2024

[twocoach]

Corrupt court findings? Why bother?

So all of the dozens of court cases in a number of different states have managed to collude in an effort at corruption? Let me guess, it is the same sources that are providing you your well-known evidence of a stolen election that are claiming this, correct?

Oh, and I am still waiting on those sources as I am still very interested in seeing how they came to their conclusions. I have some time open for reading this week as I finished the genealogy project I have been working on in my free time. Feel free to send that link.

I’ve been down this road too many times on these boreds and their iterations over the years. I have better things to do with my time.

It doesn't take much time to copy and paste a link into a post. You share links all the time. And you seem to have plenty of time to attack other people's sources and posts so I don't see where this is any different than any of your other activity.

[Shirley]

It would be so nice to have one less rude, ignorant, loudmouth, trailer-trash, know-nothing seditionist to have to listen to...

Adam Frisch, the Democrat who came close to beating Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) in last year’s midterms, (he lost by only 546 votes), raised three times more than the incumbent in second-quarter fundraising as he seeks a 2024 rematch.

Frisch’s campaign reported bringing in $2.6 million from April through June, which is more than triple Boebert’s roughly $818,000, the Colorado Sun reports.

It’s the second quarter in a row Frisch has outraised Bobert — he raised $1.7 million in the first quarter, while Boebert reportedly brought in around $764,000.

Frisch’s campaign earlier this month said the second-quarter amount they raised breaks the record “for the largest quarterly fundraising for a U.S. House challenger in the year before an election, excluding special elections and self-funded campaigns.”

[...]

[Shirley]

Good!

A new bipartisan organization is opposing the effort by the group No Labels to run a third-party candidate in the 2024 presidential race. That's with concerns growing among Democrats and Republicans opposed to Donald Trump's candidacy that a third-party candidate could serve as a spoiler. Former House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt discussed more with Geoff Bennett.

https://youtu.be/yFHHUerfREw

[Shirley]

Today In: Reading the room.

The clip is too short to know if this was before or after he talked about cutting Social Security and Medicare, but long enough to wonder why he didn't work a reference to "woke", in?

https://twitter.com/Susanlin68/status/1 ... wsrc%5Etfw

[jfish26]

So all of the dozens of court cases in a number of different states have managed to collude in an effort at corruption? Let me guess, it is the same sources that are providing you your well-known evidence of a stolen election that are claiming this, correct?

Oh, and I am still waiting on those sources as I am still very interested in seeing how they came to their conclusions. I have some time open for reading this week as I finished the genealogy project I have been working on in my free time. Feel free to send that link.

I’ve been down this road too many times on these boreds and their iterations over the years. I have better things to do with my time.

It doesn't take much time to copy and paste a link into a post. You share links all the time. And you seem to have plenty of time to attack other people's sources and posts so I don't see where this is any different than any of your other activity.

I'm just not sure what we're supposed to do with this at this point.

The person with the MOST to gain from finding and showing anything approaching meaningful voter fraud - who has spent or caused the spending of tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars on trying to find it, whose political party has had ample opportunity to use the government's investigatory powers to find it - hasn't found it.

The reason is simple: it doesn't exist.

And I would remind the conspiracists that the actual results of 2020 - all by themselves! - strongly dispel the notion of meaningful voter fraud.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... es-he-won/

“What happened in the fall of 2020 is that 28,000 Georgians skipped the presidential race and yet they voted down-ballot in other races,” Raffensperger told the House panel. “The Republican congressmen ended up getting 33,000 more votes than President Trump. And that’s why President Trump came up short.”

This is a simple point but an often overlooked one. Trump has often pointed to the fact that he lost the presidency even while Republicans did better than expected in House races as evidence that votes for him were suppressed or votes for Joe Biden augmented through fraud. But Raffensperger gets at a simpler answer: Trump was simply less popular than other Republican candidates.

It’s a simpler answer … and it’s an answer that is demonstrable with data.

Presidential votes aren’t usually tallied by House district, leaving such analyses to third parties. For the past several presidential cycles, that’s been done by Daily Kos, which figures out how votes overlap with House boundaries. We can compare those results with the district-by-district results in House races compiled by Cook Political Report.

In 2020, Trump got north of 74 million votes nationally. Republican House candidates got about 73 million. But when we compare those numbers at a district level, we see that, in most House districts, Republican candidates (winning and losing) got more votes than Trump, 227 to 208. In nearly all of the districts where House candidates overperformed relative to Trump, they also did better in the vote margin. In nearly a third of the districts where Trump got more votes, though, the Republican running for the House had a better margin than the president — meaning that they won by more or lost by less. Because Biden got more votes than Democratic House candidates in 337 districts.

[...]

Overall, Trump won about 64 percent of districts in which his vote margin was worse than Republican House candidates'. In other words, if his theory that House Republicans performed better than him because of fraud were true, that fraud somehow led to his winning nearly two-thirds of those districts.

In fact, Trump got 712,000 fewer votes than Republican House candidates in districts he won. In districts he lost, he got 2.1 million more votes. Weird fraud!

Just to continue flailing this departed horse, there were 27 states in which Trump got more votes than GOP House candidates. In 18 of them, Biden won. In states Trump won, he got about 140,000 more votes than his party’s House nominees. In states he lost, he got 1.2 million more. Weird fraud!

Look, there’s no reason to take Trump’s claims about fraud seriously at all. He’s been making them — and changing them, and updating them and revising them — for 20 months now, and they are no more solid than they’ve ever been.

But Raffensperger’s point is a clear, concise one. The idea that Trump underperformed House candidates because of fraud is obviously not true. His problem was that a lot of Americans, including a lot of Republicans in heavily Republican areas, didn’t want to vote for him.

[ousdahl]

https://twitter.com/revoltpolitic/statu ... 8ZiR9WCcTg

[twocoach]

I’ve been down this road too many times on these boreds and their iterations over the years. I have better things to do with my time.

It doesn't take much time to copy and paste a link into a post. You share links all the time. And you seem to have plenty of time to attack other people's sources and posts so I don't see where this is any different than any of your other activity.

I'm just not sure what we're supposed to do with this at this point.

The person with the MOST to gain from finding and showing anything approaching meaningful voter fraud - who has spent or caused the spending of tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars on trying to find it, whose political party has had ample opportunity to use the government's investigatory powers to find it - hasn't found it.

The reason is simple: it doesn't exist.

THIS.

Trump and his associates have spent tens of millions of dollars trying to find this evidence and have been wholly unsuccessful. Frankly, what they have done is proven definitely that fraud to the level required to "steal an election" did NOT happen. I doubt that any election in our history has been more thoroughly audited and verified.

[MICHHAWK]

i will vote for the wastepaperbasket before i will cast a vote for uncle joe or dt.

[twocoach]

i will vote for the wastepaperbasket before i will cast a vote for uncle joe or dt.

Well, at least you'll be close to where all your research material should be filed post-election.

[ousdahl]

i will vote for the wastepaperbasket before i will cast a vote for uncle joe or dt.

Don’t talk about Cornel West like that!

[jfish26]

It doesn't take much time to copy and paste a link into a post. You share links all the time. And you seem to have plenty of time to attack other people's sources and posts so I don't see where this is any different than any of your other activity.

I'm just not sure what we're supposed to do with this at this point.

The person with the MOST to gain from finding and showing anything approaching meaningful voter fraud - who has spent or caused the spending of tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars on trying to find it, whose political party has had ample opportunity to use the government's investigatory powers to find it - hasn't found it.

The reason is simple: it doesn't exist.

THIS.

Trump and his associates have spent tens of millions of dollars trying to find this evidence and have been wholly unsuccessful. Frankly, what they have done is proven definitely that fraud to the level required to "steal an election" did NOT happen. I doubt that any election in our history has been more thoroughly audited and verified.

Say that, I don't know, a lot of people want to find the Loch Ness monster. There are some drawings and some urban legend, oral-history type stuff. But no proof.

And then Zuck announces that he'll digitally penetrate himself exclusively on the platform of the finder's choice if anyone finds proof that Nessie in fact exists.

So Elon goes to work. He commissions every sonar and other scanning/sensing apparatus there is. Commissions biological tests on the water. Drops several submersibles, manned and remote.

Shit, he drains Loch Ness.

No monster.

Now is it POSSIBLE that Nessie exists? Sure. I mean, I'm sort of stuck because anything is POSSIBLE.

But Jesus Christ, let's get real. If Nessie existed, someone would have found her. And with the means and opportunity - and ESPECIALLY the motive - Elon would have found her.

So give it a goddamn rest.

[Shirley]

I did not know this:

https://flic.kr/p/2oQmX1Q

[Sparko]

But Harlan Crow finances No Labels. It can't be partisan or he would have to stop friending Clarence Thomas.

[Shirley]

Today In: Dark Brandon

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/168 ... wsrc%5Etfw

[randylahey]

Trump, the election, and the deep state situation summarized

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status ... gHeOA&s=19

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Trump, the election, and the deep state situation summarized

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status ... gHeOA&s=19

I have less respect for Benny Johnson than I have for you but I am going to say you are both idiots.
Please help me/us out and answer my questions....

Benny says.....
"They orchestrated January 6th with undercover agents dressed as Trump supporters encouraging people to trespass into the Capitol. The crowd was FILLED with federal agents. The goal was to get people INSIDE the building".

* Who exactly is "they"?
* Do YOU really believe it was all/only "undercover agents dressed as Trump supporters" who encouraged people to "TRESPASS" (interesting he used the word trespass - right?) into the Capitol?
* I don't know if the crowd was "FILLED" with federal agents or not but if it was and they were all in on this alleged master plan, then I am curious how and why a Trump led agency was able to mastermind this plot and why Trump was so clueless about it at the time. Do you have any thoughts on that?



Benny says.......
The Capitol Police Chief begged Nancy Pelosi to send the National Guard. 71 mins passed by and Nancy Pelosi REFUSED to answer calls for back up. The breach happened at the Capitol BEFORE Trump was even finished speaking.

* Sund (the Capitol Police Chief) claims he "begged" Pelosi to send "in" the National Guard. Ok, but Sund claims he requested they be present BEFORE 1/6 and supposedly it was discussed and the collective decision was to have unarmed members present and then if need be they would have armed members brought in. So I am unsure why Benny didn't add that in his tweet but regardless, the entire 1/6 timeline is murky (depending in who/what you believe) and not a single person seems to be able to PROVE exactly what Sund (and Benny) are claiming is true. So why is Benny pretending to make it factual?
* Benny claims Pelosi refused to answer calls. Who exactly has confirmed this is true? What about McConnell, why wasn't he called - or if he was, why is that not mentioned by Benny?
* Do YOU think/know Pelosi was (or was not) in "control" of the National Guard during the whatever you want to call what happened on 1/6?
* Do you think/know Trump has more, less, the same, or no authority than Pelosi to "call in" the National Guard in situations such was what happened on 1/6? If you answered more, less, or the same - then why is he absolved of blame? Especially if he was sitting back and watching it happen.
* When Pelosi realized the Capitol was "under siege" what do you think/know she did? Do you think she was drinking wine and and eating cheese with her buddies talking about rainbows and unicorns and was neglecting it?

[jfish26]

Trump, the election, and the deep state situation summarized

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status ... gHeOA&s=19

So, ah, the Democrats’ plot to steal the 2020 election was so clever, ruthless and organized that they made sure that other Republicans outperformed Trump? So that, I guess, their devious trickery could hide in plain sight?

Keep in mind that, the obvious silliness of your post aside, you’re talking about the DEMOCRATS.

[KUTradition]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -features/

[defixione]

" . . . a 2017 study found that promoting anxiety in people also makes them more conspiracy-minded."

I think it's been mentioned before on these boreds that this is the sole GOP strategy.

[Shirley]

Trump, the election, and the deep state situation summarized

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status ... gHeOA&s=19

https://youtu.be/-KoGbffD6G0