We watch as folks who see that a crowd armed with weapons that went from his speech to the capitol and then broke in probably didn't go there for a tour of the place. You watch as someone with blinders on so big its a wonder you can leave your house.bmw wrote: ↑Wed Nov 02, 2022 10:55 pmI'm foolish for pointing out that Democrats have been at this for 22 years? Again, I have plenty more, these quotes from 2000 are just the beginning.
The problem with your premise is that the claim that Trump staged an insurrection is utter BS. You and I have watched the same video, I believe, so how we each reach such different conclusions as to what Trump said and what he encouraged people to do is beyond me.
Acceptable registrations in the queue through May 6 at 7:00p ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition
Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition
Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition
How can you apply rules if there is no standard... ie.. rules? Also courts don't just interpret rules... they offer remedies to settle disputes.bmw wrote: ↑Wed Nov 02, 2022 10:50 pmLOL, the referee doesn't establish the rules; he/she interprets and applies the rules. Which was exactly what the Supreme Court did. The fact that it was a 5-4 ruling is irrelevant just like again in football, a 21-20 loss is a loss as much as 49-0 loss is a loss.Rate This wrote: ↑Wed Nov 02, 2022 10:40 pmSo why not have our illustrious referees establish uniform standards? That's what a referee does. They don't go "game over its not fair. Adios!"... They try to figure out what happened so it's correct. There must have been proper standards each county could have used. I also seem to recall it was 5-4... I seem to further recall it was along party lines. None of that is a "gee we know the law better and here's the right answer!" coincidence.
As to whether there was a "proper" standard each county could have used, that was the fault of the state for not creating one. It also didn't help matters that at least one county (Palm Beach) actually changed their standard several times during the recount.
Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition
Here is really all you need to see regarding 2016...
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition
At least we're making progress. We've gone from claims of him outright inciting violence to him subtly encouraging violence via dog whistles.
So here's the thing. If you're going to argue that Trump is using dog whistles to encourage his supporters to engage in violence, then you also have to agree that the people in your party are doing the same thing. Are you going to tell me that there was no subtle encouragement from certain party leaders (and quite frankly, the media as well) for the violence that occurred in the summer riots of 2020? You know, setting cars and buildings on fire, looting, shooting and killing people, etc? Or did those people all act on their own accord?
Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition
Absolutely not… who was suggesting violence was something that was a great idea? Who was even hinting that they wanted to see that? I can’t think of a single example.bmw wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:51 amAt least we're making progress. We've gone from claims of him outright inciting violence to him subtly encouraging violence via dog whistles.
So here's the thing. If you're going to argue that Trump is using dog whistles to encourage his supporters to engage in violence, then you also have to agree that the people in your party are doing the same thing. Are you going to tell me that there was no subtle encouragement from certain party leaders (and quite frankly, the media as well) for the violence that occurred in the summer riots of 2020? You know, setting cars and buildings on fire, looting, shooting and killing people, etc? Or did those people all act on their own accord?
And no we are not making progress… they took it as instructions to go down there and raise hell. So they got the message loud and clear like a bullhorn even if most of us not in that mindset missed it.
Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition
So whenever leftists engage in political violence, it is completely on their own accord. Whenever people on the right do the same, it is in response to dog whistles from their heroes. Got it.
Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition
Let's start with Chuck Schumer.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... eme-court/Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday surrounded by abortion rights supporters and delivered a pointed message aimed at President Trump’s appointees to the court, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer said while the justices were hearing arguments in a critical Louisiana abortion case. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
That sounds more direct than anything Trump ever said.
Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition
Imagine if Trump, surrounded by supporters on January 6th had said the following:
"I want to tell you, Pence. I want to tell you, all of Congress. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with the certification of Joe Biden as President."
Are you seriously going to tell me that that wouldn't have fallen into the "dog whistle" category?
"I want to tell you, Pence. I want to tell you, all of Congress. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with the certification of Joe Biden as President."
Are you seriously going to tell me that that wouldn't have fallen into the "dog whistle" category?
Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition
Or how about the following tweet from Kamala Harris in the wake of the 2020 summer riots:
Is that a dog whistle, in your opinion? She explicitly tweeted, in a tweet that has been either quoted or re-tweeted over 15,000 times, support for "those protesting on the ground," the implication going further than that, as bail is only needed for people actually arrested for committing a crime. She's basically saying, "if you get arrested for your protests going too far, I support you."If you're able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.
Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition
How about Lori Lightfoot - mayor of Chicago:
Is that the type of riling up of people you're talking about? Directly sending a message to a specific group of your supporters, saying the people with whom you disagree are out to get you, and that this requires a "call to arms." Is that a dog whistle?To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community—the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms.
- craig11152
- Posts: 2058
- Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:15 am
- Location: Ann Arbor
Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition
"Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd,” she instructed. “And you push back on them! And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere!”
Maxine Waters dog whistling?
Maxine Waters dog whistling?
I no longer directly engage trolls
Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition
I can see a rationale for people to believe more due diligence should have been done in Florida in 2000. The results were pretty damn tight. But Gore did concede. I think it was rational for Gore to have taken his challenge to the lengths he did pretty much before conceding.
Sure, there were "deniers" in 2000, but Gore accepted the results. I don't think that the problem in the current situation is that people deny the results, its the content of their denial and their behavior. One would have to be very selective in how they interpret the denial behaviors of Gore v. Trump to attempt to say that the behavior is the same.
Sure, there were "deniers" in 2000, but Gore accepted the results. I don't think that the problem in the current situation is that people deny the results, its the content of their denial and their behavior. One would have to be very selective in how they interpret the denial behaviors of Gore v. Trump to attempt to say that the behavior is the same.
Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition
Trump did concede though. This from CNN on January 7th, 2021:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics ... index.html
Trump's exact quote was "A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20. My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power."President Donald Trump conceded publicly for the first time Thursday that he will not serve a second term, stopping short of congratulating President-elect Joe Biden but acknowledging a transfer of power is now underway.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics ... index.html
Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition
I’m not playing along with this if you are going to use the “drown them in so many statements they can’t respond to all of them” technique.bmw wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:09 amOr how about the following tweet from Kamala Harris in the wake of the 2020 summer riots:
Is that a dog whistle, in your opinion? She explicitly tweeted, in a tweet that has been either quoted or re-tweeted over 15,000 times, support for "those protesting on the ground," the implication going further than that, as bail is only needed for people actually arrested for committing a crime. She's basically saying, "if you get arrested for your protests going too far, I support you."If you're able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.
Re: History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition
I thought beemer said he had me blocked. I guess there is a glitch in the buzzboard.
Anyways!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsole ... 1ce3cb5c61
I have to get back to work though.
Anyways!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsole ... 1ce3cb5c61
Feb 17, 2021,01:59pm EST
Of course, there's more!ut Trump also praised Limbaugh for espousing his false claim the 2020 election was stolen through widespread voter fraud, stating “Rush thought we won” and “Rush felt we won and he was quite angry about it."
“And so do I, by the way,” Trump added to little pushback from Fox hosts Harris Faulkner and Bill Hemmer – the latter widely seen as one of Fox’s “straight news” personalities – adding, “I think we won substantially.”
I have to get back to work though.