XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

... they proceed with their fake Covid and climate scam lock-downs, allowing for mail-in balloting, and charging Trump with bullshit claims and spreading lies about everything not Democrat, and... and...

Sad, that you can't get elected, unless you fool half your voters with half a brain.

=====

Dems Rebut 2020 Rigging Accusations by Rigging 2024

It started far before Wednesday's attempt in Colorado to remove Trump from the ballot.

(chicken shits)

The people most insistent on the purity of the 2020 election work feverishly on rigging the 2024 election. It makes one wonder.

This ANTI-DEMOCRATIC effort includes interpreting the suffrage-expanding 14th Amendment to deny suffrage to Donald Trump's supporters in 2024. A Washington, D.C.-based group, for instance, sued in Colorado this week to prevent the name of the candidate favored by most Republicans from appearing on the ballot there. If the involvement of an out-of-state group did not serve as a clue, then its board comprising partisan Democrats - and a "Republican" who endorsed Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden for president - signaled the politics-by-other-means purpose of the motley crew. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington President Noah Bookbinder justified preventing the opposition's preferred candidate from appearing on the ballot by maintaining that "it is necessary to defend our republic both today and in the future."

It obviously did not start in Colorado on Wednesday. It did not start last year when 40 Democrat congressmen introduced a bill to ban Donald Trump from running for president. It did not even start during the bizarre second impeachment, in which, à la Oliver Cromwell's post-death beheading, Democrats sought to impeach a private citizen holding no federal office for the purpose of disqualifying him for federal office in the future.

Perhaps it started with the "insurance policy" FBI agent Peter Strzok - strangely leading both the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails and alleged Russian collusion with the Trump campaign - laid out in case of Donald Trump's election. Recall that the Justice Department shielded the origins of the "dossier" - as though an intelligence compilation rather than opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign - that served as the predicate to spy on Trump's campaign and portrayed a source for American intelligence as not only not a source but a potential Russian asset. In other words, they lied to advance the lie that Trump colluded with the Kremlin to win, an insurance policy cashed in after the Republican's unlikely victory to derail his presidency.

Trump faces four criminal cases involving 91 charges in four jurisdictions. If convicted of each charge, the former president faces more than 717 years in jail. Considering that his pursuers, at least in New York, just allowed an illegal alien to walk repeatedly after six arrests for 14 crimes - several of them violent and most of them in Manhattan - in his two months in the city, this sudden tough-on-crime approach for offenses normal persons do not recognize as crimes strikes as peculiar.

In a case out of Florida, the feds pursue Trump on retaining classified documents - something Joe Biden did for years without arousing the interest of prosecutors.

In Georgia, Trump stands accused of a "criminal racketeering enterprise" for having "knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome" of an election by a supporter of Stacey Abrams, a woman who lost the 2018 gubernatorial election by five times the number of votes as Trump lost the 2020 Georgia presidential contest but somehow eluded the interest of prosecutors in her prolonged and rather lucrative effort to smear the state as a neo-Jim Crow enclave that denies blacks the franchise to rig elections.

In Manhattan, District Attorney Alvin Bragg seeks to imprison Trump for 136 years for being the victim of shakedown attempts. Joshua Solomon of the Albany Times-Union reports that in New York "in the past three and a half years, there were fewer than 300 instances statewide of an individual facing a top-level charge of falsifying business records in the first degree. Even more rare: a conviction, let alone a felony conviction, for the offenses filed against [Donald] Trump, which requires proving the intent to commit or aid in another crime." In just 11 instances did the charges result in a felony. Ten of those 11 felonies, the article further conveys, resulted in prison - with just the one case resulting in time longer than a month. Bragg seeks 136 years. Hmmm.

Special counsel Jack Smith alleges that Trump sought to overturn the 2020 election. But what presidential election over the last three decades did not precede some lame excuse by the losers? The Kremlin elected Trump, Kenyan-birth disqualified Obama as eligible for the office he sought, crooked Diebold voting machines enabled George W. Bush to defeat John Kerry in Ohio, et cetera, et cetera. Whatever connotations one draws from Trump instructing the Georgia secretary of state to "find" votes, he did not say manufacture votes or create them out of thin air. The literal meaning of an "incriminating" statement makes it, one suspects, an exonerating statement.

The cases - three quite flimsy and the documents case much stronger - serve as 2024's insurance policies, plural indicating disappointment with the effectiveness of 2020's singular insurance policy. And the location of two of the flimsier trials - places where Biden won by 17 to 3 (Manhattan) and 18 to 1 (Washington) margins - acts as an insurance policy, too.

It does not scream strength when the votaries of a flailing octogenarian base his reelection on clearing the field of an opposing candidate. It does scream rigging, election interference, and all the other political curse words hurled by them at Trump after 2020.

When Democrats storm the halls of democracy, they wisely do so with lemon-faced lawyers in pantsuits rather than hirsute gentlemen wearing facepaint and Viking horns. Every day since Jan. 6 has been Jan. 6 for Democrats.

===============================================================================

The Liberal Argument Outline

1. Use spun facts:

These can be found on Huffington Post, Daily Kos, MSNBC, and many other liberal sources. What they do is take facts, polls or arguments and add a liberal spin in a weak attempt to make bad news for liberals look good. These are easily debunked and exposed as lies by going to the original source and posting the hard, cold facts with NO spin.

Note: At this point, you have won. It should never take more than one
post to win an argument with a liberal. It is recommended that you claim victory and disengage at this point. If you continue, for fun or
experimental purposes, no further logic will be forthcoming from the
liberals.

2. The Next Step For The Liberal Will Be To Attempt To Discredit Your
Source

If it is Fox or any perceived "right wing" source, they will refuse to
believe it. If it is a non-partisan source, they will claim it is right
wing, if it is a left of center source, they will find another lefty
source to "prove" you are wrong. They will not discuss the facts
themselves, as they know they have lost. If you must go down this road
(there is a high entertainment value), don't allow this diversion. Go
back to the facts.

3. The Limbaugh Defense:

This is one that comes out early and often. Although you know they never listen to Rush Limbaugh and have no idea what he says, they will drag him out and claim you are a Ditto head. This is another diversionary tactic. It has no relevance and is an attempt to change the subject. The more desperate they are, the more childish and ridiculous the reference to Limbaugh becomes: Flush, LimpBag, etc. Ignore this and re-post the facts. DO NOT BE DIVERTED.

4. The Personal Attack:

Another common thread. Also designed to divert the lost argument. NEVER give any hint of personal information. Even something as innocuous as "I am a chef".

They will attempt to engage you and call you a liar to divert attention
from the original lost argument. Ignore this and re-post the facts yet
to be refuted.

5. Name Calling:

Still another diversion. If you fail to give them any personal information, they will attempt to draw you out to gain more insight into your personal side. Then they will return to step 4. Ignore this.

6. The Liberal Bat Signal:

When they find out they are unable to engage
you, divert you or goad you into a completely irrelevant topic, they
will send out the Bat Signal. This is where a bunch of Liberals (or
often, the same one using several names, i.e., Rudy) post a number of
rapid fire posts congratulating the Liberal on handing you your head on
a platter. This tactic often works on even the most logical and
disciplined of us. The urge to rant must be resisted. Your rant will
supply them with all the personal insight they need to spew hatred and
personal attacks. The best tactic here is to use the same tactic back at
them.

Keep in mind, a Liberal will never admit you have a valid point (Dutch
did, once), much less that you won a debate. So, the only reasons to
continue a dialog with a liberal after the initial statement of facts
that established your victory are for entertainment and educational
purposes. If you refuse to take the bait and demand the topic remain on
the original premise, they will eventually just go away and try to find
someone else that will engage them on their terms.

Now, go away, Snowflake.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)