• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: 2020 Presidential Election part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Minoosh said:
Someone is trying to make him sound reasonable, or save face, but take a look at that conditional statement.
Click to expand...

Yeah stripped of all the fluff it's basically just going "Trump will accept the results of the election if he is given literally no other choice."

Errr... yeah. That's what "given no other choice" means.

"Trump won't contest the election if we don't let him" isn't news or some new angle to look at the situation from.
 
I wonder if Trump insisted that his aids book him at the Four Seasons no matter what. So then the hotel refused but the aid was so scared he made a venue at Four Seasons happen....
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah stripped of all the fluff it's basically just going "Trump will accept the results of the election if he is given literally no other choice."

Errr... yeah. That's what "given no other choice" means.

"Trump won't contest the election if we don't let him" isn't news or some new angle to look at the situation from.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, but "we'll capitulate if the Russians take Berlin" is a step back from "we are winning the war".
 
Regnad Kcin said:
To be clear, I will NOT go out with Gal Gadot if she is the last woman on earth.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't either. If she showed up at my house in lingerie, I'd turn her away. I want to prove it too. Someone ask her to do that.....
 
Anthony Scaramucci on MSNBC says all the court challenges are a last Trump scam. He'll collect donations to pay for them, but the fine print will allow him to use the money any way he wants. Scaramucci predicts Trump could raise $60 million in the next couple weeks, with no strings.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah stripped of all the fluff it's basically just going "Trump will accept the results of the election if he is given literally no other choice."

Errr... yeah. That's what "given no other choice" means.

"Trump won't contest the election if we don't let him" isn't news or some new angle to look at the situation from.
Click to expand...
Some glitch is keeping me from linking to a Daily Beast story from a couple of days ago. The headline was, "Trump whines: Why isn't Barr coming to save me?" Trump whining is not news. The analysis within caught my eye though:

One factor inhibiting Justice Department intervention is the contradictory strategies pursued by Trump and his supporters in the various states where it suits them. In Georgia, Pennsylvania and Michigan—states where Joe Biden either has taken a lead or where still-unreported counties are expected to favor Biden—the campaign wants the count to stop. But in Arizona, where Trump expects unreported ballots to favor him, Trump supporters have been demanding to proceed with the count.

Intervention at such a fluid time runs the risk of federal courts establishing a rule that would work to the Trump campaign’s disadvantage in a different state. Incoherent legal approaches also risk putting federal judges—as well as Trump appointees to the Supreme Court—in untenable positions that might not yield the result Trump wants
Click to expand...

The key word there is "incoherent." I don't think there's going to be a coherent way out of this for Trump because Trump is fundamentally incoherent.
 
Minoosh said:
From that link:



Someone is trying to make him sound reasonable, or save face, but take a look at that conditional statement. IF his legal challenges fail THEN he will concede and execute a peaceful transition of power. There's a fallacy there I can't quite put my finger on. IF his legal challenges fail, THEN he has no ******* leg to stand on whatsoever. The statement ... nullifies itself, is the best I can come up with. Or it's a tautology. IF he fails, then he fails. He doesn't have to concede. It's conventional, but it's not required. So why bother making a statement? He's welcome to stick to his guns, as far as I'm concerned. But the DOJ doesn't seem to be going all-in with him anymore. It never quite did, Barr's efforts notwithstanding.

ETA: L'etat, c'est ne pas Donald Trump.
Click to expand...
In ancient/classical era, a city avoided sacking by capitulation before attempting to resist.

No such offer would be made after investment.

I see no reason to treat this any different.

:9
 
thaiboxerken said:
I wouldn't either. If she showed up at my house in lingerie, I'd turn her away. I want to prove it too. Someone ask her to do that.....
Click to expand...
Lingerie, no, I'd want the Wonder Woman outfit - and I say that as a straight woman :o
 
Delphic Oracle said:
In ancient/classical era, a city avoided sacking by capitulation before attempting to resist.

No such offer would be made after investment.

I see no reason to treat this any different.

:9
Click to expand...
I don't really think anyone needs to sack Trump's inner circle, but I could be wrong. An actual strategy could emerge, I suppose, but I doubt it.

Should Biden change his conciliatory tone? From "Heal the nation" to "Concede now and I won't crush your testicles in a vise"? Or maybe he can get Kamala to say it ...

I've had reason to believe in the past that Biden has a pugnacious side.
 
Minoosh said:
I don't really think anyone needs to sack Trump's inner circle, but I could be wrong. An actual strategy could emerge, I suppose, but I doubt it.

Should Biden change his conciliatory tone? From "Heal the nation" to "Concede now and I won't crush your testicles in a vise"? Or maybe he can get Kamala to say it ...

I've had reason to believe in the past that Biden has a pugnacious side.
Click to expand...

What? All of Trump's inner circle are his appointees. They'll all be sacked routinely.

If Biden wants to get anything through the Repub Senate, he has to be conciliatory, and, as with Obama, it won't be enough.
 
Last edited:
Trumpkins never let you down with just how crazy they can be.

Marshall Arkansas police chief Lang Holland resigned after making posts on social media that repeatedly said Democrats should be killed. He claimed that the election was being stolen. and "Death to all Marxist Democrats, Take no prisoners, leave no survivors!!"
 
TahiniBinShawarma said:
Here’s how the U.S. State Dept explained Ukraine electoral fraud

“illegal use of absentee ballots,” “opposition observers ejected,” “North Korean style turnout in the East” (“nearly 96 percent”), “mobile ballot box fraud,” etc.

https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/39542.htm
Click to expand...

*Sighs* I little know why I am bothering but...

- There is zero evidence of illegal absentee ballots.
- No opposition observers were ejected. (The mob of angry MAGA hats and Proud Boy "Poll Watchers" don't count)
- There was a high turnout, but nowhere near suspiciously high turnout. Our turnout rate was only about 66%.
- There was no "mobile ballot box" fraud.

Just not getting the results you want isn't evidence of a shady election.

You are wrong. You are intentionally promoting spreading false facts and promoting a false narrative. It is dangerous and irresponsible, to say nothing of both intellectually and morally cowardly, to do that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom