Trump

[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

[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

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?

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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...

[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