Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by FryDaddyJr, Nov 25, 2020.
You may not be aware that the side-show at the Wyndham was not actually a legislative hearing (which would have been bipartisan). It was a meeting of something called the Majority Policy Committee, essentially a caucus meeting of Republican legislators. They called it a "hearing" but you will note that contrary to your assertion, those who spoke as witnesses were not sworn in and made no oaths regarding the truthfulness of their testimony.
This is in keeping with the entire farce that has been the Trump claim of a "stolen" election. There have been abundant assertions by various people of supposed impropriety, but when the rubber hits the road and it's time to prove allegations about the election in court where bare assertion is insufficient to carry the day, they have failed miserably and repeatedly.
That should be a clear indication regarding the truthfulness, accuracy, and validity of the claims. Instead, we're supposed to believe not only that there was a nation-wide conspiracy to steal the election, but that somehow the failure to prove the existence of any part of the conspiracy in the courts of the US is irrelevant, and in fact is evidence that the courts of the US are in on the conspiracy.
I asked you to provide your theory regarding this curious phenomenon of the courts repeatedly dismissing the suits brought by the Trump campaign and associated Republicans. You have failed to do so.
Recusant - Sorry about the tone of my earlier reply. Checking back, yes you are correct. I was a bit over enthusiastic thinking that I had found actual testimony. Their lawyers had claimed they had they have sworn affirmatives, and I have not found a source challenging that fact. Plus also they have been to court more than a few times. Okay, my bad. The problem I am having is lack of clear information. I check both sides, and no matter how hard I look, it always an opinion of an opinion, of an opinion. Which leaves everyone nowhere.
Bingo! You are correct. It is highly confusing and intentionally so. That is the point. Sew doubt and mistrust. Cast aspersions and almost plausible lies and people feel vindicated in any conspiracy they buy into. It's sad that we've devolved to this point in our politics.
What is confusing about dozens of failed law suits? The claims have been tested time and time again in court and have been rejected.
Thank you, I'm not crazy. I see it happening on both sides of the fence with no middle ground. My father was a journalist. He was Sunday editor for a local paper. Moved up to a bigger town and did federal reporting. I grew up learning the rules of the game in no uncertain terms. At my house you never said "Oh, that's the guy who robbed the 7-11" without be asked if I had all the information, if I was judge, jury, and executioner, or was I convicting him without a trial. This is a mans reputation and it was taken very seriously. At home he made calls to read the story to the person it was about and always gave them a chance to respond. The word "alleged" had a very clear definition and wasn't put there for the lawyers. Gannett bought the paper wanted him to do a hit piece on a Gubernatorial Candidate. "If someone said it, you print it...." At 55 he walked out and never did journalism again. I miss that level of integrity in the craft.
If that is your level of concern, fine. All the cases are wanting to change the election results and the evidence they have at this point is insufficient for such a drastic move. Which I agree. I have already stated Biden is in and Trump will step down. Personally, I don't give a damn who's president or the outcome of the 2020 elections. What I do care about is the 2022 elections and the manner in which the last 2 presidential elections have been managed. In 2018 the FBI lied to the FISA court in order to spy on a presidential candidate, which helped start an impeachment which yielded nothing. This time, statistical anomalies are reported and as are the blocking of election observers. Be it intentional or incompetence, all that I am saying is that we need to investigate it and fix any found problems so our confidence in the system is restored.
To you and I maybe not confusing. To the illiterate rubes of the world, ain't no highfalutin judge gonna tell me there weren't no cheatin' goin' on.
At least the Russians weren't fixing the elections this time, or were they...... Whahahahah.........
No one ever said that they were fixing the elections. The were interfering in the elections through social media and other attempts to gain access to the voting systems across the country. Outright fixing the elections is probably still beyond their capabilities.
OK, present the evidence.
Three hours worth of observations and reports of improprieties from pole watchers. Video in post #17.
Okay, now you present Adam Schiff's whistle blower and all the infallible evidence of Russia collusion.
You had a corrupt FBI, a congressional investigation, hammering press, and an impeachment proceeding that came up with nothing. We have had less than a month and you had years.
I do, however have evidence of Quid pro Quo in the Ukraine, I'll share it with you.
Stupid is as stupid does . . .
you're right. "The Federalist" is a right wing dummy site
Sorry, but that was a feeble try FD. Try again . . . Joe didn't stick his foot in his mouth . . . he kicked himself in the head.
Like the Freudian slip about having "the most extensive and inclusive, voter fraud organization in the history of American politics." Sometimes if you listen closely to the words people choose, it gives you insight into what's going on underneath.
This guy is going to be fun to watch, impeach you later...
now you're just trolling.
If ever a pot called a kettle black . . .
When a politician stands up and says that if he loses the election, the vote is rigged, you are basically hearing a politician telegraphing that he knows he is losing and is willing to attack the process to achieve some type of hypothetical victory strictly for his own ego.