Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[Lacius]

Sure. I believe you.

I've already explained how, in many ways, it doesn't matter if you do.

 

[tthousand]

I've already explained how, in many ways, it doesn't matter if you do.

Sure...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I wonder when Biden will get to ride in the Big Boys AF1.

 

[Lacius]

@tthousand
If you don't have anything substantive to say, just don't post at all. One-word posts are also generally against the rules.

 

[djpannda]

Hey look more fun!

Georgia opens investigation into Trump effort to overturn election results

 

[tthousand]

Hey look more fun!

Georgia opens investigation into Trump effort to overturn election results

A phone call with about 8 lawyers... let's get a few more to look at it. What a witch hunt the past 4 years has been. Feels like Salem all over again.

 

[Lacius]

A phone call with about 8 lawyers... let's get a few more to look at it. What a witch hunt the past 4 years has been. Feels like Salem all over again.

Trump demonstrably tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election. His methods included suggestions of outright result manipulation and, oh yeah, inciting a mob attack on the Capitol.

I don't think you know what a witch hunt is.

 

[tthousand]

Trump demonstrably tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election. His methods included suggestions of outright result manipulation and, oh yeah, inciting a mob attack on the Capitol.

I don't think you know what a witch hunt is.

"If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything"

Like I said, there were multiple lawyers on the call. Nothing he said was incriminating. I read the whole transcript.

As for inciting a riot... lol. The actions were planned, and its quite obvious there were plenty of bad actors playing their role.

While I do believe anyone involved in illegally entering the capitol buying should be fully prosecuted, I also believe there is a lot more to the story then we are being told.

 

[Lacius]

"If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything"

The Republican Party has become a post-policy party. Those in office generally stand for very little, if anything.

Like I said, there were multiple lawyers on the call. Nothing he said was incriminating. I read the whole transcript.

"What I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than [the 11,779 vote margin of defeat] we have, because we won the state."

He was repeatedly informed before this that there were no errors and there was no widespread fraud. Whether or not lawyers were present on the call is irrelevant, and I don't know why you continue to bring it up.

As for inciting a riot... lol. The actions were planned, and its quite obvious there were plenty of bad actors playing their role.

Those who planned the protest did not get the permits needed to do anything near the Capital, and the storming of the Capitol was unplanned. Trump instigated the storming of the Capitol directly with his speech and indirectly with the rhetoric and lies about fraud preceding the storming of the Capitol.

While I do believe anyone involved in illegally entering the capitol buying should be fully prosecuted, I also believe there is a lot more to the story then we are being told.

You are a conspiracy theorist who has sacrificed his logical reasoning skills, integrity, and patriotism because it has become politically inconvenient for you to hold these values, and you sincerely have my pity.

 

[tthousand]

A) never said i support the republican party. But you are a master assumer.

B) not incriminating

C) sure. Those people must have run to the Capitol building, but even then they would not have been there before the "storm".

The realy question is why did the Capitol decline additional support knowing there was talk of storming the Capitol?

D) I will pray for your soul.

 

[omgcat]

A) never said i support the republican party. But you are a master assumer.

B) not incriminating

C) sure. Those people must have run to the Capitol building, but even then they would not have been there before the "storm".

The realy question is why did the Capitol decline additional support knowing there was talk of storming the Capitol?

D) I will pray for your soul.

i'd say get some professional help, but like most Americans you probably couldn't afford it even if you wanted it.

 

[Lacius]

A) never said i support the republican party. But you are a master assumer.

I never said you were a Republican. I was contrasting myself with the Republicans in order to make the point that I don't "stand for nothing." It's not difficult to understand.

B) not incriminating

Saying something wasn't incriminating doesn't make it not incriminating. I've already demonstrated how it is. Trump literally told him to just say "we've recounted and Trump won Georgia" without specifying any numerical basis with which to do so at that point. Then, he also said to find at least the exact number of votes he needed, since this was about him winning, not about fraud.

C) sure. Those people must have run to the Capitol building, but even then they would not have been there before the "storm".

Please try to be more articulate and explicit. Your point is lost on me here.

The realy question is why did the Capitol decline additional support knowing there was talk of storming the Capitol?

There are legitimate questions to be asked about the response by Capitol police, but these questions are not "the real questions," and they're irrelevant to whether or not Trump incited an armed insurrection against the Capitol (he did).

D) I will pray for your soul.

There is no reason to think I or anyone else has a soul.

Next time your respond to one of my posts, please have the courage to tag me or respond to it directly so I get a notification. Otherwise, your response might go unseen by me, and we wouldn't want that. You might mistakenly think my lack of a response somehow suggests you said something smart, and that's unlikely to occur.

 

[tthousand]

Enjoy your right to an opinion, and I will mine. And no need to tag you... I have FAITH you will see this.

 

[Plasmaster09]

I never said you were a Republican. I was contrasting myself with the Republicans in order to make the point that I don't "stand for nothing." It's not difficult to understand.


Saying something wasn't incriminating doesn't make it not incriminating. I've already demonstrated how it is. Trump literally told him to just say "we've recounted and Trump won Georgia" without specifying any numerical basis with which to do so at that point. Then, he also said to find at least the exact number of votes he needed, since this was about him winning, not about fraud.


Please try to be more articulate and explicit. Your point is lost on me here.


There are legitimate questions to be asked about the response by Capitol police, but these questions are not "the real questions," and they're irrelevant to whether or not Trump incited an armed insurrection against the Capitol (he did).


There is no reason to think I or anyone else has a soul.

Next time your respond to one of my posts, please have the courage to tag me or respond to it directly so I get a notification. Otherwise, your response might go unseen by me, and we wouldn't want that. You might mistakenly think my lack of a response somehow suggests you said something smart, and that's unlikely to occur.

To help tag-team:
a) The only person who would spout these outrageous conspiracies about prominent Democrats but write off Trump as an incorruptible saint is someone so aggressively Republican that the stench of hypocrisy could kill a cow from fifty paces.
b) I can't fathom how this is even hard for anyone to understand. The guy tried to strong-arm officials into cheating him the win, and did so on recording.
c) They didn't decline support. Trump refused to even send the National Guard at all, and Pence had to eventually do it because of Trump's sheer negligence.
d) oh boy this bullshit

Enjoy your right to an opinion, and I will mine. And no need to tag you... I have FAITH you will see this.

That's not how any of this works.
Opinions are fine... unless you claim or state them as if they were facts.
I can say my favorite color is blue, and that's fine. That is by nature my own subjective opinion.
But you make these absolutely absurd claims, of Pelosi having mafia ties, Biden being corrupt, Trump somehow NOT being corrupt... and then assert them as fact without proving anything.
It's the motte-and-bailey trick. You push forward with the utter nonsense you're peddling as fact, but the instant someone pushes back and asks for proof you go "oh it's just my opinion so you can't prove me wrong".
You. Will. Prove. Your. Fucking. Argument. Or. You. Are. Effectively. Wrong. By. Default.

 

[tthousand]

Let's get one thing Crystal clear. I harbor no hard feelings or ill will to anyone in this thread.

The hostility coming from you guys is very apparent, which is strange coming from a group pretending to be standing for what is right.

When you stop being civil, you have lost your argument. Although I never actually saw a start to any civility in this thread... well, except for the glimpse @Lacius provided. At least he half assed it.

Still, thank you all. I really mean it too. We are blessed to be able to have these conversations, right or wrong.

At the end of day, these politicians are as crooked a group of politicians. I hope we can all agree on that.

 

[KingVamp]

I do think lizard people might be real someday, but only because of technical advances we never even seen before. Tho, at that point, "lizard people" would be the least of peoples worries.

 

[tabzer]

If something were demonstrated to be true later, that doesn't mean it was any less idiotic to believe it before.

This is a pathetic outlook. If someone is right, and you are wrong, and that is proven in time--it means that you lacked a functioning intelligence that the other operated on. "Even if I am wrong, you are stupid". That's as idiotic as idiotic can be.

Many an inventor or scientific protégé were regarded as blasphemous or idiotic, until their visions were materialized. Every working genius was an idiot to follow their impetus? No.

Also, many religious scholars consider "the soul" to be the vessel, or the body, where the spirit is the working "spark". Archaic words that modern science has rearticulated. It's not a matter of "there is no evidence that they exist", unless you are the one suggesting that we are in the matrix.

 

[Plasmaster09]

When you stop being civil, you have lost your argument.

Tone argument. Classic fallacy. Nice try.
Getting vaguely angry at your sheer BS levels isn't a sign of losing.

Also, many religious scholars consider "the soul" to be the vessel, or the body, where the spirit is the working "spark". Archaic words that modern science has rearticulated. It's not a matter of "there is no evidence that they exist", unless you are the one suggesting that we are in the matrix.

Can we please keep the spiritual nonsense OUT of this?
Separation of church and state and all that.

 

[Lacius]

This is a pathetic outlook. If someone is right, and you are wrong, and that is proven in time--it means that you lacked a functioning intelligence that the other operated on. "Even if I am wrong, you are stupid". That's as idiotic as idiotic can be.

Many an inventor or scientific protégé were regarded as blasphemous or idiotic, until their visions were materialized. Every working genius was an idiot to follow their impetus? No.

Also, many religious scholars consider "the soul" to be the vessel, or the body, where the spirit is the working "spark". Archaic words that modern science has rearticulated. It's not a matter of "there is no evidence that they exist", unless you are the one suggesting that we are in the matrix.

If someone makes an unsubstantiated claim, and even they are unaware of evidence for that claim, then it's idiotic to believe that claim, and it was idiotic to believe that claim the whole time before evidence later became available. Being right in hindsight doesn't make the belief before the evidence any less idiotic. For example, if I were to believe right now that many parts of our government are controlled by reptilian humanoids, you'd likely agree with me that is an absurd claim, and it would be idiotic to believe it. However, if 50 years from now, reptilian humanoid aliens made first contact with humans and admitted to placing undercover operatives in our government, does that mean the claim was less idiotic back in 2021? The answer is no. A broken clock is right twice a day, and the fact that it's right twice a day does not mean it's a working clock. Whether or not a claim is idiotic has little to do with whether or not it's objectively right; whether or not a claim is idiotic has everything to do with the evidence available that it is objectively right. This is epistemology 101, so your "this is a pathetic outlook" quip does nothing but make you look completely foolish. You may wish to avoid those kinds of comments when you're responding to something you don't understand (if your goal isn't to embarrass yourself).

When you talk about inventors and scientific proteges, you are not talking about proteges who accepted beliefs without evidence. We are talking about scientific minded skeptics who had very good reason for their beliefs (e.g. the heliocentric model of the solar system), and the community rejected the claims because of an adherence go dogma (often religious dogma), not because of an adherence to logic and skepticism. In other words, the idiots were the ones who rejected the heliocentric model after being provided evidence. Your analogy was poor, and when you consider the facts of the examples you were attempting (poorly) to present, they actually demonstrate my point.

There is no evidence for the existence of a soul, as defined by religious beliefs as the immaterial part of a human that lives on after death. If you are using a different and/or more vague definition of the word soul, I'm not interested in discussing it, as it wasn't what I was talking about.

 

[tabzer]

Tone argument. Classic fallacy. Nice try.
Getting vaguely angry at your sheer BS levels isn't a sign of losing.

Can we please keep the spiritual nonsense OUT of this?
Separation of church and state and all that.

It's not spiritual nonsense. It's etymology.

Relevant video.

 

[Plasmaster09]

It's not spiritual nonsense. It's etymology.

Relevant video.

Still doesn't belong in this thread.
It's about as off-topic as can be without spouting random meme-based phrases ad infinitum.
State here, church that way. gestures outside