Coach has called me out. Says I am lying

[The Gov]

437 people asked do not represent an entire voting block shift.  Where was the poll conducted?  Who was polled?  The only thing is that is was people that were "following the laptop story".     I am sure I can poll 437 people who were "following the porn star affairs" and find a higher number that would have not voted for Trumpy over this. 

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.....   but it didn't.  All that is left is tears and excuses apparently.  And opinion pieces.

written like a child - Low IQ dumb bitch can't keep track of his grooming site's I guess...

[Grape Ape]

That was a good point

There were polls that showed otherwise.

It didn't take a massive swing due to the EC.

[Dos Equis]

What about the Hillary Email release right before the election. Do you feel the same? Do you think that might have impacted the results?

You mean the case where she unquestionably broke the law running classified intel off a private server, deleted over 30,000 emails with BleachBit that were under subpoena, and smashed cell phones with hammers?  Yes I'm sure that impacted a number of voters. 

But that obviously isn't the same as suppressing a legitimate story with a fake narrative. 

[Dos Equis]

It does not mean I reviewed that specific case. It's June 2023, the appeals have run their course. I'm satisfied as are most Americans that the election results were accurate. Or better yet, while some fraud was involved from both sides, nothing indicated it would have changed the election.

I see.  You "Followed the investigations, the lawsuits," except the one where the judge found a likelihood of success on the merits.

[Grape Ape]

You mean the case where she unquestionably broke the law running classified intel off a private server, deleted over 30,000 emails with BleachBit that were under subpoena, and smashed cell phones with hammers?  Yes I'm sure that impacted a number of voters. 

But that obviously isn't the same as suppressing a legitimate story with a fake narrative.

Yes, I don't get that point.

One was influencing by telling the truth.

The other was influencing by hiding it.

Completely opposite behavior, the former being proper, the latter being criminal.

[illuminati]

You mean the case where she unquestionably broke the law running classified intel off a private server, deleted over 30,000 emails with BleachBit that were under subpoena, and smashed cell phones with hammers?  Yes I'm sure that impacted a number of voters. 

But that obviously isn't the same as suppressing a legitimate story with a fake narrative.

How was she never arrested - surely those are serious crimes ? or they not.

[Dos Equis]

Yes, I don't get that point.

One was influencing by telling the truth.

The other was influencing by hiding it.

Completely opposite behavior, the former being proper, the latter being criminal.

Correct.  Definitely a moral equivalency fail by Agnostic. 

[Dos Equis]

How was she never arrested - surely those are serious crimes ? or they not.

They literally put people in jail for doing a fraction of what she did.  Did you know she had her staff strip classified markings off documents and/or retyped them so she could send on her private server? 

She was also emailing Obama from her private server, so he knew.  Bunch of corrupt mofos.

[Irongrip400]

What about the Hillary Email release right before the election. Do you feel the same? Do you think that might have impacted the results?

Solid statement. I was going to ask the same question.

[deadz]

They literally put people in jail for doing a fraction of what she did.  Did you know she had her staff strip classified markings off documents and/or retyped them so she could send on her private server? 

She was also emailing Obama from her private server, so he knew.  Bunch of corrupt mofos.

Corruption is off the charts never have seen anything like it in America. Banana Republic!

[Grape Ape]

Solid statement. I was going to ask the same question.

It was answered a couple posts above.

[Gym Rat]

And no one is surprised a right winger said something false and got called on it.

Ae you that retarded, thinking only Pubtards lie?? All humans lie, all politicians lie, in fact, Biden cant stop...

One-sided retard cant see reality...

[illuminati]

They literally put people in jail for doing a fraction of what she did.  Did you know she had her staff strip classified markings off documents and/or retyped them so she could send on her private server? 

She was also emailing Obama from her private server, so he knew.  Bunch of corrupt mofos.

Thats what I thought - yet she got away with it no problem - How ?
Perhaps our Ex detective LEO Agnostic can join in & offer an explanation also

[Agnostic007]

Thats what I thought - yet she got away with it no problem - How ?
Perhaps our Ex detective LEO Agnostic can join in & offer an explanation also

First, I would have to spend some time verifying Dos' spin on what happened. Often times when that happens, we find it wasn't exactly as he makes it sound. But the thing is,

1. Those allegations are from some time back.
2. As you raised yourself, IF all that happened as he says, and Republicans didn't just come into existence in the last 3 years, what were the results of the investigations that must have transpired as those are all serious allegations.
3. That Dos is convinced Trump is immune to charges because of a President Act that the majority of experts say isn't true, Dos' credibility on those type of things isn't all that great.
4. I would have to care enough to spend the effort. I'm leaving tomorrow to Colombia for a couple weeks (never been) so I don't think it will be at the top of my list.

[Irongrip400]

It was answered a couple posts above.

I stopped reading immediately on page 3 after reading it, quoted it and then came back to see where it landed. Maybe reading the thread all the way through would help, but then I’d be less likely to go back and quote it to show my agreement with his post. I’ll try and do better moving forward.

[illuminati]

First, I would have to spend some time verifying Dos' spin on what happened. Often times when that happens, we find it wasn't exactly as he makes it sound. But the thing is,

1. Those allegations are from some time back.
2. As you raised yourself, IF all that happened as he says, and Republicans didn't just come into existence in the last 3 years, what were the results of the investigations that must have transpired as those are all serious allegations.
3. That Dos is convinced Trump is immune to charges because of a President Act that the majority of experts say isn't true, Dos' credibility on those type of things isn't all that great.
4. I would have to care enough to spend the effort. I'm leaving tomorrow to Colombia for a couple weeks (never been) so I don't think it will be at the top of my list.

Do you not know anything about what she did & didn't do ?
I did hear something about emails on her computer & smashing phones !!
Was it all made up or any truth to it.

Fair enough - enjoy your trip.

[Agnostic007]

So that means you reviewed the Pennsylvania case where the judge found a likelihood of success on the merits and granted an injunction, only to be overruled by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on a technical basis (i.e., not on the merits)?  What is your take on that case?

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/11/fact-check-judge-did-not-give-pennsylvania-legislators-power-to-choose-electors.html

you're point?

"The decision noted that the plaintiffs only challenged the law a year after it was passed and only after the election didn't go their way. The justices ruled they violated the "doctrine of laches" by not filing their peition in "a timely manner":

The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable. Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77. At the time this action was filed on November 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 Primary Election and the November 2020 General Election and the final ballots in the 2020 General Election were being tallied, with the results becoming seemingly apparent. Nevertheless, Petitioners waited to commence this litigation until days before the county boards of election were required to certify the election results to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Thus, it is beyond cavil that Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from Petitioners' failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters."

Something told me if I looked into your allegation I would find something like this.,..

[IroNat]

You lying sonofabeech, Agnostic!

 

[Dos Equis]

Thats what I thought - yet she got away with it no problem - How ?
Perhaps our Ex detective LEO Agnostic can join in & offer an explanation also

Because he rewrote the statute to remove "gross negligence" and replace it with actual intent, then said no reasonable prosecutor would pursue this.  Absolute garbage. 

[Dos Equis]

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/11/fact-check-judge-did-not-give-pennsylvania-legislators-power-to-choose-electors.html

you're point?

"The decision noted that the plaintiffs only challenged the law a year after it was passed and only after the election didn't go their way. The justices ruled they violated the "doctrine of laches" by not filing their peition in "a timely manner":

The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable. Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77. At the time this action was filed on November 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 Primary Election and the November 2020 General Election and the final ballots in the 2020 General Election were being tallied, with the results becoming seemingly apparent. Nevertheless, Petitioners waited to commence this litigation until days before the county boards of election were required to certify the election results to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Thus, it is beyond cavil that Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from Petitioners' failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters."

Something told me if I looked into your allegation I would find something like this.,..

I said the judge found a likelihood of success on the merits and the appellate court reversed on a technical basis, i.e., not on the merits.  So you go find a blurb that confirms exactly what I said.  lol  *Channeling Forrest Gump*  Are you stupid or something? 

[Dos Equis]

You lying sonofabeech, Agnostic!

 

Certainly appears to be.

[Agnostic007]

I said the judge found a likelihood of success on the merits and the appellate court reversed on a technical basis, i.e., not on the merits.  So you go find a blurb that confirms exactly what I said.  lol  *Channeling Forrest Gump*  Are you stupid or something?

No, the judge made a bad decision and that's exactly what higher courts are for... If you don't like the system that is one thing but this does NOT equate to any proof of voter fraud. Nice try

[Agnostic007]

You lying sonofabeech, Agnostic!

 

 

[chaos]

We see that hourly with Trumpturds and idiots.

I thought about going through your first page of post history to see how many times per day you mention Trump but then I realized I'm not nearly as interested in that as you are what the headlines told you Trump did, Tom.

[Agnostic007]

Certainly appears to be.

\
"But data for some of the largest counties were reported in lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign after the 2020 election challenging the validity of certain ballots. They included 8,329 ballots in Philadelphia County, some of which were undated; 2,349 undated ballots in Allegheny County and 1,196 undated or partially dated ballots in Bucks County.

Marc Meredith, an associate professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, told the AP that it is highly unlikely Trump’s margin in Pennsylvania could have been negated by undated or incorrectly dated ballots, as they are now defined, based on the overall number of absentee or mail-in ballots cast in these counties.

“Given that almost 1/3 of the mail ballots counted in the 2020 presidential race in Pennsylvania were cast in these three counties, there is no way Trump would have netted anywhere close to 80,000 votes had these ballots not been counted,” he wrote in an email.

___

This is part of AP’s effort to address widely shared misinformation, including work with outside companies and organizations to add factual context to misleading content that is circulating online. Learn more about fact-checking at AP."