Trump's strong support / Democrats' lack of support, by white women

[Subduction Zone]

Yes - what's wrong with that?[/quote[

It showed that he was delusional and likely to cheat if he could.

And honestly - how could he not believe that?

So you are saying that Trump was a moron. I guess that is at least something.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everything they threw at him never stuck. Two impeachments - no results.

No one could ever prove that he broke any laws - but they kept at it because the media lied for four years.

The fact that you called his going to court over the election results - which he has every right to do - an attempt to "overthrow" anything is proof that you don't think for yourself.

You are just regurgitating what the MSM says.

The only reason that the impeachments did not stick is that there were too many equally corrupt Republicans in the Senate. I see that you forgot the first one, In that one the Republicans had control of the Senate and they did not even allow for a proper trial. They did not allow evidence to be introduced. They would not question witnesses. Why? Because they knew that Trump was guilty.

And he and his supporters went to court over 60 times. With one maybe two very minor wins. In other words, He had no evidence and he knew it. He even pressured Georgia state officials into breaking the law. Or did you forget hat phone call too? He is without a doubt the most corrupt President in over 80 years.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

So - you just proved that the idea of "American Ethos" is completely ambiguous and arbitrary - and has no place in deciding who should be President.

Except that we have a Constitution that upholds the Ethos, founded on compromise and needs at the beginning of our country and added to as it progressed through time.

A sitting President can uphold the Constitution while still being a scumbag personally.

There is no "ambiguous moral test" for deciding who is to be President.

You are making stuff up just because you didn't like Trump.

You're correct that there's no moral test for Presidents; we have to decide ourselves. And we do this by looking at their history and deciding whether they uphold our values (which is ambiguous and why no one ever fully agrees on the subject).

A scumbug like Trump COULD be a decent President, but we need to decide if that person's character is going to uphold the Constitution in a way that supports the principles behind it.

Back in 2016, I did not vote for Trump because his character did not fit these values. In particular:

He will use money and influence to benefit himself at the expense of ordinary people:
Michael Forbes (farmer) - Wikipedia

He is a racist: Decades-Old Housing Discrimination Case Plagues Donald Trump

What Trump has said about the Central Park Five

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnew...ated-birther-movement-years/story?id=42138176

His Presidency confirmed this.

And you don't know that there was no fraud - because the evidence was never examined in court.

Zero evidentiary hearings
.

What I know is that there was no plausible evidence enough to convince over 50 judges. This continues to be the case as folks still pushing the narrative are unable to show anything convincing, even despite this being the most scrutinized election in history.

Fact check: Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by Trump campaign

And this is important; without convincing evidence, ANYONE can make claims of fraud, and if we begin changing elections based off of hearsay and insubstantial charges, how can we ever actually have a working Democracy?

Besides - even if Trump were wrong - he could still have still believed that he was right and he would have the right to ask the courts to examine the evidence.

You are coming to conclusions and passing judgment before the trial even begins.

And he did. The courts rejected him.

What? Did you never see the videos of Republican ballot watchers being forced out? Of ballots being counted with no one watching? With ballot counters filling out mail-in ballots? Of ballot counters covering up windows so now one could watch them? of ballots being counted when they claimed that they were closed? of hidden boxes filled with ballots being taken out and counted after ballot watchers left? of boxes being admitted into counting areas without being checked?

That's not even to mention the ballots that went missing and the various changes to election laws made by all these problem States right before the election.

And how the voting machines were connected to the internet!

There are so many anomalies and statistical improbabilities that I am convinced that serious s**t went down that demands investigation.

This is L-O-L funny considering who is in power now and what they do to maintain it.

O-M-G this is funny.

And did you review the context behind these allegations? Feel free to post the evidence for examination.

I think what's funny is how virulently folks support this self-aggrandizing scumbag and believe everything he says.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Except that we have a Constitution that upholds the Ethos, founded on compromise and needs at the beginning of our country and added to as it progressed through time.

So - where's the part about "money-grubbing and narcissism" in the Constitution?

I also fail to see where President Trump broke any laws or defied the Constitution.

You're correct that there's no moral test for Presidents; we have to decide ourselves. And we do this by looking at their history and deciding whether they uphold our values (which is ambiguous and why no one ever fully agrees on the subject).

Yes - we each need to make our own decisions.

And President Trump did everything within his power to keep the promises he made during his campaign - which is extraordinary today.

And if I am being honest - I care more about whether my President is going to focus on what I feel is important and get stuff done - than about anything he has said and done in his personal life.

A scumbug like Trump COULD be a decent President, but we need to decide if that person's character is going to uphold the Constitution in a way that supports the principles behind it.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "the principles behind" the Constitution.

Because if you believe that every President needs to be God-inspired (like how the Constitution is) then you are going to be waiting for a long time.

We have checks and balances in place to prevent the President from abusing his power - so this point is moot in my opinion.

And nowadays - with the way the medias and big tech works - there is no way for anyone to judge his character accurately.

There is so much nonsense out there.

Back in 2016, I did not vote for Trump because his character did not fit these values.

"Values" that you have yet to specify.

He will use money and influence to benefit himself at the expense of ordinary people:
Michael Forbes (farmer) - Wikipedia

Yes - the ruthless billionaire real estate tycoon. Just the kind of man you want running your country.

He is a racist: Decades-Old Housing Discrimination Case Plagues Donald Trump

Hearsay and no admission of guilt

What Trump has said about the Central Park Five

Is this supposed to proof of racism?

His Presidency confirmed this.

How?

What I know is that there was no plausible evidence enough to convince over 50 judges.

Yeah - because Trump always did really well with judges during his presidency - right?

This continues to be the case as folks still pushing the narrative are unable to show anything convincing, even despite this being the most scrutinized election in history.

"Scrutinized" how?

Are you talking about how anyone who claimed that there was fraud in the 2020 election were banned from social media platforms?

Or all the audits that didn't happen?

Have you looked at the more recent Nevada audit proving that tens of thousands of illegal ballots were counted?

And this is important; without convincing evidence, ANYONE can make claims of fraud, and if we begin changing elections based off of hearsay and insubstantial charges, how can we ever actually have a working Democracy?

Who said anything about "changing elections"?

All we wanted were investigations and audits.

I mean - they investigated Trump for years based on a phony dossier that has since been proven to have been bought and paid for by Clinton and the DNC - which was full of Russian disinformation.

They impeached him over rumors about a phone call - the transcript of which anyone could read because Trump released it to the public.

When Trump stubbed his toe - they had all cylinders firing to try and prove he somehow committed a crime - but when there are hundreds of eye-witness testimonies of illegal activity and irregularities, the changing of election laws in various States immediately before the election, the voting machines being connected to the internet etc - no one wants to talk about it.

And he did. The courts rejected him.

Yes - they did - which is unfortunate - because an investigation would have given everyone the answers they wanted - whether Trump was right or not.

Now it looks like we may never know.

And did you review the context behind these allegations?

Context? I saw actual video evidence of these things taking place. There is no need for "context".

Feel free to post the evidence for examination.

You really didn't see these videos I am referencing? Where have you been?

I think what's funny is how virulently folks support this self-aggrandizing scumbag and believe everything he says.

Nothing I referenced above came from Trump - but from videos you can easily find online.

However - I wouldn't try finding them on YouTube - they have taken most of them down - or they allow only certain versions of them up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So - where's the part about "money-grubbing and narcissism" in the Constitution?

I also fail to see where President Trump broke any laws or defied the Constitution.

Yes - we each need to make our own decisions.

And President Trump did everything within his power to keep the promises he made during his campaign - which is extraordinary today.

And if I am being honest - I care more about whether my President is going to focus on what I feel is important and get stuff done - than about anything he has said and done in his personal life.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "the principles behind" the Constitution.

Because if you believe that every President needs to be God-inspired (like how the Constitution is) then you are going to be waiting for a long time.

We have checks and balances in place to prevent the President from abusing his power - so this point is moot in my opinion.

And nowadays - with the way the medias and big tech works - there is no way for anyone to judge his character accurately.

There is so much nonsense out there.

"Values" that you have yet to specify.
Yes - the ruthless billionaire real estate tycoon. Just the kind of man you want running your country.
Hearsay and no admission of guilt.
Is this supposed to proof of racism?

How?

Yeah - because Trump always did really well with judges during his presidency - right?

"Scrutinized" how?

Are you talking about how anyone who claimed that there was fraud in the 2020 election were banned from social media platforms?

Or all the audits that didn't happen?

Have you looked at the more recent Nevada audit proving that tens of thousands of illegal ballots were counted?

Who said anything about "changing elections"?

All we wanted were investigations and audits.

I mean - they investigated Trump for years based on a phony dossier that has since been proven to have been bought and paid for by Clinton and the DNC - which was full of Russian misinformation.

They impeached him over rumors about a phone call - the transcript of which anyone could read because Trump released it to the public.

When Trump stubbed his toe - they had all cylinders firing to try and prove he somehow committed a crime - but when there are hundreds of eye-witness testimonies or irregularities, the changing of election laws in various States immediately before the election, the voting machines being connected to the internet etc - no one wants to talk about it.

yes - they did - which is unfortunate - because an investigation would have given everyone the answers they wanted - whether Trump was right or not.

Now it looks like we may never know.

Context? I saw actual video evidence of these things taking place. There is no need for "context".

You really didn't see these videos I am referencing? Where have you been?

Nothing I referenced above came from Trump - but from videos you can easily find online.

However - I wouldn't try finding them on YouTube - they have taken most of them down - or they allow only certain versions of them up.

If you refuse to see of course you will never understand why Trump should have been convicted in his first impeachment.

 

[metis]

Irrelevant. OJ got away with murder.

Oh, so that justifies dishonesty? Didn't your mommy ever tell you that "two wrongs don't make a right"?

I don't think you know what the definition of the word "overthrow" is.

Him going to the courts is not "overthrowing" anything.

I meant "overturn".

There was enough evidence to warrant audits - and the recent audit in Nevada showed a bunch of illegal ballots counted. Enough to swing that State.

Link?

We don't believe in checks and balances? Since when?

You simply don't know whjat you're talking about because "oversight" is one of those granted to Congress per the Constitution. Maybe actually read it for yourself.

Yes - what's wrong with that?

And honestly - how could he not believe that?

Gee, didn't he get elected through this same exact process in 2016?

When the establishment is against you - there is nothing wrong with exposing their underhanded tactics.

Says you.

Everything they threw at him never stuck. Two impeachments - no results

According to the Constitution that you seem to know so little about, "impeachment" is a guilty conviction.

No one could ever prove that he broke any laws - but they kept at it because the media lied for four years.

Oh really? Well, then maybe read this from a non-partisan source: Legal affairs of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

an attempt to "overthrow" anything is proof that you don't think for yourself.

Well, maybe if you actually watched the news on January 6th and afterward, and then maybe if you actually listened to the Republican SoS in Georgia who took the phone call from Trump, the latter of which tells the SoS to "find 11,000+ votes", you'd actually know better. You can listen to it on YouTube, btw.

You are just regurgitating what the MSM says.

What an idiotic and baseless stereotype you've used. You don't know my background or my reading and viewing habits. It's no wonder you like Trump so much-- two peas in the same decadent pod.

 

[metis]

If you refuse to see of course you will never understand why Trump should have been convicted in his first impeachment.

Just a reminder that he was convicted but not removed by the Senate even though some Pubs actually voted for his removal.

 

[metis]

Yes - the ruthless billionaire real estate tycoon. Just the kind of man you want running your country.

I see, so basic moral character doesn't make any difference to you. Understandable.

Did you ever ask yourself the question as to why Trump couldn't garner western loans after a while and had to go through DeuscheBank that has a history of corruption and was find over $100 million dollars a couple of years ago for money laundring? Any clue?

I mean - they investigated Trump for years based on a phony dossier that has since been proven to have been bought and paid for by Clinton and the DNC - which was full of Russian disinformation.

You simply do not understand what the Steele Dossier actually was doing, as Steele was relaying intel of what he had been told by some Russian and also Dutch operatives. He did not claim it was true but that he felt an obligation to report it because it might have been true. Some of it since then has been debunked, but not all of it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"American Ethos" - whatever that is - is not a requirement for becoming President.

President Trump went through every possible legal channel he could to challenge the results of the 2020 election.

Hardly "corrupt".

And I am still convinced that the 2020 election was stolen through fraud. We need more audits.

You know the audit in Arizona found even more votes for Biden, right?
Hilarious.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yet - you are the one blindly claiming that anything said by the "MSM" are "facts".

Nice assumption. I haven't told you a single thing about what news outlets I frequent.

When was the last time you thought for yourself?

Every single time I open my mouth or type something on this forum.

I don't see it. Women are willing to do things with men that are "stars". This is reality.

Um no. That's what men like Trump tell themselves in order to justify treating women badly. "Oh, they wanted it!"
Like I said, that's what my rapist said about me in court. And countless others.
It's BS.

Lo and behold, over 20 women have come forward claiming that Trump has touched them without their consent.
I bet they're just making it up because they really wanted it though, right?

I would say that it is more than an opinion.

Yes, it is my opinion that that is an arrogant and entitled attitude. I've met plenty of men with the same garbage attitude towards women.

Yeah - the timing on that is staggering - isn't it?

Wow you're just full of the stereotypical lame excuses people have been making about sexual assaulters for centuries.
What next, are you going to ask what they were wearing?

They waited decades. Nothing suspicious about that.

Not if you understand such things, no, it's not suspicious at all.

I was raped when I was 13. I didn't tell anyone about it until I was twenty, because I was ashamed, too embarrassed and shy to talk about it, and when I did tell someone, they didn't believe me, and in fact, they made me feel like it was my fault. So I didn't tell anyone else about it, because I felt even more embarrassed than I did in the first place. I couldn't even imagine having to face the guy in court and give testimony while he stared at me and while his lawyer tried to tear me down. Countless other women have experienced the exact. Same. Thing. Please stop with these lame excuses meant to protect sexual predators and vilify victims.

You've heard of the MeToo movement, right? You should pay closer attention to what it's all about.

Hi Kettle.

Please elaborate.

I never saw Trump do anything remotely racist.

I guess you weren't paying attention then. On the other hand, you think his disgusting bragging about molesting women was a-ok so ...

I wouldn't know anything about :locker room" talk.

I still don't see it.

I'm around men all the time. I've heard locker room talk.
What Trump said is not locker room talk.

I do see an arrogant "star" bragging about his sexual exploits - for sure - but nothing about sexual assault.

I mean - this recording has been around for decades - but it only gets attention when Trump was running for President?

You don't find that timing suspicious either?

Well, he was running for President so perhaps somebody wanted to expose the truth about his attitudes before that happened. I don't see what is weird about that.
If I saw my rapist running for President I would certainly say something.

There is also tape from a Howard Stern Show he did a few years back where he talks about intentionally walking into the changing room of the Miss Teen Universe pageant where TEENAGED girls were changing and thinking they're safe and alone. He bragged about it, like it wasn't disgusting behaviour. You cool with that too? Do you think Leo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt sit around bragging about how they touch women without their consent?

FYI Dude, touching someone without their consent in a sexual way is sexual assault.

I believe in not assuming the worst about people and due process of law.

The fact that you don't believe in either of these things speaks more about you than me.

Whoa, when did I say I don't believe in either of those things?

There is no assumption required here. Trump's own words speak for themselves. Then there are the 20+ women who have corroborated his very own words and actions. There is enough evidence to take his word for it, when he brags about assaulting women.

True - but she still has to prove that she was raped.

Nothing in that transcript proved that Trump raped anyone.

See above.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah it is. We sing songs of our conquests often with great exaggeration, in attempt to one up each other and prove who had the most awesome weekend or whatever. Normal dude talk.

Nah, it isn't.
It's disgusting.

I've heard plenty of locker room talk, having worked with men most of my life. I have yet to hear one of them brag about touching someone without their consent.

And if a woman says she doesn’t even ask, she just grabs him by the junk and takes him into the other room to go drain his life force like some feral succubus, most dudes are not going to freak out about that.

Oh okay so it's fine then!

We're not talking about dudes being assaulted. We're talking about women being assaulted. Women who have traditionally been vilified and demonized when they speak up against this kind of behavior. Not sure if you realize it or not, but the power structure between men and women hasn't been equal for most of human history. The MeToo Movement has thankfully started to change how people think about that.

When women gossip about how hung we all are, or who had the craziest time last night and whose man’s glutes look the best when they run, it isn’t too much different then the things we talk about. Perfectly normal. Like if Donald Trump declared to his bros that he flew away to Heaven with Melania in his arms to teach her the meaning of happiness, and she came back the most sexually satisfied woman the world has ever seen. There might be some exaggeration there but we get the point. Somebody had a really good time and is excited to share the tale with his friends.

Um no. Not the same at all.
The fact that you can't see that is alarming to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So - you just proved that the idea of "American Ethos" is completely ambiguous and arbitrary - and has no place in deciding who should be President.

A sitting President can uphold the Constitution while still being a scumbag personally.

There is no "ambiguous moral test" for deciding who is to be President.

You are making stuff up just because you didn't like Trump.

No - it is not. Not at all.

And you don't know that there was no fraud - because the evidence was never examined in court.

Zero evidentiary hearings.

Besides - even if Trump were wrong - he could still have still believed that he was right and he would have the right to ask the courts to examine the evidence.

You are coming to conclusions and passing judgment before the trial even begins.

Are you also one of those "believe all women" people who don't believe in due process?

What? Did you never see the videos of Republican ballot watchers being forced out? Of ballots being counted with no one watching? With ballot counters filling out mail-in ballots? Of ballot counters covering up windows so now one could watch them? of ballots being counted when they claimed that they were closed? of hidden boxes filled with ballots being taken out and counted after ballot watchers left? of boxes being admitted into counting areas without being checked?

That's not even to mention the ballots that went missing and the various changes to election laws made by all these problem States right before the election.

And how the voting machines were connected to the internet!

There are so many anomalies and statistical improbabilities that I am convinced that serious s**t went down that demands investigation.

This is L-O-L funny considering who is in power now and what they do to maintain it.

O-M-G this is funny.

There. Was. No. Evidence.

That's why they kept getting kicked out of court.

Good grief.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So - where's the part about "money-grubbing and narcissism" in the Constitution?

I also fail to see where President Trump broke any laws or defied the Constitution.

Yes - we each need to make our own decisions.

And President Trump did everything within his power to keep the promises he made during his campaign - which is extraordinary today.

And if I am being honest - I care more about whether my President is going to focus on what I feel is important and get stuff done - than about anything he has said and done in his personal life.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "the principles behind" the Constitution.

Because if you believe that every President needs to be God-inspired (like how the Constitution is) then you are going to be waiting for a long time.

We have checks and balances in place to prevent the President from abusing his power - so this point is moot in my opinion.

And nowadays - with the way the medias and big tech works - there is no way for anyone to judge his character accurately.

There is so much nonsense out there.

"Values" that you have yet to specify.
Yes - the ruthless billionaire real estate tycoon. Just the kind of man you want running your country.
Hearsay and no admission of guilt
Is this supposed to proof of racism?

How?

Yeah - because Trump always did really well with judges during his presidency - right?

"Scrutinized" how?

Are you talking about how anyone who claimed that there was fraud in the 2020 election were banned from social media platforms?

Or all the audits that didn't happen?

Have you looked at the more recent Nevada audit proving that tens of thousands of illegal ballots were counted?

Who said anything about "changing elections"?

All we wanted were investigations and audits.

I mean - they investigated Trump for years based on a phony dossier that has since been proven to have been bought and paid for by Clinton and the DNC - which was full of Russian disinformation.

They impeached him over rumors about a phone call - the transcript of which anyone could read because Trump released it to the public.

When Trump stubbed his toe - they had all cylinders firing to try and prove he somehow committed a crime - but when there are hundreds of eye-witness testimonies of illegal activity and irregularities, the changing of election laws in various States immediately before the election, the voting machines being connected to the internet etc - no one wants to talk about it.

Yes - they did - which is unfortunate - because an investigation would have given everyone the answers they wanted - whether Trump was right or not.

Now it looks like we may never know.

Context? I saw actual video evidence of these things taking place. There is no need for "context".

You really didn't see these videos I am referencing? Where have you been?

Nothing I referenced above came from Trump - but from videos you can easily find online.

However - I wouldn't try finding them on YouTube - they have taken most of them down - or they allow only certain versions of them up.

You know, Trump appointed a bunch of the judges who ruled against him, right?
I guess his plan backfired.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just a reminder that he was convicted but not removed by the Senate even though some Pubs actually voted for his removal.

He was impeached, that is similar to what a grand jury does when they hand down an indictment.. They look at the evidence and declare that there is enough for a trial. But yes, it was the Senate that did not convict him either time. In the first "trial" which is what it is supposed to be in the Senate, the Republicans would not even allow any evidence to be presented. It was a pure kangaroo court that had already decided not to convict no matter what.. In the second trial the Democrats were in control and the same Republicans that were forced into hiding (not all but far far too many) voted not guilty. That was an extreme example of cognitive dissonance on their part.

 

[metis]

He was impeached, that is similar to what a grand jury does when they hand down an indictment.

The role of a grand jury is to determine if there's enough evidence to warrant an indictment, which then goes to trial as you say. In impeachment, it is determined whether an offender is basically "guilty", and then the Senate votes on whether that's serious enough for removal. IOW, the steps followed with impeachment that are pretty much the same as in a regular trial [testimony through witnesses and/or other evidence], but it's what happens after that which is different.

the Republicans would not even allow any evidence to be presented. It was a pure kangaroo court that had already decided not to convict no matter what.. In the second trial the Democrats were in control and the same Republicans that were forced into hiding (not all but far far too many) voted not guilty. That was an extreme example of cognitive dissonance on their part.

Yep, party over country-- just how pathetic is that.

 

[Jose Fly]

And I am still convinced that the 2020 election was stolen through fraud.

Based on what?

We need more audits.

Where? Post-2020 election audits have been completed in AZ, WI, MI, PA, and GA and they found zero evidence of widespread fraud.

Also, do you support the Democrat's For the People Act? Are you aware that it would provide money and support to states to upgrade, secure, and maintain election equipment, as well as mandate a paper trail for every vote and random post-election audits across the country?

EDIT: Also, your claim that no court has considered the evidence for the fraud claims is just plain wrong.

Do you remember the lawyer's infamous line about "there's a nonzero number of people in the room"? That was in an evidentiary hearing, and eventually the judge ruled (after examining the evidence)...

"In a scathing ruling late Saturday, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann — a Republican and Federalist Society member in central Pennsylvania — compared the campaign’s legal arguments to “Frankenstein’s Monster,” concluding that Trump’s team offered only “speculative accusations,” not proof of rampant corruption."​

There are plenty of other cases where the evidence was heard and considered, and the judge found it to be lacking. If you'd like I can provide many more examples.

Also, were you aware that Sidney Powell (the "Kraken" lawyer) has argued in court that no reasonable person would ever take her claims about the 2020 election seriously?

"Attorneys for Sidney Powell are asking a federal judge to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed against her, claiming that “no reasonable person” thought the pro-Trump lawyer’s statements about the 2020 election results were factual."​

I gotta wonder....did you think her claims were factual?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I also fail to see where President Trump broke any laws or defied the Constitution

The Preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

-Politicians are often divisive, but Trump took it to a new level with immature name calling and bullying tweeting, corrupting the idea of a perfect Union and domestic tranquility.
-Trump's inability to handle the COVID-19 pandemic as a leader, actively working against the scientific community because of his narcissism and political motives was not prompting the general welfare.
-Trump also removed regulations meant to promote a healthier environment, not securing blessings for our posterity.
-His anti-immigration stance certainly did not promote Liberty, in particular in a nation built on immigration. To quote Ronald Reagan:

"Now, tomorrow is a special day for me….And since this is the last speech that I will give as President, I think it’s fitting to leave one final thought, an observation about a country which I love…A man wrote me and said: “You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.”

Yes, the torch of Lady Liberty symbolizes our freedom and represents our heritage, the compact with our parents, our grandparents, and our ancestors. It is that lady who gives us our great and special place in the world. For it’s the great life force of each generation of new Americans that guarantees that America’s triumph shall continue unsurpassed into the next century and beyond. Other countries may seek to compete with us; but in one vital area, as a beacon of freedom and opportunity that draws the people of the world, no country on Earth comes close.

This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America’s greatness. We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people — our strength — from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation. While other countries cling to the stale past, here in America we breathe life into dreams. We create the future, and the world follows us into tomorrow. Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we’re a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost.”

And President Trump did everything within his power to keep the promises he made during his campaign - which is extraordinary today.

And other Presidents haven't?

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "the principles behind" the Constitution.

"Values" that you have yet to specify.

I have specified. "Liberty and justice for all" seems like a good summary. The principles behind the Constitution can be summed up by that and the Preamble, quoted above.

Is this supposed to proof of racism?

Yes. Trump's past is riddled with examples of overt or covert racism that added together with examples from his presidency, such as his use of historically racist dogwhistles like threats of crime in the suburbs if "those people" move in, it is really hard not to see the man as racist.

Yeah - because Trump always did really well with judges during his presidency - right?

Criminals usually don't.

"Scrutinized" how?

You really think that given the amount of resources at his disposal and the attention he gave to it, Trump and his cronies didn't try all they could to find viable evidence of fraud? Like, far better than the hearsay and insubstantial examples they presented?

People were really putting an effort to root out fraud in this election.

Are you talking about how anyone who claimed that there was fraud in the 2020 election were banned from social media platforms?

Or all the audits that didn't happen?

Have you looked at the more recent Nevada audit proving that tens of thousands of illegal ballots were counted?

As far as I know, the audits that have occurred have validated the election. A quick googling tells me nothing about Nevada.

Who said anything about "changing elections"?

All we wanted were investigations and audits.

Trump sure did! Inside Trump’s pressure campaign to overturn the election

Context? I saw actual video evidence of these things taking place. There is no need for "context".

You really didn't see these videos I am referencing? Where have you been?

Nothing I referenced above came from Trump - but from videos you can easily find online.

However - I wouldn't try finding them on YouTube - they have taken most of them down - or they allow only certain versions of them up.

I wonder if this is exactly what they said in court!

Here are some things I found about some of the videos:

https://www.abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/election-2020-debunking-false-misleading-videos-claiming-show/story?id=74148233

No, these viral videos do not actually show election fraud

It's easy to take a video out of context and frame it to fit a narrative. This happens often with UFO or ghost videos. But if this is all there is for evidence, how do you expect people to believe it?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Oh, so that justifies dishonesty?

But - you don't have proof of any dishonesty.

What I meant was - courts get it wrong sometimes - especially when the case is highly politicized or when it involves a celebrity.

Didn't your mommy ever tell you that "two wrongs don't make a right"?

Didn't your mommy ever tell you that "believing a lie does not make you a liar"?

All we know is that Donald Trump believed that there was massive fraud in the 2020 election - that is not proof that he lied about anything.

I meant "overturn".

That makes a lot more sense.

However - when I correct your earlier statement (Post # 357) by swapping out "overthrow" with "overturn" we get,

"When he set up an attempt to [overturn] an election that even Republican SoS', as well as his own Attorney General Barr, said that there was no evidence of fraud enough to change the results, thus Trump's claim and actions is certainly "corruption" in spades."

So - this leads to the question - how does Trump following all possible legal channels prove that he was "corrupt"?

Does the SCOTUS have the authority to "overturn" an election if proof of fraud is discovered?

In order to prove that Trump was "corrupt" you would first need to prove that he was lying - and in order to do that you would need to have an investigation - but the courts wouldn't allow it.

So both you and I - and everyone else in the world - will forever be left to wonder.

Link?

Oops - I said Nevada when I meant to say Arizona.

Arizona is the State that reported the findings of a recent audit back in September - which has caused many concerned citizens in other split States - like Nevada - to demand audits.

That is why I had Nevada on my mind. I meant Arizona - sorry.

But - since you asked - here are a couple links about the Arizona audit:

Arizona audit flags thousands of suspect ballots, kicking issue to state's attorney general (channel411news.com)

Maricopa County Auditors Conclude: 'Election Should Not Be Certified' - Headline USA

Jellyfish.NEWS - Election Fixing - Maricopa Admits It Sought to Hide...

From the first link:

"The audit released Friday afternoon through painstakingly technical testimony concluded the final count of votes in the state’s largest county of Maricopa showing President Joe Biden won Arizona was accurate, but it also included tens of thousands of ballots that were suspect and require more investigation.

The more than 50,000 ballots flagged by auditors for more investigation involved concerns ranging from people voting from addresses from which they had already moved to residents voting twice. The total in question was nearly five times the 10,400 vote margin that separated the two presidential candidates, giving Donald Trump’s troops fresh reason to call for more scrutiny."

From the second link:

"The Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday released a 110-page forensic audit report on the 2020 presidential election, and the auditors concluded in an eight-page executive summary that “the election should not be certified, and the reported results are not reliable."

Cyber Ninjas, the company that conducted the forensic audit, identified “57,734 ballots”—a conservative estimate”—that had “serious issues,” The Gateway Pundit reported.

“In the 2020 presidential election, the margin of victory was only 10,457 votes, a small fraction of the 57,734 ballots with known issues,” Cyber Ninjas stated. “Again, this is almost 6 times the margin of victory in the Presidential race and is multiples of the margin of victory in other races.”"

From the third link,

"The long-awaited report concluded that “the election should not be certified, and the reported results are not reliable,” in part because the auditor, Cyber Ninjas, “discovered that Maricopa County had purged the election management system database, deleted election files, and corrupted ballot images.”"

You simply don't know whjat you're talking about because "oversight" is one of those granted to Congress per the Constitution. Maybe actually read it for yourself.

What did I say that was not factual?

Is Congressional oversight not a check on the other branches of government?

I'm confused.

Gee, didn't he get elected through this same exact process in 2016?

Many States changed their election laws immediately before the 2016 election?

Democrats were pushing for all mail-in voting back in the 2016 election?

Big tech claimed that no one could declare victory without being silenced back in the 2016 election?

When they changed so many things right before the 2020 election - how can you claim that it was the "exact same process in 2016"?

Says you.

Many Democrats - such as Obama, Sanders, Biden, Hoyer, Schultz - all claimed before the '08 election that voting by mail was a bad idea and they voted for legislation that required voter ID.

‘Chaos.’ ‘Fraud.’ Democrats Once Warned Against Voting Changes They Now Call For (townhall.com)

According to the Constitution that you seem to know so little about, "impeachment" is a guilty conviction.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

No. No - it is not. O-M-G

Impeachment is simply the process by which the House of Representatives votes - by a simple majority - to approve one or more articles of impeachment - then it moves to the Senate for a trial.

Only three Presidents in U.S. history have been impeached - Johnson, Clinton and Trump - all three were acquitted by the Senate and served out the rest of their terms.

I mean - Nixon was also impeached - but he resigned midway through - so I don't know if that counts.

Anyways - no - you are wrong - if any of these men had been found guilty - they would have been removed from office.

Thank you - this made my day - so funny - you love your Constitution?

Oh really? Well, then maybe read this from a non-partisan source

Yeah - I read the first sentence - not relevant to what I said.

I said, "Everything they threw at him never stuck. Two impeachments - no results.

No one could ever prove that he broke any laws - but they kept at it because the media lied for four years."

My comment was about him breaking laws as President.

Whether or not his many businesses over many decades have had "legal affairs" has nothing to do with what I said.

But - as long as we are on the subject - which of these "legal affairs" do you believe makes him ineligible to be President?

Well, maybe if you actually watched the news on January 6th and afterward, and then maybe if you actually listened to the Republican SoS in Georgia who took the phone call from Trump, the latter of which tells the SoS to "find 11,000+ votes", you'd actually know better. You can listen to it on YouTube, btw.

I always wait a few days - sometimes a week or two after a story breaks - before I delve into it.

Because - the MSM being the biased and broken monster that it is - will spin sensationalism before all the facts are out.

Yeah - on Jan 6th - Trump told his followers to assemble peacefully and the riot at the Capitol began like a half hour before he finished addressing his supporters.

It was weird and crazy - but there is no evidence that Trump was involved or that he attempted to "overthrow" anything.

Now - did you mean "overturn" again?

I actually read the transcript of that call - and Trump never told Brad Raffensperger to "find" any votes.

First of all - you have to know that there were many people on that call - which included White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and several lawyers.

And during this call Trump said to his team and to Raffensperger that if they looked - that they would find those illegal ballots and/or votes.

He pointed out irregularities. Ballots filled out wrong. Mail-in ballots with different signatures. You name it.

All the while he claimed that they and those counting ballots were all corrupt. That he didn't trust them.

There was no command. No quid pro quo. No threat. Just a man telling another man what he believed.

The part you quoted came from here,

"I personally think they're corrupt as hell. But we don't need that. Because all we have to do Cleta is find 11,000-plus votes. So we don't need that. I'm not looking to shake up the whole world. We won Georgia easily. We won it by hundreds of thousands of votes. But if you go by basic simple numbers, we won it easily, easily. So we're not giving Dominion a pass on the record. We just, we don't need Dominion, because we have so many other votes that we don't need to prove it any more than we already have."

Trump didn't tell Raffensperger to "find" votes. If you read the entire transcript - you'd know exactly what Trump was saying.

That a corrupt system was working against him and people needed to look closer to see it. If they did - they'd find what he was talking about.

What an idiotic and baseless stereotype you've used. You don't know my background or my reading and viewing habits. It's no wonder you like Trump so much-- two peas in the same decadent pod.

Are you being serious?

After you claimed that Trump believing there was voter fraud somehow made him dishonest?

After you claimed that Trump going through the legal process proved that he was corrupt?

These are not facts - but baseless narratives from the MSM - which you are regurgitating.

And then you claimed that I don't know anything about the Constitution because I claimed there were checks and balances and that impeachments proved nothing?

Then you claimed that I don't actually watch the news or know about the conversation had by Trump and Raffensperger?

Your conduct toward me has been based solely on stereotypes.

You made claims about my background and reading/viewing habits.

It's no wonder you are a leftist - you project your own flaws onto me - and then hypocritically judge me harshly for them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But - you don't have proof of any dishonesty.

What I meant was - courts get it wrong sometimes - especially when the case is highly politicized or when it involves a celebrity.

Didn't your mommy ever tell you that "believing a lie does not make you a liar"?

All we know is that Donald Trump believed that there was massive fraud in the 2020 election - that is not proof that he lied about anything.

That makes a lot more sense.

However - when I correct your earlier statement (Post # 357) by swapping out "overthrow" with "overturn" we get,

"When he set up an attempt to [overturn] an election that even Republican SoS', as well as his own Attorney General Barr, said that there was no evidence of fraud enough to change the results, thus Trump's claim and actions is certainly "corruption" in spades."

So - this leads to the question - how does Trump following all possible legal channels prove that he was "corrupt"?

Does the SCOTUS have the authority to "overturn" an election if proof of fraud is discovered?

In order to prove that Trump was "corrupt" you would first need to prove that he was lying - and in order to do that you would need to have an investigation - but the courts wouldn't allow it.

So both you and I - and everyone else in the world - will forever be left to wonder.

Oops - I said Nevada when I meant to say Arizona.

Arizona is the State that reported the findings of a recent audit back in September - which has caused many concerned citizens in other split States - like Nevada - to demand audits.

That is why I had Nevada on my mind. I meant Arizona - sorry.

But - since you asked - here are a couple links about the Arizona audit:

Arizona audit flags thousands of suspect ballots, kicking issue to state's attorney general (channel411news.com)

Maricopa County Auditors Conclude: 'Election Should Not Be Certified' - Headline USA

Jellyfish.NEWS - Election Fixing - Maricopa Admits It Sought to Hide...

From the first link:

"The audit released Friday afternoon through painstakingly technical testimony concluded the final count of votes in the state’s largest county of Maricopa showing President Joe Biden won Arizona was accurate, but it also included tens of thousands of ballots that were suspect and require more investigation.

The more than 50,000 ballots flagged by auditors for more investigation involved concerns ranging from people voting from addresses from which they had already moved to residents voting twice. The total in question was nearly five times the 10,400 vote margin that separated the two presidential candidates, giving Donald Trump’s troops fresh reason to call for more scrutiny."

From the second link:

"The Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday released a 110-page forensic audit report on the 2020 presidential election, and the auditors concluded in an eight-page executive summary that “the election should not be certified, and the reported results are not reliable."

Cyber Ninjas, the company that conducted the forensic audit, identified “57,734 ballots”—a conservative estimate”—that had “serious issues,” The Gateway Pundit reported.

“In the 2020 presidential election, the margin of victory was only 10,457 votes, a small fraction of the 57,734 ballots with known issues,” Cyber Ninjas stated. “Again, this is almost 6 times the margin of victory in the Presidential race and is multiples of the margin of victory in other races.”"

From the third link,

"The long-awaited report concluded that “the election should not be certified, and the reported results are not reliable,” in part because the auditor, Cyber Ninjas, “discovered that Maricopa County had purged the election management system database, deleted election files, and corrupted ballot images.”"

What did I say that was not factual?

Is Congressional oversight not a check on the other branches of government?

I'm confused.

Many States changed their election laws immediately before the 2016 election?

Democrats were pushing for all mail-in voting back in the 2016 election?

Big tech claimed that no one could declare victory without being silenced back in the 2016 election?

When they changed so many things right before the 2020 election - how can you claim that it was the "exact same process in 2016"?

Many Democrats - such as Obama, Sanders, Biden, Hoyer, Schultz - all claimed before the '08 election that voting by mail was a bad idea and they voted for legislation that required voter ID.

‘Chaos.’ ‘Fraud.’ Democrats Once Warned Against Voting Changes They Now Call For (townhall.com)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

No. No - it is not. O-M-G

Impeachment is simply the process by which the House of Representatives votes - by a simple majority - to approve one or more articles of impeachment - then it moves to the Senate for a trial.

Only three Presidents in U.S. history have been impeached - Johnson, Clinton and Trump - all three were acquitted by the Senate and served out the rest of their terms.

I mean - Nixon was also impeached - but he resigned midway through - so I don't know if that counts.

Anyways - no - you are wrong - if any of these men had been found guilty - they would have been removed from office.

Thank you - this made my day - so funny - you love your Constitution?
Yeah - I read the first sentence - not relevant to what I said.

I said, "Everything they threw at him never stuck. Two impeachments - no results.

No one could ever prove that he broke any laws - but they kept at it because the media lied for four years."

My comment was about him breaking laws as President.

Whether or not his many businesses over many decades have had "legal affairs" has nothing to do with what I said.

But - as long as we are on the subject - which of these "legal affairs" do you believe makes him ineligible to be President?

I always wait a few days - sometimes a week or two after a story breaks before I delve into it.

Because - the MSM being the biased and broken monster that it is - will spin sensationalism before all the facts are out.

Yeah - on Jan 6th - Trump told his followers to assemble peacefully and the riot at the Capitol began like a half hour before he finished addressing his supporters.

It was weird and crazy - but there is no evidence that Trump was involved or that he attempted to "overthrow" anything.

Now - did you mean "overturn" again?

I actually read the transcript of that call - and Trump never told Brad Raffensperger to "find" any votes.

First of all - you have to know that there were many people on that call - which included White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and several lawyers.

And during this call Trump said to his team and to Raffensperger that if they looked - that they would find those illegal ballots and/or votes.

He pointed out irregularities. Ballots filled out wrong. Mail-in ballots with different signatures. You name it.

All the while he claimed that they and those counting ballots were all corrupt. That he didn't trust them.

There was no command. No quid pro quo. No threat. Just a man telling another man what he believed.

The part you quoted came from here,

"I personally think they're corrupt as hell. But we don't need that. Because all we have to do Cleta is find 11,000-plus votes. So we don't need that. I'm not looking to shake up the whole world. We won Georgia easily. We won it by hundreds of thousands of votes. But if you go by basic simple numbers, we won it easily, easily. So we're not giving Dominion a pass on the record. We just, we don't need Dominion, because we have so many other votes that we don't need to prove it any more than we already have."

Trump didn't tell Raffensperger to "find" votes. If you read the entire transcript - you'd know exactly what Trump was saying.

That a corrupt system was working against him and people needed to look closer to see it. If they did - they'd find what he was talking about.

Are you being serious?

After you claimed that Trump believing there was voter fraud somehow made him dishonest?

After you claimed that Trump going through the legal process proved that he was corrupt?

These are not facts - but baseless narratives from the MSM - which you are regurgitating.

And then you claimed that I don't know anything about the Constitution because I claimed there were checks and balances and that impeachments proved nothing?

Then you claimed that I don't actually watch the news or know about the conversation had by Trump and Raffensperger?

Your conduct toward me has been based solely on stereotypes.

You made claims about my background and reading/viewing habits.

It's no wonder you are a leftist - you project your own flaws onto me - and then hypocritically judge me harshly for them.

So much nonsense. Would you care to go over your claims one at a time?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Just a reminder that he was convicted but not removed by the Senate even though some Pubs actually voted for his removal.

Nope. The House of Representatives does not "convict" anyone of anything. They impeach.

Impeachment is not a conviction.

That's another MSM narrative you are regurgitating.