ciscopack said:Yes he did. Does not mean he's a hero!Dmax95 said:
Media is crap
'79 - Khomeini won it
'39 and '42 - Joseph Stalin
'07 - Putin
'82 - computer
'80 & '83 - Reagan
'76 - Carter
'63 - MLK Jr.
'61 - Kennedy
'59 - Eisenhower
'00 & '04 - Bush II
'92 & '98 - Clinton
'45 & '48 Truman
'52 - Elizabeth II
'71 & '72 - Nixon ...and so forth...
I was watching history this morning and saw in WWI during hard combat, 1 English solider (forget his name) had found himself by himself with his rifle drawn on 1 German solider and he let him go. That German solider had to cut the sides of his mustache off because his gas mask would not seal because of it. Later stache won Time person of the year.
Hitler appeared on the cover of TIME on multiple occasions most famously perhaps on Jan. 2, 1939, when he was named Man of the Year. That choice abided by the dictum of TIME founder Henry Luce, who decreed that the Man of the Year now Person of the Year was not an honor but instead should be a distinction applied to the newsmaker who most influenced world events for better or worse. In case that second criterion was lost on readers, the issue that named Hitler dispensed with the portrait treatment that cover subjects typically got. Instead he was depicted as a tiny figure with his back to the viewer, playing a massive organ with his murdered victims spinning on a St. Catherine's wheel. Underneath the stark, black-and-white illustration was the caption, "From the unholy organist, a hymn of hate."
PackBacker07 said:
Can we lock this one up now? There is no fraud, Trump has lost over 50 lawsuits on the issue, President-elect Biden will be sworn in on January 20, and it's turned into another Hunter Biden thread.
Yeah agree. It's not over by any means. Maybe for trump, but not election fraudcaryking said:PackBacker07 said:
Can we lock this one up now? There is no fraud, Trump has lost over 50 lawsuits on the issue, President-elect Biden will be sworn in on January 20, and it's turned into another Hunter Biden thread.
Some of us are actually enjoying the thread. You know, you can just ignore the thread...
I think your friends want you silenced for friendly discourse lol. I think this thread gets a lot more interesting in the weeks to comecaryking said:
Sydney Powell is either the best lawyer in the country or the female Michael Avenatti...
https://populist.press/sidney-powell-list-four-leaders-who-are-behind-the-fraud/
It wouldn't surprise me if all of what she is saying is true, then, she may end up dead some day soon...
Instead of *****ing on a thread that you aren't forced to open much less read why don't you tell the kids to get off your lawn and complain about how you don't know how to work the "new fangled" remote control...... what a whiny little ***** of a post.....PackBacker07 said:
Can we lock this one up now? There is no fraud, Trump has lost over 50 lawsuits on the issue, President-elect Biden will be sworn in on January 20, and it's turned into another Hunter Biden thread.
Yea, I'm assuming you are referring to the person that wants to close the thread. He should just go away. I'm having reasonable discussions with people that want to have them, from all perspectives. People like Rich (The hack that I ignored) never wanted to have a reasonable discussion.Dmax95 said:I think your friends want you silenced for friendly discourse lol. I think this thread gets a lot more interesting in the weeks to comecaryking said:
Sydney Powell is either the best lawyer in the country or the female Michael Avenatti...
https://populist.press/sidney-powell-list-four-leaders-who-are-behind-the-fraud/
It wouldn't surprise me if all of what she is saying is true, then, she may end up dead some day soon...
I disagree. The Democrats outflanked the GOP months ago. The lawyers making changes all over the country was a move the GOP should have seen coming. (Assuming they didn't)BBW12OG said:
Agree with it being over for Trump. Agree with it not being over about fraud. The GOP is once again playing 3D chess against a gang of clowns that couldn't pour piss out of a boot with written, verbal and help with the instructions. Changing the elections laws days before the election will never happen. Mail in voting will be put to the test. Voter ID is coming nation wide whether you lefties want it or not. Deal with it. Your side has screamed every kinda of -ism to keep people from having to show ID to vote and it won you the White House this year. You ignited a group of people that won't go away quietly and will remember this for years and years to come. Will your pathetic base show up if Trump isn't on the ticket? Hell no.... so thanks for being as inept as you have proven for decades to be yet again.
How do we know? I guess we have to go with what makes it to court and the outcomes.caryking said:Pacfanweb said:That's totally fair, and honestly, a good way to go about it.caryking said:
Why, then, would I accept the MSM as being anything near factual?
Do I watch them? Yes, however, with skepticism
The problem is, the part about disbelieving everything in the MSM, and thinking there's some coordinated, "communist" effort.
You know, I have a lot skepticism about... well, really, too much stuff. I tend to find some of the alternative media does more due-diligence than MSM.
Really, how do we know what's truth? Everyone is communicating with a narrative. That's why I have stated previously that we all have different "world views".
You do know that the Trump lawyers have only filed a few complaints. All the others are from outside parties... So, saying Trump has brought over 50 complaints that were dismissed is very misleading. Kind of what I've said: a partial truth...Pacfanweb said:How do we know? I guess we have to go with what makes it to court and the outcomes.caryking said:Pacfanweb said:That's totally fair, and honestly, a good way to go about it.caryking said:
Why, then, would I accept the MSM as being anything near factual?
Do I watch them? Yes, however, with skepticism
The problem is, the part about disbelieving everything in the MSM, and thinking there's some coordinated, "communist" effort.
You know, I have a lot skepticism about... well, really, too much stuff. I tend to find some of the alternative media does more due-diligence than MSM.
Really, how do we know what's truth? Everyone is communicating with a narrative. That's why I have stated previously that we all have different "world views".
I have faith in the court system, at least for large matters like this. For smaller things like drug offenses and traffic violations....maybe not so much.
But IMO the courts got it right. They were brought absolutely zero evidence, other than affidavits that said various folks "felt like there was a problem"...but no actual evidence. And they said basically "Get that mess out of here".
And I trust that judgement. Esp. since many of the judges were Republican and some even Trump-appointed.
That eliminates any MSM, either party, etc....it comes down to, Trump claimed fraud, he had his day in court over 50 times and never brought any evidence, his claims were dismissed. Not sure what else can be said about that. A pretty definitive statement by the courts, which again....I believe are above any of the "narrative" stuff.
Pretty much agree with all the "narrative" stuff after the snip, good points there.
well saidcaryking said:You do know that the Trump lawyers have only filed a few complaints. All the others are from outside parties... So, saying Trump has brought over 50 complaints that were dismissed is very misleading. Kind of what I've said: a partial truth...Pacfanweb said:How do we know? I guess we have to go with what makes it to court and the outcomes.caryking said:Pacfanweb said:That's totally fair, and honestly, a good way to go about it.caryking said:
Why, then, would I accept the MSM as being anything near factual?
Do I watch them? Yes, however, with skepticism
The problem is, the part about disbelieving everything in the MSM, and thinking there's some coordinated, "communist" effort.
You know, I have a lot skepticism about... well, really, too much stuff. I tend to find some of the alternative media does more due-diligence than MSM.
Really, how do we know what's truth? Everyone is communicating with a narrative. That's why I have stated previously that we all have different "world views".
I have faith in the court system, at least for large matters like this. For smaller things like drug offenses and traffic violations....maybe not so much.
But IMO the courts got it right. They were brought absolutely zero evidence, other than affidavits that said various folks "felt like there was a problem"...but no actual evidence. And they said basically "Get that mess out of here".
And I trust that judgement. Esp. since many of the judges were Republican and some even Trump-appointed.
That eliminates any MSM, either party, etc....it comes down to, Trump claimed fraud, he had his day in court over 50 times and never brought any evidence, his claims were dismissed. Not sure what else can be said about that. A pretty definitive statement by the courts, which again....I believe are above any of the "narrative" stuff.
Pretty much agree with all the "narrative" stuff after the snip, good points there.
That is when you lose all respect on the board... just be better at what you are saying and people will listen.
Let me snip that long post to this:caryking said:You do know that the Trump lawyers have only filed a few complaints. All the others are from outside parties... So, saying Trump has brought over 50 complaints that were dismissed is very misleading. Kind of what I've said: a partial truth...Pacfanweb said:How do we know? I guess we have to go with what makes it to court and the outcomes.caryking said:Pacfanweb said:That's totally fair, and honestly, a good way to go about it.caryking said:
Why, then, would I accept the MSM as being anything near factual?
Do I watch them? Yes, however, with skepticism
The problem is, the part about disbelieving everything in the MSM, and thinking there's some coordinated, "communist" effort.
You know, I have a lot skepticism about... well, really, too much stuff. I tend to find some of the alternative media does more due-diligence than MSM.
Really, how do we know what's truth? Everyone is communicating with a narrative. That's why I have stated previously that we all have different "world views".
I have faith in the court system, at least for large matters like this. For smaller things like drug offenses and traffic violations....maybe not so much.
But IMO the courts got it right. They were brought absolutely zero evidence, other than affidavits that said various folks "felt like there was a problem"...but no actual evidence. And they said basically "Get that mess out of here".
And I trust that judgement. Esp. since many of the judges were Republican and some even Trump-appointed.
That eliminates any MSM, either party, etc....it comes down to, Trump claimed fraud, he had his day in court over 50 times and never brought any evidence, his claims were dismissed. Not sure what else can be said about that. A pretty definitive statement by the courts, which again....I believe are above any of the "narrative" stuff.
Pretty much agree with all the "narrative" stuff after the snip, good points there.
That is when you lose all respect on the board... just be better at what you are saying and people will listen.
Ok, fair enough... I'm not going to fight you on this; however, answer this quick question...Pacfanweb said:Let me snip that long post to this:caryking said:You do know that the Trump lawyers have only filed a few complaints. All the others are from outside parties... So, saying Trump has brought over 50 complaints that were dismissed is very misleading. Kind of what I've said: a partial truth...Pacfanweb said:How do we know? I guess we have to go with what makes it to court and the outcomes.caryking said:Pacfanweb said:That's totally fair, and honestly, a good way to go about it.caryking said:
Why, then, would I accept the MSM as being anything near factual?
Do I watch them? Yes, however, with skepticism
The problem is, the part about disbelieving everything in the MSM, and thinking there's some coordinated, "communist" effort.
You know, I have a lot skepticism about... well, really, too much stuff. I tend to find some of the alternative media does more due-diligence than MSM.
Really, how do we know what's truth? Everyone is communicating with a narrative. That's why I have stated previously that we all have different "world views".
I have faith in the court system, at least for large matters like this. For smaller things like drug offenses and traffic violations....maybe not so much.
But IMO the courts got it right. They were brought absolutely zero evidence, other than affidavits that said various folks "felt like there was a problem"...but no actual evidence. And they said basically "Get that mess out of here".
And I trust that judgement. Esp. since many of the judges were Republican and some even Trump-appointed.
That eliminates any MSM, either party, etc....it comes down to, Trump claimed fraud, he had his day in court over 50 times and never brought any evidence, his claims were dismissed. Not sure what else can be said about that. A pretty definitive statement by the courts, which again....I believe are above any of the "narrative" stuff.
Pretty much agree with all the "narrative" stuff after the snip, good points there.
That is when you lose all respect on the board... just be better at what you are saying and people will listen.
That is a ridiculous nitpick. First off, I believe at least 17 of the suits (at a quick count so I could be off either way) directly have Trump's team involved. That's a third of them right there. WAY more than 'only a few'. Right? 1/3 of just over 50 is not "a few". "A few" would be single digits, like 5. And that's not remotely the case.
Then you get to many of the others that are local GOP, etc, which is still Trump. Bottom line is, ALL of them are filed on behalf of Trump, one way or another, and he was aware of and supported them all, even if the actual case wasn't "Trump vs".
And seriously....if that's the only thing you could find wrong in that post, then we're pretty much in agreement.
To address other comments in your post...Pacfanweb said:How do we know? I guess we have to go with what makes it to court and the outcomes.caryking said:Pacfanweb said:That's totally fair, and honestly, a good way to go about it.caryking said:
Why, then, would I accept the MSM as being anything near factual?
Do I watch them? Yes, however, with skepticism
The problem is, the part about disbelieving everything in the MSM, and thinking there's some coordinated, "communist" effort.
You know, I have a lot skepticism about... well, really, too much stuff. I tend to find some of the alternative media does more due-diligence than MSM.
Really, how do we know what's truth? Everyone is communicating with a narrative. That's why I have stated previously that we all have different "world views".
I have faith in the court system, at least for large matters like this. For smaller things like drug offenses and traffic violations....maybe not so much.
But IMO the courts got it right. They were brought absolutely zero evidence, other than affidavits that said various folks "felt like there was a problem"...but no actual evidence. And they said basically "Get that mess out of here".
And I trust that judgement. Esp. since many of the judges were Republican and some even Trump-appointed.
That eliminates any MSM, either party, etc....it comes down to, Trump claimed fraud, he had his day in court over 50 times and never brought any evidence, his claims were dismissed. Not sure what else can be said about that. A pretty definitive statement by the courts, which again....I believe are above any of the "narrative" stuff.
Pretty much agree with all the "narrative" stuff after the snip, good points there.
That is pathetic!acslater1344 said:
Don't lock this up! This is my favorite thread. Love to watch sore losers squirm lol.
caryking said:That is pathetic!acslater1344 said:
Don't lock this up! This is my favorite thread. Love to watch sore losers squirm lol.
Okay, I started reading it.caryking said:
Do what you want with the following link...
https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/11/what-youve-been-asking-for-a-fairly-complete-list-of-some-of-the-most-significant-claims-of-2020-election-miscounts-errors-or-fraud/
Pacfanweb said:Okay, I started reading it.caryking said:
Do what you want with the following link...
https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/11/what-youve-been-asking-for-a-fairly-complete-list-of-some-of-the-most-significant-claims-of-2020-election-miscounts-errors-or-fraud/
For her first example, Arizona, she wrote this:
There was no proper validation of 1.9 million signatures on mail in ballots.
From the Arizona Superior Court:
Maricopa County election officials followed this process faithfully in 2020. Approximately 1.9 million mail-in ballots were cast and, of these, approximately 20,000 were identified that required contacting the voter. Of those, only 587 ultimately could not be validated.
So she's already off base from the start, but I'll scan through some more. Surely she got something right.
caryking said:
Do what you want with the following link...
https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/11/what-youve-been-asking-for-a-fairly-complete-list-of-some-of-the-most-significant-claims-of-2020-election-miscounts-errors-or-fraud/
caryking said:
Do what you want with the following link...
https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/11/what-youve-been-asking-for-a-fairly-complete-list-of-some-of-the-most-significant-claims-of-2020-election-miscounts-errors-or-fraud/
Wolfpackrich1 said:
The Supreme Court said no Election Fraud. The lawsuit from Texas was "moot".
Anybody that ever think Sydney Powell had any semblance of a ratio6 argument is nuts.
I'm curious...why is Trump the worse president this country has ever seen?Wolfpackrich1 said:
Today we get another nail in the coffin of replacing the worse President this country has ever seen. Donald J Trump
