(04-25-2023 05:09 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 02:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 02:21 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 02:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 02:04 PM)450bench Wrote:  Please point out where I used the word “fake” anywhere. Please. You won’t and you won’t address it because I never have.

You’re making stuff up, which is typical of total frauds like yourself.

I didnt say that *you* did, did I?

You did not, but you used it in a direct reply to my comment, hence the reaction.

There is a distinct difference between "I was amused at the level"

and

"I was amused at your level". I could have been clearer, no doubt. And, you could have been more careful reading as well.

It really doesn’t matter because I’m not a fan of yours in the least but, yes, you could have been more clear and not referenced it in a direct reply to me.

I suggest *you* read a tad more careful as well. Funny you miss that one as well.... toodles.

Maybe *you* learn the difference between 'the' and 'your' as well. Just saying.... Or think of that before typing all of the stuff of how outraged you are that I said *you* said something when I actually did not. Again, just saying......

Good grief....

(04-25-2023 05:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 04:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 04:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:27 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Because the electors were arguably illegally elected.

I can point to several lawsuits by Trump pre- and post- election that cry that same thing. And without exception, the state courts tossed them.

On top of it, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

Please do tell how those are 'illegal'?

Quote: The state legislatures did not change the voting laws.

Again, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

Quote: Other officials not mentioned in the constitution arbitrarily changed voting laws. So my question to you is who actually DID defy the constitution.

The determination of the state electors is a matter for each state. Period. Every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

The Constitution mandates that the Congress count each of the *states'* results. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please name every state where a final court decree has determined that "Other officials not mentioned in the constitution arbitrarily changed voting laws". I look forward to your list.

Exactly. Trump made his legal and political case for the election being fraudulent and when time ran out to overturn the election---he vacated the White House and Biden took over (just as it has occurred in every prior disputed election).

And in distinction to every transition, tried to vacate and short circuit the ECA, the counting, and the certification. That is, tried to act like the certification and counting was an act he could preempt by fiat.

A somewhat interesting distinction. One that doesnt seem to really make any pathway in your 'analysis' above, mind you.

Quote:I fail to see why you continue to throw yourself on the ground in a "Im Big MAD" tantrum

Stating facts is a "Big Mad"? Got it. Lolz. Good grief.....

Quote:over what amounted to using whatever legal and political levers he had to dispute an election he believed was fraudulent.

Problem is that short circuiting the certification and having himself declared President by fiat doesnt seem to fit in the legal levers of this country. In fact, it seems blatantly illegal, and blatantly unconstitutional.

Please do tell where you think a legal basis resides for declaring broad swaths of electors invalid simply by decree for purposes of a Presidential election? This could be *really* finig fascinating to hear.... Not even considering that the person who wrote this groundwork conceded that there wasnt any basis in the law and that it would lose 9-0 in the SCOTUS.....

I *would* agree with you if, that when the court cases all got waxed, Trump said 'okey dokey, even SCOTUS (in the Texas v. Pennsylvania case) hasnt found my way, Im out of here', Trump packed it up and scotched, he had every right to put it that far. But that isnt the case. He actually tried to short circuit the law itself -- actively tried to create a Constitutional crisis like this country has *never* seen, to get himself 'decreed' President by fiat. I draw the line with that being horribly overboard.

Quote:In the end, he availed himself to every legal and political avenue possible to dispute the election and then acceded to every legal and political decision that was made by the judicial and constitutional power structures in place.

Actually he tried the Eastman plan *after* losing every fing lawsuit. From that perspective, he really didnt 'accede' to the judicial or constitutional power structures -- he pulled that crap *in spite* of him losing at every fing step. But please, try some more of that 'excuse juice' that comes so easily.

Quote:Its no different that Bush-Gore----except the courts back then werent scared to death and looking for ways to avoid having to make a decision in the dispute.

Funny, I saw 50+ courts that made a ruling. And I saw a President so engrained in personal power that he tried to *circumvent* not just 50+ courts, but tried to have himself declared President *in spite* of a certification process.

Quote: Back then, the courts understood thier role, and came up with a reasonable solution that put the results under a microscope that everyone could see----allowing people to have complete confidence that the election results would be handled with complete transparency. Instead, in 2020, it felt more like the courts just wanted to not be stuck in the middle of it all and were hoping to run out the clock so it could just be over.

Did you read any of the rulings? Or are you just making up your feelings on them without doing that?

Congrats on the pro level effort to edit out the 'bad bits' that dont fall your way, though.

C'mon dude. The vast majority of those courts opted out completely claiming lack of standing by the complainant or lack of jurisdiction by the court. In some cases, they went pretty far out of their way to avoid having to make a decision. But---go ahead stay BIG MAD cuz you think Jan6th was some sort of sneaky iNsuRRecTion designed to make Trump king. Yeah---lets talk about making up dumb crap...

You'll notice that Tanq didnt mention Trumps record in the courts when the cases where heard on the facts.

(04-25-2023 05:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 04:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 04:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:27 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Because the electors were arguably illegally elected.

I can point to several lawsuits by Trump pre- and post- election that cry that same thing. And without exception, the state courts tossed them.

On top of it, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

Please do tell how those are 'illegal'?

Quote: The state legislatures did not change the voting laws.

Again, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

Quote: Other officials not mentioned in the constitution arbitrarily changed voting laws. So my question to you is who actually DID defy the constitution.

The determination of the state electors is a matter for each state. Period. Every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

The Constitution mandates that the Congress count each of the *states'* results. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please name every state where a final court decree has determined that "Other officials not mentioned in the constitution arbitrarily changed voting laws". I look forward to your list.

Exactly. Trump made his legal and political case for the election being fraudulent and when time ran out to overturn the election---he vacated the White House and Biden took over (just as it has occurred in every prior disputed election).

And in distinction to every transition, tried to vacate and short circuit the ECA, the counting, and the certification. That is, tried to act like the certification and counting was an act he could preempt by fiat.

A somewhat interesting distinction. One that doesnt seem to really make any pathway in your 'analysis' above, mind you.

Quote:I fail to see why you continue to throw yourself on the ground in a "Im Big MAD" tantrum

Stating facts is a "Big Mad"? Got it. Lolz. Good grief.....

Quote:over what amounted to using whatever legal and political levers he had to dispute an election he believed was fraudulent.

Problem is that short circuiting the certification and having himself declared President by fiat doesnt seem to fit in the legal levers of this country. In fact, it seems blatantly illegal, and blatantly unconstitutional.

Please do tell where you think a legal basis resides for declaring broad swaths of electors invalid simply by decree for purposes of a Presidential election? This could be *really* finig fascinating to hear.... Not even considering that the person who wrote this groundwork conceded that there wasnt any basis in the law and that it would lose 9-0 in the SCOTUS.....

I *would* agree with you if, that when the court cases all got waxed, Trump said 'okey dokey, even SCOTUS (in the Texas v. Pennsylvania case) hasnt found my way, Im out of here', Trump packed it up and scotched, he had every right to put it that far. But that isnt the case. He actually tried to short circuit the law itself -- actively tried to create a Constitutional crisis like this country has *never* seen, to get himself 'decreed' President by fiat. I draw the line with that being horribly overboard.

Quote:In the end, he availed himself to every legal and political avenue possible to dispute the election and then acceded to every legal and political decision that was made by the judicial and constitutional power structures in place.

Actually he tried the Eastman plan *after* losing every fing lawsuit. From that perspective, he really didnt 'accede' to the judicial or constitutional power structures -- he pulled that crap *in spite* of him losing at every fing step. But please, try some more of that 'excuse juice' that comes so easily.

Quote:Its no different that Bush-Gore----except the courts back then werent scared to death and looking for ways to avoid having to make a decision in the dispute.

Funny, I saw 50+ courts that made a ruling. And I saw a President so engrained in personal power that he tried to *circumvent* not just 50+ courts, but tried to have himself declared President *in spite* of a certification process.

Quote: Back then, the courts understood thier role, and came up with a reasonable solution that put the results under a microscope that everyone could see----allowing people to have complete confidence that the election results would be handled with complete transparency. Instead, in 2020, it felt more like the courts just wanted to not be stuck in the middle of it all and were hoping to run out the clock so it could just be over.

Did you read any of the rulings? Or are you just making up your feelings on them without doing that?

Congrats on the pro level effort to edit out the 'bad bits' that dont fall your way, though.

C'mon dude. The vast majority of those courts opted out completely claiming lack of standing by the complainant or lack of jurisdiction by the court.

Did you read any of the rulings? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do....

Quote:In some cases, they went pretty far out of their way to avoid having to make a decision.

Which ones went 'pretty far out'? Please be specific.

Quote:But---go ahead stay BIG MAD cuz you think Jan6th was some sort of sneaky iNsuRRecTion designed to make Trump king.

What do *you* think of the Eastman plan? What do *you* think of the facts detailed in the case I posted?

Again, simple question here. Try an answer based in facts instead of your immature pile of goo above.....

Look forward to your specific comment on the facts detailed in that ruling.

Quote:Yeah---lets talk about making up dumb crap...

Well, Im sticking to facts in the record specifically on the issue. You? I dont see any attempt in your 7th grade garbage bolded above.

So, to repeat:

a) did you read *any* of the rulings that you talk about above?
b) what cases went pretty far out there to avoid the issue, and why?
c) What do *you* think of the Eastman plan? What do *you* think of the facts detailed in the case I posted?

Maybe you can address those instead of your pre-sophomoric stuff above. Look forward to answers to the above.

(04-25-2023 05:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:27 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 02:43 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Funny how many of those pesky conspiracy theories have morphed into truth.
I’ll take JRs vigilance over Tanqs apologetic eyes wide shut every day.
As long as government is run by man there will be errors and outright abuse. I can handle errors. I have no patience with abuse. These democrats abuse power right and left and their minions are OK with it. Trump saw abuse and made errors in judgment at the end. I’ll take the errors going forward. To hell with the abuse.

I have zero problem castigating wrong actions.

Democrats no doubt abuse power.

But do not try to smooth over 'trying to subvert the procedure for counting and certifying electors for President and trying to get himself *declared* President by violating the law and Constitution' as an 'error in judgement' at the same stroke.

How do you morph trying to get himself *declared* President by fiat (as opposed to a vote of state certified electors) as anything *but* abuse of power?

Because the electors were arguably illegally elected.

I can point to several lawsuits by Trump pre- and post- election that cry that same thing. And without exception, the state courts tossed them.

On top of it, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

Please do tell how those are 'illegal'?

Quote: The state legislatures did not change the voting laws.

Again, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

Quote: Other officials not mentioned in the constitution arbitrarily changed voting laws. So my question to you is who actually DID defy the constitution.

The determination of the state electors is a matter for each state. Period. Every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

The Constitution mandates that the Congress count each of the *states'* results. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please name every state where a final court decree has determined that "Other officials not mentioned in the constitution arbitrarily changed voting laws". I look forward to your list.

I suggest you look up the election of 1876.

I suggest you look up changes subsequent to that. And by the way, the election of 1876 doesnt toouch on *any* of the issues referred to above....

(04-25-2023 05:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 05:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 04:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 04:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I can point to several lawsuits by Trump pre- and post- election that cry that same thing. And without exception, the state courts tossed them.

On top of it, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

Please do tell how those are 'illegal'?


Again, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.


The determination of the state electors is a matter for each state. Period. Every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

The Constitution mandates that the Congress count each of the *states'* results. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please name every state where a final court decree has determined that "Other officials not mentioned in the constitution arbitrarily changed voting laws". I look forward to your list.

Exactly. Trump made his legal and political case for the election being fraudulent and when time ran out to overturn the election---he vacated the White House and Biden took over (just as it has occurred in every prior disputed election).

And in distinction to every transition, tried to vacate and short circuit the ECA, the counting, and the certification. That is, tried to act like the certification and counting was an act he could preempt by fiat.

A somewhat interesting distinction. One that doesnt seem to really make any pathway in your 'analysis' above, mind you.

Quote:I fail to see why you continue to throw yourself on the ground in a "Im Big MAD" tantrum

Stating facts is a "Big Mad"? Got it. Lolz. Good grief.....

Quote:over what amounted to using whatever legal and political levers he had to dispute an election he believed was fraudulent.

Problem is that short circuiting the certification and having himself declared President by fiat doesnt seem to fit in the legal levers of this country. In fact, it seems blatantly illegal, and blatantly unconstitutional.

Please do tell where you think a legal basis resides for declaring broad swaths of electors invalid simply by decree for purposes of a Presidential election? This could be *really* finig fascinating to hear.... Not even considering that the person who wrote this groundwork conceded that there wasnt any basis in the law and that it would lose 9-0 in the SCOTUS.....

I *would* agree with you if, that when the court cases all got waxed, Trump said 'okey dokey, even SCOTUS (in the Texas v. Pennsylvania case) hasnt found my way, Im out of here', Trump packed it up and scotched, he had every right to put it that far. But that isnt the case. He actually tried to short circuit the law itself -- actively tried to create a Constitutional crisis like this country has *never* seen, to get himself 'decreed' President by fiat. I draw the line with that being horribly overboard.

Quote:In the end, he availed himself to every legal and political avenue possible to dispute the election and then acceded to every legal and political decision that was made by the judicial and constitutional power structures in place.

Actually he tried the Eastman plan *after* losing every fing lawsuit. From that perspective, he really didnt 'accede' to the judicial or constitutional power structures -- he pulled that crap *in spite* of him losing at every fing step. But please, try some more of that 'excuse juice' that comes so easily.

Quote:Its no different that Bush-Gore----except the courts back then werent scared to death and looking for ways to avoid having to make a decision in the dispute.

Funny, I saw 50+ courts that made a ruling. And I saw a President so engrained in personal power that he tried to *circumvent* not just 50+ courts, but tried to have himself declared President *in spite* of a certification process.

Quote: Back then, the courts understood thier role, and came up with a reasonable solution that put the results under a microscope that everyone could see----allowing people to have complete confidence that the election results would be handled with complete transparency. Instead, in 2020, it felt more like the courts just wanted to not be stuck in the middle of it all and were hoping to run out the clock so it could just be over.

Did you read any of the rulings? Or are you just making up your feelings on them without doing that?

Congrats on the pro level effort to edit out the 'bad bits' that dont fall your way, though.

C'mon dude. The vast majority of those courts opted out completely claiming lack of standing by the complainant or lack of jurisdiction by the court. In some cases, they went pretty far out of their way to avoid having to make a decision. But---go ahead stay BIG MAD cuz you think Jan6th was some sort of sneaky iNsuRRecTion designed to make Trump king. Yeah---lets talk about making up dumb crap...

You'll notice that Tanq didnt mention Trumps record in the courts when the cases where heard on the facts.

How many of the rulings did *you* read there, UMSStateSchool?

Maybe there are pretty good reasons why Trump got booted in every single case. Note: "every single case".

Of course, you wouldnt know, since you havent bothered to read even one I would guess..... Imagine that....

Maybe the Trump team should learn who has standing to bring suits and who doesnt, at the very first issue..... with many, many, many more problems to follow....

Maybe the Trump team shouldve brought cases that didnt get attorneys disbarred as an end result as well..... Imagine that....

(04-25-2023 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:27 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 02:43 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Funny how many of those pesky conspiracy theories have morphed into truth.
I’ll take JRs vigilance over Tanqs apologetic eyes wide shut every day.
As long as government is run by man there will be errors and outright abuse. I can handle errors. I have no patience with abuse. These democrats abuse power right and left and their minions are OK with it. Trump saw abuse and made errors in judgment at the end. I’ll take the errors going forward. To hell with the abuse.

I have zero problem castigating wrong actions.

Democrats no doubt abuse power.

But do not try to smooth over 'trying to subvert the procedure for counting and certifying electors for President and trying to get himself *declared* President by violating the law and Constitution' as an 'error in judgement' at the same stroke.

How do you morph trying to get himself *declared* President by fiat (as opposed to a vote of state certified electors) as anything *but* abuse of power?

Because the electors were arguably illegally elected.

I can point to several lawsuits by Trump pre- and post- election that cry that same thing. And without exception, the state courts tossed them.

On top of it, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

Please do tell how those are 'illegal'?

Quote: The state legislatures did not change the voting laws.

Again, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

Quote: Other officials not mentioned in the constitution arbitrarily changed voting laws. So my question to you is who actually DID defy the constitution.

The determination of the state electors is a matter for each state. Period. Every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

The Constitution mandates that the Congress count each of the *states'* results. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please name every state where a final court decree has determined that "Other officials not mentioned in the constitution arbitrarily changed voting laws". I look forward to your list.

If you are so smart don’t ask questions you know the answers to.

(04-25-2023 05:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:27 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 02:43 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Funny how many of those pesky conspiracy theories have morphed into truth.
I’ll take JRs vigilance over Tanqs apologetic eyes wide shut every day.
As long as government is run by man there will be errors and outright abuse. I can handle errors. I have no patience with abuse. These democrats abuse power right and left and their minions are OK with it. Trump saw abuse and made errors in judgment at the end. I’ll take the errors going forward. To hell with the abuse.

I have zero problem castigating wrong actions.

Democrats no doubt abuse power.

But do not try to smooth over 'trying to subvert the procedure for counting and certifying electors for President and trying to get himself *declared* President by violating the law and Constitution' as an 'error in judgement' at the same stroke.

How do you morph trying to get himself *declared* President by fiat (as opposed to a vote of state certified electors) as anything *but* abuse of power?

Because the electors were arguably illegally elected.

I can point to several lawsuits by Trump pre- and post- election that cry that same thing. And without exception, the state courts tossed them.

On top of it, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

Please do tell how those are 'illegal'?

Quote: The state legislatures did not change the voting laws.

Again, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

Quote: Other officials not mentioned in the constitution arbitrarily changed voting laws. So my question to you is who actually DID defy the constitution.

The determination of the state electors is a matter for each state. Period. Every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

The Constitution mandates that the Congress count each of the *states'* results. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please name every state where a final court decree has determined that "Other officials not mentioned in the constitution arbitrarily changed voting laws". I look forward to your list.

I suggest you look up the election of 1876.

The day the EV were to be counted for the 2020 election there was some states that had a problem with their EV votes. As the first state was about to tell them about their problem with the EV someone had the doors to the Capitol opened. After the House came back from hiding in the basement the EV certification was rushed through without hearing about the problems with the EV in their states. It should have went back to the States that had a problem so they could figure out what to do. Pence had one job and he failed by not listening to the problem with the EV's

(04-24-2023 01:26 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-24-2023 01:22 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(04-24-2023 01:22 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-24-2023 01:21 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Russian State television has tweeted out that Tucker Carlson is welcome to continue his honest reporting at their site. So he has a job offer but since they're a competitor Fox News I doubt we'll be able to take it.

I trust them more than CNN

I know.

CNN fakes interview and interviews own cameraman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdCk6gJqmoc

CNN Claims missing Airplane Disappear into Black hole:: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpVd7k1Uw6A

CNN fakes being at sandy hook, green screen screw up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcG5hnYQjPA

CNN fakes being in Middle east during gulf war:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWY14eyMFg

CNN gives Clinton debate questions:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/31/new-email-shows-dnc-boss-giving-clinton-camp-debate-question-in-advance.html

CNN fakes story to make BLM look good, ignores call to violence:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SxHOLWiUnA

CNN fakes satellite feed when two reporters are in the same parking lot: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/the-da.../83283367/

Hospital CEO Wins Major Court Victory After CNN fakes Statisticshttp\://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/hospital-ceo-wins-major-court-ruling-after-accusing-cnn-of-false-reporting/

CNN Fakes racist pepe image https://imgflip.com/i/1jxjr7

CNN Green screen fail, pretends to be on a boathttps\://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn5pIkEHPf0

CNN fakes popularity numbers http://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-fox-n...ngs-2017-1

CNN Media Manipulation http://i.magaimg.net/img/48i.jpg

CNN fakes crowd Sizes http://i.magaimg.net/img/36l.png

CNN lying about use of a song? http://i.magaimg.net/img/48l.jpg

CNN and others faking and manipulating words for narraitve.http://i.magaimg.net/img/48n.jpg

CNN cutting mic for saying Jesus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCnZ8G4Ds6k

CNN Cuts mic when trump calls out their lies:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPjuk6VO_qs

CNN cuts feed when Wikileaks is mentioned:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbA5RE9eK08

CNN Cuts Bernie Sander's mic when he calls them fake newshttps\://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqrX8HxcWDE

CNN Pushing Russia Conspiracy

CNN misleads about Trump officials contact with Russiahttp\://imgur.com/5eX6xgT
CNN feeding into russia conspiracies, claims russia hacking without evidence http://i.magaimg.net/img/2si.jpg

CNN claiming Russan hacking to undermind Trump:http://imgur.com/trMDL87
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUAI9Ce9...desktopCNN uses Fallout 4 for hackers footage

Misc. CNN calls Fake news equivalent to the N-Wordhttps\://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi5PLz5yumI

CNN ignores gas attack in favor of talking about chicken:http://i.imgur.com/LEtescq.jpg

CNN says presidents health isn't our concernhttp\://i.magaimg.net/img/48k.jpg

CNN Race Baiting http://archive.is/kh46i

CNN says reading wikileaks is illegal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A

CNN blurs out "Donald Trump Shirt" of man of saved baby.

http://imgur.com/aH3Ykhq

CNN Audience member seen with piece of paper titled "your questions"http://imgur.com/dKfrMpt

CNN reuses protestors sign http://imgur.com/jl1cAKP

CNN says Illigal immigration isn't illegal: http://imgur.com/C03VH2m



Your turn.....do Russian TV

(04-25-2023 05:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 05:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:27 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have zero problem castigating wrong actions.

Democrats no doubt abuse power.

But do not try to smooth over 'trying to subvert the procedure for counting and certifying electors for President and trying to get himself *declared* President by violating the law and Constitution' as an 'error in judgement' at the same stroke.

How do you morph trying to get himself *declared* President by fiat (as opposed to a vote of state certified electors) as anything *but* abuse of power?

Because the electors were arguably illegally elected.

I can point to several lawsuits by Trump pre- and post- election that cry that same thing. And without exception, the state courts tossed them.

On top of it, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

Please do tell how those are 'illegal'?

Quote: The state legislatures did not change the voting laws.

Again, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

Quote: Other officials not mentioned in the constitution arbitrarily changed voting laws. So my question to you is who actually DID defy the constitution.

The determination of the state electors is a matter for each state. Period. Every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

The Constitution mandates that the Congress count each of the *states'* results. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please name every state where a final court decree has determined that "Other officials not mentioned in the constitution arbitrarily changed voting laws". I look forward to your list.

I suggest you look up the election of 1876.

I suggest you look up changes subsequent to that. And by the way, the election of 1876 doesnt toouch on *any* of the issues referred to above....

Congress still determines which set of electors if there is a dispute.

I'm all for ending the opinion programs called News, as long as CBS, NBC and ABC end their nightly "news" shows.

(04-25-2023 06:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 05:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 05:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:27 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Because the electors were arguably illegally elected.

I can point to several lawsuits by Trump pre- and post- election that cry that same thing. And without exception, the state courts tossed them.

On top of it, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

Please do tell how those are 'illegal'?

Quote: The state legislatures did not change the voting laws.

Again, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

Quote: Other officials not mentioned in the constitution arbitrarily changed voting laws. So my question to you is who actually DID defy the constitution.

The determination of the state electors is a matter for each state. Period. Every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

The Constitution mandates that the Congress count each of the *states'* results. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please name every state where a final court decree has determined that "Other officials not mentioned in the constitution arbitrarily changed voting laws". I look forward to your list.

I suggest you look up the election of 1876.

I suggest you look up changes subsequent to that. And by the way, the election of 1876 doesnt toouch on *any* of the issues referred to above....

Congress still determines which set of electors if there is a dispute.

Look up the "safe harbor" provision. Among other asoects

(04-25-2023 06:03 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:27 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 02:43 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Funny how many of those pesky conspiracy theories have morphed into truth.
I’ll take JRs vigilance over Tanqs apologetic eyes wide shut every day.
As long as government is run by man there will be errors and outright abuse. I can handle errors. I have no patience with abuse. These democrats abuse power right and left and their minions are OK with it. Trump saw abuse and made errors in judgment at the end. I’ll take the errors going forward. To hell with the abuse.

I have zero problem castigating wrong actions.

Democrats no doubt abuse power.

But do not try to smooth over 'trying to subvert the procedure for counting and certifying electors for President and trying to get himself *declared* President by violating the law and Constitution' as an 'error in judgement' at the same stroke.

How do you morph trying to get himself *declared* President by fiat (as opposed to a vote of state certified electors) as anything *but* abuse of power?

Because the electors were arguably illegally elected.

I can point to several lawsuits by Trump pre- and post- election that cry that same thing. And without exception, the state courts tossed them.

On top of it, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

Please do tell how those are 'illegal'?

Quote: The state legislatures did not change the voting laws.

Again, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

Quote: Other officials not mentioned in the constitution arbitrarily changed voting laws. So my question to you is who actually DID defy the constitution.

The determination of the state electors is a matter for each state. Period. Every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

The Constitution mandates that the Congress count each of the *states'* results. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please name every state where a final court decree has determined that "Other officials not mentioned in the constitution arbitrarily changed voting laws". I look forward to your list.

If you are so smart don’t ask questions you know the answers to.

You are the one stating that this happened. Name them. Should be simple.

(04-24-2023 07:54 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(04-24-2023 07:40 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(04-24-2023 07:26 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(04-24-2023 10:31 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  About time.

Why? Because he busts all the lies you people spew?

He’s kicked your @$& for years in every rating category under the sun.

It’s so funny the you libs have every media outlet, every one, carrying your water but you can’t handle the fact that conservatives have ONE, Fox.

Telling.

A man is paying the consequences for peddling lies, from a legally settled court agreement (among others, apparently), and yet this man is your champion of truth? Against the lies of the left?

The simpler explanation is he's been lying the whole time, and it's just now starting to come due.

Oh the irony

You're one of the most delusional liars on this entire site.

In spades.

(04-25-2023 11:15 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:00 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 10:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 10:37 AM)gdunn Wrote:  A sitting US Senator is saying that the US Government should dictate what is said on the news... In my mind two different things.. Lolz..

The oath a Senator takes upon being sworn in:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Subverting the process to select the President is a big one in my book.

well, except when it came to Trump. Then you were perfectly fine with it.

Funny. It was Trump that tried to subvert the ECA. You seemingly missed my point completely.

Not excusing Schumers comments.... but I find it humorous that on one hand some here jump up and down and excoriate Schumer for the comments above ( and rightfully so) but don't give a flying fk about the **** that their own team produces.

Getting into a frenzy about Schumers comments and steadfastly ignoring your demigods attempt to subvert the electoral count and certification is a pretty humorous look. Lolz.

So Trump told people to storm the capital.. In this day and age there should be video footage, a tweet, something that backs that up..

One would think...

tanq needs no such proof though.

(04-25-2023 11:56 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:42 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:15 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny. It was Trump that tried to subvert the ECA. You seemingly missed my point completely.

Not excusing Schumers comments.... but I find it humorous that on one hand some here jump up and down and excoriate Schumer for the comments above ( and rightfully so) but don't give a flying fk about the **** that their own team produces.

Getting into a frenzy about Schumers comments and steadfastly ignoring your demigods attempt to subvert the electoral count and certification is a pretty humorous look. Lolz.

So Trump told people to storm the capital.. In this day and age there should be video footage, a tweet, something that backs that up..

To the bolded --- I didnt say that, did I? I suggest you look up the plan Trump tried to get Pence to do. You know, the one where he told Pence --- 'simply declare me President'. [/b] Notwithstanding the ECA, and notwithstanding the Constitution..... Lolz.

So yes, when I see people screaming about adhering to the Constitution, I am all for that. No matter what the outcome is politically. And as opposed to some that get upset about it in one direction and dont seem to care when it occurs in the opposite direction.

As to the bolded, that is a completely other issue.

So surely that's documented right? Not just a he said, she said right?

Yes, it is documented:

Quote:"Mike Pence, I hope you're going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and the good of our country and if you're not, I'm going to be very disappointed in you," Trump said in his speech.

Link: https://www.npr.org/2021/01/06/953616107...y-test-yet

As wrong as tanq may be when it comes to the corrupt Justice Department and FBI, he is dead-on right about this one.

Donald Trump belongs nowhere near any Constitutional office.

Those are two very different statements in bold. Did I miss something?

(04-25-2023 05:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 05:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 04:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 04:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I can point to several lawsuits by Trump pre- and post- election that cry that same thing. And without exception, the state courts tossed them.

On top of it, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

Please do tell how those are 'illegal'?


Again, every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.


The determination of the state electors is a matter for each state. Period. Every state, without exception, certified the results sent to Congress for 1/6 certification and counting.

The Constitution mandates that the Congress count each of the *states'* results. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please name every state where a final court decree has determined that "Other officials not mentioned in the constitution arbitrarily changed voting laws". I look forward to your list.

Exactly. Trump made his legal and political case for the election being fraudulent and when time ran out to overturn the election---he vacated the White House and Biden took over (just as it has occurred in every prior disputed election).

And in distinction to every transition, tried to vacate and short circuit the ECA, the counting, and the certification. That is, tried to act like the certification and counting was an act he could preempt by fiat.

A somewhat interesting distinction. One that doesnt seem to really make any pathway in your 'analysis' above, mind you.

Quote:I fail to see why you continue to throw yourself on the ground in a "Im Big MAD" tantrum

Stating facts is a "Big Mad"? Got it. Lolz. Good grief.....

Quote:over what amounted to using whatever legal and political levers he had to dispute an election he believed was fraudulent.

Problem is that short circuiting the certification and having himself declared President by fiat doesnt seem to fit in the legal levers of this country. In fact, it seems blatantly illegal, and blatantly unconstitutional.

Please do tell where you think a legal basis resides for declaring broad swaths of electors invalid simply by decree for purposes of a Presidential election? This could be *really* finig fascinating to hear.... Not even considering that the person who wrote this groundwork conceded that there wasnt any basis in the law and that it would lose 9-0 in the SCOTUS.....

I *would* agree with you if, that when the court cases all got waxed, Trump said 'okey dokey, even SCOTUS (in the Texas v. Pennsylvania case) hasnt found my way, Im out of here', Trump packed it up and scotched, he had every right to put it that far. But that isnt the case. He actually tried to short circuit the law itself -- actively tried to create a Constitutional crisis like this country has *never* seen, to get himself 'decreed' President by fiat. I draw the line with that being horribly overboard.

Quote:In the end, he availed himself to every legal and political avenue possible to dispute the election and then acceded to every legal and political decision that was made by the judicial and constitutional power structures in place.

Actually he tried the Eastman plan *after* losing every fing lawsuit. From that perspective, he really didnt 'accede' to the judicial or constitutional power structures -- he pulled that crap *in spite* of him losing at every fing step. But please, try some more of that 'excuse juice' that comes so easily.

Quote:Its no different that Bush-Gore----except the courts back then werent scared to death and looking for ways to avoid having to make a decision in the dispute.

Funny, I saw 50+ courts that made a ruling. And I saw a President so engrained in personal power that he tried to *circumvent* not just 50+ courts, but tried to have himself declared President *in spite* of a certification process.

Quote: Back then, the courts understood thier role, and came up with a reasonable solution that put the results under a microscope that everyone could see----allowing people to have complete confidence that the election results would be handled with complete transparency. Instead, in 2020, it felt more like the courts just wanted to not be stuck in the middle of it all and were hoping to run out the clock so it could just be over.

Did you read any of the rulings? Or are you just making up your feelings on them without doing that?

Congrats on the pro level effort to edit out the 'bad bits' that dont fall your way, though.

C'mon dude. The vast majority of those courts opted out completely claiming lack of standing by the complainant or lack of jurisdiction by the court.

Did you read any of the rulings? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do....

Quote:In some cases, they went pretty far out of their way to avoid having to make a decision.

Which ones went 'pretty far out'? Please be specific.

Quote:But---go ahead stay BIG MAD cuz you think Jan6th was some sort of sneaky iNsuRRecTion designed to make Trump king.

What do *you* think of the Eastman plan? What do *you* think of the facts detailed in the case I posted?

Again, simple question here. Try an answer based in facts instead of your immature pile of goo above.....

Look forward to your specific comment on the facts detailed in that ruling.

Quote:Yeah---lets talk about making up dumb crap...

Well, Im sticking to facts in the record specifically on the issue. You? I dont see any attempt in your 7th grade garbage bolded above.

So, to repeat:

a) did you read *any* of the rulings that you talk about above?
b) what cases went pretty far out there to avoid the issue, and why?
c) What do *you* think of the Eastman plan? What do *you* think of the facts detailed in the case I posted?

Maybe you can address those instead of your pre-sophomoric stuff above. Look forward to answers to the above.

I read part of that stupid case you posted thinking its such a big deal. I laughed at this part.


One week after the election, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency declared “[t]he November 3rd election [] the most secure in
American history” and found “no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”17 An internal Trump Campaign memo
concluded in November that fraud claims related to Dominion voting machines were baseless.18
In early December, Attorney General Barr publicly stated there was no evidence of fraud, and
on December 27, Deputy Attorney General Donoghue privately told President Trump that after
“dozens of investigations, hundreds of interviews,” the Department of Justice had concluded
that “the major allegations [of election fraud] are not supported by the evidence developed.”



We now know from internal memos and documents that NO such election fraud investigation by the DOJ ever occurred (I said at the time such an investigation would have required a massive effort that would be difficult to even organize in a few weeks---much less be completed in that time frame). I also always said the Dominion claims sounded far fetched from the start---but they should still be investigated. All I see is people looking for every loop hole they can find to buy time to find the fraud they believe is there. To this day, more than two years later, we still have not performed a reasonable deep forensic dive into legitimacy of a large sampling of mail in ballots from 2020. As Ive maintained for some time, if there was substantial fraud in 2020----that would be the obvious place to look.

(04-25-2023 07:27 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:56 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:42 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:15 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So Trump told people to storm the capital.. In this day and age there should be video footage, a tweet, something that backs that up..

To the bolded --- I didnt say that, did I? I suggest you look up the plan Trump tried to get Pence to do. You know, the one where he told Pence --- 'simply declare me President'. [/b] Notwithstanding the ECA, and notwithstanding the Constitution..... Lolz.

So yes, when I see people screaming about adhering to the Constitution, I am all for that. No matter what the outcome is politically. And as opposed to some that get upset about it in one direction and dont seem to care when it occurs in the opposite direction.

As to the bolded, that is a completely other issue.

So surely that's documented right? Not just a he said, she said right?

Yes, it is documented:

Quote:"Mike Pence, I hope you're going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and the good of our country and if you're not, I'm going to be very disappointed in you," Trump said in his speech.

Link: https://www.npr.org/2021/01/06/953616107...y-test-yet

As wrong as tanq may be when it comes to the corrupt Justice Department and FBI, he is dead-on right about this one.

Donald Trump belongs nowhere near any Constitutional office.

Those are two very different statements in bold. Did I miss something?

Yeah, I think you did. As annoying as tanq can be, he was pretty clear on this one.

He did not say in his post that Donald Trump “told people to storm the capitol” - - the first bolded quote. He did say that Donald Trump told Mike Pence to “simply declare me President” - - the second bolded quote.

There is documented evidence that Trump said the latter.

600k drop for FoxNews primetime without Tucker

HE could be benched for much of the political cycle unless his lawyer can get him out of it. Their intent was to shut him up?