2020 General Election

[houndawg]

I know they won’t. Which is all the more reason to hold these morons accountable.

Let the Democratic Party remain the party of political violence. Its no excuse for the GOP to be lenient with its own rabble


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not saying “be lenient”…charge them with trespass, whatever, slap them on the wrist (which is STILL more than they’ve done to ANTIFA and BLM rioters), and send them on their way. Politically motivated charges do nothing but further the divide in this country when a blind eye is turned to ONE side’s actions, while the others are held under a microscope and lives are destroyed. It’s not like we’re sending any kind of message to the Dem party….because they sure as fuck aren’t listening. I mean, they literally view these people as terrorists, so they don’t see anything wrong with politically-motivated charges, and in fact don’t see them as such.

"these people"?

You mean the ones dressing in tactical gear and bringing guns to protests and shooting people with them?

[houndawg]

Good boy, Reek

Now go back in your hovel

Oh, and good. I hope they make a hard example out of these clowns and anybody else who commits or conspires to political violence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anything to keep the "1/6 was an insurrection" narrative alive.

BTW, Ray Epps was/is an oathkeeper, he getting charged too or nah?

You sound like you have a bad case of "Biden Derangement Syndrome". Might want to get some professional help before it really gets a foothold.

Just sayin'

[CID1990]

I’m not saying “be lenient”…charge them with trespass, whatever, slap them on the wrist (which is STILL more than they’ve done to ANTIFA and BLM rioters), and send them on their way. Politically motivated charges do nothing but further the divide in this country when a blind eye is turned to ONE side’s actions, while the others are held under a microscope and lives are destroyed. It’s not like we’re sending any kind of message to the Dem party….because they sure as fuck aren’t listening. I mean, they literally view these people as terrorists, so they don’t see anything wrong with politically-motivated charges, and in fact don’t see them as such.

"these people"?

You mean the ones dressing in tactical gear and bringing guns to protests and shooting people with them?

It wasn’t a protest it was a baseball practice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

I’m not saying “be lenient”…charge them with trespass, whatever, slap them on the wrist (which is STILL more than they’ve done to ANTIFA and BLM rioters), and send them on their way. Politically motivated charges do nothing but further the divide in this country when a blind eye is turned to ONE side’s actions, while the others are held under a microscope and lives are destroyed. It’s not like we’re sending any kind of message to the Dem party….because they sure as fuck aren’t listening. I mean, they literally view these people as terrorists, so they don’t see anything wrong with politically-motivated charges, and in fact don’t see them as such.

"these people"?

You mean the ones dressing in tactical gear and bringing guns to protests and shooting people with them?

Which ones dressing in tactical gear?

[AZGrizFan]

"these people"?

You mean the ones dressing in tactical gear and bringing guns to protests and shooting people with them?

Which ones dressing in tactical gear?

Do baseball helmets and motorcycle helmets and ski goggles count as tactical gear?

Fucking retards. They all think they’re playing COD.

[Ibanez]

Which ones dressing in tactical gear?

Do baseball helmets and motorcycle helmets and ski goggles count as tactical gear?

Fucking retards. They all think they’re playing COD.

Haven't you learned anything, AZ?

Black guns, black helmets, black clothes, black gear, etc.... is "tactical" or of the "assault" variety.

[kalm]

Which ones dressing in tactical gear?

Do baseball helmets and motorcycle helmets and ski goggles count as tactical gear?

Fucking retards. They all think they’re playing COD.

Kind of like the proud boys and oath keepers? Yes they’re all idiots.

[AZGrizFan]

Do baseball helmets and motorcycle helmets and ski goggles count as tactical gear?

Fucking retards. They all think they’re playing COD.

Kind of like the proud boys and oath keepers? Yes they’re all idiots.

I especially like the ones in baseball helmets.

[SDHornet]

These charges are obviously politically motivated, as of now I'm leaning on another self own by the Biden administration given their unwillingness to release footage from that day. We'll see how this plays out, but I'm thinking this will continentlymake the headlines when more Biden admin blunders come up...

...and retards like jelly will lap it up.

Did you write this as you were changing your diaper?

I should have said "retards like jelly and houndie..." to be more accurate.

[SDHornet]

Anything to keep the "1/6 was an insurrection" narrative alive.

BTW, Ray Epps was/is an oathkeeper, he getting charged too or nah?

You sound like you have a bad case of "Biden Derangement Syndrome". Might want to get some professional help before it really gets a foothold.

Just sayin'

I guess you missed Kinzinger claiming the Epps had been interviewed only to have the J6 committee indicate he was not interview and hence was going to be interviewed.

But yeah, Ray Epps can do no wrong or something.

[CID1990]

BRAAAAWK!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I happened upon this a few minutes ago:

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/45/e2103619118

The title is No evidence for systematic voter fraud: A guide to statistical claims about the 2020 election

It's from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, dated November November 9, 2021. Based on seeing the page at https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evid ... 0-election and looking at the drop down that appears when you click the "+" next to "See all authors and affiliations" near the top of the article, I'm thinking it originated with people at the Conservative Hoover Institution.

We have closely examined what we consider the most prominent statistical claims of fraud in the 2020 election. Although the claims are diverse, our conclusion is consistent: For each claim, we find that what is purported to be an anomalous fact about the election result is either not a fact or not anomalous.

[BDKJMU]

I happened upon this a few minutes ago:

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/45/e2103619118

The title is No evidence for systematic voter fraud: A guide to statistical claims about the 2020 election

It's from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, dated November November 9, 2021. Based on seeing the page at https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evid ... 0-election and looking at the drop down that appears when you click the "+" next to "See all authors and affiliations" near the top of the article, I'm thinking it originated with people at the Conservative Hoover Institution.

We have closely examined what we consider the most prominent statistical claims of fraud in the 2020 election. Although the claims are diverse, our conclusion is consistent: For each claim, we find that what is purported to be an anomalous fact about the election result is either not a fact or not anomalous.

[CID1990]

I happened upon this a few minutes ago:

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/45/e2103619118

The title is No evidence for systematic voter fraud: A guide to statistical claims about the 2020 election

It's from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, dated November November 9, 2021. Based on seeing the page at https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evid ... 0-election and looking at the drop down that appears when you click the "+" next to "See all authors and affiliations" near the top of the article, I'm thinking it originated with people at the Conservative Hoover Institution.

We have closely examined what we consider the most prominent statistical claims of fraud in the 2020 election. Although the claims are diverse, our conclusion is consistent: For each claim, we find that what is purported to be an anomalous fact about the election result is either not a fact or not anomalous.

I thought this had already been hashed out in fine detail. Is there anyone here still alleging Trump actually won, or are you just scratching your OCD itch?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I happened upon this a few minutes ago:

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/45/e2103619118

The title is No evidence for systematic voter fraud: A guide to statistical claims about the 2020 election

It's from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, dated November November 9, 2021. Based on seeing the page at https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evid ... 0-election and looking at the drop down that appears when you click the "+" next to "See all authors and affiliations" near the top of the article, I'm thinking it originated with people at the Conservative Hoover Institution.

I thought this had already been hashed out in fine detail. Is there anyone here still alleging Trump actually won, or are you just scratching your OCD itch?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know. Ask SeattleGriz if he still thinks there is actual evidence of that. In any case, I just saw Peter Navarro a few minutes ago on TV continuing the make the claim that his documents make the case.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW I saw Trump himself make the claim that there were more votes than voters in Philadelphia during a very recent NPR interview. That has been throughly debunked. And of course the NPR interviewer wasn't having it. Wasn't going to let Trump get away with his typical fire hose of lies. So Trump hung up.

[UNI88]

BTW I saw Trump himself make the claim that there were more votes than voters in Philadelphia during a very recent NPR interview. That has been throughly debunked. And of course the NPR interviewer wasn't having it. Wasn't going to let Trump get away with his typical fire hose of lies. So Trump hung up.

Trump is full of it. The only people trying to keep Trump relevant are Trump, MAGAts and Democrats. Reasonable and rational people ignore him so he can fade from memory.

[LeadBolt]

BTW I saw Trump himself make the claim that there were more votes than voters in Philadelphia during a very recent NPR interview. That has been throughly debunked. And of course the NPR interviewer wasn't having it. Wasn't going to let Trump get away with his typical fire hose of lies. So Trump hung up.

Trump is full of it. The only people trying to keep Trump relevant are Trump, MAGAts and Democrats. Reasonable and rational people ignore him so he can fade from memory.

Exactly. Trump’s waning relevance is extremely troubling to the left, which has no accomplishments of their own to offer voters. Without TDS and with Biden, they are a sinking ship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Trump is full of it. The only people trying to keep Trump relevant are Trump, MAGAts and Democrats. Reasonable and rational people ignore him so he can fade from memory.

Exactly. Trump’s waning relevance is extremely troubling to the left, which has no accomplishments of their own to offer voters. Without TDS and with Biden, they are a sinking ship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He is the favorite to be the Republican nominee for President in 2024. Surely y'all must realize that.

https://www.newsweek.com/most-republica ... ll-1664430

BTW, the infrastructure bill being passed was actually a pretty darned big accomplishment; particularly in this partisan atmosphere. Being able to get enough Republicans to get on board to do it was kind of remarkable.

[JohnStOnge]

I happened upon this a few minutes ago:

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/45/e2103619118

The title is No evidence for systematic voter fraud: A guide to statistical claims about the 2020 election

It's from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, dated November November 9, 2021. Based on seeing the page at https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evid ... 0-election and looking at the drop down that appears when you click the "+" next to "See all authors and affiliations" near the top of the article, I'm thinking it originated with people at the Conservative Hoover Institution.

I thought this had already been hashed out in fine detail. Is there anyone here still alleging Trump actually won, or are you just scratching your OCD itch?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BTW, check the results on this subject in this recent YouGov Poll at https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/0runc17e13/ ... Report.pdf.

Do a find on "Would you say that Joe Biden legitimately won the election, or not?"

When you get there, scroll down to the "Party ID" breakdown. 72% of Republican respondents said Biden did not legitimately win the election.

It's complete nonsense. And having that many people affiliated with a major political party actually believing that is a problem. Plus 40% of Independent respondents said that. That's pretty bad. We have a problem with a very large number of people living in a completely false alternative "reality."

[AZGrizFan]

Exactly. Trump’s waning relevance is extremely troubling to the left, which has no accomplishments of their own to offer voters. Without TDS and with Biden, they are a sinking ship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He is the favorite to be the Republican nominee for President in 2024. Surely y'all must realize that.

https://www.newsweek.com/most-republica ... ll-1664430

BTW, the infrastructure bill being passed was actually a pretty darned big accomplishment; particularly in this partisan atmosphere. Being able to get enough Republicans to get on board to do it was kind of remarkable.

The fact they would back him does not in and of itself make him the favorite.

I will support him if he’s the candidate, but I do not WANT him to be the candidate and will not vote for him in any primary.

[JohnStOnge]

I will support him if he’s the candidate

That is very sad. Trump has shown you that is is totally dishonest, totally corrupt, and mentally unstable. He ended his Presidency acting like a third world dictator trying to stay in office after he was voted out. Yet you would support him.

[AZGrizFan]

I will support him if he’s the candidate

That is very sad. Trump has shown you that is is totally dishonest, totally corrupt, and mentally unstable. He ended his Presidency acting like a third world dictator trying to stay in office after he was voted out. Yet you would support him.

You tell me who the donks could run that would make me change my vote?

Biden again? Nope. He needs a drool cup and to be put in assisted living.
Harris? Hell no. Least qualified VP since Dan Quayle.
Warren? Hard no. She’s like the “Karen” poster child
Michelle Obama? hardly. 4 more years of the Obama-era division would destroy this country.
Sanders? Lol nope. We don’t need to turn America into Cuba
Buttplug? Nope. The guy has been absent on “paternity leave” during the biggest transportation crisis in this country’s history.

who else? Andrew Yang has left the party and I won’t vote for a socialist or a communist or someone who prefers Sharia law.

So that leaves Trump if he’s the candidate on the other side.

[kalm]

That is very sad. Trump has shown you that is is totally dishonest, totally corrupt, and mentally unstable. He ended his Presidency acting like a third world dictator trying to stay in office after he was voted out. Yet you would support him.

You tell me who the donks could run that would make me change my vote?

Biden again? Nope. He needs a drool cup and to be put in assisted living.
Harris? Hell no. Least qualified VP since Dan Quayle.
Warren? Hard no. She’s like the “Karen” poster child
Michelle Obama? hardly. 4 more years of the Obama-era division would destroy this country.
Sanders? Lol nope. We don’t need to turn America into Cuba
Buttplug? Nope. The guy has been absent on “paternity leave” during the biggest transportation crisis in this country’s history.

who else? Andrew Yang has left the party and I won’t vote for a socialist or a communist or someone who prefers Sharia law.

So that leaves Trump if he’s the candidate on the other side.

I think there’s a strong chance you’ll get that wish and an equally strong chance the opponent will be Hillary.

[AZGrizFan]

You tell me who the donks could run that would make me change my vote?

Biden again? Nope. He needs a drool cup and to be put in assisted living.
Harris? Hell no. Least qualified VP since Dan Quayle.
Warren? Hard no. She’s like the “Karen” poster child
Michelle Obama? hardly. 4 more years of the Obama-era division would destroy this country.
Sanders? Lol nope. We don’t need to turn America into Cuba
Buttplug? Nope. The guy has been absent on “paternity leave” during the biggest transportation crisis in this country’s history.

who else? Andrew Yang has left the party and I won’t vote for a socialist or a communist or someone who prefers Sharia law.

So that leaves Trump if he’s the candidate on the other side.

I think there’s a strong chance you’ll get that wish and an equally strong chance the opponent will be Hillary.

If by “getting my wish” you mean Trump will NOT be the Rep candidate, then I sure hope so. But I left Hillary off the list intentionally. But if she IS the candidate, my voting choice will be very easy.