Nearly one in three Americans say it may soon be necessary to take up arms against the government

[rudi49jr]

1 hour ago, BangkokHank said:

Exactly. Voting by mail doesn't work out well for Republicans - because Democrats use it to cheat.

Please share your wisdom with us and explain how the Democrats cheated, I would really like to know. And can you use small words, so us simple folk can understand it? But more importantly, I would like to see from you at least one link to a credible news source to substantiate the claims you made here in this thread about the election being stolen and Democrats cheating. Mind you, I didn’t make that up: those are the rules on this forum. Which you have totally ignored.

[ozimoron]

4 hours ago, BangkokHank said:

"Everyone knew" that more Democrats than Republicans would vote using absentee ballots, because the media had been brainwashing people into believing that for weeks before the election. The media had been preparing the simple-minded people for that because they KNEW that the Democrats were planning to steal the election.

 

Can you give me any plausible reason why people from one party would be more likely than the people from another to vote using absentee ballots? If they had said that, for example, older people are more likely to vote via absentee ballots because they have trouble getting to the polling stations, that would have been plausible. But to suggest that voters for one entire party are more likely to vote by the way that just happens to be easier to cheat with is patently ridiculous. So please, don't try your "everyone knew" with me. You just make yourself look silly.

I'll tell you why. It's also very obvious. It's historically ALWAYS been the case that Dems tend to vote more using mail in and drop boxes. This is why the GOP didn't want to count the mail in ballots and why they invented this stolen election theory surrounding mail in votes. They knew.

There is not a US polittician alive who doesn't know Dems use mail in voting more than Republicans for a variety of reasons. It is a known historical fact with data readily available to check. It's also why GOP led states have been removing drop boxes.

Edited July 28, 2022 by ozimoron

[rudi49jr]

What all those Trumpers don’t seem to understand is that this would be the story of the century, if the Dems really had stolen the elections. Like Woodward and Bernstein, this would be Pulitzer prize material, multi million dollar book deals, and so on, and so forth. Whoever would discover that this had been the case would be a very rich man/woman indeed.
So I’m sure that many reporters (as well as law enforcement agencies) have looked at it long and hard, and if there had been any shred of evidence it would have been reported by now. But nothing has come up so far. Gee, I wonder why that is.

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, rudi49jr said:

What all those Trumpers don’t seem to understand is that this would be the story of the century, if the Dems really had stolen the elections. Like Woodward and Bernstein, this would be Pulitzer prize material, multi million dollar book deals, and so on, and so forth. Whoever would discover that this had been the case would be a very rich man/woman indeed.
So I’m sure that many reporters (as well as law enforcement agencies) have looked at it long and hard, and if there had been any shred of evidence it would have been reported by now. But nothing has come up so far. Gee, I wonder why that is.

Biden is still POTUS ?

 

[rudi49jr]

38 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Biden is still POTUS ?

 

Yes. Shocking, isn’t it? And not impeached, not even once. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

12 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

Yes. Shocking, isn’t it? And not impeached, not even once. 

Did you not understand what I meant ?

Any potential whistle-blowers, wouldn't blow their whistle whilst hes still POTUS , they would wait until Donald gets his job back as POTUS

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Did you not understand what I meant ?

Any potential whistle-blowers, wouldn't blow their whistle whilst hes still POTUS , they would wait until Donald gets his job back as POTUS

Are those the same whistleblowers that desperately tried to find anything that reeked of fraud when trump was president?

[JimmyJ]

19 hours ago, Lacessit said:

 

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night, only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." ( George Orwell )

"Quote Investigator:There is no substantive evidence that George Orwell who died in 1950 made this remark."

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/07/rough-men/

Edited July 28, 2022 by JimmyJ

[heybruce]

14 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Did you not understand what I meant ?

Any potential whistle-blowers, wouldn't blow their whistle whilst hes still POTUS , they would wait until Donald gets his job back as POTUS

Those potential whistle=blowers had more than two months between the election and Biden taking office; two months when Trump was still President.  Why didn't they speak up then?

[Mac Mickmanus]

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Are those the same whistleblowers that desperately tried to find anything that reeked of fraud when trump was president?

I am not too sure whether they are the same people or not 

[Mac Mickmanus]

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Those potential whistle=blowers had more than two months between the election and Biden taking office; two months when Trump was still President.  Why didn't they speak up then?

Because they didn't want Joe to lose his job 

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I am not too sure whether they are the same people or not 

 

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Because they didn't want Joe to lose his job 

Do you seriously believe what you're writing here?

[ozimoron]

32 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Did you not understand what I meant ?

Any potential whistle-blowers, wouldn't blow their whistle whilst hes still POTUS , they would wait until Donald gets his job back as POTUS

Because nobody blew the whistle on Trump when he was President? What's the difference?

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Because nobody blew the whistle on Trump when he was President? What's the difference?

Could we stick to the topic of the current Government ?

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Could we stick to the topic of the current Government ?

???? didn't you start this.....................

 

38 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Did you not understand what I meant ?

Any potential whistle-blowers, wouldn't blow their whistle whilst hes still POTUS , they would wait until Donald gets his job back as POTUS

 

[Lacessit]

26 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

"Quote Investigator:There is no substantive evidence that George Orwell who died in 1950 made this remark."

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/07/rough-men/

An interesting read, I suppose it's similar to the question of whether Christopher Marlowe wrote most of Shakespeare's works. Or whether it was Arnold Palmer or Gary Player who said "The more I practice, the luckier I get."

Anything George Orwell said, or was purported to say, gets attention. Who has ever heard of Richard Grenier?

[2baht]

Yee haw, well damn it, Chuck, wherrrre's ma gun!

[nauseus]

On 7/26/2022 at 1:41 PM, rudi49jr said:

Most Americans have absolutely no clue what ‘socialist’ means, they have been brought up to fear it and see it as something evil. Just like the MAGA crowd calls everyone and everything they disagree with “the radical left”. 

That branding happens both ways. But Americans are becoming aware of their current 'radical' problem.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, rudi49jr said:

Yes. Shocking, isn’t it? And not impeached, not even once. 

That he is still there is certainly amazing. Somehow I don't think impeachment will be necessary. 

[candide]

5 hours ago, BangkokHank said:

Exactly. Voting by mail doesn't work out well for Republicans - because Democrats use it to cheat.

Aren't you tired of posting the same debunked B.S. over and over? This is ridiculous!

[BangkokHank]

15 minutes ago, candide said:

Aren't you tired of posting the same debunked B.S. over and over? This is ridiculous!

Whenever I hear that something has been "debunked", that's a sure sign to me that it's true.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Because they didn't want Joe to lose his job 

Trump's administration didn't want Biden to lose his job as President?  Please explain.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

Whenever I hear that something has been "debunked", that's a sure sign to me that it's true.

You are really deep down the rabbit hole when you take the absence of credible evidence as proof of a crime.

 

Do you believe in Santa Claus?  All evidence that he's real has been debunked, so that must mean he's real.

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Trump's administration didn't want Biden to lose his job as President?  Please explain.

Why should I have to explain that ?

I didn't say that and thus have no need to explain something that I didn't say , suggest or even hint at 

[heybruce]

36 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Why should I have to explain that ?

I didn't say that and thus have no need to explain something that I didn't say , suggest or even hint at 

I'll remind you.  You posted:

 

"Any potential whistle-blowers, wouldn't blow their whistle whilst hes still POTUS , they would wait until Donald gets his job back as POTUS "

 

I replied with:

 

"Those potential whistle=blowers had more than two months between the election and Biden taking office; two months when Trump was still President.  Why didn't they speak up then?"

 

Your answer was:

 

"Because they didn't want Joe to lose his job"

 

I replied:

 

"Trump's administration didn't want Biden to lose his job as President?  Please explain."

 

And now you state you didn't post that say that.

 

Are you incapable of following a simple thread that you are participating in?

 

You claim that potential whistleblowers won't act while Biden is still President.  I pointed out that they had more than two months to act between the time of the election and Biden being sworn into office.  Why didn't they act during that period?

 

Since I'm sure you have no intelligent answer, I'll tell you.  They didn't blow the whistle because there was nothing to blow the whistle on.  There was no election fraud.  Trump lost.  Accept it.

[Mac Mickmanus]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I'll remind you.  You posted:

 

"Any potential whistle-blowers, wouldn't blow their whistle whilst hes still POTUS , they would wait until Donald gets his job back as POTUS "

 

I replied with:

 

"Those potential whistle=blowers had more than two months between the election and Biden taking office; two months when Trump was still President.  Why didn't they speak up then?"

 

Your answer was:

 

"Because they didn't want Joe to lose his job"

 

I replied:

 

"Trump's administration didn't want Biden to lose his job as President?  Please explain."

 

And now you state you didn't post that say that.

 

Are you incapable of following a simple thread that you are participating in?

 

You claim that potential whistleblowers won't act while Biden is still President.  I pointed out that they had more than two months to act between the time of the election and Biden being sworn into office.  Why didn't they act during that period?

 

Since I'm sure you have no intelligent answer, I'll tell you.  They didn't blow the whistle because there was nothing to blow the whistle on.  There was no election fraud.  Trump lost.  Accept it.

My point was that if ,IF (I am not saying there was, just IF) , if there were any irregularities  in some people acting fraudulently   to get Joe elected , they wouldn't reveal those irregularities whilst Joe is still POTUS , as that could cause the election to be overturned . 

   If , IF a person did vote twice , they wouldnt tell anyone about it , was my point 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

My point was that if ,IF (I am not saying there was, just IF) , if there were any irregularities  in some people acting fraudulently   to get Joe elected , they wouldn't reveal those irregularities whilst Joe is still POTUS , as that could cause the election to be overturned . 

   If , IF a person did vote twice , they wouldnt tell anyone about it , was my point 

‘IF’, not once but several times.

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

My point was that if ,IF (I am not saying there was, just IF) , if there were any irregularities  in some people acting fraudulently   to get Joe elected , they wouldn't reveal those irregularities whilst Joe is still POTUS , as that could cause the election to be overturned . 

   If , IF a person did vote twice , they wouldnt tell anyone about it , was my point 

You're still missing the point. They had 2 months and 60+ court cases to report those irregularities while trump was still president.

[heybruce]

9 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

My point was that if ,IF (I am not saying there was, just IF) , if there were any irregularities  in some people acting fraudulently   to get Joe elected , they wouldn't reveal those irregularities whilst Joe is still POTUS , as that could cause the election to be overturned . 

   If , IF a person did vote twice , they wouldnt tell anyone about it , was my point 

IF there had been any irregularities to report, they would have reported them in the two and a half months between the election and the inauguration.  Since nothing was reported, and nothing has been reported since then, we can assume there never was anything to report.

[Mac Mickmanus]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You're still missing the point. They had 2 months and 60+ court cases to report those irregularities while trump was still president.

Why would a person who committed fraud , report that fraud ?