Orangeslice13
Shema Yisrael
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2011
- Messages
- 98,221
- Likes
- 114,886
Got it. You’re disingenuous.
Here’s one of your “there’s no proof” screeches. Summarizing your thoughts to reply to them is hardly lies. But you knew that already.
And further down the hole he goes.
“absolutely zero evidence of voter fraud to a degree that would change the election*.”
Every single judge that has considered the case agrees. So if I’m a hack, at least I’m in good company.
But sure, I’m the one with no basis to argue from. People with a basis to argue from always try to lie about other people’s arguments.
Do you have anything honest to contribute or should I go ahead and reconvene the batterer’s intervention, therapy, coping, and healing educational seminar so you can have someone who cares about your opinion of me to commiserate with?
Show me any post I’ve made that says I think the election results will change based on fraud.
First, you show me where I claimed you said “I think the election results will change based on fraud.” I didn’t.
I’ll take that as a yes and add this to my list of your lies. Probably gonna be a minute before I get back to it. There are quite a few to cover.
What I said:
What you claimed I said:
Me correcting you:
There’s two. Keep going?
Wut? I’ve shown two lies already and you’ve responded now with two more plus this word salad. At this rate, I’m going to be able to go on indefinitely because you won’t stop lying.Yes please do because you have not shown anything close to a lie yet. General summary of your screeching, sure.
let me know when you find an actual lie.
Cause right now your really reaching.
Nice job twisting away from your general opinion (like what I did there) that the investigation is unnecessary.
“absolutely zero evidence of voter fraud to a degree that would change the election*.”
What you claimed I said:First, you show me where I claimed you said “I think the election results will change based on fraud.” I didn’t.
Me correcting what you said:You’ve never corrected a single thing I’ve posted.
Lol. I’ve done it twice in just the last two pages.
Wut? I’ve shown two lies already and you’ve responded now with two more plus this word salad. At this rate, I’m going to be able to go on indefinitely because you won’t stop lying.
What I actually said:
What you claimed I said:
Me correcting what you said:
More?
What I said:Yes we’ve established that you have nothing
Got it. You’re disingenuous.
Here’s one of your “there’s no proof” screeches. Summarizing your thoughts to reply to them is hardly lies. But you knew that already.
And further down the hole he goes.
So this wasn’t “no evidence” it was “no evidence of an inherent illegitimacy re: unsolicited mail in votes.” If you have a problem with vote by mail, which was approved by state legislatures, you should move to a state that did it and participate in their local elections.There’s absolutely nothing illegitimate about voting by mail. You’re just being a bitch because your boy lost by the biggest margin of any incumbent since Herbert Hoover.
The constitution doesn’t really provide for popular vote in presidential elections, but all 50 states have adopted that format. Constitutional provisions regarding legislative elections leave regulation of the process up to the states.
I’m old enough to remember when Republicans thought states should control their own elections, way back in May of 2020.
“I’m not opposed to vote-by-mail programs,” said Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), the ranking member on the House Rules Committee. But states, he said, should determine how to conduct their own elections, adapting to specific circumstances.
“We as Republicans have a distinct, different philosophy on what the federal government’s role in elections should be. We believe that the states and localities are the best ones to get their voters to the polls and recognize what’s going to give everybody an opportunity to cast a vote,” Davis continued.
Republicans and Democrats barrel toward collision on voting by mail
The states passed these procedures and each state has methods for verifying that the votes were legitimate. There’s not even a theory by which these states would use vote by mail to commit massive fraud to the tune of 15k+ votes. There’s not been a lawsuit that alleges fraud on that scale. The ones that have alleged smaller scale fraud have been tossed out of court for lack of evidence. Finally, afaik, the only battleground state that used this process was Nevada, and it is worth 6 electoral votes. Not enough to give the election to Trump.
What'll be interesting to see is how long the "serious" GOPers on the Hill keep playing along. There has to be an end point, and it's not going to come from him.If every vote in every state was hand counted by the justices of the Supreme Court and it confirmed Biden's landslide win, TRUMP WOULD STILL NOT CONCEDE. It will never happen. Most of us knew it would never happen. The Trumpers on here that claimed he would concede have once again been zombified into supporting his destruction of yet another American institution.
What I said:
View attachment 322502
What you claimed I said:
Me, bumping the post where I’ve already elaborated on why you’re wrong:
So this wasn’t “no evidence” it was “no evidence of an inherent illegitimacy re: unsolicited mail in votes.” If you have a problem with vote by mail, which was approved by state legislatures, you should move to a state that did it and participate in their local elections.
Trying to take statements out of context to win an argument on an online message board is more pathetic than dishonest, but it’s still dishonest. So I’m using it.
Still got a whole trove from the last time we had a discussion. Can do this all day.
What was it I lied about, exactly? Oh you mean where he lied about a different conversation to make it seem like I had said there was no evidence of any fraud whatsoever? Lol. I already corrected that one and added it to his list of lies.Slice pointed out your lie so join the club of lying posters
Also neither Slice nor I are Trumpkins so if you are including us in that you are guilty of another lie.
What I actually said:Yup. you’ve got nothing beyond not liking my summary of your posts. You’ve attempted to distract and called it correction but you have not corrected anything.
But hey continue on with your meltdown.
What you claimed I said:Not sure where you’ve been for the past few days but the meltdown has been on the border of pathetic and entertaining for a solid 48 hours. “It was fraud.” “Recount!!!” “State legislators should pick Trump’s Electoral college delegates.” “How does a guy who can’t get 30 people to his rallies win?” “There’s gonna be a hoe in the observatory!!!” Lmao it’s been a mirror image of 2016, but maybe all these folks are retired.
Me correcting you:except the guy melting down and complaining about the lawsuits being filed.
I’m not complaining about the lawsuits being filed.
I think once the first two or three break away, it will happen quickly. I'm also interested to see how it all plays out in GA with the recount going on and the two senate races being so important.What'll be interesting to see is how long the "serious" GOPers on the Hill keep playing along. There has to be an end point, and it's not going to come from him.
Lololyou said Slice "Cries that proof of lies is off topic"
he did not say that - it is your interpretation of what he said stated as a fact.
Since you are suggesting that I am a Trumpkin then you are guilty of another lie (according to how you define lies).
Welcome to the club - might want to do a big cut and paste of your own comments to prove to yourself that you are lying.
Admittedly I don't have my finger on the MAGA pulse, but from what I see it's mostly Trump himself who's whining about Fox.Let’s talk about the libs being called snowflakes and having safe spaces while Trumpers cry incessantly about Fox News not being nice to them so they all flee to NewsMax and OAN so their little feelings don’t get hurt.
He twice accused me of deflecting after I took him up on his repeated requests to show that he had lied. You think that “off topic” is a mischaracterization of what he said, or fundamentally changes his meaning the way that he did in all of my examples? If you can explain it, I’ll admit I was wrong.you said Slice "Cries that proof of lies is off topic"
he did not say that - it is your interpretation of what he said stated as a fact.
Since you are suggesting that I am a Trumpkin then you are guilty of another lie (according to how you define lies).
Welcome to the club - might want to do a big cut and paste of your own comments to prove to yourself that you are lying.