Trump v Biden 2020,The insurrection (pt 6) Read OP

Sand

duploelabs wrote: »

If you're refeering to the steele dossier, most of that has been proven right.
Using the coke/Pepsi analogy to describe the two instances that you're referring to is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. One situation had court cases, evidences, convictions (17 wasn't it?),and the findings were made by bipartisan committees.
The 2020 situation is nothing like that. And just because you say otherwise, doesn't mean it is so

No, the Coke vs Pepsi reference is to Republicans vs Democrats (or Dems vs Reps, whichever). What you're not processing is that I don't believe the 2016 election was illegitimate, and neither was the 2020 election. Trump governed as a conventional Republican rather than a change candidate - he deserved to lose and it was only down to utter incompetence that the result was ever even considered close. I'm not taking a side in your existential Coke vs Pepsi battle. I'm saying whoever wins, Americans lose.

You and your ilk spent the last 4 years wailing about the 2016 result and undermining confidence in the US electoral process and you're now upset that people don't have confidence in the US electoral process. You made that bed, now lie in it.

ohnonotgmail

Sand wrote: »

No, the Coke vs Pepsi reference is to Republicans vs Democrats (or Dems vs Reps, whichever). What you're not processing is that I don't believe the 2016 election was illegitimate, and neither was the 2020 election. Trump governed as a conventional Republican rather than a change candidate - he deserved to lose and it was only down to utter incompetence that the result was ever even considered close. I'm not taking a side in your existential Coke vs Pepsi battle. I'm saying whoever wins, Americans lose.

You and your ilk spent the last 4 years wailing about the 2016 result and undermining confidence in the US electoral process and you're now upset that people don't have confidence in the US electoral process. You made that bed, now lie in it.

you really haven't got a notion what you are talking about.

duploelabs

Sand wrote: »

No, the Coke vs Pepsi reference is to Republicans vs Democrats (or Dems vs Reps, whichever). What you're not processing is that I don't believe the 2016 election was illegitimate, and neither was the 2020 election. Trump governed as a conventional Republican rather than a change candidate - he deserved to lose and it was only down to utter incompetence that the result was ever even considered close. I'm not taking a side in your existential Coke vs Pepsi battle. I'm saying whoever wins, Americans lose.

You and your ilk spent the last 4 years wailing about the 2016 result and undermining confidence in the US electoral process and you're now upset that people don't have confidence in the US electoral process. You made that bed, now lie in it.

My ilk?

Every accusation I've thrown at trump is based on fact and I invite you to take a look at my past posts and show me where any accusation has been proved incorrect.
Exactly what has been thrown at trump that has you in pieces and now say that everything is partisan and nothing is based on fact?
Rather than face any of these accusations like an innocent person would do, trump has hidden behind every loophole, blocked every subpoena.

So go on, show us all on the doll where the bad investigators touched your sense of moral dignity

Sand

duploelabs wrote: »

My ilk? Every accusation I've thrown at trump is based on fact and I invite you to take a look at my past posts and show me where any accusation has been proved incorrect.
Exactly what has been thrown at trump that has you in pieces and now say that everything is partisan and nothing is based on fact?
Rather than face any of these accusations like an innocent person would do, trump has hidden behind every loophole, blocked every subpoena.

None of that matters.

Overheal

Sand wrote: »

Oh no, I'm not wading into the mudpit of US electoral politics with you. In the ultimate battle between Coke and Pepsi, the stakes could not be lower.

I'm just laughing at people who in the aftermath of the 2016 election entertained conspiracy theories about golden showers in Moscow hotel rooms now beside themselves that anyone might question the outcome of the 2020 election.

False equivalence. I don't recall President Obama floating balloons for martial law and redoing the election. Out of here with that.

Sand

Overheal wrote: »

False equivalence. I don't recall President Obama floating balloons for martial law and redoing the election. Out of here with that.

Of course you dont. When you're submerged in the mudpit you cant be objective. Its all one side vs the other side. That is the point of the mudpit. The only winning move is not to cheerlead for one side or the other.

Overheal

Sand wrote: »

Of course you dont. When you're submerged in the mudpit you cant be objective. Its all one side vs the other side. That is the point of the mudpit.

Are you trying to allege Obama was calling for a do-over of the election? Martial Law? Provide your evidence, so

Sand

Sand wrote: »

No, the Coke vs Pepsi reference is to Republicans vs Democrats (or Dems vs Reps, whichever). What you're not processing is that I don't believe the 2016 election was illegitimate, and neither was the 2020 election. Trump governed as a conventional Republican rather than a change candidate - he deserved to lose and it was only down to utter incompetence that the result was ever even considered close. I'm not taking a side in your existential Coke vs Pepsi battle. I'm saying whoever wins, Americans lose.

You and your ilk spent the last 4 years wailing about the 2016 result and undermining confidence in the US electoral process and you're now upset that people don't have confidence in the US electoral process. You made that bed, now lie in it.

Just to clarify, the key proponent of the claim of fraud in 2016 was Trump.... Election interference on the other hand is an established fact and was confirmed by US intelligence agency and other intelligence agencies across the globe. Your point isn't half as good as you think it is.

Sand

Overheal wrote: »

Are you trying to allege Obama was calling for a do-over of the election? Martial Law? Provide your evidence, so

As above, I'm not getting into the mud pit. You're trying to portray it as a contest of Obama vs. Trump - as if they are somehow defining figures. The cages Trump was condemned for putting kids into? Obama built those cages. That is how irrelevant the whole Pepsi vs. Coke debate is.

That you form a political ideology on that is down to your own poor life choices.

astrofool

Sand wrote: »

Of course you dont. When you're submerged in the mudpit you cant be objective. Its all one side vs the other side. That is the point of the mudpit. The only winning move is not to cheerlead for one side or the other.

So what are you recommending the citizens of the USA should do in the future? Lay your cards out, in 4 years time, who should they vote for, or what should they do between now and 2024?

astrofool

Sand wrote: »

As above, I'm not getting into the mud pit. You're trying to portray it as a contest of Obama vs. Trump - as if they are somehow defining figures. The cages Trump was condemned for putting kids into? Obama built those cages. That is how irrelevant the whole Pepsi vs. Coke debate is.

That you form a political ideology on that is down to your own poor life choices.

The Obama administration built them as holding cells, trump then directed they be used to separate parents from children as a means of deterrence.

Sand

[QUOTE=astrofool;115714688]So what are you recommending the citizens of the USA should do in the future? Lay your cards out, in 4 years time, who should they vote for, or what should they do between now and 2024?[/QUOTE]

It really isnt my job to solve the American dystopia that has been created over the past 60 years. I didn't create it, why is it on me to solve it? But neither should people get frustrated that some Americans believe the election was illegitimate because "their side" lost. That is a given. A low trust society is an inevitable outcome of a multicultural society. Latin America is the future of America. Americans should at least be reassured that while "their side" lost, that realization is the one thing all Americans -regardless of how they voted - can unify around.

The fact that their elected leadership bitterly begrudges them $600 in a crisis whilst paying out trillions to foreign regimes should highlight that.

Overheal

Sand wrote: »

As above, I'm not getting into the mud pit. You're trying to portray it as a contest of Obama vs. Trump - as if they are somehow defining figures. The cages Trump was condemned for putting kids into? Obama built those cages. That is how irrelevant the whole Pepsi vs. Coke debate is.

That you form a political ideology on that is down to your own poor life choices.

You just tried to allege fact, but you're not going to back it up?

Clearly, you are only in here to throw mud.

Sand wrote:

Overheal wrote:

I don't recall President Obama floating balloons for martial law and redoing the election.

Of course you don't.

You came in here with the sole purpose of declaring equivalences between 2016 and 2020 with regard to Trump's insane screeching at democracy.

Sand wrote:

Oh no, I'm not wading into the mudpit of US electoral politics with you. In the ultimate battle between Coke and Pepsi, the stakes could not be lower.

I'm just laughing at people who in the aftermath of the 2016 election entertained conspiracy theories about golden showers in Moscow hotel rooms now beside themselves that anyone might question the outcome of the 2020 election.
Yesterday 20:02

You say you're not wading-in to a mud pit, but you brought the dirt and the hose both. You think we wouldn't notice?

Sand

astrofool wrote: »

The Obama administration built them as holding cells, trump then directed they be used to separate parents from children as a means of deterrence.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the Coke vs. Pepsi political chasm of our times.

Sand

Overheal wrote: »

You just tried to allege fact, but you're not going to back it up?

Clearly, you are only in here to throw mud.



You came in here with the sole purpose of declaring equivalences between 2016 and 2020 with regard to Trump's insane screeching at democracy.



You say you're not wading-in to a mud pit, but you brought the dirt and the hose both. You think we wouldn't notice?

I'm trying to save you. They warn you that you shouldn't try to swim out and save a drowning man. In his panic, he'll drag you down too.

Let go of the hate. You have much more in common with a Republican than you do with me.

astrofool

Sand wrote: »

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the Coke vs. Pepsi political chasm of our times.

Do explain, do you not see the difference between the two?

Outline the Sand manifesto, what should the Americans do? What should us Irish do? Why has Latin America become the future? Which south American country will be leading us into the future?

Sand

astrofool wrote: »

Do explain, do you not see the difference between the two?

Who do you think Obama built those cages for? Trump just used them. You condemn the latter, and praise the former. Even then do you believe they were empty in Obama's regime? All I'm saying is the distinction is for all intents and purposes irrelevant. Pepsi vs. Coke.

Overheal

So we're about 16 hours now from the start of what I guess you could call a gold window for the 25th amendment. Not that Pence/Cabinet appear motivated to do this, however the constitutional remedy exists and it is interesting to highlight:

Section 4 of Amendment XXV reads:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

So, with the cooperation of the House Speaker (or the Senate Majority leader), Congress would be delayed up to 21 days without that chamber scheduling that vote, or scheduling at the last minute, alongside a 0-48 hour window, which is also preceded by a 4 day window Pence/the Cabinet could use to delay transmitting the paperwork to Congress. Technically because of the 48 hour period the clock is already live on this, but noon tomorrow there's no wiggle room of time where the section 4 provision would lapse before the inauguration of Joe Biden, so trump wouldn't resume the powers after Congress failed to get a 2/3rds vote. Such a move would prevent Trump from having the window of opportunity to enact more corrupt Pardons.

mcmoustache

Sand wrote: »

All I'm saying is the distinction is for all intents and purposes irrelevant. Pepsi vs. Coke.

That kind of view is is popular with young folk who want to demonstrate how much smarter they are than those who have decided that one thing is more desirable than another. It's simplistic thinking dressed up as enlightenment.


Liverpool or Bury, same thing. Allies or Axis, same thing. Whiskey or paint thinner, same thing. Round earth or flat earth, same thing.



It's not enlightened. It's stupid.

mcmoustache

Overheal wrote: »

So we're about 16 hours now from the start of what I guess you could call a gold window for the 25th amendment. Not that Pence/Cabinet appear motivated to do this,

That's the important part. The GOP's future is now QAnon type nonsense. The people who should know better are actively promoting this stuff now. It's clear what their strategy is for the next few months at least. They know that this is horse-shít but they also know that their voters believe this horse-shít so they have to act like they support it too, even if they know that it's horse-shít.


If that's going to be enough to win state and national elections going forward is a separate question but right now, they're beholden to the monster that they created.

astrofool

Sand wrote: »

Who do you think Obama built those cages for? Trump just used them. You condemn the latter, and praise the former. Even then do you believe they were empty in Obama's regime? All I'm saying is the distinction is for all intents and purposes irrelevant. Pepsi vs. Coke.

They were built as holding cells for detaining people, trump then directed they be used for separating children from their parents (i.e. parents in 1 holding cell, children in another), which has led to ~500 children being permanently separated from their parents, intended as a deterrence to people trying to get into the USA. Is separating children from their parents the same as not separating children from their parents?

Or do you think that the use of holding cells at all is a problem? What should people be talking about in political circles? When the next Irish election occurs, who should we vote for, or should we go straight to revolution?

Sand

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's simplistic thinking dressed up as enlightenment.

Or it is just enlightenment. People deeply enmeshed in the life and death struggle about if bad or good illegal migrants are in cages obviously cant tell the difference. But why cant Americans get more than $600 during a time of unprecedented crisis regardless of who is in office?

Sand

astrofool wrote: »

Or do you think that the use of holding cells at all is a problem? What should people be talking about in political circles? When the next Irish election occurs, who should we vote for, or should we go straight to revolution?

Lets put the Irish scene to one side. What Americans should be asking is why, in a Coronovirus relief bill they only get $600? Meanwhile the same bill sends hundreds of millions, indeed billions to foreign countries to achieve ends which are best irrelevant to Americans.

astrofool

Sand wrote: »

Lets put the Irish scene to one side. What Americans should be asking is why, in a Coronovirus relief bill they only get $600? Meanwhile the same bill sends hundreds of millions, indeed billions to foreign countries to achieve ends which are best irrelevant to Americans.

The DNC wanted it to be $2000, with the majority of the money going straight to people, the GOP added a lot of extras to the bill that meant it was cut to $600.

Are the GOP and DNC still the same?

What is your solution, which politicians would you vote for, or would you espouse a different political system to be put in place (in which case what is it?).

mcmoustache

astrofool wrote: »

They were built as holding cells for detaining people, trump then directed they be used for separating children from their parents (i.e. parents in 1 holding cell, children in another), which has led to ~500 children being permanently separated from their parents, intended as a deterrence to people trying to get into the USA. Is separating children from their parents the same as not separating children from their parents?

Or do you think that the use of holding cells at all is a problem? What should people be talking about in political circles? When the next Irish election occurs, who should we vote for, or should we go straight to revolution?

That kind of enlightened nihilism doesn't go any further than stating that the options are shít. It can't differentiate between options. If it did, it would lose the ability to say that all options are shít and vanish in a poof of logic.


It's not useful in the way that ideas can lead to actions that change things. It's philosophical **** that does little more than take up space and consume resources while offering nothing in terms of actionable information. And that's by design. It's not supposed to lead to solutions - it's meant to make the person spouting it feel clever without having their ideas tested and found wanting.

astrofool

mcmoustache wrote: »

That kind of enlightened nihilism doesn't go any further than stating that the options are shít. It can't differentiate between options. If it did, it would lose the ability to say that all options are shít and vanish in a poof of logic.

Well, if anything, Sand is getting good at pointing out where the differences are between the parties that disprove the posts that Sand is making. It's almost as if Sand has ideological differences with Sand and thus can no longer be an equivalence class, proving that not everything is pointless anymore

To paraphrase Lincoln, "A Sand divided against itself cannot stand."

mcmoustache

Sand wrote: »

Or it is just enlightenment. People deeply enmeshed in the life and death struggle about if bad or good illegal migrants are in cages obviously cant tell the difference. But why cant Americans get more than $600 during a time of unprecedented crisis regardless of who is in office?

You ask that as if it's true that they can only get 600 regardless of who is in office without considering that there might be one party in charge of one chamber of a bicameral legislature that doesn't like giving money to people.

Overheal

I just .... what.

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1342650137382969344?s=20

.... WHAT.

On November 13, 2020, a federal lawsuit with Wood as a plaintiff was brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; this lawsuit alleged that Georgia's procedures for handling absentee ballots had been unconstitutional since March 2020, hence Wood requested that Georgia not be allowed to certify its election results.[19][20] At the time the lawsuit was filed, Joe Biden had a 14,000 vote lead over Donald Trump in the 2020 United States presidential election in Georgia; news outlets on that same day projected Biden as the winner in Georgia.[19][21] Wood later added to his lawsuit further rationale to delay certification; he took issue with Georgia's recounting of votes.[22]

Wood's lawsuit failed after a Trump-appointed district court judge found "no basis in fact or in law" to stop Georgia's certification of its election results at such a late stage, as this would "breed confusion and potential disenfranchisement". The judge ruled that Wood had no legal standing to bring the lawsuit, and had brought the case too late. Wood failed to show that he had been harmed, while his proposal would "harm the public in countless ways".[23][24][25]

In December 2020, a three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court's decision, because Wood "fails to allege a particularized injury", and in any case, his request to delay certification was moot because Georgia had by then already certified its election results.[26][27]

Also in December 2020, Wood lost one of the federal lawsuits he litigated with Sidney Powell in Michigan, where they had argued to overturn Joe Biden's victory in the state and award the victory to Donald Trump. Among various reasons for the defeat was that the lawsuit had been brought too late, stated the judge. The judge suggested that Wood and Powell's motive for filing the case was not to win, but to shake "people's faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government".[28]

Wood has claimed without evidence that Trump won the presidential election with 70% of the vote.[29] While litigating on Trump's behalf, he has falsely asserted to the media and in court that more votes were cast in Michigan during the 2020 presidential election than the entire population of eligible voters in the state, a conclusion he drew from a mistaken comparison of the Michigan vote total with Minnesota population data.[30]

Wood has circulated multiple debunked videos alleging that Cobb County shredded evidence of voter fraud in the November 2020 general election, and his Twitter profile includes the hashtag #WWG1WGA, which is associated with the far-right QAnon conspiracy theory.[31]

Wood has called for would-be Republican voters to "threaten to withhold your votes" and monetary support for Georgia's Republican candidates for the Senate, incumbents David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, if they did not demand "investigations" into the election.[32]

Some Republicans cast doubt on Wood's efforts to help Trump by noting that Wood had donated to numerous Democratic candidates for office as recently as 2018.[33] Due to his past support of Democrats, including former President Barack Obama, Wood was accused by Breitbart of "sabotage" against Republicans, specifically against Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler in the January 2021 runoff elections for both of Georgia's Senate seats. Wood rebutted the allegations on Twitter, writing, "Breitbart is dishonest. Historically, I am nonpartisan. This year, I was partisan because I love [Donald Trump]" and describing hundreds of thousands of dollars he had donated to Republican-affiliated candidates and political action committees in 2020.[34]

Oh.

Proceed.

ILoveYourVibes

Sand wrote: »

You have much more in common with a Republican than you do with me.

That might be part of the reason he dislikes trump.

Real conservatives HATE him.

I don't have an issue with REAL conservatives.

I take issue with hipster alt righters.

nolivesmatter

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

That might be part of the reason he dislikes trump.

Real conservatives HATE him.

I don't have an issue with REAL conservatives.

I take issue with hipster alt righters.

Where have you encountered them? Alt-rightism isn't very common.