Georgia Grand Jury Returns 10 out of 10 Charges

[TitanTiger 20,509]

7 hours ago, Mikey said:

Then put up some candidate better than Biden. Otherwise you are doing what you're falsely accusing others of doing. I pull the lever for the candidate that will be best for America. That's different from those who pull the D lever because they hate Trump personally and don't care about the consequences.

It wouldn't matter who the Dems put up.  Unless he's a Republican mole, you aren't voting for them.  You vote for whoever the R candidate is, and they don't have to even listen to what you'd rather have in a candidate.  You're an auto-vote.  They can safely ignore you.  You're in the bag.

Your claims to want better candidates ring hollow because you're willing to do basically nothing of consequence to force them to change.

 

[Cardin Drake 1,853]

35 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It wouldn't matter who the Dems put up.  Unless he's a Republican mole, you aren't voting for them.  You vote for whoever the R candidate is, and they don't have to even listen to what you'd rather have in a candidate.  You're an auto-vote.  They can safely ignore you.  You're in the bag.

Your claims to want better candidates ring hollow because you're willing to do basically nothing of consequence to force them to change.

 

True enough, but pretty much applies to the democrats also.  It's why the uniparty reigns supreme.  Trump has some distasteful personal characteristics, but he's the first politician to fight the uniparty, and that's why he's so popular with his base. You see where it has gotten him.  Democrats are the most taken for granted group ever. I was against Obama, but when he got elected, but I briefly thought that the one silver lining was that he wouldn't get in bed with Wall Street.  Boy, was that a fantasy. He immediately helped bail them out, and Goldman Sachs didn't lose a penny on all their bad bets. That whole fiasco still sticks in my craw.

[Mikey 16,710]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

It wouldn't matter who the Dems put up.  Unless he's a Republican mole, you aren't voting for them.  You vote for whoever the R candidate is, and they don't have to even listen to what you'd rather have in a candidate.  You're an auto-vote.  They can safely ignore you.  You're in the bag.

Your claims to want better candidates ring hollow because you're willing to do basically nothing of consequence to force them to change.

 

That's incorrect. I, like millions of other Americans, do not give a rat's azz what party a candidate belongs to. I vote for the candidate who I believe will be the best for America. That's usually someone with conservative values and since the Democrats are now bowing and scraping to the Squad, Green New Dealers, Maxine Waters and the woke mob, I'll probably be voting for a Republican. That has nothing to do with a D or R. It has to do with policy and the direction I'd like to see this nation take.

PS: Had you bothered to read all of my posts in this thread, you'd see that I have voted for several Democrat presidential candidates in prior years. Did you fail to read, or are you calling me a liar?

[TitanTiger 20,509]

31 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

True enough, but pretty much applies to the democrats also.  It's why the uniparty reigns supreme.  Trump has some distasteful personal characteristics, but he's the first politician to fight the uniparty, and that's why he's so popular with his base. You see where it has gotten him.  Democrats are the most taken for granted group ever. I was against Obama, but when he got elected, but I briefly thought that the one silver lining was that he wouldn't get in bed with Wall Street.  Boy, was that a fantasy. He immediately helped bail them out, and Goldman Sachs didn't lose a penny on all their bad bets. That whole fiasco still sticks in my craw.

But we aren't talking about Democrats.  We're talking about Republicans who claim to not like Trump, believe we should move on from Trump, say they prefer 5, 8, 10 or more GOP candidates ahead of Trump, but in the end will vote for him in the general election anyway.  If you really want better candidates than Trump, you have to stop being an auto-vote for him.  That is completely counterproductive to getting better candidates than him.  If the GOP powers that be and Trump's hardcore base know you'll all fall in line in November, then you give them zero incentive to care what you want.  Until GOP voters who say they think Trump is a bad candidate and we should move on from him actually put some teeth into what they say by refusing to support him, you get the s*** sandwich and you'll like it.

[Didba 5,256]

7 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Well, let's recap. The article alleged this bombshell: One major event involves Ruby Freeman. Based upon my discussion with witnesses, this low-level Georgia poll worker got spooked after the November 2020 election, asked to speak at a police station, and copped to witnessing, and participating in, voter fraud in the state. Since then, the story in the media has flipped: Rather than whistleblowing on Democratic voter fraud, Ruby Freeman is the victim of witness intimidation. Bringing her to the witness stand and disclosing the evidence she provided (including the police body cam footage where she admits to the fraud)..

Now this is really interesting, if true.  Now does Didba want to discuss this? No. He, having graduated from being the annoying grammar nazi in his friend group, wants to discuss whether it is legally correct to say "Trump should go ahead and take this to trial, being the sloppy layperson that I am, rather than Trump should allow them to take him to trial.  Nobody gives a rat's ass if Trump takes or is taken to trial, or if everyone expects him to fight a delaying action, or if his attorneys are already fighting a delaying action. Meanwhile we have Ms. Freeman on body cam admitting to the fraud in Fulton county. That's actually what might interest us non-lawyers, since it pretty much blows up there whole case if true.  (I wrote there instead of their so you would have something to comment on in this post)

Really? Grammar nazi? c’mon man no reason to act like a petulant child. It’s not my fault you made an easily disapproval claim and if I remember correctly doubled down on it.  

Not just that but when proven wrong instead of just admitting to it you, deflected with a non-responsive reply that attempted to change the subject to Ms. Fulton.

If nobody gives a rat’s ass, then why did you post an article about it?

as for Ms. Fulton, sure, put her on the stand and show the body cam footage if it’s admissible. That’s really the extent of my discussion or care for the topic because her taking the stand is all that really matters, what she said to the police before doesn’t matter. Her police statements unless made under oath are hearsay. 

Her trial testimony is the only thing that matters for her evidence. If she sticks to her story she could be impeached, if she changes her story she will be impeached with her prior inconsistent statement. Neither outcome is good for Trump. I’d bet she never takes the stand unless called by prosecution.  

The reason I never addressed it is because I agreed with you that the best approach is just to have her take the stand under oath and see what she has to say then. 

Edited August 18, 2023 by Didba

[AU9377 5,024]

11 hours ago, Mikey said:

I don't want this nation to emulate the Europeans. If they are so damn smart why do we always end up bailing them out of their own self-made troubles?

Is Tulsi Gabbard still a Democrat? I'd vote for her over Trump.

People forget that until the post war boom, we weren't exactly a shining example of how to do things in the world.  But for scientists that immigrated from Europe, we would have never developed the bomb before Hitler or Japan.  Allowing Hitler to rise to power was just as much on us as on the rest of Europe.  We all wanted to ignore the problem until it could no  longer be ignored.

[AUDub 11,169]

51 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

People forget that until the post war boom, we weren't exactly a shining example of how to do things in the world.  But for scientists that immigrated from Europe, we would have never developed the bomb before Hitler or Japan.  Allowing Hitler to rise to power was just as much on us as on the rest of Europe.  We all wanted to ignore the problem until it could no  longer be ignored.

Hell some folks in this country embraced fascism, at least initially. 

[AU9377 5,024]

12 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

If you believe Europe and its systems is a utopian pixie land, we disagree. I personally see a continent that has become listless, dependent, and stale. 

I don't think anyone is making that argument.  They don't see us as dependent, but they do see us as spoiled, arrogant and wasteful.  We are all those things.  Even so, we have much more in common with Europeans culturally than with any other part of the world.  We share common values, traditions and, for the most part, religious beliefs.    I have never understood the line of thinking that refuses to learn from how others do things, just as they learn from how we do things.  None of us have a perfect system of doing something. 

Try explaining why we still use the electoral college to someone in Italy and they will look at you as though you are a Russian Communist trying to explain that their elections are open and fair. 

[auburnatl1 5,006]

18 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I don't think anyone is making that argument.  They don't see us as dependent, but they do see us as spoiled, arrogant and wasteful.  We are all those things.  Even so, we have much more in common with Europeans culturally than with any other part of the world.  We share common values, traditions and, for the most part, religious beliefs.    I have never understood the line of thinking that refuses to learn from how others do things, just as they learn from how we do things.  None of us have a perfect system of doing something. 

Try explaining why we still use the electoral college to someone in Italy and they will look at you as though you are a Russian Communist trying to explain that their elections are open and fair. 

I understand. Concepts like the electoral college were born out the reality that initially we more a collection of states - hence our name. This debate began over Bernie and European socialism. European counties are at their heart much more culturally uniform and tribal - the French were franks ect. The us is not. Very heterogeneous and historically more individualistic oriented. Which is the tension and constant debate on this forum - the right generally is about individualism and self accountability, and left is about social harmony and equality.  Imo our success has been about being able to balance the two. And chaos when we haven’t. Which is why to me - both trump and Bernie extremes always result in chaos.

[Didba 5,256]

13 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I understand. Concepts like the electoral college were born out the reality that initially we more a collection of states - hence our name. This debate began over Bernie and European socialism. European counties are at their heart much more culturally uniform and tribal - the French were franks ect. The us is not. Very heterogeneous and historically more individualistic oriented. Which is the tension and constant debate on this forum - the right generally is about individualism and self accountability, and left is about social harmony and equality.  Imo our success has been about being able to balance the two. And chaos when we haven’t. Which is why to me - both trump and Bernie extremes always result in chaos.

But Bernie isn’t an extremist. He would have to be a literal communist to be on the extreme left just like Trump would have to be a literal Nazi fascist to be on the extreme right. While Trump is certainly alternative right, that is around 1/2-3/4 on the right side of political spectrum. Bernie is around the same place.

Your corporate Dems are centrists like the Clinton’s, Biden, Pelosi, Obama are just left of center, and then your Mitt Romneys, McCains, Manchins, McConnell, Graham are just right of center. 

otherwise you are fairly spot on with Euro v American characterization. 
 

Something along the lines of this:

Edited August 18, 2023 by Didba

[AU9377 5,024]

13 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I understand. Concepts like the electoral college were born out the reality that initially we more a collection of states - hence our name. This debate began over Bernie and European socialism. European counties are at their heart much more culturally uniform and tribal - the French were franks ect. The us is not. Very heterogeneous and historically more individualistic oriented. Which is the tension and constant debate on this forum - the right generally is about individualism and self accountability, and left is about social harmony and equality.  Imo our success has been about being able to balance the two. And chaos when we haven’t. Which is why to me - both trump and Bernie extremes always result in chaos.

Finding our way back to that balance is proving to be a tremendous hurdle.  I usually start thinking about a topic and am very idealistic in my views but, when consensus isn't possible, I become much more of a realist.  That often times distorts how others interpret my views and results in my appearing to be much farther left than I actually am.

[AU9377 5,024]

11 minutes ago, Didba said:

But Bernie isn’t an extremist. He would have to be a literal communist to be on the extreme left just like Trump would have to be a literal Nazi fascist to be on the extreme right. While Trump is certainly alternative right, that is around 1/2-3/4 on the right side of political spectrum. Bernie is around the same place.
 

Your corporate Dems are centrists like the Clinton’s, Biden, Pelosi, Obama are just left of center, and then your Mitt Romneys, McCains, Manchins, McConnell, Graham are just right of center. 
 

Something along the lines of this:

I've seen this used in pop culture comparisons as well. 

Of course, the interesting thing to me about Trump is that I don't believe for a second that he is actually as far right as he now appears.  He is an opportunist and occupying that lane has value to him at this time.  If it stops having value to him, he will change where he stands quickly.  There is nothing that is not transactional in his positions.

No man changes his world view wholesale at 60 or 70 years of age.

[auburnatl1 5,006]

2 minutes ago, Didba said:

But Bernie isn’t an extremist. He would have to be a literal communist to be on the extreme left just like Trump would have to be a literal Nazi fascist to be on the extreme right. While Trump is certainly alternative right, that is around 1/2-3/4 on the right side of political spectrum. Bernie is around the same place.
 

Your corporate Dems are centrists like the Clinton’s, Biden, Pelosi, Obama are just left of center, and then your Mitt Romneys, McCains, Manchins, McConnell, Graham are just right of center. 

Fair points. But everyone has their own scales. Both trump and bernie types  (I hesitate to compare the 2 because again I believe bernie means well and trump does not) create “immune system” reactions and spawn ideological disciples - ie aoc and mtg. Which are divisive, win at all costs oriented, and paralyze everything in endless abstract debates. Though currently not stylish, I prefer moderate pragmatists that compromise (ie using your list - manchin or Romney). Especially during these polarizing times. Imo  when a beer warrants a nutty debate, the country is currently ideologically fatigued

[CoffeeTiger 5,159]

4 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Fair points. But everyone has their own scales. Both trump and bernie types  (I hesitate to compare the 2 because again I believe bernie means well and trump does not) create “immune system” reactions and spawn ideological disciples - ie aoc and mtg. Which are divisive, win at all costs oriented, and paralyze everything in endless abstract debates. Though currently not stylish, I prefer moderate pragmatists that compromise (ie using your list - manchin or Romney). Especially during these polarizing times. Imo  when a beer warrants a nutty debate, the country is currently ideologically fatigued

Which is why our 2 party system is such a burden on our country and may lead to its ultimate downfall. 

In most other forms of government AOC and the Squad wouldn't be Democrats, they'd be in a more socialist party,  and MTG and much of the "Freedom Caucus" wouldn't be Republicans, they'd be in a further Right party.  

But our nation only has 2 parties and 2 real choices, and those 2 parties are stuffed with many people and ideologies that don't agree or mix well with each other. 

 

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

Fair points. But everyone has their own scales. Both trump and bernie types  (I hesitate to compare the 2 because again I believe bernie means well and trump does not) create “immune system” reactions and spawn ideological disciples - ie aoc and mtg. Which are divisive, win at all costs oriented, and paralyze everything in endless abstract debates. Though currently not stylish, I prefer moderate pragmatists that compromise (ie using your list - manchin or Romney). Especially during these polarizing times. Imo  when a beer warrants a nutty debate, the country is currently ideologically fatigued

I’m good with that, everyone can have their opinion of their scales because at the end of the day those scales generally fall like the one I reference below within a standard deviation.

I appreciate the response and you have a pretty good understanding of this stuff. More so than most and I like the immune system characterization, because it doesn’t exist outside of a two party system. I might use that analogy to better explain the reactionary extremism cause by the two party system to peopl  

The scale I have referenced and posted about previously has been established in the political science community as the standard by which to grade politicians, governments, parties political leanings. However, using one’s opinion there is not nothing wrong with saying well I think XYZ is a little more left or right on the scale than most because XYZ. unless of course you completely mislabel a centrist like a communist which is pretty hard to do.
 

I’ll be the first to admit the distinctions between socialist, democratic socialist, and socialistic democrat are not the easiest to distinguish. 
 

Edited August 18, 2023 by Didba

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Which is why our 2 party system is such a burden on our country and may lead to its ultimate downfall. 

In most other forms of government AOC and the Squad wouldn't be Democrats, they'd be in a more socialist party,  and MTG and much of the "Freedom Caucus" wouldn't be Republicans, they'd be in a further Right party.  

But our nation only has 2 parties and 2 real choices, and those 2 parties are stuffed with many people and ideologies that don't agree or mix well with each other. 

 

Took the words right out of my mouth about the two party system. the reactionary “immune system” response doesn’t exist to near a degree in multiparty systems. 

Edited August 18, 2023 by Didba

[AUDub 11,169]

1 hour ago, Didba said:

Took the words right out of my mouth a lot the two party system. the reactionary “immune system” response doesn’t exist to bear a degree in multiparty systems. 

The way our system works you'll only ever have two parties. 

[auburnatl1 5,006]

Just now, AUDub said:

The way our system works you'll only ever have two parties. 

1/2 of the country is now registered independent. Registered gop and dems are only 25% each, and they’re further shrinking. Something is coming.

[Didba 5,256]

18 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The way our system works you'll only ever have two parties. 

I know. We need the system reformed. Been saying it in this forum and in research papers for years 

[Didba 5,256]

16 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

1/2 of the country is now registered independent. Registered gop and dems are only 25% each, and they’re further shrinking. Something is coming.

It’s not unless we reform the constitution unfortunately. Now there might be new parties that overtake the GOP and Dems but there will always be only two majority parties under the current electoral system. 

Edited August 18, 2023 by Didba

[AUDub 11,169]

20 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

1/2 of the country is now registered independent. Registered gop and dems are only 25% each, and they’re further shrinking. Something is coming.

No it’s the nature of a FPTP system where all losing votes are discarded in a given race. It’s called Duverger’s Law. 

A third party may spring up sure but it will ultimately only displace one of the existing two when all is said and done. At the end of the day you’re back to a two party system. 

[auburnatl1 5,006]

10 minutes ago, AUDub said:

A third party may spring up sure but it will ultimately only displace one of the existing two when all is said and done. At the end of the day you’re back to a two party system. 

Which was my point. Ie youngkin was already a sign that the Republican Party was organically beginning to moderate to reach independents. The never ending trump litigation (my frustration from another thread) froze and distracted this progress.  Now we’re stuck in a myopic race to the bottom debate about dementia and porn stars.

But ultimately in any market  that is served by only 2 “companies”, with 50% of that market totally unaligned - one of the two companies will eventually evolve itself to serve that market to gain market share. Every time.

 

[AU9377 5,024]

18 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

The point is everybody expects his lawyers to attempt to delay the trial until after the election.  I'd like to see this one played out in court with the whole country watching. Let's see the evidence.  I'd love to see Ms. Freeman under oath.   And I and I'm sure Trump's lawyers agree it would not be in his best interests for him to take the stand.

She was under oath at the Jan 6 hearings.  You do realize that the entire suggestion that she was doing something illegal was pure garbage right?  It was completely made up to cast doubt on the results.

[Didba 5,256]

41 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

She was under oath at the Jan 6 hearings.  You do realize that the entire suggestion that she was doing something illegal was pure garbage right?  It was completely made up to cast doubt on the results.

Oh sweet. I wasn’t aware of this. That’s hilarious in light of recent discussions with @Cardin Drake

[Cardin Drake 1,853]

And I'm sure that crew asked Ms. Freeman some tough questions...I'd love to see a competent defense attorney cross-examine her. Let her explain why she said what she said to the cops and make the body cam public.

I doubt the Georgia case will make it to trial before the election, and it will probably wind up in federal court. But I wish it would go to trial.  What's interesting about this case (and January 6th) is it opens up the fraud charges in a way that has not been heard yet. The problem with the election challenge cases is that the standard to overturn an election is impossibly high, and judges are very reluctant to do so. Most of the cases have been dismissed on standing. Look at the Kari Lake case. She showed that the chain of custody wasn't kept on hundreds of thousands of ballots from drop boxes. Courts said too bad.  She showed that the signature verification was a joke with  hundreds of thousands of ballots verified in an average of 2 seconds each, and many in under a second. The court said too bad, since they at least pretended to do it. She showed they broke the Arizona law on counting incoming mail-in ballots and sent them to a 3rd party counting operation without a count.  Nobody can prove whether the same number came back. 35,000 more than the "estimate" came back. Tough luck, not enough proof.  But reasonable people believe fraud occurred and that will be the standard in the Georgia case. Did Trump have reason to believe fraud occurred?  Trump can come up with hundreds, maybe thousands of solid examples to justify his belief in the election fraud.  Heck, 40,000 sworn affidavits attesting to fraud in the 2020 election were delivered to the Georgia governor. Let it all come out.  If Trump's lawyers can't show why he had a reasonable belief in fraud in Georgia, by all means convict him. But let's have some transparency for a change.