(08-25-2023 10:50 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  And why you and I have gotten into it so much. I think I'm vastly more cynical than you are on the law... so I'm going to look at the same facts that you do... and reach a different conclusion. In my mind, what the law says doesn't really matter... its what audience you get and how compelling your argument is to that audience.... and not just for people like Trump and Biden, but all the way down. Some people would still put someone who disemboweled a child molester in prison, while others would throw them a parade. When I talk about how Trump might have felt after 4 years of witch hunts over Russia and then the media and government manipulating communication to impact the election (which was precisely what they accused him of being involved in)... a whole lot of people IMO are going to be sympathetic... at least enough not to convict 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.... which I think speaks directly to your 'you're going to be right 50% of the time' comment. If facts and the wording of the law is all that mattered, you could be right a whole lot more frequently than that.

I dont give a fk about 'how bad trump was treated.' He went out of his way to **** on the electoral system. In a multiple number of modes. Bummer for him.

Much like I dont give a fk about the mass murderer whose mommy didnt love him. Doesnt help the 15 women he killed.

(08-25-2023 11:39 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  None of that is a justification to break the law and short circuit the electoral process, mind you.

I think lots of people would disagree with you... including Democrats if you gave them a different scenario.

I think a lot of people think that if you believe a process isn't lawful, then you aren't bound by the law either. That may not be the best way to say it... but its a bit like, If you bring a gun to a knife fight, I am not bound by the rules to only use a knife either.

You certainly don't have to agree and I suspect you won't... and as I've said before... there is something a little admirable about that... like why Rice plays Texas in 2023... but at the end of the day it is not a fair fight... and UT doesn't ever get punished.... and if Rice stooped to their level and cheated, we probably would get punished.

(08-25-2023 11:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:39 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  None of that is a justification to break the law and short circuit the electoral process, mind you.

I think lots of people would disagree with you... including Democrats if you gave them a different scenario.

I think a lot of people think that if you believe a process isn't lawful, then you aren't bound by the law either. That may not be the best way to say it... but its a bit like, If you bring a gun to a knife fight, I am not bound by the rules to only use a knife either.

The more apt issue is if you get into a fight two weeks ago, it doesnt give you the right to draw down on the guy right now.

If people to a great degree believe in the 'poor Donald was in a scrap with the dems 3 years ago, so it give him a right to **** on millions of voters' -- then I would say that pinhead justification and mindset behind it is a horrible portent for us a society.

Quote:You certainly don't have to agree and I suspect you won't... and as I've said before... there is something a little admirable about that... like why Rice plays Texas in 2023... but at the end of the day it is not a fair fight... and UT doesn't ever get punished.... and if Rice stooped to their level and cheated, we probably would get punished.

There is nothing admirable about actively trying to **** on millions of voters. Nor on the votes of 84 specifically selected people.

No matter how much you try to portray those acts as 'admirable' in the vein of Rice v. Texas.

Not trying to be antagonistic, but drawing a very clear issue for you around that attempted analogy.

(08-25-2023 11:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont give a fk about 'how bad trump was treated.' He went out of his way to **** on the electoral system. In a multiple number of modes. Bummer for him.

Much like I dont give a fk about the mass murderer whose mommy didnt love him. Doesnt help the 15 women he killed.

I don't expect this to change your position... nor even that it should....

but I think more people would accept the following premise over the one you presented....

A woman who kills her abuser or the judge who set him free is still a criminal, but is much more sympathetic to a lot of honest and law abiding people than an abused woman who randomly strikes out at men or judges in general. Your premise is more like the latter, imo.... as his mother and the 15 women he killed are completely unrelated. Mine isn't the best analogy either, but I think it brings a meaningful element to your premise. The one where the system being 'illegally challenged' is the system being accused of acting illegally.

(08-25-2023 11:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:39 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  None of that is a justification to break the law and short circuit the electoral process, mind you.

I think lots of people would disagree with you... including Democrats if you gave them a different scenario.

I think Dems were caught with their pants down in 2016. Like most people, they expected a Hillary landslide, not a dog fight.

(08-25-2023 11:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 09:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  "Cmon Brad, all you have to do is find me 11,780 votes"

"Find" is not "manufacture".

I interpret it as "keep looking".

Everybody can interpret the statement in the way they want. But if even one juror thinks "find" does not mean "manufacture", then no conviction.

This.
It could mean 'find me some uncounted republican votes' or it could mean 'find me some questionable democratic votes'. I mean when you're investigating potential fraud to support overturning an election, wouldn't question #1 be, how many votes would be necessary to turn the election? So now go look for (at least) that many.

(08-25-2023 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If someone wants to seriously talk about the potential issues related to long-tenured staff, they do not use the term deep state.

I would bet that the majority of those on the right that use the term “deep state” are using it to imply some sort of coordination/plan to say, undermine X, Y, and Z politicians.

Well. I'm on the right and I disagree. Even the term 'shadow' government I've heard people on my side to mean the unelected employees of these organizations who endure long past an election cycle.... whose political affiliations impact the successful execution of leadership (or not). I'm pretty sure at least a few of the others from the right on here would agree. Like a player who doesn't like his coach doesn't give 80%, and one who does gives 110%, maybe even to the point of cheating if he thinks his boss 'has his back'.

I think though this represents one of those issues where (as an example) you might scoff at someone's deep state comment and the speaker find that to be highly insulting when you just thought it was 'common knowledge'. In context... I think most people on the right certainly believe that the 'deep state' exists to protect itself, which would include the ability of people like Hunter to 'grift' on the side as well as to protect 'Hillary's mega-donor's loop-holes' because they get dinners and gifts and book deals or appointments to higher positions etc . They would be against ANYONE who threatened that system, and the biggest most recent threat would have been Trump. Vivek also seems to be a threat there... but he lacks at least many of Trump's obvious character flaws it seems... but also his name recognition and brashness. Many of Trump's supporters like him specifically BECAUSE he doesn't pull punches. Vivek does... though at least thus far he has been able to 'connect' (on a relatively low level) without needing the brashness.

And the term shadow government also has a nefarious connotation. Neither term denotes unintentional malaise/negligence with long-tenured staff. Shadow government clearly implies that people are, in essence, pulling strings behind the scenes (i.e., in the shadows).

The issue you brought up earlier was not the issue you brought up here.

Compare the two:

"what is REALLY being referred to (at least by the rest of us) is the fact that 90+% of the employees of all of these 3 letter agencies remain even if leadership changes... and that makes it all but impossible to 'change the course'"

vs

"I think most people on the right certainly believe that the 'deep state' exists to protect itself, which would include the ability of people like Hunter to 'grift' on the side as well as to protect 'Hillary's mega-donor's loop-holes' because they get dinners and gifts and book deals or appointments to higher positions etc ."

Not at all the same thing.

The former reflects a criticism disconnected from conspiracy. That there exist inefficiencies and inertia with large organizations with recalcitrant employees. The other relies on a theory that there exists a deep state that both grifts and protects itself. Two very different issues, but apparently both described using the same language per you.

(08-25-2023 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 09:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  "Cmon Brad, all you have to do is find me 11,780 votes"

"Find" is not "manufacture".

I interpret it as "keep looking".

Everybody can interpret the statement in the way they want. But if even one juror thinks "find" does not mean "manufacture", then no conviction.

Here is the easiest thing you might want to think about in your attempt to justify that.

Does a Georgia Sec State have any duty to "find" any votes, in particular to "find votes" for only *one* specific party?

Last I saw the Ga. Sec State (and pretty much any Sec of State) has a singular duty
to 'tabulate' and to 'certify'. And in extreme cases to 'investigate' issues. That investigation had already occurred. Let me repeat -- Had. Already. Occurred.

This wasnt the first interaction between Trump and Ga Sec State. The phone call occurred well after the process went down. Jan 3 to be precise. This isnt a new issue, nor new allegations at that point of the phone call Again -- Had. Already. Occurred.

So, in your mind -- is it an acceptable situation to you that Trump ask Raffensberger to do an act that he cannot do under his office? Seems there were a fkload of attorneys (good attorneys) on the Trump side of the call that know the difference what a Sec State can do under his office, and what is improper.

So in context --- if I complain about deed that is put into place in the county clerk office, after full investigation, and after full adjudication, there are *no* issues at the undecided level.

If I call the county clerk, and tell her 'Hey CC, you need to find me exactly 40 sq feet to defeat the claim of the other person' -- that is pretty much rank illegal. I am soliciting someone in an official position to do something that is well beyond her power to do. It is even worse I hold official power and make a vague threat of criminal action.

Those are the background facts there, OO. Maybe that might add some perspective to that episode.

(08-25-2023 12:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The more apt issue is if you get into a fight two weeks ago, it doesnt give you the right to draw down on the guy right now.

If people to a great degree believe in the 'poor Donald was in a scrap with the dems 3 years ago, so it give him a right to **** on millions of voters' -- then I would say that pinhead justification and mindset behind it is a horrible portent for us a society.

Let me start with this... You want this to remain civil, drop the comments like 'pinhead'.... and also the 'poor Donald' BS.

Now to your comment... What happened 3 years ago is only what pushed him to this point... what he did was in direct response to the action that was taking place at the time... the certification of a 'manipulated' election.

Quote:

Quote:You certainly don't have to agree and I suspect you won't... and as I've said before... there is something a little admirable about that... like why Rice plays Texas in 2023... but at the end of the day it is not a fair fight... and UT doesn't ever get punished.... and if Rice stooped to their level and cheated, we probably would get punished.

There is nothing admirable about actively trying to **** on millions of voters. Nor on the votes of 84 specifically selected people.

No matter how much you try to portray those acts as 'admirable' in the vein of Rice v. Texas.

Not trying to be antagonistic, but drawing a very clear issue for you around that attempted analogy.

Well, you may not be trying to be... but you pretty obviously are. If you weren't, you might realize that the 'admirable' person in my comment above was YOU.

I'll say it more clearly. There is something admirable in wanting Trump to 'rise above' a corrupt system... but at the end of the day, the corrupt system still wins... and a corrupt system pisses on at least as many millions... and probably a large multiple of that.

I think "shadow government' refers to the people who pull Biden's strings and manage him.

(08-25-2023 12:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont give a fk about 'how bad trump was treated.' He went out of his way to **** on the electoral system. In a multiple number of modes. Bummer for him.

Much like I dont give a fk about the mass murderer whose mommy didnt love him. Doesnt help the 15 women he killed.

I don't expect this to change your position... nor even that it should....

but I think more people would accept the following premise over the one you presented....

A woman who kills her abuser or the judge who set him free is still a criminal, but is much more sympathetic to a lot of honest and law abiding people than an abused woman who randomly strikes out at men or judges in general. Your premise is more like the latter, imo.... as his mother and the 15 women he killed are completely unrelated. Mine isn't the best analogy either, but I think it brings a meaningful element to your premise. The one where the system being 'illegally challenged' is the system being accused of acting illegally.

Mine is that the 'past wrong' of the Dems is not a justification to **** on the votes of millions of people in general, nor on the specific votes of 84 people in particular who were certified by their state to vote for President.

Seems a humogous stretch of common sense when the actual victims of his actions are delineated.

(08-25-2023 12:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 12:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The more apt issue is if you get into a fight two weeks ago, it doesnt give you the right to draw down on the guy right now.

If people to a great degree believe in the 'poor Donald was in a scrap with the dems 3 years ago, so it give him a right to **** on millions of voters' -- then I would say that pinhead justification and mindset behind it is a horrible portent for us a society.

Let me start with this... You want this to remain civil, drop the comments like 'pinhead'.... and also the 'poor Donald' BS.

Now to your comment... What happened 3 years ago is only what pushed him to this point... what he did was in direct response to the action that was taking place at the time... the certification of a 'manipulated' election.

Quote:You certainly don't have to agree and I suspect you won't... and as I've said before... there is something a little admirable about that... like why Rice plays Texas in 2023... but at the end of the day it is not a fair fight... and UT doesn't ever get punished.... and if Rice stooped to their level and cheated, we probably would get punished.

There is nothing admirable about actively trying to **** on millions of voters. Nor on the votes of 84 specifically selected people.

No matter how much you try to portray those acts as 'admirable' in the vein of Rice v. Texas.

Not trying to be antagonistic, but drawing a very clear issue for you around that attempted analogy.

Well, you may not be trying to be... but you pretty obviously are. If you weren't, you might realize that the 'admirable' person in my comment above was YOU.

I'll say it more clearly. There is something admirable in wanting Trump to 'rise above' a corrupt system... but at the end of the day, the corrupt system still wins.
[/quote]

Im still in awe about thinking that the act of shitting on the votes of millions is somehow justified by 'Dems set me up for Russiagate'.

I find that justification to be highly facetious in light of the actions that were undertaken by Trump.

Hey, Dems tried to derail me with a russigate and an impeachment -- Ill show them. Ill **** on the votes of people in 7 states to make that point'.

I also find it highly facetious to use the former as a justification for the latter by pretty much anyone. Yeah, going to really solve an issue of Russiagate by removing the electors in 7 states at a whim or by artifice, notwithstanding the millions of votes there. Perfectly sane rationale to hang on to.

If you think that rational, good for you. You keep making that point ----

(08-25-2023 12:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And the term shadow government also has a nefarious connotation.

To you, yes. To me, its a maybe. I'll even accept 'probable'... but not necessarily. It just is what it is. 90% of Washington runs regardless of whom is in power... and things don't change just because leadership changes. A racist cop doesn't stop being racist. A lawyer with a conservative bias doesn't suddenly see things through a liberal lense.

Quote:Neither term denotes unintentional malaise/negligence with long-tenured staff. Shadow government clearly implies that people are, in essence, pulling strings behind the scenes (i.e., in the shadows).

Yes... and I never said 'unintentional'. As an obvious example, I don't think you have a lot of 'drill baby drill' people at the EPA, even if you put one of them at the top. Whether they are pulling strings or merely acting mostly based on their belief of what their job should be makes no real difference to the fact that they remain, even if leadership changes.

Quote:The issue you brought up earlier was not the issue you brought up here.

Compare the two:

"what is REALLY being referred to (at least by the rest of us) is the fact that 90+% of the employees of all of these 3 letter agencies remain even if leadership changes... and that makes it all but impossible to 'change the course'"

vs

"I think most people on the right certainly believe that the 'deep state' exists to protect itself, which would include the ability of people like Hunter to 'grift' on the side as well as to protect 'Hillary's mega-donor's loop-holes' because they get dinners and gifts and book deals or appointments to higher positions etc ."

Not at all the same thing.

The former reflects a criticism disconnected from conspiracy. That there exist inefficiencies and inertia with large organizations with recalcitrant employees. The other relies on a theory that there exists a deep state that both grifts and protects itself. Two very different issues, but apparently both described using the same language per you.

Wow... so there can't be more than one example??

I never said there was only one thing... I just said they weren't 'conspiracies'.

Maybe from your perspective they are quite different, but not from mine. Some are in one camp, some are in the other... and others still believe in both. You're premise requires a monolithic view of 'Republicans'... and like any other group, we are a range...

but NOTHING I suggested is anything close to a 'conspiracy', certainly not against any particular person or party... it just is what it has become.

If the FBI hired a lot of people who are 'law first' but also believe that the ends can justify the means... or one that believes in getting 'the most' criminals vs getting 'the most criminal', you're going to get a vastly different application of laws and prosecutions... and those people would (at least mostly) continue in their beliefs and practices even if leadership changes. Hence a 'shadow', unelected government.... doing most of what it does... most of what it sees as important... regardless of whom is in charge

The one thing that should be clear from all of these hearings that used to be buried on CSPAN but are now all over the place is the idea that the people in charge often don't have much knowledge about what the people in the field actually do. Not in the grand scheme, but in specific.

(08-25-2023 12:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 12:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont give a fk about 'how bad trump was treated.' He went out of his way to **** on the electoral system. In a multiple number of modes. Bummer for him.

Much like I dont give a fk about the mass murderer whose mommy didnt love him. Doesnt help the 15 women he killed.

I don't expect this to change your position... nor even that it should....

but I think more people would accept the following premise over the one you presented....

A woman who kills her abuser or the judge who set him free is still a criminal, but is much more sympathetic to a lot of honest and law abiding people than an abused woman who randomly strikes out at men or judges in general. Your premise is more like the latter, imo.... as his mother and the 15 women he killed are completely unrelated. Mine isn't the best analogy either, but I think it brings a meaningful element to your premise. The one where the system being 'illegally challenged' is the system being accused of acting illegally.

Mine is that the 'past wrong' of the Dems is not a justification to **** on the votes of millions of people in general, nor on the specific votes of 84 people in particular who were certified by their state to vote for President.

Seems a humogous stretch of common sense when the actual victims of his actions are delineated.

So IF there was voting impropriety, would you not agree that those whose votes were now either thwarted or disenfranchised were also 'victims'??

I really kind of get sick of this argument. You just admitted that lawyers in contentious cases only win their arguments about half the time (there are always two sides as I've repeatedly said) despite having just one set of facts and just one written law...

(08-25-2023 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im still in awe about thinking that the act of shitting on the votes of millions is somehow justified by 'Dems set me up for Russiagate'.

I find that justification to be highly facetious in light of the actions that were undertaken by Trump.

Hey, Dems tried to derail me with a russigate and an impeachment -- Ill show them. Ill **** on the votes of people in 7 states to make that point'.

I also find it highly facetious to use the former as a justification for the latter by pretty much anyone. Yeah, going to really solve an issue of Russiagate by removing the electors in 7 states at a whim or by artifice, notwithstanding the millions of votes there. Perfectly sane rationale to hang on to.

If you think that rational, good for you. You keep making that point ----

Yep... nobody voted for Trump.

And you keep being obstinate... making excuses for ugly responses resulting from your misreading some pretty clear language and responding based on your own internal dialogue and not anything that I wrote. You disagree with me and that's fine... but that's not enough for you. Somehow you have to read BS into my comment and then when called on it, claim that you're just so 'agog' at my position that you can't think straight.

And to be frank, I think its pretty ludicrous of you to suggest that there is no reasonable way for someone to mitigate culpability in a criminal case, when MURDER even has such a reality. Whether you agree or not... whether you think it right or not... whether you think it 'fair' or not, a lot of people feel that way. Why you seem to insist that this can't possibly be the case is beyond me. It's demonstrable.

Shadow government is commonly used in Europe to denote the opposition party, with members filling slots to shadow their counterparts in the majority. If UK has a Conservative government, then the leader of Labour party would be the shadow prime minister, and so forth. Nothing sinister about that.

(08-25-2023 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 12:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 12:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The more apt issue is if you get into a fight two weeks ago, it doesnt give you the right to draw down on the guy right now.

If people to a great degree believe in the 'poor Donald was in a scrap with the dems 3 years ago, so it give him a right to **** on millions of voters' -- then I would say that pinhead justification and mindset behind it is a horrible portent for us a society.

Let me start with this... You want this to remain civil, drop the comments like 'pinhead'.... and also the 'poor Donald' BS.

Now to your comment... What happened 3 years ago is only what pushed him to this point... what he did was in direct response to the action that was taking place at the time... the certification of a 'manipulated' election.

Quote:You certainly don't have to agree and I suspect you won't... and as I've said before... there is something a little admirable about that... like why Rice plays Texas in 2023... but at the end of the day it is not a fair fight... and UT doesn't ever get punished.... and if Rice stooped to their level and cheated, we probably would get punished.

There is nothing admirable about actively trying to **** on millions of voters. Nor on the votes of 84 specifically selected people.

No matter how much you try to portray those acts as 'admirable' in the vein of Rice v. Texas.

Not trying to be antagonistic, but drawing a very clear issue for you around that attempted analogy.

Well, you may not be trying to be... but you pretty obviously are. If you weren't, you might realize that the 'admirable' person in my comment above was YOU.

I'll say it more clearly. There is something admirable in wanting Trump to 'rise above' a corrupt system... but at the end of the day, the corrupt system still wins.

Im still in awe about thinking that the act of shitting on the votes of millions is somehow justified by 'Dems set me up for Russiagate'.

I find that justification to be highly facetious in light of the actions that were undertaken by Trump.

Hey, Dems tried to derail me with a russigate and an impeachment -- Ill show them. Ill **** on the votes of people in 7 states to make that point'.

I also find it highly facetious to use the former as a justification for the latter by pretty much anyone. Yeah, going to really solve an issue of Russiagate by removing the electors in 7 states at a whim or by artifice, notwithstanding the millions of votes there. Perfectly sane rationale to hang on to.

If you think that rational, good for you. You keep making that point ----
[/quote]


You seem to think that we thinkTrump’s alleged actions are a quid pro quo for earlier mistreatment. Nobody has said that, and nobody here but you believes that.

Now got to go put on my bathing suit. I have many happy memories of jumping in the lake as a kid. You cannot take those from me.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/vivek-...967&ei=100

FromNBC news: “The day[Juneteenth] Marks the end of slavery.”

Outright lie? Disinformation? Ignorance?

(08-25-2023 03:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/vivek-...967&ei=100

FromNBC news: “The day[Juneteenth]. Marks the end of slavery.”

Outright lie? Disinformation? Ignorance?

All of the above.

I'd add history modification to fit the narrative.

To be fair, not sure what Vivek expects to gain by calling Juneteenth a "useless Holiday". That's certainly not the case in Texas. He does come up with some head scratchers.

(08-25-2023 03:29 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 03:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/vivek-...967&ei=100

FromNBC news: “The day[Juneteenth]. Marks the end of slavery.”

Outright lie? Disinformation? Ignorance?

All of the above.

I'd add history modification to fit the narrative.

To be fair, not sure what Vivek expects to gain by calling Juneteenth a "useless Holiday". That's certainly not the case in Texas. He does come up with some head scratchers.

Texas is. the state in which it originated.

(08-25-2023 02:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 12:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Mine is that the 'past wrong' of the Dems is not a justification to **** on the votes of millions of people in general, nor on the specific votes of 84 people in particular who were certified by their state to vote for President.

Seems a humogous stretch of common sense when the actual victims of his actions are delineated.

So IF there was voting impropriety, would you not agree that those whose votes were now either thwarted or disenfranchised were also 'victims'??

First -- yes.

But second -- in order to rely on that I suggest a modicum of proof of that. That is beyond making **** up that is refuted by the Sec of State office, making **** up about the 'kraken' (which ended up costing Fox 3/4 of Billion dollars in defamation, mind you, making defamatory **** up about election workers (where your chief attorney, now co-defendant) in making that has admitted liability about making that up), and on and on and on and on and on.

Quote:I really kind of get sick of this argument. You just admitted that lawyers in contentious cases only win their arguments about half the time (there are always two sides as I've repeatedly said) despite having just one set of facts and just one written law...

You are now torqued that you are forced to address a 'trump is justified in shitting on voters because of "russiagate" '? The problem is that you make points in broad generalities with sometimes zero grounding in the specific facts. Yeah, Id get tired of those arguments as well.

Im not even arguing a 'case' -- I am arguing *your* attempt at justifying such behavior. Justification behavior that has *zero* connection to the case in front. yeah, how dare that rift between the justification and the issue be made. The horrors.

Quote:

(08-25-2023 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im still in awe about thinking that the act of shitting on the votes of millions is somehow justified by 'Dems set me up for Russiagate'.

I find that justification to be highly facetious in light of the actions that were undertaken by Trump.

Hey, Dems tried to derail me with a russigate and an impeachment -- Ill show them. Ill **** on the votes of people in 7 states to make that point'.

I also find it highly facetious to use the former as a justification for the latter by pretty much anyone. Yeah, going to really solve an issue of Russiagate by removing the electors in 7 states at a whim or by artifice, notwithstanding the millions of votes there. Perfectly sane rationale to hang on to.

If you think that rational, good for you. You keep making that point ----

Yep... nobody voted for Trump.

Where did I say that 'no one voted for trump'? Please be specific.

It seems clear that more voted for Biden in 7 states, where Trump tried to reverse those state votes on fluff and bravado. And bull****.

So yes, In that sense Trump is absolutely shitting on those 'more votes for his opponent'. How dare I not mention anything about anyone who voted for him..... interesting take.

Also in that sense, Trump tried to **** on the 84 very specific votes that were cast under official state imprimatur, by voters certified to have won an election, and on votes certified by those states under their own state law.

In that sense trump tried to **** all over the states as a whole, when he tried to **** all over those very specific 84 votes en toto. Funny that.

Quote:And you keep being obstinate... making excuses for ugly responses resulting from your misreading some pretty clear language and responding based on your own internal dialogue and not anything that I wrote. You disagree with me and that's fine... but that's not enough for you. Somehow you have to read BS into my comment and then when called on it, claim that you're just so 'agog' at my position that you can't think straight.

I think it clear you are trying to justify the actions of Trump and the certified votes as being somehow 'justified' because poor victim DJT was messed with by the Dems in Russiagate.

When you stop and think about it -- it is shallowly funny.

Quote:And to be frank, I think its pretty ludicrous of you to suggest that there is no reasonable way for someone to mitigate culpability in a criminal case, when MURDER even has such a reality.

There are *absolutely* ways to mitigate culpability. Where the hell do you come up with the idea that there is *no* way to do that? And you do that *immediately* after my 'reading BS into your comment'. Good grief. Pot. Kettle. Lol.

Again, there are definitely waysto mitigate culpability. Just because I didnt hand list umpteen of them for your reading benefit doesnt mean my example is intended to foreclose *all* culpability. Just cut with the shallow responses.

What I *am* saying is just because a guy was bullied as a 10 year old, there is a far hill to climb to use that being bullied as a 10 year old to justify criminal actions against a wholly different person or set of persons.

Quote:Whether you agree or not... whether you think it right or not... whether you think it 'fair' or not, a lot of people feel that way. Why you seem to insist that this can't possibly be the case is beyond me. It's demonstrable.

Got it. Because poor DJT got bullied by the Dems in Russiagate, because DJT got bullied by Dems in one purely political impeachment ---
perfectly okay and justifiable for him to **** over the voters in a state,
perfectly okay for him to **** over the specific electors in a state,
perfectly okay for him to **** over the entire state system of choosing their electoral votes.

Yeah, perfectly clear. <sarcasm off>

Im sorry, that is really only for the most dense of our world in retrospect. Just kick the **** out of some third party because you got bullied by the some other group.....

If the end victim had actually been different, I might feel different. Here, the justification of literally shitting on the voting rights of voters in 7 states, shitting on the constitutional rights of the 7 states as a whole, and shitting on the constitutionally defined rights of 84 specific electors is -- the Dems bullied DJT.

Got it. Sounds awesome.

(08-25-2023 03:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

Quote:The more apt issue is if you get into a fight two weeks ago, it doesnt give you the right to draw down on the guy right now.

If people to a great degree believe in the 'poor Donald was in a scrap with the dems 3 years ago, so it give him a right to **** on millions of voters' -- then I would say that pinhead justification and mindset behind it is a horrible portent for us a society.

Let me start with this... You want this to remain civil, drop the comments like 'pinhead'.... and also the 'poor Donald' BS.

The idea of that being a justification *is* pinhead. Sorry, it is what it is.

And I would repeat that if it is such a rationalization for the actions of the Smith J6, MAL, and Fulton Co. charges -- it is a *massive* horrible portent for us as a society.

Quote:our comment... What happened 3 years ago is only what pushed him to this point... what he did was in direct response to the action that was taking place at the time... the certification of a 'manipulated' election.

You mean the 'certification of an election he lost.'

The other problem is that a huge number of people kneejerk their way into 'witch hunt' with zero background on the issues. And those same people kneejerk their way into that 'witch hunt' based upon simply listing items from Russiagate.

If the election in those 7 states is/was 'bent' -- have at it and pop up some facets that actually justify trying to **** on the general voters, the electoral voters, and the states themselves in the electoral votes.

Instead of just the kneejerk reaction of 'poor Donald was hounded', and a litany of items from Russiagate.

If the Trump J6 prosecution is bent, or based on bent facts -- try those facts with that case.

If the Trump MAL prosecution is bent, or based on bent facts or issues -- please absolutely list them.

If the Trump Fulton RICO case is bent, or based on bent facts or issues -- again, all ears.

If it is stated 'bah humbug, witch hunt' -- sorry that is specious as hell for those items above.

Or if is stated as 'poor DJT felt he had been wrongfully handled in Russiagate', as has been put forth here -- no, that is in no way a justification for him to walk off with the documents, to obstruct justice, to lie about the documents, or to try and short circuit the 2020 elections in Georgia, Mich., Wis., Ariz, NM, Penn, and Nev.

Sorry, there are zero connections in a justification for the above laundry list and the list of historical inequities used to try and say why the above list is/are a witch hunt.

If you are aware of specific issues or problems in the Ga Fulton County case, the Smith J6 case, or the SMith MAL case re: official misconduct or how Trump is actually justified in what appear to be instances of criminal conduct, I look forward to hearing them.

As for 'quid pro quo' -- I am simply responding to your own comments on the issues of the J Smith prosecutions, and the askance question of 'RICO in Georgia', mind you.

Trump’s mug shot hit the national media in minutes.

Paul Pelosi’s took about 2 months.

More evidence that everything is equal.