Is Bannon out of jail? This has his kind of stink all over it.
Four years of the Democrats blowing up every norm and vestige of Democracy to try to undo the election of 2016 and now they and their RINO friends are going to lecture the world about Trump being “undemocratic” because he’s legally challenging the election based upon sworn affidavits of observers and election officials.
Four years of the Democrats blowing up every norm and vestige of Democracy to try to undo the election of 2016 and now they and their RINO friends are going to lecture the world about Trump being “undemocratic” because he’s legally challenging the election based upon sworn affidavits of observers and election officials.
I have no problem with his team filing these lawsuits, looking like fools, and taking 30 consecutive Ls. The problem is his tweets gaslighting the public, the propaganda press conferences by QAnon subscribers, and personal phone calls to Republican certifiers to ask them not to certify a legal vote. Oh and bringing the Republican heads of states that he needs to the White House for a meeting. If you think this is about “legal challenges” you have missed a lot that is going on here. The legal challenges are essentially over. The next step is to gaslight people in public claims that can’t be substantiated in court to sway county and state certifiers, many of whom hang on his every word like you apparently do.Four years of the Democrats blowing up every norm and vestige of Democracy to try to undo the election of 2016 and now they and their RINO friends are going to lecture the world about Trump being “undemocratic” because he’s legally challenging the election based upon sworn affidavits of observers and election officials.
And again, you can’t be up-in-arms about him doing it when Democrats have done this since before he was sworn in and you were quiet about it.I have no problem with his team filing these lawsuits, looking like fools, and taking 30 consecutive Ls. The problem is his tweets gaslighting the public, the propaganda press conferences by QAnon subscribers, and personal phone calls to Republican certifiers to ask them not to certify a legal vote. Oh and bringing the Republican heads of states that he needs to the White House for a meeting. If you think this is about “legal challenges” you have missed a lot that is going on here. The legal challenges are essentially over. The next step is to gaslight people in public claims that can’t be substantiated in court to sway county and state certifiers, many of whom hang on his every word like you apparently do.
Bullshit. Hillary conceded the morning after the election and Obama invited him to the White House the following day. There's always going to be a few wackos on either side of the aisle but we're talking the POTUS for crying out loud. Get real.And again, you can’t be up-in-arms about him doing it when Democrats have done this since before he was sworn in and you were quiet about it.
If Hillary did that she should also be admonished, however I don’t recall her doing that. I thought she conceded the day after the election and didn’t even request recounts. Obama met with him at the White House the next day to facilitate a smooth transition. It’s kind of weird how you would defend Trump on this and deflect to Hillary though. Is there a point at which you think it is too much?And again, you can’t be up-in-arms about him doing it when Democrats have done this since before he was sworn in and you were quiet about it.
A good portion of the Democratic Party and the entire leadership worked tirelessly to try to overturn the election for more than 4 years. You know this.If Hillary did that she should also be admonished, however I don’t recall her doing that. I thought she conceded the day after the election and didn’t even request recounts. Obama met with him at the White House the next day to facilitate a smooth transition. It’s kind of weird how you would defend Trump on this and deflect to Hillary though. Is there a point at which you think it is too much?
But not the democratic nominee or the democratic president? Again is there a line that Trump could ever theoretically cross that would be too much for you? I don’t see how anyone was “working tirelessly to overturn an election” when in fact the transition and concessions began day 1. Unless you are talking about the house impeachment last year which was doomed to fail. In which case that wouldn’t have “overturned the election”. It would have just been President Pence.A good portion of the Democratic Party and the entire leadership worked tirelessly to try to overturn the election for more than 4 years. You know this.
I posted a clip from his podcast in one of these threads the other day, and he basically said this was the strategy.
Seriously, you didn't see Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and others working tirelessly to overturn the 2016 election? These are elected leaders in the Congress of our country. If you aren't going to acknowledge their actions and that they interfered with Trump's ability to lead this country, it's going to be hard to have a good discussion.But not the democratic nominee or the democratic president? Again is there a line that Trump could ever theoretically cross that would be too much for you? I don’t see how anyone was “working tirelessly to overturn an election” when in fact the transition and concessions began day 1. Unless you are talking about the house impeachment last year which was doomed to fail. In which case that wouldn’t have “overturned the election”. It would have just been President Pence.
Do you have some examples of what was being done to overturn the 2016 election results and have Clinton declared as winner ignoring the constitution and electoral college? I may have missed it.Seriously, you didn't see Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and others working tirelessly to overturn the 2016 election? These are elected leaders in the Congress of our country. If you aren't going to acknowledge their actions and that they interfered with Trump's ability to lead this country, it's going to be hard to have a good discussion.
sk8knight is a perfect example of how Right-wing media has transformed regular folks into wild-eyed nutjobs.Seriously, you didn't see Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and others working tirelessly to overturn the 2016 election? These are elected leaders in the Congress of our country. If you aren't going to acknowledge their actions and that they interfered with Trump's ability to lead this country, it's going to be hard to have a good discussion.
Let's start with the Special Investigation. I can go through all of the examples of Democrats presenting "evidence" in public talking about leaked information and then there was Schiff's multiple declarations of a "smoking gun" of Russian collusion that would get Trump removed and thrown in jail. It was non-stop in the media for years and if you don't think it hampered his ability to execute the duties of his office then you're either extremely naïve or extremely disingenuous. Then, when that failed to produce any fruit after years, it was one issue after another claiming criminal action or violation of the 25th amendment or the emoluments clause and then the farcical impeachment. You're sitting here saying that Trump's lawyers putting out theories is somehow worse that our nation's leaders doing it. It's an incomprehensible duality you have going there.Do you have some examples of what was being done to overturn the 2016 election results and have Clinton declared as winner ignoring the constitution and electoral college? I may have missed it.
That wasn't about 'overturning' the election, it was about investigating a criminal offense.Let's start with the Special Investigation. I can go through all of the examples of Democrats presenting "evidence" in public talking about leaked information and then there was Schiff's multiple declarations of a "smoking gun" of Russian collusion that would get Trump removed and thrown in jail.
Just give up. Democrats don't think they did anything other than treat Trump with great respect from day 1. They have changed their reality to match their beliefs.Let's start with the Special Investigation. I can go through all of the examples of Democrats presenting "evidence" in public talking about leaked information and then there was Schiff's multiple declarations of a "smoking gun" of Russian collusion that would get Trump removed and thrown in jail. It was non-stop in the media for years and if you don't think it hampered his ability to execute the duties of his office then you're either extremely naïve or extremely disingenuous. Then, when that failed to produce any fruit after years, it was one issue after another claiming criminal action or violation of the 25th amendment or the emoluments clause and then the farcical impeachment. You're sitting here saying that Trump's lawyers putting out theories is somehow worse that our nation's leaders doing it. It's an incomprehensible duality you have going there.
Do you have any examples of actions to overturn the election results? Not investigation of criminal allegations against a sitting president, but actual steps to overturn the election result and install Hillary Clinton as president.Let's start with the Special Investigation. I can go through all of the examples of Democrats presenting "evidence" in public talking about leaked information and then there was Schiff's multiple declarations of a "smoking gun" of Russian collusion that would get Trump removed and thrown in jail. It was non-stop in the media for years and if you don't think it hampered his ability to execute the duties of his office then you're either extremely naïve or extremely disingenuous. Then, when that failed to produce any fruit after years, it was one issue after another claiming criminal action or violation of the 25th amendment or the emoluments clause and then the farcical impeachment. You're sitting here saying that Trump's lawyers putting out theories is somehow worse that our nation's leaders doing it. It's an incomprehensible duality you have going there.
It's not overturning the election if the vote was fraudulent.Do you have any examples of actions to overturn the election results? Not investigation of criminal allegations against a sitting president, but actual steps to overturn the election result and install Hillary Clinton as president.
So we can agree that there weren’t any attempts to overturn the 2016 election in favor of Clinton? Great, thanks.It's not overturning the election if the vote was fraudulent.
I never said there were. Democrats tried to undermine his presidency from day one, but they didn't try to overturn it.So we can agree that there weren’t any attempts to overturn the 2016 election in favor of Clinton? Great, thanks.
Semantically, no. But you're drawing a fairly tight logical box there when we are also talking about the perfectly legal actions of the Trump team to use the courts to investigate allegations of fraud impinging upon Biden's ability to transition government. The Democrat's past actions are relevant to the second part.Do you have any examples of actions to overturn the election results? Not investigation of criminal allegations against a sitting president, but actual steps to overturn the election result and install Hillary Clinton as president.
I think that the dossier and investigation were Peter Strzok's "insurance policy" that he thought would overturn the election. Just because they couldn't do it, didn't mean that there wasn't that intention.I never said there were. Democrats tried to undermine his presidency from day one, but they didn't try to overturn it.
It’s not semantics at all. There is an enormous difference between overturning an election result and appointing a candidate of the opposite party to the Presidency and impeaching a President 3 years into his term for crimes he allegedly committed while a sitting President...where any potential removal from office would result in the Vice President ascending to the Presidency...the VP chosen by the former President and from the same party. It’s not really close to the same thing, but I can appreciate the stretch.Semantically, no. But you're drawing a fairly tight logical box there when we are also talking about the perfectly legal actions of the Trump team to use the courts to investigate allegations of fraud impinging upon Biden's ability to transition government. The Democrat's past actions are relevant to the second part.
Hell, the FBI was using espionage tactics to surveil the Trump transition based upon a pack of lies paid for by Hillary Clinton expressly to sow dissension in the election (all of this is in public record uncovered by judicial watch) . Biden knew about it and so did Obama (enough to tell someone not to tell him any more about it in the venue they were in). I guess there's no alarm in what is done through the DoJ and FBI behind closed doors but what is done in broad daylight is a super crazy existential threat to Democracy that also threatens national security and public health.
Do you have any examples of actions to overturn the election results?
How about authoritatively? enthusiastically? benevolently?Semantically, no.
How about authoritatively? enthusiastically? benevolently?
forthrightly? excitedly? cheerfully? cynically? belligerently audaciously? reflectively? facetiously? shamefully? judgmentally? ridiculously? sarcastically? testily?
Maybe whimsically?
As with everything, it depends on who said it.A declaration of intent to impeach him before he was even sworn in probably falls in there somewhere.
Well it came from someone that can actually vote for impeachment, so thats about as high of a level possible.As with everything, it depends on who said it.
#TRASHGATE
At this point someone would have to be extremely naive to believe that there wasn't a crap ton of voter fraud that went on. Enough to change the election? Probably not. Enough to take a closer look at things? Um, yeah. 100% yeah.Does anyone here really think that Trump won still?
They are taking a closer look at things, and have found nothing.At this point someone would have to be extremely naive to believe that there wasn't a crap ton of voter fraud that went on. Enough to change the election? Probably not. Enough to take a closer look at things? Um, yeah. 100% yeah.
At this point someone would have to be seriously delusional to believe there was a bunch of voter fraud going on.At this point someone would have to be extremely naive to believe that there wasn't a crap ton of voter fraud that went on.
Clearly your Right-wing news sources are effectively brainwashing you with their crappola. If you can look at what's been going on the past two and a half weeks and say, "Yeah, 100%, we need to take a CLOSER look at things!", where's your evidence?Enough to change the election? Probably not. Enough to take a closer look at things? Um, yeah. 100% yeah.
At this point someone would have to be extremely naive to believe that there wasn't a crap ton of voter fraud that went on. Enough to change the election? Probably not. Enough to take a closer look at things? Um, yeah. 100% yeah.