commands and he is gone.
By now I have decided I don't really want to skydive and will just ride the plane back down to a safe landing. $90 isn't worth dying for.
But, I have a problem. The next jumper, in front of me, is a GIRL! Who the hell ever thought it was okay to let a girl skydive! And the last jumper, behind me, was a guy! Oh, buggers.
There was no way I could let a GIRL show me up. So it came to my turn. "In the door! And I moved my butt to sit on the open door frame, attached my static line, and put my feet on the doorstep outside of the plane. Then came the next command; "Out the door! Okay, as if in a trance I lifted my butt, grabbed the wing strut, and moved my butt outside of the airplane.
Now, at this point, I had a thought that has been the most profound and truthful thought I have ever had in my life—up to this point of course. "You dumbass! You are going to die just because you don't want to be shown up by a girl!"
Oh well. I am standing outside the plane and the "Release" command comes. And I let go. Whoosh! The wind grabs me, sending me tumbling backwards, and before I could count to the "Five" they 'trained' me it would take for the static line to open my chute, I was suddenly floating—gloriously—under an open canopy.
I have heard it said that there is no way to describe that feeling to anyone that hasn't experienced it. and I agree. The serenity, the tranquillity, and the "I'm still alive!" feelings that you get as you slowly float back to earth is indescribable. But trust me. It is better than sex.
So I enjoyed this for about 8000 feet, and then it was time to prepare for landing. Once again, they 'trained' me to watch the ground approaching, and just when I thought I was about to touch down I was supposed to yank down on both chute cord control handles and bend my knees for the impact of landing.
Oops. I yanked those cords a second or two too early. I bent my knees a second or two too early. When my feet hit the ground it felt like my ankles were driven right up to my chin. Roll with the landing? Ha! I hit the ground like a tent peg driven in by a ten-pound mallet.
But .. . I was alive! I survived! Girls be damned, I did it. And I did it again and again for the next couple of years.
Believe it folks. Skydiving is better than sex. When that chute opens and you float down to earth there is just nothing in the world like it.
So thanks for the opportunity to relate this story Scott. It is a very true and very honest story. I continued to skydive about another dozen times until I moved away and the cost became too expensive. But alas, I never did get to do a parasail jump. I think I would have been hooked for life if I had.
GAWonderful story, GA. :-) And what would you guys do without us girls? ;-)
"And what would you guys do without us girls?
Ain't that the truth. Now, consider how many years of life it takes for a guy to admit this. LOL I know that for me it took a very long time. But, I never sky-dived with a "girl" after that one time.
I still regret never getting a parasail jump. I would have loved the machismo of walking into a landing—instead of landing like a sack of potatoes. Even if I did learn to make that sack-of-potatoes landing look semi-good.
GAThis is try #2 after losing a 500 word response again. So I will leave out the first 500 and continue with what I was typing when my computer retaliated for the abuse I give it.
To synopsize the first 500. Take GA's story and:
1. Move it to Lake Elsinore, CA
2. No girls, only another high school friend
3. 2 hours of training, mostly safety
4. A step-ladder instead of a tower to practice PLFs (parachute landing falls)
5. I think we jumped somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 feet
6. We didn't get scared until around the 10th jump.
7. The parachute was called a T-7 and had two panels missing from the back to help with steering. (Did yours look like that, GA?)
Now to the rest of the story.
Our 10th jump was still on a static line. Rick, my friend, went first. I don't know how he felt but I was already nervous for some reason. I watched him jump, and then watched some more, and more, and more. From my perspective it looked like he was going to hit the ground. When it looked like he was two inches from crashing and burning his chute opened (he was probably between 1,500 and 2,000 feet in reality, which is still pretty close).
What really had happened was this. After you jump, you are supposed to spread your arms and legs while arching your back, that keeps you stable while falling. Rick did it too well! When a chute opens, a little drag chute pops out to pull the main chute out. Well Rick was so well arched that he created a vacuum behind his back and the drag chute just sort of flopped around back there. Rick finally realized he had a problem and bent to open his reserve chute. When he did this, he broke the vacuum and the drag chute finally worked and all was well.
Well, watching this didn't nothing good for my own nerves and I gave very serious thought to letting the plane do what it was built for, take me back to the ground. In the end, I gritted something, probably my teeth and jumped after Rick.
I think I had one more static line jump after that and then came my first solo jump. Of course, nothing is simple for me. After leaving the plane, counting to ten, pulling my ripcord, and letting the parachute deploy I looked up to inspect the chute. To my amazement, I had a couple of shroud lines caught over the top of the parachute itself. This is called a Mae West. (If any of you are old enough to remember this very bossomy actress, you will get the picture.) In its most severe form the shroud lines are centered over the top and ends up making the parachute look like a big bra - which spins because the air is flowing out unevenly.
The effect of a Mae West is to increase you decent rate and leave you rather unstable. In my case, the lines were way over to the side and I wasn't even spinning. I suppose I could of ridden it down like that and prepare for a hard landing, but I didn't. I just made things worse.
I deployed the reserve parachute. This meant pulling its ripcord, grabbing the material and throwing it, I think, in the direction of the spin. My first dilemma, I wasn't spinning, so where to throw the chute. This also left me with the second dilemma, what to do with the rip cord itself. As I recall, you were supposed to throw it away - but that goes against my hoarding nature so I kept it.
As to the material in my hands, I split the difference and threw it out in front of me. Great, it opened up and left me staring at a knot of twisted shroud lines. While I was doing that, the main chute now decided to start wrapping itself around the reserve chute - this was not going well.
To solve that problem, I began untangling the two parachutes. Fortunately, as I was unwrapping the main from the reserve, it was also untwisting the reserve. So when the main chute broke free, the reserve chute was now untwisted. Now came the easy part, keeping the to canopies apart. I did this by pushing the main chute away from my back and pushing the reserve away from my front.
Now I could enjoy the ride down and find out where my drop zone was - way behind me as it turned out so that is not where I was going. I did get to see all the people down there jump into their cars and start heading to where they thought I was going to come down.
As I got closer to the ground, I began to prepare myself for something that has never happened to me before - a broken bone. Uhg. Believe it or not, when you have two parachutes deployed, you come down faster than with just one, even the smaller reserve. Anyway, refer back to GA's description of his landing and that about describes mine - it was not nice, but nothing broken --- and I became famous for the hour.
I had another 10 or 15 jumps after that until time (college) and money (college) ran out.Just think, if you would have joined the Army and became part of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, NC you could have been regularly jumping out of airplanes at no cost. You could've been paid. You could have spent quality time out in the wilderness and more.
Just think, I did join the Army but I hate running with a passion. Instead, I became an officer, volunteered to fly helicopters in Vietnam, and then reverted back to my original MOS, infantry. When I was downsized out, I joined the CA National Guard as a Combat Engineer until I moved to work at the Pentagon where I flew for the Maryland National Guard until I retired from the Army.
What did you do to serve your country? (Voting for Trump counts just the opposite.)"I hate running" Oh, I had an eleven alpha MOS and I can only imagine what your OER was like if you didn't like to run.
When I served, we had PT tests monthly if we weren't in the field. You couldn't just pass. Heaven forbid if you didn't max it every month. My CO would have not done well with it.
I guess you didn't spend a few weeks of fun and entertainment at Fort Bragg to get your jump wings. Then there is the fun of air assault school in Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
Did you spend any time at Fort Benning? Lovely place...great time.
LOTs of running involved with those programs.
Were you a warrant officer or a commissioned officer? I was a commissioned officer.
I was with the first infantry division. I did more than one tour overseas.Snarky, aren't you - just like a Trumper.
Yes, I spent well over a year at Benning, Basic Officer and Advanced Officer Course, did you get that far? I doubt it.
Did you get to flight school at Ft. Walters and Ft. Rucker? No, I don't think so. While I didn't feel like running by butt off, I thought it would be more fun flying over enemy territory getting shot at - bullets mostly but once they tried a flare as I was flying a night hawk mission over Da Nang - they missed.
Did I do PT? Lots of it, I was in the Army after all, just hated it.
Where did you serve overseas? Cushy Germany? Or did you actually fight a war?
I almost got a second tour in the first Iraq war, but they weren't taking Army National Guard then. I did spend active duty time in the Pentagon, but not in support of the war."Snarky, aren't you"
Back at you!
"Yes, I spent well over a year at Benning, Basic Officer and Advanced Officer Course, did you get that far? I doubt it."
I was an eleven alpha. Yeah, I was at Benning. Think about it. I got my jump wings as well as air assault wings. My unit was deployed to Iraq.
So...you were a wop wop officer. Big deal. You guy were air chauffeurs for those of us who did the serious fighting. It was your job to drop us off and pick us up when things got real. I also appreciate it when you guy would hold your bird steady as we repelled off it. I once heard one of you wop wop guys say "Better you than me." Enough said.
My unit was deployed to Iraq and was part of all the fun stuff going on there.Scott and RMN: Thanks for you service for both you guys. I was a radar repairmen during the cold war. We were stationed on remote mountain tops and they used to fly airplanes over us to remind us we were in the Air Force. Of course, they could always been seen on scopes, especially if they squawked IFF codes. "If we didn't see them, they didn't squawk." was our motto.
Thanks for yours as well.
Must of been cooold up there, I have seen some of those mountain tops. My other job was working for the Air Force as a civil servant, first at McClellan AFB and then in or around the Pentagon. Retired Army in 2007 and retired Air Force in 2008.
Spent most of my life proudly serving America which is why I take it so personally to sadly watch Trump destroy it and everything we once stood for.
While we are on the topic of the military, it looks like Congress is going to investigate Trump's drumming out of the service of purple heart veteran, Col Vindman.Scott: What an irony, we have a number one draft dodger removing a highly decorated war hero from the corps. Trump has no bounds when it comes to revenge. He is like a mafia boss taking out the people who are not loyal to him.
In his book, Disloyal, Michael Cohen spends many pages drawing comparisons between how Trump acts and the kind of characters he so admires (mob bosses, Putin, Xi, Un, ect) act.
One thing he is, surprisingly, pretty certain about is that Trump, himself, was not beholden to Putin or colluded with him; instead, Trump is in awe of him and the raw power he has in Russia, something that Trump wanted for himself (and almost got with the help of a bunch of spineless, principleless Republicans).
Abe Lincoln be turning over in his grave, grieving about what has become of his party as are the founders in embarrassment for not working hard enough to prevent this kind of demagogue they were so afraid of coming into power.". . . as are the founders in embarrassment for not working hard enough to prevent this kind of demagogue.. . .
Wasn't that one of their rationales for the EC, to give power to the electors to compensate for a demagogue that mesmerized an uninformed electorate?
I think that if they are "embarrassed" it is because their intentions weren't honored. We tied the hands of the EC electors with laws mandating how they voted.
GAYes it was, and that system lasted all of two elections, 1796 and 1800. Because of the problematic situation that occured with electing a president from one party and the VP from the other (remember, when they wrote this, wishful thinking had it that there would be no parties). From that debacle, the 12th Amendment was passed which solved that problem, but didn't solve the issue of how the electors were chosen.
(BTW, the wording of the 12th makes it pretty clear that the Republicans' suit to let Pence run the show on the 6th is a non-starter. All Pence is allowed to do is open the results sent to him from the official state electoral college votes. These fake "Republican-held EC votes" in states where Biden won have no meaning under the Constitution)
After a period where states played serious political games with the electors with popular uproar, it devolved into the states using the popular vote to select slates of electors, like we have today.
I disagree with the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the state's ability to rein in and punish faithless electors. The original vision of the founders was to have them vote as independent wise men and these so-called "strict-construction" conservatives decided to reconstruct the intent of the founders. Oh well, so much for consistency,
I know I am throwing the baby out with the bathwater when I say this, I do not support the popular vote being the determiner. Even though, at this point in time, it almost guarantees a Democratic president far out into the future, that is the problem - it gives all of the power to the metropolitan areas.
There is a move afoot, which only needs a couple of more states to sign on for viability, where a state will give its electors to the popular vote winner. This kicks into effect when enough states whose electoral votes equal or exceed 270 have signed up (via legislative action). I am not sure I like this either, but it is better than what we have.
What I think I prefer is what Maine and Nebraska have done and give electoral votes down to the congressional district level. You probably already know this but Maine has two congressional districts, so each one gets a vote and the remaining two go to the statewide winner. This is why Biden got 3 votes and Trump 1.
I think to make that work, however, the House would have to ban gerrymandering.I am familiar with the National Popular Vote thing, and I don't like it. It would be an end-around move that would completely negate the EC.
I have read a little about the proportioning of a state's EC votes relative to popular vote results, (probably similar to your Maine example)e, but am unsure of how that would work in state EC numbers that would return fractional results, which I don't think should be a consideration
If the Florida 'hanging chads' issue raised such confusion, I can imagine the 'rounding' challenges that would hit the courts with "rounding" challenges. :-)
I do agree with your reading of the 12th relative to the Pence lawsuit. But, of course, that isn't any more than just an opinion.
GA
Speaking of Trump, I just saw him on the golf course (again). Boy, has he gotten fat - almost looks like Grover Cleveland.
Just saw some stats - Trump has spent over 25% of his time vacationing at one of his properties and 25% of his time as president on the links.
On another topic, Moscow Mitch is trying to create a poison-pill bill that includes the $2,000 stimulus payment the Democrats and Trump wants. He apparently wants to put the stimulus, a commission to study voter fraud, and repeal of section 230 (I think) which protects Internet platforms from liable.
Moscow is counting on the fact that Democrats will not pass last two items and therefore will vote down the stimulus. Well, if it comes to pass and McConnell pushes this, the Senate Ds ought to vote for it. Then let it go to conference where the Section 230 part can be stripped out, but as a compromise, let the toothless commission go forward. And even if they let 230 become law, Biden can simply ignore it.Moscow Mitch in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3wGBFla6ik
Bernie plans to object to the defense bill veto override until Mitch brings the $2,000 stimulus checks up for a vote. Senate cannot leave Washington until that's passed. Should get interesting.Sharlee: You quote the UCMJ as Trump's justification for removing Vindman. If that were the only case for Trump removing people that would be justification, But the scope and degree of what Trump does is the problem. People say, all presidents lie; all presidents have a change of staff; all presidents seek some sort of revenge. That may be true but not to the degree that Trump does it.
That is the difference. He has documented lied and misinformed over 10,000 times and continues to do so on a daily basis. He fires and causes people to resign who do not agree with his agenda. He replaces them with incompetent people who have either said nice things about him and/or have donated big bucks to his agendas.
He seeks revenge without any regard to whom and what he negatively affects in doing so. Up until his last moments, no one knows what he is going to do regarding leaving the presidency and even afterwards. He is making this country very vulnerable for domestic and foreign influence, including violence and attacks. He is sabotaging Biden's transition to the presidency and make it very difficult for him to deal with all the land mines that Trump has laid out for him.
Trump now has even turned against McConnell for blocking his $2,000 gambit. Of course this all my observation and opinion, but degree and of magnitude of actions and behavior is what makes the difference. Even Trump doing nothing about the virus is still a choice and an action on his part.I always like to bring up this analogy: Trumpers (and many real conservatives) do not distinguish between jaywalking and murder. The rest of America sees and understands the difference.
Aren't analogies supposed to be true? Or have you finally lost any recognition of what truth is after so many false statements about Trump and anyone not on your personal bandwagon of Trash Trump?
No one interested in truth would ever state that "Trumpers (whatever that means) and many real conservatives" cannot distinguish between jaywalking and murder. Anyone old enough to know the meaning of the words can tell the difference - perhaps anyone over the age of about 3.Wilderness: Nice try, but analogies don't have to be true, they just have to compare ideas to make a point. Example: Trump's constant twitter feeds are like a fire hose spraying lies. It's not literally true, but it gets my point across.
And don't play dumb, you know what a Trumper is. All you have to do is look in a mirror and smile.
Why shouldn't we trash Trump? He trashes those he doesn't like, but when he does the trashing, it can have serious consequences.??? Fire hoses spray water. Spraying lies is at least somewhat similar. Whether they come from Eso, from you or from Trump.
But stating a lie, then comparing it to something else, only shows the speaker hasn't a clue what an analogy is about. My assumption is that they merely wish to be obnoxious and demeaning, nothing else. Much like calling names in the playground.
Trash Trump all you wish, although when overdone to the point you and others take it, it only points out how foolish you can be. But when you then move on to anyone not on the trash Trump bandwagon it really looks foolish; only an idiot would actually believe that anyone not climbing the wagon is as stupid or evil as you paint them to be. The vast majority of people really do accept that there are different opinions out there, whether they agree with them or not, and do not vilify people for those opinions. Only those with severe TDS takes it to the level we see here.
No - when you make up new words ("Trumper") not everyone knows what you mean. In fact, only you know what your made up words mean - the best others can do is guess. Is my guess that anyone not joining your tirades with gross exaggerations, extreme spin and outright lies a "trumper" correct?It's not that people have different opinions that makes one a Trumper. It's that you can look at something demonstrably false and parrot it as truth just because Trump said it.
My example of Trump's recent post that claimed that there were 200,000 more votes in PA than registered voters is a great example. 124,000 Trumpers shared that post without bothering to fact checking it for the obvious gaslighting that it was.
And it's easy to tell who are the Trumpers these days, they will back Trump in the face of those obvious untruths, such as the 126 GOP Congressmen and women who signed on to that Texas Supreme Court farce.
I would argue you've been a Trumper for a long time now. You've been a staunch defender of his, whether it be just to argue with people or whether you truly believe in him, over and over again.
LOL You would argue I've been a Trumper for a long time...even though I have never parroted anything he has said and have very seldom even believed anything he said.
Your logic is lacking just a wee bit here.Not really. My logic has to do with your consistent defense of the man, even using such fabricated terms like TDS, to attack those making logical arguments against his failed policies or his obvious character flaws in the attempt to help sell his false realities.
Can you point to a single specific defense? Or do you count calling out the lies against him a "defense" of Trump? I don't, but I can see where it would seem reasonable to you.
If you were worth the time, I would do that deep dive. But, to me, you're not. You're just here to argue with people, you rarely provide new, meaningful information.
And what you think as lies, often turn out to be just distortions, such as the above when you left out half the information I provided to try and turn my statement into something that fit your own narrative.That is a really dumb question. Just read any of your posts about Trump.
I quit making posts about Trump long ago. But I certainly have made them about your lies and exaggerations - is that what you're calling a "defense of Trump"? Because I take exception to your lies and exaggerations?
Wilderness and Sharlee: In my view asking the question about wanting Trump to overturn the election fits right in with why you both defend him so adamantly. I expected you would never answer the question and you both met my expectations with your "weasel wording."
As far as staying on topic, this forum has gone way off topic from the original posted question. Staying on the thread is just your way of avoiding answering my question.
It is a black and white issue. Either you are wising he will overturn the election or he wont. Why would you want further litigation if you didn't want Trump to overturn the election?President Donald Trump can not overturn the election. It is now up to the legislators to either approve or deny the electoral college results. The president is not involved in the process.
I missed the question I don't think Trump himself can overturn the election. I have read that those in Congress can challenge Democrat President-elect Joe Biden’s victory when Congress convenes to officially tally the electoral votes, which actually could trigger a lengthy debate in the Senate. However, it has been predicted to virtually have no chance of overturning the results. I am aware there are several that will challenge the election on Jan 6th.
I at this point I will answer yes to your question. I think the matter of fraud needs to be brought out and dealt with in our Congress. At this point to many citizens don't trust the election process. Many state laws were bypassed due to COVID, and it well appears some took advantage of this to commit fraud.
I do not feel the election will be overturned in the end. But, our Government is for the people all the people.Sharlee: Thank you for your answer. You feel the government is for the people, all the people. I think many people don't trust the election process because Trump was successful in convincing his base that the election was rigged.
They believed his mantra that he repeated ad nauseum that if he didn't win, the election is rigged. Do you think if Trump would have won the election that his people would feel the same way, given that "many state laws would still be bypassed due to COVID?"
Don't forget Trump hired a Postmaster General that has no background in the job he was hired for, but he was successful in removing sorting machines causing the slowdown of the whole voting process. To me that sounds like rigging the system.
As they say, "republicans fall in line, democrats fall in love." I don't think the democrats have the capacity to do what Trump and his people are doing, including the democrats in congress. As you have implied, in the final analysis, it is an exercise in futility, the election will not be overturned...so what will they have accomplished? Will there be new laws that come about as result of further litigation? I don't think so.I can only speak for myself, but Trump had nothing to do with convincing me there may have been fraud in the election. What most impressed me in regard to possible fraud was the number of citizens that came forward with allegations, last I heard the number had grown to 280 people. I am not willing to dismiss whistleblowers.
Not sure how Trump supporters would have felt if he won given that many state laws would still be bypassed due to COVID.
In regard to Postofficegate...
IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT
• Recent removals of both mail collection boxes and mail-sorting machines stoked fears that the Trump administration is trying to jeopardize the collection of mail-in ballots.
• Postmaster General Louis DeJoy announced on Aug. 18 that mail processing equipment and collection boxes would stay where they are. He did not address whether equipment that had already been removed would be reinstalled.
• Postal union leaders said that most of the mail-sorting machines scheduled for removal had already been dismantled by the time DeJoy released his statement.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2020 … g-machine/
What will be accomplished --- It will bring to the forefront that the allegations of voter fraud presented by American citizens were not just swept under a carpet. Their allegations although not heard were taken to the floor of Congress to at least be acknowledged. Nothing more can at this point be done except Congress challenging the Democrat President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.
It certainly will set a precedent."Not sure how Trump supporters would have felt if he won given that many state laws would still " - Which states? What laws? I can only think of two, maybe three where the courts found that to be true and those changes were reversed.
So, what other ones are you referring to?As I said I followed the cases as they were ruled on. Do your own homework. As I said these rulings were hard to find due to them being poor feed for some. Tip, check local newspapers in the states Trump's team filed cases. Your two are on every left-leaning internet news outlets. The 60 some others "not so much". True facts are very hard to find, but they are out there.
I did and I provided them to you. You apparently don't want to read them.
I am not sure what your point was with the Polifact article, but it did seem to back up the idea that DeJoy definitely diminished the Post Office's ability to sort and deliver mail.
70,000,000 of them believe one-term, impeached Trump's lies.
"I think many people don't trust the election process because Trump was successful in convincing his base that the election was rigged. "
LOL Do you see the witch hunt for evidence of Trump colluding with Russia as the result of Trump convincing his base of anything?The fact that you call it a witch hunt, perfectly using Trump's words, even though the Senate confirmed that Manafort coordinated (also known as colluded) with the Kremlin, is you proving Trump can convince you of anything. Thanks for proving the point.
I called it witch hunt because it was a witch hunt. A false piece of evidence started one of the biggest "investigations" our country has ever seen in an attempt to prove Trump colluded with Putin to fix the last election. And when it was over a tiny handful of people were indicted, some for actions years before that election, while there was zero evidence found that Trump did anything wrong.
That's a witch hunt in my book; you may term it anything you wish. You might consider going with your evaluation of today's efforts to root out fraud and declare that "witch hunt" to be absolutely nonsense, for instance - an investigation for something that was impossible to exist.What started the investigation was Russia hacking into the DNC. Then, with over a hundred contacts the Trump Campaign was having with Russians, as well as Russia working on Facebook and with Wikileaks to help elect Trump, it was in the national security interests to investigate whether there was more to that relationship as Russia is a hostile foreign country to US interests. The fact that you see no national security concerns when a candidate gets assisted into the highest office of our government by a hostile foreign nation speaks more to your fealty than to reason or logic.
And the investigation started with Papadapoulous bragging to Aussies about being approached by the Russians.
And Mueller listed ten instances of obstruction of justice against Trump, that many former members of the DOJ noted they could have secured a conviction on had Trump not been protected by his office. Hardly zero evidence of wrong-doing, as you claim.
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement … b7691c2aa1He not only listed them, Mueller also provided the evidence to back them up.
You still get it wrong, Wilderness. That was NOT what the investigation was about, not even close. "an attempt to prove Trump colluded with Putin to fix the last election. " is just the spin you put on it to defend Trump.
The TRUTH is, as Valeant said below, it started out when the FBI learned that Papadopoulos was suggesting to a foreign ambassador that "the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs Clinton (and President Obama)"; the ambassador then told the FBI who, legitimately, opened a counterintelligence file.
The file was opened on the Trump campaign and not Trump himself (another lie you perpetuate in your defense of Trump). In FACT, they didn't start investigating Trump personally until he began obstructing justice by firing Comey. And you know who started that investigation? The Republicans in the DOJ.
The fact that even ONE Trump ally was indicted should be enough to frighten a true patriot, like it did me. And while Mueller, surprisingly, didn't file conspiracy charges against Trump campaign manager Manafort (I guess he had too many other charges to deal with), the Republican Senate investigation Clearly stated that Manafort DID conspire with the Russians. Unfortunately, their report was too little, too late.
Facts matter.
Mike, isn't it an absolute disgrace that so many Republicans are choosing Trump over democracy by challenging the election using conspiracy theories and lies as their rational. Disgusting and sickening.
Why are they and their supporters so intent on destroying American democracy.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/31/politics … index.html
With any luck at all, this will be the death knell of the a party who use to be based on principles but are now based on alternative reality and lack of ethics and morals.Very predictable --- Did you happen to read my response to Mike? I was polite, answered his question, and my answers had nothing to do with "choosing Trump over democracy. It had to do with supporting other citizens that have come forward as whistleblowers. You know like Col. Vindman. As I said some of these citizens were Democrats. I think you should read my reply to Mike.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4167899Did I mention you personally in that comment, Sharlee? No, I didn't. I left a lot of wiggle room for you to exclude yourself from those I am talking about.
As to your "whistleblowers". Since I don't trust your sources, I tried to verify your number myself, but couldn't. The closest I got in quick search was 90. and that was from quite a while ago.
So, I will take your number as the truth. Then I am going to multiply it by a old rule of thumb that if one person complains, 20 others are thinking about it. So, I think your last number was 290. Multiply by 20 and you have 5,800 potential complaints of fraud across the US. There were what, 160 million votes cast?
That means the percentage of people who "felt" (didn't prove) fraud is .00003625%. To me, that doesn't translate into widespread. To me, that translates into 'normal' amount of election fraud.
Now let's reduce the scope and assume those 5,800 potential complaintents were located only in the most popular battleground states, WI, MI, PA, and GA. For those, the total votes cast was around 23,000,000. That results in .024%. Again, maybe you can, but I find it impossible to think that signifies widespread voter fraud. If you do, please explain how.
I will use the above to educate Wilderness on how an analogy works. Let's use the .024% result. That is less than Jaywalking yet you apparently want to treat it as Murder and have it investigated as such.I did and I responded to it.
And here again is one of the reports where over 90 judges told Trump to take a hike. Keep in mind, this is reporting and not an opinion piece.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.htmlGotta love the article even though it was what is expected from the Post.
It rather says it all when it indicates that the SCOTUS dismissed a suit by the state of Texas (no doubt one of Trump's "supporters" according to you) because it was not filed in a "timely manner") rather than because it was without merit. That small bit of information was left out, just as you do, giving the impression that it was dismissed on merit. A lie, in other words, defined as intentionally attempting to convince the reader that a falsehood (dismissal on merit) is true when it is not.
You really need to find unbiased sources (if such are still available) rather than rags like the [i]post that substitute opinion for fact in their "news". And yes, it was most definitely an opinion piece; factual documents do not make use of loaded terminology, half the story or other machinations to promote a lie.If the article was OPINION, you might be right, but it was not, it was hard facts. It would be the same facts if reported by the Post or Brietbart. The only difference is Brietbart wouldn't publish such a story in order to suppress the truth.
Facts are facts, Wilderness, and while you rely on opinions from far-right outlets, I look for solid reporting from well recognized, authoritative sources such as the Post. What they reported was FACT, period.
As to your misrepresentation of the SCOTUS decision, you really fumbled that one. SCOTUS did not reject the Texas case because it was not "timely", they rejected it because Texas has no business disagreeing with how another state conducts its elections - you know, one of those fundamental Constitutional principles your side use to believe in but no longer does once you took up Trump as your substitute god.
To put a finer point on it, it was rejected because the arguments were meritless because Texas had no standing.
Fact matter.
Yes, actually over 90% did not take up the case as I said due to procedural problems, not evidentiary problems.
Sorry could not read your link to WAPI, just don't keep a subscription any longer due to it being a bias left rag. Not worth even $1.00. I hesitate on how WAPO handles context.
I did save the two court rulings that the judges used wording to address evidence that was not adequate to support his cases.
In Wisconsin, Supreme Court Justice Brian HAGEDORN wrote that a request from a voters’ group to invalidate the entire election would be "unprecedented in American history."
"This petition falls far short of the kind of compelling evidence and legal support we would undoubtedly need to countenance the court-ordered disenfranchisement of every Wisconsin voter," Hagedorn wrote.
And Judge Stephanos BIBAS, a Trump appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, said in dismissing one Pennsylvania challenge: "Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."
If you have found other rulings that evidence was mentioned to be insouciant please provide the case. I would be interested in seeing such ruleings.Those procedural issues, as you call them, was Trump trying to argue that state election laws should be changed after the fact to disenfranchise voters that did not vote for him. Courts were like, 'dude, you're like six months too late. If you had an issue with the law, you should have brought it to us BEFORE the election.'
It'd be like an NFL coach arguing that rushing TD's shouldn't be allowed after the opposing team ran the ball in four times and won by two TD's, and he makes the argument two weeks after the game got played. And then the team's fans think the game was fraudulent because rushing the ball should clearly be, but wasn't, illegal because they suck at running the ball.Many seem to be late filing, the attorney filed in the wrong court, latches, and yes some argued that the claim would not be sufficient to change the election. Not sure how Trump could prove any fraud would occur before votes were cast? He actually had many suits prior to the election objecting to mail-in ballots, Staes changing voting laws illegally via Sec of State. many. Some did not make the courts dockets to be heard.
The legal side of Trump's fight is very complicated, and it would seem his legal team made serious mistakes in many filings. That's what I gleaned from trying to follow the multiple cases. I just objected to MyE thinking many were tossed out on lack of evidence, that was the subject we were bitting each other over... What I could see not one case made it to the phase where evidence was heard. A few judges were provided evidence for them to consider and did state a lack of evidence in their rulings. In the last comment from MYE he gave a link that described two cases that were not even filed by the Trump legal team. The subject is now being deflected to "who knows where?
I was not in any respect discussing the merit of the cases, only stating that the majority of cases were poorly filed, and merit was questionable, but evidence had little to do with the majority being tossed out of court.So, Trump's challenges before the election were to try and make it harder to for people to exercise their right to vote. In essence, he was trying to violate the rights afforded the citizens under the Constitution. Especially given that there was no evidence that said mail-in voting had significant levels of fraud. Taken another way, he wanted to make it more dangerous as well, as this vote was going to take place in the middle of a pandemic. So he wanted to make it harder to exercise your right, and wanted to put your life in danger to do it. Another example of Trump's brilliance in his pandemic response.
'What I could see not one made it to the phase where evidence was heard. A few judges were provided evidence for them to consider and did state lack of evidence.'
These two statements seem to be in direct conflict. You seem to think there was evidence, but when Trump's team provided evidence, the courts ruled that it wasn't evidence. So, Trump says he has evidence, the courts ruled that what he presented was, in fact, not actual evidence. Who to believe...hmmm...the people who view and apply laws for a living, or the guy who has been accused of cheating his way into college and refuses to release his college grades. Tough call.No, I was directly saying in the majority of the cases evidence had not been presented. It depended on the actual case. He presented evidence for the judge to review several cases in cases where he claimed fraud was committed. We were arguing one point... Were most of the cases ruled against due to lack of evidence. I found only two as I followed the daily trail. I was not in any respect discussing the merit of the cases, only stating that the majority of cases were poorly filed, and merit was questionable, but evidence had little to do with the majority being tossed out of court. We have no beef in that regard.
To address your "must Trump bash or it just would not be worth commenting" A bit of fair play ---
"Who to believe...hmmm...the people who view and apply laws for a living, or the guy who has been accused of cheating his way into college and refuses to release his college grades. Tough call."
" Biden misled on a variety of claims about his academic career, including his law school class rank and how many undergraduate degrees he had. He issued a statement in September 1987 after news reports corrected his record." https://www.politifact.com/article/2020 … -academic/
Know I don't find this a big lie, I mean many exsaturate college grades, even what university they attended. However, lying about the death of a loved one, over and over...
"Curtis Dunn, was driving a tractor-trailer when he collided with the station wagon that Neilia Biden, Joe Biden’s first wife, was driving.
Neilia Biden and her and Joe Biden’s young daughter, Naomi, who they called Amy, were killed.
Dunn was not charged in the collision and there was no evidence he had been drinking.
Neilia Biden, who had a stop sign, pulled into his right of way when the crash occurred." https://www.politifact.com/article/2020 … t-biden-f/
Then there was this gem -- Although I write this off due to his confused state of mind --- ""If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive. All the people. I'm not making this up. Just look at the data."
"Speaking about the coronavirus during a CNN town hall less than two months away from Election Day, former Vice President Joe Biden said every one of the nearly 200,000 COVID-19 deaths recorded in the U.S. can be laid at President Donald Trump’s feet.
"If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive," Biden said at the CNN town hall in Moosic, Pa. "All the people. I'm not making this up. Just look at the data. Look at the data." All the people!
I will Biden bash when necessary. It would not be necessary if Trump's name was not bashed, in this case off subject. Did you hope to deflect on who is a bigger liar, Trump or Joe? Did you hope to weigh the severity of lies? I did an HP article on Biden, my research lead me down an ugly path of lies. Biden seems to be an innate liar, and care little about who he personally hurts with his mistruths. I could have written a book on the ease this man lies. Very scary dude...I compare Trump's claims to judge's rulings, noting who should be more believable and you decide to pivot to Biden for some odd reason. That's some serious deflection from the point. If you want to compare Trump's lies to any of the judges who ruled, let us know.
I decided to have a bit of fair play. Was there a reason to bring up " Who to believe...hmmm...the people who view and apply laws for a living, or the guy who has been accused of cheating his way
into college and refuses to release his college grades. Tough call."
We were discussing the merits of Trump's lawsuits. Not sure why his history of allegations of cheating in college has anything to do with the merits of any of the lawsuits he filed, and the judge's rulings. None of my comments have stated a personal opinion on any of the judge's rulings. I simply stated what the majority of the rulings were. No judgment on my part as to their rulings.
So what need to even ask who I would believe? I don't know enough about any of the various cases to give an opinion if Trump was prudent with filing any given case.
I am not about to jump in with opinions, I would think that makes me no better than some that automatically form an opinion from very little information. Finding automatic guilt is not my thing.
I guess I took the same liberty to switch gears as some others do here. It is a political forum after all, and I am sure Joe will become a "roadkill".Just as Trump did.Let us know? Groupthink is alive and well... LOL
And no, I think I will stick to those that lie frequently and are fact-checked, just makes it so much easier. I prefer not to bash, but I also have become tired of the same old lines about Trump. Time to get some fresh material or better yet a new victim if need be. I am for keeping the subjects clean of insults., and being more precise to a given subject. But, always willing to go with whatever the crowd desires.
You wrote "Many seem to be late filing, the attorney filed in the wrong court, latches, and yes some argued that the claim would not be sufficient to change the election. ". That is two different things.
While there were a few, very few, where "the attorney filed in the wrong court, latches," is true, they were a small minority.
"yes some argued that the claim would not be sufficient to change the election" is clearly merit-based (which is what you may have meant), assuming they were asking to throw out thousands and thousands of legal votes.
For "Not sure how Trump could prove any fraud would occur before votes were cast? " - they weren't arguing fraud. They were saying the someone (the governor, the legislature, the election office, the courts) did something wrong and the legal votes resulting from that shouldn't be counted. It was these cases where the few "timeliness" issues came up. (Note, the couple of "wins" they had involved the governor making a decision to save lives.)
"I just objected to MyE thinking many were tossed out on lack of evidence," - Here, I went back to reprint what I gave you before that proves my point and disproves yours.
It was easier to find a host of examples again. (I find it curious as to why you fail to respond each time I provide you a list of cases or articles on cases that speak to the merits. You are even silent when I gave you direct quotes from the Trump judges. - WHY IS THAT?)
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump … 403abd0457
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump … 403abd0457
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … 877651001/
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/pol … 871285001/
THIS IS A PARTICULARLY GOOD ONE
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/pol … 871285001/
By my count 1 was tossed because of timilness and related issues and 21 were tossed from 1) lack of merits or 2) not enough votes involved to change the outcome. There is one case where Trump won and another where Trump lost, then won on appeal, then lost at the state Supreme Court.
So let's see 1 divided by 21 is 5% of the cases (not 90% as you claim) were tossed due to timeliness related issues and 95% were tossed on the merits or frivolousness.
OK, I go on.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-c … ts-2020-11
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … ania-court
Do you concede yet or just continue to ignore facts?I have read your links, and I pointed out that you offered cases that were not even filed by Trump's legal team. Not sure why you continue posting links of the same nature. Your first link gives reference to ---
"The rebukes have not stopped the litigation. On Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the states of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, alleging that they violated the Constitution based on a litany of already-dismissed complaints. Paxton asked the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate their 62 Electoral College votes for Biden — a move that would swing the election to Trump and would be unprecedented in American history." THis case was not filed by Trump's legal team."
Your second link was repetitive --- And also gave an example of a case not filed by the rump team ---"On Monday, U.S. District Judge Linda Parker threw out a lawsuit challenging Michigan’s election results that had been filed two days after the state certified the results for Biden. Parker, appointed by President Barack Obama, said the case embodied the phrase “This ship has sailed.” "The lawsuit filed on behalf of a group of voters claimed Biden benefited from fraud, alleging, as in much of the other litigation, a massive Democrat-run conspiracy to shift the results."
Your third link -- repeats the story about Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. case. None of what you have offered proves that more than the two cases I proposed were tossed out due to lack of evidence. We have no argument in regards to Merit rulings or rulings that were tossed out due to being problematic due to procedural problems.
I am not at also ignoring facts, each and every comment I have offered I have included facts. Most of what you have offered in regard to lawsuits were just not filed by Trump. I actually don't have much knowledge of those cases. It was difficult enough making an attempt to follow the cases Trump's team filed and lost for one reason or another.
I explained I followed local new papers to be able to ascertain rulings on many of the cases the Trump team filed. One can find unbias actual rulings on the cases, in the judge's words, in the proper context.IT is difficult to do research due to bias left-leaning sites Just my opinion. They only actually have covered a few of the rulings due to those ruling appearing to suit their agendas. Such as the links you offered they all pretty much covered the same cases, and some actually just were not cases Trump filed. But reading them can leave one walking away with the opinion Trump had something to do with the cases.
Here is an example of a case Trump filed in Arizona it gives a ruling of Moot, and the clear reasons for ruling --- Arizona does not allow recount requests and has strict criteria for automatic recounts. Most of the cases I followed have very similar rulings and are based on the procedure and pure law. I did offer you the two I found that indicated they felt there was a lack of evidence, and gave one might say very newsworthy rulings. IMO hoping to have their 15 min on media. They got it, and many have grabbed on those two rulings and ignored all the boring rulings.
Once again I am not arguing the merit of the cases Trump filed, only argueing that the final rulings were mostly procedural and law-oriented, with a couple that ruled on lack of evidence. The merits of the cases would need to be dissected one by one.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/po … 277110002/Why are you deflecting Sharlee?? These were ALL cases filed to overturn a free and fair election on behalf of Donald Trump. You are just trying to find a way out of the dilemma you are in by making up a false excuse.
Most of the links were repetitive (again a deflection unless it was an exact replica). Each one offered something new.
If you want to argue just cases filed by Trump's formal legal team, you end up with the same result. ALL but maybe one thrown out on the merits or being frivolous.
I see you didn't mention the fact that of the cases in the fifth cite, the most important one, 95% were tossed out on merit or frivolousness. Why are you ignoring that (other than it totally contracts your claim.) CRAP, of course you are ignoring it, I gave you the wrong link. Let me try again - https://www.ft.com/content/20b114b5-541 … 18a2527931
Only two of the 23 or so cases/appeals were NOT from the Trump campaign.I will repeat again I never argue merit, many of the cases did not have merit, and some were in the court's eyes frivolous as they made mention of in their rulings. I can't argue the facts of multiple cases, they are different in nature. My main complaint is that none of the evidence from whistleblowers was heard before a court. None of the cases made it far enough to enter the evidentiary phase.
It was my hope these people's allegations would be addressed. I am not satisfied with ignoring the allegations. IMO it underminds our election process. I am pretty sure these complaints would not overturn the election, but I am dissatisfied with any fraud being unpunished. It will leave a fertile ground to grow if not addressed."My main complaint is that none of the evidence from whistleblowers was heard before a court." - And this is true. But ask yourself why. Why did almost every judge find Trump's cases so weak that it never got that far. Almost all were thrown out for lack of evidence, whistleblowers or no whistleblowers.
You have one of the most renowned prosecutors in history, Giuliani leading the charge yet - nothing. Could it possibly be because there was nothing to start with that would amount to widespread voter fraud as opposed to a few local instances of possible fraud that effected only a few votes?
I get the feeling you really believe there is no "widespread voter fraud" case that can be made.
Even if each of the 280 allegations you seem to be hung up on are true, I have to respond - so what? Is the magnitude of that worth the destruction Trump and the Republicans are doing to our democracy? IMO - no.
BTW, the only local voter fraud that is being prosecuted that I have heard of is a Trumper who signed up both his dead mother and dead mother-in-law. I think he is facing 15 years.
This is one source I am sure you will believe - the very conservative Heritage Foundation. (They are respected enough that I will look at what they produce but am forced to look at their methodology as it is sometimes biased). What have they found over the last several decades regarding the extent of provable voter fraud? A whopping 1,071 instances. That is right - 1,071 instances of verified voter fraud across the US!!
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whiteh … dcases.pdf
Now stack that up with the 280 allegations you are concerned about. Then ask yourself - is the magnitude of your worry reasonable?
I am trying to find articles about individuals who filed claims of voter fraud in 2020 and am coming up empty (although I do know there are a few). But I did find the above citation and this one which should prove interesting.
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55016029
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/nine- … -credible/
This was my Google search "what 2020 voters claimed fraud?" - I found no reports that mentioned individuals making any claims. That is not to say none did, I just can't find them easily, even the one where I know an individual was party with a Trump suit. I guess you will have to provide the specific cases you are talking about.
OK, found one. I remember it. A postal worker signed an allegation about ballot tampering. Then, after an investigation, he recanted. Then after the conservatives got hold of him, he recanted the recantation. Go figure. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/ … llegations
On the same subject - https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/claim … d-is-moot/Which cases, filed by Trump's lawyer team under Rudi, were thrown out for lack of evidence? A link to the court report giving the reason, please. (Bear in mind that "almost all" certainly means over 50% and a more reasonable figure would be 90%.)
I have already presented them to Sharlee several times. Read them.
I could only find two cases where the ruling mentioned insufficient evidence. The rest that I looked at the rulings were procedural and law-oriented. Somewhere in this thread, I posted the two cases. When looking at the cases in regard to voter fraud or election interference one must realize many of the cases were brought about by others, not Trump. This is where some seem to be stuck. The Trump cases had various rulings that were procedural in nature. The evidence did not come into play. Not one case ever made the evidentury phase.
I am sorry Sharlee, you must not have read the Financial Times article I gave you at
https://www.ft.com/content/20b114b5-541 … 18a2527931
I'll synopsize:
AZ - Name: Donald J Trump for President, Inc et al v. Katie Hobbs et al - Tossed out because not enough votes were affected to make a difference - MOOT
GA - Name: In re: Enforcement of Election Laws and Securing Ballots Cast or Received after 7pm on November 3 2020 - Trump campaign filed and was tossed out for lack of evidence
MI - Name: Donald J Trump for President et al v. Jocelyn Benson
The Trump campaign sued on November 4 to stop the counting of absentee ballots ... The lawsuit also included claims from a poll watcher who had heard from a poll worker (lol) that they had been told by other poll workers to change the dates on late ballots. The lawsuit was roundly rejected by everybody. One one count, it was frivolous and on the other lack of evidence.
MI - Name: Donald J Trump for President et al v. Jocelyn Benson - a different case involving certification. Tossed out for lack of evidence.
PA - Name: Donald J Trump for President v. Kathy Boockvar and County Boards of Elections - Trump got a few votes blocked, apparently PA did not appeal.
PA - Name: In re: Canvassing Observation - Filed by Trump campaign to get poll watchers closer. Lost the first round but won on appeal but lost again on a final appeal.
PA - Name: In re: Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of November 3 2020 General Election - Five different cases filed by Trump campaign to get legal absentee ballots thrown out due to protentional minor errors. Lost them all for lack of evidence and lost on appeal.
PA - Name: Donald J. Trump for President v. Montgomery County Board of Elections - Similar to the above with identical results - denied for lack of evidence. In this case, Trump didn't appeal.
PA - Name: Donald J. Trump for President v. Bucks County Board of Elections - Similar to above except Trump stipulated that there was no fraud. Dismiss for lack of evidence and lost on appeal.
Federal - Name: Donald J Trump For President et al v. Boockvar et al - this was a spaghetti attack to see what would stick and nothing did. Trump judge excoriated Trump in his lack of evidence dismissal.
WI - Name: [b]Donald J. Trump[/b[ et al v. Anthony S Evers et al - Thrown out by WI Supreme Court because it didn't go through the lower courts. Trump went to the lower courts and lost.
There are many more just like these. Of course Wilderness will call all of these fake news and ask me to find others.So let's see.
AZ was NOT thrown out for lack of evidence as you claim.
Ga not filed by Trump's legal team.
MI not filed by Trump's legal team.
MI tossed for lack of evidence, according to you.
Pa Won, not tossed out.
Pa not filed by Trump's legal team.
Pa Thrown out for lack of evidence.
Pa Thrown for lack of evidence.
Pa dismissed for lack of evidence.
Federal lost, not thrown out.
Wi Thrown out for procedural reasons.
So, out of 11 claims 4 filed by Trump were thrown out for lack of evidence...according to you, and you alone, for you "forgot" to include a link to court documents proving your assertion. That hardly seems to match your post that " Almost all were thrown out for lack of evidence". Do you wish to modify that (false) statement to "A minority were thrown out for lack of evidence"? You could do so when you produce court documents supporting even one of those claims filed by Trump that you claim were thrown out for lack of evidence...
By the way, you forgot to include the SCOTUS case, the most important of all, that was dismissed on procedural grounds. Was that so you could make it seem like "almost all", especially if you included claims NOT filed by Trump's legal team?And THIS IS WHY nobody take you seriously Wilderness - you don't read or tell the truth - PERIOD.
AZ was NOT thrown out for lack of evidence as you claim. - Here again you simply lie or make things up. As I know you know, I didn't say it was thrown out for "lack of evidence" now did I? See if you can answer truthfully for once. To prove to everybody else that you obviously can't read, just for the record I said "Tossed out because not enough votes were affected to make a difference - MOOT"
Ga not filed by Trump's legal team. - Again you prove to the world you cannot read, Wilderness. To the rest of the world "Trump campaign filed and was tossed out for lack of evidence" means the Trump campaign filed the lawsuit - but not to you apparently.
MI not filed by Trump's legal team. And YET AGAIN you prove you cannot read (or maybe it simply cannot comprehend). What about {b]Donald J Trump for President[/b] et al v. Jocelyn Benson does not mean the Trump campaign? Or is it you are claiming the Trump campaign doesn't represent Donald Trump - maybe that is it. Can someone help educate Wilderness please?
MI tossed for lack of evidence, according to you. - NO, according the judge, look it up.
Pa Won, not tossed out. - This epitomizes how brainwashed you are, Wilderness. That is exactly what I said.
Pa not filed by Trump's legal team. - Again, read the words, Wilderness. The reference to the Trump Campaign IS the Trump legal team. I think I called you obtuse, but I will do it again.
Pa Thrown out for lack of evidence.
Pa Thrown for lack of evidence.
Pa dismissed for lack of evidence.
Federal lost, not thrown out. - Siggghhhh, yes it was, read the damn opinion.
Wi Thrown out for procedural reasons. - Absolutely amazing, read what I wrote.
I bet Wilderness wants to hit me right now because that is what very high scoring Right-Wing Authoritarian Followers do when confronted with facts.
I hope everybody understands why I am driven to snarkiness with this kind of frivolous content.
I did not forget SCOTUS, that was not part of the article. And it was not thrown out on procedural grounds. There was no case there to start with - TX wasted the court's time with a frivolous lawsuit (once upon a time you use to hate those, Wilderness, I guess you had a change of heart)
And since I got the facts out there, given the Financial Times article may be behind a pay wall and you all have the case names, I'll leave RMN, Wilderness, and Trump to travel around in their self-made alternate reality together.
I think it time I agree to disagree. I read actual court rulings or quotes of rulings you need to understand many cases were not brought to the court by Trump. I did offer pages back the two cases Trump filed with the judge's names and rulings. We come about our facts differently.
As did I Sharlee. But Wilderness thinks your cases are meaningless since they were not brought by Rudy G. - hence, why I limited what I posted above to those cases brought by Rudy, i.e., the Trump campaign.
But, if I understand you right, it is all moot because regarding the question of "widespread, election nullifying voter fraud", you agree it doesn't exist.
As to individual cases of fraud, e.g. the mailman and the Trump voter examples, I agree with you, they do exist and need to be investigated.Apparently you and I are both wrong. Anyone not on the Trash Trump bandwagon, and filed a lawsuit over the election, is plainly on Trump's legal team headed by Rudi. So says Eso, anyway, and we are forced to believe him because...well, because he said to.
What difference does it make who filed the lawsuits? Why is this so important to you two? Does it make a difference in the outcome somehow?
The claim was that "almost all" of the lawsuits filed by Trump had no evidence. This can only be shown (even if still exaggerated) if any lawsuit filed against any election precinct or state is considered. While still claiming that it refers to lawsuits filed by Trump.
I trust you can see the difference: if you filed a lawsuit contesting the election it would be considered by some to have been filed by Trump, and if without merit would then be used to exclaim that "Trump's" lawsuits are almost all without merit or evidence. A false statement when used that way, but that doesn't appear to bother some posting here.Okay, but isn't it worse to know that almost every lawsuit having to do with election fraud, whether filed by Trump lawyers, Trump campaign lawyers, or someone else, was dismissed?
It just seems pretty meaningless to me. No one has proven massive election fraud That is the bottom line.You got that right!
1. There was no widespread voter fraud in 2020 and there never has been in any election, and hopefully never will be.
2. Trump, a significant number or Republicans in Congress, and any Trumper who buys into Trump's conspiracy theories are doing great, great damage to American democracy and it seems they don't really care so long as they appease their savior and new god - Trump.Winning a small battle over wording helps deflect from the point that Trump defenders cannot prove systemic fraud occurred. They can alleged accusations, but cannot provide the specifics of those allegations or the proof to back up those claims of illegality. 60 of 61 cases lost, with one win allowing poll watchers a few feet closer.
Believing that election workers in six different states, with some of those controlled by Republican Governors and Secretaries of State, Republican judges, Bill Barr, and Christopher Wray all conspired to elect Joe Biden is just logical to Trump's defenders on this site. To the rest of us, it'd be easier to win the Megamillions jackpot.LOL You're right - it was likely on par with winning the Megamillions jackpot. Which happens multiple times every year.
In three days, Biden's electoral college votes will be up for certification by congress. McConnell has already told his people to certify the votes. If they don't it is going to look bad for them and their supporters.
There are now 12 republican senators led by Ted Cruz who claim they are not going to certify the vote. The house has the majority, so these people are just grandstanding in my view.
All of this mumbo jumbo about massive voter fraud is an exercise in futility and will become history after the inauguration and hopefully all his cult-like senators will go away.
Trump is the one who tried to rig the election, then he sabotaged the transition for Biden and now he and his cult are trying to discredit Biden's win. If anybody should be investigated, it should be Trump and his cult.
At this point, it is Trump and his cult against the democratic process and the republic. Trump wants to be the president who would be king. As they told me when Trump won over Hillary, "Get over it and move on."Isn't it ironic, Mike, that before Trump America once was a beacon to the world on how to be a democracy.
And now, after Trump's successful "Make America Worse Again" campaign, America is showing the world how to destroy a democracy.
In long ago times when the Federalist Party, the one that made America exist, went off the extremist deep-end and simply disappeared. There was a great internal battle within the remaining "Democratic" Party (it had many names over the intervening decades until it finally became the party of slavery) until it split and the Whigs emerged to represent a mixture of principles that Democrats now represent and the Republican Party of the 1970s use to represent. From the Whigs ultimately came the Lincoln Republican Party which, over the next several decades as the social conservatives took control, became today's Democratic Party on the social front, but not the old Republican Party on some of the economic issues like free-trade. (Today, no party pushes free-trade, balanced budgets, fiscal restraint, etc)
I would not be surprised that real Republicans finally give up and form a party that represents the historical conservative-moderate economic issues (the Republican's who understood and accepted Keynesian economics) and promulgate moderate-liberal so social values. That is a party I could join. Then let the current so-called Republican Party go the way of the Federalist Party.
Thank God America overwhelmingly elected Joe Biden to lead the decades long process to repair Trump's disaster and Make America Great Again (for real this time)Democracy would have afforded the whistleblowers to be heard... At this point, we have laughed in the face of democracy. Democracy gives the people a right to be heard, not disregarded due to their being an inconvenience to an election outcome. One that was riddled with fraud.
This was not a judge laughing in the face of democracy, but one pointing out that Trump's poll watchers were woefully uninformed to the processes because one twenty minute video prior to the election was insufficient training. As with many things done by the Trump administration, the training of poll workers was suspect.
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/ … 425725002/
The judge agreed, writing, “Perhaps if Plaintiffs' election challenger affiants had attended the October 29, 2020 walk-through of the TCF Center ballot counting location, questions and concerns could have been answered in advance of Election Day.
“Regrettably, they did not,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiffs' interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible.”I got that privilege in Florida, but only because I watched the officials canvass the votes.
And may I give kudo's to the Republican election officials in heavily Republican Bradford County. They did an extremely credible and honest job of running the process."This was not a judge laughing in the face of democracy, but one pointing out that Trump's poll watchers were woefully uninformed to the processes because one twenty-minute video prior to the election was insufficient training. As with many things done by the Trump administration, the training of poll workers was suspect."
First, all poll watchers are given tutorials on what to be aware of., your statement seeks to insult their individual intelligence. Yes, due to being individuals some could be mistaken for what they understand to be a fraud. Secondly, I saw nothing in any judge's rulings to indicate the "poll waters were uninformed. Only two that I have read even mentions evidence, and those rulings did not in any respect mention poll workers. You have assumed the poll watchers were not informed, that is you reading into a scenario. Here are the facts in the state provide poll worker, not "Trump".
" Interested? You can sign up today at Michigan.gov/DemocracyMVP to receive more information on the next steps. You will need to attend training(s), submit a completed election inspector application to your local clerk, and be appointed by the local city/township board. Among other things, the application will include name, address and date of birth, political party preference, and qualifications to fill the position such as education or experience." https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-1 … --,00.html
Thirdly I have by no means demeaned or made the claim that any of the judge's rulings. were unjust. I actually said most did not comment on anything but procedural aspects of the case before them, leaning on procedural law to come to their rulings. I also said the majority of rulings just were not reported, only a few that I feel the media sunk their teeth into the wording of the rulings. Made good fed for hungry viewers. You gave a very good example of what some judges did add to their rulings, latches --- which they felt showed a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim.
I have no problem with judges, my complaint once again is whistleblowers are not being heard. Is this due to our courts? In a way, yes, but the courts are falling back on laws. Is it due to a crappy DOJ? maybe, it is truly their job to hear whistleblowers in regard to voter fraud. Barr claimed at the point he gave his statements that he found nothing to indicate the number of frauds committed would have changed the election and that they were proceeding with other claims. He did not say fraud was not committed, he did not share a word about the allegations many whistleblowers claimed.
I hope to at this point have these citizen's allegations fully investigated, this certainly would work to restore voter confidence. I am unwilling as you appear to be to just claim the poll watchers did not receive proper training. These citizens were not hired by Trump or any given party. They are brought on at the state level. There are no Trump workers or Biden workers... It so odd you would think that the case. Here in Michigan one of the very credible whistleblowers is a Dem, and as well as black. These whistleblowers are not all Republicans.
Check your state in regards to how they hire poll workers.
I thought you might be interested in just how the Michigan case from your link was ruled on. It proves my point...
"The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear a lawsuit from Donald Trump’s campaign that sought to stop officials from counting absentee ballots.
The lawsuit, filed on Nov. 4, asked the court to order Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to stop counting absentee votes because of alleged issues with the counting process. The State Board of Canvassers certified Michigan’s election results on Nov. 23.
On Friday, the state’s highest court declined to hear the suit, saying in an order “we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.”
The suit originally was denied by Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens on Nov. 5, when she ruled the Trump campaign sued the wrong group, filed its lawsuit too late and has no evidence to back up its allegations."
This is one of two cases the press have pounded... The first Judge that heard the case claimed a lack of evidence.
Very good fodder...The point I tried to get across to you, and Mike in the other thread, was that many of these 'affidavits' were scrutinized by the courts and found to be poll watchers with twenty minutes of training misunderstanding the process, after being told by Trump for weeks that the election was going to be rigged. Many of the allegations of fraud, most of what Mike claimed, was easily explainable or was dismissed as misunderstanding. Some, like the Peter Navarro bribery claims, were just outright lies.
As I said I did see two cases where several Whistleblowers were named in the case filings, in fact, one was the very case you offered a link for that was filed in my state of Michigan
MATTHEW SEELY, ALEXANDRA SEELY,
PHILIP O’HALLORAN,
ERIC OSTERGREN,
MARIAN SHERIDAN,
MERCEDES WIRSING,
and CAMERON TARSA
All the above offered sworn statements of incidents they felt were fraudulent
The ruling --- .On Friday, the state’s highest court declined to hear the suit, saying in order “we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.”
The suit originally was denied by Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens on Nov. 5, when she ruled the Trump campaign sued the wrong group, filed its lawsuit too late, and has no evidence to back up its allegations. This was one of two cases where evidence was mentioned in the ruling.
" many of these 'affidavits' were scrutinized by the courts and found to be poll watchers with twenty minutes of training misunderstanding the process"
As I said one needs to follow the cases and search the actual rulings Your statement is not what I found. I have not seen one ruling where it states anything about the poll watcher training. You need to prove that statement with a true factual statement from a ruling or a statement from a judge.
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-cont … 961445.pdf
