Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

future of the Republican party


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I'm not sure how you mean this? 

 

Tim Scott = Black...and Republican. That forbidden combination.

The Left hates Tim Scott...but Black Lives Matter...

He's like Candace Owens that way...the Lefties resort to actual racist terminology to describe both Candace and Tim. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Tim Scott = Black...and Republican. That forbidden combination.

The Left hates Tim Scott...but Black Lives Matter...

He's like Candace Owens that way...the Lefties resort to actual racist terminology to describe both Candace and Tim. 

 

Yeah I heard that the leftist black people call them Uncle Tom, porch monkey and a bunch of other things. I know what you mean now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2021 at 11:24 AM, WestCanMan said:

Dude I don't know why you don't get sick of always being in a position where you have to lie.

When Trump asked for a favour, it was re: crowdstrike. In the future you could say Trump asked Z to look into the Biden thing, but when he specifically asked FOR A FAVOUR he was talking about crowdstrike. 

Why is it so hard for you to just tell the truth for once ffs?

Omg back to word games.  So now you change your story from he never mentioned Biden and admit he asked Z to investigate Biden   Bit now he didn’t say the magic word favour so it’s ok?  Lmao pathetic

 

PS I guess when you freeze aid it’s really more of a demand or blackmail  than a favour isn’t it?  Thanks for proving my point LMAO SAD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Omg back to word games.  So now you change your story from he never mentioned Biden and admit he asked Z to investigate Biden   Bit now he didn’t say the magic word favour so it’s ok?  Lmao pathetic

 

 

What you call 'word games' is the truth dumbass.

You lie all the time and say that Trump asked for a favour and said that he wanted Biden investigated. It's a common leftist lie.  

I explained (proved) to you that Trump asked for a favour re: crowdstrike and Z was the one that moved the topic to "all the investigations".

You're way too dumb to understand the difference but trust me, it makes your idiotic comment an actual 100% lie. 

Quote

PS I guess when you freeze aid it’s really more of a demand or blackmail  than a favour isn’t it?  Thanks for proving my point LMAO SAD

Almost all of the aid made it out on schedule (by Sept 30), sorry but you never proved your first point here at MLW. Maybe someday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/15/2021 at 2:21 AM, Infidel Dog said:

They may have jumped the gun a bit. They link to this from the Washington Examiner, February 05/

"The Supreme Court on Friday listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.

The cases include challenges to the 2020 election from Trump-aligned lawyers Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, as well as Republican Rep. Mike Kelly's Pennsylvania lawsuit. Nearly every lawsuit takes issue with the expanded use of mail-in ballots by many states.

The decision came after the court declined to fast-track all election-related litigation in early January."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court-election-challenge-february

I'm not sure I see the certainty there that NN saw.

As to Snopes and Politifact there needs to be fact checkers to fact check those guys. Too often they seem to be full of crap. Biased as Hell too.

Isn't it a little bit humiliating when con artists like Sidney Powell admit openly they were playing you for a complete idiot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Isn't it a little bit humiliating when con artists like Sidney Powell admit openly they were playing you for a complete idiot?

Not sure what you're talking about but in general, yeah, she was a disappointment. Lin wood too, but he might have been a plant. I turned on him when he started encouraging Georgians not to vote in the run-off.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2021 at 3:17 PM, godzilla said:

Exactly in fact Duncan came off as a Ratburger lieutenant in the 'nothing to see here' arm of the Georgian Republicans shaking hands with Stacy Abrams under the table. All 3 are anti-Trumpers who like the idea of making election fraud even easier in Georgia.

 

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Not sure what you're talking about but in general, yeah, she was a disappointment. Lin wood too, but he might have been a plant. I turned on him when he started encouraging Georgians not to vote in the run-off.

 

Her argument in court today is she shouldn't be held accountable for lying about Dominion Voting Systems because no reasonable person would have ever believed her. Do you find that hurtful for her to rub your face in it like that? Maybe there's an alternate reality you can construct where you weren't s9 easily duped by these con artists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang on...I'll click my morning links to see what you're talking about.

OK, here we go:

Quote
Quote

No, Sidney Powell is not backtracking on the ‘Kraken’

People on both the left and right are pouncing on statements by Sidney Powell's legal team that "reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact" that Dominion Voting Systems aided in voter fraud. But in the same sentence, the truth is revealed.

 

Many who opposed President Trump or claims of massive, widespread voter fraud are laughing today. Many Trump supporters are feeling betrayed. These strong feelings stem from a statement in a motion filed by Sidney Powell’s attorneys asking the case made against her by Dominion Voting Systems be dropped. Yet in the same sentence, the true intent of the statement is clear. Nobody should be laughing and nobody should feel betrayed.

The statement that’s getting latched onto by people on social media states, “reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact,” referencing Powell’s claims that Dominion Voting Systems was being run in part by the Venezuelan government and participated in stealing the 2020 presidential election for Joe Biden by switching votes. In isolation, this statement seems to indicate Powell was essentially trying to fool everyone with her accusations. This isn’t the case.

The full context of her attorney’s statement reveals the truth [emphasis mine]:

Reasonable people understand that the “language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes … is often vituperative, abusive and inexact.” Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969). It is likewise a “well recognized principle that political statements are inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.” Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, 244 F.3d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir. 2001). Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.

Furthermore, Sidney Powell disclosed the facts upon which her conclusions were based.


This is not backtracking. This is not an admission that she didn’t really believe her own accusations against Dominion Voting Systems, nor does it indicate she was lying to everyone about “The Kraken.” The buzz going around on social media from both sides are based on the isolated statements and context added by whoever is sharing it. But the truth is very clear. She is fighting a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit. It is incumbent on her attorneys to demonstrate defamation was neither intended nor did it occur based on Powell’s statements.

 

What the attorneys are trying to establish is that the circumstances surrounding her statements are protected as free speech because of three important factors. First, inflammatory and polarizing language are often used in political scenarios and reasonable people expect that to be the case. Second, her own lawsuits were based on facts that allowed for interpretation and reasonable people would understand that these were the opinions upon which she filed her suits. Third, and this is very important, she made her claims against Dominion Voting Systems based on facts that she disclosed in her lawsuit.

This is not in any way demonstrating that Powell is backtracking on her claims. Her attorneys are framing the situation in the best legal way possible for their client. The people who are taking the statements in the motion to dismiss out of context are either ignorant or being disingenuous in framing it as her reversing on her own opinions regarding the 2020 election and Dominion Voting Systems.

What makes this whole situation so sad is that the vast majority of people reading the out-of-context statements by Sidney Powell’s attorneys will never allow themselves to know the truth. They’re set on laughter or betrayal and refuse to reverse their stance.

 

https://noqreport.com/2021/03/23/no-sidney-powell-is-not-backtracking-on-the-kraken/

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Hang on...I'll click my morning links to see what you're talking about.

OK, here we go:

https://noqreport.com/2021/03/23/no-sidney-powell-is-not-backtracking-on-the-kraken/

But you believed her statements to be facts. So are you admitting you’re not a reasonable person?  Because you clearly believe that it’s a “fact” that the election was stolen. 
 

Wait I know. Cue backtrack:  you never claimed that the election was stolen, you’re “just asking questions”, right?

Edited by BeaverFever
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

REPUBLICANS WERE RIGHT! More election Fraud revealed!!

Although as usual the Republicans are the criminals:

 

Ex-Florida senator charged in fake candidate scheme

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (AP) — A former Florida state Republican senator was charged Thursday with three criminal counts involving a sham candidate intended to siphon votes away from a Democratic incumbent.

An arrest warrant says Frank Artiles, the former senator from the Miami area, gave more than $44,000 to the fake candidate in the 2020 election. That candidate, Alex Rodriguez, has the same last name as the then-Democratic incumbent, Jose Javier Rodriguez.

He ran as an independent in a three-way race state Senate race, which was won by Republican Ileana Garcia by just 32 votes. 
 

....

A Miami Police Department investigator’s affidavit details multiple discussions about money between Artiles and Rodriguez, starting with a discussion about why Rodriguez should file to run in the state Senate race.

“Rodriguez would run as an independent with the same last name as the incumbent candidate (Jose Javier Rodriguez) in an attempt to confuse voters and siphon votes from the incumbent,” the affidavit says.

But Rodriguez had money troubles, so he came up with various requests to obtain cash from Artiles, according to the affidavit. At one point, Rodriguez said he could get a used Range Rover for Artiles for $10,900, and Artiles agreed.

“It should be noted that the Range Rover did not actually exist. It was a fiction created by Rodriguez to get more of the money that he felt he was owed,” the affidavit says.

Artiles is no stranger to controversy.

In 2017, he resigned from the state Senate after using racial slurs in a conversation with two Black legislators in a Tallahassee bar. Then it was revealed Artiles used money from his political committee to hire a former Playboy model and Hooters girl as a consultant.

 

https://apnews.com/article/miami-senate-elections-florida-elections-e8b70ce3270bd170e37a71ca80b5aaae

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

But you believed her statements to be facts. So are you admitting you’re not a reasonable person?  Because you clearly believe that it’s a “fact” that the election was stolen. 
 

Wait I know. Cue backtrack:  you never claimed that the election was stolen, you’re “just asking questions”, right?

Oh for God's sake read the article then get back to me. I don't have time for this silliness where you pretend you know what's in it but you obviously don't.

The statement you're strutting around about was taken out of context to the point it's pretty much a misquote.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Oh for God's sake read the article then get back to me. I don't have time for this silliness where you pretend you know what's in it but you obviously don't.

The statement you're strutting around about was taken out of context to the point it's pretty much a misquote.

They argued their depiction of Dominion was "hyperbole" that no reasonable person would ever believe. It's a legal loophole designed for parody. There is no other "context".

It may be complicated for you, but it's clear as day to "reasonable people".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be what you desperately want to believe that's what they said but again you miss the context.

It's more like say I called you an asshole and you took me to court for defamation. I would say it was clearly my opinion, but nobody would be expected to believe it on its face as a literal truth, but I could offer facts to show what my opinion is based on. Opinion is protected speech. It is in America anyway. And if I were to defend myself that way in court it would in no way mean I had changed my opinion about you being an asshole. Get it?

In Powell's case the lawyer's make this point:

"

Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.

Furthermore, Sidney Powell disclosed the facts upon which her conclusions were based.

[clip]

What the attorneys are trying to establish is that the circumstances surrounding her statements are protected as free speech because of three important factors. First, inflammatory and polarizing language are often used in political scenarios and reasonable people expect that to be the case. Second, her own lawsuits were based on facts that allowed for interpretation and reasonable people would understand that these were the opinions upon which she filed her suits. Third, and this is very important, she made her claims against Dominion Voting Systems based on facts that she disclosed in her lawsuit.

This is not in any way demonstrating that Powell is backtracking on her claims. Her attorneys are framing the situation in the best legal way possible for their client. The people who are taking the statements in the motion to dismiss out of context are either ignorant or being disingenuous in framing it as her reversing on her own opinions regarding the 2020 election and Dominion Voting Systems.

What makes this whole situation so sad is that the vast majority of people reading the out-of-context statements by Sidney Powell’s attorneys will never allow themselves to know the truth. They’re set on laughter or betrayal and refuse to reverse their stance.

"

 

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one from the Babylon Bee is so damned apt here I've got to post it.

Conservative Spreads Dangerous Misinformation About A Chicken Crossing The Road
March 23rd, 2021 - BabylonBee.com

article-8251-1.jpg

WENTZVILLE, MO—A known conservative, Dennis Wilson, was spotted spreading dangerous misinformation once again, this time asking, “Why did the chicken cross the road?” Wilson, in fact, had witnessed no bird crossing a road -- and certainly not one capable of explaining its reason for such an action. When grilled about this purely fantastical story, Wilson said he was telling a “joke.”

 

“It’s a common occurrence for the right to spread misinformation under the cover of ‘jokes’ or ‘satire,’” explained New York Times tech analyst Llewellyn FitzRoy. “It is unknown for what nefarious purposes they do this, and it is very scary.”

Snopes further showed the danger of Wilson’s fabrication, as it surveyed people, asking them if they believed that “sometimes chickens cross roads in order to reach the further side” was a true headline, and a plurality believed it was real.

There is now a campaign to get Wilson banned from Facebook before he does further damage, though he was already seen spreading a story about a horse walking into a bar despite few bars having doors large enough to accommodate a horse.

https://babylonbee.com/news/conservative-spreads-dangerous-misinformation-about-a-chicken-crossing-the-road?utm_source=Gab&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=Gab

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

This one from the Babylon Bee is so damned apt here I've got to post it.

Conservative Spreads Dangerous Misinformation About A Chicken Crossing The Road
March 23rd, 2021 - BabylonBee.com

article-8251-1.jpg

WENTZVILLE, MO—A known conservative, Dennis Wilson, was spotted spreading dangerous misinformation once again, this time asking, “Why did the chicken cross the road?” Wilson, in fact, had witnessed no bird crossing a road -- and certainly not one capable of explaining its reason for such an action. When grilled about this purely fantastical story, Wilson said he was telling a “joke.”

 

“It’s a common occurrence for the right to spread misinformation under the cover of ‘jokes’ or ‘satire,’” explained New York Times tech analyst Llewellyn FitzRoy. “It is unknown for what nefarious purposes they do this, and it is very scary.”

Snopes further showed the danger of Wilson’s fabrication, as it surveyed people, asking them if they believed that “sometimes chickens cross roads in order to reach the further side” was a true headline, and a plurality believed it was real.

There is now a campaign to get Wilson banned from Facebook before he does further damage, though he was already seen spreading a story about a horse walking into a bar despite few bars having doors large enough to accommodate a horse.

https://babylonbee.com/news/conservative-spreads-dangerous-misinformation-about-a-chicken-crossing-the-road?utm_source=Gab&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=Gab

At least now we know that the thousands of national guardsmen at Capitol Hill are there for good reason. 

What if it's not actually a joke, or satire? This is most likely a white supremacist plot to use chickens to carry explosives to the WH!

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2021 at 9:47 AM, Infidel Dog said:

That may be what you desperately want to believe that's what they said but again you miss the context.

It's more like say I called you an asshole and you took me to court for defamation. I would say it was clearly my opinion, but nobody would be expected to believe it on its face as a literal truth, but I could offer facts to show what my opinion is based on. Opinion is protected speech. It is in America anyway. And if I were to defend myself that way in court it would in no way mean I had changed my opinion about you being an asshole. Get it?

In Powell's case the lawyer's make this point:

"

Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.

Furthermore, Sidney Powell disclosed the facts upon which her conclusions were based.

[clip]

What the attorneys are trying to establish is that the circumstances surrounding her statements are protected as free speech because of three important factors. First, inflammatory and polarizing language are often used in political scenarios and reasonable people expect that to be the case. Second, her own lawsuits were based on facts that allowed for interpretation and reasonable people would understand that these were the opinions upon which she filed her suits. Third, and this is very important, she made her claims against Dominion Voting Systems based on facts that she disclosed in her lawsuit.

This is not in any way demonstrating that Powell is backtracking on her claims. Her attorneys are framing the situation in the best legal way possible for their client. The people who are taking the statements in the motion to dismiss out of context are either ignorant or being disingenuous in framing it as her reversing on her own opinions regarding the 2020 election and Dominion Voting Systems.

What makes this whole situation so sad is that the vast majority of people reading the out-of-context statements by Sidney Powell’s attorneys will never allow themselves to know the truth. They’re set on laughter or betrayal and refuse to reverse their stance.

"

 

So you admit it’s not a fact that the election was stolen and it’s simply a “wild accusation” and an “outlandish claim” that has not been proven?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump’s EPA Helped Erase Records of Almost 270,000 Pounds of Carcinogenic Pollution
 

The Environmental Protection Agency under the Trump administration invited companies to retroactively amend emissions records of a deadly carcinogenic chemical. This week on Intercepted: Investigative reporter Sharon Lerner explains how 270,000 pounds of the chemical ethylene oxide vanished from the public record right after the EPA determined that it was more toxic than previously known. Ethylene oxide is a colorless and odorless gas used to produce many consumer goods and used extensively as an agent in the sterilization of medical equipment.

Despite the EPA’s transition to new leadership under the Biden administration, regulatory capture is a persistent obstacle in the agency’s ability to protect public health and the environment. And as Lerner reports, a disproportionate number of poor communities and communities of color have yet to be alerted to the fact that elevated levels of cancer-causing ethylene oxide permeate the air they breathe. We also hear from a group of Texas women that believes their breast cancer diagnoses are linked to exposure to the chemical.
 

 

 

Another debunking of Trumps alleged  “working class values”.   Fun fact: Working class people don’t actually like being secretly poisoned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


 

‘You’ll become Hindu’: Yoga remains banned in Alabama schools after senate vote
 

Alabama’s senate has rejected a bill that would have reversed a 28-year ban on practising yoga in public schools.

Alabama State Rep. Jeremy Gray’s bill was defeated in committee on Wednesday night, despite a provision that would have made bringing yoga back to Alabama public schools voluntary. Yoga was forbidden by the Alabama Board of Education in 1993 after opposition by conservative groups over its Hindu roots.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/youll-become-hindu-yoga-remains-banned-in-alabama-schools-after-senate-vote
 

 

Republitard bigotry and right wing  cancel culture idiocy on full display 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...