GOP: How does it profit a man to continue to beat a dead horse?

1. 81

   Credence2posted 5 weeks ago

   https://news.yahoo.com/trump-supporters … 10375.html
   
   I thought that after the Supreme Court gave its opinion on the recent Texas lawsuit, (NUTS), that we could have this matter finally settled after all. The current court is packed to the gills with right wing types, yet they still could not find any room to give the Texas suit the time of day. What does that tell you?
   
   Then there is the Trump sycophant, Governor Kemp of Georgia, who made the fatal error of linking his fortunes to a viper like Trump. Do you not think that either Kemp or his Election manager would not have pulled all the stops legally possible to support Trump and his campaign in the state?
   
   Now Trump attacks Kemp saying that his fealty should have been to him and not the law as to how these elections are officially handled. After 3 recounts, the outcome of the tally is unchanged, but Trump wants it all thrown out in favor of appointing electors that will give the state's votes to him? Why would Rightwingers or anyone else abide with any thing like this?
   
         For the Rightwinger, its democracy be damned. The only acceptable outcome was a Trump victory. But, I and the 80 millions that voted for Biden tell the Rightwingers to "take a hike".
   
   3. "This is why, despite zero evidence, the majority of Republicans still believe Trump’s lie that the election was rigged and that he won. A Washington Post survey found that only 26 Republicans, out of 249 in both the House and Senate, would acknowledge Biden’s victory"
   ----------
   This true as of December 11th? What sort of stupid mesmerizing process was employed by Trump that could turn so many independent men and women into "pu$$ies". It gets more ridiculous by the day. The GOP"brand" is going to be tarnished as a result.
   
   4. But for me and Democrats, this is great. We will use the GOP Hyde and Jeckyl identity crisis syndrome to our advantage in the Georgia Senate runoffs, to insure that both seats are won by Democrats, bringing any hint of interference by the Right in Washington to nothing, at least for a couple of years.
   
   So, bubble, bubble, toil and trouble, let's keep the cauldron boiling between "Republicans" and "Trumpers".

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Live to Learnposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      There is more evidence of vote tampering than there was for the Russian collusion. Where was your outrage then?

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         Every respectable tribunal in the nation says that Trump and his claims are all wet. How much  more evidence do you need?

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            There can't be more than a handful of "respectable tribunals" left in the country - not after the pathetic show they all put on over Trump - and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't read any of them.
            
            So...quite a bit more than your biased, Trump hating, divisive, lying tribunals that couldn't produce an actual "report" of anything but their own bias and hatred.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

               Utter nonsense, Wilderness. So the whole universe has it out for Donald Trump? That would include the Supreme Court?
               
               That is interesting, what is your sane, reasoned answer to all of this?

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  My sane, reasoned, answer is that your "respectable tribunals" that have spent 4 years degrading, lying and twisting everything President Trump has said or done are not "respectable" at all, and only a died in the wool Trump hater would believe a thing they say.
                  
                  That does NOT include the SCOTUS, for they never heard a thing he had to say about the election.  If you recall they declined on procedural reasons, not lack of evidence.  But it most certainly DOES include mainstream media, a media that has shown itself incapable of "reporting" without skewing everything they have to say around their bias.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                     So, that would have to include all of the cases where he was ruled against by lower courts, all of them? All of these lower courts, many with GOP and Trump appointees had it out for Trump from the beginning?
                     
                     If there was something of substance in Trump's and the Texas' lawsuit, do you really believe the the Supreme Court would not have taken the case?
                     
                     Why do you think that the mainstream media would have such a problem with Trump?

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                        Trump, or his legal team, filed only a small handful of lower court cases.  None were thrown out for lack of evidence (that I'm aware of).
                        
                        SCOTUS refused to take the case because Texas had no standing.  And yes, they will refuse under those conditions no matter how much solid evidence was produced.  That is the law.

                        replyreport
                        1. 88

                           IslandBitesposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                           None were thrown out for lack of evidence (that I'm aware of).
                           
                           
                           
                           --“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,” Judge Stephanos Bibas, a former law school professor, wrote in his ruling.
                           
                           --U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig, a Trump appointee, dismissed Trump’s federal lawsuit asking the court to order the Republican-controlled Legislature to name Trump the winner over Democrat Joe Biden. The judge said Trump’s arguments “fail as a matter of law and fact.”
                           
                           The rest you can google.

                           replyreport
   2. 84

      Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      And so the great divide goes...
      
      I am a Republican, so I guess I can speak for at least one Republican. I voted for Trump this time around due to what I saw was a good job performance and a real feeling of contentment in how America was feeling pretty dam good to me.  I don't think I was ever mesmerized by anyone?  And for the WAPO survey who knows. It's a rag. But why would the majority no support trump, I would think they also like his way of Governing, they have a history as do the Dems of not getting much done. So, ya think they would support a Biden? Most know Biden, and a hell of a lot better than we do.
      
      I don't think you will find many of us that support Trump will call Joe our president.  It asked  --- I won't. 
      
      None of us knows what the future will be, what we are in store for. One thing we do know four years from now, we can assess, and vote once again.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         Well, Sharlee, I had the same attitude about Trump in 2016, how does that get us anywhere?
         
         In the final analysis, there will be one resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, that is Joe Biden.
         
         Trump, considering his record and style still did relatively well.  I think that the Coronavirus crisis is primarily responsible for his defeat and turned enough GOP voters against him to give Biden the win. Like I said, you have to actually work as an incumbent to be denied a second term.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            "Like I said, you have to actually work as an incumbent to be denied a second term."
            
            " I think that the Coronavirus crisis is primarily responsible for his defeat and turned enough GOP voters against him to give Biden the win."
            
            You don't see a slight dichotomy between these statements?  You're absolutely right - without the virus Trump would almost certainly have won quite handily - but then you go on to say that the virus was Trump working against himself?  Do you think Trump created the virus himself and set it loose in the US, or are you of the mindset (as some others in this forum) that very nearly 100% of the deaths are somehow his fault?

            replyreport
            1. 84

               PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

               Trump worked against himself in pretty much all aspects of the job, but it was particularly glaring in his response to the pandemic. Had he simply deferred to his expert team and backed them up instead of working against them, he might still be president {{{{shudder}}}}.

               replyreport
            2. 81

               Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

               What I meant was that the most recent 2 presidents denied a second term by the voters, Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover. Both administrations were catastrophic enough for that outcome to occur.
               
               No Trump did not create the virus, but as Panther said there was much to be said as to how he managed it from the beginning. You may take issue with that, but the resulting economic downturn and the rising death toll is going to be pinned on the occupant who is on watch.
               
               But again, what happen d to Carter and Hoover were not necessarily their faults either.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I do not take issue with how Trump managed the mask/distancing protocols; he failed miserably there.
                  
                  At the same time, to declare that had he done anything else in that area would have saved a quarter million lives is not only stupid it verges on insanity in that first, it assumes that people are never responsible for their own actions and second, that Trump had unlimited authority and power to do as he wished.  Neither is even close to being true; both are as false as they can be.
                  
                  I agree that Trump will be blamed...by those that wish to find blame for anything he does.  He did very well in many facets of the pandemic response, and that will be set aside and forgotten.  Is it good, logical reasoning that produces that - that assigns blame and ignores the good things?  Not hardly, but it is what will be done - you are absolutely right there.  Those on these forums that assign the blame for all those quarter million deaths are a good example.

                  replyreport