The Posse were easily reelected - GOP spend tens of millions opposing reality.
And, New York, baby! Ritchie Torres and Mondaire Jones, two young progressive candidates from New York, became the first two openly gay Black men elected to Congress after they were declared winners in their House races.
And "the 117th Congress will have a record number of Native American women after voters elected three to the House of Representatives.
Democrats Deb Haaland, a Laguna Pueblo member representing New Mexico, and Sharice Davids, a Ho-Chunk Nation member representing Kansas, both retained their seats after becoming the first Native American women elected to Congress, in 2018.
They are joined by Yvette Herrell, who is Cherokee. Herrell, a Republican, beat the Democratic incumbent Xochitl Torres Small for her New Mexico congressional seat."
Republican governors, Secretaries of State, and boards of electors are overseeing the process in two - now swing - states. And Dems and GOP are working side by side looking at ballots.
Lies aren’t working anymore, Marshal. 4 years of it disgusted juuuust enough Americans. You’re on the outside of sanity, screaming... as a traitor.
Um... every vote IS a legal legitimate vote. What votes are not legal and legitimate? It seems, according to Trump, that the ones that are against him are not legal.
Lies aren't working, Marshal. You can only lie and bully your way to convincing so many people. A con man with stupidly false claims may swindle 45% of the people, but he's not going to swindle every one.
Um...no it isn't. Every vote must meet the criteria set by the state in which it is cast. There are rules regarding things like deadlines, signatures, residency, whether or not one is actually alive when a vote is cast in one's name. Any vote that runs afoul of these rules is illegitimate.
"It seems, according to Trump, that the ones that are against him are not legal."
So you need to believe to cover your hatred for the man. But that's not only not the case, but not in any way implied by anything he's ever said.
"Lies aren't working, Marshal. You can only lie and bully your way to convincing so many people. A con man with stupidly false claims may swindle 45% of the people, but he's not going to swindle every one."
And that's why ballots must be scrutinized...so that Biden can't swindle his way to the presidency. The lies of the Democrat party and fake Christian progressives won't fool everyone.
Okay, point taken, but every person who votes correctly has a valid vote. If they're using a fake ID or sent the ballot in after election day, etc, of course that's not a valid vote. But every vote should count and there is NO EVIDENCE that any votes that are being counted are not legitimate.
You have your idiot president standing up and making stupidly false claims like "they're trying to steal the election" and "I won..." HE DOES NOT GET to declare himself a winner. You GET that, right?
And IF he has no evidence of fraud or corruption, then it is wrong for him to get up and make the accusation, as if it were a real thing. Right?
One simple question: DO YOU HAVE ANY DATA THAT SAYS THERE WAS ANY ACTUAL FRAUD HAPPENING?
And a simple follow up: If there is no data to support a fraud or cheating claim, then it is dangerously and stupidly wrong for Trump to suggest that the election is being stolen?
The pervert conman is just trying to do another con by his magical thinking. He has done this con all along and it's obvious to anyone who isn't blind.
1. He makes claims (with no support) that what he's saying is "Great, The best ever" 2. He then says (with no support) that "everyone agrees. all the really smart people are saying that's true..." 3. He then doubles down and triples down (again with no support) with those sorts of grandiose delusional claims "We've never seen anything like it... what we are doing is being praised by people the world over..." 4. If his empty claims appear to not be gaining traction, he'll then go on the attack saying things (again with no support) like, "Oh, the media hates it when I make things happen like this," "It drives the liberals crazy..." 5. He then doubles down on the attacks and begins with threats and fearmongering... "They want to take this away from you and they're going to try to do it!" "Oh, the cheating they'll do to, you know, really corrupt this nation. They're going to destroy it. They'll take away your guns and let "bad people" take over your suburbs..." ALL of this is always without any support.
It's a classic con game, just done on a larger and more inane level. Say things confidently, repeat those empty claims, scare people if they don't heed your claims, sign right here for your beautiful swamp land.
It's a con. And you just can't fool people grounded in reality and who aren't easily bullied or scared into submission or who are just smart enough to recognize empty and false claims when they hear them.
Are you smart enough, yet, to recognize the con he's playing?
For instance, stupidly false claims like this... "whether or not one is actually alive when a vote is cast in one's name."
These sorts of claims have been investigated. And the results of these investigations show that THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN, not in any significant numbers.
"In a working paper posted this week, a team of Stanford political scientists analyze roughly 4.5 million voter records from the state of Washington for evidence of ballot fraud involving deceased individuals. They find 14 cases where a ballot may have been stolen and submitted on behalf of someone who had died, and even these cases may not have been fraud-related.
“We’re talking about 0.0003 percent of all voters over an 8-year period,”
Some .0003% of the time this MIGHT happen. It's not a thing that is causing damage to the election system and there is no evidence that it is. People who pass on this sort of stupidly false claims are either blindly afraid of something that doesn't happen or they are trying to con you.
Which are you?
I've seen accusation after accusation on FB this week, "They're stealing the election! We've seen videos of it happening! My cousin's friend SAW IT HAPPENING!" and every time I'll calmly say and ask, "Oh no. Fraud is terrible. If this fraud/cheating is happening, you certainly have me on your side. Where is the proof of the fraud...?"
And every time - EVERY time - the question either goes ignored or gets an answer like, "Well, we can just tell, right? I mean how else could Biden have pulled ahead in some states?? Right???" And I'll answer, "Well, it appears he pulled ahead because they were still counting mail ballot votes that are legitimate and more of those were for Biden. Nothing fraudulent there..."
And then they'll respond, "But I have seen the VIDEOS of the cheating!"
And I'll respond, "Oh my. That's terrible. Where are the videos to prove it?
And they'll say, "They're EVERYWHERE! I keep seeing them in my FB page, how can you not know about this??!!"
And I'll say, "If they're everywhere, then it should be easy enough to copy a link and share it with me. I'm not seeing it on my FB page. You know, while fraud almost never happens, we do know that Russians and other bad actors are spreading false information to scare people... is it possible it's "everywhere" in your feed because you are seeing fake reports from Russians or others?"
And that will get ignored and the request for support never shows up.
Do you have data to prove any election fraud?
If you don't have data, can you be adult and admit, "No, I have no data to prove fraud... I'm just scared it might happen..." or something like that?
Be adult, Marshal. Put up proof or admit you have nothing?
"Okay, point taken, but every person who votes correctly has a valid vote."
Anyone who votes correctly, then, has no reason to fear the vote won't be counted. Trump is not suggesting otherwise, and in fact is intending that such votes are protected from being cancelled by fraudulent or otherwise illegitimate votes. Why you lefties have a problem with that is anyone's guess.
"But every vote should count and there is NO EVIDENCE that any votes that are being counted are not legitimate."
But there are allegations that are not irrational, but are deserving of scrutiny. There's no way in the hell whence you came you would act any differently if you believed cheating was going on in favor of Trump. Indeed, the last four years were spent by your people trying to believe that's how Trump was elected in the first place.
"You have your idiot president standing up and making stupidly false claims like "they're trying to steal the election" and "I won..." HE DOES NOT GET to declare himself a winner. You GET that, right?"
Problems with this comment:
1. Donald Trump is far more intelligent than you will ever be. His record of accomplishment as both businessman and president is stark testament to that reality.
2. It's no "stupidly false claim". There are numerous examples of election malfeasance...which I refuse to produce here since you won't accept any evidence of it anyway---look it up yourself...and there's the last four years in which your people have done whatever they can to unseat this duly elected president. They lied about Russian collusion (which included themselves colluding with foreign agents to invent the false tale), they lied about his mental competence and suggested using the 25th Amendment to have him removed, they lied about quid pro quo with Ukraine while totally ignoring Joe Biden boasting of doing just that, they lied about him being racist with Biden perpetuating the completely debunked lie that Trump said there were good people among nazis and white nationalist racists. And now they've exploited a pandemic to rationalize rushing mail-in ballots to everyone and everyone with next to no concrete protections against fraud.
3. He didn't "declare" himself the winner, as if he has the power to do so. He simply stated what any honest person would agree is obvious, assuming an honest election...a really bad assumption for any honest person when Democrats are involved.
"And IF he has no evidence of fraud or corruption, then it is wrong for him to get up and make the accusation, as if it were a real thing."
Yes, that would be wrong if it wasn't a real thing...but it is.
"One simple question: DO YOU HAVE ANY DATA THAT SAYS THERE WAS ANY ACTUAL FRAUD HAPPENING?"
Yes.
"And a simple follow up: If there is no data to support a fraud or cheating claim, then it is dangerously and stupidly wrong for Trump to suggest that the election is being stolen?"
So, given that there is data to support a fraud or cheating claim...
Marshal... But there are allegations that are not irrational
That's just it. They are baseless, based upon nothing, irrational, empty false stupidly false claims.
When the pervert conman says "They're stealing the election..." he does not offer a single shred of evidence. It is an entirely empty claim.
When he says, "We won if you count the legal votes..." it's an empty claim. HE IS NOT THE AUTHORIZED ARBITER of counting votes. He can't just randomly say, "We won," do you get that?
Here are your questions to answer. I don't want bullshit empty claims like "YES, I have proof..." THAT is the sort of soul-rotting lies and attacks on facts and truth and basic decency that the vomitous pile of pathetic human flesh you support puts out there, and you're following in his diabolical path.
Man, if Trump were Democrat, YOU WOULD absolutely be calling him the anti-Christ.
Answer or go away:
1. Do you have data to prove any election fraud?
2. If you don't have data, can you be adult and admit, "No, I have no data to prove fraud... I'm just scared it might happen..." or something like that?
Be adult, Marshal. Put up proof or admit you have nothing.
3. Is it possible you're being conned?
As to your bullshit link to a bunch of idiot right wingers (Project Veritas- as if they knew a single damned thing about "veritas..."), strike out. Give me REAL data, not far right wing conspiracy theorist criminals.
Project "veritas..."
"In 2017, Project Veritas was caught in a failed attempt to trick The Washington Post into posting a fabricated story about Roy Moore.[12][13][34][35] Rather than uncritically publish a story that accused Republican candidate Moore of impregnating a teenager, The Washington Post critically examined the story that they were presented with, checked the source, assessed her credibility and ultimately found that there was no merit to her claims, and that instead Project Veritas were trying to dupe The Washington Post.[26]
O'Keefe has been barred from fundraising for Project Veritas in Florida and other states because of his federal criminal record for entering a federal building under fraudulent pretenses."
You want to defend a corrupt and historically dishonest man by citing a corrupt and criminal and dishonest group of idiots, not gonna happen here.
Marshal... which I refuse to produce here since you won't accept any evidence of it anyway
Look, I DO NOT CARE if you try to present your case because I know you can't. You and your type are impotent, brainless cowards, not having the intellectual honesty to admit when you can't support a claim and think making the claim is sufficient. IT'S NOT, not in adult conversations.
NOR is producing "proof" that comes from a pathetically criminal and dishonest group of known liars.
IF you have proof - you, Trump, ANY of you idiots and losers - YOU WOULD produce it. Because of course you would. Why wouldn't you prove that cheating has happened at a large scale to support your concerns.
And here's the thing, Marshal: IF you all could produce support for these stupidly, childishly, cowardly false claims, THEN you would win the support of people like me who care about facts and truths.
But empty and unsupported claims, false claims and links to non-legitimate, dishonest and corrupt/criminal sources are not going to do it. They undermine your credibility and make you out to be a dishonest person glad to support and defend an historically dishonest man.
Trump and his defenders will go down in history as attackers of freedom and decency and honesty.
As I said in my comments you deleted like the fake Christian coward you are, evidence of voter fraud...of all forms.. is abundant. For Trump to suspect a party that spent four years doing nothing but trying to unseat him with false accusations (lying, which is what you lefties do with impunity) might be cheating is not only rational, but likely...as in, put all your money on that bet.
Keep deleting me, little girl. I expect no different from a vile liar like you.
I'm sorry if you're not understanding, Marshal. IF you want to comment here, you MUST either
A. provide support from an authorized, legitimate, rational, adult source of massive voter fraud
Or
B. admit you can't prove a single God-Damned thing.
The fact is, you can't. You, Trump, liars and traitors and racists and anti-government zealots are glad to make stupidly insanely false claims and not provide support but you can't fool rational adults with such empty dry heaves from your brain.
IF you could prove it, you would. You can't, so you make up shit and you attack.
Shame on you. It's time to admit your loss and your lies and your false charges and repent. Change direction.
The path you are on is a hellish one. Turn around. Embrace basic human decency and reason.
Let me ask you a question, Marshal. Setting data aside, do you truly think the Trump has won the national election by getting more votes in the contested states? Do you truly think corruption is happening to help the Democrats?
Or is it just that you're hopeful that this is the case because it would favor your particular party and ideology?
By way of example, I really loathe detest and find the policies of Mitch McConnell abhorrent and sometimes even evil. I think the man is a hypocrite and an opportunist and just an assault upon decency and democracy. I really, really don't want him in office one more day.
And yet, the polls leading up to this vote showed his opponent trailing pretty consistently. And the election results show her losing. As much as I would like to believe that there's been some kind of cheating happening in Kentucky to help McConnell win, I just don't have any data to base that on. It just appears that people in Kentucky truly prefer McConnell, loathsome worm that he is, to a Democrat.
And even though I think McConnell would cheat in a second if he could get away with it, I just see no evidence to support the idea that he did cheat. And so, here I am in Kentucky, wishing that it was not the case that McConnell had won. But I'm not willing to state in the absence of any data that he actually lost and the Democrat candidate won. That's because I'm reasonable. Able to look at the data and draw rational conclusions.
Do you truly think that Trump has won? If so, based upon what?
"Do you truly think that Trump has won? If so, based upon what?"
I'll answer that after all the legal scrutiny has been exhausted. In the meantime, why don't you show me where in the U.S. Constitution it states one becomes president by projection of the Associated Press. I'll wait here for your answer. I seem to recall you asshats whining when you thought Trump declared himself, but I guess he just had to wait for some media source to do it. I'm learning so much.
Perhaps you are unaware, but how we work is that the election is decided when each state authority authorizes the final vote count and then, when one candidate reaches 270 electoral votes. Now, what we've done historically (at least in my lifetime) is that when the states say they've got a count and yet, they haven't authorized it yet, unless there's some reason to doubt that count, the media has traditionally announced it and that's been accepted by the politicians.
THE REASON they accept it is, if there is no indication of widespread fraud (and there hasn't been) and unless it's exceedingly close, there's not any way to come back from, say, a 10,000 vote deficit. It may be so close that a recall is announced, but it's just never happened and not likely to happen that a vote deficit of 10,000 votes. A recount might change the outcome if the difference is several hundred votes, but it's just not likely if it's thousands.
So, last time for THIS question: I'm not asking you what you're GOING to think later on. I'm asking what you think right here, right now.
IF your answer is, "I just don't know if he won... I have no opinion on it as I don't know enough to know if it's likely that he'd come back from such deficits..." that is a fine answer. But answering "I'll let you know later..." then that makes it SOUND LIKE you don't really think he won, but that you just want to wait until all appeals are done, NOT because you think it's likely he won, but just because you think it's too close.
“A Donald Trump supporter has been taken into custody by the FBI after he threatened to “do a school shooter” in Los Angeles if Joe Biden is declared the next president of the United States. “At this point, like, if Biden gets in I’m just gonna do like a school shooter and just take out all of these Democrats,” the unidentified man said in a video posted to social media. He also threatened to take “a few pedophiles on the way out.”
The short clip concludes with him making clear that “If I go to hell I’m taking these motherf**kers with me.”
What I think right here and now, Danny-boy, is that you're a prick because you were a part of all those left-wing asshats who wailed on and on about Russian collusion but now insist that everything has been done completely by the book.
I think that people like you are corrupt as hell and would do yourselves a service by allowing all scrutiny where scrutiny is indicated as essential to insure the integrity of this election. If you assholes think Harris won the presidency, a serious investigation into all fraud allegations won't change that outcome. WILL IT, DANNY-BOY??
I think it's very likely that given the fours years of a Democratic Party that's done nothing to improve life in this country for its citizens due to an obsessive desire to unseat a duly elected president, chicanery was definitely afoot. Enough to put Harris and her sock puppet in the Big Chair? Well, that's what an investigation would determine, wouldn't Danny-boy?
And I think given the size of the crowds at his rallies, given the success of the GOP in Senate and Congressional races, given the success of the GOP in state level races, including picking up another governorship and given the close vote totals for president, it's hard to believe Trump won't win. But unlike assholes like you, the media and all of the rest of the stupid segment of the US population, I wait until all the facts are in...just like I do when a black person dies by a cop's bullet.
I allow for one caveat: I'm well aware that there are among the right-wing the moronic NeverTrumpers who, like the terminally stupid leftists (like you), refused to vote for Trump because he talks funny. They sanctimoniously claim their conscience won't allow voting for Trump, though it apparently has no problem seeing a reversal all the good he did for all Americans (even the stupid like yourself) and the imposition of destructive socialist policies from which we may never recover. How many of these jokers exist to deny the better man the second term he's so clearly earned and absolutely deserves could very well be enough to have cost America dearly. But it's probably more likely due to any or all of the following, if not more:
So, rather than directly answer questions, Marshal is opting for personal attacks. And the thing about these personal attacks is, JUST LIKE the allegations of voter fraud, Marshal can't prove his idiotic attack.
Marshal... "I think that people like you are corrupt as hell"
Corrupt: 1. having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
1. WHERE have I shown a willingness to act dishonestly?
2. WHERE have I received money or personal gain from this alleged dishonesty?
3. It is abundantly clear that the pervert con man you support has been corrupt as hell for years, but that does not bother you. And his corruption IS clear and repeated. He (allegedly a billionaire) has repeatedly abused bankruptcy laws so that he, a billionaire, could avoid paying his employees what they were due. This is LITERALLY corrupt.
It may be legal for billionaires to abuse laws to avoid making payment to laborers, but that doesn't mean it's not corrupt.
4. So, you CAN'T support your stupidly false claims about "people like me" being corrupt, but you give a pass to a deviant like Trump who is endlessly and overtly corrupt and has been for years (the bankruptcy issues are but one example).
Your false claims while defending the indefensible expose you, Marshal.
In the midst of his stupidly false attacks and defense of the corrupt pervert con man, Marshal appears to have answered one question. I had asked him if he REALLY thought that Trump won and that there was fraud associated with this election.
Marshal... "I think given the size of the crowds at his rallies, given the success of the GOP in Senate and Congressional races, given the success of the GOP in state level races, including picking up another governorship and given the close vote totals for president, it's hard to believe Trump won't win."
So given these points, you're inclined to guess that the election results from across the US are suspect. But you have no DATA ABOUT THE votes to support this wild hunch, it's just because you REALLY don't want to believe it because the GOP has the support of some significant minority of the nation, you're going to GUESS that maybe the elections in some states were fraudulent.
I guess that's an answer. Just not a very clever one.
I prefer to look at the pertinent data, not side details.
FYI: No one is saying we should stop the process of the final verification of the vote. We're just doing what we've done every year: When the data that is available becomes clear, we're recognizing the likely winner. This has happened at least most if not all election years, where we've announced Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Obama, Trump... the winner BEFORE the final formal verification because the data was there to show they were the very likely winners and we had no reason to second guess the results. The one year there was an exception to this was in 2000, when the results truly were in doubt (Florida's outcome was a matter of a few hundred votes, not several thousand).
You're wanting to second guess the results because you don't like the outcome, not because there is any evidence of significant wrongdoing. And that's the difference between you and me.
There would be a good bit of irony if, because he chose to abuse our process and get himself elected in 2016 with all his corruption and blather and disruption to basic decency standards... IF because he chose to thrust himself into the limelight, THAT is what exposed the criminality of his actions (that he'd been able to skate past for decades because he was a rich and powerful white male) and THAT is what leads to him actually facing charges for some of what has no doubt been a lifetime of crime and corruption.
If he goes to jail due to his own hubris and shamelessness, maybe the word, trump, would be recognized as a criminally corrupt level of pride.
Merriam Webster: trump: (noun) an almost-comical level of inept corruption and criminality, wrapped up in a cloak of pride and presumption.
Could very well happen. People will want their money. New York wants justice. He will not be protected by the office of Republican traitors to the Constitution.
Not bitching. I'm pointing out that you have NO DATA on which to hold your guess that Trump might secretly win and that there's some secret fraud happening. I've seen plenty of conspiracy theories and empty claims from people like you, but not one bit of solid evidence.
You are free to think that Trump secretly won. You are free to think that, in spite of a lack of any evidence, there's widespread fraud happening.
I'd just ask that you have the intellectual honesty to admit you have no data on which to base such empty guesses.
In other words, that MANY people voted for Trump does not change the data that shows more people voted for Biden.
That MANY people attended Trump rallies is NOT evidence of voter fraud.
Understand?
I mean, I could say, Gore was easily the better looking and the smartest of the two candidates running in 2000, but that doesn't mean there's evidence of fraud. IF someone is going to charge fraud, THEN they should have something to base it upon... something beyond, "I REALLY want Trump to win and, plus, look at all the red hats!"
Marshal... "[people refused to vote for] Trump because he talks funny."
Huh. So, you think being corrupt, perverted, a cheat and a con man who is utterly dishonest - easily the most overtly and stupidly dishonest president in US history - is the same as "talking funny..."
If you can't recognize and identify reality and understand the actual motives of people who are telling you why they're opposed to Trump (and I've NEVER heard anyone say it's because he talks funny... What does that even mean??!), perhaps that explains why you think he has likely won.
By the way, it appears that even Trump's immediate family and supporters are telling him he lost. IF Melania recognizes it, maybe you should, too.
Trump won’t concede defeat, and he is using the majority of the funds raised to fight voter fraud to pay off his campaign debts.
Wall Street Journal: “Clicking through to the donation page, potential givers can review a disclaimer that 50% of any contribution will be used for general election campaign debt retirement and 50% for the campaign’s recount account. Trump won’t concede defeat, and he is using the majority of the funds raised to fight voter fraud to pay off his campaign debts.”
It shows us the effectiveness of masks that Right Wing Sturgis was a superspreader. Sturgis people did not wear masks.
("The case data show relatively stable trends prior to the event and clear changes around the event, with little reason to believe that the changes in cases could have been caused by anything but the event," the Johns Hopkins researchers write. "The overall conclusions that the Sturgis event caused a large increase in COVID-19 cases and infections are likely to be relatively robust to the specific statistical methodologies used.")
And protests in the streets were not. People wore masks. As all the news from every American city dancing in the streets over Trump's defeat shows.
Marshal, you have questions to answer directly. Posting links to insane conspiracy theories with NO ZERO NADA DAMN bit of support for them is not helping you. You want to post? Answer questions. Directly.
Marshal... "I think that people like you are corrupt as hell"
Corrupt: 1. having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
1. WHERE have I shown a willingness to act dishonestly?
2. WHERE have I received money or personal gain from this alleged dishonesty?
3. It is abundantly clear that the pervert con man you support has been corrupt as hell for years, but that does not bother you. And his corruption IS clear and repeated. He (allegedly a billionaire) has repeatedly abused bankruptcy laws so that he, a billionaire, could avoid paying his employees what they were due. This is LITERALLY corrupt.
It may be legal for billionaires to abuse laws to avoid making payment to laborers, but that doesn't mean it's not corrupt.
4. So, you CAN'T support your stupidly false claims about "people like me" being corrupt, but you give a pass to a deviant like Trump who is endlessly and overtly corrupt and has been for years (the bankruptcy issues are but one example).
IF you want to comment here, you MUST either
A. provide support from an authorized, legitimate, rational, adult source of massive voter fraud
Or
B. admit you can't prove a single God-Damned thing.
RE: 1. Where have I shown a willingness to act dishonestly?
I suspect what Marshal is suggesting is, in those instances where I honestly and in sincere good faith disagree with his hunches, that THOSE instances are situations where I've acted dishonestly.
An example of this is that I do NOT think that God is opposed to gay folk or gay folk getting married, for instance. I think this because I disagree with Marshal's hunches about what the Bible does and doesn't say about gay folk and I disagree with Marshal's reasoning that allows him to hold those hunches.
The problem is, Disagreeing with Marshal in sincere good faith is NOT the same as being dishonest. Of course. As if people couldn't possibly disagree with the amazing wisdom of Marshal!
But he can tell me: Provide ANY instance where I've shown a willingness to act dishonestly (as opposed to disagreeing with his unsupported opinions), and you will have taken a small step towards supporting his stupidly false claim of people like me being corrupt.
Of course, he can't do this because it's just not factual in the real world. I certainly have my problems, but I am not an overtly dishonest or corrupt person, and I sure as hell ain't receiving money or personal gain for my positions.
So, the question is, will Marshal have the decency and intellectual honesty to admit he misspoke when he made these sorts of false claim.
44 comments:
Craig wrote, “Even if Biden squeaks this out... this is no mandate.”
What a fucking hypocrite.😂😂😂
Trump lost the American vote on 2016. Hrs down already by 2.7 million votes.
Obama win by 10 million votes.
They don’t respect mandates.
The Posse were easily reelected - GOP spend tens of millions opposing reality.
And, New York, baby! Ritchie Torres and Mondaire Jones, two young progressive candidates from New York, became the first two openly gay Black men elected to Congress after they were declared winners in their House races.
And "the 117th Congress will have a record number of Native American women after voters elected three to the House of Representatives.
Democrats Deb Haaland, a Laguna Pueblo member representing New Mexico, and Sharice Davids, a Ho-Chunk Nation member representing Kansas, both retained their seats after becoming the first Native American women elected to Congress, in 2018.
They are joined by Yvette Herrell, who is Cherokee. Herrell, a Republican, beat the Democratic incumbent Xochitl Torres Small for her New Mexico congressional seat."
Trumpers in PA: "Stop the Count!"
Trumpers in AZ: "Count every Vote!"
Democrats: Every vote must be counted.
Yup
Democrats: Every vote must be counted!
Trump, Republicans and honorable Americans of every stripe: Every LEGITIMATE, LEGAL vote must be counted.
Yup
Republican governors, Secretaries of State, and boards of electors are overseeing the process in two - now swing - states. And Dems and GOP are working side by side looking at ballots.
Lies aren’t working anymore, Marshal. 4 years of it disgusted juuuust enough Americans. You’re on the outside of sanity, screaming... as a traitor.
Um... every vote IS a legal legitimate vote. What votes are not legal and legitimate? It seems, according to Trump, that the ones that are against him are not legal.
Lies aren't working, Marshal. You can only lie and bully your way to convincing so many people. A con man with stupidly false claims may swindle 45% of the people, but he's not going to swindle every one.
"Um... every vote IS a legal legitimate vote."
Um...no it isn't. Every vote must meet the criteria set by the state in which it is cast. There are rules regarding things like deadlines, signatures, residency, whether or not one is actually alive when a vote is cast in one's name. Any vote that runs afoul of these rules is illegitimate.
"It seems, according to Trump, that the ones that are against him are not legal."
So you need to believe to cover your hatred for the man. But that's not only not the case, but not in any way implied by anything he's ever said.
"Lies aren't working, Marshal. You can only lie and bully your way to convincing so many people. A con man with stupidly false claims may swindle 45% of the people, but he's not going to swindle every one."
And that's why ballots must be scrutinized...so that Biden can't swindle his way to the presidency. The lies of the Democrat party and fake Christian progressives won't fool everyone.
Okay, point taken, but every person who votes correctly has a valid vote. If they're using a fake ID or sent the ballot in after election day, etc, of course that's not a valid vote. But every vote should count and there is NO EVIDENCE that any votes that are being counted are not legitimate.
You have your idiot president standing up and making stupidly false claims like "they're trying to steal the election" and "I won..." HE DOES NOT GET to declare himself a winner. You GET that, right?
And IF he has no evidence of fraud or corruption, then it is wrong for him to get up and make the accusation, as if it were a real thing. Right?
One simple question: DO YOU HAVE ANY DATA THAT SAYS THERE WAS ANY ACTUAL FRAUD HAPPENING?
And a simple follow up: If there is no data to support a fraud or cheating claim, then it is dangerously and stupidly wrong for Trump to suggest that the election is being stolen?
The pervert conman is just trying to do another con by his magical thinking. He has done this con all along and it's obvious to anyone who isn't blind.
1. He makes claims (with no support) that what he's saying is "Great, The best ever"
2. He then says (with no support) that "everyone agrees. all the really smart people are saying that's true..."
3. He then doubles down and triples down (again with no support) with those sorts of grandiose delusional claims "We've never seen anything like it... what we are doing is being praised by people the world over..."
4. If his empty claims appear to not be gaining traction, he'll then go on the attack saying things (again with no support) like, "Oh, the media hates it when I make things happen like this," "It drives the liberals crazy..."
5. He then doubles down on the attacks and begins with threats and fearmongering... "They want to take this away from you and they're going to try to do it!" "Oh, the cheating they'll do to, you know, really corrupt this nation. They're going to destroy it. They'll take away your guns and let "bad people" take over your suburbs..." ALL of this is always without any support.
It's a classic con game, just done on a larger and more inane level. Say things confidently, repeat those empty claims, scare people if they don't heed your claims, sign right here for your beautiful swamp land.
It's a con. And you just can't fool people grounded in reality and who aren't easily bullied or scared into submission or who are just smart enough to recognize empty and false claims when they hear them.
Are you smart enough, yet, to recognize the con he's playing?
For instance, stupidly false claims like this... "whether or not one is actually alive when a vote is cast in one's name."
These sorts of claims have been investigated. And the results of these investigations show that THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN, not in any significant numbers.
"In a working paper posted this week, a team of Stanford political scientists analyze roughly 4.5 million voter records from the state of Washington for evidence of ballot fraud involving deceased individuals. They find 14 cases where a ballot may have been stolen and submitted on behalf of someone who had died, and even these cases may not have been fraud-related.
“We’re talking about 0.0003 percent of all voters over an 8-year period,”
https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/dead-people-don-t-vote-study-points-extremely-rare-fraud
Some .0003% of the time this MIGHT happen. It's not a thing that is causing damage to the election system and there is no evidence that it is. People who pass on this sort of stupidly false claims are either blindly afraid of something that doesn't happen or they are trying to con you.
Which are you?
I've seen accusation after accusation on FB this week, "They're stealing the election! We've seen videos of it happening! My cousin's friend SAW IT HAPPENING!" and every time I'll calmly say and ask, "Oh no. Fraud is terrible. If this fraud/cheating is happening, you certainly have me on your side. Where is the proof of the fraud...?"
And every time - EVERY time - the question either goes ignored or gets an answer like, "Well, we can just tell, right? I mean how else could Biden have pulled ahead in some states?? Right???" And I'll answer, "Well, it appears he pulled ahead because they were still counting mail ballot votes that are legitimate and more of those were for Biden. Nothing fraudulent there..."
And then they'll respond, "But I have seen the VIDEOS of the cheating!"
And I'll respond, "Oh my. That's terrible. Where are the videos to prove it?
And they'll say, "They're EVERYWHERE! I keep seeing them in my FB page, how can you not know about this??!!"
And I'll say, "If they're everywhere, then it should be easy enough to copy a link and share it with me. I'm not seeing it on my FB page. You know, while fraud almost never happens, we do know that Russians and other bad actors are spreading false information to scare people... is it possible it's "everywhere" in your feed because you are seeing fake reports from Russians or others?"
And that will get ignored and the request for support never shows up.
Do you have data to prove any election fraud?
If you don't have data, can you be adult and admit, "No, I have no data to prove fraud... I'm just scared it might happen..." or something like that?
Be adult, Marshal. Put up proof or admit you have nothing?
Is it possible you're being conned?
"Okay, point taken, but every person who votes correctly has a valid vote."
Anyone who votes correctly, then, has no reason to fear the vote won't be counted. Trump is not suggesting otherwise, and in fact is intending that such votes are protected from being cancelled by fraudulent or otherwise illegitimate votes. Why you lefties have a problem with that is anyone's guess.
"But every vote should count and there is NO EVIDENCE that any votes that are being counted are not legitimate."
But there are allegations that are not irrational, but are deserving of scrutiny. There's no way in the hell whence you came you would act any differently if you believed cheating was going on in favor of Trump. Indeed, the last four years were spent by your people trying to believe that's how Trump was elected in the first place.
"You have your idiot president standing up and making stupidly false claims like "they're trying to steal the election" and "I won..." HE DOES NOT GET to declare himself a winner. You GET that, right?"
Problems with this comment:
1. Donald Trump is far more intelligent than you will ever be. His record of accomplishment as both businessman and president is stark testament to that reality.
2. It's no "stupidly false claim". There are numerous examples of election malfeasance...which I refuse to produce here since you won't accept any evidence of it anyway---look it up yourself...and there's the last four years in which your people have done whatever they can to unseat this duly elected president. They lied about Russian collusion (which included themselves colluding with foreign agents to invent the false tale), they lied about his mental competence and suggested using the 25th Amendment to have him removed, they lied about quid pro quo with Ukraine while totally ignoring Joe Biden boasting of doing just that, they lied about him being racist with Biden perpetuating the completely debunked lie that Trump said there were good people among nazis and white nationalist racists. And now they've exploited a pandemic to rationalize rushing mail-in ballots to everyone and everyone with next to no concrete protections against fraud.
3. He didn't "declare" himself the winner, as if he has the power to do so. He simply stated what any honest person would agree is obvious, assuming an honest election...a really bad assumption for any honest person when Democrats are involved.
"And IF he has no evidence of fraud or corruption, then it is wrong for him to get up and make the accusation, as if it were a real thing."
Yes, that would be wrong if it wasn't a real thing...but it is.
"One simple question: DO YOU HAVE ANY DATA THAT SAYS THERE WAS ANY ACTUAL FRAUD HAPPENING?"
Yes.
"And a simple follow up: If there is no data to support a fraud or cheating claim, then it is dangerously and stupidly wrong for Trump to suggest that the election is being stolen?"
So, given that there is data to support a fraud or cheating claim...
Marshal... But there are allegations that are not irrational
That's just it. They are baseless, based upon nothing, irrational, empty false stupidly false claims.
When the pervert conman says "They're stealing the election..." he does not offer a single shred of evidence. It is an entirely empty claim.
When he says, "We won if you count the legal votes..." it's an empty claim. HE IS NOT THE AUTHORIZED ARBITER of counting votes. He can't just randomly say, "We won," do you get that?
Here are your questions to answer. I don't want bullshit empty claims like "YES, I have proof..." THAT is the sort of soul-rotting lies and attacks on facts and truth and basic decency that the vomitous pile of pathetic human flesh you support puts out there, and you're following in his diabolical path.
Man, if Trump were Democrat, YOU WOULD absolutely be calling him the anti-Christ.
Answer or go away:
1. Do you have data to prove any election fraud?
2. If you don't have data, can you be adult and admit, "No, I have no data to prove fraud... I'm just scared it might happen..." or something like that?
Be adult, Marshal. Put up proof or admit you have nothing.
3. Is it possible you're being conned?
As to your bullshit link to a bunch of idiot right wingers (Project Veritas- as if they knew a single damned thing about "veritas..."), strike out. Give me REAL data, not far right wing conspiracy theorist criminals.
Project "veritas..."
"In 2017, Project Veritas was caught in a failed attempt to trick The Washington Post into posting a fabricated story about Roy Moore.[12][13][34][35] Rather than uncritically publish a story that accused Republican candidate Moore of impregnating a teenager, The Washington Post critically examined the story that they were presented with, checked the source, assessed her credibility and ultimately found that there was no merit to her claims, and that instead Project Veritas were trying to dupe The Washington Post.[26]
O'Keefe has been barred from fundraising for Project Veritas in Florida and other states because of his federal criminal record for entering a federal building under fraudulent pretenses."
You want to defend a corrupt and historically dishonest man by citing a corrupt and criminal and dishonest group of idiots, not gonna happen here.
Marshal... which I refuse to produce here since you won't accept any evidence of it anyway
Look, I DO NOT CARE if you try to present your case because I know you can't. You and your type are impotent, brainless cowards, not having the intellectual honesty to admit when you can't support a claim and think making the claim is sufficient. IT'S NOT, not in adult conversations.
NOR is producing "proof" that comes from a pathetically criminal and dishonest group of known liars.
IF you have proof - you, Trump, ANY of you idiots and losers - YOU WOULD produce it. Because of course you would. Why wouldn't you prove that cheating has happened at a large scale to support your concerns.
And here's the thing, Marshal: IF you all could produce support for these stupidly, childishly, cowardly false claims, THEN you would win the support of people like me who care about facts and truths.
But empty and unsupported claims, false claims and links to non-legitimate, dishonest and corrupt/criminal sources are not going to do it. They undermine your credibility and make you out to be a dishonest person glad to support and defend an historically dishonest man.
Trump and his defenders will go down in history as attackers of freedom and decency and honesty.
Repent.
Trump's legal moves would deny the US military to have their vote counted.
"Con man to the end: Most of Trump’s 'official election defense fund' to be used for his debts"
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/10/27/2-investigators-chicago-voters-cast-ballots-from-beyond-the-grave/
https://www.salon.com/2016/02/14/election_fraud_chicago_style_illinois_decades_old_notoriety_for_election_corruption_is_legendary/
How does a reputation become "legendary" if the behavior doesn't ever happen?
https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/featured/common-sense-central/content/2020-05-28-a-brief-history-of-mail-in-vote-fraud/
As I said in my comments you deleted like the fake Christian coward you are, evidence of voter fraud...of all forms.. is abundant. For Trump to suspect a party that spent four years doing nothing but trying to unseat him with false accusations (lying, which is what you lefties do with impunity) might be cheating is not only rational, but likely...as in, put all your money on that bet.
Keep deleting me, little girl. I expect no different from a vile liar like you.
Get serious. Your Chicago link... "In all, the analysis showed 119 dead people have voted a total of 229 times in Chicago in the last decade."
230 fake votes. Over a DECADE. in a city of over a million.
Thank you for proving my point.
AND for showing that you have nothing.
Now are you prepared to admit you've got nothing? If not, go away.
I'm sorry if you're not understanding, Marshal. IF you want to comment here, you MUST either
A. provide support from an authorized, legitimate, rational, adult source of massive voter fraud
Or
B. admit you can't prove a single God-Damned thing.
The fact is, you can't. You, Trump, liars and traitors and racists and anti-government zealots are glad to make stupidly insanely false claims and not provide support but you can't fool rational adults with such empty dry heaves from your brain.
IF you could prove it, you would. You can't, so you make up shit and you attack.
Shame on you. It's time to admit your loss and your lies and your false charges and repent. Change direction.
The path you are on is a hellish one. Turn around. Embrace basic human decency and reason.
Let me ask you a question, Marshal. Setting data aside, do you truly think the Trump has won the national election by getting more votes in the contested states? Do you truly think corruption is happening to help the Democrats?
Or is it just that you're hopeful that this is the case because it would favor your particular party and ideology?
By way of example, I really loathe detest and find the policies of Mitch McConnell abhorrent and sometimes even evil. I think the man is a hypocrite and an opportunist and just an assault upon decency and democracy. I really, really don't want him in office one more day.
And yet, the polls leading up to this vote showed his opponent trailing pretty consistently. And the election results show her losing. As much as I would like to believe that there's been some kind of cheating happening in Kentucky to help McConnell win, I just don't have any data to base that on. It just appears that people in Kentucky truly prefer McConnell, loathsome worm that he is, to a Democrat.
And even though I think McConnell would cheat in a second if he could get away with it, I just see no evidence to support the idea that he did cheat. And so, here I am in Kentucky, wishing that it was not the case that McConnell had won. But I'm not willing to state in the absence of any data that he actually lost and the Democrat candidate won. That's because I'm reasonable. Able to look at the data and draw rational conclusions.
Do you truly think that Trump has won? If so, based upon what?
"Do you truly think that Trump has won? If so, based upon what?"
I'll answer that after all the legal scrutiny has been exhausted. In the meantime, why don't you show me where in the U.S. Constitution it states one becomes president by projection of the Associated Press. I'll wait here for your answer. I seem to recall you asshats whining when you thought Trump declared himself, but I guess he just had to wait for some media source to do it. I'm learning so much.
Perhaps you are unaware, but how we work is that the election is decided when each state authority authorizes the final vote count and then, when one candidate reaches 270 electoral votes. Now, what we've done historically (at least in my lifetime) is that when the states say they've got a count and yet, they haven't authorized it yet, unless there's some reason to doubt that count, the media has traditionally announced it and that's been accepted by the politicians.
THE REASON they accept it is, if there is no indication of widespread fraud (and there hasn't been) and unless it's exceedingly close, there's not any way to come back from, say, a 10,000 vote deficit. It may be so close that a recall is announced, but it's just never happened and not likely to happen that a vote deficit of 10,000 votes. A recount might change the outcome if the difference is several hundred votes, but it's just not likely if it's thousands.
So, last time for THIS question: I'm not asking you what you're GOING to think later on. I'm asking what you think right here, right now.
IF your answer is, "I just don't know if he won... I have no opinion on it as I don't know enough to know if it's likely that he'd come back from such deficits..." that is a fine answer. But answering "I'll let you know later..." then that makes it SOUND LIKE you don't really think he won, but that you just want to wait until all appeals are done, NOT because you think it's likely he won, but just because you think it's too close.
So, answer the questions or quit commenting.
Not the first guy either.
“A Donald Trump supporter has been taken into custody by the FBI after he threatened to “do a school shooter” in Los Angeles if Joe Biden is declared the next president of the United States. “At this point, like, if Biden gets in I’m just gonna do like a school shooter and just take out all of these Democrats,” the unidentified man said in a video posted to social media. He also threatened to take “a few pedophiles on the way out.”
The short clip concludes with him making clear that “If I go to hell I’m taking these motherf**kers with me.”
What I think right here and now, Danny-boy, is that you're a prick because you were a part of all those left-wing asshats who wailed on and on about Russian collusion but now insist that everything has been done completely by the book.
I think that people like you are corrupt as hell and would do yourselves a service by allowing all scrutiny where scrutiny is indicated as essential to insure the integrity of this election. If you assholes think Harris won the presidency, a serious investigation into all fraud allegations won't change that outcome. WILL IT, DANNY-BOY??
I think it's very likely that given the fours years of a Democratic Party that's done nothing to improve life in this country for its citizens due to an obsessive desire to unseat a duly elected president, chicanery was definitely afoot. Enough to put Harris and her sock puppet in the Big Chair? Well, that's what an investigation would determine, wouldn't Danny-boy?
And I think given the size of the crowds at his rallies, given the success of the GOP in Senate and Congressional races, given the success of the GOP in state level races, including picking up another governorship and given the close vote totals for president, it's hard to believe Trump won't win. But unlike assholes like you, the media and all of the rest of the stupid segment of the US population, I wait until all the facts are in...just like I do when a black person dies by a cop's bullet.
I allow for one caveat: I'm well aware that there are among the right-wing the moronic NeverTrumpers who, like the terminally stupid leftists (like you), refused to vote for Trump because he talks funny. They sanctimoniously claim their conscience won't allow voting for Trump, though it apparently has no problem seeing a reversal all the good he did for all Americans (even the stupid like yourself) and the imposition of destructive socialist policies from which we may never recover. How many of these jokers exist to deny the better man the second term he's so clearly earned and absolutely deserves could very well be enough to have cost America dearly. But it's probably more likely due to any or all of the following, if not more:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/the_2020_election_tracks_a_bbc_list_of_voterigging_indicators.html
So, rather than directly answer questions, Marshal is opting for personal attacks. And the thing about these personal attacks is, JUST LIKE the allegations of voter fraud, Marshal can't prove his idiotic attack.
Marshal... "I think that people like you are corrupt as hell"
Corrupt: 1. having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
1. WHERE have I shown a willingness to act dishonestly?
2. WHERE have I received money or personal gain from this alleged dishonesty?
3. It is abundantly clear that the pervert con man you support has been corrupt as hell for years, but that does not bother you. And his corruption IS clear and repeated. He (allegedly a billionaire) has repeatedly abused bankruptcy laws so that he, a billionaire, could avoid paying his employees what they were due. This is LITERALLY corrupt.
It may be legal for billionaires to abuse laws to avoid making payment to laborers, but that doesn't mean it's not corrupt.
4. So, you CAN'T support your stupidly false claims about "people like me" being corrupt, but you give a pass to a deviant like Trump who is endlessly and overtly corrupt and has been for years (the bankruptcy issues are but one example).
Your false claims while defending the indefensible expose you, Marshal.
In the midst of his stupidly false attacks and defense of the corrupt pervert con man, Marshal appears to have answered one question. I had asked him if he REALLY thought that Trump won and that there was fraud associated with this election.
Marshal... "I think
given the size of the crowds at his rallies,
given the success of the GOP in Senate and Congressional races,
given the success of the GOP in state level races,
including picking up another governorship and
given the close vote totals for president,
it's hard to believe Trump won't win."
So given these points, you're inclined to guess that the election results from across the US are suspect. But you have no DATA ABOUT THE votes to support this wild hunch, it's just because you REALLY don't want to believe it because the GOP has the support of some significant minority of the nation, you're going to GUESS that maybe the elections in some states were fraudulent.
I guess that's an answer. Just not a very clever one.
I prefer to look at the pertinent data, not side details.
FYI: No one is saying we should stop the process of the final verification of the vote. We're just doing what we've done every year: When the data that is available becomes clear, we're recognizing the likely winner. This has happened at least most if not all election years, where we've announced Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Obama, Trump... the winner BEFORE the final formal verification because the data was there to show they were the very likely winners and we had no reason to second guess the results. The one year there was an exception to this was in 2000, when the results truly were in doubt (Florida's outcome was a matter of a few hundred votes, not several thousand).
You're wanting to second guess the results because you don't like the outcome, not because there is any evidence of significant wrongdoing. And that's the difference between you and me.
Lock him up. Bankrupt him even more with righteous lawsuits.
There would be a good bit of irony if, because he chose to abuse our process and get himself elected in 2016 with all his corruption and blather and disruption to basic decency standards... IF because he chose to thrust himself into the limelight, THAT is what exposed the criminality of his actions (that he'd been able to skate past for decades because he was a rich and powerful white male) and THAT is what leads to him actually facing charges for some of what has no doubt been a lifetime of crime and corruption.
If he goes to jail due to his own hubris and shamelessness, maybe the word, trump, would be recognized as a criminally corrupt level of pride.
Merriam Webster:
trump: (noun) an almost-comical level of inept corruption and criminality, wrapped up in a cloak of pride and presumption.
Could very well happen. People will want their money. New York wants justice. He will not be protected by the office of Republican traitors to the Constitution.
"So, , last time for THIS question: I'm not asking you what you're GOING to think later on. I'm asking what you think right here, right now."
Totally complied in a very direct, detailed, specific and comprehensive comment and you're STILL batching. Typical.
Not bitching. I'm pointing out that you have NO DATA on which to hold your guess that Trump might secretly win and that there's some secret fraud happening. I've seen plenty of conspiracy theories and empty claims from people like you, but not one bit of solid evidence.
You are free to think that Trump secretly won. You are free to think that, in spite of a lack of any evidence, there's widespread fraud happening.
I'd just ask that you have the intellectual honesty to admit you have no data on which to base such empty guesses.
In other words, that MANY people voted for Trump does not change the data that shows more people voted for Biden.
That MANY people attended Trump rallies is NOT evidence of voter fraud.
Understand?
I mean, I could say, Gore was easily the better looking and the smartest of the two candidates running in 2000, but that doesn't mean there's evidence of fraud. IF someone is going to charge fraud, THEN they should have something to base it upon... something beyond, "I REALLY want Trump to win and, plus, look at all the red hats!"
Marshal... "[people refused to vote for] Trump because he talks funny."
Huh. So, you think being corrupt, perverted, a cheat and a con man who is utterly dishonest - easily the most overtly and stupidly dishonest president in US history - is the same as "talking funny..."
If you can't recognize and identify reality and understand the actual motives of people who are telling you why they're opposed to Trump (and I've NEVER heard anyone say it's because he talks funny... What does that even mean??!), perhaps that explains why you think he has likely won.
By the way, it appears that even Trump's immediate family and supporters are telling him he lost. IF Melania recognizes it, maybe you should, too.
It's not a secret, you know. It's data.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Trump won’t concede defeat, and he is using the majority of the funds raised to fight voter fraud to pay off his campaign debts.
Wall Street Journal: “Clicking through to the donation page, potential givers can review a disclaimer that 50% of any contribution will be used for general election campaign debt retirement and 50% for the campaign’s recount account. Trump won’t concede defeat, and he is using the majority of the funds raised to fight voter fraud to pay off his campaign debts.”
There's no stupid like chosen stupid.
It shows us the effectiveness of masks that Right Wing Sturgis was a superspreader. Sturgis people did not wear masks.
("The case data show relatively stable trends prior to the event and clear changes around the event, with little reason to believe that the changes in cases could have been caused by anything but the event," the Johns Hopkins researchers write. "The overall conclusions that the Sturgis event caused a large increase in COVID-19 cases and infections are likely to be relatively robust to the specific statistical methodologies used.")
And protests in the streets were not. People wore masks. As all the news from every American city dancing in the streets over Trump's defeat shows.
Crazy town.
Marshal, you have questions to answer directly. Posting links to insane conspiracy theories with NO ZERO NADA DAMN bit of support for them is not helping you. You want to post? Answer questions. Directly.
Some recent false claims/unanswered questions:
Marshal... "I think that people like you are corrupt as hell"
Corrupt: 1. having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
1. WHERE have I shown a willingness to act dishonestly?
2. WHERE have I received money or personal gain from this alleged dishonesty?
3. It is abundantly clear that the pervert con man you support has been corrupt as hell for years, but that does not bother you. And his corruption IS clear and repeated. He (allegedly a billionaire) has repeatedly abused bankruptcy laws so that he, a billionaire, could avoid paying his employees what they were due. This is LITERALLY corrupt.
It may be legal for billionaires to abuse laws to avoid making payment to laborers, but that doesn't mean it's not corrupt.
4. So, you CAN'T support your stupidly false claims about "people like me" being corrupt, but you give a pass to a deviant like Trump who is endlessly and overtly corrupt and has been for years (the bankruptcy issues are but one example).
IF you want to comment here, you MUST either
A. provide support from an authorized, legitimate, rational, adult source of massive voter fraud
Or
B. admit you can't prove a single God-Damned thing.
RE: 1. Where have I shown a willingness to act dishonestly?
I suspect what Marshal is suggesting is, in those instances where I honestly and in sincere good faith disagree with his hunches, that THOSE instances are situations where I've acted dishonestly.
An example of this is that I do NOT think that God is opposed to gay folk or gay folk getting married, for instance. I think this because I disagree with Marshal's hunches about what the Bible does and doesn't say about gay folk and I disagree with Marshal's reasoning that allows him to hold those hunches.
The problem is, Disagreeing with Marshal in sincere good faith is NOT the same as being dishonest. Of course. As if people couldn't possibly disagree with the amazing wisdom of Marshal!
But he can tell me: Provide ANY instance where I've shown a willingness to act dishonestly (as opposed to disagreeing with his unsupported opinions), and you will have taken a small step towards supporting his stupidly false claim of people like me being corrupt.
Of course, he can't do this because it's just not factual in the real world. I certainly have my problems, but I am not an overtly dishonest or corrupt person, and I sure as hell ain't receiving money or personal gain for my positions.
So, the question is, will Marshal have the decency and intellectual honesty to admit he misspoke when he made these sorts of false claim.
Marshal links an American Thinker article making the case for an overthrow of the popular will by GOP legislators selecting unfaithful electors.
Because Marshal believes that white men should keep power by any means necessary.
The two Republican Presidents on either side of Obama are already rated as among the bottom 5 in US history.
Well, by comparison, if nothing else.
Post a Comment