timschochet
Footballguy
It just makes Trump look more corrupt, which in turn will hurt Republicans in the future IMO.Unreal. Entirely consistent and expected, but absolutely unreal.
It just makes Trump look more corrupt, which in turn will hurt Republicans in the future IMO.Unreal. Entirely consistent and expected, but absolutely unreal.
We can keep saying that...but have we seen any reason to believe it will hurt them?It just makes Trump look more corrupt, which in turn will hurt Republicans in the future IMO.
IMO it appears that Republicans have been influenced to look at Democrats as the biggest threat to freedom and stability in comparison for example to Russia, brazen corruption and the advancement of the top 1% in income in relation to the regression of the lower and middle classesWe can keep saying that...but have we seen any reason to believe it will hurt them?
The lack of outrage of Trump's attempts to subvert our elections through appealing to state legislatures and officials to ignore the popular vote suggests apathy at best regarding preserving the democratic process.We can keep saying that...but have we seen any reason to believe it will hurt them?
Is the pardon just for the charges he is guilty of, or do they include any future charges that may be bought against him?Trump pardons Flynn
I realize that victories have been few and far between for Trump supporters recently, so I kind of understand the idea of disproportionately cheering for any shred of a win, no matter how small.Oh yes
That's funnyI realize that victories have been few and far between for Trump supporters recently, so I kind of understand the idea of disproportionately cheering for any shred of a win, no matter how small.
But celebrating a United States military officer who lied to the government and admitted to it? Why be proud of that? Why die on that hill? Just take the W and quietly move on.
Agreed and it’s incredibly dangerous for our country and world for this to be the case. Sadly, I think that has been present for the other side as well where Democrats have painted Republicans and Republican leaders previously as more dangerous than the true threats.IMO it appears that Republicans have been influenced to look at Democrats as the biggest threat to freedom and stability in comparison for example to Russia, brazen corruption and the advancement of the top 1% in income in relation to the regression of the lower and middle classes
How much did the Marc Rich pardon hurt Democrats, all told?It just makes Trump look more corrupt, which in turn will hurt Republicans in the future IMO.
I certainly wasn't expecting it.This is a surprise to absolutely no one.Trump pardons Flynn
Really? Trump has said all along that Flynn was a great American and was treated unfairly.I certainly wasn't expecting it.
"Any and all crimes committed or alleged to have been committed prior to the date of this pardon."Is the pardon just for the charges he is guilty of, or do they include any future charges that may be bought against him?
I've often wondered if it would be worth it for the DA to hold back something for a situation like this. That's why I've always been curious about Trump pardoning himself. He hasn't got any charges against him, so how does he know what to pardon himself for?
Will he limit himself? Why not go all in with also any crimes after the date of this pardon."Any and all crimes committed or alleged to have been committed prior to the date of this pardon."
I don't think it hurts the political party, but it does effect the public's perception of the outgoing president, IMO. I didn't have a lot of respect for Clinton, and I lost some more when he pardoned Rich. Likewise, I didn't have a lot of respect for W, but I gained some when he stiff armed Cheney over the Scooter Libbey pardon.Kao-Lin said:How much did the Marc Rich pardon hurt Democrats, all told?
(IMO, zero).
How about her integrity?????I can understand being skeptical that she has anything. I just don't understand those who are outright dismissing anything she could bring.
Election integrity should concern us all.
At what point do we demand that she put up or shut up? To date, best I can tell, she has offered zero actual evidence to support the wild allegations.Glad the undermining has begun. It means shes on the right track.
Trump 2020.
Why do you keep saying zero evidence? Her filing is filled with evidence.At what point do we demand that she put up or shut up? To date, best I can tell, she has offered zero actual evidence to support the wild allegations.
What was undermined? It's been four weeks now, how is this on the right track? 1-39 lawsuits... Please tell me you have more.Glad the undermining has begun. It means shes on the right track.
Trump 2020.
Can you point me to some? Seriously, I didn't see evidence. I saw allegations, which is not the same thing at all.Why do you keep saying zero evidence? Her filing is filled with evidence.
How many of lawsuits were hers?What was undermined? It's been four weeks now, how is this on the right track? 1-39 lawsuits... Please tell me you have more.
All the affidavits and I m willing to bet the SIGINT claims pan out.Can you point me to some? Seriously, I didn't see evidence. I saw allegations, which is not the same thing at all.
Can you point me to a specific affidavit that isn't simply an allegation? Just stating "we have affidavits" is not evidence, especially when we know that A) "affidavits" could be submitted online without verification, and B) one of Trump's lawyers admitted in court that the affidavits were "mostly spam and lies".All the affidavits and I m willing to bet the SIGINT claims pan out.
What was undermined again?How many of lawsuits were hers?
I'll link it for you tonight. I'm on my phone now.Can you point me to a specific affidavit that isn't simply an allegation? Just stating "we have affidavits" is not evidence, especially when we know that A) "affidavits" could be submitted online without verification, and B) one of Trump's lawyers admitted in court that the affidavits were "mostly spam and lies".
Can you point me to the specifics of the SIGINT claim?
I'm legit trying to see the evidence here, but I keep coming back to unsupported claims.
A claim...but still no evidence?I'll link it for you tonight. I'm on my phone now.
There was a claim yesterday in the AZ hearing as well as in the michigan filing that we saw data packets leave the us and likely tampered with.
The supporters and the guy who constantly claim false news and dishonesty in reporting and information continue to push false narratives and bogus information with ZERO evidence and zero consequences. I guess you are going down with the ship.I'm just saying, I think Trump will still be in the White House on Jan 22.
Rationalize my insanity however you need to.
Just to indulge this a bit more... How do you expect that to happen, precisely? Do you believe SCOTUS will invalidate the election results? Do you believe state legislatures will appoint different reps to the electoral college in enough states to matter? Even if Powell can prove a tiny smidgeon of the allegations, what's the path to victory here?I'm just saying, I think Trump will still be in the White House on Jan 22.
Rationalize my insanity however you need to.
Along these lines, I thought this was a great tweet thread by Erick Erickson (Trump voter and abashed conservative): LinkB) Trump and co. are playing their supporters to raise money, behavior that would be entirely consistent with Trump's entire known history.
https://news.yahoo.com/report-trump-raised-more-150-044424719.html
He also just tweeted that he might have evidence that China bought Dominion.Trump lawyer Lin Wood tweets:
"Good morning.
Our country is headed to civil war. A war created by 3rd party bad actors for their benefit – not for We The People.
Communist China is leading the nefarious efforts to take away our freedom.
@realDonaldTrump should declare martial law.”
Included this link:
https://wethepeopleconvention.org/articles/WTPC-Urges-Limited-Martial-Law
I'd like to think the States will get it right, but I think ultimately it will be SCOTUS ruling that invalidates certain states.Just to indulge this a bit more... How do you expect that to happen, precisely? Do you believe SCOTUS will invalidate the election results? Do you believe state legislatures will appoint different reps to the electoral college in enough states to matter? Even if Powell can prove a tiny smidgeon of the allegations, what's the path to victory here?
We can't rationalize the irrational. And that incongruity is at the root of the contentiousness rampant in political discourse these days.I'm just saying, I think Trump will still be in the White House on Jan 22.
Rationalize my insanity however you need to.
Affidavits are not evidence.All the affidavits and I m willing to bet the SIGINT claims pan out.Can you point me to some? Seriously, I didn't see evidence. I saw allegations, which is not the same thing at all.
We are all entitled to our beliefs.I'm just saying, I think Trump will still be in the White House on Jan 22.
Rationalize my insanity however you need to.
There will be nothing before Scotus for them to even decide. You should re-evaluate where you are getting your information from. There is literally 0 chance Trump is the president on 1/21.I'd like to think the States will get it right, but I think ultimately it will be SCOTUS ruling that invalidates certain states.
There's some of that going on, but ego and faith are at the heart of it.I'm wondering if there is some "sunk cost fallacy" going on
Pride always comes before the fall.I'm wondering if there is some "sunk cost fallacy" going on
I wonder where all that money is going.