Trump

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the house republicans only challenged AZ and PA. even if they succeeded, that would not switch enough electoral votes for biden to have won.

so since spence says efforts that are doomed to failure are harmless stunts, by what logic was that not a harmless stunt?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wonder what the intent of the the Eastman memo was.

John C. Eastman tried to convince then-Vice President Mike Pence that he could overturn the election results on January 6, 2021 (when Congress counted the Electoral College votes) by throwing out electors from seven states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Washington, D.C.) because they allegedly had competing electors although, in fact, no state had actually put forward an alternate slate of electors. Under Eastman's scheme, Pence would have declared Trump the winner with more Electoral College votes after the seven states were thrown out, at 232 votes to 222.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the guy who said very recently that republicans are all idiots who are screwing the country, is suddenly clutching his pearls because i posted an insult?

for the 100th time, who announced that you can lob insults, but no one was can?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wasn't my statement in response to John calling the people on 1/6 idiots. But think whatever you want as you're just angry bc I showed you what a hypocrite you are.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Wasn't my statement in response to John calling the people on 1/6 idiots. But think whatever you want as you're just angry bc I showed you what a hypocrite you are.

you said republicans were a bunch of idiots and that because of them, the country was screwed. is that not meant to be an insult?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I wonder what the intent of the the Eastman memo was.

John C. Eastman tried to convince then-Vice President Mike Pence that he could overturn the election results on January 6, 2021 (when Congress counted the Electoral College votes) by throwing out electors from seven states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Washington, D.C.) because they allegedly had competing electors although, in fact, no state had actually put forward an alternate slate of electors. Under Eastman's scheme, Pence would have declared Trump the winner with more Electoral College votes after the seven states were thrown out, at 232 votes to 222.

His intent was to overturn the results of a free election, and whoever Eastman is, he should be held accountable for that.

fair enough?

Paul, i’ve shown here a million times that i have exactly zero problem calling out republicans when they behave badly, which happens all the time.

i also don’t want trump to run again. too sleazy.

i think you’re all so used to
ignoring it when your own side misbehaves, that you assume everyone else ignores it. I dont.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The truest thing Trump ever said was that he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose any support. Even after the last two months of 2020, and the first week of 2021, I don't think anyone changed their mind. The breaking point? It will never come.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another one of your "close enough" slippery tricks. What Trump said was obvious hyperbole and obviously not true. If he unjustly shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, he would certainly lose support. And he would certainly be charged by eager DA's and publicly scorned not only by CNN but Fox as well. And by most, probably all, Republican politicians.

And Trump has said many things that are true. Which, of course, you would somehow discount as not being actually true, or mostly not true, but some sneaky, ego driven dribble that accidentally had some remote connection to some weak and not to be trusted, politically driven but truthful appearing spin. Sort of like a lot of the stuff you say.

For you, Trump is simply, and completely, a liar. But when he says something that is blatantly false, and actually hyperbolic "spin," and you can use it to make some damning accusation about him or his supporters, you jump all over it as the truest thing he ever said. Of course, that is consistent. Since for you, he being purely a liar, you're actually confirming your bias by sarcastically calling something that is not true the truest thing he ever said.

Your phony spin attempts to be a perfect rhetorical trick which closely elides, seemingly close enough, Trump's hyperbole with what you perceive to be a loyalty to Trump no matter how depraved, even to the point of flagrant, shameless murder, his actions may be.

This ranks right up there with some of the slimiest things you ever said.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

His intent was to overturn the results of a free election, and whoever Eastman is, he should be held accountable for that.

fair enough?

Paul, i’ve shown here a million times that i have exactly zero problem calling out republicans when they behave badly, which happens all the time.But the eastman memo showed the Trump legal team was trying to overthrow the election and the vast majority of R congressman seemed to support it. over 60% of R refuse to believe Biden was fairly elected. Trying to overturn (or prevent the Pres. confirmation) a Presidential election is much more important to me than a disagreement about policy or taxes. It is the heart of our country. He wasn't just some guy writing a memo. It was shared amongst the highests R in the country - from Trump on down.

i also don’t want trump to run again. too sleazy.

i think you’re all so used to
ignoring it when your own side misbehaves, that you assume everyone else ignores it. I dont.I don't, I cringe when I see/hear some things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

NM

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you said republicans were a bunch of idiots and that because of them, the country was screwed. is that not meant to be an insult?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

John first said we're screwed bf I said it. I expanded on who he thought were idiots.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

His intent was to overturn the results of a free election, and whoever Eastman is, he should be held accountable for that.

fair enough?

Paul, i’ve shown here a million times that i have exactly zero problem calling out republicans when they behave badly, which happens all the time.

i also don’t want trump to run again. too sleazy.

i think you’re all so used to
ignoring it when your own side misbehaves, that you assume everyone else ignores it. I dont.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about the rest of the Trumplicans in the House and Senate who aided and abetted the Trump administration in their efforts to throw out the results of the election after they had exhausted all legal remedies because they didn't like the results.
You can listen to Peter Navarro explain just how the coup was supposed to work.

The Constitution only works if you respect it, otherwise it's just another piece of paper.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

His intent was to overturn the results of a free election, and whoever Eastman is, he should be held accountable for that.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

was any of this by this eastman fellow illegal?....surely if it was that Legal Tiger that now runs the justice department and thankfully is not on the supreme court, will be pursuing them with abandon....

otherwise, sounds like political maneuvering...

not like the democraps don't try every trick in the book at every opportunity...I could name a couple currently going on...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

suddenly clutching his pearls because i posted an insult?

for the 100th time, who announced that you can lob insults, but no one was can?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

lot's of insults from the party of love...be gentle though, the much hyped Jan 6th anniversary celebration and fundraising drive was a big flop, probably backfired and made more people angry with them than with trump which was the exact opposite of the intended effect...so they are probably a bit frustrated right now...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

NM

"But the eastman memo showed the Trump legal team was trying to overthrow the election"

I never, ever said Trump wasn't trying to overturn the election, obviously he was. Thankfully, he failed.

What I said, and I'll say it again because it's true, is that it would be nice if you guys could hold the left to the same standard.

"over 60% of R refuse to believe Biden was fairly elected"

And that's embarrassing and stupid.

But it's equally stupid that dems think Trump won because of Russian collusion, that Hilary lost because of sexism, that Republicans are racist and only care about the wealthy, that the morons in the capital ever had a plan to overturn the election, that pro life people hate women, etc. I can go all day with demonstrably false BS that's generally (not universally) accepted on the left

People are mostly sheep who believe what they are told.

"I cringe when I see/hear some things."

That's true, you do, and Rockhound to some extent. Not the others. Never.

I'd love to get away from attacks (which obviously I contribute to, and shouldn't) and fear mongering, and talk about the pros and cons of actual policy, that's what's interesting to me, that's how you learn.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

lot's of insults from the party of love...be gentle though, the much hyped Jan 6th anniversary celebration and fundraising drive was a big flop, probably backfired and made more people angry with them than with trump which was the exact opposite of the intended effect...so they are probably a bit frustrated right now...

for Harris and Biden to equate 1/6 with Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is beyond preposterous. But when you have very little you can point to in terms of popular policy results, all you have left is to generate hatred against your opponents. Which is what they do in the media, 24/7.

Some group did a study of MSNBC and CNN, they still mention Trump more frequently than they mention Biden. That's staggering, a year later.

Still waiting for that cancer cure.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You can listen to Peter Navarro explain just how the coup was supposed to work.

The Constitution only works if you respect it, otherwise it's just another piece of paper.

No, you're doing your verbal tricks again. Navarro tried to explain how the "plan" not the "coup" was meant to work. And he pointed out how it was according to constitutional principles.

The MSNBC guy never rebutted the constitutionality of the plan. He said the SCOTUS rejected it. But it was not accepted by SCOTUS because of process not because of legal merit. Three of the Justices did want to hear the case. The Court majority ruled that it was a matter to be decided at state levels. Which, per the Constitution, is what Navarro's plan would have done. But, ironically, the Jan6 riot stopped the cert. hearings just before Cruz, et. al. were about to implement it, and so that effort was scuttled by stopping the proceedings for safety, and when they resumed, certification was without further delay verified, and so then the plan was made mute.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

How about the rest of the Trumplicans in the House and Senate who aided and abetted the Trump administration in their efforts to throw out the results of the election after they had exhausted all legal remedies because they didn't like the results.
You can listen to Peter Navarro explain just how the coup was supposed to work.

The Constitution only works if you respect it, otherwise it's just another piece of paper.

I think the congressional republicans are exactly as guilty, as the democrats in 2016 who urged electors to not vote for the candidate who won, and exactly as guilty as the congressional democrats in 2016 who voted to challenge the election results in more states than the GOP challenged in 2020.

In all those cases, the losing party acted like spoiled brats and were willing to undermine the constitution rather than graciously accept defeat.

I don't care if we ignore it, talk about it,. arrest them, or execute them. But let's apply the same standard to everyone who refuses to accept election results. You all only care when Republicans do it.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No, you're doing your verbal tricks again. Navarro tried to explain how the "plan" not the "coup" was meant to work. And he pointed out how it was according to constitutional principles.

The MSNBC guy never rebutted the constitutionality of the plan. He said the SCOTUS rejected it. But it was not accepted by SCOTUS because of process not because of legal merit. Three of the Justices did want to hear the case. The Court majority ruled that it was a matter to be decided at state levels. Which, per the Constitution, is what Navarro's plan would have done. But, ironically, the Jan6 riot stopped the cert. hearings just before Cruz, et. al. were about to implement it, and so that effort was scuttled by stopping the proceedings for safety, and when they resumed, certification was without further delay verified, and so then the plan was made mute.

So your theory is that instead of following the constitution and going thru the courts presenting valid evidence (which they did not) you just wait and then do a run around.
Show one case that was decided in Trump's favor.
Show one State that found significant errors in the election, before or after.
Or is it as Navarro claimed "George Soros and Never trumpers did it"
There was no valid way for the Vice President to do other than he did, no "maybe this is his duty" in that area of the Constitution.

You would have been ecstatic if this was the speech yesterday.

President Trump, His Elective Highness Eternal: "Greetings to my loyal and faithful patriotic Americans. Tonight we celebrate our victory one year ago. One year ago today we established once and for all that America is OUR country. It belongs to US. They can never it take away from us. They tried, but we stopped them. What happened a year ago has been misunderstood. THEY say you aren't PATRIOTS, but are a "mob" or "insurrectionists." They'll never admit that THEY tried to STEAL the election. They rigged it. There is no way that we lost. Look at us. We're strong. We're patriots. We're the real America. They are weak. Corrupt. They cheat. First they tried to steal the election, then when we caught them, they tried to use the process & courts against us. Then when we beat them there, they planned to make it look like we had a riot on the Capitol. But we didn't. We love our country. We would never break the law. And we won the election. And we won the court cases. And we won on January 6th. And we always win because we're the best. And the best are the winners. We've fixed it so that they won't be able to cheat us out of an election ever again. They won't cheat us. They can't now. When I was inaugurated on January 20, 2021 I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. And I will. Forever. I made them change it so that the dirty Democrats can't cheat us out of our election victories anymore. No, they won't. They can't now. As your forever president I declare that patriots only can run for office. Only patriots--the best Americans who really, really love our country--can be leaders. And that just makes sense. Doesn't it? Don't we want the best of America to lead America? We do and I made sure the best will lead. I'm the greatest president this country has ever seen. And you are the greatest people. Look at all the good we've done together. They won't admit it, but the Trump presidency is a great presidency. We strengthened the US, now no one will mess with us. We have the most amazing economy. We are the only ones who figured out how to handle the hoax pandemic. Total success. Total. I was so good at making America great again that they had to cheat to get me out of office. The lying cheaters! They want America to fail, but we kept America great. They keep attacking me because I see how corrupt they are. I see the hypocrisy and conspiracy. But, it's not really me that they're after. I'm just in the way of them getting to you. I'm the only thing standing in the way. I'm the only one that stops them from giving away your country. And, believe me, they want to give your country away. They were already doing it. And they would be doing it now if we hadn't fought like hell to keep it. We had to fight. That's what January 6th, 2021 was about. It was about us standing up to them. The cheaters. The election stealers. We stood up to them and said "no, you're not taking our country away. N-O." And they don't like that and they call it a "coup." It wasn't a coup. How could it be? This is our country. You can't coup your own country. But they want you to believe that you did something wrong. You did something right. You are the patriots. You are the real Americans. They are the cheaters and liars. I won't let them lie about us anymore. Today, as your president, His Elective Highness Eternal, I proclaim and decree that only PATRIOTS can run for office or run elections in this land of the free. And January 6th will forever be remembered as the day we kept our country. It is keep America great day. Thank you.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I think the congressional republicans are exactly as guilty, as the democrats in 2016 who urged electors to not vote for the candidate who won, and exactly as guilty as the congressional democrats in 2016 who voted to challenge the election results in more states than the GOP challenged in 2020.

In all those cases, the losing party acted like spoiled brats and were willing to undermine the constitution rather than graciously accept defeat.

I don't care if we ignore it, talk about it,. arrest them, or execute them. But let's apply the same standard to everyone who refuses to accept election results. You all only care when Republicans do it.

None of them had a plan to get the Vice President to ignore his constitutional duties, nor did they abdicate their own duties.
If you look at the 2016 election, Never Trumpers were a significant force in pressuring electors to not vote for Trump.
Many of the reasons for doing so have since proven to be valid.

There is no valid whatabout.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

None of them had a plan to get the Vice President to ignore his constitutional duties, nor did they abdicate their own duties.
If you look at the 2016 election, Never Trumpers were a significant force in pressuring electors to not vote for Trump.
Many of the reasons for doing so have since proven to be valid.

There is no valid whatabout.

Ok. So this is what you're saying...

If you lose a presidential election, it's OK with you to try and overturn the results using any method possible, other than getting the VP to do it.

So according to you, if you lose an election...

it's OK if you pressure the electors to not cast their votes for the winner, for no reason other than you hate the guy who won fair and square.

it's OK if your congressmen challenge the results in states, for no reason other, than you hate the guy who won fair and square.

But, if you pressure your VP to forego his duties in order to overturn an election, THEN it's bad.

All other ways to overturn an election for no good reason (other than you lost and can't accept it) are acceptable to you, except the method Trump selected.

Do you seriously expect any sane person to buy that, Pete?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

you just wait and then do a run around.

Was what you refer to as a "run around" unconstitutional? Did you read the plan?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

for Harris and Biden to equate 1/6 with Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is beyond preposterous. But when you have very little you can point to in terms of popular policy results, all you have left is to generate hatred against your opponents. Which is what they do in the media, 24/7.

Some group did a study of MSNBC and CNN, they still mention Trump more frequently than they mention Biden. That's staggering, a year later.

Still waiting for that cancer cure.

your the cancer its called denial just saying and the king of hatred and blowing trump at every Turn mentioning his lowest black unemployment .. but have the audacity to say very little you can point to in terms of popular policy thats funny you live in your own echo chamber .. its amazing but it explains and gives insight to those who Love Trump and are willing to vote from Him again .. insisting they also love america and its institutions


when will you understand pearl harbor was bad 9\11 were bad but you cry about the comparison .. but your only word on the incident is whats the big deal ??

However those examples they were not committed by fellow Americans led by the former POTUS aka Trump and other leaders in his sphere of influence with lies of a stole or rigged election ... which they still insist is what actually happened ..

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

as always, you got it 100% wrong. i dont think outcome matters at all, I think intent is what matters.

SPENCE, not me, said that if it doesn’t ultimately succeed, it’s no big deal.

How did you miss that? Can’t you read at all? seriously, did you read anything i said?

If you figure out what I’m saying first before you respond, you’ll humiliate yourself a lot less often.

Spence said that because why the democrats did had no chance of succeeding, therefore it was just a harmless stunt.

or
But he won’t apply that same logic to what the republicans did.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so if people want to install someone other than the winner of the election, simply because they happen to despise the winner of the election, that’s not necessarily “overturning the election”?

I never, ever said Trump wasn't trying to overturn the election, obviously he was. Thankfully, he failed.


I can't fight that kind of logic so which is it because clearly you are the least upset about Trump's attempt to steal the election and event of Jan6th

Yet you said you would vote for him again

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the house republicans only challenged AZ and PA. even if they succeeded, that would not switch enough electoral votes for biden to have won.

so since spence says efforts that are doomed to failure are harmless stunts, by what logic was that not a harmless stunt?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

SO ITS OK

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Was what you refer to as a "run around" unconstitutional? Did you read the plan?

Yea I did
It called for Pence to do other than his responsibility as outlined in the Constitution
There’s a reason that when he asked Republicans who he luckily respected, that he decided to follow their recommendations and do his duties.
Trump would have gleefully celebrated Pences murder
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Ok. So this is what you're saying...

If you lose a presidential election, it's OK with you to try and overturn the results using any method possible, other than getting the VP to do it.

So according to you, if you lose an election...

it's OK if you pressure the electors to not cast their votes for the winner, for no reason other than you hate the guy who won fair and square.

it's OK if your congressmen challenge the results in states, for no reason other, than you hate the guy who won fair and square.

But, if you pressure your VP to forego his duties in order to overturn an election, THEN it's bad.

All other ways to overturn an election for no good reason (other than you lost and can't accept it) are acceptable to you, except the method Trump selected.

Do you seriously expect any sane person to buy that, Pete?

You’re the master of obfuscation and certainly qualify as a person who doesn’t really support Trump 🤦
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

SO ITS OK

i said just up the page, that’s it’s not ok. but it’s similar to what the dems did.

so whatever you think about the gop trying to overturn an election because they’re sore losers, you should think the same about democrats who try to overturn an election because they’re sore losers.

i don’t know how to say it any simpler, but you have no grasp of what anyone is saying here. i sincerely hope
you’re just messing with me.

look at my post from 12:57 pm
today, where i said all of them acted like spoiled brats who were willing to undermine the constitution.

you claim, that means i’m ok with it. you can’t comprehend that “spoiled brats who want to undermine the constitution” is a criticism.


you have no ability to comprehend words. are you drunk?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

so we have spence saying it’s not “overturning an election” if they try to install someone other than the winner from the same party as the winner.

wayne says that describing someone’s actions as “acting like a spoiled brat who is willing to undermine the constitution” is actually an endorsement of what they did, not a criticism of what they did.

and pete says it’s ok to make
multiple attempts to overturn an election, as long as you don’t involve the vice president. only if the VP is part of the plan, is it a bad plan.

whew.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

they are clearly suffering from post traumatic trump disorder....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Yea I did
It called for Pence to do other than his responsibility as outlined in the Constitution
There’s a reason that when he asked Republicans who he luckily respected, that he decided to follow their recommendations and do his duties.

I asked if Navarro's plan was unconstitutional. You implied that it wasn't following the Constitution. Theoretically, if one senator and one representative object to a slate of electors, the Senate and House will vote separately on whether to discard them. It would not be unconstitutional for a senator and a representative to make such an objection. But it would have to be done before certification. This has already happened in the past. But the VP can overrule the objection.

Navarro's plan had no chance of succeeding unless it actually could have somehow created enough national attention and desire for investigations into the objected elections. But, according to Navarro, the Jan6 riots took away the opportunity to make the objections before certification took place.

I don't see how it was unconstitutional or a "coup" or a threat to "our democracy."

[wdmso]

Cyber Ninjas to File for Bankruptcy, CEO Plans to Start New Firm with Same Employees

The move comes as a blow to audit dead-enders who have long insisted that Cyber Ninjas secretly has proof of Donald Trump’s 2020 victory—but who are now smearing the group as “grifters.”

Cyber Ninjas shutting down after judge fines Arizona audit company $50K a day

Keep spreading the big lie

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i said just up the page, that’s it’s not ok. but it’s similar to what the dems did.

so whatever you think about the gop trying to overturn an election because they’re sore losers, you should think the same about democrats who try to overturn an election because they’re sore losers.

i don’t know how to say it any simpler, but you have no grasp of what anyone is saying here. i sincerely hope
you’re just messing with me.

look at my post from 12:57 pm
today, where i said all of them acted like spoiled brats who were willing to undermine the constitution.

you claim, that means i’m ok with it. you can’t comprehend that “spoiled brats who want to undermine the constitution” is a criticism.


you have no ability to comprehend words. are you drunk?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am not one who’s said they would vote for trump again

That says alot

[wdmso]

Ted Cruz's foot, meet Ted Cruz's mouth.

After a Thursday appearance on Fox's Tucker Carlson Tonight in which Cruz, a Republican senator from Texas, apologized for his "frankly dumb" mistake of calling the Jan. 6 riot a "violent terrorist attack,"

Cruz's use of "terrorist attack" was not some sort of one-time accident. In fact, he had described the Capitol riot as a terrorist attack or broadly described rioters as terrorists over and over for months -- at least 17 previous times in official written statements, in tweets, in remarks at Senate hearings and in interviews.



Just another non principled Republican. Shocking