Total posts: 4,222
-->
@ILikePie5
Insurrection is in the US Code. Funny that not one person has been charged with it
why? And how is that relevant? I've already established that the constitution doesn't require you to have been charged or convicted. I even explained the reason why they wrote it that way, because they didn't want to have to go and criminally charge all the southern leaders with crimes in order to prevent them from running for office.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
He fills out forms with the bank that says he owns 1 billion worth of property. Since his net worth is so much higher than the amount of the loan, they offer him good terms. a low interest rate.Have you ever gone to a bank for a loan? Especially today in such a very tight lending market? There is zero chance such a scenario could go down as you describe.
ok, a couple of things.
1) trump isn't like you or me. He is a billionaire and it is his company applying for the loans. The loan process for him is not the same as the same process they would follow for you.
2) these loans are all from years ago. They aren't in the last few years. He has been doing this for decades.
3) the ways in which he lied are harder to prove than if you lied to a bank. Like, how do you establish how much mar-a-lago is worth? It is a much harder question to answer than "how much is in your bank account" or "how much is your single family home worth".
4) there isn't any doubt that he did these things. So saying there is zero chance that it happened is incredibly foolish because it is documented. For example, trump filled out a form saying his own apartment in new york (the one he lived in) was 30,000 square feet. He then used an estimate of how much a 30,000 square foot apartment would cost as it's value. His apartment is actually 11,000 square feet. He triple it's size, and therefore it's value, in legal documents. There is no denying that is fraud. He did it with all his other properties too, but that one is the most open and shut case as far as I am concerned.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Unlikely, as if their own internal bank assessment was 100 million dollars higher than a rival bank's assessor
you're misunderstanding me. I don't know the details of the loans off hand, so I will make this up to highlight what I mean. Let's say trump wants to borrow 100 million dollars. He fills out forms with the bank that says he owns 1 billion worth of property. Since his net worth is so much higher than the amount of the loan, they offer him good terms. a low interest rate. But Trump is lying. His actual net worth is more like 500 million. If the bank had known his actual net worth, then they would have assessed this as a more risky loan and charged him a higher interest rate. Over years and years and across multiple loans, the difference in interest rate he was charged added up to 100 million dollars that he "saved" and the banks lost out on. This is how he defrauded them and they lost so much money.
The idea that Trump should not negotiate because to do so would be fraudulent is something out of a communist manifesto and a price fixing how-to guide.
no one has ever said trump can't or shouldn't negotiate. But you can't negotiate by lying on official financial records. If you tell a bank you have a billion dollars and only have 500 million, you are a much greater risk of defaulting on the loan than they realize. They have the legal right to know how much money you have before they loan you money. That is the law he broke (among many others), and why he is being fined. But the trial compounded his errors. He doesn't even acknowledge that what he did is wrong. He made it clear that he thinks what he did was "perfect", which highly suggests he will do it again if he isn't punished.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
so, congress has the power to pass laws around enforcing this. So they could pass a law that could clarify how you know if someone engaged in insurrection. But they have not done so. As it stands, the law is that anyone who engaged in insurrection is barred from holding public office. Unless congress passes a law to change enforcement or the constitution is changed, that is the law.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Which would be a violation of sec 1 if there is no due process for determining if you engaged in it.
True, there is no specific process for determining if someone engaged in insurrection. They assumed everyone would know what an insurrection was since they had just fought the civil war. But there is a provision for removing the restriction. So it's not like there is nothing that can be done by the traitorous little shit. But good luck getting the democrats to vote to remove the restriction.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
To be convicted of insurrection, you need due process. the 14thA specifically says that.
I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean you have to be convicted in order to go to prison, then absolutely. you are correct. You have to be convicted before you can be punished by the justice system. If you mean, before you can be barred from running for office, then no you are incorrect. Section 3 is very clear. You have to have engaged in it, not been convicted of it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Bank at the trial testified that:1) The Bank made their own assessment of the property
they also testified that they relied heavily on the information provided by trump.
2) the loan was paid back in full
no one is claiming it wasn't. That is a pointless thing to say.
3) The bank made a ton of money from the interest payments
no one is disputing they made money. that is a pointless thing to say.
4) The bank would have loved to do business again with Mr. Trump
of course they said that. They can make more money off of him. They can't get the money that he already defrauded them out of. So they said the thing that might lead to more money. And that doesn't change the facts of the case at all. He still defrauded them.
So now that I have responded to your points, let me clarify. Trump cost them around 100 million dollars. Your points didn't even attempt to address that point. If he had told the truth, they would have 100 million more than they have now. That means they are a victim of his fraud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
How do we know there's a slight chance in every pregnancy?
this doesn't make sense. It's like saying there is a chance of having an accident when driving a car. Maybe you will, maybe you wont. There is no way to know. That is why there is a chance. Lots of pregnancies have complications. Some of those complications are fatal. There is no way to know who will have them and who won't.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you could show proof that there exists policies that would not allow a State ID in lieu of a driver's license, then perhaps your argument could hold water. I will await your sources and proof.
lol, you'll await proof of something I didn't say? how generous of you. You're willing to wait while i respond to your strawman argument lol.
Maybe before the 14th amendment was ratified, you could dubiously make that claim without constitutional scrutiny.
again you aren't very familiar with the constitution are you? It is the 14th amendment that specifically says this. You are saying that this might be true before the provision that made it true was passed lol. Section 3 of the 14th amendment specifically says that anyone who engaged in insurrection is ineligible to run for public office.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
1) Businesses rely on rule of law to have a safe and stable place to do business.
this is true. no one disputes that. these cases have been enforcing the law to make sure businesses have a safe place to do business. O'Leary has got awful takes on this. I saw one where he talked about Trump's case and he basically admitted that all developers (including himself) commit numerous crimes and would flee the state to hide their crimes.
2) State officials have encouraged rogue judges to torch the rule of law by targeting political rivals such as Trump and Musk for victimless process crimes.
These are not victimless crimes. Trump defrauded lots of people. But the estimate I saw said his fraud cost the banks that loaned him money like 100 million dollars. His lies got them to give him better terms on the loans, so they made less money. If he had been honest, they would have charged him more interest. And Musk didn't tell the shareholders that he had picked his own compensation and the board just rubber stamped whatever he picked. It is entirely possible they would have pushed back on the compensation packaged if they had known the board did no negotiation at all.
3) This sends a signal to all businesses that the "rule of law" only applies to Democrat supporters in those states.
No, it sends a signal that the law sometimes applies to billionaires and that the republicans are furious about that.
4) O' Leary calls these states "loser states"
I'm sure he does. Because, as he admitted in interviews, he commits many of the same crimes as trump. And he doesn't want anyone enforcing these laws because it could hurt him too.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
But those people are probably poor and the republicans DEFINITELY don't want them voting.Weird take considering the majority of GOP voters are poor compared to Dem voters....
this is mostly a rural urban divide issue. Rural people are much more likely to get a driver's license than an urban person. Urban poor people have access to mass transit systems and so they have little use for a driver's license and don't get one. Rural people don't have access to mass transit and so having a driver's license is much more important. The idea is they want poor people from rural areas to vote, while preventing poor people from urban areas from voting. Requiring driver's licenses works perfectly to allow that kind of discrimination.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe in Russia, but in America, he is an innocent man until he is charged and then convicted of insurrection. Neither of which have happened.
you're not very familiar with the constitution are you? It is very clear that you have to have engaged in insurrection. It does not require a charge or conviction for it. And it was written that way very intentionally. Many southerners engaged in insurrection during the civil war but were never officially charged or convicted with insurrection. The point was to prevent them from running for office. So if it required conviction, it would have meant criminally charging alot of people.
So no, you are wrong. That is how the constitution works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I looked up at one time that 52% of billionaire voters voted for Trump; 42% against.
whether or not they voted for trump does not tell you if they are right wing. Trump isn't rightwing. He's an idiot who jackknifes back and forth because he has no actual beliefs of his own other than money=good.
I would prefer it if corruption was just outlawed and he could keep his position
so your argument is that the obviously, extremely corrupt SCOTUS should be allowed to keep his job after accepting millions upon millions of dollars in bribes as long as he promises not to do it again? I'm guessing if it had been a left wing judge taking bribes from a billionaire you would not have that opinion.
I thought Oliver was serious, like unironically.
I'm guessing he would have paid the money if Thomas accepted. But I don't think he ever thought he would accept. Because:
1) thomas makes WAY more than that from his billionaire friends and accepting would end the gravy train.
2) he still thinks of himself as a serious judge. If he accepted it would mean publicly accepting that he has always been for sale. I'm sure he wants his legacy to not be the SCOTUS that was publicly bought.
So I don't think it was a serious offer in the sense that he didn't believe for a second he would ever pay it. The point was to highlight that it wasn't illegal to offer a SCOTUS a bribe and that Thomas has been getting legally bribed for decades. And it also has the bonus effect of getting right wing people to say that attempting to bribe a SCOTUS is bad and should be punished. At which point, you can just transition and say "well then let's start punishing thomas and the people who have been bribing him". There is no way for republicans to respond to this that doesn't show their hypocrisy. Either they are fine with SCOTUS' being bribed and Oliver's offer is fine. Or they aren't fine with SCOTUS' being bribed, and therefore Thomas' behavior is wrong and he should be removed. Sadly, most republicans respond with hypocrisy. IE Bribing them is wrong, but thomas should get a pass for all his corruption because..... reasons. Basically, what you did.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's because they need to save democracy from voters.
no, it's because he is a criminal who engages in insurrection and the law is very clear that insurrectionists can't hold office.
This is the same tribe that claims showing a driver's license is an undue burden.
for people who have a driver's license, it isn't. For the millions of people who don't have a driver's license, it certainly is. But those people are probably poor and the republicans DEFINITELY don't want them voting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Why do you think people fall for this? Or did you fall for this?Left- makes it literally impossible to detect fraud
this is the sign of someone who has no intention of actually engaging with a topic. You just say "i'm right because there is no evidence". It's what religions do.
Nobody falls for that shit.
clearly you have fallen for alot of shit. You choose to believe a problem exists. The fact that there is no evidence that the problem exists, you choose to interpret as evidence the problem exists. This is the hole of flawed, circular logic that conspiracy theory lunatics fall down. I hope you climb out some day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Time to play spot the difference:A) Making everything free to take is the answer to theft.B) Consenting faster is the solution to rape.C) Giving everyone a path to immigrate legally is the answer to illegal immigration.
this is really dumb. For a party that claims to love free market capitalism, your seem to have a very hard time understanding it. Americans demand cheap labor to provide them goods and services. People to pick fruit, to clean hotel rooms etc. People from other countries want a better life and companies need/want to hire them. As long as these 2 conditions remain true it doesn't matter how much you spend fortifying the border. At the end of the day, you either need to create a system where low paid labor isn't needed/wanted, or improve their lives in their own countries so they don't want to leave to do low paid labor here. The solution is to create a path to citizenship so people can come legally and do the jobs that americans demand done, but aren't willing to do themselves.
It's the same reason why the war on drugs is pointless. As long as americans want drugs and are willing to pay for them, people will find a way to supply them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
It's not a foreign policy poll, it's a general poll. So, it seems It's not me who didn't see the article.
your reading comprehension seems very weak, so I will try in smaller sentences. You said Biden has made americans' lives worse. I asked what policies made their lives worse. You showed a poll about a policy that has no effect on american lives.
So do you actually have any examples of biden policies that made american lives worse, or shall we just move on with the understanding that you can't name one?
Did you watch the video, HB? I can show you more videos along the line of the next economic collapse which will happen first in the US.
I skimmed it. It was very stupid. The kind of thing a low budget political group puts out for low information voters. If you have a specific argument to make, go ahead and make it.
There is only one meaning for that word: "political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support of ordinary people by giving them what they want"
very true. But most politicians would say that they give the people what they want. Like the republicans saying that most people want abortion bans. That's a lie, but they pretend it's true so they can justify pushing their ideological bullshit. Therefore what people actually mean when they use that word is very different.
Biden just does what democrats want him to do (which is called populism in the US and anywhere) and the inmigration permisiveness is one of them.
that depends on what you mean. You say he does "what democrats want him to do". Democrats are not the majority of americans. So doing what they want would not be populism. In order for it to be populism, it has to appeal to a wider group of people.
Busing them to cities thousands of miles away from the borders to be processed? Really?
yes. why does that confuse you?
This is what americans think of it. You'd better watch the news so that you convince yourself.
stupid people believe lots of things. it doesn't make it true.
I agree with that, and this is something Biden is failing miserably.
Biden has no way of doing anything about immigration. The republicans' sole priority during his presidency has been to block anything he tries to do and waste time. Saying he is failing miserably is mostly just a comment on Republican obstructionism.
and what is that specifically? Because Biden continued almost all of trump's border policies. So I'm curious what you think biden should be doing that trump was doing.No, he doesn't when it's so easy to revoke that stupid thing of Sanctuary States.
I'm thinking you know nothing about border policy. For one thing, sanctuary cities existed under trump too. So saying its "easy to revoke" them shows me you don't know anything because obviously trump couldn't do anything about them either. Also, that you think Biden is doing something different than what trump did. You are just repeating back vague talking points you got on some right wing propaganda outlet without bothering to find out anything specific about the topic. Their policies are almost identical. Biden deports more migrants than trump did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The budget total is negative every single year..... duh?
so you know absolutely nothing about economics, gotcha.
Trump did not have a border policy where he bussed illegal entries to cities and patrolled them with no intention of having an asylum judgement made any time this century.
lol of course he did. That is exactly what he did. Do you honestly that wasn't government policy under trump?
The law allows them to all be kept at the border and shoved back within 24 hours regardless of what they claim.
it does not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Uh, yes? Did you think police departments were hereditary positions of nobility? They're either elected directly or appointed by purportedly elected officials
If this is the way you look at things, then why would you want voter laws? They are enforced by government employees. You seem to think that those employees can't be trusted, so how would laws preventing people from voting actually help with this nonexistent issue?
Oh there is plenty of evidence, but no proof because the enemies of democracy have made sure there is no way to prove it.
Ohhh I see. So there is a problem, but there is no proof that is possible to be found. So we just have to take right wing shills' word for it. That makes total sense. you are aware that this is the sort of logic cults use right? "Don't base your thinking on things that can actually be proven, only I can divine the truth!!! Only believe me!!"
Make election days national holidays. Allow four weeks of early voting. Problem solved.
i'm a little shocked, we totally agree on this. Although it would also require accepting votes from people who may struggle with ID. Poor people often don't have a driver's license and voter ID laws are meant to keep them from being able to vote.
thousands attacked the capitol in order to overturn the election results.Potentially fraudulent election results.
i mean, sure. In the same way that Trump is potentially a pod person sent to enslave humanity. Is it possible? we can't prove it isn't true. But both have the same amount of evidence to support them. And trying to overthrow democracy for a conspiracy theory for which there is no evidence is still an insurrection. It doesn't matter if you think the election is fraudulent if there is absolutely no evidence that it is.
They don't care that you tell them that happened because they know it didn't.
Trump said he wanted to overthrow the constitution. If you actually cared about the constitution, that would bother you. Or, you're a cultist who support trump no matter what he says or does.
Suspension of the constitution is not abandoning the constitution if it was violated already.
that doesn't even make sense. Suspension of the constitution is by definition abandoning the constitution. The place to challenge election results is in a court. Trying to change the outcome by any other method is an attempt to overthrow democracy.
Pretending like it hasn't been destroyed prevents its reacquisition.
this doesn't even make sense. It is republicans that constantly try to undermine the rule of law. Trump is the worst for this. But somehow him attacking the constitution is a good. this is the exact cult thinking i am pointing out.
For example nazis bomb London. Anyone who opposes bombing Berlin because "that would destroy everything we claim to believe in" is delusional.
no, the comparison would be: there is a rumor that the london was bombed. But there isn't any evidence it happened. No dead people, no destroyed buildings. But loud, angry people tell you it happened and want to bomb berlin in revenge.
When people violate a social contract (like the constitution) they can no longer call upon elements of that social contract for their advantage.
you realize that trump is the one violating the social contract right? The right loves to play victim, but it is usually the right trying to undermine democracy with their gerrymandering, voter suppression etc. The stuff that you see as the democrats violating the social contract usually isn't even real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I don’t know, HB. Let's ask the polls what people think about Biden's policies.
I asked you to show me how he has made american's lives worse. You showed me an approval poll about his foreign policy. Did you even glance at this article before posting it? That has nothing to do with making american's lives worse.
the whole world is talking about how close the US is to the bankruptcy due to the irresponsability of old Joe.
what are you even talking about? America is not close to bankruptcy. Where would you even get that idea? And even if you thought that was true, Trump ran record setting deficits. So how would trump be better?
You're not going to give me lessons of populism, I know pretty well what it is.
I wasn't trying to give you a lesson. You asked me if he was a populist, but I don't know what you think that word means. It can mean different things to different people.
Besides, popular decisions are not necessarily good. Populism is usually good when there is plenty of money, but money doesn’t last long. When the government runs out of money, there it comes the problems.
I mean, sure. Hating immigrants is popular is some areas, and it definitely isn't good. The idea that doing things that are popular will "make the money run out" is kind of dumb. If you really have no plan for it, then just handing out money usually doesn't end well. But doing things like providing free healthcare are both popular and very good for society. And actually much cheaper than privatized healthcare.
1. Porous borders. There is almost no resistance to the migration flow.
this is wildly untrue. There is massive amounts of money spent on border security and 10's of thousands of people working to secure america's borders.
Instead of kicking out migrants as soon as they set foot in the US, the authorities bus them to the big cities. What kind of message is it when the government rewards the crime, the illegality?
how is busing them to a city "rewarding them"? The people need to be processed before they are deported.
Sanctuary States. If you treat migrants better than your own folks
no state treats migrants better than it's own citizens. Why would you think that?
how the fuck do you expect these migrants don’t come?
The point is that america wants migrants, they just want legal migrants. Giving people a path to immigrate legally is the answer to illegal immigration.
Both reasons can be avoided single handed by the government, but Biden suspiciously didn't do it.
and what is that specifically? Because Biden continued almost all of trump's border policies. So I'm curious what you think biden should be doing that trump was doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I'm seriously questioning what you define as a cultist
When you believe in something to the degree that you will not challenge it. When you can hear and see it being the opposite of what you claim to believe or want, and then just ignore it or change what you say you want so that you don't have to question it. Trump doesn't believe in anything conservatives believe in. But his followers will not question their belief that he does, even when he tells them to their face that he doesn't.
That is a perception you have, but I don't see a whole lot of evidence for it. I'd bet that if "millions of people" were really that willing, we'd see a lot more political violence than we currently do. Nothing you could even cite includes anywhere near that large of a number.
thousands attacked the capitol in order to overturn the election results. That is a pretty large scale pollical violence. People died. The only reason it didn't escalate further is because trump lacked any method to actually cling to power and so he didn't call on them to do so.
but holding incorrect political beliefs and defending them does not reach the level of "cult-like behavior."
perhaps I was unclear. Their political beliefs are not cult like behavior. Their complete, unquestioning loyalty is. They pretend like they care about the constitution (I would argue they don't, but they think they do), but when shown trump quotes where he says he wanted to overturn the constitution they don't care. He is willing to destroy everything they claim to believe in, but if he is the one to do it, they would support him. That is cult like behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So you are told. Its a bit like the police investigating themselves and promising you that if you had seen what they'd seen you wouldn't suspect them of corruption.
how is it like the police investigating themselves? Do you think the organizations that run and monitor the police are the ones being elected?
There are plenty of records, just none that can be used to quantify mail fraud.
so i will repeat, there is no evidence that any problem exists. You want to ban mail in voting to make it much harder for people to vote in order to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That was not your point. You were pretending that a lack of auditability was equivalent to accuracy.
I definitely did not mean that. I don't even know why you would think I meant that. I didn't say anything like that. And elections can and are audited all the time. So i don't even know what you are talking about.
There are people who identify bank fraud, but if there were no records they wouldn't find much.
are you suggesting there are no records in elections? Because that is wildly untrue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Shall grants authority it isn't a requirement.
i'm not sure you understand what the word shall means. It means they will do something. IE they must do something. If I said "trump shall pay E Jean Carrol 85 million" I'm not saying trump has the power to pay 85 million. I am saying he will pay her. So no, you are wrong. That sentence is saying the VP will and must open and count the votes. If you want to say that it is optional you would say they "may" or "can" do something. Not they "shall" do something.
Certainly the lack of a set date should be a flag for you as well.
why? This isn't where the timing of elections is determined. This is the document that lays out what the powers and responsibilities are.
There is nothing wrong with delaying a process just to ensure accurate results.
there absolutely is something wrong with it. and the reason is that the VP has no power or authority to do that. The courts have that power. If there had been proof that there was some kind of inaccuracy, the place to prove that is in court. And trump tried that over and over and over. And every single judge told him the same thing, that he had no evidence. That is why he went to the illegal methods of trying to overthrow the election results.
Rushing before a full investigation is in fact a confession that you know what happened
that is really dumb. There was absolutely no evidence that anything happened. There were investigation. There were court cases. Everyone came to the same conclusion. that there was no evidence of fraud. And it's now been like 4 years and there is still no evidence of fraud. All of trump's whining about fraud was just his fragile ego and narcissism.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Probably not. I think Biden's negatives on the Gaza massacre plus immigration can't be overcome by November.
i mean, that is fair. But the republicans have almost identical views to biden and the democrats. So I don't see that being a particularly useful issue.
A replacement will not have any of those negatives and compared to Trump, will probably win like the polls suggest.
I mean, the rest of the democratic policies have pretty much the same stance. The republicans do too. So I don't see it being very relevant. Biden is going slap Trump around hard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Why do banks even keep records? If you didn't keep records you wouldn't know if anybody withdrew more than they put in, and there is no point being afraid of something for which no evidence exists.
I have no idea what you are rambling about. My point is that there are all kinds of security policies in place to make sure our elections are fair. Voter ID laws are looking for a problem that doesn't exist. But they aren't intended to actually address that fake problem. They are designed to suppress voter turn out. Because the higher the turnout, the worse the republicans do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Perhaps you should start by not assuming the worst. This whole “Trump supporters are a bunch of cultists” garbage led you to think this guy was actually being serious.
I've been around this website on and off for awhile. My assumptions are well founded. Many people on this website are trump cultists.
I’m a pretty strong conservative, but you would never catch me calling liberals, Democrats, and Biden supporters “cultists.” They are simply people who disagree with me. Some are idiotic, but most are people of normal or high intelligence, who simply drew the wrong conclusions.
I mean, why would you? There are very few people out there who "love" biden or the democrats. there are millions of people out there would literally kill and die for donald trump.
Demonization of the other side of the aisle is exactly how we get polarization, lackluster debates/communication, censorship (in some cases), and (in this case) situations where people miss an obvious joke.
that's fair. But I have shown people, on this website and elsewhere, quotes of donald trump saying he thinks he can suspend all laws including the constitution. And the response is something like "well he didn't mean it". I agree polorization is a problem. But the mindset of the maga subset of the republican party engages in cult like thinking. They will worship trump no matter what. He says he wants to end the constitution but they still believe he wants to protect it. He has slept with porn stars, cheated on his wives, sexually assaulted women, admitted that he likes sexually assaulting women on tape, but millions of people think he defends family values. He publicly made the republicans stop a bill to protect the border, but his followers still believe he is the one that wants to protect the border. That isn't politics, its a cult.
Sure, there are always going to be some people on both sides that would unironically advocate for voter fraud, but that is not all of them. If you think even a sizable amount of people (percentage-wise) on the other side of aisle would post this unironically, you are wrong, and desperately in need of some irl communication with people on the other side.
I mean, you say that. But donald trump managed to get a crowd of people to attack the capitol and try to overthrow democracy. You say there isn't a sizeable amout of people who would advocate committing crimes for trump. My response is, if you actually believe that then you aren't paying attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
This is dumb. You can't possibly know exactly how much fraud is occurring because voting is anonymous.
lol, by that logic you have absolutely no idea either. You are saying there is a danger for something you have no evidence even exists.
And when you claim that the left is coping for making election fraud easier by claiming it makes it easier to vote, it doesn't surprise me.
I never said they were making it easier for election fraud, you did.
Yes the godless leftists are more likely to cheat and help their senile grandmother full out their ballot
what is your basis for this? Where is your evidence this happens? It seems to be based 100% on your emotions.
obviously the criticism of mail in voting is unsolicitedballots that allow leftists to cheat easier not the entire process.
republicans don't criticize mail in balloting because they are afraid of fraud. they criticize it because they are afraid of people actually voting. they know their policies are unpopular. the only reason they win is because for millions of americans, voting isn't worth all the hassle. If voting was easy, republicans would lose. That's why republicans want laws around voting to be as restrictive as possible. The less people who vote, the better their odds are of winning.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The only polls that matter is swing state polls, and "any other Democrat" in the swing states is at +5 where Biden is at -5
ok. so you accept that "any democrat" beats trump by 5 points. On election night, do you think those people are just going to vote for trump?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Look at the sentence before that. What do you think the word Shall means?
It means exactly what I have been telling you it means. It means he is required by law to open the votes and count them. Nothing more, nothing less. To refuse to do so is illegal. To refuse to show up is illegal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
inb4 someone takes this thread seriously
I mean, there are tons of right wing idiots who have actually done stuff like this. Committing fraud to cast an extra vote for trump. I agree it would be a better world if yo could read something like this and know it's a joke. Sadly, with trump being what he is and his followers being cultists, there are alot of people who would say this very seriously. And I don't know the original poster well enough to know how cultish he is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
If only one side is committing crimes than that puts Republicans at a distinct disadvantage.
this is stupid. Your argument is that you want to undermine democracy because some liars on tv told you people you don't like are already doing it. But they are lying to you.
Don't thinknwe haven't noticed the attempts to shoot down election integrity laws, voter ID etc.
because those laws aren't what you think they are. Those laws don't solve an actual problem. There are very few cases of fraud where those laws would do anything. What they are designed to do is to make it harder to for people to vote legally. They aren't "election integrity" laws. They are "voter suppression" laws.
IIf leftists weren't more likely to do hat there wouldn't have been a massive push for mail in ballots so that lefties could help their conservative grandmother's fill out ballots and mail them in for their senile grandparents with zero checks and balances to ensure this didn't happen.
Almost none of that made sense. Mail in ballots are designed to increase voter turnout. There are alot of people who have a hard time getting to a polling station on election day. So mail in ballots make it easier for them to vote while still living their lives. It is right wing grifters trying to convince you that these laws are somehow evil voter fraud machines. I mean, trump himself votes by mail.
It's not slick. We all know exactly what is happening and why democrats push laws that make election fraud easier to commit.
no it's not slick. It is completely fabricated by right wing grifters. They want you angry and afraid so they can control you. So they make up lies so you think the other side is evil and you won't question them.
No it has to do with an excess of beta carotene so you just need to eat like 5 or 6 carrots daily without missing a day.
it's more like 7-10 carrots a day and that eating that many carrots a day will result in you getting sick. Also, if you have a balanced diet, Ie eating healthy, balanced meals in addition to the carrots the effect would be pretty mild. Probably not very noticeable. If you wanted to actually turn orange, you would have to eat basically only carrots for weeks.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Polls say a replacement will certainly beat Trump. I trust the polls. Especially the swing state polls.
Polls say biden will beat trump. and "generic democrat" is all well and good until you have an actual candidate with an actual history. There's no guarantee that when they actually see who that person is they would like them better than biden. and since biden is highly likely to beat trump, why would you take that risk?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Wrong. Here is the actual wording
ok. So the wording I provided was "open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted."
and the wording in what you pasted was "open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted"
Where exactly was I wrong? cause it's word for word what I said it was.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So replace Biden and save the world from Trump. Nobody is stopping you.
I mean, why? Replace him and the replacement might be able to win. Or keep and know that he has already beaten trump. He's a proven winner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
f you live close to a purple state, use a friend's address to vote I that state.
so your argument is to commit a crime. and specifically, the crime you accuse others of doing. With republicans, every accusation is confession.
If the left can use dead people you can use a friend's address.
see the thing is "the left" doesn't do that. I've heard of more cases of republicans engaging in fraud voting with their dead parent's information. The people telling you "dead people are voting" are lying to you. And when it does happen, more often then not it's a republican doing it.
Carrot max. By eating carrots everyday your skin will start to turn orange
this is actually true. But you would have to eat basically only carrots for this to happen. I'm sure trump would be touched that you want your skin to look like his.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
So what law forces him to even show up to the event.
the 12th amendment of the constitution.
You said Donald Trump broke the law by sking hin to abstain, so if it is just ceremonial why do you think it's an act of treason to abstain from the event?
because while the role is ceremonial, it is required by the constitution. Asking the VP to not carry out his constitution responsibility is illegal. Doing it to try to overturn the election results is an attempted insurrection.
What part of the law explicitly states it is ceremonial?
the 12th amendment to the constitution. His role is to "open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted." His job is to open the votes and make sure they were counted. That's it. He has no authority to make decisions on the votes. He has no authority to refuse to count them to help subvert democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
google mother teresa controversies. She did terrible things.Digging the hole deeper.
clearly you are too lazy to google the things she did.
I said nothing about anyone being innocent of anything.
how do you figure? I said that the white people running a slave colony did and ordered terrible things. Your response was essentially "I bet black people carried it out cause they're bad". You want slavery and the atrocities Europeans committed to be the fault of black people.
when did I say there was a racial predisposition to cruelty. I said Europeans were the worst.Post #6:
lol. You think "chatel slavery was a white person thing" is talking about racial predisposition? That is not at all what I said. I said white people did a thing and you interpret that as "white people are genetically predisposed to doing a thing". You're the only one bringing up genetics.
You were racist, I shifted the context to be not-racist (by talking about culture groups and not genetic groups).
man, pretty much your whole post here is wildly racist. How you could possibly think you were shifting away from racism is beyond me. Your whole point is that it was the evil black people who tricked the kind, loving white people into enslaving and murdering them.
You really see everything in racial terms don't you?Confession by projection.
nope. Just calling out your obvious racism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
It seems you're living in a parallel world, HB. Or maybe you are a public employee so you don't know what it's like to struggle to make ends meet.
that's alot of typing and yet you still didn't answer my question. What policies has biden done that made people's lives worse? The economy was in the tank under trump, Biden has improved the situation significantly. But he doesn't have a magic wand. It takes a long time to undo the damage of covid and especially the damage done by republicans.
I hear a lot of news about the US taking risky decisions.
what specifically? You are really good at throwing out vague nonsense, really bad at saying what you are talking about.
So you're saying Democrats are populists. That figures.
democratic policies are generally very popular. If that is what you mean by "populist" then sure. Republican polices by contrast are very unpopular.
I think the most sensible issue in Bide's administration right now is the migration crisis. Democrats will lose the election on that issue, if the economy doesn't get ruined before.
two points. 1) why would you think there is a migration crisis? The situation is pretty much the same as it was for years.
2) I hope that is a significant issue they run on. Because the democrats just passed a huge border bill and the republicans refused to even vote on it because they don't want to actually do anything about it. They just want to scare gullible people into voting for them. Anyone who actually pays attention to what the republicans do knows they have no interest in doing anything about the border.
Created:
Posted in:
"That priest" that I am assuming you are talking about was 1st a conquistador that helped to slaughter the local inhabitants of Hispaniola.let me guess, your ass?
what? That wasn't a response to what I said. I assume you are referring to Bartolomé de Las Casas. He was a spanish priest who was against slavery. He also was a soldier that invaded the Caribbean and took part in the slaughter and enslaving of the locals. He owned lots of slaves himself before changing his mind.
You just said that mother Theresa did terrible things. You know I'm never ever going to let you forget that right?
google mother teresa controversies. She did terrible things.
That the worst of slavery was born of west african culture like I said.
let me get this straight. If a white person order terrible things to be done, and the person who carried out the order happened to be african, then africans are terrible and the white man ordering it is innocent? What is wrong with you?
I doubt the king of the netherlands (or whatever) was sending letters "whip them harder". Much more likely "make more product" and in the last 2 or 3 layers that translated to cruelty in the minds of cruel people from a cruel culture.
you know, google is a thing. You could actually look up the terrible, terrible things the white people did in the congo instead of talking out of your ass.
I think you're a million miles away from proving a relative racial predisposition to cruelty in slavery or anything else.
when did I say there was a racial predisposition to cruelty. I said Europeans were the worst. They were the cruelest. I didn't say being white made them that way. You really see everything in racial terms don't you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
The average american thinks BIden is fucking up his life.
how? Please provide specific examples of how biden has negatively impacted people's lives. The economy is improving from the trainwreck trump left it in. Inflation has fallen. Unemployment is down.
I can tell you Trump can get nominated
of course he can. about 50% of the republican base are cultists who would crawl though broken glass to vote for him.
but the deep state will get him out, no doubt.
I mean, he did engage in an insurrection and is therefore ineligible to run for office. You could view that as "deep state" i guess, but really it's just enforcing the constitution.
in general most Republican candidates are proposing the opposite to Biden's policies
what policies exactly? Tell me what the republicans want to do different from biden other than cutting funding for the poor and cutting taxes for the rich. We all know the republicans have been doing that for decades.
Americans are not voting for the continuation of this goverment, it would be suicidal.
lol what? The country is more stable and prosperous than it has been in years. But continuing that prosperity would be suicide? Do you even listen to yourself?
I'm saying that if Trump is taken out of the election, his succesor would be the VP candidate, right?
hmm, i'm actually not sure. I don't think so though. But I could be wrong. I'm not aware of a case of that happening.
I think Vivek will be the VP candidate, but it could be someone else.
I'd say the odds are about .01% trump picks vivek as his VP pick.
the Republicans will win anyway because americans are fed up with the liberal politicians that the Democrats turned out to be.
every election for the last several years would beg to disagree with you. Democrats have been doing unusually. I think you will find it is the MAGAts that the american people are fed up with. They have spent years doing nothing but bitch and moan and spread conspiracy theories while the democrats actually try to get things done to make people's lives better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Mother Theresa? That priest who claimed the natives (on Haiti) were being mistreated?
mother theresa pretty famously believed that suffering was important to get into heaven. She certainly didn't have universal love. "That priest" that I am assuming you are talking about was 1st a conquistador that helped to slaughter the local inhabitants of Hispaniola. for his service in slaughtering them, he was rewarded with land and slaves. And he profited off of their suffering for years before finally deciding that it was wrong. Slaughtering the locals and enslaving them wasn't very "universal love" of him.
See if you were the rational one, you wouldn't make absolute categorical statements that are so easily disproved.
lol you "disproved" it by showing 2 people who did terrible things but also did some good things. That doesn't prove what you seem to think it does.
Getting fired is the cessation of trade. Amazon doesn't own the apartment and can't publicly shame the worker in a stockade.
no, they can fire them and force them into poverty where they could lose their home, their family etc. The wealthy have found better ways to force the poor into doing their bidding.
I think there is an excellent chance the the overseers whipping people are natives.
Even if that were true, what would that prove? White people ordered terrible things, and then terrible things were done. You think the white people aren't monsters in this scenario?
Those European sensibilities I talked about.
lol. A european slaver was so evil that other European slavers (who were killing slaves too) were disgusted by it. Just because there are lesser evils and greater evils among european slavers does not make the european slavers less evil.
There was never a widespread practice of dismembering anyone in Europe or European colonies.
again, read about haiti. You keep saying things that aren't true.
Created:
Posted in:
texts and emails of what? I'm guessing it's some 3rd party texting about a "big guy" with no evidence that joe biden was involved or ever received a single penny.
so your evidence of corruption is that joe biden emailed his own financial advisor? That's what you're going with. This is just getting sad.
if you knew more about this testimony you wouldn't be quoting it. Basically, this witness testified they were selling the idea of contact with Joe biden. They wanted people to have the impression that hiring hunter would give them some kind of connection to Joe. But he also testified that he had no knowledge of Joe biden ever knowingly being involved and never receiving any kind of money. The closest he was aware of was that hunter would call his dad during meetings and talk about non work stuff. "how's the weather, what did you do this weekend" stuff like that. Hunter would use this as evidence to show he wasn't estranged from his father. The witness said he wasn't sure joe even knew he was on speaker phone and they never discussed actual business. It was just a father talking to his son and his son using that to make money.
So this witness' testimony was that he had no knowledge of joe doing anything illegal.
Then E Jean Carroll is an unreliable witness, but Manhattan juries don't care.
ah gotcha. That is your personal opinion. But trump fucked up that case hard. Like saying "she's not my type" then mistaking a photo of her for his ex wife, thus confirming he had been lying. Nothing like repeatedly lying to destroy your credibility.
Well that core needs to be cut out and buried forever.
so you don't want any upper level criminals to ever be prosecuted? Because that is the only way you catch the actual bosses and people ordering crimes. Without it you would just catch the soldiers. The only way to get them to testify about the people above them is by offering them a deal.
Of course they have an incentive to lie. They will be put in prison if they don't lie.
you're not understanding their deal. Their deal is to tell the truth. If they lie, their deal can be taken away from them.
Except the house oversight committee. Oh and look, they have screen shots.
screenshots of what? I haven't seen any evidence of Joe committing a crime yet. Nor have the oversight committee presented any such evidence to the public. So I can't wait to see what you think their proof is, considering the last guy you quoted literally testified that he had no knowledge of joe biden ever committing a crime or being involved in Hunter's business.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
General impression of original sources.
so you pulled it out of your ass, gotcha.
Universal love is from Christianity not Europe. It just so happened that Europeans were Christians at the time they adopted chattel slavery from Africa.
Christianity is supposed to be about universal love. It literally never is. From the crusades to the Spanish inquisition, Christianity has always been about blood, conquest and submission to authority.
serfdom isn't slavery.See what I mean.
that you don't understand what the word slave means? Yes I see what you mean.
What is ownership?
owner ship means that it is your personal property. You can sell it or buy it whenever you want.
Lords could transfer lands and serfs were attached to the land. Serfs were bound to obedience and to productivity and there were severe punishments for those who flaunted their purported duties.
correct. The land was property. The people were not. You have correctly identified what made them not slaves. And workers have always been bound to obedience to others and punished if they weren't productive. You could describe modern workers in much the same way, like when amazon workers have to pee in bottles or get fired.
f it was in the Congo there is an excellent chance it was africans doing it.
jesus, you can't be this dense. Belgian congo. You really think that name means africans are running the show? It was the personal property of the king of belgium. Then when his cruelty disgusted even slavers, the belgian government had to take it away from him.
If they were worse why is there an especially cruel practice Europeans never engaged in?
I'm sorry, how is that "especially cruel" but the dismembering Europeans did isn't?
I was talking about slavery, you then brought up war.You think there wasn't war in Haiti?
I mean, once the slaves fought back against the Europeans, yeah of course there was. But we were discussing slavery. You brought up war out of the blue.
Could keep going on like that for dozens of pages.Again, I never said slavery in other places was fun.You said it was better.
I said it was less terrible. And nothing you have described is as bad as what white people did to their slaves. If you choose to interpret that as "better" that's on you, not me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Are you being serious first you say this in response to Trump stating the election could be overturned
no i said that in response to you saying that trump or congress can overturn election results. They cannot. And for very good reasons. If they could, a president or congress could just invalidate an election they lost and cling to power. Exactly like trump tried to do. He failed because he doesn't have that power. Nor does congress.
Citation needed for the exact law that explicitly states the VP has to certify the election and no one that gives him authority to certify the election does not count.
the VP's role is mostly ceremonial. It's just to make sure they counted right. He does not have the power to deny the results of an election. The idea that he has that power doesn't even make sense. It would invalidate democracy. All a losing president would have to do is just refuse to acknowledge the result and he never has to give up power. The idea that this is what the role is for is just stupid on the face of it.
Which classified document that Trump saw and you didn't see do you disagree with? Please cite the specific classified document that can't be revealed in court due to national security reasons?
you know judges can have security clearance right? If they actually had evidence they could present it in court. Also, even if they couldn't, trump didn't say he had secret evidence. He may have by now, I don't pay attention to what he says. But at the time he did not make that claim. And we have witnesses who were part of his administration who testified that they told him there was no evidence. They absolutely would have known about any "secret" evidence. Pretending like it exists is SUPER cultish.
This is like stating Trump is hiding the real killer of JFK just because there're still classified documents about the JFK case. That's not how classified documentsget declassified. It isn't an ego thing there is a process.
of course there is a process. Do you know what it is? The president fills out a form. That's it. Trump had the power to declassify almost literally anything he wanted. All it took was a tiny amount of paperwork and he had people to fill it out for him. The only thing the president can't declassify on a whim is nuclear secrets. So if he had secret evidence, he could have declassified it and presented it within hours, a day or 2 at most.
Why re you setting yourself up to backpedal? What happens if I do show you a shred of evidence for the theory of election theft?
to be fair, I didn;t challenge you to show me a shred. I said a shred does not exist or has never been shown. Maybe you could come up with some random fact or event that when looked at from a certain perspective could constitute a "shred". For example, Trump said he had a "shred" when he showed a video of a woman handing her daughter an object. He and his lawyer claimed it was a flash drive with fraudulent votes. It turned out to be gum.
Now is a single strand of evidence en9ugh to change your mind or is your criticims of zero strands of evidence pointless?
where in this thing is the evidence. I'm skimming through an I'm not seeing it. So please point to it exactly.
Here is a quote that kind of makes this article sound ridiculous for what you are going for.
"an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
So are you saying it's fake and that Oliver was joking?
is that a serious question? Are you asking me if the comedian saying something on his comedy show was joking?
Corruption shouldn't exist at all, but I imagine left wing judges are curropt and the left doesn't call it out nearly as much as the right wing judge curroption.
I mean, maybe. But most billionaires are rightwing, because the right loves to hand them money and tax loopholes. There are VERY few left wing billionaires. So most of the bribes come from the right.
I call them both out equally.
You say that, but you didn't. You called out john oliver for making a joke about bribes, but don't seem to actually care that thomas has been accepting lavish bribes for literally decades from rightwing billionaires. If you actually called out both equally you would be calling for Thomas to resign.
I thought the left was praising the curroption when it benefitted them.
Sometimes people on the left do. In this case, he was joking to highlight the fact that it is technically legal to bribe a SCOTUS judge, and that rightwing billionaires have been doing that for decades. But you care more about the joke from the left than the decades of bribes from the right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Works for Manhattan juries.
I have no idea what you are referring to. By definition all juries hear from people they don't know. So your comment seems pointless.
That says alot about you.It says I pay attention.
no, it suggests a cultish way of think. Law enforcement is always lying. But a man who lied thousands of times as president or a man who admitting to being a russian intelligence asset are telling the truth. It tells me you don't actually think about things and just choose to believe people based on nothing but your emotions.
Yet they don't show a pattern of lying, unlike the so called 'intelligence community'.
I mean, I don't know who exactly you listen to, but with your views being this cultish I can almost guarantee they lie constantly to you. you just choose to ignore their lies.
Well besides the texts and emails.
texts and emails of what? I'm guessing it's some 3rd party texting about a "big guy" with no evidence that joe biden was involved or ever received a single penny.
Does benefiting financially or by escaping prosecution prove that a witness is unreliable?
benefitting financially, probably. Escaping prosecution no not really. Escaping prosecution in exchange for testimony is a core part of the justice system. Part of those deals include that if you lie your deal is void. So they don't have an incentive to lie.
By fact checkers who don't know which way a hat is worn and can't figure out babylon bee is satire. Flipping a coin is more reliable.
no, by literally everyone who has investigated it. no one has been able to find a single piece of actual evidence joe biden has done anything illegal. Not republicans, not democrats, not the police, not trump, no one. They find lots of claims and inuendo. They find a "witness" who is being paid by the russian government. But no evidence has ever been presented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
He doesn't. You know that, I know that. It's best to just make fun of it.
What? He already tried. He was part of a scheme to send a slate of fake electors to overturn the election results. He tried to convince his VP to illegally refuse to acknowledge the results of the election to buy him more time to try to steal the election. There is no law that he would be unwilling to break to protect himself, his power and his wealth. I know that, and deep down I'm sure you know that too.
It's hibestly dumb to disagree that congress can't vote to cancel the results
why would they have that power? That doesn't even make sense. It would mean that a government could just refuse to hand over power after losing an election.
or that the courts ha e no recourse.
the courts absolutely can overturn the results of an election. And trump and his allies tried this. Every single case was a failure because there was never any evidence of voter fraud.
He doesn't mention suspending the rules.
so to you, this doesn't mean "suspending the rules"?
"allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
Because that is exactly what he said. He said he can terminate all rules.
yes the government be it in the form of judges or congress can erase the results.
judge yes, congress no. And they tried to convince a judge there was fraud. But there was no evidence of fraud. Trump's own investigators told him there was no fraud at the time. And years later, there is still no evidence of fraud.
You can say that you disagree with his analysis of a lot of fraud
everyone disagrees with his analysis other than republican hacks. There is no evidence of fraud anywhere.
despite you not having access to the confidential information He does.
There were trials. If he had evidence, he would have presented it at trial. But in every single case they failed to provide a shred of actual evidence. That tells me the evidence does not exist.
Fraudulent election results can not be single handedly done by the president. He needs a bunch of democrats to agree with him, many of which likely did but preferred Biden s a president or didn't think that Biden was enough of a security threat to justify undermining public faith in election integrity.
so even though there have been countless investigations into the election and no evidence of any significant fraud has ever been found, you still cling to the belief that there was some kind of fraud but Trump is just hiding the evidence for it? That is cult level of cope.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Sure, you could find plenty of people more conservative than Trump, but they have no chance of winning against Biden.
this is the ironic part, virtually any of those people would have a better chance than trump as long as trump backed them. There are millions of americans who would like to vote republican, but wont vote for trump. Niki Hailey could probably beat Biden as long as trump didn't sabotage her. Trump can't beat biden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Did you know that the constitution allows martial law?
so when trump says he wants to terminate all rules, even those in the constitution, your reaction is "so what?". And you actually pretend like you care about the rule of law or the constitution? Anyone who can read that comment from trump and still think they are part of the "rule of law" party is an idiot or has their head up their ass.
Created: