- This topic has 105 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
After trump has lost in court and the states have verified that Biden won, the ones who are guilty of trying to steal this election are Trump and his supporters.
They are anarchists for trying to overturn an election that they lost.
They are traitors for trying to bring down the next legally elected President of the US.
Trump and his lawyers are guilty of sedition and should be indicted and jailed.Guess you don’t know what an anarchist is.
Sooo exposing fraud is now a crime. Got it.
The steal is Trump conning his supporters out of money to pay for the election challenges. Reading the fine print on the solicitation makes it clear that very little to going to the court costs, much is lining Trump’s pockets, A question recently posed was why don’t Trump and his children fund the election challenge since they are reputed to be billionaires? Don’t they believe in the cause?
TVOP -“Sooo exposing fraud is now a crime. Got it.”
Exactly! That’s the way it Works in Commy Countries.
The DemonCrats want to make the USA just like Commy China!tvp – the thing is none of their cases has presented evidence of fraud that has held up. So no, what they are doing is trying to overturn an election, not expose fraud, otherwise they would actually show their work. The affidavits… All the affidavits… So far have not held up. Powell presented an affidavit from some crackpot that made up a nonexistant county and that was considered one of the best witnesses.
AG William Barr said that the DOJ has not discovered any evidence of widespread fraud.
The options for Trump and his supporters are:
1) Throw Barr under the bus. Call him a RINO and NeverTrumper who conspired with the DNC to steal the election.
2) Assert that the conspiracy was so well orchestrated that even Barr, with all the resources of the DOJ (which comprises, among other divisions, the FBI) was not able to find it, but it really did happen.
3) Concede that Biden won fair and square.
Any guesses about how this plays out?
Giuliani (in response to Barr): “With all do respect, there hasn’t been the semblance of an investigation.”
So I guess it’s Option #1. Not really surprising.
It’s astounding that people like Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell would tie their otherwise stellar reputations to such a deadweight.
CY -“Throw Barr under the bus. Call him a RINO and NeverTrumper who conspired with the DNC to steal the election.”
You write Absurd Posts!
Barr isn’t that.
He’s Just a Lazy Guy, who won’t do his job.
Cause he really doesn’t care whether it was Stolen or Not!
Sounds like you are a DemonCrat!Health
I’ll concede that I didn’t articulate your particular strain of the “Throw Barr under the bus” position. I must note, however, that there is very little daylight between “lazily allowing the wholesale disenfranchisement of the American people,” and “conspiring with the perpetrators of the same,” so your position is not substantially different from the one you call absurd.
For all the demonizing attacks on him since he was appointed AG, I don’t think that Barr has ever been accused of laziness, even by his most vociferous detractors.
Would you ever entertain the possibility that he actually did his job, and the facts are that there is no evidence of widespread fraud which would change the result of the election?
For the record, I am a registered Republican. I wrote in a candidate in 2016 (who, incidentally, has still not conceded that election), and voted – very reluctantly – for Trump in 2020. More accurately, I voted against Biden in 2020.
I enjoy the fact that you have taken to using the President’s peculiar rules for capitalization. It really lends credibility to your arguments.
At this point, its painful to check in once a day to read the meshugaas being posted by the Trumpkopfs about their latest conspiracy theories or the “treasonous judges” (many appointed by the Trumkopf himself) who won’t go along with his rants and keep kicking Crazy Rudy in the kiester. (and out of court)
Yes, losing hurts but time (2024) is the great healer.
When BLM & Antifa riot and burn down cities it’s called peaceful protest but when Stop the Steal peacefully protest they are called Anarchist. It should be noted that although it’s been over a month since the election 2 elections for House seats have not been called both of which the Republican candidate is in the lead. In the Iowa 2 the Democrat candidate is appealing to the House of Reprentitives, not the courts, the Iowa election board determination which declared the Republican candidate the winner. The vote will probably be on party line and the Democrats have 222 out of 435 seats so the Democrat candidate will probably be elected even though the State of Iowa determined that the Republican candidate won.
BLM and Antifa are criminals. The rioting, violence, looting, etc. that went on in the spring and summer should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including going after all the politicians who supported it in any way.
I don’t know much about Iowa’s 2nd District. It would not surprise me in the slightest if the Democrats are trying to steal the election there. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if they had done so on the Presidential election.
I was simply wondering: Barr, who by all accounts is a Republican of the most impeccable credentials, and a member in good standing of the Trump administration, has stated that no evidence had been found of widespread fraud which could have affected the outcome of the election. How would the Trumpists deal with this?
You can point all over the map to distract from this point, but the answer is clear: Throw Barr under the bus.Barr abused power by changing Justice Department policy with regard to investigations into election related issues, with no basis for doing so, other than Trump and Rudy saying there is fraud. And what does he conclude with, they have found nothing significant (his own conclusion does nothing to help his case that changing policy was proper).
Saying Barr has impeccable credentials is not possible anymore. His change of policy here was a clear politically motivated action. I thought these guys take an oath of office. So much for law and order.
I don’t know much about the specific policy changes to which you refer, and what justification Barr claimed to make them.
While he has long been widely considered a man of integrity, I think you misunderstood my post.
I said he is “a Republican of impeccable credentials…,” by which I meant to highlight the absurdity of the way he is now being treated by Trumpists.
CY -“For all the demonizing attacks on him since he was appointed AG, I don’t think that Barr has ever been accused of laziness, even by his most vociferous detractors.”
Well that’s my Opinion!
I’m Not like these DemonCrats – that don’t think for themselves.“Would you ever entertain the possibility that he actually did his job, and the facts are that there is no evidence of widespread fraud which would change the result of the election?”
The problem with that is – it’s Not his Determination.
Unfortunately, I don’t trust Judges, for sure Not lawyers, even Prosecutors anymore.
Years ago – Judges didn’t put Party over Law.
But one thing I give Trump credit for – Right now 5 out of 4 SCOTUS Judges, don’t put Party/PC over LAW!“But one thing I give Trump credit for – Right now 5 out of 4 SCOTUS Judges, don’t put Party/PC over LAW!
Geez….thats 125% of the Court. Awesome achievement for Trump. I guess the other 4 of the 9 justices are just political hacks, such as John Roberts and Steve Breyer, who are lacking in any principles or respect for law and will do whatever they are told by Pelosi.
GH -“I guess the other 4 of the 9 justices are just political hacks, such as John Roberts and Steve Breyer, who are lacking in any principles or respect for law and will do whatever they are told by Pelosi.”
Take what you want from my post.
Tell me – J. Roberts agreed that Opposing Gay Marriage is unconstitutional – Did he actually think the Framers of the Constitution would have approved of Gay Marriage?!?Health: I wouldn’t look to the founding “fathers” for much guidance on ethics or morality since several of them were gay and others were literally “fathering” children in adulterous relationships with their slaves. The practical effect of the SCOTUS ruling was that gay couples had the same rights to engage in contractual relationships with one another as other couples and that such contractual rights had to be honored in other states beyond those where they had been “married”.
If you don’t like Roberts, I guess you have a problem with Gorsuch too since he supported the SCOTUS decision that sex discrimination laws also applied to LBGT individuals (sine they were literally be discriminated against because of their gender identity.GH -“The practical effect of the SCOTUS ruling was that gay couples had the same rights to engage in contractual relationships with one another as other couples and that such contractual rights had to be honored in other states beyond those where they had been “married”.”
What would they hold if I married my Dog?!?
Would he/she get my Worldly Possessions?!?IDK about the “Founding Father’s” morality, but on the Outside they Never Would have something called Gay Marriage or other contractual obligations!
There once was a time that Gay people were in the Closet.
I even remember it – it wasn’t that Long Ago!What would they hold if I married my Dog?!?
Would he/she get my Worldly Possessions?!?Great question. What do you think. What if you dog was gay? What if your dog owned a slave? What if your dog went to Harvard and was more intelligent then you?
Also, I want to know what happens if an ant tries to sue me. Then there is that Chimp that took that picture. What are his rights.
Btw, remind me why you are asking ridiculous questions. What do they have to do with the morals of the Founding fathers? Also what does the founding fathers’ morals have to do with morals today. Were they so stupid that they ever suggested their moral views will be the exact same folks 200+ years later would have? I mean if you answer that yes, then the founding fathers were idiots and no reason to respect their views.
ENS -“Great question. What do you think
Btw, remind me why you are asking ridiculous questions”Just like you understand it’s ridiculous to ask if a dog can marry a human, most of American think that there is no such thing as
Gay Marriage!
Yet our SCOTUS says it’s Unconstitutional to make laws against GayENS -” I mean if you answer that yes, then the founding fathers were idiots and no reason to respect their views.”
Fine with me. But e/o thinks we must follow the Constitution.
There’s No way the Framers would believe in Gay Marriage.
No matter what some SCOTUS decided!
Hopefully this decision will be Overturned.“most of American think that there is no such thing as Gay Marriage!”
It would seem polls show that 70% of Americans support it. Just to clarify 70% is a substantial majority of Americans.
I mean, at least get basic stuff straight. There is little point in these arguments/discussions when the responses are all over the place and you just make up “alternative” facts.
Health; You ask, “What would they hold if I married my Dog….
Would he/she get my Worldly Possessions?In your case, I suspect SCOTUS would make a special exception since you beschert would likely be a perfect match, unless the animal protective services were to file an amicus to protect your fiance’.
Seriously, if at this point in time you are still making analogies between men and women whose lifestyle choices conflict with your beliefs, than those mindless comparisons warrant a companion with equivalent intelligence and compassion.
ENS -“It would seem polls show that 70% of Americans support it. Just to clarify 70% is a substantial majority of Americans.”
Nowadays, your correct.
But in 2003 most opposed Gay marriage.
So what changed?
The propaganda from the Gays had an effect on the SCOTUS & the Catholic Church!
This changed the opinions of Most Americans.GH -“Seriously, if at this point in time you are still making analogies between men and women whose lifestyle choices conflict with your beliefs, than those mindless comparisons warrant a companion with equivalent intelligence and compassion.”
It shows you don’t have much comprehension of anyone’s opinion!
I personally don’t care what people do in Their Closet!
My post was on Calling it a Marriage!You said most of America is against gay marriage… Now you clarify you meant in 2003.
Enjoy your constantly changing arguments. I see no reason to address them. I am sure you can make up more arguments than I possibly have time to address. I mean when you get down to it, when someone can’t maintain an modicum of integrity and consistency in the arguments, it is almost certain the person saying them does not care about the arguments and only cares to promote their conclusion. That is an issue with you that no amount of arguing can change so why bother.
ENS -” I mean when you get down to it, when someone can’t maintain an modicum of integrity and consistency in the arguments, it is almost certain the person saying them does not care about the arguments and only cares to promote their conclusion.”
So you’re saying when I wrote this -“most of American think that there is no such thing as
Gay Marriage” – I must specify what year I was talking about.
This would defeat my point!My point is – Americans just do what is PC, Not what Common Sense tells you.
For the SCOTUS to make a Ruling that a Law forbidding Gay Marriage is unconstitutional, is beyond any Rationality!Pretty sure the constitution grants sole authority to the state legislature as it regards to how, when, and in what manner, the election is held. Not really sure what the argument against that is, and I’m genuinely curious to see how the defendant states respond.
Oh Jackk -“In court, Trump is now 1 win and 51 losses. Most patriotic Americans would realize that they have no case and accept defeat and wish the winner good luck. Not so with the anarchist in the white house and his supporters. They even went straight to SCOTUS. Failed there too”
I already posted why SCOTUS didn’t take that case.
“In the suit, he claims that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law and asks the U.S. Supreme Court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College.”
This case has a good chance of winning!
“It is only December 9th. Still 42 days left for the anarchist to show us many more times that they do not care for the Democratically elected Government of the US , the Constitution, and the laws of the US.”
LOL!
The only time you call us Cons – Anarchists is when you’re scared that the election will be overturned.
The only Anarchists are the Libs that Riot & Loot, when they are upset about something.
So get ready to do that again, because Trump will be President for the next 4 years!I support Trump but there is no chance of him winning now. It would take a Chanukah Miracle for it to happen. Here in NYC people are doing crazy things due to Covid bordem and this is just another one of them. This is just like the Democrats trying to impeach him. It’s not going anywhere.
Oh Jackk -“New Jersey and New York have sued Texas in SCOTUS to throw out it’s elections and throw out their electoral college electors and also send Ted Cruz home.
That is the same stupidity as Texas suing other states”That suit has No chance.
It’s just the Libs acting like Cry Babies!
How we have 18 States joining Texas – this will be taken seriously by SCOTUS.
So get ready to Riot – Mr. Lib!Well 23 states opposed Texas and the SC refused to hear it. None of Trump’s appointees wanted to hear it. A Trump appointed judge in Wisconsin violated the 11th Amendment to hear a Trump vs. Wisconsin case in order to point out how baseless were the arguments.
The question is when Trump and his supporters will return to reality.
Thomas and Alito, who dissented to the majority decision not to hear the case, did so not on the merits of the case, but because of their long-standing position that SCOTUS, as the court of original jurisdiction, must hear cases in which both litigants are states.
Presumably, after hearing the case, the court would have dismissed it unanimously.
In the order, they actually said that they would have allowed the case to be “filed” (not heard) but would have granted no further relief. As it was the case was rejected outright (they did not allow it to be filed), they just seem to be saying they would have allowed it to go a step further and then they would have summarily ruled that there are no legal issues raised. Not even sure it would have had a hearing. Seems a bit of a technical difference and likely why they were in the end fine with signing with the order and did not present their point as a dissent.
A lot of people, on YWN and in the rest of the world, are misusing the word “anachist,” accusing Trump and his supporters of being anarchists because of their unfounded, unwarranted attempts to overthrow the result of the 2020 presidential election. Anarchists want no government, whereas Trump and his supporters want a governmental dictatorship led by Trump.
Oh Jackk, -“Since Trump and his band of thieves are trying to overturn the election of 2020 by ANY MEANS POSSIBLE”
Another Lie.
If Trump wanted to “Overturn the Election ANY MEANS POSSIBLE”, he would have done it already.
Did you ever hear of Martial Law?!?Sorry, Health, under the 5th covenant of the International United Assembly, Martial Law is an ineffective method to overturn elections. Try again.
A week ago armed anarchists in Oregon broke into the state capitol in an effort to stop a special session of the legislature. These misguided uneducated fools were under the impression that if they stopped the special session they would help ‘stop the steal’.
Oh Jackk -“Unfortunately, you’re obsessed with the next day, Jan. 6, when Congress will, in a pro forma action, certify the Electoral College vote. You have tweeted that, as long as Republicans have “courage,” they can overturn the results and give you four more years in office”
I’m waiting to see what is going to happen.
Some Congressmen and some Senators are going to object – this will generate a debate.
It’s going to be fun!Health
any updates on Sydney Powell’s Scotus case? does it have a date yet?
Are we passed the “soon” by which she had said in early November she would relese her secret Evidence?
Ubiq -“any updates on Sydney Powell’s Scotus case? does it have a date yet?
Are we passed the “soon” by which she had said in early November she would relese her secret Evidence?”S. Powell actually wrote in her brief that the Court should consider the case before Jan. 6, because on that date – Joint session of Congress will meet and certify the EC votes.
Can the SCOTUS nullify the results of the EC after that?
IDK, ask a Constitution Lawyer!Health
“S. Powell actually wrote in her brief that the Court should consider the case before Jan. 6″
yes I know what she wrote. and I said she wouldn’t get her case heard
Here is an exchange we had
Health – ” but her case wasn’t heard yet by SCOTUS!”
Ubiq – “I’t wont be.”
Health – Ok; you say she’s Lying. So the cases she filed are King vs. Whitmer 20-815, & In Re Pearson 20-816. Ok – she isn’t Lying – You are! Now why would you lie? Are you Afraid she’ll win those cases?!?”She wont be having a case
she wont be releasing any evidence
she lied when she said she would “soon” (it is past soon even if she ends up releasing anything now)all that is old news and was known to most for almost 2 months
what is no knwon is if those who beleived her leis, will be able to say “wow she WAS lying”
Stil remains to be seen. We gave it till Jan 20 so theres still time
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.