The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#10,776
#10,776
ClearwaterVol said:
Go back and reread your post to which I responded. Please point out the tolerant portions. You really need some self awareness.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of what I posted that you responded to. Tolerant was just what lefties like to say they are..an addon...what did I state that wasn't tolerant??? Have I called you post bullspit??
 
#10,777
#10,777
whodeycin85 said:
I'm aware of what I posted that you responded to. Tolerant was just what lefties like to say they are..an addon...what did I state that wasn't tolerant??? Have I called you post bullspit??
Click to expand...

You like to call names, assume arguments and positions prior to making them and get upset when you're called on it. Perhaps this whole message board thing ain't for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic, volfanhill and Sudden Impact
#10,778
#10,778
ClearwaterVol said:
You like to call names, assume arguments and positions prior to making them and get upset when you're called on it. Perhaps this whole message board thing ain't for you.
Click to expand...

You're throwing out as many insults as they are, so don't act superior. Also, dismissing what we say as conspiracy theory is getting old... way too many "conspiracy theories" have been absolutely true. It's the oldest trick in the liberal playbook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Vol since 77 and davethevol
#10,779
#10,779
ClearwaterVol said:
You like to call names, assume arguments and positions prior to making them and get upset when you're called on it. Perhaps this whole message board thing ain't for you.
Click to expand...
Whom have I called a name??? Did I not respond directly to your bullspit comment. What have you called out?? Please be specific.
 
#10,781
#10,781
jwilliams said:
You're throwing out as many insults as they are, so don't act superior. Also, dismissing what we say as conspiracy theory is getting old... way too many "conspiracy theories" have been absolutely true. It's the oldest trick in the liberal playbook.
Click to expand...

.0000001% of the conspiracy theories are proven true.
 
#10,786
#10,786
whodeycin85 said:
If people really voted 3rd party like they say, then 3rd party candidates would get more support ..but they don't.. majority is just lip service .
Click to expand...

I used to feel that way and voted third party. It's a waste that if anything has benefitted the dems. Perot was the only viable third party candidate in my lifetime. The argument is generally that third party candidates were immaterial because they failed to gain any electoral votes. The truth is that they can move swing states from R to D or sometimes D to R. The fun thing would be to see an election with a strong third party candidate that hurts dems; you'd hear some squealing like you've never heard before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85, jwilliams and Orangeburst
#10,787
#10,787
AM64 said:
I used to feel that way and voted third party. It's a waste that if anything has benefitted the dems. Perot was the only viable third party candidate in my lifetime. The argument is generally that third party candidates were immaterial because they failed to gain any electoral votes. The truth is that they can move swing states from R to D or sometimes D to R. The fun thing would be to see an election with a strong third party candidate that hurts dems; you'd hear some squealing like you've never heard before.
Click to expand...
we literally have people on here that admonish voting for Trump because he cannot win the general and then themselves vote 3rd Party candidate who have no shot whatsoever
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#10,788
#10,788
AM64 said:
I used to feel that way and voted third party. It's a waste that if anything has benefitted the dems. Perot was the only viable third party candidate in my lifetime. The argument is generally that third party candidates were immaterial because they failed to gain any electoral votes. The truth is that they can move swing states from R to D or sometimes D to R. The fun thing would be to see an election with a strong third party candidate that hurts dems; you'd hear some squealing like you've never heard before.
Click to expand...

Maybe Nader?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#10,789
#10,789
BowlBrother85 said:
I didn't have that sense about Obama in 2008 or in 2012.
Click to expand...

I absolutely voted against Obama. His key words about "fundamentally changing" the country was all it took. We may be far from perfect, but there's no way in hell that Obama had a clue about making anything better. I doubt seriously that I'm the only person who felt that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, Zues1, Vol since 77 and 3 others
#10,790
#10,790
AM64 said:
I absolutely voted against Obama. His key words about "fundamentally changing" the country was all it took. We may be far from perfect, but there's no way in hell that Obama had a clue about making anything better. I doubt seriously that I'm the only person who felt that way.
Click to expand...
that is crazy talk..fundamentally transform this great nation and the best form of government ever devised. Richard Dryfess talked about in his new book about how they don’t teach Civics and the lack of USC teachings. If they don’t know, how can future gens be expected to maintain it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and jwilliams
#10,791
#10,791
Sgt_Nick_Fury said:
Senseless trash suits etc should absolutely have to pay defense costs...but then you have to becareful....because larger entities financially can then make even harder for anyone to ever sue them etc. In Criminal cases I feel like defendents court costs should always be paid if not guilty up to a predetermined amount. Might calm down over zealous DA's.
Click to expand...

My thought is that DAs often prey on the weak with the thought that they can't afford a good defense ... maybe not a guaranteed win, but good odds. One great initiative for keeping legal costs high. Great legal representation is not the thing that only the wealthy should be able to afford. I think it's somewhat ironic that law and medicine generally have both the highest rewarded practitioners, the greatest ability to financially ruin the people they "help", and there are times you can't survive without either. At least with medicine, there's insurance. With DA malpractice and a corrupt supporting cast, most victims are just pretty much screwed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#10,792
#10,792
whodeycin85 said:
I appreciate your commitment to your party. Your fact check states in the conclusion that they're were spikes which is what I said. What your check don't argue is the statical anomalies of those spikes. I never said they all went for Joe which is what both those argue. But thanks for your fact checking something that wasn't stated.
Also the math etc, is pretty well laid out in the article I posted. I'm sure your didn't even read it
Click to expand...

Remember, they explained it all before: republican loafers voted all day, and dem voters showed up after work. Somehow that doesn't quite square with the fact that counting is supposedly not done until after the polls close unless you could assume somehow election officials manage to keep it all sequential ... and don't feed the same stack into the tabulator multiple times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#10,794
#10,794
AM64 said:
I used to feel that way and voted third party. It's a waste that if anything has benefitted the dems. Perot was the only viable third party candidate in my lifetime. The argument is generally that third party candidates were immaterial because they failed to gain any electoral votes. The truth is that they can move swing states from R to D or sometimes D to R. The fun thing would be to see an election with a strong third party candidate that hurts dems; you'd hear some squealing like you've never heard before.
Click to expand...
100% agree. All 3rd party voting does at this point without a viable candidate is 1. Help Dems more often because the GOP doesn't possess the same groupthink. 2. Allows those that do vote 3rd party an idea that they can complain about both sides and offer no solutions because their vote didn't win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#10,795
#10,795
AM64 said:
Remember, they explained it all before: republican loafers voted all day, and dem voters showed up after work. Somehow that doesn't quite square with the fact that counting is supposedly not done until after the polls close unless you could assume somehow election officials manage to keep it all sequential ... and don't feed the same stack into the tabulator multiple times.
Click to expand...
I wasn't even saying there was fraud, I was simply arguing that between statistical improbability of the vote spikes and chain of custody issues is more then enough to question the results. When you own election officials ignore the states laws of chain of custody and nothing happens, that an issue
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#10,798
#10,798
AM64 said:
You sticking with that? It's what we've been trying to tell you. Biden may have gotten more electoral votes ... because he got more illegal popular votes to get them.
Click to expand...
There is no credible proof of that, despite over 2 years of intense scrutiny. This is a pathetic display of sour grapes from people who are only adults in the academic sense of the word.
 
#10,799
#10,799
BowlBrother85 said:
There is no credible proof of that, despite over 2 years of intense scrutiny. This is a pathetic display of sour grapes from people who are only adults in the academic sense of the word.
Click to expand...

There's lots of credible proof, but you have to look at it in the aggregate. I've considered compiling everything into a single post, but nobody would read it because, well... frankly I don't think anyone is open to having their mind changed. Why not start with the ballot harvesting... true the vote put together some pretty compelling evidence of fraud there. Did you see 2000 Mules? What was your opinion of their findings?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#10,800
#10,800
jwilliams said:
There's lots of credible proof, but you have to look at it in the aggregate. I've considered compiling everything into a single post, but nobody would read it because, well... frankly I don't think anyone is open to having their mind changed. Why not start with the ballot harvesting... true the vote put together some pretty compelling evidence of fraud there. Did you see 2000 Mules? What was your opinion of their findings?
Click to expand...

It's like beating on a three foot thick rubber wall with a sledge hammer. Nothing gets through and they don't even hear the banging. Something else I've noticed is that "fact checkers" are pretty consistently aligned with the dem party; there seems to be a message in that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst and whodeycin85
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top