(11-16-2020 05:03 PM)JimTiger Wrote:  Wow, this is my favorite one yet!!

Trump is so desperate that he'll Tweet any lie, any claim of fraud, no matter how obviously false and stupid.

Why obviously false and stupid? Click into the article, and then into the "county-by-county review by Just the News".

Here's the link if you want it directly: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/fi...-by-county

Ok, now scroll to the bottom. What did they "find"? Yes, they claimed to find only 951 rejected mail-in votes in PA. But what else? That Biden beat Trump by over 700,000 votes!!! 4,089,513 to 3,300,819.

This man, our President, is so desperate to grind confidence in our electoral system into dust that he would Tweet obviously garbage numbers from a fake news factory that show him LOSING BY >650,000 VOTES MORE THAN HE ACTUALLY LOST BY!

If none of his other behavior bothers you, doesn't his complete, naive gullibility just irk you, even a bit? Just a tiny, little bit?

Trump will capitulate before Thanksgiving. Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia all have to certify election results in eight days or less from today. Arizona, Wisconsin and Nevada are the Monday and Tuesday after Thanksgiving.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine how stupidly confused or vilely misleading (depending on POV) this Tweet is.

Having done the research, I'll tell you it's certainly one of those.

It's tough to research because of all the misleading information. But a tweet from Nov. 8th shows these results

Clark County, Nevada election
DISTRICT C
Ross Miller (D) -- 50.00% (71,075)
Stavros Anthony ® -- 50.00% (71,067)

All I'm guessing is they're saying because this particular race was so close (12 votes), that they don't have full confidence in the validity of those particular results.

Trumpkins were also celebrating a 'massive victory' earlier tonight when they discovered 2600 uncounted votes in Floyd County, GA (which is a red county in northern Georgia). The problem is that of the new 2600 votes, 1800 were for Biden and 800 were for Trump.

ETA - or maybe not - folks on twitter are probably getting it wrong (800 for Trump is trending)

The saddest part of all is even if he finally gets out of the way like he should, Trump still wants to run again in 2024. And some people still want him to do so.

(11-16-2020 08:28 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Trumpkins

So nice to see the guys who left because they were treated so badly returning. Bidenistas who left because of the disrespect they got here now feel safe not only to return, but to dish a out a little of what they fled.

This little Munchkin does not think Trump will run again, but if there is one one word the left has not thrown at him, it is 'quitter". So maybe he will run. We now have a precedent for running a guy that old, so maybe he will run against President Harris. I have long had my eye on another guy as my preferred candidate, and will try to help him get the nomination. Hard to see how I could not support whoever the GOP nominates, however, as my alternatives will be an 82 year old dodderer and a flaming liberal who is there solely by virtue of being the PC sex and race, who is clearly far left liberal, I will have little choice. Of course, much will depend on the elections of 2022, in which I expect the GOP to make gains in both the House and Senate, perhaps controlling both.

BTW, back in 2016, when I was opposing Trump for the GOP nomination, I referred to the people supporting him as "Trumpeter swans".

(11-16-2020 05:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-16-2020 04:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Got it... I honestly thought you were saying that Biden was a rapist, Killer, etc. etc.

I could have been more clear and will accept that...

Yes... happens to all of us on here.

Quote:However, I think it speaks to my point that neither of you raised the same concern about Trump. You basically seem to accept that those are credible against him.

No. I didn't imply that. I'm happy to any questions about my positions (when I have time) but I'm not going to act as a spokesman for the extremist left that you guys despise. A lack of response should not be read as an endorsement.

Quote:I think the 'who did' is a clear indicator. That's not an accusation, its a claim of fact.

I'm not sure what you mean... a clear indicator of what?

(11-17-2020 01:16 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

Quote:However, I think it speaks to my point that neither of you raised the same concern about Trump. You basically seem to accept that those are credible against him.

No. I didn't imply that. I'm happy to any questions about my positions (when I have time) but I'm not going to act as a spokesman for the extremist left that you guys despise. A lack of response should not be read as an endorsement.

Quote:I think the 'who did' is a clear indicator. That's not an accusation, its a claim of fact.

I'm not sure what you mean... a clear indicator of what?

Again, let me try and be more clear....

I said

The left has spent the last 4 years calling Trump an incestuous pedophile, a seditious traitor, a killer, a rapist etc etc etc you name it. Now all of sudden they want to act like Biden, who did many of those same things... will 'heal' the nation, when he will be lucky to 'heal' his own party.

And you responded....

Huh? Which of these things did Biden "do"???

My response (had I understood what you were thinking) would have been... Which of those things did TRUMP 'do'???

The first is just a horrible thing to say about anyone.
The second is a political charge without any real basis.
The third is a hyperbolic stretch of definitions
The 4th is a charge similarly charged against Biden.

In order to think I was talking about Biden doing those things, you'd have to assume that I thought that Trump 'did many of those same things'.

I don't know if Trump 'raped' anyone. I do know that he is/has been a pig. So too it seems is/has been Joe (been a pig). Outside of that, the rest is hyperbolic drivel or just outright lies, you know... like Trump is our first racist President. Sure, those guys who were President who owned slaves, counted them as property etc weren't racists.

(11-17-2020 11:33 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-17-2020 01:16 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

Quote:However, I think it speaks to my point that neither of you raised the same concern about Trump. You basically seem to accept that those are credible against him.

No. I didn't imply that. I'm happy to any questions about my positions (when I have time) but I'm not going to act as a spokesman for the extremist left that you guys despise. A lack of response should not be read as an endorsement.

Quote:I think the 'who did' is a clear indicator. That's not an accusation, its a claim of fact.

I'm not sure what you mean... a clear indicator of what?

Again, let me try and be more clear....

I said

The left has spent the last 4 years calling Trump an incestuous pedophile, a seditious traitor, a killer, a rapist etc etc etc you name it. Now all of sudden they want to act like Biden, who did many of those same things... will 'heal' the nation, when he will be lucky to 'heal' his own party.

And you responded....

Huh? Which of these things did Biden "do"???

Yes... perhaps if you had said "Biden, who SAID many of those things" it would have been more clear to me.

Quote:My response (had I understood what you were thinking) would have been... Which of those things did TRUMP 'do'???

The first is just a horrible thing to say about anyone.
The second is a political charge without any real basis.
The third is a hyperbolic stretch of definitions


The 4th is a charge similarly charged against Biden.

In order to think I was talking about Biden doing those things, you'd have to assume that I thought that Trump 'did many of those same things'.

Not really... you said that the left accused Trump of doing those things. I never read into it that you believed them.

Quote:I don't know if Trump 'raped' anyone. I do know that he is/has been a pig. So too it seems is/has been Joe (been a pig). Outside of that, the rest is hyperbolic drivel or just outright lies, you know... like Trump is our first racist President. Sure, those guys who were President who owned slaves, counted them as property etc weren't racists.

Agree. There have been racist presidents prior to Trump.

(11-17-2020 11:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Agree. There have been racist presidents prior to Trump.

Depending on the definitions one chooses, perhaps as many as 44.

(11-17-2020 11:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yes... perhaps if you had said "Biden, who SAID many of those things" it would have been more clear to me.

Yes, but to me isn't wasn't about what was specifically alleged, hence the etc etc etc... but about the 'action' of vilifying one's opponent. I'm speaking of the acts, not the allegations.

Quote:Not really... you said that the left accused Trump of doing those things. I never read into it that you believed them.

I agree, but saying Biden 'did many of the same things' certainly implies that Trump did them. Otherwise it would be something more like Biden did what they only accused Trump of doing.

That, AND the fact that I'm speaking of the act of vilification rather than any specific accusation is why I said the 'did' was important. DID implies a factual act (the wild accusations and vilification) not an allegation (he raped someone).

Quote:Agree. There have been racist presidents prior to Trump.

And there have been rapist Presidents prior to Biden

(11-17-2020 01:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  And there have been rapist Presidents prior to Biden

And confirming my decision to stay away from this forum.

Before I shuffle off again, recalling a thread from many years ago, if you haven't picked up Mark Salter's bio of John McCain, check it out. Great read.

(11-17-2020 07:22 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(11-17-2020 01:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  And there have been rapist Presidents prior to Biden

And confirming my decision to stay away from this forum.

I guess Ausowl never heard of Thomas Jefferson fathering children with his slave. Confirmed with DNA.

I bet he was not the only slave-owning president to take advantage.

And a lot more since who have had accusations and rumors about things like that, including Trump and Biden.

But, anyway, TTFN.

Interesting interview qith Congresswoman-elect

Looks like the incoming class of Republican lawmakers is very diverse - immigrants and children of immigrants. People of all races and both sexes.

Burgess Owens

(11-17-2020 07:22 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(11-17-2020 01:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  And there have been rapist Presidents prior to Biden

And confirming my decision to stay away from this forum.

Before I shuffle off again, recalling a thread from many years ago, if you haven't picked up Mark Salter's bio of John McCain, check it out. Great read.

First, John McCain was a family friend. A suitemate of my father's at the Academy. A groomsman at my parent's wedding. He's been to my house... I've been to his. I don't need to read anyone's bio about him... and shake my head at many of them.

Second, If you couldn't tell, my comment was mostly tongue in cheek... related to the absolute certainty that preceded it of the allegation that Trump IS a racist... 'there have been racist Presidents before Trump'. If you accept one without even a doubt, then you should accept the other. Biden was credibly accused of sexual assault. WAY past the statute of limitations and not PROOF of anything... but not an accusation with zero basis for someone to believe it (like the one against Trump)

If you can't handle that, then please feel free to shuffle off... but I suspect/hope you simply misunderstood the reference.

(11-18-2020 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting interview qith Congresswoman-elect

Looks like the incoming class of Republican lawmakers is very diverse - immigrants and children of immigrants. People of all races and both sexes.

Burgess Owens

Catching up with the times - this is good!

(11-18-2020 11:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting interview qith Congresswoman-elect

Looks like the incoming class of Republican lawmakers is very diverse - immigrants and children of immigrants. People of all races and both sexes.

Burgess Owens

Catching up with the times - this is good!

Yes, despite the best efforts of Democrats to keep them on the plantation, minorities are catching up.

The left has long argued that minorities lack the educational opportunities of the majority... by the segregation practiced by Democrats in the early 1900's and continuing with the segregation practiced by Democrats in the 2000's.... so it should come as no surprise that the number of highly qualified applicants for high level positions would at least marginally favor those with better educational opportunities.

Unlike Democrats, I'd argue that Republicans are electing highly qualified candidates who simply happen to be minorities... whereas Democrats have often elected people at least in part BECAUSE they are minorities. The difference between 'race not being a factor' and 'MAKING race a factor'.

Democrats SHOULD be making efforts to make up for their centuries of continued segregation. Just because they now package it as an 'advantage' doesn't mean that separate is now somehow inherently equal.

(11-18-2020 11:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting interview qith Congresswoman-elect

Looks like the incoming class of Republican lawmakers is very diverse - immigrants and children of immigrants. People of all races and both sexes.

Burgess Owens

Catching up with the times - this is good!

The Owens election is for the seat formerly held by Mia Love, before being unseated by the white male Democrat who just lost it back.

(11-18-2020 12:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Unlike Democrats, I'd argue that Republicans are electing highly qualified candidates who simply happen to be minorities... whereas Democrats have often elected people at least in part BECAUSE they are minorities. The difference between 'race not being a factor' and 'MAKING race a factor'.

So hard to get entrenched Democrats to understand this difference.


This is why I get upset by the Dem practice of nominating/voting based on race/sex instead of character and issues - the difference between basing the choice on what is outside and what is inside.

(11-18-2020 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 12:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Unlike Democrats, I'd argue that Republicans are electing highly qualified candidates who simply happen to be minorities... whereas Democrats have often elected people at least in part BECAUSE they are minorities. The difference between 'race not being a factor' and 'MAKING race a factor'.

So hard to get entrenched Democrats to understand this difference.


This is why I get upset by the Dem practice of nominating/voting based on race/sex instead of character and issues - the difference between basing the choice on what is outside and what is inside.

My response was not the most polite, because I found the comment I was responding to to be unbelievably insulting.

(11-18-2020 01:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 12:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Unlike Democrats, I'd argue that Republicans are electing highly qualified candidates who simply happen to be minorities... whereas Democrats have often elected people at least in part BECAUSE they are minorities. The difference between 'race not being a factor' and 'MAKING race a factor'.

So hard to get entrenched Democrats to understand this difference.


This is why I get upset by the Dem practice of nominating/voting based on race/sex instead of character and issues - the difference between basing the choice on what is outside and what is inside.

My response was not the most polite, because I found the comment I was responding to to be unbelievably insulting.

You are the most polite person on this forum.