Ga. hand recount confirms Biden’s lead; president-elect speaks virtually with governors

[PsyOps]

Do you really have to ask if Giuliani is full of crap? He has a thousand affidavits but he can’t show us a single one that actually describes fraud. Meanwhile Powell is making unsupported claims that there is a Hugo Chavez connection to the ‘flipping’ of votes, but she won’t show you that affidavit either. GA just showed that the paper ballots directly reflect the unofficial results, no vote flipping.

all the while the vote is being audited in the states and the official results are being certified.

I don't know how this woks in terms of what they can or cannot show us. I don't know if they are limited to what evidence they can reveal before it gets into a courtroom. We do know the voting machines and the software run on it was used in Venezuela, and designed to flip votes.

Now, what I do call into question is how only one side had access to the software to make sure Trump votes were flipped to Biden votes without the other side knowing about it. I would like to think there are checks and balances that allow both sides access to the machines to make sure they are configured properly. It doesn't seem logical to me that the checks and balances failed. I can say this... After watching our FBI, NSA and DOJ engage in anti-Trump behavior in a manner that is reminiscent of the USSR, and also knowing there is a large anti-Trump sect that exists within the Republican Party, I can see a path to fraud in these machines.

Don't you find it a bit curious why our election system decide to use the same voting machines (Dominion) and software (Smartmatic) that was used in Venezuela and Cuba elections?

As far as Giuliani is concerned... I have found that he has become quite unhinged in recent years. I don't know if this has to do with playing for the camera and becoming full of himself, or if he is having some other kind of mental decline. But, I won't ignore that he is an accomplished lawyer and knows what he's doing.

 

[SkylarkTempest]

Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office?

We asked dozens of insiders about this highly improbable but much-discussed scenario.

www.politico.com

"Liberal Florida Rep. Alan Grayson says Trump’s insistence on building a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, if concrete was poured despite Congress’s opposition, could lead down a path toward impeachment. Even the mainstream Republican head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently tossed out the I-word when discussing the civilian backlash if Trump’s trade war with China led to higher prices on everyday items sold at WalMart and Target."

Great source. One wacky liberal congressman poses a hypothetical and a mainstream Republican makes reference to possible impeachment. No, this is totally evidence that the House Dems were plotting to impeach. Thank you for clearing this all up.


This is my favorite part of your source:

"Full disclosure: Nobody we talked to said this was likely without a series of cascading events first unfolding. Impeachment is, after all, a rarely used and highly disruptive tactic that would throttle pretty much everything else happening from a federal policy perspective in the country. It would take an unprecedented mix of popular sentiment and raw power politics at the very highest levels to actually succeed at toppling a new president, and it’s far from certain that even Trump could manage to be so offensive that he clears that bar."

#Headlines!=Content

 

[MSally]

I don't know how this woks in terms of what they can or cannot show us. I don't know if they are limited to what evidence they can reveal before it gets into a courtroom. We do know the voting machines and the software run on it was used in Venezuela, and designed to flip votes.

Now, what I do call into question is how only one side had access to the software to make sure Trump votes were flipped to Biden votes without the other side knowing about it. I would like to think there are checks and balances that allow both sides access to the machines to make sure they are configured properly. It doesn't seem logical to me that the checks and balances failed. I can say this... After watching our FBI, NSA and DOJ engage in anti-Trump behavior in a manner that is reminiscent of the USSR, and also knowing there is a large anti-Trump sect that exists within the Republican Party, I can see a path to fraud in these machines.

Don't you find it a bit curious why our election system decide to use the same voting machines (Dominion) and software (Smartmatic) that was used in Venezuela and Cuba elections?

As far as Giuliani is concerned... I have found that he has become quite unhinged in recent years. I don't know if this has to do with playing for the camera and becoming full of himself, or if he is having some other kind of mental decline. But, I won't ignore that he is an accomplished lawyer and knows what he's doing.

proof that the software used in our election was designed to flip votes?

Rudy is running a disinformation campaign. Unhinged or not, he is a purveyor of lies and propaganda. If they have evidence, they can show it to anyone they want. Why haven’t they scheduled an emergency hearing to present their case?

 

[rmorse]

"Liberal Florida Rep. Alan Grayson says Trump’s insistence on building a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, if concrete was poured despite Congress’s opposition, could lead down a path toward impeachment. Even the mainstream Republican head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently tossed out the I-word when discussing the civilian backlash if Trump’s trade war with China led to higher prices on everyday items sold at WalMart and Target."

Great source. One wacky liberal congressman poses a hypothetical and a mainstream Republican makes reference to possible impeachment. No, this is totally evidence that the House Dems were plotting to impeach. Thank you for clearing this all up.


This is my favorite part of your source:

"Full disclosure: Nobody we talked to said this was likely without a series of cascading events first unfolding. Impeachment is, after all, a rarely used and highly disruptive tactic that would throttle pretty much everything else happening from a federal policy perspective in the country. It would take an unprecedented mix of popular sentiment and raw power politics at the very highest levels to actually succeed at toppling a new president, and it’s far from certain that even Trump could manage to be so offensive that he clears that bar."

#Headlines!=Content

Are you an idiot? You literally said no one was talking about impeaching Trump before he was even in office and that you can’t find it anywhere. I then posted a link to an article written BEFORE Trump was in office (before he was even the presidential nominee) and you’re now criticizing the source? I didn’t even read the article; I posted an article dated before Trump became president that was discussing impeaching him. You know, the very thing that you said you can’t find.

Don’t throw out your back while you’re moving the goalpost.

 

[SkylarkTempest]

Are you an idiot? You literally said no one was talking about impeaching Trump before he was even in office and that you can’t find it anywhere. I then posted a link to an article written BEFORE Trump was in office (before he was even the presidential nominee) and you’re now criticizing the source? I didn’t even read the article; I posted an article dated before Trump became president that was discussing impeaching him. You know, the very thing that you said you can’t find.

Don’t throw out your back while you’re moving the goalpost.

I don't think you were following the entire conversation. Go back and read. I didn't say there wasn't anyone talking about impeaching Trump. My claim was that I couldn't find information about Congress planning to impeach him before he was inaugurated. I even made the caveat that if there had been a rogue congressman spewing crazy bullshit, that isn't representative of an entire party - then I invoked the name Louis Gohmert to emphasize my point. Know the context before you jump in next time.

The goalpost has stayed in place. Congress wasn't planning to impeach the President-elect before inauguration. If you find information to the contrary, please send it my way.

I didn’t even read the article;

Wow, you just let it all hang out, don't you?

 

[rmorse]

I don't think you were following the entire conversation. Go back and read. I didn't say there wasn't anyone talking about impeaching Trump. My claim was that I couldn't find information about Congress planning to impeach him before he was inaugurated. I even made the caveat that if there had been a rogue congressman spewing crazy bullshit, that isn't representative of an entire party - then I invoked the name Louis Gohmert to emphasize my point. Know the context before you jump in next time.

The goalpost has stayed in place. Congress wasn't planning to impeach the President-elect before inauguration. If you find information to the contrary, please send it my way.



Wow, you just let it all hang out, don't you?

Post 19 and 20 might help you figure it out. Post 19 was where he said that MSM, newspapers and even a couple members of Congress stated that. You moved the goalpost to just Congress. This is why I responded to him, not you. I also posted an article that says


“Impeachment” is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress.

This is dated before the election, showing that “they” were discussing it before he was even in office. Like he claimed.

I didn’t need to read the entire news article that was dated before the election in order to show that the news was discussing impeachment before the election, genius.

 

[SkylarkTempest]

Post 19 and 20 might help you figure it out. Post 19 was where he said that MSM, newspapers and even a couple members of Congress stated that. You moved the goalpost to just Congress. This is why I responded to him, not you. I also posted an article that says


“Impeachment” is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress.

This is dated before the election, showing that “they” were discussing it before he was even in office. Like he claimed.

I didn’t need to read the entire news article that was dated before the election in order to show that the news was discussing impeachment before the election, genius.

"Let's start at the very beginning; a very good place to start."

Now I'd like to move the goalpost - back to post #17. (17 < 19 and 20)

I agree. Let’s wait and see. Only those involved know what evidence they do or don’t have. The media is feeding the narratives on both sides keeping everyone spooled up. As far as 2016 Russian interference goes I believe that it may have happened but trump colluding with them not so much. Millions of dollars were wasted on that investigation that could have provided health insurance for those that needed it without messing with my insurance. When they announced they were going to impeach trump before he was inaugurated you could very well bet it was all BS.

Who announced this? How does your source confirm this? The article doesn't even say anyone was seriously considering it, just that it COULD happen because of Trump's record on the campaign trail of skirting norms and "bending" the truth. Even Republicans were saying this - according to your source.

Bare-ya-cuda later clarified that he wasn't referring to Congress, which is fine. He misspoke. But, if one wanted to be an *******, they could just say he was "moving the goalpost", reinterpreting "they" as the MSM and "members of Congress". (I wouldn't do that. I'm not an *******.) But he wasn't. What I think he meant to say was that some people were speculating that it could happen. Once that was clarified, there was no disagreement. So I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

 

[rmorse]

"Let's start at the very beginning; a very good place to start."

Now I'd like to move the goalpost - back to post #17. (17 < 19 and 20)



Who announced this? How does your source confirm this? The article doesn't even say anyone was seriously considering it, just that it COULD happen because of Trump's record on the campaign trail of skirting norms and "bending" the truth. Even Republicans were saying this - according to your source.

Bare-ya-cuda later clarified that he wasn't referring to Congress, which is fine. He misspoke. But, if one wanted to be an ***, they could just say he was "moving the goalpost", reinterpreting "they" as the MSM and "members of Congress". (I wouldn't do that. I'm not an ***.) But he wasn't. What I think he meant to say was that some people were speculating that it could happen. Once that was clarified, there was no disagreement. So I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

Again. I wasn’t responding to you, idiot. I was responding to the person I quoted. The one who said “they.”

 

[SkylarkTempest]

Again. I wasn’t responding to you, idiot. I was responding to the person I quoted. The one who said “they.”

Okay. But your source doesn't back up that anyone announced they were going to impeach the former President-elect. It, in fact, goes out of its way to state that there are many dominoes that need to fall before that could even be considered. I wouldn't expect you to know that, though. You didn't read the article.

 

[PsyOps]

proof that the software used in our election was designed to flip votes?

Rudy is running a disinformation campaign. Unhinged or not, he is a purveyor of lies and propaganda. If they have evidence, they can show it to anyone they want. Why haven’t they scheduled an emergency hearing to present their case?

Well, in this case, you really have no evidence that Giuliani is lying. You're entitled to that opinion, but that's all it is at this point - your opinion.

Trump has had to tolerate 4 years of lies and attacks against him.

Russian collusion was a lie
The FBI falsified information on Trump in order to justify spying on his campaign.
The FBI falsified information on Trump in order to justify in order to start an FBI investigation.
The FBI falsified information on Trump in order to justify the Mueller investigation - which revealed no criminality.
He's been falsely called a racist, homophobe, and every other ____ist and ____phobe in the dictionary.
Violence has been committed against anyone who is suspected of being a Trump supporter.
Businesses had to be boarded up in the event that Trump won the election.
Liberals even attacked Baron on multiple occasions.
I can name about a dozen liberals that still refuse to acknowledge that Trump is our duly elected president.

And now, you liberals are complaining about Trump having the audacity to question the results of this election, even when there is plenty of evidence to at least look into it?

Please tell me... when can we expect the hypocrisy of the left to end?

 

[SkylarkTempest]

Well, in this case, you really have no evidence that Giuliani is lying.

That's not how evidence works.You don't put people in jail because they fail to prove they didn't commit a crime. The burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim.

And now, you liberals are complaining about Trump having the audacity to question the results of this election, even when there is plenty of evidence to at least look into it?

Plenty of evidence? We're all still waiting... In the meantime, GA certified their results and most of the other states will do so within the week. Please post the evidence as soon as it is presented. Until then, just chill.

 

[PsyOps]

That's not how evidence works.You don't put people in jail because they fail to prove they didn't commit a crime. The burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim.

If you accuse me of lying, you better have evidence of it. That is exactly how that works. Sally is accusing Giuliani of lying. Where's the evidence of that?

Plenty of evidence? We're all still waiting... In the meantime, GA certified their results and most of the other states will do so within the week. Please post the evidence as soon as it is presented. Until then, just chill.

Look, you can't have a murder, and just because you turned your back when it happened claim there's no evidence. Again, sworn affidavits are evidence. If you choose to take the angle Sally is taking, that Giuliani is lying, then prove that; because he claims he has it.

 

[rmorse]

Okay. But your source doesn't back up that anyone announced they were going to impeach the former President-elect. It, in fact, goes out of its way to state that there are many dominoes that need to fall before that could even be considered. I wouldn't expect you to know that, though. You didn't read the article.

I don't know how to keep rephrasing this in a way that you can understand.

Bare-ya-cuda said "they were discussing impeachment before he even became president." He/she then went on to say that he couldn't find where he/she saw that and CBA to go looking for it.

Skylark jumps in and says "who are they? no congressperson was discussing that!!!!!"

Meanwhile, rmorse found an article discussing impeachment dated before Trump was president. He quotes bare-ya-cuda as a "here you go, this is proof that they (as in, the media) were talking about it. Oh, and check it out...they even say that a few congresspeople are discussing it too!"

Skylark jumps in and starts attacking my source as if that makes any sort of difference on what I was showing (pro tip - it doesn't).

I'm over this btw. You can go ahead and wail and gnash your teeth about how it proves nothing and attack the source and do whatever else it is you do. I'm sure you'll continue to double down.

 

[rmorse]

It was 4 years ago and I am not going to dig through the internet just to prove you wrong or right. It wa quite obvious that getting trump out was the agenda of the democrat party. And I never stated it was democrats in Congress that said it .

A running list of Democrats who have discussed impeachment

As the backlash to President Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey escalates, Democratic lawmakers are increasingly raising the prospect of impeachment.

www.cnn.com

There’s at least two Democrats on that list who were discussing impeachment before he was even elected (from Maryland and Texas). Might be more; I stopped reading.

 

[SkylarkTempest]

I don't know how to keep rephrasing this in a way that you can understand.

Bare-ya-cuda said "they were discussing impeachment before he even became president." He/she then went on to say that he couldn't find where he/she saw that and CBA to go looking for it.

Skylark jumps in and says "who are they? no congressperson was discussing that!!!!!"

Meanwhile, rmorse found an article discussing impeachment dated before Trump was president. He quotes bare-ya-cuda as a "here you go, this is proof that they (as in, the media) were talking about it. Oh, and check it out...they even say that a few congresspeople are discussing it too!"

Skylark jumps in and starts attacking my source as if that makes any sort of difference on what I was showing (pro tip - it doesn't).

I'm over this btw. You can go ahead and wail and gnash your teeth about how it proves nothing and attack the source and do whatever else it is you do. I'm sure you'll continue to double down.

Wow. We use language in different ways. Your summary of the exchange isn't accurate, most notably you use of the phrase "discussing impeachment" instead of "announcing impeachment". Look, there was understandable confusion over who "they" referred to. If you want to feel like your article supported his position, then go right ahead. There were definitely MSM types and Republicans discussing the possibility of impeachment, but that wasn't relevant to the conversation we were having. It's over. Let's move on.