-->
@HistoryBuff
and see what she advised Biden >>>>she is saying ...........................
She is saying that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should Joe Biden concede the election.
This is Strange Behaviour
Posts
Total:
93
-->
@Stephen
She is saying that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should Joe Biden concede the election.
traditionally, people concede on election night or the day after. She was saying under no circumstances should he do that. Since the votes were going to swing in bidens favor after the mail ins were counted, she was right.
-->
@HistoryBuff
She is saying that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should Joe Biden concede the election.She was saying under no circumstances should he do that.
Yes that is what she said "under NO CIRCUMSTANCES", didn't she. So who knows what he would have done? My guess is that he would have taken Clinton's advice as Trump has done and has every right to do.
-->
@Stephen
Yes that is what she said "under NO CIRCUMSTANCES", didn't she.
yes, i suppose it is possible to interpret her words in different ways. but she is essentially a nobody in this equation. She was not the candidate so her comment ultimately means nothing.
My guess is that he would have taken Clinton's advice
There is no evidence this is true. You are, again, choosing to believe something because it suits your preconceived notions. IE it's fine for trump to do something dangerous because a democrat might hypothetically have done that.
as Trump has done and has every right to do.
Trump has every right to insist on investigations of accusations of fraud. No one denies that. However, since there is no evidence that there is any fraud and it is now extremely evident that Biden won, it is damaging to democracy to continue to pretend like Trump somehow won.
If trump was able to point to cases of fraud, and those fraudulent votes could have potentially swung the election in his favor, then absolutely it would be fair to wait to concede until that was resolved. However, his team have failed to present any evidence of fraud. Even if he won all the lawsuits he still has ongoing, Biden would still win. At this point, trump has no path to winning, he should concede.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I am sure there is a good reason why they are keeping evidence from corporate media.
-->
@Greyparrot
I am sure there is a good reason why they are keeping evidence from corporate media.
I have no idea what you are quoting. I don't think that is a quote from me.
Please provide evidence that there is a gag order preventing Trump from giving evidence. Because so far all they have shown is a bunch of lies, people who don't understand how the election process works, and nonsense.
-->
@HistoryBuff
You don't trust the courts to handle the evidence?
-->
@Greyparrot
You don't trust the courts to handle the evidence?
I do, and they are throwing out lawsuits that have no evidence left and right. You are claiming that there is evidence of fraud. Trump can't provide any. the courts are throwing out tons of lawsuits because no one seems to have any.
I do not understand how anyone looking at the facts rationally could come to the conclusion that fraud played a part in this election, because people are being paid huge sums of money to look for something, anything that could back up a fraud claim and are coming up with nothing.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I do, and they are throwing out lawsuits that have no evidence left and right. You are claiming that there is evidence of fraud. Trump can't provide any. the courts are throwing out tons of lawsuits because no one seems to have any.
Are all the lawsuits thrown out?
-->
@Greyparrot
Are all the lawsuits thrown out?
most of them. And the remaining lawsuits don't contest enough votes to change the outcome. even if trump won every single lawsuit that is still unresolved (which is highly unlikely), Biden is still the winner.
-->
@Conway
So which do you value as a pecking order of either loyalty or integrity: truth or fact, since Hidin' Biden believes they're separate terms?
-->
@fauxlaw
most of them.
CNN claims all of them. Is CNN lying?
-->
@Greyparrot
Where did CNN say that?
(I'm pretty sure all of them have been thrown out, except for maybe the one that was heard today which hasn't been decided yet though the judge is pretty much laughing at it.)
This is one of my fave excerpts from the lawsuit heard in PA today:
If no county allowed voters to correct problems with mail-in ballots “it’s very likely that the results would have been very, very different,” argued Linda Kerns, a Philadelphia lawyer working alongside Giuliani.
Brann [the Judge] attacked that argument. “How does making it easier for some people to vote burden the plaintiffs’ right to vote?” Brann questioned.
Brann [the Judge] attacked that argument. “How does making it easier for some people to vote burden the plaintiffs’ right to vote?” Brann questioned.
Mark Aronchick, a lawyer defending Philadelphia, disputed Giuliani’s repeated contentions that it was illegal for counties to help people vote. A county should help people vote, he contended. “What’s wrong with that? What world are we living in here?” Aronchick argued.
What a world indeed. It's pretty sad the GOP is so open about wanting to make it harder for some, i.e. discount certain people's votes.
At the end of the day none of this matters. The only thing that matters is evidence because the vote counts are presumptively correct without evidence to the contrary. Even if the election was stolen, then it's too bad if it can't be proven.
-->
@Greyparrot
It appears "most of them" was a comment from HistoryBuff
-->
@fauxlaw
It appears "most of them" was a comment from HistoryBuff
That contradicts the narrative from CNN.
-->
@Greyparrot
most of them.CNN claims all of them. Is CNN lying?
maybe it is all of them by now. they are getting thrown out so fast it is hard to keep track. But regardless of that, assuming there are any left, they don't contest enough votes to change the outcome. There is no longer any doubt that biden won the election.
-->
@fauxlaw
So which do you value as a pecking order of either loyalty or integrity: truth or fact, since Hidin' Biden believes they're separate terms?
So at some point in his life someone told Joe "Can it, you blithering idiot!" and it left an impression. That's why we're about to have a humble man in the oval office.
How do I know whether to take the political claims of someone seriously or not? Their vocabulary. Whether it's hiden Biden (You know, during a f*cking pandemic), calling Bernie a socialist, or someone who takes Trump seriously. Most of the GOP doesn't take Trump seriously.
-->
@Conway
Sorry if I replace "humble" with "weak." He espouses leading from behind. Gen. Eisenhower demonstrated the results of that kind of leadership with a simple length of string on a table. With the string laid straight, he pushed on one end of the string. Does the string move forward? No, it gathers up in a confused jumble. One leads from ahead, or one does not lead. Period. From behind, one has a weak leader and a useless gathering of fools. One would have thought that was obvious in the Oba'a/Biden jumbled gathering one calls an administration.
-->
@fauxlaw
Sorry if I replace "humble" with "weak." He espouses leading from behind.
what exactly do you think "leading from behind" means? And how does biden do that?
Gen. Eisenhower demonstrated the results of that kind of leadership with a simple length of string on a table. With the string laid straight, he pushed on one end of the string. Does the string move forward? No, it gathers up in a confused jumble. One leads from ahead, or one does not lead. Period.
it's a good thing people aren't made of string lol.
From behind, one has a weak leader and a useless gathering of fools. One would have thought that was obvious in the Oba'a/Biden jumbled gathering one calls an administration.
as opposed to trump, who bravely leads the charge but has no fucking clue what he is doing and colossally fucks everything up. I'll take someone working with a team over leading from the front when they are not an expert on that area.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Roosevelt could have done something for Israel, like predict a US Embassy located in Jerusalem, but he did nothing. He did not even raise alarm about the Nazi death camps.
Truman could have dealt with NoKo directly, and he could have done what Roosevelt didn’t, but he didn't.
Kennedy could have made the largest tax cut in history, and could have done what Roosevelt and Truman didn’t, but he didn't.
Johnson could have have lowered black unemployment, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy didn’t, but he didn't.
Carter could have told Iran where to get off, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson didn’t, but he didn't.
Clinton could have made a better deal with NoKo, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , and Carter didn’t, but he didn't.
Oba'a could have recovered our economy, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , Carter, and Clinton didn’t, but he didn't.
All seven could have dealt with China, but they didn't.
The last seven Dem presidents could have done these things, but none did.
Trump did. Inside 3 years. Yeah, that's all fucked up. For you. Sorry about you.
Truman could have dealt with NoKo directly, and he could have done what Roosevelt didn’t, but he didn't.
Kennedy could have made the largest tax cut in history, and could have done what Roosevelt and Truman didn’t, but he didn't.
Johnson could have have lowered black unemployment, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy didn’t, but he didn't.
Carter could have told Iran where to get off, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson didn’t, but he didn't.
Clinton could have made a better deal with NoKo, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , and Carter didn’t, but he didn't.
Oba'a could have recovered our economy, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , Carter, and Clinton didn’t, but he didn't.
All seven could have dealt with China, but they didn't.
The last seven Dem presidents could have done these things, but none did.
Trump did. Inside 3 years. Yeah, that's all fucked up. For you. Sorry about you.
-->
@fauxlaw
Roosevelt could have done something for Israel, like predict a US Embassy located in Jerusalem, but he did nothing
that would be a bad thing. Doing that essentially guarantees peace is impossible in the middle east.
Truman could have dealt with NoKo directly, and he could have done what Roosevelt didn’t, but he didn't.
umm, north korea? i'm guessing. trump did absolutely nothing about north korea. He talked to them. the talks went nowhere. North korea now has nuclear weapons and is still working on their missiles to carry them.
Kennedy could have made the largest tax cut in history, and could have done what Roosevelt and Truman didn’t, but he didn't.
trump's tax cut was a terrible thing. it opened up a massive deficit. It gave the rich and power big, perminent tax cuts. It gave the poor small cuts that expire in a few years. It was a massive giveaway to the rich.
Johnson could have have lowered black unemployment, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy didn’t, but he didn't.
lol trump did not lower black unemployment. why would you even think that?
Carter could have told Iran where to get off, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson didn’t, but he didn't.
trump inhereted a presidency where america had a viable path to peace with Iran. Instead he blew up the deal and further increased tensions with them. He, by his own admission, was a matter of minutes away from carrying out an act of war on Iran. Trump has been a trainwreck where iran is concerned.
Clinton could have made a better deal with NoKo, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , and Carter didn’t, but he didn't.
again, trump made no improvements with north korea at all. So that are you even talking about?
Oba'a could have recovered our economy, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , Carter, and Clinton didn’t, but he didn't.
you're kidding right? Under Obama the US economy made a huge recovery. Obama inherited an economy in crisis from his republican predecessor. Trump inherited a booming economy from Obama. Do you think that happened by magic?
Trump did. Inside 3 years. Yeah, that's all fucked up. For you. Sorry about you.
basically your entire list are bad things or things trump didn't do.
-->
@HistoryBuff
trump's tax cut was a terrible thing. it opened up a massive deficit. It gave the rich and power big, perminent tax cuts.
Deficits and permanent tax cuts cannot both be true.
It gave the poor small cuts that expire in a few years. It was a massive giveaway to the rich.
Did you learn this from school or did you have to find it on your own?
-->
@Conway
trump's tax cut was a terrible thing. it opened up a massive deficit. It gave the rich and power big, perminent tax cuts.Deficits and permanent tax cuts cannot both be true.
I don't understand your statement. Trump gave the rich a huge payday. As a result the government is taking in considerably less money. Thus creating a a bigger deficit. Tax cuts lead to deficits.
It gave the poor small cuts that expire in a few years. It was a massive giveaway to the rich.Did you learn this from school or did you have to find it on your own?
Umm, basically every break down of the tax break say the same thing. Generally speaking, the richer you are the better the tax breaks were for you. Low income people saw small benefit. Middle class people, it was mixed. Some benefited, some were actually worse off since they cut some tax deductions for the middle class. The rich got lots of benefits.
-->
@HistoryBuff
trump's tax cut was a terrible thing. it opened up a massive deficit. It gave the rich and power big, perminent tax cuts.Deficits and permanent tax cuts cannot both be true.I don't understand your statement.
You can have permanent tax cuts if you do not run a deficit. You can have deficits and temporary tax cuts. You cannot simply run deficits and expect permanent tax cuts.
The deficit implies that tax rates are bound to be raised in the near future.
Trump gave the rich a huge payday. As a result the government is taking in considerably less money. Thus creating a a bigger deficit. Tax cuts lead to deficits.
Most people consider taxes to take away their earnings. I noticed you have a different approach, where "cuts" give what was not theirs.
It gave the poor small cuts that expire in a few years. It was a massive giveaway to the rich.Did you learn this from school or did you have to find it on your own?
-->
@Conway
The deficit implies that tax rates are bound to be raised in the near future.
no. The republicans love to play this game. They cut taxes to drive up the deficit. They then point to the deficit and use it as evidence that they need to cut social spending. They manufacture a problem (by funneling money to the rich), then make the poor pay for it.
Most people consider taxes to take away their earnings.
ok, that's the definition of a tax. No one disputes that. But since a nation cannot exist without taxes, it is moot point. They are a necessary evil, without them you don't have a country.
I noticed you have a different approach, where "cuts" give what was not theirs.
the rich disproportionately benefit from the system. They use public roads to ship their products. Their workforce is trained for them at no expense to them from public education, etc. They use these public benefits to make lots and lots of money. Since they benefit the most from society and they have the most resources with which to support our society, they should contribute more back to that society.
For every tax cut you give the rich, you increase the burden on the working class. So trump's tax cut was a massive middle finger to the working class.
-->
@HistoryBuff
The deficit implies that tax rates are bound to be raised in the near future.no. The republicans love to play this game. They cut taxes to drive up the deficit. They then point to the deficit and use it as evidence that they need to cut social spending. They manufacture a problem (by funneling money to the rich), then make the poor pay for it.
I can see where you're coming from. They talked about repealing the Affordable Care Act for every year Barack Obama was in office, but we are obviously in the context of the Trump administration. Younger people may not be aware that "Obamacare" was passed without refinement through a 100% partisan vote, and highly controversial provisions like the individual mandate made it prone to attack. Donald Trump's "Repeal and replace" pitch essentially meant that the Affordable Care Act must finally go through a bipartisan process, ensuring a lasting legacy of nationalized healthcare and bringing about some semblance of national consensus. In other words, Ted Cruz lost 'bigly'. Donald Trump is not shy of infrastructure and stimulus spending either. I presume you are generally aware of this.
the rich disproportionately benefit from the system...Since they benefit the most from society and they have the most resources with which to support our society, they should contribute more back to that society.For every tax cut you give the rich, you increase the burden on the working class
It was a massive giveaway to the rich, and the poor pay for it? What do you mean "the poor pay for it"?
Taking this to it's logical conclusion, "the rich" ought not to exist. There should be a wealth cap equivalent to a 100% tax rate. Do tax cuts also "give to the poor"?
It gave the poor small cuts that expire in a few years. It was a massive giveaway to the rich.
Did you learn this from school or did you have to find it on your own?
-->
@Conway
Donald Trump's "Repeal and replace" pitch essentially meant that the Affordable Care Act must finally go through a bipartisan process, ensuring a lasting legacy of nationalized healthcare and bringing about some semblance of national consensus.
lol no. The republican slogan of "repeal and replace" is just a slogan. They are very interested in the "repeal" part. But they have absolutely no plans on the "replace" part. They have been talking about repealing obama care since the minute it was passed, but they will not give an actual plan of what could replace it. They don't have a replacement. They just want to repeal it and kick people off their healthcare.
It was a massive giveaway to the rich, and the poor pay for it? What do you mean "the poor pay for it"?
the republicans will push to balance the deficit by cutting social spending, like they always do. Most of them have signed a pledge not to increase taxes. If they are able to successfully cut social spending, then they would have successfully made the poor pay for it. IE give money to the rich via tax cuts, then balance the budget by cutting programs that help the poor.
Taking this to it's logical conclusion, "the rich" ought not to exist. There should be a wealth cap equivalent to a 100% tax rate.
the higher their income the higher their tax rate should be. I don't think it makes sense to ever make it 100%. but since it has never been anywhere near that, it is a bit of a moot point.
Do tax cuts also "give to the poor"?
they can, but typically the benefit is minor. If you don't make very much money, then you aren't paying much taxes.
It gave the poor small cuts that expire in a few years. It was a massive giveaway to the rich.Did you learn this from school or did you have to find it on your own?
I already answered this question. Read pretty much any analysis of trump's tax cuts. the answer is no, i didn't learn it in school as I am not a teenager. I learned it by reading about it.