Hate Speech
The proxy for the radical left managed to make a forceful speech yesterday. It is amazing how his handlers are able to prepare him for an important speech. Yesterday, one might believe some form of drug was used to get this cognitively failing old man to focus as much as he did for as long as he did. The playbook for the Biden campaign is now open for all to see. Joe Biden will not be talking about "bidenomics" or anything else involving his 3 years in office. His terrible polling numbers are evidence of how the American people feel about his performance as president. Instead, he will try to demonize former President Trump and more importantly the Trump supporters.
He spoke of democracy:
"Today, we’re here to answer the most important of questions. Is democracy still America’s sacred cause? I mean it."
That is odd considering it is the democrats who are trying to keep Biden's likely opponent off the ballot, and it is Biden's DOJ that has been working behind the scenes to prosecute that same opponent. It doesn't sound like democracy is "sacred" to Joe Biden and his handlers.
You know, Trump and his MAGA supporters not only embrace political violence, but they laugh about it.
That was quite a statement coming from someone whose vice president helped to get violent 2020 rioters out of jail. Those same 2020 riots garnered little interest from our politicized DOJ. Many of the 2020 rioters are now getting cash awards in blue precincts. So not only is this hate speech, but it is also projection from the little man in power.
Trump is now promising a full-scale campaign of revenge and retribution, his words, for some years to come.
They were his words, not mine. He went on to say he’d be a dictator on day one.
There is another classic leftist distortion. For anyone who saw what Trump said: It was that he would "close the border and drill baby drill." Meaning of course, if one considers that a dictatorship, then that is the kind of "dictatorship" they can expect. Here Biden quotes the punch line and hides the context.
Here is the context:
The man who has wielded so much unchecked power, is attempting to prosecute his opponents, sicked the FBI on parents & Catholics, used government to censor speech on social media and has his own AG protecting him from corruption charges involving influence peddling to China, talks about "democracy" & "dictatorship" and even dared compare himself to George Washington.
How ironic.
(All the quotes used come from the transcript of the speech to be found here : Transcript: Biden's first campaign speech of the 2024 election year (msn.com) .)
Tags
Who is online
37 visitors
If you care about America and freedom you'll be voting against Joe Biden.
I look forward to witnessing the extreme victimization of anti-democratic and unamerican scum in 10 months when their cult leader trump loses and drags the defeated remnants of his party into the maga sewage pond of history with him. good riddance.
Freedom... The GOP has literally tried to cancel a brand of beer. Who is it again that is banning books? Pretty sure that's republicans.
Freedom? So you're pro choice now? OH! You mean freedom for everyone but women, LGBT, Muslims, Buddhists and people with brown skin.
I will happily spend the rest of my days voting against every republican, local, state and federal.
The right to boycott is part of our freedom. The left once specialized in it.
Who is it again that is banning books?
It was the left who objected to words in Huckelberry Finn. On the other hand, if you are talking about pornography for minors, it simply will not be allowed by parents. Those books are not banned. You as an adult have the right to read them.
Freedom?
That is correct.
pornography? what's the appropriate age to read the bible?
Gee, what ideology would allege that the Bible is pornography?
probably not the one that believes the current world population came from a family that embraced incest and pedophilia as the accepted method of increasing the flock in their warped version of religious beliefs...
Me too MrFrost
So you're pro-choice?
... not for white women. have you seen a recent pie chart for white babies being born lately? /s
The three pillars of the GOP platform. False Religion/Bigotry/Greed
That's an interesting interpretation.
We are sure you have proof of this s/
[deleted]
So nothing
The same one who labels people of faith as thumpers?
That is an ignorant, false claim.
Gee, I'm a Republican and never got the message from the GOP to boycott a brand of beer. Did you make that up?
I have no doubt you are sure of it, but do you have any proof? Just a couple of titles of the banned books would be great, and then maybe you can explain why the Biden JD has done nothing about it?
All you have to do is change the definition of putting books in age appropriate sections of the library to banned and you can get a few. That is how the left does things in general, change language when it fits their mood.
I just get so tired of people making the most outlandish claims and then disappearing when asked to verify said claim.
I suppose it is hard to verify straight bullshit from the fertile imaginations of liberals.
[Deleted]
Sounds like a confession.
I think he wants to be convicted. Probably gain him some votes.
Someone else said of the former 'president' - every rant is a confession - (including PD&D plus delusion).
That sure sounds like a confession to inciting/insurrection/failed coup on 1/6 to me.
I wonder how that measures up to the 4 months of looting, riot, arson, attacks on law enforcement, and two dozen deaths that were largely exempt from punishment. As I recall there was an attempt to storm the White House grounds to get at a President of the United States, not to mention the torching of a police precinct, a federal courthouse, and an old historic DC church?
But they were conducted by radical leftists.....so it's OK.
Not only was it ok but they got money awards:
New Yorkers arrested in 2020 BLM protests to get $13M in historic settlement (nydailynews.com)
Yet no one called it an insurrection even though it meets the definition.
Remember what George Orwell taught us about the use of language.
According to what I have read here, words can mean many different things, often predicated on the politics of the people involved.
Some words are quite adept at changing meanings!
It depends.
Was the definition used the colloquial one or the legal one.
Context matters.
But but but, some hard core leftist libs claim those were just peaceful protesters!/s
links?
Why do you need a link to the truth?
Correct.
And you use Doublespeak so well, [Deleted]
Your commentary is rife with examples of Doublespeak. Of course, you claim that what you say is the truth, evidence be damned. In comments, one needs to tell the whole truth, not just the parts edited to leave out uncomfortable facts.
So now due process is "...working behind the scenes to prosecute that same opponent,". How does it feel to back a criminal?
Left wing media does not tell the left the truth, therefore, they need someone to point it out to them.
They are starving for the truth.
Not to mention a narcissistic, egomaniacal, mythomaniacal psychopath who places himself above the Constitution and the Republic, and has already shown himself to be a treasonous tyrant in his lying crusade against the Republic after losing the last election.
Absolutely the WORST kind of person to give the power of high office to.
Using the Constitution definition of treason and not the colloquial use you are demonstrating, show us where Trump committed treason.
I just love those who tell the truth.
He actively worked to overturn the results of the 2020 election, culminating in the January 6th insurrection. He did not follow the letter or the spirit of the constitution but instead attempted through lies, distortions, and stirring up his base to subvert the normal process and functioning of the government. You can say," Uh-uhh" to these established facts until you are blue in the face. That will not make them less true. It will not make his lies more true. We all watched it occur in real-time on our screens.
it measures up as a false equivalency by trump defenders, like it has for several years now...
Wrong.
From Biden's speech:
Trump doesn't love the country unless it is his country
[deleted]
Probably the same dictionary used to define it as a mostly peaceful protest.
One of their only fallbacks/defenses.
The only thing trump loves is trump
Are you trying to say facts and the law are more important than feelings and opinion? What a silly thought.
Well, it all depends on if the words I use is used colloquially or legally. ,
LOL!
Isn't it amazing how twisted some can get over the two--depending on who is using the word and in what context?
What I have learned here is no matter how most on the left use their words, they deem them legal even if they are opining their opinion and feelings.
If a two-month-long campaign to upend the Republic itself – trying to TAKE power after losing an election – can't be considered treasonous behavior, then nothing can.
For fuck's sake, the deceit began on election night before all the votes were even counted. CNBC
Even after Jan 6 failed to intimidate Pence into illegally "sending it back to the States," he kept on with the deceit. And he's still doing it!
You guys are making absolute fools of yourselves. I mean, what is wrong with you? Why are you so dead set on supporting and defending a mentally defective piece of shit who repeatedly and PUBLICLY assaults the very underpinnings of American self-government with lies?
Until they get called out on it. In that case you are mistaken because they meant it as the colloquial meaning all along.
You mean by using the courts?
Hell, in that case, the left tries to TAKE power every election cycle.
When you find someone with the balls to charge Trump with treason, then you may have a point.
Until then, no one is defending/supporting him. We are pointing out the sheer lunacy demonstrated by the left over the last several years all in the name of "get Trump at all costs", all originating because he beat their queen.
Bullshit. Seeking judgement over an election dispute here or there does not amount to trying to take power, and when rulings are made, the "left" abides by them. Hell, before Trump, the "right" did, too.
What Trump did was so far beyond the pale that your bad faith, disingenuous equivocation is frankly disgusting.
Another bad faith, disingenuous claim. What a load of crap.
I didn't read any farther than that as I was laughing so hard.
Then you missed this important part:
Thank you for your opinion.
if you dare to point out the lunacy, that means you're defending Trump.
Get with the program!
[deleted]
What a crock. Before Trump, which presidential candidate didn't accept rulings on challenges and refused to concede? Even Gore conceded after the 2000 debacle. Trump still hasn't.
Every candidate in the past cared more about the country, in terms of stability and a peaceful transfer of power, than their own ego. Trump is the first for whom the opposite is true.
Yes, we are a long way from 1960 when Nixon conceded a very close election among potential fraud in Chicago.
He is not president today, and was not forcibly removed....you know....he peacefully transferred power, so he conceded.
Gore had to concede because the Supreme Court told him to shut his pie hole and go away.
Thank you for your opinion.
TiG has posted that time and time again what the former 'president' did starting on election night and what has continued to this day -- the endless defense of the indefensible for what he did and has been doing ever since - the endless lies and threats of violence against those who want to see him and those who aided him brought to justice.
Do you disagree with Dig? If so, let's see your evidence and hear your argument.
Neither of which is true.
Thank you for your input.
Thank you for your "thoughtful" opinion.
And thank you for your "thoughtless" one.
CNN doesn't agree with you.
CNN will now be labeled as a far right rag that is in the tank for Trump.
Funny how facts can really get in the way of a good rant.
I wonder what some of the leftists here feel about Stacey Abrams conceding the Georgia governor race s/
Yep. As the immortal Mark Twain once said "Never let the truth get in the way of a god story.".
Which time? But hey, she did get to be President of Earth on Star Trek: Discovery!
You sure you want to talk about Joe Biden that way? If so, I agree with you 100%./s
All he did was acknowledge that "a new administration will be inaugurated on January 20," and only after his self-coup attempt failed. He never called the Biden campaign to concede and congratulate per the historical norm. Furthermore, as pointed out in the article, he only said what he did in an attempt to calm the storm after Jan 6.
A separate written statement also said this: "Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out, nevertheless there will be an orderly transition on January 20th." PBS NewsHour
That's simply not a genuine concession. Not only did he allude to his false claim of fraud in the statement itself, but he's continued making the claim ever since.
How does one concede, and then continue to claim victory thereafter?
What a senseless thing to say.
Listen, unlike Trump, he does not exhibit signs of narcissistic personality disorder, mythomania, or psychopathy. Conversely, he has over many years exhibited that he is basically a normal person with a conscience and a capacity for empathy, humility, compassion, shame, and remorse. Frequent gaffs and occasional misstatements have been corrected when needed and apologized for. He simply does not share Trump's psychological disorders and god complex.
Guess you missed the sarcasm tag at the end of my comment. Either way, you have your opinion and I have mine. Have a good day.
In 1.3.41 you posted that Trump didn't accept rulings on challenges and refused to concede.
My post showed a report from CNN that shows your posting was wrong and that Trump had conceded. But now you want to move the goalposts to try to state that it wasn't a genuine concession? Why not just accept that you were wrong in your posting?
I accept that Trump continues to harp on how the 2020 election was stolen from him. His constant pushing of that is one (just one) of the reasons why I don't support him. But can you really type that line and forget about Hillary Clinton and her continued bitching about 2016?
You really want to nit-pick about whether Trump conceded the election? Arguing that merely acknowledging he must leave office is technically a concession and thereby insist that it is wrong to note that Trump never conceded that Biden legitimately won the election (which is what every other losing presidential candidate has done). The typical concession is a phone call by the loser congratulating the winner followed by a concession speech with rhetoric such as "we fought a good fight but it was not enough" and "the people have spoken" and "we should support our new president-elect".
It is wrong for someone to view Trump's words (even those words where he admits he will leave office) as a concession (using the historical norm). Especially if these words are very rare exceptions to his normal message which is that he actually won and that Biden did not win the election because the election was rigged.
Do you acknowledge that Trump did not do what every other presidential candidate has done and congratulate the winner by phone and then make a speech (a concession speech) acknowledging to the electorate (and the world) that his opponent is the winner and the new president-elect?
Do you acknowledge that Trump continues to this day to claim the election was rigged (which ipso facto claims Biden is not the legitimate PotUS)?
Let's not forget that Trump was told if he didn't start packing he would be escorted out by secret service on the 20th.
And the fact he still claims he was cheated and will be cheated again in Nov. He recently told his cult followers to stay at polling places and watch for people bringing in 'bags of crap' to steal the vote again.
Not nit-picking a damn thing. Dig posted that Trump had never conceded and I posted a link from CNN (hardly a Trump supporting network) that stated Trump did indeed concede. You have a problem with that I suggest you take it up with CNN. It's pointed out time after time on this site that Trump rarely does things the "normal" way so why would you state that Trump didn't concede in the typical fashion?
I won't play your question games. Regardless of what I answer you will twist that to what you want. Go find a willing partner to play your games.
According to what you posted, Trump did not concede he lost the election, he "conceded" that he would not be president in 2021
To this day Trump regularly claims that he won the 2020 election.
Take it up with CNN, it's their article.
It is exactly nit-picking. It is clearly an attempt to find some little exception just to try to "prove Dig wrong". You ignore all the rhetoric used by Trump except the very rare utterances that suggest concession.
You ignore the standard tradition of concession, the concession speech, the well-wishing for the winner, etc. in a feeble attempt to yet again defend Trump.
This is the standard Trump defender play. Ignore everything and pretend that the few exceptions are the rule. We see this pathetic tactic used frequently on Jan 6 issues where Trump defenders focus on the rare cases where Trump used language like 'peaceful' while ignoring months (and even on the speech prior to the insurrection) of incendiary rhetoric to the direct contrary.
And when the absurd bias of your 'argument' is challenged, you claim that this is just a word game as an excuse for your failure to put forth a cogent rebuttal. Much like Trump supporters who, when faced with cold hard facts, deny that the facts are real.
Denying reality while cherry-picking the few exceptions is intellectual dishonesty and a desperate attempt to defend Trump no matter what.
Take it up with CNN, it was their article.
[deleted]
You two are certainly not alone.
[deleted]
That's just something they spit out in an attempt to disparage somebody who calls out the hypocrisy of Traitor Joe, Democrats or any of the Bidenistas. It has the same impact as their little temper tantrums.
Every time I see that claim--"You defend Trump", I am reminded of Reagan's words about what liberals 'know'.
They're pissed because what you linked doesn't reflect exactly what they want it to say.
Have you noticed how they are moving the goal posts? Went from "Prove it" to "you are ignoring..." and the normal idiotic "you're a Trump defender" you don't fully support or say exactly what they want you to say.
It doesn't measure up at all because none of that is true.
The rest of this thread was removed for no value.
It's the tiresome endless defense of the indefensible
[deleted]
God damn it, Trump did not concede the election itself. All he did was acknowledge the upcoming inauguration. In what universe does a concession mean you keep saying you won? And he's still doing it, more than three years later.
For crying out loud, in November he was claiming he won all 50 states!
"We won, the last time, 50 states, think of it, 50 states," he told the Freedom Summit, outside Orlando, Florida. "We won every state. We then did great in the election. We got 12 million more votes or so … 12 million more votes than we got the first time."
As ABC News points out, Trump "faces 91 criminal charges across four indictments, two of which are related to election interference," but that doesn't seem to be slowing him down much when it comes to consistently refusing to admit that Biden took the win against him, and will likely do it again in 2024.
"The whole thing is a lie … the whole election is a lie," Trump continued on Saturday.
Salon
Are those the words of someone who conceded the election? If he's still saying he won, then he simply hasn't conceded.
Absolutely! Hillary doesn't claim she actually won, and the concerns she expressed were backed up by evidence that Russia really had interfered on Trump's behalf, as described in a GOP-led Senate report, and the Mueller Report. She wasn't just making stuff up, and she certainly never whipped her base into a frenzy that culminated in an attack on the Capitol to alter the outcome of the election.
Trump, on the other hand, is just making shit up, and he most certainly is responsible for what happened on Jan 6, the point of which was to prevent the certification of Biden's electoral votes.
Trump actually tried to take power, Hillary didn't.
You aren't suggesting that there's an apples to apples comparison between the two, are you?
Oh, I saw it, but it didn't make any sense. Are you saying that you weren't attempting a snide remark transferring my Trump comments onto Biden? That you were making a sarcastic comment mocking other people who do?
This conversation started when you posted in 1.3.41 that Trump refused to concede. Your exact words are :
I refuted in 1.3.51 showing an article from CNN where in their words Trump conceded publicly and now you are fighting that because he didn't concede the way you want him to have done it?
Keep moving those goalposts but I'm fucking done. Everybody here can see what you are doing and your supporters will continue to support you.
Then take it up with CNN. The initial claim was that Trump never conceded and the article from CNN states that he publicly conceded. Don't care about your moving goalposts.
No one has moved a goalpost. CNN got it wrong if they said that he conceded the election (which they did not do, btw). If he had actually conceded the election, per the definition of the word concession, he would have uttered words to the effect of "Biden won". He has yet to do this on record.
Any claim otherwise, unless and until evidence is produced that he uttered the words "Biden won", is categorically and definitionally false.
Everybody here can see that is the fact. To deny facts is to deny reality. I see that at least 3 people here deny reality.
You are moving the fucking goalpost right here. The initial comment was that Trump never conceded. Nothing extra was added to that statement, just that he never conceded. The CNN article states that Trump did in fact publicly concede. Now I don't give a fuck if you are not happy with how he did it or if he didn't do enough to make you happy.
Hahahahahahahahaha
I think this is somewhat of a dead horse since there was a misunderstanding of what the CNN article actually said. Someone said Trump did not concede whereas Hillary had (which is true, Trump still hasnt conceded in that sense, in fact he still claims he was the winner). Then the claim was made that Trump did concede. The wordage in the CNN article is pretty clear, Trump merely conceded that he wasnt going to be president anymore (it would be quite odd even for Trump if he walked around 2024 saying "I am still the president"), but he has never acknowledged that he lost.
So there appears to be a disagreement as to what the "issue" here really was. I dont think that is apt to change.
[deleted]
Are you laughing at yourself for failing to admit you were wrong?
Trump Finally—Two Months After Election Loss—Concedes Defeat
Trump Finally—Two Months After Election Loss—Concedes Defeat (forbes.com)
Trump concedes election and denounces attack on Capitol for first time
Trump concedes election and denounces attack on Capitol for first time (ft.com)
Trump finally concedes election, condemns attack on U.S. Capitol that critics say he incited
Trump finally concedes election, condemns attack on U.S. Capitol that critics say he incited | CBC News
Full Text of Speech in Which Donald Trump Finally
Concedes Election to Biden Without Naming Him
Full Text of Speech in Which Donald Trump Finally Concedes Election to Biden Without Naming Him (newsweek.com)
You are doubling down on a chickenshit game.
The phrase: " concede the election " means publicly recognizing your opponent as the legitimate winner of the election. It usually involves a phone call prior to the concession speech where one graciously congratulates the winner followed by the public concession speech. That speech is then followed by the winner's victory speech.
That did not happen. In fact, Trump to this day claim the election was stolen (and thus Biden is NOT the legitimate winner). You can prop up articles that use the word ' concede ' but that does not change the fact that Trump did not " concede the election " as normal people understand that phrase.
This desperate attempt to find someone wrong on an incredibly weak technicality (i.e. a CNN writer uses the word "conceded" when noting that Trump stated he will leave office) is both dishonest and pointless. Especially since your weak argument has been thoroughly rebutted. These dishonest, obvious, feeble games in defense of Trump are pathetic. They do not persuade anyone but rather further illustrate the proclivity to defend Trump no matter what.
To be crystal clear, your CNN quote:
The writer notes that Trump conceded that he will not serve a second term . That is not a political concession as most human beings understand that phrase, it is conceding that he will not stay in the oval office. The writer then makes it clear that Trump did not congratulate Biden (which would be acknowledging that Biden won), probably to dissuade people like you from using his words as an argument that Trump conceded the election (state that Biden is the legitimate winner).
Trump did not " concede the election ", he conceded that he must vacate the office.
All references to Trump's Jan 7 speech in which he refused to state that Biden is the legitimate winner.
He then followed that speech with years of claims that the election was stolen.
What is his message? Is his message that Biden is the legitimate winner? Do you ignore everything else Trump has said and tweeted and just go with this speech which circumvents acknowledging Biden as the legitimate winner?
Also, you might want to review his preparation for this speech:
Is this a guy practicing a concession speech where he congratulates the winner, names him as the new president, and encourages we all try to work with him?
We could always debate what the word concede means!
Full Text of Speech in Which Donald Trump Finally Concedes Election to Biden Without Naming Him (newsweek.com)
That contains an interesting video from Jan 7, 2021. First of all there is almost nothing in that short speech that contains anything that Trump actually believed at the time (or even up til now). And he doesnt "concede" anything except that there will be a new administration in the White House on Jan 20.
That is not a "concession" statement. This is an example of a concession.
And you are playing your typical word games. I didn't use the legal definition or the colloquial definition, I used the words exactly as typed in the post. The words were very simple, just that "Trump did not concede". I provided an article from CNN that stated Trump did concede. I don't care if it's not in the manner you want, your wants and desires are very low on my give-a-shit meter. You can also look at post 1.3.90 for more articles from the media where they state that Trump conceded.
Or you could just NOT engage in weak sophistry in a failed attempt to alter reality.
You cannot defend your position so you claim your interlocutor is playing word games.
This is debate. It is based on facts and logic. Wear a cup.
I have rebutted everything you just mentioned. Quit denying and directly deal with my rebuttals.
[deleted]
You didn't rebut anything. You don't even use the phrase that I responded to but have to shift it to concede the election. So much for your facts and logic. You didn't even deal directly with my statements. You change them for your argument, that's a word game.
[deleted]
So multiple reporters and outlets report that Trump finally made a concession after months of waiting, and because it doesn't fit some narrow TDS view you claim he didn't. I will go with what the multiple sources and not some bullshit definition of a group of TDS suffers.
The CNN sentence was misleading to some. It didnt mislead me but I have sufficient reading comprehension.
If you disagree with my rebuttal then quote me and make your case.
I will then quote you and make my rebuttal.
No, I'm not gonna play your games.
And if a new President is in the WH, the other left, right?
That is a concession.
I would like to know why people are focused on old events that really mean nothing at all?
Did Trump concede? Do we need a useless discussion over what 'concede' means--or will people just learn to move on?
What fucking difference would it possibly make--isn't Traitor Joe now President?
No, you are not going to genuinely engage in real debate. An adult debate with evidence and reason.
That takes an amazing amount of Hubris to write, professional reporters from multiple sites all got it wrong but John is just so much more intelligent that he knows what "really" happened. is that what you are trying to relay with that comment John?
[Deleted]
Thank you for providing proof.
Nah, I am laughing at everyone who can't read a news article and understand its meaning.
Show me precisely where he conceeded to the fact that Joe Biden beat him in the election. You can't, because it is not there.
If the shoe fits
He never conceded, why the hell can't some just admit it???????
All these freaking years and people are still deflecting to Hillary
'Rarely does things the normal way'
JFC
Unbelieveable
The former 'president' has not conceded, you have provided absolutely no proof whatsoever to the contrary. He hasn't conceded and never will. It's been 3 fucking years.
[deleted]
That's hilarious indeed Thomas. We see exactly what's going on.
This is how he conceded:
It's tradition to call the new president-elect and congratulate him the night of the election or as soon as the votes have been counted. He never did that. He waited until after the riot to TWEET a message to his followers.
yeah....yeah....yeah....he conceded. He was just an asshole about it and couldn't do it in a traditional way.
And for those about to jump my ass for using the word "tradition"....Traditions and customs are important in the transfer of power. Don;t tell me it isn't especially if you've ever been part of a change of command
Thank you so much for providing, as usual, the reality. That's the real former 'president' right there. See him slamming his little hands when he says something wrong or doesn't want to say 'I don't want to say the election is over' 'I don't want to see Congress certified the results'
No TiG I would say not - as far as your last paragraph goes.
Yes indeed he did [deleted]
Can you imagine why it would ever be important to anyone whether or not Trump actually "conceded" ??
Simple fact is Traitor Joe is in the WH, so the WHOLE discussion is straight out bullshit.
Whether people will read the links is where Trump conceded or not is just further evidence of people getting worked up over really old shit that doesn't matter at all.
To many on the hard core liberal left, any who do not share or agree with their particular political worldview are all Trump supporters.
Those who defend Trump at every turn are supporting Trump by definition.
You recognize wrongdoing by Trump. Yet you are not hard core liberal left. If someone refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing by Trump —such as deeming all counts of his indictments to be without merit— would you find that individual to be supporting Trump?
And why calls for reasonableness, restraint, and sanity are so often mistaken for 'defending' Trump.
It is just like any other name they accuse you of and then expect you to defend yourself or in their minds that only means you are admit what they called you is correct.
If they call you racist you have to bow down to BLM
If they say you are supporting genocide you have to denounce Israel
If they call you MAGA you have to explain how you are not MAGA
It never ends
I'll believe you (and the other guy) about all this when you start making comments attacking Trump, like you do against Biden 20 or 25 times a day.
So in your mind, arguing that Trump "conceded the election" (using the historical meaning of that phrase in a presidential election) by posting a link of a reporter noting that Trump "conceded he will not serve a second term" is a call for 'reasonableness, restraint, and sanity'?
Even though we all have seen Trump continually claim the election was stolen and that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS, you think everyone should just ignore all that stuff and focus on the fact that a reporter used the word "conceded" when noting that Trump announced he will not serve a second term.
That is reasonable to you?
Probably.
Perhaps Trump has simply forgotten that he conceded on jan 7 2021. If someone would remind him , I'm sure he would immediately stop claiming today that he won the election. /s
That is exactly my point. I don't have to prove anything to anyone just because they accuse me of something
Read what I wrote. Please stop guessing what is in my mind.
If you don't understand what reasonableness, restraint, and sanity are, look them up. I'm not going to quibble over definitions.
I figured my post was pretty clear that I think it a monumental waste of time to be quibbling over whether he "conceded" or not according to some particular set of rules, especially when it doesn't matter. Biden is in office, Trump isn't, and I won't waste time worrying over something so damn trivial.
Reasonable to me is not making a mountain out of a molehill.
That was no guess, it is the consequence of your statement.
Yet another denial from you.
Indeed. Trying to argue that Trump conceded the election when we all know that he continues to this day denying that Biden won legitimately by referring to an author who stated that Trump conceded that he will not serve a second term is indeed making a mountain out of a molehill.
You are either guessing or clairvoyant, as you keep telling me what I think.
You don't need my participation to do that.
Amazing how much time and focus is on this partisan petty chickenshit 3 years later.
I can't tell where it would ever make any real difference in my life whether someone conceded or not.
I was simply joking. I guess I went about it the wrong way. I did not intend a snide remark towards you in any way. And yes, my comment was that n fact in reference to others that do so and not you in particular. If I offended, please accept my apologies.
It's a lack of critical thinking and common sense. If you do not fall in lock step with their idiocy, they throw that out there. They'll also claim "you indenial", "your ignornig "XYZ", "your racist", "your fascist" and a long list of other idiotic remarks.
It's a knee jerk reaction that really has no point and no backing. You didn't say EXACTLY what they want you so say and they in trhowing a tantrum.
The sad thing is, they don't know MAGA is actually an acronym nor do they know what it means. They pathetically attempt to use it as a slur.
We can't forget that many of the accusations made by the democrats and the left have not been proven and their "investigations" amounted to zero evidence.
Your last question represents somewhat of a slippery slope. Personally, I will not accuse somebody of being a Trump supporter unless they flat out state they do in fact support him.
Also remember the definition of support has a wide range. It seems to go from financial support and handing out flyers to not denouncing Trump to an acceptable amount. With so many things it seems there is an expectation that if you are accused it is up to you to prove it is not true.
Anyone who makes excuses for Trump on clearly valid criticism is supporting Trump by definition. The act of defending Trump (unless the criticism is wrong) is supporting Trump.
That does not mean that the individual necessarily wants Trump to be PotUS (i.e. a 'Trump supporter') but it is without question supporting Trump.
To reify by example, this would draw the criticism of 'supporting Trump':
Another example:
Even if the individual supporting Trump (dishonestly defending him against valid criticism) does not want Trump as PotUS, they are still supporting him by their defense.
I can't even argue with that.
Now that is certainly a sane and reasonable approach I wish everyone could adopt.
The attempts at denial by various people on this forum are truly comical. When 95% of your comments about the presidential race fall into the category of attacking Biden, and when almost all of your comments about Trump's various legal trials attack the prosecutors and belittle the evidence, you are a Trump supporter. It doesnt mean you support everything he does, it means you support the idea of him being president again.
What does it mean when 95% of your comments about the presidential race (And almost anything else) fall into the category of attacking Trump?
It is yet another bizarre phenomenon of our times to see people actively downplay, deny, and deflect in Trump’s favor at every turn and then refuse to even acknowledge that this is supporting Trump.
I dunno, that he is a piece of human excrement maybe ?
[deleted]
Also, if you dare to support the rules of law that apparently renders you an automatic Trump supporter, and therefore a 'threat to democracy!"--oh my!!!!
Just fucking nuts.
And they are actually dumb enough to label these supporters of law "fascists".
Or you could always get into a debate as to what support means. If someone says they don't support Trump then they don't think they support Trump. The gymnastics used to try to convince them that they do support Trump or make them defend why they don't support Trump based on someone elses feeling seems a bit silly but here we are. And at the end of the day who cares. Certainly not the person saying they don't support Trump.
I blame Bill Clinton. This ridiculousness all started with “It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
Proving they don't support Trump didn't get them anywhere so they upped the game to fascist.
It is actually kinda funny.
I could, but refuse to quibble over such time-wasting straight-up bullshit. Far too many willing participants in that foolishness for me!
All it ever proves to me is that some will never, ever understand fascism and have no filter.
Nope.
I agree, I rarely get into the verbal gymnastics or even try to untwist the twisted logic anymore but watching it for those that have the time to waste is pure comedy gold.
I think it is almost to the point of being meaningless from overuse so expect a new name soon. Same with MAGA
Naw, they will continue to misuse and abuse the words, twisting them ever so slightly until it fits whatever description they choose to use for that day to bolster already-weak arguments.
Like racist, overuse has reduced the sting.
When EVERYONE who doesn't think exactly like you is branded as such, it has no significance or meaning left.
Now, that certainly doesn't mean folks won't continue on with the stupidity..
You would think they would at least know the definition of the word before spewing it out there. But then again research is not their strong point.
What I like is they talk about all this "evidence" yet NONE have been able to provide anything more than a news article. Then when called on that they start shrieking about his indictments like that is some kind of a conviction.
All the while they refuse to acknowledge the wrongdoing and failures by Traitor Joe and his misfit band if window licking idiots. Their only rebuttal when any of that is mentioned is the normal "but Trruuummmmppppp!" crying.
Quibbling over definitions is the highlight of the week!!!!
Besides, we can always ignore what your eyes can read and pretend words mean other things whenever it is convenient.
Like it or not, everyone here can read your comments. We all know who you would prefer to be president.
I've noticed. I've also noticed that they are trying to apply some fictional definitions.
But then you're a "fascist" or "racist" or what ever the hot word of the week is..
Why would I write a comment if I didn't want people to be able to read it?
My point exactly, thanks. I have made it abundantly clear that I would be happy if nether one if them was running but because it does not meet whatever twisted logic you are using according to you I would prefer Trump to be president. And now I am probably expected to try and change your mind. If I do try you will not accept anything I say and if I don't try that will somehow reinforce your incorrect assumption.
So you all (whoever that is) are welcome to your opinion of me just as I am welcome to my opinion of posters also.
Guess which path I am going to take?
I wish I still had my jean jacket of old. I would get a patch for all the names I have been called here. Interesting that anyone that actually knows me doesn't believe any of the things I am called here but that is what would make the patch jacket so much fun.
And only half comprehend those comments. Those who don't guess as to the meaning of comments in plain English and make stupid comments like
Well, I guess that lets me out because I certainly do not support anything he does, and definitely do not support the idea of him being president again.
'Hate Speech'? That's all I hear from the former 'president'.
I mean what a lovely Christmas message - 'rot in hell'.
I forget what his New Years blessings were
Link please
[deleted]
Why do you need a link to the truth?
[deleted]
If I post Trumps truth social Christmas Day message where he said his enemies should "rot in hell" will you shut up?
And that whas what to do with my comment?
Isn't the DNC not allowing other Democrats (Kennedy, Williamson, Phillips) to be on the November D Ballot? IOW - Biden is the only D candidate?
Silly Jasper, that’s how we save democracy.
lol!
They're trying that here in NC. And other states barring specific opponents without legal justification.
I have been seeing how some states won't have primaries /cacusus, I am watching how that plays out.
I have a hunch , that may just backfire,meaning not letting others on a party ballot and not having a primary race.
Personally, I know I would not vote for anyone running for or under that parties banner if it were tried in the state I live in, be it local, state or federal office.
Amen to that. I won't vote for Biden or Trump. Neither are fit to be Commander in Chief for a second term.
If the race is between Biden and Trump (likely), how does one vote against Biden (as Vic suggests @1) without voting for Trump?
Seems to me, those of us who do not believe either should be PotUS have a few choices:
To me it is obvious that Trump should never be allowed access to power. Of the two, he is by an order of magnitude worse than Biden.
I will vote against Trump the most effective way I can; currently that means voting for Biden (assuming, of course, it is Biden v Trump).
Vic will almost certainly vote against Biden by voting for Trump. Vic will almost certainly vote for the only PotUS who has attempted to steal a US presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement. Who has violated his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the US CotUS by trying to circumvent same. Who has attempted to violate the foundation of democracy — the vote of the electorate. A traitor with abysmal character, no moral compass, demonstrable narcissist and pathological liar.
Short of not committing murder, one wonders how Trump could be a worse candidate for the most powerful office on the planet. Seems to me that even if Trump adds "convicted felon" to his list of admirable attributes, those voting for him will continue to do so.
TiG will vote for the man:
who corruptly sold influence
weaponized the DOJ & FBI against American citizens
opened up the southern border to roughly 18 million unknown migrants
caused mischief to the world's greatest economy via $trillion budgets
created havoc with a fantasy energy policy
has divided the country racially & ideologically
placed incompetent people in important government positions
and enriched our enemies like Iran
TiG is fine with a radical leftist despot. He says Trump is worse.
You forgot has the mental capability of a turnip
How someone could vote for someone like that to have access to the nuclear codes or the military is beyond comprehension.
That's a given. I think everyone knows that others are running things. Biden didn't even know his "Defense Secretary" was missing, nor may he even remember who he is. And that was with 2 wars going on.
“He says Trump is worse.”
Demonstrably.
Under Biden, admitting his shortcomings, there are checks and balances in place. Trump, in his own words, is running on the premise and the promise to blow them all up. Listamania aside.
I would never vote for a radical leftist despot. Your partisan-driven imagination does not square with reality.
If the GOP had put forth a nominee other than Trump, I would likely be voting for that individual. But given the fact that Trump is by an order of magnitude the worst nominee in the history of our nation, we should all be voting against him ... even if that means voting for an individual who is not desirable as PotUS.
Your first two allegations are unsubstantiated. They are still at the level of partisan hyperbole:
The balance of your list are items of policy. It is certainly fair to disagree with policy. For example I am against irresponsible government spending, but that does not even remotely compare with Trump's attempt to circumvent the CotUS and violate the foundation of democracy — the electorate.
See this is amazing. You engage in ridiculous hyperbole against Biden ("has the mental capability of a turnip") while ignoring that the alternative is to give Trump access to the nuclear codes and the military.
You actually prefer Trump, given all that he has done, to have that level of power?
Let me guess: "I did not say that". Right?
Thanks for your opinion
that's what happens when you let hurt feelings overtake critical thinking.
Today, we gather in a new year, some 246 years later, just one day before January 6, a day forever seared in our memory because it was on that day that we nearly lost America, lost it all.
It might be early in the year but Joe is the favorite for the Lying Sack of Shit Award this year.
Notice that George Washington is once again a national hero.... once it serves the left's agenda.
That will last a week
trump is the exact opposite of washington. washington was the first US president that pioneered the peaceful transfer of power. trump was the first US president that tried not to do it...
Actually, the left, on this very site told us that Washington was a slave owner and a "racist."
Remember?
Which is it?
your further efforts to compare trump to washington are hilarious...
Yet that is exactly what you did on 2.1.2
is that what "exact opposite" means [deleted]
[deleted]
I'm asking what YOU and others here told us about George Washington and the founding fathers.
Your boy Trump is acting unhinged.
Your boy Biden has been a dictator who has corrupted all of government.
Nonsense! Biden is an honest, honorable man who has spent his life backing democracy.
Trump SAYS he will be a dictator and proves it with his every word and deed.
Once again you have no proof.
Lol. C'mon man.
I don't know how that line was typed. Cracks me up reading it!
Surely you didn't keep a straight face when you typed that.
We've been waiting years for proof of those claims and absolutely nothing has been provided.
Who tried to cancel student loans without a vote of congress?
Or violated his oath to secure the nation's borders?
Who has been the dictator?
You do know we had illegals getting into the country under trump too, right? So he violated his oath as well.
The one that said he would do away with the US Constitution and would use the DOJ to go after his political opponents? Yea, that would be trump.
Link please
I didn't see anything about getting rid of the Constitution.
All I saw was Trump saying his next DOJ could act just like Merrick Garland.
LOL!!!! Now THAT'S funny.
You mean the man who presides over the DOJ that was ready to exempt, save a brave dissenting judge, Hunter Biden and by extension the Biden family from real legal jeopardy? The very same AG who put the FBI on parents & Catholics?
He's a comedian?
“All I saw was Trump saying his next DOJ could act just like Merrick Garland.”
That right there is enough to scare the shit out of establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle.
There is nothing quite like being served their own medicine.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
Yes there were illegals getting into the country under Trump, but who knowingly opened the flood gates wide open to the greatest numbers of illegals in the history of this country? Oh that's right, it was Biden not Trump.
That man is a practicing Catholic. How is he attacking Catholics?
He's not attacking Catholics. The DOJ is monitoring far right extremist Catholics, of which , unfortunately, there are some. Steve Bannon would be a good example.
Are you saying that someone who is born a Catholic and as a politician goes to church cannot do anything to take away rights from Catholics?
Bernie Sanders is Jewish and he wants to impose conditions on Israel for weapons deals.
T he Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) planned to infiltrate Catholic churches and recruit clergy and other church officials to inform on allegedly suspicious parishioners deemed capable of attracting attention from extremist groups, according to recently surfaced documentation that's sparked controversy.
After the memo went public, the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee initiated an inquiry to determine if the FBI's action toward the Catholic Church violated First Amendment rights.
Why the FBI is being accused of investigating the Catholic Church (msn.com)
That is the current FBI under Joe Biden.
You are defending it?
Yep, only a dictator would try to help poor broke students.
How did far right wing fascists get to be so heartless and cruel?
Because they don't want to pay someone else's loan?
“Yep, only a dictator would try to help poor broke students.”
No, only a fucking dictator would use other people’s hard earned money to pay the financial obligations of irresponsible idiots.
Why don’t the worthless takers just pay their own debts instead of expecting people who actually work for a living to?
please note the distinct differences between helping someone and forcing taxpayers to foot the bills for people because the President chose to pander to them.
So smart kids who work hard in high school and make good grades should suffer because they had the bad luck to pick poor parents?
This country needs smart college grads just like it needs uneducated dumb ditch diggers.
Earned my way through college with academic scholarships while privileged rich kids fell asleep in class from partying too much the night before and then tried to cheat off of my tests (Donald Trump).
Screw the ditch diggers and the rich kids who trash the smart kids who earn their educations by studying hard.
So what was your major in college George?
Rich kids have zero to do with making taxpayers foot college bills for anyone.
Because Biden sold them on the idea he could just make their debt vanish.
Social ecology and sociology, then a JD, and I paid my own way, just like the takers should.
What about kids from poor or middle class families that went to college the “smart” way and graduated with no debt?
what about “smart” kids that were “smart” enough to realize college was too expensive and took a different path in life?
what about “smart” kids that went to college and paid off their loans?
screw them because their votes are not for sale?
it’s amazing how some are so oblivious to the optics of this vote buying scheme.
and yeah, America needs smart people, college educated or not. What America does not need is irresponsible, coddled children that think it’s ok to have somebody else pay their fucking debts.
smh.
Some folks seem to think everyone else needs to pay for stuff just so Traitor Joe can buy votes.
Only a dictator would bypass Congress, ignore laws, and unilaterally spend billions of taxpayer dollars with no legal right to do so.
With the crap job biden has done running this country he needs to buy as many votes as possible.
How many student loans have you paid off for your fellow far leftists?
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
Who incited a failed coup/insurrection?
[deleted]
The former 'president' tried his best but was usually defeated by the adults in the room.
Hey, Joe, how'd you end up in the White House? Biden didn't campaign. Biden didn't perform well in the debates. It seems Biden only won the nomination because he kissed Al Sharpton's ass and lied his own ass off. And Biden beat Trump using two months of unverifiable and uncertifiable mail-in voting.
Joe Biden leads a political party that tried to remove George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from the history of the United States. Joe Biden leads a political party that wants us to believe the history of the country began in 1619. Joe Biden leads a political party that refuses to acknowledge its own responsibility for slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow. Joe Biden trying to pander to patriotic zeal is a farce.
Joe Biden, you are a liar. Joe Biden is only fighting for Dem-mockracy to protect his own grift. Joe Biden is using the same political trick as Kim Jong Un to rally 'his' people against a common enemy.
Because trump was really that horrible of a president, that's how.
Trump is an excuse; not an explanation.
Oh yes, those radical changes in voting laws done in key states in 2020 under the guise of Covid.
Would that constitute a "danger to democracy?"
Pretty sure that right wing gerrymandering and shutting down polling places in low income districts is.
Right wingers can't win legally so they have to cheat.
Has it ever occurred to you that in order to gerrymander, you must first win control?
Right wingers win elections every year. it is silly and disingenuous to suggest they all cheated.
Do only Democrats live in poor districts?
Gerrymandering was a creation of the Democrat Party. The “Gerry-Mander” cartoon first appeared in the Boston Gazette, in 1812. The cartoon expressed opposition to state election districts newly redrawn by Massachusetts’ Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican Party, led by Governor Elbridge Gerry.
We're supposed to believe Joe Biden won the Democrat primaries because Trump? We're supposed to forget that Biden was losing the primaries until the fix was put in? Why else would Biden change the line up for primaries this year? What the hell does that have to do with democracy?
The primaries were the proof of concept. The election was rigged before the party conventions.
Leftists hate to have real history thrown in their faces.
MOST white liberals seem to think so.
That's the only way they can 'win'
A truly ignorant statement, devoid of fact.
Show some links to how "right wingers can't win legally so they have to cheat"
Use sources that don't screech left wing.
If they could have, they would have.
I really don't expect a coherent answer.
I'm sure "fascist" will be highlighted front and center in any response I get.
That's wise of you.
No sense in expecting miracles.
What 'fix'?
[Deleted]
Trump is definitely public enemy #1.
Definitely a crazy pronouncement.
He's a cockroach.
Searching for: How is mail in voting verified?
Generating answers for you…
Whether a state requires voters to request an absentee ballot or participates in universal mail-in voting, all ballots cast by mail or dropped off at a drop box are vetted to ensure their legitimacy. Here are some common methods used for mail-in ballot verification:
Signature Matching: Election officials compare the signature on the ballot envelope with the signature on file to ensure that the voter assigned to the ballot is the one who cast it. This process helps prevent unauthorized voting.
Registration Records: Ballots are checked against voter registration records to verify the voter’s eligibility and prevent duplicate voting.
Additional Precautions: Different states have varying protocols. Some require additional precautions, such as:
Notarization: Requiring the signature to be notarized.
Witness Signature: Requiring a witness to sign the ballot.
ID Verification: In some states, voters must submit their driver’s license number or state ID card number, which is compared with voter registration records.
Proof of Voter Registration or ID: In Arkansas, voters must return proof of voter registration or a copy of their ID with the ballot.
Unique Bar Codes: Mailed ballots often have a unique bar code on the envelope, allowing voters to track their ballot online until it is counted.
Ballot Security Features: Election offices use security features and sorting processes to weed out any counterfeit ballots.
Despite widespread claims of mail-in and absentee ballot fraud, the reality is that fraud is exceedingly rare. Studies have shown the risk of ballot fraud to be minimal, and secure procedures are in place to maintain the integrity of the voting process .
Remember that mail-in voting plays a crucial role in ensuring accessibility and participation in our democratic process.
bing gpt4 chat
How election officials verify mail-in and absentee ballots | PBS NewsHour
Whether a state requires voters to request an absentee ballot or participates in universal mail-in voting, all ballots cast by mail or dropped off at a drop box are vetted to ensure their legitimacy.
Election officials log every mail ballot so voters cannot request more than one. Those ballots also are logged when they are returned, checked against registration records and, in many cases, voter signatures are on file to ensure the voter assigned to the ballot is the one who cast it.
READ MORE: No major problems with ballot drop boxes in 2020, AP survey finds
Still, mail ballots are one of the most frequent targets of misinformation around voting, despite fraud being rare .
Different states have different ballot verification protocols . All states require a voter’s signature, while some states have additional precautions, like having bipartisan teams compare that signature to a signature on file , requiring the signature to be notarized or requiring a witness to sign.
In Arkansas , you must return proof of voter registration or a copy of your ID with the ballot. In states including Georgia , Minnesota and Ohio , you have to submit your driver’s license number or state ID card number, which will be compared with voter registration records before your vote is counted.
In states that require voters to submit applications to receive absentee ballots, the application typically includes several pieces of identifying information to ensure you are who you say you are. In some cases, that includes a copy of your photo ID.
In almost every state, mailed ballots can be tracked online through a unique bar code on the envelope, allowing voters to watch the movement of their ballot until it is counted. Ballot security features and ballot sorting at election offices help weed out any counterfeits, though election officials say fake ballots have not been a problem in U.S. elections. A Georgia investigation into allegations of counterfeit ballots in the 2020 election found no evidence to back up the claims.
Secure ballot drop boxes are placed in public locations and emptied only by trained election staff, to prevent anyone else from tampering with the votes inside.
WATCH: Biden says ‘Democracy itself is on the ballot’ at DNC event
As with other forms of election fraud, harsh penalties for voter fraud by mailed ballot act as another deterrent. Depending on the circumstance, voter fraud charges can result in a fine, prison time or both.
Despite widespread claims of mail-in and absentee ballot fraud, the reality is it’s exceedingly rare. The Brennan Center for Justice in 2017 ranked the risk of ballot fraud at 0.00004% to 0.0009%, based on studies of past elections.
Meanwhile, a May 2022 Associated Press survey of states that allowed the use of drop boxes in the 2020 presidential election found no cases of fraud, vandalism or theft involving drop boxes that could have affected the results.
You are pretending that Biden was lying about Trump. Trump is the only PotUS in our history who attempted to steal the presidency with fraud, lies, coercion, and incitement. He not only violated his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the CotUS but he attempted to violate the foundation of democracy — the vote of the electorate.
Biden, and everyone else who considers themselves a patriot, should keep reminding those who are under a Trump delusion what this character attempted to do (and thus what he is capable of doing in the future).
This is just pathetic . Here Biden demonstrates abilities that defy the partisan hyperbole and you ignore what you observe and claim it was fake.
Biden (and Trump) is too old for the presidency and is clearly not as sharp as he was 10 years ago, but you cling to the extreme partisan rhetoric (e.g. incoherent, senile tool) regardless of strong evidence to the contrary.
Confirmation bias is an excellent way to be on the wrong side of truth most of the time.
I stopped reading after that 'editorial'
For anyone who saw what Trump said: It was that he would "close the border and drill baby drill." Meaning of course, if one considers that a dictatorship, then that is the kind of "dictatorship" they can expect.
One would have be be pretty low on the IQ scale to consider that a "dictatorship" .
THAT is a dictatorship.