Donald Trump Indicted Again.

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

No, I dont guess they would from the party perspective. That's why people don't trust the parties anymore. There is always someone playing whataboutism when the parties do despicable things.

Were you not participating in whataboutism yourself? You came into a thread about a Republican facing criminal charges....replied to a post abou Republicans facing criminal charges...and then said "Yeah...but this Democrat thats not currently in politics did Black face in 1980...Both parties are JUST SOOOOooo terrible". 

If that doesn't qualify as "whataboutism" then i don't know what does. 

It's also not partisanship to acknowledge that different situations ARE in fact different. 

 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,440]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

From the audio on the tape. That is what trump is saying on the piece I heard. That the draft document was classified. He didn't and couldn't declassify it anymore.The author and 1-2 others in the room are looking over a document sent to him by the Pentagon about their plans on how to attack Iran. The plans are drafted by the Pentagon and that is acknowledged by those in the room. trump is complaining that he kept the doc to show that the story that he was about to attack Iran came from the Pentagon and not him. That's HIS story. I am not reporting it as fact at all. Just that he said it.

You said:

"I am talking about the Attack on Iran docs here. trump got lied about and he kept the docs to prove that people in the Pentagon had lied about him looking at him possibly ordering an attack on Iran. He didn't. The Pentagon drew up papers that planned an attack on Iran and then claimed trump was about to order it." 

I was responding to the last sentence.

Of course, The pentagon develops contingency plans for such operations on a regular basis - especially against enemies like Iran - regardless of who is president.  That's one of they things they do.

That in no way means it was operative or intended to become operative.

Edited June 14, 2023 by homersapien

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

these regular a** dudes on the forum

Mr. "Civil Engineer." 

[AuCivilEng1 11,026]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Mr. "Civil Engineer." 

This guy is leading the charge^^^ 

[homersapien 11,440]

13 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Pretty sure all the other main Republican contenders for President have already promised to pardon Trump if they get elected no matter what he gets charged with or what the evidence says.

Like with George Santos, Republicans at first said that while his lies and fabrications were bad, couldn't punish him because he wasn't charged with any crimes....now that he's been charged with crimes, Republicans are still protecting him and blocking efforts to expel him from congress.

 

Apparently Republicans are very "tough on crime"...until the perpetrator turns out to be one of their own.

Let's not forget their outrage over "defund the police!"

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/9/republicans-call-defunding-fbi-cleaning-house-doj-/

Republicans call for defunding the FBI, cleaning house at DOJ after Trump raid

Others see GOP hypocrisy for failing to back law enforcement in this instance

Now they want to dismantle the entire Department of Justice.

Edited June 14, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

15 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

The DOJ is using a sleight of hand in the indictment if you pay close attention. They talk about Trump having classified documents but when you look at wording of the indictment it becomes more obvious this is a political prosecution.

For those who may not know, even when a document has been declassified they do not remove the classification markings. So whether a document is classified or declassified, it will still have the classification markings. This is a point that people should be aware of because it allows the DOJ to frame everything as 'classified documents'.

 

They are talking about Trumps retention of classified documents, not that he simply had them.  The documents he returned weren't even mentioned in the indictment.

This is not that complicated.

Edited June 14, 2023 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,926]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And he accuses me of obfuscating. 

(And still didn't answer.) 

"Were there enough voter fraud in 2020 to sway the election away from Trump"? 

Homey, you've made it quite clear you cannot logically follow a thread. 

You certainly cannot read and comprehend. Example:

I've stated previously there was no massive voter fraud, but rather the dems outworked the opposition. That is more than a simple yes or no.

And finally you are a blatant liar. 

Enjoy your day. 

[homersapien 11,440]

15 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

We will never have another honest and fair presidential election as long as some states mail out ballots to all voters.  There is simply no way to verify who returns the ballot.  It enables fraud that can't be fixed after the fact and certainly there was enough of it in 2020 to sway the election. 

No there wasn't.  There were like 62 lawsuits filed and I don't know how many audits conducted and the result was no significant amount of fraudulent voting.  Certainly not enough to sway the election.

Just because you choose to believe such nonsense does not make it true.

You are a victim of cult thinking. 

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

17 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Homey, you've made it quite clear you cannot logically follow a thread. 

You certainly cannot read and comprehend. Example:

I've stated previously there was no massive voter fraud, but rather the dems outworked the opposition. That is more than a simple yes or no.

And finally you are a blatant liar. 

Enjoy your day. 

But you still refuse to answer the question I asked:

"Was there enough voter fraud in 2020 to sway the election away from Trump"?  

Why can't you answer this?   

(And what is the "lie" I supposedly said? )

Edited June 14, 2023 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,926]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

But you still refuse to answer the question I asked:

"Was there enough voter fraud in 2020 to sway the election away from Trump"?    Why can't you answer this?   

(And what is the "lie" I supposedly said? )

No I answered clearly.

I forgot to add you're obtuse. Jesus dude. I mean right in your face and yet you continue with your disingenuous nonsense.

I've stated previously there was no massive voter fraud, but rather the dems outworked the opposition. That is more than a simple yes or no.

[homersapien 11,440]

1 hour ago, aubaseball said:

I’m not going to get into a back and forth because honestly I don’t give a sh@t now.   But when the governor of Pennsylvania changed voter requirements for the 2020 election without going through legislative process, would you throw that out as voter fraud or something else?   And I don’t want to hear, but yea, it was covid though.   Just curious???   And other states followed suit too or loosened up their requirements.   

But, were there enough voter fraud in 2020 to sway the election away from Trump? 

If you really want to join the cult as a full-fledged member, now's your chance.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

But, were there enough voter fraud in 2020 to sway the election away from Trump? 

If you really want to join the cult as a full-fledged member, now's your chance.

@aubaseball I wouldn't give this lying piece of s*** the time of day. But that's just my advice. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

32 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Let's not forget their outrage over "defund the police!"

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/9/republicans-call-defunding-fbi-cleaning-house-doj-/

Republicans call for defunding the FBI, cleaning house at DOJ after Trump raid

Others see GOP hypocrisy for failing to back law enforcement in this instance

Now they want to dismantle the entire Department of Justice.

They are all for funding the police who go after the poor and regular people. It's the law enforcement that would be going after the rich and powerful (ie. them) that they don't like. 

[homersapien 11,440]

10 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

No I answered clearly.

I forgot to add you're obtuse. Jesus dude. I mean right in your face and yet you continue with your disingenuous nonsense.

I've stated previously there was no massive voter fraud, but rather the dems outworked the opposition. That is more than a simple yes or no.

But, was there enough to sway the election away from Biden to Trump?

Why is it so hard for you to say Trump lost the election?

 

[Leftfield 2,654]

2 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Yep, just me and crazed right winger Jimmy Carter see mail in balloting as ripe for fraud.  Signature verification is a weak, weak security feature anyway, but courts have ruled that they won't overturn an election no matter how superficially it is applied. 

Big difference between concerns that mail-in balloting can be exploited and claiming the 2020 election was stolen because of it. I think you'll find that's where the similarities between your views and Carter's end.

https://apnews.com/article/voter-fraud-election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-7fcb6f134e528fee8237c7601db3328f

 

[homersapien 11,440]

11 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

@aubaseball I wouldn't give this lying piece of s*** the time of day. But that's just my advice. 

QFT

I see you've completely lost your composure.  Guess this means I "win".  

And all it took was asking a simple question.

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

5 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

They are all for funding the police who go after the poor and regular people. It's the law enforcement that would be going after the rich and powerful (ie. them) that they don't like. 

Same with the IRS.

They believe in "balancing the budget" and "lowering the debt", but not if they have to pay their fair share in taxes.

These ****ers are just flat out evil fascists.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Just now, homersapien said:

But, was there enough to sway the election away from Biden to Trump?

Why is it so hard for you to say Trump lost the election?

 

I never made the claim the election was stolen

I never made the claim there was voter fraud

But I did make this claim: You are a lying piece of s***. Totally disingenuous. Nothing hard about that. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

QFT

I see you've completely lost your composure.  Guess this means I "win".  

And all it took was asking a simple question.

 

Just giving the guy a heads up in case he failed to follow the thread logically or failed to read and comprehend like you do. And tell him who you really are in case he's not following like I stated above.  Call that a win? 

[homersapien 11,440]

7 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I never made the claim the election was stolen

I never made the claim there was voter fraud

But I did make this claim: You are a lying piece of s***. Totally disingenuous. Nothing hard about that. 

I don't know what claims you have or haven't made in the past. (I don't memorize your posts.)

All I know is that in this thread you went on and on about fraudulent mail in voting.  Which is exactly why I asked the question, were there enough of these fraudulent votes cast in the 2020 election to change the outcome?

Which - for some reason - you aren't willing to answer.  Why is that?

There is nothing disingenuous or dishonest about it, at least from my end.

Edited June 14, 2023 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,926]

22 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I don't know what claims you have or haven't made in the past. (I don't memorize your posts.)

Irrelevant. I answered the relevant questions in the thread as you asked tham. Your nonsense was well nonsense and frankly unworthy of a response. 

All I know is that in this thread you went on and on about fraudulent mail in voting.  Which is exactly why I asked the question, were there enough of these fraudulent votes cast in the 2020 election to change the outcome?

That is a lie. I did not speak about fraudulent mail in voting. You brought that up. It was disingenuous from the start. You knew that but persisted. My conversation or questioning regarded signature verification. You knew that as well yet maintained your false premise.

Which - for some reason - you don't seem willing to answer.  Why is that?

I answered appropriately. 

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by AUFAN78

[AUFAN78 3,926]

15 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

 

As to your edit: There is nothing disingenuous or dishonest about it, at least from my end.

That too is a lie. For the record. 

Edited June 14, 2023 by AUFAN78

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

This guy is leading the charge^^^ 

[DKW 86 7,440]

21 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Were you not participating in whataboutism yourself? You came into a thread about a Republican facing criminal charges....replied to a post abou Republicans facing criminal charges...and then said "Yeah...but this Democrat thats not currently in politics did Black face in 1980...Both parties are JUST SOOOOooo terrible". 

If that doesn't qualify as "whataboutism" then i don't know what does. 

It's also not partisanship to acknowledge that different situations ARE in fact different. 

Could see it that way, if I supported either of these horrible parties.

And as for Northam, when he was found to be in blackface BACK THEN, he THEN LIED HIS ASS OFF ABOUT IT NOW. Northam still will not admit that he is the man in the pic on his album page. The lying and cover-up, that was and is right now, today. THAT is the problem. If you weren't such a partisan hack, you would see that.

[DKW 86 7,440]

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

You said:

"I am talking about the Attack on Iran docs here. trump got lied about and he kept the docs to prove that people in the Pentagon had lied about him looking at him possibly ordering an attack on Iran. He didn't. The Pentagon drew up papers that planned an attack on Iran and then claimed trump was about to order it." 

I was responding to the last sentence.

Of course, The pentagon develops contingency plans for such operations on a regular basis - especially against enemies like Iran - regardless of who is president.  That's one of they things they do.

That in no way means it was operative or intended to become operative.

Totally agree. It was that these docs were being used to show that he asked for plans to attack Iraq. Anyone prescient of mind to know they existed prior to being presented would know that they did not prove what he was being accused of, in this one instance, and why he had them. He is still holding classified docs illegally, and he admits that all on the tape.