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

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

1 hour ago, Damual Travesty said:

It sounds like you our blaming the President for people making the personal decision to kill police officers. maim them, burn down buildings, destroy Government property, kill innocent civilians, the outbreak and spread of Covid-19, that you believe in permanent lock-downs and the forced wearing of masks by American Citizens. You also believe that climate change is so pressing that you favour shutting down the entire oil and gas industry because we are going to die in 12 years or so if we do not. You likewise favour a treaty that grants economic favour to China based upon our taking the Communist Party of China's word on the matter that they will not use that money to build weapons, do I have you correct on all of this or would you disagree with me. You are an American right?

Since you clearly don't have a grasp of what's really going on, perhaps I can share the comments of someone who does.  This is a top general who worked for Trump (vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs who was re-nominated by Trump) and--surprise--will be voting for Biden.

 

["Thanks to his disdainful attitude and his failures, our allies no longer trust or respect us, and our enemies no longer fear us. Climate change continues unabated, as does North Korea's nuclear program. The president has ceded influence to a Russian adversary who puts bounties on the heads of American military personnel, and his trade war against China has only harmed America's farmers and manufacturers," the letter reads.]

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/paul-selva-general-joe-biden/index.html

 

He's just one of nearly 500 former National Security leaders who support Biden.  This group is just the latest of many others. 

 

https://www.nationalsecurityleaders4biden.com/

I'll properly refute your very first statement with a current example.  This example may appear to be going off topic but it is not meant so.  Rather it is a stunningly clear example, the best I can find, to show that your first statement is nothing more than flawed rationale.

 

Back in 2016 then Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking at a Brookings Institute event, averred very emphatically in no uncertain terms that there will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world sans a Palestinian solution.  No doubt his knowledge of "what's really going on" was a product of many white papers written by the Brookings Institute and others over decades.  Well, President Trump seemed to disagree with conventional wisdom and decided to do not one but two peace deals between Israel and the Arab world without resolving the Palestinian issue.  It's a beautiful example of how convention wisdom exposes itself to be not so wise after all.

 

The fact that Trump renominated this top General should in no way be suggestive that this General was worthy of his renomination.  I've hired people who gave me an impression that they were worthy of the position I hired them for only to fire them in short order as I found out they did not live up to my initial impression.

 

Other posters have used the "X-number" of whatever - lawyers, National Security leaders, former "influential" past Republican Senators and Congressmen, etc. - before as an ironclad guarantee that these people have the correct world view.  As if the numbers and glorified positions are criteria of guarantors.  You can always find an equal number of comparable people who take opposing views.

 

I'd say that's having a grasp of "what's really going on."

 

As evidentiary support, in case any poster thinks I'm making this example up, here's John Kerry's vid.

 

 

[CorpusChristie]

6 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

Fake news from the left you say?  Like Fox News?

 

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-judge-says-he-believes-trump-called-veterans-losers-suckers-because-he-knows-him-1531089

 

One persons opinion on what he may have said it, but, no proof and the guy isnt suggesting that he heard Trump say it .

  Just one guy with an opinion on whether the allegations are true or not 

[CorpusChristie]

5 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

So deliberately slowing down the mail, closing polling stations, insisting on street numbers when may reservations do not use them...stuff like that..is not denying?  Maybe denying is the wrong word "putting all possible obsticles in the way" may be better.

 

Your proto-dictator  is doing all he can to enable his continued occupancy of the White House by foul means.

 

PH

Those are measures being taken to stop voter fraud

[CorpusChristie]

4 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

Dunno.  Has anyone ever jeered at him at one?

 

PH

Yes, that is what this thread is about 

[Phulublub]

Just now, CorpusChristie said:

Yes, that is what this thread is about 

Your idea of what a funeral is does not match my own.

 

PH

[Phulublub]

1 minute ago, CorpusChristie said:

Those are measures being taken to stop voter fraud

Closing polling stations is to stop voter fraud!!!  Even for you that is ridiculous

 

PH

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

How many police officers have been murdered in the last 6 months? Do you know? How many maimed for life? How many minority owned businesses burned to the ground? How much property damage done? Go look up these statistics and come back and tell me about the .01 percent.

 

And what does it have to do with the topic?

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, CorpusChristie said:

You enjoy watching people being disrespectful and abusive at funerals ?

Its terrible behavior, to act the way they did .

Their Parents have failed in bringing their Children up to be decent Human beings 

I get that it's not cool to jeer at a funeral. Many people probably feel that Trump is rarely outside the safety of his rallies full of his supporters so it was their only chance.

Something tells me Ruth Bader Ginsburg wouldn't have been too upset. 

[CorpusChristie]

1 minute ago, Phulublub said:

Closing polling stations is to stop voter fraud!!!  Even for you that is ridiculous

 

PH

Give me a link to that story , I will read it and then explain it to you

[simple1]

50 minutes ago, nemo38 said:

<SNIP>

 

Here is a case from 2018 where they overturned the election result due to voter fraud.

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/30/746800630/north-carolina-gop-operative-faces-new-felony-charges-that-allege-ballot-fraud

 

Ooops, the only proven case of actual fraud was committed by a republican. 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

The proof is everywhere.  C'mon, man.  There are no statements to quote as the Dems don't regularly come out and bluntly say it.  But their deeds are the evidence.  Russiagate, the Mueller probe, and the impeachment are the major proofs.  It's all due to their rejection of the 2016 election results and their attempts to remedy it.

In brief, you have no proof to back up your allegation, just your opinion.

[nemo38]

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Ooops, the only proven case of actual fraud was committed by a republican. 

I am even handed. Voter fraud is voter fraud, no matter which side it comes from.

[Phulublub]

9 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Give me a link to that story , I will read it and then explain it to you

There are numerous.  Do some groundwork yourself; you may even learn something.

 

PH

[CorpusChristie]

4 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Ooops, the only proven case of actual fraud was committed by a republican. 

The link shows charges have been bought , thats not proof 

[CorpusChristie]

Just now, Phulublub said:

There are numerous.  Do some groundwork yourself; you may even learn something.

 

PH

I cannot comment on your allegation, unless you give a link to what you are referring to 

[simple1]

Just now, nemo38 said:

I am even handed. Voter fraud is voter fraud, no matter which side it comes from.

Good on you; it undermines the one-sided narrative of the trump world. 

[Berkshire]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Back in 2016 then Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking at a Brookings Institute event, averred very emphatically in no uncertain terms that there will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world sans a Palestinian solution.  No doubt his knowledge of "what's really going on" was a product of many white papers written by the Brookings Institute and others over decades.  Well, President Trump seemed to disagree with conventional wisdom and decided to do not one but two peace deals between Israel and the Arab world without resolving the Palestinian issue.  It's a beautiful example of how convention wisdom exposes itself to be not so wise after all.

 

If you're referring to the Israel and Bahrain/UAE "peace" deals, you're greatly overstating what was really accomplished.  As even a novice Mideast observer will tell you, there really can't be a "peace deal" if the Palestinians are not involved.  Trump (and Kushner) took the easy way out simply for political expediency.  Knowing Kushner, there was probably some personal financial benefit.  So in essence, Kerry was right.    

 

[But though Trump described the agreements as peace deals, the reaction from Palestinians was a stark reminder that the agreements are not seen as such by many in the region.]

[The pacts have been criticized by Iran, Turkey and Qatar. The biggest Gulf power, Saudi Arabia, has remained silent, leading to speculation that the kingdom quietly approves of the agreements but is reluctant to openly support them.]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/progress-not-peace-breaking-down-trump-brokered-deals-between-israel-n1240298

 

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

For four years the Dems have rejected the results of the 2016 election (while simultaneously and hypocritically aghast that Trump would even ponder it) and have done everything within their power, legally or illegally, to subvert that election result.  Four years on and their entire campaign for the 2020 election is focused on one issue and one issue only . . . to remove President Trump.

 

Anyone actually believing that they would be voting for Biden are deluded.  For it will be President Harris in very short order.  Under no circumstances would I want a Harris presidency.

 

Vox - Kamala Harris’s decline in the polls, explained

 

She had a single high point during her candidacy yet within 5 months of that she was polling in single digits and dropped out.  The Dems rejected her then but will vote for her now.  Why?  Doesn't matter who it as as long as they can remove President Trump.

 

Only in Trump supporters' minds does the opposition not rolling over equate with 'rejected the results'. In effect, the results were acknowledged, accepted and the transition of power executed. The same things Trump now refuses to commit to, by the way.

 

Only in Trump supporters minds the President and his administration are immune from criticism, censure or investigations. Granted, when the Republicans were in a position to do so, no issues from the usual suspects (for reference, look up Benghazi). As for Democrats doing something illegal - do tell, or better yet, don't - if all you've got is the usual mumbo jumbo made out of insinuations and conspiracy theories.

 

You could, of course, continue to ignore that the Democratic Party got a platform, and that it is publicly available (linked even on this topic, surely on previous ones). But even if this was just about Trump - it's enough for some.

 

The nonsense about Harris replacing Biden is another Trump campaign talking point, not supported by anything much. By the same reasoning one could posit Pence will take over from Trump.

 

As for Harris's support - is this another case where you trust polls and such when results fit your narrative?

[Morch]

4 hours ago, owl sees all said:

I hear that it is a sex-free relationship between Melania and The Don. So there is always a chance.

 

Yeah, only the Mrs. didn't think my comment funny, somehow. I was flattered that she was semi-jealous.

[simple1]

4 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

The link shows charges have been bought , thats not proof 

 

My error, Bet if it was a democrat charged for voter fraud he would already be convicted in the minds of many on this forum. 

 

It is the second set of charges relating to the matter - doesn't look good.

 

This is the second set of charges for Dowless, who was arrested in February and accused of interfering in the district's primary election. He was charged then with three counts of felonious obstruction of justice, two counts of conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice and two counts of possession of absentee ballots.

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/30/746800630/north-carolina-gop-operative-faces-new-felony-charges-that-allege-ballot-fraud

[CorpusChristie]

Just now, simple1 said:

My error, Bet if it was a democrat charged for voter fraud he would already be convicted in the minds of many on this forum. 

 

It is the second set of charges relating to the matter - doesn't look good.

 

This is the second set of charges for Dowless, who was arrested in February and accused of interfering in the district's primary election. He was charged then with three counts of felonious obstruction of justice, two counts of conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice and two counts of possession of absentee ballots.

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/30/746800630/north-carolina-gop-operative-faces-new-felony-charges-that-allege-ballot-fraud

You could start a thread about it ?

[Tippaporn]

21 minutes ago, simple1 said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Given the insanity of mailing out ballots to everyone, being that it's never been done before which means no one can definitively claim that there won't be fraud, and understanding the high probability that there will be legal contestations, then you'd have to be an idiot to trust that this election's results will be accurate.  Biden took the action of hiring 600 lawyers.  Does that sound like he's going to willy-nilly accept the election results?  Hillary advised not to concede under any circumstances.  Let's not forget those facts for a moment.

 

Trump never asked his supporters to vote twice.  That's been debunked long ago.  Even Snopes, whom I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them but libs would bet their lives on, had this to say:

 

Mixture

 

What's True

Trump told people that if they vote by mail, they should also go to polling places to check whether their mailed-in ballot had been tabulated (advice that election officials do not agree with), and if it hadn't: Vote in person.

 

What's False

Although Trump's advice would functionally result in some people attempting to cast two ballots, the stated goal was to ensure people's ballots get counted, not to elicit double voting.

 

Mixture my a$$.  Snopes was truthful stating, ". . . the stated goal was to ensure people's ballots get counted, not to elicit double voting."  Despite it being debunked there are still a number of posters here who keep repeating it in the vein that Trump was encouraging people to actually vote twice.

 

That Trump tried to meddle in the election via the post office is nothing more than accusations providing evidences which are completely open to interpretation.  Yet the left believes their interpretation is the "truth."  Not so fast, son.

 

I consider your entire post to be disingenuous by using flawed logic, cherry picking from available facts, using debunked "facts," and relying on unproven accusations.

As you have done before, you have omitted the conclusion of Snopes investigation.

 

"Trump’s statements were both incorrect and potentially harmful to voters, as we will explain below"

Their conclusion is utterly subjective.  Which is why I would never rely on Snopes for anything.  They should deal with the facts as they are rather than provide their "analysis" to interpret the facts according to their left leaning bias.  That is not fact checking.  It's presenting facts with personal commentary.

 

Their only conclusion should have been that Trump did not suggest voters actually vote twice and end of story.

 

'Caught in the headlights' comes to mind. Claiming the report as truth, when challenged change your narrative. Full of it...

Here's the full exchange.  Show me where I said that the report was "truth."  "Here's what Snopes had to say," is what I said.  I pointed out what was truthful about Snopes' conclusion as to "What's False."

 

The claim that Trump encouraged voters to vote twice is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . false.

 

I didn't get 'caught in the headlights' but I think you just got run over.

 

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

In one way or another everything is Trump's fault.  The left has only a single rationale for everything.  Amazing.

 

And in Trump supporters' minds, Trump can do no wrong. As for Trump, he's simply not responsible for any failures.

[simple1]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

<SNIP>

I didn't get 'caught in the headlights' but I think you just got run over.

Try as hard as you can, doesn't change the fact of your attempted misrepresentation. 

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

Try as hard as you can, doesn't change the fact of your attempted misrepresentation. 

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

At the showing of a casket? Buddy, the moral compass. We all have one. Just saying.  As for Trump rarely going out into public. He is the most open to the Public President in decades and "Come on man" even before Covid Joe Biden could not beg people to show up at his events. We both know that.

 

I do not ask you to respect the President of the United States but respect the fact that there is a time and a place for staged protests. In front of a casket is not one of them. Be respectful have common decency - common decency.

 

And can you and your Democrat friends just calm down and let the President do the ROUTINE? Which is to fill a vacancy on the Court? And because the Senate is likewise controlled by his Party they have the pick to confirm.  Enough already. This is nothing new in our system its been going on for 250 years. Can you and your friends stop threatening to pack the court, do away with the electoral college, lower the age to vote, etc etc etc all as means to obtain permanent power?! Doing away with our foundations will not help our Country.

 

More hypocrisy. No issues whatsoever with the Presidents' many failures at acting decently. Got to wonder how you'll explain away comments made about McCain, POW's, Parents of veterans and all the rest. But hey, I think it's already obvious you do not hold Trump to any standards whatsoever, nor recognize a single thing which might reflect negatively on the man.

 

Could you ask your friend the President to do the routine? As in commit to accepting election results? Or not asking supporters to vote twice? Or not expressing opinion of innocence/guilt of suspects while the investigations are running? Etc.

 

By all means, do waffle on about 'doing away with our foundations will not help our Country.' Guess that the peaceful transition of power, accepting elections results and such aren't included.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

Yes, wrong, only in jest, Xi is President for life - a fact. Everyone has a motivation for their posts. Another fact.

 

Oh, the he-was-only-kidding routine? Sure. Guess you'd treat it just the same if uttered by Biden or any Democrat. Handily ignoring other examples, or indeed the latest episode of the same. Your motivation seems very clear - deflect and defend.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

The same type of mentality is involved.

 

Nonsense.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

That the statement is true is beyond question.  What more evidence than the past four years do you need?

 

It was just questioned. You have no reply. You do not even have a half-reasonable explanation how or why the opposition acting as opposition implies not accepting results. That's a nice deflection from the fact that Trump himself refuses to commit.

[Tippaporn]

23 minutes ago, simple1 said:

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

What more evidence than the past four years do you need?

 

Here we go again, claims made by a trump supporter, then refusing to provide proof, only inuendo / opinion.  To repeat, actual statements from Democratic leadership to support your claim - "For four years the Dems have rejected the results of the 2016 election"

The proof is everywhere.  C'mon, man.  There are no statements to quote as the Dems don't regularly come out and bluntly say it.  But their deeds are the evidence.  Russiagate, the Mueller probe, and the impeachment are the major proofs.  It's all due to their rejection of the 2016 election results and their attempts to remedy it.

In brief, you have no proof to back up your allegation, just your opinion.

Russiagate was the attempt to prevent a Trump presidency or, in the event he became President, remove him from office.  A rejection of the 2016 election results.

 

The Mueller probe was that portion of Russiagate to be used as the vehicle to remove Trump from office.

 

The sham impeachment was another attempt to remedy the results of the 2016 election.

 

These are some of the events which were efforts to overturn the will of the people and remove a sitting president because the Dems rejected the 2016 election results.

 

These are not my opinions.  These events actually transpired.