Elephants and Jackasses...

This was used by the Trump team to show poll workers were supporting Biden while on the job. No context, no idea where/when the picture was taken, no idea if these people are actually poll workers.
It was this type of "evidence" the Trump team was trying to get into court cases to back their fraud positions. It's really no wonder why the cases were laughed out in a matter of minutes 70 different times.

 

This, right here. If a Democrat did the same things I'd say fuck him to. Add in the fact that they may have irreparably harmed the oldest democracy in existence when they knew the elections were free and fair. If I'm an asshole I'm fine with it.

 

Are we remembering this the same way? Because I'm pretty sure our intel agencies said at the time that Iraqi WMDs weren't a sure thing but it was Bush, Cheney et al who absolutely insisted and had Powell looking a fool by lying to the UN.

 

In the vast majority of the cases the lawyers told the judges that they were not alleging fraud. Because doing so when you have no evidence can get you disbarred.

 

I believe the crime was voting while black.

 

That's equivocation, that's not a game I play. I am not going to get into the mental gymnastics of paltering around reality. Said another way, the intelligence community didn't say there wasn't WMDs and if they were against it, they sure didn't speak up; our Allies - who also have smart and capable intel agencies allowed their countries to commit blood and treasure to this same endeavor and I'm sure they did their own analysis before jumping in. Said again, said simply, they were wrong.

In the context of the current discussion, Intel agencies have been wrong before (as above). In this case, they likely made their assessments using intel generated under illegal auspices in the case of Trump, which again makes the conclusion wrong/unprovable - thus you have a Mueller report that essentially leaves Trump without blame. Finally, as I have faith in my understanding of human nature, these same people will be wrong again in the future - they aren't perfect and get stuff wrong - it's a human nature thing.

 

I agree with Oden that "nothing sufficient to overturn an election" is a bit different that "election fraud". Shit happens, and I myself had some whacky shit when I planned on doing absentee voting (because I was deployed for hurricanes), and was able to show up in person. It's not 100%, few things are...the guy who lost saying that "99.9999999987% is unacceptable" is just not worth listening to, however. It's also a pretty tight timeline for litigation: the election was Nov. 3 and there are a variety of deadlines, with the last one being January 6th. So, I get that it feels hurried. However, they spent millions looking for evidence, and none was found. If there was, you don't think a judge would have been like "hey, hang on a second, there's some fuckery here?" This was like hunting Bigfoot: with millions of dollars as a reward, if no evidence shows up, it's pretty likely shit doesn't exist. I'm sure you can imagine the judge seeing "evidence" of a dude in a monkey suit, and being asked to halt an election: it doesn't take long to reach a decision.

On the intelligence community being wrong, 2 thoughts:
1. The IC is comprised of thousands of analysts, providing the best analysis they can to their leadership, based on cues of what their leadership thinks is important. What leadership does with that analysis is largely out of their hands. Asking "does Iraq have WMD?" just like asking a scientist "is milk healthy?": there isn't a straight answer, and if you think their should be, then you're not in the right field. The person who is like "fuck yeah, dawg, totes" shouldn't be listened to, because there is a lot of uncertainty that needs to be expressed, and a lot of conditions/definitions that need to be clear before you can get to a Yes/no. So, if you read their shit, it rarely says "Fuck yeah, homie, roll in with tanks and shit", it describes things on a spectrum of uncertainty. Are they wrong? Constantly. And their leadership knows it. When the leadership decides to act on uncertainty....

2. This logic is the same as saying "I don't believe this cop has the authority to arrest me, because they fucked something up back in '05". That's not how this works. The IC has been sounding this alarm since 2013 or so, and no one took them seriously until 2016 (Obama didn't exactly have the political capital to do anything about election threats, nor the interest when Clinton's opponent was a buffoon), and then after that they were disregarded because the guy who was elected wasn't interested in effective governance. You don't like who they are, what they do/say, that's fine. But saying "oh, they were wrong this one time, maybe, (I mean maybe, like, WMD's can move around, or it's totally possible the Bush administration used some obscure half-cooked reporting to get public support for a roach motel counter-terrorism strategy and didn't fully flesh any of these strategies out, and the intelligence community reported things like "it's impossible to describe with absolute certainty the degree or scale of WMD's in the region"), so they can never be trusted again" isn't going to pass muster either. What's more likely: election interference occurred, especially involving a bunch of political amateurs, or it didn't, but a massive coordinated conspiracy of literally thousands of people coerced the entire IC to lie, fabricate evidence (and cause!) and pretend it did because reasons?

On the impeachment itself:
Not every attempt at holding a criminal administration accountable is partisan politics, and if it is, it doesn't invalidate the need for accountability. I don't want Trump punished because of his party, I want him punished because he broke laws, looted and lied to the public and let thousands of people die. The way his party is responding is cowardly, pathetic and short-sighted. The longer he goes without being held accountable, the worse the damage done to the country, and most critically: the more emboldened the other party becomes.

 

For someone who isn't in the business of mental gymnastics you spend all of your time here doing mental gymnastics.

Your interactions here are masochistic as if you are looking for a way to feel minimized and persecuted so that you can justify your everyday actions.

But no one here has opted into your kink.

Unfortunately treating you like you just waved your dick around is feeding into your kink rather then correcting your behavior.

 

Actually not all of your allies just went along and toed the line on Iraq. Canada was't buying the case your administration was pushing and didn't participate.

https://opencanada.org/how-canadas-...ed-keep-the-country-out-of-the-2003-iraq-war/

This has a pretty decent recounting of what happened.
Basically the Bush Administration (Cheney) had a predetermined outcome that they wanted the intelligence to support and exerted behind the scenes and public pressure to help sway the reports to the desired outcome.

Seems pretty disingenuous to compare a situation where the intelligence agencies reluctantly give a half assed yeah they have WMD to the situation where they unequivocally stand up to the administration and say no you are wrong, there was election interference

 

You are a sad, sad human. I read what you post, none of it productive discourse and I am really clear as to why. You are one of the unfortunate souls that believe so strongly in orthodoxy that you are left with nothing but to try to attack those who disagree with the dogma you have been programmed with. You aren't smart enough to espouse a position or defend a position, just attack. I feel sorry for you. I would be willing to take something you wrote with even a shred seriousness if you even tried at some point to develop your own opinion but since you prove time and again that is above you...I hope you get better.

 

Being the biggest victim on the planet to justify shitty opinions and feelings is basically modern republicans.

 

Trump's lawyer is pretending to cry while quoting Longfellow. I dare say he's laying it on a bit thick.

 

I see that Marjorie Terry-Shiavo is flapping her gums again. It’s funny here somebody who is arguably the dumbest human being working in the Capitol call people “morons” so much.

 

I would say I agree and disagree here. I don't think you need to coordinate thousands of people to make this happen, I think you need to coordinate a small group of well-placed individuals to mislead thousands and bring the full weight of the US Government down on someone. A coordinated effort of that type starts somewhere, doesn't it? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/us/politics/kevin-clinesmith-probation.html Poor guy, he is the bag holder here. Based on testimony from ADM Rogers back in the day, they had a real problem in the FISA court system, likely Clinesmith wasn't the only one. Feel bad for him or not, I feel bad for the Americans who were abused by the Domestic Spying Apparatus in place. Shame.

Agreed and I'm right there with you. As soon as someone decides enough is enough and we start keel-hauling every politician who is getting rich from insider trading, every grifter placing family and personal business in line at the Government hog trough, every politician cutting politically convenient deals at the expense of the American people then I am 100% with you but as soon as there is talk about this or that case is different because.......that is when you lose me.

 

The article I posted earlier pretty clearly explains that the intelligence contradicts your theory on the chemical weapons it also outlined that nukes weren't thought to be a credible threat. The only thing they couldn't really rule out was bio weapons and that was because of a complete and total lack of any evidence supporting or refuting the theory they were developing bio weapons.

The only real similarity is that both the Trump and Bush administrations lied about the facts.