Trump

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

Hmm... just connecting the dots.

au·thor·i·tar·i·an

adjective
favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

Similar:
autocratic dictatorial totalitarian despotic tyrannical

so, does forcing people
to inject medicine they don’t wish to take, qualify as “forcing obedience to authority at expense to personal
freedom?”

how about telling military they can’t qualify for religious exemptions, which was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal judge?

trump trying toni return an election he didn’t win, obviously qualifies as dictatorial. but i don’t know that trump’s policies stripped
us of a lot of freedoms. he eliminated a lot of federal regulations. and no dictator wirthnhis salt, would
allow cnn and msnbc to attack him 24/7.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso;1220125

So let’s ignore any thing Trump ever said ,

[size=1

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

Democraps should be very grateful that MAGA Force tried to capture the flag because it’s the only distraction they can currently muster to deflect from the disaster that is Biden and his administration
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Well….dementia joe assured the nation the other day that he’s optimistic about 2020. So I guess there’s nothing to worry about. Can’t wait to hear what he tries to say tomorrow
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Mike Lindell says he'll be one of the opening acts at Trump's January 15 rally in Arizona, expects '60,000 people' to show up

can't wait

[wdmso]

guess they never said any of it

[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....

[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]

a few more

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

a few more

you’re proving my point. you show republican senators who condemned the 1/6 riot, as i have done.

where are the similarly influential
democrats condemning the summer 2020 riots, which were far more violent and destructive by any rational measure?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

God, Jim's ignorance is profound today.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

God, Jim's ignorance is profound today.

post the most ignorant thing i’ve said, please, madam.

lobbing baseless insults is your way of conceding defeat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

post the most ignorant thing i’ve said, please, madam.

lobbing baseless insults is your way of conceding defeat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We can start with your claim that Democrats did the same thing in 2016. During that certification a total of 7 electors were faithless. 5 (count 'em FIVE Jim) didn't pledge for HILLARY CLINTON when they should have. The other two were Red states that pledged to other Republican candidates.

The Dems didn't ask anyone to overthrow the election. Even if all 7 were for Trump it wouldn't have made any difference.

You are completely and verifiably wrong.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

We can start with your claim that Democrats did the same thing in 2016. During that certification a total of 7 electors were faithless. 5 (count 'em FIVE Jim) didn't pledge for HILLARY CLINTON when they should have. The other two were Red states that pledged to other Republican candidates.

The Dems didn't ask anyone to overthrow the election. Even if all 7 were for Trump it wouldn't have made any difference.

You are completely and verifiably wrong.

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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

[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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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?

[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.

[Pete F.]

When authoritarians take over, everyone is shocked.

"Wait...those clowns?"

But the other side isn't working in secret. They're telling you exactly what they'll do.

They've promised -- and executed -- political violence.

And that was just the dress rehearsal for the next one
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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

[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

[spence]

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

[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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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

Another one of your "close enough" slippery tricks. What Trump said was obvious hyperbole and obviously not true. If he unjustly shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, he would certainly lose support. And he would certainly be charged by eager DA's and publicly scorned not only by CNN but Fox as well. And by most, probably all, Republican politicians.

And Trump has said many things that are true. Which, of course, you would somehow discount as not being actually true, or mostly not true, but some sneaky, ego driven dribble that accidentally had some remote connection to some weak and not to be trusted, politically driven but truthful appearing spin. Sort of like a lot of the stuff you say.

For you, Trump is simply, and completely, a liar. But when he says something that is blatantly false, and actually hyperbolic "spin," and you can use it to make some damning accusation about him or his supporters, you jump all over it as the truest thing he ever said. Of course, that is consistent. Since for you, he being purely a liar, you're actually confirming your bias by sarcastically calling something that is not true the truest thing he ever said.

Your phony spin attempts to be a perfect rhetorical trick which closely elides, seemingly close enough, Trump's hyperbole with what you perceive to be a loyalty to Trump no matter how depraved, even to the point of flagrant, shameless murder, his actions may be.

This ranks right up there with some of the slimiest things you ever said.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You can listen to Peter Navarro explain just how the coup was supposed to work.

The Constitution only works if you respect it, otherwise it's just another piece of paper.

No, you're doing your verbal tricks again. Navarro tried to explain how the "plan" not the "coup" was meant to work. And he pointed out how it was according to constitutional principles.

The MSNBC guy never rebutted the constitutionality of the plan. He said the SCOTUS rejected it. But it was not accepted by SCOTUS because of process not because of legal merit. Three of the Justices did want to hear the case. The Court majority ruled that it was a matter to be decided at state levels. Which, per the Constitution, is what Navarro's plan would have done. But, ironically, the Jan6 riot stopped the cert. hearings just before Cruz, et. al. were about to implement it, and so that effort was scuttled by stopping the proceedings for safety, and when they resumed, certification was without further delay verified, and so then the plan was made mute.