PDA

View Full Version : Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered



dneal
February 8th, 2021, 05:33 AM
Somebody finally did the analysis, debunking the “courts have decided” myth (https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-won-two-thirds-of-election-lawsuits-where-merits-considered_3688543.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-02-07-4)



The claim often repeated by the mainstream media, social-media content moderators, and fact-checkers that lawsuits filed by President Donald Trump’s campaign and Republicans were universally dismissed by the courts is untrue, according to a new analysis.

The findings do not necessarily suggest that if the lawsuits had all been decided before Joe Biden was certified as the official winner of the presidential election by Congress on Jan. 7 that former President Trump would have won the hotly contested election.

Nor would they necessarily have affected many of the Electoral College votes won by Biden in the disputed battleground states. Some of the legal victories took place in states like Colorado and Iowa where the popular vote counts for the respective winners of those states –Biden in Colorado and Trump in Iowa— were not close.

Of the 22 cases that have been heard by the courts and decided on their merits, Trump and Republicans have prevailed in 15, according to citizen journalist John Droz Jr., a physicist and environmental advocate in Morehead City, N.C.

This means Trump has won two-thirds of the cases fully adjudicated by the courts.

Droz and a team of volunteers dug through court filings and legal minutiae to track down 81 lawsuits that were filed in connection with the Nov. 3, 2020 presidential election. The lawsuits were tracked on Droz’s publicly available spreadsheet that was current as of Feb. 6.

Of the 81 cases, 11 were withdrawn or consolidated and 23 were dismissed for lack of standing or on other grounds. Both the cohort of 11 and of 23 should not be considered “wins or losses for either side,” Droz says, because they “have nothing to do with the merits of the case.”

This leaves 47 cases. Of those 47, 22 have been finalized after the court heard arguments, considered evidence, and then issued a ruling.

Of those 22, Trump or Republicans won 15 and lost 7, according to the analysis.

This leaves 25 lawsuits that have yet to be finally disposed of.

This means Trump and Republicans “have WON the majority of 2020 election cases fully heard, and then decided on the merits!” Droz said in a statement. “Is that what the mainstream media is reporting?”

Among the legal victories for Republicans were:

RNC v. Miller, in the Iowa courts, a lawsuit in which the Republican National Committee won an injunction over absentee ballot applications.

RNC v. Gill, in the Iowa courts, in which the Trump campaign won an injunction preventing a county official from distributing and accepting signed forms containing preprinted information.

Trump for President v. Boockvar, in the Pennsylvania courts, in which the Trump campaign was granted an injunction against the counting of mail-in and absentee ballots where voters were allowed to provide proof of identity days after Election Day.

Droz noted that only three lawsuits addressed voting machine inaccuracies.

“One of these was dismissed (due to jurisdiction), one was ruled against (although no discovery was granted), and one is still open (discovery was granted).”

“The likely explanation for so few cases in these two areas is that legally proving fraud or voting machine manipulations are very time-consuming processes, that require substantial investigative work and documentation. There simply wasn’t enough time to do this prior to key points in the process (like the Electoral College).”

“Our view is that the public needs to be much better educated regarding the election integrity issue—and having a more accurate understanding of the lawsuit component is a key part of that,” Droz wrote, explaining the purpose of his report.

kazoolaw
March 17th, 2021, 03:42 AM
Absentee ballot rules illegal: " thumb on the scale"
Full opinion in article
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2021/03/16/mi-court-michigan-secretary-of-states-absentee-ballot-order-broke-law-vindicating-trump-claim/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+breitbart+%28Breitbart+News%2 9

Chuck Naill
March 18th, 2021, 06:35 PM
He lost and so did Kansas City, as did the Rays...get over it.

kazoolaw
March 19th, 2021, 07:19 AM
...get over it.

If you can "get over" illegal conduct, regardless if it's your side or the other, you have not moral compass adn really should abstain from commenting on issues of law.

welch
March 22nd, 2021, 10:35 AM
...get over it.

If you can "get over" illegal conduct, regardless if it's your side or the other, you have not moral compass adn really should abstain from commenting on issues of law.

The article is illogical. Yes, it makes foolish Trump True-Believers feel a tiny bit happier, but the article is preposterous. When, for instance, Rudy Giuliani admitted that he had no evidence of fraud, and then his case was dismissed, that was a Trump loss on the contents of the case. That's just one case, although Giuliani made it famous.

I read though the case a couple months ago, and no one claimed that the Trump campaign had shaken any of the vote counts.

kazoolaw
March 23rd, 2021, 03:55 AM
No comment on the full court opinion from Michigan? The opinion with the "thumb on the scale" analogy? The opinion that held the absentee ballot rules were illegal?

welch
March 23rd, 2021, 09:18 AM
O, Kazooskins.

(1) The original post does not provide any data the researchers claim to have found. Think back: whoever defines the buckets and puts the iterations into the buckets defines the results. We don't know that the researchers read every court case and we don't know how they decided which cases were decided on "procedural" grounds.

(2) Their explanations of "merits" or content are silly. They mention the Pennsylvania case in which the elections officials were told to separate late-arriving mailed ballots. They did. Amounted to a couple thousand.

kazoolaw
March 23rd, 2021, 10:37 AM
O, Kazooskins.

(1) The original post does not provide any data the researchers claim to have found. Think back: whoever defines the buckets and puts the iterations into the buckets defines the results. We don't know that the researchers read every court case and we don't know how they decided which cases were decided on "procedural" grounds.

(2) Their explanations of "merits" or content are silly. They mention the Pennsylvania case in which the elections officials were told to separate late-arriving mailed ballots. They did. Amounted to a couple thousand.

Classic losing argument using misdirection: did YOU read Genetski vs Benson, the Michigan Court of Claims opinion contained in Scribd in the article? Oh, you did? You saw the Judge outline using COVID funds to send out absentee ballots to everyone? Are you going to continually ignore the Court's language [not mine]:

…nowhere in this state’s election law has the Legislature indicated that signatures are to be presumed valid, nor did the Legislature require that signatures are to be accepted so long as there are any redeeming qualities in the application or return envelope as compared with the signature on file. Policy determinations like the one at issue — which places the thumb on the scale in favor of a signature’s validity — should be made pursuant to properly promulgated rules under the APA or by the Legislature.

Focus, W, focus.

dneal
March 23rd, 2021, 11:57 AM
"It's been decided by the courts" is a conclusive argument.

"Trump prevailed in 2/3'ds of lawsuits where merits were considered" do not provide any data the researchers claim to have found.

Yeah, no double standard there.

welch
March 27th, 2021, 11:17 AM
"It's been decided by the courts" is a conclusive argument.

"Trump prevailed in 2/3'ds of lawsuits where merits were considered" do not provide any data the researchers claim to have found.

Yeah, no double standard there.

How do you know that merits were considered in your article? What rule did they use?

Chuck Naill
March 27th, 2021, 12:02 PM
"It's been decided by the courts" is a conclusive argument.

"Trump prevailed in 2/3'ds of lawsuits where merits were considered" do not provide any data the researchers claim to have found.

Yeah, no double standard there.

Apparently not, but it depends on who you decide to believe.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/09/blog-posting/trump-did-not-win-two-thirds-election-lawsuits-whe/

kazoolaw
March 29th, 2021, 08:01 AM
"It's been decided by the courts" is a conclusive argument.

"Trump prevailed in 2/3'ds of lawsuits where merits were considered" do not provide any data the researchers claim to have found.

Yeah, no double standard there.

Apparently not, but it depends on who you decide to believe.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/09/blog-posting/trump-did-not-win-two-thirds-election-lawsuits-whe/

It depends on who repeats or changes the question much of the time:
"Just because a case is dismissed on procedural grounds does not mean it wasn’t duly considered."
But it does mean it wasn't considered on its merits.
Regardless of the author, consider how the issue is stated, and whether the response "reponds" to a close, but not identical, issue.
Also, you missed dneal's point: a conclusive assertion is enough for one side, yet the same type of reply is not. Goose meet gander.

dneal
March 29th, 2021, 05:19 PM
"It's been decided by the courts" is a conclusive argument.

"Trump prevailed in 2/3'ds of lawsuits where merits were considered" do not provide any data the researchers claim to have found.

Yeah, no double standard there.

Apparently not, but it depends on who you decide to believe.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/09/blog-posting/trump-did-not-win-two-thirds-election-lawsuits-whe/

It depends on who repeats or changes the question much of the time:
"Just because a case is dismissed on procedural grounds does not mean it wasn’t duly considered."
But it does mean it wasn't considered on its merits.
Regardless of the author, consider how the issue is stated, and whether the response "reponds" to a close, but not identical, issue.
Also, you missed dneal's point: a conclusive assertion is enough for one side, yet the same type of reply is not. Goose meet gander.


It's pointless to try to convince someone whose depth of analysis is "this link said so".

Note how the Politifact piece (in line with their first summation) harps on the notion that there is no conclusive proof of fraud and Trump's successful cases don't mean Biden lost. It's a pseudo-argument. A red herring. Pointing out that a non-legislative entity does not constitutionally have the authority to change law, and winning that argument in court (apparently 2/3'rds of the time) isn't arguing there was fraud.

"Fact checks" are now their own category of misinformation.

Chuck Naill
April 2nd, 2021, 04:45 PM
Guys, I'm not trying to convince anyone. Believe whatever conspiracy you choose to believe.

Boston Brian
April 10th, 2021, 10:56 PM
A fanatic won't change their mind, and won't change the subject! Its over, it's done, its yesterdays news and the vast majority of Americans want move forward and more on!

kazoolaw
April 11th, 2021, 03:03 AM
... and more on!

A misspelled self-own?
But seriously folks, all the way from Boston to keep the thread alive.
Thanks Brian.

Chuck Naill
April 11th, 2021, 06:50 AM
Whether you like the new occupant or not, you have to admit the process appears to be run by someone that knows what they want to do and understands how to get the right people on the bus, or understands the concept of delegation.

Boston Brian
April 11th, 2021, 09:15 AM
Kazoolaw, Sorry, there I was assuming that I was entitled to express my personal opinion! Didn't realize you were really in charge of us all!

kazoolaw
April 11th, 2021, 10:38 AM
Kazoolaw, Sorry, there I was assuming that I was entitled to express my personal opinion! Didn't realize you were really in charge of us all!

And, having posted your opinion, we are free to comment on it, and even disagree with it.
Once again, thanks for continuing to draw attention to the cabal.

Boston Brian
April 11th, 2021, 11:47 AM
Your very welcome! I am so glad to make you happy!

dneal
April 11th, 2021, 02:33 PM
Whether you like the new occupant or not, you have to admit the process appears to be run by someone that knows what they want to do and understands how to get the right people on the bus, or understands the concept of delegation.

Curiously, I've always liked Joe Biden (and Charlie Rangel). They both can toss some audacious bullshit, smile when they do it, and come across as if they're completely sincere. It's an art form.

That said, this admin is ridiculous - but I'll let him have his 100 days before I circle back and start really critiquing it. Suffice it to say I think absolutely nothing you would have us "admit" is even close to accurate.

kazoolaw
April 11th, 2021, 04:56 PM
Your very welcome! I am so glad to make you happy!

It would be rude of me not to acknowledge your efforts.
Thanks, we'll have to do this again.

welch
May 23rd, 2021, 09:46 AM
Now, young Kazooskins, you once were a practicing software engineer. Use those meticulous smarts to explain:

- a guy in North Carolina claims his team reviewed every case in which the Trump campaign tried to prove, or even suggest, that vote fraud swamped Trump's landslide election victory in November, 2020. The NC guy says that Trump won 2/3 of the court cases decided "on merit".

- Neither NC Guy, nor you, nor dneal have shown what NC Guy used to define "merit".

- Neither you nor dneal nor NC Guy have shown the cases they claim to have reviewed. How do we check NC Guy's work?

- Neither you nor dneal nor NC Guy have identified the members of the "team" that NC Guy claims to have had investigate all 60 - 100 election cases.

I have read cases in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada. In every final decision, the judges evaluated evidence that the Trump campaign offered, and every decision found against Trump. I start with what I have read. Which final decisions have you read that support NC Guy?

dneal
May 23rd, 2021, 07:48 PM
If you would read something besides the WashPost and NYT you might be better informed. What did a judge decide today in Georgia? Get to googling…

welch
May 23rd, 2021, 09:30 PM
Come on dneal. If you read anything honest or if you thought before spilling illogic here, you would make more sense.

- the NC Guy thinks that all 60 times a judge ruled against Trump for lack of evidence then it is "merely" procedural.

- what do you make of Georgia? I read it in the Times and the Post. What do you read? You found this NC Guy and his ghostly researchers among far right-wing loonies; I saw the same story from some hopeless Trumpies who got it from Newsmax or "The Beltway Pundit".

dneal
May 24th, 2021, 05:14 AM
Dear welch, I'm afraid you're the one with the inability to read anything honest or employ logic.

What do I see? Skepticism about the election. As I've said many times before, the way to solve that is to examine the evidence and reach a conclusion.

You on the other hand, refusing to even admit that there is any evidence (no matter how circumstantial); seem to find reiterating "there was no fraud" (with only a review of leftist opinions and their erroneous characterization of rightist opinion) as "logical".

We're almost 4 months into the Biden presidency. Trump is gone. No evaluation of ballots is going to put him back in office. The illogic is your fixation on an orange New Yorker who tweets mean things instead of ensuring voter confidence (no matter how they vote). I suspect you were on board with Stacy Abrams' claims of the election being stolen from her. I suspect you were on board with Hillary's false narrative of "Russian Collusion".

welch
May 25th, 2021, 11:28 AM
You have argued yourself into circles, dneal.

Which court cases did Trump win "on merits"?

Why is the "Republican" Party now united only on the faith that Trump won the 2020 Election? What does it mean that a judge in Georgia allowed copies of ballots to be given to a group of "Republicans" to recount the votes in Atlanta?

dneal
May 25th, 2021, 03:54 PM
Is there some reason you feel the need to keep bringing this up? The only one arguing here is you.

Trump's gone. You are exhibiting TDS.

TSherbs
May 25th, 2021, 04:50 PM
Which court cases did Trump win "on merits"?
Atlanta?
I saw a chart somewhere of the cases. They did not add up to anything that mattered for the 2020 result. They were inconsequential, and it is statistically frivolous to separate them out. It's a canard, meant to suggest a validity to Trump's claims that they don't have (overall).

welch
May 25th, 2021, 05:28 PM
Is there some reason you feel the need to keep bringing this up? The only one arguing here is you.

Trump's gone. You are exhibiting TDS.

You posted it, dneal. Your post made no sense, as if you had not bothered to consider a claim that had nothing beyond , "Believe me...I havbe researchers who read cases and judged the cases against rukles, but we won't tell anyone what counted as 'on merit' in our judgement, and we won't reveal which cases we put into which boxes".

No one asked you to plop this here. You might have thought it mattered, but you have never tried to defend it.

dneal
May 26th, 2021, 05:48 AM
Is there some reason you feel the need to keep bringing this up? The only one arguing here is you.

Trump's gone. You are exhibiting TDS.

You posted it, dneal. Your post made no sense, as if you had not bothered to consider a claim that had nothing beyond , "Believe me...I havbe researchers who read cases and judged the cases against rukles, but we won't tell anyone what counted as 'on merit' in our judgement, and we won't reveal which cases we put into which boxes".

No one asked you to plop this here. You might have thought it mattered, but you have never tried to defend it.

This post makes no sense. What in the world are you on about? Where did I post about ‘rukles’? What have I not defended (as if I have some obligation to defend some nonsense you’re inventing…)?

I now understand why you just posts links. You seem unable to form a rational argument on your own.

dneal
May 27th, 2021, 12:11 PM
Rachel Maddow is complaining about election audits. She says they're "Trump people", and that it's illegal for "random 3rd parties" to have access to ballots after an election. All while the graphic reads "Dangerous for Democracy".

In Arizona, it is the State Senate conducting an audit. Since when is a legislative branch a "random 3rd party"? Rachel doesn't address that.

But even if it's something like the Sheriff in Wisconsin, or others in Antrim County Michigan, suing for an audit; what difference does it make? Why be so opposed to the public examining the mechanisms behind an election?

I'm sure some *cough* welch *cough* are so consumed by their TDS that they don't have the rational capacity to consider the question, and Rachel Maddow probably falls in that category; but still, who cares? Why this united front to prevent it?

The judges that keep approving them, and dismissing Democrat suits seem to think it's ok. We're all about the "courts deciding", right?


https://www.air.tv/watch?v=JVxOKYuHStaknUA4rJomaQ

kazoolaw
May 27th, 2021, 01:37 PM
...get over it.

If you can "get over" illegal conduct, regardless if it's your side or the other, you have not moral compass adn really should abstain from commenting on issues of law.

The article is illogical. Yes, it makes foolish Trump True-Believers feel a tiny bit happier, but the article is preposterous. When, for instance, Rudy Giuliani admitted that he had no evidence of fraud, and then his case was dismissed, that was a Trump loss on the contents of the case. That's just one case, although Giuliani made it famous.

I read though the case a couple months ago, and no one claimed that the Trump campaign had shaken any of the vote counts.

I'm afraid you have gone off the rails. You couldn't have read the opinion "a couple of months ago" as it was issued the day before your post quoted here. The opinion doesn't include a recipe for cherries jubilee, but then nobody claimed that either. It's enough that the ruling held that the way absentee ballots were used was illegal.
And apparently law-breaking is something you can either ignore or endorse if done by a Democrat. Please recall your position before you post in the future. You can join Chuck in a search for a moral compass.

TSherbs
May 27th, 2021, 06:16 PM
It's enough that the ruling held that the way absentee ballots were used was illegal. No. The ruling was about the decision-making by the AG, not specifically about how the ballots were "used." The judge noted that no one was alleging that ballots were actually inaccurately or fraudulently tallied, nor was the judge ruling on that in any way. Secondly, this case was not filed until January 20, 2021, long after the AG issued the directive (October 6, 2020). The lawsuit is mostly about the two political parties in Michigan and trying to get the Dem AG back in her lane. This is what the states have turned to now: trying to control how many people have easy access to voting in the next election. They will argue "illegal" and "fraud" and "history of corruption" in order to get people to consent to stricter controls on ease of access to votes. And we all know what that is really about (cuz there aint no fraud).


You can join Chuck in a search for a moral compass.[/SIZE][/FONT] Just lend him yours, once you find one too.

kazoolaw
May 28th, 2021, 04:27 AM
"Used"was a bad word choice made in haste.
Yes, the decision making by the AG was, say it TS, illegal.
If "back in her lane" means obey the law we can agree.
There are many things not alleged in the lawsuit or found in the opinion. We all see that listing what's not there is a a way to avoid conceding what is there: the illegal thumb on the scale.
TS, you refuse to acknowledge illegal when it's spelled out for you.

Boston Brian
May 28th, 2021, 05:42 PM
A fanatic is someone who won't change their mind and won't change the subject! Lets focus this Memorial weekend on the true heroes of our great nation, and not on any politicians who stayed safely at home while the brave men and women put on their uniforms and went to war!

TSherbs
May 29th, 2021, 09:53 AM
Another review, apparently this one done quite professionally (county and state-coordinated): no fraud in Windham, New Hampshire, despite Trump's wild speculation to the contrary:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/05/27/trump-cheered-an-election-review-in-this-tiny-new-hampshire-town---auditors-just-said-theres-no-proof-of-fraud/?sh=1fbda2f34690

The Donald simply greases his prevarications in the language of irresponsible and pernicious speculation.

welch
June 6th, 2021, 04:35 PM
Is there some reason you feel the need to keep bringing this up? The only one arguing here is you.

Trump's gone. You are exhibiting TDS.

You posted it, dneal. Your post made no sense, as if you had not bothered to consider a claim that had nothing beyond , "Believe me...I havbe researchers who read cases and judged the cases against rukles, but we won't tell anyone what counted as 'on merit' in our judgement, and we won't reveal which cases we put into which boxes".

No one asked you to plop this here. You might have thought it mattered, but you have never tried to defend it.

This post makes no sense. What in the world are you on about? Where did I post about ‘rukles’? What have I not defended (as if I have some obligation to defend some nonsense you’re inventing…)?

I now understand why you just posts links. You seem unable to form a rational argument on your own.

Can't think it through, can you?

Here is the point: you posted a claim that the Trump campaign won 2/3 of the suites trying to overturn the 2020 election when those suites were decided "on the merits. I read suits in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada, every one of which was decided on grounds that the Trumpist "Republicans" had no evidence. When dneal posted this, it suggested, at least to anyone who tries to base thinking on evidence, that this article was plain and simple garbage.

Anyone with, say, a college-level experience looking at research would ask:

- what rule did the North Carolina researcher use to determine whether a case was decided on merits? Did they have a flakey / silly / unrealistic notion of content? In Nevada, for instance, the judge refused to consider "gobs and gobs" of affidavits unless the makers of the affidavit appeared in court where they could be questioned. The Trump-claimers were afraid to be questioned, so the judge declared that an affidavit is worthless hearsay unless the maker can be cross-examined. That is a method of research. So I asked dneal how the North Carolina research was done. He has never answered.

- who did the research? dneal gave us an article that claims the researcher used dozens of assistants. Who? What data did they find? What cases did they review? Data, dneal. If you don't have it, just say you have no data and your claim "is no longer operational", to quote Ron Nessen.

- Ordinarily, researchers present their methods and their data so that anyone else can try to replicate the results. dneal has not given us either research data or research methods. Since dneal seems unable to understand the question, it is a simple question that asks for research data and research methods.

- dneal, are you still puzzled?

welch
June 6th, 2021, 04:38 PM
...get over it.

If you can "get over" illegal conduct, regardless if it's your side or the other, you have not moral compass adn really should abstain from commenting on issues of law.

The article is illogical. Yes, it makes foolish Trump True-Believers feel a tiny bit happier, but the article is preposterous. When, for instance, Rudy Giuliani admitted that he had no evidence of fraud, and then his case was dismissed, that was a Trump loss on the contents of the case. That's just one case, although Giuliani made it famous.

I read though the case a couple months ago, and no one claimed that the Trump campaign had shaken any of the vote counts.

I'm afraid you have gone off the rails. You couldn't have read the opinion "a couple of months ago" as it was issued the day before your post quoted here. The opinion doesn't include a recipe for cherries jubilee, but then nobody claimed that either. It's enough that the ruling held that the way absentee ballots were used was illegal.
And apparently law-breaking is something you can either ignore or endorse if done by a Democrat. Please recall your position before you post in the future. You can join Chuck in a search for a moral compass.

Sorry, Kazooskins. You have your calendar all mixed up. Giuliani surrendered to the Pennsylvania judge in January. dneal clutched his straw of a "finding" on February 8. See # 1. I asked the question in March.

dneal
June 6th, 2021, 07:47 PM
This explains a lot...


A 2020 Pew Research study reveals that over half of white, liberal women have been diagnosed with a mental health condition at some point. Does this mean there's a correlation between progressive ideas and mental health? (https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/over-50-percent-white-liberal-women-under-30-mental-health-condition)

Similarly, mental health issues for liberal/progressive men is also twice as high as conservative men.

61266

welch
June 6th, 2021, 08:29 PM
Yet another empty post, dneal.

Apparently you cannot defend your little study's

- research method or

- research data.

There is no reason to believe it any more than there is reason to believe that Trump will be "reinstated" in August.

dneal
June 7th, 2021, 05:11 AM
Yet another empty post, dneal.

Apparently you cannot defend your little study's

- research method or

- research data.

There is no reason to believe it any more than there is reason to believe that Trump will be "reinstated" in August.

You’re hilarious. You have shouted “CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!” from the start, and ignored everything that took (and is still taking) place. Sworn affidavits, congressional testimony, the court cases that haven’t been administratively dismissed, etc…

You cannot know what there is any reason to believe or not when you do not examine the issue. Parroting one side’s talking points is not examination. If nothing happened, what’s the harm with an audit? You do know what one is, and it’s purpose, don’t you? Your position is as stupid and one who would argue that there’s no reason for a DOD budget audit because there’s no proof of widespread waste. Audits are to ensure, and strangely you and your side are terrified to look - because one obnoxious orange man has made you lose your mind.

kazoolaw
June 7th, 2021, 05:51 AM
...get over it.

If you can "get over" illegal conduct, regardless if it's your side or the other, you have not moral compass adn really should abstain from commenting on issues of law.

The article is illogical. Yes, it makes foolish Trump True-Believers feel a tiny bit happier, but the article is preposterous. When, for instance, Rudy Giuliani admitted that he had no evidence of fraud, and then his case was dismissed, that was a Trump loss on the contents of the case. That's just one case, although Giuliani made it famous.

I read though the case a couple months ago, and no one claimed that the Trump campaign had shaken any of the vote counts.

I'm afraid you have gone off the rails. You couldn't have read the opinion "a couple of months ago" as it was issued the day before your post quoted here. The opinion doesn't include a recipe for cherries jubilee, but then nobody claimed that either. It's enough that the ruling held that the way absentee ballots were used was illegal.
And apparently law-breaking is something you can either ignore or endorse if done by a Democrat. Please recall your position before you post in the future. You can join Chuck in a search for a moral compass.

Sorry, Kazooskins. You have your calendar all mixed up. Giuliani surrendered to the Pennsylvania judge in January. dneal clutched his straw of a "finding" on February 8. See # 1. I asked the question in March.

First, you claim to have read an opinion before it was written.
Second, you claim Giuliani threw in the towel to a Pennsylvania court when the case cited is from Michigan.
Third, the Court ruled that the Michigan AG violated the law regarding illegal absentee ballots, thus the "thumb on the scale"analogy.
TDS is strong in this one: it allows him to travel both time and space. See, #40.

TSherbs
June 7th, 2021, 05:59 AM
Yet another empty post...

It is irrelevant; I wouldn't worry about it. This "two-thirds" thing is a canard. It's like saying, "Two thirds of the time when I have a point at least worth considering, the point is actually valid. But, yeah, that isn't often, to begin with."

TSherbs
June 7th, 2021, 06:38 AM
If nothing happened, what’s the harm with an audit?

What a stupid question. It flummoxes me when adults say this kind of thing. It's either a lie, or it is ignorance. Both "reasons" suck from an adult.

kazoolaw
June 7th, 2021, 09:47 AM
If nothing happened, what’s the harm with an audit?

What a stupid question. It flummoxes me when adults say this kind of thing. It's either a lie, or it is ignorance. Both "reasons" suck from an adult.
How about this formulation: why are you so afraid of an audit?

welch
June 7th, 2021, 11:35 AM
If nothing happened, what’s the harm with an audit?

What a stupid question. It flummoxes me when adults say this kind of thing. It's either a lie, or it is ignorance. Both "reasons" suck from an adult.
How about this formulation: why are you so afraid of an audit?




How about this formulation?

- Election officials have counted and recounted votes over and over. Each time, the counts have stayed the same, demonstrating that the ordinary Americans who ran elections, in all the counties and election districts within counties and states that gather results, all work with honesty and integrity.

- Trump True Believers won't believe anything unless they count the votes themselves, and remove any election-worker with integrity.

- Trump wants his mindless followers to hunt for bamboo fibers in Arizona because he believes that ballots were printed and marked in South Korea or North Korea or Japan, and then flown to Arizona and Georgia and Pennsylvania and Michigan, where voting machines turned Trump votes to Biden votes on command by nameless people in Italy.

- Trump claims he will be "reinstated" by August because the MyPillow guy told him, and anyone who disagrees is not a "Republican".

- What will Kazooskins do?

kazoolaw
June 7th, 2021, 12:25 PM
Welch,
Do you truly not grasp the concept of independent audit?
You seem awfully cozy with "Trump True Believers." Are you one, posting here as a false flag operation?
I will do as I've been doing, presenting a voice of objectivity in a clamor in crowd.

dneal
June 7th, 2021, 02:50 PM
Welch,
Do you truly not grasp the concept of independent audit?
You seem awfully cozy with "Trump True Believers." Are you one, posting here as a false flag operation?
I will do as I've been doing, presenting a voice of objectivity in a clamor in crowd.

Both of them are as kooky as the old crank shouting from the park bench. They're so caught up in their narrative, they do not have the ability to even contemplate a point that doesn't fit. They just run and find a reinforcing opinion from the NYT or WashPost, post an absurd little "harrumph" and thank each other profusely for a job well done.

Just watch:

Tsherbs and welch, can either of you cede that there was at least something off in at least one location. One novel experience. I don't know, like four democrat strongholds all stopping voting at approximately the same time, and all re-starting in the wee hours of the morning with a several hundred thousand lead overcome. Please name a couple of previous elections where this completely not odd thing regularly has happened. Could either of you cede that technically (which is what law is) one or more states changed their voting rules outside of the legislature - as required by the U.S. Constitution?

dneal
June 7th, 2021, 03:01 PM
I'll even throw a token of peace out there. I would love nothing more than to have an actual, objective discussion on a myriad of happenings in the world. When all I encounter is hyper partisan talking points - Eric Weinstein's "internet hyenas" - well shit...

The fact is that here most of the partisanship (the vocal part anyway) here leans significantly left. Were it a bunch of posts of former intel dudes prophesying Trump still will win and whatnot, from my responses you would think I was a lefty.

We have had reasonable discussions. Thoughtful posts with only little interruption from "hyenas". Go look at the one on Trinity theory. There's no reason we can't be civil fucking adults when talking about orange people. I'm happy to fling shit with the rest of the monkeys, but it's only fun once and a while. Thoughtful conversation is interesting all of the time.

TSherbs
June 7th, 2021, 07:07 PM
I have higher standards for the thinking and logic than has been happening here for months. There is no need to read my posts or ever respond to them. I am here only to counter-balance the disinformation and dissembling that the country was subjected to by Trump and his sycophants and deluded or lying followers. I am not here to discuss or argue. That has been demonstrated months ago to be a fruitless effort. I actually post things for other non-participants to read. It simply makes me feel good occasionally to say the right things here, supported by truth and reason and a sense of justice.

TSherbs
June 7th, 2021, 07:10 PM
If nothing happened, what’s the harm with an audit?

What a stupid question. It flummoxes me when adults say this kind of thing. It's either a lie, or it is ignorance. Both "reasons" suck from an adult.
How about this formulation: why are you so afraid of an audit?




This is a presumptuous and dissembling question, also. I have no interest in discussing manipulative bullshit

TSherbs
June 7th, 2021, 07:25 PM
And to whoever tried to pigeon hole me above: I read very little political commentary and get my news from the AP and my Google feed. I rarely post anything here except straight news. The rest is 💯% my own thinking. I have taught rhetoric and journalism and high school kids for 40 years, and I can smell bullshit a mile away. I am no genius, but it is real hard to fool me with weak reasoning, irrelevant evidence, or faulty generalizations. It's my job to see through that every day. Trump was a daily assault upon all the professional values I am asked to uphold every day. Perpetuating his thinking today is just more of the same devious dissembling bullshit. It ain't rocket science.

Like the 2/3 cases crap in the title of this thread: totally meaningless distraction meant to carry a false suggestion of merit in Trumpian court cases more generally. That's total bullshit both logically and statistically. I don't need the NYT or CNN to tell me so. Anyone with some acuity can figure that out.

dneal
June 7th, 2021, 08:20 PM
See, just the typical narrative…

dneal
June 8th, 2021, 06:10 AM
I swear, it's like arguing a controversial baseball play.

"Team red is out. We won".

"I don't know. Looks like your guy missed the tag to me."

"THE UMPIRE HAS RULED!!! IT HAS BEEN DECIDED!!!"

"Shouldn't we watch the replay in slow motion?"

"ARRRGGGHHH!!!! NO ONE HAS TIME FOR THESE SILLY CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!! YOUR GUY IS OUT!!! WE WON!!!"

"Yeah, but they just showed the replay. From every angle, it looks like your guy missed the tag."

"THE UMPIRE HAS RULED!!! GAME OVER!!! GET OVER IT!!!"

"Well, it's within the rules to look at the replay and challenge the call."

"YOU ARE JUST A TEAM-RED SYCOPHANT, CRAZY LIKE ALL THE OTHER CONSPIRACY THEORISTS!!! THE UMPIRE ALREADY RULED!!!"

"Not really. I don't side with either team, but ok... Can't you see though that most of the replay angles look like he missed the tag, that it's not unreasonable to believe he missed the tag?"

"I'M NOT DISCUSSING THIS ANYMORE!!! THIS IS A TOTALLY MEANINGLESS DISTRACTION MEANT TO CARRY A FALSE SUGGESTION. IT'S TOTAL BULLSHIT LOGICALLY AND STATISTICALLY!!!"


well, you get the point...

kazoolaw
June 8th, 2021, 12:41 PM
If nothing happened, what’s the harm with an audit?

What a stupid question. It flummoxes me when adults say this kind of thing. It's either a lie, or it is ignorance. Both "reasons" suck from an adult.
How about this formulation: why are you so afraid of an audit?




This is a presumptuous and dissembling question, also. I have no interest in discussing manipulative bullshit

"Presumptuous and dissembling:" I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
Got it: you don't discuss, you promulgate.

welch
June 10th, 2021, 11:42 AM
Welch,
Do you truly not grasp the concept of independent audit?
You seem awfully cozy with "Trump True Believers." Are you one, posting here as a false flag operation?
I will do as I've been doing, presenting a voice of objectivity in a clamor in crowd.

Kazooskins, you and dneal seem too lazy to review any of the 60 or 70 court cases which considered all of the Trumpist claims, and rejected all of them. dneal says that Trump won 2/3 of the court cases around his election, but nether of you can point to evidence. I read through court cases in the important states, even linking to them and quoting decisive sections. When asked what it wouild take for you fellows to accept the November election, you answered nothing. You howled and ran in circles, as if the only acceptable recount would be one that "reinstated" Trump.

So be it.

The two of you ignore the count, review, and recounts that have happened all over the country. Each time, the Trumpist "Republican Party" loses.

Stop whining and show some evidence and some logic based on evidence. Show us the deciding cases in:

- Pennsylvania,

- Georgia

- Arizona

- Nevada

- Michigan

- Wisconsin

dneal
June 10th, 2021, 07:49 PM
dneal says that Trump won 2/3 of the court cases around his election, but nether of you can point to evidence.

dneal doesn’t say that, the article does. That’s how it works, right? Just post an article?

You didn’t even get it right though (but that’s the modus). The article says 2/3 of the cases that were heard on the merits. Any evidence you seek is in the piece. Again, that’s the way this goes, right? Just post articles and harrumph…

welch
June 11th, 2021, 09:04 AM
dneal says that Trump won 2/3 of the court cases around his election, but nether of you can point to evidence.

dneal doesn’t say that, the article does. That’s how it works, right? Just post an article?

You didn’t even get it right though (but that’s the modus). The article says 2/3 of the cases that were heard on the merits. Any evidence you seek is in the piece. Again, that’s the way this goes, right? Just post articles and harrumph…

dneal, you posted the piece. There is NO evidence in it. That's why I asked. That was three or four months ago. Anything else to say? (and, yes, I have taken logic courses. )

Here is how research works:

- Researchers present conclusions based on their explanation of evidence. Researchers define their research methods and provide their evidence. People can evaluate and replicate.

- dneal posted an article with no research, no data, and no method.

- dneal has posted a worthless article. Maybe it will be useful to someone collecting the drivel that MAGA cultists tell each other, but it is worthless to anyone else.

- Do you believe it, dneal? If so, why?

dneal
June 11th, 2021, 01:44 PM
You post all kinds of shit. Are you responsible for the veracity of the content? Is it incumbent on you to “show the work” of the writer?

You’ve really lost the plot.

welch
June 12th, 2021, 08:21 AM
Try to read and to think, dneal. This one is simple. You posted a far-fetched article suggesting that Trump won most of his legal efforts to overturn the 2020 election. As anyone knows, at lest if they live in the real world and read, Trump lost 60 or 70 law-suits, or nearly every one that he and his cult-followers filed. Yet you claimed, regarding Ken Paxton's Texas suit, that the Supreme Court should re-consider the evidence in those suits.

You returned with an article claiming Trump won 2/3 of those suits if the decisions were interpreted in some way that the author does not tell us. It happens, I ran across the same article from a far right-winger who dabbles in conspiracy and QAnon fantasies, but nowhere else.

When asked, you were unable to tell us either the research method of your article or reveal any of the evidence.

Instead, you have howled and spit insults for four months.

dneal
June 12th, 2021, 09:44 AM
Dear welch, try to see the bigger picture. This thread is, and always was simply a satirical response to your incessant posting of little more than a link to a wash post article.

Demanding that I "think" is precisely what I've been asking from you for many months. The irony is a little delicious.

welch
June 12th, 2021, 01:08 PM
Dear welch, try to see the bigger picture. This thread is, and always was simply a satirical response to your incessant posting of little more than a link to a wash post article.

Demanding that I "think" is precisely what I've been asking from you for many months. The irony is a little delicious.

Still wriggling on Trump's hook, we see. Waiting for Trump top be "reinstated"? Still looking for evidence that China or Japan or North Korea shipped millions of Biden ballots to Arizona?

dneal
June 13th, 2021, 06:33 AM
Wriggling on Trump’s hook? You’re the one tangled up in the line. He’s gone. You have an acute case of TDS.

Chuck Naill
June 15th, 2021, 04:30 PM
I can see nothing has changed............LOL!!

TSherbs
June 22nd, 2021, 08:22 PM
I noticed that Mike Lindell has been continuing his lying campaign, too. That guy is a real kook!

Chuck Naill
June 23rd, 2021, 04:46 AM
I noticed that Mike Lindell has been continuing his lying campaign, too. That guy is a real kook!

Do you think is actually believes what he says?

If Trump really thinks the election was stolen, he has a disorder or we've all been dupped to think otherwise. I do think there is a propensity to believe something if it is repeated. We have to guard our minds and hearts. For example, the wife who believes an abusive husband saying he is sorry and will never do it again.

Lindell is the classic huskter. While it is true people have problems sleeping, the pillow is not the reason.

kazoolaw
June 23rd, 2021, 06:50 AM
I think much of your sleep problem would be solved if you stopped obsessing over Trump.

TSherbs
June 23rd, 2021, 08:05 AM
No one here seeks health advice from you, or any advice, really.

TSherbs
June 23rd, 2021, 08:15 AM
Do you think is actually believes what he says? .

Some, yes. He said a "prophet guy" came to him telling him to join the Trump cause. So yeah, he seems to believe voices in his head, which makes him crazy enough to think that the machines were rigged (despite the multiple state audits showing that they weren't). This guy is cookoo.

Chuck Naill
June 23rd, 2021, 04:15 PM
Do you think is actually believes what he says? .

Some, yes. He said a "prophet guy" came to him telling him to join the Trump cause. So yeah, he seems to believe voices in his head, which makes him crazy enough to think that the machines were rigged (despite the multiple state audits showing that they weren't). This guy is cookoo.

"Thus saith the Lord"

So, he said he was picked out of several to pray and saw that as a "divine appontment". Then he met Trump face to face and took that as a "divine appointment".

Chip
July 20th, 2021, 11:46 AM
He's not a lawyer and obviously knows nothing about the law.

But a "physicist" with an MS? An "environmental activist" who hates wind power? Yeah, right.

He appears to be a swivel-eyed loon for hire. One of those self-proclaimed experts with an agenda that matches up with the big fossil fuel interests, who probably bankroll his front groups.

From his website:

John Droz Jr.

Credentials

Masters Degree, Solid State Science, Syracuse University (1975). [1], [22]
B.S., Physics, Boston College (1968). [1]
B.S. Mathematics, Boston College (1968). [1]

Background

John Droz, Jr. is an anti-wind-power activist and founder of Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions. Droz formerly served as Senior Fellow at American Tradition Institute (now known as E&E Legal Institute). [1]

He retired at age 33 after a successful career in real estate investing, but has also worked for GE: Aerospace Electronics (Utica, NY), Mohawk Data Sciences (Herkimer, NY), and Monolithic Memories (Cupertino, CA). [21]

In 2011, he became a member of the Board of Directors and scientific advisor to NC-20, an advocacy group that has been outspoken against restrictions on coastal development. He was listed as science advisor until at least 2012. [9]

Droz ran the website “Wind Power Facts” (now called Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions) which asserts that mainstream information about wind power is distributed primarily by industry lobbyists while the “real science” indicates that we should abandon wind power as a source of energy. AWED and Droz are also behind Ptcfacts.info, a website opposing production tax credits for the wind industry. [23], [24], [26]

dneal
July 21st, 2021, 05:26 AM
No one here seeks health advice from you, or any advice, really.

No one here seeks political opinions from you, or any opinion, really; yet you feel free to post media propaganda.

See how that works? Well, it’s an example of hypocrisy; so probably not…

Chuck Naill
July 21st, 2021, 12:19 PM
No one here seeks health advice from you, or any advice, really.

No one here seeks political opinions from you, or any opinion, really; yet you feel free to post media propaganda.

See how that works? Well, it’s an example of hypocrisy; so probably not…

You’re so far up Trump’s ass you can’t see.

Chip
July 21st, 2021, 09:35 PM
"Droz and a team of volunteers dug through court filings and legal minutiae to track down 81 lawsuits that were filed in connection with the Nov. 3, 2020 presidential election. The lawsuits were tracked on Droz’s publicly available spreadsheet that was current as of Feb. 6."

It's July 21. Is there an update on the spreadsheet? Or do you even care?

dneal
July 22nd, 2021, 04:05 AM
No one here seeks health advice from you, or any advice, really.

No one here seeks political opinions from you, or any opinion, really; yet you feel free to post media propaganda.

See how that works? Well, it’s an example of hypocrisy; so probably not…

You’re so far up Trump’s ass you can’t see.

That’s the problem with your echo chamber, Chuck. You assume everyone else must be in one too, and I must be in a red (or orange) one since we don’t agree. I’ve told you repeatedly that I’m not a trumper or whatever slur is fashionable for woke morons today. I’ve never voted for him. But that doesn’t fit the narrative you’ve been fed.

Put down your kool-aide. You’ve had way too much.

dneal
July 22nd, 2021, 04:19 AM
"Droz and a team of volunteers dug through court filings and legal minutiae to track down 81 lawsuits that were filed in connection with the Nov. 3, 2020 presidential election. The lawsuits were tracked on Droz’s publicly available spreadsheet that was current as of Feb. 6."

It's July 21. Is there an update on the spreadsheet? Or do you even care?

It is July. The 22nd as I type this. No, I don’t care. With a little effort you’ll find close to the top of this very page my response to welch that addresses your question.


Dear welch, try to see the bigger picture. This thread is, and always was simply a satirical response to your incessant posting of little more than a link to a wash post article.

Chuck Naill
July 22nd, 2021, 05:04 AM
No one here seeks health advice from you, or any advice, really.

No one here seeks political opinions from you, or any opinion, really; yet you feel free to post media propaganda.

See how that works? Well, it’s an example of hypocrisy; so probably not…

You’re so far up Trump’s ass you can’t see.

That’s the problem with your echo chamber, Chuck. You assume everyone else must be in one too, and I must be in a red (or orange) one since we don’t agree. I’ve told you repeatedly that I’m not a trumper or whatever slur is fashionable for woke morons today. I’ve never voted for him. But that doesn’t fit the narrative you’ve been fed.

Put down your kool-aide. You’ve had way too much.

I remember having a similar conversation with someone the first time Trump ran for president. It turned out ardent Trump supporter didn't vote at all. I mean after all the discussions with him glorifying the man, he didn't care enough to participate. He could, like you, say he never voted for Trump. Perhaps you are not a US citzen or there is a reason why you didn't choose to exercise your right to vote.

Being "woke" bothers some people because it forces them to deal on some level that what they want to think or have been taught to think isn't true. Sure, these efforts can go too far and the message keeps changing at times, but becoming informed about the experiences of others or how your experiences are not the same for everyone can be a good thing.

I just reserved one of the new Trump books, "I Alone Can Fix It". I've already read Woodward's, Bolton, and Mary Trump's book. It is time you became woke to just how dangerous a person DT is.

dneal
July 22nd, 2021, 05:34 AM
This is like the 3rd time I've seen you use some "I was talking to a trumper" anecdote, like you have some special fucking litmus test that lets you sniff out the insurrectionists. You look for a little evidence confirming that someone *gasp* "supports Trump". That's all you need to know, because you know everything from reading a washed-up one-hit-wonder journalist, and a crazy niece.

Now go read Victor Davis Hanson's "The Case for Trump". Agree with the argument or not, at least it's rational and not some bullshit gossip nonsense like the rest of your "list".

Donald Trump is not dangerous. An asshole, certainly. Dangerous?

TSherbs
July 22nd, 2021, 07:35 AM
Donald Trump is not dangerous. Yes, he is. He is ignorant, racist, sexist, and lazy. He is more interested in his own aggrandizement than the welfare of the country. He surrounded himself with grifters, several of whom are now under criminal prosecution (Tom Barrack is the most recent). His own company and its CFO are now under criminal prosecution. He claimed that he would hire "the best" people, and he hired a string of sycophants who were underqualified for the job, or criminal, or--if they had some spine--all ended up standing up to him when they had had enough and then he fired them. It is "dangerous" to the country to have a leader who hires so poorly.

Trump in power was "dangerous" to every minority or immigrant who became targeted after Trump's tweets and policies stoked more racial tension in the country. The white supremacist leader (I can't now remember which one) was giddy in his happiness after Trump said that "good people on both sides" remark. Trump's tweets were like loose canons: he would just fire away with no care for where the projectiles landed.

Other than funding Operation Warp Speed, Trump's comments around the Corona virus pandemic were "dangerous" to millions of Americans. He made racist remarks against China, further stoking those tensions in our country (which is a "dangerous" thing to do), and he intentionally played down the severity of the disease when, we have since found out, he privately understood just how deadly this virus is. Yeah, that's "dangerous," dneal. In leadership, this is akin to murder. He fucking lied to the public. Yeah, in a pandemic, with so many gullible citizens, the integrity of leadership has a lot of influence and impact. And Trump lied right to all of our faces. He even said that ingesting bleach might help clear the body and lungs. Yeah, that's "dangerous" in presidential leadership in a crisis.

Trump was also "dangerous" to all the women whom he assaulted over the years. Yes, he has not been criminally convicted of this, but we all know that it is true. So many men have assaulted women, and Trump fits the exact profile of a criminal repeated predatory assailant. He even confessed to the crimes on the Access Hollywood tape.

Finally, January 6 reveals this man's "dangerous" influence. I won't bother listing all the offences and charges and deaths and assaults that resulted from this mayhem that he helped stoke. To not see (or dismiss) the "danger" of that event is to be rationally and weirdly blind. And the whole thing was for Donald T Trump and his strategy of lying about the 2020 election. All of his lies and baseless accusations and frivolous lawsuits (so many dismissed out of hand for lack of credible or relevant evidence) are also "dangerous" to democracy because they needlessly create suspicion, fear, uncertainty and instability over our election process--which actually has very little fraud and deceit in it. Each state has a thorough vetting and review process, and errors of any magnitude (not even over a few hundred in the final tally) are RARE. And votes, it turns out, are even more rarely double counted. Trump and his cohort stoked lies to undermine national confidence in an election system in the greatest country in the world simply because he lost (prior to Nov 4, Trump said that he would accept the results if he won, but would not accept the results if he lost. This is all you need to hear about his integrity to know how "dangerous" he is as the leader of America). Trump has succeeded, according to the polls, in creating doubt--at least among Republicans--in the accuracy of our election results. This likely means additional stress, uncertainty, fear, and mistrust around elections--all of which contribute to instability. And instability is "dangerous" -- it is anathema--to democracy.


An asshole, certainly. Dangerous? Another dismissive remark. Assholes abound by the millions. Trump is one in a million, and far worse.

Chuck calls you a Trumper not because he knows how you voted, but because you repeatedly dismiss the arguments against the man's character, policies, actions, legacy, and the 2020 election. You dismiss the arguments against Trump as "woke" nonsense and "koolaid" drinking. That Trump is a serial prevaricator with serious character flaws is widely known. And yes, to have such a person as president is "dangerous," in the same way that they are "dangerous" as a boss, a husband, a father, or even as a friend. They eventually fuck up, royally, and destroy things and hurt people. As a president, the potential "danger" is multiplied by the millions. People of good character and intelligence and conscience, surrounded by other people of good character and intelligence and conscience, fuck up less.

Trump was, and continues to be, "dangerous."

Chip
July 22nd, 2021, 12:31 PM
No, I don’t care.

Do you care that recent disclosures of Russian documents show that Trump was nothing more than Putin's pet pig?

"The report – “No 32-04 \ vd” – is classified as secret. It says Trump is the “most promising candidate” from the Kremlin’s point of view. The word in Russian is perspektivny.

There is a brief psychological assessment of Trump, who is described as an “impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex”.

There is also apparent confirmation that the Kremlin possesses kompromat, or potentially compromising material, on the future president, collected – the document says – from Trump’s earlier 'non-official visits to Russian Federation territory'. "

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers-appear-to-show-putins-plot-to-put-trump-in-white-house

dneal
July 22nd, 2021, 01:47 PM
Chip. This thread isn't about Russians.

Chuck Naill
July 22nd, 2021, 08:46 PM
This is like the 3rd time I've seen you use some "I was talking to a trumper" anecdote, like you have some special fucking litmus test that lets you sniff out the insurrectionists. You look for a little evidence confirming that someone *gasp* "supports Trump". That's all you need to know, because you know everything from reading a washed-up one-hit-wonder journalist, and a crazy niece.

Now go read Victor Davis Hanson's "The Case for Trump". Agree with the argument or not, at least it's rational and not some bullshit gossip nonsense like the rest of your "list".

Donald Trump is not dangerous. An asshole, certainly. Dangerous?

I can't figure if you're blind or just plain stupid.

dneal
July 23rd, 2021, 05:02 AM
This is like the 3rd time I've seen you use some "I was talking to a trumper" anecdote, like you have some special fucking litmus test that lets you sniff out the insurrectionists. You look for a little evidence confirming that someone *gasp* "supports Trump". That's all you need to know, because you know everything from reading a washed-up one-hit-wonder journalist, and a crazy niece.

Now go read Victor Davis Hanson's "The Case for Trump". Agree with the argument or not, at least it's rational and not some bullshit gossip nonsense like the rest of your "list".

Donald Trump is not dangerous. An asshole, certainly. Dangerous?

I can't figure if you're blind or just plain stupid.

I always get a tickle when I make you show your true colors.

See Chuck, you’re partisan. Just like I told Chip, partisans are unable to see the world outside of the narrative they’ve constructed. Since I’m not in your camp, I must be in the other…

I’m not. When I browse the news, I’m just looking at the narratives people are being fed (by the left and right). There’s mainly a bunch of lefties here. You don’t know it because your partisan. Were it righties, everyone would be calling me a Trump hater because I would be pointing out how stupid their narrative was, just like I do for you.

TSherbs
July 23rd, 2021, 07:16 AM
Is Trump dangerous??

Yes, he is. He is ignorant, racist, sexist, and lazy. He is more interested in his own aggrandizement than the welfare of the country. He surrounded himself with grifters, several of whom are now under criminal prosecution (Tom Barrack is the most recent). His own company and its CFO are now under criminal prosecution. He claimed that he would hire "the best" people, and he hired a string of sycophants who were underqualified for the job, or criminal, or--if they had some spine--all ended up standing up to him when they had had enough and then he fired them. It is "dangerous" to the country to have a leader who hires so poorly.

Trump in power was "dangerous" to every minority or immigrant who became targeted after Trump's tweets and policies stoked more racial tension in the country. The white supremacist leader (I can't now remember which one) was giddy in his happiness after Trump said that "good people on both sides" remark. Trump's tweets were like loose canons: he would just fire away with no care for where the projectiles landed.

Other than funding Operation Warp Speed, Trump's comments around the Corona virus pandemic were "dangerous" to millions of Americans. He made racist remarks against China, further stoking those tensions in our country (which is a "dangerous" thing to do), and he intentionally played down the severity of the disease when, we have since found out, he privately understood just how deadly this virus is. Yeah, that's "dangerous," dneal. In leadership, this is akin to murder. He fucking lied to the public. Yeah, in a pandemic, with so many gullible citizens, the integrity of leadership has a lot of influence and impact. And Trump lied right to all of our faces. He even said that ingesting bleach might help clear the body and lungs. Yeah, that's "dangerous" in presidential leadership in a crisis.

Trump was also "dangerous" to all the women whom he assaulted over the years. Yes, he has not been criminally convicted of this, but we all know that it is true. So many men have assaulted women, and Trump fits the exact profile of a criminal repeated predatory assailant. He even confessed to the crimes on the Access Hollywood tape.

Finally, January 6 reveals this man's "dangerous" influence. I won't bother listing all the offences and charges and deaths and assaults that resulted from this mayhem that he helped stoke. To not see (or dismiss) the "danger" of that event is to be rationally and weirdly blind. And the whole thing was for Donald T Trump and his strategy of lying about the 2020 election. All of his lies and baseless accusations and frivolous lawsuits (so many dismissed out of hand for lack of credible or relevant evidence) are also "dangerous" to democracy because they needlessly create suspicion, fear, uncertainty and instability over our election process--which actually has very little fraud and deceit in it. Each state has a thorough vetting and review process, and errors of any magnitude (not even over a few hundred in the final tally) are RARE. And votes, it turns out, are even more rarely double counted. Trump and his cohort stoked lies to undermine national confidence in an election system in the greatest country in the world simply because he lost (prior to Nov 4, Trump said that he would accept the results if he won, but would not accept the results if he lost. This is all you need to hear about his integrity to know how "dangerous" he is as the leader of America). Trump has succeeded, according to the polls, in creating doubt--at least among Republicans--in the accuracy of our election results. This likely means additional stress, uncertainty, fear, and mistrust around elections--all of which contribute to instability. And instability is "dangerous" -- it is anathema--to democracy.


An asshole, certainly. Dangerous? Another dismissive remark. Assholes abound by the millions. Trump is one in a million, and far worse.

Chuck calls you a Trumper not because he knows how you voted, but because you repeatedly dismiss the arguments against the man's character, policies, actions, legacy, and the 2020 election. You dismiss the arguments against Trump as "woke" nonsense and "koolaid" drinking. That Trump is a serial prevaricator with serious character flaws is widely known. And yes, to have such a person as president is "dangerous," in the same way that they are "dangerous" as a boss, a husband, a father, or even as a friend. They eventually fuck up, royally, and destroy things and hurt people. As a president, the potential "danger" is multiplied by the millions. People of good character and intelligence and conscience, surrounded by other people of good character and intelligence and conscience, fuck up less.

Trump was, and continues to be, "dangerous."

kazoolaw
July 23rd, 2021, 12:25 PM
TS-
Take your next to last sentence, substitute "Biden" for "Trump."
Mirror image, huh?

kazoolaw
July 23rd, 2021, 12:26 PM
Sorry: next to last paragraph.

TSherbs
July 23rd, 2021, 03:22 PM
The topic here has been Donald Trump and whether he is "dangerous." Chuck and I and Chip say yes, very much so. Chip and I gave reasons. dneal says no (but no follow up or reason). You say "what about Biden."

I actually don't expect more out of either of you two. Shrug.

dneal
July 24th, 2021, 06:22 AM
The topic here has been Donald Trump and whether he is "dangerous." Chuck and I and Chip say yes, very much so. Chip and I gave reasons. dneal says no (but no follow up or reason). You say "what about Biden."

I actually don't expect more out of either of you two. Shrug.

Take a look at your post again. Now look directly above it, at the bold text that starts with "Re:". So no, the topic has not been whether Donald Trump is "dangerous" or not. Dear god you people live in an alternate universe. I know you can change your positions with the wind, but the topic is perfectly clear yet you believe it is something which it clearly and demonstrably is not. Pretty much sums up every "conversation" with you.

Chip
July 24th, 2021, 01:20 PM
I asked for a link or citation or some real-world proof that the assertion made in the title has the slightest shred of truth. And so far, nothing but bluster, bad breath, and foam. In legal proceedings, there's a general insistence on facts and proof.

So far, you're doing the same as Trump's team of clowns, pulling random numbers out of their arses and expecting their paranoid rants will convince a judge.

TSherbs
July 24th, 2021, 02:04 PM
dneal, I quoted *your* claim that Trump wasn't dangerous. You wrote it, dufus. Don't whine to me about changing topics. You stated twice in that post that Trump wasn't dangerous. Put yourself in a timeout for straying off topic if you're out to scold someone.

You also trumpeted to Chuck that you weren't a Trump supporter, so I explained how you come of as one despite whatever lever you might pull on election day (I don't trust your comments about that, by the way, at all). But whatever. You make these pronouncements, someone responds, and then you bitch about getting off topic. The topic, sometimes, is whatever claim you happen to write.

I'll take this dodge as a concession to my points about Trump's dangerousness.

TSherbs
July 24th, 2021, 02:09 PM
So far, you're doing the same as Trump's team of clowns, pulling random numbers out of their arses and expecting their paranoid rants will convince a judge.

But he isn't 'partisan." 😁

Actually, dneal once admitted that he had a predilection for conspiracy theories. He didn't explain "why" he had this, and has not commented further on his bias for them. He may have said that they were "fun," now that I think about it. I'm not sure.

dneal
July 24th, 2021, 04:44 PM
I asked for a link or citation or some real-world proof that the assertion made in the title has the slightest shred of truth. And so far, nothing but bluster, bad breath, and foam. In legal proceedings, there's a general insistence on facts and proof.

So far, you're doing the same as Trump's team of clowns, pulling random numbers out of their arses and expecting their paranoid rants will convince a judge.

What your request indicated to me was that you do not have the context. It’s actually in this thread, explicitly stated. So you haven’t even bothered to read the whole thread, but I owe you something. Sorry buddy, but that’s the bad breath and bluster if there is any about.

dneal
July 24th, 2021, 04:57 PM
dneal, I quoted *your* claim that Trump wasn't dangerous. You wrote it, dufus. Don't whine to me about changing topics. You stated twice in that post that Trump wasn't dangerous. Put yourself in a timeout for straying off topic if you're out to scold someone.

You also trumpeted to Chuck that you weren't a Trump supporter, so I explained how you come of as one despite whatever lever you might pull on election day (I don't trust your comments about that, by the way, at all). But whatever. You make these pronouncements, someone responds, and then you bitch about getting off topic. The topic, sometimes, is whatever claim you happen to write.

I'll take this dodge as a concession to my points about Trump's dangerousness.

So prove to me he's dangerous. I'm not going to prove to you he's not. I don't bother trying to prove negatives for English majors that didn't study logic. An assertion was made. A, if you will. I don't see it, and said not-A. Now we have a simple logical disjunction of A or not-A. Prove A. I don't care and me not proving not-A doesn't equal A. I'm sure you understand nothing of that, but anyway...


Your ranting recitation of liberal talking points isn't proof. A NYT opinion piece isn't proof. You're simply wasting my time.

I'm not a Trump supporter, yours and others protests notwithstanding. Again, partisans can't comprehend nonpartisans. I'm not surprised.





So far, you're doing the same as Trump's team of clowns, pulling random numbers out of their arses and expecting their paranoid rants will convince a judge.

But he isn't 'partisan." 😁

Actually, dneal once admitted that he had a predilection for conspiracy theories. He didn't explain "why" he had this, and has not commented further on his bias for them. He may have said that they were "fun," now that I think about it. I'm not sure.

I enjoy conspiracy theories. They can be exercises in cleverness and inventiveness. That doesn't mean I believe them.

p.s. for Chip: Feel free to try to prove the assertions you've made. You seem to me to be another internet hyena. Maybe I'm wrong.

TSherbs
July 24th, 2021, 05:47 PM
So prove to me he's dangerous. I'm not going to prove to you he's not. I wrote out five reasons. You have not yet addressed a single one of them. In the rules of debate, if you simply refuse to respond, you lose.



Your ranting recitation of liberal talking points isn't proof. A NYT opinion piece isn't proof. You're simply wasting my time.
Go away then. I couldn't care if you never post here again.



I enjoy conspiracy theories. They can be exercises in cleverness and inventiveness. So, this is one big jerk-off for you? You don't actually believe any of the stuff you write here, and get off on being an irritating troll? Conspiracy theories are inevitably based on assumptions without proof or basis. What can be "clever" about that, since you seem to be such a champion of "logic"?

So far you have basically asserted nothing except the "hypocrisy" of the left (a weak point, really, and not relevant to conspiracy theories). Well, I suppose that you once also said something like "Joe Biden is old".

And that is all you got, apparently.

dneal
July 24th, 2021, 06:32 PM
I wrote out five reasons. You have not yet addressed a single one of them. In the rules of debate, in case you need some educating, if you simply refuse to respond, you lose.

You do love to change the rules, don't you. If I don't address them, I lose. Did you address my points? Of course not. That's ok, it's what I expect from you.

Frankly, your points are stupid. The first thing you come up with is "he is ignorant, racist, sexist and lazy"? You want me to seriously consider your ad hominem a valid demonstration that he's "dangerous"? I'll bear with your narrative for a bit longer though, out of courtesy. He targeted every minority and immigrant? Last I checked he set a record for black employment. What was that meeting with those HBCU's? If you can't see that your "arguments" are silly narratives you have bought into, I don't know what to tell you. You're Mike Lindell levels of loon, just blue instead of red (or orange).


Your ranting recitation of liberal talking points isn't proof. A NYT opinion piece isn't proof. You're simply wasting my time.
Go away then. I couldn't care if you never post here again.

You, welch, and your "go away" shit. What kind of idiot are you? Why would I do or not do because of one poster? Holy shit your sense of self-importance needs some adjustment.



I enjoy conspiracy theories. They can be exercises in cleverness and inventiveness. So, this is one big jerk-off for you? You don't actually believe any of the stuff you write here, and get off on being an irritating troll? Conspiracy theories are inevitably based on assumptions without proof or basis. What can be "clever" about that, since you seem to be such a champion of "logic"?

I love it when you demonstrate your ignorance, and you have no idea what I mean. Google things like "logical dilemma" and "paradox" for a hint of why a "champion of logic" can appreciate a good conspiracy theory (good ones present good dilemmas and the great ones lean toward paradox).

So far you have basically asserted nothing except the "hypocrisy" of the left (a weak point, really, and not relevant to conspiracy theories). Well, I suppose that you once also said something like "Joe Biden is old".

And that is all you got, apparently.

No, it's just all the effort you guys are worth exerting. You are people I have never met on the internet. You seem like a smug dick to me. Fine, I'll interact accordingly. Right now it's just stop by and see if you and the others are over your TDS. You're not, which is why you're the one who keeps posting to a thread always intended sarcastically. Basically you're just a partisan hypocrite who parrots partisan news sources. You demonstrate it repeatedly. I have read everything you're going to say, days before you post it. This isn't the only part of the internet I visit. You're a dime a dozen. Eric Weinstein's "internet hyenas". So before you point that "irritating troll" finger, check your troll privilege....

kazoolaw
July 25th, 2021, 10:40 AM
The topic here has been Donald Trump and whether he is "dangerous." Chuck and I and Chip say yes, very much so. Chip and I gave reasons. dneal says no (but no follow up or reason). You say "what about Biden."

I actually don't expect more out of either of you two. Shrug.

TS-

Your reading comprehension needs a brush up. Stay with me here: I actually said Biden is the same guy. Except with rapidly deteriorating dementia.

Chip
July 26th, 2021, 04:33 PM
Dude! The tinfoil hat's not working.

I recommend cast-iron.

https://oldasadam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/6-IMG_7909-820x819.jpg

Empty_of_Clouds
July 26th, 2021, 06:11 PM
Do you have a monopoly on that hat? :bolt:

kazoolaw
July 27th, 2021, 04:33 AM
Cool-your personal echo chamber!

Chuck Naill
July 27th, 2021, 09:34 AM
This is like the 3rd time I've seen you use some "I was talking to a trumper" anecdote, like you have some special fucking litmus test that lets you sniff out the insurrectionists. You look for a little evidence confirming that someone *gasp* "supports Trump". That's all you need to know, because you know everything from reading a washed-up one-hit-wonder journalist, and a crazy niece.

Now go read Victor Davis Hanson's "The Case for Trump". Agree with the argument or not, at least it's rational and not some bullshit gossip nonsense like the rest of your "list".

Donald Trump is not dangerous. An asshole, certainly. Dangerous?

I can't figure if you're blind or just plain stupid.

I always get a tickle when I make you show your true colors.

See Chuck, you’re partisan. Just like I told Chip, partisans are unable to see the world outside of the narrative they’ve constructed. Since I’m not in your camp, I must be in the other…

I’m not. When I browse the news, I’m just looking at the narratives people are being fed (by the left and right). There’s mainly a bunch of lefties here. You don’t know it because your partisan. Were it righties, everyone would be calling me a Trump hater because I would be pointing out how stupid their narrative was, just like I do for you.

Okay, you're just plain stupid. Thank you for clearing it up!! LOL!!

Chuck Naill
July 27th, 2021, 09:38 AM
The topic here has been Donald Trump and whether he is "dangerous." Chuck and I and Chip say yes, very much so. Chip and I gave reasons. dneal says no (but no follow up or reason). You say "what about Biden."

I actually don't expect more out of either of you two. Shrug.

The dude didn't even care enough to vote. No balls.....!! Troll...absolutely. :big_boss:

What about Biden is whataboutthisism or the child who complains, they weren't nice to me as an excuse for not being nice.

kazoolaw
July 27th, 2021, 01:20 PM
What about Biden is whataboutthisism or the child who complains, they weren't nice to me as an excuse for not being nice.

https://www.howtogeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/ximg_5a5289af8bc6c.png.pagespeed.gp+jp+jw+pj+ws+js +rj+rp+rw+ri+cp+md.ic.TJDylaiAx2.jpg

Chuck and TS-
If you two go on a trip together please find and bring along someone with advanced reading skills.
"Whataboutthisism" is the response you make when you can't refute the original statement.
To simplify: Biden is the Dem Trump. Not "what about." Functionally equivalent to the claims you make about Trump.
Joe's the Donald without the ability to speak in public.
No complaints here. Have no expectation of niceties.
If you can't look at a Dem without a thrill going up your leg [historial allusion] the only way you'll be able to turn on your trip will be left.
Be well, stay cool, and enjoy the show.

Chuck Naill
July 27th, 2021, 03:06 PM
What about Biden is whataboutthisism or the child who complains, they weren't nice to me as an excuse for not being nice.

https://www.howtogeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/ximg_5a5289af8bc6c.png.pagespeed.gp+jp+jw+pj+ws+js +rj+rp+rw+ri+cp+md.ic.TJDylaiAx2.jpg

Chuck and TS-
If you two go on a trip together please find and bring along someone with advanced reading skills.
"Whataboutthisism" is the response you make when you can't refute the original statement.
To simplify: Biden is the Dem Trump. Not "what about." Functionally equivalent to the claims you make about Trump.
Joe's the Donald without the ability to speak in public.
No complaints here. Have no expectation of niceties.
If you can't look at a Dem without a thrill going up your leg [historial allusion] the only way you'll be able to turn on your trip will be left.
Be well, stay cool, and enjoy the show.

You demonstrate you don't understand "whataboutthisism". So, I am obliged to help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

kazoolaw
July 27th, 2021, 04:38 PM
Stay with me here Chuck: your accusation that I am engaging in whataboutism is a rhetorical device, attempting to discredit my statement. You employ that device when you can't respond on the merits. If you would read carefully the post you're trying to respond to you'll notice it contains no defense of Trump.

Hope your GPS is working.

dneal
July 27th, 2021, 05:00 PM
Stay with me here Chuck: your accusation that I am engaging in whataboutism is a rhetorical device, attempting to discredit my statement. You employ that device when you can't respond on the merits. If you would read carefully the post you're trying to respond to you'll notice it contains no defense of Trump.

Hope your GPS is working.

A+ for effort. They could never even answer what they didn't like about Trump on a policy level, and that turned into a dumpster fire... leading to these others. Hey! It's like Portland! lol

Chuck Naill
July 29th, 2021, 05:15 PM
Stay with me here Chuck: your accusation that I am engaging in whataboutism is a rhetorical device, attempting to discredit my statement. You employ that device when you can't respond on the merits. If you would read carefully the post you're trying to respond to you'll notice it contains no defense of Trump.

Hope your GPS is working.

Simply writing "stay with me Chuck" is a form of whatabout this . It is something to say that does not address the issue. I mean, you can condensend all you want, but people died because of Trump. If you don't understand, I understand why, but don't think others are not getting it. There is a radicalizaton going on in the US and it is not religious. Well, maybe cultish.

TSherbs
August 1st, 2021, 12:20 PM
Chuck and TS-
If you two go on a trip together please find and bring along someone with advanced reading skills.
Another petty remark.


"Whataboutthisism" is the response you make when you can't refute the original statement.No, it's the response to an irrelevant turn in a debate. Irrelevance needs and deserves no refutation. Irrelevance is simply dismissed.


To simplify: Biden is the Dem Trump. Irrelevant to the discussion over whether Trump is dangerous.


Functionally equivalent to the claims you make about Trump.
Not in the least "functionally equivalent". I outlined five ways in which I consider Trump to be dangerous. You have not addressed any of those specifics other than to say "Biden is the Dem Trump." And this is still not relevant to the point of discussion.

I actually think that Trump is personally emotionally dangerous to his immediate family. His ego is enormous, his empathy is poor, and his judgment is suspect. I cringe to think what may be coming for the future of that household (wife and son). Oh well, I don't have much sympathy for Melania since I figure that she knew what she was getting into. But children don't pick their parents, and Baron got quite a pair.

TSherbs
August 4th, 2021, 05:36 AM
The dude didn't even care enough to vote. No balls.....!! Troll...absolutely. :big_boss:

What about Biden is whataboutthisism or the child who complains, they weren't nice to me as an excuse for not being nice.

From David Frum's (a Republican who has rejected Trump) most recent article for the Atlantic:


The post-Trump right has a style as distinctive as its authoritarian substance: trolling, ironic, evasive. It expresses itself in rhetorical questions, in false alternatives, in sleights of phrase, in mocking deflections. It does not openly declare its intentions, in part because it does not dare to—and in part because it itself does not yet fully know. Those of us who have walked away from this betrayal of our earlier beliefs can discern the resemblance to the fascism of the last century. But those heading toward the new destination do not see so clearly, distracted as they are by the wisecracks that they are tweeting as they trudge.

Sound familiar?

Chuck Naill
August 4th, 2021, 06:13 AM
Trump has taught others that the best way to address accusations is to just claim the accusation is false. I heard yesterday that A. Cuomo said the women didn't understand what he meant. In other words, it was their fault. Perhaps he thinks they are too stupid. Who knows, but it sounds familiar.

The overarching problem is that a form of dishonesty is creeping into the social fabric where something that is absolutely known is said to be false. Just consider the current situation where unvaccinated people are dying of COVID-19 Delta Varient. People are dying because they refuse to believe that either the vaccine will work or that the virus is that dangerous. I do honesly believe that had Clinton won and the virus would have emerged, there would not be the existing situation, but after just four years of DT, how many see things has changed. I am not a Clinton fan, just saying.

TSherbs
August 4th, 2021, 08:04 AM
...

TSherbs
August 4th, 2021, 01:28 PM
Well, two lawyers who filed on behalf of Trump's cause in December just lost this counter suit for sanctions. Ouch! Here is a summary of part of the decision, from CNN:


. The attorneys -- Gary D. Fielder and Ernest John Walker -- that filed the election lawsuit in late December 2020 in Colorado federal court now must pay attorneys fees for Facebook, Dominion Voting Systems, the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin, and the non-profit Center for Tech and Civic Life, all of which were named as defendants in the lawsuit, Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter ruled.

The shit is coming back from the fan.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

kazoolaw
August 4th, 2021, 05:15 PM
Trump has taught others that the best way to address accusations is to just claim the accusation is false. I heard yesterday that A. Cuomo said the women didn't understand what he meant. In other words, it was their fault. Perhaps he thinks they are too stupid. Who knows, but it sounds familiar.

The overarching problem is that a form of dishonesty is creeping into the social fabric where something that is absolutely known is said to be false. Just consider the current situation where unvaccinated people are dying of COVID-19 Delta Varient. People are dying because they refuse to believe that either the vaccine will work or that the virus is that dangerous. I do honesly believe that had Clinton won and the virus would have emerged, there would not be the existing situation, but after just four years of DT, how many see things has changed. I am not a Clinton fan, just saying.

Wait-
Andrew Cuomo's lies and sexual abuse are because of Trump? Your belief in his superpowers must be frightening to you.
Would the same hold for Clinton who perjured himself regarding his sex in the Oval Office?
We can agree that had Hilary won and COVID emerged the existing situation would many times worse

Chuck Naill
August 5th, 2021, 05:59 AM
Trump has taught others that the best way to address accusations is to just claim the accusation is false. I heard yesterday that A. Cuomo said the women didn't understand what he meant. In other words, it was their fault. Perhaps he thinks they are too stupid. Who knows, but it sounds familiar.

The overarching problem is that a form of dishonesty is creeping into the social fabric where something that is absolutely known is said to be false. Just consider the current situation where unvaccinated people are dying of COVID-19 Delta Varient. People are dying because they refuse to believe that either the vaccine will work or that the virus is that dangerous. I do honesly believe that had Clinton won and the virus would have emerged, there would not be the existing situation, but after just four years of DT, how many see things has changed. I am not a Clinton fan, just saying.

Wait-
Andrew Cuomo's lies and sexual abuse are because of Trump? Your belief in his superpowers must be frightening to you.
Would the same hold for Clinton who perjured himself regarding his sex in the Oval Office?
We can agree that had Hilary won and COVID emerged the existing situation would many times worse


This is a good example for why it is impossible to have a conversation with you. First off, you jump to a conclusion that I am blaming Trump for Cuomo. Then you make a statement about me believing something I never suggested.

Next comes the whataboutthis with Clinton.

Why would I agree? Is there anything I wrote remotely suggesting that I believe Clinton to be worse? No!

So, next time your whining about me not willing to have a discussion, remember your reply and you'll better understand why I find no confidence you truly want one.

kazoolaw
August 5th, 2021, 11:02 AM
Trump has taught others that the best way to address accusations is to just claim the accusation is false. I heard yesterday that A. Cuomo said the women didn't understand what he meant. In other words, it was their fault. Perhaps he thinks they are too stupid. Who knows, but it sounds familiar.

The overarching problem is that a form of dishonesty is creeping into the social fabric where something that is absolutely known is said to be false. Just consider the current situation where unvaccinated people are dying of COVID-19 Delta Varient. People are dying because they refuse to believe that either the vaccine will work or that the virus is that dangerous. I do honesly believe that had Clinton won and the virus would have emerged, there would not be the existing situation, but after just four years of DT, how many see things has changed. I am not a Clinton fan, just saying.

Wait-
Andrew Cuomo's lies and sexual abuse are because of Trump? Your belief in his superpowers must be frightening to you.
Would the same hold for Clinton who perjured himself regarding his sex in the Oval Office?
We can agree that had Hilary won and COVID emerged the existing situation would many times worse


This is a good example for why it is impossible to have a conversation with you. First off, you jump to a conclusion that I am blaming Trump for Cuomo. Then you make a statement about me believing something I never suggested.

Next comes the whataboutthis with Clinton.

Why would I agree? Is there anything I wrote remotely suggesting that I believe Clinton to be worse? No!

So, next time your whining about me not willing to have a discussion, remember your reply and you'll better understand why I find no confidence you truly want one.

Chuck,
So you didn't mean to put Trump in the first sentence, Cuomo in the second sentence of the same paragraph and not make a connection? "...it sounds familiar" refers to who/what exactly? Maybe back to the first sentence and the only name in it?
Enough already with the the whatabouts. My point was you can't blame Trump for Bill's perjury as Bill came first.
I don't recall whining about not having a conversation with you, but if I did I take it all back.

Chuck Naill
August 6th, 2021, 05:51 AM
Trump has taught others that the best way to address accusations is to just claim the accusation is false. I heard yesterday that A. Cuomo said the women didn't understand what he meant. In other words, it was their fault. Perhaps he thinks they are too stupid. Who knows, but it sounds familiar.

The overarching problem is that a form of dishonesty is creeping into the social fabric where something that is absolutely known is said to be false. Just consider the current situation where unvaccinated people are dying of COVID-19 Delta Varient. People are dying because they refuse to believe that either the vaccine will work or that the virus is that dangerous. I do honesly believe that had Clinton won and the virus would have emerged, there would not be the existing situation, but after just four years of DT, how many see things has changed. I am not a Clinton fan, just saying.

Wait-
Andrew Cuomo's lies and sexual abuse are because of Trump? Your belief in his superpowers must be frightening to you.
Would the same hold for Clinton who perjured himself regarding his sex in the Oval Office?
We can agree that had Hilary won and COVID emerged the existing situation would many times worse


This is a good example for why it is impossible to have a conversation with you. First off, you jump to a conclusion that I am blaming Trump for Cuomo. Then you make a statement about me believing something I never suggested.

Next comes the whataboutthis with Clinton.

Why would I agree? Is there anything I wrote remotely suggesting that I believe Clinton to be worse? No!

So, next time your whining about me not willing to have a discussion, remember your reply and you'll better understand why I find no confidence you truly want one.

Chuck,
So you didn't mean to put Trump in the first sentence, Cuomo in the second sentence of the same paragraph and not make a connection? "...it sounds familiar" refers to who/what exactly? Maybe back to the first sentence and the only name in it?
Enough already with the the whatabouts. My point was you can't blame Trump for Bill's perjury as Bill came first.
I don't recall whining about not having a conversation with you, but if I did I take it all back.

As I wrote, Trump is teaching others just to the best way to address accusations is to claim their false. Or worse attack the accusers. You can check this out if you want to take the time and then you will know I am not blaming Trump for what Cuomo did.

I never mentoned Bill Clinton. Why did you mention him? It is common for children to respond when accused of something to say, "well, they did it first". Or, "so and so did it to". We can never actaually converse about Trump if all his followers only defend his words and actions by comparing him to someone else. We all stand or fall on our own merits.

There were people who died and are dying because of Trump's actions both with the pandemic and on January 6. This is not something I am fabricating. People were hurt because of Cuomo's actions. Comparing him to another governor fails to address the problem. Hopefully, you get my point.

TSherbs
August 6th, 2021, 06:29 AM
This is a good example for why it is impossible to have a conversation with you.

No "conversations" are happening here. It's an error to expect it, Chuck.

There are a couple of us who post criticisms about Trump, and there are a couple who troll us in reply.

You are of course right that Trump's actions and words have cost people their lives. It is part of how Trump is dangerous and how his potential return to office must be rejected.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

kazoolaw
August 6th, 2021, 10:16 AM
Chuck-stay with us here:

Post 110: "Trump has taught others that the best way to address accusations is to just claim the accusation is false. I heard yesterday that A. Cuomo said the women didn't understand what he meant. In other words, it was their fault." You say Trump teaches others (Cuomo) to lie.

Post 114: "First off, you jump to a conclusion that I am blaming Trump for Cuomo." Now you claim didn't say Trump taught Cuomo to lie.

Post 116: "As I wrote, Trump is teaching others just to the best way to address accusations is to claim their false. Or worse attack the accusers. You can check this out if you want to take the time and then you will know I am not blaming Trump for what Cuomo did." Now you say both: Trump is to blame for teaching others (including Cuomo, see Posts 110 & 116) to lie, but Trump's not to blame for Cuomo lying.

Gotta admit Chuck, hard to converse when you're already on both sides of the conversation.

kazoolaw
August 6th, 2021, 10:38 AM
I never mentoned Bill Clinton. Why did you mention him? It is common for children to respond when accused of something to say, "well, they did it first". Or, "so and so did it to". We can never actaually converse about Trump if all his followers only defend his words and actions by comparing him to someone else. We all stand or fall on our own merits.

There were people who died and are dying because of Trump's actions both with the pandemic and on January 6. This is not something I am fabricating. People were hurt because of Cuomo's actions. Comparing him to another governor fails to address the problem. Hopefully, you get my point.

CN,

Again, stick with me:

In Post 110 you claim that Trump taught Cuomo to lie. I cited an example of a politician who lied about sex before Trump was president. Seems that former President Clinton was able to lie about sex without being taught by Trump, which destroys your argument that only politicians that are taught by Trump lie about sex. Feel free to cite a Republican politician who lied about sex before Trump was elected. My statement was not a Trump defense. I never defend lying, regardless of political party. Your argument that Trump taught Cuomo to lie assumes that Cuomo has no conscience of his own. Actually, I'm willing to agree with that, but argue that condition pre-existed Donald Trump

Do you remember Trump sending the hospital ship to New York to help during the pandemic? Do you remember Cuomo not sending patients to be treated at the ship? Did that action of Trump cause people to die? Same question with the tent hospital sent by Franklin Graham which remained virtually empty: can you possibly claim Trump was involved? Who got the vaccine process kick-started? Didn't the Dems claim that it couldn't be done?

Other than Ashli Babbitt, who died on January 6? I mean at the Capital. And before you say it, no officer died after being beaten with a fire extinguisher.

Empty_of_Clouds
August 6th, 2021, 04:53 PM
@TSherbs and @Chuck Naill

I read but do not often respond. You are adding to the conversation. Trump has indeed demonstrated that a viable method of dealing with accusations is to gaslight the hell out of them. Nobody has suggested that Cuomo has (allegedly) committed abuses because he's learned that from Trump, but it is not a great stretch to concur that Cuomo's current gaslighting is (at least partly) a result of having seen Trump get away with it. Bear in mind that even if Cuomo is an inveterate liar, it's likely he has been emboldened by Trump's actions to be more egregious in his lying on the political stage.

Historically speaking we can almost always cite a prior example of most things. Using that as an argument doesn't really work.

TSherbs
August 6th, 2021, 05:24 PM
Thanks, EOC.

I meant to add to my earlier post that Trump has actually won a recent court effort: he has been granted additional time before having to hand over his tax materials. It's not that Trump or his allies *never* win court cases. Just very few, and none of any consequence having to do with fraud or the legitimacy of the outcome in any state.

This recent case is on an entirely different matter.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Chuck Naill
August 7th, 2021, 06:12 AM
I never mentoned Bill Clinton. Why did you mention him? It is common for children to respond when accused of something to say, "well, they did it first". Or, "so and so did it to". We can never actaually converse about Trump if all his followers only defend his words and actions by comparing him to someone else. We all stand or fall on our own merits.

There were people who died and are dying because of Trump's actions both with the pandemic and on January 6. This is not something I am fabricating. People were hurt because of Cuomo's actions. Comparing him to another governor fails to address the problem. Hopefully, you get my point.

CN,

Again, stick with me:

In Post 110 you claim that Trump taught Cuomo to lie. I cited an example of a politician who lied about sex before Trump was president. Seems that former President Clinton was able to lie about sex without being taught by Trump, which destroys your argument that only politicians that are taught by Trump lie about sex. Feel free to cite a Republican politician who lied about sex before Trump was elected. My statement was not a Trump defense. I never defend lying, regardless of political party. Your argument that Trump taught Cuomo to lie assumes that Cuomo has no conscience of his own. Actually, I'm willing to agree with that, but argue that condition pre-existed Donald Trump

Do you remember Trump sending the hospital ship to New York to help during the pandemic? Do you remember Cuomo not sending patients to be treated at the ship? Did that action of Trump cause people to die? Same question with the tent hospital sent by Franklin Graham which remained virtually empty: can you possibly claim Trump was involved? Who got the vaccine process kick-started? Didn't the Dems claim that it couldn't be done?

Other than Ashli Babbitt, who died on January 6? I mean at the Capital. And before you say it, no officer died after being beaten with a fire extinguisher.


I'll help you out here and respond as condesendedly as you. This is what I wrote, "Trump has taught others the best way to address accusations is to just claim the accusation is false." The word "others" is a pronoun and not specific to Cuomo or anyone else. If you can't understand, then we are both wasting our time here.

Who died information is readily available. I listened to the officers testify last week. Those transcripts are readily available. If you want to believe what took place on January 6, 2021 served a good purpose, that's your business and perogative. I disagree.

I do think Trump urged the insurrection based on reading a transcrpit of his speech before the attack. I have listened to memnbers of congress speak and McConnel's response. I do think something bad and unhealthy for our system of government occured on that day, but I also realize that these events were inevitable based on prior events that Trump held for his supporters. In other words, the insurrection should not be a surprise, yet, it appears the capital police were very much surprised.

kazoolaw
August 16th, 2021, 01:47 PM
I'll help you out here and respond as condesendedly as you. This is what I wrote, "Trump has taught others the best way to address accusations is to just claim the accusation is false." The word "others" is a pronoun and not specific to Cuomo or anyone else. If you can't understand, then we are both wasting our time here.

Who died information is readily available. I listened to the officers testify last week. Those transcripts are readily available. If you want to believe what took place on January 6, 2021 served a good purpose, that's your business and perogative. I disagree.

I do think Trump urged the insurrection based on reading a transcrpit of his speech before the attack. I have listened to memnbers of congress speak and McConnel's response. I do think something bad and unhealthy for our system of government occured on that day, but I also realize that these events were inevitable based on prior events that Trump held for his supporters. In other words, the insurrection should not be a surprise, yet, it appears the capital police were very much surprised.

Chuck, Chuck, Chuck-

You are really unsuccessful at distancing yourself from your own statements. Now you're claiming Cuomo is not one of your "others?" Specifically not an "other" that you referenced in the next sentence, in the same paragraph as Trump? If your statement about Trump isn't specific to anyone, if it doesn't apply to anyone can it even be true?

Yes, my question was "Who died on January 6?" Your reference to the information being available and neither citing nor quoting concedes my point. Again with the deflection.

Again with the straw man argument: please cite the post number in which I stated that January 6 served "a good purpose."

At last we can agree: the capitol police were very much surprised. I too am surprised at some police holding doors open during an "insurrection." Are you surprised that the name of the officer who shot Ashli Babbitt has not been officially released, along with his/her explanation of what happened? Don't we deserve the same amount of information as in the Trayvon Martin and George Floyd cases?

Chuck Naill
August 17th, 2021, 06:38 AM
I'll help you out here and respond as condesendedly as you. This is what I wrote, "Trump has taught others the best way to address accusations is to just claim the accusation is false." The word "others" is a pronoun and not specific to Cuomo or anyone else. If you can't understand, then we are both wasting our time here.

Who died information is readily available. I listened to the officers testify last week. Those transcripts are readily available. If you want to believe what took place on January 6, 2021 served a good purpose, that's your business and perogative. I disagree.

I do think Trump urged the insurrection based on reading a transcrpit of his speech before the attack. I have listened to memnbers of congress speak and McConnel's response. I do think something bad and unhealthy for our system of government occured on that day, but I also realize that these events were inevitable based on prior events that Trump held for his supporters. In other words, the insurrection should not be a surprise, yet, it appears the capital police were very much surprised.

Chuck, Chuck, Chuck-

You are really unsuccessful at distancing yourself from your own statements. Now you're claiming Cuomo is not one of your "others?" Specifically not an "other" that you referenced in the next sentence, in the same paragraph as Trump? If your statement about Trump isn't specific to anyone, if it doesn't apply to anyone can it even be true?

Yes, my question was "Who died on January 6?" Your reference to the information being available and neither citing nor quoting concedes my point. Again with the deflection.

Again with the straw man argument: please cite the post number in which I stated that January 6 served "a good purpose."

At last we can agree: the capitol police were very much surprised. I too am surprised at some police holding doors open during an "insurrection." Are you surprised that the name of the officer who shot Ashli Babbitt has not been officially released, along with his/her explanation of what happened? Don't we deserve the same amount of information as in the Trayvon Martin and George Floyd cases?

Demanding an answer when you can do the research yourself just wastes time. From all accounts, five people are said to have died on January 6, 2021 at the US Capital. In fact demanding an answer makes me think you are suggesting the information available it invalid. Do you think no one or only one or two died? I wasn't there. Where you?

I wrote, "If you want to believe what took place on January 6, 2021 served a good purpose, that's your business and perogative. I disagree."If" is not an accusation. So there is nothing to quote. I guess reading your words caused me to think you possibly feel the event was for a good cause. What do you actually think about the event on 1/6/21?


If someone does something and gets by with it, it can cause others think they can get away also. That's not that same as forcing someone to do something. An analogy might be if someone climbs the summit of Mount Everest, others may observe and think they can also. If that observer get themselves killed trying to climb the mountain, it would be wrong to blame the successful ones.

Trump was not damaged by his words and actions which I am saying inspired others to give it a try as in the case with Cuomo. It does not mean Trump made Cuomo do something.

I am not surprised the name has not been released. Trump has recently said "we know who he is", and “The Radical Left haters cannot be allowed to get away with this. There must be justice!”. What do you think about the former president siding with those that attacked the capital and this after he denies he was the cause for the attack. So was he against it before he was for it? Do you think he speech before the attack caused the attack. If not, why?

Now you are comparing what happen to Martin and Floyd to someone who attacked the US Capital. Do you think these are the same type of incidents? What does George Floyd and Ms Babbitt have in common in your opinion? Floyd was killed for passing a counterfiet $20 bill and Ms. Babbitt was killed crashing into a window at the US Capital. Let's say it was Floyd who crashed the window? What if Babbitt had a knee on her neck until she died, would that change anything or do you think its the same?

TSherbs
August 17th, 2021, 08:53 AM
Chuck, I believe it is only one person who died directly as a result of the storming of the Capitol. Another death was determined to be a stroke (IIRC). And, oddly, there have been three other suicides among law enforcement responders in the area that day (seems a statistical anomaly).

Now, there were dozens of other assaults on officers documented and in the process of being prosecuted. Not to mention many other felonies. Fortunately, loss of life was limited because it seems like there was the potential for much more shooting with so many guns drawn and officers being assaulted and trespassing and marauding going on in the building where the Senate was convening.

Law enforcement at the top was not "surprised" by the potential for this incursion. The potential was there for weeks, and there were worries expressed on the day of the event.

What some individual officers did at the doors is irrelevant to whether or not there were threats that day nor whether crimes were committed. The crowd was a mixture of followers and leaders, passive witnesses and active breakers of law speaking and demonstrating attempts to harm. The police were also a mixture of persons doing their duty and those in dereliction. It was a shit show over all, the result of which is a giant barricade around the grounds, indicating the fed position on how they feel about the threat of the event overall.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Chuck Naill
August 17th, 2021, 09:08 AM
Thank you for explaining @tsherbs.