Republicans: continued

[Cunt]

I guess that suggests you should look into what Paul has been referring to.

I am not going to continue skimming for examples for you to discount. You don't know of any evidence. Senator Paul claims there is some, you claim there is not.

Why do you think it is better to demand evidence from me, instead of listening to him?

You challenged Joe's assessment. I provided a way for you to do better than your usual incredulity. I don't think it was unreasonable to assume you would be familiar with the evidence given your willingness to defend senator Paul. If he is acting in good faith then it's likely because he is aware of some evidence. You should be as well. But you're not.

I'm aware of some (as I'm sure he is, too).

You can dig up and refute all that you want. I am in agreement with Paul, that this is worth more investigation, but of course you must be right, and the corporate media line is correct too.

[Hermit]

Well, Karl Rove's nickname is "turd blossom" so he might be a little thin skinned.

Seriously, Rove and Paul are just playing the outrage card. They don't give a crap about this, other than to stir up their base and undercut Biden. It's reflexive with these hacks.

So what Paul said about the election fraud evidence is 'playing the outrage card'?

Changing the subject again. Great. The outrage card is what he said about him claiming that Biden "is calling us white supremacists, calling us racists, calling us every name in the book" when Biden said in his Inauguration Address: "...a rise in political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism that we must confront and we will defeat."

But now that you have successfully steered discussion about the 2020 election, let's go there. Again.

He sounds a lot more informed than most, about what the courts heard, and what they didn't.

Team Trump's leader, Rudy Giuliani, made it crystal clear that it is up to the courts to decide on the "stolen election" and "massive election/voter fraud" allegations, and he said that he has sufficient evidence to prove it to the courts. From what I can tell, only two of those cases were thrown out for a lack of standing. The rest did not even allege "massive election/voter fraud. Most of them quibbled about what mail-in votes should be rejected. The numbers fell well short of Trump's deficit of 7 million votes, and even then the courts disagreed something like 58 to 1 of the cases they heard.

Not only did the courts disagree. Recounts did too. Biden won Georgia three times; once in the original election, then in each of the recounts. The recount of 400,000 votes in Wisconsin's largest county, Milwaukee, was particularly amusing. It cost 3 million dollars, and indeed an error was found. OANN, a source you can trust because it shares your bias, reported that "Election officials in Milwaukee found an uncounted batch of 386 ballots during the ongoing election audit in Wisconsin." Yes, you read that right. 386 votes were not counted! What OANN did not mention is that counting and adding them to the 400,000 votes that were already counted increased Biden's lead by 132 votes.

Then, of course, is Trump's own Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). He established it when he signed into law the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act of 2018, and he appointed Chris Krebs as its chief. When it reported that "The November 3 election was the most secure in American history" and "While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too", Trump fired Krebs.

Oh, and what about another top level appointment by Trump? That's the U.S. Attorney General, William Barr, a staunch Trump supporter from way back. As such he was the chief of the federal Department of Justice. In an interview with Associated Press on the 1st of December 2020 Barr declared that the U.S. Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election. On December 14, 2020, Trump announced via Twitter that Barr would be "resigning" from his post as attorney general, effective December 23.

You're just warming up a conspiracy theory once again. It's about time you abandon it.

Of course, if he is against Biden, the media MUST destroy him

Not that the media is partisan or anything. It's just the right thing to do...

The media reports what Ron Paul has said. There is nothing partisan about it. He is destroying himself with his own words.

[Sean Hayden]

I guess that suggests you should look into what Paul has been referring to.

I am not going to continue skimming for examples for you to discount. You don't know of any evidence. Senator Paul claims there is some, you claim there is not.

Why do you think it is better to demand evidence from me, instead of listening to him?

You challenged Joe's assessment. I provided a way for you to do better than your usual incredulity. I don't think it was unreasonable to assume you would be familiar with the evidence given your willingness to defend senator Paul. If he is acting in good faith then it's likely because he is aware of some evidence. You should be as well. But you're not.

I'm aware of some (as I'm sure he is, too).

You can dig up and refute all that you want. I am in agreement with Paul, that this is worth more investigation, but of course you must be right, and the corporate media line is correct too.

I worry that so many people miss the big picture.

Trump has been claiming widespread fraud from the beginning. He made the claim even when he won in 2016, apparently in response to losing the popular vote.

After it became clear that he lost this election he doubled down and began making claims of fraud on a regular basis.

It's important to recognize the impact of his claims on our beliefs about the need for more investigation. We should acknowledge the influence of his repeated claims.

So, when you hear about something like the USPS whistleblower you might understand that such claims could be driven by the environment Trump has created. At least you might expect to see more of such claims given Trump's influence.

Now, if you investigate the claim and find it's not credible, then that's evidence that Trump's influence may be driving the claims.

If you investigate countless claims and find few credible, then what is behind a continued insistence on more investigations?

Is it evidence, or Trump's influence?

[JimC]

Cunt wrote:

...this is worth more investigation...

Fine. What's stopping you, and the millions of other Trump supporters from doing just that, and presenting the evidence in a clear and non-equivocal fashion?

[Cunt]

Most of them quibbled about what mail-in votes should be rejected. The numbers fell well short of Trump's deficit of 7 million votes, and even then the courts disagreed something like 58 to 1 of the cases they heard.

So who is this guy?
https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/statu ... 2392384512

Just 6 DAYS AFTER INAUGURATION Judge decides Virginia Rule allowing LATE BALLOTS MISSING POSTMARK WAS ILLEGAL, permanently bans the law in future Virginia elections

...and more importantly, is he right that some of those ballots were ruled illegal?

I understand some of Paul's objections are also around who is allowed by the state, to change voter rules, vs who is allowed by the constitution.

Plenty of reasonable stuff to hear him about. He seems to have a strong opinion against calling Trump's words 'incitement' while ignoring similar words of many other policians.

With this thread in mind, I think he might be a top choice for the republicans in 2024. Even though you think he is ruining his good name with his current words.

[Joe]

Cunt wrote:

...this is worth more investigation...

Fine. What's stopping you, and the millions of other Trump supporters from doing just that, and presenting the evidence in a clear and non-equivocal fashion?

Why do that when you can repeat the lie over and over until it becomes the truth? The principle seems to work as well for trolls as it does tyrants.

[Cunt]

Cunt wrote:

...this is worth more investigation...

Fine. What's stopping you, and the millions of other Trump supporters from doing just that, and presenting the evidence in a clear and non-equivocal fashion?

Why do that when you can repeat the lie over and over until it becomes the truth? The principle seems to work as well for trolls as it does tyrants.

To me, it's worth listening to both sides. To some, they might look for Paul's retractors, before they would go find out what he said.

[Hermit]

Most of them quibbled about what mail-in votes should be rejected. The numbers fell well short of Trump's deficit of 7 million votes, and even then the courts disagreed something like 58 to 1 of the cases they heard.

So who is this guy?
https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/statu ... 2392384512

Just 6 DAYS AFTER INAUGURATION Judge decides Virginia Rule allowing LATE BALLOTS MISSING POSTMARK WAS ILLEGAL, permanently bans the law in future Virginia elections

...and more importantly, is he right that some of those ballots were ruled illegal?

See the bit I highlighted for you.

You need to explain how a court decision made by Judge Eldridge on the 28th of October 2020 has any bearing on the counting of votes in November. The votes were never cast, therefore never counted. They made zero difference to the election result.

Also, how the usual right wing sources managed to change the date to "6 days after the inauguration" looks like a misrepresentation to me.

I understand some of Paul's objections are also around who is allowed by the state, to change voter rules, vs who is allowed by the constitution.

Fair point, but where is the "massive election/voter fraud", and how many more allegations do we need to see foundering in the courts before the message finally sinks in among Trump supporters that "massive election/voter fraud" has not happened??

Plenty of reasonable stuff to hear him about. He seems to have a strong opinion against calling Trump's words 'incitement' while ignoring similar words of many other policians.

With this thread in mind, I think he might be a top choice for the republicans in 2024. Even though you think he is ruining his good name with his current words.

Your assessment of Rand Paul does not surprise me.

[pErvinalia]

Cunt wrote:

...this is worth more investigation...

Fine. What's stopping you, and the millions of other Trump supporters from doing just that, and presenting the evidence in a clear and non-equivocal fashion?

Why do that when you can repeat the lie over and over until it becomes the truth? The principle seems to work as well for trolls as it does tyrants.

To me, it's worth listening to both sides. To some, they might look for Paul's retractors, before they would go find out what he said.

It's passing strange that you always fall on the right wing side (yet claim to be a lefty).

[Cunt]

It's the only thing you guys would notice.

When I mention the lefty characters I follow, you don't ascribe those characteristics to me, but when it is someone righty, you want me to defend all of it.

As to how to make it sink in to Trump supporters, I would say censorship, with regular accusations of bigotry. That should put them in a unity kind of mood.

[Sean Hayden]

Is that what this is about, resentment? Were you tossed from the tribe for your nasty beliefs?

I can relate. But honestly, isn't it past time you acknowledge your part in this?

[Hermit]

As to how to make it sink in to Trump supporters, I would say censorship, with regular accusations of bigotry. That should put them in a unity kind of mood.

That is not a reply to these questions:

...where is the "massive election/voter fraud", and how many more allegations do we need to see foundering in the courts before the message finally sinks in among Trump supporters that "massive election/voter fraud" has not happened?

You've just added to your interminable string of evasions.

[Cunt]

You would have to ask Paul for the 'massive election/voter fraud' evidence. I didn't say there was such. Someone tried to make me present all the evidence, but my claim was only that Paul sounded reasonable.

Not surprised you strongly desire to make this about me being wrong. Enjoy that, while I go enjoy some more 'Rand Paul' material. The fact that you guys respond the way you have suggests to me that he is more interesting than I thought.

[rainbow]

You would have to ask Paul for the 'massive election/voter fraud' evidence. I didn't say there was such. Someone tried to make me present all the evidence, but my claim was only that Paul sounded reasonable.

Paul who?

[L'Emmerdeur]

I understand some of Paul's objections are also around who is allowed by the state, to change voter rules, vs who is allowed by the constitution.

State legislators have a very wide latitude to change their voting rules for elections under the US Constitution. In fact, a state legislature can dispense with the popular vote entirely if it wishes, and choose the electors for president itself. In the early years of the republic a number of states did just that.

What Rand Paul is yalping about is the question of voting rules being changed by state authorities other than the legislature. The claim is that under the US Constitution, only the state legislatures can change voting rules. That was in fact one of the issues brought before the courts and dismissed.

The thing is, if a state legislature chooses another state agency to handle the vote, then when that agency changes the rules it does so under the authority of the legislature. Just as a state legislature has the latitude to do something as radical as dispense with the popular vote, it has the latitude to delegate the responsibility for handling elections to an agency under the authority of the state. This is completely in accord with the US Constitution, as was pointed out by the courts when they dismissed the cases that raised that particular argument.

You may not be aware of these facts, but I think it's a certainty that Rand Paul is. Rand Paul's schtick is convincing to Trumpists and the ignorant, but he's disingenuously rehashing things that were already dealt with by US courts.

Plenty of reasonable stuff to hear him about. He seems to have a strong opinion against calling Trump's words 'incitement' while ignoring similar words of many other policians.

With this thread in mind, I think he might be a top choice for the republicans in 2024. Even though you think he is ruining his good name with his current words.

Rand Paul has made a career of talking utter rubbish while sounding reasonable to people who've suspended their critical thinking abilities for whatever reason. He learned from his father who is no slouch in that department.