posted by jmog

So he thanked them after they changed their vote. What am I missing. They didn’t change it after he called them.

The revised vote is when they voted to certify after not certifying. They haven’t voted to not certify.  They want to rescind that revised vote. So you’re saying Trump called them to thank them after voting to certify? And you and qq want people to believe captain quid pro quo just called to thank them for their service after they voted to certify? 

posted by jmog

You are now arguing semantics to sound right and moving the goalposts.

No. I am doing a 1 to 1 comparison.

It is not semantics. You are the one comparing apples and oranges.  

posted by jmog

So he thanked them after they changed their vote. What am I missing. They didn’t change it after he called them.

Not just thanking them,  but inviting them to the White House. 

This whole thing is so fucked up. The lawsuits are a joke and farce. Rudy today was just an embarrassment. 

posted by kizer permanente

The revised vote is when they voted to certify after not certifying. They haven’t voted to not certify.  They want to rescind that revised vote. So you’re saying Trump called them to thank them after voting to certify? And you and qq want people to believe captain quid pro quo just called to thank them for their service after they voted to certify? 

Maybe you have me confused with someone who is a Trump fan.  All I did was read the article and go by what it said and then asked what I was missing.  

The article stated they certified under the understanding there would be an audit. They changed their vote once an audit was taken off the table.  Trump then did something stupid and got involved/called them and invited them to the WH like a moron not realizing how that looks optics wise.

Trump is a moron and did a moron thing, we know he is a moron. But based on the article it isn’t a fact that they changed to not certify after he called.  Unless, again, I am missing something.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

No. I am doing a 1 to 1 comparison.

It is not semantics. You are the one comparing apples and oranges.  

It’s not accepting/fighting an elected president, not on policy but being “illegitimately” elected.

I am comparing apples to apples, you just don’t want to admit it.  The democrats made up Russia bull crap to impeach Trump because, in their own words, he was illegitimately elected.

You are trying to act like the dems are holier than thou in this case because they didn’t fight the election, but they fought the results of that election for 3.5 f’ing years.

It is not different and you know it, you just won’t admit it.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Not just thanking them,  but inviting them to the White House. 

This whole thing is so fucked up. The lawsuits are a joke and farce. Rudy today was just an embarrassment. 

Rudy is a clown and he looked like an idiot up there.

posted by jmog

Maybe you have me confused with someone who is a Trump fan.  All I did was read the article and go by what it said and then asked what I was missing.  

The article stated they certified under the understanding there would be an audit. They changed their vote once an audit was taken off the table.  Trump then did something stupid and got involved/called them and invited them to the WH like a moron not realizing how that looks optics wise.

Trump is a moron and did a moron thing, we know he is a moron. But based on the article it isn’t a fact that they changed to not certify after he called.  Unless, again, I am missing something.

They didn’t change their vote to not certify though. They likely won’t have a chance to either. They wanted to rescind their vote.  They said they wanted to rescind their vote on Wednesday. They talked to Trump Tuesday night. Those are the facts. You can claim that they wanted to change their vote the whole time but that’s not what happened. They voted to not certify. 2 hours later they changed their vote to certify after being lambasted by the community on a zoom call. Trump called them that night. They next day they said they wanted to rescind their vote. It’s highly inappropriate for a sitting president to call voter canvassers. Even more inappropriate to invite them to the White House and they say they want to rescind their votes the next day. 

Georgia recount audit has been finished and the count will be certified tomorrow. 

posted by jmog

It’s not accepting/fighting an elected president, not on policy but being “illegitimately” elected.

I am comparing apples to apples, you just don’t want to admit it.  The democrats made up Russia bull crap to impeach Trump because, in their own words, he was illegitimately elected.

You are trying to act like the dems are holier than thou in this case because they didn’t fight the election, but they fought the results of that election for 3.5 f’ing years.

It is not different and you know it, you just won’t admit it.

No you are not, and you are combining so many different things over the last four years to try and compare it to what the President is doing now.

You simply are mistaking some of the events top try and prove your point. Stating the Russia bullcrap to impeach Trump is wrong as you need to go back and remember it was about the Ukraine call and even the China statement about Biden. But, I'll let your mistake slide for now. 

This is what I meant when I said a few weeks ago about living in two different worlds. I live in one where what the President is doing is pretty damn historic, pathetic, and way outside the norm. You are trying to both sides it and come up with your own story to not accept the reality of the situation. 

posted by iclfan2

Rudy is a clown and he looked like an idiot up there.

I was kind of keeping track of it, and then when I saw his hair dye rolling down his face, I could not take my eyes off the train wreck. 

I am thankful this Presidential election was not close, as in it did not come down to PA. I knew if it did, what Trump is doing now would be even worse and probably have more Republican support. 

I also think this is dangerous in the sense that the longer it goes without top level Republicans stating Trump needs to move on, the more people like Quaker, and his supporters, but also some members of the Republican party will see as Trump's claims were at least believable. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

No you are not, and you are combining so many different things over the last four years to try and compare it to what the President is doing now.

You simply are mistaking some of the events top try and prove your point. Stating the Russia bullcrap to impeach Trump is wrong as you need to go back and remember it was about the Ukraine call and even the China statement about Biden. But, I'll let your mistake slide for now. 

This is what I meant when I said a few weeks ago about living in two different worlds. I live in one where what the President is doing is pretty damn historic, pathetic, and way outside the norm. You are trying to both sides it and come up with your own story to not accept the reality of the situation. 

You said one correct thing there.

You are living in your own world.

posted by jmog

You said one correct thing there.

You are living in your own world.

So are you my sad little friend. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

So are you my sad little friend. 

You two do a great job of hearing each other out with open minds.  I always learn something by following the engaging back and forth.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

So are you my sad little friend. 

I can't help it you are trying to say that Trump using the courts before the final EC votes to contest the election is worse than the dems using 3.5 years of public MSM and HoR/Senate to impeach a POTUS after the EC vote/election.

The only difference between the two are when it happened in the election cycle, how long the party spent doing it, and what avenue (courts vs Senate). Its still the same thing, attacking a duly elected president as illegitimate and trying to remove a duly elected president. 

Trump right now is no different than what the dems did for 3.5 years. Both are wrong, but you acting like the dems were better is hilariously biased.

If you can't laugh at the idea of Comrade Sanders as Labor Secretary, then you probably take politics way too seriously.

I've seen lots of blue check "journalists" pushing their ideas/hopes of Hillary being in Biden's administration somewhere, namely as ambassador.

Wouldn't that just be perfect?

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I am thankful this Presidential election was not close, as in it did not come down to PA. I knew if it did, what Trump is doing now would be even worse and probably have more Republican support. 

I also think this is dangerous in the sense that the longer it goes without top level Republicans stating Trump needs to move on, the more people like Quaker, and his supporters, but also some members of the Republican party will see as Trump's claims were at least believable. 

 

I stick to numbers, reason and logic.  To have certain democrat stronghold areas inside swing states go from 55 - 60% historical turnout to 80-90% is a statistical impossibility; not an improbability, an impossibility, without fraud.  This is not complicated.  The mail-in ballots were the perfect vehicle to deliver the desired result. 

posted by QuakerOats

I stick to numbers, reason and logic.  To have certain democrat stronghold areas inside swing states go from 55 - 60% historical turnout to 80-90% is a statistical impossibility; not an improbability, an impossibility, without fraud.  This is not complicated.  The mail-in ballots were the perfect vehicle to deliver the desired result. 

Translation: If I keep crying, the Tears Fairy will grant my wish!!!

posted by Heretic

Translation: If I keep crying, the Tears Fairy will grant my wish!!!

newsmax and oann told him Trump was cheated. they wouldn't lie to him.

posted by jmog

I can't help it you are trying to say that Trump using the courts before the final EC votes to contest the election is worse than the dems using 3.5 years of public MSM and HoR/Senate to impeach a POTUS after the EC vote/election.

The only difference between the two are when it happened in the election cycle, how long the party spent doing it, and what avenue (courts vs Senate). Its still the same thing, attacking a duly elected president as illegitimate and trying to remove a duly elected president. 

Trump right now is no different than what the dems did for 3.5 years. Both are wrong, but you acting like the dems were better is hilariously biased.

Yeah, again, you are mixing and twisting so many items over the last four years to fit your both sides narratives. 

Let's just use a scale of 1-10 for example. Let's say just the Russia stuff was let's say a 5 on the scale of getting rid of the President, impeachment was probably let's say a 7. What Trump is doing is like a 9 or 10. 

But, you do you. 

posted by QuakerOats

I stick to numbers, reason and logic.  To have certain democrat stronghold areas inside swing states go from 55 - 60% historical turnout to 80-90% is a statistical impossibility; not an improbability, an impossibility, without fraud.  This is not complicated.  The mail-in ballots were the perfect vehicle to deliver the desired result. 

I can't wait for the evidence in the courts to back that up...oh...you mean there is actually zero evidence.....

Again, cite the actual court case and evidence or get the fuck out of here with your bullshit. 

posted by QuakerOats

I stick to numbers, reason and logic.  To have certain democrat stronghold areas inside swing states go from 55 - 60% historical turnout to 80-90% is a statistical impossibility; not an improbability, an impossibility, without fraud.  This is not complicated.  The mail-in ballots were the perfect vehicle to deliver the desired result. 

You're helpful in keeping us current on right wing daily talking points. Whatever crap is posted on conservative Twitter and by Donny Jr., you usually end up posting that very same day. 

Just cause Donny Jr. claims something doesn't make it true. 

How is a 20% jump impossible without fraud? 

plmk.

posted by gut

If you can't laugh at the idea of Comrade Sanders as Labor Secretary, then you probably take politics way too seriously.

That would be funny, but would no way get through a Senate. 

Looks like Biden is making run of the mill bureaucratic choices so far. 

WSJ is saying Janet Yellen for Treasuery and that...isn't a bad choice.