Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 234

Thread: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

  1. #181
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    901
    Thanks
    270
    Thanked 491 Times in 317 Posts
    Rep Power
    2

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post

    Petty, banal and useless. Here, spend some time listening to something insightful and productive.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hh3eW9b80Y

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill
    There has been a poponderance of information from many sources that says the election was won by Biden. Yes, one can contest anything including direct evidence. Contesting something does not mean there is evidence to the contrary.
    The opposite is also true.

    There has been a preponderance of information from many sources that says the election was stolen by Biden.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    I figured you'd appreciate the video....LOL!! It's true. It really happened.

  2. #182
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,210
    Thanks
    569
    Thanked 742 Times in 380 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    John Anderson (former deputy Prime Minister of Australia) and Bret Weinstein recently had a conversation. I'd post the link, but no one will watch it. Instead, I'll paraphrase a portion of the conversation where they discussed the partisan debate over election fraud.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Anderson
    Conspiracy theories arise because traditional media has thrown away its trustworthiness, and there’s an information overload from the internet. Given that conspiracies do happen, how do you tell the difference between a plausible “theory” and an implausible one? How do we determine which conspiracies we need to take note of and be worried about and which we can consign to the rubbish bin?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bret Weinstein
    There are several tools we need available to us, the first of which is that collusion is not uncommon and therefore the simple fact of wondering whether it has taken place is not evidence of a mental defect.

    The second thing to realize is that when collusion happens, it automatically comes with an attempt to disguise itself and therefore the normal tools that we would use to detect what the nature of some pattern we are looking at is and what its cause might be; those tools are often not functional because those who have colluded will have organized evidence so that we will reach a wrong conclusion and fail to see their role. So in effect, "Occam’s Razor would work if we had all of the information" is gamed by those who would collude.

    The most important tool at our disposal is the scientific method, and the recognition that the term “conspiracy theory” itself is a weapon used to dismiss those who wonder about the explanations for certain events. There is no reason that we should be using “conspiracy theory”, because the word “theory” means a hypothesis that has withstood test. It is not the notion that something may have taken place. The notion that something has taken place (if it is testable) is a hypothesis inherently. So I use the term “conspiracy hypothesis”. The tool kit that one uses to evaluate these different explanations is well understood to us.

    To describe something as a conspiracy hypothesis is to invoke the standards by which something is to be judged, and it is also to say that the fact that one considers a given explanation does not rule out the consideration of others. A person can simultaneously entertain multiple hypotheses, and in fact that is what science invites us to do. All who are interested in looking at explanations for events - some of which are straightforward and some of which may be nefarious - should sign up for the scientific toolkit and that means you are obligated to its standards rather than leaping to the last page and assuming that you’ve diagnosed the problem and falsely granting the notion and the label “theory”.
    None of that is difficult to a person who is not emotionally unbalanced due to an orange man tweeting mean things.
    Fighting is better than idleness
    -Kurdish proverb

  3. #183
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    369
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 229 Times in 120 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    I think the best arguments against the Senate being able to do anything are:
    1. Lack of jurisdiction, both over on the defendant in personam and over the subject matter.
    2. A hybrid violation of due process to the defendant under Amend. V and separation of powers under Art. III.
    3. Bill of Attainder under Art. I, Sec. 9.

    We have to think of it as a three-legged stool where the arguments support one another.

    Where I think the argument of a Bill of Attainder gains its teeth is piggybacking it on an argument of a failure to observe the fact that as a private citizen, Trump is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts rather than the Senate. Nixon v. Administrator of General Services confirms the narrowness of Attainder, but perhaps it is still useful. Such that:

    A. The Office of the President ends with the inauguration and oath of the successor. There is no power vested in a "former president".
    B. With no such power being vested in a former President, the jurisdiction of the Senate over him no longer attaches. As the President no longer has the powers of Article II, the Legislature in balance no longer has any of the Article I powers over him.
    C. There being no power under Articles I and II, necessarily jurisdiction over him attaches in Article III as it would any other private citizen - the power of the courts to adjudicate his case. This preserves the separation of powers and due process under Amend. V.
    D. The Senate trial violates the three concepts at once.
    E. A case can be made for Bill of Attainder, having established the courts are the correct venue under Arts. I, II, III, and Amend. V.

    Thus the three legs of the stool as it were support one another. But no court will touch this probably as an appeal from a Senate trial. It's all academic, and the Senate wants no review.

    If Trump has committed such grievous offense, then let him be indicted, tried, and convicted in the courts. But this won't happen, because the case against him is too weak. Only a political trial can be employed against him. I think, in the end, it's a deep miscalculation. Trump will use the defense as a platform to bolster his own cause. It's a sort of "feeding the troll" by arguing with him scenario. But his opponents cannot help themselves. They are controlled as much by him as Trump's diehards are.
    Last edited by Ray-VIgo; February 3rd, 2021 at 01:38 PM.

  4. #184
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,523
    Thanks
    833
    Thanked 1,065 Times in 601 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    This is as much about the next Trump as it is about this one. The point of this also is to show that an attack on the Capitol--or an equivalent--no matter when in a term, will result in arrests, indictments, and impeachments. Period. Yes, it is now the end of a term, but that is when elections always occur. So for an incumbent president to reject the results of a national election, to reject the results of certified state counts, to lie publicly and traffic publicly in disproven conspiracy theories, and to call people to Washington and to encourage them to march on the Capitol in terms (even vaguely) that suggest violence and invasion, and then hundreds of them do so, now means that you will get impeached even on your way out the door.

    Sounds fair to me. The date(s) on which you committed these acts will not protect you from the political consequences (your party might protect you, but the date itself will not). This should happen to the next person and every subsequent person who commits these acts.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to TSherbs For This Useful Post:

    welch (February 3rd, 2021)

  6. #185
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    369
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 229 Times in 120 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray-VIgo View Post
    I think the best arguments against the Senate being able to do anything are:
    1. Lack of jurisdiction, both over on the defendant in personam and over the subject matter.
    2. A hybrid violation of due process to the defendant under Amend. V and separation of powers under Art. III.
    3. Bill of Attainder under Art. I, Sec. 9.

    We have to think of it as a three-legged stool where the arguments support one another.

    Where I think the argument of a Bill of Attainder gains its teeth is piggybacking it on an argument of a failure to observe the fact that as a private citizen, Trump is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts rather than the Senate. Nixon v. Administrator of General Services confirms the narrowness of Attainder, but perhaps it is still useful. Such that:

    A. The Office of the President ends with the inauguration and oath of the successor. There is no power vested in a "former president".
    B. With no such power being vested in a former President, the jurisdiction of the Senate over him no longer attaches. As the President no longer has the powers of Article II, the Legislature in balance no longer has any of the Article I powers over him.
    C. There being no power under Articles I and II, necessarily jurisdiction over him attaches in Article III as it would any other private citizen - the power of the courts to adjudicate his case. This preserves the separation of powers and due process under Amend. V.
    D. The Senate trial violates the three concepts at once.
    E. A case can be made for Bill of Attainder, having established the courts are the correct venue under Arts. I, II, III, and Amend. V.

    Thus the three legs of the stool as it were support one another. But no court will touch this probably as an appeal from a Senate trial. It's all academic, and the Senate wants no review.

    If Trump has committed such grievous offense, then let him be indicted, tried, and convicted in the courts. But this won't happen, because the case against him is too weak. Only a political trial can be employed against him. I think, in the end, it's a deep miscalculation. Trump will use the defense as a platform to bolster his own cause. It's a sort of "feeding the troll" by arguing with him scenario. But his opponents cannot help themselves. They are controlled as much by him as Trump's diehards are.
    I suppose the hardest element (and I've racked my brain over the correct procedural measure from the standpoint of the defense) to nail down is, what is the proper motion at hand. The quick grab is the Motion to Dismiss, and were the Chief Justice presiding, that would be the move. With Leahy presiding, I doubt you'll have your Motion granted. I suppose you make the motion to preserve it as an issue for an appeal.

    And then what is your appeal anyway? Do you apply to an Article III federal court for an extraordinary or equitable remedy - Declaratory Judgment? Injunction? Hard stuff to get. Maybe the judge hears it, maybe not. And then maybe the judge just says it's a "political question" and non-justiciable. I think the defense has some persuasive points it can make, but it's a struggle to see how you would raise them and drive them to conclusion procedurally. And I'd say let the legal "dream team" think it up, but then again it was a "dream team" that was going to unleash the Kraken, and instead we got the irregular shuffle of a child's hermit crab.

  7. #186
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    901
    Thanks
    270
    Thanked 491 Times in 317 Posts
    Rep Power
    2

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    I have considered that if this were the average American citizen, they would be charged with a crime that led to the death of at least five Ameicans. Forget whether he was in public office. He did something and said something that resulted in human death.

    That he visualized he was this or that is not relavent since we do not convict folks based on their percepions. Did he:
    "One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he or she gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime."
    https://www.bing.com/search?q=someon...lice&FORM=AWRE

  8. #187
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    239
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 129 Times in 90 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    I have considered that if this were the average American citizen, they would be charged with a crime that led to the death of at least five Ameicans. Forget whether he was in public office. He did something and said something that resulted in human death.

    That he visualized he was this or that is not relavent since we do not convict folks based on their percepions. Did he:
    "One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he or she gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime."
    https://www.bing.com/search?q=someon...lice&FORM=AWRE
    Chuck, you do legal research on Bing at our own risk.

    Certainly we convict or acquit folks on their perceptions: that is the issue of "intent" under the law.

    The law also requires causation, not correlation. Summer sees the sale of ice cream cones and the incidents of armed robbery increase. There is a correlation between ice cream sales and armed robbery. There is no causation.

    There is simply not enough time to dissect your completely inapposite quotation, both on the application of the law and the facts.


  9. #188
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    239
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 129 Times in 90 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Sounds fair to me. The date(s) on which you committed these acts will not protect you from the political consequences (your party might protect you, but the date itself will not). This should happen to the next person and every subsequent person who commits these acts.
    Former President Harry Truman was asked if thought Richard Nixon had read the Constitution. He replied that he didn't know, but was sure that if he had that Nixon didn't understand it.

    You too TS.


  10. #189
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    369
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 229 Times in 120 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    The question of jurisdiction over Trump goes beyond politics, I think, and falls into the realm of what would conceptually be the "separation of powers". The power to adjudicate a case or controversy over a private citizen generally falls to the courts. The power to impeach a sitting President is with the House and the power to adjudicate that trial of a sitting President resides with the Senate.

    What is effectively being sought in this case is the power to adjudicate the trial of a former president who was impeached on January 13, while he was still in office, but who then left office on January 20, and will be tried after he has left. So politically one might want or not want Trump tried, or one might want or not want to send a message to the "next Trump", speculative though he may be. But that question is a separate one from whether the power of the Senate to try a former President continues to exist after that person has left office and returned to the class of citizens subject to the judicial power rather than the Senatorial. Jurisdiction can generally be raised at any time in the context of a trial, and may be raised by the trier sua sponte. Jurisdiction in the Senate is a serious problem and likely was lost when Biden became President, Trump having become a private citizen again and become again subject to the power of the courts on the question.

    If the case is so strong, the evidence so irrefutable, then indict him and try him in a court.

    More's "The Devil and the Law" speech to Roper in "A Man for All Seasons" seems to apply here, I think.

  11. #190
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    584
    Thanks
    937
    Thanked 284 Times in 187 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray-VIgo View Post
    The question of jurisdiction over Trump goes beyond politics, I think, and falls into the realm of what would conceptually be the "separation of powers". The power to adjudicate a case or controversy over a private citizen generally falls to the courts. The power to impeach a sitting President is with the House and the power to adjudicate that trial of a sitting President resides with the Senate.

    What is effectively being sought in this case is the power to adjudicate the trial of a former president who was impeached on January 13, while he was still in office, but who then left office on January 20, and will be tried after he has left. So politically one might want or not want Trump tried, or one might want or not want to send a message to the "next Trump", speculative though he may be. But that question is a separate one from whether the power of the Senate to try a former President continues to exist after that person has left office and returned to the class of citizens subject to the judicial power rather than the Senatorial. Jurisdiction can generally be raised at any time in the context of a trial, and may be raised by the trier sua sponte. Jurisdiction in the Senate is a serious problem and likely was lost when Biden became President, Trump having become a private citizen again and become again subject to the power of the courts on the question.

    If the case is so strong, the evidence so irrefutable, then indict him and try him in a court.

    More's "The Devil and the Law" speech to Roper in "A Man for All Seasons" seems to apply here, I think.
    It's pretty simple, Ray. The House impeached Trump when Trump was President. The Senate is obliged to try him. It is not like a Bill of Attainder. It is not a criminal trial, although Trump might, indeed, be tried in New York State courts for tax fraud. The penalty could be that Trump is barred from holding any office.

  12. #191
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    369
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 229 Times in 120 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Quote Originally Posted by welch View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray-VIgo View Post
    The question of jurisdiction over Trump goes beyond politics, I think, and falls into the realm of what would conceptually be the "separation of powers". The power to adjudicate a case or controversy over a private citizen generally falls to the courts. The power to impeach a sitting President is with the House and the power to adjudicate that trial of a sitting President resides with the Senate.

    What is effectively being sought in this case is the power to adjudicate the trial of a former president who was impeached on January 13, while he was still in office, but who then left office on January 20, and will be tried after he has left. So politically one might want or not want Trump tried, or one might want or not want to send a message to the "next Trump", speculative though he may be. But that question is a separate one from whether the power of the Senate to try a former President continues to exist after that person has left office and returned to the class of citizens subject to the judicial power rather than the Senatorial. Jurisdiction can generally be raised at any time in the context of a trial, and may be raised by the trier sua sponte. Jurisdiction in the Senate is a serious problem and likely was lost when Biden became President, Trump having become a private citizen again and become again subject to the power of the courts on the question.

    If the case is so strong, the evidence so irrefutable, then indict him and try him in a court.

    More's "The Devil and the Law" speech to Roper in "A Man for All Seasons" seems to apply here, I think.
    It's pretty simple, Ray. The House impeached Trump when Trump was President. The Senate is obliged to try him. It is not like a Bill of Attainder. It is not a criminal trial, although Trump might, indeed, be tried in New York State courts for tax fraud. The penalty could be that Trump is barred from holding any office.
    Not especially simple, at all. We know from the text that "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" are the subject officers. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 assigns the Senate sole responsibility to try impeachments: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." The primary source for precedent about whether discretion exists to decline trial, or to conduct a stub proceeding would be historical rather than judicial, as in Nixon v. U.S. (1993), impeachment proceedings face a high bar against appeal on grounds of justiciability. But in this instance, given Trump leaving office, the important wrinkle is added that the impeachment trial may collide with the right of due process, and the power of the judiciary to hear cases and controversies over private citizens.

  13. #192
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    584
    Thanks
    937
    Thanked 284 Times in 187 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray-VIgo View Post

    Not especially simple, at all. We know from the text that "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" are the subject officers. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 assigns the Senate sole responsibility to try impeachments: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." The primary source for precedent about whether discretion exists to decline trial, or to conduct a stub proceeding would be historical rather than judicial, as in Nixon v. U.S. (1993), impeachment proceedings face a high bar against appeal on grounds of justiciability. But in this instance, given Trump leaving office, the important wrinkle is added that the impeachment trial may collide with the right of due process, and the power of the judiciary to hear cases and controversies over private citizens.
    I do not understand how Trump must be charged with a crime, rather than tried for impeachable things he did or failed to do as President. A precedent might be the impeachment trial of Secretary of War William W. Belknap in about 1876. Didn't Belknap resign just before the House impeached him? And wasn't he then tried in the Senate?

  14. #193
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    369
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 229 Times in 120 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Quote Originally Posted by welch View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray-VIgo View Post

    Not especially simple, at all. We know from the text that "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" are the subject officers. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 assigns the Senate sole responsibility to try impeachments: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." The primary source for precedent about whether discretion exists to decline trial, or to conduct a stub proceeding would be historical rather than judicial, as in Nixon v. U.S. (1993), impeachment proceedings face a high bar against appeal on grounds of justiciability. But in this instance, given Trump leaving office, the important wrinkle is added that the impeachment trial may collide with the right of due process, and the power of the judiciary to hear cases and controversies over private citizens.
    I do not understand how Trump must be charged with a crime, rather than tried for impeachable things he did or failed to do as President. A precedent might be the impeachment trial of Secretary of War William W. Belknap in about 1876. Didn't Belknap resign just before the House impeached him? And wasn't he then tried in the Senate?
    The case of William Blount came to the opposite conclusion though. And the question was never fully brought to adjudication in Belknap's case anyway. Further it does not address the question of whether bifurcated punishment can be legally supported or whether the differing standards of proof for removal from office versus disqualification from future office render it such that the two punishments are truly independent. The Senate acquitted Belknap, so it never reached a reviewable posture in the form of a final sanction.

    And then there is the question of whether a former President can be equated to a former "federal official" or not. If Trump is being tried as President, the Chief Justice would preside, but that's not happening here. So on the one hand the prosecution points to his position as President, while the presiding officer's status says he's not President, but is instead akin to a lesser federal official.

    Even eminent scholars have mixed views on the issue based on circumstances. Such is the case with Jonathan Turley who once thought there might very well be jurisdiction for trial of a former official, but later claimed no such jurisdiction existed.

    I have no clue what Trump will do. My inclination is that he will spout off about the trial. But it remains unclear whether he will actually appear to defend himself, or whether he will use the "empty table" to signal he contempt for the proceeding (and perhaps challenge it in court later?).

    If prosecuted to the fullest by both sides, it strikes me as a case of first impression and not at all clear what the outcome will be. I do think the defense has some very good arguments, but it remains to be seen what they'll do, whether they follow-through, or whether anyone will even show up. There are only partial precedents for this, at best, and the arguments in a case of this type have never been fully vetted. It's a little familiar, but it's largely uncharted waters.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Ray-VIgo For This Useful Post:

    welch (February 5th, 2021)

  16. #194
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    584
    Thanks
    937
    Thanked 284 Times in 187 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Now, six months later, "Republicans" insist, on the head of Lynn Cheney, that one must

    - believe that Trump won the 2020 election, probably by a landslide

    - believe that nearly every election district conspired to change Trump votes to votes for President Biden

    How much evidence would it take to convince "Republicans" that Biden won an honest election?
    Last edited by welch; May 23rd, 2021 at 10:30 AM.

  17. #195
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,523
    Thanks
    833
    Thanked 1,065 Times in 601 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Quote Originally Posted by welch View Post
    Now, six months later, "Republicans" insist, on the head of Lynn Cheney, that one must

    - believe that Trump won the 2020 election, probably by a landslide

    - believe that nearly every election district conspired to change Trump votes to votes for President Biden

    How much evidence would it take to convince "Republicans" that Biden won an honest election?
    Only the most delusional (and not the majority) of GOP members believe that Trump won.

    Some also *allow* it to be *possible* because their desire to have won the 2020 election is so great and their disdain for DEMS is so great that they just can't psychologically bear to face the truth of the loss.

    The rest who stay quiet or take a knee to Trump and this bullshit are just crass opportunists and cowardly seekers of power: they'll keep stringing the Trump base along for as long as it looks like it plays to their favor (both McConnell and Graham are in this category of opportunist sycophants).

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to TSherbs For This Useful Post:

    welch (May 23rd, 2021)

  19. #196
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,523
    Thanks
    833
    Thanked 1,065 Times in 601 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    GOP Michigan report on 2020 election in that state: no fraud, no tally inaccuracies of any consequence, Trump's accusations about the state and Detroit were "ludicrous" and "damaging" to trust:

    https://www.misenategop.com/oversightcommitteereport/

    I'll add that those Detroit (and Philly) accusations were also racist.
    Last edited by TSherbs; June 23rd, 2021 at 01:23 PM.

  20. #197
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,523
    Thanks
    833
    Thanked 1,065 Times in 601 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Here's a GOP representative predicting more deadly violence as a result of ongoing election conspiracy lies: https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-...-claims-2021-6

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to TSherbs For This Useful Post:

    Chuck Naill (June 26th, 2021)

  22. #198
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,523
    Thanks
    833
    Thanked 1,065 Times in 601 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    In Atlantic Magazine, Bill Barr is directly quoted as saying that Trump's election conspiracy claims were all "bullshit" -- the ballot dumps, the counting machines, all of it. And weasel McConnell kept asking Barr to contradict Trump cuz he himself could not, politically.

    Spineless dweeb trying to push the giant asshole out front.

    Nice, GOP.

    Meanwhile, millions of dupes believe the "bullshit" and those bad actors drag the country down.

    And some of you promulgated that same bullshit here for months. You're the minor assholes who did your part of spreading the feces.

  23. #199
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,523
    Thanks
    833
    Thanked 1,065 Times in 601 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Here's a representative idiot from the Ohio rally yesterday (via Buzzfeed):

    "I know he won,” Niner told BuzzFeed News, her oversized “TRUMP WON” shirt nearly reaching her knees. “There’s so much evidence out there it was stolen,” she said before admitting only one thing could convince her otherwise. “Jesus Christ would have to come down and tell me that Biden won before I would ever believe it.”

    This is an example of a result of the morally craven manipulative disinformation campaign. Ignorant people are fed lies, and believe them, with zealous ardor.

  24. #200
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    901
    Thanks
    270
    Thanked 491 Times in 317 Posts
    Rep Power
    2

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    I've grown tired of discussing Trump except to respond to some nonense here suggesting Biden is a bad person. While he is not my favorite person, he does appear to have empathy or at least appear to have empathy. I cannot imagine how anyone with his life trageties would need to fake it.

    From what I have read, Trumpians like what he says and that he never admits wrong. I guess they see something in him they want to see in themselves.

    I suppose the need to disparage Biden is more from a need to neutralize anti-Trumpers. Who knows?? I've heard them say " no one is perfect". Well, that's obvious. We are not execting perfection, but we do expect people to tell the truth, have a smidgeon of kindness, and treat others as they want to be treated because those that don't often end up doing time.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •