Joe Biden Wins

[Postvieww]

No-one, other than Trump and his acolytes ... have claimed any illegal votes.

. Duh! Most criminals will not confess when accused. Actually there are some just plain ole concerned citizens who worked the poles who have a conscience have reported fraud, but many on the left are so busy beating their chest while shouting no evidence they can’t hear the evidence.

 

[Postvieww]

Not Republican swing state legislatures, not Republican governors, not Republican Secretaries of State, not one court. Even the US Supreme Court has rejected Trump's claims.

. House and Senate Republicans Issue Letters Calling on Congress to Dispute Pennsylvania’s Electors, Law Enforcement to Review 2020 Election | Pennsylvania House Republican Caucus

 

[Postvieww]

If there were truly illegal votes cast, it would be evident and spoken to across the board by a plethora of government officials. But this has not happened.

. If you would pry yourself from the MSM maybe you would know more about the evidence.

 

[Postvieww]

What do consider to be examples of hatred toward Trump ?

Please just give me one or two ... so that we may discuss them in a succinct and reasonable way ...

.

We could do this all day but neither of us has the time to address all of the available examples. I await your response to these two.

 

[A_Thinker]

. House and Senate Republicans Issue Letters Calling on Congress to Dispute Pennsylvania’s Electors, Law Enforcement to Review 2020 Election | Pennsylvania House Republican Caucus

Even this particular action was taken by a MINORITY of the legislators in the state ... with approx. 65 of 250 state senators and representatives claiming missteps in PA's election.

P.S. The US Supreme Court rejected these claims yesterday ...

 

[Isilwen]

You do realize if the shoe were on the other foot no one would concede and it would be fought in the courts till all had been exhausted.

For mine and my girlfriend's part, we would have accepted the results if Trump won, just like my girlfriend did in 2016.

 

[A_Thinker]

.

We could do this all day but neither of us has the time to address all of the available examples. I await your response to these two.

All I see is differences in policy.

What else would you say about the President trumpeting the use of a medication which was not approved for COVID use by the FDA ? The FDA cannot justify use based on anecdotal sources.

And Pelosi just expressed her disagreement/distaste for the State of the Union address.

You are confusing positional disagreements with hatred.

My wife and I disagree quite vehemently at times ... and we certainly don't hate each other.

Expressions of disagreement, displeasure, dissatisfaction, or even distaste with an official's performance in office is not, necessarily the same as HATRED for the person themselves.

I'm sure most Americans are perfectly fine with Trump, ... so long as he is not president ...

 

[tulc]

‘Joe Biden is a pathological liar’

The Divisive Double Standard in Joe Biden's 'Unity' Speech | Manhattan Institute

weird, those links didn't work in your post but seem to be working in mine.
...I thought you didn't want opinions,

Opinions are not facts.

Because both of those are even labeled as op/eds
tulc( )

 

[SilverBear]

That is a false assertion. Harris has cosponsored the most aggressively pro-abortion piece of federal legislation ever introduced, the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would override state restrictions on abortions in the last three months of pregnancy, well after fetal viability. The Women’s Health Protection Act would invalidate any and all state-level protections for unborn children after the point of viability — indeed, up until birth.

We are supposed to pretend it doesn't read that way, but it does, and quite intentionally. Cosponsors - S.1645 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Women's Health Protection Act of 2019

No it doesn't read that way and anyone who does actually read it can see this is another example of anti-abortion lies,


S.1645 - Women's Health Protection Act of 2019

 

[Postvieww]

weird, those links didn't work in your post but seem to be working in mine.
...I thought you didn't want opinions,

Because both of those are even labeled as op/eds
tulc( )

They work on my phone even where you quoted me. Those op/eds use facts to back the opinion Joe is a liar. Not that hard to figure out.

 

[tulc]

They work on my phone even where you quoted me. Those op/eds use facts to back the opinion Joe is a liar. Not that hard to figure out.

In the first one, how do we know they used facts since the didn't bother to post any links to support what they said? (because, again, it's an opinion, not a fact) The second one was a little better, but oddly enough the second one's main article is about Biden and Harris sparring in 2019. So we know how that turned out...
tulc(just a thought)

 

[Postvieww]

Democrat calls on 'soldiers' to make Trump supporters 'pay' Is this hate or policy disagreement? All to common among many liberals.

 

[tulc]

Democrat calls on 'soldiers' to make Trump supporters 'pay' Is this hate or policy disagreement? All to common among many liberals.

...any condemnation for the people she was responding too? You know the people saying she should be hanging from the gallows?
Michigan legislator who gave 'warning' to Trump supporters stripped of committee seats

A legislator in Michigan has been stripped of her committee seats by state officials after she issued a "warning" to supporters of President Trump and others.

State Rep. Cynthia Johnson (D) over the weekend made a series of Facebook posts saying she was being targeted and harassed by people from around the country. Some of her social media posts included audio of voicemails containing death threats.

(there's a link in the article if you're wondering, but I'm cutting it out of this one because it's extremely vile) the Black lawmaker she would be "hanging from the gallows" for her aggressive questioning of Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani during a hearing last week on allegations of voter fraud.

tulc(is just curious)

 

[Postvieww]

...any condemnation for the people she was responding too? You know the people saying she should be hanging from the gallows?
Michigan legislator who gave 'warning' to Trump supporters stripped of committee seats

tulc(is just curious)

Just curious did tulc watch any of her reprehensible behavior towards not only the lawyers but the witnesses as well? Well I did and this woman is not fit to sit in the office she holds . Calling her behavior “ aggressive questioning” is like calling rape tough love.

 

[tulc]

Just curious did tulc watch any of her reprehensible behavior towards not only the lawyers but the witnesses as well? Well I did and this woman is not fit to sit in the office she holds . Calling her behavior “ aggressive questioning” is like calling rape tough love.

...so...that would be "No, I'm not going to condemn the people suggesting she should be hung and calling her every vile name they can think of."?
tulc(is just making sure that's what the above was about)

 

[Postvieww]

...so...that would be "No, I'm not going to condemn the people suggesting she should be hung and calling her every vile name they can think of."?
tulc(is just making sure that's what the above was about)

Nice dodge! No I am not condoning any vile remarks made to her but those vile remarks came as a result of her militant behavior in the hearing. She is not fit to hold the office she is in.now that you have justified her threats how do you turn her behavior in the hearing around to make it someone else’s fault?

 

[tulc]

Nice dodge!

Actually, the dodge would be your failing to answer my question.

No I am not condoning any vile remarks made to her

than why did you ignore that part of my post?

but those vile remarks came as a result of her militant behavior in the hearing.

Kind of like how she answered back when all those people attacked her?

She is not fit to hold the office she is in.

Wouldn't that decision be up to the people who voted for her?

now that you have justified her threats how do you turn her behavior in the hearing around to make it someone else’s fault?

uhmmm...I didn't "justify it" I explained it. None of the people who were posting about it seemed interested in explaining why she said what she said. It was made to seem as if she just started attacking people out of nowhere. And it took a couple of posts for anyone to even acknowledge that she was attacked.
tulc(apparently because of mean questions)

 

[Postvieww]

Ohhh Ruuuby don’t post your evidence on Instagram

 

[SilverBear]

Ohhh Ruuuby don’t post your evidence on Instagram

evidence....? Evidence that this woman needs to exercise more?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

No it doesn't read that way and anyone who does actually read it can see this is another example of anti-abortion lies,


S.1645 - Women's Health Protection Act of 2019

Sorry, this is in my area of competence. You are decidedly incorrect here.

Please re-read Section 4 again, which indicates all abortions are permissible WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS. Read it out loud, as I tell college students. You will hear what the language is actually saying if you can't detect it in the written words.

a) General rule.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements:

So...WITHOUT this restriction: (8) A prohibition on abortion prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.

Hence, a baby can be aborted and the patient has a RIGHT to an abortion "without a prohibition on abortion prior to fetal viability. " That is exactly what it reads.

An attempt at obfuscation is made with the next sentence, which reads as follows, vaguely and unnecessarily, considering the former sentence:

(Without a restriction on ) 9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.

Hence, a baby can be aborted at any time if any "treating health care provider (NOT DOCTOR- is specifically not required under this Bill under multiple sections)" decides the fully developed baby ready to be born poses a risk to "life or health". Completely undefined.

"My life will be affected" because I don't have a babysitter." "I'm not mentally prepared to have a baby". Good enough reasons here, but of course even this statement is NOT required under number 11 in Section 4. Read it.

Some laugh-out-loud moments in this ridiculously named "Women's Health Protection Act of 2019" for those who understand and can interpret legal language:

11) Not all people who become pregnant or need abortion services identify as women. Access to abortion services is critical to the health of every person regardless of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, immigration status, sex (including gender identity, sex stereotyping, or sexual orientation), age, or disability status. This Act’s protection is inclusive of all pregnant people.

(Complete pandering, virtue signaling nonsense. A pregnant person is by biological definition a FEMALE. Males cannot become pregnant or give birth. Very basic Biology. They can call themselves whatever they want but they are women if pregnant and/or giving birth/having their babies aborted)

Section 7: Liberal Construction. Oh, how very aptly named. So liberally construed that anything goes. In interpreting the provisions of this Act, a court shall liberally construe such provisions to effectuate the purposes of the Act."

And this: (5) VIABILITY.—The term “viability” means the point in a pregnancy at which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, based on the particular facts of the case before the health care provider, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the uterus with or without artificial support.

Translation: "Sustained fetal survival outside the uterus = the BABY will live. It's not a fetus anymore but the writers could not admit it is a BABY.

You can't make this stuff up. We need to remove Congress and start again with non-lifer, term-limited rational people.