Are we even sure that Sammy was alive in 2000?GrowlTowel said:Bush called for a recount of heavily leftist counties? Fraud is fraud. Own it.Sam Lowry said:Hilarious. Bush and Gore were both parties to the dispute and both acting in their own interests. It wasn't their job to be impartial judges or pursue evidence for the other side.GrowlTowel said:Yes, Highly fraudulent.Sam Lowry said:That is absurd. There's nothing fraudulent about requesting a recount where you think it would benefit you.GrowlTowel said:Bull***** Algore's fraud was the fact that he cherry picked only a couple of counties for the recount. Had he been honest and recounted the whole state, maybe your opinion would be valid. He went looking only for his votes and did not care about the validity of the election.Sam Lowry said:I think you're saying "fraud" when you really just mean something that's incorrect or that you disagree with. Gore didn't intentionally deceive the courts or the public. Your assertion about lack of standing is an example of Trumpian disinformation, by the way. It's been debunked repeatedly.Wangchung said:A riot to attack the democratic process and peaceful transition of power is still a riot attacking the democratic process and peaceful transition of power. Hillary's actions damned sure were inflammatory. Gore's claims were fraudulent and that was proven in court. Trump's claims never saw an actual day in court in the majority of cases, and not based on a lack of evidence but lack of standing even to bring a case forward at the time. Trump didn't have a complicit media to do his talking for him, he had to make his case directly to the American people, just as he was forced to do his entire presidency.Sam Lowry said:You can disagree with Gore's argument, but his intention was to win in the courts. When that failed, he conceded in a timely manner. Trump's team knew they weren't going to win in court. They used the litigation to create hysteria and pressure the legislatures to deliver a result that wasn't supported by the evidence. That's fundamentally different from what Gore attempted. And if Democrats rioted at Trump's inauguration, it wasn't because Hillary convinced them she could still win or because she was under any such illusions herself. Again, very different from Trump.Wangchung said:I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.Sam Lowry said:Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.Wangchung said:Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.Sam Lowry said:Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.Wangchung said:He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.Sam Lowry said:I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.Wangchung said:Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.Sam Lowry said:I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.Wangchung said:Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.Sam Lowry said:Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.Wangchung said:After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.Sam Lowry said:It's true. They conceded.Wangchung said:
Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.
Man tries to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice
10,841 Views |
151 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by whiterock
He opposed recounts, as one would expect, which is no more or less fraudulent than what Gore did.GrowlTowel said:Bush called for a recount of heavily leftist counties? Fraud is fraud. Own it.Sam Lowry said:Hilarious. Bush and Gore were both parties to the dispute and both acting in their own interests. It wasn't their job to be impartial judges or pursue evidence for the other side.GrowlTowel said:Yes, Highly fraudulent.Sam Lowry said:That is absurd. There's nothing fraudulent about requesting a recount where you think it would benefit you.GrowlTowel said:Bull***** Algore's fraud was the fact that he cherry picked only a couple of counties for the recount. Had he been honest and recounted the whole state, maybe your opinion would be valid. He went looking only for his votes and did not care about the validity of the election.Sam Lowry said:I think you're saying "fraud" when you really just mean something that's incorrect or that you disagree with. Gore didn't intentionally deceive the courts or the public. Your assertion about lack of standing is an example of Trumpian disinformation, by the way. It's been debunked repeatedly.Wangchung said:A riot to attack the democratic process and peaceful transition of power is still a riot attacking the democratic process and peaceful transition of power. Hillary's actions damned sure were inflammatory. Gore's claims were fraudulent and that was proven in court. Trump's claims never saw an actual day in court in the majority of cases, and not based on a lack of evidence but lack of standing even to bring a case forward at the time. Trump didn't have a complicit media to do his talking for him, he had to make his case directly to the American people, just as he was forced to do his entire presidency.Sam Lowry said:You can disagree with Gore's argument, but his intention was to win in the courts. When that failed, he conceded in a timely manner. Trump's team knew they weren't going to win in court. They used the litigation to create hysteria and pressure the legislatures to deliver a result that wasn't supported by the evidence. That's fundamentally different from what Gore attempted. And if Democrats rioted at Trump's inauguration, it wasn't because Hillary convinced them she could still win or because she was under any such illusions herself. Again, very different from Trump.Wangchung said:I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.Sam Lowry said:Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.Wangchung said:Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.Sam Lowry said:Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.Wangchung said:He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.Sam Lowry said:I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.Wangchung said:Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.Sam Lowry said:I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.Wangchung said:Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.Sam Lowry said:Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.Wangchung said:After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.Sam Lowry said:It's true. They conceded.Wangchung said:
Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.
HuMcK said:GrowlTowel said:Bull***** Algore's fraud was the fact that he cherry picked only a couple of counties for the recount. Had he been honest and recounted the whole state, maybe your opinion would be valid. He went looking only for his votes and did not care about the validity of the election.Sam Lowry said:I think you're saying "fraud" when you really just mean something that's incorrect or that you disagree with. Gore didn't intentionally deceive the courts or the public. Your assertion about lack of standing is an example of Trumpian disinformation, by the way. It's been debunked repeatedly.Wangchung said:A riot to attack the democratic process and peaceful transition of power is still a riot attacking the democratic process and peaceful transition of power. Hillary's actions damned sure were inflammatory. Gore's claims were fraudulent and that was proven in court. Trump's claims never saw an actual day in court in the majority of cases, and not based on a lack of evidence but lack of standing even to bring a case forward at the time. Trump didn't have a complicit media to do his talking for him, he had to make his case directly to the American people, just as he was forced to do his entire presidency.Sam Lowry said:You can disagree with Gore's argument, but his intention was to win in the courts. When that failed, he conceded in a timely manner. Trump's team knew they weren't going to win in court. They used the litigation to create hysteria and pressure the legislatures to deliver a result that wasn't supported by the evidence. That's fundamentally different from what Gore attempted. And if Democrats rioted at Trump's inauguration, it wasn't because Hillary convinced them she could still win or because she was under any such illusions herself. Again, very different from Trump.Wangchung said:I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.Sam Lowry said:Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.Wangchung said:Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.Sam Lowry said:Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.Wangchung said:He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.Sam Lowry said:I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.Wangchung said:Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.Sam Lowry said:I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.Wangchung said:Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.Sam Lowry said:Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.Wangchung said:After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.Sam Lowry said:It's true. They conceded.Wangchung said:
Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.
Brings to mind that time Trump called the Georgia Secretary of State and asked him to "find" just enough votes to declare Trump the winner.
debunkedHuMcK said:GrowlTowel said:Bull***** Algore's fraud was the fact that he cherry picked only a couple of counties for the recount. Had he been honest and recounted the whole state, maybe your opinion would be valid. He went looking only for his votes and did not care about the validity of the election.Sam Lowry said:I think you're saying "fraud" when you really just mean something that's incorrect or that you disagree with. Gore didn't intentionally deceive the courts or the public. Your assertion about lack of standing is an example of Trumpian disinformation, by the way. It's been debunked repeatedly.Wangchung said:A riot to attack the democratic process and peaceful transition of power is still a riot attacking the democratic process and peaceful transition of power. Hillary's actions damned sure were inflammatory. Gore's claims were fraudulent and that was proven in court. Trump's claims never saw an actual day in court in the majority of cases, and not based on a lack of evidence but lack of standing even to bring a case forward at the time. Trump didn't have a complicit media to do his talking for him, he had to make his case directly to the American people, just as he was forced to do his entire presidency.Sam Lowry said:You can disagree with Gore's argument, but his intention was to win in the courts. When that failed, he conceded in a timely manner. Trump's team knew they weren't going to win in court. They used the litigation to create hysteria and pressure the legislatures to deliver a result that wasn't supported by the evidence. That's fundamentally different from what Gore attempted. And if Democrats rioted at Trump's inauguration, it wasn't because Hillary convinced them she could still win or because she was under any such illusions herself. Again, very different from Trump.Wangchung said:I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.Sam Lowry said:Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.Wangchung said:Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.Sam Lowry said:Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.Wangchung said:He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.Sam Lowry said:I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.Wangchung said:Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.Sam Lowry said:I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.Wangchung said:Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.Sam Lowry said:Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.Wangchung said:After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.Sam Lowry said:It's true. They conceded.Wangchung said:
Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.
Brings to mind that time Trump called the Georgia Secretary of State and asked him to "find" just enough votes to declare Trump the winner.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-correction-trump-georgia-votes-election
"I just want to find 11,780 votes." Donald TrumpRawhide said:debunkedHuMcK said:GrowlTowel said:Bull***** Algore's fraud was the fact that he cherry picked only a couple of counties for the recount. Had he been honest and recounted the whole state, maybe your opinion would be valid. He went looking only for his votes and did not care about the validity of the election.Sam Lowry said:I think you're saying "fraud" when you really just mean something that's incorrect or that you disagree with. Gore didn't intentionally deceive the courts or the public. Your assertion about lack of standing is an example of Trumpian disinformation, by the way. It's been debunked repeatedly.Wangchung said:A riot to attack the democratic process and peaceful transition of power is still a riot attacking the democratic process and peaceful transition of power. Hillary's actions damned sure were inflammatory. Gore's claims were fraudulent and that was proven in court. Trump's claims never saw an actual day in court in the majority of cases, and not based on a lack of evidence but lack of standing even to bring a case forward at the time. Trump didn't have a complicit media to do his talking for him, he had to make his case directly to the American people, just as he was forced to do his entire presidency.Sam Lowry said:You can disagree with Gore's argument, but his intention was to win in the courts. When that failed, he conceded in a timely manner. Trump's team knew they weren't going to win in court. They used the litigation to create hysteria and pressure the legislatures to deliver a result that wasn't supported by the evidence. That's fundamentally different from what Gore attempted. And if Democrats rioted at Trump's inauguration, it wasn't because Hillary convinced them she could still win or because she was under any such illusions herself. Again, very different from Trump.Wangchung said:I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.Sam Lowry said:Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.Wangchung said:Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.Sam Lowry said:Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.Wangchung said:He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.Sam Lowry said:I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.Wangchung said:Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.Sam Lowry said:I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.Wangchung said:Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.Sam Lowry said:Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.Wangchung said:After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.Sam Lowry said:It's true. They conceded.Wangchung said:
Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.
Brings to mind that time Trump called the Georgia Secretary of State and asked him to "find" just enough votes to declare Trump the winner.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-correction-trump-georgia-votes-election
Cool, but now tell me where he asked her just to find enough votes or ordered her to. Even the WaPo had to do a retraction.Sam Lowry said:"I just want to find 11,780 votes." Donald TrumpRawhide said:debunkedHuMcK said:GrowlTowel said:Bull***** Algore's fraud was the fact that he cherry picked only a couple of counties for the recount. Had he been honest and recounted the whole state, maybe your opinion would be valid. He went looking only for his votes and did not care about the validity of the election.Sam Lowry said:I think you're saying "fraud" when you really just mean something that's incorrect or that you disagree with. Gore didn't intentionally deceive the courts or the public. Your assertion about lack of standing is an example of Trumpian disinformation, by the way. It's been debunked repeatedly.Wangchung said:A riot to attack the democratic process and peaceful transition of power is still a riot attacking the democratic process and peaceful transition of power. Hillary's actions damned sure were inflammatory. Gore's claims were fraudulent and that was proven in court. Trump's claims never saw an actual day in court in the majority of cases, and not based on a lack of evidence but lack of standing even to bring a case forward at the time. Trump didn't have a complicit media to do his talking for him, he had to make his case directly to the American people, just as he was forced to do his entire presidency.Sam Lowry said:You can disagree with Gore's argument, but his intention was to win in the courts. When that failed, he conceded in a timely manner. Trump's team knew they weren't going to win in court. They used the litigation to create hysteria and pressure the legislatures to deliver a result that wasn't supported by the evidence. That's fundamentally different from what Gore attempted. And if Democrats rioted at Trump's inauguration, it wasn't because Hillary convinced them she could still win or because she was under any such illusions herself. Again, very different from Trump.Wangchung said:I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.Sam Lowry said:Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.Wangchung said:Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.Sam Lowry said:Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.Wangchung said:He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.Sam Lowry said:I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.Wangchung said:Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.Sam Lowry said:I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.Wangchung said:Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.Sam Lowry said:Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.Wangchung said:After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.Sam Lowry said:It's true. They conceded.Wangchung said:
Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.
Brings to mind that time Trump called the Georgia Secretary of State and asked him to "find" just enough votes to declare Trump the winner.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-correction-trump-georgia-votes-election
But you probably believe he told people to drink bleach, so there's that
You're conflating two calls. In one call, Trump personally asked a prosecutor to investigate Fulton County. In a separate call, Trump asked Raffensberger to "find" just enough votes for him to win by a margin of 1, he even specified the number of votes he wanted to "find" down to the last digit.
"The current margin is only 11,779. Brad, I think you agree with that, right? That's something I think everyone -- at least that's' a number that everyone agrees on. But that's the difference in the votes. But we've had hundreds of thousands of ballots that we're able to actually -- we'll get you a pretty accurate number. You don't need much of a number because the number that in theory I lost by, the margin would be 11,779."
"All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
"All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
Dang the laws of evidence. . .HuMcK said:
You're conflating two calls. In one call, Trump personally asked a prosecutor to investigate Fulton County. In a separate call, Trump asked Raffensberger to "find" just enough votes for him to win by a margin of 1, he even specified the number of votes he wanted to "find" down to the last digit.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
And 20 years later, Trump pulls an Algore . . .Sam Lowry said:
"The current margin is only 11,779. Brad, I think you agree with that, right? That's something I think everyone -- at least that's' a number that everyone agrees on. But that's the difference in the votes. But we've had hundreds of thousands of ballots that we're able to actually -- we'll get you a pretty accurate number. You don't need much of a number because the number that in theory I lost by, the margin would be 11,779."
"All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
Ever wonder why everything the left accuses the right of, they did or are currently doing?
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Because you read an Alinsky quote and can't get over how clever it sounds. Doesn't mean it applies here though.GrowlTowel said:And 20 years later, Trump pulls an Algore . . .Sam Lowry said:
"The current margin is only 11,779. Brad, I think you agree with that, right? That's something I think everyone -- at least that's' a number that everyone agrees on. But that's the difference in the votes. But we've had hundreds of thousands of ballots that we're able to actually -- we'll get you a pretty accurate number. You don't need much of a number because the number that in theory I lost by, the margin would be 11,779."
"All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
Ever wonder why everything the left accuses the right of, they did or are currently doing?
I doubt it's ever been more aptly applied anywhere else.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
I realize facts don't mean much in the GOP these days, but let's not forget that 2000 was actually extremely close…unlike 2020.Wangchung said:
I doubt it's ever been more aptly applied anywhere else.
You cannot fake an outrage when you overlook the same behavior. Pretty simple.Sam Lowry said:Because you read an Alinsky quote and can't get over how clever it sounds. Doesn't mean it applies here though.GrowlTowel said:And 20 years later, Trump pulls an Algore . . .Sam Lowry said:
"The current margin is only 11,779. Brad, I think you agree with that, right? That's something I think everyone -- at least that's' a number that everyone agrees on. But that's the difference in the votes. But we've had hundreds of thousands of ballots that we're able to actually -- we'll get you a pretty accurate number. You don't need much of a number because the number that in theory I lost by, the margin would be 11,779."
"All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
Ever wonder why everything the left accuses the right of, they did or are currently doing?
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
That changes nothing about your claims versus the reality of 2000 and Gore's behavior.Sam Lowry said:I realize facts don't mean much in the GOP these days, but let's not forget that 2000 was actually extremely close…unlike 2020.Wangchung said:
I doubt it's ever been more aptly applied anywhere else.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
True. The left didn't cheat as effectively. Should have had more drop boxes. They learned.Sam Lowry said:I realize facts don't mean much in the GOP these days, but let's not forget that 2000 was actually extremely close…unlike 2020.Wangchung said:
I doubt it's ever been more aptly applied anywhere else.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
It's relevant to the question of good faith.Wangchung said:That changes nothing about your claims versus the reality of 2000 and Gore's behavior.Sam Lowry said:I realize facts don't mean much in the GOP these days, but let's not forget that 2000 was actually extremely close…unlike 2020.Wangchung said:
I doubt it's ever been more aptly applied anywhere else.
In a vacuum, maybe, but you're ignoring all other evidence to the contrary in order to grasp at straws like this one to make your case. Evidence that includes what Gore and company actually did.Sam Lowry said:It's relevant to the question of good faith.Wangchung said:That changes nothing about your claims versus the reality of 2000 and Gore's behavior.Sam Lowry said:I realize facts don't mean much in the GOP these days, but let's not forget that 2000 was actually extremely close…unlike 2020.Wangchung said:
I doubt it's ever been more aptly applied anywhere else.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
If purposefully overrunning a police station (twice) and setting up an autonomous zone (once) is not insurrection, then a riot at a overwhelmingly peaceful demonstration in the capitol probably isn't either, particularly when a sitting Senator running for VPOTUS raises money to pay the bail of the groups who seized and burned the police stations.Sam Lowry said:Actually I've been consistent in condemning the 2016 abuses as well. You are the one defending two sets of rules. Every day and with no shame.whiterock said:Good point. Take the 2016 allegations, for instance. They got investigated by the FBI despite being manifest nonsense. It was an outrage they got investigated, but since they were, we now know the whole thing was trumped up fraud. What abuses public trust is refusing to investigate far more credible allegations of election fraud. OVER half the country thinks there was a problem, but lack of an investigation has made the public very wary about their government.Sam Lowry said:If there are legitimate questions about election integrity, they can and will be raised. Abusing the public trust with a sustained campaign of fraud based on trumped-up evidence is a different matter. If people are wary next time, don't blame me. They should be.Doc Holliday said:
If Trump was disqualified from running and you locked up everyone at J6 for years, you would create a scenario far worse than backing off right now.Leftists and Democrats don't threaten the power structure of DC. Populists do. This is why it wouldn't get coverage if the people who carried out J6 also want a giant ever-growing government .Quote:I'm not saying the left wouldn't downplay it. I'm saying you wouldn't. The media would make the same excuses they made for Antifa and BLM, the same ones you're making now, and you'd call them out for being hypocrites. Let's be honest. The J6 committee won't change any opinions because there's nothing to change. You already know they're right. You just don't care because you've decided the left plays dirty so the right needs to play dirty too.Quote:Nah you wouldn't even be aware of the events had it been lefties.Quote:Are you kidding? Ten Benghazi investigations over three years? A year and a half of Hillary's emails? If Democrats had done J6 you'd be in a rubber room right now with a Klonopin drip hanging out your arm.Quote:
You seriously don't even realize if the reverse happened and democrats had done J6, it wouldn't even have turned into a big topic.
Just like nobody in DC gave a damn when they burned downed cities.
Am I wrong?
The J6 crowd has equated anyone critical of big government as a right wing terrorist.
To question election integrity is now off limits thanks to people like you. That's very undemocratic.
Two sets of rules is a sign of an ailing republic.
And you are defending them, earnestly, every day.
Insurrection it was not on J6, not by a country mile, and it is pure disinformation to spin it otherwise. Please do not delude yourself into thinking there is any virtue to the posture you have taken on this point. Quite the opposite.
Disagreement is not evidence of fraud.Wangchung said:In a vacuum, maybe, but you're ignoring all other evidence to the contrary in order to grasp at states like this one to make your case. Evidence that includes what Gore and company actually did.Sam Lowry said:It's relevant to the question of good faith.Wangchung said:That changes nothing about your claims versus the reality of 2000 and Gore's behavior.Sam Lowry said:I realize facts don't mean much in the GOP these days, but let's not forget that 2000 was actually extremely close…unlike 2020.Wangchung said:
I doubt it's ever been more aptly applied anywhere else.
Purposefully overrunning a police station and setting up an autonomous zone is insurrection, and if you're honest I suspect you'll agree. Antifa needs to be called what it is and treated accordingly. Unfortunately that's going to be a tough agenda for Republicans to push now that they've revealed themselves as raging hypocrites on matters of law and order. So thanks for that.whiterock said:If purposefully overrunning a police station (twice) and setting up an autonomous zone (once) is not insurrection, then a riot at a overwhelmingly peaceful demonstration in the capitol probably isn't either, particularly when a sitting Senator running for VPOTUS raises money to pay the bail of the groups who seized and burned the police stations.Sam Lowry said:Actually I've been consistent in condemning the 2016 abuses as well. You are the one defending two sets of rules. Every day and with no shame.whiterock said:Good point. Take the 2016 allegations, for instance. They got investigated by the FBI despite being manifest nonsense. It was an outrage they got investigated, but since they were, we now know the whole thing was trumped up fraud. What abuses public trust is refusing to investigate far more credible allegations of election fraud. OVER half the country thinks there was a problem, but lack of an investigation has made the public very wary about their government.Sam Lowry said:If there are legitimate questions about election integrity, they can and will be raised. Abusing the public trust with a sustained campaign of fraud based on trumped-up evidence is a different matter. If people are wary next time, don't blame me. They should be.Doc Holliday said:
If Trump was disqualified from running and you locked up everyone at J6 for years, you would create a scenario far worse than backing off right now.Leftists and Democrats don't threaten the power structure of DC. Populists do. This is why it wouldn't get coverage if the people who carried out J6 also want a giant ever-growing government .Quote:I'm not saying the left wouldn't downplay it. I'm saying you wouldn't. The media would make the same excuses they made for Antifa and BLM, the same ones you're making now, and you'd call them out for being hypocrites. Let's be honest. The J6 committee won't change any opinions because there's nothing to change. You already know they're right. You just don't care because you've decided the left plays dirty so the right needs to play dirty too.Quote:Nah you wouldn't even be aware of the events had it been lefties.Quote:Are you kidding? Ten Benghazi investigations over three years? A year and a half of Hillary's emails? If Democrats had done J6 you'd be in a rubber room right now with a Klonopin drip hanging out your arm.Quote:
You seriously don't even realize if the reverse happened and democrats had done J6, it wouldn't even have turned into a big topic.
Just like nobody in DC gave a damn when they burned downed cities.
Am I wrong?
The J6 crowd has equated anyone critical of big government as a right wing terrorist.
To question election integrity is now off limits thanks to people like you. That's very undemocratic.
Two sets of rules is a sign of an ailing republic.
And you are defending them, earnestly, every day.
Insurrection it was not on J6, not by a country mile, and it is pure disinformation to spin it otherwise. Please do not delude yourself into thinking there is any virtue to the posture you have taken on this point. Quite the opposite.
Personal agreement isn't any kind of defense of claims the courts found to be without merit.Sam Lowry said:Disagreement is not evidence of fraud.Wangchung said:In a vacuum, maybe, but you're ignoring all other evidence to the contrary in order to grasp at states like this one to make your case. Evidence that includes what Gore and company actually did.Sam Lowry said:It's relevant to the question of good faith.Wangchung said:That changes nothing about your claims versus the reality of 2000 and Gore's behavior.Sam Lowry said:I realize facts don't mean much in the GOP these days, but let's not forget that 2000 was actually extremely close…unlike 2020.Wangchung said:
I doubt it's ever been more aptly applied anywhere else.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Also, those people had weapons. 1/6 peeps did not.Sam Lowry said:Purposefully overrunning a police station and setting up an autonomous zone is insurrection, and if you're honest I suspect you'll agree. Antifa needs to be called what it is and treated accordingly. Unfortunately that's going to be a tough agenda for Republicans to push now that they've revealed themselves as raging hypocrites on matters of law and order. So thanks for that.whiterock said:If purposefully overrunning a police station (twice) and setting up an autonomous zone (once) is not insurrection, then a riot at a overwhelmingly peaceful demonstration in the capitol probably isn't either, particularly when a sitting Senator running for VPOTUS raises money to pay the bail of the groups who seized and burned the police stations.Sam Lowry said:Actually I've been consistent in condemning the 2016 abuses as well. You are the one defending two sets of rules. Every day and with no shame.whiterock said:Good point. Take the 2016 allegations, for instance. They got investigated by the FBI despite being manifest nonsense. It was an outrage they got investigated, but since they were, we now know the whole thing was trumped up fraud. What abuses public trust is refusing to investigate far more credible allegations of election fraud. OVER half the country thinks there was a problem, but lack of an investigation has made the public very wary about their government.Sam Lowry said:If there are legitimate questions about election integrity, they can and will be raised. Abusing the public trust with a sustained campaign of fraud based on trumped-up evidence is a different matter. If people are wary next time, don't blame me. They should be.Doc Holliday said:
If Trump was disqualified from running and you locked up everyone at J6 for years, you would create a scenario far worse than backing off right now.Leftists and Democrats don't threaten the power structure of DC. Populists do. This is why it wouldn't get coverage if the people who carried out J6 also want a giant ever-growing government .Quote:I'm not saying the left wouldn't downplay it. I'm saying you wouldn't. The media would make the same excuses they made for Antifa and BLM, the same ones you're making now, and you'd call them out for being hypocrites. Let's be honest. The J6 committee won't change any opinions because there's nothing to change. You already know they're right. You just don't care because you've decided the left plays dirty so the right needs to play dirty too.Quote:Nah you wouldn't even be aware of the events had it been lefties.Quote:Are you kidding? Ten Benghazi investigations over three years? A year and a half of Hillary's emails? If Democrats had done J6 you'd be in a rubber room right now with a Klonopin drip hanging out your arm.Quote:
You seriously don't even realize if the reverse happened and democrats had done J6, it wouldn't even have turned into a big topic.
Just like nobody in DC gave a damn when they burned downed cities.
Am I wrong?
The J6 crowd has equated anyone critical of big government as a right wing terrorist.
To question election integrity is now off limits thanks to people like you. That's very undemocratic.
Two sets of rules is a sign of an ailing republic.
And you are defending them, earnestly, every day.
Insurrection it was not on J6, not by a country mile, and it is pure disinformation to spin it otherwise. Please do not delude yourself into thinking there is any virtue to the posture you have taken on this point. Quite the opposite.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I'm not defending the merits of Gore's claim.Wangchung said:Personal agreement isn't any kind of defense of claims the courts found to be without merit.Sam Lowry said:Disagreement is not evidence of fraud.Wangchung said:In a vacuum, maybe, but you're ignoring all other evidence to the contrary in order to grasp at states like this one to make your case. Evidence that includes what Gore and company actually did.Sam Lowry said:It's relevant to the question of good faith.Wangchung said:That changes nothing about your claims versus the reality of 2000 and Gore's behavior.Sam Lowry said:I realize facts don't mean much in the GOP these days, but let's not forget that 2000 was actually extremely close…unlike 2020.Wangchung said:
I doubt it's ever been more aptly applied anywhere else.
Yes they did.GrowlTowel said:Also, those people had weapons. 1/6 peeps did not.Sam Lowry said:Purposefully overrunning a police station and setting up an autonomous zone is insurrection, and if you're honest I suspect you'll agree. Antifa needs to be called what it is and treated accordingly. Unfortunately that's going to be a tough agenda for Republicans to push now that they've revealed themselves as raging hypocrites on matters of law and order. So thanks for that.whiterock said:If purposefully overrunning a police station (twice) and setting up an autonomous zone (once) is not insurrection, then a riot at a overwhelmingly peaceful demonstration in the capitol probably isn't either, particularly when a sitting Senator running for VPOTUS raises money to pay the bail of the groups who seized and burned the police stations.Sam Lowry said:Actually I've been consistent in condemning the 2016 abuses as well. You are the one defending two sets of rules. Every day and with no shame.whiterock said:Good point. Take the 2016 allegations, for instance. They got investigated by the FBI despite being manifest nonsense. It was an outrage they got investigated, but since they were, we now know the whole thing was trumped up fraud. What abuses public trust is refusing to investigate far more credible allegations of election fraud. OVER half the country thinks there was a problem, but lack of an investigation has made the public very wary about their government.Sam Lowry said:If there are legitimate questions about election integrity, they can and will be raised. Abusing the public trust with a sustained campaign of fraud based on trumped-up evidence is a different matter. If people are wary next time, don't blame me. They should be.Doc Holliday said:
If Trump was disqualified from running and you locked up everyone at J6 for years, you would create a scenario far worse than backing off right now.Leftists and Democrats don't threaten the power structure of DC. Populists do. This is why it wouldn't get coverage if the people who carried out J6 also want a giant ever-growing government .Quote:I'm not saying the left wouldn't downplay it. I'm saying you wouldn't. The media would make the same excuses they made for Antifa and BLM, the same ones you're making now, and you'd call them out for being hypocrites. Let's be honest. The J6 committee won't change any opinions because there's nothing to change. You already know they're right. You just don't care because you've decided the left plays dirty so the right needs to play dirty too.Quote:Nah you wouldn't even be aware of the events had it been lefties.Quote:Are you kidding? Ten Benghazi investigations over three years? A year and a half of Hillary's emails? If Democrats had done J6 you'd be in a rubber room right now with a Klonopin drip hanging out your arm.Quote:
You seriously don't even realize if the reverse happened and democrats had done J6, it wouldn't even have turned into a big topic.
Just like nobody in DC gave a damn when they burned downed cities.
Am I wrong?
The J6 crowd has equated anyone critical of big government as a right wing terrorist.
To question election integrity is now off limits thanks to people like you. That's very undemocratic.
Two sets of rules is a sign of an ailing republic.
And you are defending them, earnestly, every day.
Insurrection it was not on J6, not by a country mile, and it is pure disinformation to spin it otherwise. Please do not delude yourself into thinking there is any virtue to the posture you have taken on this point. Quite the opposite.
Only thanks to Al GoreWangchung said:
Maybe someone under 40 years old will believe your narrative of a graceful concession by Gore, but the rest of us had televisions and internet access.
Good one.DioNoZeus said:Only thanks to Al GoreWangchung said:
Maybe someone under 40 years old will believe your narrative of a graceful concession by Gore, but the rest of us had televisions and internet access.
Once again, show me he speficially asked someone to just find more votes for himHuMcK said:
You're conflating two calls. In one call, Trump personally asked a prosecutor to investigate Fulton County. In a separate call, Trump asked Raffensberger to "find" just enough votes for him to win by a margin of 1, he even specified the number of votes he wanted to "find" down to the last digit.
Still, didn't ask him Samuel.Sam Lowry said:
"The current margin is only 11,779. Brad, I think you agree with that, right? That's something I think everyone -- at least that's' a number that everyone agrees on. But that's the difference in the votes. But we've had hundreds of thousands of ballots that we're able to actually -- we'll get you a pretty accurate number. You don't need much of a number because the number that in theory I lost by, the margin would be 11,779."
"All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
Do you also think Trump told people to drink bleach?
WaPo wouldn't have retracted if they didn't need to.
But why am I surprised at your complete dishonestly? Even after you said cops didn't let people into the Capitol and I provided video to the contrary, you still tried to argue it.
Whey can't you just be man enough to admit when you're wrong and move on to the BS you want spew?
DioNoZeus said:Only thanks to Al GoreWangchung said:
Maybe someone under 40 years old will believe your narrative of a graceful concession by Gore, but the rest of us had televisions and internet access.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
You're the one being dishonest here, as you were in the other instance. Trump asked them to find enough votes for the win. It's right there on the audio and in the transcript.Rawhide said:Still, didn't ask him Samuel.Sam Lowry said:
"The current margin is only 11,779. Brad, I think you agree with that, right? That's something I think everyone -- at least that's' a number that everyone agrees on. But that's the difference in the votes. But we've had hundreds of thousands of ballots that we're able to actually -- we'll get you a pretty accurate number. You don't need much of a number because the number that in theory I lost by, the margin would be 11,779."
"All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
Do you also think Trump told people to drink bleach?
WaPo wouldn't have retracted if they didn't need to.
But why am I surprised at your complete dishonestly? Even after you said cops didn't let people into the Capitol and I provided video to the contrary, you still tried to argue it.
Whey can't you just be man enough to admit when you're wrong and move on to the BS you want spew?
Your WaPo retraction is completely off point. It has to do with another conversation where he supposedly said "find the fraud" but he actually said "find the dishonesty" or something like that. It's an incredibly desperate (and dishonest) defense on your part.
I've heard the call and read the transcript and never heard or saw where Trump asked them to just find enough votes.Sam Lowry said:You're the one being dishonest here, as you were in the other instance. Trump asked them to find enough votes for the win. It's right there on the audio and in the transcript.Rawhide said:Still, didn't ask him Samuel.Sam Lowry said:
"The current margin is only 11,779. Brad, I think you agree with that, right? That's something I think everyone -- at least that's' a number that everyone agrees on. But that's the difference in the votes. But we've had hundreds of thousands of ballots that we're able to actually -- we'll get you a pretty accurate number. You don't need much of a number because the number that in theory I lost by, the margin would be 11,779."
"All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
Do you also think Trump told people to drink bleach?
WaPo wouldn't have retracted if they didn't need to.
But why am I surprised at your complete dishonestly? Even after you said cops didn't let people into the Capitol and I provided video to the contrary, you still tried to argue it.
Whey can't you just be man enough to admit when you're wrong and move on to the BS you want spew?
Your WaPo retraction is completely off point. It has to do with another conversation where he supposedly said "find the fraud" but he actually said "find the dishonesty" or something like that. This is an incredibly desperate (and dishonest) defense on your part.
Quit lying
The simple answer is for him to post the transcript so we can all read it vs. what people claim was said ... the same people that parroted the Russian hoax.Rawhide said:I've heard the call and read the transcript and never heard or saw where Trump asked them to just find enough votes.Sam Lowry said:You're the one being dishonest here, as you were in the other instance. Trump asked them to find enough votes for the win. It's right there on the audio and in the transcript.Rawhide said:Still, didn't ask him Samuel.Sam Lowry said:
"The current margin is only 11,779. Brad, I think you agree with that, right? That's something I think everyone -- at least that's' a number that everyone agrees on. But that's the difference in the votes. But we've had hundreds of thousands of ballots that we're able to actually -- we'll get you a pretty accurate number. You don't need much of a number because the number that in theory I lost by, the margin would be 11,779."
"All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
Do you also think Trump told people to drink bleach?
WaPo wouldn't have retracted if they didn't need to.
But why am I surprised at your complete dishonestly? Even after you said cops didn't let people into the Capitol and I provided video to the contrary, you still tried to argue it.
Whey can't you just be man enough to admit when you're wrong and move on to the BS you want spew?
Your WaPo retraction is completely off point. It has to do with another conversation where he supposedly said "find the fraud" but he actually said "find the dishonesty" or something like that. This is an incredibly desperate (and dishonest) defense on your part.
Quit lying
Pregnant chads, hanging chads--if that stuff had happened in any states during the Trump/Biden election, the Trump team would have been screaming bloody murder w/ the help of Babyface Tuckums and Hannity.Sam Lowry said:I realize facts don't mean much in the GOP these days, but let's not forget that 2000 was actually extremely close…unlike 2020.Wangchung said:
I doubt it's ever been more aptly applied anywhere else.
Ironically, the train wreck of Florida's voting equipment was what caused lots of states to buy reliable equipment from Dominion and other companies that designed equipment designed to reduce confusion.
I hope one outcome from this hearing is that the companies whose machines were lied about repeatedly by rightwing media and rightwing politicians will collect a payoff big enough to make "news" outlets like Fox think long and hard before reporting lies in the future.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trial-date-set-defamation-suit-against-fox-news-over-us-election-claims-2022-04-12/
I guess you forgot about this:J.B.Katz said:Pregnant chads, hanging chads--if that stuff had happened in any states during the Trump/Biden election, the Trump team would have been screaming bloody murder w/ the help of Babyface Tuckums and Hannity.Sam Lowry said:I realize facts don't mean much in the GOP these days, but let's not forget that 2000 was actually extremely close…unlike 2020.Wangchung said:
I doubt it's ever been more aptly applied anywhere else.
Ironically, the train wreck of Florida's voting equipment was what caused lots of states to buy reliable equipment from Dominion and other companies that designed equipment designed to reduce confusion.
I hope one outcome from this hearing is that the companies whose machines were lied about repeatedly by rightwing media and rightwing politicians will collect a payoff big enough to make "news" outlets like Fox think long and hard before reporting lies in the future.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trial-date-set-defamation-suit-against-fox-news-over-us-election-claims-2022-04-12/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-when-russian-hackers-targeted-the-u-s-election-infrastructure/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-voting-machines-in-the-u-s-are-easy-targets-for-hackers/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-vulnerabilities-of-our-voting-machines/
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/how-electronic-voting-machines-could-hack-your-vote/
Next?