Trump

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The electors were supposed to be supporting Clinton and didn't. Pay attention...as for Russia, they likely did heavily influence the election.

You pay attention...I'm not talking about what the electors did...I'm talking about what democrats asked them to do.

What the electors did, and what democrats asked them to do, wwre two very different things.

Democrats did two separate and distinct things, in an effort to overturn the election. That their efforts ultimately failed, doesn't mean that's not what they were trying to do.

(1) they asked electors to not vote for the winner of the election (Trump). This necessarily means they were asking the electors to change the outcome of the election.

(2) house democrats challenged the election results in some states, in fact they challenged more states than the two states they GOP challenged in 2020.

From wikipedia...

"The faithless electors who opposed Donald Trump were part of a movement dubbed the Hamilton Electors co-founded by Micheal Baca of Colorado and Bret Chiafalo of Washington. The movement attempted to find 37 Republican electors willing to vote for a different Republican in an effort to deny Donald Trump a majority in the Electoral College and force a contingent election in the House of Representatives"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithl...ntial_election

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here's one of many stories reporting on democrats, after the 2016 election, urging electors not to vote for Trump.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...college-232635

Spence, Trump won the election. So please tell me how urging electors to not vote for the winner, isn't asking them to overthrow the election?

A single nobody anti-Trump activist does not mean that "the Democrats" are doing the same thing.

[wdmso]

The next MAGA snake speaks who was a


Harvard-trained lawyer and officer who served as a prosecutor, defense attorney, international law attorney and a Judge Advocate General’s Corps Officer.

Seem he forgot his own past


Gov. Ron DeSantis on Thursday condemned the commemoration of the violent Jan. 6 Capitol riots as a way for Democrats and the news media to “smear” supporters of former President Donald Trump.

DeSantis, an ally of the former president who has refused to answer questions on whether he supports Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was rigged,

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

From wikipedia...

"The faithless electors who opposed Donald Trump were part of a movement dubbed the Hamilton Electors co-founded by Micheal Baca of Colorado and Bret Chiafalo of Washington. The movement attempted to find 37 Republican electors willing to vote for a different Republican in an effort to deny Donald Trump a majority in the Electoral College and force a contingent election in the House of Representatives"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithl...ntial_election

Per your on wiki, they wanted to get a different Republican elected. My god…

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

After the 2016 election, the democrats did three separate things.

(1) they said Trump won because of Russian interference
(2) they asked electors to cast their votes for someone other than Trump
(3) a small number of democrats in congress formally objected to the electoral vote in multiple states.

They didn't use identical tactics that Trump did. But they (a small number of them) tried to get the electors to not vote for Trump, they tried to tell America that the election wasn't free and fair. At some high level, that's similar to what Trump did.

No two things are identical. There will always be some differences.

"The Dems didn't ask anyone to overthrow the election."

Demonstrably false. After the 2016 election, a small number of democrats in the house tried to do exactly that. It never had a chance of succeeding (neither did the republican efforts of 1/6), but that's precisely what they tried to do.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...allenge-233294

In 2020, 174 house republicans voted to object to the results in PA and/or AZ.

Do the electoral math. Even if the house GOP switched the electoral votes for both PA and AZ to Trump, Trump still loses.

Your defense of the democrats actions in 2016, are based in part on the fact that they could not have changed the results. I'd love to hear you explain why that doesn't apply to what the house republicans did. They also were mathematically guaranteed to be short of overturning the election.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...objectors.html


"Even if all 7 were for Trump it wouldn't have made any difference."

Even if the house republicans managed to convert PA and AZ electors to Trump, it wouldn't have made any difference. That's me, using your same exact logic.

Looks like Biden won 306 to 232. AZ has 11 electoral votes, PA has 20. Thats 31 electoral votes that the GOP questioned, and that's if you assume that all of them challenged both AZ and PA, which they didn't, some challenged one or the other. According to my math, what the house GOP did, could not possibly have changed the outcome. Best case for the GOP was Biden winning 275 to 263.

Long after the 2016 election, many many democrats referred to Trump as the "illegitimate president".

It's always OK whenever the left does anything.

You and Sean Hannity, separated at birth. Two thoughtless lemmings.

You are dismissing what the democrats did, because it had no chance of actually overturning the election. But you won't apply that logic to what the GOP did. You played favorites by party.

Destroyed by math.

What else ya got that I said, which was ignorant?

GOP officials in Maricopa County released a 93-page report rebutting point-by-point claims of election fraud championed by Trump and his allies.

Arizona's election audit was mostly financed by organizations tied to Mike Flynn, who urged Trump to use the military to stay in office. The who ran it huddled with Flynn and others at Lin Wood's house in Nov. 2020 to work on election-overturning efforts.

Remember Mike Flynn doesn't even know how to carve a Turkey, but he knows how to get 400K from Turkey.

Grifters the lot of them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Odd how the guy who doesn’t really like Trump………
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

A single nobody anti-Trump activist does not mean that "the Democrats" are doing the same thing.

dismissive of the democrats attempt to overturn the election.

we’re all shocked you took that position.

everything is ok when liberals do it!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Per your on wiki, they wanted to get a different Republican elected. My god…

a different republican than the one who won the election. therefore, they wanted to overturn the election.

asking 2016 electors to vote for anyone other the. the person who won the state, is attempt to undo the election.

my god indeed.

you’re saying that attempting to install someone else, but who’s in the same party as the election winner, isn’t an attempt to overturn an election?

in what universe does that make sense?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Per your on wiki, they wanted to get a different Republican elected. My god…

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”?

we’d all just love to hear you justify that.

using your logic…if the gop somehow prevented Biden from getting certified, and instead they convinced the electors to cast all their votes for Joe Manchin…. you would say that’s NOT overturning an election.

do you really expect any of us to believe, you really agree with this?

you’re making up stupid gibberish because (1) you lost the argument, and (2) you’re too small to admit it.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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”?

One of the Clinton electors voted instead for a Native American against the Keystone pipeline.

They’re simple protest stunts Jim.

you’re making up stupid gibberish because (1) you lost the argument, and (2) you’re too small to admit it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

One of the Clinton electors voted instead for a Native American against the Keystone pipeline.

They’re simple protest stunts Jim.

please define “overturning an election”, if it’s not defined as installing someone other than who won.

if the fact that it was a futile effort means it wasn’t a big deal, then
neither was january 6. that also was a failed stunt that obviously never had any chance of succeeding.

Do you EVER stop trying to have it both ways?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

One of the Clinton electors voted instead for a Native American against the Keystone pipeline.

They’re simple protest stunts Jim.

i proved mathematically, that the house republicans challenging results in PA and AZ couldnt shift enough electoral votes to help Trump win. Even if their challenge worked, Biden would still have won.

So if according to you, efforts which are doomed from the start are harmless stunts, why doesn’t that qualify as such?

answer - you only apply that logic to democrats.

destroyed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

...as for Russia, they likely did heavily influence the election.

not they didn't......

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

"holding a dagger(lectern) to the throat of democracy"

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

guess they never said any of it

Wayne, everyone has said they were wrong, should not have entered the capitol, not sure how many times this has to be stated to make it between your ears...

but as with the people that went too far that day the democrats must go even farther in their attempt to make political capital out of this...today was a great example with ridiculous comparisons to 911 and Pearl Harbor and what...Gettysburg maybe? Pete channeling Stalin and Mao ...Complete stupidity.....sorry if we aren't following you down that insane path...


you guys are doing a great job demonstrating who has "authoritarian" tendencies...whether covid or Jan 6 or just about any issue, anything less that 100% agreement compliance makes someone an enemy of the state...that's pretty effed up

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

but as with the people that went too far that day the democrats must go even farther in their attempt to make political capital out of this...today was a great example with ridiculous comparisons to 911 and Pearl Harbor and what...Gettysburg maybe? Pete channeling Stalin and Mao ...Complete stupidity.....sorry if we aren't following you down that insane path...

[scottw]

^^^^pretty much nails it....

[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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

Wayne, everyone has said they were wrong, should not have entered the capitol, not sure how many times this has to be stated to make it between your ears...

but as with the people that went too far that day the democrats must go even farther in their attempt to make political capital out of this...today was a great example with ridiculous comparisons to 911 and Pearl Harbor and what...Gettysburg maybe? Pete channeling Stalin and Mao ...Complete stupidity.....sorry if we aren't following you down that insane path...


you guys are doing a great job demonstrating who has "authoritarian" tendencies...whether covid or Jan 6 or just about any issue, anything less that 100% agreement compliance makes someone an enemy of the state...that's pretty effed up

Spoken like a true MAGA cult member who thinks it’s just about the foot soldiers.. and ignoring the leadership who provided the message and gave directions and are now running cover and trying the sweep the event under the rug.

The GOP pushed Benghazi probes for years. It’s already done with Jan. 6. It’s amazing how that works


So please keeping you head in the sand and keep
And Accusing the other side of that which you are guilty.

Next Trump will be praising this guy

Kazakhstan's authoritarian leader says he has ordered security forces to "fire without warning", amid a violent crackdown on anti-government protests.

He blamed foreign-trained "terrorists", without giving evidence.

Oh wait Trumps already supported both ideas during his Term

Trump’s “When the looting starts, the shooting starts”

Trump privately blamed 'Antifa people' for storming U.S. Capitol on Jan 6th
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Spoken like a true MAGA cult member


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

just hilarious....

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i proved mathematically, that the house republicans challenging results in PA and AZ couldnt shift enough electoral votes to help Trump win. Even if their challenge worked, Biden would still have won.

So if according to you, efforts which are doomed from the start are harmless stunts, why doesn’t that qualify as such?

answer - you only apply that logic to democrats.

destroyed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So in Jim’s world the attempt only matters if it works. How do you argue with that logic?

So the Pennsylvanian and a Arizona legislature want to challenge and dismiss votes for Biden On the same ballot many were re elected or won .. again MAGA logic at its finest

But Jim’s or Scott don’t seemed to be bothered by the failure of Trump supporters and his administration to participate in the hearing refusing lawfully subpoena. Claiming privilege they don’t have, Hoping and praying that gop takes over the house and make it all go away ..

Why do you support them in this obstruction
if you agree with them that it was just a few yahoos as they have suggested

Seems like a. Lot of effort to keep a lid on 3 days in the Oval Office. Remember Trump was working and Americans have the right. To see that work
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So in Jim’s world the attempt only matters if it works. How do you argue with that logic?

So the Pennsylvanian and a Arizona legislature want to challenge and dismiss votes for Biden On the same ballot many were re elected or won .. again MAGA logic at its finest

But Jim’s or Scott don’t seemed to be bothered by the failure of Trump supporters and his administration to participate in the hearing refusing lawfully subpoena. Claiming privilege they don’t have, Hoping and praying that gop takes over the house and make it all go away ..

Why do you support them in this obstruction
if you agree with them that it was just a few yahoos as they have suggested

Seems like a. Lot of effort to keep a lid on 3 days in the Oval Office. Remember Trump was working and Americans have the right. To see that work
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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.

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


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

a

officer kim potter is facing 15 years for an honest mistake in a deadly situation created by a criminal
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So her intent should be taken into account as it was an honest mistake (I agree it was a mistake) and her intent was not to shoot the kid. So intent matters (which I agree with).

But somehow it doesn't matter when 7 electors didn't vote for whom they were supposed to vote for bc intent doesn't matter in this instance. Got it.

[PaulS]

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.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And yet the intent of the 7 electors was not to overthrow the election but the intent of the 227 electors this past election cycle was clearly to prevent the confirmation of the person who was elected by the people from being sworn in as Pres.

Hmmm, I wander what insult you would have added to the end of that statement if it was you posting that?

[spence]

Jim, you’re really clueless or just being a stupid punk.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And yet the intent of the 7 electors was not to overthrow the election but the intent of the 227 electors this past election cycle was clearly to prevent the confirmation of the person who was elected by the people from being sworn in as Pres.

Hmmm, I wander what insult you would have added to the end of that statement if it was you posting that?

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, you’re really clueless or just being a stupid punk.

you’re the one who said failed attempts are harmless. it’s not my fault if you didn’t expect me to ask why you don’t apply that standard to the gop.

you also said that it’s not an attempt overturn an election if they try to install someone in the victors party. i’m sorry if you weren’t expecting us to all laugh at that. if you had any credibility left, you lost it with this partisan nonsense.

everything is good when liberals do it, everything is bad when republicans do it.

baseless insults from you, as i said, are usually a sign that you lost but can’t admit it.

i don’t like when anyone, of either party, tries to go against the results of an election. but let’s hold both parties to the same
consistent standard when they each do it. you can’t do that. i can.

you’d spontaneously menstruate if you tried to say anything critical about any democrat, anywhere, ever.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

I guess the intent of the rioters on 1/6 wasn't to prevent a peaceful transition of power and their being there on that day was random.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And yet the intent of the 7 electors was not to overthrow the election but the intent of the 227 electors this past election cycle was clearly to prevent the confirmation of the person who was elected by the people from being sworn in as Pres.

Hmmm, I wander what insult you would have added to the end of that statement if it was you posting that?

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