Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Of course not. There is always some imperfection and flaws.

A much better question is "is there material flaws in the election" ?

---

Well, we have video proof of 'handlers' walking ballots in the middle of the night across state lines

We know there are several states which changed their election procedures in mid-to-late 2020 without proper legislature approval

We know that the majority of challenges from Trump were rejected without review (on the claim he and other plaintiffs 'lacked standing')

We know that forensic analysts in multiple states have said historic lows in rejection of mail-in ballots were unlikely to be valid practices

We know that Trump actually increased his share of the overall popular vote percentage from 2016 to 2020, including significant increases in minority share, yet Biden allegedly won because third-party share of the vote dropped from 6.1% of all votes in 2016 to 1.9%, an anomaly inconsistent with Biden's known levels of support from 2019-2020 polling

Nothing to see here, hmm?

---

The key word is "material"

You know who has no problem with the Georgia results? ..... Georgia

---

Actually, the key word by now is 'duck'.

Just because its Trump does not mean we pretend the election was clean.

---

Correct-if we think there was fraud that changed the result, we present evidence of said fraud. Three years later and that has not happened.

---

How much fraud is acceptable? What is the probability that Trump's lead in five swing states would begin to dissipate all within a half hour of each other?

---

Rural areas lean heavily R and report much sooner than Urban areas which lean D. This is no surprise and happens most every election won by a D. An election won by an R in a swing State generally leads wire to wire.

---

I am sorry. Five states in different time zones. All leads rapidly dissipated within minutes of each other. I don't buy it.

---

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-ap-fact-check-joe-biden-donald-trump-technology-49a24edd6d10888dbad61689c24b05a5

No one can make you understand, because you clearly do not want to. Just ask Bill Barr though.

---

Oh, Frankie, if the AP says it, then it must be true. In other news, masks are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory infections. LOL!

---

You so silly

Keyser Soze said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Of course not. There is always some imperfection and flaws.

A much better question is "is there material flaws in the election" ?

---

Well, we have video proof of 'handlers' walking ballots in the middle of the night across state lines

We know there are several states which changed their election procedures in mid-to-late 2020 without proper legislature approval

We know that the majority of challenges from Trump were rejected without review (on the claim he and other plaintiffs 'lacked standing')

We know that forensic analysts in multiple states have said historic lows in rejection of mail-in ballots were unlikely to be valid practices

We know that Trump actually increased his share of the overall popular vote percentage from 2016 to 2020, including significant increases in minority share, yet Biden allegedly won because third-party share of the vote dropped from 6.1% of all votes in 2016 to 1.9%, an anomaly inconsistent with Biden's known levels of support from 2019-2020 polling

Nothing to see here, hmm?

---

The key word is "material"

You know who has no problem with the Georgia results? ..... Georgia

---

Actually, the key word by now is 'duck'.

Just because its Trump does not mean we pretend the election was clean.

---

Correct-if we think there was fraud that changed the result, we present evidence of said fraud. Three years later and that has not happened.

---

How much fraud is acceptable? What is the probability that Trump's lead in five swing states would begin to dissipate all within a half hour of each other?

---

Rural areas lean heavily R and report much sooner than Urban areas which lean D. This is no surprise and happens most every election won by a D. An election won by an R in a swing State generally leads wire to wire.

---

I am sorry. Five states in different time zones. All leads rapidly dissipated within minutes of each other. I don't buy it.

---

Yes. And Oswald was working for the Russian and the CIA invented crack

---

Meh. Was never a fan of Oliver Stone.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The one lacking facts seems to be you, Frank.

---

Well your group has had three years to provide facts but has come up with squat, so maybe you should try again.

---

Says the man who ignores all that has been dug up.

No concern about the President based on 'Weekend at Bernies'?

---

Big concern about that.

How does Biden's competency impact whether Trump and minions believed there was rampant vote fraud-the subject we are discussing?

---

Do you seriously believe 81 million real voters cast a valid vote for Joe Biden in 2020?

---

No.

I believe 81 million voters cast votes against Donald Trump.

Voter turnout was high because: (1) Trump is a polarizing candidate and (2) we made it much easier to vote.

Your claim was investigated by courts, legislators and DOJ investigators all under GOP control. There have been numerous recounts also led by the GOP. In Arizona it was done by people willing to say almost anything about the election.

The results: zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Trump's attorneys have copped to the falsity of their statements. Every insider who has written about it says the same thing.

Get a clue.

---

lol... Trump didn't change when he was in the White House, if someone thought Trump was an a*hole in 2020, they thought he was an a*hole in 2016, but those voters didn't turn out in massive numbers to vote against him 4 years earlier? Yeah okay.

Maybe if the vote count was stopped in the middle of the night in 2016, perhaps Hillary Clinton would've received 81 million votes. You know, being the first women and all.

---

LOL is right.

1) Voting was much easier in 2020
2) people who gave Trump the benefit of the doubt in 2016 changed their minds when they realized the office would not change him
3) Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 also.
4) You, Trump and Giuliani still have no evidence of what you are talking about. At least Rudy admits it.

---

Cool story. If you were Pinocchio, you'd have enough wood to last through December.

---

What evidence of fraud do you believe exists? Or do you believe it is sufficient to just pronounce yourself correct?

---

You reject anything that you don't want to be true, so that 'pronounce yourself correct' line more accurately applies to you, son.

And I don't owe you anything. This is a forum, you are an ass on politics, and those are the ground rules for our conversations.

---

No you don't "owe me anything." But if you want to have any credibility with sentinent beings when you say "there was election fraud" and somebody says "what evidence do you have of that assertion?" you would provide it.

Discssing the 2020 election with deniers is like talking to a wall. No evidence, no logic, refusal to recognize that those who would have had access to the evidence if it existed say there is nothing. Can't recognize that even heavily partisan groups who desparately wanted to find evidence of fraud could not do so. Believing that somehow in Georgia George Soros was able to get Biden the win but not Abrams.

It wol be amusing if not so dangerous. Cult members being led around by their noses all the while thinking they have the real scoop.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The one lacking facts seems to be you, Frank.

---

Well your group has had three years to provide facts but has come up with squat, so maybe you should try again.

---

Says the man who ignores all that has been dug up.

No concern about the President based on 'Weekend at Bernies'?

---

Big concern about that.

How does Biden's competency impact whether Trump and minions believed there was rampant vote fraud-the subject we are discussing?

---

Do you seriously believe 81 million real voters cast a valid vote for Joe Biden in 2020?

---

No.

I believe 81 million voters cast votes against Donald Trump.

Voter turnout was high because: (1) Trump is a polarizing candidate and (2) we made it much easier to vote.

Your claim was investigated by courts, legislators and DOJ investigators all under GOP control. There have been numerous recounts also led by the GOP. In Arizona it was done by people willing to say almost anything about the election.

The results: zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Trump's attorneys have copped to the falsity of their statements. Every insider who has written about it says the same thing.

Get a clue.

---

lol... Trump didn't change when he was in the White House, if someone thought Trump was an a*hole in 2020, they thought he was an a*hole in 2016, but those voters didn't turn out in massive numbers to vote against him 4 years earlier? Yeah okay.

Maybe if the vote count was stopped in the middle of the night in 2016, perhaps Hillary Clinton would've received 81 million votes. You know, being the first women and all.

---

LOL is right.

1) Voting was much easier in 2020
2) people who gave Trump the benefit of the doubt in 2016 changed their minds when they realized the office would not change him
3) Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 also.
4) You, Trump and Giuliani still have no evidence of what you are talking about. At least Rudy admits it.

---

Cool story. If you were Pinocchio, you'd have enough wood to last through December.

---

What evidence of fraud do you believe exists? Or do you believe it is sufficient to just pronounce yourself correct?

---

You reject anything that you don't want to be true, so that 'pronounce yourself correct' line more accurately applies to you, son.

And I don't owe you anything. This is a forum, you are an ass on politics, and those are the ground rules for our conversations.

---

No you don't "owe me anything." But if you want to have any credibility with sentinent beings when you say "there was election fraud" and somebody says "what evidence do you have of that assertion?" you would provide it.

Discssing the 2020 election with deniers is like talking to a wall. No evidence, no logic, refusal to recognize that those who would have had access to the evidence if it existed say there is nothing. Can't recognize that even heavily partisan groups who desparately wanted to find evidence of fraud could not do so. Believing that somehow in Georgia George Soros was able to get Biden the win but not Abrams.

It wol be amusing if not so dangerous. Cult members being led around by their noses all the while thinking they have the real scoop.

---

I already reminded you, no one is changing any opinions. This is mental recreation, and you still somehow screw it up.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The one lacking facts seems to be you, Frank.

---

Well your group has had three years to provide facts but has come up with squat, so maybe you should try again.

---

Says the man who ignores all that has been dug up.

No concern about the President based on 'Weekend at Bernies'?

---

Big concern about that.

How does Biden's competency impact whether Trump and minions believed there was rampant vote fraud-the subject we are discussing?

---

Do you seriously believe 81 million real voters cast a valid vote for Joe Biden in 2020?

---

No.

I believe 81 million voters cast votes against Donald Trump.

Voter turnout was high because: (1) Trump is a polarizing candidate and (2) we made it much easier to vote.

Your claim was investigated by courts, legislators and DOJ investigators all under GOP control. There have been numerous recounts also led by the GOP. In Arizona it was done by people willing to say almost anything about the election.

The results: zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Trump's attorneys have copped to the falsity of their statements. Every insider who has written about it says the same thing.

Get a clue.

---

lol... Trump didn't change when he was in the White House, if someone thought Trump was an a*hole in 2020, they thought he was an a*hole in 2016, but those voters didn't turn out in massive numbers to vote against him 4 years earlier? Yeah okay.

Maybe if the vote count was stopped in the middle of the night in 2016, perhaps Hillary Clinton would've received 81 million votes. You know, being the first women and all.

---

LOL is right.

1) Voting was much easier in 2020
2) people who gave Trump the benefit of the doubt in 2016 changed their minds when they realized the office would not change him
3) Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 also.
4) You, Trump and Giuliani still have no evidence of what you are talking about. At least Rudy admits it.

---

Cool story. If you were Pinocchio, you'd have enough wood to last through December.

---

What evidence of fraud do you believe exists? Or do you believe it is sufficient to just pronounce yourself correct?

---

You reject anything that you don't want to be true, so that 'pronounce yourself correct' line more accurately applies to you, son.

And I don't owe you anything. This is a forum, you are an ass on politics, and those are the ground rules for our conversations.

---

No you don't "owe me anything." But if you want to have any credibility with sentinent beings when you say "there was election fraud" and somebody says "what evidence do you have of that assertion?" you would provide it.

Discssing the 2020 election with deniers is like talking to a wall. No evidence, no logic, refusal to recognize that those who would have had access to the evidence if it existed say there is nothing. Can't recognize that even heavily partisan groups who desparately wanted to find evidence of fraud could not do so. Believing that somehow in Georgia George Soros was able to get Biden the win but not Abrams.

It wol be amusing if not so dangerous. Cult members being led around by their noses all the while thinking they have the real scoop.

---

I already reminded you, no one is changing any opinions. This is mental recreation, and you still somehow screw it up.

---

He (She/Xir/Xi) is a typical liberal killjoy. Frances should really lighten up.

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Of course not. There is always some imperfection and flaws.

A much better question is "is there material flaws in the election" ?

---

Well, we have video proof of 'handlers' walking ballots in the middle of the night across state lines

We know there are several states which changed their election procedures in mid-to-late 2020 without proper legislature approval

We know that the majority of challenges from Trump were rejected without review (on the claim he and other plaintiffs 'lacked standing')

We know that forensic analysts in multiple states have said historic lows in rejection of mail-in ballots were unlikely to be valid practices

We know that Trump actually increased his share of the overall popular vote percentage from 2016 to 2020, including significant increases in minority share, yet Biden allegedly won because third-party share of the vote dropped from 6.1% of all votes in 2016 to 1.9%, an anomaly inconsistent with Biden's known levels of support from 2019-2020 polling

Nothing to see here, hmm?

---

The key word is "material"

You know who has no problem with the Georgia results? ..... Georgia

---

Actually, the key word by now is 'duck'.

Just because its Trump does not mean we pretend the election was clean.

---

Correct-if we think there was fraud that changed the result, we present evidence of said fraud. Three years later and that has not happened.

---

How much fraud is acceptable? What is the probability that Trump's lead in five swing states would begin to dissipate all within a half hour of each other?

---

Rural areas lean heavily R and report much sooner than Urban areas which lean D. This is no surprise and happens most every election won by a D. An election won by an R in a swing State generally leads wire to wire.

---

I am sorry. Five states in different time zones. All leads rapidly dissipated within minutes of each other. I don't buy it.

---

Yes. And Oswald was working for the Russian and the CIA invented crack

---

Meh. Was never a fan of Oliver Stone.

---

Not a fan either. JFK was a conspiracy guy's wet dream. Platoon was very solid.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The one lacking facts seems to be you, Frank.

---

Well your group has had three years to provide facts but has come up with squat, so maybe you should try again.

---

Says the man who ignores all that has been dug up.

No concern about the President based on 'Weekend at Bernies'?

---

Big concern about that.

How does Biden's competency impact whether Trump and minions believed there was rampant vote fraud-the subject we are discussing?

---

Do you seriously believe 81 million real voters cast a valid vote for Joe Biden in 2020?

---

No.

I believe 81 million voters cast votes against Donald Trump.

Voter turnout was high because: (1) Trump is a polarizing candidate and (2) we made it much easier to vote.

Your claim was investigated by courts, legislators and DOJ investigators all under GOP control. There have been numerous recounts also led by the GOP. In Arizona it was done by people willing to say almost anything about the election.

The results: zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Trump's attorneys have copped to the falsity of their statements. Every insider who has written about it says the same thing.

Get a clue.

---

lol... Trump didn't change when he was in the White House, if someone thought Trump was an a*hole in 2020, they thought he was an a*hole in 2016, but those voters didn't turn out in massive numbers to vote against him 4 years earlier? Yeah okay.

Maybe if the vote count was stopped in the middle of the night in 2016, perhaps Hillary Clinton would've received 81 million votes. You know, being the first women and all.

---

LOL is right.

1) Voting was much easier in 2020
2) people who gave Trump the benefit of the doubt in 2016 changed their minds when they realized the office would not change him
3) Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 also.
4) You, Trump and Giuliani still have no evidence of what you are talking about. At least Rudy admits it.

---

1) It's always been easy to vote.
2) Are you really trying to say that the Trump haters stayed home and didn't vote for the first woman president because they were hoping Trump would change once in he was in the White House. Wow, your mental gymnastics is Olympic worthy.
3) Learn civics. Popular vote doesn't matter
4) So let me ask you, do you believe that Trump was an illegitimate president?

Rawhide said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The one lacking facts seems to be you, Frank.

---

Well your group has had three years to provide facts but has come up with squat, so maybe you should try again.

---

Says the man who ignores all that has been dug up.

No concern about the President based on 'Weekend at Bernies'?

---

Big concern about that.

How does Biden's competency impact whether Trump and minions believed there was rampant vote fraud-the subject we are discussing?

---

Do you seriously believe 81 million real voters cast a valid vote for Joe Biden in 2020?

---

No.

I believe 81 million voters cast votes against Donald Trump.

Voter turnout was high because: (1) Trump is a polarizing candidate and (2) we made it much easier to vote.

Your claim was investigated by courts, legislators and DOJ investigators all under GOP control. There have been numerous recounts also led by the GOP. In Arizona it was done by people willing to say almost anything about the election.

The results: zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Trump's attorneys have copped to the falsity of their statements. Every insider who has written about it says the same thing.

Get a clue.

---

lol... Trump didn't change when he was in the White House, if someone thought Trump was an a*hole in 2020, they thought he was an a*hole in 2016, but those voters didn't turn out in massive numbers to vote against him 4 years earlier? Yeah okay.

Maybe if the vote count was stopped in the middle of the night in 2016, perhaps Hillary Clinton would've received 81 million votes. You know, being the first women and all.

---

LOL is right.

1) Voting was much easier in 2020
2) people who gave Trump the benefit of the doubt in 2016 changed their minds when they realized the office would not change him
3) Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 also.
4) You, Trump and Giuliani still have no evidence of what you are talking about. At least Rudy admits it.

---

1) It's always been easy to vote.
2) Are you really trying to say that the Trump haters stayed home and didn't vote for the first woman president because they were hoping Trump would change once in he was in the White House. Wow, your mental gymnastics is Olympic worthy.
3) Learn civics. Popular vote doesn't matter
4) So let me ask you, do you believe that Trump was an illegitimate president?

---

You can probably ease up on the condescension. Context is important. The discussion I am involved in is based on the false premise that there was significant fraud in the 2020 election, enough fraud to make Trump's attempt to prevent Congress from accepting the votes of the electors certified to be the true slates by GOP state legislatures a protest rather than a criminal enterprise.

The response to my position is led by OldBear 83. Apparently, I am either an imbecile or a brilliant operative hellbent on destroying America. In response to my point that for Trump's attempts at de-certification to be a "protest" there needs to be some basis for the premise; something that would indicate fraud other than Trump's very large and constantly moving mouth OldBear deploys the airtight logic he so prides himself on. To wit: (1) there was a large increase in turnout from 2016 until 2020; (2) Joe Biden isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and (3) Hunter Biden is a d-bag. The guy with the fake Asian name adds that Trump was leading and then he wasn't.

Not exactly sure how those things overcome the fact that Trump's own attorneys, his attorney general, and his deputy White House counsel have have admitted the lack of evidence as to fraud. Or that the state legislatures who seated the elector slates were GOP, filled with Trump supporters and fully informed of the allegations. Or that the Trump campaign failed to come up with anything resembling evidence in over 30 attempts in court. Or that GOP legislatures in the several states empowered partisan hacks to find the mysterious evidence and not even the hacks could not bring themselves to to report anything unusual.

In that context the only objective fact is increased turnout in 2020 (66% of the electorate) v 2020 (61%). Voting may have been easy before but it was substantially easier in 2020. The GOP fought against easing restrictions based on COVID but lost almost every time. Like any market, lower cost means increased demand.

Yes, people changed their mind about Trump. Turns out if you act like an a-hole 24/7/365, some people will rethink their choice.

I pointed out that Trump lost the popular vote both times because it makes clear that the election results were consistent rather than the aberration Trumpians characterize them as.

I don't see how it relates to the discussion, but no I don't think Trump was "illegitimate."

And still there is no evidence or election to the election fraud story. People who mouth it are either intellectually dishonest or idiots. Sorry for the bluntness but it is the unarguable truth.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The one lacking facts seems to be you, Frank.

---

Well your group has had three years to provide facts but has come up with squat, so maybe you should try again.

---

Says the man who ignores all that has been dug up.

No concern about the President based on 'Weekend at Bernies'?

---

Big concern about that.

How does Biden's competency impact whether Trump and minions believed there was rampant vote fraud-the subject we are discussing?

---

Do you seriously believe 81 million real voters cast a valid vote for Joe Biden in 2020?

---

No.

I believe 81 million voters cast votes against Donald Trump.

Voter turnout was high because: (1) Trump is a polarizing candidate and (2) we made it much easier to vote.

Your claim was investigated by courts, legislators and DOJ investigators all under GOP control. There have been numerous recounts also led by the GOP. In Arizona it was done by people willing to say almost anything about the election.

The results: zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Trump's attorneys have copped to the falsity of their statements. Every insider who has written about it says the same thing.

Get a clue.

---

lol... Trump didn't change when he was in the White House, if someone thought Trump was an a*hole in 2020, they thought he was an a*hole in 2016, but those voters didn't turn out in massive numbers to vote against him 4 years earlier? Yeah okay.

Maybe if the vote count was stopped in the middle of the night in 2016, perhaps Hillary Clinton would've received 81 million votes. You know, being the first women and all.

---

LOL is right.

1) Voting was much easier in 2020
2) people who gave Trump the benefit of the doubt in 2016 changed their minds when they realized the office would not change him
3) Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 also.
4) You, Trump and Giuliani still have no evidence of what you are talking about. At least Rudy admits it.

---

1) It's always been easy to vote.
2) Are you really trying to say that the Trump haters stayed home and didn't vote for the first woman president because they were hoping Trump would change once in he was in the White House. Wow, your mental gymnastics is Olympic worthy.
3) Learn civics. Popular vote doesn't matter
4) So let me ask you, do you believe that Trump was an illegitimate president?

---

You can probably ease up on the condescension. Context is important. The discussion I am involved in is based on the false premise that there was significant fraud in the 2020 election, enough fraud to make Trump's attempt to prevent Congress from accepting the votes of the electors certified to be the true slates by GOP state legislatures a protest rather than a criminal enterprise.

The response to my position is led by OldBear 83. Apparently, I am either an imbecile or a brilliant operative hellbent on destroying America. In response to my point that for Trump's attempts at de-certification to be a "protest" there needs to be some basis for the premise; something that would indicate fraud other than Trump's very large and constantly moving mouth OldBear deploys the airtight logic he so prides himself on. To wit: (1) there was a large increase in turnout from 2016 until 2020; (2) Joe Biden isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and (3) Hunter Biden is a d-bag. The guy with the fake Asian name adds that Trump was leading and then he wasn't.

Not exactly sure how those things overcome the fact that Trump's own attorneys, his attorney general, and his deputy White House counsel have have admitted the lack of evidence as to fraud. Or that the state legislatures who seated the elector slates were GOP, filled with Trump supporters and fully informed of the allegations. Or that the Trump campaign failed to come up with anything resembling evidence in over 30 attempts in court. Or that GOP legislatures in the several states empowered partisan hacks to find the mysterious evidence and not even the hacks could not bring themselves to to report anything unusual.

In that context the only objective fact is increased turnout in 2020 (66% of the electorate) v 2020 (61%). Voting may have been easy before but it was substantially easier in 2020. The GOP fought against easing restrictions based on COVID but lost almost every time. Like any market, lower cost means increased demand.

Yes, people changed their mind about Trump. Turns out if you act like an a-hole 24/7/365, some people will rethink their choice.

I pointed out that Trump lost the popular vote both times because it makes clear that the election results were consistent rather than the aberration Trumpians characterize them as.

I don't see how it relates to the discussion, but no I don't think Trump was "illegitimate."

And still there is no evidence or election to the election fraud story. People who mouth it are either intellectually dishonest or idiots. Sorry for the bluntness but it is the unarguable truth.

---

sorry.. i tried but i couldnt read your war and peace length post

Is there anything important in there i need to know other than you dont like trump and you think people who voted for him are stupid?

4th and Inches said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The one lacking facts seems to be you, Frank.

---

Well your group has had three years to provide facts but has come up with squat, so maybe you should try again.

---

Says the man who ignores all that has been dug up.

No concern about the President based on 'Weekend at Bernies'?

---

Big concern about that.

How does Biden's competency impact whether Trump and minions believed there was rampant vote fraud-the subject we are discussing?

---

Do you seriously believe 81 million real voters cast a valid vote for Joe Biden in 2020?

---

No.

I believe 81 million voters cast votes against Donald Trump.

Voter turnout was high because: (1) Trump is a polarizing candidate and (2) we made it much easier to vote.

Your claim was investigated by courts, legislators and DOJ investigators all under GOP control. There have been numerous recounts also led by the GOP. In Arizona it was done by people willing to say almost anything about the election.

The results: zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Trump's attorneys have copped to the falsity of their statements. Every insider who has written about it says the same thing.

Get a clue.

---

lol... Trump didn't change when he was in the White House, if someone thought Trump was an a*hole in 2020, they thought he was an a*hole in 2016, but those voters didn't turn out in massive numbers to vote against him 4 years earlier? Yeah okay.

Maybe if the vote count was stopped in the middle of the night in 2016, perhaps Hillary Clinton would've received 81 million votes. You know, being the first women and all.

---

LOL is right.

1) Voting was much easier in 2020
2) people who gave Trump the benefit of the doubt in 2016 changed their minds when they realized the office would not change him
3) Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 also.
4) You, Trump and Giuliani still have no evidence of what you are talking about. At least Rudy admits it.

---

1) It's always been easy to vote.
2) Are you really trying to say that the Trump haters stayed home and didn't vote for the first woman president because they were hoping Trump would change once in he was in the White House. Wow, your mental gymnastics is Olympic worthy.
3) Learn civics. Popular vote doesn't matter
4) So let me ask you, do you believe that Trump was an illegitimate president?

---

You can probably ease up on the condescension. Context is important. The discussion I am involved in is based on the false premise that there was significant fraud in the 2020 election, enough fraud to make Trump's attempt to prevent Congress from accepting the votes of the electors certified to be the true slates by GOP state legislatures a protest rather than a criminal enterprise.

The response to my position is led by OldBear 83. Apparently, I am either an imbecile or a brilliant operative hellbent on destroying America. In response to my point that for Trump's attempts at de-certification to be a "protest" there needs to be some basis for the premise; something that would indicate fraud other than Trump's very large and constantly moving mouth OldBear deploys the airtight logic he so prides himself on. To wit: (1) there was a large increase in turnout from 2016 until 2020; (2) Joe Biden isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and (3) Hunter Biden is a d-bag. The guy with the fake Asian name adds that Trump was leading and then he wasn't.

Not exactly sure how those things overcome the fact that Trump's own attorneys, his attorney general, and his deputy White House counsel have have admitted the lack of evidence as to fraud. Or that the state legislatures who seated the elector slates were GOP, filled with Trump supporters and fully informed of the allegations. Or that the Trump campaign failed to come up with anything resembling evidence in over 30 attempts in court. Or that GOP legislatures in the several states empowered partisan hacks to find the mysterious evidence and not even the hacks could not bring themselves to to report anything unusual.

In that context the only objective fact is increased turnout in 2020 (66% of the electorate) v 2020 (61%). Voting may have been easy before but it was substantially easier in 2020. The GOP fought against easing restrictions based on COVID but lost almost every time. Like any market, lower cost means increased demand.

Yes, people changed their mind about Trump. Turns out if you act like an a-hole 24/7/365, some people will rethink their choice.

I pointed out that Trump lost the popular vote both times because it makes clear that the election results were consistent rather than the aberration Trumpians characterize them as.

I don't see how it relates to the discussion, but no I don't think Trump was "illegitimate."

And still there is no evidence or election to the election fraud story. People who mouth it are either intellectually dishonest or idiots. Sorry for the bluntness but it is the unarguable truth.

---

sorry.. i tried but i couldnt read your war and peace length post

Is there anything important in there i need to know other than you dont like trump and you think people who voted for him are stupid?

---

Yes, I know that either you read it and can't refute it or you have the attention span of a small child.

Frank: "the unarguable truth"

is that you are desperately trying to shout down inconvenient problems with your fairy tale.

Frank Galvin said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The one lacking facts seems to be you, Frank.

---

Well your group has had three years to provide facts but has come up with squat, so maybe you should try again.

---

Says the man who ignores all that has been dug up.

No concern about the President based on 'Weekend at Bernies'?

---

Big concern about that.

How does Biden's competency impact whether Trump and minions believed there was rampant vote fraud-the subject we are discussing?

---

Do you seriously believe 81 million real voters cast a valid vote for Joe Biden in 2020?

---

No.

I believe 81 million voters cast votes against Donald Trump.

Voter turnout was high because: (1) Trump is a polarizing candidate and (2) we made it much easier to vote.

Your claim was investigated by courts, legislators and DOJ investigators all under GOP control. There have been numerous recounts also led by the GOP. In Arizona it was done by people willing to say almost anything about the election.

The results: zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Trump's attorneys have copped to the falsity of their statements. Every insider who has written about it says the same thing.

Get a clue.

---

lol... Trump didn't change when he was in the White House, if someone thought Trump was an a*hole in 2020, they thought he was an a*hole in 2016, but those voters didn't turn out in massive numbers to vote against him 4 years earlier? Yeah okay.

Maybe if the vote count was stopped in the middle of the night in 2016, perhaps Hillary Clinton would've received 81 million votes. You know, being the first women and all.

---

LOL is right.

1) Voting was much easier in 2020
2) people who gave Trump the benefit of the doubt in 2016 changed their minds when they realized the office would not change him
3) Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 also.
4) You, Trump and Giuliani still have no evidence of what you are talking about. At least Rudy admits it.

---

1) It's always been easy to vote.
2) Are you really trying to say that the Trump haters stayed home and didn't vote for the first woman president because they were hoping Trump would change once in he was in the White House. Wow, your mental gymnastics is Olympic worthy.
3) Learn civics. Popular vote doesn't matter
4) So let me ask you, do you believe that Trump was an illegitimate president?

---

You can probably ease up on the condescension. Context is important. The discussion I am involved in is based on the false premise that there was significant fraud in the 2020 election, enough fraud to make Trump's attempt to prevent Congress from accepting the votes of the electors certified to be the true slates by GOP state legislatures a protest rather than a criminal enterprise.

The response to my position is led by OldBear 83. Apparently, I am either an imbecile or a brilliant operative hellbent on destroying America. In response to my point that for Trump's attempts at de-certification to be a "protest" there needs to be some basis for the premise; something that would indicate fraud other than Trump's very large and constantly moving mouth OldBear deploys the airtight logic he so prides himself on. To wit: (1) there was a large increase in turnout from 2016 until 2020; (2) Joe Biden isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and (3) Hunter Biden is a d-bag. The guy with the fake Asian name adds that Trump was leading and then he wasn't.

Not exactly sure how those things overcome the fact that Trump's own attorneys, his attorney general, and his deputy White House counsel have have admitted the lack of evidence as to fraud. Or that the state legislatures who seated the elector slates were GOP, filled with Trump supporters and fully informed of the allegations. Or that the Trump campaign failed to come up with anything resembling evidence in over 30 attempts in court. Or that GOP legislatures in the several states empowered partisan hacks to find the mysterious evidence and not even the hacks could not bring themselves to to report anything unusual.

In that context the only objective fact is increased turnout in 2020 (66% of the electorate) v 2020 (61%). Voting may have been easy before but it was substantially easier in 2020. The GOP fought against easing restrictions based on COVID but lost almost every time. Like any market, lower cost means increased demand.

Yes, people changed their mind about Trump. Turns out if you act like an a-hole 24/7/365, some people will rethink their choice.

I pointed out that Trump lost the popular vote both times because it makes clear that the election results were consistent rather than the aberration Trumpians characterize them as.

I don't see how it relates to the discussion, but no I don't think Trump was "illegitimate."

And still there is no evidence or election to the election fraud story. People who mouth it are either intellectually dishonest or idiots. Sorry for the bluntness but it is the unarguable truth.

---

sorry.. i tried but i couldnt read your war and peace length post

Is there anything important in there i need to know other than you dont like trump and you think people who voted for him are stupid?

---

Yes, I know that either you read it and can't refute it or you have the attention span of a small child.

---

yes, I have the attention span of a small child. I am an auditory learner, I have dyslexia, and adult ADHD.

We all have our challenges.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank: "the unarguable truth"

is that you are desperately trying to shout down inconvenient problems with your fairy tale.

---

You can offer stupid opinions until the cows come home but it doesn't change the fact there is no evidence behind the fraud claim. It didn't happen. Trump lost because more people voted for Biden in the states that count.

You don't have to believe me, ask the Republicans who appointed the electors from those states.

You are a sad, bitter little man, Frank.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are a sad, bitter little man, Frank.

---

Sad and little no. Confess to being bitter that morons keep chipping away at the country I love by eroding the public's faith in elections.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are a sad, bitter little man, Frank.

---

Sad and little no. Confess to being bitter that morons keep chipping away at the country I love by eroding the public's faith in elections.

---

You really have no idea about the history of elections in the US. Schemes and tricks abound, from Jefferson's 1800 stunt to John Quincy Adams theft in 1824, to the infamous 1876 deal to put Hayes in the White House, and everything since.

All of those elections are officially considered valid, but our history is filled with dirty tricks. Go look up why LBJ was known as 'Landslide Lyndon', or the Democrats' complaints about mail-in voting in 2016.

You can tell yourself Biden really did win. Problem is there are a lot of reasons to believe otherwise.

It's not that Trump should be President, it's that we have reached a point where people have reason to doubt whether the person elected was really who the voters wanted.

Go ahead and pretend it's not happening.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are a sad, bitter little man, Frank.

---

Sad and little no. Confess to being bitter that morons keep chipping away at the country I love by eroding the public's faith in elections.

---

Impossible to have faith in elections when they are held under very irregular circumstances as in 2020, or so many presumed citizens reveal they are morons and/or MarxoFacist woke libs who are existential threats to our republic. There is no magical virtue in elections.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are a sad, bitter little man, Frank.

---

Sad and little no. Confess to being bitter that morons keep chipping away at the country I love by eroding the public's faith in elections.

---

You really have no idea about the history of elections in the US. Schemes and tricks abound, from Jefferson's 1800 stunt to John Quincy Adams theft in 1824, to the infamous 1876 deal to put Hayes in the White House, and everything since.

All of those elections are officially considered valid, but our history is filled with dirty tricks. Go look up why LBJ was known as 'Landslide Lyndon', or the Democrats' complaints about mail-in voting in 2016.

You can tell yourself Biden really did win. Problem is there are a lot of reasons to believe otherwise.

It's not that Trump should be President, it's that we have reached a point where people have reason to doubt whether the person elected was really who the voters wanted.

Go ahead and pretend it's not happening.

---

I am well aware of our history. We also used to ride horses for our transportation. We have advanced on both fronts.

The "problem" is not the possibility of election tricks, it is the lack of evidence that they occurred.

curtpenn said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are a sad, bitter little man, Frank.

---

Sad and little no. Confess to being bitter that morons keep chipping away at the country I love by eroding the public's faith in elections.

---

Impossible to have faith in elections when they are held under very irregular circumstances as in 2020, or so many presumed citizens reveal they are morons and/or MarxoFacist woke libs who are existential threats to our republic. There is no magical virtue in elections.

---

"No magical virtue in elections" is code for a theocracy. It denies the entire point of the country. No thanks.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are a sad, bitter little man, Frank.

---

Sad and little no.

---

Ok. You are a big guy then.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Hopefully the Texas AG sees the handwriting on the wall and eventually steps aside for another Republican.

---

Nope. He will view this as a license to do anything he wants. He'll be gunning for Patrick's seat next.

Horrible outcome. Patrick is an idiot.

---

Yep. Winning the impeachment did make Paxton stronger, helped his chances to move up the ladder.

Paxton-phobes better hope the investigations result in convictions. If not, there's a good chance Paxton will be your next governor.

---

As a lawyer here in Austin with pretty close connections to the AG's office and one of the parties Paxton had dealings with, I can tell you with certainty that if the evidence I have seen is real and what I have been told by this witness is truthful, Paxton is clearly guilty of multiple felonies. And it's not Trump-like charges, where prosecutors are attempting to charge on flimsy legal theories, but stuff that those convicted do really hard time for if you are an average person. He's done some things as a lawyer that I would be in jail for and disbarred if I had done the same.

Now, does that translate into a conviction in front a jury of his peers? Who knows? But this guy is dirty as the day is long. It would be a very bad look for the party to support his guy for any higher office, that is for sure. Any moral high ground it ever had would be completely lost. The Dems would have a field day. But perhaps it already is.

---

Reasonable.

I said this on day one, and time has proven me correct: the choice to impeach at this time rather than waiting for prosecutions to undermine, if not convict Paxton.....was an enormous miscalculation. It failed. And that failure has empowered him. Further, it has put his accusers on the defense. They will have to raise more money to win primaries. Some will lose. Politically, everyone except Paxton is in a worse position today than before the day the impeachment was dropped. The money & effort to primary his accusers could/should be used to win the general in 2024, grow the house majority, etc..... But if it gets rid of some of the numbskulls in the House who drove this process and forces Phelan into a fight for his political life, it will teach an important lesson about political judgment - do not impeach a very popular member of your own party unless you have the goods and the votes (they didn't), and make damned sure you do the process exceedingly deliberately, carefully, etc... (they woefully did not.) Real novices, our house leadership. They completely misread the landscape and virtue postured rather than making cold, hard political judgments.

You should call your house reps and demand Phelan step down as speaker. He's incompetent. If Paxton really is as dirty as you posted above, a capable Speaker of the House should have nailed him to the wall.

Frank Galvin said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are a sad, bitter little man, Frank.

---

Sad and little no. Confess to being bitter that morons keep chipping away at the country I love by eroding the public's faith in elections.

---

Impossible to have faith in elections when they are held under very irregular circumstances as in 2020, or so many presumed citizens reveal they are morons and/or MarxoFacist woke libs who are existential threats to our republic. There is no magical virtue in elections.

---

"No magical virtue in elections" is code for a theocracy. It denies the entire point of the country. No thanks.

---

Zero reference to theocracy. Far from it. I have in mind our forefathers at Lexington and Concord who knew what to do when the time came. We ought not to be sheep.

Frank: "We have advanced on both fronts."

In the sense that crime often moves faster than the law to address it, I agree.

If you think politics is more honest and accountable now than in our past, you are very naive.

curtpenn said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are a sad, bitter little man, Frank.

---

Sad and little no. Confess to being bitter that morons keep chipping away at the country I love by eroding the public's faith in elections.

---

Impossible to have faith in elections when they are held under very irregular circumstances as in 2020, or so many presumed citizens reveal they are morons and/or MarxoFacist woke libs who are existential threats to our republic. There is no magical virtue in elections.

---

"No magical virtue in elections" is code for a theocracy. It denies the entire point of the country. No thanks.

---

Zero reference to theocracy. Far from it. I have in mind our forefathers at Lexington and Concord who knew what to do when the time came. We ought not to be sheep.

---

They fought because they objected to "taxation without representation." Representation comes from elections.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank: "We have advanced on both fronts."

In the sense that crime often moves faster than the law to address it, I agree.

If you think politics is more honest and accountable now than in our past, you are very naive.

---

If you think crimes are proven without evidence you are very dumb.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank: "We have advanced on both fronts."

In the sense that crime often moves faster than the law to address it, I agree.

If you think politics is more honest and accountable now than in our past, you are very naive.

---

If you think crimes are proven without evidence you are very dumb.

---

Thanks for proving your level of both comprehension and tribalism in your posts, Frank.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank: "We have advanced on both fronts."

In the sense that crime often moves faster than the law to address it, I agree.

If you think politics is more honest and accountable now than in our past, you are very naive.

---

If you think crimes are proven without evidence you are very dumb.

---

Thanks for proving your level of both comprehension and tribalism in your posts, Frank.

---

Rich coming from someone who refuses to support his opinions with nothing but his own opinions.

What evidence exists of fraud in the 2020 elections?

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank: "We have advanced on both fronts."

In the sense that crime often moves faster than the law to address it, I agree.

If you think politics is more honest and accountable now than in our past, you are very naive.

---

If you think crimes are proven without evidence you are very dumb.

---

Thanks for proving your level of both comprehension and tribalism in your posts, Frank.

---

Rich coming from someone who refuses to support his opinions with nothing but his own opinions.

What evidence exists of fraud in the 2020 elections?

---

Frank is still somehow unaware that this is a forum.

I have noted the evidence. You are not required to believe or accept it, while I am in no way obligated to play by your rules.

It's pretty clear your team cheated to win. Congrats, you got what you wanted.

But that crap always brings consequences, and denial won't keep it from happening.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank: "We have advanced on both fronts."

In the sense that crime often moves faster than the law to address it, I agree.

If you think politics is more honest and accountable now than in our past, you are very naive.

---

If you think crimes are proven without evidence you are very dumb.

---

Thanks for proving your level of both comprehension and tribalism in your posts, Frank.

---

Rich coming from someone who refuses to support his opinions with nothing but his own opinions.

What evidence exists of fraud in the 2020 elections?

---

Frank is still somehow unaware that this is a forum.

I have noted the evidence. You are not required to believe or accept it, while I am in no way obligated to play by your rules.

It's pretty clear your team cheated to win. Congrats, you got what you wanted.

But that crap always brings consequences, and denial won't keep it from happening.

---

Your "evidence" is that Joe Biden received 81 million votes. Your allegation is that 81 million people did not vote for Joe Biden.

That gets a F in Kindergarden.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank: "We have advanced on both fronts."

In the sense that crime often moves faster than the law to address it, I agree.

If you think politics is more honest and accountable now than in our past, you are very naive.

---

If you think crimes are proven without evidence you are very dumb.

---

Thanks for proving your level of both comprehension and tribalism in your posts, Frank.

---

Rich coming from someone who refuses to support his opinions with nothing but his own opinions.

What evidence exists of fraud in the 2020 elections?

---

Frank is still somehow unaware that this is a forum.

I have noted the evidence. You are not required to believe or accept it, while I am in no way obligated to play by your rules.

It's pretty clear your team cheated to win. Congrats, you got what you wanted.

But that crap always brings consequences, and denial won't keep it from happening.

---

Your "evidence" is that Joe Biden received 81 million votes. Your allegation is that 81 million people did not vote for Joe Biden.

That gets a F in Kindergarden.

---

Cool rant. Says a lot about you, that you went to a Kindergarten that would fail some of the kiddo's, especially for being right.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frank: "We have advanced on both fronts."

In the sense that crime often moves faster than the law to address it, I agree.

If you think politics is more honest and accountable now than in our past, you are very naive.

---

If you think crimes are proven without evidence you are very dumb.

---

Thanks for proving your level of both comprehension and tribalism in your posts, Frank.

---

Rich coming from someone who refuses to support his opinions with nothing but his own opinions.

What evidence exists of fraud in the 2020 elections?

---

Frank is still somehow unaware that this is a forum.

I have noted the evidence. You are not required to believe or accept it, while I am in no way obligated to play by your rules.

It's pretty clear your team cheated to win. Congrats, you got what you wanted.

But that crap always brings consequences, and denial won't keep it from happening.

---

Your "evidence" is that Joe Biden received 81 million votes. Your allegation is that 81 million people did not vote for Joe Biden.

That gets a F in Kindergarden.

---

Cool rant. Says a lot about you, that you went to a Kindergarten that would fail some of the kiddo's, especially for being right.

---

What evidence exists of fraud in the 2020 election?

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Hopefully the Texas AG sees the handwriting on the wall and eventually steps aside for another Republican.

---

Nope. He will view this as a license to do anything he wants. He'll be gunning for Patrick's seat next.

Horrible outcome. Patrick is an idiot.

---

Yep. Winning the impeachment did make Paxton stronger, helped his chances to move up the ladder.

Paxton-phobes better hope the investigations result in convictions. If not, there's a good chance Paxton will be your next governor.

---

As a lawyer here in Austin with pretty close connections to the AG's office and one of the parties Paxton had dealings with, I can tell you with certainty that if the evidence I have seen is real and what I have been told by this witness is truthful, Paxton is clearly guilty of multiple felonies. And it's not Trump-like charges, where prosecutors are attempting to charge on flimsy legal theories, but stuff that those convicted do really hard time for if you are an average person. He's done some things as a lawyer that I would be in jail for and disbarred if I had done the same.

Now, does that translate into a conviction in front a jury of his peers? Who knows? But this guy is dirty as the day is long. It would be a very bad look for the party to support this guy for any higher office, that is for sure. Any moral high ground it ever had would be completely lost. The Dems would have a field day. But perhaps it already is.

---

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-familyengXian; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-font-kerning:1.0pt; mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;} h1 {mso-style-priority:9; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char"; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-outline-level:1; font-size:24.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; font-weight:bold;} h4 {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:9; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-link:"Heading 4 Char"; mso-style-next:Normal; margin-top:2.0pt; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after:avoid; mso-outline-level:4; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light"; mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"DengXian Light"; mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light"; mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi; color:#2F5496; mso-themecolor:accent1; mso-themeshade:191; mso-font-kerning:1.0pt; mso-ligatures:standardcontextual; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:#0563C1; mso-themecolor:hyperlink; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color:#954F72; mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} span.Heading1Char {mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char"; mso-style-priority:9; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:"Heading 1"; mso-ansi-font-size:24.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:24.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-font-kerning:18.0pt; mso-ligatures:none; font-weight:bold;} span.Heading4Char {mso-style-name:"Heading 4 Char"; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:9; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:"Heading 4"; font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light"; mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"DengXian Light"; mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light"; mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi; color:#2F5496; mso-themecolor:accent1; mso-themeshade:191; font-style:italic;} span.apple-converted-space {mso-style-name:apple-converted-space; mso-style-unhide:no;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-familyengXian; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:428355513; mso-list-template-ids:855019828;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} @list l0:level2 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text; mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @list l0:level3 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l0:level4 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l0:level5 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l0:level6 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l0:level7 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l0:level8 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l0:level9 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} -->
From Baptist News:
Nowhere in Texas can a pair of boots be found large enough to wade through the barnyard horse manure of Ken Paxton's defense and Angela Paxton's Bible verses.

https://baptistnews.com/article/ken-and-angela-paxton-do-a-little-sidestep-while-quoting-bible-verses/

Ken and Angela Paxton do a little sidestep while quoting Bible verses
SEPTEMBER 21, 2023State Sen. Angela Paxton prays during the. (eroa/The
The Texas Senate voted Sept. 16 to acquit Attorney General Ken Paxton of all charges in his impeachment trial. Thus, the most controversial of all Texas politicians has returned to his position in state government with barely a slap on the wrist for the accusations of misconduct it took Texas House leaders two weeks to lay out in the Senate trial.
North Texas Sen. Kelly Hancock a Southern Baptist who also serves as a trustee of the SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission was one of only two Republicans who voted to convict Paxton in the Senate trial, even though House Republicans had voted to impeach their own attorney general.
through the evidence presented and concluded Paxton abused his office. The other Republican senators reportedly influenced by threats from Donald Trump to support their opponents in the next Republican primary concluded there was not sufficient evidence and that the Republican House trial managers failed to meet the "high burden of proof."
Somewhere in all this Texas-sized political shootout, there were assumptions that require additional challenge on the nature of biblical womanhood, the battle between truth and power, and the changing nature of defending those accused.
Defended by a 'biblical woman'
One of the intriguing issues here is the defense mounted by Angela Paxton, wife of the attorney general and a Republican member of the Texas Senate. While she was required to attend the trial, she was not allowed to speak. This, of course, did not stop her from influencing the trial through daily tweets.
Angela Paxton moved "stand by your man" to a whole new stratosphere. She involved God and the Bible as co-defendants.
An article by Texas Monthly reporter Sandi Villarreal, "The Biblical Womanhood of Angela Paxton," concentrates on the theology known as "complementarianism." According to this notion, the attorney general's wife was being a faithful biblical woman.
Yet complementarianism hides a primal male hierarchy that uses the Bible to justify a severe form of male control. In truth, few if any doctrines have been further from being "complementary," and the application of a male hierarchy to society would more accurately be termed antisocial Darwinism.
eating architect of toxic politics, expresses the primate understanding of male hierarchy: "The male lion procreates, protects the pride and takes the best portion. It's the opposite of every American feminist vision of the world but it's a fact!"
"Complementarianism" seems a better fit for our primate ancestors than for humans.
Angela Paxton defended her husband with daily tweets, each containing a photo of her in a red dress, hands folded at her mouth in prayer, and Bible verses. She insisted on her husband's innocence even against the overwhelming public evidence of his guilt.
God as defender of the 'powers that be'
Not only was truth a victim of the impeachment trial, but the very nature of defending the accused became a farce. Neither a law degree nor the ability to speak at a trial are required to be a defense attorney. Political defendants have learned the art of making a defense before the trial begins and doing so in public and in the media. The jury becomes all the supporters of the accused candidate. The message is repeated in an endless loop. The verbal memes: "The politician did nothing wrong," "His actions were perfect," "The media is fake," "The prosecutors are liars and mentally ill," "It's a witch hunt" and "I am innocent of all charges."
The trial becomes an afterthought when the defendant has the freedom to win his case in the court of public opinion or cutthroat politics. The institutions of the law are displaced the courts, the judges, the prosecuting attorneys, evidence, rational deliberation. In the expanded notion of defense, there's popular opinion, the power of the dominant party, the pleas of righteousness based on Bible verses and a sense of outrage that Paxton is being persecuted.
The worst travesty of this trial must be the use of God as defender of the "powers that be" and their definition of truth. Everybody wants God on their side, but it takes a lot of nerve to involve God in the messiness of Texas politics.
There is biblical precedent for such efforts. There are biblical narratives of the involvement of a politician's wife with the career of her husband.

Angela Paxton, dressed in a red dress plied the public and her fellow senators with daily doses of Scripture:
"Let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith."
"The rain came down, the streams rose, the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock."
"Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything."
The irony of these verses bites hard. Her husband was literally on trial for abuse of power.
I am not questioning Angela Paxton's sincerity. I am convinced she is a very serious Christian. The problem is not her sincerity. As Stanley Hauerwas puts it, "The problem is that the Christianity about which (she) is sincere is not shaped by the gospel."
Her efforts smack of a brazen attempt to use the language of Scripture and God to paint a picture of her husband as unfairly treated, persecuted by his enemies, and a good man who deserves to keep his position as attorney general.
The Bible doesn't lend itself to populist tropes of paranoia and persecution.
The truth on trial
The relationship between power and truth never has been more strained. Power, always a willing user and manipulator of truth, will, if left unchecked, lock justice away in solitary confinement and sacrifice truth on the altar of pragmatism.
Power characteristically traffics in established "truth" about which there is general agreement among the parties that matter: the state, the political party in the majority, the evangelical Christians who control the ideology of the state, and the wealthy who support said party. These several institutions are skillful in shaping and articulating and maintaining "truth" that can readily be seen as allied with status quo power.
In other words, "truth" is what the power says it is.
Power is master; truth is servant of power.
The Texas Senate, where power resides with the Republican Party, declared Paxton innocent. In that moment, power defined the meaning of truth. When power and truth collide, truth
God on trial
Of all the suspicious and nefarious behavior in this farce of an impeachment trial, nothing produces more questions than Angela Paxton involving the Bible, and by implication, God, in Texas politics. I know there's a country song that makes it clear God made Texas and with that conclusion I have no quarrel, but God did not want to be involved in an impeachment trial.
After his acquittal, all that was left was for a shameless Paxton to crow, "Today, the truth prevailed. The truth could not be buried by mudslinging politicians or their powerful benefactors."
The occupants of power, because they could, constructed a version of truth compatible with present power arrangements. It takes no imagination at all to realize a Democratic attorney general would have been impeached by the Republican Senate even without credible evidence.
Paxton reached deep into the spurious well of emotional appeals to baptize the new version of truth. The impeachment was a "sham." The Biden administration and the "liberal" Republican House Speaker Dade Phelan were the real culprits. The impeachment was a "kangaroo court."
Paxton confuses his tropes in this instance because a kangaroo court, by definition, is a court where a person is found guilty of a crime without any evidence. Maybe he didn't learn that in law school.

There's a song from "Best Little *****house in Texas" that Ken and Angela Paxton could sing as a duet:
Fellow Texans, I am proudly standing here to humbly say.
I assure you, and I mean it Now, who says I don't speak out as plain as day?
And, fellow Texans, I'm for progress and the flag long may it fly.
I'm a poor boy, come to greatness. So, it follows that I cannot tell a lie.
Ooh, I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me, now they don't.
I've come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
cut a little swathe and lead the people on.
Nowhere in Texas can a pair of boots be found large enough to wade through the barnyard horse manure of Ken Paxton's defense and Angela Paxton's Bible verses.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Hopefully the Texas AG sees the handwriting on the wall and eventually steps aside for another Republican.

---

Nope. He will view this as a license to do anything he wants. He'll be gunning for Patrick's seat next.

Horrible outcome. Patrick is an idiot.

---

Yep. Winning the impeachment did make Paxton stronger, helped his chances to move up the ladder.

Paxton-phobes better hope the investigations result in convictions. If not, there's a good chance Paxton will be your next governor.

---

As a lawyer here in Austin with pretty close connections to the AG's office and one of the parties Paxton had dealings with, I can tell you with certainty that if the evidence I have seen is real and what I have been told by this witness is truthful, Paxton is clearly guilty of multiple felonies. And it's not Trump-like charges, where prosecutors are attempting to charge on flimsy legal theories, but stuff that those convicted do really hard time for if you are an average person. He's done some things as a lawyer that I would be in jail for and disbarred if I had done the same.

Now, does that translate into a conviction in front a jury of his peers? Who knows? But this guy is dirty as the day is long. It would be a very bad look for the party to support his guy for any higher office, that is for sure. Any moral high ground it ever had would be completely lost. The Dems would have a field day. But perhaps it already is.

---

Reasonable.

I said this on day one, and time has proven me correct: the choice to impeach at this time rather than waiting for prosecutions to undermine, if not convict Paxton.....was an enormous miscalculation. It failed. And that failure has empowered him. Further, it has put his accusers on the defense. They will have to raise more money to win primaries. Some will lose. Politically, everyone except Paxton is in a worse position today than before the day the impeachment was dropped. The money & effort to primary his accusers could/should be used to win the general in 2024, grow the house majority, etc..... But if it gets rid of some of the numbskulls in the House who drove this process and forces Phelan into a fight for his political life, it will teach an important lesson about political judgment - do not impeach a very popular member of your own party unless you have the goods and the votes (they didn't), and make damned sure you do the process exceedingly deliberately, carefully, etc... (they woefully did not.) Real novices, our house leadership. They completely misread the landscape and virtue postured rather than making cold, hard political judgments.

You should call your house reps and demand Phelan step down as speaker. He's incompetent. If Paxton really is as dirty as you posted above, a capable Speaker of the House should have nailed him to the wall.

---

I am not sure at this point Republicans care that Paxton is dirty, as I alluded to in my prior post. While our policies are better, certainly, and more in line with traditional Judeo-Christian ethics, we don't appear to really care whether the candidate is a bad person anymore.

I think at this point we can only run on policy, and the moral high ground inherent therein. Our candidates, at least morally speaking, don't appear to be any better in their personal lives than Democrats.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Hopefully the Texas AG sees the handwriting on the wall and eventually steps aside for another Republican.

---

Nope. He will view this as a license to do anything he wants. He'll be gunning for Patrick's seat next.

Horrible outcome. Patrick is an idiot.

---

Yep. Winning the impeachment did make Paxton stronger, helped his chances to move up the ladder.

Paxton-phobes better hope the investigations result in convictions. If not, there's a good chance Paxton will be your next governor.

---

As a lawyer here in Austin with pretty close connections to the AG's office and one of the parties Paxton had dealings with, I can tell you with certainty that if the evidence I have seen is real and what I have been told by this witness is truthful, Paxton is clearly guilty of multiple felonies. And it's not Trump-like charges, where prosecutors are attempting to charge on flimsy legal theories, but stuff that those convicted do really hard time for if you are an average person. He's done some things as a lawyer that I would be in jail for and disbarred if I had done the same.

Now, does that translate into a conviction in front a jury of his peers? Who knows? But this guy is dirty as the day is long. It would be a very bad look for the party to support his guy for any higher office, that is for sure. Any moral high ground it ever had would be completely lost. The Dems would have a field day. But perhaps it already is.

---

Reasonable.

I said this on day one, and time has proven me correct: the choice to impeach at this time rather than waiting for prosecutions to undermine, if not convict Paxton.....was an enormous miscalculation. It failed. And that failure has empowered him. Further, it has put his accusers on the defense. They will have to raise more money to win primaries. Some will lose. Politically, everyone except Paxton is in a worse position today than before the day the impeachment was dropped. The money & effort to primary his accusers could/should be used to win the general in 2024, grow the house majority, etc..... But if it gets rid of some of the numbskulls in the House who drove this process and forces Phelan into a fight for his political life, it will teach an important lesson about political judgment - do not impeach a very popular member of your own party unless you have the goods and the votes (they didn't), and make damned sure you do the process exceedingly deliberately, carefully, etc... (they woefully did not.) Real novices, our house leadership. They completely misread the landscape and virtue postured rather than making cold, hard political judgments.

You should call your house reps and demand Phelan step down as speaker. He's incompetent. If Paxton really is as dirty as you posted above, a capable Speaker of the House should have nailed him to the wall.

---

I am not sure at this point Republicans care that Paxton is dirty, as I alluded to in my prior post. While our policies are better, certainly, and more in line with traditional Judeo-Christian ethics, we don't appear to really care whether the candidate is a bad person anymore.

I think at this point we can only run on policy, and the moral high ground inherent therein. Our candidates, at least morally speaking, don't appear to be any better in their personal lives than Democrats.

---

I have two minds about Paxton.

On the one hand, the guy is no choir boy, and not the image we want for the Party or State.

On the other, this impeachment was plainly the fetish of the Speaker, whose chummy relationships with leading Democrats I like even less than Paxton.

We Republicans were forced to choose between two disgusting positions, and to my mind that resulted in the correct verdict, not guilty by reason that Phelan wanted to use the system to get rid of a political opponent rather than find justice.

That in no way means I will support Paxton in the next Primary, much less vote for him for an even higher office.

Don't disagree with this.