I could not have said it better myself

leddy said:
The book that has 14 reviews on Amazon, and zero on Barnes and Noble. Not exactly tearing it up.
Click to expand...
Your regurgitating the same vapid, intellectually lazy responses doesn't sound any smarter than it sounded the first time.

Until you can factually refute anything the author has to say - which means you have to be aware of what the author says instead of braying in ignorance about what others have said you have nothing to say. I'm well aware it wouldn't matter how many reviews it had you'd still find an excuse to naysay instead of reading it for yourself.
 
brassplyer said:
Your regurgitating the same vapid, intellectually lazy responses doesn't sound any smarter than it sounded the first time.

Until you can factually refute anything the author has to say - which means you have to be aware of what the author says instead of braying in ignorance about what others have said you have nothing to say. I'm well aware it wouldn't matter how many reviews it had you'd still find an excuse to naysay instead of reading it for yourself.
Click to expand...
Problem is that anyone can make a claim like “I saw someone in Maricopa not check signatures” etc. Someone like Fried makes a book of these claims. There’s no rebuttal in his book, just claims and whatever supporting evidence he has. I certainly have no way to verify or refute (nor do you), let alone how long it would take to try. What we have is a judicial system that we count on to do this. The election deniers made their claims. Those claims were taken up by auditors and by the courts, and ruled the election was valid. So the deniers now make claims that the cases weren’t settled on the merits of the case. You’re saying Trump’s legal team, his cabinet including Bill Barr, most of his family, etc just said ok and walked away when clearly there was all this injustice? Slowly but surely they all see the bullshit Trump tried to peddle and fall away, so then Trump hatches a plan to send fraudulent electors and have Pence count those instead. That failed, so they stormed the capitol.

I showed you a paper that came from Republican senators and judges debunking most of the claims. If they have less credibility to you than one accountant that wrote his own book, and if you don’t trust the 60+ judges that ruled on the lawsuits…There’s certainly nothing I can say to you.
 
Last edited:
brassplyer said:
In your own words - explain what you think happened. I'm seeing conflicting accounts.
Click to expand...
OK...
At the behest of Trump, disgraced lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman organized a group of hard core Republicans from 7 states to create and print counterfeit electoral certificates and present them to Mike Pence. Pence would then use these fake certificates in place of the real ones in order to skew the electoral vote in Trumps favour.
At least that was their deviant scheme, but Pence refused to do what Trump was publicly pressuring him to do.
For the good of all, the scheme failed.
Now it's time to pay for the crime.
 
Last edited:
Dave Matthews said:
OK...
At the behest of Trump, disgraced lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman organized a group of hard core Republicans from 7 states to create and print counterfeit electoral certificates and present them to Mike Pence. Pence would then use these fake certificates in place of the real ones in order to skew the electoral vote in Trumps favour.
At least that was their deviant scheme, but Pence refused to do what Trump was publicly pressuring him to do.
For the good of all, the scheme failed.
Now it's time to pay for the crime.
Click to expand...
And…they had to know the legal risk they were taking could end up putting them in jail. Yet they chose this route. Why would they take that risk if they truly believed they won the election and the courts would rule in their favor?

I’m still speechless brassplayer and serendipity were unaware of this scheme.
 
leddy said:
And…they had to know the legal risk they were taking could end up putting them in jail. Yet they chose this route. Why would they take that risk if they truly believed they won the election and the courts would rule in their favor?

I’m still speechless brassplayer and serendipity were unaware of this scheme.
Click to expand...
One of the rules of being in a cult is "Do not listen to anyone who is not in the same cult."
 
brassplyer said:
Your regurgitating the same vapid, intellectually lazy responses doesn't sound any smarter than it sounded the first time.

Until you can factually refute anything the author has to say - which means you have to be aware of what the author says instead of braying in ignorance about what others have said you have nothing to say. I'm well aware it wouldn't matter how many reviews it had you'd still find an excuse to naysay instead of reading it for yourself.
Click to expand...
leddy said:
Problem is that anyone can make a claim like “I saw someone in Maricopa not check signatures” etc. Someone like Fried makes a book of these claims. There’s no rebuttal in his book, just claims and whatever supporting evidence he has. I certainly have no way to verify or refute (nor do you), let alone how long it would take to try. What we have is a judicial system that we count on to do this. The election deniers made their claims. Those claims were taken up by auditors and by the courts, and ruled the election was valid. So the deniers now make claims that the cases weren’t settled on the merits of the case. You’re saying Trump’s legal team, his cabinet including Bill Barr, most of his family, etc just said ok and walked away when clearly there was all this injustice? Slowly but surely they all see the bullshit Trump tried to peddle and fall away, so then Trump hatches a plan to send fraudulent electors and have Pence count those instead.

I showed you a paper that came from Republican senators and judges debunking most of the claims. They have less credibility to you than one accountant that wrote his own book. You don’t trust the 60+ judges that ruled on the lawsuits. There’s certainly nothing I can say to you.
Click to expand...
The problem is the amount of energy you put into trying to justify your intellectual slackerism.

"There's no rebuttal in his book"

You don't have the vaguest idea what's in his book besides one specific point I shared and you didn't spend three seconds examining it or trying to debate it on factual grounds, you stumbled away with your fingers in your ears and your eyes squeezed shut bleating about him making it up knowing exactly -0- about where the information came from.

You cited a paper you *claim* debunked claims - you have no idea how that paper relates to the book I cited because you have no idea what ground the book covers. The totality of what you think you know about the subject begins and ends with that paper.

I showed you specific sources that rebut the assertions of your paper - a specific, detailed breakdown of court cases that show more court cases than your paper refers to and shows that the Trump team *did* in fact win the majority of court cases that were decided on their merits. Laid it out for you on a silver platter - you can look up the disposition of the cases yourself. Again all you did was stumble away with your fingers in your ears and your eyes squeezed shut saying "Nah nah nah nah".

I cite facts, all you've done is drool.
 
Last edited:
brassplyer said:
The problem is the amount of energy you put into trying to justify your intellectual slackerism.

"There's no rebuttal in his book"

You don't have the vaguest idea what's in his book besides one specific point I shared and you didn't spend three seconds examining it or trying to debate it on factual grounds, you stumbled away with your fingers in your ears and you eyes squeezed shut bleating about him making it up knowing exactly -0- about where the information came from.

You cited a paper you *claim* debunked claims - you have no idea how that paper relates to the book I cited because you have no idea what ground the book covers. The totality of what you think you know about the subject begins and ends with that paper.

I showed you specific sources that rebut the assertions of your paper - a specific, detailed breakdown of court cases that show more court cases than your paper refers to and shows that the Trump team *did* in fact win the majority of court cases that were decided on their merits. Laid it out for you on a silver platter - you can look up the disposition of the cases yourself. Again all you did was stumble away with your fingers in your ears and your eyes squeezed shut saying "Nah nah nah nah".

I cite facts, all you've done is drool.
Click to expand...
I did read excerpt from the book and watch interviews with him. Everything I said still stands. You’re just butthurt.

Tell me again why Trump tried to have Pence count fraudulent electors if they knew they really won the election.
 
leddy said:
I did read excerpt from the book and watch interviews with him. Everything I said still stands. You’re just butthurt.

Tell me again why Trump tried to have Pence count fraudulent electors if they knew they really won the election.
Click to expand...
You haven't tried to factually refute anything - you haven't read the book, you don't comprehend the topics in it. Let me know when you've read the book cover to cover. Until then you have nothing to say.
 
brassplyer said:
In your own words - explain what you think happened. I'm seeing conflicting accounts.
Click to expand...
Dave Matthews said:
OK...
At the behest of Trump, disgraced lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman organized a group of hard core Republicans from 7 states to create and print counterfeit electoral certificates and present them to Mike Pence. Pence would then use these fake certificates in place of the real ones in order to skew the electoral vote in Trumps favour.
At least that was their deviant scheme, but Pence refused to do what Trump was publicly pressuring him to do.
For the good of all, the scheme failed.
Now it's time to pay for the crime.
Click to expand...
There were a number of court cases ongoing at the time - from what I've found so far it sounds like they submitted the names of electors in the event that court cases were successful - they would *have* to have electors ready to be submitted in that event.

What do you see as the "crime"?
 
brassplyer said:
I'm completely comfortable saying people have no business breeding when they know they live in marginal circumstances and that they should behave responsibly not like so many feral rats. I'm sure there are people on this board and elsewhere who find that offensive, I don't care. They should care a lot more about the crime and social ills that result. It's one of the reasons I support at least first trimester abortion and think religious right Bible-thumpers have their heads up their arses regarding abortion. One of the best predictors that someone shouldn't be a parent is that they don't want to be. Or they just recognize they're in no position to be a decent parent.

If it were up to me a lot of things would be very different than they are now and my measures would absolutely curb crime and the utilization of the welfare system.
Click to expand...
It's common sense that if you can't afford to pay or care for a child, you shouldn't have one. But, that would mean you practice personal responsibility. Very few, if any do.

I personally don't think many people should breed. I also don't get how people don't use condoms. You don't want to have a kid, stick a rubber on. There was an episode of Springer or Downey of welfare mothers who kept having kids to get larger checks. They didn't care for the kids, they just wanted the government money. Yes, that is one of the numerous reasons those neighborhoods are crime ridden.

As awful as some places in the US can be. It's still the greatest country in the world, and most everyone takes their freedoms for granted. Too many rely on the government for handouts, instead of busting their ass, doing anything (legally) to care for their family.
 
brassplyer said:
There were a number of court cases ongoing at the time - from what I've found so far it sounds like they submitted the names of electors in the event that court cases were successful - they would *have* to have electors ready to be submitted in that event.

What do you see as the "crime"?
Click to expand...
Trump’s pressuring of Pence seems to clearly indicate he knew he was submitting fraudulent documents to the US government. If provable, it could amount to falsifying voting documents, mail fraud or conspiracy to defraud the United States.

www.theguardian.com

Trump campaign knew ‘fake electors’ scheme was fraudulent, panel argues

Text message appears to indicate campaign sought to use certificates it knew were not state-certified to obstruct Biden’s victory
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
It takes a liberal/ progressive comedian to report on the truth of dominion voting machines in Ga.

 
RFR said:
It takes a liberal/ progressive comedian to report on the truth of dominion voting machines in Ga.

Click to expand...

The problem is you still have to prove that something *was* done - which makes at least that aspect of the Dem steal next to impossible to prove. I would assume any evidence trail related to the internals of the system was almost surely obliterated long ago. It would probably take a whistleblower from within who would have been in a position to know.

Of course that's not the only avenue for voter fraud.
 
Btw I thought it was old news that Dominion machines could readily be compromised - as I recall Texas rejected them because of security concerns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top