BarnWinterSportsEngelstad Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 Just now, Bison06 said: How mature of you, the “he started it” defense for your actions. Don't excluded yourself of nasty posts. I was a pretty much a stand by for first couple hundred pages on this thread. You guys started the Libtards and so on. It was only a matter of time till the arrows started going the other way.
Bison06 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 1 minute ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said: Don't excluded yourself of nasty posts. I was a pretty much a stand by for first couple hundred pages on this thread. You guys started the Libtards and so on. It was only a matter of time till the arrows started going the other way. I’m not the one calling people out for name-calling. You consistently make comments about Trump being a bully and a name-caller and then turn around and do the same thing. If you don’t like the way he acts, why are you acting the same way? But it’s ok because he started it. That doesn’t work with my six year old son, why would it work for an adult? 1
BarnWinterSportsEngelstad Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 25 minutes ago, Bison06 said: I’m not the one calling people out for name-calling. You consistently make comments about Trump being a bully and a name-caller and then turn around and do the same thing. If you don’t like the way he acts, why are you acting the same way? But it’s ok because he started it. That doesn’t work with my six year old son, why would it work for an adult? You not calling people out, what is this post? Talking out of both side of your mouth. T on line 1 and 2 for you.
Bison06 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 1 minute ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said: T on line 1 and 2 for you. Does this response make sense in your head? Be smarter.
BarnWinterSportsEngelstad Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 1 minute ago, Bison06 said: Does this response make sense in your head? Be smarter. You catch the new virus? SourGrapeTrumpism
Bison06 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 1 minute ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said: You catch the new virus? SourGrapeTrumpism Yeah, I had it. It was really rough having a sore throat for 36 hours.
SiouxFan100 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 Now some pro Trump folks are advocating Republicans to boycott the Georgia senate runoff election. I question the strategy.
BarnWinterSportsEngelstad Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 On 10/22/2020 at 8:14 PM, Bison06 said: Piss off. I have literally never heard of this Russian network. 1 minute ago, Bison06 said: Yeah, I had it. It was really rough having a sore throat for 36 hours. Be smarter
SIOUXFAN97 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 so what is the variance between mailed out ballots and received back mail in ballots that is acceptable? 1 million?
Bison06 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 1 minute ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said: Be smarter Again, follow along. I’m not calling people out for name-calling like you do every day. I’m simply pointing out hypocrisy. 1
BarnWinterSportsEngelstad Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 1 minute ago, Bison06 said: Again, follow along. I’m not calling people out for name-calling like you do every day. I’m simply pointing out hypocrisy. I just pointed out yours. I see you pulled a T and didn't include it in your response.
Bison06 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 13 minutes ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said: I just pointed out yours. I see you pulled a T and didn't include it in your response. What hypocrisy would that be that I have? Be specific please. I’m calling out your hypocrisy for calling trump names and then doing it to others. I don’t have a a problem with name calling, only your criticism of Trump doing it and then you doing it back to him. It’s embarrassing that you can’t understand the difference.
BarnWinterSportsEngelstad Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 Just now, Bison06 said: What hypocrisy would that be that I have? Be specific please. I’m calling out your hypocrisy for calling trump names and then doing it to others. I don’t have a a problem with name calling, only your criticism of Trump doing it and then you doing it back to him. It’s embarrassing that you can’t understand the difference. If it's that embarrassing, you could join your friends on that site to the South.
Bison06 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 1 minute ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said: If it's that embarrassing, you could join your friends on that site to the South. “Don’t like it here, go back to where you came from” Guess it’s only xenophobic and tragic when it comes from the right. 2
SiouxFan100 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 Has it been proved that there are instances of more mail in ballots returned than mailed out? Seems pretty easy to discover. 1
SiouxFan100 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 I am interested in why Rudy seemingly refuses to claim fraud when he gets in front of a judge. He has had a few chances. By the way the definition of fraud from wiki. Search Fraud In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right.
SiouxFan100 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 The argument that it is ok because someone else did it previously or it’s not ok because it wasn’t ok because of prior events seem to be made often.
clh741 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 3 hours ago, The Sicatoka said: They want you to focus on anything but the substance of the claims. What substance? If by substance you’re referring to rehashed conspiracy theories that have already been thrown out of the courts, hypotheticals, massive leaps in logic, links to tweets, the ghost of Hugo Chavez, plaintiffs that are asking to be removed, then there’s already plenty of people that have completely torn apart the claims. Beyond that, there’s no signs of substance in the claims. If you believe there’s anything of substance in either claim, go ahead and state what their most powerful argument will be. I’ll be waiting outside the echo chamber. Both claims can be summed up by:“We don’t have any proof of voter fraud because it’s impossible to get proof of voter fraud, therefore, our proof of fraud is that we don’t have any proof! Oh yeah, here’s a guy from Venezuela that pinky promises he was Hugo’s #1 guy. And another guy that briefly read the Dominion owner manual. #Kraken unleashed!” 2
JohnboyND7 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 28 minutes ago, Bison06 said: Does this response make sense in your head? Be smarter. The best observation that can be had from the Trump Presidency is his detractors and rivals willingness to be even worse than him across the board. Very little generally makes sense in his head. Anything Trump is bad. See his post earlier this week whining about Pompeo when Israel and one of the Arab countries made some diplomatic deal with each other. He's been conditioned into the "Orange Man Bad" ideology where you build your political beliefs entirely around opposing a specific person so that literally anything he does or doesn't do is catastrophic. Some Republicans do it too so its not like its exclusively a lib thing but they have certainly ramped it up over the past four years. His entire process is a few steps. 1. Orange Man is Bad. 2. Orange Man supports (insert anything). 3. Orange Man supports this horrible policy and I know it is bad because Orange Man likes it and he is bad. Put into Political Candidates. 1. Orange Man is bad. 2. This man is running against orange man. 3. Because this man is running against the bad orange man, he is good and should not be critically examined because he can't be as bad as the orange man. 2
Bison06 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 16 minutes ago, clh741 said: What substance? If by substance you’re referring to rehashed conspiracy theories that have already been thrown out of the courts, hypotheticals, massive leaps in logic, links to tweets, the ghost of Hugo Chavez, plaintiffs that are asking to be removed, then there’s already plenty of people that have completely torn apart the claims. Beyond that, there’s no signs of substance in the claims. If you believe there’s anything of substance in either claim, go ahead and state what their most powerful argument will be. I’ll be waiting outside the echo chamber. Both claims can be summed up by:“We don’t have any proof of voter fraud because it’s impossible to get proof of voter fraud, therefore, our proof of fraud is that we don’t have any proof! Oh yeah, here’s a guy from Venezuela that pinky promises he was Hugo’s #1 guy. And another guy that briefly read the Dominion owner manual. #Kraken unleashed!” I’ll believe widespread fraud when evidence is presented, if ever. Until then, isn’t it the least bit suspicious to you that every instance of fraud, however minor, up to this point has favored one side? I find that incredibly odd and unlikely and at the very least has my interest piqued.
UNDlaw80 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 33 minutes ago, Bison06 said: I’ll believe widespread fraud when evidence is presented, if ever. Until then, isn’t it the least bit suspicious to you that every instance of fraud, however minor, up to this point has favored one side? I find that incredibly odd and unlikely and at the very least has my interest piqued. This is because it’s the Republicans who are fishing for fraud. So of course every anomaly they bring to the public conversation will reflect their objective. The Democrats are not doing the same. That said, there have been plenty of instances of lost ballots, recounts, etc. that actually increased Biden’s lead. 1
UNDlaw80 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 2 hours ago, SiouxFan100 said: From raw story today. “In a ruling released on Friday, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas shot down the campaign’s appeal of its Pennsylvania lawsuit seeking to nullify the state’s entire election results. In his ruling, Bibas chastised the Trump campaign not only for failing to present evidence, but for failing to even make specific allegations of voter fraud. “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy,” Bibas wrote. “Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.” “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy,” Bibas wrote. “Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.” Today's ruling came from a Trump appointed judge. A Federalist Society member of all things. His quote illustrates Trumps legal challenges thus far to a T. 1
JohnboyND7 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 18 minutes ago, UNDlaw80 said: This is because it’s the Republicans who are fishing for fraud. So of course every anomaly they bring to the public conversation will reflect their objective. The Democrats are not doing the same. That said, there have been plenty of instances of lost ballots, recounts, etc. that actually increased Biden’s lead. Yeah I would think the goal would be to highlight the cases benefitting my argument. Oddly enough, the whole liberal talking point of "Trump's judicial nominees are awful and unqualified and biased" seems to be getting #rekt lol
Nodak78 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 4 hours ago, The Sicatoka said: Biden pulled off some historic election miracles. https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/23/5-more-ways-joe-biden-magically-outperformed-election-norms/ This is a clear indication the election was stolen. Will the crimes be proven or the states had crimes of fraud pick new electors. Slim chance. Have see what 5 justices have to say. 1
Bison06 Posted November 27, 2020 Posted November 27, 2020 39 minutes ago, UNDlaw80 said: This is because it’s the Republicans who are fishing for fraud. So of course every anomaly they bring to the public conversation will reflect their objective. The Democrats are not doing the same. That said, there have been plenty of instances of lost ballots, recounts, etc. that actually increased Biden’s lead. Fair enough, that makes sense. What is your take on the article posted pointing out all the historically unique voting trends that took place in order for Biden to win. I’m not claiming they point to fraud, just more evidence of how odd this election was in comparison to history.
Recommended Posts