Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

If Biden Loses the Assumed Pro Tem Status

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    “all the corruption going on” is meaningless if you cannot convince a court that you have evidence to support your claim. That’s why Rudy is going nowhere with his empty sack.
    that sure is an odd point. We should accept corruption because the courts also are corrupt? What type of logic is that? Maybe it is the best logic we can expect these days from the masses.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

      that sure is an odd point. We should accept corruption because the courts also are corrupt? What type of logic is that? Maybe it is the best logic we can expect these days from the masses.
      Just saying that a claim means nothing without evidence to support it. No significant evidence has been produced that would support Trumpco’s wild claims.
      “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
      “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
      “not all there” - you know who you are

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post





        You're asking if irregularities, or fraud, changed the outcome of the election when you should be asking why that baseless accusation is not only currently being made but was being made before a single vote was cast. Trump's post-election campaign may be damaging to democracy, but there's no reason to believe that's the motivation.

        There's reason to believe vanity plays a role but there's no need to go there when greed and grift are not merely evident but sufficient. Trump is transactional to a fault. He's making out like a hedge fund bandit on these accusations.


        Selective memory..

        Originally posted by MaxVel
        And so far we have nothing from either side on the first claim, about how the interview was set up a month before it took place. I'm not inclined to believe Pompeo, nor am I inclined to believe a journalist.
        Originally posted by MaxVel
        Politicians are going to play politics, and journalists are going to try to get their pieces on the front page. I have little reason to trust the integrity of either party.
        Originally posted by MaxVel
        And it's painful to point out, again, that a request is not an agreement. And we don't have any evidence about the original agreement (if there was one), and insufficient evidence to determine if the post-interview conversation was agreed to be off the record or not. Pompeo doubtless has his agenda, and she doubtless has hers. I'm not inclined to believe either sans evidence. You believe her.
        I'm clearly the more skeptical of us. You have a dog in this fight (Democrat), and are obviously inclined to accept that side of the narrative on face value. I support neither Democrats nor Republicans. That thread was me questioning whether we had data to support either Pompeo's version of the events, or the journalist's. That's a long way from your smear of " I've seen you chase the rabbit of baseless accusations from this administration, refusing to ask the deeper questions of why the baseless accusations are being made."

        I trust neither side (hence I am more skeptical than you), and that's why I want to establish the facts as best possible before making a judgment. Questioning 'why baseless accusations are made' is a waste of time IF the accusations are not actually baseless.




        Now, on to my actual question, not your version of it, which was... Is there really no evidence at all of irregularities in the election? You have said that the Trump campaign's accusations are "baseless". I take that to mean that there's no evidence at all, nothing that could even possibly support a question over the integrity of the election. The equivalent of the teen internet atheist braying 'there is no evidence for god, your imaginary sky daddy, lol. I win'

        That's not 'I don't think the evidence presented supports the claim.' which would be a reasonable position.

        In short, 'baseless accusations' is empty rhetoric.

        Trump may well be greedy and only interested in personal profit. Obviously it doesn't follow from that that the election was without any irregularities.
        ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
          Selective memory..
          Are you being deliberately obtuse, or is this a native condition. That is exactly the rabbit trail I referenced earlier. It's not your job, or anyone else's, to prosecute a charge for the Secretary of State of the United States. That's his job, and he declined to do so, in his official capacity, in an official statement from the State Department. The only remaining question is why.

          Neither is it your job to prosecute charges of election regularities.

          I'm clearly the more skeptical of us. You have a dog in this fight (Democrat) ...
          When I tell folks I'm not the partisan they're looking for, I mean I'm not the partisan they're looking for. I am not now, nor have I ever been a Democrat, and I'll thank you to never make that mistake again.

          Neither is Max Boot, weighing in a few hours after my postings:

          Trump won’t concede because it’s so profitable to keep the con going

          And more pointedly, neither is Attorney General William P. Barr, in a story that broke a few hours after that.

          Barr says he hasn’t seen fraud that could affect the election outcome

          Barr Acknowledges Justice Dept. Has Found No Widespread Voter Fraud
          The attorney general’s comments were a rebuke of the president’s increasingly spurious claims about election fraud.

          ... and are obviously inclined to accept that side of the narrative on face value.
          The formula is to repeat it three times, while clicking your heels together.

          I support neither Democrats nor Republicans.
          The evidence says otherwise, but that's not the issue. The issue is your refusal to follow the evidence that's available while unfairly inserting false equivalences under an ersatz banner of fairness. Bias in a public official doesn't confer bias onto a journalist. No, not even in Kansas.

          You have an innate bias, but it's only political by proxy. In the interest of religious comity, you align with the political position of the majority of Christians, on this site. This site is not representative of Christianity, not even in the US.

          This site is a hotbed of right wing freakjobs masquerading as Christians.

          Follow the evidence:

          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
          I was wishing violence on Krebs.
          Krebs isn't a Democrat, either.

          Trump fired me for saying this, but I’ll say it again: The election wasn’t rigged

          Supporting their position is a poor decision, one you should reconsider. Look who's in bed with you.

          That thread was me questioning whether we had data to support either Pompeo's version of the events, or the journalist's. That's a long way from your smear of " I've seen you chase the rabbit of baseless accusations from this administration, refusing to ask the deeper questions of why the baseless accusations are being made."
          That thread was you following a rabbit trail of baseless accusations from the administration, as you're doing once again. At no point have you asked why Pompeo decided to single out a journalist in an official statement, or asked why Trump was claiming fraud before a single vote was cast.

          I trust neither side (hence I am more skeptical than you), and that's why I want to establish the facts as best possible before making a judgment. Questioning 'why baseless accusations are made' is a waste of time IF the accusations are not actually baseless.
          I'll give you a chance to read the statements by Krebs and Barr, and then give you a chance to clarify what you mean by "neither side."

          Now, on to my actual question, not your version of it, which was... Is there really no evidence at all of irregularities in the election? You have said that the Trump campaign's accusations are "baseless". I take that to mean that there's no evidence at all, nothing that could even possibly support a question over the integrity of the election. The equivalent of the teen internet atheist braying 'there is no evidence for god, your imaginary sky daddy, lol. I win'
          Now that's what a smear looks like. But it lacked style.
          .
          There were irregularities that changed the outcome of the election.

          God, at the pearly gates, ready to welcome another daughter into heaven: No, Trump's justice department says that didn't happen, and so does his cybersecurity team, and all of the lawyers charging fraud outside the courtrooms say the opposite in a front of a judge, and ...

          This goes higher than I thought.


          I didn't say the Trump campaign's accusations were baseless.

          I said:
          Baseless accusations about the integrity of the election are a ploy to aid yet another Trump scam.


          Baseless accusations are being used to scam your fellow Christians, a fact you're not only not disputing, but tacitly granting by asking if every single accusation was similarly baseless. Why should that matter? How can it matter? Their money is gone, dude. Your people are being fleeced. Why aren't you upset about this? Why aren't you sounding the alarm?

          That's not 'I don't think the evidence presented supports the claim.' which would be a reasonable position.

          In short, 'baseless accusations' is empty rhetoric.
          Only if empty means undisputed.

          You know, one of my pet peeves is the mindless argument that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. An argument that works for a short-sighted human in a vast universe loses strength when you're searching for a tiger in your closet. Memes on FB and fringe media diatribes aren't evidence that ever makes it into court, where we've collectively resolved to settle disputes by our decision to choose the rule of law in opposition to the whims of a monarch.

          The evidence that has made it into court has been judged, often enough by Trump appointees, to be irregular, or to be simply false, or even to be sufficient reason to issue cautions to the litigant's lawyers about their responsibilities before the bar. And the cases that concluded have ended with a dismissal, with one exception to my knowledge, which granted the right for observers, already present, to be allowed to stand six feet from the observed.

          .
          The most famous scene came in Pennsylvania, where a Trump lawyer strained to avoid acknowledging that their people were, in fact, allowed to observe the vote-counting process in Philadelphia:
          At the city’s federal courthouse on Thursday evening, attorneys for Trump asked a judge to issue an emergency order to stop the count, alleging that all Republican observers had been barred.
          Under sharp questioning from Judge Paul S. Diamond, however, they conceded that Trump in fact had “a nonzero number of people in the room,” leaving Diamond audibly exasperated.
          “I’m sorry, then what’s your problem?” asked Diamond, who was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush. Denying Trump’s request, Diamond struck a deal for 60 observers from each party to be allowed inside.
          At one point on Friday afternoon, 12 Republican observers and five Democrats were watching the count, according to a ballot counter who was working.

          After that “nonzero” answer, Diamond pressed the Trump campaign lawyer to be more explicit — and he suggestively invoked their standing with the bar: “I’m asking you as a member of the bar of this court: Are people representing the plaintiffs in the room?” The lawyer responded more directly: “Yes.” By the end of the hearing, Diamond invoked his right to make sure lawyers in his courtroom acted in good faith.


          There's no tiger in the closet.

          Trump may well be greedy and only interested in personal profit. Obviously it doesn't follow from that that the election was without any irregularities.
          Look, a rabbit, and it's shiny.

          I'm vegetarian.
          Last edited by Juvenal; 12-02-2020, 04:47 AM. Reason: Adding a link.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

            Are you being deliberately obtuse, or is this a native condition. That is exactly the rabbit trail I referenced earlier. It's not your job, or anyone else's, to prosecute a charge for the Secretary of State of the United States. That's his job, and he declined to do so, in his official capacity, in an official statement from the State Department. The only remaining question is why.

            Neither is it your job to prosecute charges of election regularities.



            When I tell folks I'm not the partisan they're looking for, I mean I'm not the partisan they're looking for. I am not now, nor have I ever been a Democrat, and I'll thank you to never make that mistake again.

            Neither is Max Boot, weighing in a few hours after my postings:

            Trump won’t concede because it’s so profitable to keep the con going

            And more pointedly, neither is Attorney General William P. Barr, in a story that broke a few hours after that.

            Barr says he hasn’t seen fraud that could affect the election outcome

            Barr Acknowledges Justice Dept. Has Found No Widespread Voter Fraud
            The attorney general’s comments were a rebuke of the president’s increasingly spurious claims about election fraud.



            The formula is to repeat it three times, while clicking your heels together.



            The evidence says otherwise, but that's not the issue. The issue is your refusal to follow the evidence that's available while unfairly inserting false equivalences under an ersatz banner of fairness. Bias in a public official doesn't confer bias onto a journalist. No, not even in Kansas.

            You have an innate bias, but it's only political by proxy. In the interest of religious comity, you align with the political position of the majority of Christians, on this site. This site is not representative of Christianity, not even in the US.

            This site is a hotbed of right wing freakjobs masquerading as Christians.

            Follow the evidence:



            Krebs isn't a Democrat, either.

            Trump fired me for saying this, but I’ll say it again: The election wasn’t rigged

            Supporting their position is a poor decision, one you should reconsider. Look who's in bed with you.



            That thread was you following a rabbit trail of baseless accusations from the administration, as you're doing once again. At no point have you asked why Pompeo decided to single out a journalist in an official statement, or asked why Trump was claiming fraud before a single vote was cast.



            I'll give you a chance to read the statements by Krebs and Barr, and then give you a chance to clarify what you mean by "neither side."



            Now that's what a smear looks like. But it lacked style.
            .
            There were irregularities that changed the outcome of the election.

            God, at the pearly gates, ready to welcome another daughter into heaven: No, Trump's justice department says that didn't happen, and so does his cybersecurity team, and all of the lawyers charging fraud outside the courtrooms say the opposite in a front of a judge, and ...

            This goes higher than I thought.


            I didn't say the Trump campaign's accusations were baseless.

            I said:
            Baseless accusations about the integrity of the election are a ploy to aid yet another Trump scam.


            Baseless accusations are being used to scam your fellow Christians, a fact you're not only not disputing, but tacitly granting by asking if every single accusation was similarly baseless. Why should that matter? How can it matter? Their money is gone, dude. Your people are being fleeced. Why aren't you upset about this? Why aren't you sounding the alarm?



            Only if empty means undisputed.

            You know, one of my pet peeves is the mindless argument that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. An argument that works for a short-sighted human in a vast universe loses strength when you're searching for a tiger in your closet. Memes on FB and fringe media diatribes aren't evidence that ever makes it into court, where we've collectively resolved to settle disputes by our decision to choose the rule of law in opposition to the whims of a monarch.

            The evidence that has made it into court has been judged, often enough by Trump appointees, to be irregular, or to be simply false, or even to be sufficient reason to issue cautions to the litigant's lawyers about their responsibilities before the bar. And the cases that concluded have ended with a dismissal, with one exception to my knowledge, which granted the right for observers, already present, to be allowed to stand six feet from the observed.

            .
            The most famous scene came in Pennsylvania, where a Trump lawyer strained to avoid acknowledging that their people were, in fact, allowed to observe the vote-counting process in Philadelphia:
            At the city’s federal courthouse on Thursday evening, attorneys for Trump asked a judge to issue an emergency order to stop the count, alleging that all Republican observers had been barred.
            Under sharp questioning from Judge Paul S. Diamond, however, they conceded that Trump in fact had “a nonzero number of people in the room,” leaving Diamond audibly exasperated.
            “I’m sorry, then what’s your problem?” asked Diamond, who was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush. Denying Trump’s request, Diamond struck a deal for 60 observers from each party to be allowed inside.
            At one point on Friday afternoon, 12 Republican observers and five Democrats were watching the count, according to a ballot counter who was working.

            After that “nonzero” answer, Diamond pressed the Trump campaign lawyer to be more explicit — and he suggestively invoked their standing with the bar: “I’m asking you as a member of the bar of this court: Are people representing the plaintiffs in the room?” The lawyer responded more directly: “Yes.” By the end of the hearing, Diamond invoked his right to make sure lawyers in his courtroom acted in good faith.


            There's no tiger in the closet.



            Look, a rabbit, and it's shiny.

            I'm vegetarian.

            This whole whale of a post is entirely unnecessary. I am asking a simple question: 'Is it your view that there is no evidence at all of election irregularities? ' {'baseless accusations'} That is really not that difficult a question to answer. Either there is no evidence to support that all, or there is some evidence, or there is some but it's dubious and perhaps not up to supporting the claims, or there is a whole lot of good evidence.

            Your conclusion in the post I initially replied to (that the Trump campaign is 'grifting' by fundraising for a campaign against election irregularities, when there is no basis for that campaign) depends on the premise - that the accusations really are 'baseless'. If they are not - if there is evidence for those accusations, then the Trump campaign is not grifting in that sense. If the election was changed by all sorts of irregularities, then I think that is something worth investigating, seriously. Right now there's a substantial part of the American electorate that feels (perhaps wrongly) that the whole electoral system is hopelessly corrupted. I think that is far more damaging to your country than some people being conned into donating to a possibly baseless campaign.


            Let's say that you are right, though. So what? People spend their money on all sorts of stupid things, and no-one bats an eyelid. It is people's right to spend their money as they see fit. And presumably when the campaign to change the election results fails because there is no evidence at all to support it, there will be a whole bunch of people who realize they were conned by Trump, and will have nothing to do with him at all after that. I call that a significant win, if you think Trump is so awful. For the cost of some donations, Trump will be thoroughly discredited in the eyes of many of his core supporters.



            Lastly, if you want better dialogue, then drop the smug condescension. It's the kind of 'better than you rubes' attitude that brought us President Trump in the first place.

            And if you want people not to think you support the Democrats, walk the walk. Fact check the loopy leftists here. Call out leftists as well as rightists when they use dodgy sources. Criticize left-wing pseudo journalism as well as right wing junk. Don't make empty rhetorical statements like 'baseless allegations'.


            ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
              This whole whale of a post is entirely unnecessary. I am asking a simple question: 'Is it your view that there is no evidence at all of election irregularities? ' {'baseless accusations'}
              I'll make my own decisions on what I think is valuable to post, thanks anyway.

              Simple is as simple does.

              I'm not following your rabbit trail.

              Do you need that in French? Some other language? Just let me know.

              Here was my statement. Again.
              .
              Baseless accusations about the integrity of the election are a ploy to aid yet another Trump scam.


              Is it your view that baseless accusations have not been used as a ploy to advance yet another Trump scam? That's the measure of the accuracy of the statement that brought your thinking processes to a screeching halt, lest you somehow be cast out of the freakjob choir.

              That is really not that difficult a question to answer. Either there is no evidence to support that all, or there is some evidence, or there is some but it's dubious and perhaps not up to supporting the claims, or there is a whole lot of good evidence.
              There is no world in which that question is relevant to the above statement, other than as a deflection.

              Your conclusion in the post I initially replied to (that the Trump campaign is 'grifting' by fundraising for a campaign against election irregularities, when there is no basis for that campaign) depends on the premise - that the accusations really are 'baseless'.
              It's not just my conclusion any more.

              And it requires only that baseless accusations exist, being used for that purpose, facts that are both in evidence and undisputed. And for what it's worth, valid accusations used to promote a scam are still promoting a scam. The fact that baseless accusations are being used, at all, makes the scam particularly rancid.

              It doesn't even require the conclusion be unique. There are any number of purposes served by Trump's derangement. A heavily edited, 46 minute video of the president rehashing long debunked accusations, including accusations his lawyers have made in their filings before recanted them before a judge, was released yesterday. The innumerable cuts show it was originally part of a much longer screed, and edited for whatever clarity was possible. All of Trump's scams, from Trump U to the Trump Foundation, to Trump-licensed-and-branded properties not owned by Trump are ego vehicles as well.

              If they are not - if there is evidence for those accusations, then the Trump campaign is not grifting in that sense.
              But still grifting.

              If the election was changed by all sorts of irregularities, then I think that is something worth investigating, seriously. Right now there's a substantial part of the American electorate that feels (perhaps wrongly) that the whole electoral system is hopelessly corrupted. I think that is far more damaging to your country than some people being conned into donating to a possibly baseless campaign.
              Yes, it is more damaging.

              Asking if the election was changed "by all sorts of irregularities" is meaningless in the face of the denial by the president's own Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. And quixotic in the face of denials by the president's toady of an attorney general. Trump fired Krebs for that. His lawyer went further.

              Trump Lawyer: Former DHS Senior Official Should Be Executed
              During Newsmax call-in Joe diGenova said Chris Krebs should be put to death.
              .
              On Monday President Trump’s campaign lawyer and former U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova said that fired Trump cybersecurity chief Chris Krebs should be executed for saying that the election was the “most secure in United States history.”

              DiGenova, appearing on the Howie Carr show, which simulcasts on Newsmax, took aim at Krebs as an aside during a wheels-off segment full of false claims about how the United States election had been rigged.

              “Anybody who thinks that this election went well, like that idiot Krebs who used to be the head of cybersecurity [for Trump]. That guy is a class A moron. He should be drawn and quartered. Taken out at dawn and shot,” diGenova said.

              This is not just a random Parler troll trying to get attention. This is an attorney speaking on behalf of the President of the United States’ re-election campaign. And while it may read like a macabre joke, the direct nature of diGenova’s comments make it impossible to interpret as anything other than a real wish/threat against a public servant for offering truthful testimony.


              And then there's Barr.

              Apparently, this goes higher than you thought.

              Let's say that you are right, though. So what? People spend their money on all sorts of stupid things, and no-one bats an eyelid. It is people's right to spend their money as they see fit. And presumably when the campaign to change the election results fails because there is no evidence at all to support it, there will be a whole bunch of people who realize they were conned by Trump, and will have nothing to do with him at all after that. I call that a significant win, if you think Trump is so awful. For the cost of some donations, Trump will be thoroughly discredited in the eyes of many of his core supporters.
              The funds being solicited under the guise they're to help challenge the election results are not being used for their purpose, and are instead being diverted to a leadership PAC, effectively, a personal piggy bank. It's not "spending money on something stupid" when it doesn't deliver the "stupid something."

              This is a straight up scam.

              And you're okay with that. I'll stop asking you to join me in condemning it.

              Yes, at least one lawsuit has been filed seeking reimbursement. But that was a major donor, someone with enough leverage to peer deeply behind the curtain. Most of these folks being scammed will never admit it, no matter the evidence. These are folks who still believe Obama was a muslim born in Kenya, that Hillary killed Vince Foster, that Seth Rich released the DNC files to Wikileaks, that Comet Ping Pong is abusing children in a hidden basement, that Qanon is a reliable source.

              These are people who believe the mainstream is leftist and that the country is right of its center. People like yourself, who believe anyone refusing to smooch heinie on the latest conspiracy theory is a RINO at best, and probably a communist.

              Do the math.

              Lastly, if you want better dialogue, then drop the smug condescension. It's the kind of 'better than you rubes' attitude that brought us President Trump in the first place.
              What brought us President Trump was his overwhelming support among evangelicals.

              2020-12-03_09-14-34.jpg

              The "rube" vote was never going to be enough.

              If you want less smug condescension, step up your game. If you're concerned, I do get better dialogue. Just not from you.

              And if you want people not to think you support the Democrats, walk the walk. Fact check the loopy leftists here.
              Name one, and name the dodgy source.

              Call out leftists as well as rightists when they use dodgy sources. Criticize left-wing pseudo journalism as well as right wing junk. Don't make empty rhetorical statements like 'baseless allegations'.
              Don't lecture me on walking the walk, and certainly not before you grow legs and attach them to a spine of your own.

              One of my dear friends, of more than a decade, unceremoniously banned me from the FB pages of her and her wife a few months ago for doing exactly that. I flew to Canada for their wedding. My Navy buddy's family, a friend since 1978, did the same, for the same reason. One of the two cousins I took care of after my buddy Pat died, ditto. Inaccurate information gets no free pass from me. Your need for the truth to be otherwise will never change those facts.

              I am not the partisan you are looking for. Neither am I looking for a partisan in you, but there's no mistaking I'm finding one.

              The freakjobs here are predominantly right wing. Sample bias is inevitable.

              And don't for a moment think I don't recognize that as a sloppy and baseless deflection from your own evident biases.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                Let's say that you are right, though. So what? People spend their money on all sorts of stupid things, and no-one bats an eyelid. It is people's right to spend their money as they see fit. And presumably when the campaign to change the election results fails because there is no evidence at all to support it, there will be a whole bunch of people who realize they were conned by Trump, and will have nothing to do with him at all after that. I call that a significant win, if you think Trump is so awful. For the cost of some donations, Trump will be thoroughly discredited in the eyes of many of his core supporters.


                It doesn't work that way. After the campaign to change the election results fails, the people who have donated to Trump will be racked with guilt for not having given enough. They will probably give even more to his defense fund.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                  And more pointedly, neither is Attorney General William P. Barr, in a story that broke a few hours after that.

                  Barr says he hasn’t seen fraud that could affect the election outcome

                  Barr Acknowledges Justice Dept. Has Found No Widespread Voter Fraud

                  The attorney general’s comments were a rebuke of the president’s increasingly spurious claims about election fraud.
                  Barr was speaking only in the capacity as the head of an agency that pursues criminal investigations. He said later that his statements were being (probably deliberately) misunderstood by the liberal media and that he was not in any way saying that there are necessarily no grounds for a civil case, which is what the President's legal team is pursuing.

                  Barr said earlier that people were confusing the use of the federal criminal justice system with allegations that should be made in civil lawsuits. He said a remedy for many complaints would be a top-down audit by state or local officials, not the U.S. Justice Department.

                  “There’s a growing tendency to use the criminal justice system as sort of a default fix-all,” he said...

                  https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...ement-n2580924

                  The Department of Justice also issued a statement saying that they have not definitively ruled out the existence of fraud and that investigations are ongoing.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                    Barr was speaking only in the capacity as the head of an agency that pursues criminal investigations. He said later that his statements were being (probably deliberately) misunderstood by the liberal media and that he was not in any way saying that there are necessarily no grounds for a civil case, which is what the President's legal team is pursuing.

                    Barr said earlier that people were confusing the use of the federal criminal justice system with allegations that should be made in civil lawsuits. He said a remedy for many complaints would be a top-down audit by state or local officials, not the U.S. Justice Department.

                    “There’s a growing tendency to use the criminal justice system as sort of a default fix-all,” he said...

                    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...ement-n2580924
                    What? Are you kidding? This would be like the first time that the media has covered up truths in this very odd year. Not!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                      After the campaign to change the election results fails, the people who have donated to Trump will be racked with guilt for not having given enough. They will probably give even more to his defense fund.
                      Trump has raked in $207.5 million as of a couple of hours ago.

                      In regards to the people who are donating to Trump's slush fund, let me say this:

                      "A fool and his money are soon parted."
                      "My favorite color in the alphabet is three." - Donald J. Trump
                      "The 'J' in my middle name stands for 'Jenius'" - Donald J. Trump

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Reepicheep View Post

                        Trump has raked in $207.5 million as of a couple of hours ago.

                        In regards to the people who are donating to Trump's slush fund, let me say this:

                        "A fool and his money are soon parted."
                        what do you say if Trump stays President for the next 4 years? That is the question I was asking anyhow.

                        It is interesting that the Dems cannot challenge the integrity of the votes for Trump lest they contradict the propaganda of the mainstream media.
                        Last edited by mikewhitney; 12-03-2020, 10:14 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                          Barr was speaking only in the capacity as the head of an agency that pursues criminal investigations. He said later that his statements were being (probably deliberately) misunderstood by the liberal media and that he was not in any way saying that there are necessarily no grounds for a civil case, which is what the President's legal team is pursuing.
                          The president and his supporters are continuing to make claims of criminally fraudulent behavior, ranging from the unhinged to the comical, and from the baseless to the serially debunked. Those charges belong in court, and if they're allegations of actual fraud, in criminal court.

                          But again and again, we find the president's lawyers presenting charges of fraud in public and recanting them inside the courtroom.

                          Every election has irregularities. There were thousands of votes that didn't get transferred in Georgia until after the recount had begun.
                          .
                          During the weeklong recount, officials in four counties found new batches of votes that weren't counted on Election Day or weren't properly transmitted to the Secretary of State for tallying.

                          In all, more than 5,800 uncounted votes were uncovered, netting nearly 1,400 new votes for Trump, who falsely said the discoveries were proof of wrongdoing. State officials stressed that these were accidents caused by human error and not indicative of fraud or vote-rigging.

                          Raffensperger's office called the difference between the audit results and the original machine-counted results "well within the expected margin of human error that occurs when hand-counting ballots."

                          I'd cavil a bit with Raffensperger on that, because while recounts typically move dozens, or even hundreds of votes, I'm not finding another election that shifted more than a thousand votes. The net change in Milwaukee Count, WI counties was 132 votes. That's on the high side of typical. Scaled up to GA that would move 1100 votes, the other direction of course. In neither case would that margin of error come close to the margin of victory, over 20,000 in WI, and over 10,000 in GA.

                          But every time I've seen a mistake that looked like it had a chance of changing a result, even in one state, it's turned out to be trivial after inspection.

                          Either because there just weren't enough votes at issue ...
                          .
                          Officials confirmed Wednesday a memory card with 284 votes was discovered Tuesday evening in Walton County and another with 293 votes was found in Douglas County.

                          Or because the error never made it to the official count.
                          .
                          Election workers also have found discrepancies while completing the hand recount. Georgia Republican Party Chairman David Shafer said a monitor found 9,626 votes that were labeled incorrectly in DeKalb County.

                          “One batch was labeled 10,707 for Biden and 13 for Trump – an improbable margin even by DeKalb standards,” Shafer said. “The actual count for the batch was 1,081 for Biden and 13 for Trump.”

                          Sterling said the votes were recorded correctly, so the DeKalb County discovery was a “nonissue.”

                          Nobody thinks continued litigation is going to change that. Not the varsity teams that have long since left the field, nor the JV squads, who are just rehashing old claims, milking it for billing hours, I'm guessing.

                          But there is actual fraud occurring. The partial recount in WI cost the Trump campaign $3 million to net 87 votes for Biden. A full recount to include the remainder counties would cost $9 million, says here. Even the JV lawyers bill by the hundreds per hour. A full fledged attempt to recount and litigate enough disputed states to make a difference would cost tens of millions.

                          But that's not what they're doing. They're not spending that money. They're running trivial lawsuits through the courts using cut-rate lawyers with expenses long since entirely covered by contributions, and then ginning the grift mill for hundreds of millions more on the pretense it's going to cover those fees. That's fraud, and it's continuing, heavily documented, out in the open.

                          I'm hearing the chorus of "fools and their money" and "laugh at them learnin' their lesson" but no, just no, I'm never going to be joining them. These are my fellow Americans, and, for the most part, your fellow Christians, who are being scammed. I will never approve of that. It's not in my nature. When chess stopped being a game of finding the best answer and started being a game of taking advantage of someone else's blunder, it lost its appeal for me.

                          I teach undergraduate math. Every day, I struggle with the challenge of how to teach students to overcome their fears of being wrong. My students can't afford to have a professor who celebrates someone else's error as a personal victory.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

                            The president and his supporters are continuing to make claims of criminally fraudulent behavior, ranging from the unhinged to the comical, and from the baseless to the serially debunked. Those charges belong in court, and if they're allegations of actual fraud, in criminal court.
                            Did you see the latest video of Georgia election workers sending home the official observers under the false pretense that they were suspending the count for evening only for those workers to continue counting ballots for hours without witnesses present, including tens of thousands of ballots that had been hidden in cases under a table? It's eye opening stuff and compelled Governor Kemp to call for a full signature audit of the election.

                            https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronso...otage-n2581038
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                              Did you see the latest video of Georgia election workers sending home the official observers under the false pretense that they were suspending the count for evening only for those workers to continue counting ballots for hours without witnesses present, including tens of thousands of ballots that had been hidden in cases under a table? It's eye opening stuff and compelled Governor Kemp to call for a full signature audit of the election.

                              https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronso...otage-n2581038
                              I saw it and answered it in the other thread. That was the burst pipe incident in Fulton County on election day, Tuesday, Nov. 3, really old news. The counting continued the next day and well into that night too, before being finished on Thursday afternoon. I don't know how many ballots you can fit in four of those boxes, but it's surely significant, so I looked into it. I'll look at anything that'll move a thousand votes in an election decided by ten thousand.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

                                I'll make my own decisions on what I think is valuable to post, thanks anyway.

                                And I'll post what I like in response to your posts, too.



                                Originally posted by Juvenal
                                Simple is as simple does.

                                I'm not following your rabbit trail.

                                Do you need that in French? Some other language? Just let me know.

                                How about French, and Thai, thanks Mr Smart Guy.



                                I'll pass on the rest, thanks. Interesting that you get so verbose when I simply question the premise your argument rests on.

                                Shunyadragon, JimL, Ox, Hypatia, Liconafanboiguy evidently are above question, but you're the only one who's not at all partisan. ​​​​​​​





                                ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                56 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                244 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                106 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                322 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X