Where’s Clarence Thomas …and Ginny?
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
To get it right.
Think instant replay. The purpose is to get the call correct. That was the point of e.very single case because that is how the statutes work.
The use of ”overturn” is left lunacy used for the purposes of the left virtue signaling. It’s what you do. E.g. “Don’t say gay” bill.
Plot to Overturn the Election | FRONTLINE
Watch FRONTLINE and ProPublica's documentary investigating misinformation about the 2020 U.S. election and the current crisis of democratic legitimacy.
www.pbs.org
A year after President Joe Biden’s inauguration, around two-thirds of Republican voters believe his election was illegitimate, and the idea that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump is now a defining issue of the Republican Party. Yet the story of how lies about election fraud made their way to the center of American politics has not been fully told.
In a new investigative collaboration, FRONTLINE and ProPublica trace the hidden sources of misinformation about the 2020 election, demonstrating how a handful of people have had an outsized impact on the current U.S. crisis of democratic legitimacy.
Dude the fact of the matter is Trump LOST- he got less votes. I'm not sure if you really swallow all the cheating nonsense or are just trying to score points.
But look how pissed some Trump extremists are when they conjure up all these fake cheating claims, and rely on tropes like claiming some 8 yr deceased Venezuelan dictator somehow plotted Trump's downfall in 2013. I mean that's some major cray cray right there. But half of the people claiming it was Chavez likely don't even know that Chavez is dead...
Then imagine how betrayed the rest of us who comprise the majority would feel if some parliamentary shenanigans robbed us of the actual REASON a record number of people voted in 2020. To get rid of Trump...
"Think instant replay. The purpose is to get the call correct. That was the point of e.very single case because that is how the statutes work."
If that were true, that could have been accomplished in a reasonable amount of time- say 6 mos or so. The reality is that Trump will never admit defeat, because he thinks it makes him look like a "loser". Ironically, history would have judged him more positively if he had graciously got on with life and stopped playing the victim.
Either read the published SCOTUS decision, and have a smart person explain to you the difference between an “injunction” case and a decision on the “merits,” or STFU. You are embarrasing yourself and Indiana and IU.
Trump is trying from every direction. Number one, insurrection. Number two, legal Avenue which is what you and COH are discussing. Number three, political, meaning get himself reelected in 2024. Only number one is illegal.
this must be embarrassing for you.
does your family know how you spend your days?
while i don't disagree with every proclaimed policy aim of Trump, nor am i convinced that the guy is actually for all them himself, regardless he's a total POS of a human, has zero to back up any of his claims, and those who shill for him take on his stink.
Ahem.It should be clear by now that I believe people are presumed innocent. I seriously felt at the time that he was being attacked because he was a black man nominated by a Republican President. I was embarrassed by that as a Democrat. As a Republican now, it’s what I expect.
The attacks on Thomas were unusual at the time, weren't they (i.e. Long Dong Silver and pubic hair on the soft drink can)? (Look them up, newbies.)
I agree those assertions could be called "attacks" but they weren't "attacks" by Roger Taney or Strom Thurmond or David Duke or George Wallace No. 1 or George Lincoln Rockwell or Hitler, were they?
Those assertions (as I remember) were least partly substantiated by ... (wait for it) ... by a highly educated Black woman named Anita Hill.
So, you've got a lot of explaining to do before I accept your 30-years too-late theory that Thomas was supposedly opposed and attacked by supposedly-racist Democrats "because he was a black man nominated by a Republican President."
Republicans and Conservatives vilified Anita Hill for testifying against Thomas based on her personal experience as a reasonably attractively young Black woman made to endure advances made by a powerful Black man who hadn't yet learned that his sexual references might be interpreted as oppressive against her. It's an old story, except for the desperate Republicans.
Do you think Trump ever figured out how he got played by Putin?
Edit to add:
Gee. In order to have enough troops to attack little bitty Ukraine, how did Putin ever work up the balls to withdraw a large number of troops from Russia's border with mega-gigantic China? Hmmm: Maybe President Xi assured him it was OK. (Look it up, rookies.)
Last edited:
Have you ever figured out how the dems and Biden are playing you?
Y-A-W-N.
Who besides you claims to care about whether I of all people got "played"?
The only reason you posted that was to deflect from what you considered a valid comment about Trump, your silly hero.
You have nothing sensible to say about politics or international relationships.
Y-A-W-N.
Right back at you man
Y-A-W-N
Let us all know when you actually have something to say . You of all people?
You are the poster child for being played. You don't know sh*t about anything but what the party tells you.
Thanks for the laugh!
🤣
Looks like you agree 100% with me. Let us know if you ever think of a real response that matters.
100 percent disagree. I was a Democrat. Except for the President, I probably had never voted for a Republican at that point. I honestly thought the whole thing was disgraceful and it occurred to me at the time that liberal Democrats seemed to despise conservative blacks. It didn't sit right with me at the time and doesn't sit right with me now. As I've made clear on other occasions, I'm an innocent until proven guilty kind of guy (it's the American way) and the allegations of one woman against one man doesn't meet the bar for calling him guilty. I doubted the truth of it at the time and I still doubt the truth of it now. I didn't switch parties over that, but it was definitely one of the significant factors along the path to my switch. I don't relate to many of the Republicans or Democrats in Congress now. In my party, I particularly despise the Trumpster faction, which unfortunately is a significant number of them at this point. I'm essentially a center right individual without a comfortable home in either party.
So, what level of proof do you require when someone calls Biden "sleepy" or "incompetent"
or "senile"?
Do you have a record of posts where you jump right into someone else's thread and tell them not to call Biden such names because he is innocent until proven guilty and the allegations of one poster without having proof "doesn't meet the bar for calling him guilty"?
Your response to this can't fail to be interesting.
I don't call him any of those things and I don't believe he's any of them either. I think he's showing the standard effects of advanced age, but he's not incompetent. And yes, I've disagreed with those allegations from (kind of) my side of the aisle. As you'd know if you paid attention, I'm no Trumpster. I also think some of the posters here that call themselves Republican have in reality become members of the Trump cult.
Interesting?
An additional non-trivial factor is Biden’s stutter. Combine that with his older appearance and it makes him look senile to the less observant and honesty challenged.
