Trump jeered as he visits Ginsburg's casket at U.S. Supreme Court

[Morch]

3 hours ago, CorpusChristie said:

The link shows charges have been bought , thats not proof 

 

So even that wasn't a clear cut, close and shut case of election fraud?

[Opl]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

I agree it is indecent to disturb mourners. But I have no problem with disturbing someone who is in the inside jumping with joy.

A source close to the president told CNN that Trump has been 'salivating' to nominate a replacement for Ginsburg even before her death.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/18/politics/trump-ruth-bader-ginsburg/index.html

Edited September 25, 2020 by Opl

[CorpusChristie]

Just now, Opl said:

A source close to the president told CNN that Trump has been 'salivating' to nominate a replacement for Ginsburg even before her death.

That is to be expected , looking to find a replacement ASAP

[Tug]

20 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

I dont think anybody should disrupt a funeral, for any reason .

How about you, do you feel that its acceptable to interrupt a funeral ?

I find myself agreeing with you trump had absolutely no reason to disrupt the funeral with his presence he knows full well that the folks attending justice Ginsburgs funeral despise this despicable charlitan of a president enough he’s a disgrace 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Of course they had to formally acknowledge and accept it by executing the transition of power.  They had no choice.  Duh.

 

I can't speak for other Trump supporters but I've never objected to valid criticisms.  That doesn't mean I won't rail against unwarranted, baseless, or fabricated criticisms.  You might mistake the difference but I won't.

 

As to the Dem platform, granted it's published, I sincerely doubt Biden could recite even a portion of it.  I highly doubt he created and wrote the platform.  On the other hand Trump needs no teleprompter or even written notes to tell you exactly where he wants to take the country on any given issue.

 

Biden's losing it.  That's plain fact.  There are too many videos out there to post evidencing it.  We have evidence of Biden reading off the teleprompter and speaking the instructions.  We have multiple videos in which he completely loses his train of thought.  Don't know what to tell you if you don't want to acknowledge evidence that everyone has been witnessing with their own eyes.  You won't convince me to refute what my eyes are seeing.  Try someone else.

 

Given Biden's deterioration the Dems would most certainly pull the plug if he were to lose it on national security issues.  Harris would replace him.  How soon that would be would be anyone's guess but it depends on how rapid Biden's deterioration becomes.

 

I don't need to trust the polls that said Harris was polling in single digits.  She dropped out.  Whatever her true polling numbers were the fact that she dropped out is evidence enough that they had to have been dismal.  That's only common sense.  C'mon, man.

 

So spin it as you like, dream up conspiracy theories to your heart's content - the bottom line, even by your account is that election results were accepted and power transferred. No ifs and buts.

 

Considering you do not generally accept criticism of Trump as valid, your comment on criticism is pretty much meaningless. It isn't even clear what's valid in your world. Naturally, you see all of your nonsense as perfectly valid. Funny.

 

So you admit the Democrats have a platform. Well done. Whether Biden can recite it is immaterial, just another childish jibe. You wouldn't happen to know if Trump is well familiar with all the details of his supposed platform, right? Trump doesn't do anything which resembles reciting platforms, so the bogus comparison is irrelevant. When Trump is required to address actual details of policy, figures and the like he doesn't fare so well (except, maybe, in the minds of his supporters).

 

For each and every clip showing a Biden gaff, there's one of Trump's. You want to pretend otherwise? Go right ahead. Train of thought? Guess you never really listened to Trump speeches, public addresses or interviews. The man just can't keep focused on anything much without sidestepping all over the place. Had this been an actual point, and not a talking point you'd raise the issue of both candidates being way past their prime. You chose the partisan route, obviously.

 

Pretty much all the other candidates dropped out. What's your point? That Biden was more popular than her? If she was anywhere as unpopular or offensive to voters, it would have come up on polling data, and it would have been unlikely she'd be picked as running mate to begin with.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I've said it before, I don't agree with everything Trump does and I have my own criticisms.  I won't air them here because I have no intention of feeding the trolls.  But what you say is false.

 

What I say is not false. We are not addressing what might be but what is. And what is are your posts on here. As far as these go, you do not criticize Trump, and you do not really accept criticism of Trump. The position you hold is as dishonest as they come.

[plentyofnuttin]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

What I say is not false. We are not addressing what might be but what is. And what is are your posts on here. As far as these go, you do not criticize Trump, and you do not really accept criticism of Trump. The position you hold is as dishonest as they come.

That and citing a convenient ignorance on issues he's caught out on.

[Sujo]

41 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

I dont think anybody should disrupt a funeral, for any reason .

How about you, do you feel that its acceptable to interrupt a funeral ?

In what world is that a funeral.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

In this particular case it has never been a secret that the Dems desired to oust Trump since before the inauguration.  All of their actions are congruent with their desire.  Perhaps Durham will provide the ultimate proof.  Until then the obvious cannot be explained otherwise.  Logic does not necessarily follow that my conclusions are proof of political bias.  Certainly not in this case.

 

Washington Times - 'Impeach Trump' preceded even Trump's nomination

 

You are aware that there is nothing illegitimate in trying to 'oust' a President by legal means, right? All the more so when there is an indication of wrongdoing or maleficence. Even this, by the way, implies accepting the election results.

[Sujo]

34 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

It actually wasnt , the main allegation was never proven and as far as I am aware , the people who made the claim remained anonymous 

It was never denied. except for mr 20,000 lies and some say, people tell me.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Sujo

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

What you call deflection I call addressing your post.  In all honesty the healthcare issue is one that I haven't followed as I haven't been resident in the U.S. for quite some years so it doesn't affect me in the slightest.  I've said before that I have my own criticisms of Trump but to this I can't speak.

 

Here comes the good old 'claiming ignorance' bit, followed by the crowd favorite I-won't-tell-you one.

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, plentyofnuttin said:

On the other hand, there was the time he called some Republicans "human scum."

 

Or his own supporters, 'disgusting'. Wonder if that's better or worse than 'deplorables'.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, CorpusChristie said:

Everyone should be judged by the same standards, IMO

 

 

Yes? The President of the United States, especially with his privileged upbringing should not be held to higher standards? No need for him to set a better example or anything?

 

Given that you habitually deny any Trump wrongdoing, try to gloss over, deflect and minimize any improper behavior or action on his side, I have to doubt the sincerity of your comment. Quite often you'd raise such issues with regard to action of others (mostly Trump critics or detractors), but not toward Trump himself.

 

56 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

I dont think anybody should disrupt a funeral, for any reason .

How about you, do you feel that its acceptable to interrupt a funeral ?

I probably wouldn't. And I don't really condone such behavior, even if I understand where it's coming from. Given the circumstances, it was almost expected to happen, though. Doubt people are all that surprised or shocked. And as others say, guess RBG wouldn't much have issues with that.

 

[CorpusChristie]

37 minutes ago, Tug said:

I find myself agreeing with you trump had absolutely no reason to disrupt the funeral with his presence he knows full well that the folks attending justice Ginsburgs funeral despise this despicable charlitan of a president enough he’s a disgrace 

And he would have been labelled as a coward and a disgrace , had he not attended

[Morch]

53 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

It actually wasnt , the main allegation was never proven and as far as I am aware , the people who made the claim remained anonymous 

 

The story (or parts of) was confirmed by other media venues. That's a fact. Whether they were using the same anonymous sources as the original report or others, I do not know (although I vaguely recall one of them saying sources were different). Using anonymous sources is acceptable, and given that you do not express issues with the President's own habit of alleging someone-told-me, I-heard-that, or many-people-say, your comments are not very convincing. We've been through all that on previous topics, it is a shame you seem to feel the need to pretend otherwise and rehash it all again.

[CorpusChristie]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Here comes the good old 'claiming ignorance' bit, followed by the crowd favorite I-won't-tell-you one.

 

Once again, you are telling people what they know .

You do seem to have an amazing ability to know what other people know .

Even if they say they are unaware of something, you correct them and tell them they are incorrect and they do actually know .

   Where did you learn that ability from ?

[Sujo]

7 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

And he would have been labelled as a coward and a disgrace , had he not attended

like mccains funeral. What a cop out

[Morch]

55 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Why were polling stations closed ?

I am quite sure there would be a valid reason for that 

 

On a previous post replying to another poster you acknowledged these as 'measures taken to stop voter fraud.'. So which is it? Are you aware of these and can explain or where you just auto-deflecting? That you are 'quite sure' is great, but not much of an answer.

 

 

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Once again, you are telling people what they know .

You do seem to have an amazing ability to know what other people know .

Even if they say they are unaware of something, you correct them and tell them they are incorrect and they do actually know .

   Where did you learn that ability from ?

Trump supporters that believe a some people tell me, someone said.

[CorpusChristie]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The story (or parts of) was confirmed by other media venues. That's a fact. Whether they were using the same anonymous sources as the original report or others, I do not know (although I vaguely recall one of them saying sources were different). Using anonymous sources is acceptable, and given that you do not express issues with the President's own habit of alleging someone-told-me, I-heard-that, or many-people-say, your comments are not very convincing. We've been through all that on previous topics, it is a shame you seem to feel the need to pretend otherwise and rehash it all again.

I was just replying to others who claimed the story had been proven which, it hasnt been proven and it remains as an anonymous allegation which  Trump has stated its a hoax of a story and completely untrue  

[Sujo]

9 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

And he would have been labelled as a coward and a disgrace , had he not attended

And he is a coward and disgrace. President bone spurs.

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

I was just replying to others who claimed the story had been proven which, it hasnt been proven and it remains as an anonymous allegation which  Trump has stated its a hoax of a story and completely untrue  

It was verified by fox news that investigated it to prove it a hoax. yet u believe the gold medal liar.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Sujo

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

And he would have been labelled as a coward and a disgrace , had he not attended

 

Choices, choices.

Wonder if anything the President done or said had something to do with this predicament.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Once again, you are telling people what they know .

You do seem to have an amazing ability to know what other people know .

Even if they say they are unaware of something, you correct them and tell them they are incorrect and they do actually know .

   Where did you learn that ability from ?

 

I am not 'telling people what they know'. Both elements of my comment were included in the post replied to. Both are routine elements in what passes for poster's debate and discussion style. I did not 'correct' anything or anyone in that post. 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

I was just replying to others who claimed the story had been proven which, it hasnt been proven and it remains as an anonymous allegation which  Trump has stated its a hoax of a story and completely untrue  

 

See the post you replied to for an explanation as to how you got it wrong. For a longer version, consult previous topics. There's no particular imperative or obligation to take Trump's word for anything.

[CorpusChristie]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

It was verified by fox news that investigated it to prove it a hoax. yet u believe the gold medal liar.

It wasnt verified by fox news, they just reported on the story 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

It wasnt verified by fox news, they just reported on the story 

 

That's a misleading comment, addressed on them previous topics. A bit more complex than that. Anyway, off topic.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, CorpusChristie said:

It wasnt verified by fox news, they just reported on the story 

No they didnt, they did there on veracity test and verified it. Only liar in chief said it didnt happen.

[CorpusChristie]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No they didnt, they did there on veracity test and verified it. Only liar in chief said it didnt happen.

No they didnt , they just reported on the allegations , which doesnt verify anything 

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

No they didnt , they just reported on the allegations , which doesnt verify anything 

 

As said, more complicated than your version. This was discussed on the previous topic.

 

Fox News Denies Own Reporter Confirmed Trump Used ‘Suckers and Losers’ After Airing Interview of Her Confirming It

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fox-news-denies-own-reporter-confirmed-trump-used-suckers-and-losers-1055782/

 

Fox News reported Trump never said that dead US troops were 'suckers,' but the network's national security correspondent said ex-officials confirmed he did

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-correspondent-confirms-trump-said-dead-us-troops-losers-2020-9