(06-06-2024 08:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2024 07:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-06-2024 07:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-06-2024 07:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-06-2024 06:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think that enters into the calculus for all of us. Compared to the damage that a partisan and corrupt law enforcement and national security bureaucracy can do to our democratic republic, I think it's smaller potatoes.

Actually the defense that that isnt an issue at all, or in the slightest, is smashingly prevalent amongst at least three of you.

I don't have any thought that it's not an issue. I've said repeatedly that I think Donald Trump should not be the republican candidate. But he is, and I just have to accept that, negative baggage and all.

Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as the likes of Strzok, Clapper, Comey, Mayorkas, and the others. They truly believe that what they want is more important than the will of the people. Our democratic republic survived January 6th, 2021. I don't think it can survive what those bastards will try to do.

There have been many times that you have attacked the charging of the actions in the J6 debacle.

That is you have defended those actions from being a chargeable offense. I think your record in that regard is quite clear. As is OOs, and as is Ham's.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have tried time and time again to make the point that I support Trump because he is by far the lesser evil of the two people who a have a chance to be the POTUS, at least to start the next term. If Jake from State Farm had a chance, I would gladly vote for him.

Nothing about the convictions in any way changes that calculation. Trump is still > Biden. Nor do your frenzied and breathless condemnations of 1-6. Setting aside our differences on those matters, even if you were 100% right(and I think you are not), Trump would still be the lesser evil as compared to another four year term of Biden/Harris. I feel duty bound to vote the best for my country. It's all I can do.

My comment above was *not* about or related to your internal 'greater than calculus', OO.

My comment above is your inherent inability to anywhere near even acknowledge anything even untoward of Trump trying to circumvent the counting of the electors.

You obviously have zero problem with those actions. Or think them a figment of imagination.

And accordingly denote anything rolling his way with regard to those actions as at best horribly superfluous and/or non-existent in nature, or at worst the most extreme injustice since the infliction of the Inquisition.

Notwithstanding your 'greater evil calculus'. However, obviously when one studiously ignores the impact (or perhaps even the event overall) of trying to short circuit the legal electoral voter slates of multiple states in a complete fashion, others might actually surmise that 'greater evil calculus' will probably be affected to some extent.

(06-06-2024 10:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-06-2024 08:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2024 07:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-06-2024 07:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-06-2024 07:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually the defense that that isnt an issue at all, or in the slightest, is smashingly prevalent amongst at least three of you.

I don't have any thought that it's not an issue. I've said repeatedly that I think Donald Trump should not be the republican candidate. But he is, and I just have to accept that, negative baggage and all.

Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as the likes of Strzok, Clapper, Comey, Mayorkas, and the others. They truly believe that what they want is more important than the will of the people. Our democratic republic survived January 6th, 2021. I don't think it can survive what those bastards will try to do.

There have been many times that you have attacked the charging of the actions in the J6 debacle.

That is you have defended those actions from being a chargeable offense. I think your record in that regard is quite clear. As is OOs, and as is Ham's.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have tried time and time again to make the point that I support Trump because he is by far the lesser evil of the two people who a have a chance to be the POTUS, at least to start the next term. If Jake from State Farm had a chance, I would gladly vote for him.

Nothing about the convictions in any way changes that calculation. Trump is still > Biden. Nor do your frenzied and breathless condemnations of 1-6. Setting aside our differences on those matters, even if you were 100% right(and I think you are not), Trump would still be the lesser evil as compared to another four year term of Biden/Harris. I feel duty bound to vote the best for my country. It's all I can do.

My comment above was *not* about or related to your internal 'greater than calculus', OO.
So my thank=yous were incorrect? Consider them withdrawn.

My comment above is your inherent inability to anywhere near even acknowledge anything even untoward of Trump trying to circumvent the counting of the electors.

I have tried to talk with you about my doubts, but I keep hitting a closed mind. As for inherent, is that a dis to my parents?

You obviously have zero problem with those actions. Or think them a figment of imagination.

I would have more problem with them had they not happened within the context they did. Would that be enough to overcome my fears about the direction this country will be taking should Biden win re-election with Congressional majorities? Doubtful, since that bad path will happen whether or not I believe as you do about Trump.

And accordingly denote anything rolling his way with regard to those actions as at best horribly superfluous and/or non-existent in nature, or at worst the most extreme injustice since the infliction of the Inquisition.

Not sure how you think withholding your support from Trump will change the future of this country should the Democrats win control. Will it help you feel smug when the Dems pack the Supreme Court?

Notwithstanding your 'greater evil calculus'. However, obviously when one studiously ignores the impact (or perhaps even the event overall) of trying to short circuit the legal electoral voter slates of multiple states in a complete fashion, others might actually surmise that 'greater evil calculus' will probably be affected to some extent.

And that impact is...? What it tells me is that despite your convictions on the matter, even if 100% right, electing Biden is a path fraught with danger for our country, legislatively, economically, politically,
Constitutionally, in every way, making Trump the lesser evil. What should Tanq do if Trump is re-elected? Join in trying to sabotage his Administration?

(06-07-2024 06:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:   Not sure how you think withholding your support from Trump will change the future of this country should the Democrats win control. Will it help you feel smug when the Dems pack the Supreme Court?

I will feel *much* better that the office is held by someone who did not try to unilaterally short circuit the certified results of 7 states because..... well..... simply because.

I would think that that basic act would be of some concern. But quite starkly I see three individuals who are more than willing to slough it off as de minimis.

And work furiously to justify their 'I dont care as a long as Biden gets removed' in favor of pretty much ignoring en toto that someone tried to shitcan the elections results with zero legal basis. You be you.

Quote: And that impact is...? What it tells me is that despite your convictions on the matter, even if 100% right, electing Biden is a path fraught with danger for our country, legislatively, economically, politically,
Constitutionally, in every way, making Trump the lesser evil. What should Tanq do if Trump is re-elected? Join in trying to sabotage his Administration?

I can agree with you in the term 'economically'. I can understand the issue of 'legislatively'.

The bolded is where I have to laugh at your gyrations. You are literally picking the guy who tried to usurp the electoral process, to have 7 slates electors removed on a whim (literally with zero legal justification), to metaphorically **** on the most basic construct in the Constitution -- as less of a 'danger for our country .... Constitutionally'. Got it.

All without giving even an inch to having even a smidgeon of offense to that act that was attempted. Good for you.

(06-06-2024 07:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  There have been many times that you have attacked the charging of the actions in the J6 debacle.
That is you have defended those actions from being a chargeable offense. I think your record in that regard is quite clear.

There is a difference between attacking the attackers and defending the actions. I do the former, I don't do the latter. As I've noted before, it is extremely difficult to do the one without s eeming to do the other.

(06-06-2024 07:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  To the whole exclusion that Donald Trump did *anything* even untoward in trying to shitcan the electoral votes of 7 states.
One can be concerned about the partisan and corrupt Deep state, and still hold a view that what Donald Trump tried to do in shitcanning the electoral process was disgusting. If not even illegal.

And I do hold that view. I just see rhe partisan and corrupt Deep State as a bigger threat.

I don't think I'e ever staed that there was nothing untoward about Donald Trtump's actions on 6 January 2021. If you think I did, then you misunderstood or I misspoke. But let me clarify--Trump's actions were horrendous.

But as threats to our democratic republic, they pale into insignificance compared to the repeated incompetence and crookedness of Joe Biden or the frankly treasonous runaway Deep State.

(06-07-2024 10:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2024 06:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:   Not sure how you think withholding your support from Trump will change the future of this country should the Democrats win control. Will it help you feel smug when the Dems pack the Supreme Court?

I will feel *much* better that the office is held by someone who did not try to unilaterally short circuit the certified results of 7 states because..... well..... simply because.

I would think that that basic act would be of some concern. But quite starkly I see three individuals who are more than willing to slough it off as de minimis.

And work furiously to justify their 'I dont care as a long as Biden gets removed' in favor of pretty much ignoring en toto that someone tried to shitcan the elections results with zero legal basis. You be you.

Quote: And that impact is...? What it tells me is that despite your convictions on the matter, even if 100% right, electing Biden is a path fraught with danger for our country, legislatively, economically, politically,
Constitutionally, in every way, making Trump the lesser evil. What should Tanq do if Trump is re-elected? Join in trying to sabotage his Administration?

I can agree with you in the term 'economically'. I can understand the issue of 'legislatively'.

The bolded is where I have to laugh at your gyrations. You are literally picking the guy who tried to usurp the electoral process, to have 7 slates electors removed on a whim (literally with zero legal justification), to metaphorically **** on the most basic construct in the Constitution -- as less of a 'danger for our country .... Constitutionally'. Got it.

All without giving even an inch to having even a smidgeon of offense to that act that was attempted. Good for you.

Even if you are 100% right, Trump is still the least bad choice for the future of this country. But in any case, Constitutionally refers to many things beyond just those actions, and the potential for abuse by the Left worry me more. I am not willing to run off a cliff just to spite Trump.

JMHO.

(06-09-2024 12:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am not willing to run off a cliff just to spite Trump.

Nor am I.

The biggest threat that I see constitutionally is the law enforcement/national security Deep State--FBI/DOJ/CIA/DHS. The stunts they pulled to oppose Trump the first time around were at least borderline treasonous. The suggestions made by Strzok and his squeeze were clearly treasonous. The only issue would how widespread those sentiments were, and a look back at events suggests very widespread.

I don't know if Trump is the right guy to take on the Deep State, or whether they will succeed in their efforts to hamsring him again. I am very confident that Biden won't make any effort to fix the problem, and therefore cannot even consider voting for him.

Im laughing at Tanq’s water carrying


He has an admitted financial interest in Trumps downfall…. And a long-standing personal bias against him. For me and most of us ‘on the right’ of this issue, he is simply the lesser of two evils… and in many ways… almost every political way, VASTLY lesser.

The FBI had Hunters laptop for a year before the story was leaked. They knew it was his…. They knew the information on it, evidenced by his cloud storage backup was valid and not Russian disinformation…..

And yet 51 former intelligence officials all ‘signed off’ on it being ‘disinformation right before an election.

But paying a porn star to keep quiet about a consensual and fully legal encounter before an election is ‘election interference’

Lying sacks of ****…. And their useful tools

Oh… and to Numbers’ point…..

If Trump had (just spitballing) the chairman of the JCOS who had authorized troops to ‘force’ Congress to accept these electors, THAT would be one thing. Nothing like that existed. No threats by the CiA or FBI. No wire taps or deals to ‘rat’ other people out…. No media manipulating the people in his favor… no ‘Chinese’ or ‘Ukrainian disinformation’…. No conclusions that laws were broken, but decisions being made not to prosecute on thin (or in Biden’s case, duplicitous) grounds.

If he had all that, then the two situations might be comparable.

Had Hunter’s laptop been confirmed before the election by the FBI, does Joe get elected? We don’t know and never will…. But obviously the chances that he doesn’t are greater than zero… and obviously ‘the deep state’ played a part in ensuring that it didn’t…. Mostly the FBI for remaining quiet, Joe Biden lying and the ‘51 former intel experts’ joining in. If that happens…. If the TRUTh comes out….. Jan 6 probably never happens…

Seriously….. if people don’t see that ‘the game’ has been rigged… that the people are being regularly lied to… that they’ve been CAUGHT lying…. Then I can’t help the stupid.

Lie to me all you want, Joe… about growing up in a black Polish Jewish Trucker household in New England… but don’t lie to me about ‘I never disclosed top secrets… they weren’t top secrets… they were in a locked cabinet’ while your DOJ prosecuted someone else for less.

(06-10-2024 10:13 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  every political way, VASTLY lesser.

Vastly is too weak a word for the chasm in every political way that will exist between Trump 25-29 and Biden/Harris 25-29. That's largely why 34 convictions in a kangaroo court don't move me across the line. {I use Biden/Harris because the odds of Biden still being in office later in this term are next to nil.}

Here's a clue on "economically":

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/...bfbe&ei=18

The principle cause of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. Joe Biden's massive spending and the Fed's enabling of that spending is a real inflationary problem, while regulatory and tax threats have smothered small business production. Trump is suggesting his successful economic policies can be repeated if he is re-elected. There's no empirical reason to doubt him.

(True blue smurfs will ignore this).

(06-10-2024 10:13 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Im laughing at Tanq’s water carrying


He has an admitted financial interest in Trumps downfall…. And a long-standing personal bias against him. For me and most of us ‘on the right’ of this issue, he is simply the lesser of two evils… and in many ways… almost every political way, VASTLY lesser.

The FBI had Hunters laptop for a year before the story was leaked. They knew it was his…. They knew the information on it, evidenced by his cloud storage backup was valid and not Russian disinformation…..

And yet 51 former intelligence officials all ‘signed off’ on it being ‘disinformation right before an election.

But paying a porn star to keep quiet about a consensual and fully legal encounter before an election is ‘election interference’

Lying sacks of ****…. And their useful tools

Im laughing at your continued whining.

Had you noticed there are a few things on that list that are valid and not wildly misstated. Things that I noted in particular in the other list I posted in the Spin Room.

And yes, I shorted with puts an 8 billion valuation company that has revenues of less than a half a single Mickey Ds franchise. Yeah, that short is major issue.
Leave it to you to caterwaul about that. You be you.

By the way, love your third grade level 'generalization' bolded above. Especially right above your schtick about "Lying". Too stupid to see that I guess.

But just like Trump upi latch on to any piece of **** generalization and any piece of **** rhetoric, with or without background facts, to rant and rave. Unlike you I can point out the issues that have merit, and those that dont. Yours is literally nothing but 80% whiny personal attack above. Arent you cute.

As for water carrying, your own water carrying is pretty much a straight run of *nothing BUT* defend Trump's actions at all points, and through all garbage lack of real facts info. I guess self-awareness isnt in your wheelhouse as to that. Lol.

(06-10-2024 11:53 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Oh… and to Numbers’ point…..

If Trump had (just spitballing) the chairman of the JCOS who had authorized troops to ‘force’ Congress to accept these electors, THAT would be one thing. Nothing like that existed. No threats by the CiA or FBI. No wire taps or deals to ‘rat’ other people out…. No media manipulating the people in his favor… no ‘Chinese’ or ‘Ukrainian disinformation’…. No conclusions that laws were broken, but decisions being made not to prosecute on thin (or in Biden’s case, duplicitous) grounds.

If he had all that, then the two situations might be comparable.

Had Hunter’s laptop been confirmed before the election by the FBI, does Joe get elected? We don’t know and never will…. But obviously the chances that he doesn’t are greater than zero… and obviously ‘the deep state’ played a part in ensuring that it didn’t…. Mostly the FBI for remaining quiet, Joe Biden lying and the ‘51 former intel experts’ joining in. If that happens…. If the TRUTh comes out….. Jan 6 probably never happens…

Seriously….. if people don’t see that ‘the game’ has been rigged… that the people are being regularly lied to… that they’ve been CAUGHT lying…. Then I can’t help the stupid.

Lie to me all you want, Joe… about growing up in a black Polish Jewish Trucker household in New England… but don’t lie to me about ‘I never disclosed top secrets… they weren’t top secrets… they were in a locked cabinet’ while your DOJ prosecuted someone else for less.

But interestingly you spout the Trump passel of untruths and fktard misdirecting generalizations like a pro. Kind of neat. You be you.

Yes, the only issue is if Trump directed troops to 'force Congress' to accept electors. But ignore completely the fairly deep and wide effort to simply jam them through. Again, with no legal basis, and no legal rationale to overrule the *state certifications* that accompany those slates of electors. Hey Mike, just shitcan them, okay? Sounds perfectly legal and above board to me.

Oh yeah -- *your* cute as **** *excuse* (one of your gyrations) was 'well it wasnt successful'. Glad to know if I try to rob a bank, and it isnt successful in Hamworld there should be no issue.

And that is just *one* of your asinine 'rationales' to look the other way. Along with the 'oh its *perfectly* okay to submit false things to the government even in light of court rulings to the contrary.' And a few more. Maybe try and answer with real facts instead of kneejerks, and the stupidly thin comment that 'I post these issues because I have shorted a stupid fk meme stock'.

And you whine about all the lying Joe has done. All the while studiously overlooking the proverbial Mt Everest that your demigod has provided. Awesome dawesome.

You are better than a fing cha cha cha dance on the issue. I dont think you have met a 'bad fact' or stupid rhetorical shallow rationale to excuse Trump from J6 that you havent jumped into lock, stock, and two smoking barrels at this point. Funny that.

(06-11-2024 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  []

But interestingly you spout the Trump passel of untruths and fktard misdirecting generalizations like a pro. Kind of neat. You be you.

More interestingly, I come up with my comments and beliefs on my own…

MAYBE I come up with them… and maybe they resonate with some significant portion of the country, including numerous people on this forum and millions more with significant pedigrees because they are simply accurate??

Quote:Yes, the only issue is if Trump directed troops to 'force Congress' to accept electors. But ignore completely the fairly deep and wide effort to simply jam them through

A ridiculous and obviously biased impression of events. Unlike you, I don’t see our democracy as being so fragile that a ‘coup’ could somehow take it down. Frankly, I find that fear to be ludicrous.

As to the consequences of such an act, I believe we would all have been better off had he won… or by any means remained in office for another 4 years. Of course I don’t want it to be through illegal means, but I 100% believe that illegal means kept him out of office… so you’re hardly (in my view) choosing a good actor over a bad one…. You’re just choosing the vastly worse PRESIDENT between two bad/illegal actors.

Quote:Oh yeah -- *your* cute as **** *excuse* (one of your gyrations) was 'well it wasnt successful'. Glad to know if I try to rob a bank, and it isnt successful in Hamworld there should be no issue.

Well yeah, dip ****… I’m much more concerned about harmful successful acts, facilitated by a corrupt electorate, whether technically illegal or not…than I am with unsuccessful ones attempted mostly by lone actors without assistance from the corrupt electorate.

That seems obvious.

Quote:And that is just *one* of your asinine 'rationales' to look the other way. Along with the 'oh its *perfectly* okay to submit false things to the government even in light of court rulings to the contrary.' And a few more. Maybe try and answer with real facts instead of kneejerks, and the stupidly thin comment that 'I post these issues because I have shorted a stupid fk meme stock'.

I’m laughing at the ‘internet tough guy’ lying again.

What I said was true…. And you can’t argue against that, so instead you insist that I ‘prove’ something to you that you wouldn’t accept if God almighty tattooed it on your forehead.

Quote:And you whine about all the lying Joe has done. All the while studiously overlooking the proverbial Mt Everest that your demigod has provided. Awesome dawesome.

Lol at the deflection

You and your hypocrite dems argued for years about trumps lies…. And have covered for Joes. If one of the option were an honest man, I’d vote for him…. But that isn’t our choice. Our choice is between someone who lies mostly about things that don’t affect me vs someone who lies about things that do.

I’ve said this a dozen or more times…. But you stick to your own lies.

Quote:You are better than a fing cha cha cha dance on the issue. I dont think you have met a 'bad fact' or stupid rhetorical shallow rationale to excuse Trump from J6 that you havent jumped into lock, stock, and two smoking barrels at this point. Funny that.

And you’re Biden’s Version of Monica Lewinsky

(06-11-2024 10:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-11-2024 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  []

But interestingly you spout the Trump passel of untruths and fktard misdirecting generalizations like a pro. Kind of neat. You be you.

More interestingly, I come up with my comments and beliefs on my own…

Im glad you come up with the passel of untruths and misdirecting generalizations all on our own, then.

Quote:MAYBE I come up with them… and maybe they resonate with some significant portion of the country, including numerous people on this forum and millions more with significant pedigrees because they are simply accurate??

Maybe they are just shallow, rhetorical gross generalizations. The current conviction has brought them out by the trunkful. To go along splendidly with all the other shallow generalizations (how is an NDA a crime?) that get chanted. But kudos to you for apparently being original and *not* repeating the trough of slop -- albeit your original creation is somehow strangely worded almost exactly like that other typical trough of slop.

Quote:

Quote:Yes, the only issue is if Trump directed troops to 'force Congress' to accept electors. But ignore completely the fairly deep and wide effort to simply jam them through

A ridiculous and obviously biased impression of events.

So ridiculous that is what Mike Pence, Troupi, Chesebro, and about twenty other people have related. Got it. Again -- good job with the shallow rhetorical generalizations that are devoid of actual fact. Keep it up, champ.

Quote:Unlike you, I don’t see our democracy as being so fragile that a ‘coup’ could somehow take it down. Frankly, I find that fear to be ludicrous.

Funny, I just dont like the shitbirds that try and spark them. Regardless if successful, and regardless of how fragile this democracy may or may not be.

But again -- nice way to generate some set of facts and opinions that I dont hold and say that I hold them. I guess you didnt notice that. Id complain to hell and heaven about you 'lying' -- but Ill let you chant that chant all by yourself.

Quote:As to the consequences of such an act, I believe we would all have been better off had he won… or by any means remained in office for another 4 years. Of course I don’t want it to be through illegal means, but I 100% believe that illegal means kept him out of office…

3 score judges disagree with your incisive view, Ham. Imagine that. And unfortunately, there are just about no facts that back that incisive certainty that you 100% believe.

I am sure that "100% belie[f]" stands as a cornerstone to your incessant justification of all things Trump. That is 'its okay because he didnt complete it' - type stuff, the constant 'lexicographer' excuses, yada yada yada.

Quote:so you’re hardly (in my view) choosing a good actor over a bad one…. You’re just choosing the vastly worse PRESIDENT between two bad/illegal actors.

As with OO, your subjective view over the 2 is your subjective view. I can hardly disagree with your own subjective calculus and opinion on 'who is best'. I dont have an issue over your subjective rating.

If you want to proclaim that 'you 100% believe that illegal means kept [Trump] out of office' -- I suggest some facts might help. And too fing bad there arent really facts to that end. And too fing bad that his (and your) subjective (and void of facts) belief that the 'Trump wuz robbed' doesnt give him carte blanche to simply shitcan slates of electors.

And it doesnt do *you* well to proclaim about how his attempt to shitcan electoral votes was (in pretty much all instances) perfectly acceptable and justified based on a fact-void '100% belief' of yours.

Quote:

Quote:Oh yeah -- *your* cute as **** *excuse* (one of your gyrations) was 'well it wasnt successful'. Glad to know if I try to rob a bank, and it isnt successful in Hamworld there should be no issue.

Well yeah, dip ****… I’m much more concerned about harmful successful acts,

I dont like shitbirds to even *try* and shitcan electoral votes. Successful OR not. Many dont like even the attempt.

I guess if one doesnt like the attempt, or calls out the attempt to use artifice and fraud (provable acts of artifice and fraud, not just 'I really really really really subjectively believe it without facts) -- that renders one a 'dip ****' in Hamworld. Because they are concerned that some shitbird would actually try == dipshit. Quite the equivalence there. Got it.

Much like I hardly draw that amazing and definitive justifiable distinction between murder and attempted murder. But please dance that cha cha cha faster and faster.

Ill refrain from the repeating the 'dipstick' portion right back at you.

Quote:

Quote:And that is just *one* of your asinine 'rationales' to look the other way. Along with the 'oh its *perfectly* okay to submit false things to the government even in light of court rulings to the contrary.' And a few more. Maybe try and answer with real facts instead of kneejerks, and the stupidly thin comment that 'I post these issues because I have shorted a stupid fk meme stock'.

I’m laughing at the ‘internet tough guy’ lying again.

Asking for facts instead of shallow non-relevant asides on DJT puts is 'tough guy'? Really? Lolz. Noting that your justification of 'well it shouldnt be an issue because it didnt succeed' is pretty gd shallow as sin is 'tough guy"? Again -- seriously?

Quote:What I said was true…. And you can’t argue against that, so instead you insist that I ‘prove’ something to you that you wouldn’t accept if God almighty tattooed it on your forehead.

Not even. Im pointing out you cant make a factual case in your steadfast support of Trump, and at the end of it resort to a bunch of specious broad justifications, and at the end of that chain simply try and rely on the *really* thin-ass crap of 'look Tanq bought puts on DJT stock.' Yay.

My holding puts on the DJT stock doesnt change *any* of the underlying facts. Notwithstanding your now constant clamoring of that issue. Think about it.

And I’m not looking for issues to be "tattooed to my forehead." Just facts. Not thin rhetoric. Not justifications like ‘hey it’s okay, it wasn’t succcessful’. Just simple facts. Claro?

Yep, I have puts in the stock DJT. Big deal. Doesnt impact at all on the issues I type about Trump's actions. But somehow in Hamworld thinking that is now the real issue. Fun fun fun.

Quote:

Quote:And you whine about all the lying Joe has done. All the while studiously overlooking the proverbial Mt Everest that your demigod has provided. Awesome dawesome.

Lol at the deflection

You and your hypocrite dems

Yep "my dems". Funny I havent voted for one in a state or national office in literally decades. But hey, just go with the 'pull it out of thin air' -- not like you havent pulled that schtick before.

Quote:You [have....] argued for years about trumps lies…. And have covered for Joes.

Where have I covered for 'Joe's lies'? Please be specific. That is please spare us your usual 'Hamworld generality garbage'.

Quote: If one of the option were an honest man, I’d vote for him…. But that isn’t our choice. Our choice is between someone who lies mostly about things that don’t affect me vs someone who lies about things that do.

Neither is honest. One is a fundamental grifter and fraudster. Found to be so multiple times, mind you. One tried to shitcan electoral votes based on his ego issues. That about sums it up.

Quote:

Quote:You are better than a fing cha cha cha dance on the issue. I dont think you have met a 'bad fact' or stupid rhetorical shallow rationale to excuse Trump from J6 that you havent jumped into lock, stock, and two smoking barrels at this point. Funny that.

And you’re Biden’s Version of Monica Lewinsky

The problem is that you somehow, some way equate 'anti- Trump' coupled with facts as somehow "Biden's Version of Monica Lewinsky". Good for you, champ. Got it. Lol.

Ham, you “ 100% believe that illegal means kept him out of office…”?

What were the illegal means that influenced the results of the election so significantly that it flipped from Trump winning the EC to Trump losing the EC?

(06-12-2024 06:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, you “ 100% believe that illegal means kept him out of office…”?

I don't know that illegal means altered the results of the 2020 elections--nor 2018 or 2022. Neither do you, nor does anyone else, because our controls over illegal voting are so lax that it is impossible to know.

It is certainly possible that illegal votes could have decided the 2020 election. It is certainly possible that they didn't. What is certain is that we will never know, because it is not possible to know.

(06-06-2024 02:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-06-2024 02:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So Tanq, how about my comments re: Strzok?

I've told you before that the Strzok / Page comments were wholly unacceptable.

But not actionable? I ask because no action was taken, and you seem to be perfectly fine with that.

(06-12-2024 05:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2024 06:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, you “ 100% believe that illegal means kept him out of office…”?

I don't know that illegal means altered the results of the 2020 elections--nor 2018 or 2022. Neither do you, nor does anyone else, because our controls over illegal voting are so lax that it is impossible to know.

It is certainly possible that illegal votes could have decided the 2020 election. It is certainly possible that they didn't. What is certain is that we will never know, because it is not possible to know.

I would suggest there needs to be a whole raft of evidence to back that. Which simply doesnt exist.

But it sure doesnt preclude a whole raft of people to scream that at the top of their lungs.

(06-12-2024 06:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, you “ 100% believe that illegal means kept him out of office…”?

What were the illegal means that influenced the results of the election so significantly that it flipped from Trump winning the EC to Trump losing the EC?

Since you asked me I will answer… even though numbers pretty well summed it up when it comes to the votes… but that isn’t what was talking about.

To the votes…. Our system is not designed to catch voter fraud… but more it cannot correct it… because you can’t know how that person voted…. And the 2020 election had more holes than previous elections because of the pandemic.


The 100% convinced has more to do with the Hunter Biden laptop. As I understand it, the government had it for almost a year before the election and knew that it was genuine based on a variety of means… and yet 51 former high ranking intel officers signed a statement using their credentials to factually submit to the voters that this was Russian disinformation… something that these people likely would have known, and/or the intelligence conmunity would have known was banking on their integrity…. While lying to the public.

PedanTanq likes to argue about ‘specifically which code did they violate’ or other such foolishness…. And I can’t tell you and as I never challenged the results, don’t care enough to look it up…. But between that and tens of millions more people voting during a global pandemic than ever before…. And most of them for someone his own party has never supported beyond the single digits, I am convinced. ‘Wrong’ things like this should be illegal if they are not already.

That’s my opinion, not a fact… but someone’s going to have to demonstrate that I’ve got the facts wrong… which certainly could…. Give me different information and I might reach a different conclusion…. and not merely that someone else can draw a different conclusion from the same facts. That’s why they’re called opinions.

(06-12-2024 06:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-12-2024 06:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, you “ 100% believe that illegal means kept him out of office…”?

What were the illegal means that influenced the results of the election so significantly that it flipped from Trump winning the EC to Trump losing the EC?

PedanTanq likes to argue about ‘specifically which code did they violate’ or other such foolishness….

Funny enough, had you actually bothered to simply not pull **** out of your ass, or not decided to play 'Spin Room' Beavis and butthead style talk -- you might have bothered to note that the withholding of the laptop I actually do find improper.

And the letter improper.

But why let that get in the way of drive by 7th grade style insult from Hambone when he is maddy poo.