JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Read the transcript? I listened to the entire phone call. Why didn't you?
US Politics The 2021 Former President Trump Thread - I look very much forward to showing my financials, because they are huge.
- Thread starter JessFR
- Start date
birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
Listen to the call? I read the entire transcript. Why didn't you?
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Because transcripts don't do as good a job capturing people's emotional state?
Is that not obvious?
Video does a better job still because it captures body language.
This explains how you came back so fast the other day and somehow came to the conclusion that trump was "asking for data" when he asked them to find exactly enough votes for him to win.
Is that not obvious?
Video does a better job still because it captures body language.
This explains how you came back so fast the other day and somehow came to the conclusion that trump was "asking for data" when he asked them to find exactly enough votes for him to win.
Last edited:
What do you think asking someone "find votes " in an exact number implies? Do you honestly believe it was anything other than asking a (very illegal) favor? Is there any hard evidence Trump somehow knew an exact number of votes that were "lost", and they could somehow be "found", just by asking, but not by the normal process of secure voting? If he could do it upon request, why didnt they just get the votes in correctly the first time? How would Trump know better than the people who actually were in charge of their respective states/votes? It makes no sense. Not even his cronies are still fooled by his lies. It's about time you weren't either.
Last edited:
birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
He was very clearly asking for data.
They literally said - repeatedly - we need access to data to verify votes.
I honestly don't think you listened to it.
@RedRum OG
I've already explained it.
It's very clear in the conversation what they mean.
They want to find votes by various means.
They explain it in detail.
They literally said - repeatedly - we need access to data to verify votes.
I honestly don't think you listened to it.
@RedRum OG
I've already explained it.
It's very clear in the conversation what they mean.
They want to find votes by various means.
They explain it in detail.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
No no, he wanted "data" wink wink. Specifically exactly enough items of data to win the state, if you know what mean *wink wink nudge nudge*.
There was fraud and he needed "data" to "correct" the fraud.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Seriously what kinda idiot thinks it's in any way improper for a president to phone up election officials and ask them to find exactly enough votes he needs to win.
There's nothing wrong with the president informing them that their failure to cooperate could have legal repercussions against them *wink*.
It was all above board. Yet another perfect phone call like many he's had before.
There's nothing wrong with the president informing them that their failure to cooperate could have legal repercussions against them *wink*.
It was all above board. Yet another perfect phone call like many he's had before.
birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
More sarcasm and false representation. Didn't say it was proper. Didn't say I liked his thinly veiled threats. Said the opposite, actually. Never said it was all above board.
Why don't you try having an actual discussion?
Why don't you try having an actual discussion?
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
I don't recall you saying the opposite at all, though it's possible it was something you posted after I left.
I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption to assume you found it all unobjectionable given you had no problem with by far the most objectionable part of it.
I truly don't understand how you can see his thinly veiled threats but not him asking for them to find votes.
Deleted member 521610
Bluelighter
if i was president i would make up a test where you have to score a certain % on it to be able to vote. It would cover everything in life from economics science social issues work ethic crime war and to see if your a total braindead idiot.
birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
JessFR said:
You're not trying to understand. I explained my reasoning before you left the other day. You apologised for your outburst and said you'd come back and have a look at my reasoning so we could actually have a civil discussion. Unsurprisingly, you didn't do so. I've come to expect as much, not just of you but the left in general. All you guys tend to do is repeat over and over again "it doesn't make sense" / "lol" along with sarcastic comments. Perhaps I'm wrong. If you'd like to discuss it and explain what I'm missing, the ball is in your court. If not, what you're doing is petty. Don't get me wrong, I don't care. It is like water of a duck's back at this point.
birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
TripSitterNZ said:
If you were running for president, you'd get less votes than Kanye.
@birdup.snaildown do you think the kemp call places the raffensperger call in a different context?
alasdair
alasdair
birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
@alasdairm. I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase it?
NAACP files litigation against Trump and Giuliani in connection to Jan. 6 riots
USA
February 16, 2021
The lawsuit leads Trump’s actions to the January 6 riots, which makes a case against him in the same fashion as impeachment managers of the House. It cites Trump’s comments during the “Save America” rally as evidence that he inspired and directed the rebels to incinerate the Capitol. After his supporters entered the halls of Congress, the lawsuit was filed, with Giuliani personally calling on lawmakers, asking them to try to “slow down” the electoral college’s vote count.
The parties’ decision to sue after the impeachment trial is largely a reaction to the former president’s acquittal of the Senate on February 13 – yet, no other civil rights groups pursued litigation against Trump for his role in the riots not done. Filing the lawsuit now, Thompson and the NAACP argue, would help prevent a second rebellion.
NAACP President Derrick Johnson said in an interview, “If we don’t put a stop to the spread of domestic terrorism, it will consume this nation and replace it in a way that no one will recognize us.” “We, as a nation, should stop the spread of such boldness where [insurrectionists] Will go to our US Capitol and commit an act of treason. “
Over the past several months the NAACP has placed voter protection and domestic terrorism prevention at the center of its work. Johnson said he sees the lawsuit as an aggressive push against domestic terrorism, which he said is a direct threat to communities of color.
“You see what happened in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s which was an act of domestic terrorism against civilians. It was based on race, “Johnson continued. “They were acts of domestic terrorism based on one’s belief of being legitimate citizens and which are not.”
Trump and his legal team have defended his remarks on Ellip as protected speech under the First Amendment. In defense of his impeachment, he claimed that the former president called for peace in his remarks before asking his supporters to leave the Capitol when the rebellion reached its apex. Nevertheless, the lawsuit leaves Trump and his allies vulnerable to new charges, alleging that they not only invoked the violence on 6 January, but played a role in planning and carrying out the rebellion.
The plaintiff also points to remarks by Senate Leader Mitch McConnell after Trump’s acquittal, in which he claimed he encouraged litigation against the former president, stating that he was not responsible for his actions while in office. Were sensitive to legal action.
And they plan to underline the fact that Republicans themselves had the opportunity to pursue that lawsuit.
Thompson said in a statement, “Although the majority of Republicans in the Senate abdicated their responsibility to hold the president accountable, we must hold them accountable for the rebellion that they so planned.” “Failure to do so will only invite this type of totalitarianism to far-reaching anti-people forces who are bent on destroying our country.”
source:
NAACP files litigation against Trump and Giuliani in connection to Jan. 6 riots
The lawsuit leads Trump's actions to the January 6 riots, which makes a case against him in the same fashion as impeachment managers of the House. It
us.granthshala.com
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
He did. It was disgusting. Most of us weren't fine with it.
I'll agree with you, he wasn't asking for data, he was asking for enough votes to win. Where we differ is that I see him using his words poorly (no surprise) in wanting the votes to be properly accounted for as he believes there are winning votes for him, and illegal ones for Biden, which a fair an honest investigation would find. How he asks for that absolutely comes across as 'give me what I need to win'.
He's asking the governor to 'find votes' he believes exist. Not to fabricate them. It's still a bad look.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Except even if there were that many missing votes it's completely unacceptable for him to instruct them to look until he's in the lead, but no further. That's election tampering too.
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
So, with the latest discussion point being Trump asking for votes to win, and claiming incessently about a stolen election (not proven). Where do you all stand on the Democrat's fabrication of 'evidence' for this second impeachment? Set aside 'did Trump incite or not' and ask yourself if this is the Democratic leadership we should have
You can skip to the good parts:
1:46 - Mgr Raskin photo op looking at two faked tweets: Wrong dates on tweets, Bluecheck verification that doesn't exist
3:10 - Explanation behind 'Bringing the Calvary' as espoused as a call to violence by Slawell
4:00 - Breakdown on the Dem video editing to make it appear Trump incited violence, followed by the actual unedited video showing he didn't
9:50 - Return to Dem managers editing the Jan6 speech, showing where they cut it for effect vs what was actually stated by Trump
Put aside how any of us feel about the past 4yrs, whether Trump was an out of control megelomaniac, or that he was consistently under fire from Dems with fictional accusations and allegations. Put all of that aside for a moment and ask IS THIS THE LEADERSHIP WE WANT? People who would seek to impeach someone on patently and proven false material? Are all of you left leaners good with their action?
=========
This is a lie you should stop perpetuating.
Go to the 6:38 mark and the actual video above where his speech about 'fine people' is available.
Transcript, so we can quote from it (extends to earlier than the video clip):
Reporter: "Let me ask you, Mr. President, why did you wait so long to blast neo-Nazis?"
Trump: "I didn’t wait long. I didn’t wait long."
Reporter: "Forty-eight hours."
Trump goes on to explain his delay was to ensure he had all the facts (and that he still doesn't have them all). The reporter's response indicates Trump DID address this extremist group back in 2016. Why did the media continue to ask him to do so in the debates at 2019?
Reporter: "Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?"
Trump: "Those people -- all of those people – excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee."
Reporter: "Should that statue be taken down?"
Trump: "Excuse me. If you take a look at some of the groups, and you see -- and you’d know it if you were honest reporters, which in many cases you’re not -- but many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.
"So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?
"But they were there to protest -- excuse me, if you take a look, the night before they were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Infrastructure question. Go ahead."
Trump is consistently trying to point out the legitimate peaceful protestors who had a permit to voice their concern against razing the statue.
Trump: "I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs -- and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch.
"But there is another side. There was a group on this side. You can call them the left -- you just called them the left -- that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.
Reporter: (Inaudible) "… both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the --"
Trump: "Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides -- I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say."
There WERE bad people on both sides. Not EVERYONE was involved and not EVERYONE was attacking someone. But there were people from BOTH sides engaging in the attack.
Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"
Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."
...
"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."
Reporter: "Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying."
Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.
"But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.
Can you acknowledge there were decent people on both sides? Can you acknowledge Trump wasn't calling the neo nazis and white supremacist's 'very fine people'? Can we put this one to rest?
You can skip to the good parts:
1:46 - Mgr Raskin photo op looking at two faked tweets: Wrong dates on tweets, Bluecheck verification that doesn't exist
3:10 - Explanation behind 'Bringing the Calvary' as espoused as a call to violence by Slawell
4:00 - Breakdown on the Dem video editing to make it appear Trump incited violence, followed by the actual unedited video showing he didn't
9:50 - Return to Dem managers editing the Jan6 speech, showing where they cut it for effect vs what was actually stated by Trump
Put aside how any of us feel about the past 4yrs, whether Trump was an out of control megelomaniac, or that he was consistently under fire from Dems with fictional accusations and allegations. Put all of that aside for a moment and ask IS THIS THE LEADERSHIP WE WANT? People who would seek to impeach someone on patently and proven false material? Are all of you left leaners good with their action?
=========
This is a lie you should stop perpetuating.
Go to the 6:38 mark and the actual video above where his speech about 'fine people' is available.
Transcript, so we can quote from it (extends to earlier than the video clip):
Reporter: "Let me ask you, Mr. President, why did you wait so long to blast neo-Nazis?"
Trump: "I didn’t wait long. I didn’t wait long."
Reporter: "Forty-eight hours."
Trump goes on to explain his delay was to ensure he had all the facts (and that he still doesn't have them all). The reporter's response indicates Trump DID address this extremist group back in 2016. Why did the media continue to ask him to do so in the debates at 2019?
Reporter: "Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?"
Trump: "Those people -- all of those people – excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee."
Reporter: "Should that statue be taken down?"
Trump: "Excuse me. If you take a look at some of the groups, and you see -- and you’d know it if you were honest reporters, which in many cases you’re not -- but many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.
"So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?
"But they were there to protest -- excuse me, if you take a look, the night before they were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Infrastructure question. Go ahead."
Trump is consistently trying to point out the legitimate peaceful protestors who had a permit to voice their concern against razing the statue.
Trump: "I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs -- and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch.
"But there is another side. There was a group on this side. You can call them the left -- you just called them the left -- that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.
Reporter: (Inaudible) "… both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the --"
Trump: "Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides -- I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say."
There WERE bad people on both sides. Not EVERYONE was involved and not EVERYONE was attacking someone. But there were people from BOTH sides engaging in the attack.
Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"
Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."
...
"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."
Reporter: "Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying."
Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.
"But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.
Can you acknowledge there were decent people on both sides? Can you acknowledge Trump wasn't calling the neo nazis and white supremacist's 'very fine people'? Can we put this one to rest?
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
Many of us have asked that they verify the votes were legitimate and correctly counted. He just has a shit way with words. Hell, look at the full transcript of any speech or watch the video, it is apparent he is shit with words.
Edit: 'no further' Did he ever stay stop counting when I get the lead? All of us wanted ALL the votes properly counted so we could have faith in the election. Yes, Trump focused on areas where he lost, but did he or anyone say not to recount of verify in the places he won? I don't believe so. Nobody is stopping fairness from being applied evenly everywhere.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Lol, a shit way with words? Well yes that's true but it's still abundantly clear what he wanted.
He wanted them to look into the election and keep looking until they've proven he won.
It's obvious from this and so many other instances that he decided that if he lost he would accuse fraud well before the election even took place.
What I'm saying here, is this was all bad faith, none of this was about election integrity, he wanted them to find enough missing votes, and only ones voting for him, to overturn the state.
That is election fraud. And presidents who use their office to place pressure on people to help them obtain a specific election outcome should be removed from office.