Trump Supporters Explain Why They Believe the Big Lie

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  4 weeks ago  •  194 comments

By:   Sarah Longwell (The Atlantic)

Trump Supporters Explain Why They Believe the Big Lie
A woman from Arizona told me, "I think what convinced me more that the election was fixed was how vehemently they have said it wasn't."

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



For many of Trump's voters, the belief that the election was stolen is not a fully formed thought. It's more of an attitude, or a tribal pose.

By Sarah Longwell Graeme Sloan / Bloomberg / Getty April 18, 2022Share

About the author: Sarah Longwell is the executive director of Republicans for the Rule of Law, publisher of The Bulwark, andhost of the Focus Group podcast.

Some 35 percent of Americans—including 68 percent of Republicans—believe the Big Lie, pushed relentlessly by former President Donald Trump and amplified by conservative media, that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. They think that Trump was the true victor and that he should still be in the White House today.

I regularly host focus groups to better understand how voters are thinking about key political topics. Recently, I decided to find out why Trump 2020 voters hold so strongly to the Big Lie.

For many of Trump's voters, the belief that the election was stolen is not a fully formed thought. It's more of an attitude, or a tribal pose. They know something nefarious occurred but can't easily explain how or why. What's more, they're mystified and sometimes angry that other people don't feel the same.

As a woman from Wisconsin told me, "I can't really put my finger on it, but something just doesn't feel right." A man from Pennsylvania said, "Something about it just didn't seem right." A man from Arizona said, "It didn't smell right."

The exact details of the story vary—was it Hugo Chavez who stole the election? Or the CIA? Or Italian defense contractors? Outlandish claims like these seem to have made this conspiracy theory more durable, not less. Regardless of plausibility, the more questions that are raised, the more mistrustful Trump voters are of the official results.

Perhaps that's because the Big Lie has been part of their background noise for years.

Remember that Trump began spreading the notion that America's elections were "rigged" in 2016—when he thought he would lose. Many Republicans firmly believed that the Democrats would steal an election if given the chance. When the 2020 election came and Trump did lose, his voters were ready to doubt the outcome.

Some Trump voters looked at the numbers and couldn't make sense of them. How could so many more people have voted in 2020 than in 2016? A man from North Carolina, when asked why he thought the election was stolen, said, "There was 10 million more votes for Trump in this last election than he got in 2016. You're telling me that [Joe] Biden got that many?"

To the extent that Big Lie believers try to explain their skepticism over millions more people voting for Biden than for Trump, they often point to relative crowd sizes at rallies. As the man from North Carolina put it, "I personally went to Trump rallies that were filling stadiums, and then Biden can't even fill a freaking library. Like, no, it's not true. I don't believe it. Don't buy it."

Another common refrain is that the votes "flipped" in the middle of Election Night. Trump supporters went to bed thinking that their guy had won and then woke up to a different reality—which to them was startling and deeply suspicious. A woman from Georgia told me, "When I went to bed, Trump was so in the lead and then [I got] up and he's not in the lead. I mean, that's crazy."

Long before Election Day, the media had warned about a "red mirage" and alerted Americans to the possibility that Trump would have a large lead on Election Night only to have it dissipate as mail-in ballots were counted. But if you were watching Fox News, you probably didn't hear any of this. Instead, Trump, MAGA-friendly politicians, and conservative media outlets were priming voters to see a conspiracy.

Trump correctly assumed that the majority of the mail-in ballots that would be counted late at night would go to Biden. So he cast mail-in ballots as fraudulent almost by definition. The woman from Georgia told me that mail-in ballots were "a crock," without elaborating further.

Attempts to set the record straight tend to backfire. When you tell Trump voters that the election wasn't stolen, some of them tally that as evidence that it was stolen. A woman from Arizona told me, "I think what convinced me more that the election was fixed was how vehemently they have said it wasn't."

These voters aren't bad or unintelligent people. The problem is that the Big Lie is embedded in their daily life. They hear from Trump-aligned politicians, their like-minded peers, and MAGA-friendly media outlets—and from these sources they hear the same false claims repeated ad infinitum.

Now we are at the point where to be a Republican means to believe the Big Lie. And as long as Republicans leading the party keep promoting and indulging the Big Lie, that will continue to be the case. If I've learned anything from my focus groups, it's that something doesn't have to make sense for voters to believe it's true.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

robertreich.substack.com   /p/the-republican-conspiracy-of-cowards

The Republican conspiracy of cowards

Robert Reich 4-5 minutes   4/26/2022


As Trump’s big lie of a stolen election began ricocheting across America in November 2020, Arizona’s Republican attorney general Mark Brnovich (pronounced “Burn-O-Vich”) spoke out forcefully on national television. He told the public that Donald Trump was projected to lose the swing state, and “no facts” suggested otherwise. (At the time I thought to myself “good for him. Maybe more Republican attorneys general will show some spine.”)

That was then. Recently, Brnovich — now running for Senate in Arizona — came onto Stephen Bannon’s far-right podcast with the opposite message: Brnovich   said   he was “investigating” the 2020 vote and had “serious concerns.” He   went on : “It’s frustrating for all of us, because I think we all know what happened in 2020,” without explaining what he meant by “what happened.” (Bannon titled the podcast segment “AZ AG On Interim Report On Stealing The 2020 Election.”)

It would be bad enough were Brnovich the exception. But he exemplifies what’s happened to the GOP over the last 19 months. Republican politicians who initially told the truth have since then embraced Trump’s big lie in order to gain Trump’s favor (or avoid his wrath) in their 2022 races. (Brnovich launched his “review” of the 2020 vote in Arizona in response to a widely-ridiculed “audit” commissioned by Arizona GOP lawmakers.)

It’s the same story with J.D. Vance, Republican candidate for the Senate from Ohio, who initially told the truth about the 2020 election but then pushed Trump’s lie to curry favor with Trump — and was rewarded last week with Trump’s endorsement and $10 million in campaign funds from right-wing billionaire Peter Thiel.

It’s the same with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who held on to his scruples for a few minutes after the January 6 insurrection — when he publicly criticized Trump and told House colleagues he’d urge Trump to resign — but then promptly did a one-hundred-eighty and traveled to Mar-a-Lago to display his total loyalty to Trump, even bestowing on his madness a jar of his favorite pink- and red-flavored Starbursts. (McCarthy has denied ever telling his colleagues he’d urge Trump to resign but was caught doing just this).

And the same for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who initially condemned Trump and now won’t utter a negative word.

Up and down the ranks of the Republican Party, the new litmus test for gaining dollars, votes, and the coveted Trump Endorsement is to embrace the big lie that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. For the rest of us — and for posterity — it should be a   negative   litmus test for politicians who place ambition over principle, narcissism over duty, and cowardice over conscience.

How are Republican voters ever to know the truth when these toadies, sycophants, and unprincipled pawns repeat and amplify Trump’s big lie? Fully   85 percent   of Republicans now believe it ( 35 percent   of Americans overall believe it).

The Republican Party now stands for little more than the big lie — not for fiscal prudence or smaller government or stronger defense, not for state’s rights or religious freedom or even anti-abortion, but for a pernicious deception. How can what was once a noble party — the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt — descend to such putrid depths, sowing distrust in our electoral system and in the peaceful transition of power that’s at the heart of democracy?

The real question — more in the realm of social psychology than political science — is how one profoundly sick, pathologically narcissistic man, who is obsessed with never losing, has been able to impose his narcissistic obsession on one of America’s two political parties? Which raises an even more troubling question: How can our democracy ever function when almost all Republican politicians are willing to sell out their oaths to the United States Constitution in order to kiss the derrière of this demented man? Why are no more than a handful of Republican politicians, such as Rep. Liz Cheney, willing stand up to this monstrosity?

This is how fascism begins.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago

"Trump Supporters Explain Why They Believe The Big Lie"

Because they're ignorant morons?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
1.1.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    4 weeks ago
ignorant morons

As opposed to educated or knowledgeable morons?  You just love redundancy.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

I just love those who follow me around and point out such nitpicky nonsense.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
1.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.2    4 weeks ago
I just love those who follow me around and point out such nitpicky nonsense.  

I don't think your comments are nonsense, they provide an important service allowing us to see how you think. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.3    4 weeks ago

Who is 'us'?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
1.1.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.4    4 weeks ago
Who is 'us'?

Those that read your comments of course.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
1.1.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.4    4 weeks ago
Who is 'us'?

Everyone that is not "you".

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.2    4 weeks ago
I just love those who follow me around and point out such nitpicky nonsense.  

Stop trying to make yourself the topic.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.5    4 weeks ago

I see you brought some of the other members of my fan club.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.8    4 weeks ago

Your imaginary "fan club" isn't the topic either.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.8    4 weeks ago

DOTW and others are the ones making me the topic.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.10    4 weeks ago

People only commented on what you wrote.

It is a little sad you think that makes you a topic.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.10    4 weeks ago

You all need to stop making me the topic.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.12    4 weeks ago
You all need to stop making me the topic.  

Once again, you are not the topic.

We are discussing serious things here.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
1.1.14  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.12    4 weeks ago
You all need to stop making me the topic.  

I don't want to hurt your feelings but I assure you that the only one attempting to make you the topic is you and you seem to mention it daily.   People responding to your posts does not mean they are making it about you.  It also does not mean they are a fan.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.14    4 weeks ago

Yet you continue to 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
1.1.16  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.15    4 weeks ago
Yet you continue to 

Only in your mind.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

Ignorant morons is not a redundant statement. 

Get a dictionary. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
1.1.18  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @1.1.17    4 weeks ago
Get a dictionary. 

Thanks, I have one.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.18    4 weeks ago

Collecting dust. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.16    4 weeks ago

Yet you continue

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

This country will NEVER get back to normal until Trump voters reject the Big Lie, publicly, and reject the one who created it. 

We can go on this way forever. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 weeks ago

Some never will reject it, that's just human nature I'm afraid.  Hell,  (and I know you hate the both sides bit but too bad) HRC not that long ago repeated her belief that the 2016 election was stolen from her and Stacy Abrams still has not conceded her loss for the Georgia governor race.  Like I said, for some it's just human nature to refuse to believe.  

I wouldn't worry too much about it if I were you, more people are coming out stating that Trump needs to move on and look forward rather than rehashing the past.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.1    4 weeks ago

There is no comparison between what Hillary Clinton said in 2016 and the Big Lie of 2020-2022.  And it is inexplicable why people like you claim there is a comparison. 

Did Hillary Clinton claim the election was stolen from her hundreds of times, on a mostly daily basis? Did she have rallies based on the belief? Did she go on many tv shows and make the claim? Did she try to expunge from her political party anyone that did not agree with her (Trump has publicly "disowned" Republicans who have openly rejected the "Big Lie") ? 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

So the important piece for you is what?  Repetition?  Volume?  

All I was saying is that there are some people who will never reject the big lie, it's human nature.  And then for an example I gave you HRC and Stacy Abrams who are also continuing their belief that their elections were not in fact lost.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.2    4 weeks ago

It is ridiculous to claim that the "complaints" of Hillary Clinton or Stacy Abrams are on the same level of magnitude as Trumps truly constant bitching that the election was stolen from him. Just a couple days ago the talk show host Piers Morgan says Trump stormed out of an interview because Morgan told him the election wasnt stolen. The election was 17 months ago.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    4 weeks ago

It's ludicrous to think there is any comparison whatsoever between them.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.1.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.2    4 weeks ago

You mean Hildabeast didnt lose because of Russian disinformation? 

It is always amusing that the people that rail against both sides do it are the same ones that rationalize it is ok when they do it because it is different when they do it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    4 weeks ago

the point was made and you just missed it is all.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
2.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.2    4 weeks ago
So the important piece for you is what?  Repetition?  Volume?  

The most important part was that she conceded November 9th just a few days after the election. Trying to compare Hillary's actions after she lost the election to Trumps actions after he lost is like comparing apples and orangutans. There simply is no comparison, and those who claim there is are clearly just desperate to find any justification for their monumental failure of a chosen leader. Sadly, these deluded dipshits are to far in to back out now, the sunk cost not allowing them to back off of their hilariously flawed position so they have no choice but to double down on stupid.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.8  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    4 weeks ago

No, what's ridiculous is that you simply refuse to accept my main point in that SOME PEOPLE WILL NEVER FUCKING REJECT THE LIE.   Do you understand now?

Previous studies have found that after an election, supporters of the losing candidate tend to be more likely to believe that votes were counted improperly.

This is a true case of both sides fucking do it.  Trump bitches and continues to bitch.  HRC is stated on multiple occasions that the 2016 election was stolen from her.  Stacy Abrams still refused to concede her loss in Georgia.  Both fucking sides do it but you reject anything other than Trump.  In this it really doesn't matter on the frequency of the bitching, it's a simple binary decision.  Either you accept you lost or you bitch and call it stolen.  One time or a billion times really doesn't fucking matter.

But I'm confident you will need to respond to this with another shout out as to how much worse it is that Trump is doing it.  So go ahead, feel free.  It's just too bad you cannot discuss things honestly.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.1.5    4 weeks ago
You mean Hildabeast didnt lose because of Russian disinformation? 

Well, according to Hillary herself, she lost because:

  1. Herself :   In her book, Hillary blames her "damn emails," her remarks about putting coal miners out of business, and calling Trump's supporters "deplorable."
  2. Russia :   "What Putin wanted to do was...influence our election, and he's not exactly fond of strong women, so you add that together and that's pretty much what it means."
  3. The DNC :   "I'm now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party. It was bankrupt...I had to inject money into it - the DNC - to keep it going."
  4. Sexism and misogyny :   "Sexism and misogyny played a role in the 2016 presidential election. Exhibit A is that the flagrantly sexist candidate won."
  5. A Democratic predecessor :   "It's really difficult to succeed a president of your own party who has served two terms. That is a historical fact."
  6. Bernie Sanders :   "His attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign."
  7. Wikileaks :   "The comey letter, aided to great measure by the Russian WikiLeaks, raised...doubts again. And so even though I won the popular vote, enough people in a few states...were just raising all these questions."
  8. Her "traditional" campaign : "I was running a traditional presidential campaign...while Trump was running a reality TV show that expertly and relentlessly stoked Americans' anger and resentment."
  9. The debate questions ,   not being asked "how the candidates planned to create jobs": "I was waiting for the moment when one of the people asking the questions would have said, 'Well, so, exactly how are you going to create more jobs?'"
  10. Political journalists :   "[Journalists] can't bear to face their own role in helping elect Trump, from providing him free airtime to giving my emails three times more coverage than all the issues affecting people's lives combined."
  11. Campaign financing :   "You had Citizens United come to its full fruition. So unaccountable money flowing in against me, against other Democrats, in a way that we hadn't seen and then attached to this weaponized information war."
  12. President Obama :   "I do wonder sometimes about what would have happened if President Obama had made a televised address to the nation...warning that our democracy was under attack. Maybe more Americans would have woken up to the threat in time."
  13. TV coverage of the campaign :   "When you have a presidential campaign and the total number of minutes on TV news...was 32 minutes, I don't blame voters. Voters are going to hear what they hear...and if they don't get a broad base of information to make judgements on."
  14. Low-information voters :   "You put yourself in the position of a low-information voter, and all of a sudden your Facebook feed, your Twitter account is saying, 'Oh my gosh, Hillary Clinton is running a child trafficking operation in Washington with John Podesta.'"
  15. Women under pressure from men :   "They will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for 'the girl.'"
  16. James Comey :   "The determining factor was the intervention by Comey on October 28...but for that intervention, I would have won.

16 things Hillary Clinton blames for her election loss (axios.com)

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.10  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.9    4 weeks ago
 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.11  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.10    4 weeks ago
Trump has yet to admit he lost. 

Not true - Trump admitted he lost and Biden would be the next president on Jan 7th after Congress had certified the election.  Late to do so  but he did finally say it.  Of course since then he's been non -stop with his belief that the election was stolen.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.10    4 weeks ago
and ?

And?? What do you feel needs to be said to defend Hillary's litany of excuses?

Trump has yet to admit he lost. 

If Trump says he lost, how will that magically change your life? How will it change ANYTHING????????????

What is this need to hear the words, and why are you fixated on it?

Don't YOU know he lost?

And WHY are you insisting on telling the lie that Trump never conceded when links have been provided to you and yours proving you wrong?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.13  Snuffy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.7    4 weeks ago

So you also are arguing volume and repetition instead of a simple binary answer of did he or didn't he.  BFD..  They both conceded they had lost their election, him much later in the process than her.  They both have come out after and stated that the election had been stolen from them.  Simple binary solution...

And let's not ignore the primary statement in my first response.  There are people who will never accept that their candidate lost the election.  It's simple human nature that some people are just unwilling and unable to accept any outcome that doesn't match up with what they wanted /believed would happen.  Oh well,  in the great scheme of things they are of little importance TBH..

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.14  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.8    4 weeks ago
HRC is stated on multiple occasions that the 2016 election was stolen from her.

Did she concede the election?  If so, she is not claiming it was stolen.

She has stated on multiple occasions that she won the "popular vote".  Is she wrong?

This is a true case of both sides fucking do it.

Bullshit!

Hillary conceded the election to Trump.  Trump, to this day, has refused to concede that he lost the election.

A number of current republican Congressmen have stated that they believe Trump won the election.  Not a single democratic congressman has said that about Hillary after her concession.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.15  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.11    4 weeks ago

On Jan 7th Trump realized the election had been certified by Congress and he was out of bullets to try and overturn it. Since Jan 7th he has been endlessly saying that he actually won the election. 

  1. Trump   Michigan Rally: Voter Fraud Lies and Another 2024 ...

    ...

    Apr 03, 2022  · Donald   Trump   on Saturday night managed to come up with a lie that may be even more absurd than the idea that he actually   won   an election he lost by an Electoral College margin of over 70, and a popular vote margin of over seven million. “We did win. We did win,” Trump said during his rally in Washington Township, Michigan. “And you know, if  we  didn’t, I’d be the first …

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.16  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.14    4 weeks ago

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.17  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.12    4 weeks ago

Dont troll my article. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.14    4 weeks ago
Trump, to this day, has refused to concede that he lost the election.

Sorry, but video and FACTS prove you wrong, again.

Here ya go:

'I didn't win the election': Trump concedes 2020 defeat in video interview with historians (msn.com)

Do you ever really research things before making whacked-out claims?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.17    4 weeks ago
Dont troll my article.

Learn what trolling is and then get back to me when you have a firm grasp of it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.17    4 weeks ago

What else is he going to do?  That's all he's got.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.21  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.8    4 weeks ago
Either you accept you lost or you bitch and call it stolen.  One time or a billion times really doesn't fucking matter.

Of course it matters. People can move on from "one time" , and do. "A billion times" cannot be moved on from. 

Tell us again that you are an "independent" or "moderate".  Moderates or independents dont make the sort of incredible excuses for Trump that you make all the time. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
2.1.22  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.11    4 weeks ago
Not true - Trump admitted he lost

When did he say he lost? I'd like to see that quote if you can produce it. If not then it's clear who is really lying here. Trump may have said Biden was going to be President because his minions failed to take the Capital and stop the certification, but I do not recall ever hearing him say he "lost" the election.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.23  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.22    4 weeks ago

Trump is still saying he won. He repeated it at a recent rally and on a recent tv interview. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.23    4 weeks ago

He waddled out of that interview when Piers Morgan told him his big fat ass lost.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.22    4 weeks ago
When did he say he lost? I'd like to see that quote if you can produce it.

Link has BEEN provided.

Here is a direct quote from the link:

“I didn’t win the election,” Trump said. 'I didn't win the election': Trump concedes 2020 defeat in video interview with historians (msn.com)

Now, in the newfangled liberal language, maybe THAT isn't conceding he lost. For those still using standard English, it IS a concession.

The spin on this should be highly amusing!

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.26  Snuffy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.22    4 weeks ago

I didn't win ...  is this the same as 'I lost' or do  you argue that just because he didn't use those explicit words (I lost) that he never admitted it.  Because in most of the world, if you admit you didn't win that means the same as saying you lost.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.27  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.21    4 weeks ago

Only in your mind is the statement "some people will never move on from it" is an excuse for Trump.  

But it's also clear to me that what matters to you is repetition so go ahead have have the last word because  you just are not worth my time.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.28  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.8    4 weeks ago

I get what you're saying. Beliefs are hard to dislodge from some. However, I don't recall Hillary saying the election was stolen from her. She's made a lot of excuses of why she lost. She just can't admit that she got arrogant in the final days and stopped campaigning where it was most important

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.1.29  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.26    4 weeks ago

He continues to say he won.  There’s nothing you can produce that will make that fact go away.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.30  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.26    4 weeks ago

Trump has said he won the election (up until today) a hell of a lot more than the one time he said he didnt win. 

If he says "I won" a hundred times and says "I lost" once, which of those two is the public perception of his belief on the topic? 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.31  Snuffy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.29    4 weeks ago

Of course he does,  show me where I tried to make that go away.  I'm not making excuses for  him, I've said several times in the past that he needs to move on from it and because of his continued push of that lie he's lost my support.  But if  you go all the way up to my initial post in this seed,  what I said was that there are some of his supporters who will never move on and will never reject the lie, that's human nature.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.32  Snuffy  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.28    4 weeks ago

She did say it in a couple of stops on her book tour.  For the most part she doesn't repeat it but she did say it a couple of times.  

And yes, IMO she spent too much time fund raising with the big donors and ignored much of the middle of the country.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.1.33  Right Down the Center  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.31    4 weeks ago
what I said was that there are some of his supporters who will never move on and will never reject the lie, that's human nature.

Some people really seem to have a problem with the concept that would accuse their side of the same thing the other side does, even if that means they reject human nature.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
2.1.34  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.13    4 weeks ago
There are people who will never accept that their candidate lost the election.

First, there is a huge difference between "some people" and 68% of a political party who believe a lie. That by definition either makes them moronic gullible idiots or liars themselves.

Second, what Hillary was claiming, as well as many of her supporters, was that Russia had hacked the DNC during the election and released embarrassing emails with the intent to hurt the Clinton campaign, spent millions on fake social media ads, lies and rumors and surreptitiously helped Trump win the election which was welcomed by the Trump campaign. Those are irrefutable facts. But even so, Hillary conceded gracefully and moved on, she didn't try to inspire a mob of liberals and progressives to attack the capital the day they were to certify the 2016 election results.

Trying to equate Republicans baseless claims of widespread voter fraud with the actual proven election interference from an enemy foreign government is truly the height of stupidity.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.1.35  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.31    4 weeks ago

show me where I tried to make that go away


“I didn't win ...  is this the same as 'I lost' or do  you argue that just because he didn't use those explicit words (I lost) that he never admitted it.  Because in most of the world, if you admit you didn't win that means the same as saying you lost.”

Why are you trying to portray Trump as the guy who admitted he lost then?  Why bother saying anything at all about it?  

because of his continued push of that lie he's lost my support

Then stop muddying that notion by repeating some random statement where he slipped up and admitted that he didn’t win.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.1.36  Right Down the Center  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.29    4 weeks ago
He continues to say he won.

And he continues to not be president so who cares?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.37  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    4 weeks ago
Did Hillary Clinton claim the election was stolen from her hundreds of times, on a mostly daily basis?

Not exactly but she did spawn the Russia Collusion hoax.  But that's right.  We aren't supposed to remember that little tidbit.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.38  Snuffy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.35    4 weeks ago

2.1.22 --  When did he say he lost?
2.1.26 --  I showed where he said 'I didn't win" which in most of the world is the same as saying 'I lost'
2.1.29 -- you replied to 2.1.26 with "He continues to say he won. There's nothing you can produce that will make that fact go away"
2.1.31 --  I replied "Of course he does (meaning he continues to say he won), show me where I tried to make that go away"
2.1.35 --  'why are you trying to protray as the guy who admitted he lost then'  --   mahybe because I showed in 2.1.26 where he did admit just that.
            
Does he continue to push the lie that he actually won the election?  Yes he is still doing that.  That you are not following what I have been saying is not my problem.  This all started because I stated that some people will just never get over it and will never accept that Trump lost.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.1.39  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.9    4 weeks ago

I think she included number 1 pretty late in the excuse tour.  I seem to recall originally she, and the democrats, were blaming everything other than her.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.1.40  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.1.36    4 weeks ago

Who cares?  How about the people who want democracy to survive.  Baseless and endless challenges to a free and fair election is an effort to destroy democracy.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.41  Tessylo  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.40    4 weeks ago

Who cares?  How about the people who want democracy to survive.  Baseless and endless challenges to a free and fair election is an effort to destroy democracy."

The supporters of the moron want all states audited - even where the asshole allegedly won.  .  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.42  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.41    4 weeks ago

Conservatives will make Joe a lame duck after November. I don't think he can win again no matter who runs against him, because his Administration is currently presiding over record-setting inflation, trying to "manage" a war in Ukraine, and struggling to get as many immigrants as possible in here despite being told by their own party members it is wrong.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.43  Jack_TX  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.40    4 weeks ago
Who cares?  How about the people who want democracy to survive.  Baseless and endless challenges to a free and fair election is an effort to destroy democracy.

The amount of melodramatic batshit that spews forth every time somebody mentions the name "Trump" is truly insane.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.44  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.38    4 weeks ago

So the man is walking around contradicting himself....quelle suprise

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.1.45  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.43    4 weeks ago

Please, do tell us how a former President of the United States spewing nonstop lies about a stolen election is not having an impact on democracy.  This from the party that won’t even hold their CPAC conference in this country.  People like yourself are the ones trying so desperately to keep the frogs thinking that the water in the pan isn’t getting hotter.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.46  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.44    4 weeks ago

The steaming pile of shit contradicts himself when he speaks more than a few sentences - sometimes even contradicts himself immediately - yet every word out of that fat pig mouth is lapped up by his supporters/enablers and is gospel.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.1.47  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.30    4 weeks ago
which of those two is the public perception of his belief on the topic? 

Or option 3.  Trump is not president and people are not keeping track of how many times he says he lost vs how many times he said the election was stolen.  Most people really don't care, I am not sure why you and some others have such a problem believing that.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.49  Sparty On  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.1.47    4 weeks ago

Because Trump can’t be controlled to do their bidding.    

He scares them.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
2.1.50  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.26    4 weeks ago
I didn't win ...  is this the same as 'I lost' or do  you argue that just because he didn't use those explicit words (I lost) that he never admitted it. 

You first said "Trump admitted he lost and Biden would be the next president on Jan 7th" which was a lie.

Then you tried to cover for yourself by providing a statement Trump made in an interview in July of 2021 where he was talking about South Korea's Moon Jae-In and inadvertently admitted "when I didn't win the election, he had to be the happiest...".

I'm not surprised at your desperate attempt to move the goal posts, but it's really rather funny to watch. Better luck next time.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.51  Jack_TX  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.45    4 weeks ago
Please, do tell us how a former President of the United States spewing nonstop lies about a stolen election is not having an impact on democracy.

It affects your emotions.  I'm sorry about that, but that's something you're going to need to sort out for yourself.   

Most people don't care.  Most people stopped giving a shit about whatever he does once he lost the election.  

Because he doesn't matter.  He's a desperate attention whore clinging on to whatever last vestige of relevance he's erroneously convinced himself he may have, but that only exists in his imagination and the imaginations of those pathetic souls fragile enough to be afraid of him.

 This from the party that won’t even hold their CPAC conference in this country.  People like yourself are the ones trying so desperately to keep the frogs thinking that the water in the pan isn’t getting hotter.

If you are actually paying attention, you'll realize that Trump has almost no support left and loses more every day that goes by.  That's been going on since the election and accelerated precipitously after Jan 6.  Even the most staunchly conservative voices are saying openly that it's time to move on.  

The only people who don't want to move on are the immature looney left end of the spectrum who cannot seem to exist without a Darth Vader style character to hate.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.1.52  Right Down the Center  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.40    4 weeks ago
Who cares?  How about the people who want democracy to survive.  Baseless and endless challenges to a free and fair election is an effort to destroy democracy.

Democracy is surviving just fine with Donald saying the election was stolen.  Elections have been challenged before and Democracy is just fine.  The only ones that are really concerned are the media and its minions screaming the sky is falling and we have another constitutional crisis.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.1.53  Right Down the Center  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.45    4 weeks ago
Please, do tell us how a former President of the United States spewing nonstop lies about a stolen election is not having an impact on democracy.

Please tell me how many elections have been altered and how democracy has been impacted because Donald is talking.  Interestingly enough it only seems liberals hang on his every word as if it were fact to be disputed.  Most people recognize he is often talking shit and take it as such and don't take it to seriously.  Sort of like some of the posters here..  ..

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.54  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.1.53    4 weeks ago

Yeah, I don't take any of the shit you say seriously.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.55  Snuffy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.50    4 weeks ago

Not moving goal posts, you just refuse to believe that someone saying they didn't win is not the same as saying they lost.  You are splitting hairs demanding that Trump say he lost.  I don't fucking care what you think.  It doesn't matter what else was in the interview, what matters is that Trump said he didn't win.  If not explicitly saying the words you want makes you want to believe  you won, then feel free to claim it.  In the scheme of things, your "victory" here is as meaningless as Trump continuing to say that the election was stolen from him.  So congrats, I just equated you to Trump.  Feel better?  Again,  i don't care.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.1.56  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.51    4 weeks ago

Most people don't care.  Most people stopped giving a shit about whatever he does once he lost the election.

It’s mighty courageous for you to be talking for “most people”.  Perhaps you should consider that Trump is still the absolute king of the Republican Party, with nearly all Rs in congress still publicly and subserviently bending to his will.  They know he’s a liar, a uneducated buffoon, a con artist, etc., but he’s their chosen one.  Perhaps instead of being the wise and observant arbiter of the nation, you are even more blind than the sheep attending his rallies.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.1.57  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.1.53    4 weeks ago

Please tell me how many elections have been altered and how democracy has been impacted because Donald is talking. 

I can’t wait to see your excuses when certain state legislatures decide that it’s time to circumvent free and fair elections by sending their own chosen electors in place of the ones who will not vote how the Republican Party wants them to.  They are openly setting this stage whilst you and your friends here constantly run defense for them and pretend there’s nothing there.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.58  Tessylo  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.57    4 weeks ago
"They are openly setting this stage whilst you and your friends here constantly run defense for them and pretend there’s nothing there."

Incessantly pretending there is no problem.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.1.59  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.54    4 weeks ago
Yeah, I don't take any of the shit you say seriously.  

I wouldn't expect you to.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.1.60  Right Down the Center  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.57    4 weeks ago

Oh, so it is going to happen because of what Donald is saying now even though it didn't happen after the election.  Do you recall that when Donald won the democrats were trying to put pressure on the electors to vote against what people voted for.  Did you have a problem then?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.61  Snuffy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.57    4 weeks ago

As I recall, there were seven states who attempted to send in false electors after the 2020 election.  And none of them were accepted.  Seems the rules in place worked.  Last I heard it's still being investigated but I've not heard of any follow up on this.  Do you have any information?   And why do  you suspect that the Democrats would be able to pull off a ruse like this in the future?  Why would you want them to?  Aren't the Democrats supposed to be the champions of free and fair elections?  Doing this action would seem to go against a fair election pledge.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.1.62  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.58    4 weeks ago
Incessantly pretending there is no problem.
There isn't a problem now or in 2020, Biden won. It seems there is a concern that there will be.
Then I am sure you are all for voter ID because not having it could lead to voter fraud even if it hasn't in the past.  Good for you.
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.63  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.1.62    4 weeks ago

yea, yea, yea

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
2.1.64  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.63    4 weeks ago
yea, yea, yea

Much stronger than a single yea, good job Tessylo.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.1.65  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.63    4 weeks ago

Exactly

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.1.66  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.61    4 weeks ago

As I recall, there were seven states who attempted to send in false electors after the 2020 election.  And none of them were accepted.  Seems the rules in place worked. 

The rules worked, which is why they have since changed the rules.  Raffensperger was the one who stopped Trump’s attempt at stealing the election with his sane admittance that there were no voting irregularities of significance.  His position no longer has that authority, now it is up to the state legislature.  Do you think there was any other reason for them to do this other than to sway the next election?

Last I heard it's still being investigated but I've not heard of any follow up on this.

Gee, I wonder what news sources you seek out.  /s

And why do  you suspect that the Democrats would be able to pull off a ruse like this in the future? 

Pull off what?  What are you smoking?  What D ruse are you talking about?  I’ve said nothing that even resembles that statement.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.1.67  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.1.60    4 weeks ago

[Deleted I suspect the former.]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.68  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.16    4 weeks ago

That's all you got?  How many lawsuits did she file? 

If you cannot understand the difference between a figure of speech and a legal claim, you need to study the language more. 

  • What actions did she take because it was stolen? 
  • Is that because she made the claim on television, late night? 
  • Did she make the claim to Congress? 
  • Did she request Congress overturn the results? 
  • Did she take any steps whatsoever to try and take the position after the election showed she lost? 
  • Did she claim, even once, that it was "stolen" illegally?
 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.69  Ozzwald  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.1.60    4 weeks ago
Do you recall that when Donald won the democrats were trying to put pressure on the electors to vote against what people voted for.

Who did the majority of "the people" vote for?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.70  Snuffy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.66    4 weeks ago
And why do  you suspect that the Democrats would be able to pull off a ruse like this in the future?  Pull off what?  What are you smoking?  What D ruse are you talking about?  I’ve said nothing that even resembles that statement.

I made an assumption there.  In 2.1.57 you said 

certain state legislatures decide that it’s time to circumvent free and fair elections by sending their own chosen electors in place of the ones who will not vote how the Republican Party wants them to.

In 2.1.61 which was my response to your 2.1.57,  I assumed that as there are only two major political parties in this country and you mentioned that electors could be put in place that would not vote as the Republican Party would want them to, it's logical to assume  you meant they would be voting as the Democratic Party would want them to.  Now if that's not what  you meant to say then you should have explained it better.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.71  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.68    4 weeks ago

Barking up the wrong tree.  All 2.1.16 showed was that yes, Hillary Clinton did in fact say she believed the 2016 election had been stolen from her.  Nowhere in there did I go into what else she did so all your points mean nothing.    You might be better off by showing me where in this seed I am actually defending Donald Trump.  I'll give  you a hint,  I haven't .  Pointing out things is not the same as defending someone.  Like my comments to someone else, give it a fucking rest.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.1.72  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.70    4 weeks ago

you mentioned that electors could be put in place that would not vote as the Republican Party would want them to

No, I said:

I can’t wait to see your excuses when certain state legislatures decide that it’s time to circumvent free and fair elections by sending their own chosen electors in place of the ones who will not vote how the Republican Party wants them to.

This has been widely reported on by news networks that report real news.  It has probably never even been mentioned on Fox.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.73  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.69    4 weeks ago
Do you recall that when Donald won the democrats were trying to put pressure on the electors to vote against what people voted for.
Who did the majority of "the people" vote for?

Do you recall that in a presidential election that's meaningless outside of the statement who did the majority of any state vote for.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.74  Snuffy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.72    4 weeks ago

yeah, I copy/pasted your fucking line in 2.1.71.   You're splitting hairs.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.75  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.69    4 weeks ago
Who did the majority of "the people" vote for

is THAT how you think the electoral college operates? According to overall popular votes?

Hint: NO!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.76  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.72    4 weeks ago
I can’t wait to see your excuses when certain state legislatures decide that it’s time to circumvent free and fair elections by sending their own chosen electors in place of the ones who will not vote how the Republican Party wants them to.

Nothing but a boatload of fantasy thinking.

Not one fact to back that insane thinking up.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.1.77  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.74    4 weeks ago

Splitting hairs?  You misread my comment completely.  That is forgivable, acting like you understood what you clearly did not isn’t so forgivable.  This isn’t a little thing, this is how democracy dies.  The elector is dutifully bound to cast their vote representing the will of those they represent.  When that elector is replaced with someone who is willing to not exercise that responsibility, then we no longer have a democratic republic.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.78  Snuffy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.77    4 weeks ago

Ok, so you brought up Raffensperger.  What are the rules in Georgia now for selecting electors?  Isn't Georgia still a winner take all state with the electoral college electors being selected from the party that wins  the majority vote for president in the State of Georgia?  

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.1.79  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.76    4 weeks ago

Riiight.  Nothing to see here …

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.80  Snuffy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.77    4 weeks ago
certain state legislatures decide that it’s time to circumvent free and fair elections by sending their own chosen electors in place of the ones who will not vote how the Republican Party wants them to.

I did a quick Google search on your phrase.  Seems that line was reported in USAToday and was said by Mark Lavin.

Then here's another tidbit on this..

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.1.81  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.54    4 weeks ago
Yeah, I don't take any of the shit you say seriously.  

Why are you trying to make it about me?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.1.82  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.78    4 weeks ago

From the link above:

While Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger did make the rounds this week to promote Georgia’s new election reform law, there was one part of the law that he objected to.

Specifically, it’s the part that strips him of his chairmanship on the State Elections Board and gives that job to someone who would be appointed by the Georgia General Assembly.

“I report to the voters, and so if the voters don’t like what I do, then I pay for that at the polls,” Raffensperger said. “Now, you’re going to have an unelected board that are unaccountable to the voters, and so if something goes wrong, then who do you really hold accountable?

Why would this change have been made when it was?  Because Republicans in GA wanted Raffensperger to do what Trump told him to and cheat.  He didn’t, and so they stripped him of that authority entirely, to be replaced with a willing and unaccountable partisan appointed by a Republican legislature.  This is as naked as corruption can get.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.1.83  Right Down the Center  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.69    4 weeks ago

When did the popular vote choose a president?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.84  Snuffy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.82    4 weeks ago
Why would this change have been made when it was?  Because Republicans in GA wanted Raffensperger to do what Trump told him to and cheat.  He didn’t, and so they stripped him of that authority entirely, to be replaced with a willing and unaccountable partisan appointed by a Republican legislature.

And a reason from someone else...

Election board member David Worley said he believes that removing Raffensperger’s power over the board is retaliation against the GOP secretary of state for mailing out 7 million absentee ballot applications during the pandemic last year. 

I don't know the law in Georgia before the 2020 elections.  Did they allow for a mass mailing of the absentee ballot applications or did they require the individual to request the application?  Not sure it's all that important but as i said I don't know how the law was before the elections.   

But a lot of this really comes down to supposition as we don't have all the information and must rely on what is reported in main-stream media.  None of it is reliable. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.85  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.82    4 weeks ago

And ALL you have to do to make your statement ring true is to simply provide some examples of what you claim will happen actually happening.

I eagerly await some link or other proof instead of wishful thinking and fantasy.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.86  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.73    4 weeks ago
Do you recall that in a presidential election that's meaningless outside of the statement who did the majority of any state vote for.

YOU are the one who brought up who the people voted for.  So answer my simple question.  Who did the majority of the people vote for?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.87  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.79    4 weeks ago

Oh, some guy lost his job and is now whining about it.

STILL waiting something other than opinion and fantasy thinking.

For what YOU claimed:

I can’t wait to see your excuses when certain state legislatures decide that it’s time to circumvent free and fair elections by sending their own chosen electorsin place ofthe ones who will not vote how the Republican Party wants them to.

And once again, ALL you have to do to give your post JUST a little credibility is to simply provide a link where this has actually HAPPENED. Show me even ONE instance of state legislatures circumventing free and fair elections by sending their own chosen electors in place of the others.

Since obviously and clearly you can not, this is all your little make-believe world.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.88  Ozzwald  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.1.83    4 weeks ago

When did the popular vote choose a president?

Why ask me?  YOU are the one that brought it up.  Now you are squirming like crazy, terrified to answer the question that you brought up yourself.

Here I will, once again quote you, word for word.

Do you recall that when Donald won the democrats were trying to put pressure on the electors to vote against what people voted for.

YOUR words.  If Hillary won the popular vote, your statement means that the democrats were trying to get the electors to vote for Trump.  Is that what you were saying that the democrats were doing?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.89  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.87    4 weeks ago

You see, to some folks, proving voter bona fides is voter suppression.    Pretty messed up.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.90  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.88    4 weeks ago
If Hillary won the popular vote, your statement means that the democrats were trying to get the electors to vote for Trump.  Is that what you were saying that the democrats were doing?

You REALLY need to better understand Presidential elections and the rolls of the Electoral College and the popular vote in them.

You may find this helpful:

Presidential Election Process | USAGov

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.91  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.87    4 weeks ago
And once again, ALL you have to do to give your post JUST a little credibility is to simply provide a link where this has actually HAPPENED.

Here you go Texan1211.

Trump’s fake electors: Here’s the full list

Groups from Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all sent lists of so-called alternate electors to the National Archives after the 2020 election.

January 6 Committee subpoenas ‘alternate electors’ in seven states

Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states

What you need to know about the fake Trump electors

Prosecutors in multiple states are investigating false Electoral College submissions

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.92  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.91    4 weeks ago
Groups from Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all sent lists of so-called alternate electors to the National Archives after the 2020 election.

And were ANY of those electors recognized and counted?

Did Biden win? Yes. And he was inaugurated, so I really don't see why people are griping about something that never happened.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.1.93  Right Down the Center  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.88    4 weeks ago
YOUR words.

My words were about individual districts that Trump had won and Hillary minions were trying to get the electors to change who they gave the electoral votes to, not the overall popular vote count.  There is a big difference.

Terrified, really?  Are you being obtuse on purpose?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.94  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.86    4 weeks ago

In which state?  When you're talking about the presidential election there is not a nationwide election, but a series of state/territory elections.  Stop with the popular vote bullshit because it is meaningless when talking about a presidential election.  And YOU are the one who brought it up in 2.1.69

Who did the majority of "the people" vote for?

The simple answer to who did the majority of the people vote for is meaningless.  Popular vote is meaningless.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
2.1.95  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.67    4 weeks ago

Is skirting the CoC like a hanging chad?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.96  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.94    4 weeks ago

Looks like some of our liberal friends are struggling with the concept and workings of Presidential elections and the role the Electoral College plays in them.

Why, some even seem to think the popular vote is more important!

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.97  Snuffy  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.96    4 weeks ago
Why, some even seem to think the popular vote is more important!

Yeah,  I expect we'll hear a lot more about it in the buildup to 24.  And another push to get more states into that interstate compact on electoral college votes.  Have to admit, that's a funny one.  There's no teeth in that agreement so any state could really not follow it if the vote doesn't go the way they want it to.  It also doesn't answer current state laws where the state is set up to mandate that the electors must come from the party that won the state election under a winner take all provision.  Won't stop the rhetoric from being loud over the 24 election cycle.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
2.1.98  pat wilson  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.51    4 weeks ago
Most people stopped giving a shit about whatever he does once he lost the election.  

Tell that to republican leadership.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.99  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.92    4 weeks ago
And were ANY of those electors recognized and counted?

Does it matter?  Do you have to succeed in robbing the bank to be charged with armed robbery?

You asked where it happened, and I showed you.  Now you just need to man up and accept that you were wrong.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.100  Ozzwald  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.1.93    4 weeks ago
My words were about

Now you are trying to walk back what you said.  That is a very dishonest tactic.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
2.1.101  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.99    4 weeks ago
Do you have to succeed in robbing the bank to be charged with armed robbery?

Yes. Otherwise it would be ATTEMPTED armed robbery.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.102  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.99    4 weeks ago
"Now you just need to man up and accept that you were wrong."

jrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.103  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.91    4 weeks ago
"And once again, ALL you have to do to give your post JUST a little credibility is to simply provide a link where this has actually HAPPENED."

"Here you go Texan1211.

Trump’s fake electors: Here’s the full list

Groups from Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all sent lists of so-called alternate electors to the National Archives after the 2020 election.

January 6 Committee subpoenas ‘alternate electors’ in seven states

Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states

What you need to know about the fake Trump electors

Prosecutors in multiple states are investigating false Electoral College submissions"

But that's all no big deal and nothing should be done about it according to certain posters, since they didn't get away with it, right?

Only a fucking moron would believe that just because they didn't get away with it, that's they didn't break any laws.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
2.1.104  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.103    4 weeks ago
nothing should be done about it according to certain posters, since they didn't get away with it, right?

You're catching on. Kudos.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.105  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.101    4 weeks ago
Yes. Otherwise it would be ATTEMPTED armed robbery.

LOL!  Not how it works.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
2.1.106  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.105    4 weeks ago

I'm afraid it is. Perhaps you can elaborate on why you think otherwise?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.108  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.105    4 weeks ago
"Yes. Otherwise it would be ATTEMPTED armed robbery."

"LOL!  Not how it works."

"I'm afraid it is. Perhaps you can elaborate on why you think otherwise?"  jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif   jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

I'm afraid IT IS NOT!  Because the 'attempted armed robbery' didn't pan out they shouldn't be locked up for 'attempting armed robbery'?????????

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.1.109  Right Down the Center  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.100    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
2.1.110  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.108    4 weeks ago
Because the 'attempted armed robbery' didn't pan out they shouldn't be locked up for 'attempting armed robbery'?????????

WTF are you trying to say? I said if they weren't successful, they should be locked up for attempted armed robbery if it didn't pan out. You need to work on your comprehension skills or lack thereof.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.1.111  Right Down the Center  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.100    4 weeks ago

Not at all, just trying to clarify to clear up your confusion as to what I meant.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 weeks ago
This country will NEVER get back to normal until Trump voters reject the Big Lie, publicly, and reject the one who created it.

 Years from now it might be a footnote in a history book, and a few hundred liberals will still be saying the kids and grandkids of the people that never rejected the big lie need to publicly reject it.  You have any idea how silly that sounds?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.3  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 weeks ago

This country will never get back to normal until we deal with the TDS Epidemic in this country.   Perhaps we can ask Pfizer to develop a vaccine.    

Butt cream is of limited benefit.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.3.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Sparty On @2.3    4 weeks ago
Butt cream is of limited benefit.

I bought stock in butt cream in 2016.  I made a killing.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.3.2  afrayedknot  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.3.1    4 weeks ago

“I bought stock in butt cream in 2016.  I made a killing.”

At long last, right down the center makes perfect sense. Jim Jordan must also have been involved…if not, it would truly be a shocker…

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.3.3  Sparty On  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.3.1    4 weeks ago

Interestingly ..... Preparation H is made by  ..... Pfizer.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

johnpavlovitz.com   /2022/01/05/all-americans-know-january-6th-was-an-insurrection-decent-ones-care/

All Americans Know January 6th Was An Insurrection. Decent Ones Care.

5-6 minutes   1/5/2022


We all saw it.

On January 6th, 2021, many of us watched it in disbelief in real time: the almost incomprehensible sight of thousands of people breaching the very seat of our Government: smashing windows, breaking through doors, setting off tear gas canisters, crushing outnumbered and overmatched Capitol police, and parading unimpeded through the chambers of Congress.

As the chaos unfolded, the questions kept running through the heads of incredulous news anchors and millions of good people:
“How is this happening?”
“Why isn’t anyone stopping them?”
“Where the hell is the National Guard?”
“Why won’t Trump say something?”

With each passing minute, it became more and more difficult to reconcile in our brains, how one of the normally-most-secure sites in America could have been so easily and so quickly overtaken. The scenes of scores of people in body armor and gas masks, desecrating monuments, rooting through offices, and crushing police officers were shocking and sickening.

Yet, as disturbing as the initial images were, what soon became apparent is that this was not some spontaneous display of misplaced outrage produced in a random moment—this was a thoroughly-planned attack on our nation; conceived, coordinated, and aided by Right Wing media members, Republicans in Congress, and by a sitting president.

This unthinkable act of violence was not only an inside job, but one whose genesis came from the very highest level of our public servants and brought us the width of an onion-skin from complete collapse. We were literally a handful of courageous officers, a few quick-thinking politicians, and one or two fortuitous seconds from an overturned election, an installed dictator, and an unrecognizable America.

But perhaps worse than all of all we have learned about January 6th, even more tragic has been the response to that day from people we know and love: an infuriating multiple choice of gaslighting, denial, and complete silence.

The dissonance in them since that day has been profound:

Blue Lives suddenly no longer mattered.
The Law and Order folks now had no use for either.
The God and Country crowd were seemingly able to easily discard both.

And in the days since that day, all their flag-waving histrionics, hand-wringing anthem outrage, and border-defending bravado ended up being nothing but fake news; all that   America First   chest-bumping and   God Bless America   showy piety they’ve peddled for four years, proved purely ornamental.

Because when the smoke dissipated and the arrests began and the phone records surfaced and the sheer scope and intent of this day were revealed—they didn’t give a damn.

In fact, if they’re honest, millions of our family members, friends, neighbors, and co-workers are likely only truly upset that the attack was not fully successful. Then, they would not have had to reckon with the evidence or hear the testimony or be accountable for any of this, because their candidate and their party would be controlling the narrative, silencing dissension, and preventing justice. And they would be winning.

It would be a small comfort to dismiss this all as mass ignorance: to tell ourselves the story that Republican voters (especially those we know and love) have been duped by complicit media and corrupt politicians who’ve leveraged their fears, disabled their critical thinking skills, and rendered them unaware of all that unfolded on that day in January—but we would be lying to ourselves.

They know.

Outside of a small percentage of the most deluded and unstable among us, they all know the reality of that day. They saw it, too. They could read the names on the flags surrounding dying officers, hear the familiar FoxNews rhetoric being screamed through the halls of Congress, and they could not avoid the Make America Great Again signaling saturating everything. They know who was responsible for this, what their intentions were, and what the stakes were to our nation. That is precisely why they have spent a year denying, defending, justifying or ignoring it: they wanted it—and that has struck the most vicious blow to our great national fracture, one that we may not be able to recover from.

The deepest wound is knowing that they know, and that it doesn’t matter.

January 6th was a coordinated attempt to kidnap members of Congress, overturn a free and fair election by its people, and install a president whose criminality is simply unprecedented and whose involvement was complete.
It was a threat to our sovereignty.
It was a rejection of our Constitution.
It was antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.
It was the opposite of patriotism.
It was an historic act of treason.
It was a vicious attack on democracy.
It was a partisan act of domestic terrorism.
It was a violent insurrection.

All Americans know this.

All of them.

Only decent ones care.

Only Americans who truly love this nation and what it stands for and what it aspires to and the people who call it home and those who wish to call it home are outraged right now, regardless of their political affiliation.

Everyone else—is simply revealing that they do not.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 weeks ago
Only Americans who truly love this nation and what it stands for and what it aspires to and the people who call it home and those who wish to call it home are outraged right now, regardless of their political affiliation.

Very few are still admitting to being poutraged.

The rest know how ludicrous it is.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 weeks ago

What happened on January 6th is far down the typical American citizen's list of concerns...kinda liike climate  change

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.2.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2    4 weeks ago
What happened on January 6th is far down the typical American citizen's list of concerns...kinda liike climate  change

It's 1000 miles further down the list than climate change.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @3.2.1    4 weeks ago

Like John said, decent people care.  Sane ones do also.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
3.2.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.2    4 weeks ago
Like John said, decent people care.  Sane ones do also.

Maybe you could supply a list about what decent and sane people care about so we can better meet your expectations.

Thank you

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.2.3    4 weeks ago

You don't meet the criteria 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
3.2.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.4    4 weeks ago
You don't meet the criteria 

I don't recall saying I did, maybe that is why a list would be helpful.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.2.5    4 weeks ago

Don't sweat it.  You'll never make the cut.    

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
3.2.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.6    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.3  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 weeks ago

Your understanding of how much Americans such as myself love this country, is almost childlike in nature.    If wasn’t so fucked up for a grow assed man to be thinking that way it would be amusing.    But it’s not.    

It’s just a sad, hateful little message you love to spew at the expense of a lot of good Americans.    Many of whom have already done a hell of a lot more than you ever will to support and defend her.

Weak sauce John, really weak sauce.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @3.3    4 weeks ago

So your "love for America" justifies supporting the piece of shit known as Donald Trump?

Trump is a known pathological liar, crook, bigot, moron, and cheat. Not suspected, known. 

You say you love your country, then denounce that piece of shit. 

My love of my country wants him gone so he can stop damaging and ruining our country. And now we have to deal with the fact that millions of people support this demented and deranged liar. The people who "attack" Trumpism dont have to change, the ones that support it do. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.3.2  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.1    4 weeks ago

Next time you want to see a real piece of shit take a look in the toilet before you flush it.

Your interpretations in this regard are complete meaningless due to an extremely chronic case of TDS.    

You’re not rational on this topic.   haven’t been for quite some time.

Too bad, you seem like a rather nice fellow other than that.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
3.3.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.1    4 weeks ago
"My love of my country wants him gone so he can stop damaging and ruining our country."
Sounds like the same way I feel about Joe.
"And now we have to deal with the fact that millions of people support this demented and deranged liar."
Actually you don't have to deal with anything you don't want to.  If you want your life to revolve around what Donald and his supporters are doing and thinking at any given time that is on you.  Most people without an affliction that will remain nameless are going to get along just fine without people screaming for forgiveness for ever believing what Trump says.  And if by some miracle Trump gets elected president again the country will still survive, we did when he was president for 4 years and I am sure we would survive another 4 years although I really don't think that is in our future (unless Joe runs again).  I am more concerned we make it to the next presidential election.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.3.4  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.1    4 weeks ago
My love of my country wants him gone so he can stop damaging and ruining our country.

This may be the single biggest lie you may have ever told in your life.

If you wanted him gone, you'd stop obsessing about him every. single. day.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
3.3.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  Sparty On @3.3    4 weeks ago
Weak sauce John, really weak sauce.

Like using ketchup over pasta and calling it marinara?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
3.3.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.1    4 weeks ago
You say you love your country, then denounce that piece of shit. 

Will that really be all you need for proof that someone loves this country?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.7  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.4    4 weeks ago

for years you've been telling us that no one pays any attention to Trump. 

Last night at the Pennsylvania Republican Senatorial Debate all five of the candidates pledged their loyalty to Donald Trump and said the election was stolen. 

So much for your hallucination that people are over Trump. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.3.8  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.7    4 weeks ago
Last night at the Pennsylvania Republican Senatorial Debate all five of the candidates pledged their loyalty to Donald Trump and said the election was stolen. 

Cite them.  What exact words did they say?

If you wanted him gone, you'd stop obsessing about him every. single. day.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.9  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.8    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 weeks ago
“How is this happening?”

People gather in one place in support of something.  For example, a wake; people gather at somebody's home after a death.  People gather in a venue for a concert / play to support the performers.

“Why isn’t anyone stopping them?”

It's protected under the 1st Amendment.

“Where the hell is the National Guard?”

it was offered to have NG on site but was turned away by, wait for it - POLITICIANS.

“Why won’t Trump say something?”

What did they want him to say?  That they shouldn't exercise their rights?  That's pretty 3rd world shit hole thinking.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.5.1  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.5    4 weeks ago
People gather in one place in support of something.  For example, a wake; people gather at somebody's home after a death.  People gather in a venue for a concert / play to support the performers.

That statement is in NO WAY responsive to the question. Why did you bother? 

It's protected under the 1st Amendment.

NONE of the actions cited in the article are protected under the 1st Amendment. NOT ONE. 

it was offered to have NG on site but was turned away by, wait for it - POLITICIANS.

Utter bullshit. 

VP Pence was evacuated from the SENATE chambers Jeremy. I have to wonder if you even understand that Mitch McConnell was the Leader of the Senate before [planning] and during Jan. 6th. If your claim had ANY credulity, the blame would have to be laid at McConnell's doorstep.

The House AND Senate reports on their investigation debunks that falsehood. Continuing to repeat that lie is an attempt to intentional gaslight NT members.

What did they want him to say?  That they shouldn't exercise their rights?  

Cite the right you claim they were exercising Jeremy. Be specific. 

That's pretty 3rd world shit hole thinking.

The 3rd world shit is the violent attack against the peaceful transfer of power enumerated in our Constitution. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.5.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @3.5.1    4 weeks ago

You really went out of your way for that didn't you.  All that and you haven't proven anything I said wrong.  Almost looks like you just stomped your feat screaming "YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG".

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.5.3  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.5.2    4 weeks ago
You really went out of your way for that didn't you. 

Delusions of grandeur. 

I refuted your comment with information right off the top of my head Jeremy. 

All that and you haven't proven anything I said wrong. 

Really Jeremy? I stated:

NONE of the actions cited in the article are protected under the 1st Amendment. NOT ONE.

Since you insist that doesn't prove what you said is wrong, you should be able to explain what 1st Amendment rights protect perpetrators:

smashing windows, breaking through doors, setting off tear gas canisters, crushing outnumbered and overmatched Capitol police, and parading unimpeded through the chambers of Congress.

Be specific. 

Almost looks like you just stomped your feat screaming "YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG".

Your inability and/or unwillingness to actually address my comment proves that, Jeremy.

You failed to address my 1st Amendment comment and this:

Cite the right you claim they were exercising Jeremy. Be specific. 

Here's your second chance. Please proceed. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.5.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @3.5.3    3 weeks ago

You really need to keep conversations straight.  Who are you quoting?  You only quoted me twice.  The rest, don't know who said that.  Maybe the voices in your head.

Until you get your shit together, have a nice day.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.5.5  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.5.4    3 weeks ago
You really need to keep conversations straight.

You really need to stop posting obtuse bullshit. 

Who are you quoting? 

It's stated clearly in my comment. 

You only quoted me twice. 

You only posted three sentences, the third was unworthy of being addressed. 

The rest, don't know who said that. 

I think that statement is an intentional deflection. See below.

Maybe the voices in your head.

Perhaps the voices in YOURS can get you back on the topic of YOUR own thread Jeremy. 

You replied to the article that John posted. You stated that the reason that they weren't being stopped is that their actions are protected by the 1st Amendment. The actions cited in John's article include: 

smashing windows, breaking through doors, setting off tear gas canisters, crushing outnumbered and overmatched Capitol police, and parading unimpeded through the chambers of Congress.

Again, YOU stated that those actions are protected by the 1st Amendment.

What clause of the 1st Amendment enumerates Constitutional protection for those actions Jeremy? 

Until you get your shit together, have a nice day.

More obtuse bullshit. 

You don't want to address your own comments so you try to make it personal. 

You asked:

What did they want him to say?  That they shouldn't exercise their rights?  

Again, the article you replied to cited specific actions: 

smashing windows, breaking through doors, setting off tear gas canisters, crushing outnumbered and overmatched Capitol police, and parading unimpeded through the chambers of Congress.

For the third time, cite the right you claim they were exercising Jeremy. Be specific. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.5.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @3.5.5    3 weeks ago
smashing windows, breaking through doors, setting off tear gas canisters, crushing outnumbered and overmatched Capitol police, and parading unimpeded through the chambers of Congress.
For the third time, cite the right you claim they were exercising Jeremy. Be specific. 

You're getting there.  THAT IS NOT MY STATEMENT.  You want to fucking quote me then make sure IT"S SOMETHING I FUCKING SAID.  Again, Until you get your shit together, have a nice day.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.5.7  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.5.6    3 weeks ago
You're getting there.

You're getting nowhere.  

THAT IS NOT MY STATEMENT.  You want to fucking quote me then make sure IT"S SOMETHING I FUCKING SAID. 

My comment clearly stated:

You replied to the article that John posted. You stated that the reason that they weren't being stopped is that their actions are protected by the 1st Amendment. The actions cited in John's article include
smashing windows, breaking through doors, setting off tear gas canisters, crushing outnumbered and overmatched Capitol police, and parading unimpeded through the chambers of Congress.

Again, YOU stated that those actions are protected by the 1st Amendment.

What clause of the 1st Amendment enumerates Constitutional protection for those actions Jeremy? 

Instead of answering my question, you AGAIN make a sad attempt at deflecting. It's embarrassing to watch.

Again, Until you get your shit together, have a nice day.

Three strikes, you're out...

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
3.6  gooseisback  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 weeks ago
Only Americans who truly love this nation and what it stands for and what it aspires to and the people who call it home and those who wish to call it home are outraged right now, regardless of their political affiliation.

The person who wrote this article should consider rehab, smoking crack is really bad for you. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
4  Hal A. Lujah    4 weeks ago

“When I went to bed, Trump was so in the lead and then [I got] up and he's not in the lead. I mean, that's crazy."

It’s only crazy when the candidate who you wanted to lose suddenly takes the lead.  These same idiots wouldn’t bat an eye if Trump look the lead after they went to bed.  If they would change the channel once in a while they would have been aware that this was the expected trend.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4    4 weeks ago

It is difficult to overestimate the ignorance of those who are MAGA- addled and attend Trump rallies or wish they could. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
4.1.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    4 weeks ago
attend Trump rallies or wish they could. 

I hear they give out free popcorn and hats.  That is way better than going to a rally to be put to sleep and possibly be trampled by people rushing to leave (all 10 of them).

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4.1.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Right Down the Center @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

Who even has the time to go to something as retarded as a political rally?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
5  Greg Jones    4 weeks ago

Trumps star, which briefly shined as brightly as an orange giant, has  blown off so much hot gas that it has been  reduced to a dim white dwarf.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
6  Jack_TX    4 weeks ago
These voters aren't bad or unintelligent people. The problem is that the Big Lie is embedded in their daily life. They hear from Trump-aligned politicians, their like-minded peers, and MAGA-friendly media outlets—and from these sources they hear the same false claims repeated ad infinitum.

It is fascinating to me how people who are obsessed with politics absolutely cannot comprehend how the vast, vast majority of Americans are barely interested. 

It reaches the point of derangement. 

You don't really see this in other areas of society.  Obsessed NFL fans don't automatically assume that everybody else has NFL ideas "embedded in their daily life".  If they start a conversation and somebody says "I don't really follow football, I just watch the Super Bowl every year", they accept that.  They don't assume that person has been misled by some nefarious plot proliferated by HGTV.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
6.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Jack_TX @6    4 weeks ago
It is fascinating to me how people who are obsessed with politics absolutely cannot comprehend how the vast, vast majority of Americans are barely interested. 

BINGO!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.2  Sparty On  replied to  Jack_TX @6    4 weeks ago
It reaches the point of derangement. 

The “resist movement” has scrambled a lot of liberal minds out there.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
6.2.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Sparty On @6.2    4 weeks ago
The “resist movement” has scrambled a lot of liberal minds out there.

Having the pussy hat too tight sure didn't help either.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Sparty On  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.2.1    4 weeks ago

The sky screaming might have damaged some portions of their working brains.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
6.2.3  afrayedknot  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.2.1    4 weeks ago

“Having the pussy hat too tight sure didn't help either.”

And neither does a MAGA/Brandon hat, flag, banner, bumper sticker, monetary contribution, political endorsement, etc. etc. help anything. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
6.2.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  afrayedknot @6.2.3    4 weeks ago

It helps free enterprise and creates jobs.  Thousands and thousands of them.  As a matter of fact it is the best thing Joe has done for the economy since he was elected.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
6.2.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  Sparty On @6.2.2    4 weeks ago
working brains

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.2.7  Sparty On  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.2.6    4 weeks ago

Damage due to possible oxygen deprivation, perhaps an aneurism ......

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.3  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @6    4 weeks ago
It is fascinating to me how people who are obsessed with politics absolutely cannot comprehend how the vast, vast majority of Americans are barely interested. 

If they want to continue to live in a Democratic Republic, it's time they became MORE interested. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
6.3.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @6.3    4 weeks ago
If they want to continue to live in a Democratic Republic, it's time they became MORE interested. 

Meh.

That presumes that the USA will somehow cease to be a republic if people simply continue to go about their daily lives.  I'm not sure there is any evidence to suggest that will happen.  Look at local elections.  Just because they have 5% turnout does not mean we stop holding them.

It also presumes that the more interested people become the more likely they are to agree with you, which is probably not the case.

I find it interesting to hear people complain about how more people should be more interested in politics and then scream lunacy like "fascism" when the elections don't go their way and their particular brand of politics is soundly rejected.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.3.2  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.1    4 weeks ago
Meh.

That presumes that the USA will somehow cease to be a republic if people simply continue to go about their daily lives. 

It also presumes that the more interested people become the more likely they are to agree with you, which is probably not the case.

Meh.

My comment does not presume either. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
6.3.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @6.3.2    4 weeks ago
My comment does not presume either. 

Then do tell.  How does their continued lack of interest result in them no longer living in a democratic republic?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.3.4  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.3    4 weeks ago

I suggest you review the laws passed and in process that allow state legislatures to overturn elections unilaterally. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
6.4  Thomas  replied to  Jack_TX @6    3 weeks ago

Albatross on a stick

Could you please explain this statement:

It is fascinating to me how people who are obsessed with politics absolutely cannot comprehend how the vast, vast majority of Americans are barely interested.  It reaches the point of derangement. 

In Juxtaposition with the linked video and in the context of the article?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7  Tessylo    4 weeks ago
"Election results being challenged has been done way before Donald."

Yeah election results being 'challenged' like trumpturd's happen all the time.

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
7.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @7    3 weeks ago

Bush/Gore

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1    3 weeks ago

You mean when, after the court ruled, Al Gore graciously conceded for the good of the nation? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9  TᵢG    3 weeks ago

So, does anyone here actually believe the Big Lie that Trump won the election?

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
9.1  pat wilson  replied to  TᵢG @9    3 weeks ago

Probably more than those who would actually admit it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  pat wilson @9.1    3 weeks ago

It is an interesting confliction.   If someone still supports Trump (i.e. would  vote for him for PotUS in 2024 or wants him to be the leader of the GoP) then they knowingly support someone who has demonstrated he will make the grandest lie with no supporting evidence, against mountains of evidence to the contrary and would willingly put the nation through unnecessary, divisive angst simply because his ego cannot handle losing an election.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
9.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  TᵢG @9    3 weeks ago

I can think of more than a few, only one who is actually stupid enough to come out and say it though.

 
 

Who is online

Trout Giggles
igknorantzrulz
Sparty On
Just Jim NC TttH
Dismayed Patriot
JBB
Wishful_thinkin
Drinker of the Wry


35 visitors