Printable View
That is because Trump told dozens of lies, promoted idiocy, and they believed him. You want standing for a set of fictions because one person repeated them over and over again and people believed him? If only there were precedent for that. Trump merely contested the election in the same way that people engaged in insurrection at the capitol merely rioted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
But...you DID watch it, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I want you to know that I understand your predicament, Bronco. If someone posted a video of President Trump calling for nationwide riots, and on that same video was Bobcat Goldthwaite saying he wanted to give the President a noogie, I'd probably choose to respond to the noogie. Of course, no such video exists.
I'll tell you what does exist though - a video of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the highest-ranking Democrat in the USA, encouraging "uprisings all over the country."
I wouldn't worry. The video will eventually disappear from YouTube, Twitter, and all mainstream formats, just like the video "We Need To Talk About Sandy Hook" did. It's amazing what politicians can accomplish when they have a nation's media in their pockets.
Just hold out for a few more years, Bronco, and history will be completely rewritten to accomodate your posts.
So you chose to post a clip where 99% of the content was irrelevant? Imagine if buried in the hundreds of election fraud claims Trump had proof of millions of votes being changed. I might get through 90 totally made up claims and think, "why would someone provide so many lies if they have something incriminating?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
Did you know that Nancy Pelosi's statement had nothing to do with the Black Lives Matter protests and riots and that she wasn't even talking about them in that clip?
It didn't have anything to do with police brutality and to my knowledge no "uprisings" occurred based on this speech. You seem to think a pipe bomb that didn't explode is irrelevant and don't consider the potential harm so why isn't that the standard here? Well Nancy Pelosi's irresponsible language was about the family separation policy and did not result in "uprisings" or violence. And btw she used the word uprising incorrectly. If it meant overthrow the government, which is what was incited at the capitol by the President, how could it be plural?
It was incendiary and stupid and had she spent months trying to stoke violence and making clear she wanted our government to be overthrown AND people tried to do that she'd be just as culpable as Trump.
And not only was she talking about a different subject completely the statement was made more than two years before the rioting in Kenosha. The statement in that clip was made on June 14 2018 by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
The important first step in your recovery from liberalism is to recognize that she DID say it. IIRC it was in response to Trump's immigration policy, which I happen to agree with but that's a whole different post. Do you agree, Bronco? Do you agree that there should be "uprisings all over the country" over Trump's refusal to admit Muslim refugees?Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Also, "99%" of that content is not "irrelevant." Maxine Waters is on there calling for violence at BLM protests specifically. Kamala Harris is on there threatening the administration directly with riots. "Everyone, beware!" she says with a smile on her face, as if she is secretly conducting the riots from behind the scenes. "They're not gonna stop, not before Election Day." All of those liberal newscasts calling for non-peaceful protests are post-George Floyd.
So you know, yeah Bronco, it happened. Your party tore up the country over a counterfeiter who died of a fentanyl overdose. Your leaders encouraged it, drew the roadmap for it really, and it happened. I'd be the first to admit, the George Floyd video was absolutely incendiary. I wanted to choke that officer out myself before it was over with. But it turns out, Officer Chauvin was acting within policy, a lot of video of George Floyd FIGHTING the police was redacted, and the final medical determination was that the guy was a junkie who swallowed his whole stash as he was being arrested. Not EXACTLY as advertised eh?
Still, I get it. If I were black I'd probably have picked up a sign and protested myself, and maybe some of that protesting might get out of control, it happens.
But we're talking months and months here. Even after it was determined that the incident wasn't what it seemed, the Democratic machine kept pushing for violence. Because they knew that was the only thing that was going to get them into office in 2020. It worked. I stand in awe of the power of a political party that owns the media. Even though they have absolutely zero good ideas on how to move forward from the crises of 2020 (other than to simply cave in to every special interest that holds out a cup), they won the White House and the Senate. Incredible really. If I were a Democrat I'd be on here crowing about our amazing powers of political skullduggery.
But since I'm a Republican, all I can do is point out that they won it like a bunch of criminals.
Here's a thought. This is supposed to be the 'thought for the day' thread, not one endless argument. Your persistence n trying to rebut our resident post-truth wingnut is commendable bronco, but you must realise it is pointless.
How about we cancel the Nick Danger show by not responding any further, as least in this thread? If he wants to start another thread let him do so, but we should stop the hijacking of this thread.
To help the process along I've created a new thread on political violence and copied Nick Danger's last comment, so people can continue the discussion if they want without hijacking this thread.
[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1957970]
And let me ask you something - is it illegal to challenge the results of an election? "Unconstitutional?" Because factually, there have been EIGHT contested Presidential elections in this country's history, and COUNTLESS contested elections for various other offices.
Trump thought he won. Perhaps in hindsight it could be said he was somewhat delusional about it, but he certainly isn't the first and won't be the last American politician to fiercely protest the results of an election.
-"Somewhat"? Trump said in 2016 he would accept the result of the elecion 'if I win', and said it again last year, indeed, declared the election was rigged before anyone had cast a vote. That makes him more than "somewhat" deusional, and in the past there were legitimate grounds for contesting elections, not the bruised ego of a loser.
Democrats WILL ruin the economy if given the chance, they have no economic plan whatsoever - their plan is literally to give every minority and special interest everything they want until they don't have any more money.
-If Biden is comparable to other Democrat Presidents, he is unlikely to 'ruin' the economy, as the evidence show that Democrats are better stewards of the economy than Republicans. Biden was put in charge of the recovery programme in 2009 so for all the eye-watering sums being spent now, one has to believe he knows what he is doing, and more importantly, has the team to get it donee. The US has developed a diverse economy that can weather shocks easier, if not without pain, compared to others -right now, Brexit Britain is a speeding (and empty) truck headed for a brick wall, but I think this time it may take the full first term for the US to get out of the Pandemic mess it is in right now.
These studies will show you why Democrats do better than Republicans with the economy-
https://www.thebalance.com/democrats...conomy-4771839
https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/inves...r-the-economy/
https://evonomics.com/economists-agr...eight-reasons/
Is that your Thought For The Day, Flighty?Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
I understand. I'd rather lose a testicle than debate me on politics. Or geez, I dunno, maybe I could win, it'd be damn close though. The key would be to catch myself spouting off some statistical bullshit as if it were factual then cramming the evidence that I'm wrong right down my throat. But damn, it's hard to know when I'm full of shit or actually kicking your ass.
Anyway, MY Thought For The Day is, that was a shitty Super Bowl. But it does show us that Republican quarterbacks are better than Democratic quarterbacks.
If you guys want to preserve this thread for...I don't know, whatever it is you think is going to happen here...I'll be glad to accommodate. Now, don't REPLY to me and then expect me to disappear into the ether - YOU'RE going to have to STFU if you want me to. But really, don't act as if you don't enjoy the abuse. If you didn't love it, you'd have STFU a long, long time ago.
BTW Flighty I enjoyed "resident post-truth wingnut," it's got a flow.
My thought of the day:
When I saw filghy's post my first thought was maybe I haven't been as considerate as I should be and someone is requesting that I allow this thread to be used for the reason it was created. Nick's first thought is that it was to keep him from spreading the "gospel of Nick" even though a thread was created specifically for his self-aggrandizing ramblings. I'd be happy to discuss whatever subject you want there and certainly didn't direct filghy to request I avoid having a long meandering argument here. It does happen and often it's hard to keep a debate to one subject but I did notice Sukumvit Boy and Stavros were having a conversation that was crowded out maybe. So apologies for that.