Was the election stolen from Trump?

There is already a thread on this, FYI. Also, Lindell kept on digging after he hit bottom. He then proceeded to buy air time on OAN to house a “documentary”. It was so incoherent and pathetic, OAN had to put up the following disclaimer:

The link where I initially watched it has since been taken down, but it was a sight to behold. I still don’t know what I saw, Tommy Wiseau would be awestruck. It also stars Trump’s “number one witness” Drunk Karen (forget what her real name is). The only advice I can give is whilst watching this train wreck (if you can find it) is don’t have a sip of beer every time Mark Lindell mentions “they” and doesn’t explain who “they” are or what “they” did unless you’re not going to work the next day. You will definitely need that time to recover.

EDIT: Wow, I’m really embarrassed that I didn’t think of looking for the video this way. Lindell’s masterpiece can be found here

2 Likes

1 No, I’m not. If they have this great technology and they’re employing it, why do we see (literally) evidence to the contrary in their capital city? And the U.S. is the model for industrialized nations (even if it kills us).

2 No; I’m only aware of a small crapload of EOs that demonstrate a blatant disregard for and disinterest in unity.
3 No. I only know he said it in his inauguration speech. Actions speak louder than words, and he’s made a number of critical actions that are the opposite of his words.

4 Is it a person? If so, yes. Obviously, we disagree on that point.

5 It is indeed not different morally in my eyes.

6 No, because the child isn’t conceived. I’m not talking about speculative life; I’m talking about the real thing.

7 Not with risks that deliberately target for destruction what many of us argue is human life.

8 So “high crimes and misdemeanors” means whatever whoever controls Congress says it does?

9 If so, then where’s your beef with just letting it be handled through law enforcement and the courts?

Please give me STRAIGHT ANSWERS to these two questions:

1 Do you believe that this impeachment had a realistic chance of accomplishing anything righteous that the FBI and courts couldn’t?
2 Do you deny that they impeachment is virtually guaranteed to be politically divisive in a huge way?

Because we are two generations ahead of them and they have 4 times more people.

All I can do is ask, what EO’s are you talking about?

And did you feel the same about Trump’s EO’s? I mean, aren’t you being a little hypocritical here? Did you think that Trump was trying to unite the country? Or are you upset because you think Biden is lying about unity by paying lip-service to the idea?

Again, if that’s the case, seems a little hypocritical to get so upset about it given the sheer number of lies and fabrications Trump indulged in.

Now to be clear, I’m not saying Biden lied, I don’t know till you give me a few examples, but it’s obvious you feel that way and I think it’s ironic either way.

Yes, actually it does. The price to pay will be a political one of Congress abuses that power.

Remember, Republicans were calling for the impeachment of Clintion before he lied under oath. The lying part just provided the political cover they needed.

But you skirted one of my questions. Given what you’ve said, do you admit that if a President committed any one of a number of unethical, immoral and vile acts, that he could’t be impeached if those actions weren’t a crime?

I can give hypotheticals if you want.

Because impeachment is POLITICAL not a legal argument. There might be cases where investigations are necessary to uncover the truth, but I think in this case enough happened in public and the Congress has enough resources to do this on their own.

Sure, but are you saying the we should set aside things because they are divisive?

Again, the hypocracy is deafening. Trump literally ran on “LOCK HER UP”. Hard to get any more divisive than that. And even after yeartts of investigations behand the scenes of Clinton and others turned up nothing, that didn’t discourage Trump from playing on those sentiments.

1 Like

Are you on medicare or medicade?

I am beyond retirement age, and I am on Medicare. My employers and I paid into the system from time I was 18 years old, unlike the people who cross the border illegally.

2 Likes

Hahahahahahahahaha

Lines from “My Fair Lady.”

Henry Higgins: “This is what the British population calls an elementary education!”

Professor Pickering: “Oh come sir, haven’t you picked a poor example?”

Henry Higgins: “Did I? Why can’t the English teach their children how to speak? The verbal class distinction should be antique …”

An answer of “hahaha” to a question is hardly adequate.

Is this what you wrote in your essays when you were in college? If so and assuming you graduated, I refer back to Professor Higgins’ quote.

2 Likes

1 You’d think they’d concentrate it in their capital, which got them a lot of bad press for the Olympics in 2008.

2 I don’t know numbers, but he did EOs for ceasing work on the wall, dumping taxpayer dollars into foreign abortion, and demanding bio males be allowed to compete in women’s sports.

3 Why is it hypocritical when I never said word one about Trump’s EOs, and when I made it clear that I never voted for the man? Further, since when (assuming Trump did what you said; and I don’t dismiss that he did) do two wrongs make a right? How do Trump’s wrongs justify Biden’s? That’s deflection.

4 Based on what?

5 Did they actually do the impeachment before that?

6 I skirted nothing; I answered it straight up. I said:

I can clarify a bit by saying that the example of the adulterer is not grounds for impeachment (although again, he should resign). Other than maybe that, I didn’t leave any room for doubt as to my position.

7 I seriously question if the Founders would agree with you. I sure don’t.
8 And they could take a few hours to go over it on the House floor? Don’t you think that would have been appropriate, instead of just saying: “We decided he’s worthy of impeachment because we said so?”

By the way, I’m still not clear on the history of impeachment after a person left office. Did it ever go anywhere? If so, were there constitutional challenges? If so, what were the results?

9 Set aside something that by your definition is political and not legal when there’s a legal process that can deal with anything that needs to be dealt with? Absolutely.

9 First of all, this justifies the impeachment? Second, was he calling for her to be “locked up” on a political basis as opposed to a legal one? I’ll answer that myself: No, he didn’t. He was complaining about the fact that the FBI wasn’t investigating Hillary. Are you going to tell me there wasn’t enough evidence in just the public eye (let alone behind the scenes) to justify doing so?

Articulate as usual…

1 Like

I should point out that the decision to build the wall was an EO. But Biden should stop it. It’s a terrible waste of resources that won’t accomplish the goal its creators hope to accomplish since most illegals aren’t here because they walked across the border.

And I’m with AS on this one. Guest worker programs and I’ve even go further in partnering with Mexico (over China) to help build Mexico’s economy so that Mexica can be more like Canada.

This would help create a nation where people are less likely to leave and for people in Central America, they can stop in a prosperous Mexico as they already speak the language. If Mexico wants to stop immigration, their border is a lot easier to secure than ours.

The border all is a joke and little more than a monument to Trump’s vanity.

As for the rest of his EO’s,

I can’t find them. Maybe you can’t point to them?

Because you didn’t say one word about Trump’s EO’s, that’s the point.

First, I don’t agree that Biden has done anything wrong. Next, my point isn’t pointed at Biden or Trump, I’m pointing out your reactions to them both.

Well, obviously there’s nothing to point to that will prove either of us right. Legal and Constitutional scholars are literally having this debate as we speak. But I’ll simply point out, again, there was no federal code to violate when impeachment was created.

I know the founders really feared impeachment be used as a political tool, but others recognized that the President could take actions that were harmful to the nation without necessarily violating laws.

You still haven’t addressed the fact that by your standard there is a litany of vial, treacherous and disgusting acts the President could engage in without breaking the law and you’d have to admit that there would be no remedy to remove him except wait for his next election.

What if the President shares military secrets with our enemies? I mean, by law the President can declassify information, thus making what would be a crime for everyone else, not a crime. It’s not treason, because the President would have made the information public knowledge, what then?

So you think that would be ok?

Sure you said that person should resign, but if they don’t, what then?

Each side will have 16 hours to go over it on the Senate floor.

That’s going to be Trump’s defense, or so I’ve heard. But we have precident, and people have been impeached after leaving office.

Again, without the ability to impeach after the fact, all anyone would have to do to avoid it is quit before the Senate gave it’s ruling.

No, Trump’s public actions are grounds for impeachment.

If there is an explanation, then he should present his case, but instead of trying to explain, he’s simply going to argue that he can’t be impeached, which to me is an admission of guilt (of course assuming that’s the route his lawyers take) because he cannot justify his actions, or in some case, inaction.

If there was a crime committed, why didn’t Trump or his AG’s ever charge her with a crime?

Because they knew after years of investigations, at least 14 appearances before the House and the Senate there was no crime to lock her up for. That’s literally the only explanation. So yes, it was 1000% political.

Look, Trump has committed several crimes having to do with, at the very least things like the Emoluments Clause and breaches of the Logan Act, but Biden and his surrogates aren’t chanting “lock him up!!!” in front of a crowd of cheering fans.

Even if you want to make the case there was a crime committed, the place for that is the DOJ, not at a POLITICAL rally. The moment you engage in demagoguery in front of a crowd of adoring fans, yes, that’s purely political and I’m surprised you can’t see that for what it is. You might disagree with me on the details, but if Biden believed that Trump committed crimes and went out campaigning “lock him up”. Yes, even if the accusations are 100% it changes from a legal matter into demagoguery.

First, chanting “lock her up” isn’t a complaint.

He was literally the head of the executive branch. If they were refusing to investigate, I’m sure it’s because what Trump was asking simply wasn’t possible (and it wouldn’t be the first time). If he didn’t like the result he could have fired every person that wouldn’t do what he asked. Do you know why he didn’t? because the appearance of impropriety is in some way, even better than the real thing. Because he knows his supporters will believe almost anything, so he can undermine his own DOJ and reap the political benefits.

And given the long history of corruption and one party rule in Mexico, do you really think that’s possible? It appears that the drug lords have more power in Mexico than the government.

Do you really think you can get this to work? As a supporter of central planning and five year plans, I’m sure you do. All you need is to integrate some of the principles of capitalism to make it work, just like they have in China.

Why not let “El Chapo” out of prison and let him be the point man for your scheme. I believe that he is a great organizer and quite resourceful. There are not many who could be build a large drug empire as he did. He even managed to arrange for the building of a tunnel under a prison and have a motorcycle for him to ride to freedom, all while he was in prison. Perhaps he could work for Disney as an “imagineer.”

Oh, and by the way, given the history of Mexico’s one party system, why are you so determined to establish the same thing here in the United States? Have your studies of history supported the honesty and efficiency of one party rule? They probably have since you are as well indoctrinated as the younger leftists on this board.

Possible yes, easy, no.

Me? No, gonna need people much smarter than me.

Why not have a discussion without constant hyperbole and strawmen?

See above.

Why don’t you stow the “strawman comments? It’s getting old. Is the best you can do? I give you honest opinions, have not let Trump off the hook when I thought that he was wrong.

I went “Johnathan Swift” on you because you are so dishonest about what you really are. You try to pass yourself as a classic liberal when you are really a Bernie Sanders – AOC progressive. If you were a true liberal, you would not be happy with the far-left bent your party has taken. You should be especially concerned about the anti-Semitic bent that Omar and Tlaib have taken. But, no, you can’t say anything negative about their bigotry or the policies of the party that owns you total allegiance.

You are not a professional politician. You don’t have an obligation to be slavishly loyal to the Progressive Democrat Party. And yet you are. So one has to assume that everything they advocate is fine with you.

As soon as you stop strawmaning my position, I’ll do better than slow, I’ll stop.

No, what you do is the opposite of honest when you misrepresent my position.

You wouldn’t know because every conversation between us have you telling me what I believe.

You can’t help yourself, can you?

Why don’t you tell us what’s wrong with Bernie Sanders and AOC, @csbrown28?

I will lead off by tell you what’s wrong with Trump. He is thin skinned, shoots too much from the hip and does not always get his facts straight before he says something. He should have looked at how successful presidents handled a crisis, like Covid and learned something from that. Instead he went off with a lot of half cocked press conferences which did he great harm. He would have been much better off if he had gotten a decent speechwriter who could have provided him with a presidential looking address.

After he lost the election, he had the right to question the results. Unfortunately he kept going for weeks on end which did him nothing but damage.

Since I believe in freedom, free markets and capitalism, we will never agree on policy.

Now it’s your turn. Do you think that Bernie Sanders and AOC should be running the country because it sure looks like it? Where is Biden’s healing message and actions to match it? Do you think that it’s a good idea to have national security forces in this country going after peaceful Trump supporters? Do you agree with John Brennon’s approach?

I won’t be surprised if you ignore all of these questions.

1 Like

I love it when people who live on democratic socialist stipends rave against socialism

Are you going to leave your Social Security benefits on the table after you have paid taxes for 40 years?

Stop being a troll. You are becoming insufferable.

I’m not against Social Security and medicare and I’m glad it’s there as a benefit. See that makes me different because I’m not a hypocrite

I am because they’re riddled with fraud, both going bankrupt, and Singapore shows us a better way. A way that’s sustainable, has the best performance on the planet, and keeps prices lower.

Ubiquitous HSAs, whose amounts you can share with family, and a rule that everything will cost something. The role of their “Medishare” is only to shore up what those can’t cover, and that thing pays for itself through a Sovereign fund that bears interest in the market.

Y’know, like what Norway does for everything else.

It’s like they read a handbook on Human Factors and designed their system accordingly. Like any good designer of something that interacts with humans would.

So why do all of our States fail at this? Is it that Federal grants encourage them to make decisions where they can’t embrace a similar model without leaving “(Federal) money on the table”? I’m genuinely asking.

The Scandinavian countries have great Social Safety Nets, I agree