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

ARMED protest are planned in all 50 state capitals and DC

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

  • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

    *Yawn* Come up with better comebacks if you can't address people's points, bud, that was just embarrassing.
    That's pretty much what I thought when I saw your supposed point. You didn't actually have one, which I guess you know, like Trump knowing full well that there was never systemic fraud (or he is actually delusional) and it was just a fabrication to steal the election, so I decided to treat you like the piece of garbage I know you are.

    However, you can prove me wrong:

    What was my point, in full context, and how is it even remotely comparable to whatever you said, in full context.

    You won't be able to do it, because, you're a retard. So, thanks for playing. Have a Edited by a Moderator life.

    Moderated By: CP

    Please familiarize yourself with the forum rules on profanity, and refrain from it.
    Thanks

    ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
    Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

    Last edited by Cow Poke; 01-13-2021, 04:02 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Zara View Post

      That's pretty much what I thought when I saw your supposed point. You didn't actually have one, which I guess you know, like Trump knowing full well that there was never systemic fraud (or he is actually delusional) and it was just a fabrication to steal the election, so I decided to treat you like the piece of garbage I know you are.

      However, you can prove me wrong:

      What was my point, in full context, and how is it even remotely comparable to whatever you said, in full context.

      You won't be able to do it, because, you're a retard. So, thanks for playing. Have a Edited by a Moderator life.

      Moderated By: CP

      Please familiarize yourself with the forum rules on profanity, and refrain from it.
      Thanks

      ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
      Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

      My, what a personality. I bet you're just a riot at parties.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

        According to transcripts of the proceedings.
        I see. The transcripts say "laughed out loud."

        But there is no reason to do that. There is no evidence of fraud sufficient to warrant it. You already admitted that.
        I think there is sufficient evidence for new elections in contested states.

        I suppose I could, but why would I need to do that?
        Because I don't answer loaded questions.

        You already admitted there was not sufficient evidence of fraud to change the result. So the question was based on that admission and is not therefore loaded.
        The judges believed there wasn't enough evidence to proceed.

        Eg if someone says:
        You aren't reading well today.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ronson View Post

          I see. The transcripts say "laughed out loud."
          There was nothing in my comments that indicated that was annotated in the transcripts. It's kind of an absurd thing to assume. I was referring to reports from in the courtrooms of the judges reactionions, as well as the somewhat farcical intererations between Giulianni, the blond lady, and congress (or was it the senate) in the video I referenced.

          I think there is sufficient evidence for new elections in contested states.
          As I understand it, for there to be 'sufficient evidence for a new election' in a state, there has to be evidence there is a chance the old election was inaccurate enough to call into question the result. Since that was not the case, there was not sufficient evidence to new elections.


          Because I don't answer loaded questions.
          by definition, it wasn't a loaded question.


          The judges believed there wasn't enough evidence to proceed.
          And if the judges for a state don't believe there is enough evidence to proceed, then there is no reason to proceed. Who else is going to decide that Ronson. Some crazy lady sitting next to Giuliani saying such morbidly inane things even he has to try to get her to be quiet? At some point one has to trust that at least some of those judges the trump lawyers paraded their cases before are honest people of integrity. And they lost them all. There just isn't enough evidence to make the case, and that is just the simple truth.

          But it is actually a good bit more than just a lack of evidence Ronson. There is a lot of very solid evidence that the election processes in these states where absolutely ethical, above board, and thorough in all the ways that define a fair and legal election. And that sits in stark contrast to the massive lack of evidence for fraud. For our republic to survive, at some point reason has to kick in and win out over emotion and partisan paranoia.


          You aren't reading well today.
          I was reading just fine. You are looking for proof of a negative - that is usually impossible. Proof there was NOT enough fraud. It doesn't work that way. There has to be proof there WAS enough fraud.
          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-13-2021, 04:51 PM.
          He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

          "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            And if the judges for a state don't believe there is enough evidence to proceed, then there is no reason to proceed. Who else is going to decide that Ronson. Some crazy lady sitting next to Giuliani saying such morbidly inane things even he has to try to get her to be quiet? At some point one has to trust that at least some of those judges the trump lawyers paraded their cases before are honest people of integrity. And they lost them all. There just isn't enough evidence to make the case, and that is just the simple truth.
            What would you have said if in 1963 if Alabama judges said there were no civil rights violations in their state? Would it be similar to what you're saying now, that we should just trust the judges in states where irregularities occurred?

            But it is actually a good bit more than just a lack of evidence Ronson. There is a lot of very solid evidence that the election processes in these states where absolutely ethical, above board, and thorough in all the ways that define a fair and legal election.
            That's like saying "Every person we asked if they were corrupt said they weren't. Therefore there is a lot of very solid evidence that the election processes in these states where absolutely ethical and above board."

            There were astounding irregularities. I saw them with my own eyes.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ronson View Post

              What would you have said if in 1963 if Alabama judges said there were no civil rights violations in their state? Would it be similar to what you're saying now, that we should just trust the judges in states where irregularities occurred?



              That's like saying "Every person we asked if they were corrupt said they weren't. Therefore there is a lot of very solid evidence that the election processes in these states where absolutely ethical and above board."

              There were astounding irregularities. I saw them with my own eyes.
              No - I'm talking specifically about the recounts in Ga and the evidence presented in the EC debates for PA and Arizona.

              'Saw them with my own eyes' - somehow I doubt that but feel free to make your case.
              He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

              "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                No - I'm talking specifically about the recounts in Ga and the evidence presented in the EC debates for PA and Arizona.

                'Saw them with my own eyes' - somehow I doubt that but feel free to make your case.
                https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...94#post1223294

                Comment


                • Oh good grief. Where? Are you talking about the fully debunked Trump lawyer team vidoes, or something you saw when physically present observing voting operations in your state?
                  He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                  "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                    Oh good grief. Where? Are you talking about the fully debunked Trump lawyer team vidoes, or something you saw when physically present observing voting operations in your state?
                    It's in the link. I keep listing the same things that I witnessed over and over and over here. It's exhausting. I trust my eyes. I know what I saw.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                      It's in the link. I keep listing the same things that I witnessed over and over and over here. It's exhausting. I trust my eyes. I know what I saw.
                      No the answer to my question is NOT in the link - WHERE did you see this. You just say you saw it in the link you gave. WHERE/WHEN.

                      Again - it sounds like the same stuff giulianni et al claimed happened in Ga that Ga just put up a website with full access to all the videos showing nothing like what was described actually happened as described.
                      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-13-2021, 06:53 PM.
                      He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                      "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                        No the answer to my question is NOT in the link - WHERE did you see this. You just say you saw it in the link you gave. WHERE/WHEN.
                        On television that night. On Youtube the following day.

                        Again - it sounds like the same stuff giulianni et al claimed happened in Ga that Ga just put up a website with full access to all the videos showing nothing like what was described actually happened as described.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                          On television that night. On Youtube the following day.


                          Ok. Thanks for filling in the details.
                          He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                          "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

                            Property. The few dozen people who actually entered the Capitol were shown on video wandering the halls. A few of them actually destroyed stuff.
                            I'm asking about the motivation. Why would the people in either situation destroy property? My argument is that the difference in motivation is important when comparing them to each other.

                            Looters are too. The thousands and thousands of protesters at the Capitol were not there to destroy anything. A few nutters were.

                            And as to the term "insurrection"...

                            Inigo.gif
                            In the abstract, they were there to destroy our democracy. In the literal sense. the destruction and violence, along with trespassing, are the reasons anyone cares about what would otherwise have been a peaceful protest, so the "thousands and thousands" are irrelevant to our discussion.

                            Definition of insurrection
                            : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government - MW
                            Seems apt to me, and plenty of coverage is using that word as well.

                            Watching interviews and social media posts from the looting in Richmond. The looters are opportunists, not anarchists.
                            So by your definition they are not looting to further the goals of BLM, whereas the violence at the capitol building happened to further the goal of toppling our democracy.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                              What would you have said if in 1963 if Alabama judges said there were no civil rights violations in their state? Would it be similar to what you're saying now, that we should just trust the judges in states where irregularities occurred?
                              ​​ronson - this isn't that. In 1963 racism was an observable ,adjective fact throughout the land. The issue was people thought it justified, not whether it existed.

                              This is a narcissistic psychopath who can't accept loss using millions of peopleS paranoia - that he himself fed for for 4 years - against the stability of the nation he swore to protect.


                              That's like saying "Every person we asked if they were corrupt said they weren't. Therefore there is a lot of very solid evidence that the election processes in these states where absolutely ethical and above board."
                              We had Trump appointed organisations looking out for the election security, making great efforts to ensure what happened was consistent with both law and procedure. They reported no serious anomalies. In fact the reported the election was the most secure in history. The issue is that we have a population whose distrust of the democratic party was fed for four years and whipped into a distrust of anyone and everyone involved in officiating the election to the point that even when republican officials in state after state attested to the integrity of their elections people like you would not believe them.

                              There were astounding irregularities. I saw them with my own eyes.
                              NO- YOU DIDN'T.

                              you saw hand picked video clips of events taken out of context and purported to be fraud by people trained through Trump's rhotoric to see demons in the trees as it were.

                              The Republican election officials in Georgia have gone to great lengths to create access to all the video aurrounding the purported irregularities in their state so that one can observe the fact, for instance, that the 'boxes pulled out from under the tables' had in fact been put there in full view of the cameras an hour before and that (IIRC) they were simply ballots already in process stored there because those people believed they were shutting down the count for the night.

                              there is nothing to these claims the president - and the conservative sources you feed on - has purposefully deceived the public with. It is that simple. You are the victim of a huge con by the president and his lawyers - a con that threatens the national security of the USA.

                              In this link: https://www.npr.org/2021/01/04/95332...-your-own-vote

                              There is a video and about 5 minutes in an discussion of the 'boxes under the table' begins. This is Republican official Gabriel Sterling detailing how these false claims were made about that video clip take out of its context

                              This link is to that spot in the video, but I encourage you to listen to all of it.

                              https://youtu.be/zLYugNRVLiQ?t=229

                              here is another discussion of what you think you saw from ga public broadcasting

                              https://www.gpb.org/news/2020/12/03/...aud-in-georgia

                              here is the link to the ga fact check which has a sequence of clips showing the context around what you think you saw.

                              https://securevotega.com/factcheck/
                              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-14-2021, 08:01 AM.
                              He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                              "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                                In 1963 racism was an observable ,adjective fact throughout the land. The issue was people thought it justified, not whether it existed.
                                You are allowing a handful of arguably corrupt states decide on a federal election. I think it is comparable. There needs to be a federal standard for federal elections. I don't want Al Capone from wherever electing my president.

                                We had Trump appointed organisations looking out for the election security, making great efforts to ensure what happened was consistent with both law and procedure. They reported no serious anomalies. In fact the reported the election was the most secure in history. The issue is that we have a population whose distrust of the democratic party was fed for four years and whipped into a distrust of anyone and everyone involved in officiating the election to the point that even when republican officials in state after state attested to the integrity of their elections people like you would not believe them.
                                On election night, I witnessed the Pennsylvania vote count freeze at around 9 pm CST. There was no explanation for it at the time. When I checked back around 7 am the next morning, it was still frozen - with Trump holding at around a 4-5% lead. That's when PA announced it switched over to counting mail-in ballots during the night. Why? No explanation. And Trump's lead then evaporated, with something like 99% of ballots going to Biden. If nothing else, that is an irregularity. And a statistical improbability.

                                I witnessed an election center with floor-length tablecloths covering tables in Georgia. For what purpose does anyone put floor-length tablecloths on tables? I only see it done in magic acts to hide the sleight of hand.

                                NO- YOU DIDN'T.
                                I'm not going to go through it all again for the millionth time.

                                There was fraud. How much, I don't know. It wasn't investigated. Could the amount of fraud have flipped the election? I don't know. It wasn't investigated.

                                Democrats got what they wanted, so they likely aren't ever going to investigate or reform.
                                Last edited by Ronson; 01-14-2021, 10:25 AM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:28 PM
                                9 responses
                                46 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post The Pendragon  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 06:00 PM
                                1 response
                                27 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 04:08 PM
                                0 responses
                                15 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 07:47 AM
                                36 responses
                                146 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by whag, 01-26-2021, 04:54 PM
                                17 responses
                                138 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Working...
                                X