Joe Biden Wins

[Isilwen]

You know there is a cure for TDS you should seek help.

Ahhh, here comes the personal attacks part of the argument.

 

[Postvieww]

...tend to be supported by links and proof. On the other hand here's a fun fact:
Hitchen's razor:
Hitchens's razor - Wikipedia.

tulc(just thought that should be pointed out)

Facts: Those crazy bits of truth that are not needed when trying to bring down Trump over the last 4 years. Fact 1. Reported on Newsmax TV by a Georgia elected official. Fact 2. Also reported on Newsmax TV . Fact 3. Reported on Newsmax TV by one of the lawyers still on the Trump legal team who should know. Now you know my source if you can get away from the MSM do some of your own research. I have a feeling when the “facts” surrounding The Dominion voting machines and software start to come out a lot of liberal heads will explode trying to cover it all up or explain it away. I’ll give you a link to satisfy your proof requirements for bringing up a news story.

I challenge the liberals on this thread to give me a link to a MSM report on this story. Something to keep in mind here Sydney Powell is a well respected high profile attorney with nothing to gain by jeopardizing her law practice with false allegations. Her evidence will come out in court. Liberals stay tuned. The house of cards is about to fall. I just thought this should be pointed out!

 

[Postvieww]

Congressional Democrats had raised security concerns about Dominion, other voting machine companies High profile liberals complained about Dominion machines in 2019 but where are they in 2020??? Stay tuned for more fun facts!

 

[Postvieww]

When did I say that nothing should be done to those who tried to burn the church? I said no such thing.

Where did I say you did? I was pointing out your phony outrage for Trump not gaining permission to be at a public historic church that was set on fire by liberal lunatics.

 

[Postvieww]

Oh my the facts just keep pouring in. Liberals beware and stay tuned!

 

[Isilwen]

Oh my the facts just keep pouring in. Liberals beware and stay tuned!

Until the courts do anything, if they do anything, this is just more blustering and a desperate attempt by an incumbent President to hold onto power!

 

[Postvieww]

Until the courts do anything, if they do anything, this is just more blustering and a desperate attempt by an incumbent President to hold onto power!

Does the corruption involved in this voting system not even concern you? Elizabeth Warren and other liberals were concerned in 2019 but now that they are the beneficiary they are silent. When the dust settles on this we shall see where the blustering came from.

 

[Isilwen]

Does the corruption involved in this voting system not even concern you?

Nope. Nothing has been proven with this election as of yet.

When the dust settles on this we shall see where the blustering came from.

We shall.

BTW. I am more moderate than I am anything. My girlfriend says I am too conservative on some things, but my ideals line with moderate democrats for the most part.

 

[Archivist]

Where did I say you did? I was pointing out your phony outrage for Trump not gaining permission to be at a public historic church that was set on fire by liberal lunatics.

Your exact words: "Are you serious? TDS is an insidious ailment. No condemnation for the criminals who tried to burn down the church but you are concerned the president didn’t have permission to be there?????? Liberalism at its finest."

Phony outrage? Nothing phony about what I said. Trump did not have permission to be on church property. Property rights are the hallmark of our legal system. Nothing "liberal" about standing up for property rights.

 

[Postvieww]

Your exact words: "Are you serious? TDS is an insidious ailment. No condemnation for the criminals who tried to burn down the church but you are concerned the president didn’t have permission to be there?????? Liberalism at its finest."

Phony outrage? Nothing phony about what I said. Trump did not have permission to be on church property. Property rights are the hallmark of our legal system. Nothing "liberal" about standing up for property rights.

Well it is refreshing to know you have been such a staunch advocate for the property rights of many who have had their property destroyed this year by the lunatic liberal protesters. Keep up the good work.

 

[Archivist]

Well it is refreshing to know you have been such a staunch advocate for the property rights of many who have had their property destroyed this year by the lunatic liberal protesters. Keep up the good work.

The protests here in West Virginia were peaceful, so we didn't have property destroyed by protesters. If we had, I certainly would have advocated for the property rights of such people.

Are you always so rude? Can't you just admit that your earlier post to me was wrong? Trump trespassed on private property. He had no right to do that without permission.

 

[Postvieww]

The protests here in West Virginia were peaceful, so we didn't have property destroyed by protesters. If we had, I certainly would have advocated for the property rights of such people.

Are you always so rude? Can't you just admit that your earlier post to me was wrong? Trump trespassed on private property. He had no right to do that without permission.

I apologize if I sound rude but I do admit to being blunt and I despise hypocrisy when it comes to to unnatural blind hatred for Trump. I truly took your post on Trump trespassing as not a very serious charge. The President of the US going to a public church, a historical icon in my humble opinion did not need permission from anyone to be there. Would your church require an advance request for permission if Trump wanted to show up there? Churches should be open to all, presidents are not exempt.We will just have to agree to disagree. You are free to your opinion as am I and my option is yours was a frivolous charge.

 

[Archivist]

I apologize if I sound rude but I do admit to being blunt and I despise hypocrisy when it comes to to unnatural blind hatred for Trump. I truly took your post on Trump trespassing as not a very serious charge. The President of the US going to a public church, a historical icon in my humble opinion did not need permission from anyone to be there. Would your church require an advance request for permission if Trump wanted to show up there? Churches should be open to all, presidents are not exempt.We will just have to agree to disagree. You are free to your opinion as am I and my option is yours was a frivolous charge.

Yes, we agree to disagree. Your opinion is that my statement was a "frivolous charge," mine is that you apparently don't care about one of our most fundamental rights--private property. It would have taken someone in the White House two minutes to call the church to get permission for Trump to go there. Other presidents have regularly attended services at St. John's. Trump has not. Perhaps if he had regularly attended I would feel different about him going there for what was nothing more than a photo op.

 

[tulc]

Facts: (snip)

I see there's one link and it's to a talking head. You might want to come back when you can supply some real facts (those would be links to several different articles containing links to support the things in those articles). Until than? Those aren't facts, those are your opinions and, as we all know, opinions are like noses, everyone has one and everyone is free to pick their own, but that doesn't mean whatever is pulled out is of interest to anyone else.
tulc(just thought that should be pointed out)

 

[Postvieww]

I see there's one link and it's to a talking head. You might want to come back when you can supply some real facts (those would be links to several different articles containing links to support the things in those articles). Until than? Those aren't facts, those are your opinions and, as we all know, opinions are like noses, everyone has one and everyone is free to pick their own, but that doesn't mean whatever is pulled out is of interest to anyone else.
tulc(just thought that should be pointed out)

Did you actually listen to the link???? Probably not. First of all it was not a talking head it was one of Trumps actual lawyers that had actual facts to be filed in an actual Federal Court. The lawyer said in the clip that she does not say anything she cannot prove. But she did not provide you with links because you are not the arbitrator of truth in this matter. Just be patient all will come out in due time. This liberal mantra “there is no evidence” is hot air by those that only listen to the MSM spin. As for me not providing you with links to every point, I gave you my source you can do your own leg work. The info is available for anyone who actually cares to look. I do admit you will have a hard time finding truth on the MSM. You are not interested in the facts about this election if you are let’s have an actual discussion about the fraud in the this election any open minded could see if they were not blinded by this unnatural hatred of Trump. Do you want to have a discussion about what I really mean when I say “unnatural hatred”.I can draw you a picture if you like.

 

[Postvieww]

You might want to come back when you can supply some real facts

. How about responding to the fun fact in my post #343. Link provided. This is high profile liberal leaders concerned in December 2019 about the possibility of fraud from the voting system used in this election in 28 states. Of course the are not still concerned because things SEEM to be in their favor. The truth will come out.

 

[tulc]

Did you actually listen to the link???? Probably not. (snip)

You'd be wrong, this is one of those links people have been posting since she did the interview, so I've seen it probably 5 or 6 times. And yes, unless she posted links in the video (which she didn't) than she's just another talking head on tv. Which is why I prefer links that I can check. Let me give you an example:
here's the link to an article:
PolitiFact - Trump’s wrong claim that election observers were barred in Pennsylvania, Michigan
here's the headline of the article:

Trump’s wrong claim that election observers were barred in Pennsylvania, Michigan

here's the gist of the article:

Trump claimed that "Pennsylvania and Michigan didn’t allow our poll watchers and/or vote observers to watch or observe."

That’s inaccurate. Republican election observers have been allowed to observe the canvassing of ballots in both Pennsylvania and Michigan, including in Philadelphia and Detroit, two of the cities heavily targeted by the Trump campaign’s litigation efforts. Even Trump campaign attorneys have acknowledged having observers present in court hearings and legal filings.

We rate this claim Pants on Fire!

and here's why they say it:

Donald J. Trump on Twitter, Nov. 11, 2020

Decision Desk HQ, "2020 General Elections," accessed Nov. 12, 2020

Michigan Department of State on Twitter, Nov. 12, 2020

The Washington Post, "In poll watcher affidavits, Trump campaign offers no evidence of fraud in Detroit ballot-counting," Nov. 11, 2020

Business Insider, "In the Trump campaign's latest election lawsuit, Republican poll watchers complain they couldn't stand within 6 feet of poll workers because of coronavirus guidelines," Nov. 11, 2020

Niraj Warikoo on Twitter, Nov. 11, 2020

Brad Health on Twitter, Nov. 11, 2020

The Trump Campaign, "Trump Campaign Files Suit in Michigan, Citing Irregularities, Incompetence, and Unlawful Vote Counting," Nov. 11, 2020

The Associated Press, "EXPLAINER: Trump’s challenges fail to prove election fraud," Nov. 11, 2020

The Associated Press, "AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s claims on vaccine, election are wrong," Nov. 10, 2020

The New York Times, "There’s no evidence to support claims that election observers were blocked from counting rooms," Nov. 7, 2020

CNN, "Fact check: Trump doubles down on groundless conspiracy theory that GOP poll watchers across the country were sidelined," Nov. 7, 2020

CBS News, "Fact-checking Trump's claims on poll watchers," Nov. 6, 2020

FactCheck.org, "Trump’s Wild, Baseless Claims of Illegal Voting," Nov. 6, 2020

Detroit Free Press, "Here are the rules Michigan poll watchers, election challengers must follow," Nov. 3, 2020

Votes PA, "Guidance Concerning Poll Watchers and Authorized Representatives," Oct. 28, 2020

PolitiFact, "Trump, with help, is trying to sue and tweet his way to a second term. Could it work?" Nov. 11, 2020

PolitiFact, "Donald Trump’s Pants on Fire claim about illegal votes," Nov. 6, 2020

PolitiFact, "Ted Cruz falsely claims Philadelphia is counting votes in ‘shroud of darkness,'" Nov. 6, 2020

PolitiFact, "Over 100 Republican challengers monitored absentee ballot count in Detroit," Nov. 6, 2020

Email interview with Rick Hasen, professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine, Nov. 12, 2020

Email interview with Samuel Bagenstos, professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School, Nov. 12, 2020

Email interview with Michael Dimino, professor of law at Widener University Commonwealth Law School, Nov. 12, 2020

Email interview with Ellen Lyon, deputy director of the office of communications and press at the Pennsylvania Department of State, Nov. 12, 2020

Text interview with Tracy Wimmer, director of media relations at the Michigan Department of State, Nov. 12, 2020

So let me ask you: did the talking head in the link in your post provide links to support the things she said? If she didn't, she's just a talking head on a screen making a bunch of claims. So, when I ask "do you have anything to support the claims you made?" that's what I'm looking for. One with an article containing links to other articles that people can check to see for themselves.
tulc(hopes that helps)

 

[Postvieww]

You'd be wrong, this is one of those links people have been posting since she did the interview, so I've seen it probably 5 or 6 times. And yes, unless she posted links in the video (which she didn't) than she's just another talking head on tv. Which is why I prefer links that I can check. Let me give you an example:
here's the link to an article:
PolitiFact - Trump’s wrong claim that election observers were barred in Pennsylvania, Michigan
here's the headline of the article:

here's the gist of the article:

and here's why they say it:

So let me ask you: did the talking head in the link in your post provide links to support the things she said? If she didn't, she's just a talking head on a screen making a bunch of claims. So, when I ask "do you have anything to support the claims you made?" that's what I'm looking for. One with an article containing links to other articles that people can check to see for themselves.
tulc(hopes that helps)

Are you for real? You send me left leaning Politifact for a source????? Really???

 

[1Timothy]

In the USA there are several kinds of churches. Churches that believe in the Bible could not vote for a person that believes in abortion, lawlessness, the rejection of Jerusalem, and many more issues that Democrats believe in!

 

[tulc]

How about responding (snip)

sorry, but until you support the claims you made elsewhere in this thread why would anyone need to respond to this one? Seems like the balls been in your court for a while now and hasn't moved.
tulc(just a thought)