Chat Poll: who would you vote for, Trump or Biden

[altaguetta]

No, you're here going on a rant.
They guy who wrote the article isn't (here).

Like I said, see you in a week, we'll see what other one sided posts you've made.

Btw, you do realize this is affecting your own health (stress).

If he's not here, find him. Why are you arguing with me?

Take a break, dude. You need it.

 

[AthleticAF]

We need an online tracker of Trumps legal filings and a won/dismissed ratio

We also need to make a game called Trumps Voter Fraud Scavenger Hunt and post it online for the public. Winners get MAGA merchandise (hat, t-shirt, mypillow, beer coozy, union flag lapel pin)

Here's one tracker I got from my brother.

Trump Golf Count

Trump Golf Count: Tracking President Trump's golf outings so you don't have to!

trumpgolfcount.com

 

[AthleticAF]

If he's not here, find him. Why are you arguing with me?

Take a break, dude. You need it.

I'm not arguing, I simply showed you that there is not such thing as liberal v conservative with just ONE example and you're still going on.

Want more?

 

[qinging]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1326744191427342336

I'm not arguing, I simply showed you that there is not such thing as liberal v conservative with just ONE example and you're still going on.

Want more?

The people who vote for Trump have quit....his corrupt mentality is their last refuge against those who have not quit.

 

[altaguetta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1326876550915088384

 

[altaguetta]

I'm not arguing, I simply showed you that there is not such thing as liberal v conservative with just ONE example and you're still going on.

Want more?

"No such thing as liberal vs conservative"

This discussion is totally irrelevant like the golf thing.

Who da fuck cares, dude?

Take break, clear your mind!
Come back in 2 weeks!

 

[Hornet]

Here's one tracker I got from my brother.

Trump Golf Count

Trump Golf Count: Tracking President Trump's golf outings so you don't have to!

trumpgolfcount.com

Border wall tracker. 15 miles of new wall where there was no wall before. 350 miles of replacement or secondary barriers. The pro-Trumpers are calling the secondary layer a “new” wall. While technically true that it’s new, it doesn’t reduce the unprotected mileage.

Trump wall: How much has he actually built?

What happened to President Trump's long-promised wall? How much of it got built? And how effective has it been?

www.bbc.com

 

[altaguetta]

It all makes sense now!

Atlanta: Trump leads bigly.

Oh, no! Big problem! The water main pipe burst!

Have to stop the counting for days! Right....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1326918870972702720

No sign of fraud whatsoever...

 

[qinging]

It all makes sense now!

Atlanta: Trump leads bigly.

Oh, no! Big problem! The water main pipe broke!

Have to stop the counting for days! Right....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1326918870972702720

No sign of fraud whatsoever...

The GOP is trying to massage Trump into accepting the facts ...he is the loser....the language will be Trump accepts the results but does not concede....bye bye loser con man....see ya in court

 

[altaguetta]

The GOP is trying to massage Trump into accepting the facts ...he is the loser....the language will be Trump accepts the results but does not concede....bye bye loser con man....see ya in court

The topic is election fraud not 'when will Trump concede'.

Dude, there is no result yet anyway.

 

[sy barite]

This is the only thing close to a factual claim in your post, and it is pretty loose at that. Voter turnout was only ~66% this year, and ~48% of eligible voters supported the GOP. Of those, a recent poll showed that 70% feel that the election was unfair. That makes 22% of the country. But I guess that's moot. Filing a grievance doesn't require quorum after all.



That's not what happened. Mueller found plenty of compelling evidence of foreign interference and indicted multiple members of Trump's organization, but declined to prosecute Trump himself because he was a sitting president, in deference to DOJ policy. He then suggested that there was a means outside of a criminal case for accusing a president of misconduct. He didn't say what that was, but it was impeachment. Impeachment requires the assent of Congress, which was in control of the GOP, which was more firmly behind Trump than it is today.



I mean, yeah, but a credible media also ought to scrutinize the legitimacy of a claim before presenting it. The evidence for fraud is still pretty dubious - probably why it took so many attempts at refinement for them to not be summarily dismissed, so the media is satisfying their obligation to not reporting conjecture as fact.

Frankly, I would be more inclined to believe in the sincerity of appeals to civility, logic, and the like if they didn't rely on deliberately misstating facts and were surrounded by smugposts.

Excuse the delay in my reply. I'm glad you seem willing to consider the context of things.

I'm not sure how you're interpreting the voter turnout, but it was in fact one of the highest turnouts on record, so why you're saying "only" 66% is a bit confusing to me. It's probably because you're trying to come across as more knowledgeable than you are.

The question was not whether there was Russian interference, but whether Trump or anyone in his campaign colluded with a foreign power to unfairly influence the election. On that count there was ZERO evidence, despite years of mainstream media assuring the public that damning evidence was going to be under the next rock. Recall Schiff, who spent months swearing that Donald Trump would be found guilty of cooperating with the Russians. There was no price for him to pay in the media for being completely wrong, which just proves the point I was making--the media is obviously and grossly biased.

As for members of Trump's organization, if you're referring to Papadopoulos, Flynn and Manafort being indicted, you must know that had nothing to do with the accusations of Russian influence and it's been basically proven that Flynn was railroaded. Question for you. If Mueller's investigation provided grounds for impeachment, why did Democrats not use it to impeach him? You are wrong about the GOP being in charge of Congress, either you can't fact check, or because what is more likely, you don't know what Congress is. The House was controlled by Democrats, the Senate by the GOP, just like today, so neither "controlled" Congress.

So yeah, I'd not hesitate to stick to my statements as having more "truthiness" than yours in this little exchange.

 

[altaguetta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1326926226888544256

 

[qinging]

The topic is election fraud not 'when will Trump concede'.

Dude, there is no result yet anyway.

hehe...it's over ...everyone knows it......all Donald has left is to sell some classified stuff to the highest bidder or whatever Putin offers

 

[AthleticAF]

It all makes sense now!

Atlanta: Trump leads bigly.

Oh, no! Big problem! The water main pipe burst!

Have to stop the counting for days! Right....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1326918870972702720

No sign of fraud whatsoever...

On that you actually believe there is a left v right political thing going on.. This should interest you.
And oh look, the daily show (Viacom Redstone, trump buddy) , Trump's friend's show. All to cause massive distractiion, ruling up the populace, while everyone in any political office fucks their constituents.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1325951831667699712

 

[qinging]

Hey remember 2016 when Trump formed a commission to check into the 3million illegal votes Hilary got to beat him in the popular vote......yep another Trump...umm what's the word...NOTHING BURGER

 

[Hornet]

Then vs Now

 

[AthleticAF]

"No such thing as liberal vs conservative"

This discussion is totally irrelevant like the golf thing.

Who da fuck cares, dude?

Take break, clear your mind!
Come back in 2 weeks!

Irrelevant? But I bet you were crying like a baby when Obama was golfing.
Gtfo lol

He's not an outsider. He's a politician that golfs (acts) like other politicians have. Zero fucks about anyone but himself.

You have nothing valid to state or refute with.

Good luck with your mental health.

You're what i call a "window licker".

 

[imthedude]

Excuse the delay in my reply. I'm glad you seem willing to consider the context of things.

I'm not sure how you're interpreting the voter turnout, but it was in fact one of the highest turnouts on record, so why you're saying "only" 66% is a bit confusing to me. It's probably because you're trying to come across as more knowledgeable than you are.

No, it's because 66% isn't 100%, but I do enjoy the way your insecurities manifest themselves.

The question was not whether there was Russian interference, but whether Trump or anyone in his campaign colluded with a foreign power to unfairly influence the election. On that count there was ZERO evidence, despite years of mainstream media assuring the public that damning evidence was going to be under the next rock. Recall Schiff, who spent months swearing that Donald Trump would be found guilty of cooperating with the Russians. There was no price for him to pay in the media for being completely wrong, which just proves the point I was making--the media is obviously and grossly biased.

Like when you move the goalposts, for instance.

Question for you. If Mueller's investigation provided grounds for impeachment, why did Democrats not use it to impeach him? You are wrong about the GOP being in charge of Congress, either you can't fact check, or because what is more likely, you don't know what Congress is. The House was controlled by Democrats, the Senate by the GOP, just like today, so neither "controlled" Congress.

Nah, I was just misremembering. It was the Senate who cleared him, and they did indeed *control* that house, figuratively, as it is fairly common parlance that a house is a legislative body, and the party that holds a majority there is said to have control of it. But you know that.

So yeah, I'd not hesitate to stick to my statements as having more "truthiness" than yours in this little exchange.

Unsurprising.

 

[imthedude]

Sure, Billie. You are soooo smart!

Here, maybe some pictures will help you out:



Real '''outsider''' energy here.

 

[Hornet]

Excuse the delay in my reply. I'm glad you seem willing to consider the context of things.

I'm not sure how you're interpreting the voter turnout, but it was in fact one of the highest turnouts on record, so why you're saying "only" 66% is a bit confusing to me. It's probably because you're trying to come across as more knowledgeable than you are.

The question was not whether there was Russian interference, but whether Trump or anyone in his campaign colluded with a foreign power to unfairly influence the election. On that count there was ZERO evidence, despite years of mainstream media assuring the public that damning evidence was going to be under the next rock. Recall Schiff, who spent months swearing that Donald Trump would be found guilty of cooperating with the Russians. There was no price for him to pay in the media for being completely wrong, which just proves the point I was making--the media is obviously and grossly biased.

As for members of Trump's organization, if you're referring to Papadopoulos, Flynn and Manafort being indicted, you must know that had nothing to do with the accusations of Russian influence and it's been basically proven that Flynn was railroaded. Question for you. If Mueller's investigation provided grounds for impeachment, why did Democrats not use it to impeach him? You are wrong about the GOP being in charge of Congress, either you can't fact check, or because what is more likely, you don't know what Congress is. The House was controlled by Democrats, the Senate by the GOP, just like today, so neither "controlled" Congress.

So yeah, I'd not hesitate to stick to my statements as having more "truthiness" than yours in this little exchange.

No disrespect meant, but just to clarify, Donald Trump was impeached, he just wasn’t removed from office. The House of Representatives has the power to impeach, the Senate has the power to try (as in legal trial) and remove from office. But the Senate judiciary didn’t want to hear witnesses and the whole thing just died then and there.

U.S. Senate: Impeachment

www.senate.gov