This is where the Democrats start to lose my trust.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, apparently your post was cryptic.  Please show us why is wasn't.

Nope it’s on y’all, show me how distrust in democrats automatically means trust in republicans. 

I can’t help it if you don’t realize some don’t just support a party because it’s “the lessor of two evils.” 

[homersapien 11,426]

10 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Nope it’s on y’all, show me how distrust in democrats automatically means trust in republicans. 

I can’t help it if you don’t realize some don’t just support a party because it’s “the lessor of two evils.” 

We both understand this forum is highly partisan.

So, if you intended to mean both parties, then you should have listed both parties. Listing just one inherently excludes the other.  It causes everyone who reads your post to naturally assume you meant just the one.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

We both understand this forum is highly partisan.

So, if you intended to mean both parties, then you should have listed both parties. Listing just one inherently excludes the other.  It causes everyone who reads your post to naturally assume you meant just the one.

The OP is referring to the democrats and not republicans, so I was just addressing what the topic was. Only the hyper-partisans on here would assume I am excluding republicans, that is probably because they are too busy not really trying to see other's thoughts or viewpoints on things. I could see your point if I had a history on here blindly supporting republicans, which I do not. If you have paid any attention to my posts in the past you would have realized I think both sides are not trustworthy. 

[AU9377 5,024]

21 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I know I don't trust a grown woman who did.

The two are nowhere near the same.  You know that.  Clinton actually won the popular vote, but even so, she wasn't claiming that illegal votes in key states made her lose the election.  It is a false comparison.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

30 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

The two are nowhere near the same.  You know that.  Clinton actually won the popular vote, but even so, she wasn't claiming that illegal votes in key states made her lose the election.  It is a false comparison.

It is the same and I think you know that.  But you guys are religiously committed to the cult of That's Different©.

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

That's a stretch.  I can't imagine Hillery or Joe denying the legal outcome of an election for months and months (and still continuing).

I posted a video on another thread of Hillary saying the election was stolen from her from 2019.  Three years later.

[homersapien 11,426]

5 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I posted a video on another thread of Hillary saying the election was stolen from her from 2019.  Three years later.

Saying to whom?

Was she talking to another individual or holding a press conference?

Does she have a cadre of hard line, cultist supporters pushing that narrative?

Are there a lot of Democrats taking a cue from her and pushing that narrative?

Are hard core or extremists Democrats paying for or pushing states to conduct more "audits"?

 

But yeah, there's no difference between Trump and Hillary on this.

Edited October 1, 2021 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,439]

On 9/30/2021 at 1:19 PM, AU9377 said:

There is a bi partisan $1.5 trillion deal ready to be signed if passed by the House.  Instead of passing this, the left wing of the Democratic party wants to play $3.5 trillion or nothing.  Perhaps they need to be shown what nothing looks like.  Spending like this is no better than the Republicans spending money on wars and tanks.  It is all insanity.

The plan is $3.5TN over 10 years. Or, $350BN a year. In America, that is chump change.

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/25/biden-agenda-trillion-spending/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/3-5-trillion-is-a-phony-number-democrats-spending-bill-entitlements-joe-biden-11632425260

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/28/bidens-claim-that-his-spending-plan-costs-zero-dollars/

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/14/1026519470/what-is-budget-reconciliation-3-5-trillion

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-poised-pass-1-trillion-infrastructure-bill-debate-35-trillion-budget-2021-08-10/

Even at $5.0Tn over 10 years it means little. Or $500BN a Year

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/true-cost-budget-plan-could-exceed-5-trillion

 

Edited October 2, 2021 by DKW 86

[AU9377 5,024]

43 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

The plan is $3.5TN over 10 years. Or, $350BN a year. In America, that is chump change.

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/25/biden-agenda-trillion-spending/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/3-5-trillion-is-a-phony-number-democrats-spending-bill-entitlements-joe-biden-11632425260

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/28/bidens-claim-that-his-spending-plan-costs-zero-dollars/

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/14/1026519470/what-is-budget-reconciliation-3-5-trillion

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-poised-pass-1-trillion-infrastructure-bill-debate-35-trillion-budget-2021-08-10/

Even at $5.0Tn over 10 years it means little. Or $500BN a Year

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/true-cost-budget-plan-could-exceed-5-trillion

 

I get that, but they should pass the bi partisan infrastructure bill and then work on getting the  remaining projects ironed out.

[AU9377 5,024]

7 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I posted a video on another thread of Hillary saying the election was stolen from her from 2019.  Three years later.

Her feeling that way and Trump holding rallies claiming that there was literally fraud and criminal behavior on the part of state elections officials are not the same.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

Saying to whom?

Was she talking to another individual or holding a press conference?

Does she have a cadre of hard line, cultist supporters pushing that narrative?

Are there a lot of Democrats taking a cue from her and pushing that narrative?

Are hard core or extremists Democrats paying for or pushing states to conduct more "audits"?

 

But yeah, there's no difference between Trump and Hillary on this.

I don't know what happened to my original reply and I can't find it, so here it is again.

This was the original statement:  

You trust grown men that spread absolute lies meant to make people not trust our elections?

Hillary going on national t.v. three years after the election and saying that the election was stolen from her does not qualify for that statement? 

And not just once...that was just the example demonstrating how long she's carried that narrative out (which was your qualifier—"I can't imagine Hillary or Joe weeks or months later, etc."), you can easily find 6-8 examples of statements on national t.v.

And before you say something about Russian interference, I already know there was Russian interference (and Chinese and probably others).  I didn't need a $30 million dollar investigation to tell me that. You know why?  Because there's ALWAYS Russian interference, just like there's always some degree of election fraud.  But in neither case has anyone shown that it was significant enough to move the needle and sway the election.  So if you're going to claim that it wasn't an absolute lie b/c we know the Russians did interfere, then Trump's claims are not an absolute lie b/c there was election fraud—again, there ALWAYS is.  On both sides, of course.

As for the rest of your questions, yes, the DNC filed a lawsuit against the Trump campaign for supposedly colluding to "steal the election."  And the entire Democratic party brayed about Trump colluding with Russia for three years, threatened impeachment on that basis, etc.  And yes, the media and social media was full of democratic cultists pushing that narrative—matter of fact, I seem to remember when I first started posting here someone here claiming that you were one of them 😆.  If not, and I am confusing you with someone else, where were you from 2016 to 2019 or so?  Am I really going to have to go to YouTube and post those videos too?  

Edited October 2, 2021 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

9 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Her feeling that way and Trump holding rallies claiming that there was literally fraud and criminal behavior on the part of state elections officials are not the same.

She doesn't have to hold rallies, she has the media in her corner.  She goes on national t.v. and says something like that and is taken seriously. 

What do you think the response would be from Trump going on MSNBC or CNN or even Fox News and saying the exact same thing?

Here's where That's Different© really is the truth.  Trump bypasses the media because Republicans do not get the same treatment from the media.  Democrats don't need to do things like use Twitter or hold rallies.  They have their own promotional team in the MSM.  The fact that Trump gets his message out differently doesn't mean it's more corrosive...a Trump rally actually has far less impact on average citizens because average citizens do not attend Trump rallies. 

I would argue that Trump screaming at a rally to 40,000 people who already believe what he says is far less effective at undermining public election confidence than Clinton going on CNN, calmly stating that the 2016 election was stolen from her, having the interviewer cluck and nod as though that's a reasonable thing to say, and 10 million average citizens watching it happen.

[aubaseball 2,648]

10 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Her feeling that way and Trump holding rallies claiming that there was literally fraud and criminal behavior on the part of state elections officials are not the same.

Just a question for you.   If a governor opened up voting or changed  how you could vote without going through the proper process, would you say that was illegal or wrong?

[jj3jordan 2,059]

23 hours ago, homersapien said:

That's a stretch.  I can't imagine Hillery or Joe denying the legal outcome of an election for months and months (and still continuing).

You been napping?

[homersapien 11,426]

17 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

She doesn't have to hold rallies, she has the media in her corner.  She goes on national t.v. and says something like that and is taken seriously. 

What do you think the response would be from Trump going on MSNBC or CNN or even Fox News and saying the exact same thing?

Here's where That's Different© really is the truth.  Trump bypasses the media because Republicans do not get the same treatment from the media.  Democrats don't need to do things like use Twitter or hold rallies.  They have their own promotional team in the MSM.  The fact that Trump gets his message out differently doesn't mean it's more corrosive...a Trump rally actually has far less impact on average citizens because average citizens do not attend Trump rallies. 

I would argue that Trump screaming at a rally to 40,000 people who already believe what he says is far less effective at undermining public election confidence than Clinton going on CNN, calmly stating that the 2016 election was stolen from her, having the interviewer cluck and nod as though that's a reasonable thing to say, and 10 million average citizens watching it happen.

OK.  Hillary is just as guilty as Trump - and the Republicans - in fomenting distrust of the legitimacy of our election process.  There is absolutely NO difference between their actions pre and post election.

There, are you a happy cultist now? 

Edited October 3, 2021 by homersapien

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

On 10/2/2021 at 10:33 AM, homersapien said:

OK.  Hillary is just as guilty as Trump - and the Republicans - in fomenting distrust of the legitimacy of our election process.  There is absolutely NO difference between their actions pre and post election.

There, are you a happy cultist now? 

The revealing part of this is that my insistence that the same standards are used for politicians of both parties makes me a "cultist" to you.

Think about that for a minute.

[homersapien 11,426]

On 10/2/2021 at 8:23 AM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I don't know what happened to my original reply and I can't find it, so here it is again.

This was the original statement:  

You trust grown men that spread absolute lies meant to make people not trust our elections?

Hillary going on national t.v. three years after the election and saying that the election was stolen from her does not qualify for that statement? 

And not just once...that was just the example demonstrating how long she's carried that narrative out (which was your qualifier—"I can't imagine Hillary or Joe weeks or months later, etc."), you can easily find 6-8 examples of statements on national t.v.

And before you say something about Russian interference, I already know there was Russian interference (and Chinese and probably others).  I didn't need a $30 million dollar investigation to tell me that. You know why?  Because there's ALWAYS Russian interference, just like there's always some degree of election fraud.  But in neither case has anyone shown that it was significant enough to move the needle and sway the election.  So if you're going to claim that it wasn't an absolute lie b/c we know the Russians did interfere, then Trump's claims are not an absolute lie b/c there was election fraud—again, there ALWAYS is.  On both sides, of course.

As for the rest of your questions, yes, the DNC filed a lawsuit against the Trump campaign for supposedly colluding to "steal the election."  And the entire Democratic party brayed about Trump colluding with Russia for three years, threatened impeachment on that basis, etc.  And yes, the media and social media was full of democratic cultists pushing that narrative—matter of fact, I seem to remember when I first started posting here someone here claiming that you were one of them 😆.  If not, and I am confusing you with someone else, where were you from 2016 to 2019 or so?  Am I really going to have to go to YouTube and post those videos too?  

You didn't answer my questions.  We all know why.

[homersapien 11,426]

4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

The revealing part of this is that my insistence that the same standards are used for politicians of both parties makes me a "cultist" to you.

Think about that for a minute.

Hey, I just said the Trump and Clinton acted identically.

Her behavior was exactly the same as Trump's, from beginning to end.

And yes, the fact you actually believe the above makes you a cultist.

Edited October 4, 2021 by homersapien

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You didn't answer my questions.  We all know why.

I did answer your questions.  I don't know what you're looking at, but I listed them and answered them all.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Hey, I just said the Trump and Clinton acted identically.

Her behavior was exactly the same as Trump's, from beginning to end.

And yes, the fact you actually believe the above makes you a cultist.

In the context of the statement that was made (and has been made several times now), tell me how they are not equivalent.  The appeal to ridicule fallacy is getting old.

[homersapien 11,426]

2 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

In the context of the statement that was made (and has been made several times now), tell me how they are not equivalent.  The appeal to ridicule fallacy is getting old.

I can't tell you how they aren't equivalent because they are exactly the same.

First Hillary laid the groundwork before the election by claiming the only way she could lose was by fraud.  Then she kept insisting right up to the present time that the election was stolen from her.  This resulted in numerous efforts by numerous Democrats in various states to conduct "audits" by unqualified firms, while at the same time various extremist liberal groups organized a seditious effort to halt the official certification. Hillary was there in person egging on the crowd to fight.  (You don't know about this because the liberal main stream media didn't report it.)

Like you said.  There is no difference. 

Hillary is a seditious traitor and pathological liar who tried to overthrow an illegal election, just exactly like Trump.

 

Edited October 4, 2021 by homersapien

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I can't tell you how they aren't equivalent because they are exactly the same.

First Hillary laid the groundwork before the election by claiming the only way she could lose was by fraud.  Then she kept insisting right up to the present time that the election was stolen from her.  This resulted in numerous efforts by numerous Democrats in various states to conduct "audits" by unqualified firms, while at the same time various extremist liberal groups organized a seditious effort to halt the official certification. Hillary was there in person egging on the crowd to fight.  (You don't know about this because the liberal main stream media didn't report it.)

Like you said.  There is no difference. 

Hillary is a seditious traitor and pathological liar who tried to overthrow an illegal election, just exactly like Trump.

 

Again, that's what I thought.  

That's Different©, that's why.