Other than for reasons of personal amusement, I'm pretty much done with commenting at Dan's blog. Being such a cowardly liar, it makes no sense to put in the effort only to have him delete what I say and then pretend I've not provided what he's demanded. That shit ain't worth the time anymore...except, as I've said, for reasons of personal amusement.
With that in mind, anything I choose to say about any of his blog posts will be done here, where freedom reigns and only the most absurd people, like his troll, feo, will be denied for reasons so often explained over the years.
So, Dan's latest post (http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2020/12/find-common-ground-we-must.html) laughingly speaks of a desire to seek common ground. What a putz. He's no more interested in common ground than he is in truth, facts, the US Constitution or Jesus Christ. But let's enjoy a stroll though his field of schemes:
He begins by speaking about the division in those who identify as either left, right or center...or more precisely, Democrat, Republican or Independent. But let's be clear: on any issue of importance, there are really only two sides. Independents are sometimes siding with conservatism, and other times siding with stupidity...leftism. So given the issue, the divide is not a 30/30/30 proposition. This is pretty much true even when a particular issue results in multiple ideas to resolve it, which are generally variations on a theme, with some of them being of a conservative nature and others being of a stupid...leftist...nature. We're not "split into thirds" at all.
"As we enter into a new post-Trump era at a very divided time, it is vital for us to recognize that we're all in this together."
First of all, we entered into the Trump years because of the division caused by his pathetically divisive predecessor. Since Trump entered into office, leftists have gone way the hell out of their way to deepen the divide in this country. While Trump sought to "Make America Great Again", the left did everything they could to obstruct, inhibit and attack Trump and the America-improving policies the vast majority of his policies have been. Said another way, what division there is now, just as it was at the time of Trump' inauguration, is the result of leftist behavior...not Trump's. This is not even debatable.
Secondly, it's really convenient for lying lefties to now say we're all in this together. What tripe! It's ALWAYS been about "us"...that is, America...but the Dan-like are too morally corrupt and hateful of America to abide it's founding principles and the Christian faith behind it. It's all lip-service to these bottom-feeding parasites. Despite what this asshat wants to pretend, the righteous DO need to take this country back from those who have corrupted it so badly. Dan is among those so given over to corruption, and the party he supports is the biggest threat to the future of this country, followed closely by China.
"And I know you all feel quite wounded and are grieving Trump's loss - not even trusting that Trump lost!"
That's because it has not been settled that he has lost. There are still cases being brought forth, and the dismissals...the refusals by some courts to even look at them...does not mean the litigants are wrong, mistaken or blowing smoke. The fact is that Trump DIDN'T lose. The problem is whether or not he'll be able to have that fact honored. It's not looking good for the good guys, and it's because of the lefty division and criminality. Evidence abounds. Honesty doesn't and it may be too overwhelming for truth to survive. This is what comes from voting Democrat. Honesty doesn't exist within the leftist, and here's some proof:
""The president wants to exhaust all of his legal avenues, as he has made clear many times. His team is doing that, and that is his right," Conway said during and interview with The 19th, a news website.
"Is you look at the vote totals in the Electoral College tally, it looks like Joe Biden and Kamal Harris will prevail," she continued. "I assume the electors will certify that and it will be official. We, as a nation, will move forward, because we always do.""
Yeah. That sounds like the ultraconservative is doing no more than acknowledging the state of affairs... not admitting Trump lost. (The several sites at which I've looked all refer to the quote above. Dan likely never read it at all, but simply saw a headline that doesn't accurately convey reality and ran with it. It's how he rolls.) And the same is true with Bill Barr, who never said it's over. Rather than state emphatically that there is no evidence of voter fraud, he said, according to the AP, from whom all BS renditions flowed, "to date, we have not sen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election." This has been provided for the liar Dan Trabue already, and like Trump grabbing women by the crotch, Dan continues to ignore the truth in favor of the truth he wishes existed. Barr's efforts have not been comprehensive, and Rudy Giulianni has stated that Barr's outfit has not asked to look at any of the evidence they have of fraud. Thus, Barr's statement is not the caving Dan falsely tries to pretend it is.
Now let's look at some of Dan's "ideas":
1. There are actually three companies with vaccines. The means of distribution is already set because of Trump's fantastic work through Operation Warp Speed, which made the vaccines possible in the short time they've been brought to bear. Previously, the average length of time to develop and distribute vaccines has been about ten years, and no vaccine has come about in less than five that I've been able to find. The vaccines now available were not supposed to have been ready before sometime next year or later. Trump again made liars and fools of his detractors who were and are still trying to use this disease as a political weapon. Common ground for who gets it first should be easy enough to grasp: front line medical people (working with Covid patients), then the elderly. Race, unlike what some asshat Dems are proposing, should not in the least be a consideration. After those first two groups are satisfied, then spreading the vaccines equally among all the rest of the population who wants to risk getting vaccinated shouldn't be a big question.
2. "The spread of covid is skyrocketing." This is an example of why finding common ground will never happen so long as one is seeking common ground with lefties. When you begin with a lie, real solutions will never be found. Lying about this disease has been ongoing from the beginning and has been done to further lefty despotism. To date, for example, we've been hearing two numbers, both of which are false.
First, the death rate. All the media is excited to tell us we're approaching 300,000 deaths from Covid-19. This is a lie and their own people, both from the CDC and the "experts" standing next to Dem governors and such, have admitted as much. The real "death rate" isn't even 20K as yet. But rather than assure the people, the despots prefer keeping them frightened to death, as if we're experiencing our own Andromeda Strain, by counting any death where Covid is present in the dead's system regardless of whether or not it was the true cause of death.
The same is true of "new cases". The PCR tests being used do NOT test for who is sick, but merely detects the presence of the virus' genetic material, regardless of whether or not the presence is a threat to the person tested. Dead particles register just as active particles do, but with either, the tested person may not be sick, contagious or even aware they had ever been exposed. What's more, one person testing more than once...say three times...counts as a new "case" for publication to the masses. That is, that one person tested three times, and having tested positive each time, counts as three new "cases", thereby inflating the already useless numbers despots exploit for their political purposes. How can we find common ground when lefties lie so badly and so often and so easily? This doesn't even take into account how many false positives this test can produce. And they use these lies to convince us we need to mask up, lock down and leave our elderly to die alone without their loved ones present to comfort them.
Worse is the notion that we need to "slow the spread". Why the hell would we want to slow it down? Is the left not satisified with the suffering they've already caused that they want it to last and last? The answer is no. They're not at all satisfied. The more problems they can cause, the more they can blame their ideological betters and then pretend they have the means to alleviate the suffering. "Sinister" is a word that just doesn't fully describe the evil of the lying left.
3. "Our economy has taken a big hit this last year." This is due to the lies told by the left in their haste to destroy everything that Trump's done to make America great again. They revel in the destruction of the economy because it was just humming along far too well before they were lucky enough to have Covid spread across the land. What a break! On this third point Dan doubles down on the worthless Covid-mitigating mandates and suggests we find new ways to do business. That's another case of Dan suggesting others implement his ideas as if Dan weighed the burden of those ideas on those others so tasked. Dan's a complete moron and should never be allowed anywhere near where adults speak of dealing with the mess his party created. We don't need to alter anything but whether or not we allow morons to vote. That's a problem for which there is no real solution, though should the lefties come to power, I've no doubt they'll further destroy the integrity of the election process and more morons will vote for more morons. Harris/Biden is only the beginning.
4. Here, Dan speaks of financial help for those suffering from needless restrictions and mandates imposed upon us all by his morons. No. We don't need to subsidize anyone. We need to let them go back to work. All rich people who voted Democrat can contribute 80% of their personal wealth so that businesses (restaurants and such) destroyed by Covid mandates and bullshit social justice groups like BLM and Antifa can rebuild. Since the Dems are the cause of the suffering, it's only fair they pay to heal it. There's some honest common ground for you, asshole.
5. In Trump's four years, he's spoken about "our crumbling infrastructure" just as those who came before him. The problem is it isn't true. It's a myth and one of the areas where Trump and I part company. The difference is at least Trump is interested in public/private partnerships to deal with what infrastructure might be "crumbling".
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/a-bold-vision-for-infrastructure
6. Police. This is one of the most egregious lies of the left...and that's saying something! We do not have a population that wants police defunded or even maligned as the left enjoys doing. We have a population that wants less crime. Dan wants to pretend, against all evidence that has been publicized since they first started pretending thugs were unjustly killed by cops, that cops are racist and that blacks are unfairly targeted simply because they're black. What an overt lie! And rather than discuss this belief with those who hold it, people like Dan buy into it and promote it as a fact. Real reform must come from those who find themselves choosing between abiding the lawful commands of the cops and maintaining their "street cred". The lies horribly about the police...and that's accounting for the imperfections naturally existing in everyone...abound. George Floyd was not murdered, yet assholes pretend he was. Eric Garner was not murdered, yet assholes pretend he was. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin...even Breonna Taylor, were not murdered. Yet assholes insist they were without any acknowledgement of the choices they made that led to their demise. How do we find common ground while dealing with such evil liars?
7. Prisons. Dan likes to harp on this educating the criminal crap. I would not ignore the potential of helping criminals find a legitimate way to become a productive citizen, if working a gig is enough for them. But Dan insists others must pay for it. That is, someone who is not the criminal or Dan himself. Incarceration is referred to as "repaying one's debt to society". Dan thinks adding to that debt lowers costs. If we are to provide a second education for those who broke the law, and do so out of the wallets of those who DON'T break the law, "saving money" is poor compensation for the insult. Here's the common ground that Dan has already rejected, because he's a moronic asshole who isn't concerned with the costs to others: Calculate the costs of training a criminal and deduct it from their pay once they get hired. It doesn't have to be all at once. It can be $25 per paycheck. Just make them pay for what everyone who doesn't break the law has worked to provide for themselves. The putz just doesn't think beyond the superficial!
Dan's three final suggestions
A. Dan is truly only concerned about experts of his choosing. How he chooses them is suspect and those he chooses are almost always totally wrong and provably so. The covid issue alone is proof of that and the experts that Trump's been abiding aren't good enough for lefties...because Trump likes them. Lefties aren't cool with facts and truth, so to the extent that honest people listen to experts, there's no better common ground to find. Here's common ground honest people of even marginal intelligence can accept: Ignore any "expert" a lefty suggests.
B. Dan believes himself smart enough to determine what is or isn't true. He insists that the election was not rife with fraud. At least 74 million people disagree...not because Trump said so, but because unlike Dan and other assholes like him, the evidence abounds and it easily seen. A recent poll claims even 30% of Dems agree that fraud played a roll in Biden's win. Dan's OK with fraud so long as his guy wins. Four years of Dem attempts to unseat Trump on the grounds he colluded with Russia to steal the election of 2016 is fine, but somehow, after leading in all battle ground states until late in the game, we're to believe it all flipped in the middle of the night for the crash-test dummy. Sure. False claims? Bullshit, Danny-boy. If they're false, it should be easy to prove the elections were fairly run. Well, except for the paper results from voting machines that weren't saved as per law, but aside from that...
C. This might be the most disgusting suggestion. "We have to agree that causing harm to others is not acceptable. Period." This coming from the guy who supports the murder of the unborn. Who supports taking money from those who earned it to give it to those who didn't. Who defends public schools for those who learn nothing in them. Who allows illegal aliens to enter unfettered to do as they will, from committing all manner of crimes to being a burden on citizens. Who supports asshole marxists like BLM and Antifa while they destroy cities and attack Trump supporters. The utter hypocrisy of ANY leftist suggesting we must not cause harm to others is among the many reasons I no longer wish to treat them as if they were really serious about making America a better place, as if they were really serious about tolerance and love of fellow man, as if they cared about children or the aged or the most vulnerable. The left is the enemy. They've proven it and now there is no longer any doubt. They're a far, far greater threat to this nation than is China, and that's saying something.
To pretend that a buffoon like Dan has any standing to determine which claims are true or not is to abdicate reason. How can a claim be determined false if it is not even examined...if evidence said to exist is never truly scrutinized...if not clarification is ever even requested, but the claim is rejected out of hand, as so many claims of the right are rejected by liars like Dan?
Common ground is something honest people find while working together with a sincere desire for truth. Lefties begin from falsehood and don't let go. What constitutes common ground for the lefty requires accepting the falsehoods, distortions and corruptions they wish were facts and truths. A lie is a poor foundation and no "common ground" is solid when sitting on lies.
50 comments:
Excellent analysis of Trabue's ignorant foolishness!!!!!
Thanks, Glenn. But the amusement continues at Dan's blog.
Let me try to reach out to you here, once again. I would ask you to think about what you're saying.
I am a person who was raised Southern Baptist with traditional conservative parents in a traditional conservative Southern Baptist Church. I learned to care about the poor from my conservative family and church. I learned to love God and love the Bible from my conservative traditional Church. To this day, I love and cherish the Bible and the teachings of the Bible.
Now, it's a given that you disagree with my interpretations that I owed now. Fine. But do you have any rational reason to say that I was not raised by traditional conservative parents in the traditional Southern Baptist Church? Or do you accept that is reality? You think I'm making things up oh, and if so, why would you think that? On what basis would I make up my life story?
And again, I'm asking you not to have a knee-jerk reaction because it's "Dan the crazy liberal." I'm just asking you to try to find some common ground and think through what you're saying.
My church going up, Victory Memorial Baptist Church in the South End of Louisville Kentucky was a Southern Baptist Church and the very traditional sense of the idea. We did not believe in abortion, homosexuality, liberals... we took the Bible literally, believing in inerrancy. We believed in a literal virgin birth, a literal Six-Day creation, a literal death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We believed in the penal substitutionary atonement Theory. We read the Bible primarily. We met Sunday mornings for Sunday school and for church and Sunday evenings for training Union and for church. We met Wednesday evenings for prayer service. We've met Tuesday's to go witnessing or to visit the shut-ins. We had RAs and GAs, where we learned to do Bible drills and study the Bible thoroughly. If you read something besides the Bible, it was Billy Graham, Corrie Ten Boom, Chuck Swindoll, Etc. We were a conservative Church influenced by other conservative Christians.
I professed my faith, repented of my sin, accepted Jesus as my savior oh, it was canceled by my parents and Sunday school teachers and pastor, and was baptized at the age of 10.
Do you think I'm making that up? Or do you accept the reality of my life story?
To try to find some common ground, I'll also begin with your title: As a point of fact, I do want to find common ground. It's why I bother talking with folks like you and others who are in a place similar to where I was as a young person. If I didn't want to find common ground, why would I bother talking with you?
Secondly, while I'm not a perfectly honest person, no more than anyone is, I am generally an honest person. When I engage in conversations with you, I never deliberately lie.
Now that might be seen as a big claim, but it's factual: I never intentionally make false claims to you (or others in the blogosphere). Again, why would I? I'm expressing my opinions and stating the facts as I understand them.
It is always possible that I'm misunderstanding something. It's always possible that I misstate something accidentally. And it's quite likely that you misunderstand me sometimes (as I see it all the time), but as a point of reality, I just don't deliberately make false claims.
I doubt that you do, either.
Do you recognize that reality?
Dan,
You continue to insist you have a conservative past. I don't care. There's nothing about what you say now that demonstrates you have any understanding of what conservatism is. You seem to think that simply opposing homosexuality, for example, indicates conservatism, particularly as a Christian, when there are atheists who see it for the dysfunction and immorality it is (assuming atheists hold to some understanding of morality).
There's nothing that can make a reader of your comments confident that those who raised you are any more understanding of conservatism, either. All we have is your word on it, and given your history on the blogs, that's not convincing at all. So you really don't need to try and make the case that you were once conservative, were raised among conservatives or that you've ever met a conservative. Everything you say with regard to conservatism suggests no understanding on your part.
As to "common ground", I don't think you understand that concept much better. I say this because to find common ground requires you set aside everything you want to see happen to find a basis or starting point at which both sides can agree. Here's an example: Obamacare. When this travesty was first proposed, the argument dealt with the cost of health care, insurance and the like. But instead of finding "common ground" with regard to how the costs got so high and that it rose to an extent where so many allegedly couldn't afford it, the promoters of this crap never addressed the actual causes of rising costs. That's where common ground could've been established. Addressing those causes would have gone a long way toward lower costs and from that point any desire to throw money at it would have resulted in less money needed. But they didn't do that, and they went straight to throwing money at it. (A simplistic analysis of what happened, but I'm just trying to make a point...not rehash how bad an idea Obamacare has proven to be.)
In the same way, what your suggestions are reflect this same mistake. Take point #2...the skyrocketing spread of covid. Common ground begins with accurate numbers. The death rate is sorely fraudulent, as it doesn't focus on those who died because of covid, but includes every death where covid coincidentally was present in the person who died, regardless of whether or not having it played a role in death. To inflate the death toll inflates the concern as well, which in turn fraudulently directs attention toward that which isn't as bad as advertised by the inflated totals. The same is true with "new case" numbers, which are based on testing not designed to measure illness, but only presence of viral particles...dead or active. To work from false numbers leads to wasted time and money, and deflects attention from more serious issues that, left unattended, results in harm that didn't need to happen.
As to your honesty, I'm not impressed with claims you are concerned with being honest. I've called you to account for repeatedly insisting Trump grabbed women by the crotch, and you've never acknowledged...despite my explaining and presenting evidence...that he was actually speaking about how groupies are willing to do anything to get attention from wealthy celebs like him. You continue to base your hatred of the man on false beliefs like this, while throwing support toward a guy whose accuser is willing to submit to a lie detector test in support of her accusation that Biden actually engaged in this very behavior.
A more recent example is claiming Bill Barr has confirmed there's been no voter fraud, and you've done this after I've corrected the notion by presenting his exact words. Either you're not reading my comments or you're choosing to ignore the facts I present in favor of a "reality" you prefer.
And that's another conscious falsehood...insisting you're the authority on what constitutes reality. More often than not, what you insist is reality is simply what you wish reality was. You do nothing to verify or prove your version of reality is fact. You simply choose to attack your opponent as having failed to recognize what it no more than your poor opinion. That's a willful lie on your part.
So my problem with your claim to care about finding common ground is based on your poor grasp of honesty and truth. If you're going to reject a comment based on your opinion, you're not really demonstrating a true desire to find common ground.
There's nothing about what you say now that demonstrates you have any understanding of what conservatism is.
This is, I believe, clearly literally not true.
I understand that conservative evangelicals believe in an inerrant Bible.
I understand that conservative evangelicals believe in salvation through God's grace alone, through faith in Jesus alone, and that by repenting of our sins and giving our lives to Jesus, making Jesus Lord of our lives and accepting that Grace from God.
I understand that conservative evangelicals tend to oppose abortion, believing it is the taking of an innocent human life.
I understand that conservative evangelicals tend to oppose gay folk marrying, believing that God opposes any sort of sexual activity outside of marriage, and that gay folk can't get married, in God's eyes, because marriage is for a man and a woman, alone.
I could go on and on, but just right there, you see that I DO understand something of conservative evangelical beliefs, right?
And so, your claim that I don't have any understanding of what conservatism is... that's just not factually correct, right? How can it be correct, when I can enumerate what they believe?
There's nothing that can make a reader of your comments confident that those who raised you are any more understanding of conservatism, either.
Likewise, this is just not factually true, either. You're making an erroneous assumption about people you don't even know and you're doing it in spite of my ability to enumerate conservative evangelical beliefs (and I'm specifying conservative evangelical beliefs because that is the specific conservative worldview I was raised in for my first ~30 years.
The reality is, I DID attend Victory Memorial (Southern) Baptist Church and that was a conservative, traditional southern Baptist church - and all that means - back in the 1960s-1980s. Anyone could investigate and see that this was a very traditional southern baptist church, with traditional conservative teachings. You have ZERO data on which to make an assumption that they didn't understand conservatism. You recognize that, don't you?
There are two bits of common ground (in this message and the last) that we should be able to agree upon, just because it's reality. Come, now.
Marshal... "I've called you to account for repeatedly insisting Trump grabbed women by the crotch, and you've never acknowledged...despite my explaining and presenting evidence...that he was actually speaking about how groupies are willing to do anything to get attention..."
Trump said what he said. You are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a joke about groupies. I and many other rational people, including many sexual assault experts, recognize that they let me do it is a common plea for sexual predators.
You are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, in spite of his many over sexual predatory behaviors, in spite of his dishonesty, in spite of his serial cheating on wives and girlfriends, in spite of his General unsavory sexual deviant behavior. In spite of all that you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not.
There is nothing dishonest and having a disagreement about that and whether or not Trump can or can't be trusted on this matter. There is something naive, I would say, about you giving him the benefit of the doubt, there's nothing dishonest in either of our positions. There's just not.
Where am I mistaken? Disagreeing with you trusting a known liar and deviant is not being dishonest. It's disagreeing with your naivete.
Re: Bill Barr...
What Barr said... “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
What I'm saying that Barr has said... " there is no known data to suggest widespread voter fraud was that Trump won the election."
What is dishonest about that? Nothing.
Marshal... "that's another conscious falsehood...insisting you're the authority on what constitutes reality"
Can you acknowledge the reality that I never insisted I was the authority on what constitutes reality? Those are your words, not mine.
To demonstrate: I'm pointing to the reality that I never said that, for instance, and asking if you agree that this is, indeed, reality that I never said that?
If I'm pointing to reality and I'm mistaken about reality, then all you have to say is, no that's not reality. Here's how we know, and cite some source. If, for instance, I had said that I was the authority on reality, then all you have to do to support that reality is provide the place where I said that. But since I never said that, it IS reality that I never stated that, nor suggested it.
Understand?
Marshal... "my problem with your claim to care about finding common ground is based on your poor grasp of honesty and truth..."
Ah, but thus far, you have not demonstrated that I have a poor grasp of honesty and Truth. Merely stating it does not make it so.
"I could go on and on, but just right there, you see that I DO understand something of conservative evangelical beliefs, right?"
I have to begin here by stating that the comment of mine to which this finishes your response had political conservatism in mind, but no matter. Rattling off beliefs does not equate to understanding. That's rote knowledge. My statement refers to you as you argue your positions and opinions (to the extent that you do) and how you express your perceptions of conservatives and conservatism. None of it reflects understanding of either. I'm not going to belabor this point, but I will try to remember to point out when your lack of understanding next manifests.
"Likewise, this is just not factually true, either. You're making an erroneous assumption about people you don't even know ..."
You're the only evidence of these people I don't know...the only product of their guidance and raising of you of which I'm aware...and as such it's still a comment on you, not them. But if they have understanding, they didn't pass it on to you, based on the things you say about conservatives and conservatism...political or religious. It's similar to the problem your troll has when he speaks of his alleged education. He is not proof that the schools he attended were worth the money. And really, unless any of your people are willing to regularly engage in these blog discussions, I've only your word on they're who and what you say they are. You're my "data on which to make an assumption that they didn't understand conservatism."
"There are two bits of common ground (in this message and the last) that we should be able to agree upon, just because it's reality."
Actually, they are not. They're just your assertions. I'm not willing to believe anything you say that I can't easily verify and as such they cannot qualify as a basis for common ground. As is clear in my point, common ground requires a basis in what is true.
It's true. Trump said what he said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwWux5BAczk
This is the third time I've provided this for you and it's clear to anyone who's honest and cares about the truth that he's just flappin' his gums. No honest person would suggest that he's actually asserting that he's ever done this or engages in any of it, for that matter. He's just messin' around, but because you're a hater, you want and need to believe that he's admitting to behaviors for which there is no clear cut evidence of any kind. But it's not and admission. He's just engaging in sophomoric banter and you damned well know it.
Yet you've thrown your support behind a guy about whom a woman has insisting she's willing and eager to relate her accusation against Joe Biden while hooked to a lie detector (so long as Joe's hooked to one as well because he's the sexual predator). She's laid out her experience in stark detail which includes Joey Plugs sticking his fingers inside her vagina without her consent. What Trump talks about is a consensual situation, where a woman, eager to get next to a rich guy because he's a rich guy, allows him herself.
So now, with a third posting of this recording, it's time you admit you've been lying about the guy you say is a liar...which is another problem with your insistence this episode is consistent with sexual predation, and I've made this point with you many times: This is the guy about whom you say nothing he says can be trusted because he lies all the time. Yet, you're totally eager to portray this episode, and others like it, as the rare occasions when he's totally truthful. To honest and honorable people, these episodes are no more than locker room nonsense. Feel free to rip him for engaging in such, but don't pretend you've got evidence of something more, while at the same time supporting he that may very well be a worse individual and an actual predator. Indeed, Biden seems more the type.
As to me giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, I see no reason why I shouldn't based on what I know about people who say the types of things you want to believe is evidence of what you need to believe he's done. I've known lots of guys who talk about women in similar ways, and none of them have ever assaulted a woman. Most would blow such a person's head off than let them assault a woman. Guys joking around is just guys joking around. More problematic than me giving him the benefit of the doubt, is your eagerness to accuse and condemn him as guilty of being a predator.
Re: Bill Barr
Below is the AP article to which every other leftist media source joyous to find a member of Trump's administration acting against him has referred:
https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d
You should actually read it. Here's the salient quote:
"Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
He never said there isn't fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election. He said to date...as in "so far"...they haven't seen it...as in "yet".
Then the article presents him making a similar comment:
"Barr didn’t name Powell specifically but said: “There’s been one assertion that would be systemic fraud and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results. And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven’t seen anything to substantiate that.”"
He concludes:
"However, Barr said earlier that people were confusing the use of the federal criminal justice system with allegations that should be made in civil lawsuits. He said a remedy for many complaints would be a top-down audit by state or local officials, not the U.S. Justice Department."
The extent to which his department has delved into the issue is limited. Giuliani has insisted they have not approached everything the Trump legal team has, and no one who has signed an affidavit has been interviewed by the DOJ.
Now this is the third time I've presented Barr's words and this is now another opportunity for you to admit you've been speaking falsely. The point of importance here is to pretend Barr has confirmed there is no widespread fraud to overturn the election. To insist upon that without the qualifiers "to date" and "so far", and then as well the additional bits about his even being called upon for the task, the dishonesty is in the insistence that Barr confirmed the premise is true. He did not.
"Can you acknowledge the reality that I never insisted I was the authority on what constitutes reality?"
No. And the deceit here is in suggesting you aren't assuming that authority simply because you never vocalized the assumption of that authority. Yet, you constantly insist that I, or Craig or anyone else who disagrees with you is somehow incapable of acknowledge what YOU insist is reality. You've deleted scores of comments based on this demand that we agree with YOU as to what constitutes reality on a given point of debate. You've demanded that we not comment again until we agree with you about some reality that you insist exists regarding a given point of discussion. What else can that possibly suggest but that you know better than us what reality is?
"If I'm pointing to reality and I'm mistaken about reality, then all you have to say is, no that's not reality."
And then you delete, and you do so without ever providing evidence in support of your contentions, while demanding we MUST have evidence to show your notion of reality is wrong...which you then delete as insufficient regardless of how much evidence is presented or regardless of its quality. Don't pretend now that you "embrace grace".
And that's yet another issue that goes to your dishonesty...this notion that if you didn't say something in a very specific way, that you couldn't have made at least a clear implication or said that very thing in "not so many words". Here, you're objecting to a fact because my conclusion, shared by Craig as well, that you assume authority to dictate what constitutes reality is evidenced by the many times you demand we acknowledge what you say reality is, that you delete us if we don't. The irony is that you demand I accept your reality that you haven't assumed you're the authority on what reality is.
It's clear that I most certainly have demonstrated that you have a poor grasp of honesty and Truth...and reality, too.
To take one thing at a time, you have not demonstrated that I have a lack of depth of understanding of conservative beliefs. You agree, you merely stating that does not make it reality, right?
You have got to provide some support for it.
For instance, on the issue of abortion, which is both political and religious, at least in conservative circles, what am I getting wrong? Where is the lack of depth of understanding?
Conservatives believe that a fetus is fully human fully deserving of all human right regardless of the stage of Life they're in. Is that wrong? Religious conservatives believe that that fetal life is given by God and it is not humans to take away. They believed that is a sin against God - pretty similar to murder, if not exactly... It would depend on the conservative you're talking to - to make that decision to have an abortion. Where is the lack of depth of understanding?
Or, can you simply admit that that is a correct understanding of the conservative position about abortion? I mean, I could go on with more information about it in about why conservatives are opposed to it, but are those not the basic summary points?
You have not demonstrated I I have a lack of understanding conservative positions. As such, there's no meat to your argument beyond just your assertion. Can you admit at least that much?
There's no meat offered here and now...that much I will admit...because I don't intend to go through past comments until I find examples that will illustrate why I continue...justly...to make the assertion. You're just doing the same thing you were before...listing things that don't alter the assertion. Drop it and content yourself with my promise to point out the next time you prove it for me. All in all, it's the least significant aspect of this post and my comments thereafter.
Well, you're making a clearly false allegation and not supporting it. How can we find common ground when you're doing that?
That's the problem with Trump-era "conservatives..." Acting as if the allegation is enough. It's not.
I'm not asking you to research anything, just PICK some topic, ANY topic, where I don't understand conservative thinking. The tell me why you THINK (incorrectly) I don't understand the topic.
Or admit that you can't.
You're beginning a post about finding "common ground" with several unproven false claims. I'm giving you a chance to make your case so that we CAN find common ground. You accuse me of being a liar: Prove it.
You say I don't understand conservative ideas: Prove it.
Support your claim or admit maybe such sweeping claims that you can't prove maybe shouldn't be made... that MAYBE, they're not even true, just a mistaken hunch on your part.
Argue in good faith, if you're going to argue.
Ball's in your court.
For instance, here's your Bill Barr argument... "but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
I KNOW that "TO DATE" is what he said. That's the same thing I'm saying.
" there is no known data to suggest widespread voter fraud was that Trump won the election."
NO KNOWN DATA... TO DATE. Same thing. There is NO CURRENTLY KNOWN DATA that says Trump won or that his many false claims about "stolen election" are factual. MAYBE, some evidence will one day magically appear. MAYBE some three headed aliens will travel from the planet CHEATEM and say they stole the votes, as part of a high school joke and they were caught and they're sorry.
MAYBE.
But TO DATE, there is NO KNOWN DATA that says Trump won or that the election was stolen.
What am I misunderstanding or misrepresenting?
Are you reading into Barr's words... "No data found TO DATE... BUT MAYBE there will be soon... I expect that..."? Because that's literally not what he said and, again, there's no data to suggest that MIGHT happen.
"Well, you're making a clearly false allegation and not supporting it."
It's not false because you say it is. But here's what I say it is: irrelevant to the topic of the post.
"That's the problem with Trump-era "conservatives..." Acting as if the allegation is enough."
Project much?
"I'm not asking you to research anything, just PICK some topic, ANY topic, where I don't understand conservative thinking."
Again, I'll point it out the next time you demonstrate your poor understanding.
"You accuse me of being a liar: Prove it."
I did with two examples. Now you're acting as if I didn't. That would be another lie.
"You say I don't understand conservative ideas: Prove it."
I said you don't understand conservatism. And when I said "what you say now", I'm referring to how you refer to conservatives and conservatism in your comments in general, not necessarily comments in this particular thread, though it's even money you'll provide at some point.
"Argue in good faith, if you're going to argue."
I always do. You don't, and daring to redirect the point is a good example of your failure in that regard.
"I KNOW that "TO DATE" is what he said. That's the same thing I'm saying."
No. It's not. You refer to Barr as if he's saying there is no widespread fraud. Period. What's more, you refer to him as better evidence because of his connection to Trump. But he only said that to that point in time at which he was giving the interview to the AP, his people had found nothing insofar as within the scope of their investigation. You clearly didn't read the link, so I'll let you do that so you understand the full implications of what that means. If you're still confused, then I'll explain it to you. Again.
"Are you reading into Barr's words... "No data found TO DATE... BUT MAYBE there will be soon... I expect that..."?"
Where in the article does Barr say they've stopped looking...that the investigation has concluded? Where in the article does it state that only his investigation counts and that no other claims have merit or value? Where in the article does it say that only his investigation would be given exclusive attention excluding all others as without merit?
It is YOU who has been reading into Barr's words...words with which you were clearly unfamiliar...and likely still are...that suggests no fraud existed because his investigation didn't find it despite the fact that he was only speaking at that point in which the AP interviewed him...as if the investigation was over. I don't recall reading that in the AP article I read several times.
I've said these things to you already, though not in such detail. You ignored it and repeated your false claim about what Barr said.
The entire manner in which you frame stories like this, and the Trump issue from 15 years ago, is deceitful, false and as such, lies. And none of this has anything to do with common ground.
Marshal, do you think you have proven me being dishonest by your Barr example? Because, I don't see what you have proven... You haven't proven anything. What have you proven?
You say... "To insist upon that without the qualifiers "to date" and "so far", and then as well the additional bits about his even being called upon for the task, the dishonesty is in the insistence that Barr confirmed the premise is true. He did not."
What have I said that is dishonest about bar? Please use quotes.
I've noted that so far, to date, as far as We Know, there is no data that is known of, so far, that shows widespread voter fraud. What about that is wrong? What about that is a false claim on my part?
I ask because it sounds like you don't like my words and you are saying it's a false claim when instead, you just don't like them or you don't like my conclusion or something. I don't see anything that you said about my words that is false. What do you think you're seeing?
To answer some of your questions...
"Where in the article does Barr say they've stopped looking...that the investigation has concluded?"
I've actually did not say the investigation was over. All I said was no data has been found of widespread voter fraud. That is a factual statement. Do you agree?
"Where in the article does it state that only his investigation counts and that no other claims have merit or value?"
I didn't say only his investigation counted. All I said was no data has been found that shows widespread voter fraud. That is a factual claim. Agreed?
"Where in the article does it say that only his investigation would be given exclusive attention excluding all others as without merit?"
? I don't know what you mean by this. I didn't say only his investigation counted. All I've said is there is no data showing widespread voter fraud. And that is a factual statement. This is what Barr has said, even.
What is not factual in what I have said?
"Marshal, do you think you have proven me being dishonest by your Barr example?"
It's certainly inculpatory evidence of your dishonesty. Further evidence is in how you're now altering your initial premise.
"I've noted that so far, to date, as far as We Know, there is no data that is known of, so far, that shows widespread voter fraud. What about that is wrong? What about that is a false claim on my part?"
The lie is that your original claim regarding what Barr said was far more emphatic, with no qualifiers such as "to date" or "so far". You simply asserted Barr agreed there was no widespread fraud...period. Your original rendering was inaccurate which implied a finality his actual words didn't...as if his words end the discussion and now it's confirmed there's no widespread fraud. So it's not at all what Barr said...even.
Is it the case that you think that there is some difference between "so far there is no data showing widespread fraud" and "there is no data showing widespread fraud?"
Because those are saying the same thing functionally.
I mean, unless Barr's comment was loaded with some cautionary note that, for instance, "I think maybe we're about to find something, but so far there is no evidence."
Barr wasn't saying that.
Let me ask you, do you think that Barr thinks there was widespread voter fraud sufficient to throw the election?
Regardless, functionally "so far there is no data..." and "there is no data..." are saying the same thing. It is ALWAYS "so far there is no data..." whether that's said or not, until there is data. It's the same thing. Thus, there is no false claim, no Lie, no twisting or misleading. I'm saying the same thing Barr is.
Now, if you want to try to read something misleading into that, that's you doing it. It was not my intent, is not my intent to mislead. I'm telling you I'm saying exactly the same thing that Barr is saying. Thus, no lie.
"Is it the case that you think that there is some difference between "so far there is no data showing widespread fraud" and "there is no data showing widespread fraud?"
Because those are saying the same thing functionally."
Good gosh, and you think you're capable of entering into a serious search for common ground? You can't even determine the stark difference between these two statements. The presence of "so far" in the first suggests the investigation is ongoing. The lack of it in the second suggests an emphatic, "end of story" position. Geez. This isn't rocket science!
"I mean, unless Barr's comment was loaded with some cautionary note that, for instance, "I think maybe we're about to find something, but so far there is no evidence.""
If he intended to add that "cautionary note", he would have. If you want to say he was hedging his bets by saying "so far", you might get away with it given there is no way to know one way or the other without AP having quoted him in the article more than they did...which wasn't much. At the same time, there's no need for him to suppose he might find something or to suppose he won't for the statement as expressed to imply there may be some evidence which he just hasn't come across "to date". Again, not brain surgery here.
"Regardless, functionally "so far there is no data..." and "there is no data..." are saying the same thing."
No. It's not the same thing at all. But it is clear you need it to be in order to avoid having to admit that you've falsely taken liberties with what he said so that you can continue to pretend there's no evidence at all and Trump saying otherwise is somehow insane.
"I'm saying the same thing Barr is."
Clearly you're not. You're putting words into his mouth...or rather, you're omitting what he actually said to convey something he didn't. That's clearly misleading and as an alleged journalism student it is typical of a lefty in that field. At least the AP quoted him accurately. You couldn't be bothered, even after having been corrected twice before now.
"It was not my intent, is not my intent to mislead."
Clearly it's an involuntary response with you...like belching or farting. You just do it.
"I'm telling you I'm saying exactly the same thing that Barr is saying. Thus, no lie."
You really so love irony. If you were saying exactly what Barr is saying, you'd have said he said, "to date". He said exactly, “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” You did not say "exactly" that at all. Thus, you lied.
Let's look at that quote even further. He said "we" have not seen fraud...etc. That doesn't mean there wasn't any, but only that his investigation to that point hadn't seen it. If you would actually read the AP article, it also presents Giuliani stating Barr didn't contact him or any of those who made out affidavits. This clearly demonstrates a limited focus of Barr's investigation which also mitigates the impact of what you'd like to think Barr said and has accomplished "to date".
If you can't even acknowledge the facts that were spoon fed to you, how can you hope we'll ever find common ground? You simply pay lip service to the notion. You're not really prepared to accept facts, truth and realities to truly find common ground.
Well, I'm sorry I can't help you understand. But the facts are the facts. I was NOT being misleading, I was not lying. What I think that Barr was saying is that there is no data showing widespread voter fraud. Not yet. Just like, there's no data showing aliens arriving on the earth. Not yet. Or that there is no evidence that shows oranges are the ancestors of wolves. Not yet.
WILL there be evidence of any of these things to come forward? Maybe. Who knows. But what we know NOW is that there is no definitive evidence of aliens, of orange-descended wolves or of widespread voter fraud. That is a fact and that is what I said. Thus, it wasn't false, nor was their an intent to be false.
If you're saying that my saying that is "misleading," you're just factually mistaken. That you misunderstand and wrongly conclude I'm lying or trying to be misleading is not the same as my actually lying or being misleading. This proves nothing beyond that you've misunderstood.
Marshal... " you would actually read the AP article, it also presents Giuliani stating Barr didn't contact him or any of those who made out affidavits. This clearly demonstrates a limited focus of Barr's investigation..."
That is YOUR interpretation, that it "clearly demonstrates..." a limited focus. I think the more rational interpretation is that it indicates what is obvious to most people, that the claims from people like Giuliani are batshit crazy. And not serious claims by rational people.
Even someone sympathetic to Trump, like Barr, isn't taking them seriously because there's just nothing there. Look at what the lawyers representing in the courtroom. There, they can get in trouble if they present clearly crazy stuff. They're not presenting this crazy stuff in the courtroom. In the courtroom they admit they have no evidence.
You are assigning a meaning to Barrs actions that are a guess on your part. That I disagree with your guess is not dishonesty, it's goodwill disagreement.
"If you're saying that my saying that is "misleading," you're just factually mistaken."
When you continue to say the same thing the same way after being corrected about the facts, you're more than "misleading". You're lying. This has been the case with these two issues (your insistence that Barr said there's no fraud and your insistence that Trump grabs women by the crotch without their consent) and you have a history of having done this sort of lying with regard to other issues (and no, I'm not about to go searching through the archives to find other examples).
"That is YOUR interpretation, that it "clearly demonstrates..." a limited focus."
No. That's the reality. If Barr is saying that he's found no evidence, it means nothing if he won't look at the evidence anyone else claims to have. Indeed, if he's consciously ignoring evidence others have (Rudy, Powell, whomever), that further diminishes the relevance of his statement of what he's found or not found "to date". If "finding" evidence excludes evidence found by others, that's not much of an investigation, is it?
"Even someone sympathetic to Trump, like Barr, isn't taking them seriously because there's just nothing there."
How would he know if he won't even request the opportunity to review what Giuliani has? That's what Rudy's saying. Barr never even sought that opportunity. You can't take seriously what you won't even look at or hear. I know that's how you lefties do it, but honest people don't. What's more, you're presuming Barr doesn't or wouldn't take them seriously if he did review it. He even suggests it's not for him in the first place to be dealing with it all when he said:
"However, Barr said earlier that people were confusing the use of the federal criminal justice system with allegations that should be made in civil lawsuits. He said a remedy for many complaints would be a top-down audit by state or local officials, not the U.S. Justice Department."
"You are assigning a meaning to Barrs actions that are a guess on your part."
No. That's what YOU'VE been doing. In my case, I've merely corrected your false representation of what Barr said by stating what he actually said, and then present more likely interpretations of his meaning in response to your unsupported assertion of what he meant. His investigation was not comprehensive and by the limited information this one AP article to which Trump-haters use to demean Trump's legitimate and justified efforts, it seems he hasn't tried.
You think you might get around to addressing the topic of the post itself at any point?
Well, you led with a lie in the headline. I have tried to correct that, along with a few other obviously false claims/wrong understandings of my position. But if you can't recognize the facts that you've gotten wrong, in spite of clear, polite and careful explanation, what will improve if we tackle more mistaken notions/false claims from you?
Sorry, Dan, but you can't "correct" what isn't in need of correcting, and lying about your lies isn't the way to go about it, anyway. The FACT is that your original citation of Barr was an attempt to support your contention that there's no fraud. An honest review of the only article that has been cited to make such attempts reveals no concrete, "case closed" conclusion by him that no fraud exists. I've pointed that out twice prior to this thread in response to your previous attempts. Now you're altering "what you meant" in this thread in order to deflect from my having exposed you. That, too, is a lie.
So here's how honesty would look with regard to Barr's actual statements as reported in AP:
An honest Dan would say, "I see your point...Barr's statement isn't the game winner I thought it was."
An honest Marshal Art (the only kind you've ever encountered) does say, "Barr's statement is no help for the good guys."
(I would have loved to have read the entire interview and I wonder why AP felt it unnecessary to limit Barr's words as it did. I'm certain the statement they used excited them so much they did not want to risk more context. But that's how lefty media works.)
In any case, you've yet to prove I get facts wrong and your explanations for your doing so is not explanation or correction, but your typical tap-dancing and two-stepping. But hey...feel free to present what you want to believe are "mistaken notions/false claims" from me.
Marshal... "The FACT is that your original citation of Barr was an attempt to support your contention that there's no fraud."
The fact is that there is no data showing widespread voter fraud. That is a fact. It is THE fact. Do you recognize that reality?
Do you recognize that IF there was any data at all to support this crazy claim, Trump and his team would have used it in court? They didn't because there's nothing to it. There is NO data to support the claim that there was widespread voter fraud. That is the single fact that you have to understand.
Do you understand that reality?
It is reality. There is no data out there showing otherwise. Do you recognize that reality?
So, given that reality, I merely noted that Barr was agreeing with that reality. That there is no data supporting widespread voter fraud. Not yet. Not so far. Not nowhere. There is no data to support widespread voter fraud claims. There was nothing unfactual about my stating that. I don't know how else to help you understand that reality, but it is reality.
Good luck.
Marshal... ".feelfree to present what you want to believe are "mistaken notions/false claims" from me."
You SOUND like you're saying that I've "lied" or "misrepresented" Barr's words. I haven't. If that's what you're saying, it's a false claim.
I have noted the reality that there is no data showing widespread voter fraud in this last election. That is the reality of it.
I have noted that even Barr has said that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. NOT YET, Not at all. MAYBE there will be something found eventually, but Barr didn't say that. MAYBE he'll find out that purple unicorns snuck in and ate Trump votes sufficiently that they threw the election to Biden, but Barr didn't say that.
All he has said so far is that there is no proof of widespread voter fraud. The same thing I have said. Those are both factual statements.
IF you are saying I said something unfactual, you'll have to 1. SHOW me what I said (exact quote) and 2. SHOW that it is not factual.
Ball's in your park.
"Marshal... "The FACT is that your original citation of Barr was an attempt to support your contention that there's no fraud."
Dan..."The fact is that there is no data showing widespread voter fraud. That is a fact. It is THE fact. Do you recognize that reality?""
The "fact" here is your response to my comment is a deflection from the FACT that your original citation of Barr was an attempt to support your contention there's no fraud.
"Do you recognize that IF there was any data at all to support this crazy claim, Trump and his team would have used it in court?"
What I recognize is Trump's team has been given no opportunity to present their evidence in court. Feel free to link to any detailed example to rebut this. I've yet to find one myself.
"There is no data to support widespread voter fraud claims. There was nothing unfactual about my stating that."
But there is such evidence, if only those who have would be allowed to present it in court. They are not required to present it to you, me or the press, though we likely may see such at some point. The main objective is to get a court to look at it so that appropriate action with regard to the election can take place, should the evidence warrant it. THAT'S the reality, but nice of you to validate my noting that you assume authority to dictate what is or isn't reality. You're a peach.
"You SOUND like you're saying that I've "lied" or "misrepresented" Barr's words."
Really? You're just getting that now? Not too fast on the uptake, are you?
"I have noted the reality that there is no data showing widespread voter fraud in this last election. That is the reality of it."
That's the "reality" you wish existed, Mr. Grand Authority On What Is Or Isn't Reality.
"I have noted that even Barr has said that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. NOT YET, Not at all. MAYBE there will be something found eventually, but Barr didn't say that."
But what he did say wasn't as final and "case closed" fact as you desperately need it to be so that Trump can't get the second term his great first term so richly justifies. His statement leaves open the very real possibility that evidence exists (which it does) and also that he doesn't feel his department was the proper vehicle for rendering any final conclusions on the matter. Pay attention. Better yet, read the very limited AP article that provides very little from him yet tries to make it seem more than it is...as you're happy to join in doing.
"All he has said so far is that there is no proof of widespread voter fraud. The same thing I have said. Those are both factual statements.
IF you are saying I said something unfactual, you'll have to 1. SHOW me what I said (exact quote) and 2. SHOW that it is not factual."
""Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”"
It amazes me that after twice previously providing Barr's actual words, now having provided the article in which his actual words appeared and now having re-posted those actual words as I've done yet again above, you still can't bring yourself to actually cite his actual words. You'd much rather rephrase them so as to affirm what you want to believe is "reality". This is rather ironic given your penchant for demanding strict adherence to definitions when it suits you. It seems far more egregious to me that you'd not give the actual words of someone you wish to cite the same consideration. With that in mind, we can easily see the truth of "all he has said so far" and it doesn't match what you're trying to assert was what he has said so far... which was "unfactual". So clearly, lying is like a hobby for you, isn't it?
And before you continue with this failed attempt to cover your ass, keep in mind that his statement doesn't even assert there is no widespread fraud, but only that his department hasn't found "fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election." I will say again that "widespread" is a subjective term and can be applied to just how much fraud there is and still not be enough to turn the election. Clinging to that term is goofy as it can work the other way, too. That is, not "widespread" but enough to turn an election. Just sayin, not trying make another argument.
So, you wanna keep on with this crap or get to the point of the post? Sure, you won't fare any better doing so, but what the hell. It's fun for me.
Where is my quote where I said something different than what he said?
Where is my quote where I said something non-factual in relation to what Barr said?
[Forget the last two comments I sent... they were too brief and perhaps not clear enough. Let me try it this way...]
I don't think you've understood my request for you to support your false claim (which, of course, you can't).
I said,
"IF you are saying I said something unfactual [sic], you'll have to
1. SHOW me what I said (exact quote) and
2. SHOW that it is not factual."
You responded with this quote from Barr:
""Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”"
Now again: WHAT SPECIFICALLY did I say that is non-factual, GIVEN this quote. Where are my words that are not factual?
Just to clarify what MAYBE you're not understanding: When I and others are saying there is no wide-spread voter fraud, what we (clearly) mean is that there is NO voter fraud problems widespread enough that it comes close to affecting outcomes to the election. That IS what we mean by widespread voter fraud. Do you understand that?
So, WE are saying there is NO DATA to prove any widespread voter fraud (ie, voter fraud sufficient to affect an election) that has emerged thus far. There is NO DATA suggesting that such data may be forthcoming.
SO FAR, there is NO EVIDENCE of WIDESPREAD VOTER FRAUD.
This is what I and other rational people (democrat and republican) have been saying all along.
Which is a factual statement. Agreed?
There is nothing FALSE in that claim. Agreed?
Do you recognize this reality?
OR, conversely, if you can find some false claim on my part in my actual words, then SHOW the words and show where it's false, with data to support the charge.
Marshal... "The "fact" here is your response to my comment is a deflection from the FACT that your original citation of Barr was an attempt to support your contention there's no fraud."
? There IS NO DATA to support a charge of widespread voter fraud.
It doesn't exist. Barr has said so and so has everyone else who is responsible for looking into this matter. There is NO DATA to support this charge. That is the fact as we know right now. That is my claim. That is Barr's claim.
What is factually mistaken in that?
"Now again: WHAT SPECIFICALLY did I say that is non-factual, GIVEN this quote. Where are my words that are not factual?"
I actually posted what YOU said against what BARR said in my comment on December 24, 2020 at 4:03 AM. They are not the same. Not the same at all. YOUR comment said there is no data supporting widespread voter fraud. BARR'S statement says (paraphrasing) "to date, we've not seen fraud enough to change the outcome". Yours is emphatic leaving not possibility. His allows for the possibility as it only refers to the efforts of his department alone. Thus, your comment is false, particularly when relying on Barr's statement to support your assertion.
"Just to clarify what MAYBE you're not understanding: When I and others are saying there is no wide-spread voter fraud, what we (clearly) mean is that there is NO voter fraud problems widespread enough that it comes close to affecting outcomes to the election. That IS what we mean by widespread voter fraud. Do you understand that?"
What I understand is that first, you're changing what you said and what you meant by it. Secondly, I understand that when one says something, one can't then criticize what is inferred based upon the actual words ones use to express one's self. If you mean "widespread" is defined by whether or not the outcome is affected, then you might want to define it is that way upfront and not thousands of comments later. The reality is that without such a distinct and specifically personally advantageous definition, "widespread" does not require any effect on the outcome at all, but simply means it's happening all over the place.
"SO FAR, there is NO EVIDENCE of WIDESPREAD VOTER FRAUD.
This is what I and other rational people (democrat and republican) have been saying all along.
Which is a factual statement. Agreed?"
No.
I don't agree there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
I don't agree "rational" people would say such a thing without considering all the evidence that exists, or worse, disregard any opportunity to review any said to exist, or far worse than that, simply discount, dismiss and disparage anyone who claims to have amassed whatever evidence exists.
And with that said, I certainly don't agree you've posted a factual statement.
"There is nothing FALSE in that claim. Agreed?"
Obviously I don't since there is.
"Do you recognize this reality?"
It's not reality and you've an incredible inability to recognize reality or to determine what it might be.
"OR, conversely, if you can find some false claim on my part in my actual words, then SHOW the words and show where it's false, with data to support the charge."
Done. Totally, unequivocally and without question.
I don't agree there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
Well, you can "not agree" with that reality if you want, but UNTIL YOU PRESENT data that contradicts - data that even the Trump team can't find with all their millions of dollars they're taking from useful idiots - then what you agree with doesn't really matter. The reality is, there IS no data to support that claim.
If you had it, you could present it right here, right now. You have not done that. You will not do that. Because you can not do it. It's a made up claim with no data to support it that only useful idiots of the president believe.
The absence of proof from you that the election is stolen is, itself, proof that there was no widespread voter fraud that resulted in a "stolen election." That's a fiction for the gullible and idiots.
Marshal... "BARR'S statement says (paraphrasing) "to date, we've not seen fraud enough to change the outcome". Yours is emphatic leaving not possibility. His allows for the possibility as it only refers to the efforts of his department alone. Thus, your comment is false, particularly when relying on Barr's statement to support your assertion."
Barr said (your paraphrase) "to date, we've not seen fraud enough to change the outcome"
I said the same thing. Maybe (you STILL haven't provided any quotes from me and I'm not doing your work for you) I did not include the words "to date," but any rational person knows that "there is no data to support that claim" ALWAYS includes the notion "To date."
"We have no data showing conclusive evidence of extraterrestrial life" is the SAME as "TO DATE we have not found extraterrestrial life."
If I say, "We have no data showing proof" and then someone presents proof, THEN I can include that which DID NOT EXIST BEFORE that date.
In other words, IF I said, "Barr says there is no data showing widepread voter fraud" and IF I left off the words, "TO DATE" that STILL is not a false claim. Barr DID say there is no data showing widespread voter fraud.
In yet other words, that you do not understand the English language or misinterpret what I've said, that is your error in understanding, not my error in communication.
"Well, you can "not agree" with that reality if you want, but UNTIL YOU PRESENT data that contradicts - data that even the Trump team can't find with all their millions of dollars they're taking from useful idiots - then what you agree with doesn't really matter."
Don't pretend you've even looked at what has been put forth as evidence. The Trump team has plenty. Just because they're not allowed to present it in court doesn't mean they don't have it. You're just falsely representing the facts so as to assert no evidence exists. Again, that's called "lying".
"If you had it, you could present it right here, right now. You have not done that. You will not do that. Because you can not do it. It's a made up claim with no data to support it that only useful idiots of the president believe."
https://bannonswarroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Immaculate-Deception-12.15.20-1.pdf
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/yes-it-was-stolen-election-john-perazzo/?fbclid=IwAR195H-gSTJLRNPkcVjNiuuKHiyubw7g-Chm0-R4TxdeFHCJ8O1RpuA3vYM#.X-iBrgVWP5d.facebook
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/yes-it-was-stolen-election-john-perazzo/?fbclid=IwAR195H-gSTJLRNPkcVjNiuuKHiyubw7g-Chm0-R4TxdeFHCJ8O1RpuA3vYM#.X-iBrgVWP5d.facebook
This issue here is not whether or not I have examples of the evidence, it's that you don't have the honor, honesty and integrity to even look for and/or at it. You'd rather run with the lie that none exists. It's been around for a long, long time and only useful idiots of the left would pretend that this was at best, no worse than any other election, though it was clearly very likely the worst election for fraud in American history.
If you had any proof that the election was totally legit, you'd provide here, right now. But you won't, because you can't. That would entail actually looking at the evidence and showing why the evidence isn't valid. It would entail looking at ballots alleged to be fraudulent or ineligible by law and proving they're really absolutely fine. Let's see your evidence.
It's amazing you Trump-haters are so corrupted by your hatred that you don't understand how well you'd serve yourself by allowing the evidence its day in court. It's there where you could argue against its validity and in doing so prove that Biden won fair and square. Yet, you America-hating scumbags won't do that. Why not? You want a nation that trusts its electoral system? Prove its deserving of that trust by showing how all the evidence is not what it is claimed to be.
"you STILL haven't provided any quotes from me and I'm not doing your work for you"
Now you're simply proving you're the lying piece of crap I've said you are. I most certainly did provide as evidenced in my comment from December 24, 2020 @ 04:04 AM
""All he has said so far is that there is no proof of widespread voter fraud. The same thing I have said. Those are both factual statements.""
"but any rational person knows that "there is no data to support that claim" ALWAYS includes the notion "To date.""
I'm sure you'd like rational people to believe this. Let's see you prove it. REALITY says that when a person makes an emphatic statement "there is no data to support that claim", rational people will assume there's no data...PERIOD. You're just tap-dancing now, with this laughable attempt to pretend rational people won't take another at his word. But maybe that's what you meant: "Rational people know not to take Dan Trabue at his word and must guess what he really means despite what he actually said."
"In other words, IF I said, "Barr says there is no data showing widepread voter fraud" and IF I left off the words, "TO DATE" that STILL is not a false claim."
I'm embarrassed for you. That is EXACTLY a false claim, particularly if you chose to leave out that qualifier. Without choosing to, it is an inaccurate claim. Either way, it is not a factual or true claim. In YOUR case, it's just another lie because you were corrected multiple times and continue to misrepresent what Barr said.
"In yet other words, that you do not understand the English language or misinterpret what I've said, that is your error in understanding, not my error in communication."
The lies just don't stop with you, do they? There's no problem with the English language on my end. It's an incredibly poor use of it on yours. This is the same crap we saw with NBC when they purposely omitted parts of George Zimmerman's call to the cops so that he sounded like a racist. This is the same crap we saw with the lefty media, and then your Joey Plugs Biden when they said Trump spoke of good nazis in Charlottesville. This is the same crap when the lefty media claimed Trump said illegal aliens are animals. Why must you people lie so much? It's not an "error" in your communication. It's a willful disregard for reporting all the facts in order to push your Trump-hating agenda.
Marshal... " Let's see you prove it. REALITY says that when a person makes an emphatic statement "there is no data to support that claim", rational people will assume there's no data...PERIOD. "
??!!!
WHO would do that? No rational adult would. I totally get that one stage of child development is the Concrete phase of young childhood, where they have a problem with object permanence. If you tell a child, "There's no food here..." they MAY take that literally and assume that ALL the food everywhere has gone.
But rational adults who've advanced past that stage in understanding language fully understand that if I say, "There is no evidence that sharks like to fly in silky underwear" that IF the evidence changes, then of course, THEN there would be data.
"There is NO data to support that charge" ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS acknowledges the reality that IF the known data changes, THEN the known data changes.
What part of that is not making sense to you?
I don't know how to help you, Marshal. I'm not mistaken on this. You're just having a difficult time understanding words and communication. Ask some educated, reasonable adult, they will tell you.
There IS no data to support a charge that there was widespread voter fraud. IF DATA becomes known, later on, that changes that reality, THEN the data will have changed. You're just factually, objectively mistaken.
Hell, ask Craig. I'm sure even he can set this straight.
"WHO would do that? No rational adult would."
Every rational adult would, so long as rational adults are listening to an honest person. An adult says what he means and means what he says. Have you ever heard that adage before? Now I may have been mistaken to take you at your word, but at the same time, there's no telling how you'll tap-dance and equivocate when the words you use have exposed your black heart. Unjustifiably, you're too prideful to admit your mistakes, errors and falsehoods when exposed by your opponents.
"If you tell a child, "There's no food here..." they MAY take that literally and assume that ALL the food everywhere has gone."
But if you tell an adult that, the adult will take the word of a person known to speak truthfully and not assume there might be food wherever "here" is. Why would one? Why would one assume the speaker is speaking falsely unless, like you, the speaker can't be trusted to provide all information? At least including "to date" leaves the listener with a better sense of the situation. "To date" implies evidence may never be found, while leaving it out implies it's a done deal. At least to "rational" adults it does.
""There is NO data to support that charge" ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS acknowledges the reality that IF the known data changes, THEN the known data changes."
"There is NO data to support that charge" ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS implies there is no data. Nothing more, nothing less. What people do in terms of speculation and hoping is another thing, but the statement implies the case is closed. Using Barr's statement, sans "to date" gives a false impression and you're now trying to dance away from the fact that you cited him...very likely without ever actually reading the source of the statement at all...as evidence that all those who claim there's widespread evidence are wrong, lying or delusional. This is particularly deceitful given Barr was referring only to the latest info on his department and the scope of its investigation, which he never suggested was comprehensive, and which Giuliani insists did not include evidence in his possession.
"What part of that is not making sense to you?"
That even a liar like you can't muster the integrity to admit you erred and move on back to the topic.
"There IS no data to support a charge that there was widespread voter fraud."
I just provided three links that expose the falsehood of your position. You should actually review the data you demand instead of pretending it hasn't been provided.
A clarification: Where I said, " "To date" implies evidence may never be found, while leaving it out implies it's a done deal.", my meaning is more accurately conveyed by saying " "To date" implies evidence may or may not ever be found, while leaving it out implies it's a done deal."
Sorry for any confusion.
Another clarification:
In the comment above from December 28, 2020 at 9:47 AM, I listed three links, two of which are the same. This was in error. What follows was one that should have been posted instead of repeating twice the same one:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/11/what-we-must-believe-believe-biden-won-david-catron/
This link re-iterates some of what the other frontpage.com article presented, but adds more to help make the points of the other two. Consider it the third of the three to which I've otherwise referred.
A new article with more shady goings on:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/the_strange_story_of_georgias_pallets_of_ballots.html
Here's the salient punchline:
"If what's happening in Georgia is innocent, Democrats should be proclaiming and explaining their activities from the rooftops. Instead, they're engaging in clandestine activity that simply reeks of guilt."
This is the point and it can be said of pretty much every charge of voter/election fraud/irregularity case now being denied a real hearing. If things are going along legally, why would the Dems refuse to respond to the specifics with some evidence of their own?
Post a Comment