Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 49 to 58 of 58
  1. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,494
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    No, I "didn't find the right thing" because I wasn't given an ounce of helpful information. Just a snarky quip.

    I took the moment's trouble to look into it. Why don't you guys do some fucking work for a change?


    Ha. It's cute how you gloss over the coordinated effort to appoint fraudulent slates of electors, and how the thug-in-chief tried to strong-arm the VP & Congress into certifying them.

    "Exactly the same mechanism" my ass.
    Jim you clearly have no trouble navigating the internet and posting small novellas from it, so you simply weren’t that interested in doing so on this point. And im sure Greg didn’t bother to waste his time because you were told od thensame mechanism but you dismiss it. Just cause trump was moee organized about it, doesnt make it somehow not constitutionally based.





  2. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Blue crab country
    Posts
    1,709

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    No, I "didn't find the right thing" because I wasn't given an ounce of helpful information. Just a snarky quip.

    I took the moment's trouble to look into it. Why don't you guys do some fucking work for a change?


    Ha. It's cute how you gloss over the coordinated effort to appoint fraudulent slates of electors, and how the thug-in-chief tried to strong-arm the VP & Congress into certifying them.

    "Exactly the same mechanism" my ass.
    Seriously Jim you didn't have enough information? You was told Democrats used the same mechanisms. You couldn't find any research on Dems trying to disqualify Trump's certification and they tried to do it without one senator backing them up led by the Constitutionalist Jamie Raskin.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...ection-n704026

    At least the Republicans were trying to do it the proper way lol but it got ruined by the "Insurrectionists" lol. What a coincidence. I mean you dont even remember Hollywood doing everything in its powers to convince the electors to change their votes? They even made a commercial. Wow!! Talk about disingenous.
    I don't know a lot but I know a little





  3. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    14,029

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Willbacker View Post
    Seriously Jim you didn't have enough information? You was told Democrats used the same mechanisms. You couldn't find any research on Dems trying to disqualify Trump's certification and they tried to do it without one senator backing them up led by the Constitutionalist Jamie Raskin.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...ection-n704026

    At least the Republicans were trying to do it the proper way lol but it got ruined by the "Insurrectionists" lol. What a coincidence. I mean you dont even remember Hollywood doing everything in its powers to convince the electors to change their votes? They even made a commercial. Wow!! Talk about disingenous.
    Thank you. I didn't feel like investing any more time into someone denying what is well known. You had to sleep through late 2016/early 2017 not to recall the Democrats and lefty talking heads proposing strategy after strategy to block Trump's inauguration. And did righties talk about blowing up the White House once Biden was installed?

    The Democrats have been denying elections since at least 2000. Stacey Abrams still denies her loss by 50,000 votes.

    It is just complete BS and exhausting trying to talk to people who think what is happening to Trump isn't straight out of banana republic territory. This is, BY FAR, the biggest threat to our republic.





  4. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Blue crab country
    Posts
    1,709

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    Thank you. I didn't feel like investing any more time into someone denying what is well known. You had to sleep through late 2016/early 2017 not to recall the Democrats and lefty talking heads proposing strategy after strategy to block Trump's inauguration. And did righties talk about blowing up the White House once Biden was installed?

    The Democrats have been denying elections since at least 2000. Stacey Abrams still denies her loss by 50,000 votes.

    It is just complete BS and exhausting trying to talk to people who think what is happening to Trump isn't straight out of banana republic territory. This is, BY FAR, the biggest threat to our republic.
    When Jim keeps throwing out bullcrap like Republicans disenfranchizing voters which he has done a few times in this thread and then I ask to give examples and he says it's not the proper thread...............
    and then tells us to do research.

    With this election Greg the cheat has already begun. It's just different tactics. Hound the man and lock him up in jail and if that fails they will resort to the same old tactic of shutting the count down in the blue areas. Dems will believe it's all legit tho cuz they will be told it is. You gotta love Trump they tell him he's gotta be in court so he can't campaign so he visits a bodega in Harlem to chants of 4 more years. Right now he's becoming the sympathetic figure.
    I don't know a lot but I know a little





  5. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    14,029

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Willbacker View Post
    When Jim keeps throwing out bullcrap like Republicans disenfranchizing voters which he has done a few times in this thread and then I ask to give examples and he says it's not the proper thread...............
    and then tells us to do research.

    With this election Greg the cheat has already begun. It's just different tactics. Hound the man and lock him up in jail and if that fails they will resort to the same old tactic of shutting the count down in the blue areas. Dems will believe it's all legit tho cuz they will be told it is. You gotta love Trump they tell him he's gotta be in court so he can't campaign so he visits a bodega in Harlem to chants of 4 more years. Right now he's becoming the sympathetic figure.
    And the idea that he can't be excused to go to his son's graduation is ridiculous. If the trial goes that long and the judge does not excuse Trump he needs to go. Let them arrest him for that. His sympathy would be off the charts and they would need to stop counting for days to feed phony ballots through to get whoever the Democrat is over the top.





  6. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by blah3 View Post
    Jim you clearly have no trouble navigating the internet and posting small novellas from it, so you simply weren’t that interested in doing so on this point.
    Of course. After I had already done a fair amount of work, I wasn't interested in doing MORE work to vet YOUR claims.

    Several says later I have more appetite for it. I notice you didn't bother to assist at all in the intervening time.


    Fact Check: Did Democrats Object to More States For 2016 Than Republicans For 2020?
    Jan 13, 2021
    https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-...s-2020-1561407
    True.

    Even though Republicans were able to get two objections formally considered in 2021, they objected to votes from only six states. It should be noted, however, that the Capitol riot earlier in the day kept the number of objections lower than expected.

    In 2017, House Democrats objected to votes from ... nine states. None of the nine objections was considered because they lacked the signature of a senator.
    House Democrats fail to muster support to challenge Trump’s Electoral College win
    1/6/2017
    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...allenge-233294
    “It is over,” said Vice President Joe Biden, presiding over the meeting, after three Democratic House members lodged objections but failed to secure required support from any senator.
    ...
    Jackson Lee and her allies argued that widespread voter suppression in states won by Trump tarnished the results. They also pointed to research provided by a team of independent lawyers that found dozens of Republican electors were technically ineligible to serve. But their arguments failed to persuade their Senate colleagues to step forward.

    Though any single member may lodge an objection, only those supported by both a House member and senator are eligible for debate
    ...
    The attempted objections began immediately, when Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) protested Alabama’s electoral votes, citing Russian interference in the presidential election. His declaration drew a sharp round of booing from the Republicans in the chamber.

    Biden asked whether his objection was in writing and if he had the support of a senator. When McGovern acknowledged he had no senator, Biden quickly moved on.

    At times, Democratic objectors attempted to lodge complains over Biden’s attempts to gavel the session along. When Jackson Lee objected to Michigan’s votes, Biden gaveled her silent. But she quickly started speaking again while Biden repeatedly slammed the gavel.
    I had in fact forgotten all about this. It's been an eventful seven years.

    Interesting how closely Pence's conduct after the riot followed Biden's leadership from four years prior.

    Two things stand out to me. #1, in 2017 the Democratic leadership were all aligned that it was a symbolic stunt that wasn't going to go anywhere. Even the Republican whip knew it:

    From the Politico link:
    “It’s kind of embarrassing,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas. He said senators didn’t join because “they realized it was just a protest and it wasn’t real.
    ...
    House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters ahead of the session that she supported the rationale of the protesting lawmakers but that without a Senate backer, their effort was in vain. ...
    She added that the point of the protest was mostly symbolic, a chance for members to disapprove of Trump.

    “It’s not going to have an impact on the outcome of the election. So, that’s not the point. But I think that people don’t want the day to pass without registering concern,” she said. “In some cases, members are concerned about voter suppression. In some cases they are concerned about Russian influence on our election. There are a number of concerns. But really, it’s not going to have an impact at the end of the day.”
    Whereas in 2021:

    • Pence announced that he encouraged Republicans to "raise objections and bring forward evidence" challenging the election result
    • Some few Repub senators did sign on to these objections, forcing debate in the individual chambers

    So you're equating a stunt that was known to be symbolic, with an actual attempt to change the result. That's shaky.


    #2, you are being outrageously disingenous. A House member voicing an objection to a state's certification is NOT the same tactics as

    • raising fraudulent groups of electors with fraudulent certificates;
    • the president strong-arming the vice president to get hin to certify tthe fraudulent electors;
    • urging a mob to storm the capitol to stop the certification;
    • a rep (Boebert) live-tweeting the location of Pelosi and others, presumably to guide the rioters.

    You are pretending all the illegal stuff didn't happen, and then equating the Dem 2017 conduct to what's left. Sure, if you omit ALL THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY that Repubs engaged-in on & leading up to Jan 6, there is some parallel between the 2017 Dem conduct and 2021 Repub.
    And if you omit all the illegal activity, there's some parallel between my conduct and Al Capone's. It's an inherently bullshit argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    You had to sleep through late 2016/early 2017 not to recall the Democrats and lefty talking heads proposing strategy after strategy to block Trump's inauguration.
    I actually may have "slept" thru it, sort of, the same way I blocked out a lot of the games in the Ravens losing streak without Lamar that ended 2021. Not a period I retain a lot of details from, or like to spend a lot of time thinking about.

    Anyway: you're seriously equating the actions of media talking heads to the actual VP (who encouraged objections) and actual senators (who signed on to electoral objections) and the thug-in-chief. That's beyond ludicrous.

    You'd object if I went into the right-wing blogosphere and used calls for Pelosi to be killed etc, as a point of comparison to make the behavior of Dem elected officials look better. It's a stupid (and disingenous) comparison.



    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    It is just complete BS and exhausting trying to talk to people who think what is happening to Trump isn't straight out of banana republic territory. This is, BY FAR, the biggest threat to our republic.
    The shit that Trump & co pulled / tried to pull on Jan 6 was straight out of banana republic territory. It, and the attempts to excuse/deny it (or God forbid, immunize him for it!) are BY FAR the biggest threat to our republic since 1865.



    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    And the idea that he can't be excused to go to his son's graduation is ridiculous.


    First of all, Merchan did NOT rule that Trump can't go. what he actually said in court was:

    Merchan said he was not prepared to rule on either request, but that if the trial proceeds as planned he’s willing to adjourn for one or both days. “It really depends on how we’re doing on time and where we are in the trial,” Merchan said.
    (The "both" refers to Trump's kid on May 17 and one of Trump's lawyers' kids on June 3.)

    That's much closer to a qualified yes than to a definite no.

    Second of all, Trump is a criminal defendant. His freedoms are curtailed. That is a basic fact of being a criminal defendant. The judge is not required to even let Trump walk around free on bail.

    Third of all, it's New York law:

    N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 340.50
    Section 340.50 - Defendant's presence at trial
    1. Except as provided in subdivision two or three, a defendant must be personally present during the trial.
    2. On motion of a defendant represented by counsel, the court may, in the absence of an objection by the people, issue an order dispensing with the requirement that the defendant be personally present at trial. Such an order may be made only upon the filing of a written and subscribed statement by the defendant declaring that he waives his right to be personally present at the trial and authorizing his attorney to conduct his defense.
    3. A defendant who conducts himself in so disorderly and disruptive a manner that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom may be removed from the courtroom if, after he has been warned by the court that he will be removed if he continues such conduct, he continues to engage in such conduct.
    Trump hasn't waived his right to be present – and he hasn't quite been removed for disruptiveness yet – so Merchan's only option to grant those days would be to adjourn. It's completely reasonable for him to want to see how things are progressing before he commits to that.

    It's hilarious how that's the item you focus on for indignation.



    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    If the trial goes that long and the judge does not excuse Trump he needs to go. Let them arrest him for that.
    Like anyone believes Trump gives a shit about Barron.

    My wife occasionally comments that Barron's memoirs are going to be an interesting read. She says, "You know he's seen some shit!" True.
    Last edited by JimZipCode; 04-21-2024 at 03:57 AM.





  7. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    The Republican standard level of discourse:


    Quote Originally Posted by Willbacker View Post
    You copy and paste what they voted on but not the results. I find that interesting.
    Quote Originally Posted by Willbacker View Post
    I did. Now I want to see the proof. I've read the 3-2 decision but I want to see the proof of 5-0 on the rest.
    Quote Originally Posted by Willbacker View Post
    No it's not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Willbacker View Post
    Jim I read all 11 pages and not one word of the down ballot 5-0 counts.
    ...
    So Jim Zippy looks like your resources lied in your face again. Either that or you are extremely misleading to the casual observer. Ha!!!





  8. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Blue crab country
    Posts
    1,709

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    The Republican standard level of discourse:
    When basic math shatters your argument and you still don't get it.
    I don't know a lot but I know a little





  9. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,494
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    O



    Like anyone believes Trump gives a shit about Barron.

    My wife occasionally comments that Barron's memoirs are going to be an interesting read. She says, "You know he's seen some shit!" True.
    I think this is all people need to understand about jim and his rantings. So much hate and ire directed at trump that cant even conceive trump loves his son
    Last edited by blah3; 04-22-2024 at 08:15 AM.





  10. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    14,029

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    . . .


    Like anyone believes Trump gives a shit about Barron.

    My wife occasionally comments that Barron's memoirs are going to be an interesting read. She says, "You know he's seen some shit!" True.
    You make a lot of assumptions in just these few sentences.

    I don't even know what to call your assumption he does not care about his son. This reveals so much about you.

    All of Trump's kids are well-adjusted, successful, and seem like decent people. That doesn't happen in the family situation you are implying.

    Disgusting. Just as blah3 notes, it reveals much.

    P.S. I don't think Trump ever showered with his daughters when they were 12-13 years old. Someone else's daughter claims he did. That, like your take here, says much.





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Link To Mobile Site
var infolinks_pid = 3297965; var infolinks_wsid = 0; //—->