OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Great. 2024- an 80 year old against an almost 80 year old. They'll have to have the debate in a freaking nursing home.
Come on, America. This is the best we can do?
Come on, America. This is the best we can do?
Meanwhile, Putin takes the spotlight from Trump by accidentally starting WW3.
what's the difference? Perhaps nothing to a try-too-hard dullard like you.
But the difference isn't between insinuating and indicating anyway, although they are not synonymous in my usage and there is a reason for using them as specifically as I did. The difference is that a question of possible cheating is indicated but that no insinuation of actual cheating came from me. I know of no actual cheating and said nothing to insinuate or indicate that there was. I said there is a question of possible cheating, which naturally occurs when an election is conducted in a manner conducive to that possibility......as I've already explained, even in the post that you replied to although not in the words you took out of context..
Once again you haplessly try too hard while failing miserably at painting me as the liar. Your failed attempt is in fact an example of the dishonesty inherent in your character.
I'm afraid that is as wrong as wrong can be. You are literally displaying symptoms of your TDS.
Trump didn't have enough to say about about the changes to the election that were occurring prior to it. He did most of his complaining after the fact. But you know who did have something to say before the election? Myself and others right here on this board. Before the literally unbelievable turnout occurred. Before the results were in. Before Trump blathered his useless protests.
Do you think Trump was manipulating us to voice our concerns through some sort of mindmeld? Get a grip. Because you've lost yours somewhere along the line.
Just as I said, a question of cheating would occur to anyone interested in an honest election when that election is held in a way that its honesty can be questioned.
I'm afraid you're showing all the symptoms of someone making every excuse in the book to defend the guy. If Trump didn't pedal this bullshit, I wouldn't mention his name. It's impossible not to. Don't blame me for reacting to corrosive rhetoric designed to sow discord and doubt in our Republic. You can't proclaim to be a proponent of democracy and then attack its main engine.
If you had concern about things beforehand, fine. We were in extraordinary circumstances. Covid changed how voting occurred in some fashion- dropboxes, expanded mail in voting, etc.. But that's not evidence of wrongdoing. Again, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that there was ACTUAL cheating.
Trump was absolutely manipulating vulnerable, disaffected people who saw their candidate lost to believe something that wasn't true. You may not consider yourself among them, given your claims of sounding the alarm beforehand. But there is a huge portion of Republican voters that were and still are. It's in that asshole's nature. He's a shameless, narcissistic liar. He doesn't stand for anything except himself.
this is actually hilarious.
I'm clearly trying to tell you, in response to you, that I called bullshit on the election without Trump's goading, BEFORE he was goading (not that I feel he was ever goading me).. Then I refer to his post-election protests as blathering and useless....and you still somehow manage to make it all about Trump and me. Your self-awareness, which should be extremely high, goes blank when the subject of Trump comes up. Your arguments where you use Trump as a weapon are pathetically weak and off-target, and you can't see it.
Try to get this in your head. I don't give a shit about Trump. I liked him a lot as our President but care nothing about his off-screen personality or character or his private presence or what he has to say about anything, until when and if he gets back in the ring. I actually wish he wouldn't. I didn't tune in to whatever he had to say last night, so I have no idea if he announced his candidacy or not. That should show anyone with the ability to reason that I and many other non-haters like me also aren't clinging to his every word as you are prone to insisting on believing.
But if he did and IF he becomes the nominee, I'll vote for him if nothing else changes. But I'd sooner vote for a different candidate because obsessed mutts like you have gone berserk in your psychotic desire to hate on the man, and the hysteria has taken wing. The majority of your Trump-hating ilk can't give a solid, BELIEVABLE, and substantial reason why he shouldn't be president. All you can do is hate, and then inject that hate into any argument that you have no other leg to stand on in.
Like I said, get a grip. Please. TDS is an ugly disease.
Edit to change the word project into inject.
Last edited:
nonsense reply. The answer is you're not complaining only because by your logic you have no reason to.
This nobody needs to spend time with Rogan, pooplinger, heelicious, and bleeds.
Last edited:
I think the point is that the machines are not so infallible as you might previously have insisted, and that they are in fact capable of falsely tabulating votes, and possibly being manipulated into doing so. The article clearly says that the former official in charge has been guilty of election-related fraud of some sort . Your mockery is ill-conceived.
But deflect with the fraud mockery if you think that makes you look savvy. It doesn't. I think knowing that the machines aren't perfect is valuable to any effort to keep elections on the up and up. Maybe it's just me, I guess not everyone cares about honest elections.
What? You're the one always working overtime trying to explain yourself through these idiotic long-winded posts. You couldn't be less succinct if you were on your deathbed taking your final breath.
You are undoubtably the angriest man in America recently made even angrier by the midterm election results. I'm sure Trump's announcement to run again in '24 is giving you a strange bit of satisfaction, though.
Keep the laughs coming, blue. If nothing else, you're always entertaining.
kinda sounds like you are saying Trump didn't voice election security or election fraud concerns prior to Nov 3rd, and that is wrong. Not only was he generally crying fraud pre-2016 and pre-2020, he attacked mail-in and ballot collection all spring, summer and fall leading up to the election and some of the rules debates just prior.
Of course his concerns were largely echoing fox news and other right-wing media.
Trump Has Turned ‘Ballot Harvesting’ Into A Rallying Cry Against Mail-In Voting—Here’s What It Is
The practice is legal in 26 states.
www.forbes.com
here are my exact words. Do they really indicate to you that I said Trump had nothing to say before the election? If so, try to gain some reading comp. before you post.kinda sounds like you are saying Trump didn't voice election security or election fraud concerns prior to Nov 3rd, and that is wrong. Not only was he generally crying fraud pre-2016 and pre-2020, he attacked mail-in and ballot collection all spring, summer and fall leading up to the election and some of the rules debates just prior.
Of course his concerns were largely echoing fox news and other right-wing media.
Trump Has Turned ‘Ballot Harvesting’ Into A Rallying Cry Against Mail-In Voting—Here’s What It Is
The practice is legal in 26 states.
The post I was responding to was trying to posit that Trump was the one guy who singlehandedly put the notion of a fraudulent election in everyone's mind. I tried to put the kibosh on that idiotic notion. Many of us were calling bullshit on the supposedly covid-related changes that were in fact in some cases made counter to rules and regs in place, and Trump had nothing to do with it. Trump is Trump but the scorn and hate heaped on him is nothing less than idiotic. Thanks for your particular contribution to that.
instead of having any answer to my points, you can only argue about how succinct I am in making them. Oh, and supplying some emoji in place of any substance. Somehow, this doesn't surprise me.
I've already pointed out your blunder. By "indicating that the question of cheating is on the table" you are by definition insinuating that there may have been cheating. And I'm not arguing about how succinct you are. Just the opposite, I'm talking about how succinct you aren't, you rambling blowhard.
repeating the same miscue doesn't help you. Ignoring my adequate response doesn't either. A blowhard is someone with nothing to say but who says it anyway. The blowhard is you
BTW, you illiterate idiot, arguing about how succinct I am means just that, how succinct I am. The interpretation of how much that is depends on the reader. Try too hard, moron, try way too hard. You can't make a point out of nothing, but that's all you can try to do.
Last edited:
I guess you're just too stupid to understand the difference between insinuating that there was actual cheating and simply saying that the question of possible cheating exists. To say that the possibility of cheating is in question does not mean actual cheating was insinuated or indicated. It just means that the election wasn't conducted in a way that excludes the possibility and therefor the questioning. No actual cheating has to take place for the question to arise. All that being said, I am not trying to say or insinuate to the rational mind that cheating took place, I'm clearly saying that the possibility can't be excluded. Maybe there was cheating, maybe there wasn't, and the election leaves itself open to the question. A properly conducted election doesn't lend itself to such questioning.
Actually, you aren't that stupid, you've just chosen the lowest form of dishonest argument, which is to feign stupidity in order to conjure the appearance of a point. As usual, you fail in making a point but succeed in displaying your dishonest approach to everything..
Then your skepticism regarding the 2020 election and beyond clearly comes from a different place than it does for others. I understand that now. That doesn't mean, I agree with it, however. We probably won't see eye to eye on that front. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last.
I and many others simply don't see the expanded voting practices of that year as illegitimate. You do. But the engine of democracy is still strong. Despite all of the hand wringing and concerns, some of which I've voiced myself, people still got off their ass and voted. People still sent in mail in ballots. The machines, aside from Maricopa County that one morning, worked. So my faith is very much alive.
Well, we agree there. He's better off as an influence in the party, not its head. But ego and need for attention won't allow him to do that. He literally can't help himself.
I can. One simple reason: he tried to stay in power when he lost an election, then helped foment a riot at the Capitol Building to prevent the certification of the Electoral College. He tried to destroy this country for the sake of his own narcissistic idiocy.
That's not TDS. That's just a fact. He's not worthy of being President. He never was. I can live with DeSantis, I can live with Nikki Haley, I can live with Glenn Youngkin. But not him. He'd sooner burn the whole forest down if it meant he could remain the king of it.
Last edited:
good post, except for the last two paragraphs which are full of the kind of distortions and overstatements that I loathe and which indicate TDS. Of course, if I try to correct them, then I am a MAGA Trumper defending his every word.
It isn't just me who gets labeled that way, it's anyone who dares to inject reason into the Trump narrative. He tried to stay in power after an election that was highly questionable. He was not responsible for the riot at the Capitol, he was responsible for a rally that he in no way indicated should turn into a violent mob trying to accomplish anything at all. It cracks us up how you and others of your mind can ignore actual calls for disruption and violence from leftist leaders that has led to great destruction, while only keying on a single right winger who was only obliquely involved in a much smaller disturbance, laughably calling it the near-destruction of our country.
Get a grip.
By the way, I think you meant foment, not ferment. You're welcome.
I have a feeling we will see some evidence soon that will call into question the violent insurrection the J6 committee and the media have tried to play.
Edit has been made, thank you.
I think there is definitely reason to be had when it comes to Trump. It's difficult because he's such a polarizing figure but it can be done. I'm on record multiple times saying that in the beginning Trump hit on quite a few issues that had been largely ignored by mainstream politics, Democrats and Republicans alike. The way liberal media fixated on his every word, in context or not, did nothing to quell the constant circus surrounding him. It became just as exhausting as the hardcore MAGA types who worshipped the guy. It was unhelpful and fed the toxicity.
However, there is no middle ground when it comes to January 6th. There was nothing questionable about that election. It became questionable because Trump made it so. You may not feel that way given your own doubts were independent of Trump, but the man was saying this kind of shit long before then. 2016 even. He doesn't mind saying what he needs to in order to hang onto power. He's a compulsive liar. He absolutely played a part in that riot. He is absolutely responsible for turning what should have been a routine peaceful transfer of power into what was his own version of an attempted coup.
And as you just saw, his personal brand is persona non grata in far too many states and areas in this country to win a majority. That's why he basically tried sticking election deniers in all the battleground states. So he could win in 2024 regardless of the actual outcome.
Lol coming from a panel run by Jim Jordan and the ass kisser known as Kevin McCarthy? Unlikely. Your attempts at historical revisionism of that day are laughable.
I'm not insinuating that you are a total moron, I'm just indicating that everything you write is completely moronic.
They all lie. Would you like a list of the current president's lies? They occur on a daily basis. He gave seniors a raise, his son died in Iraq, inflation is way down, gas was $5 when he took office, student loan forgiveness passed by a vote or 2, no vaccines when he took office, get the vaccine and you can't transmit covid, I got arrested for protesting civil rights, you want some more? Here's a partial list.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=joe-biden
Be patient grasshopper.....
But while we are at it could you ask Swallwell and Schiff to go ahead and release the concrete Russian collusion info they have? TIA
There is a difference between a 'reframing' or saying things that are misleading about political accomplishments and outright lying. Biden is a classic politician using politician speak. Most of these are innocuous statements.
Trump lied in order to stay in power. He tried to upend the entire system.
Funny how you'll use politifact when it suits you and then decry it when it doesn't.
About 41% of Biden's statements were either false, mostly false, or pants on fire. About 74% of Trump's statements fall under the same category. Who's the bigger liar? Lol. I'll answer that- the one who conned you into believing he gave a shit about rural, small town conservatives such as yourself.
Idk. Tell me when Hunter's laptop actually provides relevant information.
Kinda like you reframing or saying misleading things? Did you watch the insurrectionists beating the shit out of the capital police in the video? Get back to me when you do.
Similar threads
