Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Of course they will. Because the only other explanation would be that Trump just isn't popular with normal Americans. Inconceivable!
Yes, Trump will once again say "I'll accept the results if I win."
Opinion
21Opinion
Trum will say "The only way I lose is if the election is rigged," and just like everything else he has ever said, MAGA will believe him. If he loses, he'll tell them to "stop the steal!" and they'll march on the capital again.
I didn’t believe that the 2020 election was stolen… but I have to tell you, after seeing all the shenanigans with the courts and lawsuits that even involved the Supreme Court who had to lay down a 9-0 decision, this seems wrong, rigged and a concerted effort to not allow my and others votes count in every way possible. My government and the complete shits running it are very likely doing illegal things and hijacking our democracy and Constitution. Civil war may be coming, honestly.
Of course. And this time I suspect they will attempt a much broader civil war effort. It was a mistake to let the confederates back in the first time, in my opinion..
Lincoln showed gave them amnesty. They should’ve all been imprisoned instead after the civil war.
Except that Trump is probably not going to lose in November, because Biden has been absolutely terrible. All Biden had to do is "not suck" as President, and he hasn't even been able to that. So it's probably going to be the far-left liberals and socialists in this country who will be whining in November.
By 2026, non-Fascists will be whining as the U. S. begins to resemble Franco's Spain and Mussolini's Italy.
@handsomelad70 Populism isn't fascism.
@msc545 No it's not.
Nationalism is putting your own country first on the world stage, prioritizing domestic policy over international policy, and the counter answer to independence-killing globalization. Think of a family in a residence with each member being independent and unique, and sometimes having domestic differences. Outside their residence, they're a united front, and have each other's back.
Fascism warps nationalism and uses it as an excuse to suppress differences at home, and to attack and conquer others abroad.
I know far-left liberals and socialists like to call Trump a fascist, but if he is a fascist, he's not a very good fascist. Prior to the pandemic shutdown, during the Trump administration, the country was humming along with a good economy, no inflation, low unemployment, no new wars started, and no pre-existing military operations being increased. People can dislike or outright hate him all they want, but those are all facts.
If anything, modern far-left liberals and socialists in this country are doing a far better job resembling fascists, with their lack of tolerance for different ideas and opinions, their quest to sensor speech and comedy, trying to cancel anyone who does anything to hurt their feelings, putting more importance on race and sex instead of merit, and being far more concerned with other countries' borders than our own borders.
@msc545 I always leave the whining to the professional whiners:
twitter.com/.../864522009048494080?lang=en
Is the Pope Catholic? Is water wet? Are our Northern territories cold in winter? Is Lizzo fugly? Are buxom blondes HOT?
@handsomelad70
1.) Yes, since 514 AD or since 1054 AD, depending on the source.
2.) They Might Be Giants have been asking that question since 1990:
https://youtu.be/mLjRouIKYsU?si=kzQp4dzaClgOCQeg
3.) No, for two specific reasons. First, Alaska and every other area that borders Canada are states, not territories. Second, the closest territories the United States has to either the North Pole or the South Pole are Midway Atoll and American Samoa, respectively:
https://geology.com/state-map/us-territories.shtml
weatherspark.com/.../Average-Weather-in-Midway-Islands-U.S.-Outlying-Islands-Year-Round
weatherspark.com/.../Average-Weather-in-American-Samoa-Year-Round
4.) Do bears shit in the woods?
5.) Usually, but also depends on one's taste.
that's why we all need to ensure illegals/non citizens aren't voting, don't do the mail in baloney. People show up, check their ID, they vote once, all is good. especially needs to happen in contested states. Thats what we did when I worked the elections, primarily... we did have mail in and paper ballots.
Fail to be confident in the processes, all bets are off.
My advice is that both candidates review and signoff on the processes prior to election. They do anyways, but that way, they are fixed.
@lightbulb27 The only reason you don't have confidence in the process is because Trump and his supporters have been lying to you about it for years (since before 2016).
@goaded hopefully biden wins by a wide margin so there isn't a ruckus. if it's close on either side... it's re-check the whole thing. othewise... could be a mess.
I don't trust Democrats because of what they have said, how they behave, and the decisions they make. That's on them creating the dynamic.
* I've complained in prior elections... when the Rove/Bush slime machine brought church pastors together for a brain washing event, and such pastors went out and brainwashed their flocks. I was disgusted, it was obvious manipulation. Fraud or crime, no.
* Wasserman Schulz incident in the primary where Democrats were caught cheating.
* A recent local election where a judge through out the election because of evidence of ballot stuffing (by democrats).
I won't get into the Trump stuff. I accepted the result when Pence signed off. Do I trust either party, nope and given what they say and think, I trust democrats less. I trust processes.
I worked in election and thought we did things well in my area, very detailed. But when I hear some places don't require an ID, etc.. or that democrats don't want an ID required to vote (they are warming up to it)... talk of non citizens voting, why am I to trust that? It's wrong to me. Some places do things right, some do them wrong. when vote is so close, it make doubt. I would ensure both parties sign off prior to the count, on processes:)
good luck to us all...
As trump said, don't trust anyone. that makes sense...
They re-checked things last time, it didn't help. There were three counts in Georgia confirming the result by December 7th, weeks before Trump made his phone call to interfere in the state's running of the election on January 2nd.
edition.cnn.com/.../index.html
edition.cnn.com/.../index.html
That Democratic ballot stuffing was in a primary for a city mayor. I'm not defending it, just saying it pales in comparison to NC-09 in 2018. That was the election for the federal representative and the Republican who cheated would have won if the system hadn't worked properly. Four or five people went to prison for that.
en.wikipedia.org/.../2018_North_Carolina%27s_9th_congressional_district_election
I think everyone's OK with ID to vote, when it's not being used as a voter suppression tool. It's almost completely unnecessary if people come in with their voter notification letter, but whatever.
There are nine states that don't have Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trails (where you have to trust the machines tabulated the votes correctly, no re-counts), eight of them are Republican states (judging by their senators).
ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_state
I'd be more suspicious of those, and states where there are massive (hours long) queues because the polling places are underfunded in urban, generally Democratic, areas.
Non-citizens aren't voting. They can't get on the voter rolls to start with. (There may be some mistakes, like the ex-felons in Florida who were told by the state they could vote, then got arrested for voting.)
@goaded fair points. I won't argue too much.
Agree, states that don't have audit trail be of concern as well
Massive lines in democartic areas. If democrats can't fix that, don't know what to tell them. they own it.
non citizens - www.nytimes.com/.../...zens-nyc-voting-rights.html
I'm not saying that is federal, it's local.
I don't care so much there because we know nyc will go democrat. I do care locally... but oh well... they decide their fate.
I've not heard that "Everyones ok with ID to vote", I've only heard arguments that don't make sense about what you stated and how some people don't have ID's. if democrats haven't gotten people ID's by now, I don't know what to tell them.
i've seen fraud at local level: basically buying votes. I've seen the media manipulation (tell big tech what they can play.. that can throw an election). Your example of NC is more evidence. So it exists, motive exists.
Most people don't think this hard, they only react. My point remains... it better look good going in or else consequences.
If trump wins, I think will be a mess as he's faught tooth and nail. Biden wins, a mess. it's gonna be a mess... so I don't pay that much attention anymore and just do what I can do.
"Massive lines in democartic areas. If democrats can't fix that, don't know what to tell them. they own it. "
It happens most in urban (more Democratic leaning) areas in elections run by Republicans. How are Democrats supposed to fix it?
Yes, non-US citizens are allowed to vote in elections they're allowed to vote in. It makes sense that people with childen in their local school get to vote on who's on the board of the school.
Are you denying that when people talk about immigrants voting they're implying they're not doing it legally? Or that it's for state or federal elections?
If Democrats handed out free IDs to voters, Republicans would be shouting that they were buying votes. It's the job of the state to ensure that as many eligible voters as possible are able to vote.
@goaded this guy doesn't like voter ID's.
www.bizpacreview.com/.../
And it's really disgusting how Kamala goes to "black people" and talks about how their rights are under attack. that's called inflaming people. it's false.
I accept NYC law that allows illegals to vote. I don't agree with it, but I understand their rational.
There's always calls to get people registered to vote, so address issues then.
I don't know enough about Republican controlled poorly funded areas, won't comment there. Usually, such areas I've seen are democrat strongholds.
in general, I'm staying out of the politics mess, takes energy, there is no benefit to discussing it. I'll place my vote and let it ride. my point was to do things in such a way it's hard to make a mess like last time. easier this time (to enforce he's the loser if he loses) since trumps the outsider. when he was in office, it made more of a mess. but all bets are off on far right reactions.
@goaded apologies, I'd have to review what all those terms mean as there are shades of grey..." legal non citizen". 800,000 of them?
so if I go tto school in France, I live there, pay my taxes from part time job, can I vote.. eventhough I'm not french, never will be? how about in China or Russia. I don't understand what country is anymore... I like the concept... let me vote in every country, I'll just fly around, work there... legally, and vote, and leave. So all of USA can fly to Russia, vote putins mayors out, and leave? Or all of russia crash the border, go to nyc (all 100 million of them), vote (locally), and leave. extremes of course, but doesn't make sense does it? there must be a border, must be control, must be some rational. To me, you have to be a citizen, beholden to the rights/responsibilities/flag/etc.. then can vote for that country. the local, I see the argument, I'm on the side of "no vote". but history doesn't agree with me...
Yeah, like I was in Germany for nearly 20 years. I was British (still am), living in Germany, with a German house, German wife, and children with dual nationalities. I could vote in local elections, just not in state or federal ones (yes, Germany is also a federal republic).
When people try to make out that illegal immigrants are voting, they're lying, especially if they try to make out that it's in nationwide elections. But that's normal, with today's Republican party and its enablers.
For example, remember how I said "The only reason you don't have confidence in the process is because Trump and his supporters have been lying to you"? Your www.bizpacreview.com/.../ link is a good example of that.
"In his remarks at the Tabernacle Baptist Church, Garland told the crowd that the rights of black Americans and “other voters of color” to vote has “never been steady” and that the Justice Department is devoted to fighting what he described as “discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary” measures put into place to stop Democrat cheating."
The truth is that he said that, but the whole thing's a lie, because there wasn't "Democrat cheating", so the measures are there to cheat against the Democrats by making it harder for their voters to vote.
Trump votes by mail
@OtterMan68 The Republicans in Florida loved vote by mail until they didn't. There's no principle there, they switch between being for or against things depending on what they think will gain them power.
how many instances of non-citizens voting in federal elections have there been?
@NYCQuestions1976 LMAO! What exactly is the "deliberate disinformation" you're accusing me of, here?
The amount of projection from you is getting worse.
@OtterMan68 That New York City law, if it had been allowed to stand, would've been the gateway to what your sarcastically downplaying. People need to see and understand the eventual intentions behind the current actions.
@goaded Just specifically on this thread? Claiming that New York City "non-citizen" was just for "school board" elections, which is false.
@goaded yes I'm sure Reps support mail in and I do as well at times, for certain purposes. In areas with confidence, not a problem. Problems are not real but perceived. I would reduce risk there is election disagreement as much as possible. I would require a voter to show up with their ID and vote once. Mail in for military and specific situations. That is solvable by people choosing to vote in person rather than laws. Ya don't want an election mess this time next year, which is possible. Part of the problem is Trump, if he loses, it's a fraud. If he wins even by one vote, he wins. I agree with that. But if biden loses by a vote, there will be a recount.
I never liked the personality of trump, still don't. I begged and borred democrats to present me a better option, but they didn't. Republicans tried to offer alternative, s but the people chose Trump. So that's the mess we got. Reduce risk.
I'll do the same I did last time... accept the result. Some % may not, either way it goes. Think Antifa shows up again in force if Trump wins? They will.
@NYCQuestions1976 As usual, you're ridiculous.
I said "It makes sense that people with childen in their local school get to vote on who's on the board of the school," I didn't say that was the only thing they could possibly vote for. It also makes sense for people living in a town or city legally to be able to vote in local elections.
Talking of disinformation, @lightbulb27 is the one who brought up that law (after it had finally been found unconstitutional, mind) implying illegal immigrants were being allowed to vote. But I'm supposedly the one deliberately spreading disinformation for pointing out that even had the law come into force they couldn't have.
@goaded Yes, @lightbulb27 brought it up, but your response was exactly as I stated it to be, and you were wrong. The other point is that if far-left liberals tried it once, they'll try it again (which they already admitted they're going to do, in New York City and elsewhere).
@NYCQuestions1976 My response to the idea of being able to vote in local elections where you legally live is simply that it makes sense. I was not "Claiming that New York City "non-citizen" [law] was just for "school board" elections", that's your lie.
And guess what? Politicians are allowed to pass laws, in fact they're supposed to. As long as it's all out in the open, there's nothing wrong with it; the people (and the courts) decide.
@goaded "Yes, non-US citizens are allowed to vote in elections they're allowed to vote in. It makes sense that people with childen in their local school get to vote on who's on the board of the school."
1.) Even if non-citizens voting in school elections "made sense" (which it clearly doesn't; any government voting is the right of CITIZENS), that's not what the now struck-down law was put in place for in New York City, and you know that. So you even suggesting that school board point is disingenuous at best.
2.) Politicians are supposed to sponsor and pass CONSTITUTIONAL laws, not egregiously unconstitutional laws.
@NYCQuestions1976 Do you not understand what I write, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
@NYCQuestions1976 Yes, you did. You're just wrong. www.sf.gov/non-citizen-voting-rights-local-school-board-elections
"Non-citizens who meet these qualifications are eligible to register and vote in local School Board elections."
It depends on the state, and you like states' rights, right?
@goaded California. Specifically San Francisco. Disturbing, but unfortunately, not shocking. The bastion of stupidity. That's how it starts. Sadly, that's not where it's going to end. Hopefully it'll be appealed to the Supreme Court, where it'll certainly be overturned, and probably in another 9-0 decision.
@NYCQuestions1976 Of course that's more or less where it's going to end. Democratic and legal. You're just fear mongering about something that isn't happening and is never going to happen: illegal immigrants voting in federal elections.
@goaded this turned into a focus on immigrants. my point is general to the parties agreeing up front which takes a quiver out of the hat of you know who...
@goaded Wrong. Non-citizens voting in government elections, at any level, is unconstitutional. Just because it's happening doesn't make it Constitutional. It just hasn't been overturned yet, but it will be soon enough.
"You're just fear mongering about something that isn't happening and is never going to happen: illegal immigrants voting in federal elections."
We'll see. For now, I'll remember that quote. Just like your "Nothing is getting overturned." quote.
@NYCQuestions1976 Clearly, I was foolish thinking that the Supreme Court would make judgements.
@goaded Justices on the Supreme Court are supposed to issue judgements based on whether or not something is Constitutional. Justices on the Supreme Court aren't supposed to make judgements based on how they feel. That's how ALL judges are supposed to rule. At least that's how it's supposed to be.
@NYCQuestions1976 Their judgement was that Colorado wasn't allowed to disqualify Trump, but not that Trump hadn't engaged in insurrection. Yes or no?
@NYCQuestions1976 It is law now, it wasn't when Colorado decided. There was no precedent at the time.
The Colorado court adjudicated that Trump did engage in insurrection, the state supreme court concurred, and SCOTUS did not consider that decision, so it still stands.
@goaded It was unconstitutional when Colorado made their decision, and that was affirmed unanimously by the Supreme Court. Just like in San Francisco, just because something is happening, doesn't mean that it's legal and/or Constitutional.
That's what your hanging your hat on? Laughable. Parking tickets get "adjudicated", not potential criminal charges. Trump hasn't been charged or convicted of insurrection in any criminal court at any level. There hasn't been a grand jury convened anywhere to decide whether or not there should be a charge, there hasn't been a criminal trial by jury anywhere to decide guilty or not guilty, and there hasn't been a criminal conviction anywhere. That's called PROPER DUE PROCESS. So that wasn't even pending before the Supreme Court.
@NYCQuestions1976 "there hasn't been a criminal trial by jury anywhere to decide guilty or not guilty". Only because Trump and his pet judge and SCOTUS are delaying them.
Do you think it's important that the cases come to trial before the election, so that Americans know if they're voting for a convicted criminal or not?
(Weisselberg is headed back to Rykers for perjury related to the New York civil investigation of Donald Trump and his company.)
@goaded You're right! Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson all play cards and drink beer with Trump every weekend. I forgot about that! Thanks for reminding me.
Also, judges and the Supreme Court can delay active cases, not charges. There are no active insurrection charges, there are no insurrection charges pending, and there are no grand juries convening in any jurisdiction.
P. S.: 9-0.
@NYCQuestions1976 Tell me you didn't read the opinion without telling me you didn't read the opinion. They agreed that individual states shouldn't be entitled to pick and choose, but not that Congress should be the adjudicator, which would stop the DoJ from suing to keep someone off the ballot who had engaged in insurrection.
Because conspiring to defraud the government and disenfranchise voters, and corruptly obstructing an official proceeding isn't anything like an insurrection, is it?
@goaded Demonstrate to me that you don't know and/or don't understand how the law in a Constitutional Republic works, without directly showing me that you don't know and/or don't understand how the law in a Constitutional Republic works.
"Because conspiring to defraud the government and disenfranchise voters, and corruptly obstructing an official proceeding isn't anything like an insurrection, is it?"
Oops! I forgot that it's only acceptable when Democrats, far-left liberals, socialists do shit like that.
abcnews.go.com/.../story?id=40852448
twitter.com/.../864522009048494080?lang=en
www.heritage.org/.../durhams-damning-report-assails-fbi-leadership-media-enabling-hillary
public.substack.com/.../cia-had-foreign-allies-spy-on-trump
abcnews.go.com/.../story?id=96979014
@NYCQuestions1976 None of those are remotely comparable. Half of them aren't even accurate.
@NYCQuestions1976 You might not understand this, but I don't just make unfounded assertions like you do.
The right-wing "justices" overreached (according to the others) by claiming that only Congress could decide whether someone engaged in insurrection, which is bullshit. The courts ought to decide matters of law like that. They essentially neutered that part of the 14th amendment and made it a political question, when 147 Republicans were in on the insurrection.
Conspiring to defraud the government and disenfranchise voters, and corruptly obstructing an official proceeding is an insurrection.
Durham's report was intended to be a hit job, but fizzled. Trump just lost a court case against Steele in the UK; he has to pay hundreds of thousands in Steele's costs, as well as his own. Fortunately, he's just completed a hostile takeover of the RNC.
Guess what? Trump associates were, in fact, associated with Russian intelligence. Same as Trump was really concealing sensitive documents at Mar a Lago. For future reference, I'm not going to take seriously anything that includes the words "Russia hoax".
You're still harping on about what Twitter did for about 3 days, when it was quite reasonable to assume that Russia was involved in the Hunter Biden laptop story. It came from Giuliani and Ukraine, just like the fake FBI informant who's under arrest right now for lying to the FBI. If anything there's more evidence they were right now.
@goaded Your back must hurt from all of the bullshit you shovel.
FACT: Clinton and Wasserman-Schultz conspired to bury Sanders and his campaign.
FACT: People working for the Obama administration conspired with Clinton's campaign to spy on Trump's campaign.
FACT: Clinton invented the Diet Soviet Union collusion story.
FACT: Pelosi claimed that the 2016 election was stolen, based on Clinton's invented collusion nonsense.
FACT: Twitter and Facebook deliberately conspired Biden supporters in the government and his campaign to censor negative stories about Biden, and any news outlets trying to share those stories.
FACT: All of these have finally been proven to be correct, no matter how hard you try to ignore them and/or explain them away.
BONUS FACT: @goaded is a gullible deranged socialist dingbat.
@NYCQuestions1976 What a load of crap. Only the first one is true, and the rest are just distractions from what Republicans are still doing.
@NYCQuestions1976 Nothing has been proven.
@msc545 Which ones haven't been proven?
1.) Clinton and Wasserman-Schultz conspired to bury Sanders and his campaign.
Wasserman-Schultz resigned in disgrace over this.
2.) People working for and in the Obama administration conspired with Clinton's campaign to spy on Trump's campaign.
Why would the three reporters, who are all admitted registered Democrats and anti-Trump, who wrote the article linked here:
public.substack.com/.../cia-had-foreign-allies-spy-on-trump
risk professional and political alienation if this story wasn't true?
3.) Clinton invented the Diet Soviet Union collusion story.
Investigations and reports have proven this.
4.) Pelosi claimed that the 2016 election was stolen, based on Clinton's invented collusion nonsense.
The proof is that Pelosi literally tweeted that the 2016 election was stolen in May 2017.
5.) Twitter and Facebook deliberately conspired with Biden supporters in the government and in his campaign to censor negative stories about Biden, and any news outlets trying to share those stories.
Executives from both Twitter and Facebook admitted that this happened in testimony under oath, except they called their actions "accidents". Yeah okay. The chances of those multiple actions by both social media platforms only being multiple ongoing accidents that resulted in only negative Biden stories being censored/shadowbanned, and only established news outlets that were sharing negative Biden stories being censored/shadowbanned, would be like flipping a coin, and instead of landing on heads or tails, it landed on its side. Virtually impossible.
@NYCQuestions1976 All backed up with one link to an article that includes the phrase: "If the top-secret documents exist proving these charges, they are potentially proof...".
Rock solid evidence, that.
@NYCQuestions1976 For money? They didn't say anything that wasn't true, they said they were told things by "sources" and "If the top-secret documents exist proving these charges, they are potentially proof...".
How about providing even that low level of evidence for your other claims (except the first one, I already said that was true)?
@goaded There are many other things that the three of them could write about (together or independently) and they'd still be getting their salaries. Three journalists who are all registered Democrats and all anti-Trump wouldn't go out of their way to risk their professional careers and risk political alienation to write an article that's favorable to Trump unless the story was completely true.
So let's review:
1.) Clinton and Wasserman-Schultz conspired to bury Sanders and his campaign.
Wasserman-Schultz resigned in disgrace over this.
2.) People working for and in the Obama administration conspired with Clinton's campaign to spy on Trump's campaign.
Already explained above.
3.) Clinton invented the Diet Soviet Union collusion story.
Investigations and reports have already proven this.
4.) Pelosi claimed that the 2016 election was stolen, based on Clinton's invented collusion nonsense.
The proof is that Pelosi literally tweeted that the 2016 election was stolen in May 2017.
5.) Twitter and Facebook deliberately conspired with Biden supporters in the government and in his campaign to censor negative stories about Biden, and any news outlets trying to share those stories.
Executives from both Twitter and Facebook admitted that this happened in testimony under oath, except they called their actions "accidents". Yeah okay. The chances of those multiple actions by both social media platforms only being multiple ongoing accidents that resulted in only negative Biden stories being censored/shadowbanned, and only established news outlets that were sharing negative Biden stories being censored/shadowbanned, would be like flipping a coin, and instead of landing on heads or tails, it landed on its side. Virtually impossible.
@NYCQuestions1976 Repeating your nonsense doesn't make it true. Try some actual links "proving" them.
Not like the one that says they were told things by "sources" and "If the top-secret documents exist proving these charges, they are potentially proof...".
@goaded Trying to explain away what I posted doesn't change the fact what I posted is true.
1.) Clinton and Wasserman-Schultz conspired to bury the Sanders campaign.
abcnews. go. com/.../story? id=40852448
Wasserman-Schultz resigned in disgrace over this.
2.) People working for and in the Obama administration conspired with Clinton's campaign to spy on Trump's campaign.
public. substack. com/.../cia-had-foreign-allies-spy-on-trump
Three journalists who are registered Democrats and anti-Trump wouldn't go out of their way to risk their professional careers and risk political alienation to write a story that's favorable to Trump unless it was true.
3.) Clinton invented the Diet Soviet Union collusion story.
www.heritage.org/.../durhams-damning-report-assails-fbi-leadership-media-enabling-hillary
Investigations and reports have proven this.
4.) Pelosi claims the 2016 election was stolen, based on Clinton's collusion lie.
twitter. com/.../864522009048494080? lang=en
The tweet is self-explanatory.
5.) Twitter and Facebook deliberately conspired with Biden supporters in the government and in his campaign to censor negative stories about Biden, and any news outlets trying to share those stories.
abcnews. go. com/.../story? id=96979014
Executives from Twitter and Facebook admitted this happened in testimony under oath, except they called their actions "accidents". The chances of those multiple actions by both social media platforms only being ongoing accidents that resulted in only negative Biden stories being censored, and only established news outlets that were sharing negative Biden stories being censored, would be like flipping a coin, and instead heads or tails, it landed on its side.
6.) Biden is too feeble and forgetful for a trial.
apnews.com/.../biden-memory-age-special-counsel-report-doj-f4232bc8316e556ed467185b67c3e0a8
Biden is too feeble and forgetful for a trial, but isn't too feeble and forgetful to be President and run for reelection? Ha!
The links didn't transfer properly.
1.) abcnews.go.com/.../story?id=40852448
2.) public.substack.com/.../cia-had-foreign-allies-spy-on-trump
3.) www.heritage.org/.../durhams-damning-report-assails-fbi-leadership-media-enabling-hillary
4.) twitter.com/.../864522009048494080?lang=en
5.) abcnews.go.com/.../story?id=96979014
6.) apnews.com/.../biden-memory-age-special-counsel-report-doj-f4232bc8316e556ed467185b67c3e0a8
@NYCQuestions1976 I'm not "Trying to explain away what [you] posted", I asked for evidence. You seem to have failed.
1. I stipulated to.
2. An article that says sources say... "If the top-secret documents exist proving these charges, they are potentially proof...", so they've seen no proof.
3. Hit-job that convicted nobody
4. Broken link, from someone who acknowledged Trump was president, unlike Trump
5. Ignores Trump (as president) demanding stories be taken down
6. Another hit job. We all saw the SOTU, he wasn't prosecuted because he wasn't intentionally guilty of taking documents, unlike Trump who lied, deceived, hid, concealed, and disclosed top secret or higher documents. It was another "her emails".
@NYCQuestions1976 Of course it was a hit piece. A Trump nominee found Biden, unlike former President Donald J. Trump, should not face criminal charges. He found no reason to prosecute, so the report should have been "we have found no reason to prosecute", not hundreds of pages of bullshit about Biden's memory.
@NYCQuestions1976 Oh, and the president only wanted people's free speech to be removed?
@NYCQuestions1976 This is more of right-wing conspiracy theorys and essentially bullshit.
Why do you keep repeating stuff that almost everyone save your cult members knows is false?
Who are you trying to convince? Everyone knows you are lying, and you don't need to convince cult members that already believe this tripe.
@msc545 I'm sure that Clinton, Wasserman-Schultz, the three reporters that are anti-Trump registered Democrats who wrote the Public-Substack story, Pelosi, Garland's special counsel Hur, the Associated Press, and ABC News will all be interested to know that they're all part of "right-wing conspiracy theories". Only one of those 6 links was a right-leaning source, and the tweet link is directly from Pelosi's official Twitter account.
@NYCQuestions1976 Keep repeating yourself, that makes you sound more believable.
1. True. You can stop repeating that now. But you won't, because it's basically the only true thing there.
2. Evidence-free claims. "*sources*... *if*... documents exist proving these charges, they are *potentially* proof"
3. Durham was an obvious attempt to get even for the Mueller report, and failed to convict anyone, iirc. And his investigation wasn't obstructed, unlike the original.
4. Pelosi, when Trump had already been in office for months: "Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.". Russia did interfere in the election. That's just a fact. As is the fact that McConnell refused to allow a bipartisan denunciation before the election and Trump publicly asked them for help.
5. The Trump White House Demanded Twitter Remove Chrissy Teigen’s Tweet Calling Trump a “Pussy Ass Bitch”. Not a candidate, not a campaign, the White House. Clear abuse of power.
6. Here's the important part of what Hur reported: ""Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation...
[A]fter being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it".
@goaded Wikipedia and online socialist circle jerks aren't valid sources of factual information, "orange man bad" isn't a valid argument, and negative stories about liberals aren't all "hit pieces" because you wet dream about them. The links I posted are from multiple sources, and all but one are left-leaning. Everything I posted is true, and no amount of your deranged denial will change that fact.
@NYCQuestions1976 You posted the Heritage Foundation (authors of Project2025, the plan to fill the government with fanatics), Twitter, and a blog. Each one came from one source. None of them except the first is actually what you say it is.
@NYCQuestions1976 Did you just call Hur and Durham "online socialist circle jerks".
In their own words:
Hur reported: ""Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation...
[A]fter being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it".
en.wikipedia.org/.../...n_Report_February_2024.pdf
Durham's opening statement to Congress: “our report should not be read to suggest
that Russian election interference was not a significant threat. It was. Nor should
it be read to suggest that the investigative authorities at issue no longer serve
important law enforcement and national security interests. They do."
judiciary.house.gov/.../durham-testimony.pdf
He also testified that “Our object, our aim, was not to dispute Director Mueller. I have the greatest regard, the highest regard for Director Mueller. He is a patriot.”.
While we're at it: "Mueller's team did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying it had not obtained sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges, it uncovered multiple contacts between the campaign and Russia showing that the latter perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and "worked to secure that outcome"."
I anonymized so don't get msgs on this anymore. ugh. maybe people are living in dual universes...
@lightbulb27 Wise move. Godspeed. 👍
@goaded It's not my fault that you believed Hillary Clinton's collusion bullshit for 8 years. It was made up by her and her campaign, and you need to move on with your life. Maybe you should worry more about your own back yard, since you live in a country where consent-age incest is 100% legal in 100% of your country.
@goaded That thing smelled to high heck as soon as the Democrats brought it out. Ya don't just "find" something like this at that time, with bunch Dems touting it... not after these competitors had been buddies for years. Total trash job to distract, some truth, but essentially, BS smoke screen. Ya don't see huge chunk of uranium at bargain price (after crushing UUU the price on the market) to Russia without some serious contact w Russia, as well, plenty of micro chips I suspect. Not investigated. If Trump did that, he'd be fried in media and impeached. Obama/Clinton does it, it is ignored... and no justification given. What Total BS, cmon. This gov playing the fiddle and you're dancing. Doesn't mean Trumps a sweetie pie, never said that.
Ah, so you, @lightbulb27, anonymized in order to just openly spread bullshit with @NYCQuestions1976.
Feel free to dispute the findings of these federal investigations:
Hur reported: ""Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation...
[A]fter being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it".
en.wikipedia.org/.../...n_Report_February_2024.pdf
Durham's opening statement to Congress: “our report should not be read to suggest that Russian election interference was not a significant threat. It was. Nor should it be read to suggest that the investigative authorities at issue no longer serve important law enforcement and national security interests. They do."
judiciary.house.gov/.../durham-testimony.pdf
He also testified that “Our object, our aim, was not to dispute Director Mueller. I have the greatest regard, the highest regard for Director Mueller. He is a patriot.”.
While we're at it: "Mueller's team... uncovered multiple contacts between the campaign and Russia showing that the latter perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and "worked to secure that outcome"."
Not to mention the obstructions of Mueller's investigation and the pardons and commutations for people willing to lie for Trump.
@NYCQuestions1976 Liar. And I have receipts.
Hur reported: ""Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation...
[A]fter being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it".
Durham's opening statement to Congress: “our report should not be read to suggest that Russian election interference was not a significant threat. It was. Nor should it be read to suggest that the investigative authorities at issue no longer serve important law enforcement and national security interests. They do."
He also testified that “Our object, our aim, was not to dispute Director Mueller. I have the greatest regard, the highest regard for Director Mueller. He is a patriot.”.
While we're at it: "Mueller's team... uncovered multiple contacts between the campaign and Russia showing that the latter perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and "worked to secure that outcome"."
Not to mention the obstructions of Mueller's investigation and the pardons and commutations for people willing to lie for Trump.
@goaded
i won't get into the docs, haven't looked, not worthy my time.
election interference... some makes sense, some doesn't. Russia as I recall hearing was interfering in elections various times, probably will for the rest of time. USA interferes in elections of various nations. That makes total sense. Enough to throw it... don't know... definitely cause for Dems to scream "fraud"... I accept that. Collusion as I recall, wasn't proven. I could see that being true, but wasn't proven. They have reason to want Trump... avoid war be one, possibly better standing in Europe. As it was, we got a bloody and expensive war... just what some wanted.. and you hear the Dems out here justify it..."it's good to restock our supplies", not Trump. Jesus H... y'all crazy!
It's this difficult now (to tell right and wrong), just give it a few years and there will be no way to distinguish what is true and not. the world will be divided by whomever controls the information and media and AI engines. We (most everyone) will be the intelligent, well connected and well informed... disconnected, deceived, and controlled. you think we are already there. checkmark.
if it make you happy, I didn't vote for Trump when ran against Clinton. Give me a better option. I supported Vivek on policy. Give me Biden and Harris, I just can't. that's how it is...
@goaded Wikipedia isn't "receipts". Socialism propaganda isn't "receipts". You wasted 8 years of your life believing collusion bullshit engineered by Hillary Clinton and her campaign cronies, which I find extraordinarily hilarious. However you need to let it go and move on.
@lightbulb27 Last time I'll bother you. Quick question: If Vivek is chosen as Trump's running mate, will you vote for them? Vote for Biden? Write in Vivek? Or abstain?
@NYCQuestions1976 I literally quoted three federal investigation reports saying you're full of shit. Anyway, let's take this to a wider audience. Do you agree that anyone saying "Russia hoax" isn't worth listening to? ↗
@NYCQuestions1976 no brainer vote Trump given Biden /Harris, regardless Vivek. More pleased if Vivek in it because he's really skilled, articulate, can set vision and maybe draw some left. He has skills in human engagement Trump can't... Trump is on the narcissist spectrum in my view, at least publicly. But that's a business mind, seen it before, there's a place for it.
I like RKJ as well, Tulsi, there's a few. Rarely do I agree with left, sometimes. I agree with Biden opening up corridor to Gaza... long in the tooth. I also suggest he get the desperate humans out. I'm not cold hearted, I could be left... if they weren't so bonkers. My recent political test showed me coming out a bit left. I'll likely vote all Republican, gotta try and flush the "east coast toilet" so to speak. I didn't vote Hillary either:)
Peace!
@NYCQuestions1976 I literally quoted three federal investigation reports saying you're full of shit. You respond with personal insults.
@NYCQuestions1976 No, you haven't.
@NYCQuestions1976 Not if it's six separate claims, one's a twitter link, one's a blog that mentions "Russia hoax", and two are misrepresentations of the reports I quoted at length.
@NYCQuestions1976 Then why is it "Russia hoax" and not "collusion hoax"? I'll tell you. it's an attempt to distract from the fact that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in many ways and Trump's campaign did less than nothing to refuse or condemn it. In fact they encouraged it, privately and publicly.
Just to be 100% clear: Do you understand that Russia interfered in the 2016 election?
@goaded It's semantics that you're desperately trying to twist into a story when no story exists.
Do you honestly believe that the 2016 election that you keep harping on was the only election that any foreign government ever tried to influence? Or that every government on planet Earth doesn't do the exact same thing with every major election everywhere? Even if your Diet Soviet Union assertions were true, you don't think anyone was trying to pull strings for Clinton? It's probably how she came up with her nonsensical collusion bullshit in the first place. You're even more naïve and gullible than I previously described if you never realized any of this.
@NYCQuestions1976 Funny, you seem to have missed the simple question: Do you understand that Russia interfered in the 2016 election? Yes or no.
No, never before had a country so obviously interfered, hacking and releasing private emails, offering damaging information about the opposition, receiving Trump campaign internal documents, and generating fake news, nor had they ever been openly encouraged to do so by a candidate for president.
@NYCQuestions1976 So there was Russian interference in the 2016 election? Yes or no.
@NYCQuestions1976 FACT: You need to STOP the name-calling on here or starting now I will remove every post where you do it. Understand?
@NYCQuestions1976 So there was Russian interference in the 2016 election.
@goaded @msc545 I'm vehemently opposed to both censorship of any kind and silly nanny safe spaces, so I'm no longer seriously responding to this thread.
I also just found out that Robert Kennedy, Jr. wants Aaron Rodgers to be his running mate on an independent ticket, so I need to go laugh for a few hours.
@goaded Since you're not from here, feel free to Google "Aaron Rodgers" to see why that's funny.
@NYCQuestions1976 Anti-vax blowhard who doesn't admit mistakes. Sounds right up your street. You never seriously respond to any threads. That would involve answering simple questions truthfully.
@NYCQuestions1976 Stop the name calling and I won't remove your stuff. That is not too much to ask.
@NYCQuestions1976 No, you lie. And you lie about your lies. And you don't answer.
Was there Russian interference in the 2016 election?
@NYCQuestions1976 No, you lied. And you lie about your lies. And you don't answer.
It's a yes or no question: Was there Russian interference in the 2016 election?
@goaded No, far-left liberals and socialists lie. They're expert liars. Lying is the only way that they're able to fool and convince the general population that their freedom-killing garbage ideas are any good.
I've already answered your question. You don't like the answer that I gave that if anything happened, it happened on behalf of Clinton. That's why you keep asking the same things over and over again.
@NYCQuestions1976 So you admit it (Russian interference) happened. Otherwise you'd be trying to blame Clinton for something that never happened.
@NYCQuestions1976 That's not an answer to the yes/no question: Was there Russian interference in the 2016 election?
That's because, once you admit it happened, then we can establish who wanted it, encouraged it, and benefitted from it. And you know that's Trump.
So you lie, instead.
@goaded You keep harping on things that have not only been disproven, but actually happened in the exact opposite way of the falsehoods you continue to promote, and the groundwork was started early on:
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE82P0JI/
The only ones that benefited by any interference that may have transpired are Clinton and her campaign. She conspired to bury Sanders, so why would it so hard to believe that she didn't do the same thing to Trump, especially since it's been proven that it actually happened? People with actual common sense and critical thinking skills are supposed to believe that Clinton's conspiring behavior stopped with Sanders and she suddenly grew a conscious and became moralistic between the primaries and the election? Not a chance in hell.
@msc545 No, far-left liberals and socialists lie. All the time. They're expert liars and hypocrisy professionals. Lying is the only way that they're able to fool and convince the general population that their anti-merit, freedom-killing, anti-American garbage ideas are any good. When I'm in disagreement with far-left liberals and socialists, I know for certain that I'm correct.
@NYCQuestions1976 "any interference that may have transpired" See, you won't admit simple facts, and you lie about everything.
@NYCQuestions1976 Are you sure? I still don't see a yes or no answer to the question of whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election, but I do see you claiming you've answered it.
@NYCQuestions1976 Well, if that were the truth, I'd remember if you said yes or no. Did Russia interfere in the 2016 election?
It's not a trick question.
@NYCQuestions1976 Still lying, then. All you've said is "if anything happened", as if you didn't know it did, but you know for sure that Clinton did the thing that you think may or may not have happened. Which is obvious bullshit on both counts.
Yes or no: did the Russians interfere in the 2016 election?
@NYCQuestions1976 And you still won't admit there was Russian interference, while being absolutely certain it was Clinton did that thing that may not have happened.
@NYCQuestions1976 Which question of mine do you claim you answered? Because you haven't answered this one other than to claim it might not have happened, but you know absolutely it was done by Clinton. Did Russia interfere in the 2016 election?
@NYCQuestions1976 No, it's because you haven't given a yes or no answer to the question: did Russia interfere in the 2016 election. I'll make it easy for you: the answer is yes.
You could admit it, but you'll carry on lying, like the troll you are.
@NYCQuestions1976 Not again. If you'd answered the simple yes or no question with a yes or a no, I'd have noticed. Did Russia interfere in the 2016 election?
Everyone knows the answer, you're just a troll.
@NYCQuestions1976 There was no answer. Quote yourself. Did Russia interfere in the 2016 election? Troll.
@NYCQuestions1976 No, I mean there was no answer that was an answer to the question: did Russia interfere in the 2016 election. It's obviously a yes or no question. There was just meaningless drivel about supposedly not knowing if there was but absolute certainty that Clinton did it.
You won't commit to a position because you know you'll be wrong and called out about it.
@NYCQuestions1976 No you didn't, and how many links does it take to say "yes, Russia interfered in the 2016 election"? Russia interfered in the 2016 election. True or false, yes or no. It doesn't take any more than that.
@NYCQuestions1976 Oh, f this, we both know you're lying, and so does anyone else still reading this.
@goaded Don't be mad at me. It's not my fault that you just don't like the fact that if the Diet Soviet Union interfered with the 2016 election, it was on Clinton's behalf, and with her knowledge and blessing. You don't like that answer, because that factual reality completely contradicts your false delusional socialism narrative. You so desperately want propaganda to be reality, and it's never ever going to happen for you. That's on you, not me.
@NYCQuestions1976 I'm not mad at you, I'm just sick of your lies. And that you're still saying "if". And that you're obviously a troll.
@NYCQuestions1976 What, like the Earth isn't flat? Of course you're lying. Russia interfered in the 2016 election, we both know it.
@NYCQuestions1976 So you can do nuance, when it suits you. The probability that Russia did NOT interfere in the 2016 election is the same as the probability that the Earth is flat. 0.
They were caught hacking Clinton campaign materials and emails and releasing them. They were given Trump campaign materials by Manafort. But you claim to think that was to Clinton's advantage, because you're lying.
@goaded The Earth not being flat isn't because of nuance, or because of probability. It's because of physics in the here and now, and because we exist in a three dimensional universe. All it takes is one black hole to change that. The probability of a black hole happening is likely 0%... but it's not absolute zero.
The point of me asking you about the Earth being round is that it's actually NOT round. It's globular. As are many other celestial bodies with rotations. Yes, there's a difference. Since the Earth rotates on its axis, it's pole-to-pole diameter is LESS than its equator diameter (7,907 miles/12,725 kilometers compared to 7,926 miles/12,756 kilometers). So whenever anyone says, "The Earth is absolutely round.", they're actually wrong, because the Earth isn't a perfect sphere.
The point of this exercise is that in chronological order, Obama got away with "more flexibility", claimed a "red line" with Putin-backed Assad and did nothing but back off, got away with letting Putin annex Crimea (and don't counter with "sanctions", that's nothing more than an "out" excuse), some entities in the Obama administration got away with conspiring with other countries to spy on Trump's campaign (according to three separate anti-Trump Democrat reporters), Clinton got away with conspiring to bury Sanders, and then got away with making up a Diet Soviet Union collusion hoax about Trump. These are all facts. Then after all of that crap transpired, we're all supposed to believe that Clinton, her government cronies, and her campaign cronies bad behaviors all suddenly and completely stopped right there, and any interference that likely transpired in 2016 wasn't with her knowledge and blessing, and with the sole intent of benefiting her. You've got to be completely stupid and totally void of common sense to believe that. ⬇️
@NYCQuestions1976 That's a very long attempt to distracting from the fact that Russia did, in fact, interfere in the 2016 election and that you're unwilling to admit it. It's not anything to do with probability, it's a fact.
Any nuance is involved in how, how much, and for whom, and since all the hacked emails that were released were Clinton's and the internal Trump campaign documents that were handed to Russia by Manafort were not released, the obvious answer is that it was all for Trump.
And you know it.
@NYCQuestions1976 Bullshit.
@msc545 Really? The "more flexibility" moment didn't happen? Failure to enforce the "red line" didn't happen? Crimea being annexed during the Obama administration didn't happen? Three anti-Trump journalists finding evidence of spying on the Trump campaign didn't happen? Clinton conspiring with Wasserman-Schultz to bury Sanders didn't happen? Clinton inventing a collusion hoax didn't happen? New flash: It ALL happened. It's all good though. Everyone on the left please stay in denial. Meanwhile:
www.nytimes.com/.../...s-grows-new-poll-shows.html
www.cbsnews.com/.../
This election is going to be one of, if not the worst election in US history. None of the voter concerns from 2016 or 2020 have been, in good faith, addressed or rectified. If Trump wins, the Left is going to melt down. If Biden wins, the Right is going to melt down.
I actually wonder if they’re going to try to prevent both Biden and Trump from being able to win so they can push someone like Hailey in an attempt to prevent uprisings.
I imagine that this time there will be more than the million people who showed up in DC last Inauguration day to protest a stolen election. Over a million people may not stop at just a few broken windows.
"Six times as many protestors—as many as 120,000—would show up on the Mall on January 6, according to classified numbers still not released by the Secret Service and the FBI but seen by Newsweek." www.newsweek.com/exclusive-classified-documents-reveal-number-january-6-protestors-1661296
@goaded 120,000 showed up on the mall but it was estimated that it was a million that were in DC to protest. It was only 150 that actually went in the Capitol. According to the democrats it was the biggest rebellion since the Civil War and the largest assault on the United States since the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The vast majority were there to peacefully protest so I guess we could call it mostly peaceful protest.
Who was that estimated by? You just change the numbers by a factor of ten in whichever direction suits your narrative.
There is currently a list of 1162 people who breached the Capitol, and that's just the people they've identified by name.
www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
No, she wasn't, she was shot while climbing through a broken window over a barricade with a rucksack on her back on a day when explosives had been found, at the head of a mob that had violently attacked the building that they shouldn't have been within a quarter mile of, into a room containing VIPs and their armed security, ignoring lawful orders by the officer to keep out.
You would shoot someone who came into your house through an open window to steal food.
@goaded Nobody knew anything about bombs at the time. There were two cops with assault weapons on the same side of the wall as Ashlee Babbitt. Both just watched. As she came through the window she had her hands up as if to show she was unarmed and the cops gun was shaking so badly I bet he wasn't even aiming for her neck.
No, because he won't lose the election. But where it is needed, we have crews set up to watch and record every ballot stuff box in applicable states. We also have observers who will not permit ballot counting to be stopped/restarted and observers dismissed. The US Marshall Service will be on call.
Lmao, if their "God" loses again, we might need to expect people to storm the capitol again.
I will attack my wifes cabinet of chocolates…medicate!!
Of course they will, just like Trump planned to do in 2016. He was all set to lie about that election, only for it to suddenly become a "perfect" election.
I think they'd complain more if he wasn't on the ballot.
Doesn't matter who wins the election only rich people benefit. I will say I have made more money of bidens failed mental state than I did when trump was in office. Biden was fantastic for rich people 🤣 horrible for everyone else
There will be large scale fraud either way same as last time. Very little if nothing has changed in the key states.
As such I am not really expecting Trump to 'win'. The size of the majority required to overcome such fraud is very unlikely to materialize.
@slatyb They found plenty, they just didn't find anything any of the people elected or hand picked by the same chose to look at.
@slatyb Lots of things Mike put together a nice list of a few of them: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13989524/
The main problem of course is the unverifiable nature of how votes are now cast via black boxes in which we not only have no way of knowing who actually cast the ballot. But who's ballots were not cast.
@msc545 Given the "election rules" they passed it is impossible to say that is not happening in nearly every election in many states.
@msc545
Aside from those already referenced in said documentary, I would tend to focus most heavenly on the large scale mail in voting. The postal system is a huge black box controlled by people who have every reason in the world to corrupt elections.
legitimate elections have the deciding number of votes cast on election day in front of observers of both parties.
Otherwise we have no way of knowing who cast the ballots being mailed in.
You are not paying attention to the political subtext here:
Republicans have long admitted that the more people that vote, the fewer the votes they actually get.
It is therefore in the best interest of Republican candidates to minimize the number of people voting.
History tells us that that can be accomplished by insisting on in-person voting, demanding voter ID, and forbidding mail-in voting.
There needs obviously to be a reason for insisting on these things other than the actual unpopularity of Republican goals, and thus was born the boogeyman of "Election Fraud".
Election fraud is a very statistically rare crime, and it has never occurred in numbers large enough to change the results of an election in the US. The majority of cases of election fraud have been perpetrated by Republican voters, not Democrats.
I don't know why you keep hammering on this point other than that you actually believe in election fraud and thus have been duped, or you have an ulterior motive.
Nothing the My Pillow guy has ever said has been believable at all.
@msc545 If you want to increase the number of votes casts you might as well mail a ballot to every single person. You will have no idea who actually gets those ballots much-less what those who can't be troubled to even show up on election day would do with that which offers non thing but demand upon their clearly too valuable time. All you can say about said people who lack the time or dedicate to even show up is that they also lack the far greater time and dedication required to have any idea what they would be voting for.
So it is something of a mystery as to why you would even want to make voting easier for them. Particularly given how much pains you go thou to make acquiring a far less dangerous weapons like a firearms more difficult for people who haven't demonstrated any investment in knowledge of how to use it.
But then again Democrats have anther solution to the ignorant masses, high jacking their own primary system so the elite don't give any real choice to vote for.
Again, the only reason that you want people to show up in person is because you know that it inconveniences certain classes of people disproportionately and as a result of that they are far less likely to vote.
Obviously you too believe that when many people vote Republicans lose. You haven't said it, but you apparently also believe that republican policies are so repugnant that when a lot of people vote Republicans lose. There is no other reason that you would object to many people voting.
You know if you just admitted to the underlying beliefs that you hold relative to voting your position would be clear. People that don't agree with you would probably find it repugnant, but as it stands now You're insistence on defaming large groups of people by saying they are going to vote or have voted illegally is actually much worse.
@msc545 Showing up to vote inconveniences everyone, particularly those who's time is most valuable. Businesses are nonetheless required to allow everyone time to go, just as you are permitted to go on days in which you don't work.
I did not say that I believe A larger share of the population voting would reduce the share that vote for republican. Merely pointed out that the larger the share that votes the lower the quality of that vote as the new votes would necessarily come from those least invested in the choice.
If you believe being less invested and research makes you more likely to vote against republicans you can draw that conclusion. That was not my suggestion.
@msc545
The same way any choice can be lesser quality than anther, By having less consideration in its making.
@msc545 We know by the level of demonstrated effort they were willing to invest in the activity. If they are not even willing to show up in person, it is not reasonable to assume they were willing to do the vastly more time consuming effort to know what they are voting for.
@msc545 Your local polling station is almost certainly in walking distance. In the few places that's not the case you have the same public transpiration options that get you everywhere else. You can't claim this excuse unless you want to claim you don't go anywhere.
The only reason not to is because you don't regard it worth your trouble to do so. If you didn't bother to learn about the people running it really isn't worth your trouble. Your vote will be random at best.
I think there @msc545 should be a poll tax for voting to prove you not only have an investment in the community your welding power over but that you judge your own vote to worth that investment.
This can and should be a % of your income to insure everyone shows the same relative investment.
@msc545 I am quite impressed at your degree of racism, believing as a given that a person's inclination to economic trade offs means is an attribute of their race rather than their personal choices and judgement.
This is of course the very definition of racism and you hold it as the foundation of your political philosophy.
@msc545
Then your state can make such rules as are appropriate to your state's situation. That is not the case in my state, nor the other states I have lived in.
That said given how rigged with vote harvesting California is, it is rather hard to believe your not wasting your time showing up to vote anyway there.
Your State is unaffordable and literally losing people for years and yet you keep electing the same goverment again and again.
This suggest only a small radical minority who doesn't care actually controls the state.
@msc545 The rules I propose don't discriminate at all they simply raise the bar for voting to exclude the people who don't value it enough to invest in it.
So it has nothing to do with race. To imply as you did that theses rules are racist is to racistly assume only members of particular races would not so value voting.
@msc545 Not that i would want to share a state with people like you, but it is indeed your fought that nobody can afford to live there. As your consistently voting to restrict new housing development as well as raise the cost of everything thou regulations.
@msc545 You clearly have no idea what a fascist is, perhaps you should learn about it from its inventor benito mussolini. Fascism is a real ideology a form of socialism invented by the Italian Socialist party editor.
@msc545 You call everyone you disagree with a racist, even thou its you not them who believes a person's race forces them make certant choices or be unable to do certain things.
That discriminatory judgement is the definition of racism which is why we know for a fact that you ARE a racist. Your entire demanded policy platform is built upon your fundamentally racist view of the world and people.
This is just an example of that fact in your assuming black people won't or can't do anything.
@msc545 Actually I did once live in California, it was quite obvious what was going on there which is in no small part why I had no desire to stay. I have other family who have lived most all of their lives there and have since left for the same reason.
The state is dysfunctional I had never seen prices soo high, nor rising soo fast, and still the utility company was telling me they would go up higher and faster still. All because the State's elite lived out of touch with reality lives insulated by money from the real world lives enabling to follow endless pet crusades.
The common man suffered greatly in said state until finally more and more of them were forced to leave just as I did. Obviously the election system in californium answers exclusively to that relatively small economic elite minority.
@msc545 We both do know what you mean by racist which has non thing to do with anyone's race but rather your personal feelings about goverment policy you don't like. The same thing you refer to when you call others fascist as well because that too has nothing to do with the historic definitions which you will not argue nor follow.
These terms are nothing but statements of your feelings to you having no specific meaning beyond that. It is for this reason nobody should care about being soo labeled by you.
We all disagree with other people, most of us just prefer to tell others specifically what we disagree with rather than call them by unrelated names for reasons only you really know.
Of course they will. They're men-and-women-babies like their spoiled 77-year-old brat beau ideal.
I completely agree with you. But Trump is an intelligent guy, in order to destroy a nation, you must turn it against themselves. He's got the US split in half.
@StudyingAuthor The U. S. was sundered long before Trump;he just exacerbated the divisions.(And incited the Jan.6,2021 crackerfest.)
@handsomelad70 @slatyb
He truly is destroying america. He has everyone wrapped around his racist finger. He has women falling over him and men bowing down to him. And the rest of us are looking at them like wtf. Trump sees this and goes "jump supporters, jump!" and they're all looking to him, "How high master?"
He studies. He studies to be hitler.
Depends. Will they write article after article telling everyone how they stole the election—sorry, I meant to say “fortifying” it through a secret cabal of Big Tech, mass media, and government?
Do you have evidence that a significant number of people cast ballots they weren't entitled to? Or was it just good citizens ensuring that everybody who wanted to vote could vote safely, without catching and spreading a deadly disease?
A right winger recently posted a picture of her two postal ballots, but made the mistake of tagging an election official who explained that the first one she received, before she moved house, was now invalid and couldn't be counted.
What is with all of the hate speech? What do you have against maggots?
Considering that the Democrats are literally importing millions of illegals and trying to let them vote while weaponizing the legal system against their political opponents we would be right.
non-citizens can't vote for president
Have you been living under a rock or are you just retarded?
u You can set the clock on it. 🙄
You know they will
Have you read any of the recent polls?
I can speak for them. “Yes.”
Of course
If it is yes
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions