Biden vs. Trump debate

[hollodero]

(07-04-2024, 08:51 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: He's a sore loser, what do you expect? This was not some New find, he's been a sore loser all of his life.

It is what I would expect. I just don't get why having that problematic character flaw is an excuse for anything.

(07-04-2024, 08:51 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If the votes had been found, then what? 

I think making mountains again, find those votes, like normal it's probably be taken out of context.  It's not like each election is fool proof, votes get missed (whether intentional or not). It's not abnormal for a vote to suddly shift.

But it is not about that, and you can clearly hear it. Trump names the number of votes he needs to overturn the election. He was not just saying "hey, look again, I feel there are votes for me missing". He also said "So what are we going to do here folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break". He sure said plenty more, for example he is not interested in any rebuttal of his absurd conspiracy theories and keeps trying to put those folks under pressure. Should you be interested, an annoyingly long full transcript is here. Just so this is not seen as a liberal spin.

[Luvnit2]

It is in the Democratic playbook. Steal and keep classified documents in your garage unlocked for decades or on your private server and the liberal media and liberal DOJ will not indict you, then a POTUS who is entitled to classified documents does something less and gets prosecuted.

Liberals have no moral compass, if so, they would agree all 3 did something wrong, not just a Republican POTUS they hate.

[HarleyDog]

(07-04-2024, 09:16 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: It is in the Democratic playbook. Steal and keep classified documents in your garage unlocked for decades or on your private server and the liberal media and liberal DOJ will not indict you, then a POTUS who is entitled to classified documents does something less and gets prosecuted.

Liberals have no moral compass, if so, they would agree all 3 did something wrong, not just a Republican POTUS they hate.

I can agree with the double standard. Both parties do it. But it seems the left are like ninjas at it.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-04-2024, 09:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: It is what I would expect. I just don't get why having that problematic character flaw is an excuse for anything.



But it is not about that, and you can clearly hear it. Trump names the number of votes he needs to overturn the election. He was not just saying "hey, look again, I feel there are votes for me missing". He also said "So what are we going to do here folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break". He sure said plenty more, for example he is not interested in any rebuttal of his absurd conspiracy theories and keeps trying to put those folks under pressure. Should you be interested, an annoyingly long full transcript is here. Just so this is not seen as a liberal spin.

Oh god, i read it all (almost, it was like a Dill post, so parts put me to sleep).  Exactly what i thought.  
Trump was saying we don't need 100k votes, " I have to find 12,000 votes" 
and he's doing it by questioning the how all of the overseas and military ballots came in 100% Biden, thought that was a little strange and how people were in the office unattended and entering ballots as well, 3x apparently. Trump is also talking about voters who are still registered in GA and moved out of state, but still voted in GA. 


Quite a bit of stuff, he's looking to cancel out votes that shouldn't be there so he can get the 12k he needs.  I really don't see what the issue is. And unless i missed it, i didn't see Trump threaten anyone. Maybe highlight that part for me in a response so i can go back and search for it to find out what was said before and after as well.

[Dill]

(07-04-2024, 09:06 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Uhm Mr Law and Order, she flat out broke the law having her own server and having ANY Gov emails sent on it.

Have you never read the laws in regards to Gov officials not using Gov secure Servers? It's not like it changed duh, she knew and thought she was Above the Law. She lied and downplayed the whole thing.

I haven't said she was right to use that server. And she wasn't the only one doing it. So it looks like the State Department "culture" was lax in
that respect.  And I agree she downplayed it.  I think there should be a crackdown on violations of cybersecurity. 

I was addressing the implication that she wiped the server to hide evidence, or in response to a subpoena. 

But I have a bigger problem with people using Congressional hearings as fishing expeditions. So I was primarily responding to the other allegations
about Hilary. 

Also I think it quite a double standard to make a big deal about Hilary's rather minor criminality while wholly ignoring Trump's far more serious baggage. 

[Dill]

(07-04-2024, 05:51 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Dill Wrote:[url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Biden-vs-Trump-debate?pid=1489925#pid1489925][/url]Trump hates to lose so much he is willing to break the law to stay in power. 
The rest of your post is pretty much a denial of the documentary record and testimony, not to mention the criminal seriousness of Trump's actions. 

You cried over HB's speech, you cry over Hamas, currently crying over the SCOTUS's decisions, Democracy is DOOOOOOOOMED if Trump is re-elected. 
So forgive me if i ignore your lack of tolerance and biased opinions.

Yes. I am "crying" over the possibility that a twice impeached, vengeance-minded ex-president who has demonstrated a willingness to break the law to stay in power might be re-elected with a SCOTUS protecting his criminal tendencies.

You are not ignoring any "intolerance" and "bias" here. You are ignoring/denying Trump's own record of abusing his office and the SCOTUS decisions which will enable him to do so without consequence should he be elected.

Neither you nor anyone else has explained why voters should not think that a danger.  Instead you've resorted to gaslighting--no danger there to see, so something must be wrong with the people who see it.   They are "crying" or "whining" or "doomsday saying" because seriously why should we expect problems from Trump a second time around with near full immunity for his actions and more compliant advisors?

[Dill]

(07-04-2024, 05:51 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Dill Wrote: Your "sham" thesis is on the same evidentiary level as Luvnit's belief the election really was stolen after all--by the media.

One "leftist dot" you keep ignoring is the Greenbay Sweep. The coup thesis doesn't merely turn on whether the protest turned
into an attack.  

I said it was my opinion and thank you for telling me what i believe, i never have once claimed the election was "stolen" nor do i believe it was. Trump lost. Therein lies the problem, you think all R's think/feel the same, why? because that's what the media tells you? I've even said Trump was stupid for doing it. 

I wasn't "telling you what you believe." I was merely noting that your belief Trump wasn't really attempting a coup has no foundation in the record.  Until you can show it does, then it's just another rationalization to minimize the Trump danger. If you are determined not to see that danger, I certainly can't make you.

And no one is accusing you of claiming the election was stolen. "The problem" is not that I think all Rs' think the same; it's that enough R's think enough alike to vote for a twice impeached autocrat back into power with even less legal restraint the second time around.

Also, when you hear people arguing from evidence, especially primary documents, they are also showing their reasoning process, making it very unlikely that what they argue is simply what "the media" tells them.  (Though that sometimes means longer and more boring posts.)

The less people show their work, and divert from rational argument to ad hominem, the more likely it is they are repeating media sources without vetting them at all. Surely you don't dispute that?

[Dill]

(07-04-2024, 05:51 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And as far as I know, you have yet to agree with the compromise that Abortion up to First Tri-mester should be legal and mother/baby health issues going forward. If you did, i missed it. 

Seems like you are still fighting battles from other threads here. And yes, I have yet to agree with the compromise that abortion up to the first Tri-mester should be legal.

My main point about that is that we are not heading to some national debate which could result in a "compromise"; voters are ready to hand over the government to people who want to impose Texas-style abortion laws on the nation.

Talk about "compromise" just deflects recognition of what's really coming down the pike--which is not compromise.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(Yesterday, 12:06 PM)Dill Wrote: I wasn't "telling you what you believe." I was merely noting that your belief Trump wasn't really attempting a coup has no foundation in the record.  Until you can show it does, then it's just another rationalization to minimize the Trump danger. If you are determined not to see that danger, I certainly can't make you.

And no one is accusing you of claiming the election was stolen. "The problem" is not that I think all Rs' think the same; it's that enough R's think enough alike to vote for a twice impeached autocrat back into power with even less legal restraint the second time around.

Also, when you hear people arguing from evidence, especially primary documents, they are also showing their reasoning process, making it very unlikely that what they argue is simply what "the media" tells them.  (Though that sometimes means longer and more boring posts.)

The less people show their work, and divert from rational argument to ad hominem, the more likely it is they are repeating media sources without vetting them at all. Surely you don't dispute that?

Good to see people are not innocence until proven guilty around here...

That is the same kind of idiocy that tried to keep him off ballots because he is an insurrectionist.

Amazing.

[Dill]

(Yesterday, 01:23 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I was merely noting that your belief Trump wasn't really attempting a coup has no foundation in the record.  

Good to see people are not innocence until proven guilty around here...

That is the same kind of idiocy that tried to keep him off ballots because he is an insurrectionist.

Amazing.

??? don't follow this, or at least I don't see how anything you say here follows from my bolded comment.

Determining whether statements are or are not supported by documentary, visual and other evidence is

is about accuracy, not, in the first instance, about guilt or innocence. 

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(Yesterday, 01:36 PM)Dill Wrote: ??? don't follow this, or at least I don't see how anything you say here follows from my bolded comment.

Determining whether statements are or are not supported by documentary, visual and other evidence is

is about accuracy, not, in the first instance, about guilt or innocence. 

Keep telling yourself that.

Parse whatever hairs you want to justify labeling things/people inaccurately.

The rest of the world does not have to play along.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(Yesterday, 11:04 AM)Dill Wrote: I haven't said she was right to use that server. And she wasn't the only one doing it. So it looks like the State Department "culture" was lax in
that respect.  And I agree she downplayed it.  I think there should be a crackdown on violations of cybersecurity. 

I was addressing the implication that she wiped the server to hide evidence, or in response to a subpoena. 

But I have a bigger problem with people using Congressional hearings as fishing expeditions. So I was primarily responding to the other allegations
about Hilary. 

Also I think it quite a double standard to make a big deal about Hilary's rather minor criminality while wholly ignoring Trump's far more serious baggage. 

You didn't say it was wrong either. so you ARE willing to overlook it if not called on it?

(Yesterday, 12:03 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes. I am "crying" over the possibility that a twice impeached, vengeance-minded ex-president who has demonstrated a willingness to break the law to stay in power might be re-elected with a SCOTUS protecting his criminal tendencies.

You are not ignoring any "intolerance" and "bias" here. You are ignoring/denying Trump's own record of abusing his office and the SCOTUS decisions which will enable him to do so without consequence should he be elected.

Neither you nor anyone else has explained why voters should not think that a danger.  Instead you've resorted to gaslighting--no danger there to see, so something must be wrong with the people who see it.   They are "crying" or "whining" or "doomsday saying" because seriously why should we expect problems from Trump a second time around with near full immunity for his actions and more compliant advisors?

2x Impeached? Well i guess if that fits your narrative, he was charged but neither held up.
So it's not ok for Trump to break the law, but perfectly ok for Biden to ignore the laws when it comes to immigrants? Or is this where you come back and say i didn't say that?

(Yesterday, 12:06 PM)Dill Wrote: I wasn't "telling you what you believe." I was merely noting that your belief Trump wasn't really attempting a coup has no foundation in the record.  Until you can show it does, then it's just another rationalization to minimize the Trump danger. If you are determined not to see that danger, I certainly can't make you.

And no one is accusing you of claiming the election was stolen. "The problem" is not that I think all Rs' think the same; it's that enough R's think enough alike to vote for a twice impeached autocrat back into power with even less legal restraint the second time around.

Also, when you hear people arguing from evidence, especially primary documents, they are also showing their reasoning process, making it very unlikely that what they argue is simply what "the media" tells them.  (Though that sometimes means longer and more boring posts.)

The less people show their work, and divert from rational argument to ad hominem, the more likely it is they are repeating media sources without vetting them at all. Surely you don't dispute that?

You know all about that last part don't you? You love to bring in those leftist media says and call it "Truth". You don't know DJT's intent anymore than i do, but I'm guessing you'll do your best to make it as extreme as possible cause? DJT is a threat to Democracy! He's not a threat to it unless you believe what the leftist media is telling you... and "I'm a believer"

(Yesterday, 12:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Seems like you are still fighting battles from other threads here. And yes, I have yet to agree with the compromise that abortion up to the first Tri-mester should be legal.

My main point about that is that we are not heading to some national debate which could result in a "compromise"; voters are ready to hand over the government to people who want to impose Texas-style abortion laws on the nation.

Talk about "compromise" just deflects recognition of what's really coming down the pike--which is not compromise.

Nah, no battles from other threads, just wanting to see how extreme  you really are and if you would be so polite as to answer other peoples questions in other threads ilke you demand of others to your questions, maybe we would be able to keep things contained better.

[hollodero]

(Yesterday, 01:31 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Oh god, i read it all

Kudos, I would have understood if you wouldn't have.

(Yesterday, 01:31 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Trump was saying we don't need 100k votes, " I have to find 12,000 votes" 
and he's doing it by questioning the how all of the overseas and military ballots came in 100% Biden, thought that was a little strange and how people were in the office unattended and entering ballots as well, 3x apparently. Trump is also talking about voters who are still registered in GA and moved out of state, but still voted in GA. 


Quite a bit of stuff, he's looking to cancel out votes that shouldn't be there so he can get the 12k he needs.  I really don't see what the issue is. And unless i missed it, i didn't see Trump threaten anyone. Maybe highlight that part for me in a response so i can go back and search for it to find out what was said before and after as well.

It still is pretty surprising to me how two people can get such different assessment of what took place there. I read it and think, what is Trump's intent in that call. Imho, it is about finding him the number of votes to win, an arbitrary number not fueled by any other facts than this number would suffice. He wanted Raffensperger to be a good and loyal ally and do as his president demands, find him the votes, overturn the election. He bolstered the righteousness of that demand with a plethora of unfounded and unproven claims of wide-spread fraud, probably citing every right-wing blogger he could find. He was not interested in all the retorts or to get to the actual facts behind it, and he made claims even far more sensationalistic then those you cited (which, of course, also came with no evidence of any kind of fraud). Among those claims was that 300.000 ballots were dropped mysteriously and 3.000 pounds (sic) of ballots were shredded, that he won "every state" and Georgia by 400.000 votes (the "real truth" he says), Dominion conspiracies, thousands of dead people voting (the aactual number was two), how 139% of voters in Detroit voted and then some nonsense, he also claimed corruption and slandered an election worker without any basis (something I find quite nefarious on its own), but all these totally unfounded and unproven or debunked things were just mentioned to actually bring Raffensberger to commit some "counter-voter fraud" and just invent 11.000 votes for him out of thin air.

Even Meadows tries to reign him in, but to no avail, Trump was dead set on getting the 11.000 votes out of Raffensperger. That imho is the criminal deed.

As for the pressure applied, or did I indeed say threat somewhere (it's possible), I feel his whole demeanor is pressuring. But as for particulars, I would first mention this line:
"And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk."

So well, having the current president accuse you directly of letting a criminal act slide (or even committing a crime - depends on how you read it) and pointing out that this is risky for you is, imho, pressure and quite possibly also a threat.

Trump then goes on saying "But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."

So, he is "notifying" him, which again sounds a tad threatening to me, at least putting on pressure seems accurate. Also, here he states exactly what he wants, one more vote than necessary to win the state, based on nothing but rumors and conspiracies, with zero legal basis to make such a demand.


Little later he doubles down by saying "You know, and I watched you this morning and you said, uh, well, there was no criminality. But I mean, all of this stuff is very dangerous stuff. When you talk about no criminality, I think it’s very dangerous for you to say that.

- So now it's "dangerous" for him. And of course the danger would just go away if Raffensperger just gave Trump a break and found him the 11.780 votes.


Later Trump also said "Because you guys are so wrong. And you treated this. You treated the population of Georgia so badly. You, between you and your governor, who was down at 21, he was down 21 points. And like a schmuck, I endorsed him and he got elected, but I will tell you, he is a disaster. And he knows, I can’t imagine that people are so angry in Georgia, I can’t imagine he’s ever getting elected again." - Which is not all that terrible of a threat, but is is at least a threat to remove his endorsement for Kemp if Raffensperger does not find him the votes, so imho it counts as pressure.

And just to round it up: "Well, under the law you’re not allowed to give faulty election results, OK? You’re not allowed to do that. And that’s what you done [...]  - But I’ll tell you it’s going to have a big impact on Tuesday if you guys don’t get this thing straightened out fast."


Now sorry for going to this lengths, but I wanted this answer to be comprehensive, for the sole reason so you understand my position. And so you don't assume it is all just crazy talk and Trump gets smeared by hateful opponents, which you still might think (and sure also indeed happens), but I've tried my best. I do explicitely not intend to make you change your mind about it all, as you said you're of course entitled to your opinion and even did what only few do, looked at the underlying data. I only hope for understanding why there is an other side to this and that there might be some legitimate reason to have another perspective than yours.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(Yesterday, 06:29 PM)hollodero Wrote: Kudos, I would have understood if you wouldn't have.



It still is pretty surprising to me how two people can get such different assessment of what took place there. I read it and think, what is Trump's intent in that call. Imho, it is about finding him the number of votes to win, an arbitrary number not fueled by any other facts than this number would suffice. He wanted Raffensperger to be a good and loyal ally and do as his president demands, find him the votes, overturn the election. He bolstered the righteousness of that demand with a plethora of unfounded and unproven claims of wide-spread fraud, probably citing every right-wing blogger he could find. He was not interested in all the retorts or to get to the actual facts behind it, and he made claims even far more sensationalistic then those you cited (which, of course, also came with no evidence of any kind of fraud). Among those claims was that 300.000 ballots were dropped mysteriously and 3.000 pounds (sic) of ballots were shredded, that he won "every state" and Georgia by 400.000 votes (the "real truth" he says), Dominion conspiracies, thousands of dead people voting (the aactual number was two), how 139% of voters in Detroit voted and then some nonsense, he also claimed corruption and slandered an election worker without any basis (something I find quite nefarious on its own), but all these totally unfounded and unproven or debunked things were just mentioned to actually bring Raffensberger to commit some "counter-voter fraud" and just invent 11.000 votes for him out of thin air.

Even Meadows tries to reign him in, but to no avail, Trump was dead set on getting the 11.000 votes out of Raffensperger. That imho is the criminal deed.

As for the pressure applied, or did I indeed say threat somewhere (it's possible), I feel his whole demeanor is pressuring. But as for particulars, I would first mention this line:
"And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk."

So well, having the current president accuse you directly of letting a criminal act slide (or even committing a crime - depends on how you read it) and pointing out that this is risky for you is, imho, pressure and quite possibly also a threat.

Trump then goes on saying "But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."

So, he is "notifying" him, which again sounds a tad threatening to me, at least putting on pressure seems accurate. Also, here he states exactly what he wants, one more vote than necessary to win the state, based on nothing but rumors and conspiracies, with zero legal basis to make such a demand.


Little later he doubles down by saying "You know, and I watched you this morning and you said, uh, well, there was no criminality. But I mean, all of this stuff is very dangerous stuff. When you talk about no criminality, I think it’s very dangerous for you to say that.

- So now it's "dangerous" for him. And of course the danger would just go away if Raffensperger just gave Trump a break and found him the 11.780 votes.


Later Trump also said "Because you guys are so wrong. And you treated this. You treated the population of Georgia so badly. You, between you and your governor, who was down at 21, he was down 21 points. And like a schmuck, I endorsed him and he got elected, but I will tell you, he is a disaster. And he knows, I can’t imagine that people are so angry in Georgia, I can’t imagine he’s ever getting elected again." - Which is not all that terrible of a threat, but is is at least a threat to remove his endorsement for Kemp if Raffensperger does not find him the votes, so imho it counts as pressure.

And just to round it up: "Well, under the law you’re not allowed to give faulty election results, OK? You’re not allowed to do that. And that’s what you done [...]  - But I’ll tell you it’s going to have a big impact on Tuesday if you guys don’t get this thing straightened out fast."


Now sorry for going to this lengths, but I wanted this answer to be comprehensive, for the sole reason so you understand my position. And so you don't assume it is all just crazy talk and Trump gets smeared by hateful opponents, which you still might think (and sure also indeed happens), but I've tried my best. I do explicitely not intend to make you change your mind about it all, as you said you're of course entitled to your opinion and even did what only few do, looked at the underlying data. I only hope for understanding why there is an other side to this and that there might be some legitimate reason to have another perspective than yours.

Thanks i did read some of those already, reading vs hearing it is very different. 
It's hard t tell if he's just talking or if there is a hint of threat in his voice. I can definitely see though how some would take it as a threat or want to perceive as a threat. 

If he's trying to explain things that could happen from a legal standpoint then its not really a threat but more of a possible scenario that could happen. It's hard to say with out knowing the inflection of his voice. Lefties will jump all over this screaming Racist, errr i mean Threat! even if there really isn't one there. 

and what about the other part? where He's questioning legal ballots looking for invalid ones to have removed? Does that sound like something normal people would do in that situation? I think so. Even if that was a Dem i would not have an issue with it cause he's just making sure based on crappy info given to him that there was no illegal ballots added that shouldn't have been. 

What do you think on that part? 

[hollodero]

(11 hours ago)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Thanks i did read some of those already, reading vs hearing it is very different. 
It's hard t tell if he's just talking or if there is a hint of threat in his voice. I can definitely see though how some would take it as a threat or want to perceive as a threat. 

That's all I could possibly ask for.
And certainly many also want to perceive it that way as well.

(11 hours ago)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If he's trying to explain things that could happen from a legal standpoint then its not really a threat but more of a possible scenario that could happen.

Could also be both. But I see your point, it could, arguably, be an "I'm just a well-meaning messenger" situation. Given the whole conduct of Trump in this call I just don't think it is. Admittedly, it is very well possible that my overall perception of the man adds to my belief that these are indeed threats, or at the very least Trump trying to put pressure on Raffensperger; imho it fits his personality. Pressure is the word I feel more comfortable with anyways.
It's also not the most nefarious issue, imho. It's the out Trump gives Raffensperger repeatedly, find me those votes.

(11 hours ago)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It's hard to say with out knowing the inflection of his voice. Lefties will jump all over this screaming Racist, errr i mean Threat! even if there really isn't one there.

Sure many would.
You do know that there is also an audio... it's on the same page I linked, just before the written transcript begins. Dig in, though I can't in good conscience recommend it.

(11 hours ago)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: and what about the other part? where He's questioning legal ballots looking for invalid ones to have removed? Does that sound like something normal people would do in that situation? I think so. Even if that was a Dem i would not have an issue with it cause he's just making sure based on crappy info given to him that there was no illegal ballots added that shouldn't have been. 

What do you think on that part? 

Enquire whether a piece of information he got was correct? I'd say that is fine, and even him then not accepting the answer he gets is not that awful. I think if he had just left it at that, there's be far less scrutiny over the whole thing and I certainly would not label it anywhere close to a coup attempt.
Thing is, he did not leave it at that.