On Nov 29, 2020:
posted by QuakerOats
You sound just like the like AP
Says the guy who regularly sounds like a QAnon nut.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Yeah...if you think what Trump is doing is just like the other times, you do not understand US History. One little link you posted just glosses over a lot of things.
For example, in 1960, Nixon conceded easily so it cannot be used. The examples in the 1880s were a little different based on the system in place at the time. But, even then, it was not at the level of what Trump is saying and doing. Trump is basically saying the entire election result is false.
I think the last two pages of this thread has proven you to be the one that doesn’t understand history as you have been proven wrong a couple times on historical items.
Either you don’t understand it or are a partisan hack unwilling to admit when you make a mistake or are wrong.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Yeah, that is because the adults in the room, the Republican party, basically told him it's over.
True. Sadly no one in the minority party in either of the last two impeachments took on that role.
I agree that impeachment has by far been the worst. This election bullshit is dumb, but it went through correct channels vs a garbage political game.
Don’t get me wrong, Trump has no chance, but get outta here w this is somehow worse than a 4 year witch hunt.
posted by gutContest the election, fine. But don't let your lawyers run around telling everyone they have proof "Trump won by millions of votes"....while not supplying any proof. Even Rush Limbaugh said you can't promise bombshells, and then not produce anything.
Undermining confidence in our elections, both at home and abroad, is easily the worst thing Trump has done. Fortunately, with his history of lying I doubt anyone takes him seriously. Well, aside from millions in the MAGA nation who still believe, without any evidence at all, that Trump won.
I don’t disagree, but that is no worse than the Pelosi’s and Schiff’s promising bombshells of Russia collusion that never happened either but led to an impeachment for no valid reason.
Our system is broken, both sides suck donkey balls. To act like Trump is so much worse than the dems is just plain ignoring reality.
posted by ptown_trojans_1How many times in US history has a sitting President or challenger contested the results of the election in US history to this extent in contrast to what his party is saying? Once, and in 2000 when it was one state and a few hundred votes.
Impeachment has been done now twice in the last 25 years....so yes. Impeachment is a 7 and what the President is doing is a 9 or 10.
I don't think you understand how, in terms of US history, how rare and dangerous what President Trump is doing right now.
It is quite obvious you are the one that doesn’t understand.
There have been a grand total of 3 Presidents that have been impeached.
There have been 4-5 (depending on source) if heavily contested Presidential elections that have either gone to court or had to be settled by compromises between the two parties through special conventions.
So 3 impeachments, 4 or 5 badly contested elections.
Want to stick with your rarity argument for 9 vs 7 still?
Your confirmation bias is showing.
posted by ptown_trojans_1
Let's just use a scale of 1-10 for example. Let's say just the Russia stuff was let's say a 5 on the scale of getting rid of the President, impeachment was probably let's say a 7. What Trump is doing is like a 9 or 10.
But, you do you.
So wait, impeachment is a 7 and what is currently going on is a 9?
You can’t be fucking serious anymore.
Impeachment, the actual Constitutional way of getting rid of a President is a 7.
Trying to use courts to throw out questionable votes (in their mind, not mine) is a 9.
Read all that again, and say it again. Maybe you will hear how stupid it sounds if you say it out loud?
Come on ptown, the “I’m a moderate really guys?!” schtick is up after that post.
Impeachment is a 7, challenging votes is a 9...seriously I can’t make that shit up.
posted by QuakerOats
I stick to numbers, reason and logic. To have certain democrat stronghold areas inside swing states go from 55 - 60% historical turnout to 80-90% is a statistical impossibility; not an improbability, an impossibility, without fraud. This is not complicated. The mail-in ballots were the perfect vehicle to deliver the desired result.
I can't wait for the evidence in the courts to back that up...oh...you mean there is actually zero evidence.....
Again, cite the actual court case and evidence or get the fuck out of here with your bullshit.
posted by ptown_trojans_1So are you my sad little friend.
I can't help it you are trying to say that Trump using the courts before the final EC votes to contest the election is worse than the dems using 3.5 years of public MSM and HoR/Senate to impeach a POTUS after the EC vote/election.
The only difference between the two are when it happened in the election cycle, how long the party spent doing it, and what avenue (courts vs Senate). Its still the same thing, attacking a duly elected president as illegitimate and trying to remove a duly elected president.
Trump right now is no different than what the dems did for 3.5 years. Both are wrong, but you acting like the dems were better is hilariously biased.
posted by jmogYou said one correct thing there.
You are living in your own world.
So are you my sad little friend.
posted by ptown_trojans_1No you are not, and you are combining so many different things over the last four years to try and compare it to what the President is doing now.
You simply are mistaking some of the events top try and prove your point. Stating the Russia bullcrap to impeach Trump is wrong as you need to go back and remember it was about the Ukraine call and even the China statement about Biden. But, I'll let your mistake slide for now.
This is what I meant when I said a few weeks ago about living in two different worlds. I live in one where what the President is doing is pretty damn historic, pathetic, and way outside the norm. You are trying to both sides it and come up with your own story to not accept the reality of the situation.
You said one correct thing there.
You are living in your own world.
posted by jmogIt’s not accepting/fighting an elected president, not on policy but being “illegitimately” elected.
I am comparing apples to apples, you just don’t want to admit it. The democrats made up Russia bull crap to impeach Trump because, in their own words, he was illegitimately elected.
You are trying to act like the dems are holier than thou in this case because they didn’t fight the election, but they fought the results of that election for 3.5 f’ing years.
It is not different and you know it, you just won’t admit it.
No you are not, and you are combining so many different things over the last four years to try and compare it to what the President is doing now.
You simply are mistaking some of the events top try and prove your point. Stating the Russia bullcrap to impeach Trump is wrong as you need to go back and remember it was about the Ukraine call and even the China statement about Biden. But, I'll let your mistake slide for now.
This is what I meant when I said a few weeks ago about living in two different worlds. I live in one where what the President is doing is pretty damn historic, pathetic, and way outside the norm. You are trying to both sides it and come up with your own story to not accept the reality of the situation.
posted by jmogMaybe you have me confused with someone who is a Trump fan. All I did was read the article and go by what it said and then asked what I was missing.
The article stated they certified under the understanding there would be an audit. They changed their vote once an audit was taken off the table. Trump then did something stupid and got involved/called them and invited them to the WH like a moron not realizing how that looks optics wise.
Trump is a moron and did a moron thing, we know he is a moron. But based on the article it isn’t a fact that they changed to not certify after he called. Unless, again, I am missing something.
They didn’t change their vote to not certify though. They likely won’t have a chance to either. They wanted to rescind their vote. They said they wanted to rescind their vote on Wednesday. They talked to Trump Tuesday night. Those are the facts. You can claim that they wanted to change their vote the whole time but that’s not what happened. They voted to not certify. 2 hours later they changed their vote to certify after being lambasted by the community on a zoom call. Trump called them that night. They next day they said they wanted to rescind their vote. It’s highly inappropriate for a sitting president to call voter canvassers. Even more inappropriate to invite them to the White House and they say they want to rescind their votes the next day.
posted by ptown_trojans_1No. I am doing a 1 to 1 comparison.
It is not semantics. You are the one comparing apples and oranges.
It’s not accepting/fighting an elected president, not on policy but being “illegitimately” elected.
I am comparing apples to apples, you just don’t want to admit it. The democrats made up Russia bull crap to impeach Trump because, in their own words, he was illegitimately elected.
You are trying to act like the dems are holier than thou in this case because they didn’t fight the election, but they fought the results of that election for 3.5 f’ing years.
It is not different and you know it, you just won’t admit it.
posted by kizer permanenteThe revised vote is when they voted to certify after not certifying. They haven’t voted to not certify. They want to rescind that revised vote. So you’re saying Trump called them to thank them after voting to certify? And you and qq want people to believe captain quid pro quo just called to thank them for their service after they voted to certify?
Maybe you have me confused with someone who is a Trump fan. All I did was read the article and go by what it said and then asked what I was missing.
The article stated they certified under the understanding there would be an audit. They changed their vote once an audit was taken off the table. Trump then did something stupid and got involved/called them and invited them to the WH like a moron not realizing how that looks optics wise.
Trump is a moron and did a moron thing, we know he is a moron. But based on the article it isn’t a fact that they changed to not certify after he called. Unless, again, I am missing something.
posted by ptown_trojans_1We are talking past each other, which I think has happens to me a lot of here the last few months. You seem to be equating what Trump is doing to what Clinton and the Dems did in 2016, but that is not right at all. The correct comparison would be if Clinton did the same thing that Trump is doing now with lawsuits and if Obama said to hold on and wait until everything is certified. Sure, Clinton and the Dems did blame Russia, but they also said that Trump won the actual election, that the numbers were legit. They did not question the vote total. It is not a fair comparison at all.
You are now arguing semantics to sound right and moving the goalposts.
posted by kizer permanentehttps://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-targets-vote-certification-29da6aac9cc41e47f3095855e7af7031
Trump reached out to the canvassers, Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, on Tuesday evening after the revised vote to express gratitude for their support. Then, on Wednesday, Palmer and Hartmann signed affidavits saying they believe the county vote “should not be certified.”
So he thanked them after they changed their vote. What am I missing. They didn’t change it after he called them.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Even setting aside that, the state of Michigan has not found any irregularities that merit the audit, so they dropped it. Court case after court case has been dismissed because there is no fraud. None.
Setting that aside, you have to admit, it is pretty damn bad for the President to call these guys and invite them to the White House.
False; the Trump campaign has only filed 3 lawsuits and only one was dropped and that was only because they got the relief they wanted.
All other cases were filed by individuals or other parties and those that have been dropped were due to lack of standing, in that the suits were filed before the election, not after.
Real facts still matter.
Yeah, I also think that the majority of the people aren't loyal to D or R. They'll just vote for lesser of evils, if there is such a thing.
I'm currently trying to brainwash my older family to not be afraid to vote 3rd party. I say brainwash because that's the sort of effort it will take. I need new pledges to this fledgling cult of mine!