RFK Jr.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

You mean the one in which Obama urged his VP, Biden, not to certify the results of the electoral college? The one in which Obama's former national security advisor, by that time back in his good graces, suggested that Obama declare martial law to force some kind of do-over?

No Frank, the one where democrats claimed Trump stole the election, was illegitimately elected, a puppet of Russia, and guilty of treason.  The one where the disinformation campaign lasted 4 years.   The one where intelligence agents waged a Go-Biden campiagn. I'm talking about the time before the time you suddenly found The Lord on election denialism and the threat to democracy therein. 

 

You must have been asleep during those days.  We should change your screen name to Rip Van Frankle. 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

57 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

No Frank, the one where democrats claimed Trump stole the election, was illegitimately elected, a puppet of Russia, and guilty of treason.  The one where the disinformation campaign lasted 4 years.   The one where intelligence agents waged a Go-Biden campiagn.

Just not of the same order of magnitude as contriving a phony legal theory to send the certified electoral states back to the states so they could say, geez, I dunno, maybe our election was flawed, so maybe we'll just appoint a different slate of electors after all. Not even close. Was Trump precluded from assuming office? Kicked out of office? He was impeached twice, the process ran its course, he wasn't removed or even deemed ineligible for the presidency again.

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

23 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Just not of the same order of magnitude as contriving a phony legal theory to send the certified electoral states back to the states so they could say, geez, I dunno, maybe our election was flawed, so maybe we'll just appoint a different slate of electors after all. Not even close. Was Trump precluded from assuming office? Kicked out of office? He was impeached twice, the process ran its course, he wasn't removed or even deemed ineligible for the presidency again.

 

Everything about stolen elections, illegitimate presidencies, illegal surveillance, partnering with hostile foreign nationals to spread misinformation, and beyond is all acceptable?  

 

What a &^%$d up standard.  

[The Frankish Reich]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Everything about stolen elections, illegitimate presidencies, illegal surveillance, partnering with hostile foreign nationals to spread misinformation, and beyond is all acceptable?  

I see you've just chided another poster for lack of reading comprehension.

With that in mind, I urge you to re-read the post you responded to here:

"Just not of the same order of magnitude [as what Trump did]"

Not "acceptable." But does "not of the same order of magnitude" = "acceptable?"

 

[paulmm3]

It is weird to me to see so many so-called "liberals" advocate so ardently for the censorship of disfavored speech. That's not what liberalism used to stand for.

 

Especially after scientists from Harvard and Stanford who wound up being right about Covid having a very low IFR were censored in the pandemic.

[All_Pro_Bills]

52 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Just not of the same order of magnitude as contriving a phony legal theory to send the certified electoral states back to the states so they could say, geez, I dunno, maybe our election was flawed, so maybe we'll just appoint a different slate of electors after all. Not even close. Was Trump precluded from assuming office? Kicked out of office? He was impeached twice, the process ran its course, he wasn't removed or even deemed ineligible for the presidency again.

 

Many seem to have amnesia when it comes to recalling how in January 2017 Democrats urged electors in various swing States to change their vote during the electoral certification to Hillary because the election was stolen.  But of course light can be bent and subtle nuances and differences can be cited to see this as something other than election interference or an attempt to disrupt the certification process.  

Edited July 20, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

12 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I see you've just chided another poster for lack of reading comprehension.

With that in mind, I urge you to re-read the post you responded to here:

"Just not of the same order of magnitude [as what Trump did]"

Not "acceptable." But does "not of the same order of magnitude" = "acceptable?"

 

Thanks for clarifying.  No, I would not necessarily declare that "not on the same magnitude = acceptable".   I made that assumption based on my recollection that along the way, I've never once seen you express concern over that sort of behavior being unacceptable.   

 

What issues specifically would you characterize as not "acceptable" from the dem platform 2016-2019?  Spreading misinformation about the legitimacy of the Trump election?  Declaring the election stolen?  Working with foreign nationals?  Illegal surveillance? 

 

Were the actions of the democrats 2016-2019 in the best interest of the nation, or did they divide the nation further?  Did you believe evidence would be uncovered showing Trump conspired with Putin as alleged many, many times prior to the answer being revealed? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wnyguy]

4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Thanks for clarifying.  No, I would not necessarily declare that "not on the same magnitude = acceptable".   I made that assumption based on my recollection that along the way, I've never once seen you express concern over that sort of behavior being unacceptable.   

 

What issues specifically would you characterize as not "acceptable" from the dem platform 2016-2019?  Spreading misinformation about the legitimacy of the Trump election?  Declaring the election stolen?  Working with foreign nationals?  Illegal surveillance? 

 

Were the actions of the democrats 2016-2019 in the best interest of the nation, or did they divide the nation further?  Did you believe evidence would be uncovered showing Trump conspired with Putin as alleged many, many times prior to the answer being revealed? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean tweets! Had the Dems been mean tweeting in 2016 I think that would have been the one to seal the "unacceptable" level that Frankie is looking for.

[Wacka]

On 7/17/2023 at 3:36 PM, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  The insurrection was one of the worst things to happen in and to this country in its history.  You’re worried more about Hillary Clinton hurting your tender feelings than you are about an existential threat to our republican democracy.  You and your MAGA pals are welcome to keep deluding  yourselves about that and other issues.  But I won’t partake in your alternate reality of victimization and whining. 

Hoax.  There hasn’t been a fraudulent election.  Ideally you’d have proof that the election you speak of was permeated by fraud, but this is MAGA we’re talking about.  So you’ll just go about and say it because trump says it was stolen and all of your MAGA pals are too busy whacking down a fifth of Jack and blaming others for their problems to think differently. 

Worse than congressmen being wounded on the floor of the house by  Puerto Rican nationalists in  1954 ?

[The Frankish Reich]

4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Thanks for clarifying.  No, I would not necessarily declare that "not on the same magnitude = acceptable".   I made that assumption based on my recollection that along the way, I've never once seen you express concern over that sort of behavior being unacceptable.   

 

What issues specifically would you characterize as not "acceptable" from the dem platform 2016-2019?  Spreading misinformation about the legitimacy of the Trump election?  Declaring the election stolen?  Working with foreign nationals?  Illegal surveillance? 

 

Were the actions of the democrats 2016-2019 in the best interest of the nation, or did they divide the nation further?  Did you believe evidence would be uncovered showing Trump conspired with Putin as alleged many, many times prior to the answer being revealed? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Off the top of my head:

- Relying, even in part, on the Steele Dossier was wrong. It was a political document put together at the behest (and apparent expense) of a political campaign, with its true provenance concealed by using a series of other funders (a Seattle law firm tied to the Democratic Party, etc.). That should not have happened.

- The Trump campaign did collude with a Russian operative, and if they didn't know she was a Russian operative (the meeting that was mischaracterized as being about "Russian adoptions") they certainly should have known. 

- Jeff Sessions appointed Mueller to do the investigation. He issued a report, largely clearing Trump of actual collusion, and taking a rather agnostic stand with respect to obstruction. The document speaks for itself. There were convictions, properly obtained, involving important Trump campaign officials and the core basis for the investigation (Manafort). At that point it becomes a question of nomenclature - what is "collusion," since that isn't a legal term.

 

None of that was DOJ's finest day. But again: it can't hold a candle to an attempt to cling to the presidency by cynically urging states to drum up slates of fake electors and urging the VP (with an intimidating mob outside and inside the Capitol) to do something clearly inappropriate and contrary to the rule of law.

 

There you have it. I'm not excusing anyone for anything. I'm just pointing out that in life we need to recognize that not every wrong is of equal magnitude.

4 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Worse than congressmen being wounded on the floor of the house by  Puerto Rican nationalists in  1954 ?

Oh, well, now we're really grasping at straws. Yes, even worse! Worse too than Aaron Burr shooting Hamilton!!

[SectionC3]

25 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Worse than congressmen being wounded on the floor of the house by  Puerto Rican nationalists in  1954 ?

Yup.  Also worse than the caning of Charles Sumner. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

18 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Off the top of my head:

- Relying, even in part, on the Steele Dossier was wrong. It was a political document put together at the behest (and apparent expense) of a political campaign, with its true provenance concealed by using a series of other funders (a Seattle law firm tied to the Democratic Party, etc.). That should not have happened.

- The Trump campaign did collude with a Russian operative, and if they didn't know she was a Russian operative (the meeting that was mischaracterized as being about "Russian adoptions") they certainly should have known. 

- Jeff Sessions appointed Mueller to do the investigation. He issued a report, largely clearing Trump of actual collusion, and taking a rather agnostic stand with respect to obstruction. The document speaks for itself. There were convictions, properly obtained, involving important Trump campaign officials and the core basis for the investigation (Manafort). At that point it becomes a question of nomenclature - what is "collusion," since that isn't a legal term.

 

None of that was DOJ's finest day. But again: it can't hold a candle to an attempt to cling to the presidency by cynically urging states to drum up slates of fake electors and urging the VP (with an intimidating mob outside and inside the Capitol) to do something clearly inappropriate and contrary to the rule of law.

 

There you have it. I'm not excusing anyone for anything. I'm just pointing out that in life we need to recognize that not every wrong is of equal magnitude.

Oh, well, now we're really grasping at straws. Yes, even worse! Worse too than Aaron Burr shooting Hamilton!!

Even now though you parse like a good attorney will.  The Steele document wasn't a political document, it was a propaganda piece designed to influence voters by spreading misinformation.  

 

Mueller's report on conspiracy was quite clear indeed, and criminal behavior uncovered or imagined is incidental to the question of the election being  illegitimate or the president guilty of treason.   AG Barr's recounting of political persecution by democrats et al was clear as well, and was spot on accurate.  

 

I agree with you in this respect..not the DOJs finest hour, nor the finest hour for democracy.  I completely agree that there are degrees to consider in life, but you people seem to want to argue that while a mallet to the head of democracy is horrible, but using it about the arms, shoulders and rib cage is simply distasteful.  The democrat body blows preceded anything Trump did by several years, and was completely acceptable to liberals.  

 

Last question. Pushing forward, in a political campaign, do we live with each party declaring the other person the treasonous bast*rd, the Russian or Chinese puppet, and that elections are stolen?  

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

12 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Last question. Pushing forward, in a political campaign, do we live with each party declaring the other person the treasonous bast*rd, the Russian or Chinese puppet, and that elections are stolen?  

No. Ideally, we would put both Trump and Biden in the rear view mirror and move on.

 

Hypothetical: let's say Biden runs and loses in the electoral count. There are credible reports of voters in, say, Atlanta who were prevented from voting.

O.K. for Biden to declare martial law, bring in federal officers to oversee a re-do in Georgia?

O.K. for Biden to say that Kamala should refuse to certify Georgia's electoral slate?

 

What if the pivotal state this time is one with a democratic legislature and governor?

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

26 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

No. Ideally, we would put both Trump and Biden in the rear view mirror and move on.

I'm not speaking ideally, I'm speaking about reality.  

 

Biden and the lies about stolen elections were accepted by democrat voters as a normal part of the election process.  There was no pushback, no concerns about being lied to, no concerns about damage to our democratic process.  Long before Trump lost in 2020, and followed whatever brand of foolishness he followed, this bothered me.  It still does.  

 

So, the new standard in American politics was set.  Allege treason.  Allege a coup occurred.  Claim the president is illegitimate.  Scream that the election was stolen and people can't trust our elections.  

 

Again, it worked very well.

 

26 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

 

Hypothetical: let's say Biden runs and loses in the electoral count. There are credible reports of voters in, say, Atlanta who were prevented from voting.

O.K. for Biden to declare martial law, bring in federal officers to oversee a re-do in Georgia?

O.K. for Biden to say that Kamala should refuse to certify Georgia's electoral slate?

Hypothetically, no, it's not ok.  

 

However, the standard of what's acceptable to dem voters has been set, and it ain't pretty.  I'm not at all convinced that dem voters would not support martial law in that scenario, like they accepted false claims of treason for 7 years running.  I'm nearly 100% convinced that certain dems, some of who post here, would support martial law if directed at irredeemable folks who's greatest crime was disagreeing with them. 

 

Finally, I watched Kamala Harris attempt the political evisceration of a SC justice based on a ridiculous and unsubstantiated rumor of sexual assault and rape trains.  I watched her state that she believed Joe Biden sexually assaulted women, then partner with him when the price was right.  I believe she would participate in electoral schemes without question.  

 

26 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

 

What if the pivotal state this time is one with a democratic legislature and governor?

If it improved the democrat position, it would be supported by democrats regardless of fairness, equity and legality.  This is the norm. 

[reddogblitz]

7 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

You mean the one in which Obama urged his VP, Biden, not to certify the results of the electoral college? The one in which Obama's former national security advisor, by that time back in his good graces, suggested that Obama declare martial law to force some kind of do-over?

 

Or when Pramila  JayaPal and Jamie Raskin moved to have Republican votes thrown out on the congress floor.

[Doc]

5 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Many seem to have amnesia when it comes to recalling how in January 2017 Democrats urged electors in various swing States to change their vote during the electoral certification to Hillary because the election was stolen.  But of course light can be bent and subtle nuances and differences can be cited to see this as something other than election interference or an attempt to disrupt the certification process.  

 

They don't think that was inappropriate at all.  So you're talking to a stone wall.

[BillStime]

13 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

They don't think that was inappropriate at all.  So you're talking to a stone wall.

Ginormous difference 

 

 

Who does Stephen Miller work for?

[Joe Ferguson forever]

8 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Ginormous difference 

 

 

Who does Stephen Miller work for?

I wouldn't rent a hammer from the guy

 

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by redtail hawk

[reddogblitz]

6 hours ago, paulmm3 said:

It is weird to me to see so many so-called "liberals" advocate so ardently for the censorship of disfavored speech. That's not what liberalism used to stand for.

 

I'm old enough to remember when liberals had bumper stickers on their cars that read "I may not agree with what you say but will fight for your right to say it."

[Joe Ferguson forever]

2 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I'm old enough to remember when liberals had bumper stickers on their cars that read "I may not agree with what you say but will fight for your right to say it."

know where I can get one? would go well with the Bills sticker on my Subie.