BREAKING: Kamala Harris unveils a new accent at a black Philadelphia church pic.twitter.com/HFFKNnL5Tt

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) October 27, 2024

Why do they do this? Biden, Hillary, Obama....

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

There is nothing more "fascist"/authoritarian then the president ignoring the first amendment seeking to control media. That is in addition to the unprecedented lawfare and wanton derogation of the law when it comes to the border and/or student loan forgiveness.

---

No, I think trying to overturn the results of an election you lost is more authoritarian.

---

You mean like the dems just did with the 2024 primaries?

Did you feel that way in 2004 when Gore sought to change the rules post-election and litigated to the end of the earth? Or in 2016 when several Dems voted to not certify the election of Trump for no real reason?

Did you feel that way about the attempts of Dems to overturn the 2016 election via the made up Russian collusion hoax and Steele dossier? The dems literally impeded the Trump administration for years over that BS, which was far more impactful than anything Trump did after the 2020 election.

Just to be clear, Trump's election denial after Nov 2020 was awful. His rhetoric was incendiary. He should have attended the inauguration. But, ultimately, he left. Fascists/authoritarians don't do that.

---

The only thing even close to this is 2000 (not 2004), and that was a legitimately uncertain outcome so legal challenges were inevitable. Mueller was investigating criminality, not the actual election results. 2024 primaries don't even warrant a mention; there are not and never have been any official rules about how parties pick their nominees.

Trump sued, tried to pressure officials into giving him the results he wanted, and still has not admitted he lost. Also kind of incited a riot.

---

The 2000 (thanks for correction) outcome was only "uncertain" because the dems engaged in lawfare to overturn the Florida election results (in an attempt to change the rules and selectively count ballots in Dem favorable counties only). And Gore absolutely "pressured [government] officials to giving him the results he wanted."

In terms of Mueller, yes it was ostensibly a (mostly) criminal investigation. But the point is that the investigation was used to derail Trump's election victory - it was a political hit job. Pelosi/Schiff/Clinton knew the dossier was fake, paid for by the Clinton campaign, and then fed to a compliant FBI under false pretense. Schiff in particular then insinuated he had "secret" evidence showing Trump was compromised - but he had none (and Mueller made no such finding).

And all of that was set up by the Obama/Susan Rice post election "intelligence" review that was the impetus for the disclosure of the Steel Dossier. It was calculated, intentional, and knowingly false.

BTW, Hillary Clinton still claims she was cheated in 2016 and Stacy Abrams still thinks she won her election.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-2016-election/index.html

Here HRC is in 2019 claiming the election was stolen from her:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/

It should be incumbent on people on both sides to promote election integrity. That means clear rules and standards, voter ID, no mass mailing of ballots that are not accounted for, and no attempts to change the rules at the last minute. The dems have been experts at manipulating the system (ballot harvesting, Zucker bucks, pre-election litigation in Virginia, Nevada and Pennsylvania). The republicans are now catching up. But all of this is destructive and leads voters to believe that when their candidate looses, it is because of cheating (both HRC and Trump's supporters still feel that way).

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

There is nothing more "fascist"/authoritarian then the president ignoring the first amendment seeking to control media. That is in addition to the unprecedented lawfare and wanton derogation of the law when it comes to the border and/or student loan forgiveness.

---

No, I think trying to overturn the results of an election you lost is more authoritarian.

---

You mean like the dems just did with the 2024 primaries?

Did you feel that way in 2004 when Gore sought to change the rules post-election and litigated to the end of the earth? Or in 2016 when several Dems voted to not certify the election of Trump for no real reason?

Did you feel that way about the attempts of Dems to overturn the 2016 election via the made up Russian collusion hoax and Steele dossier? The dems literally impeded the Trump administration for years over that BS, which was far more impactful than anything Trump did after the 2020 election.

Just to be clear, Trump's election denial after Nov 2020 was awful. His rhetoric was incendiary. He should have attended the inauguration. But, ultimately, he left. Fascists/authoritarians don't do that.

---

The only thing even close to this is 2000 (not 2004), and that was a legitimately uncertain outcome so legal challenges were inevitable. Mueller was investigating criminality, not the actual election results. 2024 primaries don't even warrant a mention; there are not and never have been any official rules about how parties pick their nominees.

Trump sued, tried to pressure officials into giving him the results he wanted, and still has not admitted he lost. Also kind of incited a riot.

---

The 2000 (thanks for correction) outcome was only "uncertain" because the dems engaged in lawfare to overturn the Florida election results (in an attempt to change the rules and selectively count ballots in Dem favorable counties only). And Gore absolutely "pressured [government] officials to giving him the results he wanted."

In terms of Mueller, yes it was ostensibly a (mostly) criminal investigation. But the point is that the investigation was used to derail Trump's election victory - it was a political hit job. Pelosi/Schiff/Clinton knew the dossier was fake, paid for by the Clinton campaign, and then fed to a compliant FBI under false pretense. Schiff in particular then insinuated he had "secret" evidence showing Trump was compromised - but he had none (and Mueller made no such finding).

And all of that was set up by the Obama/Susan Rice post election "intelligence" review that was the impetus for the disclosure of the Steel Dossier. It was calculated, intentional, and knowingly false.

BTW, Hillary Clinton still claims she was cheated in 2016 and Stacy Abrams still thinks she won her election.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-2016-election/index.html

Here HRC is in 2019 claiming the election was stolen from her:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/

It should be incumbent on people on both sides to promote election integrity. That means clear rules and standards, voter ID, no mass mailing of ballots that are not accounted for, and no attempts to change the rules at the last minute. The dems have been experts at manipulating the system (ballot harvesting, Zucker bucks, pre-election litigation in Virginia, Nevada and Pennsylvania). The republicans are now catching up. But all of this is destructive and leads voters to believe that when their candidate looses, it is because of cheating (both HRC and Trump's supporters still feel that way).

---

Once again, Hillary Clinton or Stacey Abrams talking about stuff is not the same as actually doing things. Neither of them attempted to actively challenge the outcome or the vote-counting. Neither incited a riot.

2000 was "uncertain" because it literally came down to a few hundred votes and the count was still ongoing. I'm sure both sides made their arguments and applied their pressure. Not the same thing.

Similarly, if political hit jobs via appointed prosecutors now amount to "election denial," I think we've seen plenty of that on both sides. Again, I don't think it's the same thing.

Pandering. She recently said spontaneously that her audience wasn't Christian.

Hillary Clinton is the Wilt Chamberlain of politics. Four auto biographies and still hurt feelings about her place in history.

movielover said:

---

Hillary Clinton is the Wilt Chamberlain of politics. Four auto biographies and still hurt feelings about her place in history.

---

Also someone who had a whole lot of "lawfare" aimed in her direction.

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

There is nothing more "fascist"/authoritarian then the president ignoring the first amendment seeking to control media. That is in addition to the unprecedented lawfare and wanton derogation of the law when it comes to the border and/or student loan forgiveness.

---

No, I think trying to overturn the results of an election you lost is more authoritarian.

---

You mean like the dems just did with the 2024 primaries?

Did you feel that way in 2004 when Gore sought to change the rules post-election and litigated to the end of the earth? Or in 2016 when several Dems voted to not certify the election of Trump for no real reason?

Did you feel that way about the attempts of Dems to overturn the 2016 election via the made up Russian collusion hoax and Steele dossier? The dems literally impeded the Trump administration for years over that BS, which was far more impactful than anything Trump did after the 2020 election.

Just to be clear, Trump's election denial after Nov 2020 was awful. His rhetoric was incendiary. He should have attended the inauguration. But, ultimately, he left. Fascists/authoritarians don't do that.

---

The only thing even close to this is 2000 (not 2004), and that was a legitimately uncertain outcome so legal challenges were inevitable. Mueller was investigating criminality, not the actual election results. 2024 primaries don't even warrant a mention; there are not and never have been any official rules about how parties pick their nominees.

Trump sued, tried to pressure officials into giving him the results he wanted, and still has not admitted he lost. Also kind of incited a riot.

---

The 2000 (thanks for correction) outcome was only "uncertain" because the dems engaged in lawfare to overturn the Florida election results (in an attempt to change the rules and selectively count ballots in Dem favorable counties only). And Gore absolutely "pressured [government] officials to giving him the results he wanted."

In terms of Mueller, yes it was ostensibly a (mostly) criminal investigation. But the point is that the investigation was used to derail Trump's election victory - it was a political hit job. Pelosi/Schiff/Clinton knew the dossier was fake, paid for by the Clinton campaign, and then fed to a compliant FBI under false pretense. Schiff in particular then insinuated he had "secret" evidence showing Trump was compromised - but he had none (and Mueller made no such finding).

And all of that was set up by the Obama/Susan Rice post election "intelligence" review that was the impetus for the disclosure of the Steel Dossier. It was calculated, intentional, and knowingly false.

BTW, Hillary Clinton still claims she was cheated in 2016 and Stacy Abrams still thinks she won her election.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-2016-election/index.html

Here HRC is in 2019 claiming the election was stolen from her:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/

It should be incumbent on people on both sides to promote election integrity. That means clear rules and standards, voter ID, no mass mailing of ballots that are not accounted for, and no attempts to change the rules at the last minute. The dems have been experts at manipulating the system (ballot harvesting, Zucker bucks, pre-election litigation in Virginia, Nevada and Pennsylvania). The republicans are now catching up. But all of this is destructive and leads voters to believe that when their candidate looses, it is because of cheating (both HRC and Trump's supporters still feel that way).

---

Once again, Hillary Clinton or Stacey Abrams talking about stuff is not the same as actually doing things. Neither of them attempted to actively challenge the outcome or the vote-counting. Neither incited a riot.

2000 was "uncertain" because it literally came down to a few hundred votes and the count was still ongoing. I'm sure both sides made their arguments and applied their pressure. Not the same thing.

Similarly, if political hit jobs via appointed prosecutors now amount to "election denial," I think we've seen plenty of that on both sides. Again, I don't think it's the same thing.

---

Submitting the fraudulent Steele report to the FBI on false pretenses (i.e., hiding its origin) and then continuing for 4+ years to assert it was accurate is "doing something." Leaking the salacious and false details of the Steele report to the media - after the election - is "doing something." HRC claiming Trump was an "illegitimate President" was doing something.

And to be clear I wasn't saying political hitjobs are election denial. I said the effect was just as bad (if not worse) than the election denial in terms of the impacts on democracy and the interference with the lawfully elected new administration.

To my point, did January 6 in any way impact the Biden Admin post inauguration? If anything, they used (and continue to use) it as a cudgel against republicans. It certainly did not hamper the Biden administration's governance.

In contrast, the Biden/Obama/HRC interference had far reaching adverse impacts on the Trump admin's ability to govern. That is beyond dispute.

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

Hillary Clinton is the Wilt Chamberlain of politics. Four auto biographies and still hurt feelings about her place in history.

---

Also someone who had a whole lot of "lawfare" aimed in her direction.

---

Lawfare was created by Newt Gingrich who soon unleashed it on both Clintons

Big C said:

---

movielover said:

---

BREAKING: Tim Walz had secret fling with Chinese Communist Party official's daughterhttps://t.co/wryCxFYElG

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) October 28, 2024

---

A young American went abroad and got a little piece of the action? Who among us hasn't done that? Do you think he's a CCP plant, biding his time until he's in the White House?

---

Walz/Swalwell is looking a like a very strong 2028 ticket for the Dems!

Joking aside, I actually agree with you on this one. Seems like a nothingburger.

The bigger story is Emhoff slapping his girlfriend around. No one seems to really dispute the story. but there's been main stream reporting. If he was a republican, the press would be all over that story.

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

There is nothing more "fascist"/authoritarian then the president ignoring the first amendment seeking to control media. That is in addition to the unprecedented lawfare and wanton derogation of the law when it comes to the border and/or student loan forgiveness.

---

No, I think trying to overturn the results of an election you lost is more authoritarian.

---

You mean like the dems just did with the 2024 primaries?

Did you feel that way in 2004 when Gore sought to change the rules post-election and litigated to the end of the earth? Or in 2016 when several Dems voted to not certify the election of Trump for no real reason?

Did you feel that way about the attempts of Dems to overturn the 2016 election via the made up Russian collusion hoax and Steele dossier? The dems literally impeded the Trump administration for years over that BS, which was far more impactful than anything Trump did after the 2020 election.

Just to be clear, Trump's election denial after Nov 2020 was awful. His rhetoric was incendiary. He should have attended the inauguration. But, ultimately, he left. Fascists/authoritarians don't do that.

---

The only thing even close to this is 2000 (not 2004), and that was a legitimately uncertain outcome so legal challenges were inevitable. Mueller was investigating criminality, not the actual election results. 2024 primaries don't even warrant a mention; there are not and never have been any official rules about how parties pick their nominees.

Trump sued, tried to pressure officials into giving him the results he wanted, and still has not admitted he lost. Also kind of incited a riot.

---

The 2000 (thanks for correction) outcome was only "uncertain" because the dems engaged in lawfare to overturn the Florida election results (in an attempt to change the rules and selectively count ballots in Dem favorable counties only). And Gore absolutely "pressured [government] officials to giving him the results he wanted."

In terms of Mueller, yes it was ostensibly a (mostly) criminal investigation. But the point is that the investigation was used to derail Trump's election victory - it was a political hit job. Pelosi/Schiff/Clinton knew the dossier was fake, paid for by the Clinton campaign, and then fed to a compliant FBI under false pretense. Schiff in particular then insinuated he had "secret" evidence showing Trump was compromised - but he had none (and Mueller made no such finding).

And all of that was set up by the Obama/Susan Rice post election "intelligence" review that was the impetus for the disclosure of the Steel Dossier. It was calculated, intentional, and knowingly false.

BTW, Hillary Clinton still claims she was cheated in 2016 and Stacy Abrams still thinks she won her election.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-2016-election/index.html

Here HRC is in 2019 claiming the election was stolen from her:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/

It should be incumbent on people on both sides to promote election integrity. That means clear rules and standards, voter ID, no mass mailing of ballots that are not accounted for, and no attempts to change the rules at the last minute. The dems have been experts at manipulating the system (ballot harvesting, Zucker bucks, pre-election litigation in Virginia, Nevada and Pennsylvania). The republicans are now catching up. But all of this is destructive and leads voters to believe that when their candidate looses, it is because of cheating (both HRC and Trump's supporters still feel that way).

---

Once again, Hillary Clinton or Stacey Abrams talking about stuff is not the same as actually doing things. Neither of them attempted to actively challenge the outcome or the vote-counting. Neither incited a riot.

---

Literally true but in a discussion about anti-Democracy discussion we can't HRC a pass for what she did with the fake dossier. It led to surveillance of a president elect and the false narrative that undermined and stalled a duly elected government.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

There is nothing more "fascist"/authoritarian then the president ignoring the first amendment seeking to control media. That is in addition to the unprecedented lawfare and wanton derogation of the law when it comes to the border and/or student loan forgiveness.

---

No, I think trying to overturn the results of an election you lost is more authoritarian.

---

You mean like the dems just did with the 2024 primaries?

Did you feel that way in 2004 when Gore sought to change the rules post-election and litigated to the end of the earth? Or in 2016 when several Dems voted to not certify the election of Trump for no real reason?

Did you feel that way about the attempts of Dems to overturn the 2016 election via the made up Russian collusion hoax and Steele dossier? The dems literally impeded the Trump administration for years over that BS, which was far more impactful than anything Trump did after the 2020 election.

Just to be clear, Trump's election denial after Nov 2020 was awful. His rhetoric was incendiary. He should have attended the inauguration. But, ultimately, he left. Fascists/authoritarians don't do that.

---

The only thing even close to this is 2000 (not 2004), and that was a legitimately uncertain outcome so legal challenges were inevitable. Mueller was investigating criminality, not the actual election results. 2024 primaries don't even warrant a mention; there are not and never have been any official rules about how parties pick their nominees.

Trump sued, tried to pressure officials into giving him the results he wanted, and still has not admitted he lost. Also kind of incited a riot.

---

The 2000 (thanks for correction) outcome was only "uncertain" because the dems engaged in lawfare to overturn the Florida election results (in an attempt to change the rules and selectively count ballots in Dem favorable counties only). And Gore absolutely "pressured [government] officials to giving him the results he wanted."

In terms of Mueller, yes it was ostensibly a (mostly) criminal investigation. But the point is that the investigation was used to derail Trump's election victory - it was a political hit job. Pelosi/Schiff/Clinton knew the dossier was fake, paid for by the Clinton campaign, and then fed to a compliant FBI under false pretense. Schiff in particular then insinuated he had "secret" evidence showing Trump was compromised - but he had none (and Mueller made no such finding).

And all of that was set up by the Obama/Susan Rice post election "intelligence" review that was the impetus for the disclosure of the Steel Dossier. It was calculated, intentional, and knowingly false.

BTW, Hillary Clinton still claims she was cheated in 2016 and Stacy Abrams still thinks she won her election.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-2016-election/index.html

Here HRC is in 2019 claiming the election was stolen from her:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/

It should be incumbent on people on both sides to promote election integrity. That means clear rules and standards, voter ID, no mass mailing of ballots that are not accounted for, and no attempts to change the rules at the last minute. The dems have been experts at manipulating the system (ballot harvesting, Zucker bucks, pre-election litigation in Virginia, Nevada and Pennsylvania). The republicans are now catching up. But all of this is destructive and leads voters to believe that when their candidate looses, it is because of cheating (both HRC and Trump's supporters still feel that way).

---

Once again, Hillary Clinton or Stacey Abrams talking about stuff is not the same as actually doing things. Neither of them attempted to actively challenge the outcome or the vote-counting. Neither incited a riot.

2000 was "uncertain" because it literally came down to a few hundred votes and the count was still ongoing. I'm sure both sides made their arguments and applied their pressure. Not the same thing.

Similarly, if political hit jobs via appointed prosecutors now amount to "election denial," I think we've seen plenty of that on both sides. Again, I don't think it's the same thing.

---

Submitting the fraudulent Steele report to the FBI on false pretenses (i.e., hiding its origin) and then continuing for 4+ years to assert it was accurate is "doing something." Leaking the salacious and false details of the Steele report to the media - after the election - is "doing something." HRC claiming Trump was an "illegitimate President" was doing something.

And to be clear I wasn't saying political hitjobs are election denial. I said the effect was just as bad (if not worse) than the election denial in terms of the impacts on democracy and the interference with the lawfully elected new administration.

To my point, did January 6 in any way impact the Biden Admin post inauguration? If anything, they used (and continue to use) it as a cudgel against republicans. It certainly did not hamper the Biden administration's governance.

In contrast, the Biden/Obama/HRC interference had far reaching adverse impacts on the Trump admin's ability to govern. That is beyond dispute.

---

So now we've moved from "trying to overturn the election" to "doing stuff that interferes with or frustrates the existing administration." Again, not the same thing and the latter is something every opposition party has done since the beginning of American government. What are you even talking about anymore? This is one of the furthest stretches to find a false equivalence I've ever seen.

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

There is nothing more "fascist"/authoritarian then the president ignoring the first amendment seeking to control media. That is in addition to the unprecedented lawfare and wanton derogation of the law when it comes to the border and/or student loan forgiveness.

---

No, I think trying to overturn the results of an election you lost is more authoritarian.

---

You mean like the dems just did with the 2024 primaries?

Did you feel that way in 2004 when Gore sought to change the rules post-election and litigated to the end of the earth? Or in 2016 when several Dems voted to not certify the election of Trump for no real reason?

Did you feel that way about the attempts of Dems to overturn the 2016 election via the made up Russian collusion hoax and Steele dossier? The dems literally impeded the Trump administration for years over that BS, which was far more impactful than anything Trump did after the 2020 election.

Just to be clear, Trump's election denial after Nov 2020 was awful. His rhetoric was incendiary. He should have attended the inauguration. But, ultimately, he left. Fascists/authoritarians don't do that.

---

The only thing even close to this is 2000 (not 2004), and that was a legitimately uncertain outcome so legal challenges were inevitable. Mueller was investigating criminality, not the actual election results. 2024 primaries don't even warrant a mention; there are not and never have been any official rules about how parties pick their nominees.

Trump sued, tried to pressure officials into giving him the results he wanted, and still has not admitted he lost. Also kind of incited a riot.

---

The 2000 (thanks for correction) outcome was only "uncertain" because the dems engaged in lawfare to overturn the Florida election results (in an attempt to change the rules and selectively count ballots in Dem favorable counties only). And Gore absolutely "pressured [government] officials to giving him the results he wanted."

In terms of Mueller, yes it was ostensibly a (mostly) criminal investigation. But the point is that the investigation was used to derail Trump's election victory - it was a political hit job. Pelosi/Schiff/Clinton knew the dossier was fake, paid for by the Clinton campaign, and then fed to a compliant FBI under false pretense. Schiff in particular then insinuated he had "secret" evidence showing Trump was compromised - but he had none (and Mueller made no such finding).

And all of that was set up by the Obama/Susan Rice post election "intelligence" review that was the impetus for the disclosure of the Steel Dossier. It was calculated, intentional, and knowingly false.

BTW, Hillary Clinton still claims she was cheated in 2016 and Stacy Abrams still thinks she won her election.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-2016-election/index.html

Here HRC is in 2019 claiming the election was stolen from her:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/

It should be incumbent on people on both sides to promote election integrity. That means clear rules and standards, voter ID, no mass mailing of ballots that are not accounted for, and no attempts to change the rules at the last minute. The dems have been experts at manipulating the system (ballot harvesting, Zucker bucks, pre-election litigation in Virginia, Nevada and Pennsylvania). The republicans are now catching up. But all of this is destructive and leads voters to believe that when their candidate looses, it is because of cheating (both HRC and Trump's supporters still feel that way).

---

Once again, Hillary Clinton or Stacey Abrams talking about stuff is not the same as actually doing things. Neither of them attempted to actively challenge the outcome or the vote-counting. Neither incited a riot.

2000 was "uncertain" because it literally came down to a few hundred votes and the count was still ongoing. I'm sure both sides made their arguments and applied their pressure. Not the same thing.

Similarly, if political hit jobs via appointed prosecutors now amount to "election denial," I think we've seen plenty of that on both sides. Again, I don't think it's the same thing.

---

Submitting the fraudulent Steele report to the FBI on false pretenses (i.e., hiding its origin) and then continuing for 4+ years to assert it was accurate is "doing something." Leaking the salacious and false details of the Steele report to the media - after the election - is "doing something." HRC claiming Trump was an "illegitimate President" was doing something.

And to be clear I wasn't saying political hitjobs are election denial. I said the effect was just as bad (if not worse) than the election denial in terms of the impacts on democracy and the interference with the lawfully elected new administration.

To my point, did January 6 in any way impact the Biden Admin post inauguration? If anything, they used (and continue to use) it as a cudgel against republicans. It certainly did not hamper the Biden administration's governance.

In contrast, the Biden/Obama/HRC interference had far reaching adverse impacts on the Trump admin's ability to govern. That is beyond dispute.

---

So now we've moved from "trying to overturn the election" to "doing stuff that interferes with or frustrates the existing administration." Again, not the same thing and the latter is something every opposition party has done since the beginning of American government. What are you even talking about anymore? This is one of the furthest stretches to find a false equivalence I've ever seen.

---

If you think there's any material difference between "overturning" an election and "thwarting an election after the fact" - both through illegal and unethical means - then you're the person who refuses to see the big picture. Either way, the will of the people has not been honored.

And no - the opposition party has not traditionally set up legal landmines like Obama/Biden/Rice did on their way out. They literally unleashed the FBI and intelligence community on Trump/the incoming administration under KNOWINGLY false pretenses. It was unprecedented.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

There is nothing more "fascist"/authoritarian then the president ignoring the first amendment seeking to control media. That is in addition to the unprecedented lawfare and wanton derogation of the law when it comes to the border and/or student loan forgiveness.

---

No, I think trying to overturn the results of an election you lost is more authoritarian.

---

You mean like the dems just did with the 2024 primaries?

Did you feel that way in 2004 when Gore sought to change the rules post-election and litigated to the end of the earth? Or in 2016 when several Dems voted to not certify the election of Trump for no real reason?

Did you feel that way about the attempts of Dems to overturn the 2016 election via the made up Russian collusion hoax and Steele dossier? The dems literally impeded the Trump administration for years over that BS, which was far more impactful than anything Trump did after the 2020 election.

Just to be clear, Trump's election denial after Nov 2020 was awful. His rhetoric was incendiary. He should have attended the inauguration. But, ultimately, he left. Fascists/authoritarians don't do that.

---

The only thing even close to this is 2000 (not 2004), and that was a legitimately uncertain outcome so legal challenges were inevitable. Mueller was investigating criminality, not the actual election results. 2024 primaries don't even warrant a mention; there are not and never have been any official rules about how parties pick their nominees.

Trump sued, tried to pressure officials into giving him the results he wanted, and still has not admitted he lost. Also kind of incited a riot.

---

The 2000 (thanks for correction) outcome was only "uncertain" because the dems engaged in lawfare to overturn the Florida election results (in an attempt to change the rules and selectively count ballots in Dem favorable counties only). And Gore absolutely "pressured [government] officials to giving him the results he wanted."

In terms of Mueller, yes it was ostensibly a (mostly) criminal investigation. But the point is that the investigation was used to derail Trump's election victory - it was a political hit job. Pelosi/Schiff/Clinton knew the dossier was fake, paid for by the Clinton campaign, and then fed to a compliant FBI under false pretense. Schiff in particular then insinuated he had "secret" evidence showing Trump was compromised - but he had none (and Mueller made no such finding).

And all of that was set up by the Obama/Susan Rice post election "intelligence" review that was the impetus for the disclosure of the Steel Dossier. It was calculated, intentional, and knowingly false.

BTW, Hillary Clinton still claims she was cheated in 2016 and Stacy Abrams still thinks she won her election.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-2016-election/index.html

Here HRC is in 2019 claiming the election was stolen from her:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/

It should be incumbent on people on both sides to promote election integrity. That means clear rules and standards, voter ID, no mass mailing of ballots that are not accounted for, and no attempts to change the rules at the last minute. The dems have been experts at manipulating the system (ballot harvesting, Zucker bucks, pre-election litigation in Virginia, Nevada and Pennsylvania). The republicans are now catching up. But all of this is destructive and leads voters to believe that when their candidate looses, it is because of cheating (both HRC and Trump's supporters still feel that way).

---

Once again, Hillary Clinton or Stacey Abrams talking about stuff is not the same as actually doing things. Neither of them attempted to actively challenge the outcome or the vote-counting. Neither incited a riot.

2000 was "uncertain" because it literally came down to a few hundred votes and the count was still ongoing. I'm sure both sides made their arguments and applied their pressure. Not the same thing.

Similarly, if political hit jobs via appointed prosecutors now amount to "election denial," I think we've seen plenty of that on both sides. Again, I don't think it's the same thing.

---

Submitting the fraudulent Steele report to the FBI on false pretenses (i.e., hiding its origin) and then continuing for 4+ years to assert it was accurate is "doing something." Leaking the salacious and false details of the Steele report to the media - after the election - is "doing something." HRC claiming Trump was an "illegitimate President" was doing something.

And to be clear I wasn't saying political hitjobs are election denial. I said the effect was just as bad (if not worse) than the election denial in terms of the impacts on democracy and the interference with the lawfully elected new administration.

To my point, did January 6 in any way impact the Biden Admin post inauguration? If anything, they used (and continue to use) it as a cudgel against republicans. It certainly did not hamper the Biden administration's governance.

In contrast, the Biden/Obama/HRC interference had far reaching adverse impacts on the Trump admin's ability to govern. That is beyond dispute.

---

So now we've moved from "trying to overturn the election" to "doing stuff that interferes with or frustrates the existing administration." Again, not the same thing and the latter is something every opposition party has done since the beginning of American government. What are you even talking about anymore? This is one of the furthest stretches to find a false equivalence I've ever seen.

---

If you think there's any material difference between "overturning" an election and "thwarting an election after the fact" - both through illegal and unethical means - then you're the person who refuses to see the big picture. Either way, the will of the people has not been honored.

And no - the opposition party has not traditionally set up legal landmines like Obama/Biden/Rice did on their way out. They literally unleashed the FBI and intelligence community on Trump/the incoming administration under KNOWINGLY false pretenses. It was unprecedented.

---

I'm not going to address the Steele conspiracy theories any further. It was not the primary document that triggered the investigation, and said investigation would have happened anyway, because there was a lot of suspicious s*** going on between Trump's campaign people and the Russians.

And a criminal investigation prevented the Trump administration from carrying out its duties? Bill Clinton got a bunch of s*** done while he was being impeached over the Lewinsky scandal. Sounds like a skill issue to me.

A little bit of a thread drift, but I find it fascinating that Juanita Broaderick was telling the absolute truth about Bill Clinton but E. Jean Carroll was lying through her teeth about Trump.

Are we to believe that Carroll's claims were more credible than Broaderick's? Or does that not even matter now that everything has been politicized and justice weaponized?

movielover said:

---

BREAKING: Tim Walz had secret fling with Chinese Communist Party official's daughterhttps://t.co/wryCxFYElG

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) October 28, 2024

---

She broke up with him after he took her to the Indigo Girls concert.

The most accurate summary of what tRump calls the "Russian Hoax":

"After nearly two years of investigating, Mr. Mueller concluded that the Russians did interfere on Mr. Trump's behalf, and he uncovered a stunning array of contacts between people in the president's orbit and Russian figures*. But Mr. Mueller reported that he did not establish any illegal coordination between Russia and the campaign and that "the evidence was not sufficient to charge" anyone with criminal conspiracy."
-NY Times


* Mueller Report Shows Depth of Connections Between Trump Campaign and Russians - The New York Times


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

There is nothing more "fascist"/authoritarian then the president ignoring the first amendment seeking to control media. That is in addition to the unprecedented lawfare and wanton derogation of the law when it comes to the border and/or student loan forgiveness.

---

No, I think trying to overturn the results of an election you lost is more authoritarian.

---

You mean like the dems just did with the 2024 primaries?

Did you feel that way in 2004 when Gore sought to change the rules post-election and litigated to the end of the earth? Or in 2016 when several Dems voted to not certify the election of Trump for no real reason?

Did you feel that way about the attempts of Dems to overturn the 2016 election via the made up Russian collusion hoax and Steele dossier? The dems literally impeded the Trump administration for years over that BS, which was far more impactful than anything Trump did after the 2020 election.

Just to be clear, Trump's election denial after Nov 2020 was awful. His rhetoric was incendiary. He should have attended the inauguration. But, ultimately, he left. Fascists/authoritarians don't do that.

---

The only thing even close to this is 2000 (not 2004), and that was a legitimately uncertain outcome so legal challenges were inevitable. Mueller was investigating criminality, not the actual election results. 2024 primaries don't even warrant a mention; there are not and never have been any official rules about how parties pick their nominees.

Trump sued, tried to pressure officials into giving him the results he wanted, and still has not admitted he lost. Also kind of incited a riot.

---

The 2000 (thanks for correction) outcome was only "uncertain" because the dems engaged in lawfare to overturn the Florida election results (in an attempt to change the rules and selectively count ballots in Dem favorable counties only). And Gore absolutely "pressured [government] officials to giving him the results he wanted."

In terms of Mueller, yes it was ostensibly a (mostly) criminal investigation. But the point is that the investigation was used to derail Trump's election victory - it was a political hit job. Pelosi/Schiff/Clinton knew the dossier was fake, paid for by the Clinton campaign, and then fed to a compliant FBI under false pretense. Schiff in particular then insinuated he had "secret" evidence showing Trump was compromised - but he had none (and Mueller made no such finding).

And all of that was set up by the Obama/Susan Rice post election "intelligence" review that was the impetus for the disclosure of the Steel Dossier. It was calculated, intentional, and knowingly false.

BTW, Hillary Clinton still claims she was cheated in 2016 and Stacy Abrams still thinks she won her election.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-2016-election/index.html

Here HRC is in 2019 claiming the election was stolen from her:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/

It should be incumbent on people on both sides to promote election integrity. That means clear rules and standards, voter ID, no mass mailing of ballots that are not accounted for, and no attempts to change the rules at the last minute. The dems have been experts at manipulating the system (ballot harvesting, Zucker bucks, pre-election litigation in Virginia, Nevada and Pennsylvania). The republicans are now catching up. But all of this is destructive and leads voters to believe that when their candidate looses, it is because of cheating (both HRC and Trump's supporters still feel that way).

---

Once again, Hillary Clinton or Stacey Abrams talking about stuff is not the same as actually doing things. Neither of them attempted to actively challenge the outcome or the vote-counting. Neither incited a riot.

2000 was "uncertain" because it literally came down to a few hundred votes and the count was still ongoing. I'm sure both sides made their arguments and applied their pressure. Not the same thing.

Similarly, if political hit jobs via appointed prosecutors now amount to "election denial," I think we've seen plenty of that on both sides. Again, I don't think it's the same thing.

---

Submitting the fraudulent Steele report to the FBI on false pretenses (i.e., hiding its origin) and then continuing for 4+ years to assert it was accurate is "doing something." Leaking the salacious and false details of the Steele report to the media - after the election - is "doing something." HRC claiming Trump was an "illegitimate President" was doing something.

And to be clear I wasn't saying political hitjobs are election denial. I said the effect was just as bad (if not worse) than the election denial in terms of the impacts on democracy and the interference with the lawfully elected new administration.

To my point, did January 6 in any way impact the Biden Admin post inauguration? If anything, they used (and continue to use) it as a cudgel against republicans. It certainly did not hamper the Biden administration's governance.

In contrast, the Biden/Obama/HRC interference had far reaching adverse impacts on the Trump admin's ability to govern. That is beyond dispute.

---

So now we've moved from "trying to overturn the election" to "doing stuff that interferes with or frustrates the existing administration." Again, not the same thing and the latter is something every opposition party has done since the beginning of American government. What are you even talking about anymore? This is one of the furthest stretches to find a false equivalence I've ever seen.

---

If you think there's any material difference between "overturning" an election and "thwarting an election after the fact" - both through illegal and unethical means - then you're the person who refuses to see the big picture. Either way, the will of the people has not been honored.

And no - the opposition party has not traditionally set up legal landmines like Obama/Biden/Rice did on their way out. They literally unleashed the FBI and intelligence community on Trump/the incoming administration under KNOWINGLY false pretenses. It was unprecedented.

---

I'm not going to address the Steele conspiracy theories any further. It was not the primary document that triggered the investigation, and said investigation would have happened anyway, because there was a lot of suspicious s*** going on between Trump's campaign people and the Russians.

And a criminal investigation prevented the Trump administration from carrying out its duties? Bill Clinton got a bunch of s*** done while he was being impeached over the Lewinsky scandal. Sounds like a skill issue to me.

---

Now you are moving the goal posts. I never said the Steel Dossier was the primary document triggering the investigation. It was one of the documents used to weaponize the investigation (not to mention obtain FISA warrants). It was a political dirty trick that Obama/Biden/Rice used to undercut the incoming administration.

From Andrew McCarthy - no fan of Trump:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/crossfire-hurricane-new-york-times-report-buries-lede/

The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries

And your final paragraph is pretty pathetic. Because Clinton got stuff done, that justifies how Trump was treated or what the outgoing dems did? We should normalize what Obama/Biden/Rice did? Uh . . . ok. Remember that in 2028 (or whenever the next republican hands off power to a dem).

bear2034 said:

---

Meanwhile, the Democrats are putting their opponents in prison! The Democrats are threat to freedom.

---

Wrong. Those opponents went to jail because they committed a felony (or multiple) and then either pled guilty or were convicted by juries.

tRump will not be able to do that his enemies because his allegations against them are unsupportable fantasy. He can get his crooked Justice Department to charge them and the corrupt trial judges he appoints to hold them over for trial but he can't get a unanimous jury verdict to convict them.

tRump will have to eliminate the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and then hand pick tribunals to convict his enemies (tRump has said there should be tribunals).

It's true, it's true

VOTE BLUE

bear2034 said:

---

Big C said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Kamala Harris is now comparing Donald Trump to Adolph Hitler.

Kamala knows there have been two assassination attempts and countless threats on his life.

It couldn't be any clearer—this is a dog whistle to potential assassins.

Disgraceful. pic.twitter.com/xrhFIKpDIU

— Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) October 23, 2024

Kamala gives the go ahead for the cult to use dangerous inflammatory language and they obey.

---

So, if Trump says something that seems pro-Hitler, the opposition shouldn't call attention to it, because someone might have a harsh reaction?

Not condoning assassination attempts, not in the least, but the stuff that that man says...

---

Like what?

Meanwhile, the Democrats are putting their opponents in prison! The Democrats are threat to freedom.

---

Juries of law abiding American citizens are doing that

VOTE BLUE

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

There is nothing more "fascist"/authoritarian then the president ignoring the first amendment seeking to control media. That is in addition to the unprecedented lawfare and wanton derogation of the law when it comes to the border and/or student loan forgiveness.

---

No, I think trying to overturn the results of an election you lost is more authoritarian.

---

You mean like the dems just did with the 2024 primaries?

Did you feel that way in 2004 when Gore sought to change the rules post-election and litigated to the end of the earth? Or in 2016 when several Dems voted to not certify the election of Trump for no real reason?

Did you feel that way about the attempts of Dems to overturn the 2016 election via the made up Russian collusion hoax and Steele dossier? The dems literally impeded the Trump administration for years over that BS, which was far more impactful than anything Trump did after the 2020 election.

Just to be clear, Trump's election denial after Nov 2020 was awful. His rhetoric was incendiary. He should have attended the inauguration. But, ultimately, he left. Fascists/authoritarians don't do that.

---

The only thing even close to this is 2000 (not 2004), and that was a legitimately uncertain outcome so legal challenges were inevitable. Mueller was investigating criminality, not the actual election results. 2024 primaries don't even warrant a mention; there are not and never have been any official rules about how parties pick their nominees.

Trump sued, tried to pressure officials into giving him the results he wanted, and still has not admitted he lost. Also kind of incited a riot.

---

The 2000 (thanks for correction) outcome was only "uncertain" because the dems engaged in lawfare to overturn the Florida election results (in an attempt to change the rules and selectively count ballots in Dem favorable counties only). And Gore absolutely "pressured [government] officials to giving him the results he wanted."

In terms of Mueller, yes it was ostensibly a (mostly) criminal investigation. But the point is that the investigation was used to derail Trump's election victory - it was a political hit job. Pelosi/Schiff/Clinton knew the dossier was fake, paid for by the Clinton campaign, and then fed to a compliant FBI under false pretense. Schiff in particular then insinuated he had "secret" evidence showing Trump was compromised - but he had none (and Mueller made no such finding).

And all of that was set up by the Obama/Susan Rice post election "intelligence" review that was the impetus for the disclosure of the Steel Dossier. It was calculated, intentional, and knowingly false.

BTW, Hillary Clinton still claims she was cheated in 2016 and Stacy Abrams still thinks she won her election.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-2016-election/index.html

Here HRC is in 2019 claiming the election was stolen from her:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/

It should be incumbent on people on both sides to promote election integrity. That means clear rules and standards, voter ID, no mass mailing of ballots that are not accounted for, and no attempts to change the rules at the last minute. The dems have been experts at manipulating the system (ballot harvesting, Zucker bucks, pre-election litigation in Virginia, Nevada and Pennsylvania). The republicans are now catching up. But all of this is destructive and leads voters to believe that when their candidate looses, it is because of cheating (both HRC and Trump's supporters still feel that way).

---

Once again, Hillary Clinton or Stacey Abrams talking about stuff is not the same as actually doing things. Neither of them attempted to actively challenge the outcome or the vote-counting. Neither incited a riot.

2000 was "uncertain" because it literally came down to a few hundred votes and the count was still ongoing. I'm sure both sides made their arguments and applied their pressure. Not the same thing.

Similarly, if political hit jobs via appointed prosecutors now amount to "election denial," I think we've seen plenty of that on both sides. Again, I don't think it's the same thing.

---

Submitting the fraudulent Steele report to the FBI on false pretenses (i.e., hiding its origin) and then continuing for 4+ years to assert it was accurate is "doing something." Leaking the salacious and false details of the Steele report to the media - after the election - is "doing something." HRC claiming Trump was an "illegitimate President" was doing something.

And to be clear I wasn't saying political hitjobs are election denial. I said the effect was just as bad (if not worse) than the election denial in terms of the impacts on democracy and the interference with the lawfully elected new administration.

To my point, did January 6 in any way impact the Biden Admin post inauguration? If anything, they used (and continue to use) it as a cudgel against republicans. It certainly did not hamper the Biden administration's governance.

In contrast, the Biden/Obama/HRC interference had far reaching adverse impacts on the Trump admin's ability to govern. That is beyond dispute.

---

So now we've moved from "trying to overturn the election" to "doing stuff that interferes with or frustrates the existing administration." Again, not the same thing and the latter is something every opposition party has done since the beginning of American government. What are you even talking about anymore? This is one of the furthest stretches to find a false equivalence I've ever seen.

---

If you think there's any material difference between "overturning" an election and "thwarting an election after the fact" - both through illegal and unethical means - then you're the person who refuses to see the big picture. Either way, the will of the people has not been honored.

And no - the opposition party has not traditionally set up legal landmines like Obama/Biden/Rice did on their way out. They literally unleashed the FBI and intelligence community on Trump/the incoming administration under KNOWINGLY false pretenses. It was unprecedented.

---

I'm not going to address the Steele conspiracy theories any further. It was not the primary document that triggered the investigation, and said investigation would have happened anyway, because there was a lot of suspicious s*** going on between Trump's campaign people and the Russians.

And a criminal investigation prevented the Trump administration from carrying out its duties? Bill Clinton got a bunch of s*** done while he was being impeached over the Lewinsky scandal. Sounds like a skill issue to me.

---

Now you are moving the goal posts. I never said the Steel Dossier was the primary document triggering the investigation. It was one of the documents used to weaponize the investigation (not to mention obtain FISA warrants). It was a political dirty trick that Obama/Biden/Rice used to undercut the incoming administration.

From Andrew McCarthy - no fan of Trump:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/crossfire-hurricane-new-york-times-report-buries-lede/

The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries

And your final paragraph is pretty pathetic. Because Clinton got stuff done, that justifies how Trump was treated or what the outgoing dems did? We should normalize what Obama/Biden/Rice did? Uh . . . ok. Remember that in 2028 (or whenever the next republican hands off power to a dem).

---

Once again, not interested in litigating all of these conspiracy theories.

Trump got investigated because his campaign had a lot of suspicious ties to Russia.

Over $50 Million and 4 years spent investigating President Trump, and he was found innocent.

- the Dirty Dossier was central: originally crafted by GOP types, added to by Clinton surrogates, then shipped to the UK, embellished by Nellie Orr docs (wife of the DOJs Bruce Ohr), DC 'contractor' for a three-letter agency - report washed in the UK via Christopher Steele (retired UK MI5) - and shipped back to the US

- the Russia Server in Trump Tower was a hoax

- the 'Russians' contacted boiled down to Steele's use of Russian-American subsource Igor Danchenko - a former employee of the [Democrat] Brookings Institute.

- once his shaky story was discovered by the FBI, they threw a bag over him, giving him $200,000 to be a 'confidential human source'. Hadn't been in Russia in years.

- "Other information was alleged to have come from Charles Dolan Jr.,[20] who was "a longtime participant in Democratic Party politics". " Wikipedia

Not sure why Trump's Russian connections are even being debated. Everybody knows he's in cahoots with Putin:

- he loves authoritarian leaders
- he loves all the white people over there
- he wants to put hotels and golf courses there
- the infamous pee tape

Putin owns Trump. Everybody knows that.

BREAKING: RFK Jr. says Donald Trump has promised him "control of the public health agencies."

This is terrifying. pic.twitter.com/UQHN2sUUm1

— RFK Jr. Facts (@realRFKJr) October 29, 2024