DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,480
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Oct 27, 2024 9:30:34 GMT
That's playing fast and loose with the word "illegal", you idiot. Nothing they did was illegal, you cretin. Everything they did was within their rights, you lying sack of shit! Peasoup, what these Democrats did in 2017 was exactly what Trump was asking Republicans to do, which was within his and their right to do so as YOU JUST ADMITTED.
And I didn't use the word "illegal", you stupid French pétasse.
You're a fucking liar and a coward as well. You compared what the Democrats did to the violations the mob manipulated by trump did, implying that what the Dems did was illegal as well, you lying sack of shit. You go through life lying through your teeth and cowardly eluding the implications instead of facing the consequences of what you said, you lying bitch! |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 27, 2024 10:05:16 GMT
Not really. If a society is “inching closer” to something, it doesn’t make the arrival inevitable. That’s not quibbling. That’s just using the language appropriately. You're an imbecile. That is exactly what quibbling means. "Quibbling" doesn't mean that you're wrong, you ignorant piece of crap. It means that you're disputing trivial matters. So it has nothing to do with using the language appropriately, you worthless sack of shit! But it’s not trivial. Do you also not understand that term? You claimed that my use of “inching closer” was the same as saying “inevitable”. It isn’t. I’m correcting you. That’s not trivial. |
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,480
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Oct 27, 2024 10:15:57 GMT
You're an imbecile. That is exactly what quibbling means. "Quibbling" doesn't mean that you're wrong, you ignorant piece of crap. It means that you're disputing trivial matters. So it has nothing to do with using the language appropriately, you worthless sack of shit! But it’s not trivial. Do you also not understand that term? You claimed that my use of “inching closer” was the same as saying “inevitable”. It isn’t. I’m correcting you. That’s not trivial. You're moving the goalposts, you lying shit, you didn't say it wasn't "quibbling" because what you were objecting to wasn't trivial, you said that it was because it wasn't wrong, which means that you didn't understand the meaning of the word "quibbling" in the first place, you empty headed dirt-bag. And now that you've lost the argument you're going to tell me to "calm down"... You're so predictable, you'd lose your shirt at poker. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 27, 2024 10:30:30 GMT
But it’s not trivial. Do you also not understand that term? You claimed that my use of “inching closer” was the same as saying “inevitable”. It isn’t. I’m correcting you. That’s not trivial. You're moving the goalposts, you lying shit, you didn't say it wasn't "quibbling" because what you were objecting to wasn't trivial, you said that it was because it wasn't wrong, which means that you didn't understand the meaning of the word "quibbling" in the first place, you empty headed dirt-bag. And now that you've lost the argument you're going to tell me to "calm down"... You're so predictable, you'd lose your shirt at poker. This is gibberish. You’re trying so hard to perform the mental gymnastics so you don’t have to admit you were completely wrong. “Inching closer” is not “inevitable”. Explaining that to you is not quibbling. |
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,480
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Oct 27, 2024 11:09:56 GMT
You're moving the goalposts, you lying shit, you didn't say it wasn't "quibbling" because what you were objecting to wasn't trivial, you said that it was because it wasn't wrong, which means that you didn't understand the meaning of the word "quibbling" in the first place, you empty headed dirt-bag. And now that you've lost the argument you're going to tell me to "calm down"... You're so predictable, you'd lose your shirt at poker. This is gibberish. You’re trying so hard to perform the mental gymnastics so you don’t have to admit you were completely wrong. “Inching closer” is not “inevitable”. Explaining that to you is not quibbling. You're misrepresenting the exchange we've just had, you lying shit. I am the one explaining things to you, you ignorant piece of crap. Plus, I never said it was "inevitable". You're the one who keeps using that word, you lying shit, and trying to make it seem like I am the one who did. As always, when you're losing an argument your main defense it to lie about what has been said. You're not just an imbecile, you're a liar as well.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,480
|
Post by thor on Oct 27, 2024 11:47:12 GMT
 We'll put you down as an obedient slave who wants to be ruled. As long as your masters grant you a leeeeeeeeeeeeeeetle more privileges than those scary blacks, browns, poors, and queers. Right. So are you unable to understand questions? Got it. You get to vote for Kamala and not be a “slave” because she’s perfect. I am a slave because I think Trump is deeply flawed but preferable to Harris. Makes sense.  |
|
|
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Oct 27, 2024 12:04:43 GMT
Who attempted to illegally overturn an election he lost? Greg You mean like the seven Democrats in Congress did in 2017 when Trump's victory was being certified? What Trump did was no different; he had and has every right to challenge a questionable result and 2020 will always be questionable.
In the 2016 presidential election, Trump won 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton's 227. During the joint session on January 6, 2017, seven House Democrats tried to object to electoral votes from multiple states.
According to a C-SPAN recording of the joint session that took place four years ago, the following House Democrats made objections:
Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) objected to Alabama's votes.
Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) objected to Florida's votes.
Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) objected to Georgia's votes.
Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) objected to North Carolina's votes.
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) objected to the votes from North Carolina in addition to votes from South Carolina and Wisconsin. She also stood up and objected citing "massive voter suppression" after Mississippi's votes were announced.
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) brought up allegations of Russian interference in the election and malfunctioning voting machines when she objected following the announcement of Michigan's votes.
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) rose and said, "I do not wish to debate. I wish to ask 'Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?'" after the announcement of Wyoming's votes.
Why do you want me to repeatedly correct your stupidity on that overturn the election fiction that you keep peddling? I really don't want to but you give me no choice. Even Fiddler learns from his mistakes after I kick his ass; why can't you?
Let's see now. Kenneth Chesebro- plead guilty to election interference Jenna Ellis- plead guilty to election interference Sidney Powell- plead guilty to election interference All Trump lawyers of course. Next you'll tell me I dont see what I'm actually seeing. Greg |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 27, 2024 12:16:47 GMT
Right. So are you unable to understand questions? Got it. You get to vote for Kamala and not be a “slave” because she’s perfect. I am a slave because I think Trump is deeply flawed but preferable to Harris. Makes sense. Powerful rebuttal. A Beautiful Mind. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,480
|
Post by thor on Oct 27, 2024 12:33:41 GMT
Powerful rebuttal. A Beautiful Mind. Sorry, not sorry, for launching your ass into orbit after your moronic strawman. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 27, 2024 13:33:59 GMT
Powerful rebuttal. A Beautiful Mind. Sorry, not sorry, for launching your ass into orbit after your moronic strawman. Totally. Scarecrow dancing is totes rekking and pwning people. Nailed it, fellow grown-up. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 27, 2024 13:42:08 GMT
This is gibberish. You’re trying so hard to perform the mental gymnastics so you don’t have to admit you were completely wrong. “Inching closer” is not “inevitable”. Explaining that to you is not quibbling. You're misrepresenting the exchange we've just had, you lying shit. Nope. |
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,480
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Oct 27, 2024 13:44:01 GMT
You're misrepresenting the exchange we've just had, you lying shit. Nope. Yep... Moron! |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 27, 2024 13:47:38 GMT
|
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,480
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Oct 27, 2024 13:50:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 27, 2024 14:07:24 GMT
Nah, you're missing the sarcasm. The democrats aren't MAGA, we care about the constitution. Blahahaha.  Who tried to force us to inject chemicals into our bodies? Who made us carry papers stating we were "essential" employees? Essential to the continued function of the state. Who tried to make us carry cards detailing our medical information that we would need to show in order to access various buildings and services? Who tried to tell us who we could have in our own homes? Who forcibly closed small businesses in favor of corporate behemoths? Who tried to prevent us from accessing parks/beaches? Who tried to shut down voices counter to the government propaganda? Who tried to turn people against each other by providing hotlines and other means to rat out your neighbors? That sounds an awfully lot like fascism and a blatant violation of several Constitutional protections. Who supported all that and wanted it applied at the national level? I would argue that some of those decisions were bi-partisan, and others, while perhaps misguided, were attempts to reduce harm from Covid. There are good faith disagreements to be had there but I don't think that's in the same ballpark as trying to overturn an election. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 27, 2024 15:40:56 GMT
Blahahaha. Who tried to force us to inject chemicals into our bodies? Who made us carry papers stating we were "essential" employees? Essential to the continued function of the state. Who tried to make us carry cards detailing our medical information that we would need to show in order to access various buildings and services? Who tried to tell us who we could have in our own homes? Who forcibly closed small businesses in favor of corporate behemoths? Who tried to prevent us from accessing parks/beaches? Who tried to shut down voices counter to the government propaganda? Who tried to turn people against each other by providing hotlines and other means to rat out your neighbors? That sounds an awfully lot like fascism and a blatant violation of several Constitutional protections. Who supported all that and wanted it applied at the national level? I would argue that some of those decisions were bi-partisan, and others, while perhaps misguided, were attempts to reduce harm from Covid. There are good faith disagreements to be had there but I don't think that's in the same ballpark as trying to overturn an election. The other side was just trying to “reduce harm” from what they believed was a stolen election. So long as you say you’re trying to “reduce harm”, you can destroy lives and the government is fine. Nice. It’s not “good faith”. The government can’t lock me in my home or tell me it’s illegal to go to church. That’s certainly not liberal, unless you’ve destroyed all remnants of the word. |
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,480
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Oct 27, 2024 16:13:04 GMT
I would argue that some of those decisions were bi-partisan, and others, while perhaps misguided, were attempts to reduce harm from Covid. There are good faith disagreements to be had there but I don't think that's in the same ballpark as trying to overturn an election. The other side was just trying to “reduce harm” from what they believed was a stolen election. So long as you say you’re trying to “reduce harm”, you can destroy lives and the government is fine. Nice. It’s not “good faith”. The government can’t lock me in my home or tell me it’s illegal to go to church. That’s certainly not liberal, unless you’ve destroyed all remnants of the word. So you'd be OK if a leper was sitting next to you at church. |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,013
Member is Online
|
Post by petep on Oct 27, 2024 16:20:30 GMT
Blahahaha. Who tried to force us to inject chemicals into our bodies? Who made us carry papers stating we were "essential" employees? Essential to the continued function of the state. Who tried to make us carry cards detailing our medical information that we would need to show in order to access various buildings and services? Who tried to tell us who we could have in our own homes? Who forcibly closed small businesses in favor of corporate behemoths? Who tried to prevent us from accessing parks/beaches? Who tried to shut down voices counter to the government propaganda? Who tried to turn people against each other by providing hotlines and other means to rat out your neighbors? That sounds an awfully lot like fascism and a blatant violation of several Constitutional protections. Who supported all that and wanted it applied at the national level? I would argue that some of those decisions were bi-partisan, and others, while perhaps misguided, were attempts to reduce harm from Covid. There are good faith disagreements to be had there but I don't think that's in the same ballpark as trying to overturn an election. Biden Harris used authoritarian unconstitutional tactics. Illegal mandates. Censoring citizens. Installing a disinformation governance board. And much of what they were censoring was true. And they directly did this. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 27, 2024 16:26:30 GMT
The other side was just trying to “reduce harm” from what they believed was a stolen election. So long as you say you’re trying to “reduce harm”, you can destroy lives and the government is fine. Nice. It’s not “good faith”. The government can’t lock me in my home or tell me it’s illegal to go to church. That’s certainly not liberal, unless you’ve destroyed all remnants of the word. So you'd be OK if a leper was sitting next to you at church. What a terrible argument. Churches can have their own rules. I’m talking about the government mandating that churches close down. Figure things out. |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,013
Member is Online
|
Post by petep on Oct 27, 2024 16:30:05 GMT
So you'd be OK if a leper was sitting next to you at church. What a terrible argument. Churches can have their own rules. I’m talking about the government mandating that churches close down. Figure things out. The left has a hard time understanding the concept of liberty and choice. |
|
